SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,635
- Like
- 64,738
Net Points
(points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks minus missed field goals and free throws, turnovers and personal fouls) Season net points and average per 40 minutes is in parenthesis.
Oshae Brissett 12NP in 40 minutes (481/14.0)
Paschal Chukwu -2NP in 17 minutes (348/14.2)
Marek Dolezaj 6NP in 34 minutes (255/10.2)
Tyus Battle 5NP in 40 minutes (402/11.5)
Frank Howard 6NP in 34 minutes (339/9.8)
Bourama Sidibe -1NP in 21 minutes (71/7.8)
Matthew Moyer 1NP in 8 minutes (136/9.4)
DNP coach’s decision
None
Injured or suspended
Howard Washington (24/8.6)
Left team
Geno Thorpe (14/6.5)
Awards
Offensive Dude of the Game, (O-Dog)
(Points plus assists)
Tyus Battle 17p + 2a = 19
Shooting Efficiency
(Points minus field goal and free throw attempts)
Frank Howard 13p – 5mfg – 0ft = 8
(Percentage of points scored divided by points they would have scored if they made every shot)
Frank Howard scored 13 on 6 two point attempts, 1 three point attempt and 3 free throw attempts = 13 of a possible 24 points = 54.2% of possible points scored. (see below for explanation)
Sat Us Down
(Who scored the first SU basket of each half)
1st Half- Marek Dolezaj jumper 2:24 in
2nd Half- Tyus Battle jumper 1:56 in
TACO Bell MVP
(Who scored the point that got us to 70, which gets you free tacos with your ticket stub)
Nada
My Man
(Who played the most minutes?)
Tyus Battle, Oshae Brissett 40 minutes
Team Stats:
(I’ve decided to put the team that won the stat in bold and ties in italics.)
POSSESSION
Rebounding
(Add each team’s offensive rebounds to their opponent’s defensive rebounds. Then figure the offensive rebounds as a percentage of that)
We rebounded 7 of our 29 misses = 31.6%
They rebounded 8 of their 33 misses = 24.2%
Effective Offensive Rebounding
(Divide second chance points by the offensive rebounds)
We got 5 points on 7 O-Rebs = 0.714 points/O-reb
They got 21 points on 29 O-Rebs = 0.724 points/O-reb
Unforced Turnovers
(Total turnovers – the other team’s steals = unforced turnovers)
We had 12 turnovers – 4 steals = 8 unforced
They had 14 turnovers – 5 steals = 9 unforced
Points per Takeaway
(Points off turnovers divided by the number of turnovers the other team had)
We had 12 points from 14 takeaways = 0.857 points/takeaway
They had 10 points from 12 takeaways = 0.833 points/takeaway
Unsettled Situations
(Effective offensive rebounding + Points per Takeaway: [Second Chance Point + Points off Turnovers] divided by [Offensive Rebounds + Opposition Turnovers)
We had 17 points in 21 unsettled situations = 0.810 points
They had 31 points in 41 unsettled situations = 0.756 points
Manufactured Possessions
(One teams rebounds + the other team’s turnovers)
We had 30 + 14 = 44
They had 51 + 12 = 63
Scoring
Shooting
(shots made and attempted and the percentage for two point goal attempts, three point attempts and free throws)
We were 14 for 34 on twos, (41.2%), 1 for 8 on threes (12.5%) and 24 for 31 on frees (77.4%)
They were 9 for 29 on twos, (31.0%), 8 for 37 on threes (21.6%) and 11 for 16 on frees (68.8%)
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)
We had 12 PIP, 19 POP, 3 TREY, 16 TZ, 12 POTO, 2 FBP
They had 14 PIP, 28 POP, 24 TREY, 4 TZ, 10 POTO, 2 FBP
Fast Break Percentage
(FBP/(defensive rebounds + blocks + steals)
We scored 2 FBP in 34 opportunities (5.9%)
They scored 2 FBP in 28 opportunities (7.1%)
First Chance/Second Chance
(FCP is First Chance Points, which is total points - second chance points – fast break points – free throws made. SCP is second chance points.)
