Experience angle revisited

[Paterfamilias]

I posted about this back as the season was drawing to a close, but things were a bit crazy and I'm not sure if it caught any traction at that time. Of course, what I'm going to show makes logical sense, but it's one of least talked about factors in a crap season.

Anyway, I had been compiling this info from sports-reference just to add a little extra info to my historic team profiles, when the idea hit me to try to find an "Experience Sweetspot". To better understand what I'm referring to, you can go to sports-reference and look right beneath each teams roster for the experience rating. A really, really young team might have an EP of .06 or so, while a very experienced team might get up to about 2.2 or so.

I went back to 2011 and looked at EP's and season results for each of the Big Ten teams which had at least a .500 conference record for the period from 2011-19. Eight teams meet the criteria (including Iowa who was very close to .500 and way ahead of the other 6 schools), making up 68 individual seasons. I only looked at Maryland's 5 seasons in the Big Ten.

Here are the main points of what I found...

38 of 68 had an EP of 1.5 or greater

• 36 made the NCAA Tournament (95%)
• 30 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (79%)
• 20 reached the Sweet 16 (53%)

30 of 38 had an EP of 1.4 or less

• 15 made the NCAA Tournament (50%)
• 9 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (30%)
• 6 reached the Sweet 16 (20%)

19 of 68 had an EP of 1.2 or less

• 8 made the NCAA Tournament (42%)
• 4 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (21%)
• 2 reached the Sweet 16 (11%)

Last year IU was very close to falling into this last and most unsuccessful category, in fact it was Fitzner's minutes that got IU up to 1.3. This upcoming year, IU's EP figures to reach about 1.7 or 1.8, which would put IU in the category where success is not measured by just making the dance.

IU has the talent level and experience level that is just too good to have such low expectations as I've been hearing on pods etc. Maybe more importantly, IU's injury and chemistry excuses (which anger some) might well have been impacted exponentially by an experience level that has not been successful for the better teams in the conference over the past 9 years.

 

[fpeaugh]

Man that makes last season seem every worse. What a complete and total disaster to miss the tournament with one of the top 10-15 most talented rosters in the country. Total meltdown.

 

[Al Bino]

Man that makes last season seem every worse. What a complete and total disaster to miss the tournament with one of the top 10-15 most talented rosters in the country. Total meltdown.

I will have to give you credit, when you go for maximum hyperbole I don't think there is anyone better than you. Kudos!!

 

[Squonk too]

I posted about this back as the season was drawing to a close, but things were a bit crazy and I'm not sure if it caught any traction at that time. Of course, what I'm going to show makes logical sense, but it's one of least talked about factors in a crap season.

Anyway, I had been compiling this info from sports-reference just to add a little extra info to my historic team profiles, when the idea hit me to try to find an "Experience Sweetspot". To better understand what I'm referring to, you can go to sports-reference and look right beneath each teams roster for the experience rating. A really, really young team might have an EP of .06 or so, while a very experienced team might get up to about 2.2 or so.

I went back to 2011 and looked at EP's and season results for each of the Big Ten teams which had at least a .500 conference record for the period from 2011-19. Eight teams meet the criteria (including Iowa who was very close to .500 and way ahead of the other 6 schools), making up 68 individual seasons. I only looked at Maryland's 5 seasons in the Big Ten.

Here are the main points of what I found...

38 of 68 had an EP of 1.5 or greater

• 36 made the NCAA Tournament (95%)
• 30 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (79%)
• 20 reached the Sweet 16 (53%)

30 of 38 had an EP of 1.4 or less

• 15 made the NCAA Tournament (50%)
• 9 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (30%)
• 6 reached the Sweet 16 (20%)

19 of 68 had an EP of 1.2 or less

• 8 made the NCAA Tournament (42%)
• 4 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (21%)
• 2 reached the Sweet 16 (11%)

Last year IU was very close to falling into this last and most unsuccessful category, in fact it was Fitzner's minutes that got IU up to 1.3. This upcoming year, IU's EP figures to reach about 1.7 or 1.8, which would put IU in the category where success is not measured by just making the dance.

