How can anyone know what to expect?

[RUich]

At home, we have played beyond much better than on the road. But, after an incomprehensible loss to Minn. who barely made the minimum scholarship requirement to even play the game just 4 hours before it started, I cannot really think we will show up tonight.
Something with this team is seriously flawed. How can we have so many turnovers game after game? This is supposed to be a team with seasoned players. How can we miss so many layups?
What a shame after last season and with so much optimism to start this one.

 

[BillyC80]

Flawed is a good word for this team. Our problems are mostly between the ears, as I believe we have enough talent and ability to win most nights.

 

[zebnatto]

Ron has been excellent from 3, but if a team focuses on taking that away from him (or if he’s off), we’re in trouble. Puts the weight on Geo who has been very erratic. No other scorers.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Welcome to the sport of basketball, especially in this era. The variability of shooting is so wide that it probably explains most (defintely not all) of the under and over performance on a given night. This is why you cant' get too excited when you win and shoot 50% from 3 or get bent out of shape when you lose a winnable game when your opponent shoots way above expectations. It isn't this black and white, but not far from it.

 

[RUJMM78]

The over dependence on Baker and Harper for high double digit scoring doesn't allow for sub par scoring because the rest of the team rarely score in double digits on the road.

 

[Gudenham]

Welcome to the sport of basketball, especially in this era. The variability of shooting is so wide that it probably explains most (defintely not all) of the under and over performance on a given night. This is why you cant' get too excited when you win and shoot 50% from 3 or get bent out of shape when you lose a winnable game when your opponent shoots way above expectations. It isn't this black and white, but not far from it.

How do you explain certain teams winning a lot of games and other teams winning very little? This reasoning makes it sound like teams have no control on how well they shoot

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

How do you explain certain teams winning a lot of games and other teams winning very little? This reasoning makes it sound like teams have no control on how well they shoot

There is a baseline every team has. Some are higher than others. With everything being equal,

I had a statistics minor at RU, but have forgotten almost everything.

We are 116-338 from 3 or 34.3%. I don't know the standard deviation that can be formed based on our shooting being random. IF we average 6.4 makes and 22.5 attempts. Shooting 45% adds 12 points to our score. Alternatively 23.6% shooting takes away 12. I don't know what the standard deviation would be for us if we say shooting is random with expected makes at 34.3%.

I know 34.3% is our baseline and i'd think the standard deviation is probably somewhere in the 7% area based on 22.5 attempts.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

@fluoxetine .....how do i do this ^. Checking the internet and I cant find.

 

[mikeyoc]

There is a baseline every team has. Some are higher than others. With everything being equal,

I had a statistics minor at RU, but have forgotten almost everything.

We are 116-338 from 3 or 34.3%. I don't know the standard deviation that can be formed based on our shooting being random. IF we average 6.4 makes and 22.5 attempts. Shooting 45% adds 12 points to our score. Alternatively 23.6% shooting takes away 12. I don't know what the standard deviation would be for us if we say shooting is random with expected makes at 34.3%.

I know 34.3% is our baseline and i'd think the standard deviation is probably somewhere in the 7% area based on 22.5 attempts.

Yep. That tiny margin of error is why we have lost 4 games by 3 points or less

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Yep. That tiny margin of error is why we have lost 4 games by 3 points or less

You look that the Iowa game. I thought we played great on both sides of the ball........

Keegan Murray knocks down the shot........L
If we make 3 or 4 bunnies around the rim..........W by 10+
If Bohannon makes a few more of his 3s......L

Internally I define how my team plays based on the shots it gets and the shots it gives up. I don't let how the team shoots given their looks influence how I view things. Obviously it can mean everything.

 

[rubjk]

The over dependence on Baker and Harper for high double digit scoring doesn't allow for sub par scoring because the rest of the team rarely score in double digits on the road.

many teams have this issue. How’d Illinois look without Kofi? Most teams where their top one or two scorers struggle are going to struggle.

 

[fluoxetine]

@fluoxetine .....how do i do this ^. Checking the internet and I cant find.

If I recall correctly, using standard deviation / normal approximation isn't very good for binomial variables until the samples get much larger. I usually just use a binomial distribution calculator (found by Googling "binomial distribution calculator").

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

The probability of a team who shoots 35.7% makes 13 or better 3s when attempting 24 is 4.94%. Basically a 2 standard deviation event.

 

[fluoxetine]

And really it's going to be higher because there will be variance in the baseline rate (due to getting better/worse shots against better/worse defense and other factors).

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I watched 70% of the game from an iPhone. How were the quality of their attempts. Early in the game it appeared low quality attempts were going in.

 

[fluoxetine]

I watched 70% of the game from an iPhone. How were the quality of their attempts. Early in the game it appeared low quality attempts were going in.

Eh, average probably.