annarborbear said:

---

So what is the best stat to show that a team is playing together and becoming more than the sum of its parts? I think that is what we are seeing happening this year.

---

The scoring is more balanced this year with three main scorers versus two (with one primary), but assists are down one per game (we are #316) and offensive efficiency is down (#119 to #156). The biggest difference is a huge improvement in defensive effeciency (#115 to #53) and especially defensive rebounding.

Last year we were #296, last in the PAC-12, with 23.5 Defensive rebounds per game. This year we are #25, leading the PAC-12 with with 29.4 (31.7 in conference) defensive rebounds per game. Going from last to first is huge. Kelly has always been a good rebounder but is better and playing more, and we lost a good rebounder in Bradley, so the difference is Lars, Grant and even Brown have shown big improvement in rebounding.

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

Advanced stats are arbitrary formulas that are only interesting if they mostly confirm what we already know about the team. If Brown, who is absolutely crucial, is ninth ranked, we know they are not helpful for this team.

---

I think they are most interesting when they point up something that goes against the accepted wisdom, as in Moneyball.

Brown plays PG, the most specialized position and where we have little depth, so he is absolutely crucial. It does not mean that his advanced stats are not informative.

It is like having the worst QB in the league, he may not be your best player, but he is still absolutely crucial to your team.

However, the above does suggest playing Shepherd more minutes at PG and getting more minutes for Alajiki and and Celestine at the 2 and 3 could be beneficial.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

I find it interesting that the top 4 are inside players.

---

I find it "interesting" that the bottom 3 are our point guards. Interesting but not surprising.

---

We are #307 in the country as a team in Assist to Turnover ratio.

---

If only there were 1000 teams in the country. . . . .#307? I mean whew I thought we were like #599 or something bad

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

Advanced stats are arbitrary formulas that are only interesting if they mostly confirm what we already know about the team. If Brown, who is absolutely crucial, is ninth ranked, we know they are not helpful for this team.

---

I think they are most interesting when they point up something that goes against the accepted wisdom, as in Moneyball.

Brown plays PG, the most specialized position and where we have little depth, so he is absolutely crucial. It does not mean that his advanced stats are not informative.

It is like having the worst QB in the league, he may not be your best player, but he is still absolutely crucial to your team.

However, the above does suggest playing Shepherd more minutes at PG and getting more minutes for Alajiki and and Celestine at the 2 and 3 could be beneficial.

---

I respectfully disagree. Games are played by teams. Trying to assign team success or failure to an individual is arbitrary. Statistics are validated only if they conform to prior beliefs, like that Lebron James is the best player. I believe win shares (I think that is what we are talking about in this case) misses on the current Bears. The relative ranking of Lars T. and Brown is exhibit A.

I don't think players should be thought of as best or worst, as players excel in different areas, but as most important or least important. The most important players are the ones who would be missed the most if they are out. Brown is near the top of my list of most important.

I do agree that if one decides on an arbitrary statistic to value it can lead to surprising results, and surprises maybe should be looked at more closely. I disagree with your examples. Shepherd is a poor ball handler and imo should not be used at point. And Alajiki is limited right now offensively at everything but catch and shoot, so I think he has the right role. Celestine shows diverse talents but has not played that well to my eye.

Instead of using arbitrary advanced statistics, I would use plus/minus of the player in the role. If Celestine is good at the 3, it should be reflected in the plus/minus of when he plays the 3. That is a direct measure. Of course there are caveats about situations and teammates, for which I guess there is adjusted plus/minus.

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

Advanced stats are arbitrary formulas that are only interesting if they mostly confirm what we already know about the team. If Brown, who is absolutely crucial, is ninth ranked, we know they are not helpful for this team.

---

I think they are most interesting when they point up something that goes against the accepted wisdom, as in Moneyball.

Brown plays PG, the most specialized position and where we have little depth, so he is absolutely crucial. It does not mean that his advanced stats are not informative.

It is like having the worst QB in the league, he may not be your best player, but he is still absolutely crucial to your team.

However, the above does suggest playing Shepherd more minutes at PG and getting more minutes for Alajiki and and Celestine at the 2 and 3 could be beneficial.

---

I respectfully disagree. Games are played by teams. Trying to assign team success or failure to an individual is arbitrary. Statistics are validated only if they conform to prior beliefs, like that Lebron James is the best player. I believe win shares (I think that is what we are talking about in this case) misses on the current Bears. The relative ranking of Lars T. and Brown is exhibit A.

I don't think players should be thought of as best or worst, as players excel in different areas, but as most important or least important. The most important players are the ones who would be missed the most if they are out. Brown is near the top of my list of most important.

I do agree that if one decides on an arbitrary statistic to value it can lead to surprising results, and surprises maybe should be looked at more closely. I disagree with your examples. Shepherd is a poor ball handler and imo should not be used at point. And Alajiki is limited right now offensively at everything but catch and shoot, so I think he has the right role. Celestine shows diverse talents but has not played that well to my eye.

Instead of using arbitrary advanced statistics, I would use plus/minus of the player in the role. If Celestine is good at the 3, it should be reflected in the plus/minus of when he plays the 3. That is a direct measure. Of course there are caveats about situations and teammates, for which I guess there is adjusted plus/minus.

