Historical Efficiency

[SWC75]

There was a recent discussion on the board comparing the 2009-10 team to the 2011-12 team. It was my view that they were both strong defensive teams but that the 2009-210 team had more offensive firepower: we had two strong inside scorers in Arinze Onuaku and Rick Jackson and two strong outside shooters in Wes Johnson and Andy Rautins. The 11-12 team had no one as good in either category. The 11-12 team went 34-3 vs. 30-5 because they were 15-2 in close games vs. 6-3 for the 09-10 team. 6-3 and is better than it looked because it means that avoided close games. Another poster countered that the 11-12 team was superior to the 09-10 team on defense and that more than made up for the 09-10’s team’s offensive superiority.

In the end these were opinions and I realized we had to numbers to judge a team’s offensive potency and defensive strength and even the relative impact of the two. The SU Media Guide and the SU Athletics Website have all the numbers now for every team since 1982-83: that’s 30 years. And the “efficiency” rating, points per possession on both offense and defense, can be computed for each. There’s a formula for figuring out the number of possession each team has in a game: Field Goals attempted minus offensive rebounds plus (their own) turnovers plus .475 X the number of free throws they attempted. I’m not sure how that was figured out but it seems to work. At least is gives you a pretty close approximation. Then you divide the points scored by the possession to get the points per possession. This factors out the pace of the game and gives you an offensive and defensive efficiency rating.

Here are the best offensive teams of the last 30 years in rank order, by their efficiency rating:

1) 1988-89 1.217
2) 1987-88 1.191
3) 1985-86 1.144
4) 2011-12 1.141
5) 2009-10 1.137
6) 1989-90 1.135
7) 1986-87 1.116
8) 2010-11 and 2004-05 1.104
10) 1990-91 1.102
11) 2002-03 1.096
12) 1999-00 1.092
13) 2008-09 1.089
14) 1993-94 1.085
15) 2007-08 1.080
16) 2003-04 1.070
17) 1991-92 and 1995-96 1.062
19) 2006-07 1.055
20) 1992-93 1.054
21) 1994-95 1.037
22) 2000-01 1.034
23) 1982-83 1.032
24) 2005-06 1.026
25) 1983-84 1.024
26) 1998-99 1.021
27) 1996-97 1.020
28) 2001-02 1.016
29) 1984-85 and 1997-98 1.014

Comment: Perceptions. The 2011-12 team was a slightly better offensive team than 2009-10 and the 4th best we’ve had in 30 years. Sherman Douglas was the point guard of our two best offensive teams and 3 of the top 7. He was a back-up to Pearl Washington on the third best team. But Michael Edwards was the point guard for the 6th best team. It helped to have Derrick Coleman, Billy Owens and Stevie Thompson on that team. Carmelo’s national champions were only the 11th best offensive team.

The teams ranked based on their defensive efficiency:

1) 1998-99 0.887
2) 1985-86 0.897
3) 1982-83 0.921
4) 1996-97 0.930
5) 1984-85 0.931
6) 2011-12 0.933
7) 1999-00 0.935
8) 1983-84 0.936
9) 2009-10 0.937
10) 1997-98 0.949
11) 2006-07 and 2010-11 0.951
13) 1994-95 and 1995-96 0.951
15) 2005-06 0.961
16) 2004-05 0.964
17) 1987-88 0.966
18) 2000-01 0.968
19) 2001-02 0.976
20) 1990-91 0.979
21) 2002-03 and 2008-09 0.980
23) 1989-90 and 1993-94 0.983
25) 1992-93 0.983
26) 2003-04 0.995
27) 1986-87 and 1988-89 1.001
29) 1991-92 1.016
30) 2007-08 1.017

Comments: Again, perceptions. The 1998-99 team went 21-12 after a 6-0 start and lost to Oklahoma State in an 8-9 NCAA game. Who would have guess that they were our best defensive team? The “Tri-Captains” teams, (Leo Rautins-Eric Santifer-Tony Bruin), were noted for being excellent offensive teams but poor defensive teams. So the 1982-83 team was our 23rd best offensive team and our 3rd best defensive team of the last 30 years. The top five defensive teams had 109 wins and 50 losses, (average 22-10, winning % .686). The top five offensive teams were 146-31, (29-6, .825). Stopping the other team is important but you win by putting the ball in the hoop.

