- This topic has 47 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Everyone says their goal is to “Win It All Baby!!” but do they really have a team that can have their One Shining Moment? This will be a 3 Part Series
[See the full post at: Are you ready to win a title? (Part I)]Jig, good stuff here. When do we get to see our guys’ stats? That’s really what we’ll want to compare right?
Good work. It also includes a hidden “x factor” that I stress – flexibility. When you are good at multiple facets of teh basketball, you become much harder to gameplan against/shutdown. You also are less vulnerable to one particular type of opponent, or a Cinderella team that gets hot from 3.
In other words, daytight compartments are bad for tournament hoops. Like you didn’t know that already.
A mind is useless unless it’s open. That’s the strength of a guy like Calipari, and I think/hope a guy like Gottfried.
IMHO State would have never won the ’83 title had a shot clock been in place. Villanova did win with one in ’85 but it was with a longer 45 second clock, plus they were playing a familiar opponent and shot an unheard-of nearly 80% for the game. Nowadays, most teams can’t even shoot 80% from the free throw line.
The shot clock has turned the college game into a talent contest, played more and more by less-talented players than in the past. Shooting percentages and scoring are down, and the 3-point shot has contributed greatly to that.
We haven’t had a real Cinderella make the Final Four during the shot clock era except maybe for George Mason. UVA has figured out how to play against the clock, but now I read in the morning paper that there’s a push to shorten the shot clock in order to improve the game.
The more the college game looks like the NBA, the worse it becomes.
Butler made the finals in back-to-back seasons. Should have beaten Duke once.
Plus, State won the ACCT in 1983 with the shot clock. I don’t want to see it shortened, but I certainly don’t want to see it go away. I can still remember that UVA/U*NC ACCT final that set basketball back about 200 years.
Jig, good stuff here. When do we get to see our guys’ stats? That’s really what we’ll want to compare right?
Part II will look at the rounds of Sweet 16 through Runner up before heading into the finale, Part III, which will hit more at home for NC State.
Balance is clearly very important.
But a hot hand can send you packing even with incredible balance.
Match-ups, to me, are the real story come tourney time.
One could say that matchups are like mosquitoes. Nothing will make you matchup-proof. But versatility will make you matchup RESISTANT come tourney time, and that’s the best you can do.
Nobody’s invincible. Ask Houston 1983, UNLV 1991, or Ralph Sampson.
State won the ACCT in ’83 with the ACC’s 3-point line, but I don’t remember a shot clock being used then.
Think in 83 the shot clock went off in the last 2 minutes of each half, but there was a shot clock. Can’t recall how many seconds it was.
Balance is clearly very important.
But a hot hand can send you packing even with incredible balance.
Match-ups, to me, are the real story come tourney time.
In a 1-and-done tournament a hot hand or favorable matchup can produce an upset but when you have 10 of the last 13 national champions start the NCAAT in the Top 5 ODS in the country then matchups don’t really have much to do with becoming a Champion.
Nice work and outstanding explanations of the various esoteric terms.
I really like the approach of developing an objective measuring stick and then using it to measure State’s performance. I did that a number of different ways during the Herb era…and boy did the HSSS squeal when State consistently came up short. (Though none of my analyses were anywhere near as complicated).
If memory serves, State had a total of 10 games against teams that were ranked #1 sometime during the 82/83 season….and won six of them:
UNC: 2-1
UVA: 2-2
L’ville: 0-1
UNLV: 1-0
Houston: 1-0The 1983 team was not a Cinderella under any meaningful definition of the term. The 1983 team was a very good, experienced team that lost their leading scorer for 10 games…and then got him back to play some truly impressive basketball (while getting lucky when a number of opponents choked at the free-throw line).
Think in 83 the shot clock went off in the last 2 minutes of each half, but there was a shot clock. Can’t recall how many seconds it was.
Shot clock was 30 seconds and was turned off for the last 4 minutes of the game. Not sure about the half.
Nice work and outstanding explanations of the various esoteric terms.
I really like the approach of developing an objective measuring stick and then using it to measure State’s performance. I did that a number of different ways during the Herb era…and boy did the HSSS squeal when State consistently came up short. (Though none of my analyses were anywhere near as complicated).
Thanks. It’s definitely an honor to receive such praise from you. I predict many on here will be coming out of the woodwork come Part 3. I also have something shocking to present about a certain eventual HOF coach.
Thanks very much for putting this together.
Really top notch stuff Jigsy.
Can’t wait for Parts II and III.Jigs: Great work. I understand these efficiency metrics better after reading this, despite multiple attempts in the past. Fantastic descriptions. Seriously, thanks. Looking forward to the other installments.
VaWolf82 said: “The 1983 team was not a Cinderella under any meaningful definition of the term. The 1983 team was a very good, experienced team that lost their leading scorer for 10 games…and then got him back to play some truly impressive basketball (while getting lucky when a number of opponents choked at the free-throw line).”
That’s my recollection as well, along with a fairly good game coach. Although I should mention that my memories are necessarily filtered through a considerable alcohol haze that unfortunately surrounded me for most of that freshman spring semester…
I nominate this post for the Hall of Fame. I have been using KenPom end-of-season data in NCAAT pools for a few years now but always trying to figure out how I want to leverage the numbers. THIS is what I’ve been trying to figure out.
I also have something shocking to present about a certain eventual HOF coach.
Now I’m really excited, this is like Christmas in February!
Great, interesting work! Given your initial premise, I was very interested to see how last season’s UConn team stacked up. The numbers did not surprise or disappoint – they were more indicative of ‘lightning in a bottle’ for six games than they were of a ‘great team’. UConn had a good team, but got really hot in March – winning the title as a 7 seed. There’s hope for everyone! Like you said though, ‘hope’ is not a viable strategy 🙂
Also, Louisville’s defensive TO% from the other season was an astounding 27%! No wonder they won the title.
I also have something shocking to present about a certain eventual HOF coach.
Ohh man, I can’t wait for this! Gonna have to come out of my daytight compartment for this one.
if a team finishes with an ODS +25 you have a 25% chance in winning the championship
Although there is still time for this to change, as of today: 8 teams in the nation have a 25% chance of winning the championship. Verrry interesting.
Wisconsin’s offense must be outstanding. They are a CLEAR #1.
If the NCAAT was starting right now I’d put 90% of my money on Kentucky because they are 33.5 ODS. I’d rule out Wisconsin because of their DE (96.5), it’s way too high to win it all. Not saying they can’t but no one has had a DE above 92.9 and won it in the last 13 seasons. The “dark horses” on my list AT THIS MOMENT: Arizona, Gonzaga, Villanova, and Utah, in that order. I’m ruling out UVA at the moment due to the loss of Anderson.
Jigawatts excellent work. Looking forward to parts II & III. One key factor in winning a championship is having players that will step up when game is on the line.
IIRC, the ’83 team was pre-season ranked somewhere in the mid-teens, and V was not coy about the fact that he thought they were underrated. Had Whitt stayed healthy, I’m confident that we would have upset UVa that day. Hard to say what happens after that, but very possibly we would have been a top ten team come tournament time.
Then again, we might not win the whole thing if that happens.
I’m fine with how it all went down, and still get the occasional amusement when the “had to win the ACCT to get in” myth is perpetuated every year in March.
The statistics presented compare ratings of the champions. But to be fair, is it not possible that the non-champions had coaches that also stressed efficient offense and defense? In other words, there are some intangibles that cannot be measured (Cinderellas excluded). Sometimes one team is just luckier than the opposition (Again, Cinderellas excluded).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
