A defense of Boo Buie

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Like many NU fans last year, I was disappointed in the play of Boo Buie...
However, I have gradually revised my thinking as I looked deeper into the statistics.

Using these definitions "illogical lineups" means "Young without a power forward (Beran or Nance) OR "Nance with Beran"
The "logical lineups" consisted of "Young with either Beran or Nance" OR "Nance, Kopp and 3 guards."
My prior analysis was unfairly critical of the guards who played the most minutes in the illogical lineups.

It turns out that Boo Buie only played 37% of his minutes with lineups that made tactical sense. Buie won with the logical lineups at a 70-63.9 rate.
With Logical Lineups...
Buie 37.6% 70.0 - 63.9
Berry 41.4% 65.5 - 60.4
Audige 49.7% 68.9 - 67.4
Gaines 51.9% 66.1 - 67.4
Greer 44.3% 58.7 - 69.5

From this perspective it is clear that Buie and Berry are above average Big Ten caliber talent, when deployed properly.
Players perform poorly when they are put in a losing situation - every guard but Gaines was unnecessarily put in a losing situation most of the time.

When the guards were part of illogical lineups, the numbers looked like this...
Buie 62.4% 61.7 - 73.7
Berry 58.6% 62.9 - 77.0
Audige 50.3% 59.8 - 80.9
Gaines 48.1% 57.9 - 75.8
Greer 55.7% 67.3 - 76.6

It would be easy to conclude that all of our guards were terrible, based on how they performed, mostly as part of bad lineups.
Audige was especially terrible when the lineup was illogical.
However, that approach ignores the reality that the guy who chooses the lineups is the primary determinant of the results.
And to me it explains why Boo Buie had a frown on his face most of the year.
But, to be clear, last year it was Buie, Berry, Audige, Gaines, Greer, in that order.

 

[SDakaGordie]

Like many NU fans last year, I was disappointed in the play of Boo Buie...
However, I have gradually revised my thinking as I looked deeper into the statistics.

Using these definitions "illogical lineups" means "Young without a power forward (Beran or Nance) OR "Nance with Beran"
The "logical lineups" consisted of "Young with either Beran or Nance" OR "Nance, Kopp and 3 guards."
My prior analysis was unfairly critical of the guards who played the most minutes in the illogical lineups.

It turns out that Boo Buie only played 37% of his minutes with lineups that made tactical sense. Buie won with the logical lineups at a 70-63.9 rate.
With Logical Lineups...
Buie 37.6% 70.0 - 63.9
Berry 41.4% 65.5 - 60.4
Audige 49.7% 68.9 - 67.4
Gaines 51.9% 66.1 - 67.4
Greer 44.3% 58.7 - 69.5

From this perspective it is clear that Buie and Berry are above average Big Ten caliber talent, when deployed properly.
Players perform poorly when they are put in a losing situation - every guard but Gaines was unnecessarily put in a losing situation most of the time.

When the guards were part of illogical lineups, the numbers looked like this...
Buie 62.4% 61.7 - 73.7
Berry 58.6% 62.9 - 77.0
Audige 50.3% 59.8 - 80.9
Gaines 48.1% 57.9 - 75.8
Greer 55.7% 67.3 - 76.6

It would be easy to conclude that all of our guards were terrible, based on how they performed, mostly as part of bad lineups.
Audige was especially terrible when the lineup was illogical.
However, that approach ignores the reality that the guy who chooses the lineups is the primary determinant of the results.
And to me it explains why Boo Buie had a frown on his face most of the year.
But, to be clear, last year it was Buie, Berry, Audige, Gaines, Greer, in that order.

Some thoughts / questions:

1) I’d be very surprised if any coach put out lineups that always were a net positive. I guess you’d have to look at the spread between good and bad lineups by team to see if ours was larger.

2) Isn’t it possible that our logical lineups were influenced moreso by the guards, and not just that Young or Nance/Kopp played?

3) Wouldn’t we have to discount a good portion of the season where the data is building and the coach is learning? No coach could predict a sub-optimal lineup in advance or right away. That makes the data on which you are basing these conclusions much less credible than they already are.

