LMU report card

You are comparing apples and oranges. I would get an F trying to force your analysis into your hypothesis. Again, there are too many other variables that can affect the outcomes. The defense of the other team. The players on the floor at various times. The health of the players. The fact the number of points from shots versus free throws changes things. And the fact that you can’t have an assist without a made shot. Then, there are the various types of shots, layups, midrange and 3 pointers. And so much more.

Same old story same old song and dance… what do I have to do to help you understand? I have tried for months and years to throw down the lifeline and pull you up to where everyone else is and you refuse to grab on. You sit down at the bottom of the well, criticizing and denigrating EVERYTHING that anyone else puts out there claiming it is all about the stats. So I dive into the well and say “okay, I will provide you with stats that show a direct correlation between the # of assists and the points scored in a game, for BYU”. I ran the numbers and it’s real! I have tried to eliminate the variables and go straight stats with you in an effort to help you understand and now you do the opposite and start talking about defense, who is on the floor and the health of the players for crying out loud. So which way do you want it? This is the perfect example of why nobody wants to engage you in conversation or debate, because you change the parameters all the time. It is never about finding the truth, it is always about arguing with somebody else. :grimacing:

I totally understand what you are saying, I took statistics in college, but the fact of the matter is that I made a thorough check of the very things you said, hoping that what you were saying was legitimate, and the numbers drew me to a different conclusion. Your hypothesis about shooting % and assists was somewhat accurate (that is a compliment in case you didn’t get it) but not nearly as accurate as assists to number of points scored. I’m sure this is one of the primary reasons why Rose is animate about the team sharing the ball and increasing their assist numbers because when they do, they usually win the game. I know you don’t believe me but others on this board will and do. I cannot change that it is just the way it is. :weary:

Like I said, I jumped down into the well so I could analyze this on your “stats based” level and you still don’t believe me. Please tell me when I should give up trying? It’s become ridiculous at this point. :open_mouth:

You just don’t get it. An assist can only happen when a shot is made. The only correlation needed that is directly related to an assist is making a shot. Thus, only shooting percentages can directly relate to assists.
Scoring totals have variables involved that distorts what you are trying to convey with your rediculous study.
Your study is like pundits taking a poll and make a conclusion without looking at how the poll was worded, who it was given to, the real purpose for the poll and other underlying things.
And, anyone knows you can manipulate the answers of any statistical analysis. It’s done all the time. And that’s what you are doing. I’m sorry that you don’t like it when I won’t buy into your reasoning. I’m not sure why you think I have to.
And they way you pander to others in here is funny and sad. Note that no one is answering your plea.

No… you don’t get it. You have said in the past that in order for BYU to win games they need to outscore the other team (brilliant observation there) because they don’t play defense. I know for a fact that because you didn’t come up with the idea, you would deny the numbers that I can show you. Another fact that is part of the game is that it stands to reason that the more assists in a game raise the probability that the team will score more points. The fact of the matter is that in BYU’s 7 highest field goal scoring games this season, they had the 7 highest numbers of assists. That fact cannot be denied. It is factual and it is evidence. The shooting % doesn’t correlate as accurately. It does somewhat but not like the points scored. There were two specific games where BYU shot 50% from the field yet only had 12 and 14 assists in those games. This has nothing to do with the way the specific stat is worded and it has nothing to do with any polls either. I am not manipulating facts.

Lastly, there is no “reasoning” that you have to buy into… it is factual. You claim that shooting percentage is directly tied to the number of assists but that is also making inferences and drawing conclusions Unfortunately the conclusion that I have drawn is more accurate than the one you came up with. That is another fact. So all of a sudden you don’t want to accept FACTS?

What about the other 13 games? Does your theory continue to hold true? And, was there other factors in those 7 games that could have influenced the number of total points other than assists? Like the number of turnovers or free throws? How about turnovers?

