SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,994
- Like
- 65,568
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 the Montana State and Texas Southern games.)
DaJuan Coleman had 39 net points in 32 minutes, has 84 NP in 200 minutes for the season = -16.8NP/40
Michael Gbinije had 30 net points in 73 minutes, has 226 NP in 486 minutes for the season = 18.6NP/40
Trevor Cooney had 29 net points in 66 minutes, has 125 NP in 482 minutes for the season = 10.4NP/40
Tyler Lydon had 28 net points in 64 minutes, has 198 NP in 421 minutes for the season = 18.8NP/40
Tyler Roberson had 20 net points in 49 minutes, has 125 NP in 388 minutes for the season = 12.9NP/40
Mal Richardson had 17 net points in 50 minutes, has 96 NP in 410 minutes for the season = 9.4NP/40
Franklin Howard had 14 net points in 37 minutes, has 19 NP in 93 minutes for the season = 8.2NP/40
Kaleb Joseph had 6 net points in 13 minutes, has 14 NP in 96 minutes for the season = 5.8NP/40
Chinoso Obokoh had 4 net points in 12 minutes, has 8 NP in 39 minutes for the season = 8.2NP/40
DNP-CD
none
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: I’ve updated these numbers using the numbers on the SU website except I had to use ESPN’s numbers for Frank Howard because some idiot left him out of SU’s Texas Southern box score and his numbers for that game were not added into his season totals. We’ve got five guys averaging 10+ NP per 40 minutes and I think that’s our best line-up at this points: Gbinije, Cooney, Roberson, Lydon and Coleman. But Frank Howard is coming on and that could change to Howard, Cooney, Gbinije, Lydon and Coleman.
The Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 31 offensive and 50 defensive rebounds. They had 26offensive and 49 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 31 of 80 times, (38.8%). When they missed, they got the ball 26 out of 76 times, (34.2%). It was our first really dominating performance on the boards this season. We’ve won the rebounding battle by this measure 6 times. In the pre-conference schedule we averaged getting 33.3% of our misses and our opposition got 36.3% of theirs, a wide discrepancy, especially considering the opposition.
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 32 second chance points off our 31 offensive rebounds, 1.032 points per rebound. They got 21 for their 26= 0.808, the eighth straight game we’ve won or tied in this stat, (and 7 of them were wins) so we are taking better advantage of our second chances. In the pre-conference schedule we averaged 0.956 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.928. We’ve led in this stat 9 times.
Of our 12 turnovers, 5 were their steals and 7 were our own miscues. Of their 26 turnovers, 23 were Syracuse steals and 3 were their fault. In the pre-conference schedule we had fewer turnovers in 8 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 3 games with 1 even. We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. 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. Off these numbers we need to get within two rebounds of the other team to break even. But will we even have a turnover advantage vs. ACC teams?
If you add our 81 rebounds to their 26 turnovers, we had 107 “manufactured possessions”. They had 75 + 12 = 87. We have won that battle 7 times with 1 even. In the pre-conference season we averaged 52 MP to 50. 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 46 for 79, (.582) inside the arc, 15 for 51, (.294) outside it and 25 for 42, (.595) from the line. They were 33 for 66 (.500), 17/51 (.333) and 10/24 (.417). In the pre-conference schedule, we’ve 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. For the pre-conference season we are .482/.355/.681. Our opposition is .444/.333/.636.
We had 74 points in the paint (PIP), 30 off turnovers (POTO), 32 “second chance” points (SCP), 22 fast break points (FBP) and 47 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 58 points in the paint, 14 off
turnovers, 14 “second chance” points, 10 fast break points and 44 from the bench. We also had 83 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 86. It’s concerning that Montana State and Texas Southern scored more points in initial offensive sets than we did, (and they both did 41-42 and 42-44). We beat them on fast breaks and second chance points. Will we be able to win games that way in the ACC?
In the pre-conference schedule we led in PIP 7 times, POTO 10 times,(and the last 8 in a row), FCP 6 times with 2 even, SCP 5 times with 2 even, FBP 8 times, and BP 5 times with one even. We averaged 26-28 PIP, 16-11 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-13 SCP, 7-6 FBP and 14-17 BP.
