SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 32,660
- Like
- 62,946
I’ll continue doing a statistical analysis of games this year with some of the off-beat numbers I like to look at.
(I've decided to post them once a week instead of after each game as they are rather labor-intensive.)
The first thing I’ll look at is “NET POINTS”. The idea is that each statistic in the box score is arguably worth a point, (that is, somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 points). A point is a point. Teams score an average of a point per possession so anything that gets you possession is a point. A missed shot will more often than not wind up in the possession of the other team. Most baskets are for two points so if the passer who set up the shot is given half credit, that’s worth a point. One half of the blocked shots will likely have gone in and they are almost always two pointers, so that’s a point. If you add up the “positives”, (points, + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks) and subtract the “negatives”, (missed field goals, missed free throws, turnovers and fouls), you have a number that summarizes a player’s statistical contributions to a game. Then, by averaging the net points per 40 minutes of play, you factor out differences in playing time and have a look at the player’s rate of production. Both are important. The game is won based on what you actually did, not the rate at which you did it. But the rate is a better measure of the skills you can bring to the game.
Of course, there are things players do both on and off the court that contribute to victory. Leadership, hard work, keeping the team loose, scrambling for loose balls, (that could be a statistic: when neither team is in control of the ball, who winds up with it?), sneaker-sneaker defense, keeping the ball moving on offense, etc. etc. My experience is that with rare exceptions, the players who are the most statistically productive are the ones who grade highest in the things not measured by statistics, as well.
Here are the NET POINTS of our scholarship players in the most recent game and their averages per 40 minutes of play for the season, (exhibitions games not included):
(Note: This covers the Pittsburgh and Miami games.)
Mal Richardson had 23 net points in 67 minutes, has 119 NP in 477 minutes for the season = 10.0NP/40
Tyler Roberson had 21 net points in 66 minutes, has 146 NP in 454 minutes for the season = 12.9NP/40
Tyler Lydon had 19 net points in 60 minutes, has 217 NP in 481 minutes for the season = 18.0NP/40
Trevor Cooney had 9 net points in 75 minutes, has 134 NP in 555 minutes for the season = 9.7NP/40
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 1 minutes, has 8 NP in 50 minutes for the season = 6.4NP/40
Franklin Howard had -2 net points in 5 minutes, has 17 NP in 98 minutes for the season = 6.9NP/40
Michael Gbinije had -2 net points in 78 minutes, has 224 NP in 564 minutes for the season = 15.9NP/40
Kaleb Joseph had -4 net points in 6 minutes, has 10 NP in 102 minutes for the season = 3.9NP/40
DaJuan Coleman had -4 net points in 32 minutes, has 80 NP in 232 minutes for the season = -13.8NP/40
DNP-CD
INJURED
Frank Howard missed the Miami game with an illness.
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: Michael Gbinije is finding out what it’s like to be a team’s star and against good defensive teams who know how to neutralize one player. His teammates have to pick him up in these games. The “two R’s”: Richardson and Roberson aided by Tyler Lydon tried but couldn’t carry the team in G-man’s effective absence. The other guys contributed very little and the result was two losses.
The Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 20 offensive and 46 defensive rebounds. They had 31 offensive and 53 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 20 of 73 times, (27.4%). When they missed, they got the ball 31 out of 77 times, (40.3%). (We were -18 vs. Pitt but even with Miami on the boards.)
Pre-conference: We rebounded 33.3% of our misses to 36.3% for the opposition and did better in 6 of 13 games.
Conference: We’ve rebounded 27.4% of our misses to 40.3% for the opposition and have done better in 0 of 2 games with one even.
Total: We’ve rebounded 32.5% of our misses to 37.1% for the opposition and did better in 6 of 15 games with one even. .
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 13 second chance points off our 20 offensive rebounds ,0.650 points per rebound. They got 27 for their 31= 0.871.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 0.956 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.928. We led in this stat 9 times in 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 0.650 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.871. We’ve led in this stat 1 time in 2 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.922 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.920. We’ve led in this stat 10 times in 15 games.
Of our 29 turnovers, 15 were their steals and 14were our own miscues. Of their 21 turnovers, 11 were Syracuse steals and 10 were their fault. In the pre-conference schedule It’s an important area as one of the ideas behind the zone is that we will make up for a rebounding deficit with a favorable turnover margin.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 8 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 3 games with 1 even.
