Columbia Lions
2012 Team Stats (3 games)
62.3
PPG
62.4
Opp
+3.2
Margin
38.7%
FG%
32.2%
3P%
80.9%
FT%
32.0
RPG
10.3
APG
10.3
TO
73.2
Pace
Model Outputs
2011-2012
Output is shown as model rating with league rank in parentheses when available.
| Model | Output | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Elo Elo Streaming paired-comparison rating with recency baked into sequential updates. More → | 1382 (#119) | - |
| Bradley-Terry Bradley-Terry Static logistic paired-comparison model with one team strength parameter. More → | 1183 (#253) | - |
| Margin Margin Linear team-strength model fit on point differential instead of binary wins. More → | +18.1 (#265) | HCA +3.1 |
| Pythagorean Pythagorean Pythagorean win expectation from raw points scored and allowed. More → | 0.508 (#60) | - |
| Efficiency Efficiency Tempo-adjusted efficiency version of Pythagorean ratings. More → | 0.218 (#126) | NetEff -11.5 |
| Adjusted Efficiency Adjusted Efficiency Opponent-adjusted efficiency model with separate offensive and defensive components. More → | 0.251 (#93) | AdjNet -9.5 |
| Log Adjusted Log Adjusted Log-scale adjusted efficiency model that downweights blowout leverage. More → | 0.249 (#93) | AdjNet -9.6 |
2012 Schedule & Results
2012 Roster
Minutes by Position
The surface stays filled across the five on-court roles. Use the labels or legend to isolate how each player absorbs guard-to-big minutes.
| Player | Pos | GP | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | TO | FGA | Numbers | PM | PM/G | PM/40 | FG% | 3P% | FT% | RAPM | TS% | eFG% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B. Barbour
|
G | 28 | 35.5 | 15.8 | 2.6 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 2.2 | 3.9 | 17.8 | - | - | - | 38.9 | 33.3 | 88.4 | - | 159.4 | 44.4 |
N. Agho
|
G | 2 | 33.0 | 14.0 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 12.5 | 7.0 | - | - | - | 24.0 | 44.4 | 0 | - | 56.0 | 32.0 |
M. Lyles
|
G | 28 | 29.1 | 10.2 | 3.0 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 3.3 | 10.8 | - | - | - | 43.5 | 41.3 | 68.0 | - | 139.3 | 53.8 |
M. Cisco
|
C | 28 | 24.5 | 9.6 | 6.6 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 14.7 | - | - | - | 67.2 | 0 | 77.8 | - | 204.8 | 67.2 |
A. Rosenberg
|
F | 28 | 24.5 | 7.2 | 4.3 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 10.6 | - | - | - | 44.4 | 40.0 | 68.4 | - | 161.2 | 51.9 |
C. Crockett
|
G | 26 | 15.4 | 5.7 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 5.7 | - | - | - | 48.4 | 48.3 | 75.0 | - | 227.4 | 71.0 |
S. Egee
|
G | 14 | 10.3 | 4.1 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 4.6 | - | - | - | 45.0 | 36.4 | 100.0 | - | 133.3 | 55.0 |
B. Staab
|
F | 28 | 13.3 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 6.0 | - | - | - | 48.6 | 0.0 | 66.7 | - | 134.8 | 48.6 |
V. Green
|
G | 14 | 10.1 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 4.9 | - | - | - | 57.1 | 37.5 | 100.0 | - | 157.9 | 67.9 |
J. Daniels
|
F | 24 | 19.8 | 3.1 | 5.5 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 7.8 | - | - | - | 25.8 | 0 | 100.0 | - | 105.8 | 25.8 |
C. Osetkowski
|
C | 28 | 11.2 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 5.1 | - | - | - | 52.4 | 0.0 | 66.7 | - | 158.3 | 52.4 |
N. Springwater
|
G | 22 | 14.2 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 3.8 | - | - | - | 36.0 | 33.3 | 100.0 | - | 114.0 | 50.0 |
M. Johnson
|
G | 15 | 8.9 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 14 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 22.2 | 12.5 | 0 | 1.38 | 105.6 | 27.8 |
D. Stevens
|
- | 6 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 1.5 | - | - | - | 25.0 | 0 | 100.0 | - | 82.0 | 25.0 |
S. Ozeir
|
F | 5 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 |
D. Kowalski
|
G | 12 | 5.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 1.5 | - | - | - | 100.0 | 0 | 75.0 | - | 90.6 | 100.0 |
Numbers/Game vs RAPM
Not enough players with both Numbers/Game and RAPM to plot.
Advanced: Numbers = PTS+REB+AST+STL+BLK-TO-FGA, PM = total +/-, PM/G = per game, PM/40 = per 40 minutes, RAPM = Regularized Adj Plus-Minus, TS% = True Shooting, eFG% = Effective FG