We had 162 points,74 in the paint, 45 from the arc and 25 from the line so we had 63 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 162-74-25) and scored 18 points, (63 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 127/58/51/10 = 59 POP with 8 from the Twilight Zone. In the pre-conference season we led in POP 8 times. We led in TZ points 7 times with 1 tie, but not in the last four games. We averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 24/4. The game is so much easier when you don’t have to go to the basket for all your points.
37 of our 61 baskets were assisted (.606) and 38 of their 50 (.760). In the pre-conference season, we assisted on 59.2% of our baskets to 71.6% for the opposition, who had a higher percentage in 9 games with 1 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. So far we’ve mostly played teams that had to do that even more than we did.
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 130 FGA - 31 OREBs + 12 TOs + (.475 x 42) = 130.950 possessions. They were 117 -26+ 26+ (.475 x 24) = 128.4 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 130 possessions for us and 128 for them. There were 258 combined possessions in these games. We averaged 134 combined possessions per game in the pre-conference schedule.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 162 points in 130 possessions (1.246). They scored 127 points in 128 possessions (0.992). We have, of course, led 10 games in offensive efficiency since the winning team always leads in that stat. In the pre-conference season, we are averaged 1.091 points per possession to 0.959 for the opposition.
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: 37-22, 34-25, 51-40, 40-40. In the pre-conference season we had an average of 16-14, 16-14, 20-18, 20-17 and 5-13 in OT. We’ve won 31 of 52 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 23 times.
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 32 points and 9 assists for 41 “hockey points. Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 12 times, Tyler Roberson 1 time.
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”.
This provided quite a contrast. In the Montana State game, DaJuan Coleman scored 13 points on 5 for 5 field goal shooting and 3 for 3 from the foul line, so he was +3. Against Texas Southern he had a similar game: 14 points on 4 for 5 from the field and 6 of 7 from the line for +2. But he didn’t win the offensive efficiency stat with that performance. A totally different player did. Trevor Cooney scored 14 points on 5 for 10 from the field, of which four were three pointers. He never went to the line. That made him +4, the 4 coming because of the treys. I like this stat. In both cases, ti was the first time each player had led.
Michael Gbinije has led in this stat 5 times, Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson 3 times each and DaJaun Coleman, Trevor Cooney 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.
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. Montana State DaJuan Coleman lay-up at 19:03 and DaJuan Coleman jumper at 19:47
Vs. Texas Southern Michael Gbinije lay-up at 18:25 and Mal Richardson jumper at 19:53
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 183 seconds. Richardson’s was the shortest time (7 seconds). The longest time is 4:51 in the second half against Georgetown. Mali Richardson has sat us down 8 times, Michael Gbinije 7 times, DaJuan Coleman 5 times, Trevor Cooney 4 times and Tyler Roberson 2 times. We’ve been sat down by 11 treys 5 lay-ups, 5 two point jumpers and one dunk.
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 got tacos in both games:
Vs. Montana State Trevor Cooney lay-up with 5:35 left (4)
Vs. Texas Southern Tyler Lydon (goal tended) jumper with 6:03 left (1)
Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 4 times, Michael Gbinije twice and DaJuan Coleman and Tyler Lydon once. The average amount of time left in the game has been 4:42.
FOULS
My theory about fouls is that the team that attempts the most two point shots and scores the most in the paint will tend to get fouled the most. If the numbers are as predicted or close, there’s nothing to be read into them but if there’s a big disparity, it makes you wonder about how the game was called.
In these games, we attempted 79 two point shots to 39, scored 74 points in the paint to 58 and got fouled 39 times to 28, attempting 42 foul shots to 24. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 2.0 for us and 2.4 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.9 for us to 2.1 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.1 for us and 0.9 for them.
In the pre-conference season we are averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul. 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. So, numerically, the calls 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 7th straight time it was Michael Gbinije and not Trevor Cooney, who had led in the first 6 games, with 73 minutes in the two games..
