 |  |
 |
|
| Monday, December 3 A little 'Box Score Banter' |
||||||
|
Welcome to the 2001-02 debut of "Box Score Banter." We'll keep this going every other week or so until January, when our focus shifts primarily to Bracketology. In the meantime, please remember to include your full name and location in future email submissions (jlunardi@home.com).
My name is Jeromie Jones and I am a sophomore at Indiana University. Go IU! The adjusted scoring margin sounds a great deal, like some of the work I do in my statistics classes. Could you please send me the formula or methods you use to compute these offensive and defensive margins? Jeromie, you are one of many to ask for Adjusted Scoring Margin (ASM) specifics. However, since you are the only one who needs to know for alleged academic reasons, I will repeat the formula(s) as presented when ASM and its components -- Offensive Quotient and Defensive Quotient -- debuted here last season: OFFENSIVE QUOTIENT (OffQ): It's one thing for a team to score a bunch of points. But how much is that team scoring ABOVE or BELOW what its opponents (on average) allow? This isn't scoring margin, but the incremental offensive advantage (or disadvantage) for any team against a known set of opponents. For example, if Duke scores 10 points more per game than its opponents allow, that represents a significant incremental offensive advantage. The opposite would be true if Duke scored 10 fewer points per game that the defensive average of its opponents. OffQ, then, is the difference between what a given team's opponents allow and what that team actually scores against them. Data required are a team's scoring average and the combined "points allowed" figures of its opponents. DEFENSIVE QUOTIENT (DefQ): This is the reverse of OffQ, measuring the incremental defensive advantage of one team versus a known set of opponents. DefQ is the difference between what a given team's opponents score and what the team in question allows against them. Data required are a team's "points allowed" average and the combined points per game of its opponents.
ADJUSTED SCORING MARGIN = OffQ + DefQ Hi, Joe. I enjoyed reading your column about Adjusted Scoring Margin. I had not heard about it before reading your column and it makes a lot of sense. I had a question that I was wondering about after reading the column:
Suppose a low-tier school has an ASM of plus-15 against similar low-tier schools. If that school finds its way into the NCAA Tournament on an automatic bid and matches up against Duke (and suppose Duke has ASM of plus-20), is that to suggest that this low-tier school can play Duke to within five points? Doesn't a team's schedule -- not necessarily strength of schedule, but rather the nature of a team's schedule -- have a lot to do with its ASM? I would be interested in reading some further insight about this method. We calculated full-season Adjusted Scoring Margin data only for last year's NCAA tourney field, so I cannot fully answer David's excellent question(s). Anecdotally, however, I can say it would be very difficult for any so-called "lower tier" school to compile an ASM in the range of which he speaks. Said schools would have to dramatically overachieve in the OffQ and DefQ categories to put up Duke-like numbers, and they simply don't have the talent to do so on a consistent basis. For instance, let's look at the ASM data for No. 15 and No. 16 seeds (including play-in participants) in last year's NCAA Tournament:
Interesting piece about the adjusted scoring margin on the ESPN web site. I believe this premise is the essence of the long-standing Dunkel Ratings. As I understand them, the Dunkel Ratings measure exactly what you are suggesting: how a team does compared to what it should do vs. a certain opponent. If Illinois should beat Northwestern by 17 points (according to their ratings before the game), and Northwestern loses by 4, Illinois' ranking would actually fall and Northwestern's would rise. If Illinois wins by 34, the respective ratings would go in the opposite direction.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the Dunkel Ratings is that they are computed for all 1,200 teams in all divisions. So one can theorize about how good a Division II or Division III team is compared with a Division I team. Stephen, I have very fond memories of the Dunkel football ratings. My friend Paul Morro and I used to sit in class on Friday afternoons using "Dick's Picks" to help us with our weekly football pools. I've not seen any Dunkel basketball ratings, nor do I know their statistical underpinnings. Feel free to enlighten us further, and I'll ask others to do the same. Paul and I weren't paying close enough attention (in class, that is!).
