I'm getting sick of saying it, and you're getting sick of hearing it...

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

None of that.

"Luck" in this case is simply "results greater than would be expected based on scoring differential." Teams that win a lot of 1-point games are luckier than teams that lose a lot of 1-point games, is really what it boils down to. There isn't really anything that goes into it. It's just a statistical aberration.

By way of example, we are scoring 71.4 ppg in conference, and allowing 71.9 ppg. By rights, we should have a .500 record. But 9 games is a small sample size, and it hasn't work out that way - to our benefit. We could just as easily be 3-6, right now, is the point.

Preparation, playing well under pressure, etc., are all important factors. Winning and losing is not random. But there are no factors which magically increase your record without also increasing your performance. The divergence between our performance and our actual record is where "luck" comes in, and there is no explanation for it, other than, "it happens."

goat

 

[Tomwis]

and maybe that will be


reflected in the rest of the season, maybe we will go 3-6 and the balance you describe will be restored to the universe.

Two other things.

1. Our several blow out losses on the road are sort of unusual - even average teams don't usually get blown out by those type of scores. Does that mean we will lose to those same teams at home? Does it mean we are really much better than average at home, and much worse than average on the road? That wouldn't be completely unexpected for a young team..

2. There is too much hyperbole on the board, and that detracts from the sensibility of the type of arguments you are making (in other words, the arguments may be true, but they get lost in the noise). It simply isn't possible that all of the following are true, even if we are only an average team (as you argue) or an above average team (as our record suggests): a) our offense is an abortion, b) our defense is one of the worst in the country, and c) Crean is at best an average coach. All of those things can't possibly be true.
This post was edited on 2/1 1:52 PM by Tomwis

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

Re: However, don't forget that.....

....Lyle's bailed on us rather late in the process and Cody left after 2 years instead of 3.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. We have to over sign because we don't know if these guys will stay and everyone reams the guy for that.... and then in the same breath complains that we don't have a bottomless supply of post presence.
Which is it? We could go the UK route and go after every 5 star guy on the map knowing that IU is just a layover for the NBA. Then, Crean would get blasted because the fan base would revolt saying that this is not the kind of program we are supposed to run at IU as a training camp for the NBA. Calipari has made it very clear that his program is a minor league camp to prep kids for their next year in the NBA. And, the vast majority of high level kids that have height know that they are a hot commodity for the pros. Why come to IU where there is an emphasis in academics when you can go some place that makes it clear that the primary goal is to get you ready to increase your stock for the NBA? As a big man with my eye on making millions next year, I'm going to UK to train. I'm not going some place with the expectation that I focus on a degree with the NBA as simply a nice option if it happens.

 

[Dubiak5454]

Re: and maybe that will be

Kool aid drinkers will tell you getting in as a 8 or 9 seed in year seven is just fine.in fact they will say its quite an accomplishment because we were suppose to be worse. They don't mention we have two burger boys and probably more pure talent on paper than most any team in the conference.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Stuffshot]

So, we're "lucky" because we won several close games instead of lost them?

Sorry, but average scoring differential doesn't explain much. 70 points against teams like, say, Wisconsin is worth more than 70 points against Miss. Valley State. Also, I think a 70 point team with Jordan at his peak is going to win more than its point-differential-predicted number of close games.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't have stats handy on blow-outs

compared to other teams. I know the average B1G home team is winning by about 5 points so far.

Statistically speaking, going 3-6 would be just as big an aberration for us. Much more likely is that we grind out a 5-4 from here on out to finish with 11 wins and finish in a tie for 4th or 5th place. Really, our expected win total is almost exactly 4.5, but you can't win half a game, and with our schedule, I think you have to round up to 5.

goat

 

[Tomwis]

so is the point that

People on both sides are exaggerating? I captan definitely agree with that point of view.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Wrong, right, and wrong.

Scoring differential is the single best predictor of future performance. This is not something I made up. Statisticians have known it for decades.