IU has the talent level and experience level that is just too good to have such low expectations as I've been hearing on pods etc. Maybe more importantly, IU's injury and chemistry excuses (which anger some) might well have been impacted exponentially by an experience level that has not been successful for the better teams in the conference over the past 9 years.

Interesting. Is there any way to adjust these rankings for shooting + free throw efficiencies? Our talent was, on paper, good at both, but underperformed grossly, making our record distorted.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I will have to give you credit, when you go for maximum hyperbole I don't think there is anyone better than you. Kudos!!

He’s either dumber than a bag of hammers or . . . well, he’s dumber than a bag of hammers.

 

[T.M.P.]

Man that makes last season seem every worse. What a complete and total disaster to miss the tournament with one of the top 10-15 most talented rosters in the country. Total meltdown.

lol .. you're an idiot.

 

[T.M.P.]

I posted about this back as the season was drawing to a close, but things were a bit crazy and I'm not sure if it caught any traction at that time. Of course, what I'm going to show makes logical sense, but it's one of least talked about factors in a crap season.

Anyway, I had been compiling this info from sports-reference just to add a little extra info to my historic team profiles, when the idea hit me to try to find an "Experience Sweetspot". To better understand what I'm referring to, you can go to sports-reference and look right beneath each teams roster for the experience rating. A really, really young team might have an EP of .06 or so, while a very experienced team might get up to about 2.2 or so.

I went back to 2011 and looked at EP's and season results for each of the Big Ten teams which had at least a .500 conference record for the period from 2011-19. Eight teams meet the criteria (including Iowa who was very close to .500 and way ahead of the other 6 schools), making up 68 individual seasons. I only looked at Maryland's 5 seasons in the Big Ten.

Here are the main points of what I found...

38 of 68 had an EP of 1.5 or greater

• 36 made the NCAA Tournament (95%)
• 30 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (79%)
• 20 reached the Sweet 16 (53%)

30 of 38 had an EP of 1.4 or less

• 15 made the NCAA Tournament (50%)
• 9 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (30%)
• 6 reached the Sweet 16 (20%)

19 of 68 had an EP of 1.2 or less

• 8 made the NCAA Tournament (42%)
• 4 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (21%)
• 2 reached the Sweet 16 (11%)

Last year IU was very close to falling into this last and most unsuccessful category, in fact it was Fitzner's minutes that got IU up to 1.3. This upcoming year, IU's EP figures to reach about 1.7 or 1.8, which would put IU in the category where success is not measured by just making the dance.

IU has the talent level and experience level that is just too good to have such low expectations as I've been hearing on pods etc. Maybe more importantly, IU's injury and chemistry excuses (which anger some) might well have been impacted exponentially by an experience level that has not been successful for the better teams in the conference over the past 9 years.

Good stuff as always, Pater. .

fwiw Torvik using an off def efficiency based measure has IU 57th next year. Using our PER based system, IU ranks 43..

Remember last year when we talked about UCLA and why we had such a difference, same reason. The players we have returning all had lower than average production for their respective exp, ranking, role. We have 3 returning starters, AD, RP, JS, none of which put up a PER over 12.

Not saying you're wrong or anything, just offering another perspective using different measures. .Also it doesn't mean that we can't improve and drastically. As you well know from tracking these things for years, we're not the only team ever to be destroyed by injury or chemistry issues.

Thanks for sharing ..

 

[minneman]

Man that makes last season seem every worse. What a complete and total disaster to miss the tournament with one of the top 10-15 most talented rosters in the country. Total meltdown.

Reading comprehension just isn't your thing. IU was in the group that makes the NCAAT only 50% of the time, just barely missing on being in the worst group that makes the NCAAT only 42% of the time.

Next season (that's the 2019-2020 season, so you're not confused) they'll be in the group which makes the NCAAT 95% of the time.

 

[82hoosier]

Interesting. Is there any way to adjust these rankings for shooting + free throw efficiencies? Our talent was, on paper, good at both, but underperformed grossly, making our record distorted.

