SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,998
- Like
- 65,600
I’ll continue doing a statistical analysis of games this year with some of the off-beat numbers I like to look at.
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 Louisville and Pittsburgh games.)
Tyler Lydon had 20 net points in 62 minutes, has 343 NP in 835 minutes for the season = 16.4 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 198 NP in 421 minutes =18.8 NP/40. Conference: 145 NP in 414 minutes = 14.0 NP/40.
Michael Gbinije had 20 net points in 72 minutes, has 404 NP in 1058 minutes for the season = 15.3 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 226 NP in 486 minutes =18.6 NP/40. Conference: 178 NP in 572 minutes = 12.4 per 40.
Franklin Howard had 15 net points in 37 minutes, has 32 NP in 236 minutes for the season = 5.4 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 19 NP in 93 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: 13 NP in 143 minutes = 3.6 NP/40.
DaJuan Coleman had 12 net points in 42 minutes, has 142 NP in 478 minutes for the season = 11.9 NP/40
Pre-Conference: 84 NP in 200 minutes = 16.8 NP/40. Conference: 58 NP in 278 minutes = 8.3 NP per 40.
Tyler Roberson had 9 net points in 49 minutes, has 318 NP in 875 minutes for the season = 14.5 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 388 minutes = 12.9 NP/40. Conference: 193 NP in 487 minutes = 15.9 NP/40.
Trevor Cooney had 5 net points in 71 minutes, has 232 NP in 1041 minutes for the season = 8.9 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 480 minutes = 10.4 NP/40 Conference: 107 NP in 561 minutes = 7.6 NP/40.
Mal Richardson had 1 net points in 68 minutes, has 250 NP in 945 minutes for the season = 10.6 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 96 NP in 410 minutes = 9.4 NP/40. Conference: 154 NP in 535 minutes = 11.5 NP/40.
DNP-CD
Kaleb Joseph had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 8 NP in 114 minutes for the season = 2.8NP/40
Pre-Conference: 14 in 96 minutes = 5.8NP/40. Conference: -6 NP in 18 minutes = -13.3 per 40.
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 7 NP in 67 minutes for the season = 4.2 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 8 NP in 39 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: -1 NP in 28 minutes = -1.4 NP/40.
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: My rule of thumb is that an adequate starter should average 10NP per 40 minutes of play. We’ve got four guys who have done that in conference play: Roberson (15.9), Lydon (14.0), Gbinije (12.4) and Richardson (11.5). We have three guys who don’t meet that minimal requirement: Coleman (8.3), Cooney (7.6) and Howard (3.6), (the other two guys, Joseph and Obokoh, don’t even play). Howard is a freshman and his limitations can be forgiven to some extent. Coleman’s lack of mobility due to his injury cuts him some slack, although you wonder if he will ever be any better than we’ve seen this year. It’s Cooney’s erratic production that can’t be forgiven. If JB thinks Roberson should be a more consistent contributor as a junior, what about a 5th year senior like Cooney? In past years we could attribute his problems to the fact that he was our only outside shooter and the defense always made sure to have someone put a hand in his face. But that’s not the case this year. Cooney should be going off, having his greatest year. If anything, he’s gotten worse.
Michael Gbinije has led us in net points 13 times, Tyler Roberson and Tyler Lydon 6 times, Mal Richardson 3 times and DaJuan Coleman and Trevor Cooney 1 time each.
The Other Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 14 offensive and 39 defensive rebounds. They had 28 offensive and 56 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball a dismal 14 of 70 times, (20.0%). When they missed, they got the ball and excellent 28 out of 67 times, (41.8%).
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 34.1% of our misses to 34.4% for the opposition and have done better in 10 of 15 games with one even. Despite our fears rebounding in this conference hasn’t been a big problem.
Total: We’ve rebounded 33.7% of our misses to 35.3% for the opposition and did better in 16 of 28 games with one even. We’d been competing well on the boards but not in these two games and it was a huge factor.
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 12 second chance points off our 14 offensive rebounds, 0.857 points per rebound. They got 29 for their 28 = 1.036.
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 0.945 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.978. We’ve led in this stat 9 times in 13 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.950 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.983. We’ve led in this stat 18 times in 28 games. An expected big problem is finally beginning to materialized.