Coach Rose has stated this many times in interviews; as has Coach Nashif and Pope.
It is unusual for any of Rose’s teams not to be near the top in the nation in assists. Perhaps it’s a reason he’s in the top winning percentage of active coaches in Division I. I’ve wondered if it isn’t one of the things he got from his days in Houston and his HoF coach…
I’ve also wondered if Stan Watts book said anything about it in his system…

I subtracted the free throws made from the total points scored because a made free throw is independent of an assist and free throws have nothing to do with field goal %. I have no problem looking at the turnovers and trying to figure out if there is any correlation to the number of points scored, ie. fewer turnovers = more points scored.

In order to have any of these numbers show significance, I think you have to have a hypothesis first. Yours was that field goal shooting % was directly related to # of assists, correct? In other words, if a team has a higher shooting %, then they will have more assists. That is a legitimate hypothesis and worth comparing stats to see if there is some correlation. I did that and made a little inference that there is somewhat. I also compared the number of assists in a game to the number of points scored (free throw points not included) and found that the correlation was more significant.

That is all I was ever trying to say, yet it seems that because it was not something you came up with and appeared to be more significant than your hypothesis, you wanted to argue against it. Something you seem to still want to do somewhat. But that is always the case. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is okay to agree with others once in awhile, not all the time but once in awhile.

That is why I think the strategy that Rose and KC were going with in the LMU game now makes sense. At the time I was a bit confused as to why KC was refusing to take any shots. It was a strange approach and seemed to create some distraction as BYU fell behind by 10 points. Of course the defense was probably the main culprit in the first half deficit as they made little or no effort to put pressure on LMU and they allowed the big guy to dominate the middle.

Also, it wasn’t like KC took a ton of shots in the second half either. I think he had 1 in the first and 5 in the second. The defense got a little tougher, they got the LMU big guy in foul trouble and most importantly they got in a rhythm and shared the ball. This resulted in a higher number of shots going in. It is all about chemistry and teamwork.

the difference in the game came when Rose quit fooling around with rotations (Aytes and Shaw) and he stuck with his usual guys of the starters, Saljaas, and Chatman…And getting Jacko in foul trouble. Once LMU could not enforce the inside, LMU guards had to sag to help out with Fischer and KC driving to the rack every time…that in turn opened up the 3 bombs as Emery and Saljaas took turns bombing away…they made 7 of 8 during our run to the lead.

While I follow you, I am saying two things:

  1. Shooting percentage is hard to supply for the purpose of your study. Missed layups and players like KC and Davis often rebound their own misses and attempt to put the ball in the basket once or twice during the same play. That skews the shot attempts where no assist is necessary nor expected to prove the point assists aren’t dependent on players making shots off of passes to them. Sharing the ball. Not being selfish.
  2. My point was you can’t have an assist without a made basket. When players are missing shots off of passes, the number of assists will be lower. The point total could still be high if our offensive boards were also high and we score.

This whole conversation started because you said that the higher the shooting percentage, the more assists a team has. While there is some relevance there (and I discovered this while checking the stats and comparing those two things) the correlation is not as strong as it is with # of assists in a game and the points scored. The truth is I never would have checked it if it wasn’t for the fact that you are always saying things like - “BYU needs to make shots, layups and close to the basket if they want to win games”. My reply is always - “that is too obvious and easy to state, because that is the case for every team” In order for a team to win they need to score more points than their opponent. :tired_face:

I am sorry, but I don’t understand the last part of your statement - “That skews the shot attempts where no assist is necessary nor expected to prove the point assists aren’t dependent on players making shots off of passes to them.”. I don’t have any idea what you are trying to say here… run-on sentence that isn’t too clear.

Also, what do you mean “sharing the ball” “Not being selfish” ? It is obvious that this is something they are focusing on, perhaps too much in the LMU game as KC wasn’t even looking for a shot the entire first half. That was weird. He knows better, but his trying to do everything has created problems so maybe he needed to be extreme with not shooting in order to get back on track with a more balanced game. It certainly paid off in the second half as he was fantastic in every aspect of the game… not selfish at all, just like Mr. Fischer, who has been way better the last few weeks.

Just sayin’…