[BobK]

Those numbers for football and basketball have been tickets sold not bodies for years now.

[BobK]

Those numbers for football and basketball have been tickets sold not bodies for years now.

[teejers1]

Those numbers for football and basketball have been tickets sold not bodies for years now.

1.  There were more fans at Maples last night than in women's game vs. EWU (but fewer than the friendly against Team USA).  But the 6th Man last night was much larger than the other games - and I'd say a fair number of them stayed for the whole game (but some left at halftime);

2.  I wouldn't declare Haase dead man walking for a couple reasons:  (i) this season has just begun and the team looked pretty decent last night; and (ii) Muir is the AD;

3.  The closing run by Montana was slightly bothersome, but that's it.  On Stanford's side, the O (with reserves in) did the right thing by running clock before putting up shots.  The only way things even approach dicey is if Stanford starts jacking up shots, which they did not do.  And I know people are kidding about the turtling comparison to football, but it's apples and oranges.

4.  Montana may not be a super power team, but they have decent Q&A and looked well-coached. The Stanford W was solid (at minimum, and perhaps slightly better than that).  Interestingly, when I arrived late 1H with Stanford down by 2 or 3, Stanford led in all statistical categories:  FG%, FT%, fewer turnovers, rebounding even.  I couldn't figure out how/why Stanford was behind (maybe FTs made).  But more generally, Stanford protected the ball pretty well and the takeaways fueled the 2H run.

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.  A couple times Stanford players took it all the way to the rack and initiated contact:  one a no-call missed shot; the other a charge (in fairness, a third time the Stanford player initiated contact and made a tough bucket - no foul called).

[teejers1]

Those numbers for football and basketball have been tickets sold not bodies for years now.

1.  There were more fans at Maples last night than in women's game vs. EWU (but fewer than the friendly against Team USA).  But the 6th Man last night was much larger than the other games - and I'd say a fair number of them stayed for the whole game (but some left at halftime);

2.  I wouldn't declare Haase dead man walking for a couple reasons:  (i) this season has just begun and the team looked pretty decent last night; and (ii) Muir is the AD;

3.  The closing run by Montana was slightly bothersome, but that's it.  On Stanford's side, the O (with reserves in) did the right thing by running clock before putting up shots.  The only way things even approach dicey is if Stanford starts jacking up shots, which they did not do.  And I know people are kidding about the turtling comparison to football, but it's apples and oranges.

4.  Montana may not be a super power team, but they have decent Q&A and looked well-coached. The Stanford W was solid (at minimum, and perhaps slightly better than that).  Interestingly, when I arrived late 1H with Stanford down by 2 or 3, Stanford led in all statistical categories:  FG%, FT%, fewer turnovers, rebounding even.  I couldn't figure out how/why Stanford was behind (maybe FTs made).  But more generally, Stanford protected the ball pretty well and the takeaways fueled the 2H run.

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.  A couple times Stanford players took it all the way to the rack and initiated contact:  one a no-call missed shot; the other a charge (in fairness, a third time the Stanford player initiated contact and made a tough bucket - no foul called).

[Papa John]

Well, I don't think the final score will be 92-27, but I expect Stanford to win by double digits. I am most interested in your point #1 re: Tyrell Terry and Davis.

Has Stanford hoops ever beaten any team by double digits under Haase?

Yes.

[Papa John]

Well, I don't think the final score will be 92-27, but I expect Stanford to win by double digits. I am most interested in your point #1 re: Tyrell Terry and Davis.

Has Stanford hoops ever beaten any team by double digits under Haase?

Yes.

[SamuelMcF]

Well, I don't think the final score will be 92-27, but I expect Stanford to win by double digits. I am most interested in your point #1 re: Tyrell Terry and Davis.

Has Stanford hoops ever beaten any team by double digits under Haase?

Yes.

Of our 16 victories last season, 12 were by double digits, including beating Washington State by 48 points.