Conference: We’ve averaged 14.5 turnovers, 7.5 of which were unforced compared to 10.5 turnovers and 5.5 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 0 games and fewer unforced turnovers in 0 games.
Total: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 8 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 3 games with 1 even.
If you add our 66 rebounds to their 21 turnovers, we had 87 “manufactured possessions”. They had 84 + 29 = 113. In the pre-conference season We are normally well ahead of our early opponents in this stat.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 52 MP to 50. We won this battle 7 times with 1 even in 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 43.5 MP to 56.5. We’ve won this battle 0 times in 2 games
Total: We’ve averaged 51 MP to 51. We’ve won this battle 7 times with 1 even in 15 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were 26 for 50, (.473) inside the arc, 12 for 37, (.324) outside it and 24 for 39, (.615) from the line. They were 33 for 63 (.524), 9/48 (.188) and 43/57 (.754).
Pre-Conference: We were .482/.355/.681. Our opposition was .444/.333/.636. We led in two point field goal percentage in 8 games, in three point field goals percentage in 8 games, and in free throw percentage in 7 games with 1 even out of 13 games .
Conference: We are .473/.324/.615. Our opposition is .524/.188/.754. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 0 games, in three point field goals percentage in 2 games, and in free throw percentage in 0 games out of 2 games..
Total: We are .481/.352/.673. Our opposition was .454/.303/.663. We led in two point field goal percentage in 8 games, in three point field goals percentage in 10 games, and in free throw percentage in 7 games with 1 even in 15 games
We had 44 points in the paint (PIP), 19 off turnovers (POTO), 13 “second chance” points (SCP), 7 fast break points (FBP) and 12 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 64 points in the paint, 34 off turnovers, 27 “second chance” points, 26 fast break points and 49 from the bench. We also had 68 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 40. (Miami only scored 14 points in their initial half-court sets but still beat us by 13 because they had 20 fast break points and made 25 free throws.)
Pre-Conference: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 16-11 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-13 SCP, 7-6 FBP and 14-17 BP. We led in PIP 7 times, POTO 10 times,(and the last 8 in a row), FCP 6 times with 2 even, SCP 5 times with 2 even, FBP 8 times, and BP 5 times with one even in 13 games .
Conference: We averaged 22-32 PIP, 19.5-17 POTO, 34-22 FCP, 16.5-13.5 SCP, 3.5-13 FBP and 6-24.5 BP. We led in PIP 0 times, POTO 0 times, FCP 2 times, SCP 1 times, FBP 0 times, and BP 0 times in 2 games.
Total: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 38-33 FCP, 11-13 SCP, 7-7 FBP and 13-18 BP. We led in PIP 7 times, POTO 10 times, FCP 8 times with 2 even, SCP 6 times with 2 even, FBP 8 times, and BP 5 times with one even in 15 games.
We had 112 points, 44 in the paint, 36 from the arc and 24 from the line so we had 44 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 112-44-24) and scored 8 points, (44 POP-36 from the arc), from what I’ll call the Twilight Zone”: that area between the paint and the arc that is the land of the pull-up jump shot, a lost art but a great weapon. They had 136/64/27/43 = 29 POP with 2 from the Twilight Zone.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 24/4. We led in POP 8 times. We led in TZ points 7 times with 1 tie in 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 22 POP and 4 TZ, our opposition 14.5/1. We’ve led in POP 1 time. We led in TZ points 1 time with 1 even in 2 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 30 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 23/3. We’ve led in POP 9 times. We led in TZ points 8 times with 2 even in 15 games.
20 of our 38 baskets were assisted (.526) and 27 of their 42 (.706). Assists tend to come more often from jump shots than lay-ups or dunks so the more assists you get, the more you are settling for jump shots to try to win the game which is often a bad strategy but, as JB says, is the way we have to play this year because of our personnel. So far we’ve mostly played teams that had to do that even more than we did.
Pre-Conference: We assisted 59.2% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 71.6% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 9 games with one even in 13 games.
Conference: We assisted 52.6% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 70.6% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 2 games out of 2 games.
Total: We assisted 58.5% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 70.6% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 11 games with one even in 15 games.