And here are the teams ranked by differential: offensive efficiency - defensive efficiency. Instead of recording the 1982-83 team as 1.032-0.921 = +0.111, I’ll just record that as 111 “points” and do the same fore the other teams. I’ll add the team’s won-lost record and their record in games decided by less than 10 points or in overtime to complete the comparison.

1) 1985-86 247 26-6, 7-6
2) 1987-88 225 26-9, 5-8
3) 1988-89 216 30-8, 7-8
4) 2011-12 208 34-3, 15-2
5) 2009-10 200 30-5, 6-3
6) 1999-00 157 26-6, 6-3
7) 2010-11 153 27-8, 12-6
8) 1989-90 152 26-7, 12-5
9) 2004-05 140 27-7, 9-5
10) 1998-99 134 21-12, 3-5
11) 1990-91 123 26-6, 11-3
12) 2002-03 116 30-5, 15-2
13) 1986-87 115 31-7, 11-5
14) 1982-83 111 21-10, 6-6
15) 2008-09 109 28-10, 8-3
16) 1995-96 105 29-9, 11-5
17) 2006-07 104 24-11, 6-10
18) 1993-94 102 23-7, 10-5
19) 1996-97 90 19-13, 6-5
20) 1983-84 88 23-9, 12-5
21) 1984-85 83 22-9, 10-6
22) 1994-95 80 20-10, 8-8
23) 2003-04 75 23-8, 11-4
24) 1992-93 66 20-9, 10-6 and 2000-01 66 25-9, 9-2
26) 1997-98 65 26-9, 14-4 and 2005-06 65 23-12, 10-5
28) 2007-08 63 21-14, 9-8
29) 1991-92 46 22-10, 13-5
30) 2001-02 40 23-13, 6-6

Comment: For years I’ve argued that the 1985-86 team, which ahs been somewhat forgotten, was one of our best teams. We blew out USC early that year and their coach said that this was the best college team he’d seen since the Walton Gang. Mike Lupica cheerfully said “Boeheim finally has a team he can’t ruin.” Rafael Addison and Rony Seikaly were both injured in a game vs. Seton Hall and neither fully recovered that season. In the NCAAs, a Navy team we’d beaten by 22 earlier in the year went to the line 33 more times than we did and won by 12. It’s interesting that the top three teams have a lousy record in close games- and that their point guards were Pearl Washington and Sherman Douglas. There is kind of a trend of our top teams playing fewer close games than the lesser ones. Over the period we are 277-158 (.637) in games decided by less than 10 points or in overtime and 475-103 (.822) in games decided in regulation by 10 or more points. So avoiding close games is important. But winning them is important, too. Our national championship team was our 12th most “efficient” but 15-2 in close games, (including the 81-78 title game) and our winningest team was also 15-2.

By the way, there’s little to choose between the 2009-10 and 2011-12 teams:
2009-10 1.137-0.937 = 200 points
2011-12 1.141-0.933 = 208 points
They were different but got virtually the same results.

 

[Niastri]

Amazing statistical analysis.

Unfortunately, with the results listed, I am starting to think offensive and defensive efficiency aren't really particularly predictive of victories.

Some teams that had high efficiency on both ends of the floor have very comparable records to teams that have much lower efficiency. Seems strange to me.

 

[Gabjon]

I really love this and appreciate the effort!!!

 

[moqui]

great job, SWC.

I find it curious that, of all those great mid to late 80s teams, the only one that made the Final Four is the one that didn't rank in the efficiency top 10 . . . indeed, none of our Final Four teams managed that feat

 

[Cusefannotindc]

Amazing statistical analysis.

Unfortunately, with the results listed, I am starting to think offensive and defensive efficiency aren't really particularly predictive of victories.