[SamuelMcF]

Well, I don't think the final score will be 92-27, but I expect Stanford to win by double digits. I am most interested in your point #1 re: Tyrell Terry and Davis.

Has Stanford hoops ever beaten any team by double digits under Haase?

Yes.

Of our 16 victories last season, 12 were by double digits, including beating Washington State by 48 points.

[BostonCard]

Perhaps the better question is whether Haase coached teams are able to win close games.

BC

[BostonCard]

Perhaps the better question is whether Haase coached teams are able to win close games.

BC

[Papa John]

Perhaps the better question is whether Haase coached teams are able to win close games.

BC

That's definitely a better question! It's a bit sloppy of a stat, but looking at single-digit final score differentials in 2018-19:
L 84-90 in overtime vs Kansas (that one hurt)
W 78-73 vs SJSU
L 65-74 vs USF
W 93-86 vs Long Beach State
L 70-75 vs Arizona
L 66-70 vs Utah
W 84-81 vs Cal
W 79-76 vs USC
L 61-62 vs UW
L 59-64 vs Cal
L 72-79 vs UCLA

So Stanford MBB was 4-7 in single-digit games last year. I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: Haase demonstrated at UAB that he can coach successfully. The question is whether or not he can coach successfully at Stanford. I think he can, but for me to believe I need him to prove it this year. The conference is yet again weak in the middle and bottom, so a first-round bye in the conference tournament and NCAA tournament at-large bid are there for the taking.

[Papa John]

Perhaps the better question is whether Haase coached teams are able to win close games.

BC

That's definitely a better question! It's a bit sloppy of a stat, but looking at single-digit final score differentials in 2018-19:
L 84-90 in overtime vs Kansas (that one hurt)
W 78-73 vs SJSU
L 65-74 vs USF
W 93-86 vs Long Beach State
L 70-75 vs Arizona
L 66-70 vs Utah
W 84-81 vs Cal
W 79-76 vs USC
L 61-62 vs UW
L 59-64 vs Cal
L 72-79 vs UCLA

So Stanford MBB was 4-7 in single-digit games last year. I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: Haase demonstrated at UAB that he can coach successfully. The question is whether or not he can coach successfully at Stanford. I think he can, but for me to believe I need him to prove it this year. The conference is yet again weak in the middle and bottom, so a first-round bye in the conference tournament and NCAA tournament at-large bid are there for the taking.

[winflop]

2.  I wouldn't declare Haase dead man walking for a couple reasons:  (i) this season has just begun and the team looked pretty decent last night; and (ii) Muir is the AD;

Point ii is well-taken, but the team looked "pretty decent" in more than few games last year and still ended up mired in mediocrity. Like his predecessor, there have been no big win streaks either in or out of conference. Just inconsistent play.

3.  The closing run by Montana was slightly bothersome, but that's it.

More than slightly to me. How many times have they taken their foot off the gas and let their opponent back in?

4.  Montana may not be a super power team, but they have decent Q&A and looked well-coached.

I'd love to be able to say this about our team...

But more generally, Stanford protected the ball pretty well and the takeaways fueled the 2H run.

That is a positive sign. The program has been a turnover machine the last two years with Davis at the point.

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.  A couple times Stanford players took it all the way to the rack and initiated contact:  one a no-call missed shot; the other a charge (in fairness, a third time the Stanford player initiated contact and made a tough bucket - no foul called).

Amen! Seems to be largely a lost art across much of basketball - college and pro.

[winflop]

2.  I wouldn't declare Haase dead man walking for a couple reasons:  (i) this season has just begun and the team looked pretty decent last night; and (ii) Muir is the AD;

Point ii is well-taken, but the team looked "pretty decent" in more than few games last year and still ended up mired in mediocrity. Like his predecessor, there have been no big win streaks either in or out of conference. Just inconsistent play.

3.  The closing run by Montana was slightly bothersome, but that's it.

More than slightly to me. How many times have they taken their foot off the gas and let their opponent back in?

