SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,958
- Like
- 65,486
I’ll continue doing a statistical analysis of games this year with some of the off-beat numbers I like to look at. I’ll post them after each game, probably the next day.
The first thing I’ll look at is “NET POINTS”. The idea is that each statistic in the box score is arguably worth a point, (that is, somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 points). A point is a point. Teams score an average of a point per possession so anything that gets you possession is a point. A missed shot will more often than not wind up in the possession of the other team. Most baskets are for two points so if the passer who set up the shot is given half credit, that’s worth a point. One half of the blocked shots will likely have gone in and they are almost always two pointers, so that’s a point. If you add up the “positives”, (points, + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks) and subtract the “negatives”, (missed field goals, missed free throws, turnovers and fouls), you have a number that summarizes a player’s statistical contributions to a game. Then, by averaging the net points per 40 minutes of play, you factor out differences in playing time and have a look at the player’s rate of production. Both are important. The game is won based on what you actually did, not the rate at which you did it. But the rate is a better measure of the skills you can bring to the game.
Of course, there are things players do both on and off the court that contribute to victory. Leadership, hard work, keeping the team loose, scrambling for loose balls, (that could be a statistic: when neither team is in control of the ball, who winds up with it?), sneaker-sneaker defense, keeping the ball moving on offense, etc. etc. My experience is that with rare exceptions, the players who are the most statistically productive are the ones who grade highest in the things not measured by statistics, as well.
Here are the NET POINTS of our scholarship player in the most recent game and their averages per 40 minutes of play for the season, (exhibitions games not included):
Tyler Roberson……. 21NP in 30 minutes season: 103NP in 249 minutes per 40: 16.5
Rakeem Christmas 21NP in 36 minutes season: 277NP in 432 minutes per 40: 25.6
Chris McCullough.. 9NP in 18 minutes season: 171NP in 418 minutes per 40: 16.4
Michael Gbinije….. 7NP in 38 minutes season: 116NP in 386 minutes per 40: 12.0
Trevor Cooney…… 5NP in 40 minutes season: 137NP in 503 minutes per 40: 10.9
Ron Patterson…….. 2NP in 21 minutes season: 20NP in 151 minutes per 40: 5.3
Kaleb Joseph……….. -2NP in 17 minutes season: 92NP in 441 minutes per 40: 8.3
DNP-CD- none
Chinoso Obokoh….. 0NP in 0 minutes season: 18NP in 38 minutes per 40: 18.9
B. J. Johnson……….. 0NP in 0 minutes season: 61NP in 190 minutes per 40: 12.8
INJURED
DaJuan Coleman…. 0NP in 0 minutes season: 0NP in 0 minutes per 40: 0.0
SUSPENDED
None
Comment: Tyler Roberson’s NP per 40 increased from 15.0-16.5, quite a jump 14 games into the season. It’s become pretty obvious that the five guys at the top of the list above are our best line-up. But we need to get more out of the other guys or those five guys are going to run out of gas at the end of the season.
Rakeem Christmas has led in net points 7 times, Chris McCullough 4 times, Tyler Roberson twice, Mike Gbinije and BJ Johnson once each.
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 15 offensive and 27 defensive rebounds. They had 11 offensive and 23 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 15 of 38 times, (39.4%). When they missed, they got the ball 11 of 38 times (28.9%). We’ve won the rebounding battle in every game by this measure 11 times in 14 games. We’ve averaged getting 38% of our misses and our opposition has gotten 30% of theirs.
Of our 8 turnovers, 1 were their steals and 7 were our own miscues. Of their 11 turnovers, 5 were Syracuse steals and 6 were their fault. We have had fewer turnovers in 9 of 14 games with 1 even. Last year we had fewer turnovers in 29 of 34 games with 2 even. We are averaging 13 turnovers, 6 unforced, Our opposition is averaging 15/6.