The Hoosiers were one of the worst shooting teams in the country. I’m not sure what it means to have great talent on paper but be unable to make a free throw .

 

[TR32]

I posted about this back as the season was drawing to a close, but things were a bit crazy and I'm not sure if it caught any traction at that time. Of course, what I'm going to show makes logical sense, but it's one of least talked about factors in a crap season.

Anyway, I had been compiling this info from sports-reference just to add a little extra info to my historic team profiles, when the idea hit me to try to find an "Experience Sweetspot". To better understand what I'm referring to, you can go to sports-reference and look right beneath each teams roster for the experience rating. A really, really young team might have an EP of .06 or so, while a very experienced team might get up to about 2.2 or so.

I went back to 2011 and looked at EP's and season results for each of the Big Ten teams which had at least a .500 conference record for the period from 2011-19. Eight teams meet the criteria (including Iowa who was very close to .500 and way ahead of the other 6 schools), making up 68 individual seasons. I only looked at Maryland's 5 seasons in the Big Ten.

Here are the main points of what I found...

38 of 68 had an EP of 1.5 or greater

• 36 made the NCAA Tournament (95%)
• 30 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (79%)
• 20 reached the Sweet 16 (53%)

30 of 38 had an EP of 1.4 or less

• 15 made the NCAA Tournament (50%)
• 9 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (30%)
• 6 reached the Sweet 16 (20%)

19 of 68 had an EP of 1.2 or less

• 8 made the NCAA Tournament (42%)
• 4 received better than a #8 seed in the NCAAT (21%)
• 2 reached the Sweet 16 (11%)

Last year IU was very close to falling into this last and most unsuccessful category, in fact it was Fitzner's minutes that got IU up to 1.3. This upcoming year, IU's EP figures to reach about 1.7 or 1.8, which would put IU in the category where success is not measured by just making the dance.

IU has the talent level and experience level that is just too good to have such low expectations as I've been hearing on pods etc. Maybe more importantly, IU's injury and chemistry excuses (which anger some) might well have been impacted exponentially by an experience level that has not been successful for the better teams in the conference over the past 9 years.

Good post. Now do the same thing looking at various shooting percentages (fg%, 3pfg%, ft%) returning vs. tourney success and see if what is predicted agrees or contradicts that 95% rate of making the tourney.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I looked at IU back to 2002 (as far back as sports-reference goes with the experience rating) and 4 times IU has been in a similar situation, where it makes the 1 year leap from too inexperienced to just right.

The 2005 season saw IU with an Ex. Rating of 1.0 and a 14-14 record with no NCAA bid. The following season the ER jumped to 2.0 and IU received a #6 seed in the NCAA.

The next one came in the 2012 season, where IU improved from a 12-20 team in 2011 to a #4 seed and a Sweet 16 appearance.

Next was 2016, where IU improved from a #10 seed to a #5 seed and an outright conference title.

Lastly was 2018, but this time the improved experience level was inconsequential. The 2018 Hoosiers joined the 2017 Buckeyes as the two 5 %'ers from the original post,

So, IU has a pretty decent bounce back ratio when it makes a 1 year experience leap. I'll check on some other Big 10 teams to see how they fared in the same scenario.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Good post. Now do the same thing looking at various shooting percentages (fg%, 3pfg%, ft%) returning vs. tourney success and see if what is predicted agrees or contradicts that 95% rate of making the tourney.

That kind of thing would take quite a while, but I can tell you that the 2012 team improved from 168th in 3pt% in 2011 to 2nd in the nation at 43%. The 2006 team, also cited in the post above, improved it's 3pt% from 33% to 39% with the jump in experience. The other example from above (2016) improved from 86th to 8th in 2pt%, while remaining a 41% 3pt shooting team.

So the 3 good examples of IU making the 1 year experience jump all saw a key shooting stat improve fairly dramatically. So it seems that poor shooting doesn't necessarily stick with a team as it develops and gains valuable experience.

My hunch is that inexperienced guards have a pretty decent chance of improving their shooting percentages as they move along in their careers.