---

Good points, per the staff, they are not totally comfortable with Shepard at the point - they certainly value his shooting ability, effort and leadership. Brown is crucial to the team - in the top 3 for sure. He cannot be effectively pressed, his defensive intensity/deflections is contagious to the rest of the players and he takes on the facilitator of the other team and impacts that players effectiveness. While his FT's are a weakness, his ball distribution and occasional drive for a needed bucket is huge. Love his effort and willingness to share the ball. JB is actually unselfish to a sometimes fault.

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

Advanced stats are arbitrary formulas that are only interesting if they mostly confirm what we already know about the team. If Brown, who is absolutely crucial, is ninth ranked, we know they are not helpful for this team.

---

I think they are most interesting when they point up something that goes against the accepted wisdom, as in Moneyball.

Brown plays PG, the most specialized position and where we have little depth, so he is absolutely crucial. It does not mean that his advanced stats are not informative.

It is like having the worst QB in the league, he may not be your best player, but he is still absolutely crucial to your team.

However, the above does suggest playing Shepherd more minutes at PG and getting more minutes for Alajiki and and Celestine at the 2 and 3 could be beneficial.

---

I respectfully disagree. Games are played by teams. Trying to assign team success or failure to an individual is arbitrary. Statistics are validated only if they conform to prior beliefs, like that Lebron James is the best player. I believe win shares (I think that is what we are talking about in this case) misses on the current Bears. The relative ranking of Lars T. and Brown is exhibit A.

I don't think players should be thought of as best or worst, as players excel in different areas, but as most important or least important. The most important players are the ones who would be missed the most if they are out. Brown is near the top of my list of most important.

I do agree that if one decides on an arbitrary statistic to value it can lead to surprising results, and surprises maybe should be looked at more closely. I disagree with your examples. Shepherd is a poor ball handler and imo should not be used at point. And Alajiki is limited right now offensively at everything but catch and shoot, so I think he has the right role. Celestine shows diverse talents but has not played that well to my eye.

Instead of using arbitrary advanced statistics, I would use plus/minus of the player in the role. If Celestine is good at the 3, it should be reflected in the plus/minus of when he plays the 3. That is a direct measure. Of course there are caveats about situations and teammates, for which I guess there is adjusted plus/minus.

---

I don't disagree. Point guard is an essential position and Brown is our only pure point.

I also agree, there is a "gestalt" on teams, players complimenting each other. If you have three great centers on your team, say Wilt, Kareem and Shaq, it is one thing to acknowledge they are three players who each are extremely valuable on the court, but you still (probably) wouldn't play all three together.

Grant and Kelly are good examples of players that are complimentary on offense.

upsetof86 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

I find it interesting that the top 4 are inside players.

---

I find it "interesting" that the bottom 3 are our point guards. Interesting but not surprising.

---

We are #307 in the country as a team in Assist to Turnover ratio.

---

If only there were 1000 teams in the country. . . . .#307? I mean whew I thought we were like #599 or something bad

---

FYI

NCAA Basketball Stats - NCAA BB Team Assist / Turnover Ratio | TeamRankings.com

I'm sure you know this but

*the 307 was from much earlier in the season when Jordan Shepard brought back memories of Don Coleman****

*307 (out of 358) is much worse than 599 out of 1000.


****DC was all we had at some points.....showed a lot of heart, but

GO BEARS!!!!

In those latest Assist/TO stats, we are substantially ahead of San Diego State. And they have dropped from a ratio of 1.246 last year to 0.919 this year, raising once again the Matt Bradley question. In their last three games, they had increased to 1.182 for those games. In our last three games, we had 1.464.

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

Advanced stats are arbitrary formulas that are only interesting if they mostly confirm what we already know about the team. If Brown, who is absolutely crucial, is ninth ranked, we know they are not helpful for this team.

---

I think they are most interesting when they point up something that goes against the accepted wisdom, as in Moneyball.

Brown plays PG, the most specialized position and where we have little depth, so he is absolutely crucial. It does not mean that his advanced stats are not informative.

It is like having the worst QB in the league, he may not be your best player, but he is still absolutely crucial to your team.

However, the above does suggest playing Shepherd more minutes at PG and getting more minutes for Alajiki and and Celestine at the 2 and 3 could be beneficial.

---

I respectfully disagree. Games are played by teams. Trying to assign team success or failure to an individual is arbitrary. Statistics are validated only if they conform to prior beliefs, like that Lebron James is the best player. I believe win shares (I think that is what we are talking about in this case) misses on the current Bears. The relative ranking of Lars T. and Brown is exhibit A.

I don't think players should be thought of as best or worst, as players excel in different areas, but as most important or least important. The most important players are the ones who would be missed the most if they are out. Brown is near the top of my list of most important.

I do agree that if one decides on an arbitrary statistic to value it can lead to surprising results, and surprises maybe should be looked at more closely. I disagree with your examples. Shepherd is a poor ball handler and imo should not be used at point. And Alajiki is limited right now offensively at everything but catch and shoot, so I think he has the right role. Celestine shows diverse talents but has not played that well to my eye.