4.  Montana may not be a super power team, but they have decent Q&A and looked well-coached.

I'd love to be able to say this about our team...

But more generally, Stanford protected the ball pretty well and the takeaways fueled the 2H run.

That is a positive sign. The program has been a turnover machine the last two years with Davis at the point.

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.  A couple times Stanford players took it all the way to the rack and initiated contact:  one a no-call missed shot; the other a charge (in fairness, a third time the Stanford player initiated contact and made a tough bucket - no foul called).

Amen! Seems to be largely a lost art across much of basketball - college and pro.

[SamuelMcF]

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.  A couple times Stanford players took it all the way to the rack and initiated contact:  one a no-call missed shot; the other a charge (in fairness, a third time the Stanford player initiated contact and made a tough bucket - no foul called).

Amen! Seems to be largely a lost art across much of basketball - college and pro.

Moreyball. More and more teams only shooting from the "most efficient" parts of the floor: under the basket and from 3. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nea...e-rockets/

Also w/r/t the reduced turnovers - Haase is preaching tenacious defense and ball security.

3.  The closing run by Montana was slightly bothersome, but that's it.

More than slightly to me. How many times have they taken their foot off the gas and let their opponent back in?

All we know for now is our backups aren't good/we don't have depth. 14 straight against our bench in the final 3 minutes.

For sure about previous years you're correct. Our starters were notorious for not being able to close the door.

[SamuelMcF]

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.  A couple times Stanford players took it all the way to the rack and initiated contact:  one a no-call missed shot; the other a charge (in fairness, a third time the Stanford player initiated contact and made a tough bucket - no foul called).

Amen! Seems to be largely a lost art across much of basketball - college and pro.

Moreyball. More and more teams only shooting from the "most efficient" parts of the floor: under the basket and from 3. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nea...e-rockets/

Also w/r/t the reduced turnovers - Haase is preaching tenacious defense and ball security.

3.  The closing run by Montana was slightly bothersome, but that's it.

More than slightly to me. How many times have they taken their foot off the gas and let their opponent back in?

All we know for now is our backups aren't good/we don't have depth. 14 straight against our bench in the final 3 minutes.

For sure about previous years you're correct. Our starters were notorious for not being able to close the door.

[Goose]

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.

Amen! Seems to be largely a lost art across much of basketball - college and pro.

There is a reason for this. Basketball Analytics deprecates shots in the 3 to 10 foot range. They have the lowest expected value as a function of range from the basket.  See https://fansided.com/2015/08/17/nylon-ca...selection/
Granted, these numbers are for all types of shot, contested as well as uncontested. The raw expected value doesn't take into account angle to the backboard either. However, this low expected value in the general case has pushed these shots out of the game plan mainstream. If you don't practice taking that shot, you don't take it in a game, or if you do, you are more likely to miss. You may also get yelled at. The Analytics becomes a self-fulfilling prediction. Analytics says you either try to drive to the 0 to 3 ft area, or kick it out for a 3. That is the "new" basketball.

[Goose]

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.

Amen! Seems to be largely a lost art across much of basketball - college and pro.

There is a reason for this. Basketball Analytics deprecates shots in the 3 to 10 foot range. They have the lowest expected value as a function of range from the basket.  See https://fansided.com/2015/08/17/nylon-ca...selection/
Granted, these numbers are for all types of shot, contested as well as uncontested. The raw expected value doesn't take into account angle to the backboard either. However, this low expected value in the general case has pushed these shots out of the game plan mainstream. If you don't practice taking that shot, you don't take it in a game, or if you do, you are more likely to miss. You may also get yelled at. The Analytics becomes a self-fulfilling prediction. Analytics says you either try to drive to the 0 to 3 ft area, or kick it out for a 3. That is the "new" basketball.

[CompSci87]

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.

Amen! Seems to be largely a lost art across much of basketball - college and pro.

