Tim Legler takes a look at NBA shooters and also claims that shooters are born, even though in his next sentence, he says the best shooters have incredible work ethics. Now, he may not even write his own columns, but if talent is innate - born with it - then why would you need to work hard? If you are born with it, hard work has little impact on performance. However, if shooting is a learned skill, then hard work certainly has an affect. Furthermore, Legler says he works as a shooting coach - if he believes shooters are born, isn't he basically getting paid to develop a skill that he doesn;t believe that he can develop?
The major point of his article is that he introduces the 170 club (I, of course, have a higher standard with 180 Shooter). He names Ray Allen, Dirk Nowitski and Jason Kapono as his top three shooters.
When will Steve Nash get some love? In last week's SI, NBA players picked Allen, Reggie Miller, Larry Bird, Kapono and Peja Stojakovic as the top shooters. I just don't think these people think very hard. If you force Peja to dribble to his right, he's a below-average shooter. If a player is that affected by the dribble, can he really be the fifth best shooter ever? Kapono's not even the best shooter on his team.
Nobody would pick the same top two shooters as me: Jose Calderon and Steve Nash. In 2007-08, only five NBA players shot 180%: Steve Nash, Jose Calderon, Kyle Korver, Jason Kapono and Peja Stojakovic. Korver, Kapono and Stojakovic are stand-still shooters. Calderon and Nash shoot more shots and shoot a greater variety of shots. Therefore, to me, they are the top two shooters in the NBA.
According to the comments on this article, Calderon leads the NBA this season at 193.2, as his 100% free throw shooting gives him a big advantage. Allen is 188 and Nash is 184.
I just don't understand how people continue to ignore Steve Nash as one of the greatest shooters in the game, certainly in this era, but the past five years, he is one of the all-time shooters in NBA history. A player like Kapono or Korver stands at the three-point line and shoots wide open three-pointers; if they catch and are contested, they generally do not shoot.
Nash creates 85% of his shots. The only time he gets an "easy" shot is in transition where he pulls up for a three-pointer off a full speed dribble or off an offensive rebound where he steps into his shot. Not only does he shoot a higher overall percentage on a greater number of shot attempts, but he makes more difficult shots. How do people miss this?
But, I wouldn't want to allow facts to get in the way of Legler's perceptions.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Predicting the WNBA Draft
Last night, during the UConn vs Louisville game, Carolyn Peck suggested that the Atlanta Dream would be better off taking a point guard, as opposed to Lousville's Angel McCoughtry (assuming McCoughtry is the best talent in the draft) because Atlanta has Chamique Holdsclaw, a similar player to McCoughtry.
Peck obviously has not seen my blog post titled "Re-Thinking the NBA Draft."
Peck, also, ignores the lessons of the Phoenix Cardinals:
Bad teams draft for need, which is how better teams end up with the better players which helps them maintain their level of success. If McCoughtry is the best player in the NBA draft - the player the Atlanta Dream believes has the most superstar potential - they have to draft her, regardless of position. The other option is to trade the pick to a team that values McCoughtry's talent.
However, reaching for a point guard like Rene Montgomery or Kristi Tolliver - the two point guards mentioned by Peck - would be a mistake, unless Atlanta truly believes that Montgomery or Tolliver is the absolute best talent in the draft.
Peck obviously has not seen my blog post titled "Re-Thinking the NBA Draft."
Peck, also, ignores the lessons of the Phoenix Cardinals:
“So many of our mistakes in the past had been when we reached for need, and we learned from that. You can fill your needs in free agency, but in the draft take the best players. Really, I’ve tried to emulate Rod Graves in every way, from the way he conducted draft meetings to his draft philosophy. He’s a proponent of giving players the benefit of the doubt – ‘Find out what they can do, not what they can’t do.’ And his No. 1 attribute is his patience, being able to hear several sides of an argument and, after everyone’s been beating on you, make a logical decision.”
Bad teams draft for need, which is how better teams end up with the better players which helps them maintain their level of success. If McCoughtry is the best player in the NBA draft - the player the Atlanta Dream believes has the most superstar potential - they have to draft her, regardless of position. The other option is to trade the pick to a team that values McCoughtry's talent.
However, reaching for a point guard like Rene Montgomery or Kristi Tolliver - the two point guards mentioned by Peck - would be a mistake, unless Atlanta truly believes that Montgomery or Tolliver is the absolute best talent in the draft.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Big East vs. ACC
Jay Bilas went to Duke and he s a lawyer, so I assume he is smart. However, I do not understand how the ESPN guys can continue to make an argument, and feel convinced of their belief, based on an apples to oranges argument.
