Good question.  I'm glad I asked.

In conference games, Ohio's O-PPP is 1.08.  Western Michigan is second at 1.05.  That gap between first and second is as big as the gap between second and seventh.

We are first in effective field goal percentage, first in true shooting percentage, first in points per weighted shot, second in free throw rate (how often we get to the line), second in free throw production (how much of our points come at the line), and fifth in turnover rate (just a tick behind CMU).

Since the Bowling Green loss, they've been held to less than 1 O-PPP exactly once... and they won that game (Ball State).

In January: Buffalo first at 1.05 O-PPP, BG and Ohio tied for second at 1.02.
In February: 1.12 O-PPP.  Akron is second at 1.10, Miami and Buffalo tied at 1.08.

I don't know of more customizable ways to break them down.

Give it up Monroe.  If you don't think stats are insightful and can be an indication of future success/failure...That's just not being a good accountant.  Of course where the stats point us doesn't always end up being the end result.  Of course what actually happens on the court is all that matters.  But it's still a worthy discussion in the days leading up to a matchup, and an alaysis of a game's results.  It's amazing you even want to participate in message board discussion, given that you look down upon statistics, predictions, rankings, happenings of recruits we are pursuing, etc, etc. 

Agree with Andrew Ruck on this.  Statistics are a valuable indicator, but certainly not an ironclad predictor of performance.  

Coaches use them all the time to assist in game preparation.

The stats showed that Miami has not played its usual good defense this year.  However, Miami stepped up and played a very good defensive game last night.  That does not invalidate the stats from the rest of the season.

Where I disagreed with Dragon was his analysis that Miami is due to regress to the mean.  I made the point that perhaps there are elements in Miami's performance which have not been captured by available data.  And that Miami had perhaps gone 10-5 in the MAC due to some intangibles...such as guys stepping up at key times, guys reaching critical mass in their abilities quickly and stepping up and bringing Miami back from large deficits late.

Monroe, I have to agree with Ruck that a CPA can't possibly discount the role of statistics.  I think you must be exaggerating for effect.  

Why do you think you can lump yourself in with Bornacatfan? 

You really don't think he takes stats into consideration at all? He has a kenpom.com chart tattooed on his signature.

He has been watching basketball games at all levels for years. You seemingly watch a handful of games every year. The two of you are not the same.

There's a worn-out adage that "figures can lie and liars can figure." The first part of the equation frequently applies to sports (the second, more often to the "spin" of the business world).

It's true that the only stats that are "iron-clad" are the final score. Yet even they arguably lie sometimes in the minds of someone who insists the team with the winning score was just flat-out frigging lucky -- which also is called "sour grapes."

Those are the qualifiers, the disclaimers, for my "two cents worth" to this discussion.  Back in a different lifetime when I did something different for a living than I do now and there was neither a shot clock nor a three-point FG (except in Abe Saperstein's ABL/ABA), Jim Dutcher was a college coach with whom I had a professional association. It was he who introduced me to the concept of Points Per Possession as a key measurement leading to basketball success or failure. What I wish I could remember through the hazy of some four decades is what he considered the target number.  

But to Dragon's point, it's a terrific figure which, of course, results from all kinds of other stats -- shooting percentage, offensive rebounds, free throw percentage, and turnovers.

What I found interesting in Dutcher's stat world was that not all turnover-like actions were turnovers. He defined a turnover as relinquishing the basketball without having put up some kind of shot that would have counted had it gone in. Floor mistakes or whatever that occurred during a continuing possession (following a shot) were not TOs in his book.  And when you think about the game as a series of possessions, his viewpoint is interesting. Because it's conceivable to have a possession during which you score and are fouled, shoot and miss a FT but get the rebound and a put-back on which you are fouled again, miss the FT and get the rebound, then travel.  Is it really a TO when you scored four points on the possession?!

Know that's off the point of this string, but an interesting thought.

I believe that he posted his opinion in all three threads.  And what I posted were not attacks.   They were good-natured responses to his strong opinions.  My posts had some level of analysis and reasoning.  My posts were in the realm.   The responses to me were not, were personally venomous.

Did anything that I posted come close to the level of 'you're an ignorant moron'?  Even if many of you don't like me, at some point it is not okay to respond with a broadside slam and no hint of decency or the usual engagement and courtesy shown to most posters here.

And even greater credence to it being an Ohio home game in Oxford.