🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Our excellence in the regular season has meant it's really hard to exceed expectations in the tournament. When you're the number one seed, the only way to go is down. Sure, it would be nice to play to our seed every March. But if we'd get a crappy seed now and then, at least we'd have a chance to exceed expectations instead of just meet them.

Evaluations are strongly affected by expectations. A few years ago I attended 2 grad student defenses in the same week. They performed about the same. I was thrilled with one because I didn't think she was very sharp, and she did way better than I expected. I was disappointed by the other because she was really bright, creative, and hard-working, and I expected her performance to be outstanding. She did fine, but wasn't outstanding. Really made me think about how my expectations affected my evaluation of their performances.

So does Izzo sandbag it during the season, then turn it on in the post-season so he looks like a brilliant coach??? I sort of doubt it. But I do think it's harder to live up to your seed when you're consistently a 1 or 2 seed, like Self's teams.

@user_RCJH I agree, let's get the record for consecutive championships. Top UCLA. I like all-time records, even if it requires extensive therapy to deal with March depression for a couple more years.

But then let's quit dicking around at the local level and start establishing our national dominance.

@brooksmd I don't think they are dogging it intentionally. I just think they are young and don't know better. Alternatively, maybe their college coaches are holding them back. Dean Smith was criticized for not letting Michael Jordan blossom to the extent he could have at UNC, and I've heard speculation about Wiggins last year being kept in check by Self. I dunno, and I wouldn't blame the coaches if they had more faith in their system than an untried superstar. Takes a lot of faith to turn over your team's success to a teenager. But in most cases, I really doubt most young players are that selfish to hold back to avoid injury (at least KU's prospective OADs that I've paid attention to). Wouldn't it reflect better on them if they led their team to the glory of an NCAA championship???

@ParisHawk Yes, Embiid was indeed an outlier. But was he envisioned as an OAD when we recruited him? I think he was a savant! He just figured it out, and developed at a rate far exceeding anybody's expectations. It was phenomenal to watch his progress, see mistakes made early on that were never repeated. That was fun to watch. But not typical. Alexander, I fear, was the opposite. I don't want to knock him, but he didn't figure things out as quickly as expected.

And yes, I think Self has tried to change his stripes because of the negative effect on his recruiting. And I think he's been successful there. I don't think OADs are afraid to come to KU like they once might have been because individuals have been successful in the NBA draft, which is often their top priority when deciding on a school. That individual success just doesn't necessarily translate to team success.

@DCHawker You certainly can build a cabin with green wood, but it's not very common and takes some special techniques. Coach Self is a more traditional builder.

My main point was that OADs are almost always going to disappoint. It's not their fault; it's just the way it works now. We will never have another Danny Manning because it took him several years to become the player we think of, regardless of his superior talent from day 1.

@Crimsonorblue22 Has there ever been a one-and-done that we didn't expect more from? As long as the NBA drafts based on potential instead of performance, we're going to be disappointed with them. We will see flashes of that potential, buy they can't develop consistency in one year. They are teenagers, for heaven's sake! I never get too down on freshmen because they are freshmen, but we really can't expect too much from them either. They get scared on the road in front of hostile crowds. They don't know how to work hard, and don't realize they don't know, because they never really had to put forth sustained effort to be successful, and also because they are just teenagers. They just don't have time to live up to their potential, and so we will always be disappointed.

I really think all the issues this year, as a team, boil down to youth. Hard work and consistency take time to learn, and we're mostly trying to rely on freshmen and sophomores. But as long as the one-and-done culture remains, I don't see these issues getting any better.

@Crimsonorblue22 Yes, they are going to have to make some tough decisions.

@Crimsonorblue22 You're right! I should have kept reading.

For Kansas' participation, only U.S. citizens can compete and incoming freshmen and transfers qualify. The Kansas travel party, consisting of 12 competitors and staff (24 total), will leave Lawrence June 28 and live in the athlete village throughout the Games.

2015 World University Games, July 3-14, in Gwangju, Korea. We'll be playing against professionals from around the world.

Twenty-four teams will compete in the 2015 Games. There will be four pools of six teams each. Following pool competition, the teams will be seeded for bracket play with the top two teams from each pool battling for a medal.

Will our new recruits get to play? Will Svi have to choose whom to play for, Ukraine or KU?? Ukraine probably has plenty of alternatives, but I have no clue.

I'm not shattered, but I'm still bummed. It snowed overnight here, and is still snowing. Appropriate. Day of mourning indeed.

Luca 10 rebounds 0 points

@JayhawkRock78 It's just a straight linear regression of % vs attempts, ignoring chronology. Simple, probably simplistic, but interesting to me.

@HighEliteMajor Hey, you're right!
!Book1.tiff ↗

3 point accuracy increases with increased number of attempts (each point is a different game this year). I didn't expect that!

And variance seems to decrease with a greater number of attempts too....points are closer to the line when attempts>18. Which violates an assumption of regression, but what the hell.

