Interesting Stats

[PlayerRep]

Pr, honest question, no smack intended:

is it your objective to piss off each and every poster on the board -- including those who do nothing but post great information without ever stirring up any discontent -- by being a complete DB all the time?

No, I tend only to go back after posters who have started hammering or picking at me first, or posters whom I believe unduly hammer players and coaches.

Honest question for you. Do you ever provide substantive information or analysis on basketball or football, or do you just made non-substantive posts, pick at other posters, and diss FCS and the Big Sky conference?

Well, you're either lying or mistaken, because Poto did NOT "hammer" or "pick" on you first. He simply made what most of us agree was a more significant, relevant post when compared to yours. And of course your ridiculously gigantic ego couldn't allow that, so you replied like a complete DB. Mind you, this is hardly uncharted territory for you.

Yes. While I have and make use of a sense of humor on the board, I also make many substantive posts. Telling the truth about the fcs and the bsc are included in those. Unlike you, seemingly, I'm capable of making critical analysis of things I like.

Have a nice day. Try to get some rest.

Nope, I posted factual and interesting stats, and Potomac took issue when them and said there were better ones. Then, he started getting surprisingly nasty. Jeez, look at his post that he had "edited for snack". It was still a bit nasty. You don't tell the truth about FCS or the conference; you unfairly diss them. Shows me that you don't know what you're talking about in that regard either.

 

[PlayerRep]

Based upon this thread's original premise... some "interesting stats" introduced by PlayerRep, I've found it to be quite enlightening for me overall. (I'm attempting to sidestep the odd personal rancor which I believe is counterproductive at best.)

The divergent statistical (not coaching; not talent; not shooting) analyses provide some predictive views:

Prompted by Potomac and Grizfan-24, I took a look at the Big Sky stats page and the KenPom stats, and concluded that, when I filtered to conference only games, I got a much better look at this team's strong & weak points and their chances (health permitting) over the next 6 weeks. (I had not previously looked at the KenPom conference only stats until reading 24's post)

Grizfan-24's advanced metric analysis seems VERY accurate. In brief, Montana will need better perimeter shooting (best if it comes from a wing), consistent scoring production from a third player (beyond MB and WW), the ability to produce offensively against zone D, and a reduction of the number or % of turnovers. This ignores challenges the Griz face against specific teams (Cats on Saturday will be a big one)... but IF or WHETHER or WHEN the Griz can score from the perimeter with more consistency is a hard one to predict with this team.

Glad you got something out of the thread. However, none of those things involved the reason I started the thread. Also, if you look only at the conference stats, you won't see the improvement that UM has made over the season in certain areas, you won't see the improvement of certain players have made, and you won't see the extent of the inconsistency (both the team and certain players). For example, you would be left thinking that WW had been a terrific 3-pt shooter for the season. He hasn't been. He had a very low percentage early on, then started improved, and then had a several very high percentages. I didn't look at what you say you just looked at, but I don't see how you could possibly understand UM's weak points by looking only at conference stats.

 

[EverettGriz]

No, I tend only to go back after posters who have started hammering or picking at me first, or posters whom I believe unduly hammer players and coaches.

Honest question for you. Do you ever provide substantive information or analysis on basketball or football, or do you just made non-substantive posts, pick at other posters, and diss FCS and the Big Sky conference?

4:02 and 4:05 AM! Wow!

PR has many issues; insomnia is one of the minor ones.

Everett, this is a prime example of the reason I asked you the above question (Do you ever provide substantive information or analysis on basketball or football, or do you just made non-substantive posts, pick at other posters, and diss FCS and the Big Sky conference?). You had nothing of benefit to the board, you just snip away.

Oh, and I'm a great sleeper. Always have been. When flights depart at 5:40am, you need to get up early.

Oh cry me a fucking river.

The only people I snip at are cat fans and people with ginormous egos who cannot admit they are wrong. And rarely if ever do I fire first.

 

[Mousegriz]

Cha Ching....Cha Ching.....Cha Ching......PR's pickin' 'em off right and left...just ask him.

"He hasn't been. He had a very low percentage early on, then started improved, and then had a several very high percentages." What?

What are "tournies"? Most of us haven't been to too many "tournies" . Some of us to a few "tourneys". Are you really an atourknee?

 

[rocklobster]

Wow! Interesting stats!

 

[PlayerRep]

4:02 and 4:05 AM! Wow!

PR has many issues; insomnia is one of the minor ones.

Everett, this is a prime example of the reason I asked you the above question (Do you ever provide substantive information or analysis on basketball or football, or do you just made non-substantive posts, pick at other posters, and diss FCS and the Big Sky conference?). You had nothing of benefit to the board, you just snip away.

Oh, and I'm a great sleeper. Always have been. When flights depart at 5:40am, you need to get up early.

