Look! A Meaningless Chart!

[SmellyCat]

Here's our +/- per 10-minute period in all of our Big 10 games plus Providence, Georgia, and Wake Forest.

Opponent​	​	1Q​	2Q​	3Q​	4Q​	OT​
Providence​	L​	-10​	1​	-3​	7​	​
Georgia​	W​	5​	15​	-8​	4​	​
Wake Forest​	L​	-3​	-2​	5​	0​	-4​
Maryland​	W​	6​	-3​	2​	1​	​
Michigan St.​	L​	3​	4​	-12​	-1​	​
Penn St.​	L​	1​	4​	5​	-14​	​
Ohio St.​	L​	-10​	-2​	0​	4​	​
Maryland​	L​	1​	-1​	-2​	2​	-7​
Michigan St.​	W​	1​	4​	-9​	6​	​
Wisconsin​	L​	2​	-8​	1​	-1​	​
Purdue​	L​	-5​	-7​	-1​	-7​	​
Michigan​	L​	-1​	-2​	3​	-2​	​
Illinois​	L​	-8​	3​	4​	-2​	​
Rutgers​	W​	5​	13​	-4​	-14​	1​
Nebraska​	W​	13​	9​	8​	-6​	​
Indiana​	W​	-4​	0​	9​	3​	​
Illinois​	L​	-13​	-1​	3​	4​	​
Purdue​	L​	0​	-4​	-6​	4​	​
TOTAL​	​	-17​	23​	-5​	-12​	-10​
B10 ONLY​	​	-9​	9​	1​	-23​	-6​

 

[SmellyCat]

Draw whatever conclusions you'd like. Or ignore. I think it's interesting that we have a lot of poor starts. It's not just the poor finishes that doom us. I think that could indicate that the starting lineup NU goes with isn't working (though it IS going up against the other team's starters, so if the other coaches all have their acts together, it should be our toughest matchup).

 

[GatoLouco]

I love this table. I think the last 3 games made it apparent that when we face an opponent that brings some physicality we are instantly intimidated. As the game progresses we settle down. But not before we go through a long period of rushing everything to an unbelievable extent. While that is, to some extent, expected, after all IL is not UNL, we should have enough experience to deal significantly better with it. These players have a lot of minutes on their legs.

Is that a problem of the starting 5 or the team at large? Don't know the answer as we play the same dudes every single game and every single restart. Roper for Berry does not change that and, experience wise, only hurts.

 

[kaTNap]

Do fairly-consistent 4th quarter collapses against good competition indicate a conditioning problem, or a coaching problem, or both?

 

[Hungry Jack]

The table tells me that we have been bad when it really counts (last 10 mins).

We have had 5 piss-poor starts (first 10), and lost 4 of them. We did claw our way back in 4 of those 5, winning one.

 

[PurpleFaze]

I’m not tracking stats but the last several home seasons ( so the players have been different) it sure seems like we shoot poorly in the first half a lot Theoretically we should have an advantage since it’s our home court but often doesn’t “seem” that way

 

[Hungry Jack]

The black trend line represents our collective belief in Matt Nicholson. The less he plays, the more we believe in him.

The orange line represents fan engagement as measured by average decibel output during the Chick Fil A promotion

The red line represents our NCAA chances

The blue line represents the number of charts we consume after each game.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Draw whatever conclusions you'd like. Or ignore. I think it's interesting that we have a lot of poor starts. It's not just the poor finishes that doom us. I think that could indicate that the starting lineup NU goes with isn't working (though it IS going up against the other team's starters, so if the other coaches all have their acts together, it should be our toughest matchup).

The teams perceived best players usually start and finish games. Might be that our staters just aren’t as good as the other teams starters. Our bench guys typically match other teams bench players. This is where we see the improved depth on the team but still feel the effects of missing that stud.

 

[NUCat320]

The teams perceived best players usually start and finish games. Might be that our staters just aren’t as good as the other teams starters. Our bench guys typically match other teams bench players. This is where we see the improved depth on the team but still feel the effects of missing that stud.

