SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,988
- Like
- 65,563
I’ll continue doing a statistical analysis of games this year with some of the off-beat numbers I like to look at. I’ll post them after each game, probably the next day.
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 both the Wisconsin and Georgetown games.
Michael Gbinije had 34 net points in 85 minutes, has 141 NP in 297 minutes for the season = 19.0NP/40
Tyler Roberson had 15 net points in 65 minutes, has 74 NP in 254 minutes for the season = 11.7NP/40
Tyler Lydon had 13 net points in 73 minutes, has 118 NP in 259 minutes for the season = 18.2NP/40
DaJuan Coleman had 10 net points in 26 minutes, has 31 NP in 115 minutes for the season = -10.8NP/40
Trevor Cooney had 9 net points in 81 minutes, has 69 NP in 311 minutes for the season = 8.9NP/40
Kaleb Joseph had 5 net points in 17 minutes, has 3 NP in 68 minutes for the season = -1.8NP/40
Franklin Howard had -2 net points in 18 minutes, has 3 NP in 45 minutes for the season = 2.7NP/40
Malachi Richardson had -6 net points in 67 minutes, has 44 NP in 260 minutes for the season = 6.8NP/40
DNP-CD
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 2 NP in 23 minutes for the season = 3.5NP/40
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: I have always, (arbitrarily), considered a player averaging 10NP per 40 minutes to be a pretty good definition of a solid starting player. We’ve got four such players so far, now that DaJuan Coleman has started to be productive. Trevor Cooney’s 8.9 is disappointing in a 5th year guard, even though it’s harder for guards to score high. We now have the other shooting options we’ve always wanted so that Trevor wouldn’t be playing under such pressure or in the face of defensive pressure. Last year had 9.3NP per 40, 11.6 the year before that. Malachi Richardson’s 6.8 is more forgivable because he’s a freshman but it’s still beneath his talent level. We are in search of a true point guard but Franklin Howard, (2.7) and Kaleb Joseph 1.8 are not ready for prime time. And who knows what Chinsoso Obokoh(3.5) is ready for? That’s too many unproductive players for a 9 man team. Of course it’s early yet and we’ve played a difficult early schedule. But these guys need to grow up fast for the ACC. They’ve got four games to get ready.
The Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 22 offensive and 33 defensive rebounds. They had 30 offensive and 59 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 22 of 89 times, (24.70%), which is poor. But against Wisconsin it was 6 of 41, (14.6) with is ridiculously bad. When they missed, they got the ball 30 of 63 times (47.6%). We’ve won the rebounding battle by this measure 3 times. For the year we’ve averaged getting 30.8% of our misses and our opposition has gotten 39.2% of theirs, a wide discrepancy.
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 29 second chance points off our 22 offensive rebounds,1.318 points per rebound. They got 33 for their 30 = 1.100, so at least we took greater advantage of our second chances. For the year we’ve averaged 0.880 points per offensive rebound: they’ve averaged 0.966. We’ve also led in this stat 5 times.
Of our 21 turnovers, 9 were their steals and 12 were our own miscues. Of their 34 turnovers, 17 were Syracuse steals and 17 were their fault- ten less unforced turnovers than we had. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 4 games but fewer unforced turnovers in 1 game with one even. It’s an area we need to tighten up as one of the ideas behind the zone is that we will make up for a rebounding deficit with a favorable turnover margin. I think the lack of a true point guard is hurting us here.
If you add our 55 rebounds to their 34 turnovers, we had 89 “manufactured possessions”. They had 87 + 21 = 108. We have won that battle 3 times with 1 even. But for the season we’ve averaged 50.5 MP to 53.3. We are normally well ahead of our early opponents in this stat.
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. It’s what this game was all about, for sure. We were 30 for 68, (.441) inside the arc, 14 for 50, (.280) outside it and 28 for 41, (.683) from the line. They were 37 for 73 (.507), 13/37 (.351) and 32/41 (.780). We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 4 games, in three point field goals percentage in 6 games, and in free throw percentage in 3 games. For the season we are .449/.378/.683. Our opposition is .443/.299/.684. We’d led in three point percentage ever game up to this but lost that battle against both Wisconsin and Georgetown.
