The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(Again, ESPNtheMag comes to me free with an ESPN Insider subscription - which is definitely worth the money for more info and more candid observations from blog and feature writers - I wouldn't pay a cent for this otherwise)

Latest ESPNtheMag issue is on Analytics and the feature article re: college basketball is on how detailed metrics show that Florida is the best team in the country this year...regardless of how they've been relatively ignored by pollsters. It had this paragraph about North Carolina which I thought was instructive after watching our players develop under Haase this season:

Quote:For those of you still in the dark about basketball's next-level revolution, DER stands for Defensive Efficiency Rating. And when it comes to advanced metrics in college hoops, efficiency is all the rage. To understand why, consider North Carolina last season: The Tar Heels made it to the Elite Eight. They finished 170th among D1 teams in scoring defense, allowing 67.1 points per game. But what that stat failed to account for is that UNC averaged 72.8 possessions per game, the 9th-fastest tempo in the country. Crunching the pace-adjusted numbers reveals that the Heels gave up a paltry 92.2 points per 100 possessions (or .922 points per possession). When adjusted based on schedule, that figure dips to 88.6 (.866 ppp), according to KenPom.com, good for 11th in D1.

[/quote]

I wonder how Loyola Marymount of several years ago would rank.

Nice to know that ESPN is using KenPom as a source.

(03-08-2013 12:58 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  Nice to know that ESPN is using KenPom as a source.

Imagine that!

Anybody know what Ken Pomeroy does at his real job? I already know.

........

It appears Pomeroy quit his government job as a meteorologist to give full time to his basketball data.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketba...rld-020513

(03-08-2013 12:58 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  Nice to know that ESPN is using KenPom as a source.

Not sure how that was intended, but analytics "sources" are quite a but different in that they've adopted the model established by the major Sabermetrics guys in baseball. Fans, teams, and media companies can get stats like WAR, ZR, FIP, etc. from different companies like Baseball-Reference.com but every company has their proprietary formulas...right now they just happen to be relatively equal in reputation (most teams also have their own analytics guys to supplement purchased data). In basketball, Pomeroy is one of many guys that generate the same or similar metrics with slightly differing, proprietary formulas. ESPN using Pom's number is just recognition that his numbers are respected (more than would ESPN's numbers if they started generating them tomorrow).

(03-08-2013 01:40 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote:  It appears Pomeroy quit his government job as a meteorologist to give full time to his basketball data.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketba...rld-020513

Good for him!! It will take about a dozen more solid analytics guys like him getting the recognition they deserve, however, to make up for the money and undeserved credit a hack like Jeff Sagarin has managed to collect.

Analytical guy, John Hollinger was able to parlay his job as the ESPN guru into a front office job with the Memphis Grizzlies. The new ownership is big on advanced analytical and brought him in. Oddly, his Trade Machine is still up and running on ESPN and when his analysis shown that Rudy Gay should be traded because he is not producing enough to compensate for what he's paid, the John Hollinger Trade Machine on ESPN said it was a bad trade. However the Grizzlies are like 9-2 since getting rid of Gay.

This reminds me of the movie Money Ball where it's more about reading between the lines on stats than the stats themselves

(03-08-2013 04:53 PM)blazerwkr Wrote:  This reminds me of the movie Money Ball where it's more about reading between the lines on stats than the stats themselves

That's good, because that's exactly what it is.

Trends! Look at the trends.

(03-08-2013 04:56 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 04:53 PM)blazerwkr Wrote:  This reminds me of the movie Money Ball where it's more about reading between the lines on stats than the stats themselves

That's good, because that's exactly what it is.

It was a matter of time before every sports organization had its own Billy Beane.

Either some geeky number cruncher in the flesh, or some algorithm for which to plug in numbers.

(03-08-2013 05:09 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 04:56 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 04:53 PM)blazerwkr Wrote:  This reminds me of the movie Money Ball where it's more about reading between the lines on stats than the stats themselves

That's good, because that's exactly what it is.

It was a matter of time before every sports organization had its own Billy Beane.

Either some geeky number cruncher in the flesh, or some algorithm for which to plug in numbers.

"Moneyball" is kind of a different animal. The genius of Billy Beane was identifying any slight edge the numbers gave him and using it to maximize $$'s being spent by the organization. That's where I think the frustration with Sabermetrics from older fans comes from. Batting AVG is batting AVG and ERA is ERA, but what does WAR mean? Is a guy with higher WAR better than other players? That kind of depends on how "better" is defined and under what conditions.

With certain players and certain (especially old-school) GMs, the leverage Beane gained was tremendous, but with some players it was only slight. Now, of course...and in baseball at least, the advantage one GM can possibly have over another from analytics is pretty small. So much so that some teams have hired mathematicians to find patterns based on the injury history of players, which has led to the nastiest behind the scenes dispute between teams right now (and it's spilled over to the NFL): how much information are teams required to reveal about their players' medical issues, how much can they legitimately use HIPPA as an excuse to withhold info, and is competitive edge a sufficient reason to withhold anything beyond that? Then there's the teams vs. the player unions: if teams think they can get an edge from medical issues only they have the full details about, where does the player's right to privacy begin and where does it end?

