GAME THREAD: Dawgs @ Buffs

[Scotch]

Game Recap

Box Score

Rebounds and 2nd chance points were the difference. I honestly don't have any complaints on the offensive end. The Buffs were getting open shots, they just weren't falling. It happens. Let's hope this was just a one game thing with Namon and he bonces back. He is too valuable to this team.

Pac-12 refs suck, nothing new there.

Silver Lining: Tyler Bey - 14 points and 11 rebounds. The dude played some good ball today.

Final Thought: "You either win or you learn."

 

[BuffNut]

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.

Yeah, but it wasn't just 3's, it was free throws, layups, short range jumpers....they were missing them all. Across the board, and from every angle, they had trouble.

 

[cu3x]

This is a very talented and very young team. It's going to take some experience and confidence, to do it right every night. It was like they focused so hard on the turnover issue, they forgot everything else last night

Our diet and S&C people need to help Dallas put on 30 - 40 lbs the next 2 off-seasons

 

[BuffsNYC]

The lack of rebounding when playing zone really showed up last night. I was hoping Tad would go strictly man in the second half.

 

[8Jah]

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.

What I mean is regression to the mean. What I am not saying is that there is some kind of dependency between three point shooting in games. I’m saying that future results will be closer to the mean cause those results are more likely. Likewise, our previous ‘run’ of high percentages shouldn’t fool people into thinking that’s normal for us. That would imply we shoot a much higher percentage than the NCAA average.

 

[DBT]

We got pushed around and bullied yesterday. Maybe the most disappointing game of the year considering the stakes.

 

[BuffLuke80]

These guys need to figure out how to win when shots aren't falling like normal, good basketball programs do exactly that. I don't even give a damn how they do it, find a way. You can't get beasted on the boards like that even if shots are falling.

 

[MtnBuff]

Tad's comments after the game were basically that this was an easy game to analyze. The program is built on defense AND rebounding, not OR. Said the team got manhandled on the glass and punked in its own building.

I understand that an salute him for sticking to his philosophy.

Unfortunately what we saw yesterday was a return to something we have repeatedly seen in Tad's time here. We again had a couple of long stretches when the offense could simply not generate points.

It doesn't matter how well your defense plays, against quality competition they are going to score some points. I we aren't scoring that means that we are losing ground.

I'd like to see Tad put some emphasis on doing something that will allow us to break these offensive failures. Don't know if that means installing some set pieces, breaking some patterns, or having a personnel package that he can turn to but this tendency has cost us games in most years.

 

[Buffnik]

I understand that an salute him for sticking to his philosophy.

Unfortunately what we saw yesterday was a return to something we have repeatedly seen in Tad's time here. We again had a couple of long stretches when the offense could simply not generate points.

It doesn't matter how well your defense plays, against quality competition they are going to score some points. I we aren't scoring that means that we are losing ground.

I'd like to see Tad put some emphasis on doing something that will allow us to break these offensive failures. Don't know if that means installing some set pieces, breaking some patterns, or having a personnel package that he can turn to but this tendency has cost us games in most years.

The dry spell on offense was completely different from what you're comparing to in the past, though. They weren't turning the ball over. They weren't forcing up bad shots at the end of the shot clock. On Saturday, they were moving the ball and getting good shots. They were just missing and unable to get offensive rebounds.

If there's something they need to do more of in those stretches, it's to commit to having at least 1 paint touch on every possession whether from an entry pass or drive. Can't just move the ball around the perimeter and settle for jump shots.

That seems to be a big point of emphasis for Tad this year, as every time they are in one of those ruts and then come out of the timeout you immediately see multiple possessions of attacking the basket. It's what reversed that horrible stretch of the Wazzu game, for example.

 

[BuffLuke80]

Ding, mother****ing ding, attack the basket and don't settle for the J when it isn't falling. Chances are that J will start falling afterward. Also I want to see them push the basketball and get as many easy baskets in transition as possible. If it isn't there, then get into the offense.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

What I mean is regression to the mean. What I am not saying is that there is some kind of dependency between three point shooting in games. I’m saying that future results will be closer to the mean cause those results are more likely. Likewise, our previous ‘run’ of high percentages shouldn’t fool people into thinking that’s normal for us. That would imply we shoot a much higher percentage than the NCAA average.

You are correct that interpreting recent hot shooting would be a poor interpretation of available data that fails to understand regression to the mean.

When you state

but then you will also have games where you have a low percentage...like today.

you are intending to describe variance and regression to the mean, but are very specifically doing it in a way that plays directly to the gambler's fallacy. It is entirely possible that you do not believe that the team was in any way due for a below the mean performance, but your statements are amenable to being interpreted as though you believe in the gambler's fallacy.

 

[Scotch]

The dry spell on offense was completely different from what you're comparing to in the past, though. They weren't turning the ball over. They weren't forcing up bad shots at the end of the shot clock. On Saturday, they were moving the ball and getting good shots. They were just missing and unable to get offensive rebounds.

If there's something they need to do more of in those stretches, it's to commit to having at least 1 paint touch on every possession whether from an entry pass or drive. Can't just move the ball around the perimeter and settle for jump shots.

That seems to be a big point of emphasis for Tad this year, as every time they are in one of those ruts and then come out of the timeout you immediately see multiple possessions of attacking the basket. It's what reversed that horrible stretch of the Wazzu game, for example.

This. I'm a big critic of Tad Ball on the offensive end, but yesterday there wasn't much to criticize. I thought Boyle and his staff had a good game plan in place, the shots just weren't falling. Now some of the credit does go to Washington as they played well.

 

[8Jah]

You are correct that interpreting recent hot shooting would be a poor interpretation of available data that fails to understand regression to the mean.

When you state

you are intending to describe variance and regression to the mean, but are very specifically doing it in a way that plays directly to the gambler's fallacy. It is entirely possible that you do not believe that the team was in any way due for a below the mean performance, but your statements are amenable to being interpreted as though you believe in the gambler's fallacy.

When must of us use the term 'regression to the mean" as sports fans, we do so as a figure of speech. If each game is a statistically independent trial (which it very well may not be), and every action of a player has a statistically possible outcome, then we imagine that there are a near infinite number of possible worlds capturing every way the game 'could have' gone...including the world that contains the game the way we saw it. As a frequentist, then you could construct the statistical distribution for any measurement, say 3pt%, from the game outcomes among the many possible worlds.

I don't know what this distribution is, but I know a distribution 'exists', it is likely unimodal and that it is probably similar to historical distributions among NCAA men's basketball teams. There is a 'mean' performance that I can intuit based on history, even though I don't know what it is exactly. So, given the results of several completed games, I would reasonably expect a range of 3pt% performances enough games; some seemingly high relative to my intuition and some low. However, I would never put money down for a 'low' 3pt% performance given a streak of 'high' 3pt% performances.

 

[ahoelsken]

Ding, mother****ing ding, attack the basket and don't settle for the J when it isn't falling. Chances are that J will start falling afterward. Also I want to see them push the basketball and get as many easy baskets in transition as possible. If it isn't there, then get into the offense.

This. Only saw about a half, but I thought this was what caused UW to make the run in the first half that flipped the game. You beat a team who plays exclusively zone with ball movement and constant penetration.......not by settling for jumpers.