Net Points Etc Part 3: Awards and Team stats | Syracusefan.com

Net Points Etc Part 3: Awards and Team stats

SWC75

Bored Historian
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
32,263
Like
62,382
These are the things I keep track of in my "Net Points Etc. posts after each game with season totals:

AWARDS

NET POINTS( see above)
Typer Lydon has led up in net points 11 times, John Gillon and Andrew White 9 times each, Da Juan Coleman, Frank Howard, Tyler Robertson and Taurean Thompson twice each. 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 and Lydon 35 in the loss to Georgetown.

O-Dog (points + assists)

White was our O-Dog 15 times, Gillon 9 times, Lydon 7 times. Battle and Thompson three times and, believe it or not, Howard twice. 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 10 times, Lydon 7 times, Gillon 5 times, Thompson 6 times, Battle 4 times and Coleman and Roberson 2 times. 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 16 sit-downs, including 15 of the last 38 halves. Andrew White had 15 sit-downs. Tyus Battle had 13, so that’s 28 of 68 sit-downs came from freshmen., (41%). Tyler Lydon had 10. It’s about making jump shots but John Gillon only sat us down once. Frank Howard and Tyler Roberson, the two non-offensive threats did it three times each and Da Juan Coleman did it twice. It’s taken an average of 1 minute, 8 seconds. The longest wait has been against Louisville in the first half of the second game: 5 minutes 36 seconds. The shots that sat us down were 28 treys,18 two point jumpers, 17 lay-ups, 4 dunks and 1 tip-in. It’s interesting that 1 of those sit-down two point jumpers came in the pre-conference season, (26 halves) and 17 of them came in the 42 halves since. When it gets harder to get a good shot, those two point jumpers start looking a bit better.

TACO BELL MVP (who got the score that got us to 70 points –or 100)
We’ve hit 70 points 24 times and 100 points three times. White has gotten us tacos 6 times, Gillon 5 times, Thompson 4 times, Lydon 3 times, Battle, Coleman and Roberson 2 times each. This stat is just for fun and doesn’t mean much but I think Gillon’s higher number than the sit-downs indicated that a point guard is more likely to look to score late in games than earlier. We reached 70 points with an average of 5:07 left, (counting the Louisville OT game as zero, because we didn’t get the 70th point until OT). The earliest was with 13:58 left, (Eastern Michigan), 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 24 times, Tyler Lydon 21 times, Tyus Battle 6 times and John Gillon 5 times and Tyler Roberson once, (26 minutes vs. Holy Cross).


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 31.8% of our misses to .370% for the opposition. In wins, it’s been 32.6%-38.4%. In losses, it’s been 30.0%-36.0%. We won this stat 13 times and won 9 of those games. We lost the stat 21 times and won 10 of those games. We just weren’t a very good rebounding team on either end. It’s normally a problem with the zone but was a bigger problem this year, mostly because with White at forward we essentially had a three guard offense.

Effective Offensive Rebounding
(Divide second chance points by the offensive rebounds)

Overall, we’ve scored an average of 1.10 points to 0.95 when getting offensive rebounds. In wins it’s been 1.14-0.94. In losses it’s been 1.05-0.97. We won this stat 23 times and won 15 of those games. We lost the stat 11 times and won 4 of those games. It’s a factor but not a huge one.

Unforced Turnovers
(Total turnovers – the other team’s steals = unforced turnovers)

Overall, we’ve averaged 12.3 turnovers a game, 6.2 of them as a result of the opposition’s steals and 6.1 from our own ‘unforced’ errors. The opposition has averaged 13.5 turnovers, 8.1 from our steals and 5.4 unforced. In wins we’ve averaged 12.4 -6.0 = 6.4 and they’ve averaged 14.4-9.1 = 5.3. In losses we’ve averaged 12.2-6.5 = 5.7 and they’ve averaged 12.3-6.9 = 5.4. We won this stat 11 times and won 6 of those games. We won this stat 11 times and won 6 of those games. We lost the stat 19 times and won 11 of those games. We were even in 4 games and won 2 of them. The most significant thing here is that we don’t force as many turnovers in our losses because we have fewer steals.

Points per Takeaway
(Points off turnovers divided by the number of turnovers the other team had)

Overall, we’ve scored 1.22 points per takeaway to the opposition’s 1.09. In wins it’s been 1.43-1.02 and in losses it’s been 0.92-1.18. We won this stat 19 times and won 14 of those games. We’ve lost the stat 13 times and won 3 of those games. We were even twice and won both games. Taking advantage of turnovers certainly helps you win.