The Houston Rockets and a few other NBA teams have installed specialized cameras that track everything from player speed, time to full speed, and all their tendencies with and without the basketball. Supposedly, this information is why the Rockets were willing to pay a high dollar contract for Jeremy Lin and also obtain James Harden.

(03-09-2013 09:46 AM)jthrashr Wrote:  The Houston Rockets and a few other NBA teams have installed specialized cameras that track everything from player speed, time to full speed, and all their tendencies with and without the basketball. Supposedly, this information is why the Rockets were willing to pay a high dollar contract for Jeremy Lin and also obtain James Harden.

The upper-tier club soccer teams in Europe (so, not 100% of the top leagues, but the Champions League-level clubs) have their players wearing ultra-modern accelerometers ("ultra-modern" meaning they capture a LOT more than just speed/distance/acceleration).

(03-08-2013 09:47 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 05:09 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 04:56 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 04:53 PM)blazerwkr Wrote:  This reminds me of the movie Money Ball where it's more about reading between the lines on stats than the stats themselves

That's good, because that's exactly what it is.

It was a matter of time before every sports organization had its own Billy Beane.

Either some geeky number cruncher in the flesh, or some algorithm for which to plug in numbers.

"Moneyball" is kind of a different animal. The genius of Billy Beane was identifying any slight edge the numbers gave him and using it to maximize $$'s being spent by the organization. That's where I think the frustration with Sabermetrics from older fans comes from. Batting AVG is batting AVG and ERA is ERA, but what does WAR mean? Is a guy with higher WAR better than other players? That kind of depends on how "better" is defined and under what conditions.

With certain players and certain (especially old-school) GMs, the leverage Beane gained was tremendous, but with some players it was only slight. Now, of course...and in baseball at least, the advantage one GM can possibly have over another from analytics is pretty small. So much so that some teams have hired mathematicians to find patterns based on the injury history of players, which has led to the nastiest behind the scenes dispute between teams right now (and it's spilled over to the NFL): how much information are teams required to reveal about their players' medical issues, how much can they legitimately use HIPPA as an excuse to withhold info, and is competitive edge a sufficient reason to withhold anything beyond that? Then there's the teams vs. the player unions: if teams think they can get an edge from medical issues only they have the full details about, where does the player's right to privacy begin and where does it end?

Right. There's a huge difference between using the numbers to gain a competitive advantage in the long run, as opposed to what your original link is trying to accomplish. Beane wants to maximize the dollars he has to spend and put it in the places where it can generate the most value. But these numbers about UNC are just designed to educate fans and tell us more about the game and make it more interesting in the long run. And they do; this is great.

What I like most about it is how it takes someone like Vitale and explains with objective numbers how he's wrong about most everything he ever says about anything. So many people think the NBA (or a college team that runs like, say, Haase wants to run) are disregarding defense. But what these advanced metrics can prove is that the teams who do play defense in certain ways or play defense with an eye towards quick offense (regardless of how many points they give up, since that is only relevant if it's more than the other team) win more than they lose. It makes absolutely no difference what your "PPG against" is. It only matters as that number relates to the total possessions in a game, and simple averages over the course of a season don't convey that accurately all the time.

I don't understand a lot of this stuff. And WAR and OPS+ in baseball drive me particularly crazy, because I have to Google it every time I want to understand it, but it will eventually make the game more fun to follow.

But it's not exactly the same as what GMs are doing. They're related, but different. As a fan, I don't necessarily care if a player is overpaid or underpaid; I just want to know if he's good or bad. But a GM needs to know both whether he's good or bad, and whether his value matches, exceeds or falls short of his cost. And that's why there are so many Ivy League MBAs running professional franchises these days.

(03-11-2013 11:08 AM)freeblazer Wrote:  But it's not exactly the same as what GMs are doing. They're related, but different. As a fan, I don't necessarily care if a player is overpaid or underpaid; I just want to know if he's good or bad. But a GM needs to know both whether he's good or bad, and whether his value matches, exceeds or falls short of his cost. And that's why there are so many Ivy League MBAs running professional franchises these days.

And which players are due for a sharp jump in productivity or the dreaded "regression to the mean." Old-school folks, and old-guard analysts like Vitale, love to bash analytics (or not bother to understand when they are making them look stupid) because it turns sports into just "crunching numbers." But if you dug up a 19th century mathematician in the Arctic and thawed him out, all he would have to know is that there's a sport that has 100+ years of recorded history and where the rules have remained virtually the same...he would probably laugh at how obvious and easy it would be to analyze the present or even predict the future with a high degree of certainty with the luxury of so much history.

