Not quite. I was actually addressing your "rooting versus real predictions" quandary. But no worries. We've sussed that out. As you were.
Great Rothstein Tweet
- Thread starter SirScarlet
- Start date
going 8-10 in the Big 10 is extremely unlikey and currently there is ZERO evidence to indicate that RU can do that. I LOVE this team. I LOVE Coach Pikiell. I LOVE the improvement. I LOVE being able to watch a team that competes and rebounds and plays defense. Its so much better than the garbage we have all endured the past 3 seasons. However Rutgers has beaten no one. Its best win is against a bad De Paul team who will finish last in the Big 10 and who is worse than any Big 10 school that RU will play. The only school with a pulse that Rutgers has played thus far is Miami, a game in which the Hurricanes went some 17-0 run where RU didnt score for 9 minutes and took a 20 plus point lead and coasted from there. Despite the moral victory calls in that game, RU was beaten pretty soundly and the outcome was not in doubt a few minutes into the 2nd half. So the only evidence right now to go on is how they played against Miami who would be in the 4-7 range in the Big 10.
Other Big 10 schools have beaten better opponents thus far and some of them have some bad losses so yes Rutgers does have shots at some of these games. The big concern for me is we really do not know how this team will play against competition in league, most of the teams are slightly more talented than RU. RU will have shots to win games, but assuming that they can win ALL the winnable games seems a big reach at this point. Lets see what RU does in its next 3 games against teams they SHOULD beat but games that could potentially be trouble. If they can get through these 3 and win and then put up a decent showing against SHU then we will revisit where we are. Right now 8 wins over patsies is great for the sheer number of wins and improvement but still tells us little especially since this is such a bad shooting team. You talk about hitting more 3s well this team is a TERRIBLE 3 point shooting team. Thats all you have to go on right now, so not sure how you just assume its going to happen against better competition. It may, but lets wait until we see evidence of that.
There is no reason to call Willis a downer, you did that last year to him and many of us who thought Jordan was a trainwreck which he was and the team didnt win down the stretch for many reasons. I think keeping expectation in check right now is prudent. You are entitled to your opinion but I dont know why you are going around shouting down others who may think this is only a 4 or 5 win team in league. Just relax, last year you were way over the top and wrong so some humility might be in order.
You keep misinterpreting things. Didn't say anything was "almost impossible". Didn't say anything about Vegas having a clue what our team will do. You tend to read the most extreme possible meaning into what people write.
To paraphrase the Princess Bride: "I don't think that post means what you think it means."
We have very long odds going 8-10 in the Big Ten this year. You could probably make a lot of money betting that we'll get 8 conference wins - and I hope you bet it big, and I hope you win big. I'd love us to go 8-10 (or better) in conference this year... but that doesn't change the reality that it's very unlikely to happen.
So here's a question. Lets say we can agree we are likely in the range of a 5-13 type team this year. I believe that is where Sagarin/KenPom have us right now.
Do you think there is a better chance we win 2 B1G games and disappoint or 8 B1G games and surprise? I think I'd take the latter based on what we've seen.
Do you think there is a better chance we win 2 B1G games and disappoint or 8 B1G games and surprise? I think I'd take the latter based on what we've seen.
i think 2 or 8 is very unlikely either way. I would take neither. Getting to 8 means that RU has to win virtually every swing game at home and upset some better program or find a couple of road wins. Getting two wins means that they lose almost all the swing games and then also do an ofer on the road. Thats why I keep going to back to the 4-6 wins as what is realistic
I clearly said 8-10 in the conference is not impossible. Your great math equates that to 500 in the league. No wonder you cannot follow the reasoning and think it is irrational, you cannot count
So, you agree with me when I say it's "not impossible"... but you disagree on just how unlikely it is. (You seem to feel it is highly likely, whereas I feel that it's highly unlikely).
It seems willis is trying to get you to say, definitively, that you believe RU will win 8 conference games - that 8 conference wins is your prediction, without qualification.
Realistically, I think we'll win between 4 and 6 conference games. To win 8 would require the stars to align somewhat and a lot of variables to break in our direction.