Some teams that had high efficiency on both ends of the floor have very comparable records to teams that have much lower efficiency. Seems strange to me.

It actually correlates fairly well. I ran the win-loss against Pomeroy's version of Pyth, and it came out to a .63 correlation. In general it would explain about 41% of the difference in win-loss. The difference is probably in the weighting for opponent.

 

[br801]

Amazing statistical analysis.

Unfortunately, with the results listed, I am starting to think offensive and defensive efficiency aren't really particularly predictive of victories.

Some teams that had high efficiency on both ends of the floor have very comparable records to teams that have much lower efficiency. Seems strange to me.

While I'm not sure if we would find the above true for all teams, this suggests to me that strong intangible elements of player, team and coaching performance (ones that can't be or haven't been captured statistically) may be at play.

 

[DallasCuse]

And here are the teams ranked by differential: offensive efficiency - defensive efficiency. Instead of recording the 1982-83 team as 1.032-0.921 = +0.111, I’ll just record that as 111 “points” and do the same fore the other teams. I’ll add the team’s won-lost record and their record in games decided by less than 10 points or in overtime to complete the comparison.

1) 1985-86 247 26-6, 7-6
2) 1987-88 225 26-9, 5-8
3) 1988-89 216 30-8, 7-8
4) 2011-12 208 34-3, 15-2
5) 2009-10 200 30-5, 6-3
6) 1999-00 157 26-6, 6-3
7) 2010-11 153 27-8, 12-6
8) 1989-90 152 26-7, 12-5
9) 2004-05 140 27-7, 9-5
10) 1998-99 134 21-12, 3-5
11) 1990-91 123 26-6, 11-3
12) 2002-03 116 30-5, 15-2
13) 1986-87 115 31-7, 11-5
14) 1982-83 111 21-10, 6-6
15) 2008-09 109 28-10, 8-3
16) 1995-96 105 29-9, 11-5
17) 2006-07 104 24-11, 6-10
18) 1993-94 102 23-7, 10-5
19) 1996-97 90 19-13, 6-5
20) 1983-84 88 23-9, 12-5
21) 1984-85 83 22-9, 10-6
22) 1994-95 80 20-10, 8-8
23) 2003-04 75 23-8, 11-4
24) 1992-93 66 20-9, 10-6 and 2000-01 66 25-9, 9-2
26) 1997-98 65 26-9, 14-4 and 2005-06 65 23-12, 10-5
28) 2007-08 63 21-14, 9-8
29) 1991-92 46 22-10, 13-5
30) 2001-02 40 23-13, 6-6

I suspect our free throw shooting in those close games in the late '80's has alot to do with our poor records in those games. I've maintained the '89-90 team was as good as any, but with this analysis, maybe not.

Not hard to figure out that 2001-02 team would finish last. With DeChuck Williams leading the team, and Craig Forth having to start every game as a freshman, I'm surprised it didn't rank 40th.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Thanks SWC for putting this together. I'm not sure if it's a quirky stat or not but our top three "most efficient" teams had a composite 19-22 in close games. Of course, back then, it seemed as if we faced a lot more better teams (the Johnnies, Georgetown, Nova) , but is it also possible that JAB has learned how to win better. I know Jake and others have posted stats about stall ball and how it is effective coming down the stretch in games. What's interesting is that there is no correlation between the advent of the 45 second shot clock beginning in 1985 which then switched to a 35 second clock in 1993.

Also, there is no surprise after watching Syracuse basketball all these years that the Pearl/Sherm teams from the 80's and then the last three seasons are all in the top seven. Amazing what JAB has done on a very consistent basis for a long time. We have been spoiled for basically what amounts to a couple generations (which is really true when you think of Leo and Andy).

 

[OttoMets]

Surprised that '94-'95 is so low on that offensive list; always remembered them as an offensive juggenaut. Other than that, the top 12 (other than maybe 2010-2011) happens to be composed of what I think of as the top 12 teams in that time period. No coincidence.

 

[OttoMets]

Amazing statistical analysis.

Unfortunately, with the results listed, I am starting to think offensive and defensive efficiency aren't really particularly predictive of victories.