Oh cry me a f***[*] river.

The only people I snip at are cat fans and people with ginormous egos who cannot admit they are wrong. And rarely if ever do I fire first.

And the non-substantive crap directed at other posters just keeps on coming from you. You really are like grizindabox, except you have zero athletic knowledge or information. Wonder if it's because you're both from Washington.

 

[PlayerRep]

Cha Ching....Cha Ching.....Cha Ching......PR's pickin' 'em off right and left...just ask him.

"He hasn't been. He had a very low percentage early on, then started improved, and then had a several very high percentages." What?

What are "tournies"? Most of us haven't been to too many "tournies" . Some of us to a few "tourneys". Are you really an atourknee?

So, typos are your best retort. Probably not even near the bench.

 

[EverettGriz]

PR has many issues; insomnia is one of the minor ones.

Everett, this is a prime example of the reason I asked you the above question (Do you ever provide substantive information or analysis on basketball or football, or do you just made non-substantive posts, pick at other posters, and diss FCS and the Big Sky conference?). You had nothing of benefit to the board, you just snip away.

Oh, and I'm a great sleeper. Always have been. When flights depart at 5:40am, you need to get up early.

Oh cry me a f***[*] river.

The only people I snip at are cat fans and people with ginormous egos who cannot admit they are wrong. And rarely if ever do I fire first.

And the non-substantive crap directed at other posters just keeps on coming from you. You really are like grizindabox, except you have zero athletic knowledge or information. Wonder if it's because you're both from Washington.

And the pompous gigantic ego crap from you just keeps coming.

But I don't need to wonder why that is.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

Based upon this thread's original premise... some "interesting stats" introduced by PlayerRep, I've found it to be quite enlightening for me overall. (I'm attempting to sidestep the odd personal rancor which I believe is counterproductive at best.)

The divergent statistical (not coaching; not talent; not shooting) analyses provide some predictive views:

Prompted by Potomac and Grizfan-24, I took a look at the Big Sky stats page and the KenPom stats, and concluded that, when I filtered to conference only games, I got a much better look at this team's strong & weak points and their chances (health permitting) over the next 6 weeks. (I had not previously looked at the KenPom conference only stats until reading 24's post)

Grizfan-24's advanced metric analysis seems VERY accurate. In brief, Montana will need better perimeter shooting (best if it comes from a wing), consistent scoring production from a third player (beyond MB and WW), the ability to produce offensively against zone D, and a reduction of the number or % of turnovers. This ignores challenges the Griz face against specific teams (Cats on Saturday will be a big one)... but IF or WHETHER or WHEN the Griz can score from the perimeter with more consistency is a hard one to predict with this team.

Glad you got something out of the thread. However, none of those things involved the reason I started the thread. Also, if you look only at the conference stats, you won't see the improvement that UM has made over the season in certain areas, you won't see the improvement of certain players have made, and you won't see the extent of the inconsistency (both the team and certain players). For example, you would be left thinking that WW had been a terrific 3-pt shooter for the season. He hasn't been. He had a very low percentage early on, then started improved, and then had a several very high percentages. I didn't look at what you say you just looked at, but I don't see how you could possibly understand UM's weak points by looking only at conference stats.

You make a very strong case for using all-game stats upon which to develop a Griz team profile for this season. You are right, specifically about individual player development. And, I agree that this team has evolved significantly (in mostly positive ways) and to see that development, all game stats should be examined. In fact, I see the all-games stats as a measure of team growth from game one to game 19. In doing so, we can see that the general "minutes-logged" by some players has changed (flip-flopped) significantly as conference play began.

But that led me to consider it instructive to look at conference stats which -- with a more stable lineup -- might more accurately reflect the team performance using players currently logging the most minutes (the smaller depth rotation, as it turns out).

Additionally -- as the conference season nears its halfway mark -- comparing Montana's performance in conference play against teams very familiar with our style of play (down to knowing our alternating inbounds schemes!) I observed trends by analyzing conference-only stats that I consider reliable (I hope) indicators for predicting How the Griz will perform from here out... AND for predicting how they'll fare by not having to play Idaho and EWU a second time.

Maybe the best answer is to examine both statistical measures, since there's value in looking at the broader picture.

 

[mtgrizrule]

You know what is most interesting here? The fact that people are arguing over various aspects of stats being interesting or not!!! Honestly to God, arguing over something this petty is ridiculous. I've seen way too many petty arguments on the football board, but this one has to take the cake.

This goes to show different people think different things are important on any given subject. If you feel one way, great. If one feels the opposite, great. If you feel somewhere between, great. Honestly, no need to turn something like this into what it turned into.

