Net Points Etc. in the Pre-Conference games

[SWC75]

NET POINTS

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
17.4M 15.9P 13.1R 0.5A 0.9S 1.6B 32.0+ 5.5MFG 2.3MFT 3.5TO 5.5PF 16.8- = 15.2NP 8.1OE 7.1FG

Paschal Chukwu
12.0M 4.4P 10.7R 0.7A 1.1S 5.2B 22.1+ 1.1MFG 3.3MFT 3.7TO 5.6PF 13.7- = 8.4NP 0.0OE 8.4FG

Comments: The minutes only add up to 29.4 and now Paschal is unable to play, so we are seeing a lot of forwards playing center and will see even more of it. Some see Taureen Thompson as a center because of his size but center is basically a defensive positon in modern basketball and if you aren’t playing defense, you aren’t really a center. Coleman is a very good scorer and rebounder but due his knee injuries has little mobility or hops and commits too many fouls. I doubt he’d have the stamina to play 30+ minute on a regular basis anyway. Chukwu could block shots and rebound some but did little else and his positional defense was lacking. You can be a donut team on offense but still score. You can’t be a donut team on defense and stop a good team from scoring.


FORWARDS

Andrew White
32.9M 17.9P 5.0R 1.9A 2.0S 0.3B 27.1+ 8.3MFG 1.1MFT 1.6TO 2.1PF 13.1- = 14.0NP 8.5OE 5.5FG

Tyler Lydon
31.3M 16.3P 9.8R 2.6A 1.2S 1.2B 31.1+ 6.2MFG 1.2MFT 1.9TO 2.5PF 11.8- = 19.3NP 8.9OE 10.4FG

Tyler Roberson
17.5M 13.2P 10.5R 1.6A 0.7S 1.6B 13.7+ 6.0MFG 2.1MFT 1.9TO 3.9PF 13.9- = 13.7NP 5.1OE 8.6FG

Taureen Thompson
17.0M 21.4P 9.2R 1.8A 1.1S 2.7B 36.2+ 6.7MFG 1.4MFT 3.1TO 4.5PF 15.7- = 20.5NP 13.3OE 7.2FG

Comments: White is clearly a small forward, not a guard, so he’s in this group. It’s interesting that he’s played 21 more minutes than Lydon, who has clearly established his status as the best player on the team. I think Tyler will end the season having played the most minutes of any SU player, probably by a goo margin. We’ll need bigger guys in there vs. the big boys of the ACC and we could see Lydon, Thompson and Roberson in there all at once at times. Thompson is our best offensive forward since Wes Johnson. Roberson’s averages aren’t bad at all and his dunk in the Cornell game was one fo the ages and really got the team going. I’ll borrow a line from Coach Babers: Boeheim wants him to be consistently good, not just occasionally great.


GUARDS

John Gillon
23.4M 15.4P 3.2R 7.4A 2.9S 0.0B 28.9+ 6.4MFG 1.1MFT 2.1TO 1.7PF 11.3- = 17.6NP 7.9OE 9.7FG

Tyus Battle
23.4M 14.5P 2.8R 2.6A 1.8S 0.4B 22.1+ 6.1MFG 0.7MFT 2.0TO 3.2PF 12.0- = 10.1NP 7.7OE 2.4FG

Frank Howard
23.3M 12.1P 4.2R 10.7A 3.6S 0.5B 30.6+ 6.5MFG 2.1MFT 4.0TO 4.0PF 16.6 - = 14.0NP 3.5OE 10.5FG

Comment: We’ve got a guard triumvirate, just like we had in 2011-12. Not as good but the guard positons are shared by three guys playing virtually the name number of minutes regardless of who the starter is. Gillon and Battle have played exactly 304 each and Hoard has played 303! The other ten minutes tell how much time Andrew White is spending in the backcourt of his 32 minutes. Gillon has bene the bets of the three statistically but he’s also the shortest and most ill-fitted to playing in the zone. Battles’ value is almost entirely in scoring and Howard’s almost entirely in his passing.

