The Four (Actually Eight) Factors...

[SixthFlagComing]

...that explain what wins basketball games, and their relative importance:

1. Shooting (40%)
2. Turnovers (25%)
3. Rebounding (20%)
4. Free Throws (15%)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

https://squared2020.com/2017/09/05/introduction-to-olivers-four-factors/

I realize statistics aren't as entertaining as Archie's chewing gum, facial expressions and relative worth as a human being, but, hey, let's try something different. Perhaps after reading the articles, the magical thinkers and mental midgets among us who continue to labor under the silly notion that the "right" coach with the "right" system can magically lead a group of plucky and spunky two and three star players to a national championship could take baby steps back towards the realities of modern basketball.

 

[victorbear]

...that explain what wins basketball games, and their relative importance:

1. Shooting (40%)
2. Turnovers (25%)
3. Rebounding (20%)
4. Free Throws (15%)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

https://squared2020.com/2017/09/05/introduction-to-olivers-four-factors/

I realize statistics aren't as entertaining as Archie's chewing gum, facial expressions and relative worth as a human being, but, hey, let's try something different. Perhaps after reading the articles, the magical thinkers and mental midgets among us who continue to labor under the silly notion that the "right" coach with the "right" system can magically lead a group of plucky and spunky two and three star players to a national championship could take baby steps back towards the realities of modern basketball.

Shooting % is a reflection of good offense, ie good shots = good shooting %. Your stats are flawed. If you think Archie is running a good offense then I guess you are just clueless.

 

[HurryinHoosiers]

If you think victorbear knows anything about sports, you are just clueless. He is more of the musical type.

I’d of guessed that he’s more the Bill Cosby type.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

If you think victorbear knows anything about sports, you are just clueless. He is more of the musical type.

You mean he eats beans and toots?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

If you think victorbear knows anything about sports, you are just clueless. He is more of the musical type.

Looky there...I have a stalker. I have finally arrived!

 

[Zeester]

...that explain what wins basketball games, and their relative importance:

1. Shooting (40%)
2. Turnovers (25%)
3. Rebounding (20%)
4. Free Throws (15%)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

https://squared2020.com/2017/09/05/introduction-to-olivers-four-factors/

I realize statistics aren't as entertaining as Archie's chewing gum, facial expressions and relative worth as a human being, but, hey, let's try something different. Perhaps after reading the articles, the magical thinkers and mental midgets among us who continue to labor under the silly notion that the "right" coach with the "right" system can magically lead a group of plucky and spunky two and three star players to a national championship could take baby steps back towards the realities of modern basketball.

Interesting stats. IMO IU gets good shots they just can't knock them down. This is very evident on the road. They normally shoot half way decent at home and play much better - more competitive. Shooting on the road has been a disaster - shots are there they just can't make them for whatever reason and are not even in the games.

 

[kkott]

Interesting stats. IMO IU gets good shots they just can't knock them down. This is very evident on the road. They normally shoot half way decent at home and play much better - more competitive. Shooting on the road has been a disaster - shots are there they just can't make them for whatever reason and are not even in the games.

I didn't see it, but looking at the box score, we weren't awful on FG%, and actually shot 3s well and FTs, for this group. It looks like we simply didn't get enough shots, which points to rebounding and turnovers to me.

 

[IU? I'm Fine]

If you think victorbear knows anything about sports, you are just clueless. He is more of the musical type.

Isn't he the troll that likes Purdue more than IU?
Isn't he the troll that posts often but only negative stuff with the intent to disrupt?
That means he is a troll. Ignore him.

 

[ufo33]

IU lost the rebounding battle at OSU..
Leading to less shots for IU, and more 2nd and 3rd shot attempts for OSU. There are still more games left to right the ship, and finish the season with some positive momentum.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

...that explain what wins basketball games, and their relative importance:

1. Shooting (40%)
2. Turnovers (25%)
3. Rebounding (20%)
4. Free Throws (15%)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

https://squared2020.com/2017/09/05/introduction-to-olivers-four-factors/

I realize statistics aren't as entertaining as Archie's chewing gum, facial expressions and relative worth as a human being, but, hey, let's try something different. Perhaps after reading the articles, the magical thinkers and mental midgets among us who continue to labor under the silly notion that the "right" coach with the "right" system can magically lead a group of plucky and spunky two and three star players to a national championship could take baby steps back towards the realities of modern basketball.

The 2nd author says he believes the correct #s are more like 46/35/12/7, based on his statistical analysis.

To me, this seems more intuitively more correct.........in basketball there is shooting/scoring, and there is "everything else". Instinctively, I'd go with something like 46/30/17/7.

Although 30-35% for TOs seems high, we only have to remember Crean's teams...........

For those who didn't read the article, the four listed factors encompass both the O & D parts of the game.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

I didn't see it, but looking at the box score, we weren't awful on FG%, and actually shot 3s well and FTs, for this group. It looks like we simply didn't get enough shots, which points to rebounding and turnovers to me.

They had their worst rebounding game, giving up many ORs......OSU got all the lose balls all night.....I think IU had 13 TOs?......Basically didn't force OSU into any of their own.

My definition of a bad team is one that regularly loses for different reasons on different nights. PSU-----TOs, shooting & low energy....OSU.....rebounding & low energy

 

[iubud]

I didn't see it, but looking at the box score, we weren't awful on FG%, and actually shot 3s well and FTs, for this group. It looks like we simply didn't get enough shots, which points to rebounding and turnovers to me.

Those two areas were the difference. They are the measure of energy and focus.