I know I like this team and the fact they take pride in FG% defense and despite how well the offense is or is not doing, they always play tough in your face defense. Offensively, the continuity has improved a lot during conference play. This team gets a lot of open shots, and very seldom has to force things to make the offense work. That is a great sign. The shots fall some games and don't in others. IF and when the shots start falling consistently, this team will go from being a very good team, to a great team. They will have spurts where they are an excellent team.

In my opinion, being better than a great team hinges on finding scoring consistency beyond Breunig and Wright. I feel Oguine and Gfeller, are the biggest keys to that part of the formula.

 

[PlayerRep]

Based upon this thread's original premise... some "interesting stats" introduced by PlayerRep, I've found it to be quite enlightening for me overall. (I'm attempting to sidestep the odd personal rancor which I believe is counterproductive at best.)

The divergent statistical (not coaching; not talent; not shooting) analyses provide some predictive views:

Prompted by Potomac and Grizfan-24, I took a look at the Big Sky stats page and the KenPom stats, and concluded that, when I filtered to conference only games, I got a much better look at this team's strong & weak points and their chances (health permitting) over the next 6 weeks. (I had not previously looked at the KenPom conference only stats until reading 24's post)

Grizfan-24's advanced metric analysis seems VERY accurate. In brief, Montana will need better perimeter shooting (best if it comes from a wing), consistent scoring production from a third player (beyond MB and WW), the ability to produce offensively against zone D, and a reduction of the number or % of turnovers. This ignores challenges the Griz face against specific teams (Cats on Saturday will be a big one)... but IF or WHETHER or WHEN the Griz can score from the perimeter with more consistency is a hard one to predict with this team.

Glad you got something out of the thread. However, none of those things involved the reason I started the thread. Also, if you look only at the conference stats, you won't see the improvement that UM has made over the season in certain areas, you won't see the improvement of certain players have made, and you won't see the extent of the inconsistency (both the team and certain players). For example, you would be left thinking that WW had been a terrific 3-pt shooter for the season. He hasn't been. He had a very low percentage early on, then started improved, and then had a several very high percentages. I didn't look at what you say you just looked at, but I don't see how you could possibly understand UM's weak points by looking only at conference stats.

You make a very strong case for using all-game stats upon which to develop a Griz team profile for this season. You are right, specifically about individual player development. And, I agree that this team has evolved significantly (in mostly positive ways) and to see that development, all game stats should be examined. In fact, I see the all-games stats as a measure of team growth from game one to game 19. In doing so, we can see that the general "minutes-logged" by some players has changed (flip-flopped) significantly as conference play began.

But that led me to consider it instructive to look at conference stats which -- with a more stable lineup -- might more accurately reflect the team performance using players currently logging the most minutes (the smaller depth rotation, as it turns out).

Additionally -- as the conference season nears its halfway mark -- comparing Montana's performance in conference play against teams very familiar with our style of play (down to knowing our alternating inbounds schemes!) I observed trends by analyzing conference-only stats that I consider reliable (I hope) indicators for predicting How the Griz will perform from here out... AND for predicting how they'll fare by not having to play Idaho and EWU a second time.

Maybe the best answer is to examine both statistical measures, since there's value in looking at the broader picture.

I agree with you. I agree that the conference stats may be more indicative of where the team and individuals are now and how they will do the rest of season, largely because they are more recent. However, like you said, both sets should be looked at to get the best information (from stats). One small point to note is that UM has been moving Lopez and Krslovic back and forth in the starting lineup since later in December.

Again, however, note that the reason for the thread was not to analyze stats or make any comparisons, it was merely to post what I considered to be interesting stats. UM didn't rank nearly as high, and in fact was quite low in some, as I assumed they would be. That was why I thought them to be interesting. I had also looked at the conference stats. And on the interesting point, my season stats are more interesting than the conference stats.

 

[PlayerRep]

Everett, this is a prime example of the reason I asked you the above question (Do you ever provide substantive information or analysis on basketball or football, or do you just made non-substantive posts, pick at other posters, and diss FCS and the Big Sky conference?). You had nothing of benefit to the board, you just snip away.

Oh, and I'm a great sleeper. Always have been. When flights depart at 5:40am, you need to get up early.

Oh cry me a f***[*] river.

The only people I snip at are cat fans and people with ginormous egos who cannot admit they are wrong. And rarely if ever do I fire first.

And the non-substantive crap directed at other posters just keeps on coming from you. You really are like grizindabox, except you have zero athletic knowledge or information. Wonder if it's because you're both from Washington.

And the pompous gigantic ego crap from you just keeps coming.

But I don't need to wonder why that is.

So, I take it that you support this type of post from Potomac? Note that he says he edited the post for snark. Also note that he edited the post 6 times, presumably to get the "snark" out. Sorry, but I don't appreciate crap like this from anyone including Potomac.

"I'm sorry that you don't possess the mental capacity to understand three syllable words or simple statistics PR. I'll try to take that into consideration next time I reply to you, but for now hopefully someone will simplify this reply for you so those two brain cells furiously rubbing themselves together in your head don't get tired out & confused."

"Is any of this starting to sink in yet? No? Well then... I'll let you go back to your own private world of "PR statistics." Have fun with that! :thumb:"

"(EDIT: Removed some overly snarky stuff)"

"Last edited by Potomac Griz on Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:37 am, edited 6 times in total."

Hum, 1:37am. Edited 6 times, at least in part to get rid of snark. Still left in crap. Hum, wonder if there had been alcohol involved? Still waiting to hear his credentials.

 

[EverettGriz]

No PR, I'd prefer the board be clear of all that crap. But the truth of the matter is is that you went "snarky" first, and even did so on a completely different thread, mucking up two of them.

Seriously, you often have valuable things to say. But far too often they get lost in your tone. Certainly I'm not the first to point this out to you and suggest that if you toned down the language that invariably comes across that you're better than everyone else, people would respond accordingly. Just my 2 pennies.

 

[PlayerRep]

No PR, I'd prefer the board be clear of all that crap. But the truth of the matter is is that you went "snarky" first, and even did so on a completely different thread, mucking up two of them.

Seriously, you often have valuable things to say. But far too often they get lost in your tone. Certainly I'm not the first to point this out to you and suggest that if you toned down the language that invariably comes across that you're better than everyone else, people would respond accordingly. Just my 2 pennies.

No, the truth is that I didn't go snarky at all. I had multiple posts without saying anything remotely snarky. Feel free to locate and post what you think was snarky on this subject. I know exactly what I said, and it was very minor and short--and I made a half dozen post without saying a thing. I'd like to the board to see clearly that both you and Potomac were way out beyond me. Note that nothing that I said came remotely close to what you said in this thread.

I've said this multiple times. I don't care what people think of my posts; this is an internet message board. I know what I'm posting, and have confidence about what I'm saying. I often say it directly. I often get right to the point. I'm just not going to baby sensitive posters and especially the several babies around here. Posters are entitled to their opinions, and I'm entitled to mine. I'm just not an "everyone gets a ribbon for his posts" person. If I don't agree with a post, at times, I'm going to directly say that. If I can see that someone doesn't know what they're talking about, and I don't like what they've been saying or don't particular like them, I just might call it as I see it.

 

[EverettGriz]

I've said this multiple times. I don't care what people think of my posts

Well, you certainly seem to!! :lol:


And yes, your post on the other thread was the first snarky comment. But frankly, I don't care enough to argue with you about it.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

You know what is most interesting here? The fact that people are arguing over various aspects of stats being interesting or not!!! Honestly to God, arguing over something this petty is ridiculous. I've seen way too many petty arguments on the football board, but this one has to take the cake.

I can't call myself an advanced metrics hoops fan because I haven't studied all the approaches to the game. In fact, didn't pay much attention until last year when I joined the Griz Roundball Club and attended all the coach chalk talks. Then I was literally blown away by the multi-leveled and sophisticated approach to the game by this current Montana coaching staff. All of them. I warrant you, Coach DeCuire's Griz will get beat now and then, but not because they weren't fully prepared to face each game's (and foe's) challenge. I couldn't afford the hoops club this year (for personal reasons), but decided to dig into the stats research on my own because of how much I learned last year. I'm still learning how to interpret the analytics at KenPom.

By that measure, this thread has been pretty rewarding to me. Truly respect the approach presented by Grizfan-24. Also acknowledge the expertise of PlayerRep, Potomac Griz and EverettGriz with their unique perspectives. They all have a passion for the Griz and the game. MtGrizrule, you know how much I respect your dedication to Griz hoops. But I beg to differ (with all due respect); there were a lot of good observations in this thread by all contributing.

As for the snark... not even close to the nonsense I regularly read on the pigskin forums; hope it never descends to that level. I'm not one for debate so much; everyone's opinions matter. I'd rather the threads proceeded on a more respectfully discursive line without things getting snarky and personal.

But It took this excellent coaching staff's very studied knowledge of basketball, and their willingness to share, for me to realize how many ways good coaches analyze, teach, share and then in-game coach the game. I'd hope we could pursue that on this fan's board.

It's my hope that the various members can continue to commit to respectful exchanges. We'd all be more knowledgeable for it.

 

[PlayerRep]

I've said this multiple times. I don't care what people think of my posts

Well, you certainly seem to!! :lol:


And yes, your post on the other thread was the first snarky comment. But frankly, I don't care enough to argue with you about it.

Which of these was the big time "snark" you are talking about, which "ruined another thread"? Warning: this are big time snarks.

This one: "Suppose you were a bench warmer too."

Or, this one: "Out on a limb? Think you are past the end of the limb already."