Overall: Statistically, this looks like a pretty strong team- pretty much the one we envisioned. I’ve always said that an average of 10NP per 40mintues indicates the player has enough ability to be a starter and 8 of our 9 scholarship players have met that test. 15NP would indicate one of the mainstays of the team and we have four guys who reached that level. 20NP is an All-American level and Thompson reached that with Lydon very close to it. I called our 2010 team the “Noah’s Ark team because they had two of everything and this team does, too. We have two point guards- each with tremendous assists rates and strong assist to turnover ratios, multiple guys who can hit from outside, guys who can drive to the basket, three guys who are averaging 10 rebounds per 40 minutes and another who averages 9. We’ve got five guys who average a blocked shot per game and one of whom averages 3 of them and another who averages 5. And it has, (had) a 7 foot shot blocker in the middle of the zone and a guard triumvirate like the 2012 team.

In the past, close games against teams we should beat easily have been a harbinger of trouble. Not this year. We’ve beaten the team’s we’ve beaten by an average of 88-52. The only close win was 77-71 over North Florida. If you’d seen those games, the average fan wouldn’t have detected a problem. But in the losses, we’ve been beaten by an average of 58-73, so we go from winning by 36 to losing by 15, a turn-around of 51 points. The extreme, of course, was beating Eastern Michigan, a team ranked #150 at the time according to Sagarin by 48 points and the losing to St. John’s a team ranked #138 by Sagarin by 33 points in consecutive games in the Carrier Dome. Even more disturbing are the names of some of the teams that have beaten the teams we’ve lost to: Wagner, Northeastern, Arkansas State, Old Dominion, Delaware State, Long Island. We couldn’t do what they did?

Some factors seem obvious: the teams that beat us did it with aggressive man-to-man defenses. Coach Boeheim has admitted that we have a bunch of stand-still jump shooters that we can get good shots for against a zone but not against a man for man, (which is what we will see almost exclusively the rest of the year). We are very weak in the interior defensively. We can block shots out our positional defense is poor and we fail to protect the basket well. We also allow too much penetration into the zone. The latter can be fixed with more practice and game experience but the former is likely to be with us all year, especially with Chukwu out, (not that he was really the answer, anyway). The teams that we beat tended to be smaller, perimeter-oriented teams that couldn’t exploit our defensive weaknesses and played zone to cover up theirs. We’re not going to see much, if any of that the rest of the way and our great fear is that our remaining games are going to look like our losses so far much more than our wins.


I decided that, because there is such a contrast between our wins and our losses, to break out the above numbers between the two and to see where individual players fell in the losses. Of course failure to prevent penetration and to defend the basket on defense won’t be reflected here but other problems could be localized by looking at the numbers below.

(“W” means in the wins, “L” in the losses. )


CENTERS

DaJuan Coleman
W: 14.6M 17.8P 13.3R 0.3A 1.0S 1.7B 34.1+ 6.5MFG 2.1MFT 3.8TO 6.8PF 19.2- = 14.9NP 9.2OE 5.7FG
L: 21.8M 13.9P 12.8R 0.7A 0.7S 1.5B 29.6 + 4.4MFG 2.6MFT 3.3TO 4.0PF 14.3- = 15.3NP 6.9OE 8.4FG
Comments: DaJuan’s performance has remained steady in the losses, actually improving a bit overall. He’s scoring less but also missing fewer shots, (he’s getting the ball less). But his floor game improves, largely because he commits fewer fouls. I’m not sure the reason for that but he does have a tendency toward offensive fouls and maybe getting the ball less helps him there. His number sin losses are buoyed by the fact that he had easily his best game in a loss- to Connecticut. He had 10 points and 16 rebounds in that game and played 28 minutes. He averaged 20 minutes in the other games so they had less impact than the UCONN game. It is interesting that JB played DC 7 minutes more per game in the losses than the wins. I guess when things are going bad, he wants his most experienced players in there. its also interesting that the Huskies 7-0 Amida Brimah and 6-11 Stephen Enoch were 1 for 8 and scored 2 points in that game, (although 6-10 Kentan Facey came off the bench to hit 3 of 4 and score 7 points. Also, there were 75 missed shots in that game so rebounds were more plentiful. Still, DaJuan seems to have bene our steadiest player between the wins and the losses.