NU will sometimes be ten deep by ten minutes, and Nance will always be on the bench after the first media timeout. (Nance has been pretty ehhhh of late, but is a top three player.) Part of NU’s slow starts may be related to going to the bench early while the opponent is going with its top five.

 

[willycat]

Do fairly-consistent 4th quarter collapses against good competition indicate a conditioning problem, or a coaching problem, or both?

hey, maybe it's a recruiting problem because of the admission standards.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I'm not sure the numbers here are frankly large enough to have any real statistical significance. For example, the 4th quarter is less than 1 point per game worse than the overall numbers, which over a 10 minute period is simply tiny.

As an example, it would be just as easy to point out the beginning and end of games are the worst for NU and I could say it's because the team is deep but has shaky front-end talent, thus struggles early and late when it's always the #1s playing, but fares well in the middle of the game when it can stretch its depth.

At any rate, I don't see any statistical significance here.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I'm not sure the numbers here are frankly large enough to have any real statistical significance. For example, the 4th quarter is less than 1 point per game worse than the overall numbers, which over a 10 minute period is simply tiny.

As an example, it would be just as easy to point out the beginning and end of games are the worst for NU and I could say it's because the team is deep but has shaky front-end talent, thus struggles early and late when it's always the #1s playing, but fares well in the middle of the game when it can stretch its depth.

At any rate, I don't see any statistical significance here.

How about we are 1-10 when trailing or tied at halftime.
We are 2-2 when leading at halftime by 14 points or less.
If we have a 15 point lead at the break, we are 3-0, including the Rutgers win in OT.

 

[DaCat]

Draw whatever conclusions you'd like. Or ignore. I think it's interesting that we have a lot of poor starts. It's not just the poor finishes that doom us. I think that could indicate that the starting lineup NU goes with isn't working (though it IS going up against the other team's starters, so if the other coaches all have their acts together, it should be our toughest matchup).

The one huge difference this year from previous years' squads is that we have reasonably good depth for a change. When it seems our bench often outplays our starters, that is a bit eye-opening. I think Collins should try to play a full court press for a majority of the game, while rotating in players often. Why the hell not, we are not getting the results now. He can play 10 or 11 guys easily. Press the hell out of the opponent. Come on Collins, use your one advantage!

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

The one huge difference this year from previous years' squads is that we have reasonably good depth for a change. When it seems our bench often outplays our starters, that is a bit eye-opening. I think Collins should try to play a full court press for a majority of the game, while rotating in players often. Why the hell not, we are not getting the results now. He can play 10 or 11 guys easily. Press the hell out of the opponent. Come on Collins, use your one advantage!

I don't think Coach CC seeks out advantages. His mindset appears to be matching up with the opponent to minimize their advantages.
(For example our frontcourt size is a definite advantage when you play Nance at the 4 and either Young or Nicholson at the 5).

 

[AdamOnFirst]

How about we are 1-10 when trailing or tied at halftime.
We are 2-2 when leading at halftime by 14 points or less.
If we have a 15 point lead at the break, we are 3-0, including the Rutgers win in OT.

I’d imagine the 1-10 stat is fairly common.

The 2-2 stat is obviously reflective of having blown close games as we know we have

 

[NUThump]

We have outscored our opponent in the final 10 minutes more times (9) then they have outscored us (8). Yes, this is a meaningless table.

 

[CappyNU]

Ooh, I have a meaningless graph!

The two cross lines are the rough time of first media timeout and the average bench minutes percentage per Kenpom. We have four quadrants, as follows:

Quadrant	Teams
Early sub, high depth	MSU, Purdue, NU, OSU
Early sub, low depth	IL, PSU, WI
Late sub, high depth	NEB, IU, Iowa
Late sub, low depth	MD, Rutgers, Minn, Michigan

The current top 4 teams in the conference all tend to sub early, whether they play their bench a lot or not, so perhaps it's not necessarily true that the reason we have slow starts is because the starters are playing longer than ours.

