Eff that. He’s real mad. So I guess we’ll have the discussion.

I still haven’t calculated pace-adjusted PER, so y’know gimme a minute.

For the record, I think Hodgson is a great player. I do think her stats are nationally significant & that she has a fair claim to POY. Not claiming otherwise. I disagree about the “more stats to share” bit, but whatever. I have a friend who likes to convince me that Lebron is clearly better than Michael through stats. We argue about it all the time. We just value those numbers differently. Honestly, I think it’s because he’s a baseball guy. Are you a baseball guy?

(03-10-2020 10:20 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  I still haven’t calculated pace-adjusted PER, so y’know gimme a minute.

For the record, I think Hodgson is a great player. I do think her stats are nationally significant & that she has a fair claim to POY. Not claiming otherwise. I disagree about the “more stats to share” bit, but whatever. I have a friend who likes to convince me that Lebron is clearly better than Michael through stats. We argue about it all the time. We just value those numbers differently. Honestly, I think it’s because he’s a baseball guy. Are you a baseball guy?

Clearly. I mentioned baseball in the previous post. By the way, anyone familiar with baseball’s WAR knows that it has its flaws and detractors.

I don’t see how you can counter the last line of my previous post. Stats matter. You only fall back on the intangibles when the stats are basically equal.

Sorry if I overlooked your baseball comment. Wasn’t trying to make a joke with the baseball thing. I just find it interesting that baseball people really love their stats.

Also, keep in mind, I’m a dumb guy. Feel like I’m getting yelled at for being genuinely stupid. I mean no harm.

(03-10-2020 08:36 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 08:16 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  If the argument is straight up stats (as you are throwing a LOT of stats out there), then playing on a team with other high-achieving players means there’s less stats to share.

Re your first sentence: I think I know what you mean to say - but it is ridiculous. There are actually MORE stats to share on high-performing teams! More points, thus more assists. More rebounds, blocks, and steals for good defensive teams (as JMU is). Think baseball and how the good teams score more runs and, generally, all their stats benefit. Think football and how scoring generally means higher stats.

That's not true in basketball though. From a Michael Lewis article (paywall but some free) on NBA GM Daryl Morey and Shane Battier:

Quote:There is a tension, peculiar to basketball, between the interests of the team and the interests of the individual. The game continually tempts the people who play it to do things that are not in the interest of the group. On the baseball field, it would be hard for a player to sacrifice his team’s interest for his own. Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team one: by doing what’s best for himself, the player nearly always also does what is best for his team. “There is no way to selfishly get across home plate,” as Morey puts it. “If instead of there being a lineup, I could muscle my way to the plate and hit every single time and damage the efficiency of the team — that would be the analogy. Manny Ramirez can’t take at-bats away from David Ortiz. We had a point guard in Boston who refused to pass the ball to a certain guy.” In football the coach has so much control over who gets the ball that selfishness winds up being self-defeating.
...
It turns out there is no statistic that a basketball player accumulates that cannot be amassed selfishly.

Wilt Chamberlain famously lost to the Celtics most of the time despite being better statistically than any of their players.

None of this is to say that Hodgson should not have been the POY. It's just to say that this is not the reason.

Also, HyperDuke, what you really want to know if he's a batting average guy or an OPS+ guy. And LeBron is the best player in the history of basketball.

Ugh that LeBron thing is gross to me, but I understand. Wish he knew how to consistently make a jump shot.

(03-10-2020 10:14 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Eff that. He’s real mad. So I guess we’ll have the discussion.

We're a mad group of nerds nowadays. Yep, a bit testy.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(03-10-2020 10:56 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 08:36 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 08:16 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  If the argument is straight up stats (as you are throwing a LOT of stats out there), then playing on a team with other high-achieving players means there’s less stats to share.

Re your first sentence: I think I know what you mean to say - but it is ridiculous. There are actually MORE stats to share on high-performing teams! More points, thus more assists. More rebounds, blocks, and steals for good defensive teams (as JMU is). Think baseball and how the good teams score more runs and, generally, all their stats benefit. Think football and how scoring generally means higher stats.

That's not true in basketball though. From a Michael Lewis article (paywall but some free) on NBA GM Daryl Morey and Shane Battier:

Quote:There is a tension, peculiar to basketball, between the interests of the team and the interests of the individual. The game continually tempts the people who play it to do things that are not in the interest of the group. On the baseball field, it would be hard for a player to sacrifice his team’s interest for his own. Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team one: by doing what’s best for himself, the player nearly always also does what is best for his team. “There is no way to selfishly get across home plate,” as Morey puts it. “If instead of there being a lineup, I could muscle my way to the plate and hit every single time and damage the efficiency of the team — that would be the analogy. Manny Ramirez can’t take at-bats away from David Ortiz. We had a point guard in Boston who refused to pass the ball to a certain guy.” In football the coach has so much control over who gets the ball that selfishness winds up being self-defeating.
...
It turns out there is no statistic that a basketball player accumulates that cannot be amassed selfishly.

Wilt Chamberlain famously lost to the Celtics most of the time despite being better statistically than any of their players.

None of this is to say that Hodgson should not have been the POY. It's just to say that this is not the reason.

Also, HyperDuke, what you really want to know if he's a batting average guy or an OPS+ guy. And LeBron is the best player in the history of basketball.

Your quote and points missed the point that I was making. My point was that the higher producing teams produce more stats. With more total stats involved, there are more to go around (not less to go around, because of sharing, which was Hyper's point). So, for example, since JMU is the highest scoring team in the league (over 71 points per game) then there are more total points to go around and thus Smalls should have more of them. With more points there are also more assists (Smalls is not even on the list of assist leaders in the CAA). With more points, there are more possessions; thus there are more offensive rebounds. The other team gets more possessions, too, so there are more chances for steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds. So, remember, my point was to rebut Hyper's claim that Smalls suffered because her teammates were drawing from her stats.

Also, Wilt Chamberlain lost to the Celtics because not only was Bill Russell also a great player but Russell had a much better supporting cast. But Chamberlain found 20,000 different ways to take solace.

I think that the notion that Kamiah upped her game because she wanted to beat Hodgson’s stats is ludicrous. I am certain that Kamiah was not keeping track of anyone’s stats during the season.

Hodgson is a very good player. Is she as good as Kamiah? Nope. Will she be as good when she is a senior? Maybe. She definitely has the potential. It will be fun to watch her-except when we are playing each other!

Hope to see some of you at the tournament this week.

Kamiah tells Sean when she plays lol. He's just a figure-head. Kamiah decides her minutes.

Zorch, I understood your point. Look up usage rate.

(03-10-2020 11:20 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 10:56 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 08:36 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(03-10-2020 08:16 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  If the argument is straight up stats (as you are throwing a LOT of stats out there), then playing on a team with other high-achieving players means there’s less stats to share.

Re your first sentence: I think I know what you mean to say - but it is ridiculous. There are actually MORE stats to share on high-performing teams! More points, thus more assists. More rebounds, blocks, and steals for good defensive teams (as JMU is). Think baseball and how the good teams score more runs and, generally, all their stats benefit. Think football and how scoring generally means higher stats.

That's not true in basketball though. From a Michael Lewis article (paywall but some free) on NBA GM Daryl Morey and Shane Battier:

Quote:There is a tension, peculiar to basketball, between the interests of the team and the interests of the individual. The game continually tempts the people who play it to do things that are not in the interest of the group. On the baseball field, it would be hard for a player to sacrifice his team’s interest for his own. Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team one: by doing what’s best for himself, the player nearly always also does what is best for his team. “There is no way to selfishly get across home plate,” as Morey puts it. “If instead of there being a lineup, I could muscle my way to the plate and hit every single time and damage the efficiency of the team — that would be the analogy. Manny Ramirez can’t take at-bats away from David Ortiz. We had a point guard in Boston who refused to pass the ball to a certain guy.” In football the coach has so much control over who gets the ball that selfishness winds up being self-defeating.
...
It turns out there is no statistic that a basketball player accumulates that cannot be amassed selfishly.

Wilt Chamberlain famously lost to the Celtics most of the time despite being better statistically than any of their players.

None of this is to say that Hodgson should not have been the POY. It's just to say that this is not the reason.

Also, HyperDuke, what you really want to know if he's a batting average guy or an OPS+ guy. And LeBron is the best player in the history of basketball.

Your quote and points missed the point that I was making. My point was that the higher producing teams produce more stats. With more total stats involved, there are more to go around (not less to go around, because of sharing, which was Hyper's point). So, for example, since JMU is the highest scoring team in the league (over 71 points per game) then there are more total points to go around and thus Smalls should have more of them. With more points there are also more assists (Smalls is not even on the list of assist leaders in the CAA). With more points, there are more possessions; thus there are more offensive rebounds. The other team gets more possessions, too, so there are more chances for steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds. So, remember, my point was to rebut Hyper's claim that Smalls suffered because her teammates were drawing from her stats.

Also, Wilt Chamberlain lost to the Celtics because not only was Bill Russell also a great player but Russell had a much better supporting cast. But Chamberlain found 20,000 different ways to take solace.

That is a extremely clever way of describing Wilt's life.

I'd bet Eva(and Nate too for that matter) would give up any individual accolade for a tournament title. Might be a fun few days. The Tribe needs some fun. March is a depressing month for us generally.

(03-11-2020 09:56 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  Zorch, I understood your point. Look up usage rate.

I understand usage rate but I looked it up anyway. From https://www.nbastuffer.com/analytics101/usage-rate/

"Usage Rate
Usage rate, a.k.a., usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.