Paschal Chukwu
W: 16.8M 5.7P 8.1R 1.0A 1.4S 6.2B 22.4+ 0.5MFG 4.3MFT 4.3TO 5.2PF 14.3 - = 8.1NP 0.9OE 7.2FG
L: 12.0M 0.0P 8.3R 0.0A 0.0S 1.7B 10.0+ 3.3MFG 0.0MFT 1.7TO 6.7PF 11.7- = -1.7NP -3.3OE 1.6FG
Comments: Not that it matters anymore since I don’t expect to see Paschal back this year but he tended to foul more in the losses and thus could not stay in the games. She shot the ball more and didn’t score from the field at all in the losses. And the one thing he did well- blocking shots- is something he only did in great quantities against the lesser teams. To use a favorite Boeheim line: “He just wasn’t ready to help us.”


FORWARDS

Andrew White
W: 30.25M 23.1P 5.5R 2.6A 2.3S 0.3B 33.8+ 8.1MFG 1.0MFT 1.7TO 2.3PF 13.1 - = 20.7NP 14.0OE 6.7FG
L: 37.2M 11.2P 4.3R 0.9A 1.5S 0.2B 18.1+ 8.6MFG 1.3MFT 1.5TO 1.9PF 13.3- = 4.8NP 1.3OE 3.5FG
Comments: A-Trey has been White Hot in the wins and disappeared during the losses. He’s all about shooting and scoring and he doesn’t do it when we lose. He isn’t missing that many more shots so you know he’s not getting as many. The rest of his game slips a bit as well with fewer rebounds, assists and steals.

Tyler Lydon
W: 27.75M 15.7P 10.8R 3.6A 1.6S 2.0B 33.7+ 6.5MFG 1.1MFT 1.8TO 2.5PF 11.9- = 21.8NP 16.6OE 8.1FG
L: 37.0M 17.1P 8.6R 1.3A 0.6S 0.4B 28.0+ 5.8MFG 1.3MFT 1.9TO 2.4PF 11.4- = 16.6NP 10.0OE 6.6FG
Comments: Both White and Lydon play 7 minutes more in losses than wins. The wins tend to be games where JB can play everybody. White and Lydon are clear the guys he wants in there when it’s close. Tyler’s scoring goes up, clearly because of fewer misses, not more shots. He rebounds less and passes the ball less, (thus fewer assists). He also has fewer steals and blocks. He’s concentrating more on his shot. Still, his overall performance doesn’t collapse the way White’s and some others do.


Tyler Roberson
W: 21.0M 16.4P 11.4R 2.1A 0.7S 1.9B 32.6+ 5.5MFG 1.9MFT 2.1TO 3.6PF 13.1- = 19.5NP 9.0OE 10.5FG
L: 12.0M 4.7P 8.0R 0.0A 0.7S 0.7B 14.1+ 7.3MFG 2.7MFT 1.3TO 4.7PF 16.0- = -1.9NP -5.3OE 3.4FG
Comments: Roberson is another play who disappears in the losses – and he plays a lot less because of it. His rebounding, (which is the key to his offense) and shot blocking goes down and his assists disappear. But the big thing is that he stops scoring. Part of it is more missed shots. Part of it is not getting as many put backs because of the lower number of rebounds.

