Returning Stats

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

gauchodan

Lead

[-]

Member

Posts: 284

10/25/09 10:18 AM

Tags : None

A lot of talk in a previous thread about stats of returning players. I looked at all 9 team rosters and compiled the stats of all returning players. I ignored players who didn't play last season, but would like to include them in a revised list if you could all help me out. I know UCSB has Justin Joyner returning from a medical redshirt and Orlando Johnson transferring in, and Pacific has Nunnally back -- please comment on who I can add in for your team.

RETURNING TEAM STATISTICS
TEAM	MIN (Rank)	PTS (Rank)	REB (Rank)	AST (Rank)
Cal Poly	2672 ( 9 )	964 ( 7 )	373 ( 9 )	114 ( 9 )
Cal State Fullerton	3819 ( 6 )	1127 ( 6 )	670 ( 1 )	276 ( 4t )
Cal State Northridge	2757 ( 8 )	929 ( 8 )	514 ( 8 )	147 ( 8 )
Long Beach State	4309 ( 2 )	1544 ( 1 )	614 ( 3 )	292 ( 2 )
Pacific	2942 ( 7 )	731 ( 9 )	532 ( 6 )	279 ( 3 )
UC Davis	3938 ( 5 )	1402 ( 3 )	651 ( 2 )	341 ( 1 )
UC Irvine	4043 ( 4 )	1324 ( 4 )	517 ( 7 )	259 ( 5 )
UC Riverside	4474 ( 1 )	1407 ( 2 )	550 ( 4 )	276 ( 4t )
UC Santa Barbara	4154 ( 3 )	1234 ( 5 )	539 ( 5 )	249 ( 6 )

Some surprises for me.

UCSB rates only in the middle of the pack -- adding in Joyner and Johnson should put them near the top. Joyner played 856 minutes in 2007-08, scoring 120 points with 81 rebounds and 116 assists, while Johnson played 807 minutes, scoring 383 points with 152 rebounds and 65 assists. Those numbers would give UCSB 5817 minutes (1), 1737 points (1), 772 rebounds (1) and 430 assists (1). But of course, you all have some redshirt/transfer stats as well. Let's have 'em!

Riverside and Davis look like legit contenders, esp. Davis. Davis outperforms Riverside in every category except minutes, which just confirms that Davis' returning players produce when they are on the court.

Fullerton will be strong inside, if their returning rebound numbers are to be believed.

Northridge consistently places 8th. Any stats we can add in, Matador fans?

Also, if you know a roster player is redshirting this season, lert me know that as well...

Big West Standings from the DCI
NCAA Rankings from the DCI
Big West Statistics

Reply Quote

csun08

#1

[-]

Member

Posts: 551

10/25/09 11:07 AM

Yes, if returning stats were an indicator then Northridge would finish close to the bottom of the pack. One of the reasons why Northridge does finish so low is how deep Braswell goes into his bench. Mark Hill didn't play until December, and with Tresvant and Jenkins getting most of the minutes at point and SG until they were out for the season which skews a lot of the stats. I would actually be curious to see this list at the begging of the past few seasons as it would be a better indicator of how much these returning stats actually matter in the Big West. As far as actual predictions go I see LBSU, UCSB, UCR, CSUF, and CSUN finishing in the top five this season.

Reply Quote

matagrad

This should move us up...

#2

[-]

Member

Posts: 335

10/25/09 12:58 PM

Vinnie McGhee at Sad Sac St two seasons ago had 339 pts,142 assists, and 56 rebounds.
Rashaun McLemore at Ball St two seasons ago had 182 pts, 26 assists and 54 rebounds.

Reply Quote

jalakers08

#3

[-]

Member

Posts: 1354

10/25/09 3:37 PM

matagrad,

you forgot Bryce Smith (via Taft HS/SD State)'s monster 25 minutes, 9 points, and 2 rebounds.

JA

Reply Quote

KayliesDad

#4

[-]

Member

Posts: 939

10/25/09 3:43 PM

Smith has to red shirt this season.