Usage Rate Formula
100*((Player’s Field Goal Attempts)+0.44*(Player’s Free Throw Attempts)+(Player’s Turnovers))*(Team’s Total Minutes)
/
((Team’s Total Field Goal Attempts)+0.44*(Team’s Total Free Throw Attempts)+Team’s Total Turnovers))*5*(Player’s Minutes)

By balancing usage rates and the varying offensive ratings of the five players on the court, a team can achieve optimal offensive output. The stats show that, for all players, as the player uses more possessions, his efficiency decreases. What defines a superstar, in Dean Oliver‘s statistical analysis, is that he can shoulder a larger proportion of a team’s possessions with only a relatively small drop in efficiency. Meanwhile, the opposite is also true: players perform more efficiently when they are asked to use fewer of their team’s possessions. As a result, the greater burden on the superstar means that supporting players maintain low usage rates, allowing them to operate closer to their peak efficiency."

So...

I get it that you and Hyper are saying that Smalls' usage rate is lower and Hodgson's is higher. That matches this line: "By balancing usage rates and the varying offensive ratings of the five players on the court, a team can achieve optimal offensive output." No one is denying that JMU is the better team; that they have not achieved a more optimal offensive output system than the Tribe (they won 4 more league games and beat the Tribe twice). However, the POY award does not go to the best team, or even to the best player on the best team -- it supposedly goes to the best player, period.

There is this: "What defines a superstar, in Dean Oliver‘s statistical analysis, is that he can shoulder a larger proportion of a team’s possessions with only a relatively small drop in efficiency." Thus, due to perceived talent constraints on the current Tribe roster, Eva has had to shoulder more of a burden than Smalls, and has done so successfully.

And: "As a result, the greater burden on the superstar means that supporting players maintain low usage rates, allowing them to operate closer to their peak efficiency." That sounds like a good thing for the other Tribe players.

I noticed that the formula above does not include any data for assists. So that formula is all about shooting and scoring. Don't forget that Hodgson is tied for fourth in the league in assists, has fewer turnovers per game than Smalls, and is tied for 5th in assist-to-turnover ratio. Smalls does not even make the league lists for assists. So, hey, Hodgson is not just scoring, she is helping her team score, too.

Furthermore, what is being ignored is not just that Hodgson leads in total points, average ppg, and total free throws but that she also leads the league in overall shooting percentage, 3-point shooting percentage, and free throw percentage. So it is not just total points based on volume but also a higher success rate every time she does shoot.

Then there is this line: "The stats show that, for all players, as the player uses more possessions, his efficiency decreases." So, if Hodgson racked up the stellar league-leading stats (especially the league-leading shooting percentages) that she did while her efficiency was decreasing, then good heavens, imagine what her percentages would be if her efficiency, and the efficiency of the team, improved when she had more capable teammates around her (that is the devil's advocate talking -- I have no problem with Eva's current teammates; sure, everyone could be a little better, even Eva).

There seem to be a lot of ways (minutes played, usage rates) for folks to try to get around the front-and-center facts that Hodgson beat Smalls in 9 categories to 2, that Hodgson led the league in five categories (5 important categories), and that Hodgson was the only player in America (as of last week, I don't know if anyone else has reached it as of this week) who has shot 50-40-90. C'mon folks, there really is no defense other than the College Career Achievement Award ("Best Senior") for Smalls to get it. What if Hodgson was also a senior? If anyone actually cared in the national media, the CAA would look like idiots for ignoring Hodgson.

I'm just glad that most of the JMU team are seniors and we won't have to face them next year.

(03-11-2020 11:54 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  I'm just glad that most of the JMU team are seniors and we won't have to face them next year.

Well, they do have Kiki Jefferson who won CAA Rookie of the Year this year (that award was deserved). So I'm sure that they will be well-stocked and a favorite again next year (although hopefully not THE favorite).

(03-11-2020 11:25 AM)Zorch Wrote:  If anyone actually cared in the national media, the CAA would look like idiots for ignoring Hodgson.

IMO 1st-Team is not being ignored. Was Kamiah ignored last year when she wasn't chosen POY despite being the best basketball player in the league? Nope, she just didn't win POY.

BTW, PER is a b*tch to calculate. I'm gonna use this site's fairly accurate interpretation to help simplify the process (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1131...l-the-mess). But I'll post both player's PER limited to CAA-only stats. If Eva has a higher CAA-only PER, I'll be surprised.


Formula is:
[ FGM x 85.910
+ Steals x 53.897
+ 3PTM x 51.757
+ FTM x 46.845
+ Blocks x 39.190
+ Offensive_Reb x 39.190
+ Assists x 34.677
+ Defensive_Reb x 14.707
- Foul x 17.174
- FT_Miss x 20.091
- FG_Miss x 39.190
- TO x 53.897 ]
x (1 / Minutes).

All my comments skeptical of the Eva vs Kamiah outrage should not overshadow just how good W&M's team is this year. Eva is the prime player with all the skills, but the team as a whole is playing very well the last few years.

(03-11-2020 03:35 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  All my comments skeptical of the Eva vs Kamiah outrage should not overshadow just how good W&M's team is this year. Eva is the prime player with all the skills, but the team as a whole is playing very well the last few years.

O.bliv.i.on

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk