Ye Olde Green Wave Forum

The DEFINITIVE Tulane discussion forum
It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 10041
visualmagic wrote:
As a team, our overall Ortg (An estimate of points scored (for teams) or points produced (for players) per 100 possessions.) was 104.1
Drtg (Defensive Rating; an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions) was 105.4

Melvin Frazier’s Ortg was 114.2 (2nd on the team to Sehic) and his Drtg was 101.8 which was 1st on the team.

Further, he led our team in Box Plus/Minus (by far) and Win Shares.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:31 am 
Offline
Emerald Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 10041
PeteRasche wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
As a team, our overall Ortg (An estimate of points scored (for teams) or points produced (for players) per 100 possessions.) was 104.1
Drtg (Defensive Rating; an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions) was 105.4

Melvin Frazier’s Ortg was 114.2 (2nd on the team to Sehic) and his Drtg was 101.8 which was 1st on the team.

Now you're just talking gibberish. :lol:

I understand these are the metrics that modern sabermatricians use to quantify everything but there is an unknown, unmeasurable factor about how a team plays when a certain player is on the court (or not) which can't be measured. You can measure shots taken, even open looks taken or not, etc., but things like "did a player overlook a pass he could have made to the block which likely would have resulted in an easy bucket because the defender was overplaying and there was no backside help, and instead feel compelled to pass to the 'star' who was open at the three-point line and subsequently missed a three?" Basketball is such a fluid game in that way that there's a definite limit to what stats can show.
Your example of the "unmeasurable" is literally the easiest possible thing to measure in basketball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Posts: 7188
Location: Charlotte
reasons I am optimistic and will remain so until things look sour:

1. Jordan Cornish can fill it up and really didn't have the opportunity to do so last year.. except when Frazier and Reynolds were out (injury or fouls)... he single handedly got us within striking distance in two games where we were down double digits late and both Reynolds and Frazier were on the bench. He lost minutes last year to Caleb Daniels as well and that impacted his impact (intentionally redundant). This season, they will on the floor together.

2. Caleb Daniels.. kid can play. I think a lot of folks overlooked his defensive abilities because Melvin was the one everyone raved about. I can remember him packing a much larger player going in for a layup.. Daniels has some hops and he has apparently improved his shot.

3. I'm buying into the Koka hype. Dunleavy has no reason to blow smoke up our a88es over a redshirt project.. and if he thinks Koka can contribute as much as he is saying, that can only mean good things.

4. He's really high on the freshmen. Last year, he didn't say 'boo' about Daniels, Barrett or the twin towers.. this year, he has commented about our freshman class all being good shooters and being needed to play early on. We only need one of them to be a Daniels level player (from last year).. but if we get two or all three to that level, we will surprise people.

Finally 5. Sehic. He showed the ability to fill it up in spurts last year.. if he can remain consistent, he gives us a high/low option in addition to Cornish and Daniels' abilities to drive to the hole.

We have a weak OOC schedule which is specifically set up for us to pile up wins before AAC play... and hopefully our guys gel during those games and again, surprise some folks in the conference. I predict the writers place us either 11 or 12 in the preseason AAC prediction. Bulletin board material.

_________________
Image
YOGWF - of all the Tulane fans in the world, we're the Tulaniest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:04 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 20795
Location: Cincinnati, OH
ml wave wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
As a team, our overall Ortg (An estimate of points scored (for teams) or points produced (for players) per 100 possessions.) was 104.1
Drtg (Defensive Rating; an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions) was 105.4

Melvin Frazier’s Ortg was 114.2 (2nd on the team to Sehic) and his Drtg was 101.8 which was 1st on the team.

Now you're just talking gibberish. :lol:

I understand these are the metrics that modern sabermatricians use to quantify everything but there is an unknown, unmeasurable factor about how a team plays when a certain player is on the court (or not) which can't be measured. You can measure shots taken, even open looks taken or not, etc., but things like "did a player overlook a pass he could have made to the block which likely would have resulted in an easy bucket because the defender was overplaying and there was no backside help, and instead feel compelled to pass to the 'star' who was open at the three-point line and subsequently missed a three?" Basketball is such a fluid game in that way that there's a definite limit to what stats can show.
Your example of the "unmeasurable" is literally the easiest possible thing to measure in basketball.

Cool. Educate me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:09 pm 
Offline
Navigator Level

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm
Posts: 900
.

_________________
Gladly it's over


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:13 pm 
Offline
Navigator Level

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm
Posts: 900
windywave wrote:
wavedom wrote:
windywave wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
If 2 posts that spanned 3 sentences about the baseball team constitutes a “b**ch-fest” then there’s probably going to be a lot of those.
It only takes a tiny break in the levee to lead to a flood.

