Conference Stats

[fan of Ray Williams]

Not all teams have played 6 games

Maurice Walker leads the Big Ten in offensive rebounds with 26 in 6 games averaging 4.3. #2 overall averaging 8.7
Walker is #3 in FG% at .552, DeAndre Mathieu is #11 at .500
Andre Hollins is #7 in FT%, making 16 of 18
Carlos Morris, Walker and Nate Mason are tied at #2 for steals per game, averaging 2
Hollins is #4 averaging 2.5 3-pt FG's per game. King is #11 averaging 1.8
Walker averages 1 blocked shot per game, #13

Team wise
Gophers 5th in scoring offense at 69.8 (Nebraska last at 59.4)
Scoring defense, 13th at 72.5 (Nebraska leads at 60.4)
Minnesota leads the conference in offensive rebounds averaging 12.8
Minnesota is last in the conference in defensive rebounds averaging 19.8
Second in steals at 8.2 a game.
Third in the conference with 7.5 3 pointers made per game.
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2014-2015/confonly.html#conf.wki

 

[Dr.Don]

All that matters is B1G wins!!!

 

[station19]

All that matters is B1G wins!!!

A Stat is .444444 of the way to Station19

 

[Gopher Warrior]

SEE CAPS IN QUOTE BELOW for a different way to look at results...

Not all teams have played 6 games
Maurice Walker leads the Big Ten in offensive rebounds with 26 in 6 games averaging 4.3. #2 overall averaging 8.7 -- #1 BY FAR – EXCELLENT!
Walker is #3 in FG% at .552, DeAndre Mathieu is #11 at .500 – WALKER #28 IN eFG%; MATHIEU #24.
Carlos Morris, Walker and Nate Mason are tied at #2 for steals per game, averaging 2 – WALKER #2; MASON & MORRIS TIED FOR #3 IN STEAL %
Walker averages 1 blocked shot per game, #13 – WALKER’S BLK % IS ONLY 4.0%, #19 IN BIG TEN. ISSUE.

Team wise
Gophers 5th in scoring offense at 69.8 (Nebraska last at 59.4) – 5TH IN OFFENSIVE EFFICIENCY; NEBRASKA #10
Scoring defense, 13th at 72.5 (Nebraska leads at 60.4) – MINNESOTA DEAD LAST IN DEFENSIVE EFFICIENCY; NEBRASKA #5
Minnesota leads the conference in offensive rebounds averaging 12.8 – MINNESOTA #3 IN OR%
Minnesota is last in the conference in defensive rebounds averaging 19.8 – MINNESOTA DEAD LAST IN DR%; ISSUE.
Second in steals at 8.2 a game. -- #2 STEAL RATE
Third in the conference with 7.5 3 pointers made per game. – FREQUENCY OF 3PA VS. TOTAL FGA IS #7 IN BIG TEN; 3FG% IS 6TH BEST; PTS FROM 3FGM AS % OF TOTAL PTS SCORED = #5
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2014-2015/confonly.html#conf.wki

 

[fan of Ray Williams]

SEE CAPS IN QUOTE BELOW for a different way to look at results...

Thanks.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

SEE CAPS IN QUOTE BELOW for a different way to look at results...

Don't take this personally, but if you're going to throw out these types of newer stats (or "analytics") - could you include an index so us old fuddy-duddies have a freakin' clue what you're talking about?

It drives me nuts when people assume that everyone is into these new stats and understands what they mean. I see it all the time in baseball articles - the guys on ESPN1500 are always throwing out these new stats, and I don't have a clue what they are or what they're supposed to show.

Call me a bitter old man, but when I watch a game, if a guy is making shots and getting rebounds, I think he's a good player. If a guy is missing shots or not getting rebounds, he's not as good. I'm sure the "new stats" crowd could spend hours explaining why their "new stats" reveal hidden truths that I'm missing with the naked eye, but the whole thing just turns me off. To me, it's a way of someone saying "I'm smarter than you."

"Hey, you darn kids with your new-fangled stats - get off my lawn!"

 

[Gopher Warrior]

Don't take this personally, but if you're going to throw out these types of newer stats (or "analytics") - could you include an index so us old fuddy-duddies have a freakin' clue what you're talking about?

It drives me nuts when people assume that everyone is into these new stats and understands what they mean. I see it all the time in baseball articles - the guys on ESPN1500 are always throwing out these new stats, and I don't have a clue what they are or what they're supposed to show.