(03-11-2013 11:08 AM)freeblazer Wrote:  It only matters as that number relates to the total possessions in a game, and simple averages over the course of a season don't convey that accurately all the time.

That reminds me, in another part of the article it talks about a drill Billy Donovan runs in Florida practices. Many coaches, the article says, will send an offense 5x5 against a defense for 6 possessions and if the offense scores on any of those the defense runs AND those players stay on defense. Donovan does the same thing except the defense must keep the offense's points per possession (ppp) at 1.0 or less...so no more than 6 points in 6 possessions. The defense can give up back-to-back baskets but get 4 stops and be successful. Likewise, they can hold the offense to 4 points through 5 possessions but give up a 3 on the 6th and they fail.

Donovan says it makes sense to practice that way because that's how he wants his team to think during games. I thought that was pretty smart...

(03-11-2013 01:14 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:08 AM)freeblazer Wrote:  But it's not exactly the same as what GMs are doing. They're related, but different. As a fan, I don't necessarily care if a player is overpaid or underpaid; I just want to know if he's good or bad. But a GM needs to know both whether he's good or bad, and whether his value matches, exceeds or falls short of his cost. And that's why there are so many Ivy League MBAs running professional franchises these days.

And which players are due for a sharp jump in productivity or the dreaded "regression to the mean." Old-school folks, and old-guard analysts like Vitale, love to bash analytics (or not bother to understand when they are making them look stupid) because it turns sports into just "crunching numbers." But if you dug up a 19th century mathematician in the Arctic and thawed him out, all he would have to know is that there's a sport that has 100+ years of recorded history and where the rules have remained virtually the same...he would probably laugh at how obvious and easy it would be to analyze the present or even predict the future with a high degree of certainty with the luxury of so much history.

One of my favorite statistical trends right now is the one showing how stupid it is to give baseball players long-term contracts after the age of 30. There are obviously non-baseball-related reasons to do it sometimes (the Angels will sell infinitely more tickets because of Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton), but the decision to reward past performance with a long-term contract that starts at 30 or older when historical models demonstrate pretty conclusively that it's a huge mistake rarely works.

But it's almost too easy for smart people to win in baseball. Basketball advanced statistics are more interesting and complicated. The efficiency ratings and five-man unit statistics are really cool. And the new defensive analytics prove that people have been misunderstanding defense for almost as long as basketball has been played.

These numbers would have loved Squeaky, who was a great on-ball defender, but was at his best when he was full-on freaking out a post player who was petrified to put it on the floor even one time because he had no idea where Squeaky was. That's where most of his steals came from, and the havoc he created is what they're doing a better job of measuring. Squeaky was the best defensive basketball player in the country in 2006.

I remember Big Baby Davis jacking up threes because he couldn't get near the goal with the ball.

(03-11-2013 01:32 PM)freeblazer Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:14 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:08 AM)freeblazer Wrote:  But it's not exactly the same as what GMs are doing. They're related, but different. As a fan, I don't necessarily care if a player is overpaid or underpaid; I just want to know if he's good or bad. But a GM needs to know both whether he's good or bad, and whether his value matches, exceeds or falls short of his cost. And that's why there are so many Ivy League MBAs running professional franchises these days.

And which players are due for a sharp jump in productivity or the dreaded "regression to the mean." Old-school folks, and old-guard analysts like Vitale, love to bash analytics (or not bother to understand when they are making them look stupid) because it turns sports into just "crunching numbers." But if you dug up a 19th century mathematician in the Arctic and thawed him out, all he would have to know is that there's a sport that has 100+ years of recorded history and where the rules have remained virtually the same...he would probably laugh at how obvious and easy it would be to analyze the present or even predict the future with a high degree of certainty with the luxury of so much history.

One of my favorite statistical trends right now is the one showing how stupid it is to give baseball players long-term contracts after the age of 30. There are obviously non-baseball-related reasons to do it sometimes (the Angels will sell infinitely more tickets because of Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton), but the decision to reward past performance with a long-term contract that starts at 30 or older when historical models demonstrate pretty conclusively that it's a huge mistake rarely works.

But it's almost too easy for smart people to win in baseball. Basketball advanced statistics are more interesting and complicated. The efficiency ratings and five-man unit statistics are really cool. And the new defensive analytics prove that people have been misunderstanding defense for almost as long as basketball has been played.

These numbers would have loved Squeaky, who was a great on-ball defender, but was at his best when he was full-on freaking out a post player who was petrified to put it on the floor even one time because he had no idea where Squeaky was. That's where most of his steals came from, and the havoc he created is what they're doing a better job of measuring. Squeaky was the best defensive basketball player in the country in 2006.

I started a thread a couple of months ago about the Prouty efficiency ratings and ranked the Blazers of the past 10 years. Since then, I have been going over the stats of every player who ever wore a UAB uniform and when I am finish will rank the top20 or so. I can tell you this though. Oliver Robinson's senior year blows everyone out of the water and it isn't even close.