70 points against Wiscy is a lot better than 70 against MVST, which is why statisticians adjust scoring differentials for opponent.

Jordan at his peak would not likely win more than his team's Pythagorean expectation. Rather, Jordan would cause his team to perform better, which would raise their Pythagorean expectation. Their scoring differential would go up along with their wins.

Look, this boils down to something simple. Based on wins, we are a .667 team. Based on points scored, we are a .500 team. Which is a more accurate measure of how good we are? All of sports history says the second number is more accurate. It's simply the way it is. If we had gotten very unlucky, and were sitting at 3-6, despite having an even scoring differential, I'd be sitting here saying we are much better than our record (and probably getting a lot less argument about it).

goat

 

[tt68]

the problem I have with most of the posters is the fixation with offe

They shot 48% from the field, 43% from three, had only 10 to's and 12 offensive boards. Rutgers certainly is a bad offensive team, but they are giving up 64 ppg and hold teams to 41% shooting. Defense is the problem for this team (and most CTC teams). They are not a bad defensive team. He is a very, very good offensive coach.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

Re: "recruit more 6'9+ players than guards"

A common misconception on this board that we don't recruit big guys:

Cody Zeller
Michael Chandler
Marshall Plumlee
Walter Pitchford
Moussa Gueye
AJ Hammons
Matt Costello
Richard Peters
Peter Jurkin
Noah Vonleh
Marcus Lee
Luke Fischer
Myles Turner
Tim Priller
Jeremiah April
Trey Lyles
Chris McCullough
Michael Humphrey
Goodluck Okonoboh
Daniel Giddons
Carlton Bragg
Thomas Bryant
Steven Zimmerman
Diamond Stone
Henry Ellison
Doral Moore
Elijah Thomas
Alex Illikainen
Raymond Spalding
Barret Benson
Thon Maker
Joey Brunk
Nick Rekocevik
T.J Leaf
Juwan Durham
De'Ron Davis
Nick Marshall


All guys 6'9" or taller who have had offers extended over the past 5 years to IU.

 

[Al Bino]

Many assumptions there.

Most teams it seems plays about a eight man rotation. That leaves 5 roster spots to fill with players for the "what if" scenarios. Most teams in the BT have four players on the roster 6'9 and better. IU has three and I am not sure you can really count the no stars two that he signed late.

I sure didn't say they all needed to be 5 star UK material but surely you understand the frustration of many with his roster mismanagement. If he is indeed a great recruiter, then how do you end up with a team last year with no shooters or one if you count Yogi as a shooter. How does that happen anywhere but ESPECIALLY in Indiana where shooters grow on trees.

How do you end up with a team with few bigs like this years team? Has he swung for the fences, ala Davis and Smith and missed. Does he not want more bigs? It would appear that he doesn't since he is bringing in two more wings next year.

One thing for sure, we would kick ass in a 6'7 and under league!!

 

[SRIV94]

Recruiting is one thing. Sealing the deal is another.

And there Crean has somewhat underachieved. Zeller was a wonderful pickup. Jurkin sucked. April and Priller may or may not pan out (although the conventional wisdom seems to be on the negative side). Fischer never got a fair shake, and he left (using homesickness as an excuse, but the reality is had he played significant minutes from Day 1, he's still here). And Lyles committed, but had buyer's remorse and Crean couldn't keep him.

So it's not just about recruiting height. It's recruiting height that is commensurate with ability to actually play. And keeping that pipeline going.

 

[Stuffshot]

OK, whatever, but just so you know.

At 1:39 you posted, "By way of example, we are scoring 71.4 ppg in conference, and allowing 71.9 ppg." That is exactly what the Big Ten shows in its present Overall Conference-Only statistics. In other words, these are pure averages (perhaps means is the correct term) with no adjustment.