Instead of using arbitrary advanced statistics, I would use plus/minus of the player in the role. If Celestine is good at the 3, it should be reflected in the plus/minus of when he plays the 3. That is a direct measure. Of course there are caveats about situations and teammates, for which I guess there is adjusted plus/minus.

---

Calalumnus, I appreciate your effort to update this stat after every game, but like many others here have noticed, if Joel Brown is ranked ninth on this list then it can't be relied on as a true measure of effectiveness. After watching 14 games, it's evident that right now the two most crucial players on this team are Andre and Joel.
And based on the eye test I respectfully disagree with Sluggo. Watching Jordan Shepherd play, to call him a poor ballhandler in my opinion is way off. His assist/turnover ratio might be affected by the fact that many times late in the shot clock the team turns to him to create a play. Also, the continual taping on his right hand has to be a hinderance.
Perhaps a better measurement on team efficiency would be to base it on COMBINATION on the court. In this day and age it wouldn't surprise me if that stat is out there somewhere.

Great post

Interesting analysis….

Offensive efficiency down, defensive efficiency way up

Rebounding way up. Rebounding was a concern of mine entering the season as we were losing two good rebounders, and didn't see obvious replacements

Grant has been amazing and agree Brown has came out of nowhere (I think coach increased his rebounding role, but Brown has really stepped up)

calumnus said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

So what is the best stat to show that a team is playing together and becoming more than the sum of its parts? I think that is what we are seeing happening this year.

---

The scoring is more balanced this year with three main scorers versus two (with one primary), but assists are down one per game (we are #316) and offensive efficiency is down (#119 to #156). The biggest difference is a huge improvement in defensive effeciency (#115 to #53) and especially defensive rebounding.

Last year we were #296, last in the PAC-12, with 23.5 Defensive rebounds per game. This year we are #25, leading the PAC-12 with with 29.4 (31.7 in conference) defensive rebounds per game. Going from last to first is huge. Kelly has always been a good rebounder but is better and playing more, and we lost a good rebounder in Bradley, so the difference is Lars, Grant and even Brown have shown big improvement in rebounding.

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

Advanced stats are arbitrary formulas that are only interesting if they mostly confirm what we already know about the team. If Brown, who is absolutely crucial, is ninth ranked, we know they are not helpful for this team.

---

I think they are most interesting when they point up something that goes against the accepted wisdom, as in Moneyball.

Brown plays PG, the most specialized position and where we have little depth, so he is absolutely crucial. It does not mean that his advanced stats are not informative.

It is like having the worst QB in the league, he may not be your best player, but he is still absolutely crucial to your team.

However, the above does suggest playing Shepherd more minutes at PG and getting more minutes for Alajiki and and Celestine at the 2 and 3 could be beneficial.

---

I respectfully disagree. Games are played by teams. Trying to assign team success or failure to an individual is arbitrary. Statistics are validated only if they conform to prior beliefs, like that Lebron James is the best player. I believe win shares (I think that is what we are talking about in this case) misses on the current Bears. The relative ranking of Lars T. and Brown is exhibit A.

I don't think players should be thought of as best or worst, as players excel in different areas, but as most important or least important. The most important players are the ones who would be missed the most if they are out. Brown is near the top of my list of most important.

I do agree that if one decides on an arbitrary statistic to value it can lead to surprising results, and surprises maybe should be looked at more closely. I disagree with your examples. Shepherd is a poor ball handler and imo should not be used at point. And Alajiki is limited right now offensively at everything but catch and shoot, so I think he has the right role. Celestine shows diverse talents but has not played that well to my eye.

Instead of using arbitrary advanced statistics, I would use plus/minus of the player in the role. If Celestine is good at the 3, it should be reflected in the plus/minus of when he plays the 3. That is a direct measure. Of course there are caveats about situations and teammates, for which I guess there is adjusted plus/minus.

---

Calalumnus, I appreciate your effort to update this stat after every game, but like many others here have noticed, if Joel Brown is ranked ninth on this list then it can't be relied on as a true measure of effectiveness. After watching 14 games, it's evident that right now the two most crucial players on this team are Andre and Joel.
And based on the eye test I respectfully disagree with Sluggo. Watching Jordan Shepherd play, to call him a poor ballhandler in my opinion is way off. His assist/turnover ratio might be affected by the fact that many times late in the shot clock the team turns to him to create a play. Also, the continual taping on his right hand has to be a hinderance.
Perhaps a better measurement on team efficiency would be to base it on COMBINATION on the court. In this day and age it wouldn't surprise me if that stat is out there somewhere.

---

I will clarify what I meant. Shepherd is a poor ball handler in the open court. This is important for bringing the ball up and getting started. He would be susceptible to pressing and trapping. Im the half court he is fine and can beat people using crossovers and hesitations.

sluggo said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

Advanced stats are arbitrary formulas that are only interesting if they mostly confirm what we already know about the team. If Brown, who is absolutely crucial, is ninth ranked, we know they are not helpful for this team.

---

I think they are most interesting when they point up something that goes against the accepted wisdom, as in Moneyball.

Brown plays PG, the most specialized position and where we have little depth, so he is absolutely crucial. It does not mean that his advanced stats are not informative.