 

[xxxbobxxx]

Some thoughts / questions:

1) I’d be very surprised if any coach put out lineups that always were a net positive. I guess you’d have to look at the spread between good and bad lineups by team to see if ours was larger.

2) Isn’t it possible that our logical lineups were influenced moreso by the guards, and not just that Young or Nance/Kopp played?

3) Wouldn’t we have to discount a good portion of the season where the data is building and the coach is learning? No coach could predict a sub-optimal lineup in advance or right away. That makes the data on which you are basing these conclusions much less credible than they already are.

On #3 - isn’t that what they are paid to do. Doesn’t practice and exhibition games give some insight. How many games does a good coach need to evaluate this information. Periods because all are rhetorical questions.

 

[CSCatFan1]

On #3 - isn’t that what they are paid to do. Doesn’t practice and exhibition games give some insight. How many games does a good coach need to evaluate this information. Periods because all are rhetorical questions.

Bob Groseth knew after one practice.

 

[GatoLouco]

Some thoughts / questions:

1) I’d be very surprised if any coach put out lineups that always were a net positive. I guess you’d have to look at the spread between good and bad lineups by team to see if ours was larger.

2) Isn’t it possible that our logical lineups were influenced moreso by the guards, and not just that Young or Nance/Kopp played?

3) Wouldn’t we have to discount a good portion of the season where the data is building and the coach is learning? No coach could predict a sub-optimal lineup in advance or right away. That makes the data on which you are basing these conclusions much less credible than they already are.

I never did any analysis like PWB did. Eye test told me a long, long time ago Young should be playing more. Forget +/-, rebounding should tell you something. Also the fact we don't have much in the form of slashers and should, therefore, be putting the ball inside more.

BTW, I love numbers. I work with numbers. One of my kids once said "dad loves mathematicals and statisticals"

 

[The Purple Knight]

The stats are great and interesting, but Boo is incredibly streaky and is a loose ball handler and takes too many bad shots. Good guy off the bench, but IMO don’t want him on the floor in crunch time.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

The stats are great and interesting, but Boo is incredibly streaky and is a loose ball handler and takes too many bad shots. Good guy off the bench, but IMO don’t want him on the floor in crunch time.

This is a valid observation and I admit that it feels the same way to me. I have offered my opinion like others who suffered thru last season. Basically "Buie sucks."

All I'm saying now is that it looks like Buie got stuck playing in the bad lineups more than any other player, so the eye test has to adjust for that. He was remarkably effective when he was out there with Young and Nance, or Young and Beran and especially that "Nance, Kopp and 3 guards" lineup.

So one could easily argue that Buie's streakiness was somewhat a product of Collins' flipping back and forth between "good lineups" and "bad lineups." You can say the same thing about Audige.

I will concede that Buie lost the Big Ten tournament game against Minnesota. He missed a 3 pointer, fouled a 3 point shooter and turned the ball over to turn a 46-43 lead into a 51-46 loss, while playing with Nance, Young, Kopp and Audige.

However, and importantly, the "good lineups" had outscored Minnesota 25-16 in about 15 minutes, while the "bad lineups" had been outscored 27-21 in about 22 minutes prior to Buie's meltdown. By using his players ineffectively, Collins put us in position to lose that game and we did.

 

[willycat]

This is a valid observation and I admit that it feels the same way to me. I have offered my opinion like others who suffered thru last season. Basically "Buie sucks."

All I'm saying now is that it looks like Buie got stuck playing in the bad lineups more than any other player, so the eye test has to adjust for that. He was remarkably effective when he was out there with Young and Nance, or Young and Beran and especially that "Nance, Kopp and 3 guards" lineup.

So one could easily argue that Buie's streakiness was somewhat a product of Collins' flipping back and forth between "good lineups" and "bad lineups." You can say the same thing about Audige.