Some teams that had high efficiency on both ends of the floor have very comparable records to teams that have much lower efficiency. Seems strange to me.

Except in the case of the 2007-2008 team. Seeing them at the bottom of the defensive efficiency rankings was the biggest "duh" moment of the whole analysis.

 

[OttoMets]

While I'm not sure if we would find the above true for all teams, this suggests to me that strong intangible elements of player, team and coaching performance (ones that can't be or haven't been captured statistically) may be at play.

And matchups. Draw Texas in 2003, we get to play for the national championship. Face Butler in 2010, we're going home.

 

[sufandu]

I wonder if one reason the best offensive teams often weren't the best defensive teams is that they had huge leads when back-ups were put in games, and blowouts appeared closer than they should've been.

 

[br801]

I wonder if one reason the best offensive teams often weren't the best defensive teams is that they had huge leads when back-ups were put in games, and blowouts appeared closer than they should've been.

That's an excellent point, and much would depend on individual coaching style. For the most part, JB tends to "call off the dogs" in those situations, whereas some coaches are more apt to run up a score.

 

[OttoMets]

That's an excellent point, and much would depend on individual coaching style. For the most part, JB tends to "call off the dogs" in those situations, whereas some coaches are more apt to run up a score.

Especially in years past. He's bringing in the walk-ons very late this season (who could blame him), but I always thought Boeheim set himself apart from Calhoun and others in the early and mid-'90s by emptying the bench with three or more minutes to go.

 

[br801]

And matchups. Draw Texas in 2003, we get to play for the national championship. Face Butler in 2010, we're going home.

Absolutely matchups are critical, especially in a single elimination format.

A team now needs to win six games to take the title (with at most five teams of those teams posing a real challenge), so the luck of the draw and what happens to the strong teams in other regions plays a huge role in determining your ultimate fate.

This is one reason winning a national championship is so difficult, no matter how strong your team may be. It's also why I laugh when I hear someone say "Team X looks like a horrible matchup for us, I don't see how we can get past them in March." Chances are someone will take care of them for us.

 

[VaBeachOrFan]

SWC, you are The Wizard! But after all the dust and stats have settled, what stands out for me is that the two teams with the best close-game record (15-2 for both the 2002-2003 and 2011-2012 squads) had two of the best players able to take over a game -- Melo and Dion -- which the Orange don't always have. (GMAC was the greatest "Clutch Player," but that's a little bit different.) If JB can find that kind of player to toss in his usual great mix of talent, we'll be in the Final Four for sure.-VBOF

 

[sufandu]

SWC, you are The Wizard! But after all the dust and stats have settled, what stands out for me is that the two teams with the best close-game record (15-2 for both the 2002-2003 and 2011-2012 squads) had two of the best players able to take over a game -- Melo and Dion -- which the Orange don't always have. (GMAC was the greatest "Clutch Player," but that's a little bit different.) If JB can find that kind of player to toss in his usual great mix of talent, we'll be in the Final Four for sure.-VBOF

I don't know if I agree with this. The teams in the mid and late '80's had multiple players that could take over games. The Pearl, Sherm, Owens, and Coleman were all capable of taking over games.

 

[VaBeachOrFan]

I don't know if I agree with this. The teams in the mid and late '80's had multiple players that could take over games. The Pearl, Sherm, Owens, and Coleman were all capable of taking over games.

Point taken, and I might add John Wallace to the list, however I'd still put Dion and Melo at the top of the "unstoppable" list because they could hurt you in multiple ways.-VBOF

 

[BlackSquirrels]

Thanks for posting, SWC.

While I'm not sure if we would find the above true for all teams, this suggests to me that strong intangible elements of player, team and coaching performance (ones that can't be or haven't been captured statistically) may be at play.

To expand on the above point, I think random chance has a much bigger effect on a team's win-loss record than most fans realize. I can think of 3 games from last season (@Louisville, @UConn, Wisconsin) in which opponents had the ball with a chance to hit a game-winning shot with under 10 seconds left.

