SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,599
- Like
- 64,682
(This is my follow-up to this post, which I did after the pre-conference season:
Net Points Etc. in the Pre-Conference games )
Here is a breakdown of each scholarship player’s numbers in each category that makes up the ”net points” formula through the non-conference schedule, comprising the first 13 games of the 2016-17 Non-Conference season, of which we won 8).
Glossary:
M= minutes per game that the player was available, (Chukwu was out for the last four games: he’s played in only 7 games because the coach simply did not choose to use him in two games prior to his eye surgery. His total minutes are thus divided by the 9 games he was available, not the 7 games he played – as on the SU website) or the 13 games the team played)
P= points, R= rebounds, A= assists, S= steals, B= blocks, all per 40 minutes of play.
+ = the total of P+R+A+S+B, the “positive” statistics that are in the box score
MFG = missed field goals, MFT = missed free throws, TO= turnovers, PF= personal fouls, all per 40 minutes.
- = the total of MFG+MFT+TO=PF
NP = “Net Points”, the sum of + minus –per 40 minutes
OE = “ Offensive Efficiency”, P minus (MFG + MFT)
FG = NP minus OE, that is what portion of a player’s value lies in things he does other than scoring that still wind up in box score.
There are of course contributions, positive and negative that don’t’ show up in the box score like sneaker-to-sneaker defense, getting loose balls, (which could be a stat)tipping rebounds to others, providing an outlet to trapped players and just keeping the ball moving in general, “basketball IQ”, plus leadership, good humor, setting an example, etc. Net Points is just about statistical production. But I think the most statistically productive players tend to rate highly in these other areas, as well.
CENTERS
DaJuan Coleman
2.2M 6.2P 7.2R 0.0A 2.1S 0.0B 15.5+ 2.1MFG 1.0MFT 3.1TO 4.1PF 10.3- = 5.2NP 3.1OE 2.1FG
Paschal Chukwu
Did not play due to injury.
Comments: Coleman was injured, too and hardly played a sa result but he suite dup for each game so I divided his minutes by all 18 games. With both centers out, we had to go to our “stretch 4” forwards: Lydon and Thompson to play center. Roberson was also the center on defense at times.
FORWARDS
Tyler Lydon
38.9M 14.2P 9.0R 2.0A 1.1S 1.8B 28.1+ 4.9MFG 0.3MFT 1.8TO 2.9PF 9.9- = 18.2NP 9.0OE 9.2FG
Taureen Thompson
17.9M 19.6P 7.3R 1.0A 1.4S 1.7B 31.0+ 7.8MFG 2.0MFT 2.8TO 6.6PF 19.2- = 11.8NP 9.8OE 2.0FG
Tyler Roberson
22.6M 9.3P 9.4R 1.8A 1.1S 1.7B 23.3+ 2.5MFG 1.7MFT 2.0TO 4.6PF 10.8- = 12.5NP 5.1OE 7.4FG
Andrew White
39.8M 20.2P 5.1R 0.9A 1.7S 0.5B 28.4+ 8.1MFG 0.5MFT 2.0TO 4.6PF 12.9- = 15.5NP 11.6OE 3.9FG
Comments: Despite his reluctance to shoot, Lydon has been a very productive player for us. He’s also been efficient, without much of a downside. On the other hand, Taureen Thompson has been the team’s second best scorer but he doesn’t rebound well for a player of his size, doesn’t pass much and is a terrible defensive player, which is why he commits all those fouls that make it impossible for him play very many minutes. Roberson is the exact opposite: a strong rebounder and good defensive player who needs to rebound to score because he can’t shoot. White became the team’s tar player and the second best scorer in the league. His defense improved as the season went on and he developed a knack for playing the passing lanes. But wasn’t a big rebounder and missed more shots than anyone else on the team. So his net points, (15.4) are good but not quite at the level you might expect with all his scoring.
GUARDS
John Gillon
34.5M 14.5P 2.1R 7.3A 1.5S 0.1B 25.5+ 6.1MFG 0.4MFT 3.0TO 2.1PF 11.6- = 13.9NP 8.0OE 5.9FG
Tyus Battle
34.9M 14.3P 2.8R 1.8A 1.6S 0.3B 20.8+ 6.1MFG 0.8MFT 1.3TO 2.2PF 10.4- = 10.4NP 7.4OE 3.0FG
Frank Howard
10.7M 9.8P 4.6R 6.9A 2.1S 0.0B 23.4+ 6.9MFG 0.8MFT 5.0TO 5.0PF 17.7 - = 5.7NP 2.1OE 3.6FG
Comment: Gillon became a star with some epic performances but was tremendously inconsistent. He had a six game stretch in which he was 9 for 35 from the field and scored 23 points. Then he scored the last 13 points against Florida State and 43 at North Carolina State. In the next game he scored 6 points. JB has said he swished he had him for another year. I think he believes he could make Gillon into a consistent star: “consistently good, not just occasionally great.” Battle has a had quite a year for a freshman. He had a reputation for being a “take it to the rim” player and an outstanding defender. He’s shown ability in those areas but will get better as his career progresses. What surprised people is how good a shooter he has become. With him, Gillon and White out there, we can force the defense to tear itself apart trying to cover everyone. Frank Howard lost his positon to Gillon due to his lack of offense and his inconsistency in other areas. But he will have the inside track on the job next season with Gillon gone.
