SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,997
- Like
- 65,594
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 Duke and Wake Forest games.)
Michael Gbinije had 32 net points in 76 minutes, has 306 NP in 794 minutes for the season = 15.4 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 226 NP in 486 minutes =18.6 NP/40. Conference: 80 NP in 308 minutes = 10.4 per 40.
Tyler Roberson had 29 net points in 68 minutes, has 242 NP in 647 minutes for the season = 15.0 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 388 minutes = 12.9 NP/40. Conference: 117 NP in 259 minutes = 18.1 NP/40.
Trevor Cooney had -1 net points in 76 minutes, has 187 NP in 778 minutes for the season = 9.6 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 480 minutes = 10.4 NP/40 Conference: 62 NP in 298 minutes = 8.3 NP/40.
DaJuan Coleman had -4 net points in 36 minutes, has 106 NP in 349 minutes for the season = -12.1 NP/40
Pre-Conference: 84 NP in 200 minutes = 16.8 NP/40. Conference: 22 NP in 149 minutes = 5.9 NP per 40.
Tyler Lydon had 12 net points in 55 minutes, has 249 NP in 643 minutes for the season = 15.5 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 198 NP in 421 minutes =18.8 NP/40. Conference: 51 NP in 222 minutes = 9.2 NP/40.
Mal Richardson had 22 net points in 77 minutes, has 182 NP in 692 minutes for the season = 10.5 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 96 NP in 410 minutes = 9.4 NP/40. Conference: 86 NP in 282 minutes = 12.2 NP/40.
Franklin Howard had -1 net points in 12 minutes, has 15 NP in 146 minutes for the season = 4.1 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 19 NP in 93 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: -4 NP in 53 minutes = -3.0 NP/40.
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!
Kaleb Joseph had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 8 NP in 113 minutes for the season = 2.8NP/40
Pre-Conference: 14 in 96 minutes = 5.8NP/40. Conference: -6 NP in 17 minutes = -14.1 per 40.
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: ACC NP/40: Roberson 18.1,Richardson 12.2, Gbinije 10.4, Lydon 9.2, Cooney 8.3, Coleman 5.9, Obokoh 0.04, Howard -3.0, Joseph -14.1. I use 10.0 as a somewhat arbitrary line above which a player is productive enough to warrant a starting positon so we have bene basically a three many team, with occasional contributions by Lydon and Cooney. It’s not enough.
Michael Gbinije has led in net points 9 times, Tyler Lydon, Mal Richardson and Tyler Roberson 4 times each, 3 times and DaJuan Coleman and Trevor Cooney once each .
The Other Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 35 offensive and 42 defensive rebounds. They had 22 offensive and 51 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 35 of 86 times, (40.7%). When they missed, they got the ball 22 out of 64 times, (34.4%).
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 33.1% for the opposition and have done better in 6 of 8 games with one even. Despite our fears rebounding in this conference hasn’t been a big problem.
Total: We’ve rebounded 34.3% of our misses to 35.2% for the opposition and did better in 12 of 21 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 22 second chance points off our 35 offensive rebounds, 0.659 points per rebound. They got 21 for their 22= 0.953, 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 0.864 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 1.000. We’ve led in this stat 5 times in 8 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.919 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.952. We’ve led in this stat 14 times in 21 games. Again an expected big problem hasn’t really materialized.
Of our 19 turnovers, 11 were their steals and 8 were our own miscues. Of their 22 turnovers, 12 were Syracuse steals and 10 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 12.5 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 5 games and fewer unforced turnovers in 2 games with one even of 7 games.
Total: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 6 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 13 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 5 games with 2 even of 21 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 25 points from 22 turnovers, an average of 1.136. They had 16 points from 19 turnovers, an average of 0.842, 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 1.150 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.147. They won the first four games, when we were 0-4, 1.591-0.760. We’ve won the last four games, when we went 3-1 by 1.711-0.786. So this seems to be an important stat.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.133 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.091. We’ve won this battle 14 times in 21 games.
