A Couple of Stats to Chew On

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Sure!

Close games are largely a function of luck. Typically it is a 50/50 shot unless there is a disparity in talent. In that case, it is a function of time, skill, and luck. A team like ours should probably win 'close games' (I'd define that as under 5 points) at probably a 60-65% clip because we are actually better than such teams.

This and that it applies to NCAA Tournament success is still very much speculative without having supporting data to rely on. No problem with the speculation, we just speculate differently.

Admittedly, I'm a homer, and I will tend to see the positives in a scenario like this more than the negatives in a scenario like this. I'm just not ready to call this "trouble" without being able to point to data that reveals that it is indeed trouble as it pertains to future success (or not) in March.

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

The problem is we are shooting at 0% this year, and over the last 3 seasons at a very small percentage. We are fast approaching the point where we can say with some confidence that statistical variance is not causing these choke jobs, but something else entirely.

I don't think you can lump prior seasons into this team's forecasts. The way I see it, we are 0-1 with Yeguete and 0-1 without Yeguete; not really much trend-setting to me. That said, provided we win the SEC, I would like to continue to see us tested more on the road; preferably more due to the other team playing better than due to our team playing worse.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Brewski]

Originally Posted by sec1

this team can not win a close game and it will prevent us from winning it all ....

"Napoleon, like anyone can even know that." Kip

[wci347]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I posted this in the other thread, but it's relevant here just the same:

So many are saying "we need a close win" is that just a gut sentiment or is it based on any relevant data?


Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

If you eliminate the free throw points in the four losses you end up with a score differential of

Florida +11 with Arizona, +2 with KSU, -8 with Ark, and +3 with Mizzou.

The key to beating us hands down is winning the free throw game. If any team can significantly outscore us from the free throw line, they can negate our superior defense and our shooting advantages. Since fouling is a part of defense, the only way we can counter this strategy is by 1) getting to the line more, and 2) making free throws when we get there.

We can look at all the other stats but none of them provide a consistent trend in all four games. Some games we had more assists in these four. Some games we out rebounded the opponents. Some we had more blocks and more steals. Some we had fewer turnovers as was the case last night. The key to beating us is winning the free throw game. Billy has to insure that in the final minutes of the game with the lead, Murphy, Fraizer, Rosario, Boynton, and Wilberkin are in the game. Those are our top free throw shooters. If there are any feelings hurt so be it - learn to shoot better free throws. Fraizer and Rosario should be the only ones touching the ball when the other team has to foul. It's pretty basic. Absent an uncontested layup opportunity, we should force opposing teams to foul either Fraizer or Rosario when we are up single digits with 1-2 minutes left in the game.

[tommyuf21]

Originally Posted by jmoliver

The Gators are 58-75 in games with the margin of victory under 5 points under Billy.

It means that a little less than half of his losses at UF were by more than 5 points.

75 losses under 5
86 losses by 5 or more

It also means that 349 of his wins were by 5 points or more.

I think that is pretty impressive.

See you can take that statistic and make it look like a negative and I did just the opposite.

[gatormann]

My real frustration with last night's game isn't that we lost a close game. It is that we allowed it to become a close game by missing important free throws down the stretch.

My real frustration with the Arizona game isn't that we lost a close game. It is that we allowed Arizona to get back in it by failing to take care of the basketball.

My real frustration with the Louisville game was that our inability to take care of the basketball and stand up to Louisville pressure allowed them to steal the game.

I cannot recall the details of how we blew the lead against Butler but I cannot help but feel we had the better team.

With the benefit of hindsight, I feel Florida had the better team in all four of those situations. I cannot help but feel that Florida had it within themselves to gut those games out. The future is still unknown. The 05 team did finally win close games in the SEC Tournament and again against Georgetown. Hopefully, this team will learn, grow, and follow suit.

[maxgator]

I think we need more close games - even if they are losses.

IMO, the problem is as much not having the experience of a close game as it not knowing how to win.

[SmootyGator]

Originally Posted by maxgator

I think we need more close games - even if they are losses.

IMO, the problem is as much not having the experience of a close game as it not knowing how to win.

You're saying that we don't know how to win?

[oneatatime]

unfortunately, when you have a single digit lead in the final five minutes, it almost always comes down to the leading team having to hit their free throws to win.

the bottom line is we need to hit them, especially Wilbekin who is going to handle the ball much of the time

[maxgator]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

You're saying that we don't know how to win?

No.

I'm saying that because we have had so many blowouts this year and so few close games that our team is inexperienced at playing close games.

