Interesting Stats

[AZ BEARCAT]

Diego Guevara...now a real estate agent in Charlotte. Had to look up how to spell his last name. Dude works for Keller Williams...so if anyone is in the market for a house...

Good for him. Thanks for the info.

 

[cincycpaw]

Good for him. Thanks for the info.

That dude was annoying.

 

[david aka the TYZ]

I had a layover in Charlotte after the Orange Bowl 10 years ago and saw the Charlotte team walking through the airport. I wanted to boo them so bad even though they were no longer in our conference and it would mean I'm a complete jackass for doing it in an airport, haha

 

[waterhead]

Jenifer leading the country in assist to turnover by a wide margin right now per NCAA stats (minus X game which he improved his stat to about 7.8:1). His EFG% is pretty good and he's done a very sound job on the defensive side for his capability level.

We can always ask more (breaking down defenses etc) but if he keeps that up I will be extremely satisfied with his play all year. I won't be clamoring to reduce his minutes if he continues this play. Maybe the opposite.

His plus minus (from what I have heard) has been very good lately and that is the bottom line for me. I do still think we need Cane to get on track for our overall strength as a team...especially in tourney when we need offense.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Definitely need both. JJ’s effectiveness is a plus because it allows Cane to fill multiple roles. Bottom line is we are better when they both play and play well.

 

[cincrulz11]

Jenifer leading the country in assist to turnover by a wide margin right now per NCAA stats (minus X game which he improved his stat to about 7.8:1). His EFG% is pretty good and he's done a very sound job on the defensive side for his capability level.

We can always ask more (breaking down defenses etc) but if he keeps that up I will be extremely satisfied with his play all year. I won't be clamoring to reduce his minutes if he continues this play. Maybe the opposite.

His plus minus (from what I have heard) has been very good lately and that is the bottom line for me. I do still think we need Cane to get on track for our overall strength as a team...especially in tourney when we need offense.

sometimes you just have to take a step back and appreciate a player for what he is. i argued for a long time for people to accept caupain for the player he was cause a lot of people wanted him to be a "true point guard".


ive been on jenifer a long time but i could use my own advice. instead of thinking about the things he doesn't do, i have to appreciate that he never turns the ball over, he passes the ball to where mick wants him to pass the ball to, he plays hard and fights like a dog on defense.


i have found myself on more than one occasion this year hoping jenifer was the one bringing it up and it wasn't left to cane (like in the unlv game).

 

[waterhead]

sometimes you just have to take a step back and appreciate a player for what he is. i argued for a long time for people to accept caupain for the player he was cause a lot of people wanted him to be a "true point guard".


ive been on jenifer a long time but i could use my own advice. instead of thinking about the things he doesn't do, i have to appreciate that he never turns the ball over, he passes the ball to where mick wants him to pass the ball to, he plays hard and fights like a dog on defense.


i have found myself on more than one occasion this year hoping jenifer was the one bringing it up and it wasn't left to cane (like in the unlv game).

Yah...we just don't lose possessions because of him. And when he shoots it's usually a high % look. He's not going to go into the trees and be very effective in there...so maybe we should be careful what we ask for. I think maybe we could benefit if he really pushed the ball up the court to beat a set D but after that...he can only do what will work for him or the team in a half court setting.

He seems to be doing almost everything he can really.

 

[waterhead]

I was looking on the Torvik site at our 3%. He has a breakdown of % made overall vs % made on assisted shots. There is no way to tell how many of each players shots were assisted nor do I know how they collect the data but the results are pretty crazy IMO. I will list the overall % first and then the assisted %.

Cumberland...44...86
Jenifer...46...82
Scott...33...100
Williams...28...100
Broome...19...80
Johnson...33...100
Moore...25...67
Fredericks...25...100

It's crazy that Moore is the outlier here at 67% made 3's from assists. The rest are above 80%. Of course for many of these guys the sample is extremely small but I think you can see the point here. Outside of Cumberland most of these guys should just be looking for the assisted set shot when determining if they should take a 3.

 

[waterhead]

I was looking on the Torvik site at our 3%. He has a breakdown of % made overall vs % made on assisted shots. There is no way to tell how many of each players shots were assisted nor do I know how they collect the data but the results are pretty crazy IMO. I will list the overall % first and then the assisted %.

Cumberland...44...86
Jenifer...46...82
Scott...33...100
Williams...28...100
Broome...19...80
Johnson...33...100
Moore...25...67
Fredericks...25...100

It's crazy that Moore is the outlier here at 67% made 3's from assists. The rest are above 80%. Of course for many of these guys the sample is extremely small but I think you can see the point here. Outside of Cumberland most of these guys should just be looking for the assisted set shot when determining if they should take a 3.

You can probably determine how many for a couple of players like Moore. He has made 3 of 12 overall and because he is 66% on assisted which means he is almost certainly 2 of 3 on assisted 3's and 1 of 9 on the rest.

 

[waterhead]

You can probably determine how many for a couple of players like Moore. He has made 3 of 12 overall and because he is 66% on assisted which means he is almost certainly 2 of 3 on assisted 3's and 1 of 9 on the rest.

Broome is 5 of 26 overall but 80% on assisted implying that he is 4 of 5 on assited shots and 1 of 21 outside of that.

Trying to interpret Jenifer's numbers. He is 11-24 overall and 81.8% assisted. I can get to 81.8% by going 9 of 11 which would mean he is 2 of 13 on the rest.

Anyone who has made 100% assisted would be hard to tell unless they only shot 1 which nobody has.

