Best posts made by tundrahok
RE: 100 Reasons Why Landen Made the Charity Tosses
@Fightsongwriter Make that 200!
“I knew that was back-to-back games where I didn’t make clutch free throws,” said Lucas. “In the tournament, we might lose a game because of that. I figured I had to stay in the gym until I hit a couple hundred. It was more than 200. It was a lot. I was in there until I felt confident moving forward.”
That’s senior leadership.
RE: END OF THE YEAR KU BUCKETS - (I WAS WRONG LIST)
@wissoxfan83 I disagree. I think @drgnslayr is the most interesting man in the world.
At KU, his majors were sailing, cigar appreciation, and the tango.
His two cents are worth thirty-seven dollars and change.
You can see his charisma from space.
He’s a lover, not a fighter; but he’s a fighter too, so don’t get any ideas.
RE: O' Chubby Ankles
I suspect that was the plan from the beginning. He would be here for one year. Both sides agreed, and made plans accordingly.
Certainly a different way of thinking about commitment. A one-year scholarship offer? But if that’s the understanding on both sides from the beginning, then they are just following through with the plan. Doesn’t mean he was kicked off the team. His one-year offer expired.
RE: State lawmaker says Kansas unlikely to pass law allowing college athletes to profit through endorsements
Tuition & fees at KU for out-of-state students is $28,239.
Maybe they should get more, but student-athletes on full scholarship aren’t getting nothing.
RE: KU Sports - Nov 1 - Bedore on KU #5 and Henry / Rush updates
KUsports is still the best source of information on Ku sports. The articles are generally quite good, the staff is dedicated and insightful. I’ll keep reading, and I may even post there occasionally. But it’s not what it was.
KUsports in 2013 is Roy Williams in 2003. We had a beautiful thing, and a decision was made that ended it. I appreciate everything Roy did for the university and KU basketball. I understand why he made his decision, and even though I was hurt and disappointed, I wish him the best.
But it sure was nice to beat him in the tournament. Twice. And it was kind of nice to see that the number of posts here during the game Tuesday quadrupled the number at KUsports.
Here’s hoping that this site will be Bill Self, making us all feel better about Roy’s decision. Indications are good so far.
RE: Fool's Gold - Who Knew?
@HighEliteMajor I agree it’s the attempts, but it’s really the expected value per attempt, and the variance in that expected value, that matter.
The expected value of a shot attempt is the probability a shot goes in times the number of points it produces. In general, a 2-point shot has a higher probability of going in, but nets fewer points. In the regular season we made 190/496 3-point attempts (38.3%) for an expected value of 1.15 points per shot. We made 568/1224 2-point attempts (46.4%) for an expected value of 0.93 points per shot. Clearly, on average, a 3-point attempt is more likely to produce more points.
However, those expected values also vary game to game. We played 31 games and in 20 of those games each 3 point attempt netted more points than each 2-point attempt (points per shot). But in the other 11 games, when the long shots weren’t falling, each 2-point shot earned more than each 3 point attempt.
It’s an issue of variance, which is often overlooked when percentages are bandied about in sports contexts. Game by game, there’s more variability in our 3-point percentage than our 2-point percentage. That greater variability suggests the 3 is less consistent/predictable/reliable than the 2. The variance is higher for the 3. Specifically, the coefficient of variation (st dev/mean) over 31 games this season is 39% for our 3-point percentage and 22% for our 2-point percentage. The variance in shot percentage was nearly twice as high for the 3 than the 2 (0.020 vs 0.011), and the variance in expected points per shot was over 4 times as high (0.183 vs 0.042).
I think that’s what Coach Self means by fool’s gold. You can’t rely on the 3 as predictably. It’s more risky. On average it can lead to higher success. But it can kill you in a single game if you count on shooting your average and it just happens to be a night where you’re shooting the low end of the range of percentages. In a single-elimination tournament a good team may be better off with a less risky strategy, one with lower variance.