Let's see how Houston does in the games that truly count before crowning them as the better defense than our Natty team. Houston might not make it past the sweet 16 and we were an all-decade type of team.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Let's see how Houston does in the games that truly count before crowning them as the better defense than our Natty team. Houston might not make it past the sweet 16 and we were an all-decade type of team.

---

A 30-plus game sample is enough to make this determination. They're objectively better than we were defensively.

We were better than they were offensively and overall. But them losing early in the tournament wouldn't make their defense any worse.

If they get upset, defense won't be the reason.

I probably agree with this. We conserved energy in games. Sampson's calling card is maniacal intensity at all times.

In a do or die setting against top talent.. I would take Bu's defense. Offense, obviously isn't the same universe so I'll leave that alone.

Quinton said:

---

I probably agree with this. We conserved energy in games. Sampson's calling card is maniacal intensity at all times.

In a do or die setting against top talent.. I would take Bu's defense. Offense, obviously isn't the same universe so I'll leave that alone.

---

The gap between the two teams in offensive and defensive efficiency margin is less than one point per 100 possessions. If they aren't in the same universe as us offensively, and I'd generally agree with that, the converse is almost equally true on defense.

There's nothing wrong with saying that our 2021 team was excellent defensively (it would be ranked fourth nationally this season) while acknowledging that this year's Houston team has been better on that end of the floor.

To suggest otherwise is to ignore objective data.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Actually we were not a fouling team. Our defense was dominant that year due to cohesion/connectedness, switchability, lateral quickness, IQ, and anticipation. Not overt, brute physicality.

---

Mitchell and Vital played D with their feet and their chest. They were physical in the sense they could not be moved out of the way. They were not physical with hand checks.

You also have to consider how our high-octane offense that year affected our defensive numbers. More offense = more shots and more possessions for the other team. We also shot a lot of threes. Missed threes lead to fast break opportunities for the other team. Houston doesn't have that type of run-and-gun offense that generates more possessions and opportunities for the opposition. Throwing numbers out the window, gimme the defense that clamped down on the Zags and won the title. If Houston does that to UConn or others in this tournament on the way to a title then I will admit I was wrong.

100%. They weren't grabbing or fouling because they didn't have to. Elite lateral movement, same with Teague and EJ.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Actually we were not a fouling team. Our defense was dominant that year due to cohesion/connectedness, switchability, lateral quickness, IQ, and anticipation. Not overt, brute physicality.

---

Mitchell and Vital played D with their feet and their chest. They were physical in the sense they could not be moved out of the way. They were not physical with hand checks.

---

You guys have selective memories. Mitchell, in particular, was very handsy. But he was rewarded by the officials because he was always in legal guarding position, which I have no problem with.

The same is true of this Houston team. They're allowed to be more physical because of the effort and discipline they play with on that end of the floor.

My brother, who prefers NBA's more offensive style, hates college officiating. I have no problem with the more physical style you see at the high school and college levels ... so long as guys are in position and not being rewarded for being late to a spot.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

You also have to consider how our high-octane offense that year affected our defensive numbers. More offense = more shots and more possessions for the other team. We also shot a lot of threes. Missed threes lead to fast break opportunities for the other team. Houston doesn't have that type of run-and-gun offense that generates more possessions and opportunities for the opposition. Throwing numbers out the window, gimme the defense that clamped down on the Zags and won the title. If Houston does that to UConn or others in this tournament on the way to a title then I will admit I was wrong.

---

We scored a lot of points because we were extremely efficient, not because we were high-octane. We were 213th nationally in adjusted tempo in 2021. That's not as slow as Houston's glacial pace, which averages four fewer possessions per 40 minutes, but it doesn't account for a nine-point gap in points allowed per game (56.5 for Houston compared to 65.5 for us).

Adjusted on a per-possession basis, Houston's defense is significantly better than ours was in 2021.

Separating the stats from my opinion, I would say this. Our defensive ceiling was almost as high as this year's Houston's team. At our best, we could absolutely lock teams down. But we're not in the same stratosphere as this year's Houston's team in terms of consistency. Houston plays lockdown defense on a nightly basis.

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

You also have to consider how our high-octane offense that year affected our defensive numbers. More offense = more shots and more possessions for the other team. We also shot a lot of threes. Missed threes lead to fast break opportunities for the other team. Houston doesn't have that type of run-and-gun offense that generates more possessions and opportunities for the opposition. Throwing numbers out the window, gimme the defense that clamped down on the Zags and won the title. If Houston does that to UConn or others in this tournament on the way to a title then I will admit I was wrong.