I don't know if I want to take a stab at Cumberlands who is 22 of 50 overall and 86.4% assisted

 

[sedziobs]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think the assisted percentage accounts for any missed attempts. I think it's saying that 2 of Moore's 3 made threes were assisted, but not necessarily that he only attempted 3 assisted threes. I doubt that Moore has shot 9 unassisted threes. That would also mean Scott has taken 4 unassisted threes, Fredericks 9, and Williams 13. Doesn't seem reasonable. I don't believe that everyone on the team shoots better than 67% when assisted.

Something strange is going on with that stat though. If you go to the national play-by-play stats, there are 22 players with a threes assisted percentage greater than 100. Four players are at 200. That doesn't make sense unless you count assists hockey style.

 

[waterhead]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think the assisted percentage accounts for any missed attempts. I think it's saying that 2 of Moore's 3 made threes were assisted, but not necessarily that he only attempted 3 assisted threes. I doubt that Moore has shot 9 unassisted threes. That would also mean Scott has taken 4 unassisted threes, Fredericks 9, and Williams 13. Doesn't seem reasonable. I don't believe that everyone on the team shoots better than 67% when assisted.

Something strange is going on with that stat though. If you go to the national play-by-play stats, there are 22 players with a threes assisted percentage greater than 100. Four players are at 200. That doesn't make sense unless you count assists hockey style.

Maybe I am confusing myself here but hear me out. Moore has made three 3's on the season. You can't get to 66.6% unless he made 2 of 3 of his assisted shots. If he had more assisted shots he would he would have to be 4 of 6 or 8 of 12 on those...but he has only made 3 shots so it has to mean he is 2 of 3 on assisted shots and 1 of 9 unassisted.

Now I do agree something seems strange overall but I don't know what it is

 

[waterhead]

Maybe I am confusing myself here but hear me out. Moore has made three 3's on the season. You can't get to 66.6% unless he made 2 of 3 of his assisted shots. If he had more assisted shots he would he would have to be 4 of 6 or 8 of 12 on those...but he has only made 3 shots so it has to mean he is 2 of 3 on assisted shots and 1 of 9 unassisted.

Now I do agree something seems strange overall but I don't know what it is

In terms of Broome he has only made 5 threes on the year. The only way to represent his 80% assisted number is if he hit 4 of 5 of them. He can't be 8 of 10 because he hasn't made that many shots yet.

Am I missing something?

 

[sedziobs]

In terms of Broome he has only made 5 threes on the year. The only way to represent his 80% assisted number is if he hit 4 of 5 of them. He can't be 8 of 10 because he hasn't made that many shots yet.

Am I missing something?

I think so, but I'm having a hard time explaining it. I think it's the percentage of made threes that were assisted. You think it's the percentage of makes on assisted attempts.

You get to 80% by dividing 4 into 5, but we have to figure out what the 4 and 5 mean. I think it means Broome has made 4 assisted threes and 5 total threes, but we don't know how many assisted he shot. I would guess he's about 4-20 assisted and 1-6 unassisted. I would guess Scott is 2-6 assisted and 0-0 unassisted.

 

[waterhead]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think the assisted percentage accounts for any missed attempts. I think it's saying that 2 of Moore's 3 made threes were assisted, but not necessarily that he only attempted 3 assisted threes. I doubt that Moore has shot 9 unassisted threes. That would also mean Scott has taken 4 unassisted threes, Fredericks 9, and Williams 13. Doesn't seem reasonable. I don't believe that everyone on the team shoots better than 67% when assisted.

Something strange is going on with that stat though. If you go to the national play-by-play stats, there are 22 players with a threes assisted percentage greater than 100. Four players are at 200. That doesn't make sense unless you count assists hockey style.

Nevermind I think I get where you are coming from now.

 

[sedziobs]

It's probably like that out of necessity. I don't think anyone is keeping track of "assisted" misses. Assists are only relevant to makes. So there's not really any way to tell hown many assisted looks a player gets.

 

[waterhead]

I think so, but I'm having a hard time explaining it. I think it's the percentage of made threes that were assisted. You think it's the percentage of makes on assisted attempts.

You get to 80% by dividing 4 into 5, but we have to figure out what the 4 and 5 mean. I think it means Broome has made 4 assisted threes and 5 total threes, but we don't know how many assisted he shot. I would guess he's about 4-20 assisted and 1-6 unassisted. I would guess Scott is 2-6 assisted and 0-0 unassisted.

I understand what you are saying now and that makes more sense

 

[cincrulz11]

I was looking on the Torvik site at our 3%. He has a breakdown of % made overall vs % made on assisted shots. There is no way to tell how many of each players shots were assisted nor do I know how they collect the data but the results are pretty crazy IMO. I will list the overall % first and then the assisted %.

Cumberland...44...86
Jenifer...46...82
Scott...33...100
Williams...28...100
Broome...19...80
Johnson...33...100
Moore...25...67
Fredericks...25...100

It's crazy that Moore is the outlier here at 67% made 3's from assists. The rest are above 80%. Of course for many of these guys the sample is extremely small but I think you can see the point here. Outside of Cumberland most of these guys should just be looking for the assisted set shot when determining if they should take a 3.

if we had saturdays official scorer for the UNLV game 100% of moore's makes would have been assisted.

 

[waterhead]

The G-score or the game score on the Torvik site is interesting. It tells you how each game performance would compare to the rest of D1 teams. I averaged out what our rank would look like since the first 3 games.

An average that would equate to a top 17 team basically over the past 7 games. Two of the first three games would have ranked in the bottom 50% of D1.

The question becomes...is the top 17 number about who we are? Better? Worse?

 

[waterhead]

We all know Jenifer leads the country in assist to turnover ratio but I was looking at his offensive rating (ortg) on T-rank. At 140.4 that currently sits at #7 on his list but everyone ranked higher than him has a lower usage rate. So depending on how you look at the numbers he can be #1 in the country there as well. Nobody ranks higher than him with at least a 14.5 usage rate.

Keep up the good work JJ!