AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
GAME THREAD: Dawgs @ Buffs
- Thread starter Scotch
- Start date
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Finally called a damn over the back.
Getting killed on the glass.
Except when the referees don’t let it...
We have played terribly all game, can't hit shots, sloppy passes, not rebounding, back to those long stretches were we can't throw the ball in the ocean.
With all that we still aren't out of it. Need to get our acts together and we can steal this one.
And Walton has stepped up big today, he is legit.
With all that we still aren't out of it. Need to get our acts together and we can steal this one.
And Walton has stepped up big today, he is legit.
Looked like it to me but these are PAC12 refs so.
Get beat on the boards by 16, I'll show you a loss.
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
You're talking about the gamblers' fallacy, not regression to the mean.
seattlebuff
Well-Known Member
HUGE missed opportunity with the road trip coming up. That's the ugliest we've played in a long time. If you had told me that Namon would go scoreless in a game, as dangerous as he's looked lately, I wouldn't believe it. You would think as much zone as we've played in recent weeks (and obviously practiced against), we would have been better at attacking it. The offense was out of sync all day, even when we had the lead early. Walton played great, but if we're forced to run our offense through him, we're in trouble.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
I mean that if you live by the three then you may have a run of high percentage games where you hit alot of threes, but then you will also have games where you have a low percentage...like today. That is regression to the mean.
Sort of. But it's not like they were forcing things up. I saw very few bad shots from our Buffs today. They just kept missing shots that they would normally make well over half the time. One of those days. And still would have won if they could have kept Washington off the offensive glass. As bad as the stats were there, it was worse because of all the blocked shots and 50/50 balls that UW beat CU to the ball for.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
Good looks sure, but a lot of our threes just didn't go today. It happens. We were 27% from 3 today. We were 34% against WSU, 50% at UCLA, 44% at USC and 44% against Arizona. King in particular has been lights out, but not tonight. Seems our mean is somewhere around 35%.
I definitely would agree that we have more streak shooters than pure shooters. But today is usually the type of game when they'd be lights out because the team was moving the ball so well. Wide open looks off kickouts from the high post and sh!t like that which just didn't go down. Those shots are like most of the shooting practice these guys have done their whole life with dad, coach or rebound machine kicking the ball straight out to them while they're squared up and in rhythm. Pretty easy shots. Almost like a free throw and I think they were under 50% from the line in the 1st half, too.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
I like our shooters. Wright's collapse the D and then kick it out game has brought back King and Collier as shooters, but I don't think that game is going to be there every night even if players get good looks...just from a statistical basis. It would be really nice to have a reliable post game to go to.
Last edited:
I thought Dallas played well in the high post against the 2-3 today. Where I thought they missed opportunities is that they could have found Bey a lot more running the baseline. Especially in the 2nd half with UW extending out to cover the corner jumpers.
Bingo, he's right imho.
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
No, you just described the gambler's fallacy again.
Regression to the mean is the expectation that after a sample well above or below the mean the next performance is expected to be closer to the mean. As a team the Buffs have shot 35% from 3-points, if they shot 60% in a game (+25% relative to the mean), far more often than not you'd see the following game to be somewhere between 11% and 59%. Regression to the mean implies nothing about better than average or worse than average results coming up, it implies that a sample out towards either tail of the distribution is far more likely to be followed by something closer to the center of the distribution.
The gambler's fallacy suggests that past results will somehow be balanced out by future results, that is what you are suggesting.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-regression-to-the-mean-and-the-gamblers-fallacy
EDIT: What I'm saying re: 11-59% would only hold true if 35% were the true mean, or true talent level for this team's 3pt shooting percentage. We don't have anyway of knowing what the true mean is.
Last edited:
Pretty sure I saw a stat they were like 11th in the conference in rebounding though. Where the **** did tonight come from? Nik is probably right, Tad at least, they got punked or outworked, something. It's kind of like that with young teams though, consistency probably isn't gonna be a strength. Keep it moving and have a good roadie. Dallas can hit that little J, that was good to see.
jkppkjjkp
Well-Known Member
I thought he had good stretches and bad stretches. He had 2 assists and the one pass that led to free throws for Bey. Dallas had 1 point off of free throws that came when he was fouled going for a rebound. Outside of that he had 12 other points on 13 shots, which was good but not great... on second thought compared to how the rest of the team shot that was really solid.
The biggest thing is that he doesn't yet seem confident and aggressive in what he's doing when he's so open from the high post. In the 2nd half, UW changed how they were defending it. Instead of having their C come up to meet him, that C started dropping off to prevent that pass to Bey under the basket. Then, one of the guards would crash down from the wing to try to disrupt the shot or get a steal. Dallas eventually adjusted and took one or two aggressively to the rim. As a freshman, he'd probably never dealt with it being defended that way. It's both fun and frustrating as we watch them learn and figure out their adjustments.