We had 24 FCP and 5 SCP
They had 19 FCP and 21 SCP
Last Possessions
(Points scored on the last full possession of a half, a game or an overtime period.)
We scored 1 points
They scored 3 points
Starters/Bench
(Total points – bench points = starters points)
Our starters scored 52 points and our bench scored 3 points
Their starters scored 41 points and their bench scored 12 points
Assists
(The percentage of a team’s baskets that were assisted)
We assisted 3 of our 15 field goals = 20.0%
They assisted 11 of their 17 field goals = 64.7%
Team Offensive Possession Efficiency
(Possessions: Field goals attempted - offensive rebounds + turnovers + 47.5% of free throws attempted. Efficiency is total points divided by possessions)
We scored 55 points in 61 possessions = 0.902 points/ possession
They scored 53 points in 60 possessions = 0.883 points/possession
It was a 121 possession game. (We are averaging 130 a game in regulation.)
If you added, rather than subtracted the offensive rebounds, the ratings would be 0.797 for Syracuse and 0.625 for Michigan State. If you average ratings, it’s Syracuse 0.8495 and Michigan State 0.754. (See below for explanation.)
Team Shooting Efficiency
(points minus missed field goals and free throws)
We scored 55 points, missed 27 field goals and 7 free throws = net 21
They scored 53 points, missed 49 field goals and 5 free throws = net -1
(Points scored divided by potential points scored if we’d made every shot)
We scored 55 on 34 two point attempts, 8 three point attempts and 31 free throw attempts = 55 of a possible 123 points = 44.7% of possible points scored. (see below for explanation)
They scored 53 on 29 two point attempts, 37 three point attempt and 16 free throw attempts = 53 of a possible 185 points = 28.6% of possible points scored. (see below for explanation)
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)
10-12, 12-13, 17-15, 16-13
Fouls
(Two point shots and free throws attempted per times fouled.)
We attempted 34 two point shots, attempted 31 free throws and were fouled 22 times = 1.55; 1.41
They attempted 29 two point shots, attempted 20 free throws and were fouled 20 times = 1.45; 0.80
They were more likely to get calls when attempting two point shots but we got the same number of free throws out of it when fouled.
Comments:
- We lost the “manufactured possession” stat by 19, the largest margin of the season. The previous high was 16, (40-56) to Notre Dame.
- For the second straight game we had 16 points from the Twilight Zone to 4 for our opponents- this in games decided by a total of 7 points. For the tournament we are +28 from the TZ and +148 for the season.
- For years, I’ve been using the same formula for computing possessions: field goal attempts – offensive rebounds + turnovers + (.475 X free throw attempts). It results in a number for each team that is either the same or one off, which seems right because possessions alternate. Occasionally one of the numbers is more than one off and I add and subtract one to bring them closer together in my team scoring efficiency computation. Watching this game, I felt that that formula produced a misleading result: I have Syracuse with 42-7+12 + (.475 x 31) =61.725 possessions and Michigan State with 66-29+14 + (.475 x 16) = 58.6 possessions. I’d convert that into 61 possessions for Syracuse and 60 for Michigan State because, since the possessions alternate, they can’t be more than one off. Then divide the points by the possessions and for Syracuse you get 55/61 = 0.902. For the Spartans you get 53/60 = 0.883. That’s not deceiving: it was a two point game. It’s also not informative for the same reason. The season efficiency rating is somewhat more interesting: Syracuse 1.028 Opponents 0.977. The real comparison is the season average vs. the average in an individual game.