If opponents had run better plays and made those shots, the team's efficiency differential would have dropped by only 8 or 9 points, but the team's record would have been 31-6 instead of 34-3.

Also, SU could have played great defense on those three plays and forced the opponents into 3-point prayers. If the opponents made those prayers, SU's record would have been 3 games worse despite playing great defense!

 

[sufandu]

Point taken, and I might add John Wallace to the list, however I'd still put Dion and Melo at the top of the "unstoppable" list because they could hurt you in multiple ways.-VBOF

They certainly could, but let's not forget how good Coleman and Owens were. They could both shoot the three and handle the ball. Owens even played the 2 in the NBA he was so versatile. Some of the difference was certainly eras. Dion and Melo never played a Georgetown team that put both Mutumbo and Mourning on the court at the same time.

 

[SWC75]

I wonder if one reason the best offensive teams often weren't the best defensive teams is that they had huge leads when back-ups were put in games, and blowouts appeared closer than they should've been.

Wouldn't that hurt the offense too?

 

[sufandu]

Wouldn't that hurt the offense too?

Maybe. I suppose it depends on how much the back-ups shot the ball. The late '80's teams could run teams off the court at times and put up ridiculous numbers. Didn't 89-90 average 89 points/game? Maybe when the back-ups came on they worked clock more (a 45 sec clock) and took far fewer shots, having less impact on offensive efficiency but gave up more points per possesion/unit time to the other team's starters. It could be interesting to break down the numbers of blowout games and when starters where in versus back-ups.

 

[cap2nine]

There was a recent discussion on the board comparing the 2009-10 team to the 2011-12 team. It was my view that they were both strong defensive teams but that the 2009-210 team had more offensive firepower: we had two strong inside scorers in Arinze Onuaku and Rick Jackson and two strong outside shooters in Wes Johnson and Andy Rautins. The 11-12 team had no one as good in either category. The 11-12 team went 34-3 vs. 30-5 because they were 15-2 in close games vs. 6-3 for the 09-10 team. 6-3 and is better than it looked because it means that avoided close games. Another poster countered that the 11-12 team was superior to the 09-10 team on defense and that more than made up for the 09-10’s team’s offensive superiority.

In the end these were opinions and I realized we had to numbers to judge a team’s offensive potency and defensive strength and even the relative impact of the two. The SU Media Guide and the SU Athletics Website have all the numbers now for every team since 1982-83: that’s 30 years. And the “efficiency” rating, points per possession on both offense and defense, can be computed for each. There’s a formula for figuring out the number of possession each team has in a game: Field Goals attempted minus offensive rebounds plus (their own) turnovers plus .475 X the number of free throws they attempted. I’m not sure how that was figured out but it seems to work. At least is gives you a pretty close approximation. Then you divide the points scored by the possession to get the points per possession. This factors out the pace of the game and gives you an offensive and defensive efficiency rating.

Here are the best offensive teams of the last 30 years in rank order, by their efficiency rating:

1) 1988-89 1.217
2) 1987-88 1.191
3) 1985-86 1.144
4) 2011-12 1.141
5) 2009-10 1.137
6) 1989-90 1.135
7) 1986-87 1.116
8) 2010-11 and 2004-05 1.104
10) 1990-91 1.102
11) 2002-03 1.096
12) 1999-00 1.092
13) 2008-09 1.089
14) 1993-94 1.085
15) 2007-08 1.080
16) 2003-04 1.070
17) 1991-92 and 1995-96 1.062
19) 2006-07 1.055
20) 1992-93 1.054
21) 1994-95 1.037
22) 2000-01 1.034
23) 1982-83 1.032
24) 2005-06 1.026
25) 1983-84 1.024
26) 1998-99 1.021
27) 1996-97 1.020
28) 2001-02 1.016
29) 1984-85 and 1997-98 1.014

Comment: Perceptions. The 2011-12 team was a slightly better offensive team than 2009-10 and the 4th best we’ve had in 30 years. Sherman Douglas was the point guard of our two best offensive teams and 3 of the top 7. He was a back-up to Pearl Washington on the third best team. But Michael Edwards was the point guard for the 6th best team. It helped to have Derrick Coleman, Billy Owens and Stevie Thompson on that team. Carmelo’s national champions were only the 11th best offensive team.