---

We scored a lot of points because we were extremely efficient, not because we were high-octane. We were 213th nationally in adjusted tempo in 2021. That's not as slow as Houston's glacial pace, which averages four fewer possessions per 40 minutes, but it doesn't account for a nine-point gap in points allowed per game (56.5 for Houston compared to 65.5 for us).

Adjusted on a per-possession basis, Houston's defense is significantly better than ours was in 2021.

Separating the stats from my opinion, I would say this. Our defensive ceiling was almost as high as this year's Houston's team. At our best, we could absolutely lock teams down. But we're not in the same stratosphere as this year's Houston's team in terms of consistency. Houston plays lockdown defense on a nightly basis.

---

The bolded is not exactly correct. The 2021 team was not particularly efficient. Points per possession metrics are not pure proxies for efficiency. PPP metrics are meant to be adjusted proxies for tempo.

The 2021 team was a monster at creating turnovers (fewer shots for opponents) and offensive rebounds (more shots for us), both of which drive great PPP measurements. If anything, it is slightly more accurate to say that since 2020, CSD has not been about beating other teams on efficiency, but rather beating teams on volume. It translates to something like this: "We get more shots than you do and any shooting efficiency advantage you have gets erased by our superior shot volume".

Recall, Gonzaga actually shot the 51% from the field against us (compared to our 44.8%) and shot 3 more free throws than us in the Championship game, but we shot the ball 18 more times than Gonzaga. 44% of our shots > than 51% of their shots + 3 more free throws.

This is because of a quirk in how the points per possession metrics are calculated:

In PPP metrics like KenPom, to get possessions (denominator), you start with total number of shots by a team, then you add turnovers, subtract offensive rebounds and add in (.475 x total free throws). That gives you a denominator.

If you are great at turning the other team over, you are driving up their denominator and if you're great at offensive rebounding you are artificially keeping your possessions denominator low relative to number of shots.

Yep, they don't have the shooters. Shead is a great guard, but he is not as pure of a shooter as Butler or Teague. I'll call even with Cryer and Flagler as shooters but I think Adam is a more versatile scorer than LJ.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

You also have to consider how our high-octane offense that year affected our defensive numbers. More offense = more shots and more possessions for the other team. We also shot a lot of threes. Missed threes lead to fast break opportunities for the other team. Houston doesn't have that type of run-and-gun offense that generates more possessions and opportunities for the opposition. Throwing numbers out the window, gimme the defense that clamped down on the Zags and won the title. If Houston does that to UConn or others in this tournament on the way to a title then I will admit I was wrong.

---

We scored a lot of points because we were extremely efficient, not because we were high-octane. We were 213th nationally in adjusted tempo in 2021. That's not as slow as Houston's glacial pace, which averages four fewer possessions per 40 minutes, but it doesn't account for a nine-point gap in points allowed per game (56.5 for Houston compared to 65.5 for us).

Adjusted on a per-possession basis, Houston's defense is significantly better than ours was in 2021.

Separating the stats from my opinion, I would say this. Our defensive ceiling was almost as high as this year's Houston's team. At our best, we could absolutely lock teams down. But we're not in the same stratosphere as this year's Houston's team in terms of consistency. Houston plays lockdown defense on a nightly basis.

---

The bolded is not exactly correct. The 2021 team was not particularly efficient. Points per possession metrics are not pure proxies for efficiency. PPP metrics are meant to be adjusted proxies for tempo.

The 2021 team was a monster at creating turnovers (fewer shots for opponents) and offensive rebounds (more shots for us), both of which drive great PPP measurements. If anything, it is slightly more accurate to say that since 2020, CSD has not been about beating other teams on efficiency, but rather beating teams on volume. It translates to something like this: "We get more shots than you do and any shooting efficiency advantage you have gets erased by our superior shot volume".

Recall, Gonzaga actually shot the 51% from the field against us (compared to our 44.8%) and shot 3 more free throws than us in the Championship game, but we shot the ball 18 more times than Gonzaga. 44% of our shots > than 51% of their shots + 3 more free throws.

This is because of a quirk in how the points per possession metrics are calculated:

In PPP metrics like KenPom, to get possessions (denominator), you start with total number of shots by a team, then you add turnovers, subtract offensive rebounds and add in (.475 x total free throws). That gives you a denominator.

If you are great at turning the other team over, you are driving up their denominator and if you're great at offensive rebounding you are artificially keeping your possessions denominator low relative to number of shots.

---

Baylor averaged 125.0 points per 100 possessions in 2021, which would tie that team for 10th all time since KenPom's adjusted offensive efficiency stat was started in 2002. That figure would have led the nation 16 of the last 23 seasons. That team was extremely efficient offensively.