We had 44 points in the paint (PIP), 37 off turnovers (POTO), 29 “second chance” points (SCP), 10 fast break points (FBP) and 21 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 58 points in the paint, 29 off turnovers, 33 “second chance” points, 4 fast break points and 18 from the bench. We also had 63 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 87.
We’ve led in PIP 3 times, POTO 5 times, FCP 5 times with one even, SCP 3 times, FBP 6 times, and BP 3 times. For the season we are averaging 22.5-31 PIP, 16-14 POTO, 38.5-32 FCP, 10-15 SCP,6-6 FBP and 12.5-16 BP.
We had 130 points, 44 in the paint, 42 from the arc and 28 from the line so we had 58 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 130-44-28) and scored 16 points, (58 POP-42 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 145/58/39/32 = 55 POP with 16 from the Twilight Zone. We’ve led in POP 5 times. We’ve led in TZ points 5 times with one tie. For the year we are averaging 32.5 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 24/3. The game is so much easier when you don’t have to go to the basket for all your points.
25 of our 44 baskets were assisted (.568) and 31 of their 50 (.620). For the year we are assisting on 60.1% of our baskets to 62.6% for the opposition, who have had a higher percentage 5 games with one even. 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.
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 118 FGA - 22 OREBs + 21 TOs + (.475 x 41) = 136.475 possessions. They were 110 -30+ 34+ (.475 x 41) = 133.475 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one off, I’ll count that as 135 possessions for us and 134 for them. There were 269 combined possessions in these games, 134.5 per game. We’ve averaged 136 combined possessions per game this year.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 130 points in 135 possessions (0.963). They scored 145 points in 134 possessions (1.082). We have, of course, led 6 games in offensive efficiency since the winning team always leads in that stat. For the year we are averaging 1.046 points per possession to 0.973 for the opposition.
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: 26-36, 22-27, 29-36, 48-33 OT 5-13. For the season we have an average of 15.5-15.5, 16-13, 17.5-19, 21-17. We’ve won 15 of 32 quarters with 2 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 21 quarters and held the opposition under that 16 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. Michael Gbinije was our ODOG in both games with a total of 42 points and 10 assists for 52 “hockey points. Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 7 times, Tyler Roberson 1 time.
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 this tournament, these are the players who sat us down:
Vs. Wisconsin Mal Richardson trey at 19:28 and Trevor Cooney jumper at 17:37
Vs. Georgetown Tyler Roberson jumper at 18:48 and Michael Gbinije trey at 15:09
TOTAL: 1,229 seconds / 16 halves = 1minute 17 seconds
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 17 seconds. The longest time is 4:51 in the second half against Georgetown. Mali Richardson has sat us down 6 times, Michael Gbinije 4 times, Trevor Cooney 3 times and Tyler Roberson 2 times and DaJuan Coleman 1 times. We’ve been sat down by 10 treys 3 lay-ups and three 2 point jumper.
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. In this tournament:
Vs. Charlotte Trevor Cooney lay-up with 10:39 left.
Vs. Connecticut Trevor Cooney lay-up with 3:10 left.
Vs. Texas A&M Michael Gbinije lay-up with 5:14 left.
Both Cooney and Gbinije have gotten us taco twice. The average amount of time left in the game has been 5:31.
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 68 two point shots to 73, scored 44 points in the paint to 58 and got fouled 42 times to 40, attempting 41 foul shots to 41. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.6 for us and 1.8 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.0 for us to 1.7 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.0 for us and 1.0 for them.
Syracuse 20 from 18 = 1.1 Wisconsin 12 from 18 = 0.7
Syracuse 21 from 24 = 0.9 Georgetown 29 from 24 = 1.2
TOTAL: 183 from 163 = 1.1 133 from 141 = 0.9
We are averaging 1.5 two point shots per foul, 1.1 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They are averaging 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 0.9 foul shots per foul. We’ve been fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 7 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 8 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 4 games. So, numerically, the calls have seemed to favor us.
“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. For the first time, it was Michael Gbinije and not Trevor Cooney, with 45 and then 40 minutes, (he played every minute of both games.). Trevor Cooney has led in minutes 6 times, Michael Gbinije 2 times.