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 Montana State and Texas Southern games.)
DaJuan Coleman had 39 net points in 32 minutes, has 84 NP in 200 minutes for the season = -16.8NP/40
Michael Gbinije had 30 net points in 73 minutes, has 226 NP in 486 minutes for the season = 18.6NP/40
Trevor Cooney had 29 net points in 66 minutes, has 125 NP in 482 minutes for the season = 10.4NP/40
Tyler Lydon had 28 net points in 64 minutes, has 198 NP in 421 minutes for the season = 18.8NP/40
Tyler Roberson had 20 net points in 49 minutes, has 125 NP in 388 minutes for the season = 12.9NP/40
Mal Richardson had 17 net points in 50 minutes, has 96 NP in 410 minutes for the season = 9.4NP/40
Franklin Howard had 14 net points in 37 minutes, has 19 NP in 93 minutes for the season = 8.2NP/40
Kaleb Joseph had 6 net points in 13 minutes, has 14 NP in 96 minutes for the season = 5.8NP/40
Chinoso Obokoh had 4 net points in 12 minutes, has 8 NP in 39 minutes for the season = 8.2NP/40
DNP-CD
none
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: I’ve updated these numbers using the numbers on the SU website except I had to use ESPN’s numbers for Frank Howard because some idiot left him out of SU’s Texas Southern box score and his numbers for that game were not added into his season totals. We’ve got five guys averaging 10+ NP per 40 minutes and I think that’s our best line-up at this points: Gbinije, Cooney, Roberson, Lydon and Coleman. But Frank Howard is coming on and that could change to Howard, Cooney, Gbinije, Lydon and Coleman.
The Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 31 offensive and 50 defensive rebounds. They had 26offensive and 49 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 31 of 80 times, (38.8%). When they missed, they got the ball 26 out of 76 times, (34.2%). It was our first really dominating performance on the boards this season. We’ve won the rebounding battle by this measure 6 times. In the pre-conference schedule we averaged getting 33.3% of our misses and our opposition got 36.3% of theirs, a wide discrepancy, especially considering the opposition.
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 32 second chance points off our 31 offensive rebounds, 1.032 points per rebound. They got 21 for their 26= 0.808, the eighth straight game we’ve won or tied in this stat, (and 7 of them were wins) so we are taking better advantage of our second chances. In the pre-conference schedule we averaged 0.956 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.928. We’ve led in this stat 9 times.
Of our 12 turnovers, 5 were their steals and 7 were our own miscues. Of their 26 turnovers, 23 were Syracuse steals and 3 were their fault. In the pre-conference schedule we had fewer turnovers in 8 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 3 games with 1 even. We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. 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. Off these numbers we need to get within two rebounds of the other team to break even. But will we even have a turnover advantage vs. ACC teams?
If you add our 81 rebounds to their 26 turnovers, we had 107 “manufactured possessions”. They had 75 + 12 = 87. We have won that battle 7 times with 1 even. In the pre-conference season we averaged 52 MP to 50. 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 46 for 79, (.582) inside the arc, 15 for 51, (.294) outside it and 25 for 42, (.595) from the line. They were 33 for 66 (.500), 17/51 (.333) and 10/24 (.417). In the pre-conference schedule, we’ve 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. For the pre-conference season we are .482/.355/.681. Our opposition is .444/.333/.636.
We had 74 points in the paint (PIP), 30 off turnovers (POTO), 32 “second chance” points (SCP), 22 fast break points (FBP) and 47 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 58 points in the paint, 14 off
turnovers, 14 “second chance” points, 10 fast break points and 44 from the bench. We also had 83 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 86. It’s concerning that Montana State and Texas Southern scored more points in initial offensive sets than we did, (and they both did 41-42 and 42-44). We beat them on fast breaks and second chance points. Will we be able to win games that way in the ACC?
In the pre-conference schedule we led in PIP 7 times, POTO 10 times,(and the last 8 in a row), FCP 6 times with 2 even, SCP 5 times with 2 even, FBP 8 times, and BP 5 times with one even. We averaged 26-28 PIP, 16-11 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-13 SCP, 7-6 FBP and 14-17 BP.
