Halfvway comparison with last season at end.

Epicurus · Post #1 » by **Epicurus** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:52 pm

compared to last season, the Bucks at the halfway mark:

1. Own offensive efficiency--13th last season; 19th this season.
2. Own effective field goal shooting--8th last season; 20th this season.
3. Own turnovers--14th last season; 23rd this season.
4. Offensive rebounding--15th last; 7th this.
5. Own use of foul line--30th last season; 23rd this.

6. Defensive efficiency--29th last; 28th this.
7. Opponent's field shooting--29th last; 29th this.
8. forcing Opponent TOs-- 7th last season; 14th this season.
9. Defensive rebounding --30th last; 19th this.
10. Keeping opponent from using foul line--11th last; 25th this.

LUKE23 · Post #2 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:55 pm

In summary, we're unarguably a worse team across the board compared to last year, with less injuries. AWESOME!!

Post #3 » by **paulpressey25** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:55 pm

Epi....what are your conclusions from those stats?

Mine are that we rebound better but do everything else worse or the same.

What do you attribute to the increase in turnovers?

Epicurus · Post #4 » by **Epicurus** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:58 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:Epi....what are your conclusions from those stats?

Mine are that we rebound better but do everything else worse or the same.

What do you attribute to the increase in turnovers?

Maybe the extra pass. As I said when the "extra pass" was first celebrated, it is good when it doesn't reduce the number of shots (i.e., lead to more turnovers) and leads to higher shooting percentages. It is not good in and of itself.

75totheMACCfund · Post #5 » by **75totheMACCfund** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:04 pm

bring back stotts?

Epicurus · Post #6 » by **Epicurus** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:05 pm

Naw, impossible, but it does suggest whom might be better held responsible, I think.

LUKE23 · Post #7 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:07 pm

Epicurus wrote:Naw, impossible, but it does suggest whom might be better held responsible, I think.

It's a mess across the board. A controlling owner that the game has passed by, a GM that really has no authority and really ignores offensive/defensive balance, a coach that isn't ready to be the top dog, and players that are too redundant and lack multi-dimensional ability.

A recipe for success if I ever saw one.

75totheMACCfund · Post #8 » by **75totheMACCfund** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:09 pm

Epicurus wrote:Naw, impossible, but it does suggest whom might be better held responsible, I think.

be more explicit for me...kohl, harris, or coach k?

fam3381 · Post #9 » by **fam3381** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:10 pm

LUKE23 wrote:In summary, we're unarguably a worse team across the board compared to last year, with less injuries.

FWIW, the injury problems last year were concentrated more in the second half of the season. We've still been healthier this year, but our skeleton crew didn't show up until later IIRC.

Epicurus · Post #10 » by **Epicurus** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:16 pm

I am not sure of your point here, fam. The comparison used end of season numbers, not at this point last season. That would have made this season look worse.

MajorDad · Post #11 » by **MajorDad** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:19 pm

I can agree the stats reflect the bucks are a better rebounding team this year. however, last night I watched a 12 year old shoot and miss and grab his rebound and shoot and miss 5 times before the other team finally got the rebound. that makes me believe the bucks are getting more rebounds primarly because they are missing more shots, not because they are any more agressive on the boards. i recal when Fortson was putting up impressive rebounding stats playing for denver. it wasn't because he was a monster on the boards, but rather the team threw up so many bricks, he naturally ended up rebounding 12- 14 of those bricks a game.

I will agree with luke's assessment. We're worse than last year and we're healthier. That says it all about the future of this team. Individually, MO, Bogut and Redd might be having above average fantasy years. But it's just not working on the court.

jerrod · Post #12 » by **jerrod** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:20 pm

i wouldn't have guessed that we'd be ranked that highly in offensive rebounding

fam3381 · Post #13 » by **fam3381** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:25 pm

Epicurus wrote:I am not sure of your point here, fam. The comparison used end of season numbers, not at this point last season. That would have made this season look worse.

Ah, I thought you were comparing midway last year vs. midway this year.

Epicurus · Post #14 » by **Epicurus** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:26 pm

MajorDad wrote:I can agree the stats reflect the bucks are a better rebounding team this year. however, last night I watched a 12 year old shoot and miss and grab his rebound and shoot and miss 5 times before the other team finally got the rebound. that makes me believe the bucks are getting more rebounds primarly because they are missing more shots, not because they are any more agressive on the boards. i recal when Fortson was putting up impressive rebounding stats playing for denver. it wasn't because he was a monster on the boards, but rather the team threw up so many bricks, he naturally ended up rebounding 12- 14 of those bricks a game.

I will agree with luke's assessment. We're worse than last year and we're healthier. That says it all about the future of this team. Individually, MO, Bogut and Redd might be having above average fantasy years. But it's just not working on the court.

What is used is rebounding rate(percent of available missed shots rebounded), not raw rebounds.

MajorDad · Post #15 » by **MajorDad** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:30 pm

if a person took 5 shots, and grabbed his own rebound after each missed shot, would he have a high rebounding rate?

it apears as if the Bucks are at least a little more agressive going after missed shots. however, it doesn't appear as if we're able to convert that improved rebounding into improved scoring.

Epicurus · Post #16 » by **Epicurus** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:34 pm

Yes, it would be 100%. The norm in the NBA, however, is closer to 28% or so of getting your own misses. Maybe you are thinking the Bucks are just throwing the ball at the basket to get the rebound ( I guess that would work beyond the norm). I doubt if that is the case. Indeed often high rebounding rate, offensive, goes with higher shooting percentages as the put back is a very high percentage shot.

REDDzone · Post #17 » by **REDDzone** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:47 pm

Also worth noting that the pace this year is significantly slower than last year, right?

smauss · Post #18 » by **smauss** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:47 pm

epi, in your opinion, how does the record square with this data in that extrapolating the record out would give us 4 more wins this year? Easier first half this year? What's your opinion..... BTW, great data, very interesting!

Epicurus · Post #19 » by **Epicurus** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:11 pm

REDDzone wrote:Also worth noting that the pace this year is significantly slower than last year, right?

Pace is controlled by every stat used. But yes, pace is somewhat slower this season.

Epicurus · Post #20 » by **Epicurus** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:17 pm

smauss wrote:epi, in your opinion, how does the record square with this data in that extrapolating the record out would give us 4 more wins this year? Easier first half this year? What's your opinion..... BTW, great data, very interesting!

Maybe less blowouts (20 or more last season). I think last season only two such happened. This season I think about 4 or 5 (too lazy to look up). Those may inflate the differences in numbers somewhat and thus throw off relationships with wins. What to look for, I think, is the net between offensive and defensive efficiency. By 82 games it pretty well is compatible with winning percentage. Now the Bucks are about 10% higher in winning percentage than the expected winning percentage from the efficiency differential. Thus the Bucks better get better internals pretty soon or face an under 30win season.