The argument just made by Bilas is this:
This argument is accurate. However, that does not mean that the Big East is better than the ACC because it ignores the six worst teams in the Big East.
The Big East has 16 teams; the ACC has 12 teams. Therefore, when evaluating them, you cannot just focus on the top 10 teams. That's less than 70% of the Big East versus over 80% of the teams in the ACC.
If you want to argue the talent of the top 10 Big East teams, you should compare that to the top 7 ACC teams. Now, personally, I do believe the Big East is the most competitive league this season. However, when these "experts" make their arguments, I wish they would make accurate arguments.
When you eliminate the worst half of the teams in a league, you're going to look more competitive when compared to almost the entire compliment of teams from another league. Having the most really good teams is not the whole story if you also have the most really bad teams too. When talking about a league's competitiveness, you have to account for the bad teams at the bottom just as you do for the good teams at the top.
The argument just made by Bilas is this:
You can argue that the top of the ACC is better than the top of the Big East, but it's very close. However, 1-10, the Big East is much more competitive than the ACC.
This argument is accurate. However, that does not mean that the Big East is better than the ACC because it ignores the six worst teams in the Big East.
The Big East has 16 teams; the ACC has 12 teams. Therefore, when evaluating them, you cannot just focus on the top 10 teams. That's less than 70% of the Big East versus over 80% of the teams in the ACC.
If you want to argue the talent of the top 10 Big East teams, you should compare that to the top 7 ACC teams. Now, personally, I do believe the Big East is the most competitive league this season. However, when these "experts" make their arguments, I wish they would make accurate arguments.
When you eliminate the worst half of the teams in a league, you're going to look more competitive when compared to almost the entire compliment of teams from another league. Having the most really good teams is not the whole story if you also have the most really bad teams too. When talking about a league's competitiveness, you have to account for the bad teams at the bottom just as you do for the good teams at the top.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Be Like Steve Nash (Developing Basketball Intelligence)
Last week, I wrote about Steve Nash and his ability to anticipate, see the floor and create advantageous situations for his teammates.
Today, my newest e-book, Developing Basketball Intelligence, is available.
Developing Basketball Intelligence (and the in-progress web site) explains the basic tactical skills of every offense - from pick-and-rolls to 3v2 fast breaks - but moves beyond the skill execution to the all important perceptual, anticipatory and decision-making skills which separate the expert performers. Developing Basketball Intelligence teaches tactical skills, but also develops the characteristics of a high basketball IQ player, players who:
* choose the best option in less time;
* adapt to ever-changing situations;
* possess good spatial awareness;
* know the right play at any moment relative to the time and score;
* and more.
Developing Basketball Intelligence is a tool to develop your offensive system as a coach, and to create a learning environment which enhances your players' understanding so they can read and react and adjust and adapt on the court.
Why should Steve Nash have all the fun? My goal is to help coaches teach the game in a way that helps all players think and see the game like Steve Nash so all players improve their decision-making skills in situations from the pick-and-roll to the 3v2 Fast Break.
Today, my newest e-book, Developing Basketball Intelligence, is available.
Developing Basketball Intelligence (and the in-progress web site) explains the basic tactical skills of every offense - from pick-and-rolls to 3v2 fast breaks - but moves beyond the skill execution to the all important perceptual, anticipatory and decision-making skills which separate the expert performers. Developing Basketball Intelligence teaches tactical skills, but also develops the characteristics of a high basketball IQ player, players who:
* choose the best option in less time;
* adapt to ever-changing situations;
* possess good spatial awareness;
* know the right play at any moment relative to the time and score;
* and more.
Developing Basketball Intelligence is a tool to develop your offensive system as a coach, and to create a learning environment which enhances your players' understanding so they can read and react and adjust and adapt on the court.
Why should Steve Nash have all the fun? My goal is to help coaches teach the game in a way that helps all players think and see the game like Steve Nash so all players improve their decision-making skills in situations from the pick-and-roll to the 3v2 Fast Break.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
UCLA vs. ASU, the media and stats
UCLA lost to ASU yesterday and went 12:00 without scoring. Of course, ASU went 6:00 with only one basket to end the game and likely had other streaks of offensive ineptitude. ASU won 61-58 in a game that went to overtime. Sounds like a battle of terrible offensive teams, right? That is the sentiment on the UCLA site and in emails I have received from UCLA alums. Everyone, it seems, thinks UCLA is a terrible offensive team, from the L.A. Times to the O.C. Register to CBS to the fans.
However, when you adjust for the pace of the game, UCLA is the 4th most efficient offense in NCAA DI basketball according to stats guru Ken Pomeroy. Guess who's #1?
Arizona State.
Take a minute for that to sink in.
The offensive juggernaut that is North Carolina is #3, trailing ASU and Utah State and just ahead of UCLA and Connecticut. Want another surprise? Pittsburgh, another team known for its defense, is sixth in offensive efficiency.
How can this be?
UCLA plays at the 283th fastest pace, while Arizona State plays at the 330th fastest pace. North Carolina, on the other hand, plays at the third fastest pace. North Carolina, on average, has 14 more offensive possessions per game than UCLA and 17 more than Arizona State.
So, what happens in a game featuring two of the slowest teams in the country?
That's right. The game is even slower. UCLA averages 64.2 possessions per game. By my quick math, using Pomeroy's numbers, yesterday's game, in overtime, had 57 possessions. FWIW, Denver and Iowa are the two slowest teams in the country, and they average 56.9 and 57.2 possessions per game.
57 possessions in a 45 minute game is about 1.2 possessions per minute. So, when UCLA goes 12 minutes without scoring, they basically went 12 possessions.
If the game was played at Carolina's pace (78.2 possessions per game), that would be a 6:00 streak. Going 6:00 without a basket is still a long streak, but certainly not unheard of.
The difference is the pace of the game. Because the game was played at such a slow tempo, every possession and every miscue is exaggerated.
The L.A. Times led with the headline that Arizona State provided the game plan to beat UCLA and spoke about Arizona State's defense. Yes, Arizona State runs a very good match-up zone. However, ASU's defense is only fifth in the Pac-10 in defensive efficiency, ranking behind Washington State, Washington, UCLA and USC.
It was not ASU's defense which decided the game, despite what people saw. The best aspect of UCLA's defense is its ability to generate turnovers. It is 21st in the country, creating turnovers on 25% of its defensive possessions. However, ASU only committed 8 turnovers (14% of possessions) and several were dead ball turnovers (shot clock violation, offensive fouls) that did not lead to lay-ups for UCLA.
ASU did provide the game plan to beat UCLA, but it probably works for almost any team. If you do not turn over the ball and you shoot twice as many free throws as your opponent, you are very likely to win almost every game. That is Duke's formula for success: make more free throws than the other team attempts and do not commit a lot of turnovers.
Now, UCLA's offense, by no means, was spectacular. They did have an off-day. However, not to the magnitude that everyone has suggested. Collison has been shooting 60% in Pac-10 games and he went 4-14. Roll has been shooting 57% from the 3-point line and he went 1-5.
UCLA took most of the same shots and played in the same, slow fashion that they usually play. The difference, however, is that they missed shots that they had been making and Arizona State did not turn over the ball,which prevented the several easy baskets UCLA typically gets because of its high turnover percentage on defense. Combined with a 17-8 free throw disadvantage, which was largely due to some silly fouls by UCLA, ASU's zone defense and the lack of steals by UCLA, you can see why UCLA lost and why the score was so low.
However, as the objective statistics illustrate, UCLA is not a terrible offensive teams and the UCLA universe is not about to implode.
However, when you adjust for the pace of the game, UCLA is the 4th most efficient offense in NCAA DI basketball according to stats guru Ken Pomeroy. Guess who's #1?
Arizona State.
Take a minute for that to sink in.
The offensive juggernaut that is North Carolina is #3, trailing ASU and Utah State and just ahead of UCLA and Connecticut. Want another surprise? Pittsburgh, another team known for its defense, is sixth in offensive efficiency.
How can this be?
UCLA plays at the 283th fastest pace, while Arizona State plays at the 330th fastest pace. North Carolina, on the other hand, plays at the third fastest pace. North Carolina, on average, has 14 more offensive possessions per game than UCLA and 17 more than Arizona State.
So, what happens in a game featuring two of the slowest teams in the country?
That's right. The game is even slower. UCLA averages 64.2 possessions per game. By my quick math, using Pomeroy's numbers, yesterday's game, in overtime, had 57 possessions. FWIW, Denver and Iowa are the two slowest teams in the country, and they average 56.9 and 57.2 possessions per game.
57 possessions in a 45 minute game is about 1.2 possessions per minute. So, when UCLA goes 12 minutes without scoring, they basically went 12 possessions.
If the game was played at Carolina's pace (78.2 possessions per game), that would be a 6:00 streak. Going 6:00 without a basket is still a long streak, but certainly not unheard of.
The difference is the pace of the game. Because the game was played at such a slow tempo, every possession and every miscue is exaggerated.
The L.A. Times led with the headline that Arizona State provided the game plan to beat UCLA and spoke about Arizona State's defense. Yes, Arizona State runs a very good match-up zone. However, ASU's defense is only fifth in the Pac-10 in defensive efficiency, ranking behind Washington State, Washington, UCLA and USC.
It was not ASU's defense which decided the game, despite what people saw. The best aspect of UCLA's defense is its ability to generate turnovers. It is 21st in the country, creating turnovers on 25% of its defensive possessions. However, ASU only committed 8 turnovers (14% of possessions) and several were dead ball turnovers (shot clock violation, offensive fouls) that did not lead to lay-ups for UCLA.
ASU did provide the game plan to beat UCLA, but it probably works for almost any team. If you do not turn over the ball and you shoot twice as many free throws as your opponent, you are very likely to win almost every game. That is Duke's formula for success: make more free throws than the other team attempts and do not commit a lot of turnovers.
Now, UCLA's offense, by no means, was spectacular. They did have an off-day. However, not to the magnitude that everyone has suggested. Collison has been shooting 60% in Pac-10 games and he went 4-14. Roll has been shooting 57% from the 3-point line and he went 1-5.
UCLA took most of the same shots and played in the same, slow fashion that they usually play. The difference, however, is that they missed shots that they had been making and Arizona State did not turn over the ball,which prevented the several easy baskets UCLA typically gets because of its high turnover percentage on defense. Combined with a 17-8 free throw disadvantage, which was largely due to some silly fouls by UCLA, ASU's zone defense and the lack of steals by UCLA, you can see why UCLA lost and why the score was so low.
However, as the objective statistics illustrate, UCLA is not a terrible offensive teams and the UCLA universe is not about to implode.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Ty Lawson vs Darren Collison
Somebody, anybody, please explain why the draft "experts" (not to mention the ESPN talking heads) favor Ty Lawson over Darren Collison. I understand that Lawson has a great assist to turnover ratio. However, he plays much of the game in a 3v2 or 2v1 fast break: you should commit very few turnovers if you have a man advantage!
Collison has played in three Final Fours. He is shooting 95% from the Free Throw Line, 60% from the Field and 50% from the 3-point line. Ridiculous. He runs the pick-and-roll. And, he defends.
After all, in UNC's two losses, BC's Tyrese Rice and Wake Forest's Jeff Teague lit up the Tarheels.
I am tired of hearing how important it is for players to return to school and improve their skills, yet their stock falls when they take this approach and show gradual, consistent improvement.
This is anything against Lawson. However, right now, Collison is playing like the best point guard in college basketball this season. He's clutch and he's a winner.
Collison has played in three Final Fours. He is shooting 95% from the Free Throw Line, 60% from the Field and 50% from the 3-point line. Ridiculous. He runs the pick-and-roll. And, he defends.
After all, in UNC's two losses, BC's Tyrese Rice and Wake Forest's Jeff Teague lit up the Tarheels.
I am tired of hearing how important it is for players to return to school and improve their skills, yet their stock falls when they take this approach and show gradual, consistent improvement.
This is anything against Lawson. However, right now, Collison is playing like the best point guard in college basketball this season. He's clutch and he's a winner.
Dwight Howard as an MVP Candidate
Dwight Howard is an amazing athlete and physical specimen. But, is he an MVP candidate?
Is he even the MVP of the Orlando Magic? Certainly, he is the most physically gifted, and physically talented player on the Magic. However, at the end of games, do the Magic go to him? They may involve him in some pick-and-rolls, but they certainly hope that nobody fouls him, as he shoots 58% from the FT line with his stiff form.
At the end of games, the Magic use the pick-and-roll as an entry in their offense, but they really want to get Jameer Nelson, Hedo Turkuglo or Rashard Lewis an open shot.
Can the league MVP really be a decoy in the final minutes of important games?
Howard certainly is a defensive presence and he can dominate the backboard when he wants. But, outside of five-feet, he has virtually no offensive game.
So far, LeBron James, to me, is clear and away the league MVP. If the Hornets earn a 1st Round play-off series, Chris Paul is my second choice. Heck, if Miami keeps winning Dwayne Wade might be my MVP - he has a rookie coach, a rookie PG and tree undersized power forwards! Kobe Bryant is great, but the Lakers have many weapons and, while they have an outstanding record, they are not dominating teams.
I have always favored Kobe Bryant to James. Heck, early on, I favored Wade to James because James settled for too many bad shots and played occasional defense. Now, with the way Cleveland is dominating teams and James is attacking the basket, playing away from the ball and defending, I think James is the best player in the game and this year's MVP to date.
Is he even the MVP of the Orlando Magic? Certainly, he is the most physically gifted, and physically talented player on the Magic. However, at the end of games, do the Magic go to him? They may involve him in some pick-and-rolls, but they certainly hope that nobody fouls him, as he shoots 58% from the FT line with his stiff form.
At the end of games, the Magic use the pick-and-roll as an entry in their offense, but they really want to get Jameer Nelson, Hedo Turkuglo or Rashard Lewis an open shot.
Can the league MVP really be a decoy in the final minutes of important games?
Howard certainly is a defensive presence and he can dominate the backboard when he wants. But, outside of five-feet, he has virtually no offensive game.
So far, LeBron James, to me, is clear and away the league MVP. If the Hornets earn a 1st Round play-off series, Chris Paul is my second choice. Heck, if Miami keeps winning Dwayne Wade might be my MVP - he has a rookie coach, a rookie PG and tree undersized power forwards! Kobe Bryant is great, but the Lakers have many weapons and, while they have an outstanding record, they are not dominating teams.
I have always favored Kobe Bryant to James. Heck, early on, I favored Wade to James because James settled for too many bad shots and played occasional defense. Now, with the way Cleveland is dominating teams and James is attacking the basket, playing away from the ball and defending, I think James is the best player in the game and this year's MVP to date.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Sam Bradford Stays in School
And everyone cheers...Yay college.
Bradford obviously never read my article, "The Leinart Lesson: An NBA Draft Preview," because he did not learn the Leinart Lesson. He seems like a smart kid, so I assume that he would have understood if he had read the article. So I can only surmise that he missed my free advice.
Bradford obviously never read my article, "The Leinart Lesson: An NBA Draft Preview," because he did not learn the Leinart Lesson. He seems like a smart kid, so I assume that he would have understood if he had read the article. So I can only surmise that he missed my free advice.
Women's Basketball Experts
I am attempting to write a paper on coaching and personality. I have chosen college women's basketball coaches as my subject. However, I need a list of the top 30 coaches as determined by "experts" to make the study somewhat scientifically valid.
I am doing this because I am interested in coaching as a profession and the way we evaluate and develop coaches.
If you consider yourself a women's college basketball expert, please email me. I need at least 10 lists which I can combine and create the definitive list. I have four lists thus far. Only 10 coaches have made all four lists.
However, the four respondents so far have been male: journalists or former women's college basketball coaches. I would like to balance with a couple women, but none of the women that I have approached have been willing to respond. Luckily, I have covered geography fairly well with one person from the West Coast, one from the Northeast, one from the Southeast and one from the Midwest.
My goal is 10 lists.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
I am doing this because I am interested in coaching as a profession and the way we evaluate and develop coaches.
If you consider yourself a women's college basketball expert, please email me. I need at least 10 lists which I can combine and create the definitive list. I have four lists thus far. Only 10 coaches have made all four lists.
However, the four respondents so far have been male: journalists or former women's college basketball coaches. I would like to balance with a couple women, but none of the women that I have approached have been willing to respond. Luckily, I have covered geography fairly well with one person from the West Coast, one from the Northeast, one from the Southeast and one from the Midwest.
My goal is 10 lists.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Problem with Polls
We have a problem with polls only because they decide the NCAA Football Championship. In sports with real championships, polls are just silly things to start banter among fans. In college football, polls are life and death.
But, polls are 100% about perception. For instance, when UCLA lost on a neutral floor to Michigan - who at the time was believed to be a terrible team - UCLA dropped from #4 to #10 or below and people still believed that Michigan was terrible. Most people thought UCLA was overrated at #4, and this loss fueled the fire. Everyone jumped off the bandwagon and Vitale and co. explained how they gave UCLA too much credit because of three straight Final Fours.
Then, Michigan beats Duke and Michigan moves into the top 25. However, because more than a week has passed, nobody re-evaluates their opinion of UCLA. So, UCLA dropped 8 or more spots because they lost to a "bad" team, but it turns out that the "bad" team isn't really bad after all.
When UNC loses at home to unranked Boston College, they dropped 2 spots. Why? Because every believed that they were the best and it was just a minor slip up on the way to a championship. Rather than question UNC, people bought into BC and BC moved into the rankings. What happened? BC loses to Harvard and UNC loses to Wake Forest.
Again, with basketball, it doesn't really matter. Rankings might affect seeds, but teams get to decide on the court who wins the championship and the champion has to beat somebody good. Plus, by the end of the season, there is a much larger sample size and the rankings tend to work out fairly accurately, though not perfectly.
However, in football, with a much smaller sample size, the rankings do not have time to work themselves out. So, perception rules.
USC lost on the road and played in a "bad" conference, so it was penalized more than Florida or Oklahoma who played in "good" conferences. All year, everyone bought the Big 12 kool-aid and believed Big 12 was far and away the best conference. So, an in conference loss in a close game only dropped a team a couple spots, while USC's loss dropped it straight out of the national championship discussion.
In reality, the Pac-10 was not bad, but young. Oregon State lost its first two games at Stanford and Penn State because its best player was a true freshman running back. It's tough to win on the road against a good team relying so heavily on a freshman. But, four games into the season, he had adjusted to the speed of the game and was ready for USC. Plus, the game was at OSU.
But, perception ruled. People change their voting biases in the year too. When so many voters changed their votes in the last pole because they felt Texas deserved to be ranked ahead of Oklahoma, they were voting based on teams deserving something rather than voting for the best teams. If anyone deserved anything, it was Utah, the only undefeated team. How do you vote OU ahead of Texas in one week, watch them destroy Missouri and then vote Texas ahead of OU the following week? Sure, Texas deserved to be in the national championship game ahead of OU because they beat OU on a neutral field and lost to Texas Tech on the last play of the game on the road. But, strictly from a consistency of voting perspective, how can you change that vote in one week?
If voters voted by who they thought was the best team, they would have voted USC 1 or 2. But, it's as if the voters want to penalize USC for "taking a week off" while forgetting that Florida lost to Mississippi and Oklahoma lost and Texas lost, etc.
But, again, the perception is that those are "better" losses than a road loss in the Pac-10 to a 9-win team. It's all perception. It's not based on facts or any objective measures.
And, as long as this subjectivity decides the bowl match-ups, subjectivity should decide the national champion. Because, as much as people want to say that Florida won it on the field, did they really? They won it in the polls and that gave them an opportunity to play probably the fifth most deserving team in the national championship (Florida, Utah, USC and Texas).
If someone voted USC fifth in the final polls, and then watched them destroy Penn State and felt they were the best team, why shouldn't the subjectivity continue? After all, it was his subjectivity in the first place that prevented USC's appearance in the national championship game.
Finally, I am tired of hearing about a play-off interfering with the education of the NCAA's student-athletes. Football has one of, if not the shortest season of any college sport. Does the NCAA care about the education of its baseball players who start their season in February and end in late June?
If Division II schools, which are closer to true student-athletes than the borderline professionals playing in the BCS games, can manage a play-off, why is DI football the only NCAA sport without a play-off? Hiding behind education is a cop-out. If education is so important, why allow Wednesday and Thursday games which interrupt the students' class schedules? Oh, that's right, because schools make money for playing those mid-week games.
But, polls are 100% about perception. For instance, when UCLA lost on a neutral floor to Michigan - who at the time was believed to be a terrible team - UCLA dropped from #4 to #10 or below and people still believed that Michigan was terrible. Most people thought UCLA was overrated at #4, and this loss fueled the fire. Everyone jumped off the bandwagon and Vitale and co. explained how they gave UCLA too much credit because of three straight Final Fours.
Then, Michigan beats Duke and Michigan moves into the top 25. However, because more than a week has passed, nobody re-evaluates their opinion of UCLA. So, UCLA dropped 8 or more spots because they lost to a "bad" team, but it turns out that the "bad" team isn't really bad after all.
When UNC loses at home to unranked Boston College, they dropped 2 spots. Why? Because every believed that they were the best and it was just a minor slip up on the way to a championship. Rather than question UNC, people bought into BC and BC moved into the rankings. What happened? BC loses to Harvard and UNC loses to Wake Forest.
Again, with basketball, it doesn't really matter. Rankings might affect seeds, but teams get to decide on the court who wins the championship and the champion has to beat somebody good. Plus, by the end of the season, there is a much larger sample size and the rankings tend to work out fairly accurately, though not perfectly.