Taurean Thompson
W: 17.8M 30.7P 10.4R 2.5A 1.1S 3.4B 48.2+ 8.5MFG 1.4MFT 2.5TO 3.4PF 15.8- = 32.4NP 20.8OE 11.6 FG
L: 15.8M 15.2P 7.1R 0.5A 1.0S 1.5B 25.3+ 8.6MFG 1.5MFT 4.1TO 6.6PF 20.8- = 4.5NP 5.1OE -0.6 FG
Comments: Thompson is a superstar against the lesser (zone) teams but his numbers get cut in half against the better teams and he starts committing fouls. His missed shots are the same so he’s making fewer of the same number of shots.


GUARDS

John Gillon
W: 21.1M 24.6P 5.0R 12.1A 4.4S 0.0B 46.2+ 7.7MFG 0.9MFT 2.1O 3.0PF 13.7- = 32.5NP 16.0OE 16.5FG
L: 27.0M 10.0P 2.3R 4.4A 2.1S 0.0B 18.8+ 6.8MFG 1.5MFT 2.7TO 0.9PF 11.9- = 6.9NP 1.7OE 5.2FG
Comment: Gillon is Alan Iverson against the teams we beat and David Patrick in the losses. He actually misses fewer shots, meaning that he’s not taking nearly as many. Because he’s not able to set up his passes with his own scoring, his assists collapse. He’s a surprisingly good rebounder for his size- in the wins. He’s also less active on defense in the losses as seen by the drop in his steals. At least he has fewer fouls.

Tyus Battle
W: 25.3M 17.6P 3.0R 2.4A 2.4S 0.8B 25.8+ 5.9MFG 0.6MFT 0.8TO 2.4PF 9.7- = 16.1NP 11.1OE 5.0FG
L: 20.4M 8.2P 2.4R 3.1A 0.8S 0.4B 14.9+ 6.3MFG 0.8MFT 4.3TO 4.7PF 16.1 - = -1.2NP 1.1OE 0.1FG
Comment: Battle is not quite ready to be an All-American in any case but he did a total vanishing act in the losses. He missed a few more shots but his scoring collapse has to do with not getting them. He also has far fewer steals, more turnovers and more fouls.

Frank Howard
W: 24.1M 13.3P 5.2R 13.9A 3.7S 0.8B 36.9+ 3.9MFG 2.3MFT 3.3TO 3.9PF 13.5- = 23.4NP 7.1OE 16.3FG
L: 22.0M 10.2P 2.5R 5.1A 3.3S 0.0B 21.1+ 10.9MFG 1.8MFT 5.1TO 4.0PF 21.8- = -0.7NP -2.5OE 1.8 FG
Comments: Howard’s assist average in the wins is amazing. It gets down to OK in the losses but the turnovers soar to a lousy 1-1 ratio. His scoring falls some but his missed shots grow to Mookie Jones levels.

Overall: Two guys have averaged 10 NP/40 in our losses: DaJuan Coleman and Tyler Lydon. Everybody else has been inadequate and four of them made net negative contributions to the team – over five games. Two of our three guards were among the negative contributors. Another was Chukwu, who didn’t play a lot and not all in the last two losses. The other was Roberson, who didn’t play a lot either. The impact of the man-to-man defenses has been mostly on the guards and that has shut down our offense. Thompson’s foul trouble has also hurt. The stats don’t really reflect the defensive problems except for the greater numbers of fouls on some players: they are the ones getting beat or playing for someone else getting beat.

 

[SWC75]

AWARDS

NET POINTS(see above)
Tyler Lydon has led in net Points 5 times, John Gillon 3 times, DaJuan Coleman and Andrew White twice each and Frank Howard once. The highest score has been the 35 NP Lydon had in the loss to Georgetown.

O-Dog (points + assists)
Lydon has led 5 times here, too, Gillon 4 times, White 3 times and Howard twice. Again, lydon’s game against Georgetown scored the highest with 31 points.

SCORING EFFICIENCY (points – missed field goals and free throws)
Lydon has own this title 4 times, Taurean Thompson 3 times, Coleman twice and Battle, Gillon, Roberson and White once each. Again, Lydon’s Georgetown game was the best score with 25. It’s a shame we wasted such a great performance.