Reply Quote

perspixx

#5

[-]

Member

Posts: 2748

10/25/09 4:41 PM

Administrator

jalakers08 wrote:

matagrad,

you forgot Bryce Smith (via Taft HS/SD State)'s monster 25 minutes, 9 points, and 2 rebounds.

And Aaron Henson's 6 points and 5 rebounds in 16 minutes for Wyoming

Reply Quote

TitanMike

jalakers08 wrote:

#6

[-]

Member

Posts: 208

10/26/09 9:14 AM

I don't get the stats. I believe Fullerton will be a good and improved rebounding team. But it has nothing to do with returning players. It actually has to do with new people coming in, a 6-9 center and a 6-6 power forward. That will allow Fullerton to move its 6-5 power forward to the small forward position. I don't get the stats and would have to say they're meaningless.

Reply Quote

ZSparky

Not meaningless

#7

[-]

Member

Posts: 336

10/26/09 9:21 AM

The stats are far from meaningless, they give us some helpful information. The danger with stats like these is that they are only part of the story, the rest of the story is also meaningful. It only hurts to lose players when the people replacing them are not as capable. In the case of Fullerton, despite losing the BW POY, I think they will be a better TEAM this season than last.

Reply Quote

TitanMike

Not meaningless

#8

[-]

Member

Posts: 209

10/26/09 9:58 AM

Having watched the team Saturday at the intrasquad scrimmage, I agree that Fullerton will be better this year. But for Fullerton to rank first in rebounding based on last year's statistics makes no sense to me. Last year's team was the worst rebounding team I have seen in the 34-plus years I've been watching Titan basketball. So how could our returning players, who did so poorly last year, now rank first?

I believe in and like statistics as much as anybody. But when you get information that is so contrary to common sense, you have to wonder how much use it is.

Reply Quote

dinoeater

#9

[-]

Member

Posts: 170

10/26/09 10:01 AM

Thanks for the information. Callero should be coach of the year if he can keep Cal Poly out of the cellar. Did you include all games from last season or just conference games? I think conference would be a better measure because it it evens out strength of schedule. A more telling stat would be percentages rather than totals. The stats now are biased towards teams that played at a faster pace meaning more points, more rebounds, and more assists per minute played than the teams that played at a more methodical pace.

Reply Quote

Zot95

#10

[-]

Member

Posts: 762

10/26/09 12:58 PM

gauchodan wrote:
A lot of talk in a previous thread about stats of returning players. I looked at all 9 team rosters and compiled the stats of all returning players.

This is a good idea, but as-is I think the figures are very misleading. The problem is that you are using total values for things such as points, rebounds, etc. but those values are very much affected by things that do not relate to the quality of the players. To get a better idea of the returning talent, I would suggest these should be framed as a percentage of the team's total.

For example, UCR and UCD had nearly the same number of total points returning, implying that they are returning roughly comparable scoring talent. But if you look at average points per game, UCD scored 13 more ppg than UCR. UCR is clearly returning more of their scoring talent. Furthermore, you can't dismiss the 13 point difference simply as "UCR is returning more of a crappier offense." UCR scores less points because they play a slower pace (and thus take less shots). UCR took 176 less free throws and 180 less field goals than UCD.

As a final factor, the teams didn't even play the same number of games. SLO played the least (28) and UOP played the most (34). That's a pretty big difference that will have unintended effects on the totals.

Reply Quote

ZSparky

Fullerton Boards

#11

[-]

Member

Posts: 337

10/26/09 3:46 PM

Mike asked "Last year's team was the worst rebounding team I have seen in the 34-plus years I've been watching Titan basketball. So how could our returning players, who did so poorly last year, now rank first?"

That number is the raw number of rebounds Fullerton got by players returning. The reason it is not very telling for Fullerton is because it is a raw number. Fullerton played a run and gun style, so they probably had more rebounds than other teams, even if their rebounding margin was poor. And you tell me, does Fullerton return most of the players who were good rebounders for them last season? You get into trouble with statistics when you take raw data, and draw conclusions that the data wont support, but that does not mean that the data is useless, just that one has to apply it in a rational way.