If you add our 42 rebounds to their 11 turnovers, we had 53 “manufactured possessions”. They had 34 + 8 = 42, so we were +11. We have won that battle 11 of 14 times. For the season we’ve averaged 55 to 46 (+9).
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. It’s what this game was all about, for sure. We were 17 for 38, (.447) inside the arc, 6 for 21, (.286) outside it and 16 for 28, (.571) from the line. They were 12 for 31 (.387), 10/25 (.400) and 12/17 (.706). We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 10 of 14 games and in free throw percentage in 9 games. We’ve led in three point field goals percentage, believe it or not, in 8 games, (our opposition isn’t exactly filling it up, either). For the season we are .514/.288/.657. Our opposition is .429/.290/.693.
We had 26 points in the paint, 17 off turnovers, 14 “second chance” points, 2 fast break points - 2 - and 19 from the bench. Our opposition had 12 points in the paint, 7 off turnovers, 7 “second chance” points, 4 fast break points and 14 from the bench. We’ve led in PIP 9 times, POTO 10 times, SCP 8 times, FBP 7 times with two ties and BP 8 times, with a tie. For the season we are averaging 35-23 PIP, 18-13 POTO, 13-10 SCP, 9.5-7 FBP and 13-13 BP.
We had 61 points, 34 in the paint, 12 from the arc and 7 from the line so we had 20 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 61-34-7) and scored 8 points, (20 POP-12 from the arc), from what I’ll call the “Twilight Zone”: that area between the paint and the arc that is the land of the pull-up jump shot, a lost art but a great weapon. It was a weapon we used to very good effect in this game. They had 44/20/12/2= 22 POP and 10 from the Twilight Zone. We’ve only led in POP 5 times but we’ve led in TZ points 9 times in 13 games. For the year we are averaging 22 POP and 9 TZ, our opposition 24/6. The game is so much easier when you don’t have to go to the basket for all your points.
15 of our 23 baskets were assisted (.652) and 14 of their 22 (.636). For the year we are assisting on 63% of our baskets to 64% for the opposition, who have had a higher percentage in 7 of 14 games. Assists tend to come more often from jump shots than lay-ups or dunks so the more assists you get, the more you are settling for jump shots to try to win the game which is often a bad strategy. I think it’s interesting that we have a high assist percentage with our “point guard by committee” situation. The team is at least sharing the ball well.
I’ve had the notion that assists indicate too much of a dependence on jump shots and thus a high percentage can actually be bad questioned. I’ve decided to list the history of SU’s assist percentages vs. their opponents using the number s of the SU athletic website, which goes back to the 1982-83 season.
2014 SU .491 Opponents .639
2013 SU .559 Opp .678
2012 SU .562 Opp .623
2011 SU .605 Opp .633
2010 SU .646 Opp .634
2009 SU .619 Opp .611
2008 SU .580 Opp .619
2007 SU .581 Opp .580
2006 SU .593 Opp .640
2005 SU .555 Opp .653
2004 SU .549 Opp .616
2003 SU .513 Opp .633
2002 SU .562 Opp .624
2001 SU .616 Opp .659
2000 SU .644 Opp .675
1999 SU .612 Opp .613
1998 SU .639 Opp .642
1997 SU .588 Opp .606
1996 SU .637 Opp .596
1995 SU .585 Opp .576
1994 SU .528 Opp .621
1993 SU .533 Opp .599
1992 SU .525 Opp .657
1991 SU .566 Opp .577
1990 SU .616 Opp .580
1989 SU .569 Opp .587
1988 SU .613 Opp .545
1987 SU .579 Opp .581
1986 SU .615 Opp .555
1985 SU .541 Opp .519
1984 SU .617 Opp .595
1983 SU .604 Opp .501
Average SU .583 Opp .608
Our winning percentage in this period has been .745 (810-277)
SU has led in 11 years, the opposition in 21 years.
The Tricaptains Era teams, (1981-83) were largely perimeter teams. In five of the years we have led we had Pearl Washington or Sherman Douglas at the point and were known as a fast-breaking team. Two of the SU teams that led had John Wallace. Three of theme had Arinze Onuaku and/or Rick Jackson, both excellent inside scorers and we “fed the post” a lot. But most of the time the other team has had the higher assist percentage and we have beaten them. Another factor is that we used to play a lot of man for man and a good zone defense forces more outside jump shots- and produces more assists.
Some years back I did an analysis of the stats for what was then a 20 season period, (what SAU had on the website). I ranked all teams in terms of winning percentage and then in each statistic. I then compared the rankings. If a team was 5th in a stat and #2 in winning percentage, that was 3 places off. If they were #5 in a stat and #10 in winning percentage, that was 5 places off. Then I averaged the number of places off for the 20 years. The resulting stat showed how well the two rankings correlated and thus how much that stat typically contributed to winning. Here are the resulting averages:
- 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 (The teams were ranked in order to the smallest percentage and thus the elast reliance on three pointers.)
- 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
Assists correlated less to victory than any other stat I looked at. It seemed counter-intuitive. Surely a high assist percentage meant you were playing better team ball. Somebody pointed out that most assists were horizontal- for jump shots- rather than vertical- for lay-ups and dunks. That seemed to fit the data and would explain why the losing team usually had the higher assist percentage: they were relying too much on jump shots, getting assists when they made them but also missing too many shots, which created too many opportunities for the other team, who usually won.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by taking field goal attempts – offensive rebounds + turnovers plus 47.5% of free throws attempted and dividing that into the number of points. We were 59 FGA - 15 OREBs + 8 TOs + (.475 x 28) = 65.3 possessions. They were 56 -11+ 11+ (.475 x 17) = 64.075 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one off, I’ll count that as 65 possessions in which we scored 68 points, (1.046) and 64 possessions in which they scored 66 points, (1.031). We have, of course, led 10 of 14 games in offensive efficiency since the winning team always leads in that stat. For the year we are averaging 1.042 points per possession to 0.869 for the opposition.
We had 129 combined possessions in this game. We’ve averaged 133 this year. We averaged 122 last year, so the pace appears to be better than it was last year. But the last two games have been 126 and 129 so the pace may be slowing a bit.
Hubert Davis once told us to “Get an offensive dude”. I decided to name an “Offensive Dude Of the Game, or an O-Dog, and use the hockey concept of points + assists. In this game Trevor Cooney had 18 points with 3 assists for 21 “hockey” points and thus was our co-ODOG. Rakeem Christmas has been the O-Dog 5 times, Trevor Cooney 4 times, Michael Gbinije 3 times , BJ Johnson, Kaleb Joseph and Chris McCullough once each.
Every other level of basketball plays quarters. To check the consistency of our performance, I look at what the score was at the 10 minute mark of each half to see what the quarterly scores would be. At a minimum, I think we want to score at least 15 points in each quarter and try to hold the opposition to less than that. The quarterly breakdown for this game 23-14, 19-9, 7-18, 19-25. For the season, we have an average of 16-11, 18-14, 16-15, 19-18. We’ve won 37 of 56 quarters. We’ve scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 31 times.
I also like to keep track who sits us down in each half. Besides being fun it gives an indication of who Coach B likes to design plays for since opening possessions are more likely to be scripted. Trevor Cooney opened the first half with a trey at 19:28 and Tyler Roberson did the same with a lay-up in the second half at 16:57. The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 34 seconds. Our longest wait has been 3 minutes 31 seconds in the first half vs. Cornell. Rakeem Christmas has sat us down 8 times, Kaleb Joseph and Chris McCullough 4 times, Michael Gbinije 3 times, Trevor Cooney three tiems and Tyler Roberson twice.