Personally, I'm not really high on the basketball program right now. I'm hoping to be proven very wrong, but I feel like we're going to be worse than last year by quite a bit and hear a lot of "our key guys are still young"... you know, the perpetual mantra of the Tulane fan in several sports.


I hope you're wrong and think you may be. Last year when Melvin wasn't on the floor we played better team basketball because when he was on the floor it devolved to the Melvin show. Think Bulls pre Jordan buying in and post buying in.


Yes. The Bulls were definitely better without Jordan.




And you show a lack of understanding of what I was talking about.


As usual you don't know what you're talking about.

_________________
Gladly it's over


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 10041
PeteRasche wrote:
ml wave wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
As a team, our overall Ortg (An estimate of points scored (for teams) or points produced (for players) per 100 possessions.) was 104.1
Drtg (Defensive Rating; an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions) was 105.4

Melvin Frazier’s Ortg was 114.2 (2nd on the team to Sehic) and his Drtg was 101.8 which was 1st on the team.

Now you're just talking gibberish. :lol:

I understand these are the metrics that modern sabermatricians use to quantify everything but there is an unknown, unmeasurable factor about how a team plays when a certain player is on the court (or not) which can't be measured. You can measure shots taken, even open looks taken or not, etc., but things like "did a player overlook a pass he could have made to the block which likely would have resulted in an easy bucket because the defender was overplaying and there was no backside help, and instead feel compelled to pass to the 'star' who was open at the three-point line and subsequently missed a three?" Basketball is such a fluid game in that way that there's a definite limit to what stats can show.
Your example of the "unmeasurable" is literally the easiest possible thing to measure in basketball.

Cool. Educate me.

One of the two choices you describe leads to a practically guaranteed two points, with the other leading to zero points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:57 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 20795
Location: Cincinnati, OH
ml wave wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
ml wave wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
As a team, our overall Ortg (An estimate of points scored (for teams) or points produced (for players) per 100 possessions.) was 104.1
Drtg (Defensive Rating; an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions) was 105.4

Melvin Frazier’s Ortg was 114.2 (2nd on the team to Sehic) and his Drtg was 101.8 which was 1st on the team.

Now you're just talking gibberish. :lol:

I understand these are the metrics that modern sabermatricians use to quantify everything but there is an unknown, unmeasurable factor about how a team plays when a certain player is on the court (or not) which can't be measured. You can measure shots taken, even open looks taken or not, etc., but things like "did a player overlook a pass he could have made to the block which likely would have resulted in an easy bucket because the defender was overplaying and there was no backside help, and instead feel compelled to pass to the 'star' who was open at the three-point line and subsequently missed a three?" Basketball is such a fluid game in that way that there's a definite limit to what stats can show.
Your example of the "unmeasurable" is literally the easiest possible thing to measure in basketball.

Cool. Educate me.

One of the two choices you describe leads to a practically guaranteed two points, with the other leading to zero points.

So you either misunderstood or purposely ignored my point to be snarky.

If it's easy, point me to an advanced stat which measures the opportunities bypassed by a player who looked at a sure option but didn't take it and passed elsewhere because there was subconscious instruction to feed the star, as compared to when the star is on the bench so the passer does throw it in to the block for the easy score?

I know you grasp what I'm trying to say and are just doing your usual thing. Whatever. But you also know that the thing I'm talking about is not tracked and measured because it would require a very smart basketball person to spend countless hours dissecting film while simultaneously knowing all the players' tendencies intimately, and no program anywhere has that sort of time and money for what would be an irrelevant stat to anyone other than simply curious fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:10 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm
Posts: 10041
PeteRasche wrote:
ml wave wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
ml wave wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
As a team, our overall Ortg (An estimate of points scored (for teams) or points produced (for players) per 100 possessions.) was 104.1
Drtg (Defensive Rating; an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions) was 105.4

Melvin Frazier’s Ortg was 114.2 (2nd on the team to Sehic) and his Drtg was 101.8 which was 1st on the team.

Now you're just talking gibberish. :lol:

I understand these are the metrics that modern sabermatricians use to quantify everything but there is an unknown, unmeasurable factor about how a team plays when a certain player is on the court (or not) which can't be measured. You can measure shots taken, even open looks taken or not, etc., but things like "did a player overlook a pass he could have made to the block which likely would have resulted in an easy bucket because the defender was overplaying and there was no backside help, and instead feel compelled to pass to the 'star' who was open at the three-point line and subsequently missed a three?" Basketball is such a fluid game in that way that there's a definite limit to what stats can show.
Your example of the "unmeasurable" is literally the easiest possible thing to measure in basketball.

Cool. Educate me.

One of the two choices you describe leads to a practically guaranteed two points, with the other leading to zero points.

So you either misunderstood or purposely ignored my point to be snarky.