 

[NUCat320]

Did you know…?
Ken Pomeroy is *also* a leading curling analyst, posting his work at DoubleTakeout.com?



(You probably do, but I don’t do Twitter.)
(I fell asleep after the sixth end, so
I just learned that USA won the North American silver.)

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I’d imagine the 1-10 stat is fairly common.

The 2-2 stat is obviously reflective of having blown close games as we know we have

According to an old college basketball study I found

Bet on the Losing Team

Why would the team that's down at the half be more likely to win the game?

www.scientificamerican.com

a team down by 6 at half has a 20% chance of winning.
a team down by 4 at the half has a 30% chance of winning.
a team tied at the half obviously has a 50% chance of winning.

So, given that we trailed by 5, 0, 6, 3, 5, 4 and 4
our expected winning pct on each of those games was
0.25, 0.5, 0.2, 0.35, 0.25, 0.3 and 0.3

thats equal to 2.15, or 2.15 wins and 8.85 losses.

On the flipside, games where we led by single digits, we have leads of
3, 7, 5, 5
our expected winning pct on those games
0.65, 0.85, 0.75, 0.75

thats = 3.0
So we should have gone 3-1. We went 2-2.

So we underperformed when we were winning at half and underperformed when we were losing at half.

We should be 7-8 in the conference.

 

[GatoLouco]

I'm surprised there is not a pic of Charlie, from It's Always Sunny in this thread already

 

[SDakaGordie]

According to an old college basketball study I found

Bet on the Losing Team

Why would the team that's down at the half be more likely to win the game?

www.scientificamerican.com

a team down by 6 at half has a 20% chance of winning.
a team down by 4 at the half has a 30% chance of winning.
a team tied at the half obviously has a 50% chance of winning.

So, given that we trailed by 5, 0, 6, 3, 5, 4 and 4
our expected winning pct on each of those games was
0.25, 0.5, 0.2, 0.35, 0.25, 0.3 and 0.3

thats equal to 2.15, or 2.15 wins and 8.85 losses.

On the flipside, games where we led by single digits, we have leads of
3, 7, 5, 5
our expected winning pct on those games
0.65, 0.85, 0.75, 0.75

thats = 3.0
So we should have gone 3-1. We went 2-2.

So we underperformed when we were winning at half and underperformed when we were losing at half.

We should be 7-8 in the conference.

If I am Chicago State and I am tied at the half with Gonzaga, I do not have a 50% chance of winning! Just look at the ESPN % winning probability to get a much more accurate view of how it works than this post.

 

[NUCat320]

If I am Chicago State and I am tied at the half with Gonzaga, I do not have a 50% chance of winning! Just look at the ESPN % winning probability to get a much more accurate view of how it works than this post.

I wonder how close to .500 Chicago State would be in games decided by fewer than six points against Gonzaga.

Perspective.

 

[SDakaGordie]

I wonder how close to .500 Chicago State would be in games decided by fewer than six points against Gonzaga.

Perspective.

They’d likely be very similar to their overall record, just like we are. Perspective.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

If I am Chicago State and I am tied at the half with Gonzaga, I do not have a 50% chance of winning! Just look at the ESPN % winning probability to get a much more accurate view of how it works than this post.

I thought you said you understood statistics?

 

[AdamOnFirst]

According to an old college basketball study I found

Bet on the Losing Team

Why would the team that's down at the half be more likely to win the game?

www.scientificamerican.com

a team down by 6 at half has a 20% chance of winning.
a team down by 4 at the half has a 30% chance of winning.
a team tied at the half obviously has a 50% chance of winning.

So, given that we trailed by 5, 0, 6, 3, 5, 4 and 4
our expected winning pct on each of those games was
0.25, 0.5, 0.2, 0.35, 0.25, 0.3 and 0.3

thats equal to 2.15, or 2.15 wins and 8.85 losses.

On the flipside, games where we led by single digits, we have leads of
3, 7, 5, 5
our expected winning pct on those games
0.65, 0.85, 0.75, 0.75

thats = 3.0
So we should have gone 3-1. We went 2-2.

So we underperformed when we were winning at half and underperformed when we were losing at half.

We should be 7-8 in the conference.

See, now THIS I definitely find more interesting. Good deep dive.

 

[SDakaGordie]

I thought you said you understood statistics?

This is not statistics, for one. It’s behavioral economics. For two, please tell me why my statement is untrue. (For a hint - are there any controls for the variation in team performance in this study - like my Chicago State example)?

 

[go cats go]

Draw whatever conclusions you'd like.

I conclude that we should have more wins than we do. We take care of the basketball in terms of turnovers, but give away too many possessions with bad shots. We also just don't convert makable shots like we should. We're close. We defend really well. And we have a bunch of guys who belong on the floor. I think Collins is a good coach...except for the bad shots thing.

 

[hdhntr1]

Draw whatever conclusions you'd like. Or ignore. I think it's interesting that we have a lot of poor starts. It's not just the poor finishes that doom us. I think that could indicate that the starting lineup NU goes with isn't working (though it IS going up against the other team's starters, so if the other coaches all have their acts together, it should be our toughest matchup).

A lot of the - are in a couple games. For example in two games we were -13 in last 10 minutes. Similar in first 10 minutes

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

This is not statistics, for one. It’s behavioral economics. For two, please tell me why my statement is untrue. (For a hint - are there any controls for the variation in team performance in this study - like my Chicago State example)?

Of course not. I'm sure all they did was take all the scores over a decade of college games, look at what halftime scores and the final scores and come up with the probabilities that the team with each specific lead at halftime won the game.

Really simple approach.

When you do your study, let us all know.

 

[SDakaGordie]

Of course not. I'm sure all they did was take all the scores over a decade of college games, look at what halftime scores and the final scores and come up with the probabilities that the team with each specific lead at halftime won the game.

Really simple approach.

When you do your study, let us all know.

You said if you are tied at half, it’s 50/50 chance of winning. That’s more garbage analysis from you and this study (if they did not normalize it). Own it.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

You said if you are tied at half, it’s 50/50 chance of winning. That’s more garbage analysis from you and this study (if they did not normalize it). Own it.

Not sure what you are thinking there.
One team wins. One team loses.

By definition, the expected likelihood of winning is 50%. Its the easiest case.
The people doing the study didn't try to evaluate if one team was better than the other and adjust based on that.

You sit there and do nothing and call other people's work garbage.

That is really pathetic. I mean really pathetic.

 

[SDakaGordie]

Not sure what you are thinking there.
One team wins. One team loses.

By definition, the expected likelihood of winning is 50%. Its the easiest case.
The people doing the study didn't try to evaluate if one team was better than the other and adjust based on that.

You sit there and do nothing and call other people's work garbage.

That is really pathetic. I mean really pathetic.

Thank you. You finally have led me to put you on ignore. Ever since you called our coach dumb, I had been meaning to do it. But now you’ve been unable (multiple times) to counter a recent valid point I made; in the meantime, knowing many of my previous counter points to yours are valid, you cast aspersions at first and then on the second try resorted to calling me pathetic. I called your last point garbage (which was too harsh and for which I apologize) because you can’t acknowledge when others might be right, and you do it repeatedly. And then you take a cheap and false shot lumping me into a category of those who do not provide support for positions taken. Thanks again for finally stooping so low even someone as patient as me (and as much as an NU fan as me) could not continue with this.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Thank you. You finally have led me to put you on ignore. Ever since you called our coach dumb, I had been meaning to do it. But now you’ve been unable (multiple times) to counter a recent valid point I made; in the meantime, knowing many of my previous counter points to yours are valid, you cast aspersions at first and then on the second try resorted to calling me pathetic. I called your last point garbage (which was too harsh and for which I apologize) because you can’t acknowledge when others might be right, and you do it repeatedly. And then you take a cheap and false shot lumping me into a category of those who do not provide support for positions taken. Thanks again for finally stooping so low even someone as patient as me (and as much as an NU fan as me) could not continue with this.

I am pleased to hear this. My patience has worn thin.