It finished the season 18th in field goal percentage (.486), first in 3-point percentage (.413) and 12th in assists (16.9 per game). And offensive rebounds are part of that equation, so it makes no sense to subtract them. That's a developed skill, just as shooting and ball-security are.

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

You also have to consider how our high-octane offense that year affected our defensive numbers. More offense = more shots and more possessions for the other team. We also shot a lot of threes. Missed threes lead to fast break opportunities for the other team. Houston doesn't have that type of run-and-gun offense that generates more possessions and opportunities for the opposition. Throwing numbers out the window, gimme the defense that clamped down on the Zags and won the title. If Houston does that to UConn or others in this tournament on the way to a title then I will admit I was wrong.

---

We scored a lot of points because we were extremely efficient, not because we were high-octane. We were 213th nationally in adjusted tempo in 2021. That's not as slow as Houston's glacial pace, which averages four fewer possessions per 40 minutes, but it doesn't account for a nine-point gap in points allowed per game (56.5 for Houston compared to 65.5 for us).

Adjusted on a per-possession basis, Houston's defense is significantly better than ours was in 2021.

Separating the stats from my opinion, I would say this. Our defensive ceiling was almost as high as this year's Houston's team. At our best, we could absolutely lock teams down. But we're not in the same stratosphere as this year's Houston's team in terms of consistency. Houston plays lockdown defense on a nightly basis.

---

The bolded is not exactly correct. The 2021 team was not particularly efficient. Points per possession metrics are not pure proxies for efficiency. PPP metrics are meant to be adjusted proxies for tempo.

The 2021 team was a monster at creating turnovers (fewer shots for opponents) and offensive rebounds (more shots for us), both of which drive great PPP measurements. If anything, it is slightly more accurate to say that since 2020, CSD has not been about beating other teams on efficiency, but rather beating teams on volume. It translates to something like this: "We get more shots than you do and any shooting efficiency advantage you have gets erased by our superior shot volume".

Recall, Gonzaga actually shot the 51% from the field against us (compared to our 44.8%) and shot 3 more free throws than us in the Championship game, but we shot the ball 18 more times than Gonzaga. 44% of our shots > than 51% of their shots + 3 more free throws.

This is because of a quirk in how the points per possession metrics are calculated:

In PPP metrics like KenPom, to get possessions (denominator), you start with total number of shots by a team, then you add turnovers, subtract offensive rebounds and add in (.475 x total free throws). That gives you a denominator.

If you are great at turning the other team over, you are driving up their denominator and if you're great at offensive rebounding you are artificially keeping your possessions denominator low relative to number of shots.

---

Baylor averaged 125.0 points per 100 possessions in 2021, which would tie that team for 10th all time since KenPom's adjusted offensive efficiency stat was started in 2002. That figure would have led the nation 16 of the last 23 seasons. That team was extremely efficient offensively.

It finished the season 18th in field goal percentage (.486), first in 3-point percentage (.413) and 12th in assists (16.9 per game). And offensive rebounds are part of that equation, so it makes no sense to subtract them. That's a developed skill, just as shooting and ball-security are.

---

The issue is that "Per possession" is an artificial metric with no clear measurement. To calculate "per possession" you have to calculate total possessions. What is a possession? It actually isn't an easy question to answer and you eventually have to make an assumption. It can be an educated assumption. But it isn't an objectively correct answer in the same way you can clearly answer that question in football.

For example, when we opened against Gonzaga in 2021, we controlled the ball after the tip, Mark Vital missed two easy shots, got his offensive rebound twice then found Jared Butler streaking down the paint for our first bucket. It all took about 35 seconds, 3 shots, two offensive rebounds and it resulted in 2 points. PPP from that was 2.0 because KenPom stipulates it is as one possession (total shots plus turnovers minus offensive rebounds plus free throw adjustment = possessions). Others could argue it was inefficient. 35 seconds to score? 33% FG percentage? Two missed bunnies by Vital?

There is no objective reason it would be treated as one possession by KenPom. It is a good assumption, but just citing the KenPom stat means you are really only quoting the inherent assumptions he makes.

If you don't understand why KenPom is subtracting offensive rebounds for PPP purposes, then perhaps you haven't quite grasped what KenPom is telling you (hint, by subtracting offensive rebounds you make an offense MORE efficient in the PPP metrics). Stated differently, we do great on KenPom because his formula is biased toward two things we are exceptional at: causing turnovers and getting offensive rebounds.

TXBEAR_bf said:

---

Yep, they don't have the shooters. Shead is a great guard, but he is not as pure of a shooter as Butler or Teague. I'll call even with Cryer and Flagler as shooters but I think Adam is a more versatile scorer than LJ.

