SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,997
- Like
- 65,598
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 Notre Dame, Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech games.)
Tyler Roberson had 43 net points in 107 minutes, has 285 NP in 754 minutes for the season = 15.1 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 388 minutes = 12.9 NP/40. Conference: 160 NP in 366 minutes = 17.5 NP/40.
Tyler Lydon had 38 net points in 81 minutes, has 287 NP in 724 minutes for the season = 15.9 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 198 NP in 421 minutes =18.8 NP/40. Conference: 89 NP in 303 minutes = 11.7 NP/40.
Michael Gbinije had 33 net points in 118 minutes, has 339 NP in 912 minutes for the season = 14.9 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 226 NP in 486 minutes =18.6 NP/40. Conference: 113 NP in 426 minutes = 10.6 per 40.
Mal Richardson had 27 net points in 115 minutes, has 209 NP in 807 minutes for the season = 10.4 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 96 NP in 410 minutes = 9.4 NP/40. Conference: 113 NP in 397 minutes = 11.4 NP/40.
Trevor Cooney had 21 net points in 118 minutes, has 208 NP in 896 minutes for the season = 9.3 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 480 minutes = 10.4 NP/40 Conference: 83 NP in 416 minutes = 8.0 NP/40.
DaJuan Coleman had 17 net points in 55 minutes, has 123 NP in 404 minutes for the season = -12.2 NP/40
Pre-Conference: 84 NP in 200 minutes = 16.8 NP/40. Conference: 39 NP in 204 minutes = 7.6 NP per 40.
Franklin Howard had 6 net points in 40 minutes, has 21 NP in 186 minutes for the season = 4.5 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 19 NP in 93 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: 2 NP in 93 minutes = -0.9 NP/40.
Kaleb Joseph had 0 net points in 1 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.
(Kaleb only played in the Notre Dame game.)
DNP-CD
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 9 NP in 64 minutes for the season = 5.6NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 8 NP in 39 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: 1 NP in 25 minutes = 0.04NP/40. (at least it’s not minus!
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: Cooney’s net points in ACC games: 12, -3, 11, 21, 0, 22, 1, -2, 18, 1, 2. Yes, stats don’t tell the whole story and his impact on a game can be greater than his stats, (I sure hope so). Yes, he’s an outside shooter and it’s hard to be consistent at that. Yes, the other team makes sure to guard him closely at all time, sometimes double-teaming him. But he’s a senior leader on this team and he’s capable of doing more things than just jacking up three pointers. It’s the conference season where the completion is the stiffest – it’s also the time when we need him the most. I have never seen an SU player who was so much relied upon and was so inconsistent in what he gives us. It’s that inconsistency that makes him the most constantly debated player since Scoop Jardine.
Michael Gbinije has led us in net points 10 times, Tyler Roberson 6 times, Tyler Lydon 5 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 39 offensive and 76 defensive rebounds. They had 38 offensive and 71 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 39 of 110 times, (35.5%). When they missed, they got the ball 38 out of 114 times, (33.3%).
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 35.8% of our misses to 33.3% for the opposition and have done better in 8 of 11 games with one even. Despite our fears rebounding in this conference hasn’t been a big problem.
Total: We’ve rebounded 34.5% of our misses to 34.9% for the opposition and did better in 14 of 24 games with one even. We’ve only been badly outrebounded by Wisconsin and North Carolina and we lost in overtime and had a late lead in those games. We’ve competed by having everybody go to the boards.
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 39 second chance points off our 39 offensive rebounds, 1.000 points per rebound. They got 29 for their 38 = 0.763, a significant difference.
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 0.899 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.929. We’ve led in this stat 8 times in 11 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.929 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.929. We’ve led in this stat 17 times in 24 games. Again an expected big problem hasn’t really materialized.
Of our 34 turnovers, 17 were their steals and 17 were our own miscues. Of their 37 turnovers, 14 were Syracuse steals and 23 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 12 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 6 games with 2 even and fewer unforced turnovers in 5 games with one even of 11 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 14 games with two even but fewer unforced turnovers in only 8 games with 2 even of 24 games. We could clean up our act on those unforced turnovers.
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 46 points from 37 turnovers, an average of 1.243. They had 22 points from 34 turnovers, an average of 0.647, so we did a better job of getting back on defense after a turnovers, (which is why we gave up no fast break points for the fourth game in a row.)
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 1.175 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.146. They won the first four games, when we were 0-4, 0.760-1.591. We’ve won the last seven games, when we went 6-1 by 1.323-0.772. So this seems to be an important stat.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.146 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 0.993. We’ve won this battle 17 times in 21 games.