Choppin, please reread his thread. He said 500 in conference , which I never said. You think it is highly unlikely we win 8 , since previously you said it was very long odds , like you mean 1 in 10 chance , and I think the chance is 40-50 percent assuming we hit on average 6 threes a game. I do not expect our defense and hustle to just stop or disappear. I do expect our shooting to improve for all 4 of our 3 point shooters.
I mean a less than 1 in 10 chance, to be clear.
If you think the chances are 40-50%, then what would your likelihood be of 7 or 9 wins? Do you feel 8 wins is the most probable outcome? Or are you equally split between 7 and 8 wins (or 8 and 9 wins)?
You're also assuming we're going to average 6 three pointers per game over the remainder of the season, which is a bit optimistic. Historically, here have been our average number of three pointers made per game.
2015-16: 5.03
2014-15: 4.75
2013-14: 6.03 (Mack, Seagears, Moore)
2012-13: 4.84
2011-12: 5.28
2010-11: 5.47
2009-10: 6.59 (Rosario, Mitchell, Beatty)
2008-09: 5.22
2007-08: 5.52
2006-07: 5.17
2005-06: 7.06 (Douby, Webb, Inman)
2004-05: 6.00 (Shields, Douby, Webb)
2003-04: 7.24 (Shields, Douby, Webb, Lamizana)
2002-03: 6.75 (Coleman, Shields, Wooten)
2001-02: 5.74
2000-01: 5.26
We've only hit 6/game twice since the Douby/Shields years. So far this year, we're shooting 4.78/game... which is the second lowest over the last 16 seasons. There's nothing right now that makes me think against tougher competition we'll suddenly improve to 25% over what we've been shooting so far.
We've been so bad for so many years that it seems people are getting emotional over an 8-1 start vs a horrendous schedule. I'm optimistic about Pikiell, but I need a few more data points vs a couple teams will a pulse before we start talking about winning more than a handful of conference games. We are way too challenged offensively to think otherwise.
No one is getting emotional as you put it. We see hustle, desire, rebounding, defense, diving and getting
loose balls that have been demanded by Coach and his great staff and height, depth, length, and a bench that he inherited and he recruited, all of which we have not seen around here in a real long time. We are not the most talented team in the conference but the above traits give us a chance in every game. Although a lot of teams at the bottom of the conference the last few years are better , the separation between the top and middle and bottom is not that great based upon results so far this year. Those are the reasons , it has nothing to do with emotion which your post claims.
It's setting the bar higher that I am OK with, but a few fans are running with the performances far beyond where they need to be.....losses are going to happen in the B1G and if this team went .500 or close to .500, we would be on the NCAA bubble, which is obscene to even discuss.
There is no way to know what the team will do after a two or three game losing streak, which is where this team almost certainly has to be looking at realistically at some point this season. To avoid that type of streak would take a lot of grit, determination along with some hot shooting nights to go with it.
I'm not looking past Stony Brook or Fordham away from the RAC as another step or two forward before we are challenged by a much quicker, faster and more explosive scoring Seton Hall team in a couple of weeks. I posted this in another thread, to even discuss more than 5 conference wins for RU, the RAC needs to be a 80% capacity with a full student section to even discuss it.
If that fuse gets lit, then perhaps it becomes a discussion point....the other factor is only 5 of the first 15 B1G games are at the RAC......(Wisconsin at MSG is one of the "home" games). Those games are in this order...
Penn State (Jan 1st)
Northwestern (Jan 12th)
Nebraska (Jan 21st)
Wisconsin (Jan 28th MSG)
Iowa (Jan 31st)
On paper and watching on TV, you would have to get 3 of these home games in January to have a discussion about more than 6 wins in conference and that's assuming you get 2 of the final four home games.
Minnesota
Michigan
Maryland
Illinois
The "ceiling" for this roster is 6-12 in league and I'm as optimistic as anyone and although I haven't seen a lot of the B1G teams play, it would take a huge step forward from Thiam and others to get beyond that range. If that happens with the obvious of staying healthy, then we'll enjoy what happens, or as it develops.
On the "Miami" commentary....Miami has rare front court athletes, which I'm not saying the rest of the B1G doesn't have, but they will be a dangerous team in February and March, where that loss won't look as bad as it appeared to during the game. I think our front court and rebounding is more "B1G" like than the length of the Miami/UNC/Virginia Tech types of the ACC that can make you look bad at times.
