think it is the opposite of that. it appears to be the difference between actual win % and what SQ predicts should be your win %. the SQ record column says we should expect to have 11.3 wins and 3.7 loses (so far) based on our SQ offense and SQ defense."Record Luck" is throwing me for a loop. Is it saying we're lucky and UVA is unlucky?
think it is the opposite of that. it appears to be the difference between actual win % and what SQ predicts should be your win %. the SQ record column says we should expect to have 11.3 wins and 3.7 loses (so far) based on our SQ offense and SQ defense.
Agree. I think the key here might be limited data. It mentions that the size of the logo correlates to the sample size of games they have charted so far. The GT logo is fairly small compared to many others. This newer graphic also contradicts the original post graphic (which indicates that GT has high quality shot selection this year and forces opponents into poor shot selection). My guess is this newer graphic represents/includes just a few games, and perhaps primarily games from early in the season. To my eye, our shot selection has improved significantly as the season has progressed. We are getting out in transition / secondary much more consistently, resulting in better shots. Our half court offense is much more fluid and efficient since starting ACC play as well. In December OOC games I saw a lot more low quality, stagnant possessions with perimeter and mid-range shots off the bounce; once coming back from the holiday break I saw clearly improved offensive rhythm/flow/efficiency with more shots at the rim and kickout catch-and-shoot 3s.Something seems off about that. I wonder how they are calculating the good shot/bad shot.
I agree regarding the metric being under a coach's control. And that is one of the reasons I found the original post graphic so interesting and shared it. I interpreted it as an indicator that Pastner has done well in terms of 1) designing offensive systems/strategies, and 2) teaching individual players their role in the system and what kinds of shots they should be seeking/taking.This is a metric, like TO's, that should be under a coach's control. Granted, I played before the 3 point line and a shot clock where anything outside the radius of the free throw line was considered a "bad shot" but I had a coach who would sit you (for a lengthy stretch of time) for taking bad shots. So, if you enjoyed playing and not just being on the team, you learned to abide by his expectations on taking care of the ball and shot selection. Nowadays, it seems to be a "let 'em play" mindset, not just with CJP but amongst all coaches. My thinking on issues such as this may be a bit outdated however.
For the record though we had glass backboards amd metal rims in my day. We were not shooting at peach baskets with the bottoms cut out.
I agree that this must be part of the explanation. Here’s a chart posted Feb 2nd with GT detailed, only 5 games charted whereas Gonzaga had 15 charted.I think the key here might be limited data. It mentions that the size of the logo correlates to the sample size of games they have charted so far. The GT logo is fairly small compared to many others.
thanks for posting all these. looks like a good twitter follow. i scrolled through the feed and found 4 of the 5 games charted for GT this year: Duke, Clemson (first matchup), Nebraska, Kentucky.
In thinking about this more, I suspect these charts classify good shots/bad shots independent of the shooter. In an earlier chart posted by this Twitter account Moses was in a quadrant of “should shoot more 3 pointers”.ELI5. would our spot in the chart (good shooters, bad shots), indicate we're not running an offense that gets us good shots, or that the players aren't effectively executing the offense to get the good shots or ??
My gut feel has been that we often get and miss decent shots but I'll admit I remember missed open shots much more than others