Davies doesn't matter as much as you think

[fusnik]

I'm shocked that there are people who agree with Viking. His posts on this subject are three worst sports posts ive ever read. We have blown past RF territory here.

BYU loses it's only post player that should be on a division one roster and people actually think the team isn't significantly worse?

Noah, just keep jacking threes!
Abwoww, pick up 15 more minutes a game!
Jimmer, score thirty plus a game with no inside offensive threat!
Jax, stop roaming defensively and crash the boards!
KC, play the middle in zone defense!
Mag/Rogers/KC, replace ten percent of the offensive input!

Davies included, this team is a legit contender for a Final Four run, sans Davies this team could be out in the second round.

[ERCougar]

I'm shocked that there are people who agree with Viking. His posts on this subject are three worst sports posts ive ever read. We have blown past RF territory here.

BYU loses it's only post player that should be on a division one roster and people actually think the team isn't significantly worse?

Noah, just keep jacking threes!
Abwoww, pick up 15 more minutes a game!
Jimmer, score thirty plus a game with no inside offensive threat!
Jax, stop roaming defensively and crash the boards!
KC, play the middle in zone defense!
Mag/Rogers/KC, replace ten percent of the offensive input!

Davies included, this team is a legit contender for a Final Four run, sans Davies this team could be out in the second round.

Which of our last two losses would Davies have won for us?

[Maximus]

Which of our last two losses would Davies have won for us?

How is there anypossible way we would know how we would have played with davies there?

Anyways vs UNM we lost because we were dead emotionally and just jacked up shots because we didnt have anyone to pass to on the inside. Vs. SDSU, we had no one to defend the middle. Hmmmmm. Having a good inside threat helps shooting percentages go up as well.

[fusnik]

Which of our last two losses would Davies have won for us?

I dont think a loss at home against UNM happens with Davies.

While winnimg three in a row in one season against a very good team would be tough I think it would have been possible. BYU is simlly a better team than SDSU with Davies.

I agree with jay, they are probably a 6 seed without him, a 1 with him.

[ERCougar]

How is there anypossible way we would know how we would have played with davies there?

Anyways vs UNM we lost because we were dead emotionally and just jacked up shots because we didnt have anyone to pass to on the inside. Vs. SDSU, we had no one to defend the middle. Hmmmmm. Having a good inside threat helps shooting percentages go up as well.

We don't. Just like there's no way of knowing we would be a lot better. We're speculating.

Of course, we'd be better with Davies--he was starting for a reason. But you'll have a very hard time convincing me that we're 18 points better.

And while everyone keeps talking about the theoretical "opening up" of the outside shot that Davies brings us, but sorry, I'm just not seeing us jacking up a bunch of well guarded shots.

Again...we have exactly the same record with Davies in. Just a lot less fretting.

[fusnik]

We don't. Just like there's no way of knowing we would be a lot better. We're speculating.

Of course, we'd be better with Davies--he was starting for a reason. But you'll have a very hard time convincing me that we're 18 points better.

And while everyone keeps talking about the theoretical "opening up" of the outside shot that Davies brings us, but sorry, I'm just not seeing us jacking up a bunch of well guarded shots.

Again...we have exactly the same record with Davies in. Just a lot less fretting.

So we'd be better with Davies but he isn't a significant loss?

Question: Statistically, who replaces Davies points, rebounds, and minutes?

Question: Theoretically, who replaces Davies offensive/defensive post and top of the key presence?

[jay santos]

We don't. Just like there's no way of knowing we would be a lot better. We're speculating.

Of course, we'd be better with Davies--he was starting for a reason. But you'll have a very hard time convincing me that we're 18 points better.

And while everyone keeps talking about the theoretical "opening up" of the outside shot that Davies brings us, but sorry, I'm just not seeing us jacking up a bunch of well guarded shots.

Again...we have exactly the same record with Davies in. Just a lot less fretting.

The difference between #8 and #28, which is the difference I'm suggesting we are with and without Davies is about five points per game, according to Sagarin ratings.

In a small sample size, it's nearly impossible to say what is attributable to Davies, and what is attributable to bad luck. Or how many games we would have won with him vs without him. My point is we're not as good as without him, in a fairly significant way.

[ERCougar]

The difference between #8 and #28, which is the difference I'm suggesting we are with and without Davies is about five points per game, according to Sagarin ratings.