You compute possessions by taking field goal attempts – offensive rebounds + turnovers plus 47.5% of free throws attempted and dividing that into the number of points. We were 102 FGA - 20 OREBs + 29 TOs + (.475 x 39) = 129.525 possessions. They were 111 -31+ 21+ (.475 x 52) = 128.075 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 129 possessions for us and 128 for them. There were 257 combined possessions in these games, 128.5 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 134 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 128.5 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 133 combined possessions per game.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 112 points in 129 possessions (0.868). They scored 136 points in 128 possessions (1.0625). We have, of course, led 10 games in offensive efficiency since the winning team always leads in that stat. In the pre-conference season, we are averaged 1.091 points per possession to 0.959 for the opposition.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 1.091 points per possession to 0.959 for the opposition. We won this stat in 10 of 13 games, (the winning team always wins this stat).
Conference: We’ve averaged 0.868 points per possession to 1.0625 for the opposition. We’ve lost the stat in both games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.062 points per possession to 0.972 for the opposition and have won the stat in 10 of 15 games.
Every other level of basketball plays quarters. To check the consistency of our performance, I look at what the score was at the 10 minute mark of each half to see what the quarterly scores would be. At a minimum, I think we want to score at least 15 points in each quarter and try to hold the opposition to less than that. The quarterly breakdown for these games: 26-27, 29-20, 27-41, 30-53. In the pre-conference season we had an average of 16-14, 16-14, 20-18, 20-17 and 5-13 in OT. We’ve won 31 of 52 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 23 times.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 16-14, 16-14, 20-18, 20-17 OT: 5-13 We won 31 of 52 quarters with 3 even. We scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 23 times.
Conference: We’ve averaged 13-13.5, 14.5-10, 13.5-20.5, 15-26.5 We’ve won 3 of 8 quarters . We’ve scored 15 or more in 4 quarters and held the opposition under that 3 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 16-14, 16-13, 19-19, 20-18 OT: 5-13 We’ve won 34 of 60 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 42 quarters and held the opposition under that 26 times.
Hubert Davis once told us to “Get an offensive dude”. I decided to name an “Offensive Dude Of the Game, or an O-Dog, and use the hockey concept of points + assists. In these games our ODOG was:
Vs. Pittsburgh Michael Gbinije 14 + 7 = 21
Vs. Miami Mal Richardson 20 + 1 = 21
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 13 times, Mal Richardson and Tyler Roberson 1 time each.
I’ve thought of another stat to keep track of that also relates to individual offensive efficiency, although I’m sure there nothing all that new about it. I heard that Steph Curry had an amazing game in terms of the number of points he scored compared to the number of field goal attempts he had. I decided to compare the number of points scored to the number of shots taken, except I’ll include free throw attempts as they are shots, too. I originally thought of doing it on a percentage basis but a reserve who hit his only shot would out-rank a starter who scored 15 points on 10 shots. Instead I’ll keep track of the most points scored more than the number of shots- or the fewest points scored less than the number of shots if nobody has a positive number. I’ll call it “scoring efficiency”. In these games, the following players led us in scoring efficiency:
Vs. Pittsburgh Tyler Roberson 15-12-1 = +2 (3)
Vs. Miami Mal Richardson 20 -15 - 2 = +3 (1)
Michael Gbinije has led in this stat 5 times, Tyler Roberson 4 times Tyler Lydon 3 times and DaJuan Coleman, Trevor Cooney ,Kaleb Joseph and Mal Richardson once each. Gbinije had the best game a +13 Charlotte on 26 points vs. 9 for 11 from the field including 6 treys and 2 for 2 from the foul line. It’s a good sign that Mal won this stat vs. Miami as he was not exactly a candidate for it based on his previous play.
I also like to keep track who sits us down in each half. Besides being fun it gives an indication of who Coach B likes to design plays for since opening possessions are more likely to be scripted. In these games, these are the players who sat us down:
Vs. Pittsburgh Mal Richardson lay-up after 3:34 and Mal Richardson jumper after 8 second
Vs. Miami Michael Gbinije jumper after 2:00 and DaJuan Coleman a dunk after 1:05
TOTAL: 2,187 seconds / 30 halves = 1minute 13 seconds
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 13 seconds. The shortest time has been 7 seconds in the second half of the Texas Southern game. The longest time is 4:51 in the second half against Georgetown. Mali Richardson has sat us down 10 times, Michael Gbinije 8 times, DaJuan Coleman 6 times, Trevor Cooney 4 times and Tyler Roberson 2 times. We’ve been sat down by 11 treys 5 lay-ups, 6 two point jumpers and two dunks.
