Importance of experience

[Paterfamilias]

Okay, we all know experience is important, but I think this little study highlights just how important it is in the Big 10. I haven't done any other conference yet, but I think this is pretty cool so I'll share it a little early.

There's a great site called Sports-Reference, which has an experience rating under each roster going back to the 2010-11 season. I've been working on this off and on since I first noticed that they had added this rating this year. The rating is weighted based on minutes played; so a senior who doesn't play has no effect on the rating.

I've been sorting teams into 2 categories; those with experience level of 1.2 and lower, and those with experience levels of 1.5 and higher. Then I note the results of their seasons going back to the 2010-11 season. I only look at teams with a .500 or better conference record over that time. Indiana and Iowa are included because they are very close to .500 (79-81, 77-82) while the remainder of the conference is far below .500

Anyway... here are the results starting with those inexperienced teams with a 1.2 rating or less

Notice that...

35% received an NCAA Bid
15% were seeded better than a #8
10% reached the Sweet 16

Okay... Now for the teams with an Experience level of 1.5 or better

Notice that...

94% received an NCAA Bid
78% were seeded better than a #8 seed
53% reached the Sweet 16

I'll let you guys look over it for a bit while I eat dinner and then I'll go over some of the things I've been thinking about relative to the contrast in these numbers.

 

[hondo314]

Okay, we all know experience is important, but I think this little study highlights just how important it is in the Big 10. I haven't done any other conference yet, but I think this is pretty cool so I'll share it a little early.

There's a great site called Sports-Reference, which has an experience rating under each roster going back to the 2010-11 season. I've been working on this off and on since I first noticed that they had added this rating this year. The rating is weighted based on minutes played; so a senior who doesn't play has no effect on the rating.

I've been sorting teams into 2 categories; those with experience level of 1.2 and lower, and those with experience levels of 1.5 and higher. Then I note the results of their seasons going back to the 2010-11 season. I only look at teams with a .500 or better conference record over that time. Indiana and Iowa are included because they are very close to .500 (79-81, 77-82) while the remainder of the conference is far below .500

Anyway... here are the results starting with those inexperienced teams with a 1.2 rating or less

Notice that...

35% received an NCAA Bid
15% were seeded better than a #8
10% reached the Sweet 16

Okay... Now for the teams with an Experience level of 1.5 or better

Notice that...

94% received an NCAA Bid
78% were seeded better than a #8 seed
53% reached the Sweet 16

I'll let you guys look over it for a bit while I eat dinner and then I'll go over some of the things I've been thinking about relative to the contrast in these numbers.

nice work! i read this and only got mad that Crean wasted the few teams he allowed to get older.

CREAN!!!!!!!!! lol

also, Beilein became self-actualized at Michigan. man, he's good.

 

[TR32]

Question: how did you come up with 1.2 and 1.5? I get that a cutoff is necessary but how do these numbers relate to the whole country? Is there a percentile that these represent?

It is a nice analysis and makes it clear what is known among coaches of all levels, experience helps a team.

I just want to add that one of the things you get from an experienced team is maturity in how they approach practice. Even the players who don't play that have more seniority tend to approach practice with consistency and tenacity that younger guys don't. They add value in helping the team be mentally focused. It is non x and o, even though you are showing tangibles.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Question: how did you come up with 1.2 and 1.5? I get that a cutoff is necessary but how do these numbers relate to the whole country? Is there a percentile that these represent?

It is a nice analysis and makes it clear what is known among coaches of all levels, experience helps a team.

I just want to add that one of the things you get from an experienced team is maturity in how they approach practice. Even the players who don't play that have more seniority tend to approach practice with consistency and tenacity that younger guys don't. They add value in helping the team be mentally focused. It is non x and o, even though you are showing tangibles.

After recording a few years in my spreadsheet, 1.2 was the cutoff for the bottom third of the Power 6 conferences (including the Big East) and 1.5 was the cutoff for the top half. The top third was no good as a cutoff because quite a few schools that draw very little talent end up with experienced teams that are still kind of bad in spite of the experience. Teams that draw top 100 talent somewhat regularly end up a bit younger because of early entry.

It was a bit arbitrary, but I figured I could mess around with it some if the data pushed me that way. It seems like I hit the sweet spot on first guess though. As I do other conferences I'll probably find reason to tinker, but it will be pretty cool if it holds well as is.

I've always thought that roster continuity is huge, which is why I would like to see everyone stick with the program. A guy like Smith can be an issue as a soph, but a star as a senior. Running off players is a very efficient way to stay young perpetually.

 

[Paterfamilias]

As a little Roster continuity tangent, check this out. Alford at UCLA had as bad a roster continuity issue as you will ever see.