It is like having the worst QB in the league, he may not be your best player, but he is still absolutely crucial to your team.

However, the above does suggest playing Shepherd more minutes at PG and getting more minutes for Alajiki and and Celestine at the 2 and 3 could be beneficial.

---

I respectfully disagree. Games are played by teams. Trying to assign team success or failure to an individual is arbitrary. Statistics are validated only if they conform to prior beliefs, like that Lebron James is the best player. I believe win shares (I think that is what we are talking about in this case) misses on the current Bears. The relative ranking of Lars T. and Brown is exhibit A.

I don't think players should be thought of as best or worst, as players excel in different areas, but as most important or least important. The most important players are the ones who would be missed the most if they are out. Brown is near the top of my list of most important.

I do agree that if one decides on an arbitrary statistic to value it can lead to surprising results, and surprises maybe should be looked at more closely. I disagree with your examples. Shepherd is a poor ball handler and imo should not be used at point. And Alajiki is limited right now offensively at everything but catch and shoot, so I think he has the right role. Celestine shows diverse talents but has not played that well to my eye.

Instead of using arbitrary advanced statistics, I would use plus/minus of the player in the role. If Celestine is good at the 3, it should be reflected in the plus/minus of when he plays the 3. That is a direct measure. Of course there are caveats about situations and teammates, for which I guess there is adjusted plus/minus.

---

Calalumnus, I appreciate your effort to update this stat after every game, but like many others here have noticed, if Joel Brown is ranked ninth on this list then it can't be relied on as a true measure of effectiveness. After watching 14 games, it's evident that right now the two most crucial players on this team are Andre and Joel.
And based on the eye test I respectfully disagree with Sluggo. Watching Jordan Shepherd play, to call him a poor ballhandler in my opinion is way off. His assist/turnover ratio might be affected by the fact that many times late in the shot clock the team turns to him to create a play. Also, the continual taping on his right hand has to be a hinderance.
Perhaps a better measurement on team efficiency would be to base it on COMBINATION on the court. In this day and age it wouldn't surprise me if that stat is out there somewhere.

---

I will clarify what I meant. Shepherd is a poor ball handler in the open court. This is important for bringing the ball up and getting started. He would be susceptible to pressing and trapping. Im the half court he is fine and can beat people using crossovers and hesitations.

---

Guess we just disagree. I really haven't seen anything this year to suggest that. I agree that Joel can move faster than anyone else in the open court and generally when Joel and Jordan are on the court at the same time it makes Joel the better choice. But I don't specifcally see any major problem with Jordan's ballhandling. OTOH for the first ten games it appeared that Hyder was having issues but again I think that was certainly injury related.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

Advanced stats are arbitrary formulas that are only interesting if they mostly confirm what we already know about the team. If Brown, who is absolutely crucial, is ninth ranked, we know they are not helpful for this team.

---

I think they are most interesting when they point up something that goes against the accepted wisdom, as in Moneyball.

Brown plays PG, the most specialized position and where we have little depth, so he is absolutely crucial. It does not mean that his advanced stats are not informative.

It is like having the worst QB in the league, he may not be your best player, but he is still absolutely crucial to your team.

However, the above does suggest playing Shepherd more minutes at PG and getting more minutes for Alajiki and and Celestine at the 2 and 3 could be beneficial.

---

I respectfully disagree. Games are played by teams. Trying to assign team success or failure to an individual is arbitrary. Statistics are validated only if they conform to prior beliefs, like that Lebron James is the best player. I believe win shares (I think that is what we are talking about in this case) misses on the current Bears. The relative ranking of Lars T. and Brown is exhibit A.

I don't think players should be thought of as best or worst, as players excel in different areas, but as most important or least important. The most important players are the ones who would be missed the most if they are out. Brown is near the top of my list of most important.

I do agree that if one decides on an arbitrary statistic to value it can lead to surprising results, and surprises maybe should be looked at more closely. I disagree with your examples. Shepherd is a poor ball handler and imo should not be used at point. And Alajiki is limited right now offensively at everything but catch and shoot, so I think he has the right role. Celestine shows diverse talents but has not played that well to my eye.

Instead of using arbitrary advanced statistics, I would use plus/minus of the player in the role. If Celestine is good at the 3, it should be reflected in the plus/minus of when he plays the 3. That is a direct measure. Of course there are caveats about situations and teammates, for which I guess there is adjusted plus/minus.

---

Calalumnus, I appreciate your effort to update this stat after every game, but like many others here have noticed, if Joel Brown is ranked ninth on this list then it can't be relied on as a true measure of effectiveness. After watching 14 games, it's evident that right now the two most crucial players on this team are Andre and Joel.
And based on the eye test I respectfully disagree with Sluggo. Watching Jordan Shepherd play, to call him a poor ballhandler in my opinion is way off. His assist/turnover ratio might be affected by the fact that many times late in the shot clock the team turns to him to create a play. Also, the continual taping on his right hand has to be a hinderance.
Perhaps a better measurement on team efficiency would be to base it on COMBINATION on the court. In this day and age it wouldn't surprise me if that stat is out there somewhere.

---

We can definitely see something in Brown's play that the advanced stats do not reflect. However, at the same time, maybe the advanced stats are telling us something about his play that we might not be seeing (or want to see).