Another fun fact is the “Taco Bell MVP”: the guy who gets us to 70 points, (it used to be 75), so people can get free, (or is it discounted?) tacos at Taco Bell. We didn’t get tacos in either game. They may be hard to come by in this conference.
Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 4 times, Michael Gbinije twice and DaJuan Coleman and Tyler Lydon once. The average amount of time left in the game has been 4:42.
FOULS
My theory about fouls is that the team that attempts the most two point shots and scores the most in the paint will tend to get fouled the most. If the numbers are as predicted or close, there’s nothing to be read into them but if there’s a big disparity, it makes you wonder about how the game was called.
In these games, we attempted 65 two point shots to 63, scored 44 points in the paint to 64 and got fouled 32 times to 45, attempting 39 foul shots to 57. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 2.0 for us and 1.4 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.4 for us to 1.4 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.1 for us and 1.0 for them.
In the pre-conference season we are averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 11 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 10 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 9 games out of 13 games. So numerically, the calls favored us.
Conference: We averaged 2.0 two point shots per foul, 1.4 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.2 foul shots per foul. They averaged 1.4 two point shots per foul, 1.4 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.3 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 1 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 2 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 1 games out of 2 games.
Total: We averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.0 two point shots per foul, 1.7 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 12 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 12 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 10 games out of 15 games.
“MY MAN”
A reporter once asked Casey Stengel how come he won so many games with the Yankees. He said “Because I never play a game without “my man”. The reporter wondered who his man was. Casey suggested “You could look it up.” The reporter did look it up and found that Yogi Berra had played in every game that season at some positon: catcher, left field, pinch-hitting, something. He was the player Stengel had the highest regard for and the most trust in, so he didn’t want to do without him.
Who is Jim Boeheim’s “man” this season? The only way to tell is to see who plays the most minutes each game. In these games the following players played the most minutes:
Vs. Pittsburgh Trevor Cooney and Michael Gbinije 40 minutes
Vs. Miami Michael Gbinije 38 minutes
A senior has been “the man” in every game, Michael Gbinije 9 times and Trevor Cooney 7 times, (with the one tie.)
(I've decided to post them once a week instead of after each game as they are rather labor-intensive.)
The first thing I’ll look at is “NET POINTS”. The idea is that each statistic in the box score is arguably worth a point, (that is, somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 points). A point is a point. Teams score an average of a point per possession so anything that gets you possession is a point. A missed shot will more often than not wind up in the possession of the other team. Most baskets are for two points so if the passer who set up the shot is given half credit, that’s worth a point. One half of the blocked shots will likely have gone in and they are almost always two pointers, so that’s a point. If you add up the “positives”, (points, + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks) and subtract the “negatives”, (missed field goals, missed free throws, turnovers and fouls), you have a number that summarizes a player’s statistical contributions to a game. Then, by averaging the net points per 40 minutes of play, you factor out differences in playing time and have a look at the player’s rate of production. Both are important. The game is won based on what you actually did, not the rate at which you did it. But the rate is a better measure of the skills you can bring to the game.
Of course, there are things players do both on and off the court that contribute to victory. Leadership, hard work, keeping the team loose, scrambling for loose balls, (that could be a statistic: when neither team is in control of the ball, who winds up with it?), sneaker-sneaker defense, keeping the ball moving on offense, etc. etc. My experience is that with rare exceptions, the players who are the most statistically productive are the ones who grade highest in the things not measured by statistics, as well.
Here are the NET POINTS of our scholarship players in the most recent game and their averages per 40 minutes of play for the season, (exhibitions games not included):
(Note: This covers the Pittsburgh and Miami games.)
Mal Richardson had 23 net points in 67 minutes, has 119 NP in 477 minutes for the season = 10.0NP/40
Tyler Roberson had 21 net points in 66 minutes, has 146 NP in 454 minutes for the season = 12.9NP/40
Tyler Lydon had 19 net points in 60 minutes, has 217 NP in 481 minutes for the season = 18.0NP/40
Trevor Cooney had 9 net points in 75 minutes, has 134 NP in 555 minutes for the season = 9.7NP/40
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 1 minutes, has 8 NP in 50 minutes for the season = 6.4NP/40
Franklin Howard had -2 net points in 5 minutes, has 17 NP in 98 minutes for the season = 6.9NP/40
Michael Gbinije had -2 net points in 78 minutes, has 224 NP in 564 minutes for the season = 15.9NP/40
Kaleb Joseph had -4 net points in 6 minutes, has 10 NP in 102 minutes for the season = 3.9NP/40
DaJuan Coleman had -4 net points in 32 minutes, has 80 NP in 232 minutes for the season = -13.8NP/40
DNP-CD
INJURED
Frank Howard missed the Miami game with an illness.