---

That's why Flagler came off the bench a lot more than Cryer. I don't think LJ played any against Gonzaga except garbage time in the end.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

You also have to consider how our high-octane offense that year affected our defensive numbers. More offense = more shots and more possessions for the other team. We also shot a lot of threes. Missed threes lead to fast break opportunities for the other team. Houston doesn't have that type of run-and-gun offense that generates more possessions and opportunities for the opposition. Throwing numbers out the window, gimme the defense that clamped down on the Zags and won the title. If Houston does that to UConn or others in this tournament on the way to a title then I will admit I was wrong.

---

We scored a lot of points because we were extremely efficient, not because we were high-octane. We were 213th nationally in adjusted tempo in 2021. That's not as slow as Houston's glacial pace, which averages four fewer possessions per 40 minutes, but it doesn't account for a nine-point gap in points allowed per game (56.5 for Houston compared to 65.5 for us).

Adjusted on a per-possession basis, Houston's defense is significantly better than ours was in 2021.

Separating the stats from my opinion, I would say this. Our defensive ceiling was almost as high as this year's Houston's team. At our best, we could absolutely lock teams down. But we're not in the same stratosphere as this year's Houston's team in terms of consistency. Houston plays lockdown defense on a nightly basis.

---

The bolded is not exactly correct. The 2021 team was not particularly efficient. Points per possession metrics are not pure proxies for efficiency. PPP metrics are meant to be adjusted proxies for tempo.

The 2021 team was a monster at creating turnovers (fewer shots for opponents) and offensive rebounds (more shots for us), both of which drive great PPP measurements. If anything, it is slightly more accurate to say that since 2020, CSD has not been about beating other teams on efficiency, but rather beating teams on volume. It translates to something like this: "We get more shots than you do and any shooting efficiency advantage you have gets erased by our superior shot volume".

Recall, Gonzaga actually shot the 51% from the field against us (compared to our 44.8%) and shot 3 more free throws than us in the Championship game, but we shot the ball 18 more times than Gonzaga. 44% of our shots > than 51% of their shots + 3 more free throws.

This is because of a quirk in how the points per possession metrics are calculated:

In PPP metrics like KenPom, to get possessions (denominator), you start with total number of shots by a team, then you add turnovers, subtract offensive rebounds and add in (.475 x total free throws). That gives you a denominator.

If you are great at turning the other team over, you are driving up their denominator and if you're great at offensive rebounding you are artificially keeping your possessions denominator low relative to number of shots.

---

Baylor averaged 125.0 points per 100 possessions in 2021, which would tie that team for 10th all time since KenPom's adjusted offensive efficiency stat was started in 2002. That figure would have led the nation 16 of the last 23 seasons. That team was extremely efficient offensively.

It finished the season 18th in field goal percentage (.486), first in 3-point percentage (.413) and 12th in assists (16.9 per game). And offensive rebounds are part of that equation, so it makes no sense to subtract them. That's a developed skill, just as shooting and ball-security are.

---

The issue is that "Per possession" is an artificial metric with no clear measurement. To calculate "per possession" you have to calculate total possessions. What is a possession? It actually isn't an easy question to answer and you eventually have to make an assumption. It can be an educated assumption. But it isn't an objectively correct answer in the same way you can clearly answer that question in football.

For example, when we opened against Gonzaga in 2021, we controlled the ball after the tip, Mark Vital missed two easy shots, got his offensive rebound twice then found Jared Butler streaking down the paint for our first bucket. It all took about 35 seconds, 3 shots, two offensive rebounds and it resulted in 2 points. PPP from that was 2.0 because KenPom stipulates it is as one possession (total shots plus turnovers minus offensive rebounds plus free throw adjustment = possessions). Others could argue it was inefficient. 35 seconds to score? 33% FG percentage? Two missed bunnies by Vital?

There is no objective reason it would be treated as one possession by KenPom. It is a good assumption, but just citing the KenPom stat means you are really only quoting the inherent assumptions he makes.

If you don't understand why KenPom is subtracting offensive rebounds for PPP purposes, then perhaps you haven't quite grasped what KenPom is telling you (hint, by subtracting offensive rebounds you make an offense MORE efficient in the PPP metrics). Stated differently, we do great on KenPom because his formula is biased toward two things we are exceptional at: causing turnovers and getting offensive rebounds.

---

Everyone is judged by the same objective standards. And frankly, any claim that we haven't been efficient on the offensive end of the floor for essentially the entire post-turnaround Scott a Drew era is silly. And that team was our best by a pretty wide margin.

