Nik Stauskas was 30/81 from three in Big Ten play which equates to 37%, 11th in the country for conference only stats. Nik Stauskas was 50/101 in nonconference for 49.5%, which was ranked in the 40s. As I said, he improved his national ranking, meaning that his falloff was actually better than most people’s. He shot 44% overall in conference play and 48% overall in nonconference. Again, I have no clue where the hell you’re getting your stats because they’re blatantly wrong, but mine are from here: http://kenpom.com/player.php?p=15470
In comparison, Robinson shot 58/105 from three in nonconference for 55% but 37/105 in conference for 35%. He shot 53% overall in nonconference but 39.6% in conference play.
So let’s take a look at the final numbers. From conference to nonconference, Stauskas’ total field goal percentage dropped a whopping 4% and his three point percentage dropped 12%. Duncan Robinson’s field goal percentage dropped 13% and his three point percentage dropped by 20%. Now I’m no mathematician, but I believe a 4% drop is a lot better than 13% and a 12% drop is a lot better than 20%. I’m sorry, LAW, but those are nowhere close to each other. And these kenpom numbers for nonconference account for Stauskas’ bad tournament and Robinson’s good one. If you only count pre-Big Ten play nonconference the numbers are even further in Stauskas’ favor in terms of change.
So no, I think it’s been proven pretty clearly that Robinson’s dip in big ten play is far harsher than anything Stauskas experienced.
@tarverine Did you see those numbers I posted above? From a 3-pt perspective they are almost identical drop offs. Also the ‘rank’ for conference only stats is based on conference, not national.
I just went through the numbers, Dylan. Stauskas had a 12% drop and Robinson had a 20% drop. And yeah, I think you’re right about the rankings after looking further. I’ll stop using those but I think my argument still stands pretty well nonetheless. I think the difference in that drop is more than significant enough to say you can’t compare the 2. I mean Robinson’s was almost double Stauskas’, and that’s not bring total field goal percentage into account, where Robinson’s dropped more than 3 times more than Stauskas did (4% from Stauskas, 13% from Robinson).
As I said, Stauskas was a far more dynamic player as a freshman (and his two point and assist numbers show that).
They both went from making >50% of their threes to being fairly average three-point shooters in the 30s against Big Ten opponents.
Robinson also shot 41% from three against top-100 teams compared to 38% for Stauskas.
Basically I think it is pretty reasonable to say that their three-point shooting as freshmen was very similar. (The difference in their Big Ten numbers would be two more made threes by Robinson in Big Ten play)
I mean sure you can say both shot above 50% and both went below 40%, but that’s over simplifying it. Stauskas’ change was about 12% and Robinson’s was 20%. To me, those are the only numbers that really matter in this topic. And I don’t think there’s any way to spin them to make them seem equal.
I’ve got no dog in this fight, but there is no way in the world that Nik’s conference 3 point percentage, whether 37% as you have it, or just under 35% as LAW has it (could the difference lie in whether BTT games are counted?) was 11th in the country for in-conference 3 point shooting percentages. This would mean that there were between 6 and 10 people in the entire country who shot 40%+ from 3 in-conference. Burke and Hardaway alone shot 40% or more from 3 in-conference that season. There’s something wrong here.
Yeah it wasn’t, that was the conference only ranking like Dylan said. I have discounted that part of the argument but keep my 20% : 12% as all I really need. I’d like to see kenpom have an option for showing the national rankings for conference play.
Interesting you mention those tier A’s and B’s. I was just looking at Kam Chatman’s stats and he had 118.3 ORtg in a decent sample size vs 13 tier A teams yet only a 104.6 ORtg for the year last season. I’m really interested to see how he does at Detroit. Anyways, this is the Robinson thread, so I’ll say this: Kam Chatman is listed at 215 lbs. on mgoblue.com so he’s probably only around 210 but most people were fine with him being a potential 4. Duncan Robinson is listed as the same thing on the site. 5 more lbs of muscle and I might be more open to him at the 4. I never realized how close they were height and weight wise.
Big Ten: 30-81 (regular season): .370. Big Ten tourney: 2-8. Overall: 32-89 (.359).
NCAA tourney: 9-24 (.375), and that includes a 6-6 game.
He scored 3 total points against Syracuse and Louisville. You still think he wasn’t tired by the end of the year, or that he was better than Duncan at the end of this season? Come on.
Hopefully you’re now willing to see you’re wrong about that - Nik’s preseason three point percentage was .565, and his conference percentage was either .370 or .359, depending on whether you’re counting the BTT games (I have no idea why those shouldn’t count). And his NCAA tourney percentage was .375. So yes, Nik’s drop was almost exactly the same as Duncan’s. Right?
First of all, I assume you mean to say nonconference every time you say “preseason”? Secondly, Nik Stauskas shot 50/101 in nonconference play. That is 49.5%. He shot 30/81 in Big Ten play. That is 37%. As I said, I am no mathematician, but to me 12.5% seems to be far less than Duncan’s drop off of 20%. I mean if you have a different opinion on that it’s fine, but it doesn’t really correlate with reality.
Jesus, seriously? You didn’t even look at my source. If you had, it would be obvious why your argument is wrong.
Preseason (in other words, before Big Ten conference play) non-conference games: 39-69 (.565%).
Big Ten tourney: 2-8.
NCAA tourney: 9-24.
That’s how you’re getting the overall 50-101.
My thesis has always been that Nik, like Duncan, got tired once Big Ten play started and that carried over to the rest of the year.
As the stats above show, Nik shot .565% from three before Big Ten play started (and then about .370 thereafter).
So, the dropoff from before Big Ten play (.565%) to everything thereafter (including the BTT and NCAA tourney) was indeed about 20%. That’s the relevant comparison, not adding back in his stats from after_ the Big Ten season, so that his overall non-conference numbers are worse, so that you can then falsely claim a lower spread between those and his conference numbers.
If you can’t understand why your stats don’t work with the argument, I don’t know what to say.
The obvious point, I think, is that both Nik and Duncan were lights out against weak competition, but once the season went on, they faced better teams, got tired, and tailed off (other than Nik’s sensational game against Florida, though to be fair Duncan came up big in the Northwestern BTT game too).
And the key for Nik in his sophomore year, I think, was all the work he did in the weight room during the summer. Hopefully that will be the key for Duncan as well. Both are great shooters, both had to make adjustments to become great Big Ten players. Nik did, Duncan’s ability to do that is to be determined.
One thing about Robinson I find interesting is him vs. Jalen Coleman. I remember Matt saying when we got Duncan how much we’d regret it and how much better Coleman would be overall. [edit: found Matt’s specific posts just for reference].
Who would’ve thought Duncan would blow Coleman out of the water in terms of the efficiency stats. He had a 124 ORtg compared to Coleman’s 106. His TS% was 6% better. His defensive rebound rate was 12.2% while Coleman’s was 7.6%. He had double the assist rate of Coleman with a lower turnvover rate. He shot better than Jalen from both 2P and 3P with the same free throw rate. He had more than twice Coleman’s block rate and around the same steal rate. Obviously there’s the whole defensive factor but I’d say I’m very happy with the choice Beilein made.
I think the problem the Coleman fans can never quite explain is that at his height (6-3), he really isn’t an ideal two guard, and we never saw him as a point. He can shoot, and I think he would be much better playing for us than he was at Illinois, but he wasn’t a no-brainer to the point where it was silly for us to take Robinson and move on. He wasn’t, for example, remotely close to being a Tyus Battle or Josh Langford type of talent. Or at least so it seems thus far.