Call me a bitter old man, but when I watch a game, if a guy is making shots and getting rebounds, I think he's a good player. If a guy is missing shots or not getting rebounds, he's not as good. I'm sure the "new stats" crowd could spend hours explaining why their "new stats" reveal hidden truths that I'm missing with the naked eye, but the whole thing just turns me off. To me, it's a way of someone saying "I'm smarter than you."

To me, your post is a way of admitting you're lazy and comfortable with ignorance. That's OK.

Now, baseball is an entirely different animal. The concepts of the basketball statistics I referred to above are quite basic and simple. Baseball cats come up with new things daily...making up crap just to make it up at times.

For basketball.. the first level of 'advanced stats' simply recognize straightforward concepts such as: not all games have the same amount of possessions; a 3-point basket counts as 3 points while a 2-point basket counts as 2 points; a defensive rebound is generally easier to get than an offensive rebound.

Nothing cutesy or clever about the first level. Granted, I like to dive far deeper but don't bother anyone here with that stuff.

 

[station19]

To me, your post is a way of admitting you're lazy and comfortable with ignorance. That's OK.

Now, baseball is an entirely different animal. The concepts of the basketball statistics I referred to above are quite basic and simple. Baseball cats come up with new things daily...making up crap just to make it up at times.

For basketball.. the first level of 'advanced stats' simply recognize straightforward concepts such as: not all games have the same amount of possessions; a 3-point basket counts as 3 points while a 2-point basket counts as 2 points; a defensive rebound is generally easier to get than an offensive rebound.

Nothing cutesy or clever about the first level. Granted, I like to dive far deeper but don't bother anyone here with that stuff.

Proving again how much of an a$$ you are.

 

[Cayman]

Don't take this personally, but if you're going to throw out these types of newer stats (or "analytics") - could you include an index so us old fuddy-duddies have a freakin' clue what you're talking about?

It drives me nuts when people assume that everyone is into these new stats and understands what they mean. I see it all the time in baseball articles - the guys on ESPN1500 are always throwing out these new stats, and I don't have a clue what they are or what they're supposed to show.

Call me a bitter old man, but when I watch a game, if a guy is making shots and getting rebounds, I think he's a good player. If a guy is missing shots or not getting rebounds, he's not as good. I'm sure the "new stats" crowd could spend hours explaining why their "new stats" reveal hidden truths that I'm missing with the naked eye, but the whole thing just turns me off. To me, it's a way of someone saying "I'm smarter than you."

"Hey, you darn kids with your new-fangled stats - get off my lawn!"

I'm certainly no stats guru, but I believe some of GW's stats are "per possession" stats instead of "per game" stats. I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong.

Suppose Team A wins every game by a score of 100-80, and Team B wins every game by a score of 50-40. Per game stats would tell you that Team A's offense is light years ahead of Team B's, and that Team B's defense is much better than Team A's. But this could just be because Team A plays faster, and gets twice as many possessions per game. Offensive efficiency measures how many points a team scores in 100 possessions. So if Team A is scoring 100 points in 100 possessions every game, and Team B is scoring 50 points in 50 possessions every game, they would have the same offensive efficiency of 100, even though points per game would tell you that Team A's offense is better than Team B's.

Nebraska is 14th in the Big Ten in points per game, but 10th in offensive efficiency. This could mean that Nebraska is playing slower than some of the other teams who score more points per game, but have lower offensive efficiency. These teams probably score more points because they play faster and get more possessions per game. If Team A gets 50 points in a 50 possession game, and Team B gets 60 points in an 80 possession game, Team A will have a better offensive efficiency even though Team B scored more points.

For field goal percentage (FG%) vs effective field goal percentage (eFG%), eFG% takes into account the fact that 3 point shots are worth more points than 2 point shots. If Team A only shoots 3's and makes 40% of them, they will score 1.2 points per possession, and if Team B only shoots 2's and makes 50%, they will score 1 point per possession. Team A has a lower FG% even though they score more points per possession, however they would have a higher eFG% because their shots are worth more points. And then there is another statistic called true shooting percentage which takes free throws into account as well.

I believe most of these stats are just "per possession" stats instead of "per game" stats, because teams that play faster and get more possessions will tend to score more points, give up more points, record more blocks, steals, rebounds etc., so the "per possession" stats are more informative.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Interesting responses. Gopher Warrior Insults me, and Cayman tries to answer my question.

and GW: For basketball.. the first level of 'advanced stats' simply recognize straightforward concepts such as: not all games have the same amount of possessions; a 3-point basket counts as 3 points while a 2-point basket counts as 2 points; a defensive rebound is generally easier to get than an offensive rebound.