If you add our 115 rebounds to their 37 turnovers, we had 152 “manufactured possessions”. They had 109 + 34 = 143. 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 49 MP to 47. We’ve won this battle 6 times in 11 games
Total: We’ve averaged 50 MP to 49. We’ve won this battle 13 times with 1 even in 24 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were 45 for 96, (.469) inside the arc, at strong 24 for 67 (.358) outside it and a poor 47 for 69, (.681) from the line. They were 45 for 103 (.437) inside the arc, 22 for 66 (.333) and 27/45 (.600) from the foul line.
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 .451/.364/.665. Our opposition is .522/.274/.687. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 3 games, in three point field goal percentage in 8 games, and in free throw percentage in 4 games out of 8 games.
Total: We are .468/.359/.674. Our opposition was .4775/.300/.663. We led in two point field goal percentage in 11 games, in three point field goals percentage in 16 games, and in free throw percentage in 11 games with 1 even in 24 games
We had 80 points in the paint (PIP), 46 off turnovers (POTO), 39 “second chance” points (SCP), 18 fast break points (FBP) and 36 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 72 points in the paint, 22 off turnovers, 39 “second chance” points, just 4 fast break points, (NONE for 6 games in a row) and 43 from the bench. We also had 105 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 123. It tells you a lot about the Virginia Tech game that they got 42 points off their initial sets and we only got 26. It’s still amazes me that we won that game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 16-11 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-13 SCP, 7-6 FBP 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, and BP 5 times with 1 even in 13 games .
Conference: We’ve averaged 25-29 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 38-37 FCP, 12-11 SCP, 5-4 FBP and 8-18 BP. We led in PIP 4 times with 1 even, POTO 7 times, FCP 5 times, SCP 8 times, FBP 7 times with 1 even, and BP 2 times in 11 games.
Total: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 38-36 FCP, 12-12 SCP, 6-5 FBP and 11-17.5 BP. We’ve led in PIP 13 times with 1 even, POTO 16 times, FCP 11 times with 2 even, SCP 13 times with 2 even, FBP 16 times with 1 even, and BP 7 times with 1 even in 24 games.
We had 209 points, 80 in the paint, 72 from the arc and 47 from the line so we had 82 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 209-80-47) and scored 10 points, (82 POP-72 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 183/82/66/27 = 74 POP with 8 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 22/3. We’ve led in POP 8 times and in TZ points 6 times with 3 even in 11games.
Total: We’ve averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 23/3.5. We’ve led in POP 14 times and in TZ points 11 times with 4 even in 21 games.
39 of our 69 baskets were assisted (.565) and 45 of their 67 (.672). 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. In the pre-season we mostly played teams that had to do that even more than we did. In the conference we are playing some very good internal passing teams that are working the high-low game on us and getting assists that way.
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 55.1% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 69.1% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 10 games out of 11 games.
Total: We assisted 57.4% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 70.4% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 19 games with 1 even in 24 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 157 FGA -38 OREBs + 34 TOs + (.475 x 65) = 183.875 possessions. They were 162 -36+ 35+ (.475 x 45) = 182.375 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 184 possessions for us and 182 for them. There were 366 combined possessions in these games, 122 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 132 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 125 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 129 combined possessions per game.
(I’ve excluded overtime periods as we are trying to measure the pace of game sand overtimes would all the possession 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 209 points in 190 possessions (1.100). They scored 183 points in 190 possessions (0.963).