I will concede that Buie lost the Big Ten tournament game against Minnesota. He missed a 3 pointer, fouled a 3 point shooter and turned the ball over to turn a 46-43 lead into a 51-46 loss, while playing with Nance, Young, Kopp and Audige.

However, and importantly, the "good lineups" had outscored Minnesota 25-16 in about 15 minutes, while the "bad lineups" had been outscored 27-21 in about 22 minutes prior to Buie's meltdown. By using his players ineffectively, Collins put us in position to lose that game and we did.

REALLY AND HOW MANY SHOTS DID COLLINS MISS?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Some thoughts / questions:

1) I’d be very surprised if any coach put out lineups that always were a net positive. I guess you’d have to look at the spread between good and bad lineups by team to see if ours was larger.

2) Isn’t it possible that our logical lineups were influenced moreso by the guards, and not just that Young or Nance/Kopp played?

3) Wouldn’t we have to discount a good portion of the season where the data is building and the coach is learning? No coach could predict a sub-optimal lineup in advance or right away. That makes the data on which you are basing these conclusions much less credible than they already are.

I think the coach has to understand which lineups are generally productive and which aren't.
It is hard for me to accept that Collins couldn't see that "Young, Kopp and 3 guards" was getting pummeled. It was obvious in our 2nd conference game, the 74-67 win over Indiana, where they got outscored 30-23.
In the 3rd game they held their own, losing 15-14 vs Ohio State.
In the 4th game (Iowa), Young, Kopp and 3 guards got beat 33-23.
In the 5th game (Michigan), they got crushed 34-16
in the 6th game (Illinois) they lost 14-9.
In the 7th game (Ohio State), they got smoked 26-14.
In the 8th game (Iowa), they got crushed 20-11.

Thats 7 games and an aggregate beatdown of 172-110.
Collins used Young with Nance or Beran for a paltry 36 minutes in those 7 games.
Young and Nance managed a 23-19 win in a whopping 11 minutes.
Young and Beran lost 53-52 in 25 minutes.

So Young specifically was being put in a position to fail.
I don't see how anyone could reach a different conclusion.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

REALLY AND HOW MANY SHOTS DID COLLINS MISS?

How many shots did Collins make?
Do you understand why your comment is nonsense?
His job is to maximize his team's chance of winning.

 

[xxxbobxxx]

REALLY AND HOW MANY SHOTS DID COLLINS MISS?

GET OFF MY LAWN!!! I’M NOT YELLING, I JUST DONT KNOW HOW TO USE THE SHIFT KEY AND ALL SMALL LETTERS MAKES ME FEEL LIKE A CHILD.

 

[SimpsonElmwood]

Doesn't it matter who's on the floor playing against these lineups? I think Berry will have a good year in 2021-22, but that doesn't mean that if you played him more in a "logical lineup" that lineup would have performed better. If he played a lot against the B1G starting guards last year he would have had his clock cleaned.

 

[GatoLouco]

Eye test also tells me last year we placed too many starters (let's exclude Beran as he contributed very little) on the bench at the same time. Which made for funky lineups getting slaughtered.

1) Start Young
2) Don't place more than 2 of Young/Nance/Audige/maybe Berry and Buie (TBD) on the bench at the same time
3) Pray Nance does not get hurt or our post season dreams are over

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Doesn't it matter who's on the floor playing against these lineups? I think Berry will have a good year in 2021-22, but that doesn't mean that if you played him more in a "logical lineup" that lineup would have performed better. If he played a lot against the B1G starting guards last year he would have had his clock cleaned.

It is true that playing Berry in a "logical lineup" more often would not have significantly improved the performance of that specific lineup. The idea was (and is) to play lineups that produce and to avoid lineups that don't produce.

Yes it matters who is playing against these lineups, but Collins substituted A LOT, so it was fairly random who played against whom after the first 2-3 minutes of the game.

My overwhelming preference is for Collins to substitute a lot less. If you substitute every minute or two, there is no way for the guys on the court to adapt to what the other team is doing and take advantage - thats just my opinion, its not based on any statistics. We should have played 7 guys last year. Nance, Kopp, Young, Buie were our best players. Berry and Audige next. Then Beran. Then "when needed" for Gaines and Greer.