I don't know much about the advanced stats.
I know that I loved watching Brown the other day against ASU! Has some Jorge in him. I loved his energy and effort on D!!! I agree with the poster who noted that it can be contagious.

89Bear said:

---

I don't know much about the advanced stats.
I know that I loved watching Brown the other day against ASU! Has some Jorge in him. I loved his energy and effort on D!!! I agree with the poster who noted that it can be contagious.

---

Brown is 9th in scoring per 40 min. He is #1 in assists at 4.2 per 40 and #1 in TOV at 3.1 per 40. He is third in steals at 1.3 behind Shepherd and Kuany (1.5). He is 9th in rebounding. He is shooting decently (.474 from 2 and .375 from 3) but is 10th in shot attempts. He is shooting .406 from the free throw line which is a tremendous liability in a PG since he is third in Free Throw attempts (despite being so low in shot attempts). Opposing coaches know that fouling him, especially at the end of games, is a good strategy.

His Offensive Box +/- is -3.1, 10th on the team. His Defensive Box +/- is +2.3, third best on the team (behind Kuany and Alajiki). His overall Box +/- is -0.7, 10th on the team with only Hyder lower.

So yes, he is our best defender among the starters, which is the positive (and note that his Box +/- includes the effect of his "infectious" hustle on his teammates) , but he is not so good that it makes up for his negative impact on offense (which includes the fact that opposing teams don't have to guard him). However, Hyder is worse (may be injury related), so the only other option at PG is Shepherd. So clearly we need Brown (though I suggest playing Shepherd more at PG to find more minutes for Alajiki and Celestine) but he could improve his value to the team when he is on the floor (and earn more time) in two ways: 1) look for his shot more and 2) practice free throws, maybe with the help of a hypnotherapist or sports psychologist. One key in practicing free throws is not standing at the line shooting repeatedly. It is practicing your routine for the first shot, then the second shot (and following your miss) repeatedly.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sluggo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

Advanced stats are arbitrary formulas that are only interesting if they mostly confirm what we already know about the team. If Brown, who is absolutely crucial, is ninth ranked, we know they are not helpful for this team.

---

I think they are most interesting when they point up something that goes against the accepted wisdom, as in Moneyball.

Brown plays PG, the most specialized position and where we have little depth, so he is absolutely crucial. It does not mean that his advanced stats are not informative.

It is like having the worst QB in the league, he may not be your best player, but he is still absolutely crucial to your team.

However, the above does suggest playing Shepherd more minutes at PG and getting more minutes for Alajiki and and Celestine at the 2 and 3 could be beneficial.

---

I respectfully disagree. Games are played by teams. Trying to assign team success or failure to an individual is arbitrary. Statistics are validated only if they conform to prior beliefs, like that Lebron James is the best player. I believe win shares (I think that is what we are talking about in this case) misses on the current Bears. The relative ranking of Lars T. and Brown is exhibit A.

I don't think players should be thought of as best or worst, as players excel in different areas, but as most important or least important. The most important players are the ones who would be missed the most if they are out. Brown is near the top of my list of most important.

I do agree that if one decides on an arbitrary statistic to value it can lead to surprising results, and surprises maybe should be looked at more closely. I disagree with your examples. Shepherd is a poor ball handler and imo should not be used at point. And Alajiki is limited right now offensively at everything but catch and shoot, so I think he has the right role. Celestine shows diverse talents but has not played that well to my eye.

Instead of using arbitrary advanced statistics, I would use plus/minus of the player in the role. If Celestine is good at the 3, it should be reflected in the plus/minus of when he plays the 3. That is a direct measure. Of course there are caveats about situations and teammates, for which I guess there is adjusted plus/minus.

---

Calalumnus, I appreciate your effort to update this stat after every game, but like many others here have noticed, if Joel Brown is ranked ninth on this list then it can't be relied on as a true measure of effectiveness. After watching 14 games, it's evident that right now the two most crucial players on this team are Andre and Joel.
And based on the eye test I respectfully disagree with Sluggo. Watching Jordan Shepherd play, to call him a poor ballhandler in my opinion is way off. His assist/turnover ratio might be affected by the fact that many times late in the shot clock the team turns to him to create a play. Also, the continual taping on his right hand has to be a hinderance.
Perhaps a better measurement on team efficiency would be to base it on COMBINATION on the court. In this day and age it wouldn't surprise me if that stat is out there somewhere.

---

The Box +/- reflects the "combination" of his being on the court or not. He is a starter and so he generally plays with the starters, so his numbers are not bogged down by playing with the bench players (as often happens with backups). He plays a critical position with no great alternatives, so I am not trying to be critical. We are all rooting for him. I only posted the numbers.

calumnus said:

---

89Bear said:

---

I don't know much about the advanced stats.
I know that I loved watching Brown the other day against ASU! Has some Jorge in him. I loved his energy and effort on D!!! I agree with the poster who noted that it can be contagious.