Energy can lead to success in rebounding and getting the 50/50 balls. Focus, or lack of focus, is not catching a pass or securing the ball in traffic that shows up as a turnover and blowing layups. Without energy and focus, we looked weak and timid.

Archie says success on the road has a lot to do with experience. Those that have been through the league are better prepared to play in front of a hostile crowd. I am sure he is right. I believe with experience comes the ability to generate energy from within without a cheering home crowd.

We need players that create energy and bring it out in others. I see a team of introverts on the court. Who is the alpha dog on this team? Who is the lead dog?

 

[kkott]

Later on the author says he believes the correct #s are more like 46/35/12/7, based on his statistical analysis.

To me, this seems more intuitively more correct.........in basketball there is shooting/scoring, and there is "everything else". Instinctively, I'd go with something like 46/30/17/7.

It would seem to me it would be relative to each team. Their shooting #s are based on FG% so for a team like ours that isn't a great shooting team, I would think it would amplify the other #s, especially TO and rebounding so we are giving ourselves more possessions. I suppose there's an average, but it seems to me the real value would be to establish that baseline for your team/roster and then compare game by game. Looking at OSU's boxscores, our shooting percentages weren't dreadful, but our rebounding #s were. What we apparently needed from looking at that is more possessions. OSU had many more possessions and shot attempts.

 

[kkott]

They had their worst rebounding game, giving up many ORs......OSU got all the lose balls all night.....I think IU had 13 TOs?......Basically didn't force OSU into any of their own.

My definition of a bad team is one that regularly loses for different reasons on different nights. PSU-----TOs, shooting & low energy....OSU.....rebounding & low energy

I've been telling my IU buddy here all year that it seems we lose 80% of the 50/50 balls in our losses. It always looks to me in many of our losses the other team expects to get loose balls. Sort of like the big brother dominating the little bro in the driveway.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Those two areas were the difference. They are the measure of energy and focus.

Energy can lead to success in rebounding and getting the 50/50 balls. Focus, or lack of focus, is not catching a pass or securing the ball in traffic that shows up as a turnover and blowing layups. Without energy and focus, we looked weak and timid.

Archie says success on the road has a lot to do with experience. Those that have been through the league are better prepared to play in front of a hostile crowd. I am sure he is right. I believe with experience comes the ability to generate energy from within without a cheering home crowd.

We need players that create energy and bring it out in others. I see a team of introverts on the court. Who is the alpha dog on this team? Who is the lead dog?

Lack of experience would be a legit excuse.....unfortunately, it doesn't apply to our group. We have tons of experience with Smith, Green Al, Deron, Brunk...Phin's played a lot for a soph. Our problem is our experienced players don't have energy, and our energetic players don't have experience. In other words, we're f*****.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

I've been telling my IU buddy here all year that it seems we lose 80% of the 50/50 balls in our losses. It always looks to me in many of our losses the other team expects to get loose balls. Sort of like the big brother dominating the little bro in the driveway.

Yes...I hate it when some on here say 'we played hard' in some of our losses when what I am generally seeing is 'we played hard for us'.

No team ever plays hard all the time.......on average, teams play harder at home than on the road......but there are more times when I'm watching Rutgers, MSU, Purdue (at home), Illinois, Wisconsin when I think "Damn, those guys are playing hard" than when I am watching IU.........

 

[ufo33]

Lack of experience would be a legit excuse.....unfortunately, it doesn't apply to our group. We have tons of experience with Smith, Green Al, Deron, Brunk...Phin's played a lot for a soph. Our problem is our experienced players don't have energy, and our energetic players don't have experience. In other words, we're f*****.

Archie's guys are Freshmen and Soph.

 

[kkott]

Archie's guys are Freshmen and Soph.

at this point, that's an excuse. There's no asterisk by Tubby Smith's name, because he won a NC with players Pitino recruited. We're 3 years in... they are all "Archie's players" now.

 

[chaboom]

What bothers me most about this team really isn't about stats. Good teams, to a player, understand the coach's vision for the team, buy into it and are willing to do everything humanly possible - run through the proverbial brick wall for the coach - in order to carry it out. My question is: Why don't these guys want to put forth maximum effort and play hard for Archie?

 

[mushroomgod_1]

What bothers me most about this team really isn't about stats. Good teams, to a player, understand the coach's vision for the team, buy into it and are willing to do everything humanly possible - run through the proverbial brick wall for the coach - in order to carry it out. My question is: Why don't these guys want to put forth maximum effort and play hard for Archie?

I don't think this group of players, as constituted, would consistently play hard & smart for any coach. But that doesn't let Archie off the hook. He re-recruited Smith, Durham & Moore....recruited DA & Jake F......and has chosen to negotiate with Green & Smith concerning how they would play.

 

[T.M.P.]

I didn't see it, but looking at the box score, we weren't awful on FG%, and actually shot 3s well and FTs, for this group. It looks like we simply didn't get enough shots, which points to rebounding and turnovers to me.

Look at the rebound percentage. That's why we lost.

 

[T.M.P.]

It would seem to me it would be relative to each team. Their shooting #s are based on FG% so for a team like ours that isn't a great shooting team, I would think it would amplify the other #s, especially TO and rebounding so we are giving ourselves more possessions. I suppose there's an average, but it seems to me the real value would be to establish that baseline for your team/roster and then compare game by game. Looking at OSU's boxscores, our shooting percentages weren't dreadful, but our rebounding #s were. What we apparently needed from looking at that is more possessions. OSU had many more possessions and shot attempts.

Rebounds don't give extra possessions. Off rebounds extend possessions. I know, terminology is annoying but .... Possession are FGA + (FTA*0.44) - Off Rebound + TO.