And there should be no confusion as to what a possession is. It's quite literally in the name. As long as you possess the ball, it is a possession. A possession ends when the ball changes hands either by made bucket, turnover or defensive rebound. Everything you do in between to maintain possession of the ball and eventually score, is a developed skill.

Yep....I get that vibe

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

You also have to consider how our high-octane offense that year affected our defensive numbers. More offense = more shots and more possessions for the other team. We also shot a lot of threes. Missed threes lead to fast break opportunities for the other team. Houston doesn't have that type of run-and-gun offense that generates more possessions and opportunities for the opposition. Throwing numbers out the window, gimme the defense that clamped down on the Zags and won the title. If Houston does that to UConn or others in this tournament on the way to a title then I will admit I was wrong.

---

We scored a lot of points because we were extremely efficient, not because we were high-octane. We were 213th nationally in adjusted tempo in 2021. That's not as slow as Houston's glacial pace, which averages four fewer possessions per 40 minutes, but it doesn't account for a nine-point gap in points allowed per game (56.5 for Houston compared to 65.5 for us).

Adjusted on a per-possession basis, Houston's defense is significantly better than ours was in 2021.

Separating the stats from my opinion, I would say this. Our defensive ceiling was almost as high as this year's Houston's team. At our best, we could absolutely lock teams down. But we're not in the same stratosphere as this year's Houston's team in terms of consistency. Houston plays lockdown defense on a nightly basis.

---

The bolded is not exactly correct. The 2021 team was not particularly efficient. Points per possession metrics are not pure proxies for efficiency. PPP metrics are meant to be adjusted proxies for tempo.

The 2021 team was a monster at creating turnovers (fewer shots for opponents) and offensive rebounds (more shots for us), both of which drive great PPP measurements. If anything, it is slightly more accurate to say that since 2020, CSD has not been about beating other teams on efficiency, but rather beating teams on volume. It translates to something like this: "We get more shots than you do and any shooting efficiency advantage you have gets erased by our superior shot volume".

Recall, Gonzaga actually shot the 51% from the field against us (compared to our 44.8%) and shot 3 more free throws than us in the Championship game, but we shot the ball 18 more times than Gonzaga. 44% of our shots > than 51% of their shots + 3 more free throws.

This is because of a quirk in how the points per possession metrics are calculated:

In PPP metrics like KenPom, to get possessions (denominator), you start with total number of shots by a team, then you add turnovers, subtract offensive rebounds and add in (.475 x total free throws). That gives you a denominator.

If you are great at turning the other team over, you are driving up their denominator and if you're great at offensive rebounding you are artificially keeping your possessions denominator low relative to number of shots.

---

Baylor averaged 125.0 points per 100 possessions in 2021, which would tie that team for 10th all time since KenPom's adjusted offensive efficiency stat was started in 2002. That figure would have led the nation 16 of the last 23 seasons. That team was extremely efficient offensively.

It finished the season 18th in field goal percentage (.486), first in 3-point percentage (.413) and 12th in assists (16.9 per game). And offensive rebounds are part of that equation, so it makes no sense to subtract them. That's a developed skill, just as shooting and ball-security are.

---

The issue is that "Per possession" is an artificial metric with no clear measurement. To calculate "per possession" you have to calculate total possessions. What is a possession? It actually isn't an easy question to answer and you eventually have to make an assumption. It can be an educated assumption. But it isn't an objectively correct answer in the same way you can clearly answer that question in football.

For example, when we opened against Gonzaga in 2021, we controlled the ball after the tip, Mark Vital missed two easy shots, got his offensive rebound twice then found Jared Butler streaking down the paint for our first bucket. It all took about 35 seconds, 3 shots, two offensive rebounds and it resulted in 2 points. PPP from that was 2.0 because KenPom stipulates it is as one possession (total shots plus turnovers minus offensive rebounds plus free throw adjustment = possessions). Others could argue it was inefficient. 35 seconds to score? 33% FG percentage? Two missed bunnies by Vital?

There is no objective reason it would be treated as one possession by KenPom. It is a good assumption, but just citing the KenPom stat means you are really only quoting the inherent assumptions he makes.

If you don't understand why KenPom is subtracting offensive rebounds for PPP purposes, then perhaps you haven't quite grasped what KenPom is telling you (hint, by subtracting offensive rebounds you make an offense MORE efficient in the PPP metrics). Stated differently, we do great on KenPom because his formula is biased toward two things we are exceptional at: causing turnovers and getting offensive rebounds.

---

Everyone is judged by the same objective standards. And frankly, any claim that we haven't been efficient on the offensive end of the floor for essentially the entire post-turnaround Scott a Drew era is silly. And that team was our best by a pretty wide margin.