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. Andrew White has sat us down 8 times, Tyus Battle, frank Howard, Tyler Lydon and Tyler Roberson 3 times each and Taurean Thomson, (who is not normally in the line-up that early) once. It’s taken an average of 49 seconds. We haven’t had to wait a long time very much. South Carolina was the toughest: it took 2:2:49 and 2:54. The next longest wait was 1:35 and we’ve only had to wait a whole minute or more 6 times in 26 halves. The shot that sat us down were 12 treys, 11 lay-ups, 2 dunks and 1 two point jumper.

TACO BELL MVP (who got the score that got us to 70 points –or 100)
We’ve hit 70 points nine times and 100 points twice. Thompson has gotten us tacos 3 times, Coleman and Gillon twice, Lydon and White once each. We reached 70 points with an average of 7:41 left. The earliest was with 13:58 (Eastern Michigan), left and the latest was with 5 seconds left, (Georgetown). Walk-on Ray Featherston got us fries, (which they used to give out for 100 points back when college basketball was actually fun to watch), against South Carolina State with a trey with 14 seconds left and Tyus Battle did it with a dunk with 2:11 left against Eastern Michigan.

MY MAN (most minutes played)
Andrew White has led in minutes 6 times, Tyler Lydon 5 times and John Gillon and Tyler Roberson once each.

 

[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)
Overall, we’ve rebounded 34.1% of our misses to .310% for the opposition. In wins, it’s been 37.0%-32.2%. In losses, it’s been 32.0%-36.1%. We won this stat 7 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 6 times and lost 4 of those games. This is obviously a huge stat.

Effective Offensive Rebounding
(Divide second chance points by the offensive rebounds)
Overall, we’ve scored an average of 1.05 points to 0.90 when getting offensive rebounds. In wins it’s been 1.11-0.85. In losses it’s been 0.95-0.98. We won this stat 9 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 4 times and lost 3 of those games. Opportunism pays off.

Turnovers
(Total turnovers – the other team’s steals = unforced turnovers)
Overall, we’ve averaged 12.7 turnovers a game, 6.4 of them as a result of the opposition’s steals and 6.3 from our own ‘unforced’ errors. The opposition has averaged 14.4 turnovers, 8.9 from our stelas and 5.5 unforced. In wins we’ve averaged 11.75-5.75= 6.0 and they’ve averaged 14.9-10.25=4.6. In losses we’ve averaged 14.2-7.4= 6.8 and they’ve averaged 13.6-6.8 = 6.8. We won this stat 5 times, (per ‘unforced errors’) and won 2 of those games. We lost the stat 7 times and lost 2 of those games. (It’s been even once and we won that game.) This indicates that unforced turnovers are actually a counter-indicator of winning. I’d assume they bespeak a general sloppiness that would be conducive to losing. Instead, I think they are a product of our willingness to take chances and run the court and not get bogged down in half-court game, (which produces more steals aligns total turnovers more with winning and losing).

Points per Takeaway
(Points off turnovers divided by the number of turnovers the other team had)
Overall, we’ve scored 1.20 points per takeaway to the opposition’s 0.93. In wins it’s been 1.43-0.93 and in losses it’s been 0.79-0.94. We won this stat 9 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 4 times and lost 3 of those games. It’s interesting that opposition’s numbers don’t seem to change but we are much more opportunistic in the games we won than the games we lost.

It led me to create still another stat:

Unsettled Situations
(Effective offensive rebounding + Points per Takeaway: [Second Chance Point + Points off Turnovers] divided by [Offensive Rebounds + Opposition Turnovers)
Overall, we’ve scored 1.13 points for each time we got an offensive rebound or a takeaway to 0.91 for the opposition. In wins it’s been 1.29-0.89 and in losses it’s been 0.87-0.96. We won this stat 11 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 2 times and lost both of those games. Again the opposition’s ability to take advantage of unsettled situations doesn’t seem to change but our ability to do so seems to depend on the opposition. The better defensive teams will get back into defensive position more quickly when they lose the battle for the ball.