In his 5 full seasons he had 23 players log at least 200 minutes for him in a season. Only 7 of the 23 had consecutive seasons of 200+ minutes.

By way of example Kentucky had 11 over the same period and Michigan St. had 17. These were not scrubs either, here are the lists for each school along with RSCI Rank.

UCLA
N. Powell #53
B. Alford N/A
T. Parker #24
I. Hamilton #24
T. Welsh #33
A. Holiday #60
G. Goloman N/A

Kentucky
Aa. Harrison #6
An. Harrison #5
W. Stein #38
D. Johnson #9
M. Lee #18
T. Ulis #18
M. Lee #18
I. Briscoe #11
D. Willis N/A
D. Hawkins N/A
I. Humphries N/A
W. Gabriel #13

Mich. State
T. Trice N/A
D. Valentine #88
B. Dawson #17
M. Costello #86
G. Shilling N/A
A. Ellis N/A
B. Forbes N/A
M. Clark N/A
L. Nairn #78
E. Harris N/A
M. McQuaid #67
K. Goins N/A
M. Bridges #10
J. Langford #20
C. Winston #29
N. Ward #44
K. Ahrens N/A

 

[Paterfamilias]

I thought I would take a look at Jay Wright at Villanova and I think this is pretty interesting. IU and Villanova are pretty close in Top 100 recruits the past 10 years, and obviously Wright has had a ton of success, so I was interested to see how Wright did with the inexperienced teams (1.2 and lower).

It turns out Sports-Reference goes all the way back to 2003 with Villanova's experience ratings. I suppose they could be working on these daily, I've noticed some blanks filled in that weren't just a couple of weeks ago.

Wright, it seems, does a good job of getting his team old and keeping it that way (much like Izzo), but there are a few years when the Wildcats fell into the too young category.

I color coded this one some; Red is experienced (1.5+), Green is inexperienced (1.2 and less), Blue is that middle ground possibly a year away type team (1.3 and 1.4)

IU this year is 1.3...

Notice that as good as Wright has been, his more inexperienced teams stick out a bit in overall performance.

 

[victorbear]

Wow u just waisted a bunch of time, what’s Duke’s roster experience! How about Kentucky

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

Wow u just waisted a bunch of time, what’s Duke’s roster experience! How about Kentucky

YDS

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

I thought I would take a look at Jay Wright at Villanova and I think this is pretty interesting. IU and Villanova are pretty close in Top 100 recruits the past 10 years, and obviously Wright has had a ton of success, so I was interested to see how Wright did with the inexperienced teams (1.2 and lower).

It turns out Sports-Reference goes all the way back to 2003 with Villanova's experience ratings. I suppose they could be working on these daily, I've noticed some blanks filled in that weren't just a couple of weeks ago.

Wright, it seems, does a good job of getting his team old and keeping it that way (much like Izzo), but there are a few years when the Wildcats fell into the too young category.

I color coded this one some; Red is experienced (1.5+), Green is inexperienced (1.2 and less), Blue is that middle ground possibly a year away type team (1.3 and 1.4)

IU this year is 1.3...

Notice that as good as Wright has been, his more inexperienced teams stick out a bit in overall performance.

Good stuff.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Wow u just waisted a bunch of time, what’s Duke’s roster experience! How about Kentucky

It does seem that experience becomes less important if you can get 4 or 5 Top 15 ranked players on your roster. That club is pretty exclusive though. I'm more interested in how experience level effects the College teams. I hate to say it, but I don't even watch the Pro squads at Duke and UK live. I might catch a replay if they get beat for the laughs, but that;s about it.

Are Oak Hill, Montverde, La Lu etc High School teams? How many State Titles do they have? I don't follow High School ball much anymore either, but I view the One-and-Done factories at Duke and UK about the same way as I do the semi-pro "high school" teams. They are fun for youtube highlights, but that's about it.

 

[snarlcakes]

Wow u just waisted a bunch of time, what’s Duke’s roster experience! How about Kentucky

There isn't any need for this type of post. Paterfamilias posts are usually informative, well thought out, and appreciated. He isn't a fanboy.

 

[Rakkasan29]

nice work! i read this and only got mad that Crean wasted the few teams he allowed to get older.

CREAN!!!!!!!!! lol

also, Beilein became self-actualized at Michigan. man, he's good.

Probably his biggest failure at Indiana was the ability to build and maintain an EXPERIENCED roster.
Too many transfers, too much Creaning. Couple that with an inability to tactically counter opposing coaches or put together a competent defense and well...see results...