Of our 19 turnovers, 12 were their steals and 7 were our own miscues. Of their 25 turnovers, 16 were Syracuse steals and 9 were their fault. 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 of 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 13 turnovers and 6 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 8 games with 3 even and fewer unforced turnovers in 7 games with 2 even of 15 games.
Total: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 13 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 16 games with 3 even but fewer unforced turnovers in only 10 games with 3 even of 28 games.
I’m adding another stat: Points per Turnover, which is “Points Off Turnovers” divided by the number of turnovers the other team had. Syracuse got 19 points from 25 turnovers, an average of 0.760. They had 33 points from 19 turnovers, an average of 1.737, so they did a better job of getting back on defense after a turnover. And maybe we did a poorer job of getting the basket after a turnover.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 1.124 points per turnover. They averaged 0.974. We won this battle 10 times, including the last 9 in a row of 13.
Conference: We’ve averaged 1.168 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.148. They won the first four games, when we were 0-4, 0.760-1.591. We won 8 of 9 games and the same with this stat by 1.431-0.925. Then in these last two losses, it was 0.760-1.737. So this seems to be an important stat.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.146 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.067. We’ve won this battle 18 times in 28 games.
If you add our 53 rebounds to their 25 turnovers, we had 78 “manufactured possessions”. They had 84 + 19 = 103. We are normally well ahead of our early opponents in this stat. Then it levels off in the conference season. This year, it’s been pretty level all year.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 52 MP to 50. We won this battle 7 times with 1 even in 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 47 MP to 49. We’ve won this battle 7 times in 15 games
Total: We’ve averaged 49 MP to 48. We’ve won this battle 14 times with 1 even in 28 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were 23 for 51, (.451) inside the arc, We were 15 for 50 (.300) outside the arc and an excellent 19 for 34, (.559) from the line. They were 41 for 73 (.562) inside the arc, 15 for 46 (.326) and 11/17 (.647) from the foul line. Nothing predicts victory or defeat better than two point field goal percentage.
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 .469/.367/.670. Our opposition is .521/.295/.679. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 4 games, in three point field goal percentage in 11 games, and in free throw percentage in 6 games out of 15 games.
Total: We are .475/.361/.676. Our opposition was .483/.307/.661. We led in two point field goal percentage in 12 games with one even, in three point field goals percentage in 19 games, and in free throw percentage in 13 games with 2 even in 28 games
We had 44 points in the paint (PIP), 19 off turnovers (POTO), 12 “second chance” points (SCP), 6 fast break points (FBP) and 32 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 72 points in the paint, 33 off turnovers, 29 “second chance” points, 18 fast break points and 44 from the bench. (Tyler Lydon is helping to even out the “bench points”.) I’ve decided to keep track of “starter points” (SP) as a counter-weight to bench points. 78 of those to 94. So there! We also had 73 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 80, so we weren’t uncompetitive in the initial sets.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 16-11 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-13 SCP, 7-6 FBP, 59-46 SP 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, SP 11 times and BP 5 times with 1 even in 13 games .
Conference: We’ve averaged 25-30 PIP, 15-13 POTO, 38-37 FCP, 12-11 SCP, 5-6 FBP, 57-46 SP and 11-20 BP. We led in PIP 6 times with 1 even, POTO 8 times, FCP 7 times with one even, SCP 9 times, FBP 8 times with 1 even, SP 11 times with one even, and BP 3 times in 15 games.
Total: We averaged 26-29 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 38-36 FCP, 12-12 SCP, 7-5 FBP and 12-19 BP. We’ve led in PIP 13 times with 1 even, POTO 18 times, FCP 13 times with 3 even, SCP 14 times with 2 even, FBP 16 times with 1 even, SP 24 times with one even and BP 8 times with 1 even in 28 games.
We had 110 points, 44 in the paint, 45 from the arc and 19 from the line so we had 47 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 110-44-19) and scored 2 points, (47 POP-45 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 138/72/45/11 = 55 POP with 10 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 30 POP and 4 TZ, our opposition 23/3. We’ve led in POP 11 times and in TZ points 6 times with 3 even in 15 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 31 POP and 4 TZ, our opposition 24/3. We’ve led in POP 17 times and in TZ points 14 times with 4 even in 28 games.
28 of our 38 baskets were assisted (.737) and 37 of their 56 (.661). 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. It’s interesting that we played so badly these last two games and yet had a higher assist percentage in both games.
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 57.9% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 68.0% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 13 games out of 15 games.