Overall: The strength of the team is that we can put five guys on the court who can score at once and other teams have to cover all of them. When we get everybody going, we are hard to beat. But it’s our weakest defensive team, probably since the early 80’s and we have almost no depth and no true center.
After showing little heart early in the year, the team has developed a reputation of major comebacks and thrilling endings. That’s good because you have to expect that post-season games will be competitive and close and you need to be able win games like that. But if every game is going to come down to the last possession it’s going to be hard to make a good post-season run because how many of those in a row can you win? We won 5 games in a row by a total of 22 points and then lost three straight by 15 points and then beat Duke by 3 on a buzzer shot. We could have won every one of those games - or lost every one of them. You only need to lose one to end your season.
Then there is our tendency to be a different team in the Dome than elsewhere. We are 16-3 under the Teflon roof and 2-10 outside of it. In conference it’s 8-1 vs. 2-7. Our one loss at home was in overtime to a top ten team, (Louisville). Our two road wins both involved buzzer shots, one by Gillon that put us into overtime vs. NC State and one by Battle that beat Clemson. We could very easily have bene 9-0 at home and 0-9 on the road in this conference. I heard an interview on the radio which said that the NCAA committee still likes to use the RPI rating system, which considers a home win to be 60% of a win and a road win to be 140% of a win. Thus the committee looks at our conference record as 5-4 at home and 3-6 on the road for a total of 8-10. Our overall record becomes 10-9 at home and 3-9 on the road or 13-17. As I listen to the pundits on the radio it seems to me that the farther distant they are from Syracuse, geographically and emotionally, the less impressed they seem to be with Syracuse. Our excitement over all the dramatic wins we’ve had recently may have inflated our view of the team’s actual chances to get invited to the Big Dance. We may still have a lot of work to do yet.
AWARDS
NET POINTS(see above)
John Gillon and Tyler Lydon have led in Net Points 6 times, Andrew White 5 times, Tyler Roberson 2 times and Taurean Thompson once. The highest score has been the 46 NP Gillon had in the overtime win over NC State. White had 39 in the win over Georgia Tech.
O-Dog (points + assists)
White was our O-Dog 8 times, Gillon 5 times. Battle, Lydon, and Thompson twice each. Gillon had another astronomical number for the NC State game: 52 while White had a 42 vs. GT.
SCORING EFFICIENCY (points – missed field goals and free throws)
White led in scoring efficiency 7 times, Gillon 4 times, Battle and Lydon 3 times each, Thompson twice and Roberson once. Gillon was 40 vs. NC State, White 35 vs. GT.
SAT US DOWN (first basket of each half)
The first basket of a half is often a scripted play and gives an indication of who Jim Boeheim likes to go to when he gets a chance to plan things. Interestingly, Taurean Thomson led with 12 sit-downs. Tyus Battle was #2 with 9. They are our 5tyh and 3rd or 4th options normally, although everybody in our in our starting line-up can score. Tyler Lydon and Andrew White have sat us down 7 times each. John Gillon has done it only once. It’s taken an average of 1 minute, 39 seconds. The longest wait has bene against Louisville in the first half of the second game: 5 minutes 36 seconds. The shots that sat us down were 14 treys,13 two point jumpers, 6 lay-ups, 2 dunks and 1 tip-in.
TACO BELL MVP (who got the score that got us to 70 points –or 100)
We’ve hit 70 points 13 times and 100 points once. White has gotten us tacos 4 times, Gillon three times, Battle and Roberson twice and Lydon and Thompson once each. We reached 70 points with an average of 3:01 left, (counting the Louisville OT game as zero, because we didn’t get the 70th point until OT). The earliest was with 7:56 left, (Georgia Tech), left and the latest was the first Louisville game, when we hit it with 13 seconds left in the OT period. John Gillon got us fries against NC State with a free throw with 30 seconds left in overtime.
MY MAN (most minutes played)
Andrew White led in minutes 16 times, Tyler Lydon 13 times, Tyus Battle 6 times and John Gillon 4 points.
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)
Overall, we’ve rebounded 29.9% of our misses to .370% for the opposition. In wins, it’s been 28.7%-35.2%. In losses, it’s been 30.9%-35.6%. We won this stat 5 times and won 2 of those games. We lost the stat 13 times and lost 5 of those games. This is normally a huge stat but does not seem to be a big one for this team. We’ve rebounded better in the losses than the wins.
Effective Offensive Rebounding
(Divide second chance points by the offensive rebounds)
Overall, we’ve scored an average of 1.21 points to 1.00 when getting offensive rebounds. In wins it’s been 1.29-1.02. In losses it’s been 1.14-0.98. We won this stat 13 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 3 of those games. Apparently what you do with a rebound is more important than if you get it.
Unforced Turnovers
(Total turnovers – the other team’s steals = unforced turnovers)
Overall, we’ve averaged 11.8 turnovers a game, 6.0 of them as a result of the opposition’s steals and 5.8 from our own ‘unforced’ errors. The opposition has averaged 13.1 turnovers, 7.4 from our steals and 5.7 unforced. In wins we’ve averaged 11.4 -5.6 = 5.8 and they’ve averaged 13.5-7.6 = 5.9. In losses we’ve averaged 12.4-6.5 = 5.9 and they’ve averaged 12.6-7.2 = 5.4. We won this stat 6 times and won 4 of those games. We lost the stat 10 times and lost 5 of those games. Two games were even and we won 1 of those games. The opposition seems to have fewer unforced turnovers when they win but more total turnovers when we win. There’s not a huge difference so I don’t think this stat is really telling us much of anything.