If you add our 77 rebounds to their 22 turnovers, we had 99 “manufactured possessions”. They had 73 + 19 = 92. 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 48 MP to 46. We’ve won this battle 4 times in 8 games
Total: We’ve averaged 50 MP to 49. We’ve won this battle 11 times with 1 even in 20 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were a dismal 22 for 72, (.306) inside the arc, at strong 24 for 53 (.453) outside it and a poor 13 for23, (.565) from the line. They were a worrisome 30 for 51 (.588) inside the arc, a mediocre 18 for 55 (.327) and a good 21/30 (.700) from the foul line. Our games are unpredictable because we are either winning these stats big or losing them big and the net result is anyone’s guess.
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 .445/.365/.656. Our opposition is .556/.253/.710. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in just 1 game, in three point field goal percentage in 6 games, and in free throw percentage in only 2 games out of 8 games.
Total: We are .468/.359/.673. Our opposition was .484/.296/.670. We led in two point field goal percentage in 9 games, in three point field goals percentage in 14 games, and in free throw percentage in 9 games with 1 even in 21 games
We had 38 points in the paint (PIP), 25 off turnovers (POTO), 22 “second chance” points (SCP), just 4 fast break points (FBP) and 10 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 56 points in the paint, 16 off turnovers, 21 “second chance” points, 0 – yes zero - fast break points, (4 games in a row now) and 17 from the bench. We also had 88 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 93.
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 24-30 PIP, 14-14 POTO, 38-35 FCP, 12-11 SCP, 5-4 FBP and 6-19 BP. We led in PIP 2 times with 1 even, POTO 4 times, FCP 4 times, SCP 5 times, FBP 4 times with 1 even, and BP 1 times in 6 games.
Total: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-12 SCP, 6-5 FBP and 10-17 BP. We’ve led in PIP 11 times with 1 even, POTO 13 times, FCP 10 times with 2 even, SCP 10 times with 2 even, FBP 13 times with 1 even, and BP 6 times with 1 even in 21 games.
We had 129 points, 38 in the paint, 72 from the arc and 13 from the line so we had 78 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 129-38-13) and scored 6 points, (78 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 135/56/54/21 = 58 POP with 4 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 31 POP and 4 TZ, our opposition 20/3. We’ve led in POP 6 times and in TZ points 4 times with 3 even in 8 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 23/4. We’ve led in POP 14 times and in TZ points 11 times with 4 even in 21 games.
22 of our 46 baskets were assisted (.478) and 32 of their 48 (.667). 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 56.8% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 71.0% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 4 games out of 8 games.
Total: We assisted 57.5% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 70.9% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 13 games with 1 even in 21 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 125 FGA -35 OREBs + 19 TOs + (.475 x 23) = 119.925 possessions. They were 106 -22+ 22+ (.475 x 30) = 120.25 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 120 possessions for us and 120 for them. There were 240 combined possessions in these games, 120 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 134 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 128 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 131 combined possessions per game.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 129 points in 120 possessions (1.075). They scored 135 points in 120 possessions (1.125).
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 1.041 points per possession to 1.025 for the opposition. We’ve lost the stat in 5 of 8 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.073 points per possession to 0.983 for the opposition and have won the stat in 13 of 21 games.
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: 22-27, 32-39, 30-22, 44-47
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 15.5-14, 15-13.5, 15-16, 19-20 OT: 12-13. We’ve won 15 of 32 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 21 quarters and held the opposition under that 14 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 16-14, 16-14, 18-17, 20-18 OT: 8.5-13. We’ve won 46 of 84 quarters with 6 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 59 quarters and held the opposition under that 37 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. Duke Michael Gbinije 14 + 9 = 23
Vs. Virginia Michael Gbinije 24 + 3 = 27
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 16 times, Mal Richardson and Trevor Cooney 2 time each and Tyler Roberson once.
