PDA

View Full Version : Gonzaga vs LMU...Postgame thoughts



Reborn
02-15-2014, 08:27 PM
Beautiful. What a great way to end an undefeated season at home. How many teams can say that this year? I'm really proud of this team. Sam had a great game tonight. I was happy for him and for his parents who got to see these last two games at home. I can remember when GU was recruiting Sam away from Minn. I was glad then and more glad now. He has really become a player, and better then Elias' senior year imo. He's getting up there with Kelly too. He has really become a true go-to-guy. Talk about confidence. And deadly at the Free Throw line. Zags shot 80% from the line. That's the best they have shot from the line in a few games.

Pangos looks great. That toe is looking great. He hit 3 three's. And had some beautiful drives on his way to 17 points.
Bell was Pangos' equal from the 3 pt line also making 3. Bell finished with 14 off the bench. I also think he's beginning to feel much better. The team is getting it all back together just in time.

I thought Nunez played awesome AGAIN. He's fun to watch. 5 points, 5 boards and two blocks. A very good line. Four guys in double figures while scoring 86 points. That's the most points in quite awhile. It's nice to see the offense in high gear again.

Although the team is beginning to gel again, they hase still not peaked, and honestly they are a ways from peaking. I don't see them peaking until March. They are, however, right where they need to be as they prepare to face that dreaded road trip. It is nice to be facing it with a 4 game lead in conference play.

My hope is that the Zags will finish the year 20 and 4 and both St Mary's and BYU in the top 50. St Mary's was 52 earlier today. I'm not sure what the loss at home to BYU will do? The win by BYU will definitely keep them in the top 50 which is good for us. We need another top 50 win, and yes on the road. Next week is going to be really fun.

Go Zags!!!

demian
02-15-2014, 10:14 PM
thanks for the report. I didn't get to see the game. sounded like a good effort. yeah Sam Dower is having a real good senior season. Very proud of his efforts this year. big week ahead. Go Zags

Zags11
02-15-2014, 10:18 PM
I was at the game. Sam balled out. The speeches were nice. I loved stocktons speech.

caduceus
02-16-2014, 10:36 AM
On Court
Off Court
Player MIN RR +/- + - +/- + -
K. Pangos 31 21 20 74 -54 -1 12 -13 D. Stockton 24 -15 2 45 -43 17 41 -24 P. Karnowski 34 11 15 69 -54 4 17 -13 S. Dower 31 -1 9 61 -52 10 25 -15 D. Barham 14 -27 -4 22 -26 23 64 -41 G. Coleman 4 -9 5 8 -3 14 78 -64 A. Nunez 11 13 16 28 -12 3 58 -55 K. Dranginis 22 1 10 48 -38 9 38 -29 G. Bell 26 21 20 63 -43 -1 23 -24


+ = Team points scored while on court
- = Opponent points allowed while on court
+/- = Team points scored minus Opp points allowed
Off Court = Team points scored/allowed while off court
RR (Roland Rating) = On Court +/- minus Off Court +/-


Interesting numbers for this game. The juniors appear to have been the stars on Senior Night. Pangos and Bell (especially Bell for his fewer minutes played) helped the team the most. Nunez played very well, with a significantly positive RR (his first this season). Despite the fact that Dower was killing it offensively and on the glass last night, he ultimately had a slightly negative Roland Rating since the team actually netted more points vs. LMU when he was off the court. Barham and Coleman's numbers might explain why they didn't get many 2nd half minutes.

MTZag03
02-16-2014, 10:50 AM
Funny that Dower shows up in the red for RR after his dominant performance. It's good to see GBJ doing well on the stats again.

Ekrub
02-16-2014, 11:10 AM
Funny that Dower shows up in the red for RR after his dominant performance. It's good to see GBJ doing well on the stats again.

Roland ratings are interesting but I prefer +/- over it.

caduceus
02-16-2014, 12:39 PM
Roland ratings are interesting but I prefer +/- over it.

Why? Pure plus-minus has significant flaws. If I'm on the court only when Lebron is, my plus-minus is likely going to be good even if I can't hit a barn door, so that tells you absolutely nothing. If the team plays better (or worse) when a player is off the court, it's important to know.

In last night's game, Stockton's plus-minus was a respectable +2. That's 3 points per 40 minutes better than LMU when he's on the court. However, in the 16 minutes when Stockton was off the court, the team scored 43 points per 40 minutes better than LMU. Off-court time matters.

Ekrub
02-16-2014, 12:58 PM
Your argument towards why +/- is flawed could be applied to the Roland rating as well. If I spend a majority of my minutes playing without Lebron and most my minutes on the bench with Lebron is playing , I could have a negative RR despite having a positive impact. I see +/- as something a player has more control over. I see value in both, and believe both to have flaws. Important thing is to recognize that. But my personal preference is +/-. Appreciate you posting the charts regardless.

NumberCruncher
02-16-2014, 01:39 PM
Here's the players in order based on the team adjusted efficiency while they were in versus LMU.

AN
GC
KP
GBJ
PK
KD
SDJ
DS
DB

Comes pretty close to the order for +/- and Roland. Of course, this is just one game.

I think all of the methods are interesting but flawed. Thanks for posting the charts, Cad.


Edit: My single-game efficiency ratings are not adjusted for opponent strength and location.

caduceus
02-16-2014, 02:12 PM
Your argument towards why +/- is flawed could be applied to the Roland rating as well.

Yes, and there is a statistical term for it: collinearity. As far as "advanced" stats go, plus-minus is the weakest when it comes to that. Roland is quite a bit better. Adjusted plus-minus is even better than both, but requires complex math and a whole lot of other data (it uses the statistical strengths of every teammate and opponent on the court at a given time), and it's too time-consuming unless you're Nate Silver.


If I spend a majority of my minutes playing without Lebron and most my minutes on the bench with Lebron is playing , I could have a negative RR despite having a positive impact. I see +/- as something a player has more control over. I see value in both, and believe both to have flaws. Important thing is to recognize that. But my personal preference is +/-.

As you probably know, Roland doesn't directly measure the positive impact of a player. Neither does straight plus-minus. They measure how the team does in relation to a player. We have all those box score stats and actually watching the game to figure out "positive impact." Dower and Stockton no doubt had a positive impact on the game, despite their Roland numbers (which don't directly care about rebounds, assists, steals, or anything else besides team points). The numbers certainly don't account for everything (momentum, injuries, opponent substitutions, defensive matchups, fans screaming in your ear, etc.).

I agree that there is value in both. Plus-minus is a bit more player-centric, and Roland is a bit more team-centric. Individual play is important, but it's a team game. And both have flaws in the sense that all data that makes up the quality of a player or team cannot ever be completely captured. As you said, it's important to recognize that.


Appreciate you posting the charts regardless.

Thanks. I appreciate your input.

caduceus
02-16-2014, 02:28 PM
Here's the players in order based on the team adjusted efficiency while they were in versus LMU.

AN
GC
KP
GBJ
PK
KD
SDJ
DS
DB

Comes pretty close to the order for +/- and Roland. Of course, this is just one game.

I think all of the methods are interesting but flawed. Thanks for posting the charts, Cad.


That's pretty cool. I thought Coleman's contribution seemed better than his Roland number showed, and your findings suggest just that. He played well in the short amount of time he was on the court. Roland doesn't fare so well when players don't have a substantial number of minutes.

Agree, all are interesting but flawed in one way or another. Thanks for posting your efficiencies -- good stuff.