Points per Takeaway
(Points off turnovers divided by the number of turnovers the other team had)
Overall, we’ve scored 1.25 points per takeaway to the opposition’s 1.17. In wins it’s been 1.44-1.03 and in losses it’s been 1.04-1.33. We won this stat 8 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 5 of those games. We were even twice and won both of those games. Again, it’s not so much the change of possession but you do with it.
Unsettled Situations
(Effective offensive rebounding + Points per Takeaway: [Second Chance Point + Points off Turnovers] divided by [Offensive Rebounds + Opposition Turnovers)
Overall, we’ve scored 1.17 points for each time we got an offensive rebound or a takeaway to 1.08 for the opposition. In wins it’s been 1.25-1.02 and in losses it’s been 1.09-1.16. We won this stat 13 times and won 10 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 5 of those games. Again this stat seems to have a lot to do with wins and losses: you’ve got to be opportunistic.
Manufactured Possessions
(One teams rebounds + the other team’s turnovers)
Overall, we’ve averaged 44.7 MP per game to the opposition’s 47.1. In the wins it’s been 44.1-43.6. In the losses it’s been 45.5-51.4. We won this stat 9 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 5 of those games. We hold our own in the wins but have a deficit in the losses.
SCORING
Shooting
(shots made and attempted and the percentage for two point goal attempts, three point attempts and free throws)
Two point field goals: Overall, we’ve been out-shot by the opposition 51.2%-51.5%. In wins it’s been 55.3%-45.4%. In losses it’s been 47.9%-56.9%. We won this stat 7 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 10 times and lost 6 of those games. We were even once and lost that game. A few years back I looked at 20 seasons worth of SU basketball stats and ranked them based on their correlation to winning percentage. Two point field goal percentage was the easy winner and it still matters a lot. But…
Three point field goals: Overall, we are shooting 37.6% from three point range to the opposition’s 38.8%, both excellent numbers for us. But in wins it’s 44.7% to 36.8%. In losses it’s 29.5% to 41.5%. That’s a huge difference. We won this stat 7 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 11 times and lost 7 of those games. It’s been as big a factor as the two point shot this year, because it’s such a big part of our offense.
At the free throw line: Here’s an amazing stat: in the non-conference games we were a 65.0% team from the free throw line. In the conference games, we’ve hit 79.5% of our free throws. Gillon is 91.8%, Lydon 91.7%, White 88.0%, Battle 78.2% and even Frank Howard 71.4% in conference games. Only, (surprisingly), Thompson (62.8%) and Roberson, (34.6%) have been poor free throw shooters. Overall, we’ve hit 79.5% of our free throws to 66.8% for the opposition. We’ve out-scored them by 54 free throws in conference games. In the wins it’s been 80.8%-68.1% and in the losses 77.6%-65.5%. We won this stat 8 times and won 5 of those games. We won this stat 12 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 3 of those games. We were even once and won that game. The NCAA average is 69.6%. We’re 10 points ahead of that in conference.
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, FBP = fast break points POTO= points off turnovers)
PIP: Overall, we’ve averaged 26.1-29.4. In wins it’s been 24.2-24.6. In losses, it’s been 28.5-35.5.
We won this stat 6 times and won all of those games. We won this stat 8 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 5 of those games. We were even twice and won both of those games. Again, we hold our own in the wins but our zone becomes a revolving door in the losses.
POP: Overall, we’ve averaged 35.8-33.4. In wins, it’s been 39.2-33.7. In losses, it’s been 28.6-33.1. We won this stat 7 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 10 times and lost 6 of those games. We were even once and won that game. It’s a jump shooter’s game. When the shots are falling, we’re a much better team than when they aren’t.
TREY: Overall, we’ve averaged 25.8-27.0. In wins, it’s been 29.4-27.3. In loses, it’s been 21.4-26.6.
We won this stat 7 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 5 of those games. We’ve been even twice and split those games. Ditto
TZ: Overall , we’ve averaged 8.7 points from the Twilight Zone to 6.4 for the opposition. In the wins it was 9.8-6.4. In the losses it’s 7.25-6.5. We won this stat 12 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 3 of those games. We were even once and lost the game. This game is easier if you don’t have to go all the way to basket to score.
FBP: Overall we’ve gotten 7.7 points a game off of fast breaks to 9.2 for our opposition. In the wins it’s been 9.6 to 6.7. In the losses it’s been 5.25-12.25. We won this stat 8 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 6 of those games. We were even once and lost both times. This is not prolific stat but it’s a big one. It can help a lot if you can beat the other team down the court.
POTO: Overall we scored 15.0 points a game on turnovers to 13.9 for the opposition. In the wins it was 16.3-12.0. In the losses it was 13.4-16.25. We won this stat 9 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 5 of those games. We were even in one game and won that one. Turnovers and fast breaks are joined at the hip but you can also get them off of defensive rebounds or even made baskets, as I’ve seen several teams, (but not SU) do this year.