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. Duke Michael Gbinije 14 – 12 = +2
Vs. Virginia Michael Gbinije 24-18 = +6 and Mal Richardson 23-17 = +6
Michael Gbinije have led in this stat 8 times, Tyler Roberson 6 times, Tyler Lydon 3 times, Trevor Cooney 3 times, Mal Richardson 3 times DaJuan Coleman twice 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 players like Coleman and Cooney 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. Duke Mal Richardson trey after 2:10 and Michael Gbinije lay-up after 46 seconds
Vs. Virginia Trevor Cooney trey after 1:58 and Michael Gbinije trey after 2:10
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 1 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 has sat us down 13 times, Michael Gbinije 11times, Trevor Cooney 7 times, DaJuan Coleman 6 times and Tyler Roberson 5 times. We’ve been sat down by 17 treys, 8 two point jumpers, 8 lay-ups 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. It’s also interesting that the number one “down sitter” hasn’t been Gbinije: its’ been Richardson.
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. Nobody got tacos for these games.
Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 5 times, Michael Gbinije twice and DaJuan Coleman, Franklin Howard, Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson once. The average amount of time left in the game- when we’ve made it to tacos- has been 4:16 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 72 two point shots to 51, scored 38 points in the paint to 56 and got fouled 27 times to 32, attempting 23 foul shots to 30. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 2.7 for us and 1.6 for them, meaning they were much more likely to get a call than us on two pointers. But the ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.4 for us to 1.8 for them, meaning we were more likely to get the call when we were actually scoring in the paint. The difference is that we missed so many two point shots. We weren’t getting the call on the misses. . The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 0.9 for us and 0.9 for them, so the calls were equally likely to put each team on the line.
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 2.0 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They’ve averaged 1.6 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 3 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 5 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 4 games out of 8 games.
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 1.9 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 14 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 16 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 13 games out of 21 games.
“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. Duke Trevor Cooney 39 minutes (11)
Vs. Virginia Mal Richardson 40 minutes (2)
Michael Gbinije have played the most minutes 11 times and Trevor Cooney 10 times, and Mal Richardson twice (there have been two ties.) Gbinije and Cooney 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 Duke and Wake Forest games.)
Michael Gbinije had 32 net points in 76 minutes, has 306 NP in 794 minutes for the season = 15.4 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 226 NP in 486 minutes =18.6 NP/40. Conference: 80 NP in 308 minutes = 10.4 per 40.
Tyler Roberson had 29 net points in 68 minutes, has 242 NP in 647 minutes for the season = 15.0 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 388 minutes = 12.9 NP/40. Conference: 117 NP in 259 minutes = 18.1 NP/40.
Trevor Cooney had -1 net points in 76 minutes, has 187 NP in 778 minutes for the season = 9.6 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 480 minutes = 10.4 NP/40 Conference: 62 NP in 298 minutes = 8.3 NP/40.
DaJuan Coleman had -4 net points in 36 minutes, has 106 NP in 349 minutes for the season = -12.1 NP/40
Pre-Conference: 84 NP in 200 minutes = 16.8 NP/40. Conference: 22 NP in 149 minutes = 5.9 NP per 40.
Tyler Lydon had 12 net points in 55 minutes, has 249 NP in 643 minutes for the season = 15.5 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 198 NP in 421 minutes =18.8 NP/40. Conference: 51 NP in 222 minutes = 9.2 NP/40.
Mal Richardson had 22 net points in 77 minutes, has 182 NP in 692 minutes for the season = 10.5 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 96 NP in 410 minutes = 9.4 NP/40. Conference: 86 NP in 282 minutes = 12.2 NP/40.
Franklin Howard had -1 net points in 12 minutes, has 15 NP in 146 minutes for the season = 4.1 NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 19 NP in 93 minutes = 8.2 NP/40. Conference: -4 NP in 53 minutes = -3.0 NP/40.
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!
Kaleb Joseph had 0 net points in 0 minutes, has 8 NP in 113 minutes for the season = 2.8NP/40
Pre-Conference: 14 in 96 minutes = 5.8NP/40. Conference: -6 NP in 17 minutes = -14.1 per 40.
