SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,997
- Like
- 65,592
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 Boston College and Wake Forest games.)
Michael Gbinije had 36 net points in 75 minutes, has 274 NP in 718 minutes for the season = 15.3NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 226 NP in 486 minutes =18.6NP/40. Conference: 48 NP in 232 minutes = 8.3 per 40.
Tyler Roberson had 35 net points in 53 minutes, has 213 NP in 579 minutes for the season = 14.7NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 388 minutes = 12.9NP/40. Conference: 88NP in 191 minutes = 18.4NP/40.
Trevor Cooney had 22 net points in 65 minutes, has 188 NP in 702 minutes for the season = 10.7NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 480 minutes = 10.4NP/40 Conference: 63 NP in 222 minutes = 11.4NP/40.
DaJuan Coleman had 18 net points in 41 minutes, has 110 NP in 313 minutes for the season = -14.1NP/40
Pre-Conference: 84 NP in 200 minutes = 16.8NP/40. Conference: 26NP in 113 minutes = 9.2 per 40.
Tyler Lydon had 13 net points in 46 minutes, has 237 NP in 588 minutes for the season = 16.1NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 198 NP in 421 minutes =18.8NP/40. Conference: 39 NP in 167 minutes = 9.3NP/40.
Mal Richardson had 12 net points in 60 minutes, has 160 NP in 615 minutes for the season = 10.4NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 96 NP in 410 minutes = 9.4NP/40. Conference: 64NP in 205 minutes = 12.5NP/40.
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 13 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!
Franklin Howard had 0 net points in 31minutes, has 16 NP in 134 minutes for the season = 4.8NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 19 NP in 93 minutes = 8.2NP/40. Conference: -3 NP in 41 minutes = -2.90NP/40.
Kaleb Joseph had -1 net points in 4 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.
DNP-CD
None (Obokoh and Joseph missed the BC game but played against Wake)
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: Tyler Roberson had been coming on strong, taking advantage of all the attention our shooters receive from the defe3sne. Mal Richardson had been our most productive player in conference games but he was the only one to have a bad game (-1NP) against Wake. So we still haven’t played a game with all cylinders operating. The biggest reason for our good week was our defense, which gave up 95 points in two games. When we’ve had good runs in recent years it’s because of our defense.
Michael Gbinije has led in net points 8 times, Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson 4 times each, Mal Richardson 3 times and DaJuan Coleman and Trevor Cooney once each .
The "Etc." Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 27 offensive and 51 defensive rebounds. They had 20 offensive and 42 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 27 of 69 times, (39.1%). When they missed, they got the ball 20 out of 71 times, (28.2%).
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 33.0% for the opposition and have done better in 4 of 6 games with one even. Despite our fears rebounding in this conference hasn’t been a big problem.
Total: We’ve rebounded 33.5% of our misses to 35.3% for the opposition and did better in 10 of 19 games with one even. We’ve only been badly out-rebounded 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 34 second chance points off our 27 offensive rebounds, 1.259 points per rebound. They got 16 for their 20= 0.800, 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 0.973 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 1.015. We’ve led in this stat 5 times in 6 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.962 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.952. We’ve led in this stat 14 times in 19 games. Again an expected big problem hasn’t really materialized.
Of our 26 turnovers, 12 were their steals and 14 were our own miscues. Of their 34 turnovers, 20 were Syracuse steals and 14 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 13 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 13 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 3 games and fewer unforced turnovers in 1 games of 6 games.
Total: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 11 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 4 games with 1 even of 19 games. We could clean up our act on those unforced turnovers.
If you add our 76 rebounds to their 34 turnovers, we had 110 “manufactured possessions”. They had 62 + 26 = 88. 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 48. We’ve won this battle 3 times in 6 games
Total: We’ve averaged 51 MP to 49. We’ve won this battle 10 times with 1 even in 19 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were 36 for 67, (.537) inside the arc, 14 for 42, (.333) outside it and 31 for 44, (.705) from the line. They were 21 for 44 (.477), 8 for 46 (.173) and 29/51 (.569).