 

[TR32]

I don't think that is true (guards shooting percentages increases based on experience) as much as it is true that addition or subtraction of dominant player (like Cody Zeller or Marco Killingsworth) opens up easier shots for guards.

But as far as experience goes, I agree with your findings even before you generated them. Experience is a huge factor in success in college basketball. Other than the 2008-2017 timeframe, people tended to understand this and even take it for granted.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I don't think that is true (guards shooting percentages increases based on experience) as much as it is true that addition or subtraction of dominant player (like Cody Zeller or Marco Killingsworth) opens up easier shots for guards.

But as far as experience goes, I agree with your findings even before you generated them. Experience is a huge factor in success in college basketball. Other than the 2008-2017 timeframe, people tended to understand this and even take it for granted.

Both Devonte and Al saw their 3pt% increase by 6+ percentage points last season. Yogi only shot 30% as a frosh, but bumped it up to 40% as a soph. Blackmon shot 38% as a frosh, but 43% for the rest of his career (jumped up about 8% as a soph before the injury)

I just think that I've noticed that freshmen just don't shoot it that well relative to the rest of their careers. Last year we were too dependent on a couple of frosh and a soph who didn't shoot the ball much as a frosh.

 

[travlinhoosier]

Lastly was 2018, but this time the improved experience level was inconsequential.

And that year the whole team was pretty new to the system so I'd have to say the experience level had reset. Good work.

 

[ufo33]

Smith needs to work on his FT % and not shoot 3's. Green will need to make buckets without TO. Anderson, Phinisee, Al, will need to improve their perimeter shooting. Hunter will hopefully be healthy enough to play. Now that IU has legit new post players in TJD and Brunk and hopefully a healthier DeRon and Race, feed the beast. Pound it inside to open up outside shooters. Screw positionless basketball. Post players posting up in the paint and shooters ready to shoot on the perimeter. And value the basketball, no TO, and play consistently tough Packline D.

 

[Squonk too]

The Hoosiers were one of the worst shooting teams in the country. I’m not sure what it means to have great talent on paper but be unable to make a free throw .

On reflection (and reading your response), perhaps I should have used less pith. By "on paper" I simply meant that before games played, our players were supposed to have good shooting skills and be able to make free throws. As noted, they did not perform accordingly.

I still would like to see the original poster's calculations adjusted for shooting. For example, Kentucky consists of inexperienced players perenially, but both on paper and post facto, accomplishes good records consistently.

 

[snarlcakes]

I looked at IU back to 2002 (as far back as sports-reference goes with the experience rating) and 4 times IU has been in a similar situation, where it makes the 1 year leap from too inexperienced to just right.

The 2005 season saw IU with an Ex. Rating of 1.0 and a 14-14 record with no NCAA bid. The following season the ER jumped to 2.0 and IU received a #6 seed in the NCAA.

The next one came in the 2012 season, where IU improved from a 12-20 team in 2011 to a #4 seed and a Sweet 16 appearance.

Next was 2016, where IU improved from a #10 seed to a #5 seed and an outright conference title.

Lastly was 2018, but this time the improved experience level was inconsequential. The 2018 Hoosiers joined the 2017 Buckeyes as the two 5 %'ers from the original post,

So, IU has a pretty decent bounce back ratio when it makes a 1 year experience leap. I'll check on some other Big 10 teams to see how they fared in the same scenario.

So, in Archie’s first season he performed in the bottom 5 percentile and bottom 50 percentile his 2nd season? Are you trying to depress me even more? All joking aside, thanks for the information.

 

[Paterfamilias]

On reflection (and reading your response), perhaps I should have used less pith. By "on paper" I simply meant that before games played, our players were supposed to have good shooting skills and be able to make free throws. As noted, they did not perform accordingly.

I still would like to see the original poster's calculations adjusted for shooting. For example, Kentucky consists of inexperienced players perenially, but both on paper and post facto, accomplishes good records consistently.

