KenPom: "The Boeheim exception"

[SWC75]

A few years ago I did a study of basketball statistics using the information in the SU Media Guide. At that time they had all the stats for the previous 25 years of SU basketball teams. I ranked the teams by winning percentage and then by every stat I could think of that seemed important to winning. I then compared the lists by determining the average numbers of places in the ranking that each team differed. If a team was #4 in rebounding but #8 in winning percentage, that was a difference of 4 places. I then averaged the difference for the 25 teams in each of the stats. Here's what I came up with:

- 2 point field goal percentage had an average differential ranking of 4.25
- Rebounding had an average differential ranking of 4.70
- Percentage of field goal attempts from three point range had an average differential ranking of 4.98
- Turnovers had an average differential ranking of 5.41
- Steals had an average differential ranking of 5.93
- 3 point field goal percentage had an average differential ranking of 6.14
- Blocks had an average differential ranking of 6.84

- Percentage of made field goals that were assisted had an average differential ranking of 8.27 (more assists come from jumpers than from lay-ups or dunks so a lot of assists can indicate too much reliance on jump shots)

My take from this is that You need to make your close shots and make them more difficult for the other team, force them to take more threes, (the attempts being more important than the percentage). You all need to go get the ball, (who gets loose balls should be a stat, too), and hold onto it when you get it.

Sounds like a zone defense might be a good idea.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

You are confusing having a "nobody" going off with an overall percentage. These nobodies are not killing us as regularly as you make it out. Pomeroy did not care who makes the 3, just the overall percentage. Suppose JB/SU did identify shooters and purposefully baited lesser shooters to attempt the 3s. People would then generally be talking about the small percentage of times the poor shooter actually hit (yes, that would be you). But after a large sample size revealed the benefits of this plan wouldn't people appreciate it and support it? - apparently not yet.

Pomeroy was not making the statistics say anything. He started similar to you, believing 3pt % D was random. He noticed a counter to this, thus the "JB exception". It is a complement from an independent statistician.

You are confusing/not understanding my point. And (elsewhere) I am discussing the difference between the overall percentage versus independent results.
These nobodies are scoring at a rate not commensurate with their talent. Because the zone makes it easier for shooters to shoot without having to do anything else. Whether or not that "kills" us is a separate matter and depends on context. Do we get "killed" if we still win the game? Are we getting killed if a bad team is able to remain competitive in a game with us because some schmuck has a career night? How "regular" does it have to be to be significant? It used to happen more often than in the past two years. Maybe it's just not as fresh in your memory.

I don't believe Pomeroy is being as complimentary as you suggest.

As much as the pro-JB crowd loves to flaunt pro-JB stats, it remains interesting to me that none of the other coaches — men who have their careers and livelihoods dependent on winning, and who have far more time to analyze this stuff... and who have to compete against us — are not adopting 'the JB way.' It's not too difficult to implement. It's a matter of choice. The pro-JB crowd suggests, ridiculously, that JB is just more intelligent than the other coaches, and his methodology more 'common sensical.' I suggest those media talking points aren't being filtered strongly enough.

 

[SWC75]

it remains interesting to me that none of the other coaches — men who have their careers and livelihoods dependent on winning, and who have far more time to analyze this stuff... and who have to compete against us — are not adopting 'the JB way.' .

Actually they are. More and more teams that used to be exclusive man for man are using zone.

 

[kirbivore]

The all time low was the Vermont nobody who has ,seriously, the game of his life, never had one like if before playing us or after playing us. I couldn't even tell you his name, nor do I really feel like looking his name up. All I know is he went 7-7 and shouldn't have.

Germain Mopa Njila

He was a 6'4 SF who did most his damage from the open area in the zone around the FT line. Scored 20 that night and got a goose egg 2 days later against Michigan St.

 

[Knicks411]

A more careful reading of Ken shows why I estimated a 2 point advantage on offense. Ken's rationale is that some of the extra threes are bad threes, ie threesw that would normally not be taken. If they were typical threes there would be no advantage. Forcing teams to take just two bad threes a game does give us an advantage. Two points is a reasonable estimate.

I think 2 points might be high. Then again maybe not.

Remember, Pomeroy was just talking about 3 point defense. How many points do we give up because we are almost always below average at defensive rebounding? I would imagine a lot of what we gain from increased 3 point defense we lose from poor defensive rebounding.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

You are confusing/not understanding my point. And (elsewhere) I am discussing the difference between the overall percentage versus independent results.
These nobodies are scoring at a rate not commensurate with their talent. Because the zone makes it easier for shooters to shoot without having to do anything else. Whether or not that "kills" us is a separate matter and depends on context. Do we get "killed" if we still win the game? Are we getting killed if a bad team is able to remain competitive in a game with us because some schmuck has a career night? How "regular" does it have to be to be significant? It used to happen more often than in the past two years. Maybe it's just not as fresh in your memory.

