LaxPower Back-Up Stick

BigTom5 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 10:12 am

laxreference wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 5:58 am

rolldodge wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:50 pm

laxreference wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:29 pm Duke looked good. The 34.4% offensive efficiency just edged out the mark they put up against RMU last year in their first game (32%). The difference is that the Blue Devils never made us nervous that the game was ever actually in doubt. In last year's matchup, RMU actually had a win probability above 50% with about 4 minutes left in the first half.

This year? No such luck. With a 10-3 first quarter, this game was over before it really ever got started. And you probably credit the Duke defense for that. Last year, they gave up 29.3% efficiency day to RMU. Tonight? 24.5%. And if you want to throw the ride in there too (9 failed clears), the defense never gave the Colonials a chance to put up a fight.

If you are on the Duke NCAA Champs 2022 train, I doubt you saw anything tonight to make you wonder whether you want to keep your seat.

Good analysis. On the defense vs ride how does that work into the number? Thought the ride was strong (and/or ROMO poor on clears) but 6 on 6 defense less strong. Could also be a factor of ROMO missing some clear dunks.

Failed clears do not count against an offense (or for a defense) in terms of efficiency. The denominator in the efficiency calculation is (total times they gained possession in the play by play - failed clears). So no, the 24.5% efficiency for the Duke defense is not affected by the number of failed clears for ROMO.

What happens when a team clear the ball over the mid-line and then gets stripped of the ball before getting it to the attack? With hard riding teams typically riding well into the offensive zone, I’m guessing there is grey area around a “successful clear” and a turnover in the offensive end.

stupefied wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 10:25 am
Thank you for your work, find your analytics very interesting despite my lean to subjective "eye test". The best coaches today incorporate both. Se. When coaching , I wanted the the explosive X factor who may measure as less efficient but can 'play up' to any level of completion. seen some talents play down to inferior opponents with efficient players ruling day only to see same X factor raise and assert themselves agaisnt superior opponents which their more efficient teammates cant do. Have noted that opponents views, from coaches and players when available tend to basically reinforce my assessments of own.. Who my opponent prepares for tells much.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:12 am What’s the offensive efficiency standard for an at large team over the past 5-7yrs?

laxreference wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:31 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:12 am What’s the offensive efficiency standard for an at large team over the past 5-7yrs?

I'm defining at-large as a top-10 RPI on Selection Sunday; otherwise, you aren't getting bubble consideration after the AQs take their slots. If we are using raw offensive efficiency, it has hovered in a narrow range a little above 35%.

In opponent-adjusted terms, it's a narrower range (a good sign for the model). The average top-10 RPI team's opponent-adjusted efficiency has been between 36.2% and 36.7% every year since I've tracked it.

(The first efficiency table is raw (goals divided by possessions); the 2nd table is adjusted to account for the strength of the opposing defenses)

2016: 35.9%
2017: 35.7%
2018: 35.9%
2019: 34.7%
2020: 35.2%
2021: 35.3%

2016: 36.5%
2017: 36.6%
2018: 36.5%
2019: 36.2%
2020: 36.7%
2021: 36.7%

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:05 am Maybe but would one expect their offensive efficiency to improve against "tougher" competition? Some fans there think it's too easy against meek little teams by their own words.
[/quote}

Based off scrimmage performances, Hobart is not one of those meek little teams but a sleeper . 11-11 with Yale true ?