I'm just not sure what you are getting at? I don't mind the research (especially during super hot spells), but you might have to tell me precisely what you're looking for. The info presented in this thread is based on the Experience Rating (that I for some reason referred to as the EP throughout the OP) which is found at sports-reference.com. It's a simple calculation, but I just borrowed it rather than actually doing any of that myself.

Kentucky never has an experienced team, but they also have a talent level that is only challenged by Duke. Even UK owes it's one title during the Cal era to a fluky situation with the NBA's CBA that kept Jones and Lamb in college another year.

UNC, even though it is typically far more talented than a Big 10 team, has had experience Ratings of 1.8, 1.9 & 2.0 the last 3 times the Heels made it to the Nat. Title game (winning 2)

 

[Paterfamilias]

Good stuff as always, Pater. .

fwiw Torvik using an off def efficiency based measure has IU 57th next year. Using our PER based system, IU ranks 43..

Remember last year when we talked about UCLA and why we had such a difference, same reason. The players we have returning all had lower than average production for their respective exp, ranking, role. We have 3 returning starters, AD, RP, JS, none of which put up a PER over 12.

Not saying you're wrong or anything, just offering another perspective using different measures. .Also it doesn't mean that we can't improve and drastically. As you well know from tracking these things for years, we're not the only team ever to be destroyed by injury or chemistry issues.

Thanks for sharing ..

Over the years, I've noticed that, when my Talent + Experience ratings are way off, it's often with very inexperienced teams. UCLA last year had it's most inexperienced roster ever (according to Bruinzone forum members), which is not quite accurate according to sports-reference, but close enough. My ratings had UCLA #7 preseason, due to the rigid methodology that refuses to recalculate based on performance level

It happens every year and sometimes it's a team like the 2012-13 Michigan team, which was youthful (0.8) and not at the recruiting level where it would appear that they would be B10 contenders, let alone national contenders.

What I've learned (or rationalized) is that the very, very inexperienced teams require a particular kind of coach. I don't think Miller or even Bennett at UVA are likely to excel with really inexperienced teams. In fact, Bennett's only team at UVA that was as young as IU was last year, didn't make the NCAA Tournament either.

I don't know... I'm just kicking some stuff around, because I'm kinda bored right now. That said, I love IU's roster right now and I think they are a great bet to win the Big Ten at anything over 12-1. I will have a few hundred on this team when my bro and I have a chance to sit down and come to some agreements. I think Nebraska will be a very interesting team this year as well, those two JC kids they brought in are awesome. I really just like the makeup of that team if they just had another big.

 

[Squonk too]

I'm just not sure what you are getting at? I don't mind the research (especially during super hot spells), but you might have to tell me precisely what you're looking for. The info presented in this thread is based on the Experience Rating (that I for some reason referred to as the EP throughout the OP) which is found at sports-reference.com. It's a simple calculation, but I just borrowed it rather than actually doing any of that myself.

Kentucky never has an experienced team, but they also have a talent level that is only challenged by Duke. Even UK owes it's one title during the Cal era to a fluky situation with the NBA's CBA that kept Jones and Lamb in college another year.

UNC, even though it is typically far more talented than a Big 10 team, has had experience Ratings of 1.8, 1.9 & 2.0 the last 3 times the Heels made it to the Nat. Title game (winning 2)

Ok, let me try to focus my request:
a) consider two teams that have the same Experience Rating.
b) in fact, consider Kentucky and another Division 1 team with same Experience Rating (both will be the same low, but Kentucky will have deeper runs into the tournament).
c) I contend that what you identified/qualified as superior talent (Kentucky, Duke) can be quantified as possessing better shooting + free throw efficiencies.
d) The resulting metric should quantify the adjusted Experience Rating And Shooting Measure.

Basically, I wanted to see the difference quantified, not just qualified, that one team is uniquely good. I'm using Kentucky only as an example, to help make my request more intuitive.

If this still makes no sense, forgive me.

 

[T.M.P.]

