SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 32,679
- Like
- 62,966
This is my statistical summary of the 2017-18 SU basketball team in their regular season games against the ACC teams on their schedule.
Net Points
(points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks minus missed field goals and free throws, turnovers and personal fouls; OE is “Offensive efficiency”: P-MFG-MFT; FG is “Floor Game”: NP – OE)
CENTERS
Paschal Chukwu 176 total Net Points
28.7m 6.7p 10.3r 0.7a 0.9s 3.1b = 21.7+ 1.4mfg 0.8mft 1.7to 4.3pf = 8.2- = 13.5NP 4.5OE 9.0FG
Bourama Sidibie 35 total NP
10.4m 8.5p 11.2r 0.5a 0.3s 3.0b = 23.5+ 3.3mfg 1.1mft 2.5to 7.1pf = 14.0- = 9.5NP 4.1OE 5.4FG
Comments: Paschal Chukwu’s numbers in conference games have declined compared to his numbers in pre-conference games:
25.3m 9.2p 9.6r 0.4a 1.6s 5.1b = 25.9+ 1.8mfg 1.9mft 1.9to 4.5pf = 10.1- = 15.8NP 5.5OE 10.3FG
He’s scoring a lot less but rebounding a bit more. His blocked shots are considerably down. Probably if I kept track of opposing center’s numbers they would be better than in the pre-conference games as they are bigger and are able to push PC around more. But he hasn’t let them prevent him from being productive.
Sidibie missed four full games. If you divide his minutes by 18 games it would be 8.1 per game. He benefits from what I call the “reserve’s advantage”. Starters continue to play even when not playing well: JB figures they are the best he has and they might have a good stretch later in the game. But reserves not playing well get pulled immediately. They only continue to play if playing well. Thus their per-minute numbers are skewed towards their best performances. That Pittsburgh game in which he had 18 points and 16 rebounds represents 27 of Bourama’s 35 NP in 31 minutes. The rest of the time he had 8NP in 115 minutes. His NP per 40 in the other 115 minutes he played was 2.8. He also commits way too many fouls to stay in the game long. His pre-conference numbers:
15.4m 9.9p 9.4r 0.5a 2.3s 2.3b = 24.4+ 2.1mfg 3.4mft 3.4to 7.5pf = 16.4- = 8.0NP 4.4OE 3.6FG
FORWARDS
Oshae Brissett 214 total NP
38.6m 14.8p 8.1r 0.9a 1.3s 0.8b = 25.9+ 7.8mfg 0.9mft 2.1to 2.7pf = 13.5 = 12.4NP 6.1OE 6.3FG
Marek Dolezaj 104 total NP
28.7m 6.5p 5.8r 2.1a 1.0s 0.9b = 16.3+ 2.5mfg 0.5mft 1.6to 3.7pf = 8.3- = 8.0NP 3.5OE 4.5FG
Matthew Moyer 64 total NP
17.9m 7.5p 7.5r 1.3a 0.7s 0.7b = 17.7+ 2.1mfg 1.0mft 1.7to 4.0pf = 8.8- = 8.9NP 4.4OE 4.5FG
Comments: Brissett’s numbers have gone down in conference play but he’s still very productive for a freshman. These are his pre-conference numbers:
37.0m 19.8p 13.0r 1.5a 1.4s 0.7b = 36.4+ 10.8mfg 2.0mft 1.9to 2.3pf = 17.0 = 19.4NP 7.0OE 12.4FG
He scored and rebounded much less but also missed far fewer shots: he wasn’t getting them off as easily or as often.
Dolezaj’s numbers also declined from the pre-conference games:
23.7m 8.8p 9.7r 3.1a 1.8s 1.6b = 25.0+ 2.6mfg 1.6mft 2.3to 4.5pf = 11.0- = 14.0NP 4.6OE 9.4FG
He scored less but rebounded a lot less. I also don’t recall him getting as many loose balls. He was losing battles with stronger players. His steals and assists also declined. I don’t think he was used enough to keep the offensive moving.
Mathew Moyer missed two games: one after he got hurt and one on his father’s advice. If you divide his minutes by 18 he would have averaged 15.9 per game. Like everyone else, his production went down from:
20.2m 8.4p 9.3r 0.9a 0.9s 0.6b = 20.1+ 3.4mfg 1.4mft 1.5to 2.9pf = 9.2- = 10.9NP 3.6OE 7.3FG
A key stat is that his fouls went from 2.9 to 4.0. That emans he was getting beat more often on defense and in getting to rebounds.
GUARDS
Tyus Battle 204 total NP
40.1m 19.9p 3.0r 2.1a 1.5s 0.1b = 26.6+ 9.7mfg 1.0mft 2.8to 1.9pf = 15.4 = 11.2NP 9.2OE 2.0FG
Frank Howard 161 total NP
39.5m 15.5p 3.2r 4.2a 1.5s 0.3b = 24.7+ 9.1mfg 1.0mft 3.0to 2.5pf = 15.6- = 9.1NP 5.4OE 4.7FG
Howard Washington 18 total NP
6.3m 10.4p 5.6r 3.2a 4.0s 0.0b = 23.2+ 1.6mfg 1.6mft 3.2to 2.4pf = 8.8- = 14.4NP 7.2OE 7.2FG
Comments: Tyus Battle continued to score at a high rate and had some of his best games with 37 points against Florida State and 34 against North Carolina. Still his numbers were down, like the res tof the team’s:
37.2m 21.6p 3.1r 1.7a 1.8s 0.4b = 28.6+ 9.9mfg 0.8mft 2.1to 2.2pf = 15.0 = 13.6NP 10.9OE 2.7FG
He didn’t score quite as much in the conference season and had more turnovers. He missed fewer shots, so he was getting fewer shots off. But he was still a very productive scorer if a slightly one-dimensional player for one of his talent.
