Putting a Theory to the Test

[Quickzips]

The theory has been floating around this site for the better part of two weeks now that superior athletic talent will always (or at least usually) win out over intelligence, toughness and a high basketball IQ. Thursday night at 10:00pm EST in the Carrier Dome in Syracuse New York that theory will be put to the test. The 1 seed Kentucky Wildcats boasting two potential top-5 NBA draft picks and what many feel is the most athletic team in the country will be taking on a group of relatively unathletic Ivy Leaguers who are more likely to one day have NBA season tickets in a luxury box through the Fortune 500 Company they are a President of than to actually play in the NBA. I for one am going to be interested to see if this whole theory of superior athletic ability plays itself out.

[zippy5]

Kentucky by 23.

[RACER]

the 3pt shot is the equalizer in c-ball.i think it hurt all the non major schools hen they moved the line back.

it's still the only way a team like cornell can beat a kentucky.the 3pt shot,and mid range shots have to be

at a high percentage to win.if you look at big upsets like villinova,and g-town.villinova shot 70% from the field.

i am not saying kentucky would not win 9 out of ten times.there is still that one chance that kentucky could get beat.

[GoZips]

My heart and soul are with Cornell.

Good sense and wisdom say that Kentucky will destroy Cornell.

[ZipGrad93]

I think Northern Iowa vs Kansas was a pretty good application of this theory, too...

[johnnyzip84]

Neither UK nor Cornell exactly plays these styles, but on the surface the match-up is reminiscent of this famous encounter.

Link

[Captain Kangaroo]

the 3pt shot is the equalizer in c-ball.i think it hurt all the non major schools hen they moved the line back.

it's still the only way a team like cornell can beat a kentucky.

What's your point? The 3-point shot is a part of the game. If that is what it takes to beat a team, it's legal. Who cares if it is the only way to beat a team that can't defend it?

How did moving the line back hurt Butler? How'd it hurt Northern Iowa? How'd it hurt OU? How'd it affect Medlock or Kool's game?

Moving the line back did absolutely nothing to hurt mid-major schools.

[RACER]

why are you attacking me.i was just making a post.my point is that if you don't have the 3pt line mid majors would have a harder time to beat top teams.the last time i checked making a layup is easier than shooting a foul shot.shooting a foul shot is easier than shooting a 3 pt shot.the farther you go out from the basket the lower %.

[skip-zip]

I don't think Racer was making an argument that the 3-point basket has hurt the non-major schools.....just that moving the 3-point line backwards has been a disadvantage. And I would have to agree with that. The "smaller" schools are helped a lot by the 3-point basket, and that is now more difficult to obtain with the movement of the line. Plus, and maybe more importantly, it is forcing defenders to guard people a little further away from the basket, thus giving more opportunities for big and athletic post players to work inside.

[RACER]

thanks skip-zip.you are right on.

[2zip2]

I'm not sure how you can call Cornell "relatively unathletic" with only 4 losses (SU,Kansas,Seton Hall,and Penn). With wins against Alabama,St.Johns,Temple and now Wisconsin I would take this team anyday. Don't get this wrong I root for the Zips,but to have an unathletic team in the sweet 16 or a 1st round loss in the CBI relatively unathletic wins out.

[GP1]

With wins against Alabama,St.Johns,Temple and now Wisconsin I would take this team anyday.

Good point! I said the same thing about Norther Iowa. They beat some big conference teams this year and while it was an upset against Kansas, it wasn't that big of an upset.

Any team can catch fire for one game and win one first round game. You have to be good to win two NCAA games in a row, which is why the Sweet 16 is a great accomplishment even for teams that don't go all the way.

[Quickzips]

I'm not sure how you can call Cornell "relatively unathletic" with only 4 losses (SU,Kansas,Seton Hall,and Penn). With wins against Alabama,St.Johns,Temple and now Wisconsin I would take this team anyday. Don't get this wrong I root for the Zips,but to have an unathletic team in the sweet 16 or a 1st round loss in the CBI relatively unathletic wins out.

I think this pretty well illustrates the argument. Many people on here have been equating athletic with good. The more athletic team seems to generally be considered to be the better team around here right now. I don't think there is anyone in the country that would say Cornell is anywhere near on the same page as Kentucky as far as athletes. Most wouldn't even put them in the same conversation with Temple and Wisconsin whom they handily disposed of over the weekend. This is where the theory is going to be put to the test this weekend.

[meatwad]

I don't think Racer was making an argument that the 3-point basket has hurt the non-major schools.....just that moving the 3-point line backwards has been a disadvantage.

A disadvantage would be having different lines for different teams. As it stands it is a completely neutral line... both teams shoot from the same distance on the floor. I have to agree with CK here... it has only moderately changed the game, but the change goes both ways.