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 1.02 for the opposition. In wins it’s been 1.25-0.97 and in losses it’s been 0.99-1.08. We won this stat 25 times and won 18 of those games. We lost the stat 9 times and won 1 of those games. Again this stat seems to have a lot to do with wins and losses: you’ve got to be opportunistic. But it’s more about the turnovers than the offensive rebounds.

Manufactured Possessions
(One teams rebounds + the other team’s turnovers)

Overall, we’ve averaged 48.2 MP per game to the opposition’s 48.1. In the wins it’s been 51.8-47.3. In the losses it’s been 43.7-49.0. We won this stat 19 times and won 14 of those games. We lost the stat 15 times and won 5 of those games. We were even once and lost that game. Possession is 9/10th of the law and a also a big chunk of basketball.


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 51.3%-49.6%. In wins it’s been 55.9%-45.6%. In losses it’s been 46.4%-53.7%. We won this stat 16 times and won 13 of those games. We lost this stat 17 times and won 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 37.9% from three point range to the opposition’s 34.3% But in wins it’s 45.3% to 28.9%. In losses it’s 28.7% to 40.9%. That’s a huge difference. We won this stat 17 times and won 15 of those games. We lost the stat 17 times and lost 4 of those games. It was as big a factor as the two point shot this year, maybe more, 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 hit 79.5% of our free throws. Gillon was 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%) were poor free throw shooters. Overall, we’ve hit 73.9% of our free throws to 65.8% for the opposition. We’ve out-scored them by 119 free throws on the season. In the wins it’s been 74.6%-65.2% and in the losses 72.9%-66.3%. We won this stat 22 times and won 13 of those games. We lost the stat 11 times and won 5 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. The vexing thing was that the most important impact free throw shooting has on a game is to protect a lead and we were almost always the team trying to catch up at the end of games.

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 26.3-27.2. In wins it’s been 27.1-24.3. In losses, it’s been 25.3-30.9.
We won this stat 15 times and won 11 of those games. We lost the stat 16 times and won 6 of those games. We were even 3 times and won 2 of those games. We held our own in the wins but our zone became a revolving door in the losses.

POP: Overall, we’ve averaged 34.9-32.3. In wins, it’s been 41.3-30.9. In losses, it’s been 26.9-34.1. We won this stat 17 times and won 14 of those games. We lost the stat 16 times and won 4 of those games. We were even once and won that game. It’s a jump shooter’s game. When the shots are falling, we were a much better team than when they aren’t.

TREY: Overall, we’ve averaged 26.4-26.1. In wins, it’s been 31.3-25.4. In loses, it’s been 20.2-27.0.
We won this stat 16 times and won 12 of those games. We lost the stat 16 times and won 6 of those games. We were even twice and split those games. Again, you’ve got to put the ball in the basket to score. It was Naismith’s first idea and his best.

TZ: Overall , we’ve averaged 8.5 points from the Twilight Zone to 6.5 for the opposition. In the wins it was 9.9-6.1. In the losses it’s 6.7-7.1. We won this stat 20 times and won 14 of those games. We lost the stat 10 times and won 5 of those games. We were even 4 times and lost every game. This game is easier if you don’t have to go all the way to basket to score.

FBP: Overall we’ve gotten 7.3 points a game off of fast breaks to 7.6 for our opposition. In the wins it’s been 9.9 to 6.4. In the losses it’s been 4.5-9.1. We won this stat 16 times and won 13 of those games. We lost the stat 15 times and won 5 of those games. We were even 3 times and we won one of them It can help a lot if you can beat the other team down the court and we didn’t do much of this in the losses.

POTO: Overall we scored 15.6 points a game on turnovers to 13.2 for the opposition. In the wins it was 18.4-11.9. In the losses it was 12.0-14.9. We won this stat 18 times and won 13 of those games. We lost the stat 14 times and won 5 of those games. We were even twice and split those games. 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 41.9 points per game in our initial sets to 40.4. In the wins it’s 46.0-36.9. In the losses it’s 36.7-44.9. We won this stat 19 times and won 14 of those games. We lost the stat 15 times and won 5 of those games. Look at 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 11.7 second chance points per game and surrendering 12.1. In wins it’s 11.5-12.6, in losses 12.0-11.5. We won this stat 16 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 17 times and won 10 of those games. We were even once and won that game. This stat, which sound important, seems to make little difference, largely because there’s not much difference in the stat.

