We are no longer good at Pinnacle Bank Arena

[PimpMario]

2013-2014 15-1

2014-2015 10-6

2015-2016 10-8

2016-2017 8-7

 

Our final home game is against Michigan; who we haven't beaten in B1G play.

 

If we lose we will be .500 at home. Yuck.

 

After a magical start going 15-1, it might be time to admit we don't have a home court advantage.

 

Thoughout the collier and Sadler years I always felt when we were at home we had a better shot to win, I no longer feel that way.

 

[NoladrianSephier]

Yes because not a season went by that when the Kansas Jayhawks came into town in the early- to mid- 2000's I didn't think: "This is a 50-50 game at worst."

Edited February 27, 2017 by NoladrianSephier

[AuroranHusker]

Nebrasketball was a pretty darn good team in the 1st year of the Vault. Since, it's been a crapshoot as to when the Huskers shoot the ball well.

[PimpMario]

Yes because not a season went by that when the Kansas Jayhawks came into town in the early- to mid- 2000's I didn't think: "This is a 50-50 game at worst."

Actually yes, whenever Kansas came to town I thought we had a much better chance at the Bob than we did at Allen.

Right now I don't feel like we have a home court advantage.

It is disheartening to keep making the the to and from Lincoln and thinking that it doesn't matter.

[hskr4life]

One could actually argue that we've played better on the road than at home this year...

 

UCLA, Dayton, VA Tech, KU, Clemson, Maryland, Indiana...

 

That bodes well for the Big 10 tourney though... if there is a silver lining.

[jason2486]

This probably doesn't mean much, but I'd be curious to see how our shooting percentages compared in the BOB compared to PBA. Since we always practiced in the BOB, I'm gonna guess we shot better there. Now obviously other teams do like us and have a practice facility and aren't always in their arena. Just throwing ideas out there as to why we struggle to shoot at home so much sometimes.

[PimpMario]

This probably doesn't mean much, but I'd be curious to see how our shooting percentages compared in the BOB compared to PBA. Since we always practiced in the BOB, I'm gonna guess we shot better there. Now obviously other teams do like us and have a practice facility and aren't always in their arena. Just throwing ideas out there as to why we struggle to shoot at home so much sometimes.

They is an interesting thought. I am not sure there is a way to do that. But you might be on to something. Practicing where you play can be valuable.

[uneblinstu]

I just did a quick survey of shooting percentages this century, just shooting percentage, not broken down by home or road or anything like that. I'm finding a strong correlation between NU having higher shooting percentages with the years they've had their best shooters. I think that's the bigger issue.

 

For instance, in the four seasons, including this one at PBA, their best shooting percentage, by about 20 points was the one that had HWSNBN III on it.

 

Get better shooters.

Edited February 27, 2017 by uneblinstu

[HuskerFever]

4 hours ago, PimpMario said:

They is an interesting thought. I am not sure there is a way to do that. But you might be on to something. Practicing where you play can be valuable.

 

 

Take it for what it's worth, but here's some numbers for you:

 

FG% for ALL games (2006 thru today):

Home: 45.06%

Away: 41.49%

Neut: 43.22%

Correlation: 22.79%

 

FG% for ONLY PBA era games (2013 thru today):

Home: 43.98%

Away: 41.20%

Neut: 42.37%

Correlation: 21.67%

 

FG% for ONLY BOB era games (2006 thru 2013):

Home: 45.65%

Away: 41.67%

Neut: 44.08%

Correlation: 23.35%

[jason2486]

3 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Take it for what it's worth, but here's some numbers for you:

 

FG% for ALL games (2006 thru today):

Home: 45.06%

Away: 41.49%

Neut: 43.22%

Correlation: 22.79%

 

FG% for ONLY PBA era games (2013 thru today):

Home: 43.98%

Away: 41.20%

Neut: 42.37%

Correlation: 21.67%

 

FG% for ONLY BOB era games (2006 thru 2013):

Home: 45.65%

Away: 41.67%

Neut: 44.08%

Correlation: 23.35%

Thanks for doing the homework!