3 Point Percentages 04-05 to present:

04-05: 34.61%

05-06: 34.81%

06-07: 34.81%

07-08: 35.02%

08-09: 34.18%

09-10: 34.14%

We're talking about less than one out of every hundred shots being affected with the change in the line.

[Captain Kangaroo]

I'm not sure how you can call Cornell "relatively unathletic" with only 4 losses (SU,Kansas,Seton Hall,and Penn). With wins against Alabama,St.Johns,Temple and now Wisconsin I would take this team anyday. Don't get this wrong I root for the Zips,but to have an unathletic team in the sweet 16 or a 1st round loss in the CBI relatively unathletic wins out.

I think this pretty well illustrates the argument. Many people on here have been equating athletic with good. The more athletic team seems to generally be considered to be the better team around here right now. I don't think there is anyone in the country that would say Cornell is anywhere near on the same page as Kentucky as far as athletes. Most wouldn't even put them in the same conversation with Temple and Wisconsin whom they handily disposed of over the weekend.

It is difficult being a visionary..to not simply parrot what one hears on some pathetic local radio show or gleans from some wing nut's blog...but to come up with original, thought-provoking observations. But someone has to be that person.

To all the Athletic Supporters on ZN I say - You are welcome.

Why do I feel like GP1?

[Captain Kangaroo]

I don't think Racer was making an argument that the 3-point basket has hurt the non-major schools.....just that moving the 3-point line backwards has been a disadvantage. And I would have to agree with that. The "smaller" schools are helped a lot by the 3-point basket, and that is now more difficult to obtain with the movement of the line. Plus, and maybe more importantly, it is forcing defenders to guard people a little further away from the basket, thus giving more opportunities for big and athletic post players to work inside.

That is the "parrot," theoretical company line. The theory has not played-out in practice.

Prove to me that moving the line has actually affected a mid-major's ability to compete with a high major? It hasn't. The proof is in this year's regular season. The proof is in this year's tourney.

Saint Mary's

Butler

Northern Iowa

Cornell

If anything, it appears to have helped the mid major. The Sweet 16 has more mid majors than ever.

Translation for RACER:

that is the "parrot," theoretical company line,the theory has not played-out in practice.prove to me that moving the line has actually affected a mid-major's ability to compete with a high major.it hasn't.the proof is in this year's regular season.the proof is in this year's tourney.

saint mary's

butler

northern iowa

cornell

if anything, it appears to have helped the mid major.the sweet 16 has more mid majors than ever.

[Zip Watcher]

Translation for w00t: "I better go check on how much time is left on my bet w/ Zip Watcher regarding mid-majors appearing in the Final Four."

[meatwad]

I don't think Racer was making an argument that the 3-point basket has hurt the non-major schools.....just that moving the 3-point line backwards has been a disadvantage. And I would have to agree with that. The "smaller" schools are helped a lot by the 3-point basket, and that is now more difficult to obtain with the movement of the line. Plus, and maybe more importantly, it is forcing defenders to guard people a little further away from the basket, thus giving more opportunities for big and athletic post players to work inside.

That is the "parrot," theoretical company line. The theory has not played-out in practice.

Prove to me that moving the line has actually affected a mid-major's ability to compete with a high major? It hasn't. The proof is in this year's regular season. The proof is in this year's tourney.

Saint Mary's

Butler

Northern Iowa

Cornell

If anything, it appears to have helped the mid major. The Sweet 16 has more mid majors than ever.

Translation for RACER:

that is the "parrot," theoretical company line,the theory has not played-out in practice.prove to me that moving the line has actually affected a mid-major's ability to compete with a high major.it hasn't.the proof is in this year's regular season.the proof is in this year's tourney.

saint mary's

butler

northern iowa

cornell

if anything, it appears to have helped the mid major.the sweet 16 has more mid majors than ever.

HAHA!

[meatwad]

Translation for w00t: "I better go check on how much time is left on my bet w/ Zip Watcher regarding mid-majors appearing in the Final Four."

Haha at this too!

[Zip Watcher]

Translation for w00t: "I better go check on how much time is left on my bet w/ Zip Watcher regarding mid-majors appearing in the Final Four."

Haha at this too!

Had to look it up. This tourney and next before ZW owes w00t $50.

Go Zips!!

B)

[w00t]

Translation for w00t: "I better go check on how much time is left on my bet w/ Zip Watcher regarding mid-majors appearing in the Final Four."

Haha at this too!

Had to look it up. This tourney and next before ZW owes w00t $50.

Go Zips!!

B)

I hadn't forgotten... but as much as I hope one of the remaining four MM's wins two more this year, I think that you've already come as close as you're going to get to my $50 when Davidson was within two points (and got the last shot) of going to San Antonio.