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 1.057 points per possession to 1.009 for the opposition. We’ve won the stat in 6 of 11 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.076 points per possession to 0.981 for the opposition and have won the stat in 16 of 24 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: 51-38, 52-52, 45-38, 49-49 OT: 12-4
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 16-14, 16-15, 15-15, 18-19 OT: 12-8.5. We’ve won 21 of 44 quarters with 5 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 27 quarters and held the opposition under that 19 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 16-14, 16-14, 18-17, 19-18 OT: 10-10. We’ve won 52 of 96 quarters with 8 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 65 quarters and held the opposition under that 42 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. Notre Dame Michael Gbinije 15 + 5 = 20
Vs. Georgia Tech Michael Gbinije 16 + 3 = 19
Vs. Virginia Tech Michael Gbinije 17 + 3 = 20
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 19 times, Mal Richardson and Trevor Cooney 2 times each and Tyler Roberson once. 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. Notre Dame Mal Richardson 15- 7 – 5 = +3 (4)
Vs. Georgia Tech DaJuan Coleman 11 – 5 – 4 = +2 (3)
Vs. Virginia Tech Trevor Cooney 13-7-4 = +2 (4)
Michael Gbinije have led in this stat 8 times, Tyler Roberson 6 times, Trevor Cooney and Mal Richardson 4 times, DaJuan Coleman and Tyler Lydon 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. Notre Dame Tyler Roberson lay-up after 2:24 and Michael Gbinije lay-up after 1:50
Vs. Georgia Tech Trevor Cooney trey after 2:53 and Michael Gbinije lay-up after 6 seconds
Vs. Virginia Tech Tyler Roberson lay-up after 3:18 and Trevor Cooney trey after 9 seconds
TOTAL: 3,207 seconds / 48 halves = 1 minute 7 seconds The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 7 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 and Michael Gbinije have sat us down 13 times each, Trevor Cooney 9 times, Tyler Roberson 7 times and DaJuan Coleman 6 times. We’ve been sat down by 19 treys, 12 lay-ups, 8 two point jumpers and 3 dunks. It’s interesting that the lost art of the two point jump shot has set us down as many as 8 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. A Mal Richardson trey with 8:22 left got us tacos in the Notre Dame game. Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 5 times, Michael Gbinije twice and DaJuan Coleman, Franklin Howard, Tyler Lydon, Mal Richardson and Tyler Roberson once. The average amount of time left in the game- when we’ve made it to tacos- has been 4:37 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 96 two point shots to 103, scored 80 points in the paint to 82 and got fouled 59 times to 42, attempting 69 foul shots to 45. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.6 for us and 2.5 for them, 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 2.0 for them, 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 1.2 for us and 1.1 for them. The refereeing may have incompetent, or at least confusing but it certainly wasn’t biased against us.
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 1.9 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.2 foul shots per foul. They’ve averaged 1.8 two point shots per foul, 1.7 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 6 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 8 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 5 games out of 11 games with one even.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.8 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.0 two point shots per foul, 1.7 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 17 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 19 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 14 games out of 24 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. Notre Dame Trevor Cooney 39 minutes (12)
Vs. Georgia Tech Michael Gbinije 38 minutes (11)
Vs. Virginia Tech Trevor Cooney 45 minutes (13)
Trevor Cooney has played the most minutes 13 times and Michael Gbinije 11 times, and Mal Richardson twice (there have been two ties). Gbinije and Cooney, of course, are our two seniors.
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 Notre Dame, Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech games.)
Tyler Roberson had 43 net points in 107 minutes, has 285 NP in 754 minutes for the season = 15.1 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 388 minutes = 12.9 NP/40. Conference: 160 NP in 366 minutes = 17.5 NP/40.
Tyler Lydon had 38 net points in 81 minutes, has 287 NP in 724 minutes for the season = 15.9 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 198 NP in 421 minutes =18.8 NP/40. Conference: 89 NP in 303 minutes = 11.7 NP/40.
Michael Gbinije had 33 net points in 118 minutes, has 339 NP in 912 minutes for the season = 14.9 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 226 NP in 486 minutes =18.6 NP/40. Conference: 113 NP in 426 minutes = 10.6 per 40.
Mal Richardson had 27 net points in 115 minutes, has 209 NP in 807 minutes for the season = 10.4 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 96 NP in 410 minutes = 9.4 NP/40. Conference: 113 NP in 397 minutes = 11.4 NP/40.
Trevor Cooney had 21 net points in 118 minutes, has 208 NP in 896 minutes for the season = 9.3 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 480 minutes = 10.4 NP/40 Conference: 83 NP in 416 minutes = 8.0 NP/40.
DaJuan Coleman had 17 net points in 55 minutes, has 123 NP in 404 minutes for the season = -12.2 NP/40
Pre-Conference: 84 NP in 200 minutes = 16.8 NP/40. Conference: 39 NP in 204 minutes = 7.6 NP per 40.
Franklin Howard had 6 net points in 40 minutes, has 21 NP in 186 minutes for the season = 4.5 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 19 NP in 93 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: 2 NP in 93 minutes = -0.9 NP/40.
Kaleb Joseph had 0 net points in 1 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.
(Kaleb only played in the Notre Dame game.)
DNP-CD
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 9 NP in 64 minutes for the season = 5.6NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 8 NP in 39 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: 1 NP in 25 minutes = 0.04NP/40. (at least it’s not minus!
