MBB Game Thread - Pac-12 Tourney: Buffs vs. the Cougs

[Shldr2Shldr]

XJ is a matchup nightmare and could be absolutely dominant if he wanted to be. I understand his stats/performance are good, but he could be great if he consistently played at the level we have all seen flashes of.

 

[Buffnik]

Got to say, King's eFG combined with his rebounding is damn good for a wing. Especially when you consider the slump he was in for the early part of the season. That gives me confidence heading into next season (but he's got to improve his handle & court awareness).

As a foundation for 2017-18, I like the efficiencies we get from King and Miller as our starting point.

Player​	eFG%​	TS%​	OR%​	DR%​
George King​	55.5​	56.7​	8.0​	19.8​
Tory Miller​	55.2​	54.7​	8.5​	19.1​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Both need to improve on their FT shooting, which would push those shooting numbers to closer to 60%.

We need major improvement from our guards. What returns is so inefficient. One positive I see is on the defensive glass, where Namon Wright actually had an 18.0 DR% for Mizzou in 2015-16. I see a lot of things pointing to TadBall being back in play for next season with owning the defensive glass and getting extra possessions on offense. Also, Siewert is a sneaky good rebounder -- 7.9 OR% and 12.1 DR% -- who should only improve as a soph (needs to hit the weight room).

 

[Goose]

I don't think it's hate as much as it is disappointment.

XJ has been the difference for CU in a number of wins over his career, he has that rare combination of power and skills that make him dangerous in any game. We also have to acknowledge that as a HS kid he was highly regarded 4* recruit. By coming to CU he got the attention of other kids, some of who may not have looked at CU before.

The frustration comes in seeing what we think he could have been. As good as he has been we look at a guy who hasn't gotten substantially better. As a Fr. he averaged 8.9 and 4.8. As a Jr. before the injury he was 10.3 and 5.6, this year he is 14.7 and 6.0. He has improved but based on his level as a recruit and the many flashes of talent we have seen we may have been expecting him to become a "star" instead of just above average.

Then that's an "us" problem, not an XJ problem. 356th in the nation in ORtg, 266th in eFG%, 311st in TS%, 428th in DR% and 277th in TORate. Those are damn good numbers. He's 15th in the P12 in PPG and 18th in RPG. These are all numbers that a 4* recruit should put up. Hell, there are at least 4 5* recruits listed between 16 and 30 in PPG (Jabari Bird, Ivan Rabb, Isaac Hamilton and Tyler Dorsey). So does that mean those 5*'s - of which one was 1st team All-Pac-12 and two were honorable mention - all suck?

It's the same thing with Wes - people (myself included) are disappointed that he didn't put up better numbers on offense this year (nevermind the fact that he, White and Brown are probably the only three players on the team who even pretend to give a **** about defense on every possession). Meanwhile, he's posting an ORtg of 113.6 (second highest behind his sophomore year of 115.5) while having a career high in ARate and second lowest TORate of his career (junior year). Once again, there are reasons to criticize Wes (see: section on leadership from XJ above) but getting pissed at him for not being an offensive force is like being mad at a duck for not being able to drive a car.

 

[Goose]

Got to say, King's eFG combined with his rebounding is damn good for a wing. Especially when you consider the slump he was in for the early part of the season. That gives me confidence heading into next season (but he's got to improve his handle & court awareness).

I think a lot of King's early season struggles were him adjusting to having XJ back. They basically play very similar roles and with XJ playing like he did it was up to King to adjust. It took him a while, but it feels like he's finally starting to find his groove. Add in the fact that he was having to defer to DWhite (whereas last year he was the alpha dog on the perimeter only deferring to Jelly) and his early season struggles make sense.

I wish I could share your optimism for Tory.

 

[Buffnik]

I think a lot of King's early season struggles were him adjusting to having XJ back. They basically play very similar roles and with XJ playing like he did it was up to King to adjust. It took him a while, but it feels like he's finally starting to find his groove. Add in the fact that he was having to defer to DWhite (whereas last year he was the alpha dog on the perimeter only deferring to Jelly) and his early season struggles make sense.

I wish I could share your optimism for Tory.