I don't believe Pomeroy is being as complimentary as you suggest.

As much as the pro-JB crowd loves to flaunt pro-JB stats, it remains interesting to me that none of the other coaches — men who have their careers and livelihoods dependent on winning, and who have far more time to analyze this stuff... and who have to compete against us — are not adopting 'the JB way.' It's not too difficult to implement. It's a matter of choice. The pro-JB crowd suggests, ridiculously, that JB is just more intelligent than the other coaches, and his methodology more 'common sensical.' I suggest those media talking points aren't being filtered strongly enough.

Pomeroy is complimenting JB. He is slightly adjusting his thinking based on an exception he noted by tracking JBs 3pt D%. The title of his article lists JB by name. It's a Compliment.

And if the zone really made it easier to shoot without having to do anything, wouldn't you expect SU's 3 pt defensive % to be bad? It doesn't make sense that SU gives up all these easy shots yet consistently ranks high in the defensive 3 pt %.

I can't believe you are sticking to listing the outliers as some means of demeaning the overall statistic (and I can't believe people fell for it and started derailing the thread). Everyone has those. Pomeroy is looking at averages over the last 10 years. He noticed a trend. You baited someone into rehashing Vermont, congratulations. Hey, the compliment has to be killing Igor and Blue Curtain too, but at least they pretend their internet connection dies when this stuff comes out.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Ken explicity said that some teams get frustrated when they cannot drive. Consequently, they take some ill advised 3 point shots. His explanataion for our advantage is that teams take a couple of ill advised threes; low percentage shots that they would normally not take.

As to intangibles; one may argue that we lose rebounds, either through long carooms or zone induced rebounding weakness. However, we also commit less fouls. On the offensive end, having the guards on top is a definite advantage. We have more transition points than other teams.

Over-all, proof is in the pudding. We are seldom the most talented team but we are the most consistent team in history.

As to the argument that other teams do not zone. Just about every team is now incorporating the zone, even traditonal anti-zone teams like UCon, not to mention international basketball. The NBA had outlawed zone and this ed its implementation. The trend is pro-zone. Coaches are noticing that our consistent success cannot be explained by luck.

Why is it difficult for some to conclude that JB is a better coach than his peers? Someone has to be the best, or among the best. The best way to differentiate between luck and strategy is long-term consistency. There is no better proof.

 

[Knicks411]

I think it's a big leap from "SU under JB has defended the 3 point line a few percentage points better than you'd expect over the last 10 years" to "he's a better coach than his peers".

At least, depending on exactly what you mean. I don't think he's the best coach right now, or the best coach ever or anything, but he's obviously one of the best there is.

As to intangibles; one may argue that we lose rebounds,

I'm not sure how that is an intangible. It's pretty well documented that we are terrible at defensive rebounding. There's a lot more statistical evidence for that than 3 point defense, if nothing else.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I'm not sure how that is an intangible. It's pretty well documented that we are terrible at defensive rebounding. There's a lot more statistical evidence for that than 3 point defense, if nothing else.

Where is it documented that SU is terrible at defensive rebounding? Sounds like you are the one drawing conclusions.

And just how is there going to be more statistical evidence? Pomeroy was looking at 3pt D%. If the discussion was D RB% you would look at that.

People were saying "that nobodies always went nuts against us". and "the zone allows easy 3 pointers". Then with the stats staring them in the face they somehow tried to continue with the same ridiculous claims. You could almost feel their pain as they tried to work around the statistics. Several of the arguments for getting rid of the zone are just not standing up, and their grasping for straws.

I'm not sure where you are trying to go, but it seems like you are backpedaling into this "but, but, but" kind of thing. Is it your contention that SU is routinely terrible at D RB %? Are you attributing this to the zone? I know last year was bad, but we had poor personnel for RBing - Fab, KJo, Scoop. I was under the impression that this years higher D efficiency was in large part due to better D rebounding. The personnel changed. In any event, a better time for those discussions would be when Pomeroy goes through and charts the data. Right now, we have in front of us the data Pomeroy put together for D 3pt%. And the results were so good for SU that he titled the article in honor of JB!

 

[Knicks411]

Where is it documented that SU is terrible at defensive rebounding? Sounds like you are the one drawing conclusions.

Here are their ranks in defensive rebounding% over the same period as the 3 point %

194th
341st
211th
260th
274th
122nd
297th
272nd
276th
311th
274th

We've finished in the top 200 in defensive rebounding% once. (The 194th is this season, so I'm not counting it since the season isn't over, and the way we are trending since we lost James, we'll be below 200 before too long).