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: Cooney’s net points in ACC games: 12, -3, 11, 21, 0, 22, 1, -2, 18, 1, 2. Yes, stats don’t tell the whole story and his impact on a game can be greater than his stats, (I sure hope so). Yes, he’s an outside shooter and it’s hard to be consistent at that. Yes, the other team makes sure to guard him closely at all time, sometimes double-teaming him. But he’s a senior leader on this team and he’s capable of doing more things than just jacking up three pointers. It’s the conference season where the completion is the stiffest – it’s also the time when we need him the most. I have never seen an SU player who was so much relied upon and was so inconsistent in what he gives us. It’s that inconsistency that makes him the most constantly debated player since Scoop Jardine.
Michael Gbinije has led us in net points 10 times, Tyler Roberson 6 times, Tyler Lydon 5 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 39 offensive and 76 defensive rebounds. They had 38 offensive and 71 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 39 of 110 times, (35.5%). When they missed, they got the ball 38 out of 114 times, (33.3%).
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 35.8% of our misses to 33.3% for the opposition and have done better in 8 of 11 games with one even. Despite our fears rebounding in this conference hasn’t been a big problem.
Total: We’ve rebounded 34.5% of our misses to 34.9% for the opposition and did better in 14 of 24 games with one even. We’ve only been badly outrebounded by Wisconsin and North Carolina and we lost in overtime and had a late lead in those games. We’ve competed by having everybody go to the boards.
Effective offensive rebounding: We got 39 second chance points off our 39 offensive rebounds, 1.000 points per rebound. They got 29 for their 38 = 0.763, a significant difference.
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 0.899 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.929. We’ve led in this stat 8 times in 11 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.929 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.929. We’ve led in this stat 17 times in 24 games. Again an expected big problem hasn’t really materialized.
Of our 34 turnovers, 17 were their steals and 17 were our own miscues. Of their 37 turnovers, 14 were Syracuse steals and 23 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 12 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 6 games with 2 even and fewer unforced turnovers in 5 games with one even of 11 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 14 games with two even but fewer unforced turnovers in only 8 games with 2 even of 24 games. We could clean up our act on those unforced turnovers.
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 46 points from 37 turnovers, an average of 1.243. They had 22 points from 34 turnovers, an average of 0.647, so we did a better job of getting back on defense after a turnovers, (which is why we gave up no fast break points for the fourth game in a row.)
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 1.175 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.146. They won the first four games, when we were 0-4, 0.760-1.591. We’ve won the last seven games, when we went 6-1 by 1.323-0.772. So this seems to be an important stat.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.146 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 0.993. We’ve won this battle 17 times in 21 games.
If you add our 115 rebounds to their 37 turnovers, we had 152 “manufactured possessions”. They had 109 + 34 = 143. 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 49 MP to 47. We’ve won this battle 6 times in 11 games
Total: We’ve averaged 50 MP to 49. We’ve won this battle 13 times with 1 even in 24 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were 45 for 96, (.469) inside the arc, at strong 24 for 67 (.358) outside it and a poor 47 for 69, (.681) from the line. They were 45 for 103 (.437) inside the arc, 22 for 66 (.333) and 27/45 (.600) from the foul line.
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 .451/.364/.665. Our opposition is .522/.274/.687. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 3 games, in three point field goal percentage in 8 games, and in free throw percentage in 4 games out of 8 games.
Total: We are .468/.359/.674. Our opposition was .4775/.300/.663. We led in two point field goal percentage in 11 games, in three point field goals percentage in 16 games, and in free throw percentage in 11 games with 1 even in 24 games
We had 80 points in the paint (PIP), 46 off turnovers (POTO), 39 “second chance” points (SCP), 18 fast break points (FBP) and 36 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 72 points in the paint, 22 off turnovers, 39 “second chance” points, just 4 fast break points, (NONE for 6 games in a row) and 43 from the bench. We also had 105 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 123. It tells you a lot about the Virginia Tech game that they got 42 points off their initial sets and we only got 26. It’s still amazes me that we won that game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 16-11 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-13 SCP, 7-6 FBP 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, and BP 5 times with 1 even in 13 games .
Conference: We’ve averaged 25-29 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 38-37 FCP, 12-11 SCP, 5-4 FBP and 8-18 BP. We led in PIP 4 times with 1 even, POTO 7 times, FCP 5 times, SCP 8 times, FBP 7 times with 1 even, and BP 2 times in 11 games.
Total: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 38-36 FCP, 12-12 SCP, 6-5 FBP and 11-17.5 BP. We’ve led in PIP 13 times with 1 even, POTO 16 times, FCP 11 times with 2 even, SCP 13 times with 2 even, FBP 16 times with 1 even, and BP 7 times with 1 even in 24 games.
We had 209 points, 80 in the paint, 72 from the arc and 47 from the line so we had 82 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 209-80-47) and scored 10 points, (82 POP-72 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 183/82/66/27 = 74 POP with 8 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 22/3. We’ve led in POP 8 times and in TZ points 6 times with 3 even in 11games.