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

Starters: Overall our starters have averaged 61.5 points per game, to 54.3 for the opposition. In the wins it’s 66.5-46.5. In the losses it’s 55.2-64.1. We won this stat 23 times and won 18 of those games. We lost the stat 10 times and won 1 of those games. One game was even and we lost that game. There’s a reason why starters start. The more they play, the more likely we are to win. On the other hand, if you play starters more than the other team does, they had better out-score the other team’s starters or we are in trouble.

Bench: Overall, our bench is scoring 14.7 points per game compared to 16.9 for the opposition. In the wins it’s 17.6-18.7. In the losses it’s 11.1-14.5. We won this stat 14 times and won 8 of those games. We lost the stat 19 times and won 11 of those games. Our winning percentage, (.571 vs. .579) is almost exactly the same whether our bench outscores theirs or doesn’t.

Assists
(The percentage of a team’s baskets that were assisted)

Overall, we’ve assisted 59.3% of our made baskets to 68.0% for the opposition. In the victories, it’s been 66.1%-63.5%. In the defeats, it’s been 48.5%-70.6%. We won this stat 13 times and won 12 of those games. We lost the stat 20 times and won 6 of those games. We were even once and won that game. 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. In a sense, the shooter assists the passer in getting assists.

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 1.115 points per possession to 1.039 for our opposition. In the wins it was 1.233-0.958. In the losses it was 0.966-1.140. We won this stat 18 times and won 18 of those games. We lost the stat 16 times and won 1 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 136.9 total possessions per game, 136.4 in the wins and 137.5 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. But the pace seemed to have little impact on whether we won or lost.

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 16-16, 19-17, 19-18, 21-20 OT: 13.5-12. In wins it’s been 18-15, 21-15, 21-17, 23-19 OT: 13-6. In losses it’s been 14-17, 16-19, 16-19, 19-21 OT: 14-18. We’ve won 70 quarters, lost 61 and tied 5. We’ve scored at least 15 points in 102 quarters and held the opposition under that 39 times in 136 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 1.89 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 1.78-2.32 and in the losses it’s been 2.04-1.95. We won this stat 21 times and won 17 of those games. We lost the stat 13 times and won 2 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 1.47 points in the paint per times we’ve been fouled to 1.72 for the opposition. In wins, it’s been 1.46-1.77. In losses it’s been 1.48-1.67. We won this stat 22 times and won 14 of those games. We lost the stat 12 times and won 5 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 1.12 free throws per time fouled. Our opposition has attempted 1.09. In the wins, it’s been 1.58-1.05. In the losses it’s been 1.09-1.13. We won this stat 21 times and won 13 of those games. We lost the stat 13 times and won 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.

Ranking of stats by impact on winning and losing
(winning percentage when we won the stat minus winning percentage when we lost it)

Starter Scoring (18-3) (.857) minus (1-11) .083 = +.774
Two Point FGA/ Times Fouled (17-4) .810 minus (2-11) .154 = +.656
Three Point Field Goal Percentage (15-2) .882 minus (4-13) .235 = +.647
Assist Ratio (12-1) .923 minus (6-14) .300 = + .623
Unsettled Situations (18-7) .720 minus (1-8) .111 = +.609
Points Outside the Paint (14-3) .824 minus (4-12) .250 = +.574
Points per Takeaway (14-5) .737 minus (3-10) .231 = +.506
Fast Break Points (13-3) .813 minus (5-10) .333 = +.480
Two Point Field Goal Percentage (13-3) .813 minus (6-11) .353 = +.460
Manufactured Possessions (14-4) .777 minus (5-10) .333 = +.444
First Chance Points (14-5) .737 minus (5-10 (.333) = +.404
Points from the Arc (12-4) .750 minus (6-10) .375 = +.375
Points off Turnovers (13-5) .722 minus 5-9 (.357) = +.365
Points in the Paint (11-4) .733 minus 6-10 (.375) = +.358
Effective Offensive Rebounding (15-8) .652 minus (4-7) .364 = +.288
Points in Paint/Times Fouled (14-8) .636 minus (5-7) .417 = +.219
Rebounding (9-4).692 minus (10-11) .476 = +.216
Twilight Zone Points (14-6) .700 minus 5-5 (.500) = +.200
Free Throw Attempts/Times Fouled (13-8) .619 minus (6-7) .462 = +.157
Free Throw Percentage (13-9) .590 minus (5-6) .455 = +.135
Bench Scoring (8-6) .571 minus (11-8) .579 = - .008
Unforced Turnovers (6-5) .545 minus (11-8) .579 = - -.034
Second Chance Points (8-8) .500 minus (10-7) .588 = - .088