And there should be no confusion as to what a possession is. It's quite literally in the name. As long as you possess the ball, it is a possession. A possession ends when the ball changes hands either by made bucket, turnover or defensive rebound. Everything you do in between to maintain possession of the ball and eventually score, is a developed skill.

---

The point is that it is not an objective standard. The standard used "PER POSSESSION" relies on a huge assumption of what a possession is and it is actually measured in the negative (when is possession lost). Thus, the metric will be be biased toward things that influence the assumption.*

This isn't some simple thing that you can just waive away. There is no official statistic for possession accepted by the basketball governing bodies. So a formula was needed that could be calculated using existing basketball box scores that didn't actually measure a then-undefined variable. The statgeek community spent years working on the issue. Before KenPom went mainstream he would return emails at all kind of weird hours of the night when it was a small group trying different tweaks (FYI, same goes for a young CSD who before he made an NCAA tournament would answer emails at very strange hours when I was asking for advice even though he never met me and there was zero chance any of my guys would ever get anywhere near recruitment with him--truly a selfless and decent man). The challenging wrinkle is that the shot clock resets on an offensive rebound which allows the offense the characteristic of a brand new possession but KenPom treats it as the continuation of an existing possession. Ultimately, KenPom settled on the formula referenced above not as an accurate definition of possessions, but as an accurate definition of when possession is lost.

Here's a wrinkle that illustrates the problem. KenPom is great for the college game, but it is much less useful for the HS game in states with no HS shot clock because teams can manipulate possession counts in a game precisely because the shot clock does not exist in many states. This wrinkle is not dispositive, but only shows how the shot clock impacts the thing measured (go back to the shot clock reset on an offensive rebound). Pretty much every other statistic in basketball can be transposed from HS to NBA levels and be effectively measured and used.

More wrinkles: KenPom formula has to be tweaked on the FT adjustment for NBA and now for HS, too, with the advent of the new bonus FT rules in high school. I get this is geeky stuff and I can get lost in this topic, but my fundamental point is that there is a lot more depth to this and different ways of tackling the topic with no objective answer. I don't say this as a knock on CSD. In fact, I think it is downright brilliant to be less focused on perfect efficiency and instead brute force the efficiency stats through volume. It allows his players to play freely and worry less about mistakes and focus more on attacking and execution.

*ETA: Think about it this way. The fundamental early insight of Moneyball in baseball was that the purpose of an at bat was to not make an out, whereas most front offices were overvaluing getting a hit relative to getting a walk. This focus allowed small market teams, for a time, to exploit the market inefficiency created by the statistics measured and valued in baseball like Batting Average and RBI vs OBP and Slugging Percentage. As Warren Buffet says, if you measure something, you'll get more of it.

Similarly, KenPom doesn't actually focus on possessions and tell you about efficiency. His real focus and measurement is when possession is lost. If your defense is good at making other teams lose possession then your PPP metrics will look great (even if your opponents are hyper efficient in other areas of the game like Gonzaga against us in 2021). If your offense is good at not losing possession (via offensive rebounding in our case), your PPP metrics will look great (even if our other efficiency metrics look average or even above average). The Gonzaga game box score really is an eye opener. We were +5 points on 3-pointers and +1 point on FTs. The teams stats were decently even with the two exceptions: total rebounds and offensive rebounds in our favor and FG% in their favor. It translated to a total ass whooping.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

You also have to consider how our high-octane offense that year affected our defensive numbers. More offense = more shots and more possessions for the other team. We also shot a lot of threes. Missed threes lead to fast break opportunities for the other team. Houston doesn't have that type of run-and-gun offense that generates more possessions and opportunities for the opposition. Throwing numbers out the window, gimme the defense that clamped down on the Zags and won the title. If Houston does that to UConn or others in this tournament on the way to a title then I will admit I was wrong.

---

We scored a lot of points because we were extremely efficient, not because we were high-octane. We were 213th nationally in adjusted tempo in 2021. That's not as slow as Houston's glacial pace, which averages four fewer possessions per 40 minutes, but it doesn't account for a nine-point gap in points allowed per game (56.5 for Houston compared to 65.5 for us).

Adjusted on a per-possession basis, Houston's defense is significantly better than ours was in 2021.

Separating the stats from my opinion, I would say this. Our defensive ceiling was almost as high as this year's Houston's team. At our best, we could absolutely lock teams down. But we're not in the same stratosphere as this year's Houston's team in terms of consistency. Houston plays lockdown defense on a nightly basis.

---

The bolded is not exactly correct. The 2021 team was not particularly efficient. Points per possession metrics are not pure proxies for efficiency. PPP metrics are meant to be adjusted proxies for tempo.