Tory will get rebounds and make layups, mixing in the occasional post move. My hope & expectation is that he can be an efficient 8 & 12 guy next year.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Tory needs to learn what his shot is. He isn't J40. He needs to work right around the hoop, not the 10-15ft range.

 

[Goose]

Tory will get rebounds and make layups, mixing in the occasional post move. My hope & expectation is that he can be an efficient 8 & 12 guy next year.

Dude, I'm hoping you mean 12 ppg & 8 rpg and not 8 ppg & 12 rpg. I personally view that as a big stretch, but it's possible. If Tory grabs 12 rebounds a game that'd be 5th in the nation. Honestly, if we get Wes numbers from Tory next year I'm thrilled.

 

[MtnBuff]

Then that's an "us" problem, not an XJ problem. 356th in the nation in ORtg, 266th in eFG%, 311st in TS%, 428th in DR% and 277th in TORate. Those are damn good numbers. He's 15th in the P12 in PPG and 18th in RPG. These are all numbers that a 4* recruit should put up. Hell, there are at least 4 5* recruits listed between 16 and 30 in PPG (Jabari Bird, Ivan Rabb, Isaac Hamilton and Tyler Dorsey). So does that mean those 5*'s - of which one was 1st team All-Pac-12 and two were honorable mention - all suck?

It's the same thing with Wes - people (myself included) are disappointed that he didn't put up better numbers on offense this year (nevermind the fact that he, White and Brown are probably the only three players on the team who even pretend to give a **** about defense on every possession). Meanwhile, he's posting an ORtg of 113.6 (second highest behind his sophomore year of 115.5) while having a career high in ARate and second lowest TORate of his career (junior year). Once again, there are reasons to criticize Wes (see: section on leadership from XJ above) but getting pissed at him for not being an offensive force is like being mad at a duck for not being able to drive a car.

I would have liked to see XJ step up but you are right, he has been better than a solid player for us.

It might be fairer to blame Tad for not finding or developing a leader both on the floor and off who is able to get the most out of the talent we have. Also fair to blame Tad for not developing an offense that consistently takes advantage of the talent we have including XJ. I love Tad as a coach and he is easily the best coach CU has had in my lifetime (which extends back to Sox) but he does have his weaknesses as well.

As much as we may have been frustrated with both XJ and Wes I'd take another of each without hesitation.

Some of those same concerns could apply to Wes. Wes is a gifted player but has never been offensive minded. He was fine with deferring to Josh and didn't develop an offensive mindset. I'm not going to blame him for not doing what Tad didn't ask him to do or facilitate him doing.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Tory needs to learn what his shot is. He isn't J40. He needs to work right around the hoop, not the 10-15ft range.

Maybe, but if he could get reasonably efficient with an 8-12 foot jumper the post defender would have to respect that. It would open the lane a bit for the slashers and dashers.

Can he do that? I dunno.

 

[Buffnik]

Dude, I'm hoping you mean 12 ppg & 8 rpg and not 8 ppg & 12 rpg. I personally view that as a big stretch, but it's possible. If Tory grabs 12 rebounds a game that'd be 5th in the nation. Honestly, if we get Wes numbers from Tory next year I'm thrilled.

Nope. I was thinking more of 8 points and 12 rebounds. I look at the game he had last night and think that's what he is for us next season along with increased minutes. Glass cleaner who gets a few plays a game run for him and gets most of his points off offensive rebounds. Call it a 10 & 10 type year with splitting the difference and we'd be in very good shape from that position.

 

[Highlander]

Nope. I was thinking more of 8 points and 12 rebounds. I look at the game he had last night and think that's what he is for us next season along with increased minutes. Glass cleaner who gets a few plays a game run for him and gets most of his points off offensive rebounds. Call it a 10 & 10 type year with splitting the difference and we'd be in very good shape from that position.

18 players averaged 10 & 10 so far this year. That would be amazing if he could do that.

 

[torero]

18 players averaged 10 & 10 so far this year. That would be amazing if he could do that.

Yeah, count me among the happy if he averages something like 8 and 7 next year. Only all conference caliber players average double doubles in college basketball.

 

[Randy.Watson]

Honest question, is there anything to these advanced stats/metrics, or are they just how far down the rabbit hole you have to go to make some players look more valuable?

Why can't we just use Wins, TOs, Pts, Rebs, and Assists to gauge a player's value?