Over the years, I've noticed that, when my Talent + Experience ratings are way off, it's often with very inexperienced teams. UCLA last year had it's most inexperienced roster ever (according to Bruinzone forum members), which is not quite accurate according to sports-reference, but close enough. My ratings had UCLA #7 preseason, due to the rigid methodology that refuses to recalculate based on performance level

It happens every year and sometimes it's a team like the 2012-13 Michigan team, which was youthful (0.8) and not at the recruiting level where it would appear that they would be B10 contenders, let alone national contenders.

What I've learned (or rationalized) is that the very, very inexperienced teams require a particular kind of coach. I don't think Miller or even Bennett at UVA are likely to excel with really inexperienced teams. In fact, Bennett's only team at UVA that was as young as IU was last year, didn't make the NCAA Tournament either.

I don't know... I'm just kicking some stuff around, because I'm kinda bored right now. That said, I love IU's roster right now and I think they are a great bet to win the Big Ten at anything over 12-1. I will have a few hundred on this team when my bro and I have a chance to sit down and come to some agreements. I think Nebraska will be a very interesting team this year as well, those two JC kids they brought in are awesome. I really just like the makeup of that team if they just had another big.

We've found the same in relation to low experience. .Unless the team is filled with lottery picks. ie UK Duke.. It's an early warning sign that the team may be inconsistent.... but it's always been that way ..

Watch Memphis and Washington this year.

Purdue is interesting this year. If they find a PG and a scorer. Procter may fill the scoring role 20+ per 40 if he gels with the team. Interior is solid and I'm seeing them ranked anywhere from top 10 (torvik) and out of the top 25 sme people polls.

Have you noticed that grad transfers aren't the easy fix free agent signing they originally looked like?. Statistically many of them don't pan out. Looks more like a 50/50 proposition depending on chemistry.

OSU is also interesting, their wings have done nothing of note so far. If one of them can become a threat and produce and one of the two PG is solid enough. they should have a really good season. If not then same, meh, as last year.

IU scares me .. too many ifs. If Phinisee can become a scorer. If Devonte can be consistent. If Hunter can play. If Demezi improves. If Smith improves.. etc etc. all of that needs to happen.

I mean, a lot of things need to go right for us to have a good year. Of course it can happen but after last year, where nothing went right, it's really tough to imagine it ..

Surprise team so far. Georgetown.

 

[TommyCracker]

We've found the same in relation to low experience. .Unless the team is filled with lottery picks. ie UK Duke.. It's an early warning sign that the team may be inconsistent.... but it's always been that way ..

Watch Memphis and Washington this year.

Purdue is interesting this year. If they find a PG and a scorer. Procter may fill the scoring role 20+ per 40 if he gels with the team. Interior is solid and I'm seeing them ranked anywhere from top 10 (torvik) and out of the top 25 sme people polls.

Have you noticed that grad transfers aren't the easy fix free agent signing they originally looked like?. Statistically many of them don't pan out. Looks more like a 50/50 proposition depending on chemistry.

OSU is also interesting, their wings have done nothing of note so far. If one of them can become a threat and produce and one of the two PG is solid enough. they should have a really good season. If not then same, meh, as last year.

IU scares me .. too many ifs. If Phinisee can become a scorer. If Devonte can be consistent. If Hunter can play. If Demezi improves. If Smith improves.. etc etc. all of that needs to happen.

I mean, a lot of things need to go right for us to have a good year. Of course it can happen but after last year, where nothing went right, it's really tough to imagine it ..

Surprise team so far. Georgetown.

Putting on my crimson glasses, the things that give me hope for next year is the experience that's coming back....as it will be the most experienced team for what he is trying to do that he has had.

Secondly after watching Dayton games...his offense was much more fluid and smooth with no real go to player. They moved the ball until someone had a good shot (most of the time). His leading scorer was 12.

Thirdly after re-watching this past years games...two of the best looking, fluid offenses were when Morgan was out (and De'ron was passing out of the post). That was at MSU and the last 10 so minutes of OSU in the BTT (we got down 20 and the lineup was Green, Durham, Romeo, Fitzner and Davis). We came roaring back but it was due to running really good offense (Fitzner actually got into the high post and did well, Green hit some wide open three's off of a pass which is important, off of ball movement and Romeo got a couple of feeds of curls that he took to the hoop).