The 2021 team was a monster at creating turnovers (fewer shots for opponents) and offensive rebounds (more shots for us), both of which drive great PPP measurements. If anything, it is slightly more accurate to say that since 2020, CSD has not been about beating other teams on efficiency, but rather beating teams on volume. It translates to something like this: "We get more shots than you do and any shooting efficiency advantage you have gets erased by our superior shot volume".

Recall, Gonzaga actually shot the 51% from the field against us (compared to our 44.8%) and shot 3 more free throws than us in the Championship game, but we shot the ball 18 more times than Gonzaga. 44% of our shots > than 51% of their shots + 3 more free throws.

This is because of a quirk in how the points per possession metrics are calculated:

In PPP metrics like KenPom, to get possessions (denominator), you start with total number of shots by a team, then you add turnovers, subtract offensive rebounds and add in (.475 x total free throws). That gives you a denominator.

If you are great at turning the other team over, you are driving up their denominator and if you're great at offensive rebounding you are artificially keeping your possessions denominator low relative to number of shots.

---

Baylor averaged 125.0 points per 100 possessions in 2021, which would tie that team for 10th all time since KenPom's adjusted offensive efficiency stat was started in 2002. That figure would have led the nation 16 of the last 23 seasons. That team was extremely efficient offensively.

It finished the season 18th in field goal percentage (.486), first in 3-point percentage (.413) and 12th in assists (16.9 per game). And offensive rebounds are part of that equation, so it makes no sense to subtract them. That's a developed skill, just as shooting and ball-security are.

---

The issue is that "Per possession" is an artificial metric with no clear measurement. To calculate "per possession" you have to calculate total possessions. What is a possession? It actually isn't an easy question to answer and you eventually have to make an assumption. It can be an educated assumption. But it isn't an objectively correct answer in the same way you can clearly answer that question in football.

For example, when we opened against Gonzaga in 2021, we controlled the ball after the tip, Mark Vital missed two easy shots, got his offensive rebound twice then found Jared Butler streaking down the paint for our first bucket. It all took about 35 seconds, 3 shots, two offensive rebounds and it resulted in 2 points. PPP from that was 2.0 because KenPom stipulates it is as one possession (total shots plus turnovers minus offensive rebounds plus free throw adjustment = possessions). Others could argue it was inefficient. 35 seconds to score? 33% FG percentage? Two missed bunnies by Vital?

There is no objective reason it would be treated as one possession by KenPom. It is a good assumption, but just citing the KenPom stat means you are really only quoting the inherent assumptions he makes.

If you don't understand why KenPom is subtracting offensive rebounds for PPP purposes, then perhaps you haven't quite grasped what KenPom is telling you (hint, by subtracting offensive rebounds you make an offense MORE efficient in the PPP metrics). Stated differently, we do great on KenPom because his formula is biased toward two things we are exceptional at: causing turnovers and getting offensive rebounds.

---

Everyone is judged by the same objective standards. And frankly, any claim that we haven't been efficient on the offensive end of the floor for essentially the entire post-turnaround Scott a Drew era is silly. And that team was our best by a pretty wide margin.

And there should be no confusion as to what a possession is. It's quite literally in the name. As long as you possess the ball, it is a possession. A possession ends when the ball changes hands either by made bucket, turnover or defensive rebound. Everything you do in between to maintain possession of the ball and eventually score, is a developed skill.

---

The point is that it is not an objective standard. The standard used "PER POSSESSION" relies on a huge assumption of what a possession is and it is actually measured in the negative (when is possession lost). Thus, the metric will be be biased toward things that influence the assumption.*

This isn't some simple thing that you can just waive away. There is no official statistic for possession accepted by the basketball governing bodies. So a formula was needed that could be calculated using existing basketball box scores that didn't actually measure a then-undefined variable. The statgeek community spent years working on the issue. Before KenPom went mainstream he would return emails at all kind of weird hours of the night when it was a small group trying different tweaks (FYI, same goes for a young CSD who before he made an NCAA tournament would answer emails at very strange hours when I was asking for advice even though he never met me and there was zero chance any of my guys would ever get anywhere near recruitment with him--truly a selfless and decent man). The challenging wrinkle is that the shot clock resets on an offensive rebound which allows the offense the characteristic of a brand new possession but KenPom treats it as the continuation of an existing possession. Ultimately, KenPom settled on the formula referenced above not as an accurate definition of possessions, but as an accurate definition of when possession is lost.