However, in football, with a much smaller sample size, the rankings do not have time to work themselves out. So, perception rules.
USC lost on the road and played in a "bad" conference, so it was penalized more than Florida or Oklahoma who played in "good" conferences. All year, everyone bought the Big 12 kool-aid and believed Big 12 was far and away the best conference. So, an in conference loss in a close game only dropped a team a couple spots, while USC's loss dropped it straight out of the national championship discussion.
In reality, the Pac-10 was not bad, but young. Oregon State lost its first two games at Stanford and Penn State because its best player was a true freshman running back. It's tough to win on the road against a good team relying so heavily on a freshman. But, four games into the season, he had adjusted to the speed of the game and was ready for USC. Plus, the game was at OSU.
But, perception ruled. People change their voting biases in the year too. When so many voters changed their votes in the last pole because they felt Texas deserved to be ranked ahead of Oklahoma, they were voting based on teams deserving something rather than voting for the best teams. If anyone deserved anything, it was Utah, the only undefeated team. How do you vote OU ahead of Texas in one week, watch them destroy Missouri and then vote Texas ahead of OU the following week? Sure, Texas deserved to be in the national championship game ahead of OU because they beat OU on a neutral field and lost to Texas Tech on the last play of the game on the road. But, strictly from a consistency of voting perspective, how can you change that vote in one week?
If voters voted by who they thought was the best team, they would have voted USC 1 or 2. But, it's as if the voters want to penalize USC for "taking a week off" while forgetting that Florida lost to Mississippi and Oklahoma lost and Texas lost, etc.
But, again, the perception is that those are "better" losses than a road loss in the Pac-10 to a 9-win team. It's all perception. It's not based on facts or any objective measures.
And, as long as this subjectivity decides the bowl match-ups, subjectivity should decide the national champion. Because, as much as people want to say that Florida won it on the field, did they really? They won it in the polls and that gave them an opportunity to play probably the fifth most deserving team in the national championship (Florida, Utah, USC and Texas).
If someone voted USC fifth in the final polls, and then watched them destroy Penn State and felt they were the best team, why shouldn't the subjectivity continue? After all, it was his subjectivity in the first place that prevented USC's appearance in the national championship game.
Finally, I am tired of hearing about a play-off interfering with the education of the NCAA's student-athletes. Football has one of, if not the shortest season of any college sport. Does the NCAA care about the education of its baseball players who start their season in February and end in late June?
If Division II schools, which are closer to true student-athletes than the borderline professionals playing in the BCS games, can manage a play-off, why is DI football the only NCAA sport without a play-off? Hiding behind education is a cop-out. If education is so important, why allow Wednesday and Thursday games which interrupt the students' class schedules? Oh, that's right, because schools make money for playing those mid-week games.
Darren Collison and the 2009 NBA Draft
Every time that I see something about the 2009 NBA Draft, it seems like UCLA PG Darren Collison is falling or being doubted. I don't know what else a kid can do.
Collison has been to three Final Fours and was the leader for the past two seasons, despite the presence of NBA players Kevin Love, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Russell Westbrook and Arron Afflalo.
Collison shoots a ridiculous percentage from the floor and the free throw line, hitting over 50% from the three-point line and 95% from the free throw line, yet people questions his ability to shoot because of his unorthodox shooting motion. Plus, his field goal percentage, three-point percentage and free throw percentage have improved every year.
While other players get to college and peak, Collison continues to get better. This year, UCLA runs a lot of pick and rolls, and Collison excels in the pick and roll. He never hurries, yet he is quick enough to blow past almost anyone.
Collison is just another example of the problems with evaluating players: how can you watch Collison play and not like what you see?
Collison has been to three Final Fours and was the leader for the past two seasons, despite the presence of NBA players Kevin Love, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Russell Westbrook and Arron Afflalo.
Collison shoots a ridiculous percentage from the floor and the free throw line, hitting over 50% from the three-point line and 95% from the free throw line, yet people questions his ability to shoot because of his unorthodox shooting motion. Plus, his field goal percentage, three-point percentage and free throw percentage have improved every year.
While other players get to college and peak, Collison continues to get better. This year, UCLA runs a lot of pick and rolls, and Collison excels in the pick and roll. He never hurries, yet he is quick enough to blow past almost anyone.
Collison is just another example of the problems with evaluating players: how can you watch Collison play and not like what you see?