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 .500/.333/.675. Our opposition is .551/.220/.712. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 1 game, in three point field goals percentage in 5 games, and in free throw percentage in 2 games out of 6 games. Two point field goal per4centage is the #1 determinant of victory in college basketball so our defense in that area is a very big problem.
Total: We are .488/.348/.679. Our opposition was .475/.292/.668. We led in two point field goal percentage in 9 games, in three point field goals percentage in 13 games, and in free throw percentage in 9 games with 1 even in 19 games
We had 66 points in the paint (PIP), 52 off turnovers (POTO), 34 “second chance” points (SCP), 10 fast break points (FBP) and 22 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 34 points in the paint, 23 off turnovers, 16 “second chance” points, 0 – yes zero - fast break points and 39 from the bench. We also had 70 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 50. The great reduction in points in the paint (it had been 86 the previous week) was a big part of our turn-around. But it’s also a reflection of who we played
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 26-31 PIP, 15-15.5 POTO, 37-31 FCP, 12-11 SCP, 5.5-6 FBP and 75-22 BP. We led in PIP 2 times, POTO 2 times, FCP 4 times, SCP 4 times, FBP 2 times with 1 even, and BP 0 times in 6 games.
Total: We averaged 26-29 PIP, 16-13 POTO, 38-34 FCP, 12-12 SCP, 7-6 FBP and 12-19 BP. We’ve led in PIP 11 times, POTO 12 times, FCP 10 times with 2 even, SCP 9 times with 2 even, FBP 11 times with 1 even, and BP 5 times with 1 even in 19 games.
We had 145 points, 66 in the paint, 42 from the arc and 31 from the line so we had 48 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 145-66-31) and scored 6 points, (48 POP-42 from the arc), from what I’ll call the Twilight Zone”: that area between the paint and the arc that is the land of the pull-up jump shot, a lost art but a great weapon. They had 95/34/24/29 = 32 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 29 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 18/3. We’ve led in POP 4 times and in TZ points 3 times with 2 even in 6 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 22/4. We’ve led in POP 12 times and in TZ points 10 times with 3 even in 19 games.
27 of our 50 baskets were assisted (.540) and 20 of their 29 (.690). 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 6 games.
Total: We assisted 58.5% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 71.4% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 13 games with 1 even in 19 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 109 FGA - 27 OREBs + 26 TOs + (.475 x 44) = 128.9 possessions. They were 90 -20+ 34+ (.475 x 51) = 128.225 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 129 possessions for us and 128 for them. There were 257 combined possessions in these games, 128.5 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 134 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 130 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 133 combined possessions per game.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 145 points in 129 possessions (1.124). They scored 95 points in 128 possessions (0.742).
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 1.031 points per possession to 0.995 for the opposition. We’ve lost the stat in 2 of 6 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.072 points per possession to 0.970 for the opposition and have won the stat in 12 of 19 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: 41-22, 36-20, 29-28, 39-15
Pre-Conference: We averaged 16-14, 16-14, 20-18, 20-17 OT: 5-13 We won 31 of 52 quarters with 3 even. We scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 23 times.
Conference: We’ve averaged 17-14, 15-11.5, 15.5-17, 18-19 OT: 12-13. We’ve won 13 of 24 quarters with one even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 16 quarters and held the opposition under that 10 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 17-14, 16-13, 18-18, 20-17 OT: 8.5-13. We’ve won 44 of 76 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 54 quarters and held the opposition under that 33 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. Boston College Mal Richardson 15 + 3 = 18
Vs. Wake Forest Trevor Cooney 25 +3 = 28
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 14 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. Boston College DaJuan Coleman 11 – 6 – 3, Michael Gbinije 14- 8- 4 and Mal Richardson 15 - 7- 6, all = +2
Vs. Wake Forest Trevor Cooney 25 – 14 – 6 = +5
Michael Gbinije and Tyler Roberson have led in this stat 6 times, Tyler Lydon 3 times, Trevor Cooney 3 times, DaJuan Coleman and Mal Richardson twice each 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, Gbinije and Richardson can tie 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. Boston College Michael Gbinije lay-up after 8 seconds and Mal Richardson lay-up after 1:14
Vs. Wake Forest Trevor Cooney trey at 27 seconds and Tyler Roberson a dunk after 38
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 12 times, Michael Gbinije 9 times, DaJuan Coleman and Trevor Cooney 6 times and Tyler Roberson 5 times. We’ve been sat down by 14 treys, 8 two point jumpers, 7 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 the offensively brutal BC game but a Franklin Howard trey did the trick with 8:44 left in the Wake Forest game.