 

[jsig]

Thanks for this original post Pater. I appreciate the research and time likely put into this. While Archie hasn't gotten off the greatest of starts, I think he trying to build up the backbone of the team based on experience. Other than Morgan and Rojo and now Deron he hasn't been left with much in the way of upperclassmen. DeRon has been a factor due to injuries and some will probably argue that Rojo wasn't much.

Even with the struggles of smith, I hope he stays and improves his basketball game. Durham looks to be a player. Moore has flashed a skillset but is not ready for big 10 basketball. Hopefully by next year.

I also wonder how teams with experienced guards do compared to those without. I could see a trend where a young frontcourt with experienced guards does well but a vet frontcourt with Frosh in the backcourt struggles.

I follow the Texas pretty closely living in austin and shaka hasn't done the best of jobs. The offense is the root of their struggles. He had a pretty good year with Isiah Taylor running the show but since Taylor left the guard play has struggled mostly due to youth and lack of a true PG.

Now that they have Coleman and Febres as Sophs and Ramey as a Frosh and Mitrou-Long as a Jr the team seemed to have turned the corner offensively and stabilized. Roach is a senior but pulled a Green and got suspended. He may be done. It took 3.5 years but I think Shaka will have an experienced team with solid guards at all experince levels finally going into next year assuming they don't fire him this year if they miss the tourney. Jones may return next year also. Hope he is close to back to his old self.

Hopefully Archie gets the time to get the roster stabilized around 2-4 year players especially at the guard position. I think like coleman in Texas, Phinisee will be really important in this team getting back on track. I also think durham will be really good as an upperclassmen. Supplement those 2 with new guard recruits each year and Archie's teams should be able to cut down on those annoying TO's.

 

[Rakkasan29]

Wow u just waisted a bunch of time, what’s Duke’s roster experience! How about Kentucky

Think how much oxygen you continually waste, but nobody says anything...

Remind us all again what you bring to this Forum, please?

Paterfamilias is a good poster and you choosing to respond in that way tells everyone all they need to know about what kind of person you are.

Truly a disgrace. And a chickensh!t coward.

 

[jsig]

It does seem that experience becomes less important if you can get 4 or 5 Top 15 ranked players on your roster. That club is pretty exclusive though. I'm more interested in how experience level effects the College teams. I hate to say it, but I don't even watch the Pro squads at Duke and UK live. I might catch a replay if they get beat for the laughs, but that;s about it.

Are Oak Hill, Montverde, La Lu etc High School teams? How many State Titles do they have? I don't follow High School ball much anymore either, but I view the One-and-Done factories at Duke and UK about the same way as I do the semi-pro "high school" teams. They are fun for youtube highlights, but that's about it.

I only tune in to see Zion.

With the NBA probably taking on most of those 5 star recruits out of HS soon those teams that duke and UK form will become even more rare. Not to say those 2 schools won't get the top available guys but I think they will likely have to adjust back to building programs around more experience.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Thanks for this original post Pater. I appreciate the research and time likely put into this. While Archie hasn't gotten off the greatest of starts, I think he trying to build up the backbone of the team based on experience. Other than Morgan and Rojo and now Deron he hasn't been left with much in the way of upperclassmen. DeRon has been a factor due to injuries and some will probably argue that Rojo wasn't much.

Even with the struggles of smith, I hope he stays and improves his basketball game. Durham looks to be a player. Moore has flashed a skillset but is not ready for big 10 basketball. Hopefully by next year.

I also wonder how teams with experienced guards do compared to those without. I could see a trend where a young frontcourt with experienced guards does well but a vet frontcourt with Frosh in the backcourt struggles.

I follow the Texas pretty closely living in austin and shaka hasn't done the best of jobs. The offense is the root of their struggles. He had a pretty good year with Isiah Taylor running the show but since Taylor left the guard play has struggled mostly due to youth and lack of a true PG.

Now that they have Coleman and Febres as Sophs and Ramey as a Frosh and Mitrou-Long as a Jr the team seemed to have turned the corner offensively and stabilized. Roach is a senior but pulled a Green and got suspended. He may be done. It took 3.5 years but I think Shaka will have an experienced team with solid guards at all experince levels finally going into next year assuming they don't fire him this year if they miss the tourney. Jones may return next year also. Hope he is close to back to his old self.

Hopefully Archie gets the time to get the roster stabilized around 2-4 year players especially at the guard position. I think like coleman in Texas, Phinisee will be really important in this team getting back on track. I also think durham will be really good as an upperclassmen. Supplement those 2 with new guard recruits each year and Archie's teams should be able to cut down on those annoying TO's.

