(12-13-2017 10:53 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 09:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 09:45 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 09:06 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  If your complaint is that Mick Cronin teams give up too many easy baskets you just don't know what you're talking about.

Wow. I think you need to watch more games and take a break from stats.

I literally watch every single uc game. I watch other teams too... almost every team gives up more easy looks than uc. It's literally the thing mick Cronin coached teams do better than almost any team in the country. Uc being among the leaders in effective fg percentage every year isn't an accident. They are not just absurdly lucky and teams just miss easy shots against them more than everyone else.

MmmmmK, more stats? My eye test says Mick's "help" D gives up a ship load of open looks from 3 point land. Teams that drop those (eggs!) bury us.

Yes it is hard to beat teams when they are hot shooting. Every team gives up some open looks. UC just gives up far less than everyone else (and the numbers reflect it year after year). Sorry I don't trust your eye over my eye plus all the data available.

Even when a team gets hot against UC for a stretch you won't see the complete defensive collapse you see from others, because UC still makes it harder to get open looks. Look at Xavier against Arizona State. Arizona State was scorching hot and it compounded because X gives up way more good looks then UC. The Sundevils scored 102 points that game they hit 13 three point shots (at nearly a 50% clip) and shot 62% inside the arc. Even the teams we complain about getting hot at UC are mostly working much harder to get looks and have far fewer good looks. But this is college basketball. You are not going to prevent every team from ever getting a look at the basket. UC is still better at preventing good looks than about anyone (Virginia is probably the best year in and year out).

I swear some UC fans must watch games through a drinking straw.

(12-14-2017 07:17 AM)Topkat Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 08:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 08:27 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  It seems to me that Mick tends to recruit athletes more than basketball players. As a result we see teams break down our defense for easy baskets repeatedly.

wait what?

UC's 4th in kenpom adj defense, 8th in effective field goal percentage defense, as 2nd in 2point defense. They put up these kind of numbers or somewhat close to it every single year. They give up fewer easy buckets than almost any team in the country.

I don't really know a lot about Kenpom, but the stats you are using , to me, used by themselves, are in a vacuum.

I don't subscribe to the Kenpom site to get all the breakdowns, but it seems from his main page, you would also have to factor in that UC is #4 in Kenpom adj def... but their opponents adj off to date ranks 277 (pretty low).

So, are we playing really good defense, or playing against poor offensive teams. Same for our #47 adj off. Our opponents adj def to date ranks #262 (poor).

All are adjusted numbers.

Does Kenpom do any figures for say, the last three games? That would be X, Fla and Miss St (good competition)?

The only "kenpom" specific stat I used was adjusted defense. I like that stat precisely because it adjusts to competition level. For example. UC's adjusted defensive efficiency is 89.1 points per 100 possessions. Against Florida UC gave up 97 points per 100 possessions, but its defensive efficiency actually was better after the game. The reason for that is pretty obvious, Florida is a top 25 offense. UC isn't going to hold them like they would an average team. It was still a good defensive performance.

Uc's defensive performance against Mississippi State was pretty spectacular. They gave up 76 points per 100 possessions.

The other numbers I cited aren't complicated or anything. Effective shooting percentage simply weight 3 point shots. 3 point shots are worth 1.5 times as much as 2 point shots. So a team shooting say 33% from 3 is roughly worth shooting 50% from 2. It's a good stat because teams are going to shoot worse if they shoot a bunch of 3s against you, but if you give up a bunch of open 3s and teams are hitting 40% against you, you are not doing a good job on defense.

Two point defense is just what it sounds like... what teams shoot inside the arc against you. It's a good stat because if you are good on that end teams aren't usually getting easy buckets at the rim against you. My point is this, plenty to complain about with UC....if you're complaining about them giving up too many easy baskets you're nuts. The list of teams that give up less easy opportunities than UC can probably be counted on one hand.

(12-14-2017 12:12 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I love this place sometimes.

Mick’s style has UC behind only Kansas, Gonzaga, Duke, Michigan State and Wisconsin in current longest consecutive streaks in appearing in the NCAA Tourny.

We're justifiably proud of that streak as UC fans. And if we asked college basketball fans around the country, only UC fans would know (or care) about that statistic. All or most of those other teams have had at least one Final Four or Championship game during that stretch.

No denying UC's defense is terrific. But quality opponents are going to find ways to score and UC's offense has not consistently shown the ability to run with the big dogs--or even some smaller dogs in those NCAA Tourney games (Harvard, Creighton).

