wow JS looking good!!

[OttoMets]

I'm happy for JS but we've seen this before from him, its not shocking, the only time it will shock me is during Big East play, if he does this during Big East, now that's saying something.

I agree that judgment should be reserved until Big East play, but he's never put up numbers (percentage-wise, volume-wise, or diversity-wise) like this before. He's had a tremendous start compared to his previous production. And that should have a positive effect on his Big East play - his improvement now is earning him more minutes now, which ought to get him more game minutes in the future and further his rhythm and positive momentum.

 

[OttoMets]

I actually counted. JS dribbled the ball just 3 times the whole night.

Not to take away from his ability to hit shots ... but good defenses will pressure him and he has yet to show that he can handle that pressure.

Not saying its desirable that he hasn't got a strong handle, but Syracuse has had success with such guys in the past (Wesley, for one).

Didn't like that he got a nice steal in the second half but then coughed it up immediately after trying to dribble. But if he shoots 60% and keeps up his rebounding, defense, and passing, he'll be an asset for us.

 

[The General]

I

nm

I agree. Southerland looks good.

 

[Knicks411]

That 3 dribble stat is funny.

It definitely seems like James has improved his game, made it more diversified. (Though that doesn't mean it's diversified, just more).

Just as an example, last year, James took 56% of his shots from 3, and he took 1 FT for every 12 FG attempts. This year, he's taken 36% of his shots from 3, and one FT for every 6 FG. Last year, he averaged an assist every 30 minutes, this year it's one every 10 minutes. Small sample size alert of course, and there's no way he's going to shoot 64% from the field this year, but we are definitely seeing someone with a more diversified offensive game, though it's still focused on shooting.

I still see James as a bench player. Though I'm willing to be proven wrong on that. I think I said it before, to me, he's a guy you bring in for the instant offense. If the shot is falling, he can get 20-25 minutes. If it's not, he'll play 5.

 

[BlackSquirrels]

Butler's 'Moneyball': Stats add to game preparation
Stevens says using detailed stats correctly can yield victories

 

[Dick_in_MI]

Watch out Dick, you're definitely going down on his pro-Southerland list. This has most certainly been recorded into his journal and will be used in the future against you when Southerland has a so-called "poor" game.
.

I'm sure it will

I was disappointed that my previous comments regarding Nassib weren't recorded in his football posters' database. I feel unloved when the crazys ignore me...

 

[HoustonCuse]

I actually counted. JS dribbled the ball just 3 times the whole night.

Not to take away from his ability to hit shots ... but good defenses will pressure him and he has yet to show that he can handle that pressure.

Exactly the problem with just looking at stats. He had two (maybe three, going off memory here) offensive rebound putbacks. If he had brought those balls down, stood in place and pounded several dribbles, then shot the ball, his stats related to "number of dribbles per point" would show that he is a dynamic slasher capable of breaking down defenses with the bounce. Reality would show he's an idiot.

 

[HakAttack]

I love how this board is already nitpicking...

"Oh, so and so's game has improved...but he's still a chucker and shoots with a low efficiency."

IT'S BEEN THREE GAMES! Tiny sample size for the so-called "stat heads."

Why can't we enjoy that he's playing inspired basketball and has shown us that he's grown a pair this year by actually crashing the glass?

 

[bnoro]

Butler's 'Moneyball': Stats add to game preparation
Stevens says using detailed stats correctly can yield victories

Yeah, it helps when you can grab handfuls of jerseys and flop your a$$ off and get every call too...

 

[orangefan13]

We have had one player in the last decade shoot 4 midrange shots a game- Warrick.

James took two last night knocked them down and nearly knocked the third one down for 75%. We will have to see how he does against bigger fours.

Anyone who thinks that isn't a important stat is nuts!

But if he makes that shot at a 50 percrent clip and can shoot it atleast 6 times a game when hes not being defended tight then no question that will open up the lane more for us.

We tend to favor guys shots when they shoot it once or twice early on. Three shots is only 6-9 points thats not alot when you need points from a certain area because of how the defense is playing you. But, 6 shots for a possible 12-18 points is. And thats only talking about his midrange game.

 

[RichmondCuse]

Seriously man, what is wrong with you?

You make a nut job post recently on the football board and now this.

Who the F cares what James did last year? Like almost all of the younger guys, he has moved his game up a notch. I care about THIS year, and oh by the way...if your arguement is solid, you don't have to factor in data from a time that no longer exists to make your point. How about if someone described your height as an average between your current height and your height at 6 months old? Would that be valid? Of course not. But that's more or less what you are doing.

James is playing well and deserves court time. In fact, he probably deserves to be starting ahead of Christmas. Can he keep it up against tougher competition? I have no idea, but then again I have no idea if a lot of the other guys...particularly the frosh...can either.

As far as "gunners taking over the offense", a few names come to mind who have done that in the past at key times; GMac, Rautins, Devo, Jimmy Lee, Greg Kohls, and the list goes on and on.

As Charlie Brown of Peanuts fame once said "Tell your statistics to shut up"

Let me first say that I actually have no opinion on this matter and am in kind of "wait-and-see" mode with Southerland, but I just wanted to defend the poster a little bit, because I think a lot of people don't understand the point of statistics like these. You say that you shouldn't care what Southerland did last year, only this year. But the point is, it's about sample sizes. How Southerland performed in 30-some games last year (or the past 2 years) is in theory much more indicative of how he will play for the remainder of the season than how he has performed in only a small 3-game sample this year. I don't think anyone's arguing that he played well last night and has played well this season. I just think the point is that based on his historical performance, it isn't likely for him to keep up this pace. Now, it is reasonable, especially when talking about 21-year old kids, that there has been some marked improvement in his game that will allow Southerland to perform at a higher level than in past years. I just think it isn't absurd to suggest that based on past performance, these last couple games are more likely statistical outliers than any reliable projection of what will occur later this year.

 

[stuckinbig11]

Let me first say that I actually have no opinion on this matter and am in kind of "wait-and-see" mode with Southerland, but I just wanted to defend the poster a little bit, because I think a lot of people don't understand the point of statistics like these. You say that you shouldn't care what Southerland did last year, only this year. But the point is, it's about sample sizes. How Southerland performed in 30-some games last year (or the past 2 years) is in theory much more indicative of how he will play for the remainder of the season than how he has performed in only a small 3-game sample this year. I don't think anyone's arguing that he played well last night and has played well this season. I just think the point is that based on his historical performance, it isn't likely for him to keep up this pace. Now, it is reasonable, especially when talking about 21-year old kids, that there has been some marked improvement in his game that will allow Southerland to perform at a higher level than in past years. I just think it isn't absurd to suggest that based on past performance, these last couple games are more likely statistical outliers than any reliable projection of what will occur later this year.

If he sat on his butt all summer, you would have a point, but it seems that he did some things to improve his game. The Colts are still a good football team if you include last year's games to increase the sample size; however, it seems that something changed between last year and this year in the QB department.

 

[Knicks411]

Just for some perspective, very few guys knock own 50% of "midrange jumpers", I guess depending on how you define them.

In the NBA, on shots from 6-17 feet, the league shoots about 40%, at best. In any given year, maybe 8-10 guys will shoot 50% on those shots.

Found the stats from last year, league shot 41.6% from 10-15 feet. About 10 guys shot over 50%, and that includes guys who took like 20 of them all y ear.

http://www.hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx?team=%&type=tot&posi=%&yr=2011&gp=40&mins=15

 

[RichmondCuse]

If he sat on his butt all summer, you would have a point, but it seems that he did some things to improve his game. The Colts are still a good football team if you include last year's games to increase the sample size; however, it seems that something changed between last year and this year in the QB department.

Kind of an extreme comparison, because obviously we know what significant change occured for the Colts. We don't have any evidence that something significant changed in the player in question here, so it may be wise not to change your expectations of him after 3 games. Again, I'm not discounting the possibility of Southerland greatly improving his game over the summer - just that it's a little early to make that assumption. Let me see it over a larger sample size.

 

[armory]

IT'S BEEN THREE GAMES! Tiny sample size for the so-called "stat heads."

JS is a Junior. We've had far more than 3 games to evaluate.

 

[orangefan13]

Sophmore in college vs 7th year NBA veteran. Theres a BIG difference in returning stats. How was KJO's shooting as a sophmore how was Nichols? Pretty bad right.

I like the idea of Melo in the low post with James alittle closer to the basket then Rickys elbow last year with KJO on the perimeter and Dion driving the middle of the lane to dish to KJO James or Melo whoever doubles. Maybe MCW under the hoop if they have a small PG.

It Puts our top four shooters thusfar on the court. And spreads them out Midrange Three point range, Long Two( step a few steps back when Dion drives if he has to), and Best Drive and scoring guy.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Statistics:

I'm glad this thread has brought up the topic of Statistics. As I stated in response to fanfanclubclub above, I actually have a degree in Statistics (probably the only one on this board that does).

The use of Statistics by people can usually be divided into a few categories:

1) Statistics!, ugh I hate statistics and anything having to do with math. I don't trust them. Most people used Statistics to LIE!!!!

2) I took a class in Statistics (or I use Statistics at my job). I know all about Statistics. I'm really good at using Statistics. (This category is often referred to as "knowing just enough to be dangerous").

3) I've studied alot of Statistical and Mathematical theory, and know when statistics can (and should) be used, but I also understand the limitations of statistics (and mathematics), especially when they are not used correctly.

4) I have a freak mind for mathematics, obtained a PhD in Math and Statistics, and can do crazy probability equations in my head (I've only met a few of these guys, so they are few and far between).

Most people on this board fall squarely between numbers 1 and 2.

What Statistics really boils down to is the study of Probability, Variance and Bias. At the core of Statistics is typically the "probability distribution" of the data. Is it normal? Poisson? Is it discrete or continuous? If it doesn't have a defined distribution, should you use Non-Parametric statistics?

Now after you answer those questions, what type of Statistical Methods are you going to utilize to draw inference from?

It gets rather complicated from there on out.

Now I'm not sure what type of analysis fanfanclubclub was doing. He claims he uses "linear regression". There are several different types of regression methods, the simplest being linear. I actually like Multivariate Regression, and have used it to build very accurate models. Of course, it depends on what you are trying to model (what is your response variable?).

What most people don't do when they are attempting to perform regression is look at the residual plots of the variables. This is really one of the most important things to do when building a model. This will tell you if you need to transform your variables. I'm not sure if fanfanclubclub is doing that. On top of that, is his data "normal". I'm not so sure that your typical sports statistics (like shooting efficiency) is normal.

If the data is not normal, Non-parametric methods should probably be used. But I haven't studied Non-parametrics too much.

Does his model exhibit multicollinearity? I'm sure it does, given that variables within sports are typically tied together. You have to account for that.

Also, Time is one of the most difficult things to model. Obviously Time is a variable that should be included in any model dealing with players who are assumed to grow and improve over the various seasons. Time Series models can become extremely difficult.

Bottom line, Statistics can be great and extremely useful, just know what you are doing before you embark on your analysis.

 

[Dick_in_MI]

Let me first say that I actually have no opinion on this matter and am in kind of "wait-and-see" mode with Southerland, but I just wanted to defend the poster a little bit, because I think a lot of people don't understand the point of statistics like these. You say that you shouldn't care what Southerland did last year, only this year. But the point is, it's about sample sizes. How Southerland performed in 30-some games last year (or the past 2 years) is in theory much more indicative of how he will play for the remainder of the season than how he has performed in only a small 3-game sample this year. I don't think anyone's arguing that he played well last night and has played well this season. I just think the point is that based on his historical performance, it isn't likely for him to keep up this pace. Now, it is reasonable, especially when talking about 21-year old kids, that there has been some marked improvement in his game that will allow Southerland to perform at a higher level than in past years. I just think it isn't absurd to suggest that based on past performance, these last couple games are more likely statistical outliers than any reliable projection of what will occur later this year.

I disagree...my interpretation is that the poster went into the discussion with an opinion of Southerland and manipulated his stats to make a point.

I tend to agree that you can't discount the past until it has been shown that the trend has changed. That said, he isn't making the same arguments about Fab and Dion...both of whom have played well this year but have not historically.

He uses last year's stats to say that JS is the 10th man but if you use last year's stats, you could clearly say the same about Fab. Why is he not taking the same position there? I mean, if you want to include last year in your overall assessment of Fab, you could jusifiably conclude that he was more qualified to be a bridge support than a D1 center. But guys get better and this poster...the same one who unleashed a flurry of quotes from other posters that he has been keeping in his creepy personal database on the football board...seems to have trouble if one of those players is a guy that he has unshakable opinions on.

 

[jimsonjunction]

Statistics:

I'm glad this thread has brought up the topic of Statistics. As I stated in response to fanfanclubclub above, I actually have a degree in Statistics (probably the only one on this board that does).

The use of Statistics by people can usually be divided into a few categories:

1) Statistics!, ugh I hate statistics and anything having to do with math. I don't trust them. Most people used Statistics to LIE!!!!

2) I took a class in Statistics (or I use Statistics at my job). I know all about Statistics. I'm really good at using Statistics. (This category is often referred to as "knowing just enough to be dangerous").

3) I've studied alot of Statistical and Mathematical theory, and know when statistics can (and should) be used, but I also understand the limitations of statistics (and mathematics), especially when they are not used correctly.

4) I have a freak mind for mathematics, obtained a PhD in Math and Statistics, and can do crazy probability equations in my head (I've only met a few of these guys, so they are few and far between).

Most people on this board fall squarely between numbers 1 and 2.

What Statistics really boils down to is the study of Probability, Variance and Bias. At the core of Statistics is typically the "probability distribution" of the data. Is it normal? Poisson? Is it discrete or continuous? If it doesn't have a defined distribution, should you use Non-Parametric statistics?

Now after you answer those questions, what type of Statistical Methods are you going to utilize to draw inference from?

It gets rather complicated from there on out.