If it's easy, point me to an advanced stat which measures the opportunities bypassed by a player who looked at a sure option but didn't take it and passed elsewhere because there was subconscious instruction to feed the star, as compared to when the star is on the bench so the passer does throw it in to the block for the easy score?

I know you grasp what I'm trying to say and are just doing your usual thing. Whatever. But you also know that the thing I'm talking about is not tracked and measured because it would require a very smart basketball person to spend countless hours dissecting film while simultaneously knowing all the players' tendencies intimately, and no program anywhere has that sort of time and money for what would be an irrelevant stat to anyone other than simply curious fans.
I don't know what my usual thing is (being right? just don't ask my wife) but I'm not being snarky at all. Again, you don't need an advanced stat for the scenario you describe because the most "unadvanced" stat possible, points, captures it perfectly. Assists too, for that matter. Let's imagine that your exact scenario plays out in a game a total of 10 times, 5 with the "star" on the court and 5 without. If the star makes 2/5 3s vs. 5/5 layups when he's off the floor, that difference will be picked up in plenty of advanced stats. If you're looking for "was this one pass the best possible decision", idk if that's being measured (maybe at NBA level, doubt it at college) but lineup data will show that the passer does better with the star off the court than on. Stats capture the points per possession when player x makes a pass that leads to a shot, so that would pretty easily show the difference when he passes to player y compared to player z. It would also appear in the raw plus/minus of the star, his BPM, and probably a bunch of other things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:29 pm 
Offline
President's Circle

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:18 pm
Posts: 4377
I think Dunleavy has shown he get players open looks. I think we will be fine offensively. The question is whether we can rebound and play defense. We were dreadful on the boards last year.

We were lost on defense. Blake Paul tried to block every shot and it was very often his man that got the rebound. Ona-Embo was a good defender as a frosh and regressed completely last year. I think he focused so much on improving his shot that he forgot to play defense and play like a true point guard on offense.

Bottom line is we have pieces to win but will need to play very solid fundamental basketball. We will need freshman to contribute, Koka to be a legit rebounder and defender and get true point guard play. It's a lot of ifs, but I will go in to basketball season with high hopes until proven wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:29 pm 
Offline
Regent's Circle
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:32 am
Posts: 7122
Location: Wisconsin
PeteRasche wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
wavedom wrote:
You would hope to see changes at catcher and SS. Surprised to hear that's not the case.

You’re not excited about running it back with a lineup that won 25 games?

This morning I almost posted "how long until a thread which also covers basketball gets turned into nothing but a b**ch-fest about our baseball coach" but I thought I'd be nice and give y'all the benefit of the doubt that maybe football season has calmed you down.

Fail.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:40 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2483
windywave wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
As a team, our overall Ortg (An estimate of points scored (for teams) or points produced (for players) per 100 possessions.) was 104.1
Drtg (Defensive Rating; an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions) was 105.4

Melvin Frazier’s Ortg was 114.2 (2nd on the team to Sehic) and his Drtg was 101.8 which was 1st on the team.
a

So are you bolstering or rebutting my point?


The numbers say that the team was much with Frazier on the court, which I figured was obvious


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:32 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:13 pm
Posts: 20736
Location: Chicago
visualmagic wrote:
windywave wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
As a team, our overall Ortg (An estimate of points scored (for teams) or points produced (for players) per 100 possessions.) was 104.1
Drtg (Defensive Rating; an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions) was 105.4

Melvin Frazier’s Ortg was 114.2 (2nd on the team to Sehic) and his Drtg was 101.8 which was 1st on the team.
a

So are you bolstering or rebutting my point?


The numbers say that the team was much with Frazier on the court, which I figured was obvious


Nice snark. Read what I wrote initially and then see why I asked.

_________________
Using big words is not a personal attack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:42 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2483
Not being snarky, you asked if that bolstered or rebutted your case, I don’t see how in anyway seeing that we scored more points per possession on offense and allowed fewer points per possession on defense with Melvin on the floor could bolster your point.

How about you just explain why you asked. I don’t feel like trying to figure out what’s going on in your brain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:51 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Posts: 20795
Location: Cincinnati, OH
ml wave wrote:
If you're looking for "was this one pass the best possible decision", idk if that's being measured (maybe at NBA level, doubt it at college)
That's a part of what I was saying, the other part has to do with whether other players feel the need to pass it to a "scorer" or "star" rather than pass it to a (perhaps worse) player who is wide open and/or closer to the basket. In other words, would the passer have made a better decision if the star weren't in the game. My whole point was branching from visual and windy's thing - to say I agree that there are many times where a team does better without a "star" player, even one who might score double digits per game, because they play better as a team. Make more passes, find open guys more, rely on everyone, as opposed to just giving it to the star and hoping he carries them.

Anyway, moving on...