In a small sample size, it's nearly impossible to say what is attributable to Davies, and what is attributable to bad luck. Or how many games we would have won with him vs without him. My point is we're not as good as without him, in a fairly significant way.

Right, but you're not making your point with any sort of data--you just keep insisting that it's right...just because. Of the five games we've played without Davies:
UNM I - throw out because it's a crazy night. I have no idea if Davies makes a difference here.
Wyoming - Big win, pretty much what you would expect with Davies
TCU - tight game, maybe we win bigger with Davies, but TCU made a lot of big shots where Davies wouldn't have been involved. This isn't nearly as obvious proof of Davies' importance as you'd think, given that we flopped against Wyoming a few weeks earlier, with Davies.
UNM II - Big win. If you're going to cherry pick stats, you might even say this is proof that Davies' replacements are better--KC and Hartsock had huge games.
SDSU - Big loss. You might have an argument that we missed Davies here, but I think the biggest reason we lost this is lack of depth. Davies certainly helps that by adding a body, but fatigue is not an issue in the NCAA tourney.

Jay, you're a big data guy, but Viking's the only one providing anything here. And the data support that Davies is replaceable, or at the very least don't prove that he's not.

[Moliere]

You're totally missing the context of this thread.

I think Davies is a young, immature player. Does he help in terms of depth, yes. Was losing him the end of the world? No. Can BYU make a deep run? Yes.

"We knew if we just tried to contain Jimmer and tried to make everybody else shoot, we knew that we had the game."

So says SDSU tonight.

Davies or no Davies, if Hartsock, Emery and Abuou can't hit shots, it's game over.

That's why BYU seems to either win big or lose meaningfully against our "real" rivals this year: SDSU and UNM.

If the others start hitting shots, we go deep.

I'm not Missing the context. I just think the whole thread is ridiculous. Davies means a ton to the team. We need his length and the depth he gives us. He's a much different player than Hartsock, one for which we have no replacement.

[Viking]

I'm not Missing the context. I just think the whole thread is ridiculous. Davies means a ton to the team. We need his length and the depth he gives us. He's a much different player than Hartsock, one for which we have no replacement.

The data, not subjective suppositions, presented herein do not support your conclusion.

I agree he is better for our depth and to keep some honesty in the paint. That's about it.

If you can refute the data, you are welcome to do so.

Pwned

[jay santos]

Jay, you're a big data guy, but Viking's the only one providing anything here. And the data support that Davies is replaceable, or at the very least don't prove that he's not.

Data:
with Davies 27-2
without Davies 3-2

I haven't been arguing data in this thread because I think five games is not enough to really show much with data. But if you want to try to measure Davies impact with data, this is the starting place.

[jay santos]

Another data point

first 39 games BYU + 4.3 rebounding margin
last five games BYU -2.2 rebounding margin

[EuropeanFootballMale]

Number of players whose eyes don't glaze over in sheer terror as they collapse to the floor in the fetal position while pissing themselves every time they touch the ball within 15 ft of the basket on the offensive end of the floor

with Davies - 1
without Davies - 0

Losing Davies is huge.

[ERCougar]

Another data point

first 39 games BYU + 4.3 rebounding margin
last five games BYU -2.2 rebounding margin

Or in a more equitable comparison:
New Mexico: With Davies +0 Without Davies -2 (Net +2)
Wyoming: With Davies +2 Without Davies +11 (Net -9)
TCU: With Davies +8 Without Davies +9 (Net +1)
SDSU: With Davies -5 Without Davies -5 (Net 0) (And this is with a very tired 6-person rotation...)
Overall, Davies is worth -6 rebounds.

I obviously don't think Davies is a net negative in terms of rebounds, but the stats don't back you up here. I just compared the last game we had with and without Davies against each team because in Tex's words, that's all I have the stamina for. I don't know how the numbers would run if we carried it out further, but I imagine they'd work out similarly.

[ERCougar]

Data:
with Davies 27-2
without Davies 3-2

I haven't been arguing data in this thread because I think five games is not enough to really show much with data. But if you want to try to measure Davies impact with data, this is the starting place.

You're not arguing this because even you don't believe that Davies wins either the NM or SDSU games. So,
With Davies 3-2
Without Davies 3-2.

Again, I'm not saying we're better without our starting center and leading rebounder. I just don't think he means 20 places in our rankings.