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: Overall we are scoring 41.3 points per game in our initial sets to 41.9. In the wins it’s 43.0-38.9. In the losses it’s 39.3-45.6. We won this stat 10 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 4 of those games This stat has turned out to not be as important as you’d think. Lot at the elements of the stat: We tend to have a slight deficit in SCP, (see below) but to have an advantage at the free throw line. Where is the opposition’s advantage? It’s got to be fast break points.
SCP: Overall we are scoring 11.8 second chance points per game and surrendering 12.3. In wins it’s 10.3-12.6, in losses 13.75-12.0. We won this stat 9 times and won 4 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 6 of those games. This stat seems to make little difference, (by itself, anyway).
Starters/Bench
(Total points – bench points = starters points)
Starters: Overall our starters have averaged 67.3 points per game, (up from 51.6%)in the pre-conference season) to 59.5 for the opposition. In the wins it’s 73.3-52.4. In the losses it’s 59.9-68.4. We won this stat 13 times and won 9 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost all of those games. There’s a reason why starters start. The more they play, the more likely we are to win.
Bench: Overall, our bench is scoring 8.8 points per game, (down from 25.1 in the pre-conference season), to 15.9 for our opponents. In the wins it’s 6.9-17.0. In the losses it’s 11.1-14.5. We won this stat 5 times and won 1 of those games. We lost the stat 13 times and lost 4 of those games. This is a “reverse” stat. We are better off losing it than winning it.
Assists
(The percentage of a team’s baskets that were assisted)
Overall, we’ve assisted 53.4% of our made baskets to 70.2% for the opposition. In the victories, it’s been 59.0%-67.5%. In the defeats, it’s been 46.0%-73.0%. We won this stat 5 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 13 times and lost 8 of those games. That study I made some years ago comparing other statistics to winning percentage showed assist ratio as the stat least related to winning but it seems to have something to do with winning this year, probably because we are a team dependent on jump shots and more assists are granted on jump shots than on drives to the basket or even passes to the baseline. If we make our jumpers, the passer gets more assists and we are more likely to win. If we had a powerful inside game, this year’s stats would likely look different.
Team Offensive Efficiency
(Possessions: Field goals attempted - offensive rebounds + turnovers + 47.5% of free throws attempted. Efficiency is total points divided by possessions)
Overall, we’ve scored 1.117 points per possession to 1.108 for our opposition. In the wins it was 1.215-1.048. In the losses it was 1.002-1.178. We won this stat 9 times and won 9 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 8 of those games. The Clemson game was the second I’ve had over the years in which, due to the closeness of the game and rounding, the losing team was actually the more efficient scoring team.
We averaged 136.2 total possessions per game, 132.2 in the wins and 141.25 in the losses. This is the fastest pace we’ve had since 2009-2010 when we averaged 142 possessions per game. Since then it’s been 133, 130, 132, 122, 133 and 133.
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)
Overall, we’ve averaged 15-16, 17-17, 18-20, 24-20 OT: 13.5-12. In wins it’s been 17-16, 18.5-14, 19-20, 25-18 OT: 13-6. In losses it’s been 14-16, 16-21, 17-20, 22-23 PT: 14-18. We’ve won 35 quarters, lost 33 and tied 4. We’ve scored at least 15 points in 54 quarters and held the opposition under that 15 times in 52 quarters. We seem to be at our best in the fourth quarter. That, the big comebacks and the amazing endings belie the notion that playing all those minutes wears our players out.
FOULS
(Two point shots, points in paint and free throws attempted per times fouled.)
TWO POINT SHOTS (attempted) TO TIMES FOULED
Overall, we’ve attempted 1.93 two point shots for every time the opposition has been called for a foul. The opposition has attempted 2.18 for every time we’ve been called for a foul. In the wins it’s been 1.72-2.24 and in the losses it’s been 2.19-2.12. We won this stat 12 times and won 9 of those games. We lost the stat 6 times and lost 5 of those games. There are many more fouls on two point attempts than three point attempts and these numbers suggest that we’ve been more likely to draw a foul than the opposition overall. The difference is more pronounced in the wins but disappears in the losses. It’s an advantage we normally have, (probably because of our aggressive drives to the basket but it’s hard to win when you don’t get those calls.
POINTS in PAINT TO TIMES FOULED
Overall we’ve averaged getting 1.48 points in the paint per times we’ve been fouled to 1.84 for the opposition. In wins, it’s been 1.36-1.71. In losses it’s been 1.64-1.97. We won this stat 14 times and won 9 of those games. We lost the stat 4 times and lost 3 of those games. This obviously parallels the above stat but focuses on the paint. It’s interesting that we don’t lose our advantage in getting the calls in any circumstances: wins, losses or overall. If the refs are calling fewer fouls in our losses, it’s in the Twilight Zone, not the paint.
FREE THROWS (attempted) TO FOULS DRAWN
Overall, we’ve gotten to attempt 1.11 free throws per time fouled. Our opposition has attempted 1.18. In the wins, it’s been 1.17-1.13. In the losses it’s been 1.03-1.23. We won this stat 9 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 6 of those games. It’s not a great difference but we get fewer free throws from the fouls called on the opposition in losses and the opposition gets more free throws from them.
I’ll take another look at these numbers when we finish the post season, (the ACC and whatever other tournament we go to) and have a breakdown base on those games alone.