There is a reason for this. Basketball Analytics deprecates shots in the 3 to 10 foot range. They have the lowest expected value as a function of range from the basket.  See https://fansided.com/2015/08/17/nylon-ca...selection/
Granted, these numbers are for all types of shot, contested as well as uncontested. The raw expected value doesn't take into account angle to the backboard either. However, this low expected value in the general case has pushed these shots out of the game plan mainstream. If you don't practice taking that shot, you don't take it in a game, or if you do, you are more likely to miss. You may also get yelled at. The Analytics becomes a self-fulfilling prediction. Analytics says you either try to drive to the 0 to 3 ft area, or kick it out for a 3. That is the "new" basketball.

I'm glad you mentioned "contested as well as uncontested".  There a two things that bother me about the idea that analytics says you should only either go to the basket or shoot a 3.

* The pretty pictures that show the expected points from taking a shot from any spot on the floor are based on data that covers only *shots that were attempted*. That is, the expected points for shooting from spot X on the floor are really the average points gained by attempts that were actually made from that spot. This introduces a sort of selection bias. Basketball players are smart enough to attempt only shots that they think are a good idea to take, depending on how open the shot is, what the player's range is, and other factors such as time and score.

* In basic game theory, one often finds that the optimal strategy is to randomly mix multiple pure strategies, because if your opponent knows you always use the same strategy, your opponent can always use the strategy that is best against that one. Basketball is a lot more complex, but still, if your opponent knows you'll never do X (only Y or Z), they may be able to gain an advantage by setting up their defense to not bother guarding against X.  That may mean that if you did to X (at least occasionally), it would be much more successful, forcing your opponent to guard against X and weakening their defense against Y and Z.  With basketball and X as "midrange shot", this argument seems like it makes sense. (And in football, "make them guard the whole field", and "don't be too predictable" follow from this kind of argument.)

I suspect both of the above result in exaggerated conclusions about how everyone should learn to be a 3-point shooter and no one should ever shoot midrange.

[CompSci87]

5.  Last point and a pet peeve of sorts.  The pull up 6-8 footer is your friend, especially when the defender gets to a spot and is obviously not in "contest shot" mode.

Amen! Seems to be largely a lost art across much of basketball - college and pro.

There is a reason for this. Basketball Analytics deprecates shots in the 3 to 10 foot range. They have the lowest expected value as a function of range from the basket.  See https://fansided.com/2015/08/17/nylon-ca...selection/
Granted, these numbers are for all types of shot, contested as well as uncontested. The raw expected value doesn't take into account angle to the backboard either. However, this low expected value in the general case has pushed these shots out of the game plan mainstream. If you don't practice taking that shot, you don't take it in a game, or if you do, you are more likely to miss. You may also get yelled at. The Analytics becomes a self-fulfilling prediction. Analytics says you either try to drive to the 0 to 3 ft area, or kick it out for a 3. That is the "new" basketball.

I'm glad you mentioned "contested as well as uncontested".  There a two things that bother me about the idea that analytics says you should only either go to the basket or shoot a 3.

* The pretty pictures that show the expected points from taking a shot from any spot on the floor are based on data that covers only *shots that were attempted*. That is, the expected points for shooting from spot X on the floor are really the average points gained by attempts that were actually made from that spot. This introduces a sort of selection bias. Basketball players are smart enough to attempt only shots that they think are a good idea to take, depending on how open the shot is, what the player's range is, and other factors such as time and score.

* In basic game theory, one often finds that the optimal strategy is to randomly mix multiple pure strategies, because if your opponent knows you always use the same strategy, your opponent can always use the strategy that is best against that one. Basketball is a lot more complex, but still, if your opponent knows you'll never do X (only Y or Z), they may be able to gain an advantage by setting up their defense to not bother guarding against X.  That may mean that if you did to X (at least occasionally), it would be much more successful, forcing your opponent to guard against X and weakening their defense against Y and Z.  With basketball and X as "midrange shot", this argument seems like it makes sense. (And in football, "make them guard the whole field", and "don't be too predictable" follow from this kind of argument.)

I suspect both of the above result in exaggerated conclusions about how everyone should learn to be a 3-point shooter and no one should ever shoot midrange.

[Goose]

I suspect both of the above result in exaggerated conclusions about how everyone should learn to be a 3-point shooter and no one should ever shoot midrange.

I mostly agree. I think the "selection bias" pretty much cancels itself out, as it applies to all kinds of shots. The degree to which a shot is contested however is very important. The problem is that usually the closer you get to the basket, the more probable it is someone will contest the shot. That may make a 3-10 foot shot in general harder to make than one somewhat further out. There is obviously a rule-induced discontinuity at the three point line. Now, if you can reliably get open looks at 3-10 foot shots, the expected value probably goes way up. The problem with a mixed strategy for the offense is that they have to be proficient at the various different strategies, just like the defense does. So it is always a balancing act.

I think analytics fails to take into consideration the fact that no two teams, and no two games, are alike. What is true for all of basketball on average may not be true for any given team. If you can't shoot the 3 very well, trying to do so isn't going to help much. OTOH, if you see Lynn Shackelford running to the baseline, you better guard him, no matter his distance from the rim.

[Goose]

I suspect both of the above result in exaggerated conclusions about how everyone should learn to be a 3-point shooter and no one should ever shoot midrange.

I mostly agree. I think the "selection bias" pretty much cancels itself out, as it applies to all kinds of shots. The degree to which a shot is contested however is very important. The problem is that usually the closer you get to the basket, the more probable it is someone will contest the shot. That may make a 3-10 foot shot in general harder to make than one somewhat further out. There is obviously a rule-induced discontinuity at the three point line. Now, if you can reliably get open looks at 3-10 foot shots, the expected value probably goes way up. The problem with a mixed strategy for the offense is that they have to be proficient at the various different strategies, just like the defense does. So it is always a balancing act.

I think analytics fails to take into consideration the fact that no two teams, and no two games, are alike. What is true for all of basketball on average may not be true for any given team. If you can't shoot the 3 very well, trying to do so isn't going to help much. OTOH, if you see Lynn Shackelford running to the baseline, you better guard him, no matter his distance from the rim.

[BostonCard]

This data is from the NBA, where the SportVU camera set-ups and analytics allow you to do this sort of analysis.



You can see that an uncontested 10-footer is worth about 1 point per shot.  That is less than a well-defended (defender within 2 feet) shot within about 6 feet of the basket, but more than a three point shot with a defender within 4 feet.

For college shots, subtract about a 5% field goal percentage across distances (subtract a little bit more closer to the basket).

None of these analyses take into account second order effects. A team which takes, and makes shots from the mid-range will force the opposing defense to defend them more closely at those distances, which will increase the chance of open looks at other, higher percentage distances.

https://toddwschneider.com/posts/nba-vs-...rformance/

BC

[BostonCard]

This data is from the NBA, where the SportVU camera set-ups and analytics allow you to do this sort of analysis.



You can see that an uncontested 10-footer is worth about 1 point per shot.  That is less than a well-defended (defender within 2 feet) shot within about 6 feet of the basket, but more than a three point shot with a defender within 4 feet.

For college shots, subtract about a 5% field goal percentage across distances (subtract a little bit more closer to the basket).

None of these analyses take into account second order effects. A team which takes, and makes shots from the mid-range will force the opposing defense to defend them more closely at those distances, which will increase the chance of open looks at other, higher percentage distances.

https://toddwschneider.com/posts/nba-vs-...rformance/

BC

[CompSci87]

That's a nice graph. It's good to see distance of closest defender considered.

Naively it looks like you should always take close in 2-pointers, because they have more expected points per shot than 3-pointers -- even comparing the purple graph for twos vs. the red graph for threes. But of course a lot more is going on:

You're less likely to have a close defender at the 3-point line because there's so much more territory for the defense to cover than around the basket. So 3-pointers with a distant defender are more likely to be available. (Midrange too, of course.)