Now I'm not sure what type of analysis fanfanclubclub was doing. He claims he uses "linear regression". There are several different types of regression methods, the simplest being linear. I actually like Multivariate Regression, and have used it to build very accurate models. Of course, it depends on what you are trying to model (what is your response variable?).

What most people don't do when they are attempting to perform regression is look at the residual plots of the variables. This is really one of the most important things to do when building a model. This will tell you if you need to transform your variables. I'm not sure if fanfanclubclub is doing that. On top of that, is his data "normal". I'm not so sure that your typical sports statistics (like shooting efficiency) is normal.

If the data is not normal, Non-parametric methods should probably be used. But I haven't studied Non-parametrics too much.

Does his model exhibit multicollinearity? I'm sure it does, given that variables within sports are typically tied together. You have to account for that.

Also, Time is one of the most difficult things to model. Obviously Time is a variable that should be included in any model dealing with players who are assumed to grow and improve over the various seasons. Time Series models can become extremely difficult.

Bottom line, Statistics can be great and extremely useful, just know what you are doing before you embark on your analysis.

Non-Parametric Statistics? Multivariate Regression? Multicollinearity?

 

[jordoo]

I disagree...my interpretation is that the poster went into the discussion with an opinion of Southerland and manipulated his stats to make a point.

This was also my impression. And doesn't that completely disregard the point of these advanced statistical analysis's?

 

[Orangemen]

Statistically speaking, what are the odds that only one person on this board has a degree in statistics?

Statistics:

I'm glad this thread has brought up the topic of Statistics. As I stated in response to fanfanclubclub above, I actually have a degree in Statistics (probably the only one on this board that does).

The use of Statistics by people can usually be divided into a few categories:

1) Statistics!, ugh I hate statistics and anything having to do with math. I don't trust them. Most people used Statistics to LIE!!!!

2) I took a class in Statistics (or I use Statistics at my job). I know all about Statistics. I'm really good at using Statistics. (This category is often referred to as "knowing just enough to be dangerous").

3) I've studied alot of Statistical and Mathematical theory, and know when statistics can (and should) be used, but I also understand the limitations of statistics (and mathematics), especially when they are not used correctly.

4) I have a freak mind for mathematics, obtained a PhD in Math and Statistics, and can do crazy probability equations in my head (I've only met a few of these guys, so they are few and far between).

Most people on this board fall squarely between numbers 1 and 2.

What Statistics really boils down to is the study of Probability, Variance and Bias. At the core of Statistics is typically the "probability distribution" of the data. Is it normal? Poisson? Is it discrete or continuous? If it doesn't have a defined distribution, should you use Non-Parametric statistics?

Now after you answer those questions, what type of Statistical Methods are you going to utilize to draw inference from?

It gets rather complicated from there on out.

Now I'm not sure what type of analysis fanfanclubclub was doing. He claims he uses "linear regression". There are several different types of regression methods, the simplest being linear. I actually like Multivariate Regression, and have used it to build very accurate models. Of course, it depends on what you are trying to model (what is your response variable?).

What most people don't do when they are attempting to perform regression is look at the residual plots of the variables. This is really one of the most important things to do when building a model. This will tell you if you need to transform your variables. I'm not sure if fanfanclubclub is doing that. On top of that, is his data "normal". I'm not so sure that your typical sports statistics (like shooting efficiency) is normal.

If the data is not normal, Non-parametric methods should probably be used. But I haven't studied Non-parametrics too much.

Does his model exhibit multicollinearity? I'm sure it does, given that variables within sports are typically tied together. You have to account for that.

Also, Time is one of the most difficult things to model. Obviously Time is a variable that should be included in any model dealing with players who are assumed to grow and improve over the various seasons. Time Series models can become extremely difficult.

Bottom line, Statistics can be great and extremely useful, just know what you are doing before you embark on your analysis.

 

[mark79]

Let's get back to talking basketball please! My point in posting was just to express joyously that JS was playing great. He may play poorly Wednesday night or later this season as he is a human being and none of us will ever be perfect. I for one felt great joy that for this one night a kid that was struggling in confidence was playing really well. I wish JS and all our players the very best for a great
season.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Statistically speaking, what are the odds that only one person on this board has a degree in statistics?

If you use a sampling of my graduating class of roughly 2500, only 7 received degrees in Statistics.

So, about 1 in 357...but then again, my school offered a degree in Statistics, and many other school do not, so I'm sure it's skewed a bit. Most people on this board did not go to my school. So if your school didn't offer a degree in Statistics, the likelihood of you getting a degree in Statistics is probably zero....so I'm assuming the odds of another person on this board having a degree in Statistics is < 1 in 357.

 

[mark79]

lol

 

[HakAttack]

JS is a Junior. We've had far more than 3 games to evaluate.

This season, genius. I know Dirty's a junior. Come on man.