People were saying "that nobodies always went nuts against us". and "the zone allows easy 3 pointers". Then with the stats staring them in the face they somehow tried to continue with the same ridiculous claims. You could almost feel their pain as they tried to work around the statistics. Several of the arguments for getting rid of the zone are just not standing up, and their grasping for straws.

Agreed on this. I wasn't one of those people.

I'm not sure where you are trying to go, but it seems like you are backpedaling into this "but, but, but" kind of thing. Is it your contention that SU is routinely terrible at D RB %? Are you attributing this to the zone? I know last year was bad, but we had poor personnel for RBing - Fab, KJo, Scoop. I was under the impression that this years higher D efficiency was in large part due to better D rebounding. The personnel changed. In any event, a better time for those discussions would be when Pomeroy goes through and charts the data. Right now, we have in front of us the data Pomeroy put together for D 3pt%. And the results were so good for SU that he titled the article in honor of JB!

I'm not trying to backpedal anything. There seems to be a pattern that we defend the three point line better than you would expect. That's fine, I have no problem with that, and I can buy that. But I don't necessarily think the point should go anywhere else. It doesn't make JB the best coach ever. It doesn't make the zone the best defense to play (and it doesn't mean the zone is the worst defense to play, either. I'm not saying that). I didn't interpret the blog post by Pomeroy as an endorsement of zone, just an observation he had that ran contrary to something he thought.

The last 10 years we have been a horrible defensive rebounding team. The numbers above bear that out. We're consistently below 200th in the country. I'm sure that has something (a lot) to do with playing zone defense. But I don't think that is a repudiation of playing zone any more than the 3 point defense is an endorsement of it. It's a balancing act; by playing zone we essentially traded fewer fouls and more forced misses for more offensive rebounds against. (We've also added turnovers to the mix the last few years). That's fine, and on the whole, our defensive rankings have been very strong. (Been between 10th and 20th the last 4 years).

 

[AlaskaSU]

Kens stats document that we do defend the three better than others. That is the point of the article. The zone hurts rebounding but it is intangible because we do not know how much. A job for SWC? Ken,s take, and I agree, is that when teams are not able to drive they can get frustrated and throw up a couple of ill conceived threes that they might have otherwise not taken.

The question that is begged is whether, on balance the zone is advantageous? The fact that we are the most consistent team indicates that ,on balance, the zone is advantageous.

Knicks. In your first paragraph you say that JB is not a better coach than his peers. In your next paragraph you say that he is obviously one of the best.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

I would imagine a lot of what we gain from increased 3 point defense we lose from poor defensive rebounding.

But how much are we gaining from the steals/blocked shots that lead to fast break points the other way?

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

As much as the pro-JB crowd loves to flaunt pro-JB stats, it remains interesting to me that none of the other coaches — men who have their careers and livelihoods dependent on winning, and who have far more time to analyze this stuff... and who have to compete against us — are not adopting 'the JB way.'

Why would any Syracuse fan not be in the pro-JB crowd? Is there an anti-JB crowd? Are you in that group? Rick Pitino uses zone. More and more coaches use zone these days. Cincinnati zoned us last week.

We are giving up 59 points per game, holding our opponents to 36% from the field and 28% from beyond the arc. It's not luck-our defense is very good. Those are not just pro-JB stats, those are we're winning a lot of games stats.

 

[Knicks411]

Knicks. In your first paragraph you say that JB is not a better coach than his peers. In your next paragraph you say that he is obviously one of the best.

Because I wasn't sure how you meant it. I don't think he is better than all of his peers. I think he is better than most of them. Hope that makes sense.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Because I wasn't sure how you meant it. I don't think he is better than all of his peers. I think he is better than most of them. Hope that makes sense.

Then why did you say that "JB is not a better coach than his peers?"

 

[Knicks411]

Then why did you say that "JB is not a better coach than his peers?"

Like I said, I wasn't sure what you meant. I read it to mean he was better than all of them, which I don't agree with.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Knicks - Pomeroy started with the theory that D 3pt % was random. He looked over the data and found JB's info enough to adjust his theory.

If he had the same info you listed above for D RB% it looks like it wouldn't have changed his theory. You, on the other hand, are taking one statistic and extrapolating it into "it's pretty well documented that we are terrible at defensive rebounding" and "over the last ten years we have been a horrible defensive rebounding team". All on the one stat you like. A different conclusion might be made if you evaluated rebounding margin.

I thought our 2010 and 2011 teams rebounded well. I think RJ led the league in rebounds at over 10 a clip.