Great post! It's cool that you bring up Texas, because it was Rick Barnes that has driven my latest mini obsession. It wasn't that long ago that Barnes was pretty much considered a guy that could only win big with great talent... and he might not even then! Now he's having great success with an extremely unheralded roster.

Like every other fan I formulate opinions over time about coaches or philosophies. However, when I'm wrong about someone like I was about Barnes, I have to know what it was that I missed.

I still haven't solved the Rick Barnes puzzle adequately enough, but in trying I have stumbled across what I think are interesting tidbits from time to time. I do the same sort of things with horse racing, at least to the extent that research data is available and affordable to me. If I think even a few IU fans might appreciate, I share it here.

Also, sports/gambling research is no more work to me than a round of golf is to McNutt or any other lawn enthusiast

 

[victorbear]

Think how much oxygen you continually waste, but nobody says anything...

Remind us all again what you bring to this Forum, please?

Paterfamilias is a good poster and you choosing to respond in that way tells everyone all they need to know about what kind of person you are.

Truly a disgrace. And a chickensh!t coward.

Go away Private Parts

 

[Rakkasan29]

Go away Private Parts

I'll not be going anywhere.

Act like an adult and maybe you won't get punked in each and every thread you comment in.

Coward.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I'm going to add one more and then I'll let it slide before it gets too irritating. This time were going to look at UNC under Ole Roy. Three of the seasons didn't have a rating, but I've looked at enough of these to ballpark whether it should be green, blue or red.

Notice that 4 of Roy's 6 experienced teams (Red) made it to the National Title game. The inexperienced teams (Green) had a couple of Elite Eights, but no Final Four runs. The middle ground teams (Blue) were a mixed bag. Only one of the 9 non-Red seasons resulted in a Final Four (11%), while the Red seasons punched their Final Four ticket 66% of the time.

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

I'm going to add one more and then I'll let it slide before it gets too irritating. This time were going to look at UNC under Ole Roy. Three of the seasons didn't have a rating, but I've looked at enough of these to ballpark whether it should be green, blue or red.

Notice that 4 of Roy's 6 experienced teams (Red) made it to the National Title game. The inexperienced teams (Green) had a couple of Elite Eights, but no Final Four runs. The middle ground teams (Blue) were a mixed bag. Only one of the 9 none-Red seasons resulted in a Final Four (11%), while the Red seasons punched their Final Four ticket 66% of the time.

What would be interesting to add to this, Pater, is level of talent - # of stars as rated by RSCI.

That could give us an even better view on the importance of experience, raw talent, or a combination of both. I've always maintained youth caught up to Calipari because he didn't have the Darius Miller to be that veteran presence. Would be very interested to see that in your graphic.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Go away Private Parts

Things victorbear never tells her boyfriend?

 

[jsig]

Great post! It's cool that you bring up Texas, because it was Rick Barnes that has driven my latest mini obsession. It wasn't that long ago that Barnes was pretty much considered a guy that could only win big with great talent... and he might not even then! Now he's having great success with an extremely unheralded roster.

Like every other fan I formulate opinions over time about coaches or philosophies. However, when I'm wrong about someone like I was about Barnes, I have to know what it was that I missed.

I still haven't solved the Rick Barnes puzzle adequately enough, but in trying I have stumbled across what I think are interesting tidbits from time to time. I do the same sort of things with horse racing, at least to the extent that research data is available and affordable to me. If I think even a few IU fans might appreciate, I share it here.

Also, sports/gambling research is no more work to me than a round of golf is to McNutt or any other lawn enthusiast

Barnes was really a big turnoff the last 6 or so years before Shaka came. He is a capable respectable coach but nothing special. What i saw in those 6 years was a team that underachieved and underachieved by a lot. I guess the stars have aligned for him with this group at Tenn. but I find it hard to believe he'll be consistent anymore than Crean was at IU.

 

[fkfootball]

Besides Green, I want everyone else to stay.

 

[cryano]

Besides Green, I want everyone else to stay.

Besides Archie and the other suits...I want everyone else to stay...including Green.

 

[hondo314]

Besides Archie and the other suits...I want everyone else to stay...including Green.

luckily you are wildly unqualified to make that decision...

again, we're sorry Glass hurt you so bad. by chance, was he your counselor at sleep over camp?

 

[victorbear]

luckily you are wildly unqualified to make that decision...

again, we're sorry Glass hurt you so bad. by chance, was he your counselor at sleep over camp?

Weirdo

 

[hondo314]

Weirdo

you don't have to talk about it here but it's important that you talk about with someone...

 

[Ksteph]

Things victorbear never tells her boyfriend?