Manufactured Possessions
(One teams rebounds + the other team’s turnovers)
Overall, we’ve averaged 54.0 MP per game to the opposition’s 50.0. In the wins it’s been 57.6-47.125. In the losses it’s been 48.2-54.6. We won this stat 8 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 4 of those games. Possession is 9/10s of the law and big part of basketball, as well.

 

[SWC75]

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 out-shot the opposition 49.7%-45.9%. In wins it’s been 55.5%-43.0%. In losses it’s been 39.6%-50.0%. We won this stat 6 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 7 times and lost 5 of those games. 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 39.4% form three point range to the opposition’s 28.4%, both excellent numbers for us. But in wins it’s 46.2% to 24.3%. In losses it’s 26.9% to 38.5%. That’s a huge difference. We won this stat 9 times and won 1 of those games. We lost the stat 4 times and lost 4 of those games.

At the free throw line: Overall, we’ve hit 65.0% of our free throws to 63.4% for the opposition. In the wins it’s been 65.5%-62.0% and in the losses 64.2%-64.8%. We won this stat 8 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 2 of those games. Obviously there hasn’t been much difference. There have been individual game situations where missed free throws mattered a lot but overall, we haven’t been worse than the opposition at the line, in fact a little better. We’ve bene better in the wins than the losses by a small margin. Both teams have shot well under the NCAA average, which is 69.6%. That’s due to 10 of the games being played in the cavernous Carrier Dome.

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 26.8-23.7. In wins it’s been 31.0-21.25. In losses, it’s been 20.0-27.6.
We won this stat 6 times and won all of those games. We lost the stat 6 times and lost 4 of those games. The one time we were even, we lost by 33 points. It’s good to get the ball inside but it doesn’t guarantee victory.

POP: Overall, we’ve averaged 35.8-29.7. In wins, it’s been 43.75-28.0. In losses, it’s been 23.0-32.4. We won this stat 9 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 4 times and lost 4 of those games.
It’s a jump shooter’s game.

TREY: Overall, we’ve averaged 27.7-23.8. In wins, it’s been 34.1-23.6. In loses, it’s been 17.4-24.0.
We won this stat 8 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 3 of those games.

TZ: Overall , we’ve averaged 7.8 points from the Twilight Zone to 6.8 for the opposition. In the wins it was 9.75-5.75. In the losses it’s 5.6-8.4. We won this stat 6 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 2 of those games. We were tied in this stat twice and lost both games. This game is easier if you don’t have to go all the way to basket to score.

FBP: Overall we’ve gotten 7.2 points a game off of fast breaks to 5.8 for our opposition. In the wins it’s been 9.25 to 5.25. In the losses it’s been 3.8-6.8. We won this stat 7 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 6 times and lost 3 of those games. This is not prolific stat but maybe that’s the story- we aren’t running enough.

POTO: Overall we scored 17.2 points a game on turnovers to 11.7 for the opposition. In the wins it was 21.25-10.6. In the losses it was 10.8-13.4. We won this stat 9 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 3 times and lost 2 of those games. We were even in one game and lost that one. Obviously creating turnovers and scoring off of them is a big stat.

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 41.6 points per game in our initial sets to 36.2. In the wins it’s 49.4-33.25. In the losses it’s 29.2-40.8. We won this stat 7 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 6 times and lost 5 of those games. If at first you don’t succeed, you probably lose.

SCP: Overall we are scoring 12.9 second chance points per game and surrendering 11.9. In wins it’s 13.6-12.4, in losses 11.8-11.2. We won this stat 7 times and won 4 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 2 of those games. We were even in one game and won it. This stat seems to make little difference, (by itself, anyway).

Starters/Bench
(Total points – bench points = starters points)

Starters: Overall our starters have averaged 51.6 points per game to 47.0 for the opposition. In the wins it’s 56.0-38.5. In the losses it’s 44.6-60.6. We won this stat 7 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 4 of those games. We were even once and lost that game. There’s a reason why starters start.

