Net Points, etc.: Final Season Totals

[SWC75]

Here are the things I keep track of in my “Net Points, etc.” posts I do after every game with the season totals in each category broken out so we see the pre-conference season totals and averages, the same for the conference season and the post season as well as the combined total for the year, the number of games we led in that stat, our record in those games and whatever other commentary I can think of.

First the “individual awards”, showing which individual players led in these stats in each game:

NET POINTS
(points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks minus missed field goals and free throws, turnovers and personal fouls)
Michael Gbinije has led us in net points 16 times, Tyler Roberson 9 times, Tyler Lydon 8 times, Mal Richardson 3 times and DaJuan Coleman and Trevor Cooney 2 times. Gbinije had the most net points with 34 vs. NC State.

Comment: It’s hard to lead in net points form the backcourt. Your shots are more difficult and you don’t get as many rebounds. Mike was clearly our best player, hands down, although he led in NP only once in the 6 post season games. I’ll have a breakdown individual numbers in this category in a separate post.

O-DOG
(Offensive Dude of the Game: Points plus assists)
Michael Gbinije has been the O-Dog 27 times, Trevor Cooney 4 times, Mal Richardson 3 times and Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson once each. Gbinije had the biggest game: 40, (34 points + 6 assists) vs. NC State.

Comment: Mike’s our O-Dog, that’s for sure.

SCORING EFFICIENCY
(Points minus field goal and free throw attempts)
Michael Gbinije has led in this stat 13 times, Trevor Cooney and Tyler Lydon 7 times, Tyler Roberson 6 times, Mal Richardson and DaJuan Coleman 4 times, and Franklin Howard and Kaleb Joseph once. Gbinije had the best game, against Charlotte, an amazing 26 points on 13 shots (3 for 3 on two points shots, 6 for 8 on treys and 2 for 2 from the foul line).

Comment: Again, Mike was the best, even though he faded toward the end when defenses were geared to stop him. He led in efficiency only once in the last 8 games.

SAT US DOWN
(Who scored the first SU basket of each half)
Mal Richardson has sat us down 18 times, Michael Gbinije 16 times, Trevor Cooney 15 times, Tyler Roberson 14 times, DaJuan Coleman 9 times and Tyler Lydon 2 times, (he’s always coming off the bench). We’ve been sat down by 22 treys, 21 lay-ups, (including tip-ins), 12 two point jumpers and 5 dunks. The average time it’s taken has been 1 minute, 22 seconds. The longest was 5:39 in the first half against Florida State and the shortest 6 seconds in the second half vs. Georgia Tech.

Comment: Interesting that Gbinije was not dominants here with Richardson and Cooney sitting us down as much or more than Mike did. It was also Coleman more times than you think, indicating that DaJuan was more of an option when he was in there than people realize. 16% of the shots that got us going were two point jumpers.

TACO BELL MVP
(Who scored the point that got us to 70, which gets you free tacos with your ticket stub)
We’ve gotten tacos in 20 of 37 games, reaching 70 points with an average of 3:51 left in those games. Trevor Cooney has gotten us tacos 8 times, Michael Gbinije 4 times, Tyler Lydon and Mal Richardson Tyler Roberson twice, DaJuan Coleman and Franklin Howard once each.

Comment: Actually, I haven’t eaten at Taco Bell in years.

MY MAN
(Who played the most minutes?)
Michael Gbinije has been “the man” 20 times, Trevor Cooney 16 times, Mal Richardson 4 times and Tyler Roberson once (there have been three ties).

Comment: Gbinije and Cooney, of course, are our two seniors. Cooney was “the man” the first 6 games of the year but only 10 of the last 27.

 

[SWC75]

Team Stats:

POSSESSION

Rebounding
(Add each team’s offensive rebounds to their opponent’s defensive rebounds. Then figure the offensive rebounds as a percentage of that)
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 159 of 478 = .333 164 of 452 = .363
Conference: 205 of 633 = .324 219 of 632 = .347
Post-Season: 78 of 209 = .373 77 of 214 = .360
TOTAL: 442 of 1320 = .335 460 of 1298 = .354
Syracuse has won the rebounding battle in 19 of 37 games, (with 1 even) and we are 15-4 in those games.

Comment: Rebounding was an issue all season but a great problem in only a handful of games. Our opposition out-rebounded us by at last 10% in 8 of 37 games. We were 2-6 in those games. We lost one in overtime, (Wisconsin) and another by 5 points on the road, (North Carolina).

Effective Offensive Rebounding
(Divide second chance points by the offensive rebounds)
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 153 from 160 = 0.956 168 from 181 = 0.928
Conference: 198 from 205 = 0.966 208 from 218 = 0.954
Post-Season: 75 from 72 = 1.042 62 from 76 = 0.816
TOTAL: 426 from 437 = 0.975 438 from 475 = 0.922
Syracuse has exploited offensive rebounds better in 24 of 37 games, (with 1 even), and we are 17-7 in those games.