I was shocked to see how much Frank Howard’s numbers have declined:
36.8m 16.5p 3.9r 6.7a 2.5s 0.3b = 29.9+ 8.6mfg 1.3mft 4.4to 2.7pf = 17.0- = 12.9NP 6.6OE 6.3FG
It’s not so much less scoring as it is fewer assists. That’s partially due to his teammates not scoring when he passes them the ball. But it’s also due to the defenses realizing that they didn’t have to guard 5 guys and they could double-team the point guard on virtually every possession. It’s impressive that frnak’s turnovers have actually gone down in this environment.
Howard Washington, in his limited time, played well but like Bourama Sidibie, has the reserve’s advantage of getting more playing time when playing well so his numbers are a bit inflated by the length of his best performances, such as the 9 points, 3 rebounds and an assist he had in 24 minutes vs. Florida State.
Tyus Battle led in NP 6 times, Oshae Brissett, Paschal Chukwu and Frank Howard 3 times each
Marek Dolezaj twice, Matthew Moyer and Bourama Sidibe once each.
Awards
OFFENSIVE DUDE OF THE GAME (ODOG: points plus assists)
Tyus Battle has been the ODOG 10 times, Frank Howard 6 times, Oshae Brissett 2 times and Bourama Sidibie once. Ty is the O-DOG for the conference season: 360p + 38a = 398 while Frank Howard had 275p + 75A = 350.
SCORING EFFICIENCY (Points minus field goal and free throw attempts)
Tyus Battle has been the most efficient scorer 7 times, Frank Howard 5 times, Oshae Brissett 3 times, Paschal Chukwu twice and Marek Dolezaj and Bourama Sidbie 1 time each. Ty is easily the best for the season with 360p-175mfg – 18mft = 167. Oshae Brissett has 106 and Frank Howard 95. Their field goal percentages in conference play have been 40.1%, 35.8% and 37.0%, respectively.
SAT US DOWN (Who sat us down in each half)
Oshae Brissett and Frank Howard have sat us down 10 times. Tyus Battle has sat us down 9 times, Marek Dolezaj 5 times, Paschal Chukwu Matthew Moyer once each. The average time is 1:11 seconds in.
TACO BELL MVP (Who gets us to 70 points)
We’ve gotten tacos in 7 conference games, with Battle doing it 3 times, Brissett twice and Chukwu and Howard once each. There has been an average of 2:16 left. But if you average it for all conference game it’s 53 seconds, (the times we didn’t make it being zero).
“MY MAN” (most minutes played in each game)
Tyus Battle and Frank Howard have been the “Man” 14 times each, Oshae Brissett 9 times and Paschal Chukwu once. Tyus leads in the conference season average with 40.1, (yes, 40.1!) but Frank Howard is right behind him with 39.5 Oshae Brissett and has 38.6.
Team Stats
POSSESSION
REBOUNDING
(Percentage of misses offensively rebounded)
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 7-3 when we win it and 1-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 79/253 = 31.2% vs. 67/273 = 24.5%
In Losses: 105/337 = 31.2% vs. 129/356 = 36.2%
Total: 184/590 = 31.2% vs. 196/629 = 31.2%.
Comment: This is obviously the team’s strength and is essential if we are to have a shot at winning. The variance has not been in our offensive rebounding but in the opposition’s. We have to get on the defensive boards to avoid losing.
EFFECTIVE OFFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
(second chance points divided by offensive rebounds)
We have won this stat 7 times. We are 5-2 when we win it and 3-8 when we lose it.
In Wins: 83/79 = 1.051 vs. 60/67 = 0.896
In Losses: 99/105 = 0.943 vs. 131/129 = 1.016
Total: 182/184 = 0.989 vs. 191/196 = 0.974
Comment: There’s quite a difference between how well we take advantage of offensive rebounds and allow the other team to do so in our wins and losses. There’s a relationship between confidence and opportunism.
UNFORCED TURNOVERS
(total minus other team’s steals = unforced)
We have won this stat 9 times. We are 6-3 when we win it and 2-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 81-44 = 37 vs. 100-49 = 51
In Losses: 136-76 = 60 vs. 115-62 = 53
Total: 217-120 = 97 vs. 215-111 = 104
Comment: The opposition’s unforced turnovers are about the same in our wins or losses. But we have a lot more of them in the losses than we do in the wins.
POINTS PER TAKEAWAY
(Points off turnovers/ the other team’s turnovers)
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 6-4 when we win it and 2-6 when we lose it.
In Wins: 103/100 = 1.030 vs. 68/81 = 0.840
In Losses: 115/114 = 1.009 vs. 149/136 = 1.096
Total: 218/214 = 1.019 vs. 217/217 = 1.000
Comment: We take slightly more advantage of turnovers in our wins than in our losses but there is a big difference in how much the opposition does so. I think a lot of this is about getting back on defense, something all coaches stress these days.
UNSETTLED SITUATIONS
(Effective offensive rebounding + Points per Takeaway: [Second Chance Point + Points off Turnovers] divided by [Offensive Rebounds + Opposition Turnovers)
We have won this stat 9 times. We are 6-3 when we win it and 2-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 186/179 = 1.039 vs. 128/148 =0.865
In Losses: 214/221 = 0.968 vs. 280/264 = 1.061
Total: 400/400 = 1.000 vs. 408/412 = 0.990
Comment: Again, the biggest difference between wins and losses is the extent to which we allow the other team to take advantage of unsettled situations.
MANUFACTURED POSSESSIONS
(One team’s rebounds + the other team’s turnovers)
We have won this stat 11 times. We are 8-3 when we win it and 0-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 285 + 100 = 385 vs. 241 + 81 = 322
In Losses: 332 + 115 = 447 vs. 361 + 136 = 497
Total: 617 + 215 = 832 vs. 602 + 217 = 819
Comment: This stat has tightened up quite a bit from the pre-conference season, when we were ahead 733-578.
SCORING
TWO POINT FIELD GOALS
We have won this stat 9 times. We are 5-4 when we win it and 3-6 when we lose it.
In Wins: 139/284 = 48.9% vs. 92/211 = 43.6%
In Losses: 137/331 = 41.4% vs. 163/348 = 46.8%
Total: 276/615 = 44.9% vs. 255/559 = 45.6%
Comment: Over the years this has always been the key shooting stat but this year it’s been a weaker predictor of victory, probably because we simply aren’t a good shooting team so we have to find other ways to win. Still we shoot better in wins and defend better in losses.
THREE POINT FIELD GOALS
We have won this stat 6 times. We are 3-3 when we win it and 4-7 when we lose it. We were tied once and won that game.
In Wins: 43/124 = 34.7% vs. 65/201 = 32.3%
In Losses: 67/199= 33.7% vs. 80/230 = 34.8%
Total: 110/323 = 34.1% vs. 145/431 = 33.6%
Comment: This has been an even worse predictor of victory and defeat. We haven’t shot the three well in wins or losses but, (despite some recent results), we’ve defended it well in both.
FREE THROWS
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 4-6 when we win it and 4-4 when we lose it.
In Wins: 134/177 = 75.7% vs. 90/123 = 73.2%
In Losses: 145/182 = 79.7% vs. 138/184 = 75.0%
Total: 279/359 = 77.7% vs. 228/307 = 74.3%
Comment: And this is even a worse predictor. In fact, we have shot fouls better in losses than wins. But this is a whole game stat. If I had the numbers for the last two minutes of games, I think it would be very different.
POINTS IN THE PAINT
We have won this stat 7 times. We are 6-1 when we win it, 2-7 when we lose it and 0-2 when we tie.
In Wins: 218 vs. 150
In Losses: 202 vs. 282
Total: 420 vs. 432
Comment: We’ve got to get to the basket to score but we’ve also got to keep the ball out of the paint on defense and we’ve done that badly in the losses and well in the wins.
POINTS OUTSIDE THE PAINT
(POP: total points minus points in the paint and free throws made)
We have won this stat 6 times. We are 2-4 when we win it and 6-6 when we lose it.
In Wins: 189 vs. 234
In Losses: 273 vs. 284
Total: 462 vs. 518
Comments: We are just not a good shooting team so hitting from outside the paint has not been critical. We’ve actually averaged more POP in the losses than the wins.
POINTS FROM THREE POINT RANGE
We have won this stat 4 times. We are 2-2 when we win it and 6-6 when we lose it. We were 0-2 in two ties.
In Wins: 129 vs. 195
In Losses: 201 vs. 240
Total: 330 vs. 435
Comment: See POP, above.
TWILIGHT ZONE
(POP minus points from treys)
We have won this stat 13 times. We are 5-8 when we win it, 3-1 when we lose it and 0-1 in the one tie.
In Wins: 60 vs. 34
In Losses: 72 vs. 44
Total: 132 vs. 78
Comment: We’ve outscored the option by 54 points, an average of 3 a game from the TZ but it’s had nothing do with who won the game, even though we’ve had a lot of close ones.
POINTS OFF TURNOVERS
We have won this stat 7 times. We are 5-2 when we win it and 2-8 when we lose it. We won the one tie.
In Wins: 103 vs. 68
In Losses: 115 vs. 142
Total: 218 vs. 210
Comment: This is another big factor in our wins.
FAST BREAK POINTS
We have won this stat just 3 times. We are 2-1 when we win it and 5-9 when we lose it. We won the one tie.
In Wins: 32 vs. 38
In Losses: 46 vs. 82
Total: 78 vs. 120
Comment: it’s sad we won this 3 times in 18 conference games. We averaged 11 FBP in wins and 3 in losses.
FAST BREAK PERCENTAGE
(Fast break points divided by defensive rebounds+blocks+steals)
We have won this stat 3 times. We are 2-1 when we win it and 6-9 when we lose it.
In Wins: 32/298 = 10.7% vs. 38/252 = 15.1%
In Losses: 46/344 = 13.4% vs. 82/352 = 23.3%
Total: 78/642 = 12.1% vs. 120/604 = 19.9%
Comment: The other team is running 64% of the time more often than we are. It seems like more.
FIRST CHANCE POINTS
(total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws)
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 4-6 when we win it and 3-4 when we lose it. We won the one tied game.
In Wins: 292 vs. 281
In Losses: 331 vs. 360
Total: 623 vs. 641
Comments: The opening sets didn’t determine much. It was what happened after the first shot went up that really mattered. (See Second Chance Points below and Effective Offensive Rebounding, above.)
SECOND CHANCE POINTS
We have won this stat 9 times. We are 6-3 when we win it and 2-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 83 vs. 60
In Losses: 99 vs. 131
Total: 182 vs. 191
Comment: We actually get more second chance points in losses than wins. But our opposition gets way more.
LAST POSSESSIONS
We have won this stat 3 times. We are 2-1 in the wins, 5-8 in the losses and 1-1 in two ties.
In Wins: 17 vs. 22
In Losses: 18 vs. 31
Total: 35 vs. 53
Comment: we are -18 points in last possessions, (37 for each team as we had one overtime game). I suspect the emotional impact is more important than the actual number.
STARTER POINTS
We have won this stat 16 times. We are 7-9 when we win it and 1-1 when we lose it.
In Wins: 493 vs. 369
In Losses: 585 vs. 441
Total: 1078 vs. 810
Comment: Last year this stat was the leading predictor of victory. But if you are going to play your starters a lot more than the other team, they pretty much have to win this stat if you are going to win. We split in the games we didn’t win it but it’s a tiny sample, (the win was at Pittsburgh, where Sidibie had his big game).
BENCH POINTS
We have won this stat 2 times. We were 2-0 when we win it and 6-10 when we lose it.
In Wins: 48 vs. 100
In Losses: 35 vs. 217
Total: 83 vs. 317
Comments: Our starting line-up is good enough that when they get any help, we are hard to beat.
ASSISTS
We have won this stat 1 time. We are 0-1 when we won it and 8-9 when we lost it.
In Wins: 146/286 = 51.0% vs. 172/229 = 75.1%
In Losses: 18/36 = 50.0% vs. 35/45 = 77.8%
Total: 164/322 = 50.9% vs. 207/274 = 75.5%
Comment: We drive to the basket to score and the other team does it off passes. The outlier was NC State and the difference was minimal: 15/23 = 65.2% vs. 17/27 = 63.0%
OFFENSIVE EFFICIENCY
(total points divided by possessions)
We have won this stat 8 times. We are 8-0 when we win it and 0-10 when we lose it.
In Wins: 541/492= 1.100 vs. 469/501 = 0.936
In Losses: 620/648 = 0.957 vs. 704/650 = 1.083
Total: 1161/1140 = 1.018 vs. 1173/1151 = 1.019
Comments: Over the years, There’s been only one winning team that lost this stat, (a game against Cincinnati a few years ago), and that was because the of the estimate and rounding of possessions.
QUARTERLY BREAKS
In regulation, we’ve won 31 quarters, lost 28 and tied 6. We’ve scored at least 15 points 38 times and held the opposition under that 33 times in 68 quarters.
In Wins: 121-96, 124-106, 136-121, 160-146
In Losses: 110-139, 156-167, 142-146, 198-225 1st OT: 8-8, 2nd OT: 8-19
Totals: 231-235, 280-273, 278-267, 358-371 1st OT: 8-8, 2nd OT: 8-19
Average: 13-13, 16-15, 15-15, 20-21 1st OT: 8-8, 2nd OT: 8-19
Comments: We’ve tied the other teams in the first and third quarters and are +1 in the second and -1 in the fourth. Nothing to see here.
Fouls
TWO POINT SHOTS (attempted) TO TIMES FOULED
We have won this stat 6 times. We are 1-5 when we win it and 7-5 when we lose it.
In Wins: 284/144 = 1.97 vs. 192/121 = 1.59
In Losses: 331/162 = 2.04 vs. 348/168 = 2.07
Total: 615/306 = 2.01 vs. 540/289 = 1.87
Comment: The opposition was more likely to draw foul calls on their two point shots in our wins than in our losses. We were about the same in both. Obviously it had little to do with the outcome of the games.
FREE THROW ATTEMPTS/ TIMES FOULED
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 5-5 when we win it and 3-5 when we lose it.
In Wins: 177/144 = 1.23 vs. 123/122 = 1.01
In Losses: 182/162 = 1.12 vs. 184/168 = 1.10
Total: 359/306 = 1.17 vs. 307/290 = 1.06
Comment: We tend to get more free throw attempts per foul, 9more shooting fouls), but by such a small margin, it makes little difference. The refs didn’t decide the outcome of our games.
Our formula for victory is to stick with our starters, hit two point shots, both in the paint and from the Twilight Zone, get to the line and rebound.
Net Points
(points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks minus missed field goals and free throws, turnovers and personal fouls; OE is “Offensive efficiency”: P-MFG-MFT; FG is “Floor Game”: NP – OE)
CENTERS
Paschal Chukwu 176 total Net Points
28.7m 6.7p 10.3r 0.7a 0.9s 3.1b = 21.7+ 1.4mfg 0.8mft 1.7to 4.3pf = 8.2- = 13.5NP 4.5OE 9.0FG
Bourama Sidibie 35 total NP
10.4m 8.5p 11.2r 0.5a 0.3s 3.0b = 23.5+ 3.3mfg 1.1mft 2.5to 7.1pf = 14.0- = 9.5NP 4.1OE 5.4FG
Comments: Paschal Chukwu’s numbers in conference games have declined compared to his numbers in pre-conference games:
25.3m 9.2p 9.6r 0.4a 1.6s 5.1b = 25.9+ 1.8mfg 1.9mft 1.9to 4.5pf = 10.1- = 15.8NP 5.5OE 10.3FG
He’s scoring a lot less but rebounding a bit more. His blocked shots are considerably down. Probably if I kept track of opposing center’s numbers they would be better than in the pre-conference games as they are bigger and are able to push PC around more. But he hasn’t let them prevent him from being productive.
Sidibie missed four full games. If you divide his minutes by 18 games it would be 8.1 per game. He benefits from what I call the “reserve’s advantage”. Starters continue to play even when not playing well: JB figures they are the best he has and they might have a good stretch later in the game. But reserves not playing well get pulled immediately. They only continue to play if playing well. Thus their per-minute numbers are skewed towards their best performances. That Pittsburgh game in which he had 18 points and 16 rebounds represents 27 of Bourama’s 35 NP in 31 minutes. The rest of the time he had 8NP in 115 minutes. His NP per 40 in the other 115 minutes he played was 2.8. He also commits way too many fouls to stay in the game long. His pre-conference numbers:
15.4m 9.9p 9.4r 0.5a 2.3s 2.3b = 24.4+ 2.1mfg 3.4mft 3.4to 7.5pf = 16.4- = 8.0NP 4.4OE 3.6FG
FORWARDS
Oshae Brissett 214 total NP
38.6m 14.8p 8.1r 0.9a 1.3s 0.8b = 25.9+ 7.8mfg 0.9mft 2.1to 2.7pf = 13.5 = 12.4NP 6.1OE 6.3FG
Marek Dolezaj 104 total NP
28.7m 6.5p 5.8r 2.1a 1.0s 0.9b = 16.3+ 2.5mfg 0.5mft 1.6to 3.7pf = 8.3- = 8.0NP 3.5OE 4.5FG
Matthew Moyer 64 total NP
17.9m 7.5p 7.5r 1.3a 0.7s 0.7b = 17.7+ 2.1mfg 1.0mft 1.7to 4.0pf = 8.8- = 8.9NP 4.4OE 4.5FG
Comments: Brissett’s numbers have gone down in conference play but he’s still very productive for a freshman. These are his pre-conference numbers:
37.0m 19.8p 13.0r 1.5a 1.4s 0.7b = 36.4+ 10.8mfg 2.0mft 1.9to 2.3pf = 17.0 = 19.4NP 7.0OE 12.4FG
He scored and rebounded much less but also missed far fewer shots: he wasn’t getting them off as easily or as often.
Dolezaj’s numbers also declined from the pre-conference games:
23.7m 8.8p 9.7r 3.1a 1.8s 1.6b = 25.0+ 2.6mfg 1.6mft 2.3to 4.5pf = 11.0- = 14.0NP 4.6OE 9.4FG
He scored less but rebounded a lot less. I also don’t recall him getting as many loose balls. He was losing battles with stronger players. His steals and assists also declined. I don’t think he was used enough to keep the offensive moving.
Mathew Moyer missed two games: one after he got hurt and one on his father’s advice. If you divide his minutes by 18 he would have averaged 15.9 per game. Like everyone else, his production went down from:
20.2m 8.4p 9.3r 0.9a 0.9s 0.6b = 20.1+ 3.4mfg 1.4mft 1.5to 2.9pf = 9.2- = 10.9NP 3.6OE 7.3FG
A key stat is that his fouls went from 2.9 to 4.0. That emans he was getting beat more often on defense and in getting to rebounds.
GUARDS
Tyus Battle 204 total NP
40.1m 19.9p 3.0r 2.1a 1.5s 0.1b = 26.6+ 9.7mfg 1.0mft 2.8to 1.9pf = 15.4 = 11.2NP 9.2OE 2.0FG
Frank Howard 161 total NP
39.5m 15.5p 3.2r 4.2a 1.5s 0.3b = 24.7+ 9.1mfg 1.0mft 3.0to 2.5pf = 15.6- = 9.1NP 5.4OE 4.7FG
Howard Washington 18 total NP
6.3m 10.4p 5.6r 3.2a 4.0s 0.0b = 23.2+ 1.6mfg 1.6mft 3.2to 2.4pf = 8.8- = 14.4NP 7.2OE 7.2FG
Comments: Tyus Battle continued to score at a high rate and had some of his best games with 37 points against Florida State and 34 against North Carolina. Still his numbers were down, like the res tof the team’s:
37.2m 21.6p 3.1r 1.7a 1.8s 0.4b = 28.6+ 9.9mfg 0.8mft 2.1to 2.2pf = 15.0 = 13.6NP 10.9OE 2.7FG
He didn’t score quite as much in the conference season and had more turnovers. He missed fewer shots, so he was getting fewer shots off. But he was still a very productive scorer if a slightly one-dimensional player for one of his talent.
I was shocked to see how much Frank Howard’s numbers have declined:
36.8m 16.5p 3.9r 6.7a 2.5s 0.3b = 29.9+ 8.6mfg 1.3mft 4.4to 2.7pf = 17.0- = 12.9NP 6.6OE 6.3FG
It’s not so much less scoring as it is fewer assists. That’s partially due to his teammates not scoring when he passes them the ball. But it’s also due to the defenses realizing that they didn’t have to guard 5 guys and they could double-team the point guard on virtually every possession. It’s impressive that frnak’s turnovers have actually gone down in this environment.
Howard Washington, in his limited time, played well but like Bourama Sidibie, has the reserve’s advantage of getting more playing time when playing well so his numbers are a bit inflated by the length of his best performances, such as the 9 points, 3 rebounds and an assist he had in 24 minutes vs. Florida State.
Tyus Battle led in NP 6 times, Oshae Brissett, Paschal Chukwu and Frank Howard 3 times each
Marek Dolezaj twice, Matthew Moyer and Bourama Sidibe once each.
Awards
OFFENSIVE DUDE OF THE GAME (ODOG: points plus assists)
Tyus Battle has been the ODOG 10 times, Frank Howard 6 times, Oshae Brissett 2 times and Bourama Sidibie once. Ty is the O-DOG for the conference season: 360p + 38a = 398 while Frank Howard had 275p + 75A = 350.
SCORING EFFICIENCY (Points minus field goal and free throw attempts)
Tyus Battle has been the most efficient scorer 7 times, Frank Howard 5 times, Oshae Brissett 3 times, Paschal Chukwu twice and Marek Dolezaj and Bourama Sidbie 1 time each. Ty is easily the best for the season with 360p-175mfg – 18mft = 167. Oshae Brissett has 106 and Frank Howard 95. Their field goal percentages in conference play have been 40.1%, 35.8% and 37.0%, respectively.
SAT US DOWN (Who sat us down in each half)
Oshae Brissett and Frank Howard have sat us down 10 times. Tyus Battle has sat us down 9 times, Marek Dolezaj 5 times, Paschal Chukwu Matthew Moyer once each. The average time is 1:11 seconds in.
TACO BELL MVP (Who gets us to 70 points)
We’ve gotten tacos in 7 conference games, with Battle doing it 3 times, Brissett twice and Chukwu and Howard once each. There has been an average of 2:16 left. But if you average it for all conference game it’s 53 seconds, (the times we didn’t make it being zero).
“MY MAN” (most minutes played in each game)
Tyus Battle and Frank Howard have been the “Man” 14 times each, Oshae Brissett 9 times and Paschal Chukwu once. Tyus leads in the conference season average with 40.1, (yes, 40.1!) but Frank Howard is right behind him with 39.5 Oshae Brissett and has 38.6.
Team Stats
POSSESSION
REBOUNDING
(Percentage of misses offensively rebounded)
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 7-3 when we win it and 1-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 79/253 = 31.2% vs. 67/273 = 24.5%
In Losses: 105/337 = 31.2% vs. 129/356 = 36.2%
Total: 184/590 = 31.2% vs. 196/629 = 31.2%.
Comment: This is obviously the team’s strength and is essential if we are to have a shot at winning. The variance has not been in our offensive rebounding but in the opposition’s. We have to get on the defensive boards to avoid losing.
EFFECTIVE OFFFENSIVE REBOUNDING
(second chance points divided by offensive rebounds)
We have won this stat 7 times. We are 5-2 when we win it and 3-8 when we lose it.
In Wins: 83/79 = 1.051 vs. 60/67 = 0.896
In Losses: 99/105 = 0.943 vs. 131/129 = 1.016
Total: 182/184 = 0.989 vs. 191/196 = 0.974
Comment: There’s quite a difference between how well we take advantage of offensive rebounds and allow the other team to do so in our wins and losses. There’s a relationship between confidence and opportunism.
UNFORCED TURNOVERS
(total minus other team’s steals = unforced)
We have won this stat 9 times. We are 6-3 when we win it and 2-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 81-44 = 37 vs. 100-49 = 51
In Losses: 136-76 = 60 vs. 115-62 = 53
Total: 217-120 = 97 vs. 215-111 = 104
Comment: The opposition’s unforced turnovers are about the same in our wins or losses. But we have a lot more of them in the losses than we do in the wins.
POINTS PER TAKEAWAY
(Points off turnovers/ the other team’s turnovers)
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 6-4 when we win it and 2-6 when we lose it.