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 both the Wisconsin and Georgetown games.
Michael Gbinije had 34 net points in 85 minutes, has 141 NP in 297 minutes for the season = 19.0NP/40
Tyler Roberson had 15 net points in 65 minutes, has 74 NP in 254 minutes for the season = 11.7NP/40
Tyler Lydon had 13 net points in 73 minutes, has 118 NP in 259 minutes for the season = 18.2NP/40
DaJuan Coleman had 10 net points in 26 minutes, has 31 NP in 115 minutes for the season = -10.8NP/40
Trevor Cooney had 9 net points in 81 minutes, has 69 NP in 311 minutes for the season = 8.9NP/40
Kaleb Joseph had 5 net points in 17 minutes, has 3 NP in 68 minutes for the season = -1.8NP/40
Franklin Howard had -2 net points in 18 minutes, has 3 NP in 45 minutes for the season = 2.7NP/40
Malachi Richardson had -6 net points in 67 minutes, has 44 NP in 260 minutes for the season = 6.8NP/40
DNP-CD
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 2 NP in 23 minutes for the season = 3.5NP/40
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: I have always, (arbitrarily), considered a player averaging 10NP per 40 minutes to be a pretty good definition of a solid starting player. We’ve got four such players so far, now that DaJuan Coleman has started to be productive. Trevor Cooney’s 8.9 is disappointing in a 5th year guard, even though it’s harder for guards to score high. We now have the other shooting options we’ve always wanted so that Trevor wouldn’t be playing under such pressure or in the face of defensive pressure. Last year had 9.3NP per 40, 11.6 the year before that. Malachi Richardson’s 6.8 is more forgivable because he’s a freshman but it’s still beneath his talent level. We are in search of a true point guard but Franklin Howard, (2.7) and Kaleb Joseph 1.8 are not ready for prime time. And who knows what Chinsoso Obokoh(3.5) is ready for? That’s too many unproductive players for a 9 man team. Of course it’s early yet and we’ve played a difficult early schedule. But these guys need to grow up fast for the ACC. They’ve got four games to get ready.
The Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 22 offensive and 33 defensive rebounds. They had 30 offensive and 59 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 22 of 89 times, (24.70%), which is poor. But against Wisconsin it was 6 of 41, (14.6) with is ridiculously bad. When they missed, they got the ball 30 of 63 times (47.6%). We’ve won the rebounding battle by this measure 3 times. For the year we’ve averaged getting 30.8% of our misses and our opposition has gotten 39.2% of theirs, a wide discrepancy.
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 29 second chance points off our 22 offensive rebounds,1.318 points per rebound. They got 33 for their 30 = 1.100, so at least we took greater advantage of our second chances. For the year we’ve averaged 0.880 points per offensive rebound: they’ve averaged 0.966. We’ve also led in this stat 5 times.
Of our 21 turnovers, 9 were their steals and 12 were our own miscues. Of their 34 turnovers, 17 were Syracuse steals and 17 were their fault- ten less unforced turnovers than we had. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 4 games but fewer unforced turnovers in 1 game with one even. It’s an area we need to tighten up as one of the ideas behind the zone is that we will make up for a rebounding deficit with a favorable turnover margin. I think the lack of a true point guard is hurting us here.
If you add our 55 rebounds to their 34 turnovers, we had 89 “manufactured possessions”. They had 87 + 21 = 108. We have won that battle 3 times with 1 even. But for the season we’ve averaged 50.5 MP to 53.3. We are normally well ahead of our early opponents in this stat.
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. It’s what this game was all about, for sure. We were 30 for 68, (.441) inside the arc, 14 for 50, (.280) outside it and 28 for 41, (.683) from the line. They were 37 for 73 (.507), 13/37 (.351) and 32/41 (.780). We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 4 games, in three point field goals percentage in 6 games, and in free throw percentage in 3 games. For the season we are .449/.378/.683. Our opposition is .443/.299/.684. We’d led in three point percentage ever game up to this but lost that battle against both Wisconsin and Georgetown.