We had 162 points,74 in the paint, 45 from the arc and 25 from the line so we had 63 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 162-74-25) and scored 18 points, (63 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 127/58/51/10 = 59 POP with 8 from the Twilight Zone. In the pre-conference season we led in POP 8 times. We led in TZ points 7 times with 1 tie, but not in the last four games. We averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 24/4. The game is so much easier when you don’t have to go to the basket for all your points.
37 of our 61 baskets were assisted (.606) and 38 of their 50 (.760). In the pre-conference season, we assisted on 59.2% of our baskets to 71.6% for the opposition, who had a higher percentage in 9 games with 1 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. So far we’ve mostly played teams that had to do that even more than we did.
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 130 FGA - 31 OREBs + 12 TOs + (.475 x 42) = 130.950 possessions. They were 117 -26+ 26+ (.475 x 24) = 128.4 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 130 possessions for us and 128 for them. There were 258 combined possessions in these games. We averaged 134 combined possessions per game in the pre-conference schedule.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 162 points in 130 possessions (1.246). They scored 127 points in 128 possessions (0.992). We have, of course, led 10 games in offensive efficiency since the winning team always leads in that stat. In the pre-conference season, we are averaged 1.091 points per possession to 0.959 for the opposition.
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: 37-22, 34-25, 51-40, 40-40. In the pre-conference season we had an average of 16-14, 16-14, 20-18, 20-17 and 5-13 in OT. We’ve won 31 of 52 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 23 times.
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 32 points and 9 assists for 41 “hockey points. Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 12 times, Tyler Roberson 1 time.
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”.
This provided quite a contrast. In the Montana State game, DaJuan Coleman scored 13 points on 5 for 5 field goal shooting and 3 for 3 from the foul line, so he was +3. Against Texas Southern he had a similar game: 14 points on 4 for 5 from the field and 6 of 7 from the line for +2. But he didn’t win the offensive efficiency stat with that performance. A totally different player did. Trevor Cooney scored 14 points on 5 for 10 from the field, of which four were three pointers. He never went to the line. That made him +4, the 4 coming because of the treys. I like this stat. In both cases, ti was the first time each player had led.
Michael Gbinije has led in this stat 5 times, Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson 3 times each and DaJaun Coleman, Trevor Cooney 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.
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. Montana State DaJuan Coleman lay-up at 19:03 and DaJuan Coleman jumper at 19:47
Vs. Texas Southern Michael Gbinije lay-up at 18:25 and Mal Richardson jumper at 19:53
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 183 seconds. Richardson’s was the shortest time (7 seconds). The longest time is 4:51 in the second half against Georgetown. Mali Richardson has sat us down 8 times, Michael Gbinije 7 times, DaJuan Coleman 5 times, Trevor Cooney 4 times and Tyler Roberson 2 times. We’ve been sat down by 11 treys 5 lay-ups, 5 two point jumpers and one dunk.
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 got tacos in both games:
Vs. Montana State Trevor Cooney lay-up with 5:35 left (4)
Vs. Texas Southern Tyler Lydon (goal tended) jumper with 6:03 left (1)
Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 4 times, Michael Gbinije twice and DaJuan Coleman and Tyler Lydon once. The average amount of time left in the game has been 4:42.
FOULS
My theory about fouls is that the team that attempts the most two point shots and scores the most in the paint will tend to get fouled the most. If the numbers are as predicted or close, there’s nothing to be read into them but if there’s a big disparity, it makes you wonder about how the game was called.
In these games, we attempted 79 two point shots to 39, scored 74 points in the paint to 58 and got fouled 39 times to 28, attempting 42 foul shots to 24. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 2.0 for us and 2.4 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.9 for us to 2.1 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.1 for us and 0.9 for them.
In the pre-conference season we are averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul. 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. So, numerically, the calls 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 7th straight time it was Michael Gbinije and not Trevor Cooney, who had led in the first 6 games, with 73 minutes in the two games..