Another fun fact is the “Taco Bell MVP”: the guy who gets us to 75 points so people can free, (or is it discounted?) tacos at Taco Bell. There were no tacos after this game. (Although there should have been after a 42 point first half.) The longest we’ve had to wait is 3:31). Rakeem Christmas, Trevor Cooney, BJ Johnson and Ron Patterson have each got us Tacos once. (I wonder how many point we have to score to get real meat in the tacos? )
FOULS
My theory about fouls is that the team that attempts the most two point shots will tend to get fouled the most. If the numbers are as predicted or close, there’s nothing to be read into them but if there’s a big disparity, it makes you wonder about how the game was called.
In this game, we attempted 38 two point shots to 31, scored 26 points in the paint to 12 and got fouled 23 times to 18, attempting 28 foul shots to 17. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.7 for us and 1.7 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.1 for us to 0.7 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.2 for us and 0.9 for them. The number sin this game are thrown off by Buzz Williams decision to foul us for the last 3 minutes of the game as soon as we inbounded the ball and daring us to make free throws, (which we mostly failed to do). We got fouled on our last ten “possessions” and made 9 of 19 free throws in that span.
Last year we attempted 1368 two point shots to 993 for the opposition and scored 1028 PIP to 753. We committed 546 fouls to 598 and went to the line 720 to 607 times, suggesting that there should be a relationship between two points attempts and points in the point and how many fouls are called on the other team and how many times you got to the line. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 2.3 for us and 1.8 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.7 for us to 1.4 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.2 for us and 1.1 for them.
This year we have taken 591 two point shots and scored 484 points in the paint. We’ve been fouled 247 times and taken 282 free throws. Our opposition has taken 485 two point shots and scored 326 points in the paint. They’ve been fouled 209 times and taken only 216 free throws. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled has been 2.4 for us and 2.3 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled has been 2.0 for us to 1.6 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team has been 1.1 for us and 1.0 for them.
“MY MAN”
A reporter once asked Casey Stengel how come he won so many games with the Yankees. He said “Because I never play a game without “my man”. The reporter wondered who his man was. Casey suggested “You could look it up.” The reporter did look it up and found that Yogi Berra had played in every game that season at some positon: catcher, left field, pinch-hitting, something. He was the player Stengel had the highest regard for and the most trust in, so he didn’t want to do without him.
Who is Jim Boeheim’s “man” this season? The only way to tell is to see who plays the most minutes each game. In this game, Trevor Cooney played all 40 minutes. Trevor Cooney has been the “Man” 9 times, Chris McCullough and Kaleb Joseph 4 times Michael Gbinije twice and Rakeem Christmas once. Cooney has re-taken the team lead in minutes played with 503, 62 more than any other player. In the beginning of the season, I think it was because he “used up” a defender on the perimeter. Now I believe it’s because of his all-around skills in handling the ball, driving to the basket and shooting. He’s become the guy Boeheim most wants with the ball in his hands.
The first thing I’ll look at is “NET POINTS”. The idea is that each statistic in the box score is arguably worth a point, (that is, somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 points). A point is a point. Teams score an average of a point per possession so anything that gets you possession is a point. A missed shot will more often than not wind up in the possession of the other team. Most baskets are for two points so if the passer who set up the shot is given half credit, that’s worth a point. One half of the blocked shots will likely have gone in and they are almost always two pointers, so that’s a point. If you add up the “positives”, (points, + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks) and subtract the “negatives”, (missed field goals, missed free throws, turnovers and fouls), you have a number that summarizes a player’s statistical contributions to a game. Then, by averaging the net points per 40 minutes of play, you factor out differences in playing time and have a look at the player’s rate of production. Both are important. The game is won based on what you actually did, not the rate at which you did it. But the rate is a better measure of the skills you can bring to the game.
Of course, there are things players do both on and off the court that contribute to victory. Leadership, hard work, keeping the team loose, scrambling for loose balls, (that could be a statistic: when neither team is in control of the ball, who winds up with it?), sneaker-sneaker defense, keeping the ball moving on offense, etc. etc. My experience is that with rare exceptions, the players who are the most statistically productive are the ones who grade highest in the things not measured by statistics, as well.