Our best lineups were very straightforward and very logical last year. Straight out of the textbook. It was all about rebounding last year in the Big Ten. Why Collins stuck Ryan Young with the 2nd stringers for the first 10 conference games, I will never understand. It wasn't until the 11th conference game that Young and Nance played more than a couple minutes together.

To Coach Collins credit, the uptempo lineup with Nance, Kopp and 3 guards was fairly effective and deserved the minutes he gave it.

 

[rogerkim]

It is true that playing Berry in a "logical lineup" more often would not have significantly improved the performance of that specific lineup. The idea was (and is) to play lineups that produce and to avoid lineups that don't produce.

Yes it matters who is playing against these lineups, but Collins substituted A LOT, so it was fairly random who played against whom after the first 2-3 minutes of the game.

My overwhelming preference is for Collins to substitute a lot less. If you substitute every minute or two, there is no way for the guys on the court to adapt to what the other team is doing and take advantage - thats just my opinion, its not based on any statistics. We should have played 7 guys last year. Nance, Kopp, Young, Buie were our best players. Berry and Audige next. Then Beran. Then "when needed" for Gaines and Greer.

Our best lineups were very straightforward and very logical last year. Straight out of the textbook. It was all about rebounding last year in the Big Ten. Why Collins stuck Ryan Young with the 2nd stringers for the first 10 conference games, I will never understand. It wasn't until the 11th conference game that Young and Nance played more than a couple minutes together.

To Coach Collins credit, the uptempo lineup with Nance, Kopp and 3 guards was fairly effective and deserved the minutes he gave it.

I generally like your analysis of the lineups. However, your comment about Collins substituting a lot and perhaps ending up with less than ideal lineups doesn't take into account fouls or fatigue. When Nance or Beran would pick up two stupid fouls in a row, CCC would have little choice except to sub them out.

And the suggestion that playing 7 guys last year would have helped us doesn't take into account the 7 players' ability to play effectively when playing that many minutes. This is why having depth is so important, particularly in the Big Ten, where there are no nights off. A 7-man rotation would require a superhuman level of stamina.

I do agree with your point about Young - he always seems very effective when he is in the lineup and gets the ball in the post. It is somewhat cringeworthy to watch his vertical leap, however.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I generally like your analysis of the lineups. However, your comment about Collins substituting a lot and perhaps ending up with less than ideal lineups doesn't take into account fouls or fatigue. When Nance or Beran would pick up two stupid fouls in a row, CCC would have little choice except to sub them out.

And the suggestion that playing 7 guys last year would have helped us doesn't take into account the 7 players' ability to play effectively when playing that many minutes. This is why having depth is so important, particularly in the Big Ten, where there are no nights off. A 7-man rotation would require a superhuman level of stamina.

I do agree with your point about Young - he always seems very effective when he is in the lineup and gets the ball in the post. It is somewhat cringeworthy to watch his vertical leap, however.

Young needs to work his way into game shape. He wasn’t at the top of his game today.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

The stats are great and interesting, but Boo is incredibly streaky and is a loose ball handler and takes too many bad shots. Good guy off the bench, but IMO don’t want him on the floor in crunch time.

If Boo wasn’t NU’s best player today he was in the top two. Played very much under control and didn’t make mistakes. Even his defense looked better. He was very good.

 

[ctsfn]

If Boo wasn’t NU’s best player today he was in the top two. Played very much under control and didn’t make mistakes. Even his defense looked better. He was very good.

I was there and I agree that he was good. If he can consistently play like he did last night, it bodes well for the team. Ryan Greer did not have his best game but I believe he can give Boo a breather when needed without hurting the team.

 

[GatoLouco]

If Boo wasn’t NU’s best player today he was in the top two. Played very much under control and didn’t make mistakes. Even his defense looked better. He was very good.

I agree. Problem will be when the offense is producing nothing or mostly when he finds himself with bench players on the court. Times when we go on scoring droughts. And he feels he has to make something happen. If we can have less of those this year we might start thinking that Buie finally has a better "let the game come to you" feel to his game.