NJwave wrote:
I think Dunleavy has shown he get players open looks. I think we will be fine offensively.
Also remember that we CLEARLY wore out at the end of the year because MD only plays 6 or 7 guys. The starters were exhausted and couldn't hit shots like they did early in the year. Hopefully we play more guys this year, even if it's simply due to having no clear stars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:08 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2483
Looking at the numbers, it’s the loss of Reynolds that really shouldn’t be a big deal.
He took way more shots than Frazier, was not efficient and wasn’t as good on defense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:18 am
Posts: 18169
Location: Beautiful Dutchtown
PeteRasche wrote:
Also remember that we CLEARLY wore out at the end of the year because MD only plays 6 or 7 guys. The starters were exhausted and couldn't hit shots like they did early in the year. Hopefully we play more guys this year, even if it's simply due to having no clear stars.

That's one of the keys to this season. Is it that he only "plays 6 or 7 guys" or is it that is all he had available to play? This year we should have a lot more.
I think we'll be better: Reynolds didn't have a great year last year, Frazier will be missed but we'll be deeper. Barrett may give us some playmaking at guard we haven't seen, and I would think the D would be better. Maybe it's a hope. But we weren't that good last year, so we don't have to be that good to be better.
And those are the things that bother me a little. When asked about a schedule he said we need to accumulate wins to make it to post-season (what? You need skins on the wall, wins over top 50s to make it to post season). I think TD said they would schedule better next year, but lord knows we've heard that from ADs and coaches in the past, only to see another win-inflating ooc schedule the next year.
And then he at least implied that last season was a success. It's way too early to get so Stocktonesque/Dicksonesque..we won, what, 1 more conference game than the prior year? It was not a good season.

_________________
A refreshing culture of standards, expectations and accountability is upon us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:26 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2483
GSx wrote:
And then he at least implied that last season was a success. It's way too early to get so Stocktonesque/Dicksonesque..we won, what, 1 more conference game than the prior year? It was not a good season.


I didn’t like that either


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:46 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:13 pm
Posts: 20736
Location: Chicago
visualmagic wrote:
Not being snarky, you asked if that bolstered or rebutted your case, I don’t see how in anyway seeing that we scored more points per possession on offense and allowed fewer points per possession on defense with Melvin on the floor could bolster your point.

How about you just explain why you asked. I don’t feel like trying to figure out what’s going on in your brain.



I hope you're wrong and think you may be. Last year when Melvin wasn't on the floor we played better team basketball because when he was on the floor it devolved to the Melvin show. Think Bulls pre Jordan buying in and post buying in.


Parse what I said it should be evident hint Melvin Show

_________________
Using big words is not a personal attack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:53 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2483
No. Say exactly what you mean.

FWIW, I think you saying that there was some “Melvin show” that was holding the team back is ridiculous. He shot 55% from the field the rest of the team was around 45%. Any possession that ended in a Melvin Frazier FGA, was worth more points per possession than the possessions that ended in shots from everyone else


Last edited by visualmagic on Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:54 pm 
Offline
Navigator Level

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm
Posts: 900
He can't because he has no clue.

_________________
Gladly it's over


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:01 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:13 pm
Posts: 20736
Location: Chicago
visualmagic wrote:
No. Say what you mean


Well I said we devolved to the Melvin show. Your statistics indicate that Melvin was scoring more per possession than anyone else on the team. So I asked is the stat to bolster or rebut my take because at first glance it appears that, in fact, when Melvin was on the floor it was the Melvin show from your statistics. Not that hard with a bit of reading comprehension.

_________________
Using big words is not a personal attack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:02 pm 
Offline
Emerald Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:13 pm
Posts: 20736
Location: Chicago
wavedom wrote:
He can't because he has no clue.


Just because you're incapable of processing anything resembling a cogent thought doesn't mean everyone else is like that.

_________________
Using big words is not a personal attack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:05 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2483
windywave wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
No. Say what you mean


Well I said we devolved to the Melvin show. Your statistics indicate that Melvin was scoring more per possession than anyone else on the team. So I asked is the stat to bolster or rebut my take because at first glance it appears that, in fact, when Melvin was on the floor it was the Melvin show from your statistics. Not that hard with a bit of reading comprehension.


Holy smokes, him scoring points is bad? The team scored more points per possession with him on the court and allowed fewer with him on the court and you’re spinning that as a bad thing? Wow. Impressive. You can’t make this stuff up, folks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline
Coach Level

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:26 pm
Posts: 2483
windywave wrote:
visualmagic wrote:
No. Say what you mean


Well I said we devolved to the Melvin show. Your statistics indicate that Melvin was scoring more per possession than anyone else on the team. So I asked is the stat to bolster or rebut my take because at first glance it appears that, in fact, when Melvin was on the floor it was the Melvin show from your statistics. Not that hard with a bit of reading comprehension.


It actually showed he was 2nd in points per possession on offense to Sehic, was it the Sehic show?
Are we better off without Sehic?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group