I think that playing more close games - even if the outcome is a loss will benefit the team come tourney time. I think that the Mizzou loss benefits this team. (And before you suggest it - I'm not saying I wanted us to lose)

I'm not saying we don't know how to win - we clearly do. But we certainly need more experience being in the situation where the game comes down to a last shot.

[GothamGator]

Originally Posted by gator7_5

I did. The season isn't over. I was reffering to those who believe it is.

Question is, If we don't get our first close win in until the sweet 16, does that mean we automatically qualify then for the FF?

And, what if our first close win is in the NC game, do they still give us trophys?

Nobody is suggesting that you don't get a trophy if your first close win is for a title, only that you're not likely to get that close win if you haven't bothered to learn how to win a close game all year.

Of course, nothing you have said refutes any of that. The fact that you've resorted to nothing more than a mocking tone to make your point is probably due to your having a tiny brain, but it's difficult to know without making a direct cranial measurement.

[SmootyGator]

Originally Posted by maxgator

No.

I'm saying that because we have had so many blowouts this year and so few close games that our team is inexperienced at playing close games.

I think that playing more close games - even if the outcome is a loss will benefit the team come tourney time. I think that the Mizzou loss benefits this team. (And before you suggest it - I'm not saying I wanted us to lose)

I'm not saying we don't know how to win - we clearly do. But we certainly need more experience being in the situation where the game comes down to a last shot.

So, since we've had so much experience with blowouts, we should be experts at blowouts, right?

I really don't believe in the whole "close game" theory as much as people on here do. How come nobody has given Mizzou credit for being better in "close games". Did they perform better because they are experienced in "close games"? Or maybe it was because they had an energetic crowd behind them and luckily got hot at the right time? Did they "turn it on" because it got down to the end of the game and it was crunch time? If so, why didn't they do it earlier, or is this some sort of special talent to turn it on in "close games".

I'm not saying that winning close games doesn't matter, I just think people are making *way* too big of a deal about it. The biggest difference in a "close game" is free throws. If we made ours we would have won. Simple as that.

[gator2109]

Originally Posted by GothamGator

Nobody is suggesting that you don't get a trophy if your first close win is for a title, only that you're not likely to get that close win if you haven't bothered to learn how to win a close game all year.

What exactly do you need to learn regarding a close win? Make free throws? Make shots? Get stops? This is somehow different than any other point of any other basketball game?

I know it's different at the end of the game because each possession is magnified and you must make all of them count, coaching decisions included. However, I'm not sure playing 100 games in a row that are decided by 3 points would prepare a team much more than one who played a handful in a given season.

If Boynton had hit that three the other night or if we made a few free throws or if Bowers misses his final shot would we have really learned anything?

[klgator]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I posted this in the other thread, but it's relevant here just the same:

So many are saying "we need a close win" is that just a gut sentiment or is it based on any relevant data?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Let's put it this way. If we find ourselves in another close game, "WE NEED A CLOSE WIN!"

[regurgigator]

Originally Posted by klgator

Let's put it this way. If we find ourselves in another close game, "WE NEED A CLOSE WIN!"

Well, that will certainly be the case if it happens in the NCAA Tourney. I think there is 100% agreement on that.

Can I get a Go Gators?!?

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by gator2109

What exactly do you need to learn regarding a close win? Make free throws? Make shots? Get stops? This is somehow different than any other point of any other basketball game?

I know it's different at the end of the game because each possession is magnified and you must make all of them count, coaching decisions included. However, I'm not sure playing 100 games in a row that are decided by 3 points would prepare a team much more than one who played a handful in a given season.

If Boynton had hit that three the other night or if we made a few free throws or if Bowers misses his final shot would we have really learned anything?

You are right in the sense team ability shouldn't change based on the time and score, yet for us it does. That is the problem that needs to be solved. If its a confidence issue then winning a close game can do wonders. If we are full of players with the yips (a statistical improbability) then we are screwed. Or perhaps we are just a major statistical outlier due to sheer bad luck, and will mean revert soon.

[themistocles]

Originally Posted by GothamGator

Both winning a close game and beating a good team away from the comforts of home are skills that are critical in March and that top teams have to learn how to do. We haven't learned how to do either of them, and our opportunities are running out.

Our 2006 team was 0-6 in SEC play in games decided by 6 points or fewer. They turned that around in the SEC Tournament with close wins against two teamsthat had been causing hem problems, Arkansas and S. Carolina.

Yes, Goth, and, if I recall correctly, the 2007 Championship team was something like 0-3 in close games prior to the tournaments.

You just can't tell. A history of winning usually helps, but not always.

[gator2109]

Originally Posted by themistocles

Yes, Goth, and, if I recall correctly, the 2007 Championship team was something like 0-3 in close games prior to the tournaments.

You just can't tell. A history of winning usually helps, but not always.