The teams ranked based on their defensive efficiency:

1) 1998-99 0.887
2) 1985-86 0.897
3) 1982-83 0.921
4) 1996-97 0.930
5) 1984-85 0.931
6) 2011-12 0.933
7) 1999-00 0.935
8) 1983-84 0.936
9) 2009-10 0.937
10) 1997-98 0.949
11) 2006-07 and 2010-11 0.951
13) 1994-95 and 1995-96 0.951
15) 2005-06 0.961
16) 2004-05 0.964
17) 1987-88 0.966
18) 2000-01 0.968
19) 2001-02 0.976
20) 1990-91 0.979
21) 2002-03 and 2008-09 0.980
23) 1989-90 and 1993-94 0.983
25) 1992-93 0.983
26) 2003-04 0.995
27) 1986-87 and 1988-89 1.001
29) 1991-92 1.016
30) 2007-08 1.017

Comments: Again, perceptions. The 1998-99 team went 21-12 after a 6-0 start and lost to Oklahoma State in an 8-9 NCAA game. Who would have guess that they were our best defensive team? The “Tri-Captains” teams, (Leo Rautins-Eric Santifer-Tony Bruin), were noted for being excellent offensive teams but poor defensive teams. So the 1982-83 team was our 23rd best offensive team and our 3rd best defensive team of the last 30 years. The top five defensive teams had 109 wins and 50 losses, (average 22-10, winning % .686). The top five offensive teams were 146-31, (29-6, .825). Stopping the other team is important but you win by putting the ball in the hoop.

And here are the teams ranked by differential: offensive efficiency - defensive efficiency. Instead of recording the 1982-83 team as 1.032-0.921 = +0.111, I’ll just record that as 111 “points” and do the same fore the other teams. I’ll add the team’s won-lost record and their record in games decided by less than 10 points or in overtime to complete the comparison.

1) 1985-86 247 26-6, 7-6
2) 1987-88 225 26-9, 5-8
3) 1988-89 216 30-8, 7-8
4) 2011-12 208 34-3, 15-2
5) 2009-10 200 30-5, 6-3
6) 1999-00 157 26-6, 6-3
7) 2010-11 153 27-8, 12-6
8) 1989-90 152 26-7, 12-5
9) 2004-05 140 27-7, 9-5
10) 1998-99 134 21-12, 3-5
11) 1990-91 123 26-6, 11-3
12) 2002-03 116 30-5, 15-2
13) 1986-87 115 31-7, 11-5
14) 1982-83 111 21-10, 6-6
15) 2008-09 109 28-10, 8-3
16) 1995-96 105 29-9, 11-5
17) 2006-07 104 24-11, 6-10
18) 1993-94 102 23-7, 10-5
19) 1996-97 90 19-13, 6-5
20) 1983-84 88 23-9, 12-5
21) 1984-85 83 22-9, 10-6
22) 1994-95 80 20-10, 8-8
23) 2003-04 75 23-8, 11-4
24) 1992-93 66 20-9, 10-6 and 2000-01 66 25-9, 9-2
26) 1997-98 65 26-9, 14-4 and 2005-06 65 23-12, 10-5
28) 2007-08 63 21-14, 9-8
29) 1991-92 46 22-10, 13-5
30) 2001-02 40 23-13, 6-6

Comment: For years I’ve argued that the 1985-86 team, which ahs been somewhat forgotten, was one of our best teams. We blew out USC early that year and their coach said that this was the best college team he’d seen since the Walton Gang. Mike Lupica cheerfully said “Boeheim finally has a team he can’t ruin.” Rafael Addison and Rony Seikaly were both injured in a game vs. Seton Hall and neither fully recovered that season. In the NCAAs, a Navy team we’d beaten by 22 earlier in the year went to the line 33 more times than we did and won by 12. It’s interesting that the top three teams have a lousy record in close games- and that their point guards were Pearl Washington and Sherman Douglas. There is kind of a trend of our top teams playing fewer close games than the lesser ones. Over the period we are 277-158 (.637) in games decided by less than 10 points or in overtime and 475-103 (.822) in games decided in regulation by 10 or more points. So avoiding close games is important. But winning them is important, too. Our national championship team was our 12th most “efficient” but 15-2 in close games, (including the 81-78 title game) and our winningest team was also 15-2.