Sorry, I know you just want to enjoy the game today. I'm actually at work, in my office, failing miserably at focussing on all the work I'd hoped to get done before the game. But you proposed a hypothesis, and I had the data at hand and couldn't resist taking a look.

Maybe I'll just give up and go home and have a beer.

@Crimsonorblue22 I can only imagine!

From what I've read, you've limited voting to a small subset of WSU fans. The rest would answer (a).

(I have no first hand experience, just my impression from far away)

@HighEliteMajor Yes, I'm a few weeks late in joining this discussion and the timing is lousy to think too much about data analysis. I'm amped!

@HighEliteMajor I’m not saying your strategy is wrong, but that it’s just more risky . Your advocacy of the 3 seems consistent with your belief that a national championship is worth more than a string of conference championships (pardon me if I’m not remembering that discussion correctly). Greater risk can bring greater reward. But the risk also means you can fall flat on your face, and Self appears to favor the more conservative strategy.

But more attempts per game, as you’ve advocated, also may lower the variance. Part of the reason our 2 pt percentage is more consistent that our 3 point percentage is we take more 2-point shots than 3-point shots, so the per-game shot percentage will stay closer to the long-term average. So perhaps if we let them fly, it would be a more reliable strategy?

@HighEliteMajor I agree it's the attempts, but it's really the expected value per attempt, and the variance in that expected value, that matter.

The expected value of a shot attempt is the probability a shot goes in times the number of points it produces. In general, a 2-point shot has a higher probability of going in, but nets fewer points. In the regular season we made 190/496 3-point attempts (38.3%) for an expected value of 1.15 points per shot. We made 568/1224 2-point attempts (46.4%) for an expected value of 0.93 points per shot. Clearly, on average, a 3-point attempt is more likely to produce more points.

However, those expected values also vary game to game. We played 31 games and in 20 of those games each 3 point attempt netted more points than each 2-point attempt (points per shot). But in the other 11 games, when the long shots weren’t falling, each 2-point shot earned more than each 3 point attempt.

It’s an issue of variance, which is often overlooked when percentages are bandied about in sports contexts. Game by game, there’s more variability in our 3-point percentage than our 2-point percentage. That greater variability suggests the 3 is less consistent/predictable/reliable than the 2. The variance is higher for the 3. Specifically, the coefficient of variation (st dev/mean) over 31 games this season is 39% for our 3-point percentage and 22% for our 2-point percentage. The variance in shot percentage was nearly twice as high for the 3 than the 2 (0.020 vs 0.011), and the variance in expected points per shot was over 4 times as high (0.183 vs 0.042).

I think that’s what Coach Self means by fool’s gold. You can’t rely on the 3 as predictably. It’s more risky. On average it can lead to higher success. But it can kill you in a single game if you count on shooting your average and it just happens to be a night where you’re shooting the low end of the range of percentages. In a single-elimination tournament a good team may be better off with a less risky strategy, one with lower variance.

That's fantastic. Way to mix in some academics and amusement with athletics. The little things we get joy from, in the midst of all the madness, is wonderful.

@Crimsonorblue22 Good food as well as beverages, seems an appropriate moniker

@Crimsonorblue22 Winnipeg. No online feed outside the US

@Crimsonorblue22 Great to hear. I just found a pub to watch the game. Missed most of it.

They are leaving Jamari open in the middle

!HaaseHoiberg.jpg ↗

@JayHawkFanToo said:

If KU makes it to the Elite 8 I would like its chances against UK, it would be like KU-OU in '88 when no one gave KU a chance.

KU had Danny Manning in 1988. This team does not.

@jaybate-1.0 said:

Still, between them and Jamari they can probably scratch out 15-20 of Perry's missing points and Our perimeter players will have to pick up the rest.

We got 30 points and 20 rebounds out of our three backup bigs last game. I'd take that again.

@RockChalkinTexas Translation: Self wanted a chance to kick K-State's ass.

@wissoxfan83 I disagree. I think @drgnslayr is the most interesting man in the world.

At KU, his majors were sailing, cigar appreciation, and the tango.

His two cents are worth thirty-seven dollars and change.

You can see his charisma from space.

He's a lover, not a fighter; but he's a fighter too, so don't get any ideas.

More knowledge and information is always good.

@Crimsonorblue22 Sure coaches love him. I do too. I just wish they would teach him how to rebound

@drgnslayr Cliff has had opportunities though, and has shown flashes of his potential. But too often he stands around and seems clueless. His clay seems to be taking awhile to cure (does clay cure? I probably screwed up the metaphor, but you get the point!). But I like him too, and he is young and has plenty of time to figure it out (if his family hasn't screwed up his opportunity).

@drgnslayr I agree, Embiid was a savant. He should get most of the credit for his progress. But you're right, this Jamari's 4th year at KU. Regardless of his late start in basketball, something isn't right that he hasn't picked up rebounding by now.

Cliff's progress has also been disappointing @Crimsonorblue22 but I'll give him a break because he's a freshman. Maybe a slow freshman, or a distracted freshman, but pretty young nonetheless.