Here's a wrinkle that illustrates the problem. KenPom is great for the college game, but it is much less useful for the HS game in states with no HS shot clock because teams can manipulate possession counts in a game precisely because the shot clock does not exist in many states. This wrinkle is not dispositive, but only shows how the shot clock impacts the thing measured (go back to the shot clock reset on an offensive rebound). Pretty much every other statistic in basketball can be transposed from HS to NBA levels and be effectively measured and used.

More wrinkles: KenPom formula has to be tweaked on the FT adjustment for NBA and now for HS, too, with the advent of the new bonus FT rules in high school. I get this is geeky stuff and I can get lost in this topic, but my fundamental point is that there is a lot more depth to this and different ways of tackling the topic with no objective answer. I don't say this as a knock on CSD. In fact, I think it is downright brilliant to be less focused on perfect efficiency and instead brute force the efficiency stats through volume. It allows his players to play freely and worry less about mistakes and focus more on attacking and execution.

*ETA: Think about it this way. The fundamental early insight of Moneyball in baseball was that the purpose of an at bat was to not make an out, whereas most front offices were overvaluing getting a hit relative to getting a walk. This focus allowed small market teams, for a time, to exploit the market inefficiency created by the statistics measured and valued in baseball like Batting Average and RBI vs OBP and Slugging Percentage. As Warren Buffet says, if you measure something, you'll get more of it.

Similarly, KenPom doesn't actually focus on possessions and tell you about efficiency. His real focus and measurement is when possession is lost. If your defense is good at making other teams lose possession then your PPP metrics will look great (even if your opponents are hyper efficient in other areas of the game like Gonzaga against us in 2021). If your offense is good at not losing possession (via offensive rebounding in our case), your PPP metrics will look great (even if our other efficiency metrics look average or even above average). The Gonzaga game box score really is an eye opener. We were +5 points on 3-pointers and +1 point on FTs. The teams stats were decently even with the two exceptions: total rebounds and offensive rebounds in our favor and FG% in their favor. It translated to a total ass whooping.

---

"Possession" isn't a nebulous term and it requires no assumptions. A possession lasts until the opposing team takes control of the ball. When a player chases down a loose ball or grabs an offensive rebound, you'll often hear that he "extended the possession." That's because a possession doesn't end until the ball changes hands -- by made basket, turnover or defensive rebound.

Suggesting that hustle and effort aren't or shouldn't be factored into a team's offensive efficiency is a really strange take. On the aggregate, those aren't plays of luck or chance. Offensive rebounding is a developed skill, just like any other offensive skill. And it's even stranger to argue that our 2021 team wasn't efficient on that end of the floor. I don't think anyone who followed that season closely or played/coached against us would agree with you.

And your high school/shot clock objection really doesn't hold water. KenPom's efficiency ratings work precisely because they adjust for tempo and style. If you have fewer possessions but score on a higher percentage, you will still average more points per 100 possessions than a team that runs down the court, fires up a 3 immediately and averages five times more points per game than you do. That's the beaty of advanced metrics. They factor in and account for most variables.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Tenacious D

---

one of my friends loves those guys

I think 2021 was one of the best teams of all time, striaght dominance on both sides of the floor

Houston has noticeable weaknesses, could 100% win it all though

UConn is shaping up to be one of the best teams of all time though if they can get it done

Well...bringing back all of these veterans they may end up looking more like our 2021 team

Houston is now 3-for-3 with its COVID seniors and Jamal Shead still has another year of eligibility.

If Shead returns, Cougars will return eight of their top nine scorers from a team that was a No. 1 seed and will clearly be the consensus No. 1 team entering 2024-25. https://t.co/qqpFXfMr0o

— Jon Rothstein (@JonRothstein) April 9, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

Well...bringing back all of these veterans they may end up looking more like our 2021 team

Houston is now 3-for-3 with its COVID seniors and Jamal Shead still has another year of eligibility.

If Shead returns, Cougars will return eight of their top nine scorers from a team that was a No. 1 seed and will clearly be the consensus No. 1 team entering 2024-25. https://t.co/qqpFXfMr0o

— Jon Rothstein (@JonRothstein) April 9, 2024

---

i'm surprised guys are still able to get covid waivers / extensions.

thales said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Well...bringing back all of these veterans they may end up looking more like our 2021 team

Houston is now 3-for-3 with its COVID seniors and Jamal Shead still has another year of eligibility.

If Shead returns, Cougars will return eight of their top nine scorers from a team that was a No. 1 seed and will clearly be the consensus No. 1 team entering 2024-25. https://t.co/qqpFXfMr0o

— Jon Rothstein (@JonRothstein) April 9, 2024

---

i'm surprised guys are still able to get covid waivers / extensions.

---

I think this is the last year. Any remaining players from 2020 rosters will be fifth-year seniors in 2024-25.