(12-13-2017 10:15 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 09:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 09:45 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 09:06 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  If your complaint is that Mick Cronin teams give up too many easy baskets you just don't know what you're talking about.

Wow. I think you need to watch more games and take a break from stats.

I literally watch every single uc game. I watch other teams too... almost every team gives up more easy looks than uc. It's literally the thing mick Cronin coached teams do better than almost any team in the country. Uc being among the leaders in effective fg percentage every year isn't an accident. They are not just absurdly lucky and teams just miss easy shots against them more than everyone else.

Mark, that is awesome and all, but what exactly has it done for us?

What it's done is take UC back from it's self imposed death penalty, earned UC 7 straight NCAA tournaments, a 30 win season last year, one conference title in a year the top of the AAC was loaded, fairly regular top 25 births, a preseason top 15 team this year.

We can have a reasonable debate on is this as far as Cronin can take the program. We can have a reasonable debate on whether the offense will ever break through to the point it needs for UC to be a real threat (the offense has been significantly better the last 2 years than the years before, but still not where it needs to be for UC to be a top 10-15). UC having an issue with giving up too many easy looks is just counter to reality any way you slice it.

I like this team. I think this is still likely to be Cronin's breakthrough team (protected seed, sweet 16 and hopefully beyond), but the Xavier/Florida stretch were disappointing and I get why people are frustrated. I still am going to respond to silly, inaccurate narratives about the defense.

If you're going to die on the Anti-Cronin hill, maybe pick a better issue than UC gives up too many easy baskets.

he lacks the basketball acumen to be elite. he gets by like he has, hustle. the supreme mediocre overachiever. i say that with the utmost respect. there's few who've hustled as hard. how he gets giant muscular athletes to respect him is pretty amazing considering his stature. thank god he's a fiery irishman. i was curious to see if players would transfer after he fondled vegas. i was more worried we would lose evans and cumberland

Mick's style? I think its improved over the years...

(12-14-2017 08:34 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:12 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I love this place sometimes.

Mick’s style has UC behind only Kansas, Gonzaga, Duke, Michigan State and Wisconsin in current longest consecutive streaks in appearing in the NCAA Tourny.

We're justifiably proud of that streak as UC fans. And if we asked college basketball fans around the country, only UC fans would know (or care) about that statistic. All or most of those other teams have had at least one Final Four or Championship game during that stretch.

No denying UC's defense is terrific. But quality opponents are going to find ways to score and UC's offense has not consistently shown the ability to run with the big dogs--or even some smaller dogs in those NCAA Tourney games (Harvard, Creighton).

No most people aren’t proud of the accomplishments of this programnunder Mick. We are like a bunch of spoiled brats anymore. Folks set the bar by unreasonably expecting UC to be a blue blood and it’s just not and never will be. And frankly despite a (mostly) great run for the decade after the final 4 has not been elite since before the Beatles played the Ed Sullivan Show.

The next time someone says UC’s defense is the problem, just point and laugh.

i for one, rath, don't know any better

Mark vs The World!!!


My money is on Mark.

(12-14-2017 12:47 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Mark vs The World!!!


My money is on Mark.

Wise investment.

I see what you are getting at with Kenpom, but I don't see the utility in it due to the November scheduling, even though they try to adjust every teams off and def ratings.

At least with this site I can view the past 1 game or past 3 games defensive efficiency ratings in addition to the whole year.

For instance, if I sort by the last 3 games on defensive efficiency, UC drops down to the 90's in the ratings (even though they are at #2 for the year). Or, set the calendar to begin whatever date you choose (useful when league play starts and everyone plays pretty much the same schedule).

Tells me a lot more when the schedule toughens up, and what to look for when the tourney starts and you filter out the Coppin State games on the schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...2017-12-14

(12-14-2017 01:10 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I see what you are getting at with Kenpom, but I don't see the utility in it due to the November scheduling, even though they try to adjust every teams off and def ratings.

At least with this site I can view the past 1 game or past 3 games defensive efficiency ratings in addition to the whole year.

For instance, if I sort by the last 3 games on defensive efficiency, UC drops down to the 90's in the ratings (even though they are at #2 for the year). Or, set the calendar to begin whatever date you choose (useful when league play starts).

Tells me a lot more when the schedule toughens up, and what to look for when the tourney starts and you filter out the Coppin State games on the schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...2017-12-14

That's not helpful though unless you compare other teams defensive efficiency when they play Mississippi State, Xavier and Florida. Your taking 3 difficult games and comparing them to other teams in their last 3. Do you really think Duquense and NC-Greensboro are the first and second best defenses because of the last 3 games? You are adjusting UC for competition but not adjusting anyone else. Kenpom's numbers adjust everyone.