Total: We assisted 58.6% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 69.5% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 22 games with 1 even in 28 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 101 FGA -14 OREBs + 19 TOs + (.475 x 34) = 122.15 possessions. They were 119 -28+ 25+ (.475 x 17) = 124.075 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 129 possessions for us and 131 for them. There were 260 combined possessions in these games, 130 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 132 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 125 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 128 combined possessions per game.
(I’ve excluded overtime periods as we are trying to measure the pace of games and overtimes would add the possessions from an extra 5 minutes and thus be misleading.)
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 110 points in 122 possessions (0.902). They scored 138 points in 124 possessions (1.113). We were great on offense, mediocre on defense.
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 1.062 points per possession to 1.025 for the opposition. We’ve won the stat in 8 of 15 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.076 points per possession to 0.993 for the opposition and have won the stat in 18 of 26 games.
(These figures include the overtime periods as we are now determining the points per possession and the OT periods are as relevant as regulation.)
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: 35-22, 20-36, 29-40, 26-40
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 17-13, 15-16, 17-15, 17-20 OT: 12-8.5. We’ve won 29 of 60 quarters with 6 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 37 quarters and held the opposition under that 25 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 17-14, 15-15, 18-17, 19-18 OT: 10-10. We’ve won 59 of 112 quarters with 9 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 75 quarters and held the opposition under that 48 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. Louisville Trevor Cooney 19 + 1 = 20
Vs. Pittsburgh Tyler Lydon 21 + 0 = 21
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 21 times, Trevor Cooney 3 times, Mal Richardson 2 times each and Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson once each. Mike’s our O-Dog, that’s for sure.
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. Louisville Trevor Cooney 19 – 14 - 2 = +3 (5)
Vs. Pittsburgh Tyler Lydon 21 – 12 – 1 = +8 (4)
Michael Gbinije have led in this stat 10 times, Tyler Roberson 6 times, Trevor Cooney 5 times, Mal Richardson and Tyler Lydon 4 times, DaJuan Coleman 3 times, and Kaleb Joseph once. 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. What I like about this stat is that totally different types of players can compete for it.
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. Louisville Tyler Roberson lay-up after 1:27 and Tyler Lydon lay-up after 1:24
Vs. Pittsburgh Michael Gbinije trey after 26 seconds and DaJuan Coleman jumper after 2:14
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 10 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. But we haven’t had to wait long very often. Mali Richardson have sat us down 15 times, Michael Gbinije 14 times, Trevor Cooney and Tyler Roberson 9 times, DaJuan Coleman 8 times and Tyler Lydon once, (he’s always coming off the bench). We’ve been sat down by 20 treys, 13 lay-ups, 9 two point jumpers and 4 dunks. It’s interesting that the lost art of the two point jump shot has set us down as many as 9 times.
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 this game.
Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 6 times, Michael Gbinije and Tyler Lydon twice, DaJuan Coleman, Franklin Howard, Mal Richardson and Tyler Roberson once each. The average amount of time left in the game- when we’ve made it to tacos- has been 4:59 left.
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 51 two point shots to 73, scored 44 points in the paint to 72 and got fouled 31 times to 25, attempting 34 foul shots to 17. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.6 for us and 2.9 for them, (4.9 in the Louisville game), meaning we were much more likely to get a call than they on two pointers. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.4 for us to 2.9 for them, (5.6 in the Louisville game), meaning we were more likely to get the call when we were scoring in the paint. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.1 for us and 1.0 for them.
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’ve averaged 1.8 two point shots per foul, 1.4 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They’ve averaged 1.9 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 9 games with one even and more often compared to our points in the paint in 10 games. We’ve gotten more foul shots per foul in 7 games out of 15 games with one even.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.8 two point shots per foul, 1.4 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.1 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 20 games with one even and more often compared to our points in the paint in 21 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 16 games out of 28 games with one even. We can’t very well claim we haven’t gotten a fair shake from the refs.
“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. Louisville Trevor Cooney 37 minutes
Vs. Pittsburgh Michael Gbinije 37 minutes
Trevor Cooney has played the most minutes 15 times and Michael Gbinije 13 times, Mal Richardson twice and Tyler Roberson once (there have been three ties). Gbinije and Cooney, of course, are our two seniors. It was interesting that in the Boston College game that Tyler Roberson tied for the lead in minutes played for the first time in the season. He’s become one of Boeheim’s “men”.