[Zipmeister]

The theory has been floating around this site for the better part of two weeks now that superior athletic talent will always (or at least usually) win out over intelligence, toughness and a high basketball IQ. Thursday night at 10:00pm EST in the Carrier Dome in Syracuse New York that theory will be put to the test. The 1 seed Kentucky Wildcats boasting two potential top-5 NBA draft picks and what many feel is the most athletic team in the country will be taking on a group of relatively unathletic Ivy Leaguers who are more likely to one day have NBA season tickets in a luxury box through the Fortune 500 Company they are a President of than to actually play in the NBA. I for one am going to be interested to see if this whole theory of superior athletic ability plays itself out.

The result of a single game is certainly not the correct procedure to test the theory. While an interesting exercise, the outcome of one game is merely anecdotal. For the results to reach statistical significance we need a sample of at least 30 games; the bare minimum for the sample to achieve asymptotic normality. The bigger the sample the better off you will be. It is also important to correctly identify and include in your model the variables that you believe constitute both athleticism and intelligence as well as however many control variables you believe are appropriate. It goes without saying that you should check for the degree of multicollinearity in your model, employ the correct functional form, and test the error terms for heteroskedasticity.

[Dave in Green]

Why is a 3-point shot worth 50% more than a 2-point shot? Because the further away from the basket you get, the harder it is to toss the ball through the hole (duh!).

Why does the distance of the 3-point arc increase from high school to college, and again from college to the pros? Because at each increasing level the players become bigger, stronger and more skillful, and can better handle the increased challenge of the longer distance.

Which colleges tend to attract the biggest, strongest, most skillful players, the major BCS conference schools or the mid-majors?

Theoretically the teams with the bigger, stronger, more skillful players should benefit more from increasing the distance of the 3-point arc.

All the theory above points to the possibility that the mid-majors may have been slightly hurt by making it slightly more difficult for them to use the 3-point "great equalizer" (as Dick Vitale refers to it) to gain the occasional upset over teams with bigger, stronger, more skillful players.

But by how much, and how would one go about proving it?

Having 4 mid-majors in this year's Sweet 16 certainly doesn't prove anything either way about moving the 3-point line back a foot. There are way too many variables in basketball to single out one minor factor like that to the exclusion of all the other variables.

To prove the theory holds true, one would have to do a major statistical analysis of all colleges for several years before and several years after the rule change. You'd have to divide the teams into major BCS conference schools and mid-majors, and compare the number of 3s attempted and made both before and after the rule change. You'd need to see if mid-majors were shooting a lower percentage relative to major BCS conference schools in the years following the change than before, and if so, by how much.

I like stats as much as anyone here. But I'm not up for the amount of work it would take to put that study together.

In the absence of a verifiable, meaningful statistical analysis, I see nothing wrong with racer's original statement that he thinks moving the 3-point line back hurt non-major schools more than majors. I'd say that racer is using good logic in making that estimate in the absence of readily verifiable facts.

[Zipmeister]

Why is a 3-point shot worth 50% more than a 2-point shot? Because the further away from the basket you get, the harder it is to toss the ball through the hole (duh!).

Why does the distance of the 3-point arc increase from high school to college, and again from college to the pros? Because at each increasing level the players become bigger, stronger and more skillful, and can better handle the increased challenge of the longer distance.

Which colleges tend to attract the biggest, strongest, most skillful players, the major BCS conference schools or the mid-majors?

Theoretically the teams with the bigger, stronger, more skillful players should benefit more from increasing the distance of the 3-point arc.

All the theory above points to the possibility that the mid-majors may have been slightly hurt by making it slightly more difficult for them to use the 3-point "great equalizer" (as Dick Vitale refers to it) to gain the occasional upset over teams with bigger, stronger, more skillful players.

But by how much, and how would one go about proving it?

Having 4 mid-majors in this year's Sweet 16 certainly doesn't prove anything either way about moving the 3-point line back a foot. There are way too many variables in basketball to single out one minor factor like that to the exclusion of all the other variables.

To prove the theory holds true, one would have to do a major statistical analysis of all colleges for several years before and several years after the rule change. You'd have to divide the teams into major BCS conference schools and mid-majors, and compare the number of 3s attempted and made both before and after the rule change. You'd need to see if mid-majors were shooting a lower percentage relative to major BCS conference schools in the years following the change than before, and if so, by how much.

I like stats as much as anyone here. But I'm not up for the amount of work it would take to put that study together.

In the absence of a verifiable, meaningful statistical analysis, I see nothing wrong with racer's original statement that he thinks moving the 3-point line back hurt non-major schools more than majors. I'd say that racer is using good logic in making that estimate in the absence of readily verifiable facts.

AHA. In the absence of facts, supposition is fact.

[ZachTheZip]

I wouldn't exactly call Butler a mid-major.