"A team that uses 28 seconds of the shot clock and allows 55 PPG vs a team that uses 20 seconds of the shot clock and allows 55 PPG... That's a huge difference that prior to more evolved analytics sites, that difference wasn't common knowledge."
Yes it is a huge difference BUT 100% wrong that it wasn't common knowledge! Any coach or knowledgeable fan worth his salt can see the difference between a team that holds the ball to limit possessions and a team that limits scoring by playing suffocating D! Holding the ball was designed to cover up either a defensive, athletic, or matchup deficiency. It shortens the game and highlights execution over skill or depth! Nothing wrong with figuring it out either way, but we definitely don't need the advanced analytics to figure it out! AND doesn't the algorithm assume all home sites provide the same advantage? This is obviously false! I get how the metrics are fascinating/informative for some, but I just don't need them! I need plain stats like FT/FG %, turnovers, fouls, etc. The most advanced stat I pay attention to is Points per Possession, lol. But I don't ever need to know what OE or DE even mean! Don't get me started on Ortg or whatever! I can analyze stats, even advanced ones since data analysis is a huge part of my job, but I just don't see them adding value in sports for me!
Offensive efficiency is basically the same as points-per-possession. But instead of points per one possession, OE and DE are points per 100 possessions. Adjusted is adjusted to the quality of the opponent. But they're basically the same thing.
I don't think any of the reputable advanced metric sites factor in Ortg or Drtg in their team rankings.
Also, sure it's different playing at Kansas vs playing at Western Illinois. I'm guessing he took the totality of the 300+ home courts in the country and found a median point that made sense in his formula. Sure there are home courts that may provide you 3 points, which is on the high end. There are others that provide you 0 points of advantage. So I'm guessing that's where he came to a number somewhere in between. I don't think that's ridiculously unreasonable. Also, everyone's perception of homecourt might be different too.
It's also been somewhat proven that field goal percentage is a stat that's far less meaningful unless you know the complete context. For example, when UNC lost to Duke in 2012. UNC shot 49% from the field and Duke shot 43% overall. But the field goal percentages were basically irrelevant because Duke made 14/36 3s and UNC shot 1/6 from 3. When you are out 3'd to that level, it makes the field goal percentage far less meaningful.
I will say I think analytics has taken a lot of the mystery out of sports. But I don't blame analytics for that. Analytics discovered in baseball that strikeouts aren't the worst thing in baseball offensively and there's really no difference between a strikeout and a popout. One just looks worse on the box score because you don't categorize a pop out in the box score. Also, oftentimes, a strikeout is a much more productive out than grounding into a double play. But unfortunately that has turned baseball into a 3 outcome sport and I don't think that's necessarily good for that sport. But that's not the fault of analytics. That's the fault of the sport.
I'm not a particularly big fan of basketball becoming a 3PT shooting contest. But again, not really the fault of analytics. If you have a shot that's worth 50% more, that better become a main weapon in your offense.
But back to the main point of this thread. The preseason polls are all meaningless. But I don't think it's a bad thing to get some attention paid of college basketball. If that means KenPom throws up their preseason poll, then fine. Who cares? It will be decided on the court anyways.
www.kpbs.org