I'm enjoying the ride, not interested in anything other than watching the development happen, more than wins and losses. Most of the entire team is back for next year, so this is a 2 year window of growth, vs worrying about this one season. If we add where I think we can in recruiting, then talking about this year, is not as critical as what we add in recruiting. Adding in recruiting between now and the start of next year is really more of the goal than win total this year.
There is no way to know what the team will do after a two or three game losing streak, which is where this team almost certainly has to be looking at realistically at some point this season. To avoid that type of streak would take a lot of grit, determination along with some hot shooting nights to go with it.
I'm not looking past Stony Brook or Fordham away from the RAC as another step or two forward before we are challenged by a much quicker, faster and more explosive scoring Seton Hall team in a couple of weeks. I posted this in another thread, to even discuss more than 5 conference wins for RU, the RAC needs to be a 80% capacity with a full student section to even discuss it.
If that fuse gets lit, then perhaps it becomes a discussion point....the other factor is only 5 of the first 15 B1G games are at the RAC......(Wisconsin at MSG is one of the "home" games). Those games are in this order...
Penn State (Jan 1st)
Northwestern (Jan 12th)
Nebraska (Jan 21st)
Wisconsin (Jan 28th MSG)
Iowa (Jan 31st)
On paper and watching on TV, you would have to get 3 of these home games in January to have a discussion about more than 6 wins in conference and that's assuming you get 2 of the final four home games.
Minnesota
Michigan
Maryland
Illinois
The "ceiling" for this roster is 6-12 in league and I'm as optimistic as anyone and although I haven't seen a lot of the B1G teams play, it would take a huge step forward from Thiam and others to get beyond that range. If that happens with the obvious of staying healthy, then we'll enjoy what happens, or as it develops.
On the "Miami" commentary....Miami has rare front court athletes, which I'm not saying the rest of the B1G doesn't have, but they will be a dangerous team in February and March, where that loss won't look as bad as it appeared to during the game. I think our front court and rebounding is more "B1G" like than the length of the Miami/UNC/Virginia Tech types of the ACC that can make you look bad at times.
I'm enjoying the ride, not interested in anything other than watching the development happen, more than wins and losses. Most of the entire team is back for next year, so this is a 2 year window of growth, vs worrying about this one season. If we add where I think we can in recruiting, then talking about this year, is not as critical as what we add in recruiting. Adding in recruiting between now and the start of next year is really more of the goal than win total this year.
I see it the same way. There's renewed hope for sure, but then there's the reality of the Big 10 grind.
i think it is skewed evenly....if i were in Vegas I'd put the number at 4.5 or 5.
I agree totally with Hawk. I want to play one game at a time. I am concerned about Stony Brook than FDU and than Fordham. It amazes me that many guys who were predicting us to be horrible this year are now jumping on the bandwagon. Many predicted Pikiell would be just like the last 10 years. Now they see hustle, rebounding and toughness and many are predicting unthinkable wins in the BIG. I want to enjoy the ride. Many said we wouldn't even win 10 games all season and some even predicted only 6 or 7 wins in the OOC. Some of us thought Steve Pikiell was different and would move us in the right direction. I myself have spoken with him several times and I noticed right away that he gets it. He is a blessing and I am so happy he is our coach. Being .500 or even making the CBI would be something to make me happy after these last 10 years.
Choppin, you are obviously the math/stats algorithm guy, so let's look at just the numbers and not use our eyes. To answer your question , I believe 7-8 is more likely especially in light of what is happening out of conference to our Big 10 brethren.
Back to numbers, Corey is shooting 6.3% from 3, Mike is 35.7%, Nigel is 25.8% and Issa is 35%. The only one that will likely not improve on that is Issa, not because he is not capable but because he is a freshman and has not been around the conference yet. All 3 of the others will almost certainly , using your term , improve their percentages. Presently we are hitting 4.8 threes a game. It is most probable that we raise that closer to 7 a game as compared to 6 by Corey,Mike and Nigel raising their % slightly. So I do believe we are capable of averaging 6 threes per game. Interestingly , some of our guys will also improve their 2 point % shooting as well, as Corey is only at 41.8% and Candido is at 42.4% . By contrast CJ is shooting 73% and Deshawn 50% so Candido will likely to connect from in close to raise his % , which is overall 39% because he is shooting 25% from 3 . I guess the discussion will now turn to you believing we cannot go from 4.78 to 6.0 or above and the numbers I have seen from Our shooters suggest to me it will.