Here are the NET POINTS of our scholarship player in the most recent game and their averages per 40 minutes of play for the season, (exhibitions games not included):
Tyler Roberson……. 21NP in 30 minutes season: 103NP in 249 minutes per 40: 16.5
Rakeem Christmas 21NP in 36 minutes season: 277NP in 432 minutes per 40: 25.6
Chris McCullough.. 9NP in 18 minutes season: 171NP in 418 minutes per 40: 16.4
Michael Gbinije….. 7NP in 38 minutes season: 116NP in 386 minutes per 40: 12.0
Trevor Cooney…… 5NP in 40 minutes season: 137NP in 503 minutes per 40: 10.9
Ron Patterson…….. 2NP in 21 minutes season: 20NP in 151 minutes per 40: 5.3
Kaleb Joseph……….. -2NP in 17 minutes season: 92NP in 441 minutes per 40: 8.3
DNP-CD- none
Chinoso Obokoh….. 0NP in 0 minutes season: 18NP in 38 minutes per 40: 18.9
B. J. Johnson……….. 0NP in 0 minutes season: 61NP in 190 minutes per 40: 12.8
INJURED
DaJuan Coleman…. 0NP in 0 minutes season: 0NP in 0 minutes per 40: 0.0
SUSPENDED
None
Comment: Tyler Roberson’s NP per 40 increased from 15.0-16.5, quite a jump 14 games into the season. It’s become pretty obvious that the five guys at the top of the list above are our best line-up. But we need to get more out of the other guys or those five guys are going to run out of gas at the end of the season.
Rakeem Christmas has led in net points 7 times, Chris McCullough 4 times, Tyler Roberson twice, Mike Gbinije and BJ Johnson once each.
POSSESSION
Before you can score you’ve got to get the rock. Syracuse had 15 offensive and 27 defensive rebounds. They had 11 offensive and 23 defensive rebounds. When we missed we got the ball 15 of 38 times, (39.4%). When they missed, they got the ball 11 of 38 times (28.9%). We’ve won the rebounding battle in every game by this measure 11 times in 14 games. We’ve averaged getting 38% of our misses and our opposition has gotten 30% of theirs.
Of our 8 turnovers, 1 were their steals and 7 were our own miscues. Of their 11 turnovers, 5 were Syracuse steals and 6 were their fault. We have had fewer turnovers in 9 of 14 games with 1 even. Last year we had fewer turnovers in 29 of 34 games with 2 even. We are averaging 13 turnovers, 6 unforced, Our opposition is averaging 15/6.
If you add our 42 rebounds to their 11 turnovers, we had 53 “manufactured possessions”. They had 34 + 8 = 42, so we were +11. We have won that battle 11 of 14 times. For the season we’ve averaged 55 to 46 (+9).
SHOOTING
It’s still what the game is all about. It’s what this game was all about, for sure. We were 17 for 38, (.447) inside the arc, 6 for 21, (.286) outside it and 16 for 28, (.571) from the line. They were 12 for 31 (.387), 10/25 (.400) and 12/17 (.706). We’ve led in two point field goal percentage in 10 of 14 games and in free throw percentage in 9 games. We’ve led in three point field goals percentage, believe it or not, in 8 games, (our opposition isn’t exactly filling it up, either). For the season we are .514/.288/.657. Our opposition is .429/.290/.693.
We had 26 points in the paint, 17 off turnovers, 14 “second chance” points, 2 fast break points - 2 - and 19 from the bench. Our opposition had 12 points in the paint, 7 off turnovers, 7 “second chance” points, 4 fast break points and 14 from the bench. We’ve led in PIP 9 times, POTO 10 times, SCP 8 times, FBP 7 times with two ties and BP 8 times, with a tie. For the season we are averaging 35-23 PIP, 18-13 POTO, 13-10 SCP, 9.5-7 FBP and 13-13 BP.