Reply Quote

allnetta

zot

#12

[-]

Member

Posts: 156

10/26/09 4:17 PM

I agree with you. The stats for UCR are skewed because the run the slowest game in the country. One Big West coach even said they get 0 points in transistion! The slow pace holds there scoring down and their opponents- as they were ranked I believe 27th in the country in scoring defense last year - but really were not that good of a defensive team - it's just the opponents took less shots because of the deliberate pace. I hope they pick it up a little this year.

Reply Quote

TitanMike

Fullerton Boards

#13

[-]

Member

Posts: 210

10/26/09 4:28 PM

We return all of our big guys. We didn't rebound well last year so it's kind of meaningless. I expect only one of them at best to start. I can see where the chart can be mislead. We return all of our rebounders and nobody else does so of course we lead the league. For example, a team might return all five starters and thus have the most points. But what if that team was lousy and continually outscored. Is there any reason to think they'll get better. A lot of times the answer is no. If you return players from a good team, that's a good thing. I'm not so sure about returning players from a bad team.

Reply Quote

gauchodan

Criticism on point

#14

[-]

Member

Posts: 285

10/26/09 9:09 PM

I never meant to present these stats as anything other than information for discussions that were already taking place. For instance, my comment on Fullerton was "Fullerton will be strong inside, if their returning rebound numbers are to be believed." (emphasis added)

But OK, I went ahead and used conference stats only, and I used percentages of totals instead of the totals themselves. Again, I am just providing information. And again, I am NOT including redshirts and transfers. This is just one piece of the puzzle.

RETURNING TEAM STATISTICS
TEAM	MIN (Rank)	PTS (Rank)	REB (Rank)	AST (Rank)
Cal Poly	51% ( 7 )	58% ( 5 )	47% ( 8 )	42% ( 8 )
Cal State Fullerton	61% ( 5 )	50% ( 7 )	70% ( 1 )	67% ( 4 )
Cal State Northridge	49% ( 8 )	43% ( 8 )	52% ( 7 )	39% ( 9 )
Long Beach State	73% ( 2 )	77% ( 2 )	69% ( 2 )	73% ( 2 )
Pacific	38% ( 9 )	28% ( 9 )	46% ( 9 )	55% ( 7 )
UC Davis	59% ( 6 )	56% ( 6 )	65% ( 4 )	66% ( 5 )
UC Irvine	67% ( 4 )	68% ( 3 )	59% ( 6 )	68% ( 3 )
UC Riverside	77% ( 1 )	82% ( 1 )	66% ( 3 )	78% ( 1 )
UC Santa Barbara	68% ( 3 )	60% ( 4 )	59% ( 5 )	65% ( 6 )

Wow! Riverside fared very well in this version, while Davis faded into the middle of the pack. Pacific does absolutely awful -- worse than Cal Poly. People picking the Tigers to do well are doing so based solely on new players and/or the reputation of Bob Thomason. Obviously, I'm hoping the same thing for my Gauchos with the return of Joyner and the transferring in of Orlando Johnson.

Big West Standings from the DCI
NCAA Rankings from the DCI
Big West Statistics

Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Returning Stats	10/25/09 10:18 AM	gauchodan
Re: Returning Stats	10/25/09 11:07 AM	csun08
This should move us up...	10/25/09 12:58 PM	matagrad
Re: Returning Stats	10/25/09 3:37 PM	jalakers08
Re: Returning Stats	10/25/09 3:43 PM	KayliesDad
Re: Returning Stats	10/25/09 4:41 PM	perspixx
jalakers08 wrote:	10/26/09 9:14 AM	TitanMike
Not meaningless	10/26/09 9:21 AM	ZSparky
Not meaningless	10/26/09 9:58 AM	TitanMike
Fullerton Boards	10/26/09 3:46 PM	ZSparky
Fullerton Boards	10/26/09 4:28 PM	TitanMike
Criticism on point	10/26/09 9:09 PM	gauchodan
Re: Returning Stats	10/26/09 10:01 AM	dinoeater
Re: Returning Stats	10/26/09 12:58 PM	Zot95
zot	10/26/09 4:17 PM	allnetta

Yuku free message boards

Returning Stats

Quick Reply

Replies