[washingtonismoney]

Wouldn't make any grand claims about it but a tidbit worth chewing on: 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1111379939612332032[/tweet]

[washingtonismoney]

Wouldn't make any grand claims about it but a tidbit worth chewing on: 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1111379939612332032[/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

Anyone who follows Stanford knows the team is full of lousy shooters.  So even though there may be a lot of dunks, it's not like too many other shots were going in.

Just add the overall FG% of the teams on that list, and I'll bet there is a direct relationship between overall FG% and NCAA tournament presence.

A quick glance at the stats shows Stanford #152 in effective FG%.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...d-goal-pct

If you're getting that many dunks, and your shooting is still that poor, it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[OutsiderFan]

Anyone who follows Stanford knows the team is full of lousy shooters.  So even though there may be a lot of dunks, it's not like too many other shots were going in.

Just add the overall FG% of the teams on that list, and I'll bet there is a direct relationship between overall FG% and NCAA tournament presence.

A quick glance at the stats shows Stanford #152 in effective FG%.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...d-goal-pct

If you're getting that many dunks, and your shooting is still that poor, it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[76lsjumb]

Too bad Travis didn't stick around.  We would have lapped the field on that stat...

[76lsjumb]

Too bad Travis didn't stick around.  We would have lapped the field on that stat...

[FarmBoy]

Wait, you're telling me that teams with athletes able to dunk on their opponents win more games? I'm shocked! Shocked!

[FarmBoy]

Wait, you're telling me that teams with athletes able to dunk on their opponents win more games? I'm shocked! Shocked!

[2006alum]

Wait, you're telling me that teams with athletes able to dunk on their opponents win more games? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Not if they're playing at Stanford or UCLA, apparently...

[2006alum]

Wait, you're telling me that teams with athletes able to dunk on their opponents win more games? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Not if they're playing at Stanford or UCLA, apparently...

[FarmBoy]

Wait, you're telling me that teams with athletes able to dunk on their opponents win more games? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Not if they're playing at Stanford or UCLA, apparently...

I'm sure Stanford won more games than they would have had they not had some very athletic/big players who could dunk.

[FarmBoy]

Wait, you're telling me that teams with athletes able to dunk on their opponents win more games? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Not if they're playing at Stanford or UCLA, apparently...

I'm sure Stanford won more games than they would have had they not had some very athletic/big players who could dunk.

[2006alum]

Wait, you're telling me that teams with athletes able to dunk on their opponents win more games? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Not if they're playing at Stanford or UCLA, apparently...

I'm sure Stanford won more games than they would have had they not had some very athletic/big players who could dunk.

Sure, in the same way that a team with ace trey shooters will win more games than those without them, and teams with a terrific ball distributor will win more games than ones that turn it over a lot - all other things equal. But any team has to generate offense from somewhere. And a higher percentage of offense coming from dunks can also indicate that a team is not doing much else well on offense, and I'm afraid that's what afflicted Stanford all season. Sure, Sharma is a dunking machine - he also averaged just 10.2 points per game. If that's what nearly 20% of your offense gets you (and I know others including KZ also registered a lot of dunks), you're not going to win a lot of games. Without looking at the denominator, I don't think the numerator tells you much, and the fact that we're #2 in dunk share and ended <.500 on the season pretty much tells you that.

[2006alum]

Wait, you're telling me that teams with athletes able to dunk on their opponents win more games? I'm shocked! Shocked!

Not if they're playing at Stanford or UCLA, apparently...

I'm sure Stanford won more games than they would have had they not had some very athletic/big players who could dunk.

Sure, in the same way that a team with ace trey shooters will win more games than those without them, and teams with a terrific ball distributor will win more games than ones that turn it over a lot - all other things equal. But any team has to generate offense from somewhere. And a higher percentage of offense coming from dunks can also indicate that a team is not doing much else well on offense, and I'm afraid that's what afflicted Stanford all season. Sure, Sharma is a dunking machine - he also averaged just 10.2 points per game. If that's what nearly 20% of your offense gets you (and I know others including KZ also registered a lot of dunks), you're not going to win a lot of games. Without looking at the denominator, I don't think the numerator tells you much, and the fact that we're #2 in dunk share and ended <.500 on the season pretty much tells you that.

[SamuelMcF]

Sure, Sharma is a dunking machine - he also averaged just 10.2 points per game. If that's what nearly 20% of your offense gets you (and I know others including KZ also registered a lot of dunks), you're not going to win a lot of games. Without looking at the denominator, I don't think the numerator tells you much, and the fact that we're #2 in dunk share and ended <.500 on the season pretty much tells you that.

We're talking 15% of our 2-point offense coming from dunks. Sharma had 39% of our dunks, 62/158. (KZ was next with 22.) 2pt FG% was ~60th in the country, IIRC.

This is more of a point of clarification. Our 3pt FG% and free throw % - both not factored into the chart - were both worse than 300th in the country (out of 351 teams); were they even average, we'd be in the postseason.

Unrelated, but interestingly, we led the country in 3 PT FG's attempted against, i.e. our opponents' total 3pt FG's taken against us was the lowest total across the country.

[SamuelMcF]

Sure, Sharma is a dunking machine - he also averaged just 10.2 points per game. If that's what nearly 20% of your offense gets you (and I know others including KZ also registered a lot of dunks), you're not going to win a lot of games. Without looking at the denominator, I don't think the numerator tells you much, and the fact that we're #2 in dunk share and ended <.500 on the season pretty much tells you that.

We're talking 15% of our 2-point offense coming from dunks. Sharma had 39% of our dunks, 62/158. (KZ was next with 22.) 2pt FG% was ~60th in the country, IIRC.

This is more of a point of clarification. Our 3pt FG% and free throw % - both not factored into the chart - were both worse than 300th in the country (out of 351 teams); were they even average, we'd be in the postseason.

Unrelated, but interestingly, we led the country in 3 PT FG's attempted against, i.e. our opponents' total 3pt FG's taken against us was the lowest total across the country.

[burger]

Unrelated, but interestingly, we led the country in 3 PT FG's attempted against, i.e. our opponents' total 3pt FG's taken against us was the lowest total across the country.

I've been thinking about whether or not this is a good thing.  Were teams avoiding 3-pointers against us because we defend the perimeter well or because they were feasting on us in the interior?  So I looked up the numbers:

3-point% allowed was 34.5%, 186th in D-I
2-point% allowed was 46.4%, 34th in D-I

So...???  We defended the interior well, but teams did not allocate their shots efficiently.  Maybe our 3-point defense was so good that teams couldn't get off more shots.  It would be interesting to see how our percent of closely defended 3-pointers compares with the rest of D-I, if anyone even tracks that for college.

On a related note, if, like me, you were sad when Ken Pomeroy's site went behind a paywall, this site has much of the same advanced stats and is free for now.

---

Something interested I picked up from here: http://barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Stanford&year=2019

We were a bad FT shooting team in 2018-2019 (67.2% overall, 298 in D-I), but we were much worse at home.  And so were our opponents!  Is there still something weird with the rims at Maples?

Stanford: 65.2% at Maples
Stanford: 68.9% on the road

Opponents: 65.3% at Maples
Opponents: 70% when Stanford was on the road

I'd be shocked if there was another team with worse Home-away FT splits.

[burger]

Unrelated, but interestingly, we led the country in 3 PT FG's attempted against, i.e. our opponents' total 3pt FG's taken against us was the lowest total across the country.

I've been thinking about whether or not this is a good thing.  Were teams avoiding 3-pointers against us because we defend the perimeter well or because they were feasting on us in the interior?  So I looked up the numbers:

3-point% allowed was 34.5%, 186th in D-I
2-point% allowed was 46.4%, 34th in D-I

So...???  We defended the interior well, but teams did not allocate their shots efficiently.  Maybe our 3-point defense was so good that teams couldn't get off more shots.  It would be interesting to see how our percent of closely defended 3-pointers compares with the rest of D-I, if anyone even tracks that for college.

On a related note, if, like me, you were sad when Ken Pomeroy's site went behind a paywall, this site has much of the same advanced stats and is free for now.

---

Something interested I picked up from here: http://barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Stanford&year=2019

We were a bad FT shooting team in 2018-2019 (67.2% overall, 298 in D-I), but we were much worse at home.  And so were our opponents!  Is there still something weird with the rims at Maples?

Stanford: 65.2% at Maples
Stanford: 68.9% on the road

Opponents: 65.3% at Maples
Opponents: 70% when Stanford was on the road

I'd be shocked if there was another team with worse Home-away FT splits.

[76lsjumb]

We were a bad FT shooting team in 2018-2019 (67.2% overall, 298 in D-I), but we were much worse at home.  And so were our opponents!  Is there still something weird with the rims at Maples?

Stanford: 65.2% at Maples
Stanford: 68.9% on the road

Opponents: 65.3% at Maples
Opponents: 70% when Stanford was on the road

I'd be shocked if there was another team with worse Home-away FT splits.

It's called the "curtain of non-distraction."  When FT shooters look out at the vast ocean of non-occupied seats, they get lost in the moment and lose concentration.  It's obviously very effective, but, the problem is, unlike ASU's "curtain of distraction," which simply isn't deployed when their own guys are shooting, there's no way to instantaneously fill those seats at Maples for our guys' free throws...

Or, maybe it's just the unusual wind currents that develop in large arenas with nobody in them...

[76lsjumb]

We were a bad FT shooting team in 2018-2019 (67.2% overall, 298 in D-I), but we were much worse at home.  And so were our opponents!  Is there still something weird with the rims at Maples?

Stanford: 65.2% at Maples
Stanford: 68.9% on the road

Opponents: 65.3% at Maples
Opponents: 70% when Stanford was on the road

I'd be shocked if there was another team with worse Home-away FT splits.

It's called the "curtain of non-distraction."  When FT shooters look out at the vast ocean of non-occupied seats, they get lost in the moment and lose concentration.  It's obviously very effective, but, the problem is, unlike ASU's "curtain of distraction," which simply isn't deployed when their own guys are shooting, there's no way to instantaneously fill those seats at Maples for our guys' free throws...

Or, maybe it's just the unusual wind currents that develop in large arenas with nobody in them...

[martyup]

That's funny 76. I'm not LOL, just smiling.

[martyup]

That's funny 76. I'm not LOL, just smiling.

[76lsjumb]

That's funny 76. I'm not LOL, just smiling.

Well, that's something at least.  Smiling and men's basketball are two things that only rarely coincided on The Farm this season...

[76lsjumb]

That's funny 76. I'm not LOL, just smiling.

Well, that's something at least.  Smiling and men's basketball are two things that only rarely coincided on The Farm this season...

[SamuelMcF]

Well, that's something at least.  Smiling and men's basketball are two things that only rarely coincided on The Farm this season...

You know what's crazy about this? We went 10-4 at home. And our 4 losses were by 5, 4, 1, and 5.

Had we gone 14-0 at home, you'd probably still make that comment, and I wouldn't even blame you!

[SamuelMcF]

Well, that's something at least.  Smiling and men's basketball are two things that only rarely coincided on The Farm this season...

You know what's crazy about this? We went 10-4 at home. And our 4 losses were by 5, 4, 1, and 5.

Had we gone 14-0 at home, you'd probably still make that comment, and I wouldn't even blame you!

[76lsjumb]

Well, that's something at least.  Smiling and men's basketball are two things that only rarely coincided on The Farm this season...

You know what's crazy about this? We went 10-4 at home. And our 4 losses were by 5, 4, 1, and 5.

Had we gone 14-0 at home, you'd probably still make that comment, and I wouldn't even blame you!

I was at almost all of those games and, to be clear, the UCLA game [even with its extennnnnnnded halftime, since it allowed the Band to dig really deep into the folder] is probably one of the most fun games I've watched in decades [although not quite on a par with beating Steve Lavin by, what was it, 200 points or something].  No one played any defense; all the shots were dropping -- long-distance 3's and thunder dunks alike; and the refs more or less stayed out of the way for much of the game.

The problem [and lack of smiling] arose from just what you pointed out with those 4 losses -- they were by 5, 4, 1, and 5.  We could/should have won them all.  Close losses aren't near smiles...  [Oh, and there were all those stinkers on the road, too.]

[76lsjumb]

Well, that's something at least.  Smiling and men's basketball are two things that only rarely coincided on The Farm this season...

You know what's crazy about this? We went 10-4 at home. And our 4 losses were by 5, 4, 1, and 5.

Had we gone 14-0 at home, you'd probably still make that comment, and I wouldn't even blame you!

I was at almost all of those games and, to be clear, the UCLA game [even with its extennnnnnnded halftime, since it allowed the Band to dig really deep into the folder] is probably one of the most fun games I've watched in decades [although not quite on a par with beating Steve Lavin by, what was it, 200 points or something].  No one played any defense; all the shots were dropping -- long-distance 3's and thunder dunks alike; and the refs more or less stayed out of the way for much of the game.

The problem [and lack of smiling] arose from just what you pointed out with those 4 losses -- they were by 5, 4, 1, and 5.  We could/should have won them all.  Close losses aren't near smiles...  [Oh, and there were all those stinkers on the road, too.]