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 67 two point shots to 39, scored 66 points in the paint to 34 and got fouled 39 times to 42, attempting 31 foul shots to 51. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.7 for us and 1.0 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.7 for us to 0.8 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 0.8 for us and 1.2 for them.
Most of the difference was the Wake Forest game where the ratios were 2.0/0.9, 1.7/0/7 and 1.3/1.6, meaning we were much more likely to get called for fouls in the same situation and got fewer trips to the line out of the fouls that were called. But we’ve had games that favored us in those categories and, of course didn’t complain about them.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 11 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 10 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 9 games out of 13 games. So numerically, the calls favored us.
Conference: We’ve averaged 1.9 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, 1.6 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.2 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 3 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 3 games out of 6 games.
Total: We’ve 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 2.0 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 14 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 14 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 12 games out of 19 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. Boston College Trevor Cooney 39 minutes
Vs. Wake Forest Michael Gbinje 36 mintues
A senior has been “the man” in every game, (although Mal Richardson tied Cooney in one). Michael Gbinije and Trevor Cooney have played the most minutes 10 times, and Mal Richardson once (there have been two ties.)
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 Boston College and Wake Forest games.)
Michael Gbinije had 36 net points in 75 minutes, has 274 NP in 718 minutes for the season = 15.3NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 226 NP in 486 minutes =18.6NP/40. Conference: 48 NP in 232 minutes = 8.3 per 40.
Tyler Roberson had 35 net points in 53 minutes, has 213 NP in 579 minutes for the season = 14.7NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 388 minutes = 12.9NP/40. Conference: 88NP in 191 minutes = 18.4NP/40.
Trevor Cooney had 22 net points in 65 minutes, has 188 NP in 702 minutes for the season = 10.7NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 125 NP in 480 minutes = 10.4NP/40 Conference: 63 NP in 222 minutes = 11.4NP/40.
DaJuan Coleman had 18 net points in 41 minutes, has 110 NP in 313 minutes for the season = -14.1NP/40
Pre-Conference: 84 NP in 200 minutes = 16.8NP/40. Conference: 26NP in 113 minutes = 9.2 per 40.
Tyler Lydon had 13 net points in 46 minutes, has 237 NP in 588 minutes for the season = 16.1NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 198 NP in 421 minutes =18.8NP/40. Conference: 39 NP in 167 minutes = 9.3NP/40.
Mal Richardson had 12 net points in 60 minutes, has 160 NP in 615 minutes for the season = 10.4NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 96 NP in 410 minutes = 9.4NP/40. Conference: 64NP in 205 minutes = 12.5NP/40.
Chinoso Obokoh had 0 net points in 13 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!
Franklin Howard had 0 net points in 31minutes, has 16 NP in 134 minutes for the season = 4.8NP/40.
Pre-Conference: 19 NP in 93 minutes = 8.2NP/40. Conference: -3 NP in 41 minutes = -2.90NP/40.
Kaleb Joseph had -1 net points in 4 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.
DNP-CD
None (Obokoh and Joseph missed the BC game but played against Wake)
INJURED
None
SUSPENDED
None
Comments: Tyler Roberson had been coming on strong, taking advantage of all the attention our shooters receive from the defe3sne. Mal Richardson had been our most productive player in conference games but he was the only one to have a bad game (-1NP) against Wake. So we still haven’t played a game with all cylinders operating. The biggest reason for our good week was our defense, which gave up 95 points in two games. When we’ve had good runs in recent years it’s because of our defense.
Michael Gbinije has led in net points 8 times, Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson 4 times each, Mal Richardson 3 times and DaJuan Coleman and Trevor Cooney once each .
The "Etc." Stats:
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 27 offensive and 51 defensive rebounds. They had 20 offensive and 42 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 27 of 69 times, (39.1%). When they missed, they got the ball 20 out of 71 times, (28.2%).