 

[tante]

Honest question, is there anything to these advanced stats/metrics, or are they just how far down the rabbit hole you have to go to make some players look more valuable?

Why can't we just use Wins, TOs, Pts, Rebs, and Assists to gauge a player's value?

Advanced Stats are much more valuable, let me try to explain.

Lets say player A scores 20 points on 10 shots and player B scores 20 points on 15 shots, they both scored the same amount of points, but one was more valuable because he takes less shots to score the same amount of point. What advanced stats try to do is create a basis for a player where is weighed against other player regardless of the style. So a team like UCLA might have player B and that is fine because they team as a whole would have 75 shots as a team, but if you compare to Wisconsin (just a random team I pulled, don't know about their pace) and they might only take 55 shots in a game, so player B would be take over 20% of the entire teams shots.

So another thing is to standardize based on 100 possession. If player A only plays 25 minutes a game, he is super valuable, if he plays 35 minutes a game he is less valuable. when you look at just rebounds numbers it is better to factor in how many rebounding opportunities the player had. That makes it easier to compare the player against his teammates and other players.

 

[dyemeduke]

XJ is a matchup nightmare and could be absolutely dominant if he wanted to be. I understand his stats/performance are good, but he could be great if he consistently played at the level we have all seen flashes of.

I hear you on this, but I think this statement shows why some people got tired of XJ. Yes, he has a lot of room for improvement, but I don't think his ceiling is as high as people think. When he had a solid freshman season, people were saying that he could potentially leave after his soph or junior year (NOT saying you specifically did this, but there definitely were more than a few on the boards that voiced this thought). I don't think that was ever realistic, and I'm not sure it's realistic to expect him to dominate if he wanted to. I admit that I too thought he could develop into an NBA prospect over 4 years (whether that be 2nd round or late 1st...who knows), but he turned out to just be a solid starter for us. There's nothing wrong with that. MANY 4 star players don't achieve starter-status power conference teams, needless to say being a solid contributor.

Honest question, is there anything to these advanced stats/metrics, or are they just how far down the rabbit hole you have to go to make some players look more valuable?

Why can't we just use Wins, TOs, Pts, Rebs, and Assists to gauge a player's value?

I agree man. I know many others who know the game (like many on these boards) of bball love advanced metrics, but I personally don't follow them that much. I think they're a fun tool to help aid what you see in the game. On the other hand, so are all stats, and the stats you mention also don't tell a full story. In many ways, the advanced metrics are more valuable than the stats you mention, so I get the love for them.

 

[TDforTD]

Honest question, is there anything to these advanced stats/metrics, or are they just how far down the rabbit hole you have to go to make some players look more valuable?

Why can't we just use Wins, TOs, Pts, Rebs, and Assists to gauge a player's value?

It's like anything, every stat needs context and advanced stats help to give context.

Scoring points is great but if you're not doing it efficiently, then it's hard to gauge how helpful you really are. But over time, things like FG% becomes outdated because of how much 3s and FTs are worth. 1/3 3pt shooting is still the same 1point per possession as 1/2 with a layup and a missed layup. So that's where TS% comes in. It's also helps illustrate how valuable someone like James Harden is who can put up a 5/15 shooting night but still hammer away FTs and ultimately contribute to a win. Tory Miller should have a much higher TS%.

Similarly, things like raw rebounding numbers have also become outdated. Teams play different paces, teams utilize team rebounding differently, etc. Someone like Brook Lopez is a good example, where he never really pulls in all that many rebounds himself, but his teams have generally been very good at rebounding and stats have come out that he's a tremendous team rebounder even tho the ball doesn't always end in his hands and on the stat sheet.

Ultimately I like the idea of using wins as a stat lol. That's the only thing that matters and if you're impactful enough, you're going to win games.

 

[Randy.Watson]

Advanced Stats are much more valuable, let me try to explain.

Lets say player A scores 20 points on 10 shots and player B scores 20 points on 15 shots, they both scored the same amount of points, but one was more valuable because he takes less shots to score the same amount of point. What advanced stats try to do is create a basis for a player where is weighed against other player regardless of the style. So a team like UCLA might have player B and that is fine because they team as a whole would have 75 shots as a team, but if you compare to Wisconsin (just a random team I pulled, don't know about their pace) and they might only take 55 shots in a game, so player B would be take over 20% of the entire teams shots.