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 Louisville and Pittsburgh games.)
Tyler Lydon had 20 net points in 62 minutes, has 343 NP in 835 minutes for the season = 16.4 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 198 NP in 421 minutes =18.8 NP/40. Conference: 145 NP in 414 minutes = 14.0 NP/40.
Michael Gbinije had 20 net points in 72 minutes, has 404 NP in 1058 minutes for the season = 15.3 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 226 NP in 486 minutes =18.6 NP/40. Conference: 178 NP in 572 minutes = 12.4 per 40.
Franklin Howard had 15 net points in 37 minutes, has 32 NP in 236 minutes for the season = 5.4 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 19 NP in 93 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: 13 NP in 143 minutes = 3.6 NP/40.
DaJuan Coleman had 12 net points in 42 minutes, has 142 NP in 478 minutes for the season = 11.9 NP/40
Pre-Conference: 84 NP in 200 minutes = 16.8 NP/40. Conference: 58 NP in 278 minutes = 8.3 NP per 40.
Tyler Roberson had 9 net points in 49 minutes, has 318 NP in 875 minutes for the season = 14.5 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 388 minutes = 12.9 NP/40. Conference: 193 NP in 487 minutes = 15.9 NP/40.
Trevor Cooney had 5 net points in 71 minutes, has 232 NP in 1041 minutes for the season = 8.9 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 480 minutes = 10.4 NP/40 Conference: 107 NP in 561 minutes = 7.6 NP/40.
Mal Richardson had 1 net points in 68 minutes, has 250 NP in 945 minutes for the season = 10.6 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 96 NP in 410 minutes = 9.4 NP/40. Conference: 154 NP in 535 minutes = 11.5 NP/40.
DNP-CD
Kaleb Joseph had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 8 NP in 114 minutes for the season = 2.8NP/40
Pre-Conference: 14 in 96 minutes = 5.8NP/40. Conference: -6 NP in 18 minutes = -13.3 per 40.
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 7 NP in 67 minutes for the season = 4.2 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 8 NP in 39 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: -1 NP in 28 minutes = -1.4 NP/40.
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: My rule of thumb is that an adequate starter should average 10NP per 40 minutes of play. We’ve got four guys who have done that in conference play: Roberson (15.9), Lydon (14.0), Gbinije (12.4) and Richardson (11.5). We have three guys who don’t meet that minimal requirement: Coleman (8.3), Cooney (7.6) and Howard (3.6), (the other two guys, Joseph and Obokoh, don’t even play). Howard is a freshman and his limitations can be forgiven to some extent. Coleman’s lack of mobility due to his injury cuts him some slack, although you wonder if he will ever be any better than we’ve seen this year. It’s Cooney’s erratic production that can’t be forgiven. If JB thinks Roberson should be a more consistent contributor as a junior, what about a 5th year senior like Cooney? In past years we could attribute his problems to the fact that he was our only outside shooter and the defense always made sure to have someone put a hand in his face. But that’s not the case this year. Cooney should be going off, having his greatest year. If anything, he’s gotten worse.
Michael Gbinije has led us in net points 13 times, Tyler Roberson and Tyler Lydon 6 times, Mal Richardson 3 times and DaJuan Coleman and Trevor Cooney 1 time each.
The Other Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 14 offensive and 39 defensive rebounds. They had 28 offensive and 56 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball a dismal 14 of 70 times, (20.0%). When they missed, they got the ball and excellent 28 out of 67 times, (41.8%).
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 34.1% of our misses to 34.4% for the opposition and have done better in 10 of 15 games with one even. Despite our fears rebounding in this conference hasn’t been a big problem.
Total: We’ve rebounded 33.7% of our misses to 35.3% for the opposition and did better in 16 of 28 games with one even. We’d been competing well on the boards but not in these two games and it was a huge factor.
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 12 second chance points off our 14 offensive rebounds, 0.857 points per rebound. They got 29 for their 28 = 1.036.
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 0.945 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.978. We’ve led in this stat 9 times in 13 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.950 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.983. We’ve led in this stat 18 times in 28 games. An expected big problem is finally beginning to materialized.
Of our 19 turnovers, 12 were their steals and 7 were our own miscues. Of their 25 turnovers, 16 were Syracuse steals and 9 were their fault. 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 of 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 13 turnovers and 6 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 8 games with 3 even and fewer unforced turnovers in 7 games with 2 even of 15 games.