In Wins: 103/100 = 1.030 vs. 68/81 = 0.840
In Losses: 115/114 = 1.009 vs. 149/136 = 1.096
Total: 218/214 = 1.019 vs. 217/217 = 1.000
Comment: We take slightly more advantage of turnovers in our wins than in our losses but there is a big difference in how much the opposition does so. I think a lot of this is about getting back on defense, something all coaches stress these days.
UNSETTLED SITUATIONS
(Effective offensive rebounding + Points per Takeaway: [Second Chance Point + Points off Turnovers] divided by [Offensive Rebounds + Opposition Turnovers)
We have won this stat 9 times. We are 6-3 when we win it and 2-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 186/179 = 1.039 vs. 128/148 =0.865
In Losses: 214/221 = 0.968 vs. 280/264 = 1.061
Total: 400/400 = 1.000 vs. 408/412 = 0.990
Comment: Again, the biggest difference between wins and losses is the extent to which we allow the other team to take advantage of unsettled situations.
MANUFACTURED POSSESSIONS
(One team’s rebounds + the other team’s turnovers)
We have won this stat 11 times. We are 8-3 when we win it and 0-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 285 + 100 = 385 vs. 241 + 81 = 322
In Losses: 332 + 115 = 447 vs. 361 + 136 = 497
Total: 617 + 215 = 832 vs. 602 + 217 = 819
Comment: This stat has tightened up quite a bit from the pre-conference season, when we were ahead 733-578.
SCORING
TWO POINT FIELD GOALS
We have won this stat 9 times. We are 5-4 when we win it and 3-6 when we lose it.
In Wins: 139/284 = 48.9% vs. 92/211 = 43.6%
In Losses: 137/331 = 41.4% vs. 163/348 = 46.8%
Total: 276/615 = 44.9% vs. 255/559 = 45.6%
Comment: Over the years this has always been the key shooting stat but this year it’s been a weaker predictor of victory, probably because we simply aren’t a good shooting team so we have to find other ways to win. Still we shoot better in wins and defend better in losses.
THREE POINT FIELD GOALS
We have won this stat 6 times. We are 3-3 when we win it and 4-7 when we lose it. We were tied once and won that game.
In Wins: 43/124 = 34.7% vs. 65/201 = 32.3%
In Losses: 67/199= 33.7% vs. 80/230 = 34.8%
Total: 110/323 = 34.1% vs. 145/431 = 33.6%
Comment: This has been an even worse predictor of victory and defeat. We haven’t shot the three well in wins or losses but, (despite some recent results), we’ve defended it well in both.
FREE THROWS
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 4-6 when we win it and 4-4 when we lose it.
In Wins: 134/177 = 75.7% vs. 90/123 = 73.2%
In Losses: 145/182 = 79.7% vs. 138/184 = 75.0%
Total: 279/359 = 77.7% vs. 228/307 = 74.3%
Comment: And this is even a worse predictor. In fact, we have shot fouls better in losses than wins. But this is a whole game stat. If I had the numbers for the last two minutes of games, I think it would be very different.
POINTS IN THE PAINT
We have won this stat 7 times. We are 6-1 when we win it, 2-7 when we lose it and 0-2 when we tie.
In Wins: 218 vs. 150
In Losses: 202 vs. 282
Total: 420 vs. 432
Comment: We’ve got to get to the basket to score but we’ve also got to keep the ball out of the paint on defense and we’ve done that badly in the losses and well in the wins.
POINTS OUTSIDE THE PAINT
(POP: total points minus points in the paint and free throws made)
We have won this stat 6 times. We are 2-4 when we win it and 6-6 when we lose it.
In Wins: 189 vs. 234
In Losses: 273 vs. 284
Total: 462 vs. 518
Comments: We are just not a good shooting team so hitting from outside the paint has not been critical. We’ve actually averaged more POP in the losses than the wins.
POINTS FROM THREE POINT RANGE
We have won this stat 4 times. We are 2-2 when we win it and 6-6 when we lose it. We were 0-2 in two ties.
In Wins: 129 vs. 195
In Losses: 201 vs. 240
Total: 330 vs. 435
Comment: See POP, above.
TWILIGHT ZONE
(POP minus points from treys)
We have won this stat 13 times. We are 5-8 when we win it, 3-1 when we lose it and 0-1 in the one tie.
In Wins: 60 vs. 34
In Losses: 72 vs. 44
Total: 132 vs. 78
Comment: We’ve outscored the option by 54 points, an average of 3 a game from the TZ but it’s had nothing do with who won the game, even though we’ve had a lot of close ones.
POINTS OFF TURNOVERS
We have won this stat 7 times. We are 5-2 when we win it and 2-8 when we lose it. We won the one tie.
In Wins: 103 vs. 68
In Losses: 115 vs. 142
Total: 218 vs. 210
Comment: This is another big factor in our wins.
FAST BREAK POINTS
We have won this stat just 3 times. We are 2-1 when we win it and 5-9 when we lose it. We won the one tie.
In Wins: 32 vs. 38
In Losses: 46 vs. 82
Total: 78 vs. 120
Comment: it’s sad we won this 3 times in 18 conference games. We averaged 11 FBP in wins and 3 in losses.
FAST BREAK PERCENTAGE
(Fast break points divided by defensive rebounds+blocks+steals)
We have won this stat 3 times. We are 2-1 when we win it and 6-9 when we lose it.