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: Michael Gbinije is finding out what it’s like to be a team’s star and against good defensive teams who know how to neutralize one player. His teammates have to pick him up in these games. The “two R’s”: Richardson and Roberson aided by Tyler Lydon tried but couldn’t carry the team in G-man’s effective absence. The other guys contributed very little and the result was two losses.
The Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 20 offensive and 46 defensive rebounds. They had 31 offensive and 53 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 20 of 73 times, (27.4%). When they missed, they got the ball 31 out of 77 times, (40.3%). (We were -18 vs. Pitt but even with Miami on the boards.)
Pre-conference: We rebounded 33.3% of our misses to 36.3% for the opposition and did better in 6 of 13 games.
Conference: We’ve rebounded 27.4% of our misses to 40.3% for the opposition and have done better in 0 of 2 games with one even.
Total: We’ve rebounded 32.5% of our misses to 37.1% for the opposition and did better in 6 of 15 games with one even. .
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 13 second chance points off our 20 offensive rebounds ,0.650 points per rebound. They got 27 for their 31= 0.871.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 0.956 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.928. We led in this stat 9 times in 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 0.650 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.871. We’ve led in this stat 1 time in 2 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.922 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.920. We’ve led in this stat 10 times in 15 games.
Of our 29 turnovers, 15 were their steals and 14were our own miscues. Of their 21 turnovers, 11 were Syracuse steals and 10 were their fault. In the pre-conference schedule It’s an important area as one of the ideas behind the zone is that we will make up for a rebounding deficit with a favorable turnover margin.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 8 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 3 games with 1 even.
Conference: We’ve averaged 14.5 turnovers, 7.5 of which were unforced compared to 10.5 turnovers and 5.5 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 0 games and fewer unforced turnovers in 0 games.
Total: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 8 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 3 games with 1 even.
If you add our 66 rebounds to their 21 turnovers, we had 87 “manufactured possessions”. They had 84 + 29 = 113. In the pre-conference season We are normally well ahead of our early opponents in this stat.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 52 MP to 50. We won this battle 7 times with 1 even in 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 43.5 MP to 56.5. We’ve won this battle 0 times in 2 games
Total: We’ve averaged 51 MP to 51. We’ve won this battle 7 times with 1 even in 15 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were 26 for 50, (.473) inside the arc, 12 for 37, (.324) outside it and 24 for 39, (.615) from the line. They were 33 for 63 (.524), 9/48 (.188) and 43/57 (.754).
Pre-Conference: We were .482/.355/.681. Our opposition was .444/.333/.636. We led in two point field goal percentage in 8 games, in three point field goals percentage in 8 games, and in free throw percentage in 7 games with 1 even out of 13 games .
Conference: We are .473/.324/.615. Our opposition is .524/.188/.754. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 0 games, in three point field goals percentage in 2 games, and in free throw percentage in 0 games out of 2 games..
Total: We are .481/.352/.673. Our opposition was .454/.303/.663. We led in two point field goal percentage in 8 games, in three point field goals percentage in 10 games, and in free throw percentage in 7 games with 1 even in 15 games
We had 44 points in the paint (PIP), 19 off turnovers (POTO), 13 “second chance” points (SCP), 7 fast break points (FBP) and 12 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 64 points in the paint, 34 off turnovers, 27 “second chance” points, 26 fast break points and 49 from the bench. We also had 68 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 40. (Miami only scored 14 points in their initial half-court sets but still beat us by 13 because they had 20 fast break points and made 25 free throws.)
Pre-Conference: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 16-11 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-13 SCP, 7-6 FBP and 14-17 BP. We led in PIP 7 times, POTO 10 times,(and the last 8 in a row), FCP 6 times with 2 even, SCP 5 times with 2 even, FBP 8 times, and BP 5 times with one even in 13 games .