I am no way in hell saying we won't miss Morgan...not at all. Just saying I was encouraged that offensively we had some flow when he left.

We're going to need a better flowing offense as again we don't have a go to.

That's what I'll be watching out for at the start of the season to see if things have adjusted.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Ok, let me try to focus my request:
a) consider two teams that have the same Experience Rating.
b) in fact, consider Kentucky and another Division 1 team with same Experience Rating (both will be the same low, but Kentucky will have deeper runs into the tournament).
c) I contend that what you identified/qualified as superior talent (Kentucky, Duke) can be quantified as possessing better shooting + free throw efficiencies.
d) The resulting metric should quantify the adjusted Experience Rating And Shooting Measure.

Basically, I wanted to see the difference quantified, not just qualified, that one team is uniquely good. I'm using Kentucky only as an example, to help make my request more intuitive.

If this still makes no sense, forgive me.

Next week I'll dig a little deeper rather than just use the experience ratings of sports-reference.

One thing I can show now though, is that when I break the 6 power conferences down into 4 experience groups and compare 3pt %'s I get this.

1.8 and up experience rated teams shot 35.08% from deep
1.5 - 1.7 experience teams shot 34.7%
1.2 - 1.4 experience teams shot 34%
1.1 and less experience teams shot 33.35

What I think of as the sweet spot of experience (1.6 - 1.9) teams shot 35.68% from deep.

When I began looking at this, I didn't have 3pt% in mind, but the shooting percentages seem to be falling in line as I might have expected.

 

[fpeaugh]

Next week I'll dig a little deeper rather than just use the experience ratings of sports-reference.

One thing I can show now though, is that when I break the 6 power conferences down into 4 experience groups and compare 3pt %'s I get this.

1.8 and up experience rated teams shot 35.08% from deep
1.5 - 1.7 experience teams shot 34.7%
1.2 - 1.4 experience teams shot 34%
1.1 and less experience teams shot 33.35

What I think of as the sweet spot of experience (1.6 - 1.9) teams shot 35.68% from deep.

When I began looking at this, I didn't have 3pt% in mind, but the shooting percentages seem to be falling in line as I might have expected.

Thanks for the stats. It does make sense as you would hope kids become better shooters over time on average. Now I don’t know how big of a difference a 1.7% improvement on 3pt% makes but the stats are always interesting.

 

[fpeaugh]

We've found the same in relation to low experience. .Unless the team is filled with lottery picks. ie UK Duke.. It's an early warning sign that the team may be inconsistent.... but it's always been that way ..

Watch Memphis and Washington this year.

Purdue is interesting this year. If they find a PG and a scorer. Procter may fill the scoring role 20+ per 40 if he gels with the team. Interior is solid and I'm seeing them ranked anywhere from top 10 (torvik) and out of the top 25 sme people polls.

Have you noticed that grad transfers aren't the easy fix free agent signing they originally looked like?. Statistically many of them don't pan out. Looks more like a 50/50 proposition depending on chemistry.

OSU is also interesting, their wings have done nothing of note so far. If one of them can become a threat and produce and one of the two PG is solid enough. they should have a really good season. If not then same, meh, as last year.

IU scares me .. too many ifs. If Phinisee can become a scorer. If Devonte can be consistent. If Hunter can play. If Demezi improves. If Smith improves.. etc etc. all of that needs to happen.

I mean, a lot of things need to go right for us to have a good year. Of course it can happen but after last year, where nothing went right, it's really tough to imagine it ..

Surprise team so far. Georgetown.

Can we go ahead and book Archie as National COY again?

 

[T.M.P.]

Can we go ahead and book Archie as National COY again?

ESAD gimp.

 

[fpeaugh]

ESAD gimp.

Undefeated at home? Top 10 by January? What are you thinking? Everyone here respects your opinions so much.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Undefeated at home? Top 10 by January? What are you thinking? Everyone here respects your opinions so much.

Name someone that respects yours.

 

[fpeaugh]

Name someone that respects yours.

Truth be told I’ve posted less than 1/3 of the amount of posts you have and still have more likes.

