Offensive Efficiency

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

And I know the competition that we have played isn't the strongest, but in most of our games, the backups have played the last 8 minutes or so. How many PPG would we score if our starters were playing 30+ minutes a game.

But it's a huge positive for our bench to get meaningful minutues. I would rather our starters' minutes be where they are right now rather than, say, XU's starters, where they are at 35+ minutes per game.
 
bearcat18 said:
But it's a huge positive for our bench to get meaningful minutues. I would rather our starters' minutes be where they are right now rather than, say, XU's starters, where they are at 35+ minutes per game.
Click to expand...

Yes. Especially considering that BE play is around the corner. We need our starters going in fresh.
 
people still use ppg totals as determining a quality of an offense?

I thought this was a thread about offensive efficiency...aka points scored per possession ala ken pom style of evaluating an offense
 
ervins84 said:
people still use ppg totals as determining a quality of an offense?

I thought this was a thread about offensive efficiency...aka points scored per possession ala ken pom style of evaluating an offense
Click to expand...

I'm not that large of a geek. :D

If you enjoy that sort of thing then more power to you and by all means I think it would be cool if you started a thread tracking those type of stats to follow the team's progress.

I simply took the four main statistical categories listed on the UC front page on ESPN to use as a baseline to begin discussion.
 
psax889906 said:
I'm not that large of a geek. :D

If you enjoy that sort of thing then more power to you and by all means I think it would be cool if you started a thread tracking those type of stats to follow the team's progress.

I simply took the four main statistical categories listed on the UC front page on ESPN to use as a baseline to begin discussion.
Click to expand...


i dont have to track or chart anything. its all readily available and updated daily on www.kenpom.com.


kenpom.png
 
Jesus that's a lot of numbers... lol

I've never gotten into the KenPom stuff much... just like I've never gotten into sabermetrics (SP?) much in baseball. I've seen the evidence that backs the accuracy of it all and give props to the guys that do it, though.

From a quick scan though, it all pretty much states what we've seen from the 'Cats thus far this year:

-Very strong defensively.
-Limit turnovers.
-Mediocre FT shooting.
-Crappy schedule thus far.
 
psax889906 said:
Jesus that's a lot of numbers... lol

I've never gotten into the KenPom stuff much... just like I've never gotten into sabermetrics (SP?) much in baseball. I've seen the evidence that backs the accuracy of it all and give props to the guys that do it, though.

From a quick scan though, it all pretty much states what we've seen from the 'Cats thus far this year:

-Very strong defensively.
-Limit turnovers.
-Mediocre FT shooting.
-Crappy schedule thus far.
Click to expand...

pretty much.

i mean, like in any sport if you only use one method of evaluating a team/player than a person wont get the full picture.

However, i think in basketball points per possession shouldnt even be viewed as "nerdy" geek stats bc i think if we really stop and think for a second, which team would we say is better offensively(Assuming the same opponent for team A and B).

team A. 70 possessions and scored 71 points
team B 60 possessions and scored 71 points



its just always irked me to no end when teams that play at a super slow pace automatically get labeled as being a "great defense" bc they dont allow a ton of points. Well, duh...theyre gonna always be on the lowest end of the spectrum for points allowed per game bc theres fewer possessions for BOTH teams to score. Similarly, teams that play offense at a break neck pace often get labeled as a "high powered offense" when many times they can be some of the least efficient teams.

off my soapbox and /rant

Ken Poms stats are by no means the end/all be all but by the year 2020 we will be seeing PPP (pt per poss) listed right next to PPG :) and i think its a better/more accurate gauge of a teams ability to score/stop people from scoring.
 
Last edited:
I was only joking with my "Nerdy" comment... it's all good. :)

And I agree with your overall assessment. I think the old eye test tells a lot. In UC's case, very good with the potential to be great defensively and good with a chance to be very good offensively, imo.
 
Back
Top