Yup, all 6 of our losses were close games (6 or less).

We beat Wake by 5 in the reg season and the rest of the games were comfortable wins.

[maxgator]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

So, since we've had so much experience with blowouts, we should be experts at blowouts, right?

I really don't believe in the whole "close game" theory as much as people on here do. How come nobody has given Mizzou credit for being better in "close games". Did they perform better because they are experienced in "close games"? Or maybe it was because they had an energetic crowd behind them and luckily got hot at the right time? Did they "turn it on" because it got down to the end of the game and it was crunch time? If so, why didn't they do it earlier, or is this some sort of special talent to turn it on in "close games".

I'm not saying that winning close games doesn't matter, I just think people are making *way* too big of a deal about it. The biggest difference in a "close game" is free throws. If we made ours we would have won. Simple as that.

We just disagree, I guess.

Just from my personal experiences playing games and sports - there are some people and some teams that elevate when a game is on the line. They somehow find a way to win - and usually it is by NOT making that critical error or NOT missing that critical shot.

And frankly, there are some people and teams, that you can pretty much count on to be unable to take that step.

I'm not saying that this team is the latter. But, I don't think you get to be the former without experience and maturity.

I'm glad you are talking about the FTs - because I too blame that more than whether the last shot goes down. That's always a crap shoot.

But when you start missing FTs (particularly front ends) and turning the ball over in a close game, there's a mental element to that IMO.

And, there is also a mental element to running the last play of the game the way your coach intends and the way you've been taught to do it.

Experience being in those situations helps all that. And really, that's all I'm saying.

[SmootyGator]

Originally Posted by maxgator

We just disagree, I guess.

Just from my personal experiences playing games and sports - there are some people and some teams that elevate when a game is on the line. They somehow find a way to win - and usually it is by NOT making that critical error or NOT missing that critical shot.

And frankly, there are some people and teams, that you can pretty much count on to be unable to take that step.

I'm not saying that this team is the latter. But, I don't think you get to be the former without experience and maturity.

I'm glad you are talking about the FTs - because I too blame that more than whether the last shot goes down. That's always a crap shoot.

But when you start missing FTs (particularly front ends) and turning the ball over in a close game, there's a mental element to that IMO.

And, there is also a mental element to running the last play of the game the way your coach intends and the way you've been taught to do it.

Experience being in those situations helps all that. And really, that's all I'm saying.

Like I said, I just don't think that it is as big of a deal as most on here, that's all.

On the "clutch" note. You say that people find a way to win. Regarding that: I heard something about Michael Jordan, that everyone thinks that he's a clutch player, and that he "finds a way to win". Someone did a statistical analysis of his FG% of all shots in the last 20 seconds of the game that would tie or win the game. I don't remember the exact numbers (nor did I look it up myself), but IIRC he shot like 40% all time, and when the game was on the line he was 41% (making up the numbers, point is that they were almost the same). So there was this perceived notion that MJ was some sort of "clutch" player when in reality he played the exact same way at the end of a game. Part of the reason for this is ESPN. When he made the shot, they would show it over and over and decree how MJ was the greatest of all time. But when he missed, it wouldn't get much attention. I think a little bit of something similar to that goes on here.

[maxgator]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

Like I said, I just don't think that it is as big of a deal as most on here, that's all.

On the "clutch" note. You say that people find a way to win. Regarding that: I heard something about Michael Jordan, that everyone thinks that he's a clutch player, and that he "finds a way to win". Someone did a statistical analysis of his FG% of all shots in the last 20 seconds of the game that would tie or win the game. I don't remember the exact numbers (nor did I look it up myself), but IIRC he shot like 40% all time, and when the game was on the line he was 41% (making up the numbers, point is that they were almost the same). So there was this perceived notion that MJ was some sort of "clutch" player when in reality he played the exact same way at the end of a game. Part of the reason for this is ESPN. When he made the shot, they would show it over and over and decree how MJ was the greatest of all time. But when he missed, it wouldn't get much attention. I think a little bit of something similar to that goes on here.

As always with stats . . . they are subject to varying interpretations.

I'm guessing that analysis didn't include any factor to account for difficulty of the shot. And I would bet that the average difficulty of the game winners was higher than average difficulty of his other shots since everyone knew who was getting the ball. But kinda hard to quantify that element.

Again, though, I'm not picking much on the end of game shot. KB missed and that's happens. It was clear that SW didn't do what Billy wanted him to do - that to me is an experience issue.

And, as you said, choking on the FTs was a killer - along with the TOs.

But, seriously, have you not been or known someone who simply played better in game winning situations? Or the opposite? I really can't believe that "clutch" is statistically unsupportable....