There's a shot clock, so you can't work the ball around forever looking for the optimal shot.

A close defender facing you is not the same as a close defender you've gotten by, and a defender shorter than you who you can easily shoot over isn't the same as a taller one who will block your shot. So even this graph doesn't fully factor out what I called the selection bias of considering only shots actually taken.

Etc.

[CompSci87]

That's a nice graph. It's good to see distance of closest defender considered.

Naively it looks like you should always take close in 2-pointers, because they have more expected points per shot than 3-pointers -- even comparing the purple graph for twos vs. the red graph for threes. But of course a lot more is going on:

You're less likely to have a close defender at the 3-point line because there's so much more territory for the defense to cover than around the basket. So 3-pointers with a distant defender are more likely to be available. (Midrange too, of course.)

There's a shot clock, so you can't work the ball around forever looking for the optimal shot.

A close defender facing you is not the same as a close defender you've gotten by, and a defender shorter than you who you can easily shoot over isn't the same as a taller one who will block your shot. So even this graph doesn't fully factor out what I called the selection bias of considering only shots actually taken.

Etc.

[OutsiderFan]

What’s fascinating is that shot chart seems to suggest laying the ball up is a higher percentage shot than an uncontested dunk.

If one were to try and come up with a stat for value of available shots not taken, how would that be done? It does seem the value per shot can only be calculated when taking into account shot outcomes, not possible shot outcomes, right? One thing to also consider is the value of mid-range pull up jumpers is not considered very high because players are not developing that shooting skill since they are being told close 2s, 3s and FTs are more valuable. This would be self fulfilling prophecy if the case as I suspect it is.

[OutsiderFan]

What’s fascinating is that shot chart seems to suggest laying the ball up is a higher percentage shot than an uncontested dunk.

If one were to try and come up with a stat for value of available shots not taken, how would that be done? It does seem the value per shot can only be calculated when taking into account shot outcomes, not possible shot outcomes, right? One thing to also consider is the value of mid-range pull up jumpers is not considered very high because players are not developing that shooting skill since they are being told close 2s, 3s and FTs are more valuable. This would be self fulfilling prophecy if the case as I suspect it is.

[Goose]

One thing to also consider is the value of mid-range pull up jumpers is not considered very high because players are not developing that shooting skill since they are being told close 2s, 3s and FTs are more valuable. This would be self fulfilling prophecy if the case as I suspect it is.

I believe that it is partially a self fulfilling prophecy, and partially a misapplication of the statistics. Everybody would rather shoot a layup than a 5 ft jumper. Even uncontested 5 foot jumpers probably go in less frequently than layups. However, you may not be able to shoot a layup because the defense won't let you. You may have to take the best shot available, not the best possible shot. That factor should lead to more emphasis on pull-up jumpers. So far, it hasn't though. I think that is because there is no clear, easily charted statistic regarding shot availability that can be used to weight the probability of the shot going in. The fact that basketball is a more complicated game that a few numbers can express gets in the way.

[Goose]

One thing to also consider is the value of mid-range pull up jumpers is not considered very high because players are not developing that shooting skill since they are being told close 2s, 3s and FTs are more valuable. This would be self fulfilling prophecy if the case as I suspect it is.

I believe that it is partially a self fulfilling prophecy, and partially a misapplication of the statistics. Everybody would rather shoot a layup than a 5 ft jumper. Even uncontested 5 foot jumpers probably go in less frequently than layups. However, you may not be able to shoot a layup because the defense won't let you. You may have to take the best shot available, not the best possible shot. That factor should lead to more emphasis on pull-up jumpers. So far, it hasn't though. I think that is because there is no clear, easily charted statistic regarding shot availability that can be used to weight the probability of the shot going in. The fact that basketball is a more complicated game that a few numbers can express gets in the way.