Comment: Tis and Points per Turnover are two stats I started keeping track of in mid-season and they both seemed to be pretty good predictors of who is going to win. I think it has to do with the difference between being satisfied to have possession and seeing possession as a chance for a quick score with the defense is unsettled. Note how much better we were in this stat in the post-season run.

Turnovers
(Total turnovers – steals = unforced turnovers)
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: (11.6) 151-78 = 73 (5.6) (14.3) 186-121 = 65 (5.0)
Conference: (12.4) 224- 121 = 103 (5.7) (13.2) 237 –131 = 106 (5.9)
Post-Season: (10.8 ) 65 – 33 = 32 (5.3) (12.0) 72 – 49 = 23 (3.8)
TOTAL: (11.9) 440 -232 = 208 (5.7) (13.4) 495 -301 = 194 (5.2)
Syracuse has had fewer turnovers in 19 of 37 games, (with 3 even) and we are 11-8 in those games.
Syracuse had has fewer unforced turnovers in 13 of 37 games, (with 4 even) and we are 9-4 in those games.

Comment: It’s better to have fewer turnovers and fewer of them unforced but it’s not as strong an indicator of victory as you might think.

Points per Turnover
(Points off turnovers divided by the number of turnovers the other team had)
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 209 from 186 = 1.124 147 from 151 =0.974
Conference: 266 from 237 = 1.122 234 from 224 = 1.045
Post-Season: 66 from 72 = 0.917 62 from 68 = 0.912
TOTAL: 541 from 495 = 1.093 443 from 443 = 1.000
We have taken greater advantage of turnovers in 17 of 37 games, (with 1 even), and we are 15-2 in those games.

Comment: I was surprised that our post season number sin this stat weren’t better. Against Virginia we had 15 points from 13 turnovers: the Hoos had 2 from 8. But look at that won-lost record for this stat: 15-2.

Manufactured Possessions
(One teams rebounds + the other team’s turnovers)
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 487 + 186 = 673 (51.8) 500 + 151 = 651 (50.1)
Conference: 616 + 237 = 853 (47.4) 638 + 229 = 867 (48.2)
Post-Season: 216 + 72 = 298 (49.7) 207 + 64 = 271 (45.2)
TOTAL: 1319 + 495 = 1824 (49.3) 1345 + 444 = 1789 (48.4)
Syracuse had manufactured more possessions in 19 of 37 games (with 1 even) and we are 18-1 in those games.

Comment: Possession is 9/10 of the law and about the same for basketball. We can’t rebound as well from the zone as we could from a man-to-man but we tend to get an edge in turnovers that make up the difference so when we stay within range on the boards, we’re OK. If we don’t, we aren’t.

 

[SWC75]

SCORING

Two Point Field Goals
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 204 of 423 = .482 204 of 459 = .444
Conference: 267 of 553 = .483 311 of 600 = .518
Post-Season: 98 of 219 = .447 103 of 224 = .460
TOTAL: 569 of 1195 = .476 618 of 1283 = .482
Syracuse has shot better from 2 point range in 15 of 37 games (with 2 even) and we are 15-0 in those games.

Comment: 15-0, That says it all. But out-shooting your opponent from two in 41% of your games is not a good thing.

Three Point Field Goals
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 115 of 324 = .355 100 of 312 = .321
Conference: 155 of 432 = .359 117 of 405 = .289
Post-Season: 45 of 120 = .375 42 of 125 = .336
TOTAL: 315 of 876 = .360 259 of 842 = .308
Syracuse has shot better from the 3 point line in 26 of 37 games and we are 18-8 in those games.

Comment: The three was a weapon for this team. We weren’t unreal at it but we hit enough to justify using it, although the winning percentage wasn’t comparable to the two point shooting. The big difference was the excellence of our three point defense, which was tremendous in conference play.

Free Throws
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 194 of 285 = .681 126 of 198 = .636
Conference: 230 of 337 = .682 224 of 326 = .687
Post-Season: 82 of 114 = .719 46 of 71 = .648
TOTAL: 506 of 736 = .688 396 of 595 = .666
Syracuse has shot better than the foul line 19 of 37 games, (with 2 even), and we are 14-5 in those games.

Comment: We outshot our opponents at the line but more importantly, we got to the line a lot more than they did, a result of our many drives to the basket, (which also produced a lot of charging fouls). The won-lost record wasn’t as remarkable as the two point shot but it meant more than the three point shot when we did well at the line. Our final loss to Carolina showed how free throws can impact the strategy of the game. We were 4 for 13 and missed the front end of two one and ones: we left 11 points on the line. If we’d shot our normal percentage even over just those 13 shots we’d have had 5 more points. Five more points when it was 50-57 would have totally changed the strategical situation and might have produced completely different results down the stretch.

Points
(PIP= points in the paint, POP = points outside the paint, which is total points – PIP –free throws made, TREY: points from three point shots, TZ= Twilight Zone, which is POP – TREY, two point jumpers from outside the paint, POTO- points off turnovers, FBP = fast break points.)

PIP
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 344 (26.5-) 358 (27.5+)
Conference: 470 (26.1) 544 (30.2)
Post-Season: 164 (27.3) 170 (28.3)
TOTAL: 814 (26.3) 902 (29.1)
Syracuse scored more points in the paint in 17 of 31 games (with 3 even) and we are 14-3 in those games.

POP
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 409 (31.5) 318 (24.5)
Conference: 529 (29.4) 426 (23.7)
Post-Season: 167 (27.8) 162 (27.0)
TOTAL: 1105 (29.9) 906 (24.5)
Syracuse has shot better from outside the paint in 24 of 37 games and are 16-8 in those games.

TZ
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 66 (5.1) 50 (3.8)
Conference: 66 (3.7) 78 (4.3)
Post-Season: 32 (5.3) 36 (6.0)
TOTAL: 164 (4.4) 164 (4.4)
Syracuse has scored more between the paint and the arc in 18 of 37 games (with 3 even) and are 14-4 in those games.

POTO
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 209 (16.1) 147 (11.3)
Conference: 266 (14.8) 253 (14.1)
Post-Season: 66 (11.0) 62 (10.3)
TOTAL: 541 (14.6) 462 (12.5)
Syracuse has scored more points off turnovers in 21 of 37 games and we are 16-5 in those games.

FBP
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 97 (7.5) 75 (5.8)
Conference: 101 (5.6) 115 (6.4)
Post-Season: 28 (4.7) 36 (6.0)
TOTAL: 236 (6.4) 226 (6.1)
Syracuse has had more fast break points in 19 of 37 games (with 3 even) and are 15-4 in those games.

Comment: Scoring inside, shooting from outside, getting turnovers and beating the other team down court are all good things to do and we needed to do more of all of them. We popped better than anything else here and c=our performance declined in that stat as the season progressed. We wound up more of a driving team than a shooting team.

First Chance/ Second Chance
(FCP is First Chance Points, which is total points - second chance points – fast break points – free throws made, courtesy of Pat. SCP is second chance points.)

FCP
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 503 (38.7) 457 (35.2)
Conference: 688 (38.0) 651 (35.9)
Post-Season: 212 (35.3) 234 (39.0)
TOTAL: 1191 (38.3) 1108 (35.6)
Syracuse has outs-scored the opposition in their initial sets 17 times in 37 games with 2 even and are 12-5 in those games.

SCP
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 153 (11.8) 164 (12.6)
Conference: 198 (11.0) 207 (11.5)
Post-Season: 75 (12.5) 62 (10.3)
TOTAL: 426 (11.5) 433 (11.7)
Syracuse has scored more second chance points in 16 of 37 games, (with 2 even), and we are 13-3 in those games.

Comment: we had an advantage in our initial sets in the pre-conference and conference seasons that disappeared in the post season but we improved on both ends in second chance points.

Starters/Bench
(Total points – bench points, BP = starters points, SP)

SP
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 762 (58.6) 597 (45.9)
Conference: 1026 (57.0) 792 (44.0)
Post-Season: 343 (57.2) 277 (46.2)
TOTAL: 2131 (57.6) 1666 (45.0)
Syracuse’ starting five has out-scored the opposition 30 times in 37 games, (with 1 even) and are 20-10

BP
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 185 (14.2) 226 (17.4)
Conference: 203 (11.3) 408 (22.7)
Post-Season: 70 (11.7) 101 (16.8)
TOTAL: 458 (12.4) 735 (19.9)
Syracuse’s bench has out-scored the other team’s bench in 11 of 37 games (with 1 even) and are 9-2 in those games.

Comment: JB likes to go with his best guys for as much as he can. He figures he’d rather have his berst guys against the other team’s reserves if the other coach wants to use them. But he’s shown in the past that when more players prove he can trust them in a close game, he’ll use more of them, (2012). It’s not just up to the coach: it’s up to the players.

Assists
(The percentage of a team’s baskets that were assisted)
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 189 of 319 = .592 189 of 264 = .716
Conference: 245 of 422 = .581 284 of 428 = .664
Post-Season: 73 of 145 = .503 81 of 143 = .566
TOTAL: 507 of 886 = .572 554 of 835 = .663
Syracuse has assisted a higher percentage of their shots in 11 of 37 games (with 1 even) and are 8-3 in those games.

Comment: Assists are the only statistic that is an opinion. Virginia was credited for 21 assists in 22 baskets, which is ridiculous. Against UNC in the Final Four, we were credited for 5 in 27 baskets. But we typically have a lower assist percentage our opponents because more assists come off of jump shots and our opponents tend to take more jump shots against a zone than we do against their man for man. This year, we were the team jacking up three pointers, at least until the latter part of the year. But when we weren’t doing so, we were driving to the basket and not passing the ball off for scores, so we still didn’t have as many assists as our opponents. Too many “hero” plays, not because our players were greedy but because that’s our offense.

Possessions:
(Field goals attempted - offensive rebounds + turnovers + 47.5% of free throws attempted. Efficiency is total points divided by possessions)
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 857 (65.9) 858 (66.0) Total: 1715 (131.9)
Conference: 1158 (64.3) 1160 (64.4) Total: 2318 (128.8)
Post-Season: 380 (63.3) 379 (63.2) Total: 759 (126.5)
TOTAL: 2395 (64.7) 2397 (64.8) Total: 4792 (129.5)
Syracuse is 9-6 in games that had 130 possessions, 14-8 in the ones that were under that.

Team Offensive Efficiency
(Points divided by possessions)
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 947 in 868 = 1.091 834 in 870 = 0.959
Conference: 1229 in 1174 = 1.047 1197 in 1176 = 1.018
Post-Season: 410 in 379 = 1.082 381 in 380 = 1.003
TOTAL: 2586 in 2421 = 1.068 2412 in 2426 = 0.994

Comment: After years of keeping track of this, we finally had a game, (Pittsburgh III), where due to rounding, the losing team averaged more points per possession than the winning team, (71/62 = 1.145 and 72/63 = 1.143), so we were 24-13 in this stat in a 23-14 season .

Breakdown by Quarters
(Points scored between the beginning of the game and the 10 minute mark of the first half, then halftime, then the 10 minute mark of the second half, the end of regulation and then overtime of there was one)
Pre-Conf: 212-182, 208-182, 256-238, 266-219 OT: 5-13 Average:16-14, 16-14, 20-18, 20-17 OT: 5-13
Conference: 299-246, 284-291, 299-288, 323-360 OT: 24-17 Average: 17-14, 16-16, 17-16, 18-20 OT: 12-8.5
Post-Season: 82-82, 84-105, 106-92, 141-97 Average: 14-14, 14-17.5, 18-15, 23.5-16
TOTAL: 593-510, 576-578, 661-618, 730-676 OT: 29-30 Average: 16-14, 16-16, 18-17, 20-18 OT: 10-10
We’ve won 76 of 148 quarters with 11 even. We’ve scored 15 or more in 102 quarters and held the opposition under that 61 times.

Comment: we tended to fade late in games in the conference season but came on strong at that point in the post season. I guess when you can see the finish line…

 

[SWC75]

FOULS

Two Point Field Goal Attempts vs. Fouls
(One teams 2pt FGA vs. the number of fouls called on the other team)
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 423 vs.253 = 1.7 460 vs.211 = 2.2
Conference: 563 vs.309 = 1.8 600 vs.304 = 2.0
Post-Season: 219 vs. 88 = 2.5 224 vs. 83 = 2.7
TOTAL: 1205 vs.650 = 1.9 1284 vs.598 = 2.1
Syracuse has drawn more fouls per two point attempt, (the lower ratio) 24 times in 37 games (with one even) and are 16-8 in those games.

PIP vs. Fouls
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 344 vs.260 =1.3 368 vs.210 = 1.8
Conference: 479 vs 318 = 1.5 530 vs.303 = 1.7
Post-Season: 164 vs 88 = 1.9 170 vs. 83 = 2.0
TOTAL: 987 vs.666 = 1.5 1068 vs.596 = 1.8
Syracuse has drawn more fouls per points in the paint, (the lower ratio) 27 times in 37 games (with one even) and are 15-11 in those games.

FTA vs. Fouls
Syracuse Opponents
Pre-Conf: 285 from 260 = 1.1 197 from 198 = 1.0
Conference: 337 from 309 = 1.1 326 from 304 = 1.1
Post-Season: 114 from 88 = 1.3 71 from 83 = 0.9
TOTAL: 736 from 657 = 1.1 594 from 585 = 1.0
Syracuse has gone to the line more time per foul than the other team 24 times in 37 games and are 15-9 in those games.

Comment: The concept here is that a team attempting more two point shots and scoring more in the paint will draw more fouls that a team that does less than that and a team that gets more free throws per foul called is getting the benefit of doubt as far as continuation. If these numbers seem out of whack, it might lead you to question the allegiance or competency of the officials. There were some bad calls this year and some poorly officiated games, as there are every year but there’s no indication here the refs are out to get us. If anything, we seemed to be on their good side.