BrewCity...

If you want to see guts, watch the 2nd half of the 1977 NCAA Championship game. Watch Tony Miller dribble through the Kentucky press in 1994. Watch MU vs LSU in 1970 NIT game. Watch DWade put it on Kentucky in 2003. Watch MU at Bucky last year. If you watch any one of those games, you will have seen the definition of guts. Oh.....and Travis Diener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"

That's just idiotic and ignorant. Stats tell us Marquette is a good three point shooting team. Is that meaningless? Stats tell us they're a mediocre defensive team. Does that go out the window? Stats tell you what you are.

Teams can either learn from them, use them, and improve with them, or ignore them and stagnate. Fans can do the same. Realize that the eye test isn't perfect and only tells you so much, or accept that this stuff has value.

There's a reason teams like Golden State and Cleveland have separated themselves from the pack. Because they use and improve with advanced metrics. You can embrace them or be left behind. Saying they mean absolutely nothing sounds exactly as intelligent as saying the brewcityball rec team could beat the Bucks, because hey, all those stats mean absolutely nothing! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

---

Thanks. Appreciate that. Are you becoming that defensive about your position that anybody that disagrees with it is "idiotic and ignorant"? Stats tell you what has happened in the past so you can work on your game to try to improve. It guarantees nothing pertaining to future success. Too many other factors involved. How do you measure if players buy into the stats and adjust their games accordingly? How do you measure your teams or your opponents toughness? How do you measure your teams or your opponents willingness to do whatever it takes to win? How do you measure how kids handle pressure at any point in a game, beginning, middle or end? How do you measure if a kid has that intangible where he just knows how to win?

I think most of us find your statistical analysis has merit and is useful. We just don't think it is the end-all be-all to the extent you do. Hopefully you can live with that. Obviously, you are struggling with it.

Guts?
You forgot to add Bill Neary being escorted off the court in South America by machine gun toting fedarales in 75?

How about a 9 year old IWB taking a swing at Bill Neary post game later that year?

Guts?
You forgot to add Bill Neary being escorted off the court in South America by machine gun toting fedarales in 75?

How about a 9 year old IWB taking a swing at Bill Neary post game later that year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gato78

If you want to see guts, watch the 2nd half of the 1977 NCAA Championship game. Watch Tony Miller dribble through the Kentucky press in 1994. Watch MU vs LSU in 1970 NIT game. Watch DWade put it on Kentucky in 2003. Watch MU at Bucky last year. If you watch any one of those games, you will have seen the definition of guts. Oh.....and Travis Diener.

---

I will point out now that in three of the four games you mentioned, Marquette had advantages in advanced stats. (I couldn't find the LSU boxscore, but my guess is that it would be four out of four.) Including destroying Kentucky twice by around 20% in eFG%. So did they win those games because of "guts?" Or did they win those games because they shot the ball better and got to the line more often?

My guess is the latter.

1977 Championship Game: Pretty equal shooting percentage. Marquette won FT rate 53% to 32%.
1994 Tony Miller Game: MU crushed UK in eFG% 56.4% v. 38.2% and in FT rate 68% v. 12%
2003 E8 Game v. Kentucky: Once again, MU crushed UK in eFG% 65.5% v. 42.2%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

I will point out now that in three of the four games you mentioned, Marquette had advantages in advanced stats. (I couldn't find the LSU boxscore, but my guess is that it would be four out of four.) Including destroying Kentucky twice by around 20% in eFG%. So did they win those games because of "guts?" Or did they win those games because they shot the ball better and got to the line more often?

My guess is the latter.