This is an intriguing way to predict teams that will be successful in the tournament. Will these statistics be posted on the web anywhere throughout the year? Or will they be a tightly guarded secret for your column?
The only thing I like to see closely guarded is the low post. We do expect to calculate and post (here or elsewhere) more ASM data later in the season; it doesn't really mean anything now. I'm partnering with a fellow named Bill Turocy, who is both a computer AND a basketball guy, to pull this off. At minimum, we will make ASM available for the 2002 NCAA field.
I like the way you think, but your notion of ASM has one significant flaw in my opinion. It does not seem to factor in the class of the coach. Coach K at Duke, for example, will typically not allow his players to completely humiliate the cupcakes. Having been on the receiving end of this graciousness, I know first-hand. By contrast, though, someone like Billy Tubbs -- especially back in the '80s -- would trap and press the Sisters of Mercy while up 60 with :03 to go. How does ASM account for that? There is no accounting (in ASM formulas) for this "running up the score" phenomena, other than to say that, like all other statistical averages, OffQ and DefQ become increasingly more reliable with larger sample sizes. Even Ed's Coach K/Tubbs comparison is at least partially mitigated by the smaller number of "cupcakes" on a typical Duke schedule. As for the Sisters of Mercy, don't underestimate them! We're running their numbers for a future column.
Best backcourt debate (chat?) continues
Hi, Joe. Here are a few of my favorites: Raphael: Let's not forget to add Brian Oliver, part of Georgia Tech's "Lethal Weapon 3" attack on the 1990 Final Four team.
I submit the following to you, both for their greatness and for starting together for two years (1987-89). Douglas, of course, led the Orangemen to the title game in 1987 (Thompson was the sixth man on that team, backing up Greg Monroe). Together, they then dominated a league full of great players that was probably the best conference in the nation at the time.
Syracuse University (1987-88)
Syracuse University (1988-89)
Justin Robinson
The career achievements of Sherman Douglas have long been impressive, but strangely unrecognized (perhaps because his team was seen, fairly or unfairly, as "underachieving" during those years). The play and personality of Stevie Thompson are a personal favorite. As a Tar Heel, I have to comment: Phil Ford & Walter Davis.
Davis may have ended up a small forward in the NBA, but this greyhound was a sweet college guard. And nobody can argue with Ford as one of the college game's greatest point guards. Agree on both counts, Jason. We should also keep in mind that player(s) need not have achieved professional stardom to be considered great college performers. Come to think of it, there may be another whole topic in that latter category. So I close this segment by asking continued nominations for "best backcourts in college basketball history" as well as names in the category of "great college players, but mediocre (or non) professionals."
Bracketology Banter
Also, how 'bout those Penn Quakers?!? Wins over Georgia Tech and Iowa State, and a narrow loss to Illinois! I hope you stay off of that "Brown is going to end the Penn/Princeton domination this year" bandwagon. I think that sportswriters are just trying to pretend that they know more than everyone else by picking the Bears. What do you think? "Bracketology" will return in all its glory (and then some!) in early January. ESPN.com has some seriously cool plans to put yours truly out on an even longer limb this season. Until then I'll hold off on any new Ivy projections, other than saying my Nov. 15 preseason bracket forecast Penn as the Ivy champion. I'll see the Quakers this Saturday as part of the new Philadelphia Classic tripleheader (La Salle vs. Drexel, Penn vs. Saint Joseph's, Temple vs. Villanova) at the famed Palestra. Who needs Christmas after that?
Joe, I cannot believe you get paid to sit around and come up with this stuff. Two-thirds of the world's population is starving in poverty. God bless you, though. The "other third" is addicted to Bracketology. God bless them! Joe Lunardi is the resident "bracketologist" for ESPN.com. He can be reached at jlunardi@home.com. |
|
|||||