Conference: We averaged 22-32 PIP, 19.5-17 POTO, 34-22 FCP, 16.5-13.5 SCP, 3.5-13 FBP and 6-24.5 BP. We led in PIP 0 times, POTO 0 times, FCP 2 times, SCP 1 times, FBP 0 times, and BP 0 times in 2 games.
Total: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 38-33 FCP, 11-13 SCP, 7-7 FBP and 13-18 BP. We led in PIP 7 times, POTO 10 times, FCP 8 times with 2 even, SCP 6 times with 2 even, FBP 8 times, and BP 5 times with one even in 15 games.
We had 112 points, 44 in the paint, 36 from the arc and 24 from the line so we had 44 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 112-44-24) and scored 8 points, (44 POP-36 from the arc), from what I’ll call the Twilight Zone”: that area between the paint and the arc that is the land of the pull-up jump shot, a lost art but a great weapon. They had 136/64/27/43 = 29 POP with 2 from the Twilight Zone.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 24/4. We led in POP 8 times. We led in TZ points 7 times with 1 tie in 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 22 POP and 4 TZ, our opposition 14.5/1. We’ve led in POP 1 time. We led in TZ points 1 time with 1 even in 2 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 30 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 23/3. We’ve led in POP 9 times. We led in TZ points 8 times with 2 even in 15 games.
20 of our 38 baskets were assisted (.526) and 27 of their 42 (.706). Assists tend to come more often from jump shots than lay-ups or dunks so the more assists you get, the more you are settling for jump shots to try to win the game which is often a bad strategy but, as JB says, is the way we have to play this year because of our personnel. So far we’ve mostly played teams that had to do that even more than we did.
Pre-Conference: We assisted 59.2% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 71.6% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 9 games with one even in 13 games.
Conference: We assisted 52.6% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 70.6% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 2 games out of 2 games.
Total: We assisted 58.5% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 70.6% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 11 games with one even in 15 games.
You compute possessions by taking field goal attempts – offensive rebounds + turnovers plus 47.5% of free throws attempted and dividing that into the number of points. We were 102 FGA - 20 OREBs + 29 TOs + (.475 x 39) = 129.525 possessions. They were 111 -31+ 21+ (.475 x 52) = 128.075 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 129 possessions for us and 128 for them. There were 257 combined possessions in these games, 128.5 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 134 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 128.5 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 133 combined possessions per game.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 112 points in 129 possessions (0.868). They scored 136 points in 128 possessions (1.0625). We have, of course, led 10 games in offensive efficiency since the winning team always leads in that stat. In the pre-conference season, we are averaged 1.091 points per possession to 0.959 for the opposition.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 1.091 points per possession to 0.959 for the opposition. We won this stat in 10 of 13 games, (the winning team always wins this stat).
Conference: We’ve averaged 0.868 points per possession to 1.0625 for the opposition. We’ve lost the stat in both games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.062 points per possession to 0.972 for the opposition and have won the stat in 10 of 15 games.
Every other level of basketball plays quarters. To check the consistency of our performance, I look at what the score was at the 10 minute mark of each half to see what the quarterly scores would be. At a minimum, I think we want to score at least 15 points in each quarter and try to hold the opposition to less than that. The quarterly breakdown for these games: 26-27, 29-20, 27-41, 30-53. In the pre-conference season we had an average of 16-14, 16-14, 20-18, 20-17 and 5-13 in OT. We’ve won 31 of 52 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 23 times.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 16-14, 16-14, 20-18, 20-17 OT: 5-13 We won 31 of 52 quarters with 3 even. We scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 23 times.
Conference: We’ve averaged 13-13.5, 14.5-10, 13.5-20.5, 15-26.5 We’ve won 3 of 8 quarters . We’ve scored 15 or more in 4 quarters and held the opposition under that 3 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 16-14, 16-13, 19-19, 20-18 OT: 5-13 We’ve won 34 of 60 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 42 quarters and held the opposition under that 26 times.
Hubert Davis once told us to “Get an offensive dude”. I decided to name an “Offensive Dude Of the Game, or an O-Dog, and use the hockey concept of points + assists. In these games our ODOG was:
Vs. Pittsburgh Michael Gbinije 14 + 7 = 21
Vs. Miami Mal Richardson 20 + 1 = 21
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 13 times, Mal Richardson and Tyler Roberson 1 time each.