Total: We’ve averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 23/3.5. We’ve led in POP 14 times and in TZ points 11 times with 4 even in 21 games.
39 of our 69 baskets were assisted (.565) and 45 of their 67 (.672). 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. In the pre-season we mostly played teams that had to do that even more than we did. In the conference we are playing some very good internal passing teams that are working the high-low game on us and getting assists that way.
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 55.1% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 69.1% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 10 games out of 11 games.
Total: We assisted 57.4% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 70.4% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 19 games with 1 even in 24 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 157 FGA -38 OREBs + 34 TOs + (.475 x 65) = 183.875 possessions. They were 162 -36+ 35+ (.475 x 45) = 182.375 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 184 possessions for us and 182 for them. There were 366 combined possessions in these games, 122 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 132 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 125 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 129 combined possessions per game.
(I’ve excluded overtime periods as we are trying to measure the pace of game sand overtimes would all the possession 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 209 points in 190 possessions (1.100). They scored 183 points in 190 possessions (0.963).
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 1.057 points per possession to 1.009 for the opposition. We’ve won the stat in 6 of 11 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.076 points per possession to 0.981 for the opposition and have won the stat in 16 of 24 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: 51-38, 52-52, 45-38, 49-49 OT: 12-4
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 16-14, 16-15, 15-15, 18-19 OT: 12-8.5. We’ve won 21 of 44 quarters with 5 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 27 quarters and held the opposition under that 19 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 16-14, 16-14, 18-17, 19-18 OT: 10-10. We’ve won 52 of 96 quarters with 8 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 65 quarters and held the opposition under that 42 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. Notre Dame Michael Gbinije 15 + 5 = 20
Vs. Georgia Tech Michael Gbinije 16 + 3 = 19
Vs. Virginia Tech Michael Gbinije 17 + 3 = 20
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 19 times, Mal Richardson and Trevor Cooney 2 times each and Tyler Roberson once. 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. Notre Dame Mal Richardson 15- 7 – 5 = +3 (4)
Vs. Georgia Tech DaJuan Coleman 11 – 5 – 4 = +2 (3)
Vs. Virginia Tech Trevor Cooney 13-7-4 = +2 (4)
Michael Gbinije have led in this stat 8 times, Tyler Roberson 6 times, Trevor Cooney and Mal Richardson 4 times, DaJuan Coleman and Tyler Lydon 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. Notre Dame Tyler Roberson lay-up after 2:24 and Michael Gbinije lay-up after 1:50
Vs. Georgia Tech Trevor Cooney trey after 2:53 and Michael Gbinije lay-up after 6 seconds
Vs. Virginia Tech Tyler Roberson lay-up after 3:18 and Trevor Cooney trey after 9 seconds
TOTAL: 3,207 seconds / 48 halves = 1 minute 7 seconds The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 7 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 and Michael Gbinije have sat us down 13 times each, Trevor Cooney 9 times, Tyler Roberson 7 times and DaJuan Coleman 6 times. We’ve been sat down by 19 treys, 12 lay-ups, 8 two point jumpers and 3 dunks. It’s interesting that the lost art of the two point jump shot has set us down as many as 8 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. A Mal Richardson trey with 8:22 left got us tacos in the Notre Dame game. Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 5 times, Michael Gbinije twice and DaJuan Coleman, Franklin Howard, Tyler Lydon, Mal Richardson and Tyler Roberson once. The average amount of time left in the game- when we’ve made it to tacos- has been 4:37 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 96 two point shots to 103, scored 80 points in the paint to 82 and got fouled 59 times to 42, attempting 69 foul shots to 45. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.6 for us and 2.5 for them, 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 2.0 for them, 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 1.2 for us and 1.1 for them. The refereeing may have incompetent, or at least confusing but it certainly wasn’t biased against us.
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 1.9 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.2 foul shots per foul. They’ve averaged 1.8 two point shots per foul, 1.7 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 6 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 8 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 5 games out of 11 games with one even.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.8 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.0 two point shots per foul, 1.7 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 17 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 19 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 14 games out of 24 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. Notre Dame Trevor Cooney 39 minutes (12)
Vs. Georgia Tech Michael Gbinije 38 minutes (11)
Vs. Virginia Tech Trevor Cooney 45 minutes (13)
Trevor Cooney has played the most minutes 13 times and Michael Gbinije 11 times, and Mal Richardson twice (there have been two ties). Gbinije and Cooney, of course, are our two seniors.