---

Brown is 9th in scoring per 40 min. He is #1 in assists at 4.2 per 40 and #1 in TOV at 3.1 per 40. He is third in steals at 1.3 behind Shepherd and Kuany (1.5). He is 9th in rebounding. He is shooting decently (.474 from 2 and .375 from 3) but is 10th in shot attempts. He is shooting .406 from the free throw line which is a tremendous liability in a PG since he is third in Free Throw attempts (despite being so low in shot attempts). Opposing coaches know that fouling him, especially at the end of games, is a good strategy.

His Offensive Box +/- is -3.1, 10th on the team. His Defensive Box +/- is +2.3, third best on the team (behind Kuany and Alajiki). His overall Box +/- is -0.7, 10th on the team with only Hyder lower.

So yes, he is our best defender among the starters, which is the positive (and note that his Box +/- includes the effect of his "infectious" hustle on his teammates) , but he is not so good that it makes up for his negative impact on offense (which includes the fact that opposing teams don't have to guard him). However, Hyder is worse (may be injury related), so the only other option at PG is Shepherd. So clearly we need Brown (though I suggest playing Shepherd more at PG to find more minutes for Alajiki and Celestine) but he could improve his value to the team when he is on the floor (and earn more time) in two ways: 1) look for his shot more and 2) practice free throws, maybe with the help of a hypnotherapist or sports psychologist. One key in practicing free throws is not standing at the line shooting repeatedly. It is practicing your routine for the first shot, then the second shot (and following your miss) repeatedly.


Thank you!! This is really informative.

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

I'm curious about the numbers. I see Kelly at .247. What would an all-conference 1st team performer come in at? What is an impressive number?

89Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

I'm curious about the numbers. I see Kelly at .247. What would an all-conference 1st team performer come in at? What is an impressive number?

---

Anything over .200 in W/S per 40 is impressive.

Kelly leads the PAC-12 in WS at 2.7, but he has played a lot of minutes (like last year, Cal has had fewer games canceled due to COVID than the rest of the PAC-12). UA's Christian Koloko is .307 which leads the PAC-12 and is #9 in the country. Iowa's Keegan Murray is #1 at .377
USC's Isaiah Mobley is at .249, which is almost identical to Kelly's.

It looks like there are 12 players in the PAC-12 over .200 that have played significant minutes and 4 play for Arizona.

Joel Brown is likely the most valuable player for the Bears. The play degrades significantly when he is not on the floor.

bearchamp said:

---

Joel Brown is likely the most valuable player for the Bears. The play degrades significantly when he is not on the floor.

---

That's because of how bad our other PG options (primarily Foreman and Hyder) have been.
I have been a big fan of Joel Brown's, and felt we should've been committing to him as the primary PG sooner. I'm glad to see he is now getting those primary PG minutes. He's still got some tough edges needing to be smoothed out (beyond just his awful free throw shooting), but he is now (and only now) starting to be a net plus. But because of the other options, we drop significantly when he's not on the court. (I acknowledge Foreman has improved this season, but is still a big drop at PG from Brown.) I enjoy watching Brown's development. He's now a net asset and I think he's going to keep improving (especially his shooting and his game management maturity) and be a terrific 5th-year senior.

One of the things I most love about college sports is the connection to players who stay with a school long-term and develop into quality college players over their time. Brown has the look of such a player (as do others like GA and Kelly).

calumnus said:

---

89Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Updated after ASU
1. Kelly .247
2. Lars .189
3. Alajiki .166
4. Celestine .129
5. Anticevich.120
6. Shepherd .117
7. Foreman .114
8. Kuany .113
9. Brown .076
10. Hyder .021

---

I'm curious about the numbers. I see Kelly at .247. What would an all-conference 1st team performer come in at? What is an impressive number?

---

Anything over .200 in W/S per 40 is impressive.

Kelly leads the PAC-12 in WS at 2.7, but he has played a lot of minutes (like last year, Cal has had fewer games canceled due to COVID than the rest of the PAC-12). UA's Christian Koloko is .307 which leads the PAC-12 and is #9 in the country. Iowa's Keegan Murray is #1 at .377
USC's Isaiah Mobley is at .249, which is almost identical to Kelly's.

It looks like there are 12 players in the PAC-12 over .200 that have played significant minutes and 4 play for Arizona.

---

Thanks for the info!!!
I saw that Kelly made Dick Vitale's recent list on espn.com of his 10 most improved players this year. Kind of cool to see a Bear.

drizzlybear said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Joel Brown is likely the most valuable player for the Bears. The play degrades significantly when he is not on the floor.

---

That's because of how bad our other PG options (primarily Foreman and Hyder) have been.
I have been a big fan of Joel Brown's, and felt we should've been committing to him as the primary PG sooner. I'm glad to see he is now getting those primary PG minutes. He's still got some tough edges needing to be smoothed out (beyond just his awful free throw shooting), but he is now (and only now) starting to be a net plus. But because of the other options, we drop significantly when he's not on the court. (I acknowledge Foreman has improved this season, but is still a big drop at PG from Brown.) I enjoy watching Brown's development. He's now a net asset and I think he's going to keep improving (especially his shooting and his game management maturity) and be a terrific 5th-year senior.

One of the things I most love about college sports is the connection to players who stay with a school long-term and develop into quality college players over their time. Brown has the look of such a player (as do others like GA and Kelly).