So another thing is to standardize based on 100 possession. If player A only plays 25 minutes a game, he is super valuable, if he plays 35 minutes a game he is less valuable. when you look at just rebounds numbers it is better to factor in how many rebounding opportunities the player had. That makes it easier to compare the player against his teammates and other players.

Thanks for taking the time to type that out. Forgive me here, as I am not a hoop head, but couldn't you just look at FG% for your first paragraph? As for the second paragraph, isn't it just extrapolating a limited sample size, which can obviously lead to flawed data and incorrect conclusions?

Again, I don't know this stuff as well as a lot of you, so I am probably way off base. I am just wondering about the new prevalence of these advanced stats and if they are worth anything.

 

[Randy.Watson]

It's like anything, every stat needs context and advanced stats help to give context.

Scoring points is great but if you're not doing it efficiently, then it's hard to gauge how helpful you really are. But over time, things like FG% becomes outdated because of how much 3s and FTs are worth. 1/3 3pt shooting is still the same 1point per possession as 1/2 with a layup and a missed layup. So that's where TS% comes in. It's also helps illustrate how valuable someone like James Harden is who can put up a 5/15 shooting night but still hammer away FTs and ultimately contribute to a win. Tory Miller should have a much higher TS%.

Similarly, things like raw rebounding numbers have also become outdated. Teams play different paces, teams utilize team rebounding differently, etc. Someone like Brook Lopez is a good example, where he never really pulls in all that many rebounds himself, but his teams have generally been very good at rebounding and stats have come out that he's a tremendous team rebounder even tho the ball doesn't always end in his hands and on the stat sheet.

Ultimately I like the idea of using wins as a stat lol. That's the only thing that matters and if you're impactful enough, you're going to win games.

Thanks, TD. Sounds like this stuff gets pretty crazy. To give you some context, I still refuse to look up what WAR is in baseball. I know what the acronym is but have no idea how that is calculated. I am a sports simpleton in a lot of ways, I suppose.

 

[Buffnik]

18 players averaged 10 & 10 so far this year. That would be amazing if he could do that.

So much depends on what's around you and your pace of play (along with how many minutes on the court). But, yeah, I think Tory is on the edge of being a double-double guy next year.

 

[tante]

Thanks for taking the time to type that out. Forgive me here, as I am not a hoop head, but couldn't you just look at FG% for your first paragraph? As for the second paragraph, isn't it just extrapolating a limited sample size, which can obviously lead to flawed data and incorrect conclusions?

Again, I don't know this stuff as well as a lot of you, so I am probably way off base. I am just wondering about the new prevalence of these advanced stats and if they are worth anything.

Yes you sure could. But one is not very meaningful without the other. A player that scores 20 points per game but only makes 25% is not great but how do you compare him to a player that only scores 4 points but shoots 60%. The advanced metrics allow you to compare players equally, without having to look up a multitude of stats and numbers.

 

[Goose]

So much depends on what's around you and your pace of play (along with how many minutes on the court). But, yeah, I think Tory is on the edge of being a double-double guy next year.

How fast do you see us playing? Tad's fastest team was his first year - and that was about as un-#TadBall of a team you can get. If we're returning to "D & board" like you think (and I agree), I think we're going to see pace closer to 200th in the nation than the 80th it was that first year.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

I know it isn't Tad's style, but I would love a 40min of hell type offense. Would be absolutely killer at altitude.

 

[Goose]

I know it isn't Tad's style, but I would love a 40min of hell type offense. Would be absolutely killer at altitude.

Honestly, that's why I was excited about McClain prior to hiring Tad. But D wins games, so as always I was proven wrong by people smarter than myself.

 

[Buffnik]

How fast do you see us playing? Tad's fastest team was his first year - and that was about as un-#TadBall of a team you can get. If we're returning to "D & board" like you think (and I agree), I think we're going to see pace closer to 200th in the nation than the 80th it was that first year.

I think it will be very close to 2011-12. It's either a runout off a long rebound or steal... or it's 20+ seconds of plodding toward some sort of shot.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

At elevation, I'd love to see 40-minutes of hell defense.