Total: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 13 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 16 games with 3 even but fewer unforced turnovers in only 10 games with 3 even of 28 games.
I’m adding another stat: Points per Turnover, which is “Points Off Turnovers” divided by the number of turnovers the other team had. Syracuse got 19 points from 25 turnovers, an average of 0.760. They had 33 points from 19 turnovers, an average of 1.737, so they did a better job of getting back on defense after a turnover. And maybe we did a poorer job of getting the basket after a turnover.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 1.124 points per turnover. They averaged 0.974. We won this battle 10 times, including the last 9 in a row of 13.
Conference: We’ve averaged 1.168 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.148. They won the first four games, when we were 0-4, 0.760-1.591. We won 8 of 9 games and the same with this stat by 1.431-0.925. Then in these last two losses, it was 0.760-1.737. So this seems to be an important stat.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.146 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.067. We’ve won this battle 18 times in 28 games.
If you add our 53 rebounds to their 25 turnovers, we had 78 “manufactured possessions”. They had 84 + 19 = 103. We are normally well ahead of our early opponents in this stat. Then it levels off in the conference season. This year, it’s been pretty level all year.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 52 MP to 50. We won this battle 7 times with 1 even in 13 games.
Conference: We’ve averaged 47 MP to 49. We’ve won this battle 7 times in 15 games
Total: We’ve averaged 49 MP to 48. We’ve won this battle 14 times with 1 even in 28 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were 23 for 51, (.451) inside the arc, We were 15 for 50 (.300) outside the arc and an excellent 19 for 34, (.559) from the line. They were 41 for 73 (.562) inside the arc, 15 for 46 (.326) and 11/17 (.647) from the foul line. Nothing predicts victory or defeat better than two point field goal percentage.
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 .469/.367/.670. Our opposition is .521/.295/.679. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 4 games, in three point field goal percentage in 11 games, and in free throw percentage in 6 games out of 15 games.
Total: We are .475/.361/.676. Our opposition was .483/.307/.661. We led in two point field goal percentage in 12 games with one even, in three point field goals percentage in 19 games, and in free throw percentage in 13 games with 2 even in 28 games
We had 44 points in the paint (PIP), 19 off turnovers (POTO), 12 “second chance” points (SCP), 6 fast break points (FBP) and 32 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 72 points in the paint, 33 off turnovers, 29 “second chance” points, 18 fast break points and 44 from the bench. (Tyler Lydon is helping to even out the “bench points”.) I’ve decided to keep track of “starter points” (SP) as a counter-weight to bench points. 78 of those to 94. So there! We also had 73 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 80, so we weren’t uncompetitive in the initial sets.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 16-11 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-13 SCP, 7-6 FBP, 59-46 SP 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, SP 11 times and BP 5 times with 1 even in 13 games .
Conference: We’ve averaged 25-30 PIP, 15-13 POTO, 38-37 FCP, 12-11 SCP, 5-6 FBP, 57-46 SP and 11-20 BP. We led in PIP 6 times with 1 even, POTO 8 times, FCP 7 times with one even, SCP 9 times, FBP 8 times with 1 even, SP 11 times with one even, and BP 3 times in 15 games.
Total: We averaged 26-29 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 38-36 FCP, 12-12 SCP, 7-5 FBP and 12-19 BP. We’ve led in PIP 13 times with 1 even, POTO 18 times, FCP 13 times with 3 even, SCP 14 times with 2 even, FBP 16 times with 1 even, SP 24 times with one even and BP 8 times with 1 even in 28 games.
We had 110 points, 44 in the paint, 45 from the arc and 19 from the line so we had 47 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 110-44-19) and scored 2 points, (47 POP-45 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 138/72/45/11 = 55 POP with 10 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 30 POP and 4 TZ, our opposition 23/3. We’ve led in POP 11 times and in TZ points 6 times with 3 even in 15 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 31 POP and 4 TZ, our opposition 24/3. We’ve led in POP 17 times and in TZ points 14 times with 4 even in 28 games.
28 of our 38 baskets were assisted (.737) and 37 of their 56 (.661). 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. It’s interesting that we played so badly these last two games and yet had a higher assist percentage in both games.
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 57.9% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 68.0% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 13 games out of 15 games.