---

Just an opinion, but I really think Joel Brown is an exceptional defensive player and brings a special kind of energy to the team when he's on the court. Special energy in a way that few players exhibit in today's game. Its an extremely intangible asset that can't be measured in the stat line.
Based on what I've seen this season I'm pretty sure that Joel would be starting for at least half the other teams in the Pac12, and for the others would still be getting significant playing time. If the Pac12 has an all defensive team Joel is a no brainer.
Now if he could JUST improve on the foul line........

drizzlybear said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Joel Brown is likely the most valuable player for the Bears. The play degrades significantly when he is not on the floor.

---

That's because of how bad our other PG options (primarily Foreman and Hyder) have been.
I have been a big fan of Joel Brown's, and felt we should've been committing to him as the primary PG sooner. I'm glad to see he is now getting those primary PG minutes. He's still got some tough edges needing to be smoothed out (beyond just his awful free throw shooting), but he is now (and only now) starting to be a net plus. But because of the other options, we drop significantly when he's not on the court. (I acknowledge Foreman has improved this season, but is still a big drop at PG from Brown.) I enjoy watching Brown's development. He's now a net asset and I think he's going to keep improving (especially his shooting and his game management maturity) and be a terrific 5th-year senior.

One of the things I most love about college sports is the connection to players who stay with a school long-term and develop into quality college players over their time. Brown has the look of such a player (as do others like GA and Kelly).

---

Exactly. It is the difference between relative and absolute. PG is an essential position, being able to bring the ball up court against pressure is an essential skill for the team. There are years where Cal has had pretty bad QB play, but the QB was still the most important player for the Bears. Though we do take the center snap for granted.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Joel Brown is likely the most valuable player for the Bears. The play degrades significantly when he is not on the floor.

---

That's because of how bad our other PG options (primarily Foreman and Hyder) have been.
I have been a big fan of Joel Brown's, and felt we should've been committing to him as the primary PG sooner. I'm glad to see he is now getting those primary PG minutes. He's still got some tough edges needing to be smoothed out (beyond just his awful free throw shooting), but he is now (and only now) starting to be a net plus. But because of the other options, we drop significantly when he's not on the court. (I acknowledge Foreman has improved this season, but is still a big drop at PG from Brown.) I enjoy watching Brown's development. He's now a net asset and I think he's going to keep improving (especially his shooting and his game management maturity) and be a terrific 5th-year senior.

One of the things I most love about college sports is the connection to players who stay with a school long-term and develop into quality college players over their time. Brown has the look of such a player (as do others like GA and Kelly).

---

Just an opinion, but I really think Joel Brown is an exceptional defensive player and brings a special kind of energy to the team when he's on the court. Special energy in a way that few players exhibit in today's game. Its an extremely intangible asset that can't be measured in the stat line.
Based on what I've seen this season I'm pretty sure that Joel would be starting for at least half the other teams in the Pac12, and for the others would still be getting significant playing time. If the Pac12 has an all defensive team Joel is a no brainer.
Now if he could JUST improve on the foul line........

---

His "essential energy" on defense shows up in his defensive rating. It is the amount an opposing team scores less per possession/per minute than their average when he is on the floor. That can be through his own defense or the defense of teammates he has inspired with his play. Now if you are adding the amount he inspires teammates to play tough defense even when he is on the bench, that is intangible.

Intangible? If he sets the tone for the team, and team continues in that mode when he is on the bench, then he is contributing. Unfortunately, the team play degrades when he is on the bench.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Joel Brown is likely the most valuable player for the Bears. The play degrades significantly when he is not on the floor.

---

That's because of how bad our other PG options (primarily Foreman and Hyder) have been.
I have been a big fan of Joel Brown's, and felt we should've been committing to him as the primary PG sooner. I'm glad to see he is now getting those primary PG minutes. He's still got some tough edges needing to be smoothed out (beyond just his awful free throw shooting), but he is now (and only now) starting to be a net plus. But because of the other options, we drop significantly when he's not on the court. (I acknowledge Foreman has improved this season, but is still a big drop at PG from Brown.) I enjoy watching Brown's development. He's now a net asset and I think he's going to keep improving (especially his shooting and his game management maturity) and be a terrific 5th-year senior.

One of the things I most love about college sports is the connection to players who stay with a school long-term and develop into quality college players over their time. Brown has the look of such a player (as do others like GA and Kelly).

---

Just an opinion, but I really think Joel Brown is an exceptional defensive player and brings a special kind of energy to the team when he's on the court. Special energy in a way that few players exhibit in today's game. Its an extremely intangible asset that can't be measured in the stat line.
Based on what I've seen this season I'm pretty sure that Joel would be starting for at least half the other teams in the Pac12, and for the others would still be getting significant playing time. If the Pac12 has an all defensive team Joel is a no brainer.
Now if he could JUST improve on the foul line........

---

I agree that Brown is an excellent *on-ball* defender, but I think he still gets a little lost in the team defensive concepts with some regularity. I think that's an area for improvement for him. In fact, just better general game maturity on both ends of the court is, IMO, his primary area for improvement. (Well, plus shooting, of course, especially free throws.) And he will get there. He's already shown significant improvement from last year. I should note that he's also a good rebounding guard.