(12-14-2017 01:10 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I see what you are getting at with Kenpom, but I don't see the utility in it due to the November scheduling, even though they try to adjust every teams off and def ratings.

At least with this site I can view the past 1 game or past 3 games defensive efficiency ratings in addition to the whole year.

For instance, if I sort by the last 3 games on defensive efficiency, UC drops down to the 90's in the ratings (even though they are at #2 for the year).

Tells me a lot more when the schedule toughens up, and what to look for when the tourney starts and you filter out the Coppin State games on the schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...2017-12-14

This is why I totally can't get on board with KenPom. IMO, I would like to see a metric that only accounted for 100 and under RPI teams, or 150 at the most. I think of some of Bo Ryans Wisconsin teams, they never seemed to blow out out anybody even the cupcakes. But still beat all the good teams and by a comfortable 10 point margin. UC seems to really pound some of these scrubs which inflates their computer numbers sometimes.

But I know Mark knows way more about this than me, so if I'm completely wrong, I will hang up and listen.

(12-14-2017 12:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:47 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Mark vs The World!!!


My money is on Mark.

Wise investment.

(12-14-2017 01:19 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:10 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I see what you are getting at with Kenpom, but I don't see the utility in it due to the November scheduling, even though they try to adjust every teams off and def ratings.

At least with this site I can view the past 1 game or past 3 games defensive efficiency ratings in addition to the whole year.

For instance, if I sort by the last 3 games on defensive efficiency, UC drops down to the 90's in the ratings (even though they are at #2 for the year). Or, set the calendar to begin whatever date you choose (useful when league play starts).

Tells me a lot more when the schedule toughens up, and what to look for when the tourney starts and you filter out the Coppin State games on the schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...2017-12-14

That's not helpful though unless you compare other teams defensive efficiency when they play Mississippi State, Xavier and Florida. Your taking 3 difficult games and comparing them to other teams in their last 3. Do you really think Duquense and NC-Greensboro are the first and second best defenses because of the last 3 games? You are adjusting UC for competition but not adjusting anyone else. Kenpom's numbers adjust everyone.

Obviously not, but I would bet you most power conference school schedules are more closely related than what occurs in November.

It's not hard to omit the Wis-Green Bays of the world from that 3 game stretch.

The schedules only correlate more for the power conferences once league play starts. You can filter out the November scheduling once into league play. November is kind of useless, imo... unless you are invited to a some kind of Classic or tournament with a good field.

(12-14-2017 01:27 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:19 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:10 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I see what you are getting at with Kenpom, but I don't see the utility in it due to the November scheduling, even though they try to adjust every teams off and def ratings.

At least with this site I can view the past 1 game or past 3 games defensive efficiency ratings in addition to the whole year.

For instance, if I sort by the last 3 games on defensive efficiency, UC drops down to the 90's in the ratings (even though they are at #2 for the year). Or, set the calendar to begin whatever date you choose (useful when league play starts).

Tells me a lot more when the schedule toughens up, and what to look for when the tourney starts and you filter out the Coppin State games on the schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...2017-12-14

That's not helpful though unless you compare other teams defensive efficiency when they play Mississippi State, Xavier and Florida. Your taking 3 difficult games and comparing them to other teams in their last 3. Do you really think Duquense and NC-Greensboro are the first and second best defenses because of the last 3 games? You are adjusting UC for competition but not adjusting anyone else. Kenpom's numbers adjust everyone.

Obviously not, but I would bet you most power conference school schedules are more closely related than what occurs in November.

It's not hard to omit the Wis-Green Bays of the world from that 3 game stretch.

The schedules only correlate more for the power conferences once league play starts.

I've started clicking on teams going down the list and I don't agree at all.

Rutgers played: 12/07 NJIT W 73-64 Home 7-3 0-2
12/09 F Dickinson W 92-54 Home 8-3 0-2
12/12 Fordham W 75-63

Michigan State played:
12/03 Nebraska W 86-57 Home 7-1 1-0
12/05 Rutgers W 62-52 Away 8-1 2-0
12/09 S Utah W 88-63 Home

Texas A&M played
12/05 Arizona L 64-67 Neutral 7-1 0-0
12/09 Prairie View W 73-53 Home 8-1 0-0
12/13 Savannah St W 113-66 Home 9-1 0-0

Louisville played
12/06 Siena W 86-60 Home 5-2 0-0
12/09 Indiana W 71-62 Home 6-2 0-0
12/11 Bryant W 102-59 Home 7-2 0-0