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: ACC NP/40: Roberson 18.1,Richardson 12.2, Gbinije 10.4, Lydon 9.2, Cooney 8.3, Coleman 5.9, Obokoh 0.04, Howard -3.0, Joseph -14.1. I use 10.0 as a somewhat arbitrary line above which a player is productive enough to warrant a starting positon so we have bene basically a three many team, with occasional contributions by Lydon and Cooney. It’s not enough.
Michael Gbinije has led in net points 9 times, Tyler Lydon, Mal Richardson and Tyler Roberson 4 times each, 3 times and DaJuan Coleman and Trevor Cooney once each .
The Other Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 35 offensive and 42 defensive rebounds. They had 22 offensive and 51 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 35 of 86 times, (40.7%). When they missed, they got the ball 22 out of 64 times, (34.4%).
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 33.1% for the opposition and have done better in 6 of 8 games with one even. Despite our fears rebounding in this conference hasn’t been a big problem.
Total: We’ve rebounded 34.3% of our misses to 35.2% for the opposition and did better in 12 of 21 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 22 second chance points off our 35 offensive rebounds, 0.659 points per rebound. They got 21 for their 22= 0.953, 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 0.864 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 1.000. We’ve led in this stat 5 times in 8 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.919 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.952. We’ve led in this stat 14 times in 21 games. Again an expected big problem hasn’t really materialized.
Of our 19 turnovers, 11 were their steals and 8 were our own miscues. Of their 22 turnovers, 12 were Syracuse steals and 10 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 12.5 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 5 games and fewer unforced turnovers in 2 games with one even of 7 games.
Total: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 6 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 13 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 5 games with 2 even of 21 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 25 points from 22 turnovers, an average of 1.136. They had 16 points from 19 turnovers, an average of 0.842, 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 1.150 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.147. They won the first four games, when we were 0-4, 1.591-0.760. We’ve won the last four games, when we went 3-1 by 1.711-0.786. So this seems to be an important stat.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.133 points per turnover. They’ve averaged 1.091. We’ve won this battle 14 times in 21 games.
If you add our 77 rebounds to their 22 turnovers, we had 99 “manufactured possessions”. They had 73 + 19 = 92. 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 48 MP to 46. We’ve won this battle 4 times in 8 games
Total: We’ve averaged 50 MP to 49. We’ve won this battle 11 times with 1 even in 20 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were a dismal 22 for 72, (.306) inside the arc, at strong 24 for 53 (.453) outside it and a poor 13 for23, (.565) from the line. They were a worrisome 30 for 51 (.588) inside the arc, a mediocre 18 for 55 (.327) and a good 21/30 (.700) from the foul line. Our games are unpredictable because we are either winning these stats big or losing them big and the net result is anyone’s guess.
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 .445/.365/.656. Our opposition is .556/.253/.710. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in just 1 game, in three point field goal percentage in 6 games, and in free throw percentage in only 2 games out of 8 games.
Total: We are .468/.359/.673. Our opposition was .484/.296/.670. We led in two point field goal percentage in 9 games, in three point field goals percentage in 14 games, and in free throw percentage in 9 games with 1 even in 21 games
We had 38 points in the paint (PIP), 25 off turnovers (POTO), 22 “second chance” points (SCP), just 4 fast break points (FBP) and 10 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 56 points in the paint, 16 off turnovers, 21 “second chance” points, 0 – yes zero - fast break points, (4 games in a row now) and 17 from the bench. We also had 88 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 93.
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 24-30 PIP, 14-14 POTO, 38-35 FCP, 12-11 SCP, 5-4 FBP and 6-19 BP. We led in PIP 2 times with 1 even, POTO 4 times, FCP 4 times, SCP 5 times, FBP 4 times with 1 even, and BP 1 times in 6 games.
Total: We averaged 26-28 PIP, 15-12 POTO, 39-35 FCP, 12-12 SCP, 6-5 FBP and 10-17 BP. We’ve led in PIP 11 times with 1 even, POTO 13 times, FCP 10 times with 2 even, SCP 10 times with 2 even, FBP 13 times with 1 even, and BP 6 times with 1 even in 21 games.