It'll be fun watching him (and the team) measure up against USC and UCLA this week. (Although these days I don't count on any games happening until I see them tip-off.) It could be rough, but even if so it's a key part of the process of improvement.

Since we're really getting into analysis of Brown, here's my take (in parentheses below). First, need to say that I'm a big fan of Brown's. As raw as he was coming in (and still is a bit), I was advocating for Fox to go with Brown as primary/exclusive PG minutes to help expedite his development. I've enjoyed watching his development into an effective PG, and look forward to his continued development over the next couple years into a high level P12 PG.

1. Brown is secure with the ball and break presses (generally, yes, but still maturing. Still too many poor decisions on long passes in transition. But I generally like the aggressiveness. Just need a little more tempering on that part.)
2. Brown can hit a wide open 3 (I have little confidence in his 3-point shooting. His numbers aren't awful, but his form is awful and his free throw shooting is awful, so even though he has a mediocre % in the few 3-pointers he takes, I have less confidence in his 3-point shooting.)
3. Brown has improved his passing (Agree, but I've loved his passing since the get-go. He was often erratic and committed turnovers with his passing. But even when he would turn it over, you can see what he sees and what he's trying to create in the passes he makes. And I think he's got special vision. As you say, he's improving as he catches up to the speed of the game.)
4. Brown has improved his handle, and less often puts his head down and then just drives in a straight line to the basket (Agreed.)
5. Brown is a great defender (Agreed, although I think his on-ball defense is his strength and he still has lapses in team defense.)
6. Brown plays within his role, is a great unselfish teammate and is coachable (Agreed and love these about him, and love these things in a PG.)
7. Brown plays all out all game (Agreed and love this about him.)
8. Brown has greatly improved his rebounding (I think he's always been a good rebounder. The team is playing much better defense this year and everyone is getting more rebounds.)
9. Brown isn't a good finisher (but improving). (I think he's pretty good. When he fails I think it's more likely to have been a poor decision than poor execution.)
10. Brown is a poor jump shooter, and has developed other shots like a floater (Agree with the first part, not sure about second part.)
11. Brown is not a good PG in fast breaks (This is part of the rawness of his game.)
12. Brown can not create his own shot (I must not be understanding what you mean here because it seems like the big majority of his scoring is on drives to the basket, virtually all of which he creates for himself.)
13. Brown rarely makes terrible or lazy passes in the half court (I think that's generally true, but he has a bad habit of making one-handed lateral push-passes that make me nervous.)
14. Brown is not strong at getting the ball into the low block (Agreed)

Sounds like we're both fans. I've enjoyed watching his development, most of which is attributable to refining the extreme rawness he entered with as a freshman. With a full off season and Fox having now (finally) committed to him as primary PG, he's developed into a quality P12 PG, and well on his way to becoming a very good P12 PG. The game maturity/refinement will come. If he adds effective perimeter and FT shooting, look out.

Ranking after the Washington road trip:
1. Kelly .218
2. Alajiki .166
3. Lars .160
4. Celestine.106
5. Shepherd .105
6. Kuany .105
7. Anticevich.092
8. Brown .062
9. Foreman .059
10. Hyder -.012

Observations: Grant has been dropping, our guard play, especially PG, is a huge issue. we need Alajiki and Celestine on the court as much as possible, maybe with Shepherd at PG more (depending on matchups). Lars is more effective than he looks and maybe should get more minutes, especially against big lineups, if only to protect Kelly from fouling out.

calumnus said:

---

Ranking after the Washington road trip:
1. Kelly .218
2. Alajiki .166
3. Lars .160
4. Celestine.106
5. Shepherd .105
6. Kuany .105
7. Anticevich.092
8. Brown .062
9. Foreman .059
10. Hyder -.012

Observations: Grant has been dropping, our guard play, especially PG, is a huge issue. we need Alajiki and Celestine on the court as much as possible, maybe with Shepherd at PG more (depending on matchups). Lars is more effective than he looks and maybe should get more minutes, especially against big lineups, if only to protect Kelly from fouling out

---

Lars has been more effective as a rim protector against driving guards than any one else ... he's not getting lots of blocks, but he is changing shots ... if he can play that role it has the potential of cutting down the fouls of our guards who can't keep opposing guards from getting into the paint

calumnus said:

---

Ranking after the Washington road trip:
1. Kelly .218
2. Alajiki .166
3. Lars .160
4. Celestine.106
5. Shepherd .105
6. Kuany .105
7. Anticevich.092
8. Brown .062
9. Foreman .059
10. Hyder -.012

Observations: Grant has been dropping, our guard play, especially PG, is a huge issue. we need Alajiki and Celestine on the court as much as possible, maybe with Shepherd at PG more (depending on matchups). Lars is more effective than he looks and maybe should get more minutes, especially against big lineups, if only to protect Kelly from fouling out.

---

Agree on all points. I'd love to see Anticevich go wild and finish his 5-year Cal career strongly!

Ranking in Conference Games (after USC):
1. Kelly .136
2. Alajiki .126
3. Kuany .114
4. Shepherd .093
5. Celestine .056
6. Foreman .046
7. Brown .016
8. Thiemann .014
9. Anticevich -.011