I’ve thought of another stat to keep track of that also relates to individual offensive efficiency, although I’m sure there nothing all that new about it. I heard that Steph Curry had an amazing game in terms of the number of points he scored compared to the number of field goal attempts he had. I decided to compare the number of points scored to the number of shots taken, except I’ll include free throw attempts as they are shots, too. I originally thought of doing it on a percentage basis but a reserve who hit his only shot would out-rank a starter who scored 15 points on 10 shots. Instead I’ll keep track of the most points scored more than the number of shots- or the fewest points scored less than the number of shots if nobody has a positive number. I’ll call it “scoring efficiency”. In these games, the following players led us in scoring efficiency:
Vs. Pittsburgh Tyler Roberson 15-12-1 = +2 (3)
Vs. Miami Mal Richardson 20 -15 - 2 = +3 (1)
Michael Gbinije has led in this stat 5 times, Tyler Roberson 4 times Tyler Lydon 3 times and DaJuan Coleman, Trevor Cooney ,Kaleb Joseph and Mal Richardson once each. Gbinije had the best game a +13 Charlotte on 26 points vs. 9 for 11 from the field including 6 treys and 2 for 2 from the foul line. It’s a good sign that Mal won this stat vs. Miami as he was not exactly a candidate for it based on his previous play.
I also like to keep track who sits us down in each half. Besides being fun it gives an indication of who Coach B likes to design plays for since opening possessions are more likely to be scripted. In these games, these are the players who sat us down:
Vs. Pittsburgh Mal Richardson lay-up after 3:34 and Mal Richardson jumper after 8 second
Vs. Miami Michael Gbinije jumper after 2:00 and DaJuan Coleman a dunk after 1:05
TOTAL: 2,187 seconds / 30 halves = 1minute 13 seconds
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 13 seconds. The shortest time has been 7 seconds in the second half of the Texas Southern game. The longest time is 4:51 in the second half against Georgetown. Mali Richardson has sat us down 10 times, Michael Gbinije 8 times, DaJuan Coleman 6 times, Trevor Cooney 4 times and Tyler Roberson 2 times. We’ve been sat down by 11 treys 5 lay-ups, 6 two point jumpers and two dunks.
Another fun fact is the “Taco Bell MVP”: the guy who gets us to 70 points, (it used to be 75), so people can get free, (or is it discounted?) tacos at Taco Bell. We didn’t get tacos in either game. They may be hard to come by in this conference.
Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 4 times, Michael Gbinije twice and DaJuan Coleman and Tyler Lydon once. The average amount of time left in the game has been 4:42.
FOULS
My theory about fouls is that the team that attempts the most two point shots and scores the most in the paint will tend to get fouled the most. If the numbers are as predicted or close, there’s nothing to be read into them but if there’s a big disparity, it makes you wonder about how the game was called.
In these games, we attempted 65 two point shots to 63, scored 44 points in the paint to 64 and got fouled 32 times to 45, attempting 39 foul shots to 57. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 2.0 for us and 1.4 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.4 for us to 1.4 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.1 for us and 1.0 for them.
In the pre-conference season we are averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 11 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 10 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 9 games out of 13 games. So numerically, the calls favored us.
Conference: We averaged 2.0 two point shots per foul, 1.4 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.2 foul shots per foul. They averaged 1.4 two point shots per foul, 1.4 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.3 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 1 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 2 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 1 games out of 2 games.
Total: We averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.0 two point shots per foul, 1.7 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 12 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 12 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 10 games out of 15 games.
“MY MAN”
A reporter once asked Casey Stengel how come he won so many games with the Yankees. He said “Because I never play a game without “my man”. The reporter wondered who his man was. Casey suggested “You could look it up.” The reporter did look it up and found that Yogi Berra had played in every game that season at some positon: catcher, left field, pinch-hitting, something. He was the player Stengel had the highest regard for and the most trust in, so he didn’t want to do without him.
Who is Jim Boeheim’s “man” this season? The only way to tell is to see who plays the most minutes each game. In these games the following players played the most minutes:
Vs. Pittsburgh Trevor Cooney and Michael Gbinije 40 minutes
Vs. Miami Michael Gbinije 38 minutes
A senior has been “the man” in every game, Michael Gbinije 9 times and Trevor Cooney 7 times, (with the one tie.)