The pace of games didn’t much matter: there were 136.4 possessions in an average SU win and 137.5 in an average loss. I didn’t grade Offensive Efficiency since the winning team is supposed to win that, although the Clemson game was so close that due to rounding the losing team actually won this stat.

After the 2009 season, I did a study based on all the available years as poste din the SU Media Guide and also on their website, which at that time was 1987-88 through 2008-09, 22 seasons. I ranked each team by each of several stats I was looking at the time, from 1-22. I then compared each list to the ranking of winning percentage, noting how many places different each team was in the particular stat than they were on the winning percentage ranking: If a team was 8th in rebounding, and 5th in winning percentage, that’s a differential of 3. If that team was 3rd in free throw percentage, that would be a differential of 2. Then I added up the differentials in each list and divided by 22. The result told me how similar that the ranking for that stat was to winning percentage and thus how important to winning that stat was. This was the result:

- 2 point field goal percentage had an average differential ranking of 4.25
- Rebounding had an average differential ranking of 4.70
- Percentage of field goal attempts from three point range had an average differential ranking of 4.98
- Turnovers had an average differential ranking of 5.41
- Steals had an average differential ranking of 5.93
- 3 point field goal percentage had an average differential ranking of 6.14
- Blocks had an average differential ranking of 6.84
- Percentage of made field goals that were assisted had an average differential ranking of 8.27

For this reason I’ve always stressed two point field goal percentage as the most important statistic ever since. This season, it finished 9th in a much longer list. I think the top star this year, starter scoring, is kind of an illusion: because we played our starters so much, they had to out-score the other team’s starters or we were in deep trouble. Thus we went 1-11 when they didn’t. The 2 point FGA/times fouls stat is interesting: you need to get the calls. But it’s a mystery that points in the paint /times fouled was way down the list. I didn’t see a lot of calls on 2 point jump shots this year. Assist ratio went form the bottom of the 2009 list to #4 this year. it has to be our reliance on jump shooting, which produces the majority of assists. That unsettle situations stat is very interesting. It pays to be opportunistic. But second chance points seems to have had little impact on it. Maybe we are taking the ball back out after an offensive rebound too often? POP, Points outside the paint, were clearly critical for this team and are perhaps more critical than in 1987-2009 because teams are more and more perimeter dependent overall. Fast break points are important but not quite as critical as I thought. Then comes my old pal, two point field goal percentage, which is still important but not as important as it once was, at elast for this team in this era.

We had so many close games that almost anything that could make a difference did. But free throw percentage, which was excellent once the conference season started, wasn’t the factor is could have bene because we never seemed to be in the laad near the end of games. And rebounding, which we were not strong at, wasn’t nearly the facto it was in my 2009 study. That may be because we weren’t good at it and had to find other ways to win games. Unforced turnovers, a measure of sloppiness, meant nothing and second chance points meant less than that. I guess it paid to get it right the first time.
 
Last edited:
Man this is great stuff. I wonder how many actual 2pt FGs were made compared to even last year. Even if the percentages were pretty good I'd bet there was a pretty low amount of them.

The Rak senior year team did more scoring in the paint since the outside shooting was bad. Gotta have better balance. Michigan was able to get easy points against Louisville in the paint when they shut down Michigan's 3pt assault.
 
This reminds me I'd really like to find some adderall again! This makes my posts look short...nice work, SWC75! If only we could recruit players with that kind of passion.

I'm curious if you can make a comparison of points in the paint/times fouled to maybe some of Bernie Fine's last years as the big man coach? I wouldnt ask a normal human to do that kind of work, but you seem to enjoy it ;)
 
You should be on-staff.

screen-shot-2016-07-16-at-5-44-56-am.png
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,128
Messages
4,681,666
Members
5,900
Latest member
DizzyNY

Online statistics

Members online
267
Guests online
2,070
Total visitors
2,337


Top Bottom