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 33.0% for the opposition and have done better in 4 of 6 games with one even. Despite our fears rebounding in this conference hasn’t been a big problem.
Total: We’ve rebounded 33.5% of our misses to 35.3% for the opposition and did better in 10 of 19 games with one even. We’ve only been badly out-rebounded 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 34 second chance points off our 27 offensive rebounds, 1.259 points per rebound. They got 16 for their 20= 0.800, 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 0.973 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 1.015. We’ve led in this stat 5 times in 6 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 0.962 points per offensive rebound: they averaged 0.952. We’ve led in this stat 14 times in 19 games. Again an expected big problem hasn’t really materialized.
Of our 26 turnovers, 12 were their steals and 14 were our own miscues. Of their 34 turnovers, 20 were Syracuse steals and 14 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 13 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 13 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We’ve had fewer turnovers in 3 games and fewer unforced turnovers in 1 games of 6 games.
Total: We averaged 12 turnovers, 6 of which were unforced compared to 14 turnovers and 5 unforced for the opposition. We had fewer turnovers in 11 games but fewer unforced turnovers in only 4 games with 1 even of 19 games. We could clean up our act on those unforced turnovers.
If you add our 76 rebounds to their 34 turnovers, we had 110 “manufactured possessions”. They had 62 + 26 = 88. 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 48. We’ve won this battle 3 times in 6 games
Total: We’ve averaged 51 MP to 49. We’ve won this battle 10 times with 1 even in 19 games
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. We were 36 for 67, (.537) inside the arc, 14 for 42, (.333) outside it and 31 for 44, (.705) from the line. They were 21 for 44 (.477), 8 for 46 (.173) and 29/51 (.569).
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 .500/.333/.675. Our opposition is .551/.220/.712. We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 1 game, in three point field goals percentage in 5 games, and in free throw percentage in 2 games out of 6 games. Two point field goal per4centage is the #1 determinant of victory in college basketball so our defense in that area is a very big problem.
Total: We are .488/.348/.679. Our opposition was .475/.292/.668. We led in two point field goal percentage in 9 games, in three point field goals percentage in 13 games, and in free throw percentage in 9 games with 1 even in 19 games
We had 66 points in the paint (PIP), 52 off turnovers (POTO), 34 “second chance” points (SCP), 10 fast break points (FBP) and 22 from the bench (BP). Our opposition had 34 points in the paint, 23 off turnovers, 16 “second chance” points, 0 – yes zero - fast break points and 39 from the bench. We also had 70 of Pat’s “first chance points” (FCP) (total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws) to 50. The great reduction in points in the paint (it had been 86 the previous week) was a big part of our turn-around. But it’s also a reflection of who we played
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 26-31 PIP, 15-15.5 POTO, 37-31 FCP, 12-11 SCP, 5.5-6 FBP and 75-22 BP. We led in PIP 2 times, POTO 2 times, FCP 4 times, SCP 4 times, FBP 2 times with 1 even, and BP 0 times in 6 games.
Total: We averaged 26-29 PIP, 16-13 POTO, 38-34 FCP, 12-12 SCP, 7-6 FBP and 12-19 BP. We’ve led in PIP 11 times, POTO 12 times, FCP 10 times with 2 even, SCP 9 times with 2 even, FBP 11 times with 1 even, and BP 5 times with 1 even in 19 games.
We had 145 points, 66 in the paint, 42 from the arc and 31 from the line so we had 48 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 145-66-31) and scored 6 points, (48 POP-42 from the arc), from what I’ll call the Twilight Zone”: that area between the paint and the arc that is the land of the pull-up jump shot, a lost art but a great weapon. They had 95/34/24/29 = 32 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 29 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 18/3. We’ve led in POP 4 times and in TZ points 3 times with 2 even in 6 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 31 POP and 5 TZ, our opposition 22/4. We’ve led in POP 12 times and in TZ points 10 times with 3 even in 19 games.
27 of our 50 baskets were assisted (.540) and 20 of their 29 (.690). 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 6 games.