Illinois played:
12/06 Austin Peay W 64-57 Home 7-3 0-2
12/09 UNLV L 82-89 Away 7-4 0-2
12/13 Longwood W 92-45 Home 8-4 0-2

Purdue played:
12/03 Northwestern W 74-69 Home 8-2 2-0
12/07 Valparaiso W 80-50 Home 9-2 2-0
12/10 IUPUI W 86-61 Home 10-2 2-0

Virginia played:
11/27 Wisconsin W 49-37 Home 7-0 0-0
12/02 Lehigh W 75-54 Home 8-0 0-0
12/05 W Virginia L 61-68 Away 8-1 0-0

Mississippi State played:
12/03 Dayton W 61-59 Home 7-0 0-0
12/09 North Georgia W 95-62 Home 8-0 0-0
12/12 Cincinnati L 50-65 Away 8-1 0-0

And that's just the top. Go down the list. You won't find a comparable last 3. Taking those 3 games in isolation and not comparing them to 3 similar games for the other teams in the list, tells you next to nothing. It's why you need adjusted efficiency numbers to get a better picture.

You all act like UC is some random, unique outlier every season. Newflash...all the other top flight defenses also dominate almost all of their buy games. UC isn't some weird team that these rankings fail to provide a proper adjustment for.

(12-14-2017 01:39 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:27 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:19 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:10 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I see what you are getting at with Kenpom, but I don't see the utility in it due to the November scheduling, even though they try to adjust every teams off and def ratings.

At least with this site I can view the past 1 game or past 3 games defensive efficiency ratings in addition to the whole year.

For instance, if I sort by the last 3 games on defensive efficiency, UC drops down to the 90's in the ratings (even though they are at #2 for the year). Or, set the calendar to begin whatever date you choose (useful when league play starts).

Tells me a lot more when the schedule toughens up, and what to look for when the tourney starts and you filter out the Coppin State games on the schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...2017-12-14

That's not helpful though unless you compare other teams defensive efficiency when they play Mississippi State, Xavier and Florida. Your taking 3 difficult games and comparing them to other teams in their last 3. Do you really think Duquense and NC-Greensboro are the first and second best defenses because of the last 3 games? You are adjusting UC for competition but not adjusting anyone else. Kenpom's numbers adjust everyone.

Obviously not, but I would bet you most power conference school schedules are more closely related than what occurs in November.

It's not hard to omit the Wis-Green Bays of the world from that 3 game stretch.

The schedules only correlate more for the power conferences once league play starts.

I've started clicking on teams going down the list and I don't agree at all.

Rutgers played: 12/07 NJIT W 73-64 Home 7-3 0-2
12/09 F Dickinson W 92-54 Home 8-3 0-2
12/12 Fordham W 75-63

Michigan State played:
12/03 Nebraska W 86-57 Home 7-1 1-0
12/05 Rutgers W 62-52 Away 8-1 2-0
12/09 S Utah W 88-63 Home

Texas A&M played
12/05 Arizona L 64-67 Neutral 7-1 0-0
12/09 Prairie View W 73-53 Home 8-1 0-0
12/13 Savannah St W 113-66 Home 9-1 0-0

Louisville played
12/06 Siena W 86-60 Home 5-2 0-0
12/09 Indiana W 71-62 Home 6-2 0-0
12/11 Bryant W 102-59 Home 7-2 0-0

Illinois played:
12/06 Austin Peay W 64-57 Home 7-3 0-2
12/09 UNLV L 82-89 Away 7-4 0-2
12/13 Longwood W 92-45 Home 8-4 0-2

Purdue played:
12/03 Northwestern W 74-69 Home 8-2 2-0
12/07 Valparaiso W 80-50 Home 9-2 2-0
12/10 IUPUI W 86-61 Home 10-2 2-0

Virginia played:
11/27 Wisconsin W 49-37 Home 7-0 0-0
12/02 Lehigh W 75-54 Home 8-0 0-0
12/05 W Virginia L 61-68 Away 8-1 0-0

Mississippi State played:
12/03 Dayton W 61-59 Home 7-0 0-0
12/09 North Georgia W 95-62 Home 8-0 0-0
12/12 Cincinnati L 50-65 Away 8-1 0-0

And that's just the top. Go down the list. You won't find a comparable last 3. Taking those 3 games in isolation and not comparing them to 3 similar games for the other teams in the list, tells you next to nothing. It's why you need adjusted efficiency numbers to get a better picture.