[PimpMario]

 
Take it for what it's worth, but here's some numbers for you:
 
FG% for ALL games (2006 thru today):
Home: 45.06%
Away: 41.49%
Neut: 43.22%
Correlation: 22.79%
 
FG% for ONLY PBA era games (2013 thru today):
Home: 43.98%
Away: 41.20%
Neut: 42.37%
Correlation: 21.67%
 
FG% for ONLY BOB era games (2006 thru 2013):
Home: 45.65%
Away: 41.67%
Neut: 44.08%
Correlation: 23.35%

So we really are bad at PBA...

[colhusker]

4 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Take it for what it's worth, but here's some numbers for you:

 

FG% for ALL games (2006 thru today):

Home: 45.06%

Away: 41.49%

Neut: 43.22%

Correlation: 22.79%

 

FG% for ONLY PBA era games (2013 thru today):

Home: 43.98%

Away: 41.20%

Neut: 42.37%

Correlation: 21.67%

 

FG% for ONLY BOB era games (2006 thru 2013):

Home: 45.65%

Away: 41.67%

Neut: 44.08%

Correlation: 23.35%

Guessing those are NOT significantly different

[HuskerFever]

56 minutes ago, colhusker said:

Guessing those are NOT significantly different

 

Valid concern. It's showing that the p-values are under 0.05 (statistically significant) for home/away/neutral FG%. Rather interesting, but keep in mind that the r-squared values are low as well (explaining the variability).

 

In layman's terms: statistically you can call the home/away/neutral FG% results significant, but it doesn't explain a large portion of the variability between those games. Of course coaches, players, conferences, teams, etc. are all factors that aren't captured that would be needed to explain this variance.

[colhusker]

4 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

Valid concern. It's showing that the p-values are under 0.05 (statistically significant) for home/away/neutral FG%. Rather interesting, but keep in mind that the r-squared values are low as well (explaining the variability).

 

In layman's terms: statistically you can call the home/away/neutral FG% results significant, but it doesn't explain a large portion of the variability between those games. Of course coaches, players, conferences, teams, etc. are all factors that aren't captured that would be needed to explain this variance.

As a scientist, I understood what you said

[AuroranHusker]

Have good shooters on the roster, and NU will shoot better. It's rather simple math, in my opinion...

 

 

[HuskerFever]

Here's an interesting visual to wrap your heads around:

 

 

Home FG% seems to be trending downward over the years. Take neutral courts as you will (few data points per year might skew FG%s). Away FG% seems to be a lot more consistent than home FG%. On top of that, we seem to have become less dependent on court location for FG% over the last two seasons. For years 2010-2011, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 we saw positive increases from the previous year.

 

Just imagine where we'd be this year if our FG% was where it was a year ago (1.26% better at home, 5.66% better neutral, 3.30% better away, and 2.56% overall). That would result in 20 more points at home, 20 more points at a neutral site, 38 more points on the road (equating to 78 more points overall) so far this year. Either way, we're on pace to finish out this season with Miles' 2nd or 3rd best FG% team during his tenure at Nebraska.

[PimpMario]

I don't understand the shooter comments. We recruit shooters but when they get on campus they can't shoot.

[AuroranHusker]

1 hour ago, PimpMario said:

I don't understand the shooter comments. We recruit shooters but when they get on campus they can't shoot.

 

What's difficult to understand? They might have been way better than their competition in H.S. but this is big-time basketball now in the B1G. Any hitch is magnified. Bottom line: Good shooters shoot good, on any level.

[colhusker]

6 hours ago, PimpMario said:

I don't understand the shooter comments. We recruit shooters but when they get on campus they can't shoot.

Look at Tim Tebow, kid was lights out at the college level but to follow up on AruoranHusker's comment, he had a delivery that worked against college leve DBs, however NFL level defensive backs could feast on it.

[hhcmatt]

7 hours ago, PimpMario said:

I don't understand the shooter comments. We recruit shooters but when they get on campus they can't shoot.

 

In general terms (very generalized here) an elite athlete/shooter/scorer is a 5 star. We don't have those. A 4 star might have two of those attributes. We don't necessarily recruit a ton of guys where their number one skill is shooting.

