PDA

View Full Version : The Mike Hart effect...it's all a lie!



MTZag03
02-02-2014, 07:17 AM
After KD's 12 ORG performance last night, I started thinking that maybe Mike Hart rubbed off on his teammates in the time he was here. We saw how DB went from a softie to someone always getting out of position ORBs last year. I wondered if spending 5 years practicing with MH really changed the way our players played. So I checked the numbers and as it turns out there is really no evidence of this on a season-wide level.

2013-14 10.2 ORPG, 26.3 DRPG, 36.5 RPG

2012-13 11.4 ORPG, 25.9 DRPG, 37.3 RPG

2011-12 11.0 ORPG, 26.2 DRPG, 37.1 RPG

2010-11 11.3 ORPG, 26.1 DRPG, 37.4 RPG

2009-10 10.7 ORPG, 27.5 DRPG, 38.2 RPG

2008-09 10.5 ORPG, 27.6 DRPG, 38.1 RPG

2007-08 11.2 ORPG, 26.3 DRPG, 37.5 RPG

2006-07 10.5 ORPG, 27.1 DRPG, 37.6 RPG

So yeah, during the previous three seasons, GU had > 11 ORPG, but it's really hard to ascribe this to anything to do with hustle, especially since we had Elias then. I think we just all were seeing what we wanted to see. Am I the only one who had this though about Hart?

MTZag03
02-02-2014, 07:28 AM
Erm, just realized the fatal flaw here. I didn't remove rebounds from our bigs to only look at guards. Oh well. What's done is done.

bballguy
02-02-2014, 07:39 AM
So, fix it and then lets talk. Sounds like an interresting premiss.

WBM
02-02-2014, 08:27 AM
Yeah, I'm interested to see the numbers for guard rebounds too. As for Hart, I don't think I just saw what I wanted to see; I think I wanted to see what I already saw. Mike Hart was constantly hustling for the good of the team. I do like what I see in our guards this year too in this department.

MTZag03
02-02-2014, 08:54 AM
Okay then. I spent some time controlling for rebounds from our bigs. I determined the percentage of rebounds from our bigs per game from the 10-11 season on. I also controlled for Mike Hart's rebounds as well.

10-11
66% of ORB from bigs+MH =34% from guards
54% of DRB from bigs+MH =46% from guards
63% if ORB from bigs = 37% from guards - MH = 3% for MH
52% of DRB from bigs = 48% from guards - MH = 2% for MH

11-12
69% of ORB from bigs +MH = 31% from guards
69% of DRB from bigs +MH = 31% from guards
59% of ORB from bigs = 41% from guards + MH = 10% for MH
62% of DRB from bigs = 38% from guards + MH = 7% for MH

12-13
69% of ORB from bigs+MH = 31% guards
66% of DRB from bigs+MH = 34% from guards
52% of ORB from bigs = 48% from guards + MH = 17% for MH
59% of DRB from bigs = 41% from guards + MH = 7% for MH

13-14
44% ORB from bigs = 56% from guards
42% DRB from bigs = 58% from guards

Conclusion: In 13-14 there appears to be a huge increase in the percentage of rebounds per game from our guards. However, we play a lot of guards, so no surprise there. Also, it appears that the guards might have rebounded a little better than average in 12-13 when you remove Mike from the equation compared to the previous few years. I still don't think we can get much out of this though.

Hoopaholic
02-02-2014, 10:19 AM
Okay then. I spent some time controlling for rebounds from our bigs. I determined the percentage of rebounds from our bigs per game from the 10-11 season on. I also controlled for Mike Hart's rebounds as well.

10-11
66% of ORB from bigs+MH =34% from guards
54% of DRB from bigs+MH =46% from guards
63% if ORB from bigs = 37% from guards - MH = 3% for MH
52% of DRB from bigs = 48% from guards - MH = 2% for MH

11-12
69% of ORB from bigs +MH = 31% from guards
69% of DRB from bigs +MH = 31% from guards
59% of ORB from bigs = 41% from guards + MH = 10% for MH
62% of DRB from bigs = 38% from guards + MH = 7% for MH

12-13
69% of ORB from bigs+MH = 31% guards
66% of DRB from bigs+MH = 34% from guards
52% of ORB from bigs = 48% from guards + MH = 17% for MH
59% of DRB from bigs = 41% from guards + MH = 7% for MH

13-14
44% ORB from bigs = 56% from guards
42% DRB from bigs = 58% from guards

Conclusion: In 13-14 there appears to be a huge increase in the percentage of rebounds per game from our guards. However, we play a lot of guards, so no surprise there. Also, it appears that the guards might have rebounded a little better than average in 12-13 when you remove Mike from the equation compared to the previous few years. I still don't think we can get much out of this though.

pretty evident to me......remove Draino's rebounding from the equation this year and you go right back to the averages

zag944
02-02-2014, 10:49 AM
The offensive rebounds are just a small part of the Mike Hart effect. He defended the perimeter about as well of any Zag in the Mark Few era short of Knight and Bell. He gambled in passing lanes as well as Stockton or Bouldin. And he just had a crazy knack for tapping balls in the right direction for the Zags, even if he didn't get the steal or the rebound credit. For me, he's easily the most difficult Zag to quantify statistically.

NumberCruncher
02-02-2014, 11:06 AM
Mike Hart had 4.72 offensive rebounds per 40 minutes last season. Did a quick check of Calvary, Violette, Turiaf, Sacre, Batista and Harris. Batista had 4.23 in 04-05 and Violette had 4.15 in 01-02. That's it. A good season for a BIG is in the upper 3's.

MDABE80
02-02-2014, 12:27 PM
No...it's not a lie. Mike strong suit was his example of hustling, takeaways and in general just causing mayhem. He just caused wins to occur but we had to see it because it wasn't measureable. He led by example. Look for the win-loss column and that's about the only thing to rely on unless you actually watched the games.
He is the example by other should play. HARD every second on the floor. No taking off plays. Harrassment etc. Not easy to measure.
That's how Mike might have rubbed of on other players. Won't see his effects in the data outside of the one piece that counts most (Wins-Losses). Incredible friezied play. Thats why he was SI's "glue guy of the year".

DixieZag
02-02-2014, 12:48 PM
I'm following up on a lot of what Abe says.

Hart's RBing stats may not tell the whole story b/c the numbers were not as impressive as the "type" of rebounds he got. He got rebounds (esp. offensive ones) that he had no business getting and he got them b/c he was relentless. He would work just to tip a ball to make it harder on the others guy, when a ball looked like it was surely going to the other guy, he gave an extra push that might have taken advantage of the assumptions the other guy had it.

It wasn't the number - it was the type he got.

zag buddy
02-02-2014, 01:05 PM
Mt it is not in the statistics it is in the attitude that flows over to everyone of our players to give it all they have got. That's why underdogs win. It's the old saying " it's not the size of the dog in the fight that counts, it's the size of the fight in the dog that counts." That attitude is what makes winners. They will not quit regardless of results or others opinions. Mike Hart had that in spades. He would not quit. He did not have the God given talents others had but every coach had to organize their game plan to pay paricular attention to Mike Hart. Every other player on the team could not give maximum effort without feeling a little worthless. As some poet once said-"lifes race doesn't allways go to the strongest or fastest man but sooner or later the fellow that wins is the fellow who thinks he can". Pendo came out of the same mold also.

Oregonzagnut
02-02-2014, 01:12 PM
The problem is that statistics do not provide overall indicators of holding the team together. The glue guy. Intangibles like knowing the playbook, being where you are supposed to be and giving 100% every game.

IMO Mike Harts biggest statistic was not rebounding at all. It was his nation leading assist to turn-over ratio. THAT is a glue guy. I think Stockton has some of those qualities especially on defense and Stockton is a solid PG. The fact is, maybe Bhaskar or Bakamus will go where Bankhead and Hart have gone.

NEVER count out any Zag!

MTZag03
02-02-2014, 01:28 PM
I'm not dissing Mike at all. I was just interested to see if our guards rebounded a little better after some time with Mike. Statistics are naturally flawed, so I don't think we can get much out of digging in to them especially in a case like this. It was just a fun exercise to try to see if the eye test matches up with some hard numbers. It appears to me that we have more hustle than we used to from our guards. I also agree with what others have said, the Hart effect was much much bigger than rebounds.