That's closer than using November games where our 5-10 players averaged 15-20 minutes per game while other teams opened in Classics and tourneys with Top 150 games, no matter how you adjust.

Its only going to correlate more when league play starts in January. I can filter out Nov or Nov/Dec in March.

I'm not sure why you are complaining about the schedules... Miss St, I didn't think, was a huge test. Florida just got beat 3 straight prior.

(12-14-2017 01:55 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:39 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:27 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:19 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:10 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I see what you are getting at with Kenpom, but I don't see the utility in it due to the November scheduling, even though they try to adjust every teams off and def ratings.

At least with this site I can view the past 1 game or past 3 games defensive efficiency ratings in addition to the whole year.

For instance, if I sort by the last 3 games on defensive efficiency, UC drops down to the 90's in the ratings (even though they are at #2 for the year). Or, set the calendar to begin whatever date you choose (useful when league play starts).

Tells me a lot more when the schedule toughens up, and what to look for when the tourney starts and you filter out the Coppin State games on the schedule.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...2017-12-14

That's not helpful though unless you compare other teams defensive efficiency when they play Mississippi State, Xavier and Florida. Your taking 3 difficult games and comparing them to other teams in their last 3. Do you really think Duquense and NC-Greensboro are the first and second best defenses because of the last 3 games? You are adjusting UC for competition but not adjusting anyone else. Kenpom's numbers adjust everyone.

Obviously not, but I would bet you most power conference school schedules are more closely related than what occurs in November.

It's not hard to omit the Wis-Green Bays of the world from that 3 game stretch.

The schedules only correlate more for the power conferences once league play starts.

I've started clicking on teams going down the list and I don't agree at all.

Rutgers played: 12/07 NJIT W 73-64 Home 7-3 0-2
12/09 F Dickinson W 92-54 Home 8-3 0-2
12/12 Fordham W 75-63

Michigan State played:
12/03 Nebraska W 86-57 Home 7-1 1-0
12/05 Rutgers W 62-52 Away 8-1 2-0
12/09 S Utah W 88-63 Home

Texas A&M played
12/05 Arizona L 64-67 Neutral 7-1 0-0
12/09 Prairie View W 73-53 Home 8-1 0-0
12/13 Savannah St W 113-66 Home 9-1 0-0

Louisville played
12/06 Siena W 86-60 Home 5-2 0-0
12/09 Indiana W 71-62 Home 6-2 0-0
12/11 Bryant W 102-59 Home 7-2 0-0

Illinois played:
12/06 Austin Peay W 64-57 Home 7-3 0-2
12/09 UNLV L 82-89 Away 7-4 0-2
12/13 Longwood W 92-45 Home 8-4 0-2

Purdue played:
12/03 Northwestern W 74-69 Home 8-2 2-0
12/07 Valparaiso W 80-50 Home 9-2 2-0
12/10 IUPUI W 86-61 Home 10-2 2-0

Virginia played:
11/27 Wisconsin W 49-37 Home 7-0 0-0
12/02 Lehigh W 75-54 Home 8-0 0-0
12/05 W Virginia L 61-68 Away 8-1 0-0

Mississippi State played:
12/03 Dayton W 61-59 Home 7-0 0-0
12/09 North Georgia W 95-62 Home 8-0 0-0
12/12 Cincinnati L 50-65 Away 8-1 0-0

And that's just the top. Go down the list. You won't find a comparable last 3. Taking those 3 games in isolation and not comparing them to 3 similar games for the other teams in the list, tells you next to nothing. It's why you need adjusted efficiency numbers to get a better picture.

That's closer than using November games where our 5-10 players averaged 15-20 minutes per game while other teams opened in Classics and tourneys with Top 150 games, no matter how you adjust.

Its only going to correlate more when league play starts in January. I can filter out Nov or Nov/Dec in March.

No it's just not, but there's clearly no way to convince you of it. Illinois literally played the 3 kind of buy games UC was playing early. A&M played 2 of those. In 3 game sample sizes even 1 game against dramatically different competition will complete screw things up.

Again a system like kenpom adjusts for competition level. It adjusts for blowouts against bad teams (of which UC is not the only team to have those games). UC isn't some weird outlier every single season. From the stats projections UC's adjusted defense stayed almost the same in the 3 game stretch against tough competition as it did before it. It dropped against Xavier as UC had a down defensive game, but went up against Florida and Mississippi State(actually against Miss St. the UC defense had its best game of the year when adjusting for competition) as UC performed like you'd expect a top 5 defense to perform in those games.