 

[GatoLouco]

I generally like your analysis of the lineups. However, your comment about Collins substituting a lot and perhaps ending up with less than ideal lineups doesn't take into account fouls or fatigue. When Nance or Beran would pick up two stupid fouls in a row, CCC would have little choice except to sub them out.

And the suggestion that playing 7 guys last year would have helped us doesn't take into account the 7 players' ability to play effectively when playing that many minutes. This is why having depth is so important, particularly in the Big Ten, where there are no nights off. A 7-man rotation would require a superhuman level of stamina.

I do agree with your point about Young - he always seems very effective when he is in the lineup and gets the ball in the post. It is somewhat cringeworthy to watch his vertical leap, however.

It would be interesting to see how many teams rely on 90%+ of minutes from 7 guys. I have a sense that the number is very high.

 

[CappyNU]

It would be interesting to see how many teams rely on 90%+ of minutes from 7 guys. I have a sense that the number is very high.

Actually only 15 of 76 power conference teams played 7 players for 90%+ minutes in conference play, though interestingly the teams were concentrated in the Big Ten, Big East and ACC. The average across all teams was 86% with a min of 74.4% and max of 97.2%, we played our top 7 for 87.6% of minutes. There was no correlation between conference winning percentage and top 7 minutes%.

 

[SDakaGordie]

Better players produce more wins.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Actually only 15 of 76 power conference teams played 7 players for 90%+ minutes in conference play, though interestingly the teams were concentrated in the Big Ten, Big East and ACC. The average across all teams was 86% with a min of 74.4% and max of 97.2%, we played our top 7 for 87.6% of minutes. There was no correlation between conference winning percentage and top 7 minutes%.

PWB is going to like that last sentence.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I was there and I agree that he was good. If he can consistently play like he did last night, it bodes well for the team. Ryan Greer did not have his best game but I believe he can give Boo a breather when needed without hurting the team.

Greer is the one player on the team that I think is more valuable against B1G teams than non-conference.

His best trait to settle down the team when others like Boo, Chase start trying to do too much. He steadies the team and that is needed against better teams when they make their run. They didn’t need that type of player yesterday.

 

[GatoLouco]

Actually only 15 of 76 power conference teams played 7 players for 90%+ minutes in conference play, though interestingly the teams were concentrated in the Big Ten, Big East and ACC. The average across all teams was 86% with a min of 74.4% and max of 97.2%, we played our top 7 for 87.6% of minutes. There was no correlation between conference winning percentage and top 7 minutes%.

Thanks for the info. I am trying to come up with conclusions from that interesting tidbit of information:

1) We were within 1.6% of the average. Were we as deep as the average team?
2) 14% of the minutes played by the guys deep on the bench is something like 28 minutes/game (bit more with overtimes). That accounts also for garbage times, and added minutes those guys might get when others are hurt or in foul trouble. Does this mean that without injuries coaches would play their 7 main players 90%+?
3) The lack of correlation, not surprising to me. Could it suggest resting players is a bit overrated in college ball?

Thoughts?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Actually only 15 of 76 power conference teams played 7 players for 90%+ minutes in conference play, though interestingly the teams were concentrated in the Big Ten, Big East and ACC. The average across all teams was 86% with a min of 74.4% and max of 97.2%, we played our top 7 for 87.6% of minutes. There was no correlation between conference winning percentage and top 7 minutes%.

CappyNU, It is impressive that you can get to those stats so quickly.
And yes I admit I like the correlation analysis, PPD.
But... as Gato points out, all that really means is playing 7,8,9 or 10 guys in your rotation is not predictive of your team's success.

In other words, it is up to each coach to play the rotation that brings the best results for his team.

 

[rogerkim]

CappyNU, It is impressive that you can get to those stats so quickly.
And yes I admit I like the correlation analysis, PPD.
But... as Gato points out, all that really means is playing 7,8,9 or 10 guys in your rotation is not predictive of your team's success.

