Our Defense
- Thread starter pnkranger
- Start date
DenverSooner
New member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 11,099
- Reaction score
- 0
If OU is pressing more and forcing tempo isn't that going to lead to more scoring for both teams by design? Does that mean OU isn't playing defense?
I am not suggesting this team is playing great defense but I think they are going to give up more points this year because they are going to score more points.
I am not suggesting this team is playing great defense but I think they are going to give up more points this year because they are going to score more points.
WTSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 12,046
- Reaction score
- 1,163
That is why you have to look at efficiency numbers. And we aren't very good there either.
pnkranger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,906
- Reaction score
- 673
Scoring margin is another good place to look and we are in the bottom half of the big 12 there too. Defense has got to improve before conference season.
pnkranger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,906
- Reaction score
- 673
Gary, that's just silly. Statistics, especially comparative statistics like efficiency and margin, are, when taken in the context of strength of opponents, supposed to be used to measure and compare. If you compare Ken Pom's stats, for instance, to the results on the floor in the NCAA tournament last year, you'll see that comparative statistics can be powerful for understanding the ability and potential of a team.
We're not using stats to say that OU will lose tonight but simply that OU needs to get better because they are, comparatively, one of the worst defenses in the conference. We also have a top 3 offense in the conference, so there's balance there. But our defense needs to improve.
It's early in the season and we're trying to have conversations about the team. What should we be talking about? How else should we talk about our team?
Okay, statistics can not be used to prove a proposition. They may have some limited value in disproving a proposition. But, never to prove a proposition.
If the proposition is, OU is playing poor defense. Fine, if that is what you think. But, trying to use statistics to prove that proposition is not a valid argument. Here is why. Ken Pom's or anyone else's statistics are based on outcomes. A game was played. There was an outcome. The outcome is used as a base to create statistics.
The problem is that the outcome achieved was one of many possible outcomes. If two teams played 100 times under the same circumstances, there would likely be 100 different outcomes. Each team wining some of the games. Different margins of victory. A different number of shots made or missed or more or less turnovers or more or less fouls and on and on. A different outcome at some level every time. The particular outcome used for the stat may or may not be a typical outcome or may or may not be remotely close to a typical outcome.
A recent example is the two game OSU vs Memphis series. Which of those two outcomes is the typical outcome or the right outcome. Which one of those two outcomes should Ken Pom use as a base for his stats. Or should he use both of them to get kind of an average. Or should he wait till the end of the season and toss out the outlier outcomes. Or something else.
A textbook example of trying to use stats to prove a proposition goes something like this. I have lived 787 months. In none of those months have I ever died. Therefore, I will never die.
pnkranger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,906
- Reaction score
- 673
Gary, I think you proved my point. We are NOT talking about using statistics to predict outcomes. We are using them to measure health.
In your example, your hypothesis (I'll never die) is using stats to predict outcome. In they same example...if you had high blood pressure for the last 36 months of your 787 months, I can't reasonably predict that you'll die in month 788, but I can reasonably predict you'll have high blood pressure.
In that same vein, ken pom's stats won't allow me to predict a win tonight, but they will allow me to predict that, unless we work very hard to improve defensively, we will play poor defense.
All we're saying is that the numbers support a simple hypothesis: we've got to improve defensively.
In your example, your hypothesis (I'll never die) is using stats to predict outcome. In they same example...if you had high blood pressure for the last 36 months of your 787 months, I can't reasonably predict that you'll die in month 788, but I can reasonably predict you'll have high blood pressure.
In that same vein, ken pom's stats won't allow me to predict a win tonight, but they will allow me to predict that, unless we work very hard to improve defensively, we will play poor defense.
All we're saying is that the numbers support a simple hypothesis: we've got to improve defensively.
I understand what you are saying. What I'm saying is that the statistics that you are using are not valid in the support of your hypothesis. They are worthless and have no validity what so ever. They are based on single outcomes that are one of almost infinite outcomes.
Ken Pom is probably a smart guy and he probably knows that too. But, he is in the business of selling worthless info for $19.95
Last edited:
You are right. I don't know why I get off on these tangents. It never accomplishes anything.
MNsooner
Administrator
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 0
8 steals tonight.
The hidden impact of our pressure defense is the extra and easy shots it is getting our offense. Pressure defense will always impact offensive numbers in a way that more conservative defenses won't. Additionally, pressure tends to give teams more numbers on fast breaks because you're guarding guys for the whole court. We could certainly be better, but the pressure defense is working. We just need to learn when to gamble and when to contest.
The hidden impact of our pressure defense is the extra and easy shots it is getting our offense. Pressure defense will always impact offensive numbers in a way that more conservative defenses won't. Additionally, pressure tends to give teams more numbers on fast breaks because you're guarding guys for the whole court. We could certainly be better, but the pressure defense is working. We just need to learn when to gamble and when to contest.
pnkranger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,906
- Reaction score
- 673
This has been said a lot in this thread, but our problems are not in transition defense...they are in halfcourt defense once we have settled in and the other team runs their offense. Mercer missed a lot of wide open threes tonight as well.
To Gary's point...it's easy to call stats worthless, but if these stats are worthless because they represent only one possible outcome, then how can any stat in any sport be valuable at any time? That is precisely the point of stats like these -- over time, as more data comes in, that data will normalize the variations and provide a reasonable expectation for future performance. NOT an opportunity to predict future outcomes...but a chance to predict future performance.
I can reasonably expect, based on the scores of our first seven games, that we'll score more than eighty points against our opponent based on our statistics to this point. Does that mean we'll win? The stats don't tell me that...
DenverSooner
New member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 11,099
- Reaction score
- 0
So what do you think about Money Ball? Did Billy Bean really do that or is it just Hollywood nonsense. Did the Boston Redsox copy Billy Bean or is that nonsense?
I think Billy Bean really won a lot of games completing ignoring the "way" it was supposed to be done and based his decisions on statistics.
SoonerinNC
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,752
- Reaction score
- 2
I think we are better on defense that some think. I see people switching and checking very effectively. We tend to remember only the shots that are made. I thought they burned the nets with treys tonight but they ended up with only 28 percent which is not that bad with a team this good. They will have a good year.
We played pretty good defense until we got up 30 and then our shot selection and defensive intensity began to break down. A good team will get shots and make a fair number of them against anybody.
We will improve as the year goes on. Kruger will keep on the heat. He called time out immediately when they didn't get back on defense.
We played pretty good defense until we got up 30 and then our shot selection and defensive intensity began to break down. A good team will get shots and make a fair number of them against anybody.
We will improve as the year goes on. Kruger will keep on the heat. He called time out immediately when they didn't get back on defense.
coolm
New member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 8,694
- Reaction score
- 0
it's most definitely a work in progress.
there were flashes of competence and even consistency last night (ironic as that sounds) but we're certainly not at conference play level yet.
every comment I heard from Kruger made me believe it's a high priority on his list so count me not worried.
there were flashes of competence and even consistency last night (ironic as that sounds) but we're certainly not at conference play level yet.
every comment I heard from Kruger made me believe it's a high priority on his list so count me not worried.
Similar threads