That sure backfired on you.

 

[T.M.P.]

Undefeated at home? Top 10 by January? What are you thinking? Everyone here respects your opinions so much.

EMSADP Gimp...

Ask your caretaker to change your depends, give you some more pudding, and take a nap.

You're ruining another thread, dotard. Its all you do. Spew dumb shit and ruin threads.

 

[mathboy]

Next week I'll dig a little deeper rather than just use the experience ratings of sports-reference.

One thing I can show now though, is that when I break the 6 power conferences down into 4 experience groups and compare 3pt %'s I get this.

1.8 and up experience rated teams shot 35.08% from deep
1.5 - 1.7 experience teams shot 34.7%
1.2 - 1.4 experience teams shot 34%
1.1 and less experience teams shot 33.35

What I think of as the sweet spot of experience (1.6 - 1.9) teams shot 35.68% from deep.

When I began looking at this, I didn't have 3pt% in mind, but the shooting percentages seem to be falling in line as I might have expected.

I have some interest in your calculations. I have always thought experience drives winning, especially in relatively equally talented teams. Your formula seems to look hard at the experience level of various players, but I had a couple clarifying questions. How does your calculation account for talent, or lack of same? Does it factor in uniquely talented players?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Truth be told I’ve posted less than 1/3 of the amount of posts you have and still have more likes.

That sure backfired on you.

If you had any smarts you’d know that the “like” numbers only reflect likes after the transition from Peegs, but the number of posts all time continue. Plus, you have five or six other handles to like your own posts.

 

[fpeaugh]

If you had any smarts you’d know that the “like” numbers only reflect likes after the transition from Peegs, but the number of posts all time continue. Plus, you have five or six other handles to like your own posts.

That’s not true. And I’ve never had another name.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That’s not true. And I’ve never had another name.

It’s all true.

 

[hondo314]

That’s not true. And I’ve never had another name.

Hmm maybe but the other kids called you “bumble f***” in middle school, no?

 

[fpeaugh]

Hmm maybe but the other kids called you “bumble f***” in middle school, no?

There was no middle school back then kid.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Thanks for the stats. It does make sense as you would hope kids become better shooters over time on average. Now I don’t know how big of a difference a 1.7% improvement on 3pt% makes but the stats are always interesting.

The differences don't appear dramatic because they are averages of decent sized groups. Maybe probability might show the difference a little better. Of the bottom 30 least experienced teams, only 25% of them shot 35% or better from 3. Among the remaining teams, 50% of them shot at least 35% from 3.

So, based on last years stats, you were twice as likely to have a good 3 point % team if you weren't among the group of least experienced teams.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I have some interest in your calculations. I have always thought experience drives winning, especially in relatively equally talented teams. Your formula seems to look hard at the experience level of various players, but I had a couple clarifying questions. How does your calculation account for talent, or lack of same? Does it factor in uniquely talented players?

Doing this from my phone, so it may not make any sense after posting. Everything I've been talking about here, relative to experience levels is based on the experience ratings taken from sports-reference.com. All I've done is record them on my spreadsheet going back to 2011 for sortability.

It's all been team based, but I suppose you could say that the uniquely talented are taken into account, because they most frequently found on the less experienced teams.

Obviously, Duke and Kentucky have found a way to make it work for them.

Anyway, what aspect are you most interested in? The OP was about team success, but we've been looking at the shooting aspect lately. Or are you interested in the actual roster ratings that I occasionally reference?

 

[fpeaugh]

The differences don't appear dramatic because they are averages of decent sized groups. Maybe probability might show the difference a little better. Of the bottom 30 least experienced teams, only 25% of them shot 35% or better from 3. Among the remaining teams, 50% of them shot at least 35% from 3.

So, based on last years stats, you were twice as likely to have a good 3 point % team if you weren't among the group of least experienced teams.

No doubt there’s a correlation. But I wouldn’t say a team that shoots 35% is a good 3pt shooting team and one that shoots 34.9% isn’t. I’m just not sure the correlation is strong enough to make that much of a difference.