We had 61 points, 34 in the paint, 12 from the arc and 7 from the line so we had 20 ”POP”, (points outside the paint: 61-34-7) and scored 8 points, (20 POP-12 from the arc), from what I’ll call the “Twilight Zone”: that area between the paint and the arc that is the land of the pull-up jump shot, a lost art but a great weapon. It was a weapon we used to very good effect in this game. They had 44/20/12/2= 22 POP and 10 from the Twilight Zone. We’ve only led in POP 5 times but we’ve led in TZ points 9 times in 13 games. For the year we are averaging 22 POP and 9 TZ, our opposition 24/6. The game is so much easier when you don’t have to go to the basket for all your points.
15 of our 23 baskets were assisted (.652) and 14 of their 22 (.636). For the year we are assisting on 63% of our baskets to 64% for the opposition, who have had a higher percentage in 7 of 14 games. Assists tend to come more often from jump shots than lay-ups or dunks so the more assists you get, the more you are settling for jump shots to try to win the game which is often a bad strategy. I think it’s interesting that we have a high assist percentage with our “point guard by committee” situation. The team is at least sharing the ball well.
I’ve had the notion that assists indicate too much of a dependence on jump shots and thus a high percentage can actually be bad questioned. I’ve decided to list the history of SU’s assist percentages vs. their opponents using the number s of the SU athletic website, which goes back to the 1982-83 season.
2014 SU .491 Opponents .639
2013 SU .559 Opp .678
2012 SU .562 Opp .623
2011 SU .605 Opp .633
2010 SU .646 Opp .634
2009 SU .619 Opp .611
2008 SU .580 Opp .619
2007 SU .581 Opp .580
2006 SU .593 Opp .640
2005 SU .555 Opp .653
2004 SU .549 Opp .616
2003 SU .513 Opp .633
2002 SU .562 Opp .624
2001 SU .616 Opp .659
2000 SU .644 Opp .675
1999 SU .612 Opp .613
1998 SU .639 Opp .642
1997 SU .588 Opp .606
1996 SU .637 Opp .596
1995 SU .585 Opp .576
1994 SU .528 Opp .621
1993 SU .533 Opp .599
1992 SU .525 Opp .657
1991 SU .566 Opp .577
1990 SU .616 Opp .580
1989 SU .569 Opp .587
1988 SU .613 Opp .545
1987 SU .579 Opp .581
1986 SU .615 Opp .555
1985 SU .541 Opp .519
1984 SU .617 Opp .595
1983 SU .604 Opp .501
Average SU .583 Opp .608
Our winning percentage in this period has been .745 (810-277)
SU has led in 11 years, the opposition in 21 years.
The Tricaptains Era teams, (1981-83) were largely perimeter teams. In five of the years we have led we had Pearl Washington or Sherman Douglas at the point and were known as a fast-breaking team. Two of the SU teams that led had John Wallace. Three of theme had Arinze Onuaku and/or Rick Jackson, both excellent inside scorers and we “fed the post” a lot. But most of the time the other team has had the higher assist percentage and we have beaten them. Another factor is that we used to play a lot of man for man and a good zone defense forces more outside jump shots- and produces more assists.
Some years back I did an analysis of the stats for what was then a 20 season period, (what SAU had on the website). I ranked all teams in terms of winning percentage and then in each statistic. I then compared the rankings. If a team was 5th in a stat and #2 in winning percentage, that was 3 places off. If they were #5 in a stat and #10 in winning percentage, that was 5 places off. Then I averaged the number of places off for the 20 years. The resulting stat showed how well the two rankings correlated and thus how much that stat typically contributed to winning. Here are the resulting averages:
- 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 (The teams were ranked in order to the smallest percentage and thus the elast reliance on three pointers.)