We had 44 points in the paint (PIP), 37 off turnovers (POTO), 29 “second chance” points (SCP), 10 fast break points (FBP) and 21 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 58 points in the paint, 29 off turnovers, 33 “second chance” points, 4 fast break points and 18 from the bench. We also had 63 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 87.
We’ve led in PIP 3 times, POTO 5 times, FCP 5 times with one even, SCP 3 times, FBP 6 times, and BP 3 times. For the season we are averaging 22.5-31 PIP, 16-14 POTO, 38.5-32 FCP, 10-15 SCP,6-6 FBP and 12.5-16 BP.
We had 130 points, 44 in the paint, 42 from the arc and 28 from the line so we had 58 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 130-44-28) and scored 16 points, (58 POP-42 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 145/58/39/32 = 55 POP with 16 from the Twilight Zone. We’ve led in POP 5 times. We’ve led in TZ points 5 times with one tie. For the year we are averaging 32.5 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 24/3. The game is so much easier when you don’t have to go to the basket for all your points.
25 of our 44 baskets were assisted (.568) and 31 of their 50 (.620). For the year we are assisting on 60.1% of our baskets to 62.6% for the opposition, who have had a higher percentage 5 games with one even. 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.
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 118 FGA - 22 OREBs + 21 TOs + (.475 x 41) = 136.475 possessions. They were 110 -30+ 34+ (.475 x 41) = 133.475 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one off, I’ll count that as 135 possessions for us and 134 for them. There were 269 combined possessions in these games, 134.5 per game. We’ve averaged 136 combined possessions per game this year.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 130 points in 135 possessions (0.963). They scored 145 points in 134 possessions (1.082). We have, of course, led 6 games in offensive efficiency since the winning team always leads in that stat. For the year we are averaging 1.046 points per possession to 0.973 for the opposition.
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: 26-36, 22-27, 29-36, 48-33 OT 5-13. For the season we have an average of 15.5-15.5, 16-13, 17.5-19, 21-17. We’ve won 15 of 32 quarters with 2 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 21 quarters and held the opposition under that 16 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. Michael Gbinije was our ODOG in both games with a total of 42 points and 10 assists for 52 “hockey points. Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 7 times, Tyler Roberson 1 time.
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 this tournament, these are the players who sat us down:
Vs. Wisconsin Mal Richardson trey at 19:28 and Trevor Cooney jumper at 17:37
Vs. Georgetown Tyler Roberson jumper at 18:48 and Michael Gbinije trey at 15:09
TOTAL: 1,229 seconds / 16 halves = 1minute 17 seconds
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 17 seconds. The longest time is 4:51 in the second half against Georgetown. Mali Richardson has sat us down 6 times, Michael Gbinije 4 times, Trevor Cooney 3 times and Tyler Roberson 2 times and DaJuan Coleman 1 times. We’ve been sat down by 10 treys 3 lay-ups and three 2 point jumper.
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. In this tournament:
Vs. Charlotte Trevor Cooney lay-up with 10:39 left.
Vs. Connecticut Trevor Cooney lay-up with 3:10 left.
Vs. Texas A&M Michael Gbinije lay-up with 5:14 left.
Both Cooney and Gbinije have gotten us taco twice. The average amount of time left in the game has been 5:31.
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 68 two point shots to 73, scored 44 points in the paint to 58 and got fouled 42 times to 40, attempting 41 foul shots to 41. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.6 for us and 1.8 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.0 for us to 1.7 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.0 for us and 1.0 for them.
Syracuse 20 from 18 = 1.1 Wisconsin 12 from 18 = 0.7
Syracuse 21 from 24 = 0.9 Georgetown 29 from 24 = 1.2
TOTAL: 183 from 163 = 1.1 133 from 141 = 0.9
We are averaging 1.5 two point shots per foul, 1.1 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They are averaging 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 0.9 foul shots per foul. We’ve been fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 7 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 8 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 4 games. So, numerically, the calls have seemed to favor us.
“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. For the first time, it was Michael Gbinije and not Trevor Cooney, with 45 and then 40 minutes, (he played every minute of both games.). Trevor Cooney has led in minutes 6 times, Michael Gbinije 2 times.