Total: We assisted 58.5% of our baskets. Our opposition assisted 71.4% of their baskets. They had a higher percentage in 13 games with 1 even in 19 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 109 FGA - 27 OREBs + 26 TOs + (.475 x 44) = 128.9 possessions. They were 90 -20+ 34+ (.475 x 51) = 128.225 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one per game off, I’ll count that as 129 possessions for us and 128 for them. There were 257 combined possessions in these games, 128.5 per game.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 134 combined possessions per game.
Conference: We’ve averaged 130 combined possessions per game.
Total: We’ve averaged 133 combined possessions per game.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by dividing the points scored by the number of possessions. We scored 145 points in 129 possessions (1.124). They scored 95 points in 128 possessions (0.742).
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 1.031 points per possession to 0.995 for the opposition. We’ve lost the stat in 2 of 6 games.
Total: We’ve averaged 1.072 points per possession to 0.970 for the opposition and have won the stat in 12 of 19 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: 41-22, 36-20, 29-28, 39-15
Pre-Conference: We averaged 16-14, 16-14, 20-18, 20-17 OT: 5-13 We won 31 of 52 quarters with 3 even. We scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 23 times.
Conference: We’ve averaged 17-14, 15-11.5, 15.5-17, 18-19 OT: 12-13. We’ve won 13 of 24 quarters with one even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 16 quarters and held the opposition under that 10 times.
Total: We’ve averaged 17-14, 16-13, 18-18, 20-17 OT: 8.5-13. We’ve won 44 of 76 quarters with 3 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 54 quarters and held the opposition under that 33 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. Boston College Mal Richardson 15 + 3 = 18
Vs. Wake Forest Trevor Cooney 25 +3 = 28
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 14 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. Boston College DaJuan Coleman 11 – 6 – 3, Michael Gbinije 14- 8- 4 and Mal Richardson 15 - 7- 6, all = +2
Vs. Wake Forest Trevor Cooney 25 – 14 – 6 = +5
Michael Gbinije and Tyler Roberson have led in this stat 6 times, Tyler Lydon 3 times, Trevor Cooney 3 times, DaJuan Coleman and Mal Richardson twice each 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, Gbinije and Richardson can tie 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. Boston College Michael Gbinije lay-up after 8 seconds and Mal Richardson lay-up after 1:14
Vs. Wake Forest Trevor Cooney trey at 27 seconds and Tyler Roberson a dunk after 38
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 12 times, Michael Gbinije 9 times, DaJuan Coleman and Trevor Cooney 6 times and Tyler Roberson 5 times. We’ve been sat down by 14 treys, 8 two point jumpers, 7 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 the offensively brutal BC game but a Franklin Howard trey did the trick with 8:44 left in the Wake Forest game.
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 67 two point shots to 39, scored 66 points in the paint to 34 and got fouled 39 times to 42, attempting 31 foul shots to 51. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.7 for us and 1.0 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.7 for us to 0.8 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 0.8 for us and 1.2 for them.
Most of the difference was the Wake Forest game where the ratios were 2.0/0.9, 1.7/0/7 and 1.3/1.6, meaning we were much more likely to get called for fouls in the same situation and got fewer trips to the line out of the fouls that were called. But we’ve had games that favored us in those categories and, of course didn’t complain about them.
Pre-Conference: We averaged 1.7 two point shots per foul, 1.3 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.1 foul shots per foul. They averaged 2.2 two point shots per foul, 1.8 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.0 foul shots per foul. We were fouled more often compared to our two point shots in 11 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 10 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 9 games out of 13 games. So numerically, the calls favored us.
Conference: We’ve averaged 1.9 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, 1.6 points in the paint per foul and attempted 1.2 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 3 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 3 games out of 6 games.
Total: We’ve 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 2.0 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 14 games and more often compared to our points in the paint in 14 games. We’ve gotten more fouls shots per foul in 12 games out of 19 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. Boston College Trevor Cooney 39 minutes
Vs. Wake Forest Michael Gbinje 36 mintues
A senior has been “the man” in every game, (although Mal Richardson tied Cooney in one). Michael Gbinije and Trevor Cooney have played the most minutes 10 times, and Mal Richardson once (there have been two ties.)