Bench: Overall, our bench is scoring 25.1 points per game to 16.9 for our opponents. In the wins it’s 32.25-19.9. In the losses it’s 13.6-12.2. We won this stat 9 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 3 times and lost 2 of those games. We were even once and lost that game. Our bench has been equal to the opposition even in the losses. They have bene superior in the wins. The fact that Jim Boeheim has had to search for players who could be productive and the best combinations of them probably have contributed to the increased productivity of the bench in past years, as have the caliber of the opposition.

Assists
(The percentage of a team’s baskets that were assisted)
Overall, we’ve assisted 67.7% of our made baskets to 66.3% for the opposition. In the victories, it’s been 73.5%-57.5%. In the defeats, it’s been 53.1%-70.9%. We won this stat 7 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 4 of those games. We were even once and won that game. That study I made some years ago comparing other statistics to winning percentage show assist ratio as the stat least related to winning but it seem 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 1.108 points per possession to 0.928 for our opposition. In the wins it was 1.254-0.841. In the losses it was 0.864-1.071. We won this stat 8 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 5 of those games. That’s normal: in the decade or so I’ve computed team offensive efficiency there has been one game where the winning team had fewer points per possession, (the possessions and the final score were both one off and rounding produced the anomaly.) We’ve averaged 138.5 total possession per game, 140.4 in the wins and 135.4 in the losses. So a faster pace seems to favor us. This is the fast pace we’ve had since 2009-2010 when we averaged 142 possession per game. Since then it’s been 133, 130, 132, 122, 133 and 133. But those were for whole seasons and normally the pace slackens as we get into conference play.

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 18-15, 21-15, 20-15, 18-19. In wins it’s been 20-13, 24-15, 24-12.5, 20-19 In losses it’s been 14-18, 16-17, 14-19, 14-19. We’ve won 29 quarters, lost 22 and tied one. We’ve scored at least 15 points in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 23 times in 52 quarters. We seem to be at our best in the second quarter. We’ve had some shaky starts and, in the losses, poor second halves.

 

[SWC75]

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 1.91 two shots for every time the opposition has been called for a foul. The opposition has attempted 2.01 for every time we’ve been called for a foul. In the wins it’s been 1.92-2.30 and in the losses it’s been 1.90-1.71. We won this stat 8 times and won 7 of those games. We lost the stat 5 times and lost 4 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. Our rate is unchanged in wins or losses but the opposition is more likely to draw the foul on us in the losses than in the wins.

POINTS in PAINT TO TIMES FOULED
Overall we’ve averaged getting 1.475 points in the paint per times we’ve been fouled to 1.47 for the opposition. In wins, it’s been 1.64-1.64. In losses it’s been 1.19-1.29. We won this stat 6 times and won 4 of those games. We lost the stat 7 times and lost 3 of those games. Basically the number of times a team has gone to the basket to score has had nothing to do with the number of times they go to the line. It’s interesting that fewer fouls on these plays have been called in our losses than our wins. There have actually bene more fouls over all called in our losses, (38 total per game) than our wins (32). That means the refs are not calling fouls inside as often when we lose.

FREE THROWS (attempted) TO FOULS DRAWN
Overall, we’ve gotten to attempt 1.14 free throws per time fouled. Our opposition has attempted 1.02. In the wins, it’s been 1.09-0.98. In the losses it’s been 1.22-1.06. We won this stat 10 times and won 5 of those games. We lost the stat 3 times and lost none of those games. This is a stat that has little to with wins and losses. Like the above two stats is might show a bias by the officials. If we tended to draw foul called on two point shots and points in the paint more than the opposition and get to the line more on the fouls that were called, or if we faced a noticeable deficit in those stats, that might indicate the refs are for or against us but I don’t see it.

I’ll take another look at these numbers when we finish the ACC season and have a breakdown base on those games alone. It will be interesting to see the differences.