In this game, Michigan State actually got a lot more than 60 possessions. On most of their offensive rebounds, they threw the ball back to guards and set up again. We had to play defense all over again. If basketball has a time of possession stat, the Spartans would have been way ahead. They probably had the ball 2/3 of the time. The formula I’ve bene using treats an offensive rebound as being part of the same possession when, in fact, they often produce an additional possession. That’s why Michigan State got off 66 shots to our 42, even though the number of fouls was comparable, (20-22). What if we added offensive rebounds instead of subtracting them? That would give Syracuse 69 possessions and an efficiency rate of 0.797 and Michigan State 88 possessions and a rate of 0.625. That may be a better representation of how the defenses played and it’s not simply a dull reflection of the final score. It’s also misleading because many offensive rebounds are simply follow shots. It’s an exaggeration to see that as a new possession. There’s nothing in the box score to tell us if an offensive rebound resulted in a follow shot or a reset of the offense.
A third alternative is the comparison of first chance points to second chance points: in this case SU was 24-19 in first chance points and 5-21 in second chance points. But that has us losing by a net 11 points because it doesn’t include free throws.
How about the same formula I use for individual offensive efficiency? Syracuse scored 55 points, missed 27 field goals and 7 free throws. That a net of 21. Michigan State scored 53 points, missed 49 field goals and 5 free throws. That’s a net of -1. That’s how much better our defense was than theirs. But that doesn’t give you points per possession and we didn’t win by 20.
And here’s another idea: What if a player or a team hit all their shots? How many points would they have scored? Now divide that by the number of points they did score. Again, it’s a shooting statistic rather than a possession statistic, but I like it.
My observation on statistics is that none of them are perfect so the closest you can get to perfection is to look at all of them. For that reason, I’m adding three two new team stats. I’ll keep track of efficiency per possession both subtracting free throws and adding them probably the truest measure of possession efficiency is to average the two, assuming that the offensive rebounds were split between follow shots and resets (which would produce a 0.8495 average for Syracuse and 0.754 for State). Maybe someday they will distinguish between follow shots and new possession in the box score. I’ll also have a team shooting efficiency rating in addition to a possession rating and I’ll include a percentage of possible points scored.
(points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks minus missed field goals and free throws, turnovers and personal fouls) Season net points and average per 40 minutes is in parenthesis.
Oshae Brissett 12NP in 40 minutes (481/14.0)
Paschal Chukwu -2NP in 17 minutes (348/14.2)
Marek Dolezaj 6NP in 34 minutes (255/10.2)
Tyus Battle 5NP in 40 minutes (402/11.5)
Frank Howard 6NP in 34 minutes (339/9.8)
Bourama Sidibe -1NP in 21 minutes (71/7.8)
Matthew Moyer 1NP in 8 minutes (136/9.4)
DNP coach’s decision
None
Injured or suspended
Howard Washington (24/8.6)
Left team
Geno Thorpe (14/6.5)
Awards
Offensive Dude of the Game, (O-Dog)
(Points plus assists)
Tyus Battle 17p + 2a = 19
Shooting Efficiency
(Points minus field goal and free throw attempts)
Frank Howard 13p – 5mfg – 0ft = 8
(Percentage of points scored divided by points they would have scored if they made every shot)
Frank Howard scored 13 on 6 two point attempts, 1 three point attempt and 3 free throw attempts = 13 of a possible 24 points = 54.2% of possible points scored. (see below for explanation)
Sat Us Down
(Who scored the first SU basket of each half)
1st Half- Marek Dolezaj jumper 2:24 in
2nd Half- Tyus Battle jumper 1:56 in
TACO Bell MVP
(Who scored the point that got us to 70, which gets you free tacos with your ticket stub)
Nada
My Man
(Who played the most minutes?)
Tyus Battle, Oshae Brissett 40 minutes
Team Stats:
(I’ve decided to put the team that won the stat in bold and ties in italics.)