Net Points Etc. in the Pre-Conference games )
Here is a breakdown of each scholarship player’s numbers in each category that makes up the ”net points” formula through the non-conference schedule, comprising the first 13 games of the 2016-17 Non-Conference season, of which we won 8).
Glossary:
M= minutes per game that the player was available, (Chukwu was out for the last four games: he’s played in only 7 games because the coach simply did not choose to use him in two games prior to his eye surgery. His total minutes are thus divided by the 9 games he was available, not the 7 games he played – as on the SU website) or the 13 games the team played)
P= points, R= rebounds, A= assists, S= steals, B= blocks, all per 40 minutes of play.
+ = the total of P+R+A+S+B, the “positive” statistics that are in the box score
MFG = missed field goals, MFT = missed free throws, TO= turnovers, PF= personal fouls, all per 40 minutes.
- = the total of MFG+MFT+TO=PF
NP = “Net Points”, the sum of + minus –per 40 minutes
OE = “ Offensive Efficiency”, P minus (MFG + MFT)
FG = NP minus OE, that is what portion of a player’s value lies in things he does other than scoring that still wind up in box score.
There are of course contributions, positive and negative that don’t’ show up in the box score like sneaker-to-sneaker defense, getting loose balls, (which could be a stat)tipping rebounds to others, providing an outlet to trapped players and just keeping the ball moving in general, “basketball IQ”, plus leadership, good humor, setting an example, etc. Net Points is just about statistical production. But I think the most statistically productive players tend to rate highly in these other areas, as well.
CENTERS
DaJuan Coleman
2.2M 6.2P 7.2R 0.0A 2.1S 0.0B 15.5+ 2.1MFG 1.0MFT 3.1TO 4.1PF 10.3- = 5.2NP 3.1OE 2.1FG
Paschal Chukwu
Did not play due to injury.
Comments: Coleman was injured, too and hardly played a sa result but he suite dup for each game so I divided his minutes by all 18 games. With both centers out, we had to go to our “stretch 4” forwards: Lydon and Thompson to play center. Roberson was also the center on defense at times.
FORWARDS
Tyler Lydon
38.9M 14.2P 9.0R 2.0A 1.1S 1.8B 28.1+ 4.9MFG 0.3MFT 1.8TO 2.9PF 9.9- = 18.2NP 9.0OE 9.2FG
Taureen Thompson
17.9M 19.6P 7.3R 1.0A 1.4S 1.7B 31.0+ 7.8MFG 2.0MFT 2.8TO 6.6PF 19.2- = 11.8NP 9.8OE 2.0FG
Tyler Roberson
22.6M 9.3P 9.4R 1.8A 1.1S 1.7B 23.3+ 2.5MFG 1.7MFT 2.0TO 4.6PF 10.8- = 12.5NP 5.1OE 7.4FG
Andrew White
39.8M 20.2P 5.1R 0.9A 1.7S 0.5B 28.4+ 8.1MFG 0.5MFT 2.0TO 4.6PF 12.9- = 15.5NP 11.6OE 3.9FG
Comments: Despite his reluctance to shoot, Lydon has been a very productive player for us. He’s also been efficient, without much of a downside. On the other hand, Taureen Thompson has been the team’s second best scorer but he doesn’t rebound well for a player of his size, doesn’t pass much and is a terrible defensive player, which is why he commits all those fouls that make it impossible for him play very many minutes. Roberson is the exact opposite: a strong rebounder and good defensive player who needs to rebound to score because he can’t shoot. White became the team’s tar player and the second best scorer in the league. His defense improved as the season went on and he developed a knack for playing the passing lanes. But wasn’t a big rebounder and missed more shots than anyone else on the team. So his net points, (15.4) are good but not quite at the level you might expect with all his scoring.
GUARDS
John Gillon
34.5M 14.5P 2.1R 7.3A 1.5S 0.1B 25.5+ 6.1MFG 0.4MFT 3.0TO 2.1PF 11.6- = 13.9NP 8.0OE 5.9FG
Tyus Battle
34.9M 14.3P 2.8R 1.8A 1.6S 0.3B 20.8+ 6.1MFG 0.8MFT 1.3TO 2.2PF 10.4- = 10.4NP 7.4OE 3.0FG
Frank Howard
10.7M 9.8P 4.6R 6.9A 2.1S 0.0B 23.4+ 6.9MFG 0.8MFT 5.0TO 5.0PF 17.7 - = 5.7NP 2.1OE 3.6FG
Comment: Gillon became a star with some epic performances but was tremendously inconsistent. He had a six game stretch in which he was 9 for 35 from the field and scored 23 points. Then he scored the last 13 points against Florida State and 43 at North Carolina State. In the next game he scored 6 points. JB has said he swished he had him for another year. I think he believes he could make Gillon into a consistent star: “consistently good, not just occasionally great.” Battle has a had quite a year for a freshman. He had a reputation for being a “take it to the rim” player and an outstanding defender. He’s shown ability in those areas but will get better as his career progresses. What surprised people is how good a shooter he has become. With him, Gillon and White out there, we can force the defense to tear itself apart trying to cover everyone. Frank Howard lost his positon to Gillon due to his lack of offense and his inconsistency in other areas. But he will have the inside track on the job next season with Gillon gone.