In Wins: 32/298 = 10.7% vs. 38/252 = 15.1%
In Losses: 46/344 = 13.4% vs. 82/352 = 23.3%
Total: 78/642 = 12.1% vs. 120/604 = 19.9%
Comment: The other team is running 64% of the time more often than we are. It seems like more.
FIRST CHANCE POINTS
(total points minus second chance points, fast break points and made free throws)
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 4-6 when we win it and 3-4 when we lose it. We won the one tied game.
In Wins: 292 vs. 281
In Losses: 331 vs. 360
Total: 623 vs. 641
Comments: The opening sets didn’t determine much. It was what happened after the first shot went up that really mattered. (See Second Chance Points below and Effective Offensive Rebounding, above.)
SECOND CHANCE POINTS
We have won this stat 9 times. We are 6-3 when we win it and 2-7 when we lose it.
In Wins: 83 vs. 60
In Losses: 99 vs. 131
Total: 182 vs. 191
Comment: We actually get more second chance points in losses than wins. But our opposition gets way more.
LAST POSSESSIONS
We have won this stat 3 times. We are 2-1 in the wins, 5-8 in the losses and 1-1 in two ties.
In Wins: 17 vs. 22
In Losses: 18 vs. 31
Total: 35 vs. 53
Comment: we are -18 points in last possessions, (37 for each team as we had one overtime game). I suspect the emotional impact is more important than the actual number.
STARTER POINTS
We have won this stat 16 times. We are 7-9 when we win it and 1-1 when we lose it.
In Wins: 493 vs. 369
In Losses: 585 vs. 441
Total: 1078 vs. 810
Comment: Last year this stat was the leading predictor of victory. But if you are going to play your starters a lot more than the other team, they pretty much have to win this stat if you are going to win. We split in the games we didn’t win it but it’s a tiny sample, (the win was at Pittsburgh, where Sidibie had his big game).
BENCH POINTS
We have won this stat 2 times. We were 2-0 when we win it and 6-10 when we lose it.
In Wins: 48 vs. 100
In Losses: 35 vs. 217
Total: 83 vs. 317
Comments: Our starting line-up is good enough that when they get any help, we are hard to beat.
ASSISTS
We have won this stat 1 time. We are 0-1 when we won it and 8-9 when we lost it.
In Wins: 146/286 = 51.0% vs. 172/229 = 75.1%
In Losses: 18/36 = 50.0% vs. 35/45 = 77.8%
Total: 164/322 = 50.9% vs. 207/274 = 75.5%
Comment: We drive to the basket to score and the other team does it off passes. The outlier was NC State and the difference was minimal: 15/23 = 65.2% vs. 17/27 = 63.0%
OFFENSIVE EFFICIENCY
(total points divided by possessions)
We have won this stat 8 times. We are 8-0 when we win it and 0-10 when we lose it.
In Wins: 541/492= 1.100 vs. 469/501 = 0.936
In Losses: 620/648 = 0.957 vs. 704/650 = 1.083
Total: 1161/1140 = 1.018 vs. 1173/1151 = 1.019
Comments: Over the years, There’s been only one winning team that lost this stat, (a game against Cincinnati a few years ago), and that was because the of the estimate and rounding of possessions.
QUARTERLY BREAKS
In regulation, we’ve won 31 quarters, lost 28 and tied 6. We’ve scored at least 15 points 38 times and held the opposition under that 33 times in 68 quarters.
In Wins: 121-96, 124-106, 136-121, 160-146
In Losses: 110-139, 156-167, 142-146, 198-225 1st OT: 8-8, 2nd OT: 8-19
Totals: 231-235, 280-273, 278-267, 358-371 1st OT: 8-8, 2nd OT: 8-19
Average: 13-13, 16-15, 15-15, 20-21 1st OT: 8-8, 2nd OT: 8-19
Comments: We’ve tied the other teams in the first and third quarters and are +1 in the second and -1 in the fourth. Nothing to see here.
Fouls
TWO POINT SHOTS (attempted) TO TIMES FOULED
We have won this stat 6 times. We are 1-5 when we win it and 7-5 when we lose it.
In Wins: 284/144 = 1.97 vs. 192/121 = 1.59
In Losses: 331/162 = 2.04 vs. 348/168 = 2.07
Total: 615/306 = 2.01 vs. 540/289 = 1.87
Comment: The opposition was more likely to draw foul calls on their two point shots in our wins than in our losses. We were about the same in both. Obviously it had little to do with the outcome of the games.
FREE THROW ATTEMPTS/ TIMES FOULED
We have won this stat 10 times. We are 5-5 when we win it and 3-5 when we lose it.
In Wins: 177/144 = 1.23 vs. 123/122 = 1.01
In Losses: 182/162 = 1.12 vs. 184/168 = 1.10
Total: 359/306 = 1.17 vs. 307/290 = 1.06
Comment: We tend to get more free throw attempts per foul, 9more shooting fouls), but by such a small margin, it makes little difference. The refs didn’t decide the outcome of our games.
Our formula for victory is to stick with our starters, hit two point shots, both in the paint and from the Twilight Zone, get to the line and rebound.
