re: Tide Hoops | Please Anchor

I'm working until noon tomorrow and then full on hoops.

I'd just be watching at work anyway.

That elephant gif is amazing.

quote:

---

We have played 16 games since Rojas returned from injury.

In the 8 games Rojas has played 15+ minutes, our record is 1-7.

In the 8 games Rojas has played less than 15 minutes, our record is 7-1.

---

That's actually pretty interesting. I have nothing to back this up, but I'm guessing most of those games Rojas played > 15 minutes were games in which Oats felt like we needed his toughness and intensity on the floor, meaning those were games where we did not bring that as a team.

So, partially due to Rojas being a flawed player, but more that Rojas playing more minutes is a barometer of how locked in we are as a team. Also, foul issues, which is another problem we have sometimes that sinks us, and would force him into the lineup more.

quote:

---

yea Rojas doesn't seem like the issue to me. Guy gives great effort and seems to have maybe the best attitude on the team. But interesting nonetheless.

---

It definitely is a pretty big sample, though, so it probably tells something (I agree that it isn't "Rojas is terrible he shouldn't play any"). I bet if you looked deeper you'd see that we either had foul trouble in those games or we gave up 50%+ 2PT shooting % (indicating we were playing soft as shite), and Rojas was plugged more to try and stop the bleeding.

quote:

---

Bad JD is turning it over, and good JD is taking care of it, right?

Our records:
JD with 5+ turnovers: 4-0
JD with 4+ turnovers: 5-1
JD with 3+ turnovers: 12-5
JD with 0-2 turnovers: 7-8
JD with 0-1 turnover: 1-5

---

quote:

---

Well, I submit to you sir, that if that was the strategy, it clearly hasn't worked.

I think Holt and Gary are both better in that role.

I'll give Rojas credit though, he's cut way down on the bulldozing straight ahead into the traffic and dribbling it off his foot turnovers this year.

---

Yea I don't know for sure, but seems that's probably the case.

We better see a hell of a lot of Holt this tournament. He was fantastic against Vanderbilt and down the stretch in general (other than the whole suspended and on TicToc thing).

quote:

---

Bad JD is turning it over, and good JD is taking care of it, right?

Our records:
JD with 5+ turnovers: 4-0
JD with 4+ turnovers: 5-1
JD with 3+ turnovers: 12-5
JD with 0-2 turnovers: 7-8
JD with 0-1 turnover: 1-5

---

With zero analysis to substantiate my theory, I offer this explanation: We win when JD has 3-4-5 TOs because Bama plays best when the offense is "(barely) controlled chaos" - running the court and passing quickly and often - a hectic pace equates to more risks and more TOs - the losses and lower number of TOs - 0-1-2 - occur when the offense is more of a stagnant, half-court game - not aligned w/Bama's style.

quote:

---

With zero analysis to substantiate my theory, I offer this explanation: We win when JD has 3-4-5 TOs because Bama plays best when the offense is "(barely) controlled chaos" - running the court and passing quickly and often - a hectic pace equates to more risks and more TOs - the losses and lower number of TOs - 0-1-2 - occur when the offense is more of a stagnant, half-court game - not aligned w/Bama's style.

---

Agree - I bet his assists are much higher in most of those games too.

The Athletic statistical modeling guys basically take what we've been talking about with Rutgers/Notre Dame and quantify it in what that means for their chances against us. Long story short, they agree that neither is built to exploit our issues.

They have Vermont > Arkansas as more likely than Rutgers/ND > Alabama.

quote:

---

No. 6 Alabama Crimson Tide vs. No. 11 Rutgers Scarlet Knights or Notre Dame Fighting Irish

Upset Chance: 26.1% vs. Rutgers; 22.1% vs. Notre Dame

You know Alabama’s story by now. Wins against Gonzaga, Baylor, Tennessee, Arkansas and Houston. Losses to Iona, Missouri, Georgia and Davidson. That inconsistency alone should set off upset alarm bells. But the Crimson Tide also display some troubling statistical traits: They turn the ball over on 19.8 percent of possessions and allow a 30.7% offensive rebound rate to opponents (280th in the nation).

But do either Rutgers or Notre Dame have the chops to take advantage of those openings? Not really. The Scarlet Knights are a lesser, Big Ten version of Alabama: They beat Purdue, Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois, but lost to DePaul, Lafayette and UMass. They play slow (good for a potential giant-killer), but don’t add much variance in their style: They take only 31.4% of their shots from three-point range, sport a below-average turnover rate on defense, and offensive rebound only slightly better than the national average.

Notre Dame, by contrast, doesn’t think twice about letting it fly from deep (43.1% of shots). But the Irish play a conservative defensive style, forcing turnovers on only 15% of possessions. And they eschew offensive rebounds (22.1%) to get back in transition. So unless they are absolutely locked on from the perimeter, they have no other tools to help build an upset.

A one-in-four chance isn’t awful for Notre Dame or Rutgers. And our new similarity scores give them some hope as well. Three of the 10 games most similar to Alabama/Rutgers ended in an upset, and all took place last year: West Virginia vs. Syracuse; Iowa vs. Oregon; and Texas vs. Abilene Christian. Notre Dame vs. Alabama actually shows four of the 10 most similar games resulting in upsets: Mississippi State vs. Liberty (2019); Vanderbilt vs. Richmond (2011); Iowa vs. Oregon (2021) and Duke vs. Lehigh (2012). Still, our model leans in favor of the Tide, perhaps because it feels a level of kinship with Nate Oats’ analytics-driven approach.

---