Overall: The strength of the team is that we can put five guys on the court who can score at once and other teams have to cover all of them. When we get everybody going, we are hard to beat. But it’s our weakest defensive team, probably since the early 80’s and we have almost no depth and no true center.
After showing little heart early in the year, the team has developed a reputation of major comebacks and thrilling endings. That’s good because you have to expect that post-season games will be competitive and close and you need to be able win games like that. But if every game is going to come down to the last possession it’s going to be hard to make a good post-season run because how many of those in a row can you win? We won 5 games in a row by a total of 22 points and then lost three straight by 15 points and then beat Duke by 3 on a buzzer shot. We could have won every one of those games - or lost every one of them. You only need to lose one to end your season.
Then there is our tendency to be a different team in the Dome than elsewhere. We are 16-3 under the Teflon roof and 2-10 outside of it. In conference it’s 8-1 vs. 2-7. Our one loss at home was in overtime to a top ten team, (Louisville). Our two road wins both involved buzzer shots, one by Gillon that put us into overtime vs. NC State and one by Battle that beat Clemson. We could very easily have bene 9-0 at home and 0-9 on the road in this conference. I heard an interview on the radio which said that the NCAA committee still likes to use the RPI rating system, which considers a home win to be 60% of a win and a road win to be 140% of a win. Thus the committee looks at our conference record as 5-4 at home and 3-6 on the road for a total of 8-10. Our overall record becomes 10-9 at home and 3-9 on the road or 13-17. As I listen to the pundits on the radio it seems to me that the farther distant they are from Syracuse, geographically and emotionally, the less impressed they seem to be with Syracuse. Our excitement over all the dramatic wins we’ve had recently may have inflated our view of the team’s actual chances to get invited to the Big Dance. We may still have a lot of work to do yet.
AWARDS
NET POINTS(see above)
John Gillon and Tyler Lydon have led in Net Points 6 times, Andrew White 5 times, Tyler Roberson 2 times and Taurean Thompson once. The highest score has been the 46 NP Gillon had in the overtime win over NC State. White had 39 in the win over Georgia Tech.
O-Dog (points + assists)
White was our O-Dog 8 times, Gillon 5 times. Battle, Lydon, and Thompson twice each. Gillon had another astronomical number for the NC State game: 52 while White had a 42 vs. GT.
SCORING EFFICIENCY (points – missed field goals and free throws)
White led in scoring efficiency 7 times, Gillon 4 times, Battle and Lydon 3 times each, Thompson twice and Roberson once. Gillon was 40 vs. NC State, White 35 vs. GT.
SAT US DOWN (first basket of each half)
The first basket of a half is often a scripted play and gives an indication of who Jim Boeheim likes to go to when he gets a chance to plan things. Interestingly, Taurean Thomson led with 12 sit-downs. Tyus Battle was #2 with 9. They are our 5tyh and 3rd or 4th options normally, although everybody in our in our starting line-up can score. Tyler Lydon and Andrew White have sat us down 7 times each. John Gillon has done it only once. It’s taken an average of 1 minute, 39 seconds. The longest wait has bene against Louisville in the first half of the second game: 5 minutes 36 seconds. The shots that sat us down were 14 treys,13 two point jumpers, 6 lay-ups, 2 dunks and 1 tip-in.
TACO BELL MVP (who got the score that got us to 70 points –or 100)
We’ve hit 70 points 13 times and 100 points once. White has gotten us tacos 4 times, Gillon three times, Battle and Roberson twice and Lydon and Thompson once each. We reached 70 points with an average of 3:01 left, (counting the Louisville OT game as zero, because we didn’t get the 70th point until OT). The earliest was with 7:56 left, (Georgia Tech), left and the latest was the first Louisville game, when we hit it with 13 seconds left in the OT period. John Gillon got us fries against NC State with a free throw with 30 seconds left in overtime.
MY MAN (most minutes played)
Andrew White led in minutes 16 times, Tyler Lydon 13 times, Tyus Battle 6 times and John Gillon 4 points.
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)
Overall, we’ve rebounded 29.9% of our misses to .370% for the opposition. In wins, it’s been 28.7%-35.2%. In losses, it’s been 30.9%-35.6%. We won this stat 5 times and won 2 of those games. We lost the stat 13 times and lost 5 of those games. This is normally a huge stat but does not seem to be a big one for this team. We’ve rebounded better in the losses than the wins.
Effective Offensive Rebounding
(Divide second chance points by the offensive rebounds)
Overall, we’ve scored an average of 1.21 points to 1.00 when getting offensive rebounds. In wins it’s been 1.29-1.02. In losses it’s been 1.14-0.98. We won this stat 13 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 3 of those games. Apparently what you do with a rebound is more important than if you get it.
Unforced Turnovers
(Total turnovers – the other team’s steals = unforced turnovers)
Overall, we’ve averaged 11.8 turnovers a game, 6.0 of them as a result of the opposition’s steals and 5.8 from our own ‘unforced’ errors. The opposition has averaged 13.1 turnovers, 7.4 from our steals and 5.7 unforced. In wins we’ve averaged 11.4 -5.6 = 5.8 and they’ve averaged 13.5-7.6 = 5.9. In losses we’ve averaged 12.4-6.5 = 5.9 and they’ve averaged 12.6-7.2 = 5.4. We won this stat 6 times and won 4 of those games. We lost the stat 10 times and lost 5 of those games. Two games were even and we won 1 of those games. The opposition seems to have fewer unforced turnovers when they win but more total turnovers when we win. There’s not a huge difference so I don’t think this stat is really telling us much of anything.
Points per Takeaway
(Points off turnovers divided by the number of turnovers the other team had)
Overall, we’ve scored 1.25 points per takeaway to the opposition’s 1.17. In wins it’s been 1.44-1.03 and in losses it’s been 1.04-1.33. We won this stat 8 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 5 of those games. We were even twice and won both of those games. Again, it’s not so much the change of possession but you do with it.
Unsettled Situations
(Effective offensive rebounding + Points per Takeaway: [Second Chance Point + Points off Turnovers] divided by [Offensive Rebounds + Opposition Turnovers)
Overall, we’ve scored 1.17 points for each time we got an offensive rebound or a takeaway to 1.08 for the opposition. In wins it’s been 1.25-1.02 and in losses it’s been 1.09-1.16. We won this stat 13 times and won 10 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 5 of those games. Again this stat seems to have a lot to do with wins and losses: you’ve got to be opportunistic.
Manufactured Possessions
(One teams rebounds + the other team’s turnovers)
Overall, we’ve averaged 44.7 MP per game to the opposition’s 47.1. In the wins it’s been 44.1-43.6. In the losses it’s been 45.5-51.4. We won this stat 9 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 5 of those games. We hold our own in the wins but have a deficit in the losses.
SCORING
Shooting
(shots made and attempted and the percentage for two point goal attempts, three point attempts and free throws)
Two point field goals: Overall, we’ve been out-shot by the opposition 51.2%-51.5%. In wins it’s been 55.3%-45.4%. In losses it’s been 47.9%-56.9%. We won this stat 7 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 10 times and lost 6 of those games. We were even once and lost that game. A few years back I looked at 20 seasons worth of SU basketball stats and ranked them based on their correlation to winning percentage. Two point field goal percentage was the easy winner and it still matters a lot. But…
Three point field goals: Overall, we are shooting 37.6% from three point range to the opposition’s 38.8%, both excellent numbers for us. But in wins it’s 44.7% to 36.8%. In losses it’s 29.5% to 41.5%. That’s a huge difference. We won this stat 7 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 11 times and lost 7 of those games. It’s been as big a factor as the two point shot this year, because it’s such a big part of our offense.
At the free throw line: Here’s an amazing stat: in the non-conference games we were a 65.0% team from the free throw line. In the conference games, we’ve hit 79.5% of our free throws. Gillon is 91.8%, Lydon 91.7%, White 88.0%, Battle 78.2% and even Frank Howard 71.4% in conference games. Only, (surprisingly), Thompson (62.8%) and Roberson, (34.6%) have been poor free throw shooters. Overall, we’ve hit 79.5% of our free throws to 66.8% for the opposition. We’ve out-scored them by 54 free throws in conference games. In the wins it’s been 80.8%-68.1% and in the losses 77.6%-65.5%. We won this stat 8 times and won 5 of those games. We won this stat 12 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 3 of those games. We were even once and won that game. The NCAA average is 69.6%. We’re 10 points ahead of that in conference.
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, FBP = fast break points POTO= points off turnovers)
PIP: Overall, we’ve averaged 26.1-29.4. In wins it’s been 24.2-24.6. In losses, it’s been 28.5-35.5.
We won this stat 6 times and won all of those games. We won this stat 8 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 5 of those games. We were even twice and won both of those games. Again, we hold our own in the wins but our zone becomes a revolving door in the losses.
POP: Overall, we’ve averaged 35.8-33.4. In wins, it’s been 39.2-33.7. In losses, it’s been 28.6-33.1. We won this stat 7 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 10 times and lost 6 of those games. We were even once and won that game. It’s a jump shooter’s game. When the shots are falling, we’re a much better team than when they aren’t.
TREY: Overall, we’ve averaged 25.8-27.0. In wins, it’s been 29.4-27.3. In loses, it’s been 21.4-26.6.
We won this stat 7 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 5 of those games. We’ve been even twice and split those games. Ditto
TZ: Overall , we’ve averaged 8.7 points from the Twilight Zone to 6.4 for the opposition. In the wins it was 9.8-6.4. In the losses it’s 7.25-6.5. We won this stat 12 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 3 of those games. We were even once and lost the game. This game is easier if you don’t have to go all the way to basket to score.
FBP: Overall we’ve gotten 7.7 points a game off of fast breaks to 9.2 for our opposition. In the wins it’s been 9.6 to 6.7. In the losses it’s been 5.25-12.25. We won this stat 8 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 6 of those games. We were even once and lost both times. This is not prolific stat but it’s a big one. It can help a lot if you can beat the other team down the court.
POTO: Overall we scored 15.0 points a game on turnovers to 13.9 for the opposition. In the wins it was 16.3-12.0. In the losses it was 13.4-16.25. We won this stat 9 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 5 of those games. We were even in one game and won that one. Turnovers and fast breaks are joined at the hip but you can also get them off of defensive rebounds or even made baskets, as I’ve seen several teams, (but not SU) do this year.
