Bench points are the new "depth"
- Thread starter clonedlion
- Start date
I think I just figured out my own question. Kirk has said previously that he doesn't have access to possession level stats, which would be needed to calculate points per possession for bench players. Also, your first point is valid too. Touche.
I don't know man. When the team with the bench scoring advantage has a winning record in every scenario, it's kind of hard to say it has no influence.
Bench scoring can be important, but it is not necessary.
Our bench not scoring doesn't matter if it happens because our starters are getting all the shots. It matters when Naz Long goes 0/8, and he just happens to come off the bench.
Last year we relied on McGee. We relied on our starters to score a lot less because that was our team makeup.
No, I can do possession level as needed but for one it is a lot more work to sort out and it doesn't matter in a single game scenario between two teams where the number of possessions between them cannot vary by more than one possession.
I don't know, I'd expect roughly the same overall results though I suspect ISU scored better from bench players last year. Tyrus McGee.
Winning more games than losing isn't enough to suggest a correlation. The baseline here is a .500 win percentage. So, going 22-17 when your bench outscores your opponent's bench is just a swing of a couple of games and as I said, useless when it comes to correlating the bench scoring with wins and losses.
Your first sentence is spot on IMO. I just think all good (tournament) teams are going to have at least 3 very good starters and then fill in with guys like Hogue or Morris who provide parts of the game. Getting some bench scoring then makes you a really tough team to beat. How many games that we lost do we win if Naz or Thomas gets us just a few more points? How many close wins were aided greatly by Thomas and/or Naz producing? Again, you don't need a bench to win a lot of games but I don't agree with the idea that it doesn't matter. No question that starters are WAY more important. That's not my argument. If this guys has a guy like McGee, we are probably one of the best 5 teams in the country and perhaps the best.
When you mention the number of games that could've been won with Matt and Naz scoring more...
The point is that it doesn't matter who scores more. That's why citing raw bench points like it matters is useless. Not that it can't help or be a plus. But when it comes to wins and losses it doesn't matter if the bench scores those points or the starters. I suspect the win - loss correlation with starter scoring is a direct reflection of the best players on each team scoring well.
Exactly, Khaal. There is no advantage of having your 6th man averaging 10 more PPG or having your 3rd man avg 10 more PPG.
Last year our offensive production was spread out among starters and then McGee added a bunch off the bench.
This year our scoring is very high among our top 3 players and then spread out across the rest of our role players.
An arbitrary line at the bench doesn't mean anything, just like you can't judge how good a team is off of how much their #1 scorer scores, or how much their #4 scorer scores.
And as for the correlation, I would guess it simply is correlated to more points scored in the game for that team. The more points you score, the more likely you are to have more bench points. Obviously the more points you score the higher your chance to win.
The reverse holds true the opposite way. The less points you score total, the less bench points you are likely to have.
This is all on average, of course.
Last edited: