Bench points are the new "depth"
- Thread starter clonedlion
- Start date
Bench points will determine how long we last in the NCAA Tourney. That said, we don't need 15-20 combined points every game from MT and NL, but we will run into 1 or 2 games where we will need it in order to advance. I'm willing to bet if we do get beat in the tourney, we will have had less than 15 points off the bench. And there will be numerous comments posted on here that read "if we just could have gotten some bench scoring, we would have won".
Last year in conference games, ISU's bench averaged 17.3 points per game. This year, so far in conference, ISU's bench has averaged 11.7 points per game.
Last year in conferene games, ISU's opponents bench averaged 19.8 points per game. This year so far they have averaged 14.6 points per game.
So in reality, both ISU's and their conference opponents bench scoring have fallen from last year, although ISU's was the larger percentage drop.
It is interesting to note that in 4 of 6 of ISU's losses, ISU's bench has been outscored by the opponent. The two exceptions are the two Kansas games. In both of those games, ISU's bench outscored KU's by 10 to 6. ISU's bench was outscored the most in the WVU (27-15) and yesterday's KSU game.....where they were outscored by an astonishing 38 points to 2.
Last year in conferene games, ISU's opponents bench averaged 19.8 points per game. This year so far they have averaged 14.6 points per game.
So in reality, both ISU's and their conference opponents bench scoring have fallen from last year, although ISU's was the larger percentage drop.
It is interesting to note that in 4 of 6 of ISU's losses, ISU's bench has been outscored by the opponent. The two exceptions are the two Kansas games. In both of those games, ISU's bench outscored KU's by 10 to 6. ISU's bench was outscored the most in the WVU (27-15) and yesterday's KSU game.....where they were outscored by an astonishing 38 points to 2.
That is what I was thinking. The easiest way to get bench points is having one of the big 3 on the bench at the beginning of the game. If they came in at the first whistle, we would lead the league in bench points. I agree with the OP that this is meaningless. We did not lose yesterday because of bench points. We were tied in the game when they were up 32-0 in bench points.
The big problem is not with having guys coming off the bench, but that they guys coming off the bench have been dreadful at times. I am sure that Fred is just as frustrated as the fans are with NL and MT going 1-12 or 0 for 11 in games, especially after watching them make everything in practice all week. Kane is getting frustrated too, as you can see by the way he refuses to give up the ball for the last shot of the half.
I used to think this, too, until I saw Gibson and Edozie play a few minutes in conference games the select times they got the chance. Their abilities are too limited to keep them on the floor for any meaningful length of time. Plus, games that could have been blowouts, like the home match-ups with TCU and Tech, turned out to be too close to put the subs in early, so there haven't been many chances for those two bigs to get playing time.
You guys seem to be confusing balance with depth. Do you watch the NBA at all? The Miami heat are successful because of their big 3 combined with Ray Allen, Birdman, Mike Miller(gone now), Shane Battier, Norris cole, etc. without those extra contributors they would not go all the way!
Every Top 4 seeded team in the tourney will have 3+ guys that could go for 20 on a given night. I don't think depth from a scoring perspective really matters much. Bench scoring was 10-6 in favor of ISU in each of the two games against Kansas but KU won both. ISU doesn't really get in much foul trouble, so they aren't forced to play their bench much. I don't see it as a weakness of ISU. Either your stars shine bright in the tourney or they don't. ISU is good enough to survive a bad game from one of their Big Three but not two (same as every other team). It will be as simple as that.
Proof that stats are totally misleading. Did West Virginia beat ISU because of better bench scoring? No, not at all. They had better bench scoring because the starters gained a huge lead and WV was able to rest them. You can win games without bench scoring just fine.
Every team, every year - with the possible exception of some 1 seeds - has weaknesses. It is unreasonable to expect a 3 or 4 seed Iowa State team to be without weaknesses. If they were, they would be a 1 seed.
Every team in the country has holes this year. As a KU fan I think we have tons of depth but we don't have a point guard so we could get beat any night. I think you guys have 2 point guards better than any one we have. Going to be an interesting tourney, maybe a record number of upsets.
Draw an arbitrary line after your top 5 and ISU won't match up well in terms of points scored.
Draw an arbitrary line and look at the top 3 scorers, and ISU is the best in the country.
Draw an arbitrary line and look at the top 3 scorers, and ISU is the best in the country.
Also, draw an arbitrary line at the bottom of NCAA rosters and ISU fares better than all but 6 other Div 1 teams in scoring.
2013-14 NCAA Division I College Basketball Team Statistics - ESPN
You can only put 5 players on the court at a time. Depth is great when you have injuries or foul trouble. But without context, points off the bench is worthless information. IMO, if the team improves their FT shooting, this is a non-issue in most games.
I agree on principal, but why don't you use any advanced metrics in your analysis?
You cite "40 instances where a bench scored 25+ points for their team." Shouldn't that be points per possession?
Because he is arguing against the stats that are always cited by talking heads. Specifically when ISU loses and Long and Thomas don't shoot well.
Plus teams that play each other in game will have very similar possession statistics obviously so that would be pretty negligible I would guess.