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: Overall we are scoring 41.3 points per game in our initial sets to 41.9. In the wins it’s 43.0-38.9. In the losses it’s 39.3-45.6. We won this stat 10 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 8 times and lost 4 of those games This stat has turned out to not be as important as you’d think. Lot at the elements of the stat: We tend to have a slight deficit in SCP, (see below) but to have an advantage at the free throw line. Where is the opposition’s advantage? It’s got to be fast break points.
SCP: Overall we are scoring 11.8 second chance points per game and surrendering 12.3. In wins it’s 10.3-12.6, in losses 13.75-12.0. We won this stat 9 times and won 4 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 6 of those games. This stat seems to make little difference, (by itself, anyway).
Starters/Bench
(Total points – bench points = starters points)
Starters: Overall our starters have averaged 67.3 points per game, (up from 51.6%)in the pre-conference season) to 59.5 for the opposition. In the wins it’s 73.3-52.4. In the losses it’s 59.9-68.4. We won this stat 13 times and won 9 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost all of those games. There’s a reason why starters start. The more they play, the more likely we are to win.
Bench: Overall, our bench is scoring 8.8 points per game, (down from 25.1 in the pre-conference season), to 15.9 for our opponents. In the wins it’s 6.9-17.0. In the losses it’s 11.1-14.5. We won this stat 5 times and won 1 of those games. We lost the stat 13 times and lost 4 of those games. This is a “reverse” stat. We are better off losing it than winning it.
Assists
(The percentage of a team’s baskets that were assisted)
Overall, we’ve assisted 53.4% of our made baskets to 70.2% for the opposition. In the victories, it’s been 59.0%-67.5%. In the defeats, it’s been 46.0%-73.0%. We won this stat 5 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 13 times and lost 8 of those games. That study I made some years ago comparing other statistics to winning percentage showed assist ratio as the stat least related to winning but it seems to have something to do with winning this year, probably because we are a team dependent on jump shots and more assists are granted on jump shots than on drives to the basket or even passes to the baseline. If we make our jumpers, the passer gets more assists and we are more likely to win. If we had a powerful inside game, this year’s stats would likely look different.
Team Offensive Efficiency
(Possessions: Field goals attempted - offensive rebounds + turnovers + 47.5% of free throws attempted. Efficiency is total points divided by possessions)
Overall, we’ve scored 1.117 points per possession to 1.108 for our opposition. In the wins it was 1.215-1.048. In the losses it was 1.002-1.178. We won this stat 9 times and won 9 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 8 of those games. The Clemson game was the second I’ve had over the years in which, due to the closeness of the game and rounding, the losing team was actually the more efficient scoring team.
We averaged 136.2 total possessions per game, 132.2 in the wins and 141.25 in the losses. This is the fastest pace we’ve had since 2009-2010 when we averaged 142 possessions per game. Since then it’s been 133, 130, 132, 122, 133 and 133.
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)
Overall, we’ve averaged 15-16, 17-17, 18-20, 24-20 OT: 13.5-12. In wins it’s been 17-16, 18.5-14, 19-20, 25-18 OT: 13-6. In losses it’s been 14-16, 16-21, 17-20, 22-23 PT: 14-18. We’ve won 35 quarters, lost 33 and tied 4. We’ve scored at least 15 points in 54 quarters and held the opposition under that 15 times in 52 quarters. We seem to be at our best in the fourth quarter. That, the big comebacks and the amazing endings belie the notion that playing all those minutes wears our players out.
FOULS
(Two point shots, points in paint and free throws attempted per times fouled.)
TWO POINT SHOTS (attempted) TO TIMES FOULED
Overall, we’ve attempted 1.93 two point shots for every time the opposition has been called for a foul. The opposition has attempted 2.18 for every time we’ve been called for a foul. In the wins it’s been 1.72-2.24 and in the losses it’s been 2.19-2.12. We won this stat 12 times and won 9 of those games. We lost the stat 6 times and lost 5 of those games. There are many more fouls on two point attempts than three point attempts and these numbers suggest that we’ve been more likely to draw a foul than the opposition overall. The difference is more pronounced in the wins but disappears in the losses. It’s an advantage we normally have, (probably because of our aggressive drives to the basket but it’s hard to win when you don’t get those calls.
POINTS in PAINT TO TIMES FOULED
Overall we’ve averaged getting 1.48 points in the paint per times we’ve been fouled to 1.84 for the opposition. In wins, it’s been 1.36-1.71. In losses it’s been 1.64-1.97. We won this stat 14 times and won 9 of those games. We lost the stat 4 times and lost 3 of those games. This obviously parallels the above stat but focuses on the paint. It’s interesting that we don’t lose our advantage in getting the calls in any circumstances: wins, losses or overall. If the refs are calling fewer fouls in our losses, it’s in the Twilight Zone, not the paint.
FREE THROWS (attempted) TO FOULS DRAWN
Overall, we’ve gotten to attempt 1.11 free throws per time fouled. Our opposition has attempted 1.18. In the wins, it’s been 1.17-1.13. In the losses it’s been 1.03-1.23. We won this stat 9 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and lost 6 of those games. It’s not a great difference but we get fewer free throws from the fouls called on the opposition in losses and the opposition gets more free throws from them.
I’ll take another look at these numbers when we finish the post season, (the ACC and whatever other tournament we go to) and have a breakdown base on those games alone.