Analytics

[sedziobs]

If people want to talk about analytics, let's put the discussion here.

Teams that use analytics perform better than comparable teams that do not. It's that simple. It's true in any sport.

In Moneyball, the Athletics lost in the end. Billy Beane is still there, and the Athletics still haven't won a World Series. Tampa Bay is the other early pioneer of analytics in baseball, and they have never won a World Series. Does that mean analytics failed? Of course not. They are lightyears ahead of similar small market teams. And analytics evolves. It used to be focused around OBP, but has now grown to include fielder position, spin rate, launch angle, and all kinds of other data. The idea is predictability. What measurable data can predict future performance and wins. It's not batting average, RBIs, ERA, or pitcher wins. Those values have become almost meaningless in modern baseball management.

The same thing is happening in basketball. Efficiency is much more important than raw stat totals. Knowing which players are most efficient shooting what type of shot in what locations is crucial to planning winning offense and defense given comparable talent.

Of course a coach needs to be able to attract players, develop their physical and mental skills, and implement strategies that the team can execute. It takes a lot of natural coaching talent and instincts to do that. Analytics is one tool to be used in building a good team. In the NBA it's much more important because it dictates who money is spent on, but at all levels it influences strategy and development. It is constantly evolving, and teams that are not on top of the latest innovations will be at a disadvantage relative to other teams with similar talent.

 

[TheRealMick]

If people want to talk about analytics, let's put the discussion here.

Teams that use analytics perform better than comparable teams that do not. It's that simple. It's true in any sport.

In Moneyball, the Athletics lost in the end. Billy Beane is still there, and the Athletics still haven't won a World Series. Tampa Bay is the other early pioneer of analytics in baseball, and they have never won a World Series. Does that mean analytics failed? Of course not. They are lightyears ahead of similar small market teams. And analytics evolves. It used to be focused around OBP, but has now grown to include fielder position, spin rate, launch angle, and all kinds of other data. The idea is predictability. What measurable data can predict future performance and wins. It's not batting average, RBIs, ERA, or pitcher wins. Those values have become almost meaningless in modern baseball management.

The same thing is happening in basketball. Efficiency is much more important than raw stat totals. Knowing which players are most efficient shooting what type of shot in what locations is crucial to planning winning offense and defense given comparable talent.

Of course a coach needs to be able to attract players, develop their physical and mental skills, and implement strategies that the team can execute. It takes a lot of natural coaching talent and instincts to do that. Analytics is one tool to be used in building a good team. In the NBA it's much more important because it dictates who money is spent on, but at all levels it influences strategy and development. It is constantly evolving, and teams that are not on top of the latest innovations will be at a disadvantage relative to other teams with similar talent.

It’s great in baseball. Overrated in football and basketball

 

[cincyguy13]

It’s great in baseball. Overrated in football and basketball

If it doesn’t work in basketball, Then why is everyone shooting a 3 or a layup?

 

[cincrulz11]

If it doesn’t work in basketball, Then why is everyone shooting a 3 or a layup?

nba shot chart evolution

 

[TheRealMick]

If it doesn’t work in basketball, Then why is everyone shooting a 3 or a layup?

You didn’t need analytics to tell us that. Spots on court in basketball might be most beneficial. Besides if you ever went to shoot around 20yrs ago players either hung out around 3pt line or dunked. This isn’t nothing new. In baseball the shifts were game changer. In basketball teams always doubled best players or left open weakest players.

 

[sedziobs]

if you ever went to shoot around 20yrs ago players either hung out around 3pt line or dunked. This isn’t nothing new.

How often those two things happen is what has changed. In the triangle offense days and then the Kobe years, midrange looks were the goal. Teams now deliberately turn down wide open midrange shots to focus on getting a three. Defenses responded by blitzing pnr situations to prevent even deep threes while leaving the midrange open. Offenses didn't take the open midrange, they started slipping screens to catch defenders between guarding two three point shooters. That's all the result of data telling coaches what is most efficient, not just players hanging out at the 3pt line because they want to.

 

[cincrulz11]

How often those two things happen is what has changed. In the triangle offense days and then the Kobe years, midrange looks were the goal. Teams now deliberately turn down wide open midrange shots to focus on getting a three. Defenses responded by blitzing pnr situations to prevent even deep threes while leaving the midrange open. Offenses didn't take the open midrange, they started slipping screens to catch defenders between guarding two three point shooters. That's all the result of data telling coaches what is most efficient, not just players hanging out at the 3pt line because they want to.

From the college standpoint you can just look at Gonzaga.

Bartorvik started tracked where shots were taken in 2010. Here are some Gonzaga numbers for seasons.

2010 - 651 close 2's, 647 midrange 2's, 502 3's
2011 - 603 close 2's, 754 midrange 2's, 529 3's
2012 - 554 close 2's, 618 midrange 2's, 567 3's
2013 - 756 close 2's, 522 midrange 2's, 588 3's
a couple years of mixed offenses, but midrange and close 2's were close and then the aha moment.
2018 - 844 close 2's, 519 midrange 2's, 888 3's
2019 - 975 close 2's, 474 midrange 2's, 789 3's
2020 - 941 close 2's, 464 midrange 2's, 637 3's
2021 - 947 close 2's, 363 midrange 2's, 652 3's

Gonzaga has had the #1 offense in ADJO those last 3 years after averaging 23.7 the previous 9 seasons.