By the way, there’s little to choose between the 2009-10 and 2011-12 teams:
2009-10 1.137-0.937 = 200 points
2011-12 1.141-0.933 = 208 points
They were different but got virtually the same results.

These stats and the analysis are interesting to be sure but I have to argue that it's not a reliable way of comparing SU teams from one year to the next in an effort to find the "better" team.

First of all, offensive and defensive efficiency ratings are an amalgamation of many contributing stats that can actually hide a weaker aspect of the game with one or two particularly strong ones. This is great for an overall snapshot of a team's offensive or defensive ability but the specifics and true strengths are easily lost.

Secondly, these ratings are not really designed for the comparison of teams from different years but as a gauge of how a team stacks up against its opponents, conference or national contenders in a given season. If SU played an identical schedule against the exact same opponents (roster and all) year after year then these numbers would tell us much more. For all we know our 88-89, "best" offensive team may have ranked middle-of-the-pack relative to other teams that season whereas our 02-03, "23rd ranked" defensive team may have been much higher on the relative, national scale that year.

Perhaps it would be better to speculate how 2010 SU (healthy and complete) would have fared against 2012 OSU or UK, and how a full 2012 Syracuse team would have done against 2010 Butler or Duke.

Back to this topic though, I think a much more effective way of measuring one year's team against another's is to take more specific stats, determine each teams aptitudes and deficiencies and try to simulate a match-up based on that data. I know that the original post was conceived out of comparison of '10 to '12 and became much more but for simplicity and time sake I've reviewed a few stats from those two teams specifically.

Our 2012 team ranked #3 in the country with 9.61 steals per game while 2010 ranked #6 with an even 10 spg. Already a stat that shows a team with a slightly better number yet a lower ranking relative to that year's basketball programs. But, a much more telling stat is '12's #2 rank with .91 steals per turnover versus 10's #27 at .66 spt. This combination of stats tells me that the 2012 was significantly better at protecting the ball. And, along with a better block per game average, albeit only .6 bpg, and a better assist to turnover ratio, I feel this also demonstrates that 2012 was the better transition scoring team.

However, the 2010 had much higher assist per game stats at #2 with 19.4 whereas 2012 slipped only to #15 with a big drop to 15.8 apg. And there's little surprise that the 2010 team was significantly better at rebounding, on both ends, in the top 15th percentile statistically where the 2012 team was almost exactly in the middle of the field among 344 D-1 teams. The '10 team also led the nation in FG% with 51.6% as the '12 team ranked #46 with 46.5%. If we take into account this group of stats and also consider that the better transition scoring of 2012 could only have inflated their 46.5 field goal percentage, it's very clear that 2010 was far superior in their half-court offense.

Now we could all pull and present different combinations of stats to demonstrate that one team is better than the other and the real fun of this kind of discussion is that we will never know for sure. But when I look at the 2012 offense against the 2010 zone, and vice versa, and both team's strengths and weaknesses, I see the 2012 squad getting a few more easy baskets off of turnovers and in transition but I see the 2010 cracking the 2012 defense consistently with far better balance. I'm just glad that we have the luxury of discussing so many great and talented SU teams with yet another one making it's mark this year.

 

[SWC75]

These stats and the analysis are interesting to be sure but I have to argue that it's not a reliable way of comparing SU teams from one year to the next in an effort to find the "better" team.

First of all, offensive and defensive efficiency ratings are an amalgamation of many contributing stats that can actually hide a weaker aspect of the game with one or two particularly strong ones. This is great for an overall snapshot of a team's offensive or defensive ability but the specifics and true strengths are easily lost.

Secondly, these ratings are not really designed for the comparison of teams from different years but as a gauge of how a team stacks up against its opponents, conference or national contenders in a given season. If SU played an identical schedule against the exact same opponents (roster and all) year after year then these numbers would tell us much more. For all we know our 88-89, "best" offensive team may have ranked middle-of-the-pack relative to other teams that season whereas our 02-03, "23rd ranked" defensive team may have been much higher on the relative, national scale that year.

Perhaps it would be better to speculate how 2010 SU (healthy and complete) would have fared against 2012 OSU or UK, and how a full 2012 Syracuse team would have done against 2010 Butler or Duke.

Back to this topic though, I think a much more effective way of measuring one year's team against another's is to take more specific stats, determine each teams aptitudes and deficiencies and try to simulate a match-up based on that data. I know that the original post was conceived out of comparison of '10 to '12 and became much more but for simplicity and time sake I've reviewed a few stats from those two teams specifically.

Our 2012 team ranked #3 in the country with 9.61 steals per game while 2010 ranked #6 with an even 10 spg. Already a stat that shows a team with a slightly better number yet a lower ranking relative to that year's basketball programs. But, a much more telling stat is '12's #2 rank with .91 steals per turnover versus 10's #27 at .66 spt. This combination of stats tells me that the 2012 was significantly better at protecting the ball. And, along with a better block per game average, albeit only .6 bpg, and a better assist to turnover ratio, I feel this also demonstrates that 2012 was the better transition scoring team.

However, the 2010 had much higher assist per game stats at #2 with 19.4 whereas 2012 slipped only to #15 with a big drop to 15.8 apg. And there's little surprise that the 2010 team was significantly better at rebounding, on both ends, in the top 15th percentile statistically where the 2012 team was almost exactly in the middle of the field among 344 D-1 teams. The '10 team also led the nation in FG% with 51.6% as the '12 team ranked #46 with 46.5%. If we take into account this group of stats and also consider that the better transition scoring of 2012 could only have inflated their 46.5 field goal percentage, it's very clear that 2010 was far superior in their half-court offense.

Now we could all pull and present different combinations of stats to demonstrate that one team is better than the other and the real fun of this kind of discussion is that we will never know for sure. But when I look at the 2012 offense against the 2010 zone, and vice versa, and both team's strengths and weaknesses, I see the 2012 squad getting a few more easy baskets off of turnovers and in transition but I see the 2010 cracking the 2012 defense consistently with far better balance. I'm just glad that we have the luxury of discussing so many great and talented SU teams with yet another one making it's mark this year.

All statisical analyses has their qualifications. The chief one in my numbers is strength of schedule, (and of the era). One thing I will never buy is that contributory statisitics, (steals, turnovers, rebounds) are more important than the bottom line stats to which they contribute, (average points scored and given up per possession).

 

[Knicks411]

Thanks for posting, SWC.



To expand on the above point, I t8-hink random chance has a much bigger effect on a team's win-loss record than most fans realize. I can think of 3 games from last season (@Louisville, @UConn, Wisconsin) in which opponents had the ball with a chance to hit a game-winning shot with under 10 seconds left.

If opponents had run better plays and made those shots, the team's efficiency differential would have dropped by only 8 or 9 points, but the team's record would have been 31-6 instead of 34-3.

Also, SU could have played great defense on those three plays and forced the opponents into 3-point prayers. If the opponents made those prayers, SU's record would have been 3 games worse despite playing great defense!

You definitely see at the highest levels that record in close games is very much dependent on random chance. Record in one run games from year to year varies greatly. (The Cleveland Indians had the second best winning% in the AL last year in one run games; they went 68-94 overall. Do we really think they knew how to win close games?)

I could see in college I might buy a little more into "knowing" how to win close games, since we aren't talking about the best of the best when it comes to players, but I still believe for the most part that in a game that's 3 points or less a lot of it is random chance. The fact that Kevin Jones missed that 3 at the buzzer didn't make us any better any more than him making it would've made us worse.