 

Potentially Palmer and Nana fit that bill. Hopefully Copeland does.

Maybe Jeriah though I'd label more of a scorer. I don't know that we recruited Jack as a shooter though that is his primary function.

 

Watson's becoming a very good shooter, it's not his #1 skill. Tai has worked his way into a serviceable shooter...but it's never been his strength.

Everyone else? Nope.

 

The thing with Palmer, Copeland, and Nana is that all their scouting reports list "shooting" first when talking about strengths so I think there is valid hope that next year we can bring in enough shooting to complement our scoring and defense.

[hhcmatt]

8 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

Here's an interesting visual to wrap your heads around:

 

 

Home FG% seems to be trending downward over the years. Take neutral courts as you will (few data points per year might skew FG%s). Away FG% seems to be a lot more consistent than home FG%. On top of that, we seem to have become less dependent on court location for FG% over the last two seasons. For years 2010-2011, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 we saw positive increases from the previous year.

 

Just imagine where we'd be this year if our FG% was where it was a year ago (1.26% better at home, 5.66% better neutral, 3.30% better away, and 2.56% overall). That would result in 20 more points at home, 20 more points at a neutral site, 38 more points on the road (equating to 78 more points overall) so far this year. Either way, we're on pace to finish out this season with Miles' 2nd or 3rd best FG% team during his tenure at Nebraska.

 

Is this just Nebraska's FG%?

Also, if you're talking straight FG% and not eFG% you aren't accurate on your 78 points overall. We're starting to trend down to one of Miles' worst teams in terms of eFG% but not a complete disaster like 2015-16 because of all the offensive rebounds we get. How many of Jordy's offensive rebounds come from his own missed shot(s)? Between Jordy throwing the ball at the backboard and Jacobson's near refusal to shoot anything near the rim besides jumpers and sky hooks we're a poor 2pt shooting squad in addition to a poor 3pt shooting squad.

[Silverbacked1]

Soooo what you's guys is say'n is we need to get more guys who make the ball go inside the ring rather than the outside.

 

Cool 

[HuskerFever]

41 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Is this just Nebraska's FG%?

Also, if you're talking straight FG% and not eFG% you aren't accurate on your 78 points overall. We're starting to trend down to one of Miles' worst teams in terms of eFG% but not a complete disaster like 2015-16 because of all the offensive rebounds we get. How many of Jordy's offensive rebounds come from his own missed shot(s)? Between Jordy throwing the ball at the backboard and Jacobson's near refusal to shoot anything near the rim besides jumpers and sky hooks we're a poor 2pt shooting squad in addition to a poor 3pt shooting squad.

 

This is just Nebraska's FG%. The eFG% is certainly concerning. Here's a look at our average FGM and FGA per game:

 

	FGM Avg per Game	FGA Avg per Game
2006-2007	22.43	49.07
2007-2008	23.94	52.39
2008-2009	22.23	50.68
2009-2010	23.27	52.88
2010-2011	24.16	52.41
2011-2012	21.73	50.70
2012-2013	21.45	52.76
2013-2014	22.47	52.63
2014-2015	21.42	52.03
2015-2016	25.97	58.12
2016-2017	25.61	60.79

 

As you noted, our FG attempts have been at their highest these last two years. Average FGM between 2006-2014 was 22.57 and FGA were 51.73 during that same timeframe.

[hhcmatt]

1 minute ago, HuskerFever said:

As you noted, our FG attempts have been at their highest these last two years. Average FGM between 2006-2014 was 22.57 and FGA were 51.73 during that same timeframe.

 

I'm not sure how much you can attribute that to our offensive rebounding uptick vs the shot clock change from 35 to 30. The last two years we've been playing at a Collier Tempo as opposed to a Sadler Tempo.

[AuroranHusker]

1 hour ago, Silverbacked1 said:

Soooo what you's guys is say'n is we need to get more guys who make the ball go inside the ring rather than the outside.

 

Cool 

 

That would be a very, very, very good idea.