POSSESSION
Rebounding
(Add each team’s offensive rebounds to their opponent’s defensive rebounds. Then figure the offensive rebounds as a percentage of that)
We rebounded 7 of our 29 misses = 31.6%
They rebounded 8 of their 33 misses = 24.2%
Effective Offensive Rebounding
(Divide second chance points by the offensive rebounds)
We got 5 points on 7 O-Rebs = 0.714 points/O-reb
They got 21 points on 29 O-Rebs = 0.724 points/O-reb
Unforced Turnovers
(Total turnovers – the other team’s steals = unforced turnovers)
We had 12 turnovers – 4 steals = 8 unforced
They had 14 turnovers – 5 steals = 9 unforced
Points per Takeaway
(Points off turnovers divided by the number of turnovers the other team had)
We had 12 points from 14 takeaways = 0.857 points/takeaway
They had 10 points from 12 takeaways = 0.833 points/takeaway
Unsettled Situations
(Effective offensive rebounding + Points per Takeaway: [Second Chance Point + Points off Turnovers] divided by [Offensive Rebounds + Opposition Turnovers)
We had 17 points in 21 unsettled situations = 0.810 points
They had 31 points in 41 unsettled situations = 0.756 points
Manufactured Possessions
(One teams rebounds + the other team’s turnovers)
We had 30 + 14 = 44
They had 51 + 12 = 63
Scoring
Shooting
(shots made and attempted and the percentage for two point goal attempts, three point attempts and free throws)
We were 14 for 34 on twos, (41.2%), 1 for 8 on threes (12.5%) and 24 for 31 on frees (77.4%)
They were 9 for 29 on twos, (31.0%), 8 for 37 on threes (21.6%) and 11 for 16 on frees (68.8%)
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)
We had 12 PIP, 19 POP, 3 TREY, 16 TZ, 12 POTO, 2 FBP
They had 14 PIP, 28 POP, 24 TREY, 4 TZ, 10 POTO, 2 FBP
Fast Break Percentage
(FBP/(defensive rebounds + blocks + steals)
We scored 2 FBP in 34 opportunities (5.9%)
They scored 2 FBP in 28 opportunities (7.1%)
First Chance/Second Chance
(FCP is First Chance Points, which is total points - second chance points – fast break points – free throws made. SCP is second chance points.)
We had 24 FCP and 5 SCP
They had 19 FCP and 21 SCP
Last Possessions
(Points scored on the last full possession of a half, a game or an overtime period.)
We scored 1 points
They scored 3 points
Starters/Bench
(Total points – bench points = starters points)
Our starters scored 52 points and our bench scored 3 points
Their starters scored 41 points and their bench scored 12 points
Assists
(The percentage of a team’s baskets that were assisted)
We assisted 3 of our 15 field goals = 20.0%
They assisted 11 of their 17 field goals = 64.7%
Team Offensive Possession Efficiency
(Possessions: Field goals attempted - offensive rebounds + turnovers + 47.5% of free throws attempted. Efficiency is total points divided by possessions)
We scored 55 points in 61 possessions = 0.902 points/ possession
They scored 53 points in 60 possessions = 0.883 points/possession
It was a 121 possession game. (We are averaging 130 a game in regulation.)
If you added, rather than subtracted the offensive rebounds, the ratings would be 0.797 for Syracuse and 0.625 for Michigan State. If you average ratings, it’s Syracuse 0.8495 and Michigan State 0.754. (See below for explanation.)
Team Shooting Efficiency
(points minus missed field goals and free throws)
We scored 55 points, missed 27 field goals and 7 free throws = net 21
They scored 53 points, missed 49 field goals and 5 free throws = net -1
(Points scored divided by potential points scored if we’d made every shot)
We scored 55 on 34 two point attempts, 8 three point attempts and 31 free throw attempts = 55 of a possible 123 points = 44.7% of possible points scored. (see below for explanation)
They scored 53 on 29 two point attempts, 37 three point attempt and 16 free throw attempts = 53 of a possible 185 points = 28.6% of possible points scored. (see below for explanation)
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)
10-12, 12-13, 17-15, 16-13
Fouls
(Two point shots and free throws attempted per times fouled.)