@drgnslayr Jamari has certainly stepped up his offense the last 2 days, which has been wonderful to see. Scored double-figures in both games, following 15 games with single digits (including 5 goose eggs). But boxing out isn't something he seems to have figured out, although as you said many others certainly have.

Your point about our assistant coaches is interesting. The strength of our coaching staff was routinely praised a few years ago. Now Roberts and Howard have replaced Manning and Dooley and you don't hear the same sorts of things. I haven't heard anything negative either, but both Manning and Dooley used to receive high praise from many circles for their instruction and savvy.

But again, players are learning. Embiid's progress last year was beautiful to watch, to see fundamental mistakes early in the season that would disappear and never return after a single game. It was remarkable how quickly he picked things up. Same coaching staff. Maybe it IS just differences between players?

@drgnslayr Self preaches toughness too, and you'd think rebounding technique would be a point of emphasis for him from day 1. It's odd that Jamari doesn't have better technique. He seems to have the right attitude, and with his body type to go with it, he should be a rebounding machine. But he's not. Self obviously favors him, but he isn't the rebounder he should be. He's been here long enough and should have gotten proper instruction. I really don't get it.

@wrwlumpy Perfect illustration to complement the author's prose. Bravo.

@Crimsonorblue22 Too bad their vacated wins only go back to 2004. One more year and maybe we get another national championship!?!

I remember in the tournament a few years ago, TV showed Self in the locker room talking to his players. He told one of them to go take a leak. Somebody explained later that the player had to go pee in a cup for drug testing. Not all players, just one randomly chosen by the officials. I think it was before each game, maybe just in the tournament. No idea if or how they get tested during the season.

@DCHawker Somebody should teach Jamari how to block out. It's a teachable skill, and would make all the difference in the world for him.

@Crimsonorblue22 Darn! Are you there?!?

If Greene were playing I'd say sit Selden. Let's see what the other 8 scholarship players can do. This game has the potential to be a lot of fun, because we really don't know what's going to happen, or who will step up. There's no penalty for experimenting this game. Let's give some guys some opportunities to show us what they can do.

But we're pretty short-handed now, and I don't want to get blown out! So I'm really not sure.

@JayHawkFanToo I agree; models are as good as the assumptions they are based on. The hardest part of building a model, according to an old modeling prof of mine, is defining your assumptions and objectives, and making the assumptions explicit. The rest is trivial.

If you disagree with the model output, then you need to go back and look at the assumptions it was built on. I haven't done that, but clearly Pomeroy has weighted something incorrectly. His luck metric shows how far off he is. We don't like his model output because his projections for KU are way off. He's clearly made some false assumptions.

What's the purpose of the Big 12 Tournament? To give the rest of the league a chance to win something. Since the regular season championship has been kind of locked up for awhile.

Maybe we should look at the Big 12/SEC Challenge results.

2013: Big 12 won 7-3

2014: Big 12 won 6-4

Pretty good for an inferior conference.

This year's Kentucky team is a freak occurrence. Odds are they will end the season undefeated, first time that's happened in nearly 40 years. I don't think you can compare them to anybody. They made us look like scared little girls. We're not the same team now, and we'd probably do better than last time we played them, but the odds would still be strongly in their favor.

I agree with the premise that Big 12 teams beat each other up during the season, which could be detrimental in the post season. But the post script suggestion may be a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

Bad luck ;)

Luck is merely a low-probability outcome. If the outcome is good, it's good luck. If the outcome is bad, it's bad luck. I assume Pomeroy's luck metric reflects good luck. It suggests our team has exceeded expectations, which I suspect many of us would agree with. So this luck metric means unexplained success, some intangible that has not been included in the models predicting success.

Maybe luck reflects "toughness", or some other quality that's hard to quantify. I'd interpret that as a positive. Our team is doing better than predicted. That's good!

Yes, it’s all about the effort. Compare the 2 halves. In the 1st half we had 11 rebounds, 11 turnovers. 2nd half 18 rebounds, 5 turnovers. WVU killed is on the boards the first half, but each team had 18 in the second half. We tied! With these 2 teams, and this suite of players last night, I’ll take a tie in rebounds. Those 2 metrics just show how we finally stepped up the effort, and effort wins game when all you have is bad and ugly.

The law of averages doesn't help you in a single elimination tournament. It's the variance that kills you.

@MoonwalkMafia I wouldn't argue with you there. Then again, I wouldn't argue with our pretty successful coach either. I could imagine our buddy @jaybate-1.0 suggesting Self may have purposely sacrificed this one game by playing Jamari over Cliff for the long-term benefits of Cliff getting it figured out by tournament time. But what do I know???

@MoonwalkMafia I'm just speculating on the reason for the disparity in playing time Jesse pointed out, given the relative productivity of the 2 players. I'm not making an argument for what should be.

Self appears to value hustle, and seems more forgiving of errors when they are accompanied by great effort on a consistent basis. On the year Jamari has seemed a lot more consistent with his hustle than Cliff, who of course is a freshman and is still figuring it out.