Friday, January 09, 2009
Using a Shot Chart for Player Development
On True Hoop, I saw a link to the Oklahoma Thunder's blog. The article looks at Kevin Durant's shooting with a shot charting system similar to the one available for youth and high school teams at 180Shooter.com.
All season the media has talked about LeBron James' improved shooting. However, the shot chart shows that beyond finishes at the rim, he is a bad (34%) shooter. So, is his shooting improved? Or, is it his shot selection (more shots at the rim, less three-pointers) that has improved?
On Socalhoops last week, people were arguing about whether a coach should allow players to shoot off the dribble or not. People posted their opinions, some arguing that players shoot poorly off the dribble, while others arguing tat players should be able to shoot any shot they want.
How do you know if it is a good shot? People think they know, just like people think that James is a better shooter this year. But, without charting your shots, do you really know?
To become a better shooter, players need to know their strengths and weaknesses and coaches need to use players' strengths. But, without keeping track and matching practice shots to game shots, how do you know?
All season the media has talked about LeBron James' improved shooting. However, the shot chart shows that beyond finishes at the rim, he is a bad (34%) shooter. So, is his shooting improved? Or, is it his shot selection (more shots at the rim, less three-pointers) that has improved?
On Socalhoops last week, people were arguing about whether a coach should allow players to shoot off the dribble or not. People posted their opinions, some arguing that players shoot poorly off the dribble, while others arguing tat players should be able to shoot any shot they want.
How do you know if it is a good shot? People think they know, just like people think that James is a better shooter this year. But, without charting your shots, do you really know?
To become a better shooter, players need to know their strengths and weaknesses and coaches need to use players' strengths. But, without keeping track and matching practice shots to game shots, how do you know?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
2009 NBA Draft Preview
An early look at the 2009 NBA Draft and commentary about the problems with the way people scout potential NBA players.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
UCLA, Texas lead the way to the NBA
A quick look at some numbers suggests that for aspiring NBA players, UCLA and Texas are currently the top choices, at least for players since the high school class of 2004.
While many in the media deride Ben Howland for his style of play, and other schools use the style of play to "negative recruit," the objective evidence appears to show that Rick Barnes and Howland do the best job of putting players into the NBA who are ready to perform at that level.
However, they accomplish this through different methods.
While many in the media deride Ben Howland for his style of play, and other schools use the style of play to "negative recruit," the objective evidence appears to show that Rick Barnes and Howland do the best job of putting players into the NBA who are ready to perform at that level.
However, they accomplish this through different methods.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
USC and BCS
It's 31-7 at half time and Doug Flutie criticizes USC because they "slip up" every year which costs them a chance at a National Championship.
Uh? Florida lost to Mississippi and nobody talks about how Florida slipped up. All year, nobody gave USC a chance to move back into the National Championship picture because the Pac-10 was so weak.
Now, the Pac-10 is 5-0. Arizona beat a ranked BYU; Oregon beat Oklahoma State who was higher ranked; and Oregon State beat a ranked Pittsburgh. By the rankings, the Pac-10 should have gone 2-3, with USC beating a lower ranked Penn State and Cal beating Miami in a battle of unranked teams.
Why does the national media criticize USC when they lose a conference game, but teams from the Big 10, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are not similarly criticized?
If USC slipped, than Florida slipped against a mediocre Mississippi. And, if that's the case, maybe Utah should play Oklahoma for the National Championship, as Oklahoma has a loss, but they won the most competitive conference this season.
The whole spectacle of the bowl games is ridiculous, as these games are like preseason games since teams have 30-45 days off between games.
Uh? Florida lost to Mississippi and nobody talks about how Florida slipped up. All year, nobody gave USC a chance to move back into the National Championship picture because the Pac-10 was so weak.
Now, the Pac-10 is 5-0. Arizona beat a ranked BYU; Oregon beat Oklahoma State who was higher ranked; and Oregon State beat a ranked Pittsburgh. By the rankings, the Pac-10 should have gone 2-3, with USC beating a lower ranked Penn State and Cal beating Miami in a battle of unranked teams.
Why does the national media criticize USC when they lose a conference game, but teams from the Big 10, SEC, ACC and Big 12 are not similarly criticized?
If USC slipped, than Florida slipped against a mediocre Mississippi. And, if that's the case, maybe Utah should play Oklahoma for the National Championship, as Oklahoma has a loss, but they won the most competitive conference this season.
The whole spectacle of the bowl games is ridiculous, as these games are like preseason games since teams have 30-45 days off between games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