That’s funny coming from u-u know the gay reference; since I always assumed u were gay given ur pic and name? Better watch it lil boy..ur gonna offend someone one with those gay comments

 

[TR32]

Probably his biggest failure at Indiana was the ability to build and maintain an EXPERIENCED roster.
Too many transfers, too much Creaning. Couple that with an inability to tactically counter opposing coaches or put together a competent defense and well...see results...

I talked with a dejected Remy Abell once after a game where he seemingly didn't play as much as he should have. It was just random, I don't know him. But I could tell from his comments he was exasperated with his status. I couldn't understand what Crean wouldn't have liked in a kid like him who seemed to work hard and play pretty well.

He achieved nirvana of experience in 2012, then went away from what worked well.

 

[TR32]

I'm going to add one more and then I'll let it slide before it gets too irritating. This time were going to look at UNC under Ole Roy. Three of the seasons didn't have a rating, but I've looked at enough of these to ballpark whether it should be green, blue or red.

Notice that 4 of Roy's 6 experienced teams (Red) made it to the National Title game. The inexperienced teams (Green) had a couple of Elite Eights, but no Final Four runs. The middle ground teams (Blue) were a mixed bag. Only one of the 9 none-Red seasons resulted in a Final Four (11%), while the Red seasons punched their Final Four ticket 66% of the time.

Great analysis. You should graph it- rounds on the x axis (1-2-3-4-5-6), experience on the Y. The UK-led one and done era skewed fans into believing that the thing to do was go out and get a bunch of talented freshmen. But in reality there are only a couple of exceptions to the rule that experience matters.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

That’s funny coming from u-u know the gay reference; since I always assumed u were gay given ur pic and name? Better watch it lil boy..ur gonna offend someone one with those gay comments

What "gay references", victorbear?

 

[Tasmanian Devil]

What "gay references", victorbear?

That reference right there . . .

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Think how much oxygen you continually waste, but nobody says anything...

Remind us all again what you bring to this Forum, please?

Paterfamilias is a good poster and you choosing to respond in that way tells everyone all they need to know about what kind of person you are.

Truly a disgrace. And a chickensh!t coward.

The next time victor posts any kind of statistical or factually verifiable information will be the first.

 

[minneman]

The next time victor posts any kind of statistical or factually verifiable information will be the first.

But opinions and feelings are just as good as facts!

 

[Columbus-Boiler]

This isn't trolling and I laud your work, but I think everyone's gut already tells them that experience helps. So does talent. So does coaching. So does home court advantage. Etc.

So you can point to this study and say "hey! See! this is why we aren't winning enough" but that takes out a lot of the factors.

I would have been SHOCKED if your data showed it any other way. Young teams do generally get better as they age.

The other factor you have to take into consideration when looking at this chart as maybe a future indicator of success is the OAD factor. When looking at it with a bent on the future Langford for example is a senior. Carsen probably is too etc......

 

[Paterfamilias]

This isn't trolling and I laud your work, but I think everyone's gut already tells them that experience helps. So does talent. So does coaching. So does home court advantage. Etc.

So you can point to this study and say "hey! See! this is why we aren't winning enough" but that takes out a lot of the factors.

I would have been SHOCKED if your data showed it any other way. Young teams do generally get better as they age.

The other factor you have to take into consideration when looking at this chart as maybe a future indicator of success is the OAD factor. When looking at it with a bent on the future Langford for example is a senior. Carsen probably is too etc......

I get what you're saying, but this whole thing is not intended as an excuse for IU's current woes. In fact I've been working on this little by little since the beginning of the season, when I thought we had a real shot at winning the Big Ten this year.

I like to work on predictive models that other people don't use, because those kind of things can provide an edge in sports gambling.

Like everyone else I knew that the more experienced teams would do better, but I was surprised at how stark the contrast actually was.

• 35% vs 94% NCAA bids in favor of the 1.5+ group
• 15% vs 78% receiving NCAA seeds better than an #8
• 10% vs 53% advancing to the Sweet 16

There is a difference between knowing that something has an effect and realizing that the effect is more dramatic than you would have guessed.

As far as Romeo goes, it is effectively his senior season, but there is no substitute for experience. You can't test out of it by virtue of skill level. Unfortunately, experience must be earned.

I see talent level as "the sum of the parts", but it takes experience for "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" to become a reality. I do think that more talented teams can get connected and have some chemistry with a little less experience, but it can be a roller coaster of variability unless the talent is uber-talent.

The really bad thing about experience is that it is the one thing that can't be coached. Great coaching can facilitate the maximization of game and practice experience, but is not a substitute for it.

In the end, for me, it's just a gambling hypothesis and may not reflect reality in any way