1977 Championship Game: Pretty equal shooting percentage. Marquette won FT rate 53% to 32%.
1994 Tony Miller Game: MU crushed UK in eFG% 56.4% v. 38.2% and in FT rate 68% v. 12%
2003 E8 Game v. Kentucky: Once again, MU crushed UK in eFG% 65.5% v. 42.2%

---

Again, metric derivations of stats are simply measurements of outcomes. Butch Lee, Tony Miller and Dwyane Wade had no clue what their eFG% was or even what an eFG% was. They played well on the big stage. Call it "guts" or whatever. If some folks want to ponder and fantasize endlessly about derivative metrics of player stats, so be it. Happy New Year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nukem2

Again, metric derivations of stats are simply measurements of outcomes. Butch Lee, Tony Miller and Dwyane Wade had no clue what their eFG% was or even what an eFG% was. They played well on the big stage. Call it "guts" or whatever. If some folks want to ponder and fantasize endlessly about derivative metrics of player stats, so be it. Happy New Year.

---

Gato said "I will take the team with guts over the team with a better eFG% every day of the week. Metrics only go so far." But then he provided four examples where the metrics described perfectly why Marquette won.

I'm not pondering and fantasizing about it. I am describing objectively what happened. Can you say that Marquette objectively won those game because they subjectively played harder? With more "guts?" Sure. I never said otherwise.

However I have seen plenty of teams that play hard and lose because they can't shoot the ball or do other things well. (Wojo's first year is an example of that IMO.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gato78

I have to ignore metrics at a certain point. Baseball guys in particular are way too deep into metrics (basic: left handed pitchers fare better against left handed hitters--time immemorial). I want gamers, guys who can hit free throws or get to the rim when the game is on the line or even when a big basket is needed. I do not give a damn what their e%FT/assist/in January rates are because there is an immeasurable. The guy who shoots 40% may be the guy who has the stones to lead a rally when 10 points down--even if he misses some shots. That toughness cannot be measured. If metrics ruled we would never have beaten Kentucky in 2003--or 1994 for that matter.

---

I think you are missing the point when it comes to metrics. In your example above, a Manager will in fact look at the splits of a batter and pitcher. If one RHRP has a Batting Average Against vs. a LH of .300 but another LHRP has a BAA vs a LH of .180, that means it is much likelier that the LHRP will record an out. Does it mean 100% of the time the LHRP will get the out? Of course not. But the percentages are much greater and thus, the Manager will make that move.

Same thing applies to the metrics of basketball. EFG% is such a telling factor in evaluating good teams. Yes, Travis is tough and has guts etc, but would any of us know him if he didn't shoot the ball really well, handle the ball really well, dish out assists and a high rate and not turn the ball over? He is considered an all time great because of these numbers and because he helped his teams win a lot of games because of these numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrwinFletcher

I think you are missing the point when it comes to metrics. In your example above, a Manager will in fact look at the splits of a batter and pitcher. If one RHRP has a Batting Average Against vs. a LH of .300 but another LHRP has a BAA vs a LH of .180, that means it is much likelier that the LHRP will record an out. Does it mean 100% of the time the LHRP will get the out? Of course not. But the percentages are much greater and thus, the Manager will make that move.

Same thing applies to the metrics of basketball. EFG% is such a telling factor in evaluating good teams. Yes, Travis is tough and has guts etc, but would any of us know him if he didn't shoot the ball really well, handle the ball really well, dish out assists and a high rate and not turn the ball over? He is considered an all time great because of these numbers and because he helped his teams win a lot of games because of these numbers.

---

Think you are comparing apples and oranges here. The baseball metric gives a manager a decent insight as to what to do intra-game. Whereas, eFG% metric really does nothing for a head coach during game time as he does know who the good shooters are on the other team and what kind of shots they like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

Gato said "I will take the team with guts over the team with a better eFG% every day of the week. Metrics only go so far." But then he provided four examples where the metrics described perfectly why Marquette won.

I'm not pondering and fantasizing about it. I am describing objectively what happened. Can you say that Marquette objectively won those game because they subjectively played harder? With more "guts?" Sure. I never said otherwise.

However I have seen plenty of teams that play hard and lose because they can't shoot the ball or do other things well. (Wojo's first year is an example of that IMO.)

---

Thanks for quoting me out of context. I think I had a qualifier in the preceding clause about the teams being equal. It is like looking at eFG% being predictive of MU's win over UNCC in '77 without acknowledging that Butch's length of the court pass was determinative of the outcome. Some things cannot be measured.