Yes, I understand those concepts. Silly me - I tend to assume that anyone who follows basketball closely would understand those concepts. I'm just not familiar with the terminology you use to express those concepts. If you walk into a room, and people are speaking a foreign language, you're not going to join the conversation, unless someone offers to translate. All I'm asking for is a little translation. Instead, what I got from you was insults and a condescending attitude. You must have flunked that Dale Carnegie course.

 

[lakesgopher]

Interesting responses. Gopher Warrior Insults me, and Cayman tries to answer my question. and GW: For basketball.. the first level of 'advanced stats' simply recognize straightforward concepts such as: not all games have the same amount of possessions; a 3-point basket counts as 3 points while a 2-point basket counts as 2 points; a defensive rebound is generally easier to get than an offensive rebound. Yes, I understand those concepts. Silly me - I tend to assume that anyone who follows basketball closely would understand those concepts. I'm just not familiar with the terminology you use to express those concepts. If you walk into a room, and people are speaking a foreign language, you're not going to join the conversation, unless someone offers to translate. All I'm asking for is a little translation. Instead, what I got from you was insults and a condescending attitude. You must have flunked that Dale Carnegie course.

Just ignore GW, the guy is a dick

 

[Gopher Warrior]

Your view:

All I'm asking for is a little translation. Instead, what I got from you was insults and a condescending attitude.

My view:
You weren't just asking for "a little translation." You asked for a little translation, then proceeded to indicate that even if I spent hours attempting to address your request, you're simply turned off by entire idea of "new stats." In your view, you warned, I was being condescending.

In other words, you essentially said, "Hey pal, do me a favor and explain this to me. By the way, you're a jerk for even using these terms and even I don't really want you to explain it to me - the whole idea turns me off and you're a condescending pr*** no matter how you respond to this."

I'm sure the "new stats" crowd could spend hours explaining why their "new stats" reveal hidden truths that I'm missing with the naked eye, but the whole thing just turns me off. To me, it's a way of someone saying "I'm smarter than you."

Still, I gave you some basics.

Honestly, most people REALLY struggle with the simple truth that 3 point baskets count as 3 points and 2 point baskets are credited only 2. Accept that truth and you'll be ahead of the pack.

...and next time you want an answer to something, consider not following up your question with "I don't really care what the answer is, you condescending jerk!"

 

[station19]

Time for GW to go visit Parski.

HINT HINT....

 

[bemidjigopher]

Your view:


My view:
You weren't just asking for "a little translation." You asked for a little translation, then proceeded to indicate that even if I spent hours attempting to address your request, you're simply turned off by entire idea of "new stats." In your view, you warned, I was being condescending.

In other words, you essentially said, "Hey pal, do me a favor and explain this to me. By the way, you're a jerk for even using these terms and even I don't really want you to explain it to me - the whole idea turns me off and you're a condescending pr*** no matter how you respond to this."



Still, I gave you some basics.

Honestly, most people REALLY struggle with the simple truth that 3 point baskets count as 3 points and 2 point baskets are credited only 2. Accept that truth and you'll be ahead of the pack.

...and next time you want an answer to something, consider not following up your question with "I don't really care what the answer is, you condescending jerk!"

Don't worry we all think you're a condescending prick

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Your view:


My view:
You weren't just asking for "a little translation." You asked for a little translation, then proceeded to indicate that even if I spent hours attempting to address your request, you're simply turned off by entire idea of "new stats." In your view, you warned, I was being condescending.

In other words, you essentially said, "Hey pal, do me a favor and explain this to me. By the way, you're a jerk for even using these terms and even I don't really want you to explain it to me - the whole idea turns me off and you're a condescending pr*** no matter how you respond to this."



Still, I gave you some basics.

Honestly, most people REALLY struggle with the simple truth that 3 point baskets count as 3 points and 2 point baskets are credited only 2. Accept that truth and you'll be ahead of the pack.

...and next time you want an answer to something, consider not following up your question with "I don't really care what the answer is, you condescending jerk!"

Fine - you win. You're a better person than me. You know more about basketball than I do. I'm an idiot for not knowing what eFG% is. Everyone on this board should be thrilled that you give some of your precious time to educate all of us rubes about the finer points of basketball.

There, now are you happy?

 

[bemidjigopher]

Fine - you win. You're a better person than me. You know more about basketball than I do. I'm an idiot for not knowing what eFG% is. Everyone on this board should be thrilled that you give some of your precious time to educate all of us rubes about the finer points of basketball.

There, now are you happy?

You win the internet. Snap, crackle and pop