We had 129 points, 38 in the paint, 72 from the arc and 13 from the line so we had 78 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 129-38-13) and scored 6 points, (78 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 135/56/54/21 = 58 POP with 4 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 31 POP and 4 TZ, our opposition 20/3. We’ve led in POP 6 times and in TZ points 4 times with 3 even in 8 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 23/4. We’ve led in POP 14 times and in TZ points 11 times with 4 even in 21 games.
22 of our 46 baskets were assisted (.478) and 32 of their 48 (.667). 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 56.8% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 71.0% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 4 games out of 8 games.
Total: We assisted 57.5% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 70.9% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 13 games with 1 even in 21 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 125 FGA -35 OREBs + 19 TOs + (.475 x 23) = 119.925 possessions. They were 106 -22+ 22+ (.475 x 30) = 120.25 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 120 possessions for us and 120 for them. There were 240 combined possessions in these games, 120 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 134 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 128 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 131 combined possessions per game.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 129 points in 120 possessions (1.075). They scored 135 points in 120 possessions (1.125).
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 1.041 points per possession to 1.025 for the opposition. We’ve lost the stat in 5 of 8 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.073 points per possession to 0.983 for the opposition and have won the stat in 13 of 21 games.
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: 22-27, 32-39, 30-22, 44-47
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 15.5-14, 15-13.5, 15-16, 19-20 OT: 12-13. We’ve won 15 of 32 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 21 quarters and held the opposition under that 14 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 16-14, 16-14, 18-17, 20-18 OT: 8.5-13. We’ve won 46 of 84 quarters with 6 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 59 quarters and held the opposition under that 37 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. Duke Michael Gbinije 14 + 9 = 23
Vs. Virginia Michael Gbinije 24 + 3 = 27
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 16 times, Mal Richardson and Trevor Cooney 2 time each and Tyler Roberson once.
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. Duke Michael Gbinije 14 – 12 = +2
Vs. Virginia Michael Gbinije 24-18 = +6 and Mal Richardson 23-17 = +6
Michael Gbinije have led in this stat 8 times, Tyler Roberson 6 times, Tyler Lydon 3 times, Trevor Cooney 3 times, Mal Richardson 3 times DaJuan Coleman twice 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 players like Coleman and Cooney 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. Duke Mal Richardson trey after 2:10 and Michael Gbinije lay-up after 46 seconds
Vs. Virginia Trevor Cooney trey after 1:58 and Michael Gbinije trey after 2:10
The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 1 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 has sat us down 13 times, Michael Gbinije 11times, Trevor Cooney 7 times, DaJuan Coleman 6 times and Tyler Roberson 5 times. We’ve been sat down by 17 treys, 8 two point jumpers, 8 lay-ups 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. It’s also interesting that the number one “down sitter” hasn’t been Gbinije: its’ been Richardson.
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. Nobody got tacos for these games.
Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 5 times, Michael Gbinije twice and DaJuan Coleman, Franklin Howard, Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson once. The average amount of time left in the game- when we’ve made it to tacos- has been 4:16 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 72 two point shots to 51, scored 38 points in the paint to 56 and got fouled 27 times to 32, attempting 23 foul shots to 30. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 2.7 for us and 1.6 for them, meaning they were much more likely to get a call than us on two pointers. But the ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.4 for us to 1.8 for them, meaning we were more likely to get the call when we were actually scoring in the paint. The difference is that we missed so many two point shots. We weren’t getting the call on the misses. . The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 0.9 for us and 0.9 for them, so the calls were equally likely to put each team on the line.
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 2.0 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They’ve averaged 1.6 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 3 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 5 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 4 games out of 8 games.
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 1.9 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 14 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 16 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 13 games out of 21 games.
“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. Duke Trevor Cooney 39 minutes (11)
Vs. Virginia Mal Richardson 40 minutes (2)
Michael Gbinije have played the most minutes 11 times and Trevor Cooney 10 times, and Mal Richardson twice (there have been two ties.) Gbinije and Cooney are our two seniors.