I think Sanders will get a little better, but if he is not shooting well against these teams they have played, why would he shoot better against better competition? I think Coach is emphasizing getting good looks. That will increase his chances. His numbers though. Something is off. Whether his shots are off balanced(watch how many times he comes down on 1 foot), or he is just not taking the open, right look, who knows.
I would be surprised if his numbers went from 6.3% to 30%. Sanders is capable of a lot. Hopefully it improves for the sake of the team. If not, we are drivers.
We will likely improve our outside shooting, just based on reversion to the mean - which is to say, a couple of players have shown they can shoot better than they've started this year, and one would expect them to come more in line with their prior averages.
Let's look at each of those players you assume will improve.
- Sanders' shooting is anomalous right now, and really should be better. He's 1-16, which is really low compared to last year, and far below expectation. He has the most room for improvement on the team, obviously, and one would have to expect he'll shoot better as the year goes (not much room to shoot worse). If he were shooting last year's percentage (.315), he'd have 5 total makes instead of 1. So, four extra threes spread over our 9 games so far would bring our total to 5.22.
- Johnson is also off from his prior 3P% from KState, but not as far off as Sanders. He averaged .339 two years ago and is averaging .258 this year. If he were shooting .339 this year, he'd have made 2.51 more threes. Spread over 9 games, that would bring our total up to 5.50.
- Williams is shooting considerably better than he did last year, so far. He's up to .357 from .316 last year and .240 the year before. Not sure why you expect he'll improve further from there as we enter the teeth of the schedule - especially as our best outside threat on the scouting report. I'd be happy if he could just keep up his improved rate - and hope there *isn't* a reversion to the mean for him (as that would mean ~2 fewer threes across the games so far).
Overall, Johnson and Williams are shooting a combined 23/73 (.315).... if they shot their prior averages (.339 for Johnson, and .316 from Williams), they'd have gone a combined 24/73 (.329) for a single extra three across the start of the season. Any gains from behind the arc will likely be made by Sanders.
If we were holding true to prior averages for Sanders and Johnson, while keeping the improved average for Williams and assuming Thiam stays flat... that puts us at 5.5/game (with four "ifs")... and we'd still need to, overall, shoot about 10% better than that to reach 6/game.
Usually, though, percentages go down a bit once teams enter conference play after buoying their stat lines against weaker teams out of conference. For instance, last year we shot 74/215 (.344) out of conference, but just 87-288 (.302) in conference. Overall as a conference last year, Big Ten teams shot .368 out of conference and .357 in conference. Four teams actually did shoot better in conference, but only two were more than 10% better (the jump we'd need to go from our "theoretical" 5.5 to 6.0) and none were 25% better (the jump we'd need to go from our current 4.8 to 6.0).
Again, the caveat of "nothing's impossible"... but it's again really long odds. I'd expect us to settle out somewhere around 5.0-5.4 threes per game when all is said and done.
this is all wishful and not based in any factual evidence..ie stats....you are just assuming 6-7 threes per game, I do not know what evidence you are using here especially with the competition becoming tougher
From a purely statistical point of view, your analysis makes perfect sense, but I would consider Mike being a junior and Corey now a sophomore , having gone through the Big 10 as experienced players , my expectation will be that they will play better and shoot better. I expect someone who is a senior , a 4 year player, to improve year to year and his averages for points should increase year to year as should his shooting percentages as he learns the league and learns to take better shots. Although Nigel is a junior elibility wise he is a senior having been around 4 years of college ball and I expect this year and next that his averages in shooting % will increase from so far this year and continue to increase until he graduates. To think that each of those 3 could hit 1 more three per game than they are hitting right now , I believe is reasonable .
Secondly , we have low post options we have not had before. If CJ, Deshawn, or Candido, or Shaquille or Eugene become a threat down low against man to man, that will open up the space for our guards to connect from 2 or from 3. Against zone, CJ is looking for Deshawn on the baseline as a high low or looking diagonally to the wings for the 3. We are seeing a lot of zone and will continue to see more of it and our shooters will have open looks. Whether they make them or not is unknown and we clearly have not been making them yet but my belief is that Corey and Nigel and Mike will be able to hit them at a better rate than presently to make a difference between a win and a loss .
I am not assuming anything. Learn to read. I said we have to hit on average 6 three pointers to have a chance to win between 7-8 conference games a year. No one has a crystal ball because if we did we would be running to Vegas. But your glass half empty argument , you have been carrying on about here for years is coming to an end and when it does , and when it does I hope you can at least post you are happy and satisfied without adding your mandatory caveat about caution.
Choppin , the stats guy, just told you he expects 5.0-5.4 per game. It is not much of a stretch to see 6.0. So please stay out of this discussion since we do not want facts getting In the way of your narrative.
wow you are just like last year arent you. being so wrong on everything didnt teach you anything...but thats okay go ahead and lash out
That's actually quite a stretch to go from 5.0 to 6.0 per game... that's an increase of 20%, which as I've pointed out, isn't likely to happen once conference play starts. And we're not even at 5.0 yet, but at 4.8 right now.
Saying going from 5.0 to 6.0 threes per game is like saying we can just go from 74.7 points per game to 89.6 points per game (also an increase of 20%), or from 16.3 to 19.6 offensive rebounds per game.
I was not wrong on anything. Our roster this year should prove that to you but you probably cannot figure that out .
I'm expecting Corey to get back on track a bit, which will bump us up a little. If all else remains equal (which is unlikely, but let's say it does) and Corey goes from his current rate to closer to .300 for the rest of the year, we'll probably fall out around 5.0-5.1 as a season-ending average.
You're missing the comparison.... 3P% is one aspect of the game, and you're trying to say it's no small thing to take that one statistic and improve it by 20% (25%, really, because we're not even at 5.0 yet) as we head into conference play. I was showing a comparison of how extreme a 20% increase in one statistical area sounds when applied to other aspects of the game.
You are assuming just Corey and I am assuming Corey and Nigel and Mike all shooting better. The 4.8 to date I do not believe is what the true capability of this team is. Different teams shoot a different number of 3's. Villanova and Louisville shoot about 25-30 per game. We should shoot 15 -20 per game especially if we are getting zoned a lot. 6-18 is 33% . Sounds about what we should be shooting by year's end
To get to 6.0, you're assuming all of our guards will begin consistently shooting not only at their historical career best season averages, but in aggregate are going to improve by 10% on top of that going into the tougher portion of our schedule. That's... optimistic.
The B1G competition is as important as odds that players will shoot better as the season progresses.
We're hitting 4.78 with Issa shooting .350 on 14-40 shots, for 1.55 per game. He takes the second highest number of 3's on the team, and is hitting at a good rate. He alone is accounting for almost a third of our threes. Not sure why you'd feel anyone would think he'll get shut out every game. I'm just hoping he can maintain his current performance as he gets his first exposure to B1G play.
Choppin, I know you are a pure stats guy, but if I could ask you, do you think is is highly unlikely , more unlikely than not, more likely than not, or highly likely, that Issa can hit 1 three game, Corey 1 per game , and Nigel and Mike hit 2 threes per game ? Thanks
In a given game? Absolutely. On average over the rest of the season? Not likely.
We're much more likely to see Mike and Issa combine for 3 per game, and the rest of the team combine for about 2 per game.
So you think it is more likely than not we will on average hit 5 per game and very unlikely we hit 6 per game on average?
Correct. As I said, probably in the 5.0-5.4 per game range when all is said and done. Some games we'll hit 8 threes, and others we'll hit 2... but overall, I don't see us cresting 5.5 as a ceiling. Would love to be wrong, and might be, but 5.0-5.4 the most probable range for us right now, I'd say.
The problem with all these statistical averages is that it says nothing about any particular game.
We could make 9 threes in one game and only 3 threes in the next, so our average would be 6 per game, but we would likely win one and lose one.
We could make 9 threes in one game and only 3 threes in the next, so our average would be 6 per game, but we would likely win one and lose one.
True... and we could make 9 threes in a game we lose by 6, and hit 1 three in a game we win by five. Was just responding to the "assuming we average 6 threes a game" comment above, which I felt was... highly optimistic.
(The assumption that we'll win either 7 or 8 conference games is also highly optimistic)
Similar threads