 

[cincyguy13]

You didn’t need analytics to tell us that. Spots on court in basketball might be most beneficial. Besides if you ever went to shoot around 20yrs ago players either hung out around 3pt line or dunked. This isn’t nothing new. In baseball the shifts were game changer. In basketball teams always doubled best players or left open weakest players.

You’re saying these analytics haven’t effected basketball? Teams are shooting 30-40 3s a game. The traditional center is non existent. It’s completely changed the game of basketball.

Much like baseball. You can say these things are obviously but no one was playing the game this why before analytics

 

[TheRealMick]

Dirk, Durant, mcgrady all the great freak of natures changed the game. Yes analytics play big part but it’s been around for years basically. It’s nothing new

 

[TheRealMick]

Hack a Shaq was around 25yrs ago. Analytics can’t stop harden or lebron from getting 50. Teams been known where sweet spots been for years. It’s just something guys without eye test can understand what really going on. If a coach 75% analytics I don’t want him. I’m more of 75/25

 

[waterhead]

From the college standpoint you can just look at Gonzaga.

Bartorvik started tracked where shots were taken in 2010. Here are some Gonzaga numbers for seasons.

2010 - 651 close 2's, 647 midrange 2's, 502 3's
2011 - 603 close 2's, 754 midrange 2's, 529 3's
2012 - 554 close 2's, 618 midrange 2's, 567 3's
2013 - 756 close 2's, 522 midrange 2's, 588 3's
a couple years of mixed offenses, but midrange and close 2's were close and then the aha moment.
2018 - 844 close 2's, 519 midrange 2's, 888 3's
2019 - 975 close 2's, 474 midrange 2's, 789 3's
2020 - 941 close 2's, 464 midrange 2's, 637 3's
2021 - 947 close 2's, 363 midrange 2's, 652 3's

Gonzaga has had the #1 offense in ADJO those last 3 years after averaging 23.7 the previous 9 seasons.

Right...good info and shows the trend we want to see

The problem is Brannen probably wanted this too and you can't do these things without the right squad. We can try...and we did...but Gonzaga has the personnel to get this done. And Few obviously knew where to put his focus on recruits.

We need to build a rotation like this even if it's Gonzaga light or super light. If not you need to go with a defense first philosophy. Take your pick. I pick the philosophy that seems to be thriving more

 

[waterhead]

And the idea that this is just all common sense (before analytics) sounds great but isn't reality. I am sure some coaches were already tracking but most were probably not

 

[waterhead]

Hack a Shaq was around 25yrs ago. Analytics can’t stop harden or lebron from getting 50. Teams been known where sweet spots been for years. It’s just something guys without eye test can understand what really going on. If a coach 75% analytics I don’t want him. I’m more of 75/25

Analytics ain't shutting down Jordan or Lebron. It's what you do as a team or against a team as a philosophy. Some kids can kill you no matter what you throw at them. Even long two's are a good idea for the right guy

 

[cincrulz11]

Right...good info and shows the trend we want to see

The problem is Brannen probably wanted this too and you can't do these things without the right squad. We can try...and we did...but Gonzaga has the personnel to get this done. And Few obviously knew where to put his focus on recruits.

We need to build a rotation like this even if it's Gonzaga light or super light. If not you need to go with a defense first philosophy. Take your pick. I pick the philosophy that seems to be thriving more

You have to get players that can fit that style, there's no doubt about it. You need guys that can shoot, something we haven't really had.

 

[waterhead]

You have to get players that can fit that style, there's no doubt about it. You need guys that can shoot, something we haven't really had.

And you need the stud inside that can make the short 2's

 

[TheRealMick]

Analytics ain't shutting down Jordan or Lebron. It's what you do as a team or against a team as a philosophy. Some kids can kill you no matter what you throw at them. Even long two's are a good idea for the right guy

It’s been around waterhead. The 3’s started to be or counter the splash brothers. Also main thing with 3’s is give more points per possession. Analytics didn’t need tell million dollar coaches this though. Mick preach make layups and get stops you’ll win, that’s basketball 101

 

[TheRealMick]

I’m going defense first and open motion offense. Goal remains the same. Score more than your opponent

 

[sedziobs]

Analytics is what gave the splash brothers freedom to let it fly so often. Coaches wouldn't have allowed that 15 years ago. Jordan, McGrady, and Dirk would be shooting a lot less from the midrange if they were playing today.

Making layups and getting stops is part of analytics.

 

[TheRealMick]

The new wave in college(I’ve been screaming it for yrs) is getting starting 5 6’5-6’10 that all can play 1-5. Analytics I will agree is much more important in player development than it is in team game planning.

 

[waterhead]

It’s been around waterhead. The 3’s started to be or counter the splash brothers. Also main thing with 3’s is give more points per possession. Analytics didn’t need tell million dollar coaches this though. Mick preach make layups and get stops you’ll win, that’s basketball 101

That all sounds great but is short sighted.

There are more analytics than just shooting 3's and layups. And not all coaches have figured that out.

The fans on this board are asking for a coach that has a good grasp on it. If it's all just in their head they won't be able to address it in an interview. They need a philosophy that revolves around the trends of today's game