We attempted 34 two point shots, attempted 31 free throws and were fouled 22 times = 1.55; 1.41
They attempted 29 two point shots, attempted 20 free throws and were fouled 20 times = 1.45; 0.80
They were more likely to get calls when attempting two point shots but we got the same number of free throws out of it when fouled.
Comments:
- We lost the “manufactured possession” stat by 19, the largest margin of the season. The previous high was 16, (40-56) to Notre Dame.
- For the second straight game we had 16 points from the Twilight Zone to 4 for our opponents- this in games decided by a total of 7 points. For the tournament we are +28 from the TZ and +148 for the season.
- For years, I’ve been using the same formula for computing possessions: field goal attempts – offensive rebounds + turnovers + (.475 X free throw attempts). It results in a number for each team that is either the same or one off, which seems right because possessions alternate. Occasionally one of the numbers is more than one off and I add and subtract one to bring them closer together in my team scoring efficiency computation. Watching this game, I felt that that formula produced a misleading result: I have Syracuse with 42-7+12 + (.475 x 31) =61.725 possessions and Michigan State with 66-29+14 + (.475 x 16) = 58.6 possessions. I’d convert that into 61 possessions for Syracuse and 60 for Michigan State because, since the possessions alternate, they can’t be more than one off. Then divide the points by the possessions and for Syracuse you get 55/61 = 0.902. For the Spartans you get 53/60 = 0.883. That’s not deceiving: it was a two point game. It’s also not informative for the same reason. The season efficiency rating is somewhat more interesting: Syracuse 1.028 Opponents 0.977. The real comparison is the season average vs. the average in an individual game.
In this game, Michigan State actually got a lot more than 60 possessions. On most of their offensive rebounds, they threw the ball back to guards and set up again. We had to play defense all over again. If basketball has a time of possession stat, the Spartans would have been way ahead. They probably had the ball 2/3 of the time. The formula I’ve bene using treats an offensive rebound as being part of the same possession when, in fact, they often produce an additional possession. That’s why Michigan State got off 66 shots to our 42, even though the number of fouls was comparable, (20-22). What if we added offensive rebounds instead of subtracting them? That would give Syracuse 69 possessions and an efficiency rate of 0.797 and Michigan State 88 possessions and a rate of 0.625. That may be a better representation of how the defenses played and it’s not simply a dull reflection of the final score. It’s also misleading because many offensive rebounds are simply follow shots. It’s an exaggeration to see that as a new possession. There’s nothing in the box score to tell us if an offensive rebound resulted in a follow shot or a reset of the offense.
A third alternative is the comparison of first chance points to second chance points: in this case SU was 24-19 in first chance points and 5-21 in second chance points. But that has us losing by a net 11 points because it doesn’t include free throws.
How about the same formula I use for individual offensive efficiency? Syracuse scored 55 points, missed 27 field goals and 7 free throws. That a net of 21. Michigan State scored 53 points, missed 49 field goals and 5 free throws. That’s a net of -1. That’s how much better our defense was than theirs. But that doesn’t give you points per possession and we didn’t win by 20.
And here’s another idea: What if a player or a team hit all their shots? How many points would they have scored? Now divide that by the number of points they did score. Again, it’s a shooting statistic rather than a possession statistic, but I like it.
My observation on statistics is that none of them are perfect so the closest you can get to perfection is to look at all of them. For that reason, I’m adding three two new team stats. I’ll keep track of efficiency per possession both subtracting free throws and adding them probably the truest measure of possession efficiency is to average the two, assuming that the offensive rebounds were split between follow shots and resets (which would produce a 0.8495 average for Syracuse and 0.754 for State). Maybe someday they will distinguish between follow shots and new possession in the box score. I’ll also have a team shooting efficiency rating in addition to a possession rating and I’ll include a percentage of possible points scored.