Now you're saying "statisticians adjust scoring differentials for opponent," i.e. not a pure average. You're getting some extra discussion in this thread because of that.

So, apparently, this entire thread is a subjective discussion about someone's subjective adjustments to numbers after he has subjectively evaluated how much better it is to score 70 points against Wisconsin than against Mississippi Valley. I thought Bill James was confusing.

I'm probably reacting more to the use of "luck" than anything else, because you can't tell me that it was luck for the Bulls to win a close game (no matter what the scoring averages were) when they had a three-point lead with 90 seconds left, and repeatedly got it in Jordan's hands for the rest of the game. A team without a go-to guy has a harder time winning the close ones.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I guess I'm not being clear.

That's because it's not the type of "luck" I'm talking about. It's not luck when Jordan wins a game with a last-second shot. It's skill and performance. "Luck" simply refers to how far actual results outpace said skill and performance. If teams, on average, score the same as their opponents, and still win significantly more than half their games, that's "luck." It's a statistical measure, only. Plenty of research shoes a strong relationship between scoring differential and win percentage. "Luck" is just the term statisticians use for the rate that a team's actual win performance diverges from what's expected.

goat

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

I don't disagree with anything you have said.....

....but the original notion was that Crean didn't really recruit big guys.
My list demonstrates that we have offered an average of 7 guys per year who are 6'9" or taller.

I still say that Fischer's departure was selfish on his part. Absolutely no patience.
He knew coming in that there was no guarantee written in stone or a promise of a certain matter of minutes.
If the guy had simply waited into the 2nd half of the season, he would have seen more time. Hell, wasn't he behind Cody anyway?
Did he really think he was going to take major minutes from that guy?

Patience. Very little of it these days in our instant gratification society.

Kid could have had a nice career here and would have been a key player this season.

Make no mistake that he bailed on us when the opportunity was sitting there on a silver platter and he couldn't see it.

 

[SRIV94]

But again, it's not about offering.

It's about getting. And retaining.

It's the same thing that doomed Mike Davis. (Well, that and his coaching. )

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

Re: Crean has offered a total.....

......of 6 players in the Center position and another 5-6 guys in the PF position for next year that fit your criteria.
In fact, he has extended an average of 7 offers each of the past 5 years to guys 6'9" or taller.

To say he isn't recruiting big guys is nonsense.
The biggest problem is a variety of factors, some involving Crean and others he cannot control.

1. Old facilities when compared to other powers such as Michigan State and Wisconsin. Those two have become the gold standard in the conference with newer investments and commitments.
2. Mediocre program success largely over the course of the past 25 years. A program living off of fumes of success from the 80s. This success period was before the birthdate of today's recruits. Hard to tout success to a kid when they haven't lived through it.
3. An offense that doesn't utilize post presence enough, although Cody certainly thrived in it. Vonleh, not so much. That's more on Vonleh, however, due to his well known motivational issues.
4. Crean's use of multiple players that tends to limit minutes for those that crave the spotlight. Interestingly, Lyles went to a loaded team and is part of a platoon of players.
5. IU not a destination school for many coaches. "It's Indiana" was a dream job for Crean. However, there are others that didn't want to touch that job with a 10 foot pole. Crean was not the first option.

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

Absolutely, but......

...... I also think that many IU fans vastly overestimate our drawing power.
IU is no longer in preseason conversation when we start talking about who is going to win the Big Ten.
That has pretty much been replaced by the names "Wisconsin"and "Michigan State."

Crean has the task of getting and retaining big guys, you are spot on.
It's also a much, much harder sell here than ever before for Crean.
He's recruiting to a program that's lost a lot of its luster. Hell, a good portion of our state's top guys have no passion whatsoever for IU basketball.
To many Indiana kids, it's just another school.

 

[enfield]

really!?

To criticize our offense is funny. Now our Defense, that would be understandable.

How about chapter 7, that would be more entertaining.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SRIV94]

I agree.*

*