In other words, it is up to each coach to play the rotation that brings the best results for his team.

I agree: CappyNU, this was very impressive to get these stats...

At the risk of being nit-picky, I don't think the interpretation that playing 7, 8, 9, or 10 guys is not predictive of team's success is the correct conclusion, at least not based on the statistics presented here. The more appropriate conclusion is that the percentage of minutes played by the top 7 players is not predictive of team's success. No conclusions can be drawn regarding playing 8, 9, or 10 guys, as these statistics don't address that specific question.

(sorry, as a reviewer for multiple academic medical journals, it's a big pet peeve when authors state a conclusion that isn't actually supported by the data presented)

But I admit being surprised that we are that close to the average % of minutes played by the top 7 players. I would have predicted that we would be higher than that. I stand corrected. (Evidence that statistics are necessary to validate the "eye-ball test")

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I agree: CappyNU, this was very impressive to get these stats...

At the risk of being nit-picky, I don't think the interpretation that playing 7, 8, 9, or 10 guys is not predictive of team's success is the correct conclusion, at least not based on the statistics presented here. The more appropriate conclusion is that the percentage of minutes played by the top 7 players is not predictive of team's success. No conclusions can be drawn regarding playing 8, 9, or 10 guys, as these statistics don't address that specific question.

(sorry, as a reviewer for multiple academic medical journals, it's a big pet peeve when authors state a conclusion that isn't actually supported by the data presented)

But I admit being surprised that we are that close to the average % of minutes played by the top 7 players. I would have predicted that we would be higher than that. I stand corrected. (Evidence that statistics are necessary to validate the "eye-ball test")

You are correct sir.
But thats where statistics bump against logical extension.
It would be somewhat surprising if the "minutes played by the top 8" showed any significant effect on winning percentage.

I should have said "all that really SUGGESTS"

 

[hdhntr1]

Eye test also tells me last year we placed too many starters (let's exclude Beran as he contributed very little) on the bench at the same time. Which made for funky lineups getting slaughtered.

1) Start Young
2) Don't place more than 2 of Young/Nance/Audige/maybe Berry and Buie (TBD) on the bench at the same time
3) Pray Nance does not get hurt or our post season dreams are over

You guys still don't get it regarding Nance and Young. These are our two alternatives at the 5 position. At different times they have proven to be fould prone. Also they are not 35 mpg guys. So thoughts on playing them extended minutes together as that can lead to greater likelyhood of foul trouble and/or guys playing too many minutes reducing their effectiveness and/or increasing the likelyhood of injury. If Nicholson were truely as ready as PWB suggests, ot might be possible for more minutes together but still not what he wants to see,

 

[hdhntr1]

CappyNU, It is impressive that you can get to those stats so quickly.
And yes I admit I like the correlation analysis, PPD.
But... as Gato points out, all that really means is playing 7,8,9 or 10 guys in your rotation is not predictive of your team's success.

In other words, it is up to each coach to play the rotation that brings the best results for his team.

Having the quality depth to be able to play that many guys tends to lead to success because top guys do not get worn out and there is not the dropoff when the top guys are substituted for

 

[xxxbobxxx]

Actually only 15 of 76 power conference teams played 7 players for 90%+ minutes in conference play, though interestingly the teams were concentrated in the Big Ten, Big East and ACC. The average across all teams was 86% with a min of 74.4% and max of 97.2%, we played our top 7 for 87.6% of minutes. There was no correlation between conference winning percentage and top 7 minutes%.

I would expect 8 deep to be the common number.

 

[CSCatFan1]

I would expect 8 deep to be the common number.

In your dreams!

 

[xxxbobxxx]

In your dreams!

Where are the stat guys? 15 ran 7 deep, how many run 8 deep?

 

[CSCatFan1]

Where are the stat guys? 15 ran 7 deep, how many run 8 deep?

Oh sorry…thought you referring to something else.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Where are the stat guys? 15 ran 7 deep, how many run 8 deep?

CappyNU is your go-to guy.