Total: We assisted 58.6% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 69.5% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 22 games with 1 even in 28 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 101 FGA -14 OREBs + 19 TOs + (.475 x 34) = 122.15 possessions. They were 119 -28+ 25+ (.475 x 17) = 124.075 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 129 possessions for us and 131 for them. There were 260 combined possessions in these games, 130 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 132 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 125 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 128 combined possessions per game.
(I’ve excluded overtime periods as we are trying to measure the pace of games and overtimes would add the possessions from an extra 5 minutes and thus be misleading.)
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 110 points in 122 possessions (0.902). They scored 138 points in 124 possessions (1.113). We were great on offense, mediocre on defense.
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 1.062 points per possession to 1.025 for the opposition. We’ve won the stat in 8 of 15 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.076 points per possession to 0.993 for the opposition and have won the stat in 18 of 26 games.
(These figures include the overtime periods as we are now determining the points per possession and the OT periods are as relevant as regulation.)
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: 35-22, 20-36, 29-40, 26-40
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 17-13, 15-16, 17-15, 17-20 OT: 12-8.5. We’ve won 29 of 60 quarters with 6 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 37 quarters and held the opposition under that 25 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 17-14, 15-15, 18-17, 19-18 OT: 10-10. We’ve won 59 of 112 quarters with 9 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 75 quarters and held the opposition under that 48 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. Louisville Trevor Cooney 19 + 1 = 20
Vs. Pittsburgh Tyler Lydon 21 + 0 = 21
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 21 times, Trevor Cooney 3 times, Mal Richardson 2 times each and Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson once each. Mike’s our O-Dog, that’s for sure.
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. Louisville Trevor Cooney 19 – 14 - 2 = +3 (5)
Vs. Pittsburgh Tyler Lydon 21 – 12 – 1 = +8 (4)
Michael Gbinije have led in this stat 10 times, Tyler Roberson 6 times, Trevor Cooney 5 times, Mal Richardson and Tyler Lydon 4 times, DaJuan Coleman 3 times, and Kaleb Joseph once. 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. What I like about this stat is that totally different types of players can compete for it.
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. Louisville Tyler Roberson lay-up after 1:27 and Tyler Lydon lay-up after 1:24
Vs. Pittsburgh Michael Gbinije trey after 26 seconds and DaJuan Coleman jumper after 2:14
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 10 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. But we haven’t had to wait long very often. Mali Richardson have sat us down 15 times, Michael Gbinije 14 times, Trevor Cooney and Tyler Roberson 9 times, DaJuan Coleman 8 times and Tyler Lydon once, (he’s always coming off the bench). We’ve been sat down by 20 treys, 13 lay-ups, 9 two point jumpers and 4 dunks. It’s interesting that the lost art of the two point jump shot has set us down as many as 9 times.
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 this game.
Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 6 times, Michael Gbinije and Tyler Lydon twice, DaJuan Coleman, Franklin Howard, Mal Richardson and Tyler Roberson once each. The average amount of time left in the game- when we’ve made it to tacos- has been 4:59 left.
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 51 two point shots to 73, scored 44 points in the paint to 72 and got fouled 31 times to 25, attempting 34 foul shots to 17. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.6 for us and 2.9 for them, (4.9 in the Louisville game), meaning we were much more likely to get a call than they on two pointers. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.4 for us to 2.9 for them, (5.6 in the Louisville game), meaning we were more likely to get the call when we were scoring in the paint. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.1 for us and 1.0 for them.
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’ve averaged 1.8 two point shots per foul, 1.4 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They’ve averaged 1.9 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 9 games with one even and more often compared to our points in the paint in 10 games. We’ve gotten more foul shots per foul in 7 games out of 15 games with one even.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.8 two point shots per foul, 1.4 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.1 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 20 games with one even and more often compared to our points in the paint in 21 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 16 games out of 28 games with one even. We can’t very well claim we haven’t gotten a fair shake from the refs.
“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. Louisville Trevor Cooney 37 minutes
Vs. Pittsburgh Michael Gbinije 37 minutes
Trevor Cooney has played the most minutes 15 times and Michael Gbinije 13 times, Mal Richardson twice and Tyler Roberson once (there have been three ties). Gbinije and Cooney, of course, are our two seniors. It was interesting that in the Boston College game that Tyler Roberson tied for the lead in minutes played for the first time in the season. He’s become one of Boeheim’s “men”.