- 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
Assists correlated less to victory than any other stat I looked at. It seemed counter-intuitive. Surely a high assist percentage meant you were playing better team ball. Somebody pointed out that most assists were horizontal- for jump shots- rather than vertical- for lay-ups and dunks. That seemed to fit the data and would explain why the losing team usually had the higher assist percentage: they were relying too much on jump shots, getting assists when they made them but also missing too many shots, which created too many opportunities for the other team, who usually won.
You compute “Offensive Efficiency” by taking field goal attempts – offensive rebounds + turnovers plus 47.5% of free throws attempted and dividing that into the number of points. We were 59 FGA - 15 OREBs + 8 TOs + (.475 x 28) = 65.3 possessions. They were 56 -11+ 11+ (.475 x 17) = 64.075 possessions. Since possessions shouldn’t be more than one off, I’ll count that as 65 possessions in which we scored 68 points, (1.046) and 64 possessions in which they scored 66 points, (1.031). We have, of course, led 10 of 14 games in offensive efficiency since the winning team always leads in that stat. For the year we are averaging 1.042 points per possession to 0.869 for the opposition.
We had 129 combined possessions in this game. We’ve averaged 133 this year. We averaged 122 last year, so the pace appears to be better than it was last year. But the last two games have been 126 and 129 so the pace may be slowing a bit.
Hubert Davis once told us to “Get an offensive dude”. I decided to name an “Offensive Dude Of the Game, or an O-Dog, and use the hockey concept of points + assists. In this game Trevor Cooney had 18 points with 3 assists for 21 “hockey” points and thus was our co-ODOG. Rakeem Christmas has been the O-Dog 5 times, Trevor Cooney 4 times, Michael Gbinije 3 times , BJ Johnson, Kaleb Joseph and Chris McCullough once each.
Every other level of basketball plays quarters. To check the consistency of our performance, I look at what the score was at the 10 minute mark of each half to see what the quarterly scores would be. At a minimum, I think we want to score at least 15 points in each quarter and try to hold the opposition to less than that. The quarterly breakdown for this game 23-14, 19-9, 7-18, 19-25. For the season, we have an average of 16-11, 18-14, 16-15, 19-18. We’ve won 37 of 56 quarters. We’ve scored 15 or more in 38 quarters and held the opposition under that 31 times.
I also like to keep track who sits us down in each half. Besides being fun it gives an indication of who Coach B likes to design plays for since opening possessions are more likely to be scripted. Trevor Cooney opened the first half with a trey at 19:28 and Tyler Roberson did the same with a lay-up in the second half at 16:57. The average time we’ve had to wait is 1 minute 34 seconds. Our longest wait has been 3 minutes 31 seconds in the first half vs. Cornell. Rakeem Christmas has sat us down 8 times, Kaleb Joseph and Chris McCullough 4 times, Michael Gbinije 3 times, Trevor Cooney three tiems and Tyler Roberson twice.
Another fun fact is the “Taco Bell MVP”: the guy who gets us to 75 points so people can free, (or is it discounted?) tacos at Taco Bell. There were no tacos after this game. (Although there should have been after a 42 point first half.) The longest we’ve had to wait is 3:31). Rakeem Christmas, Trevor Cooney, BJ Johnson and Ron Patterson have each got us Tacos once. (I wonder how many point we have to score to get real meat in the tacos? )
FOULS
My theory about fouls is that the team that attempts the most two point shots will tend to get fouled the most. If the numbers are as predicted or close, there’s nothing to be read into them but if there’s a big disparity, it makes you wonder about how the game was called.
In this game, we attempted 38 two point shots to 31, scored 26 points in the paint to 12 and got fouled 23 times to 18, attempting 28 foul shots to 17. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 1.7 for us and 1.7 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.1 for us to 0.7 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.2 for us and 0.9 for them. The number sin this game are thrown off by Buzz Williams decision to foul us for the last 3 minutes of the game as soon as we inbounded the ball and daring us to make free throws, (which we mostly failed to do). We got fouled on our last ten “possessions” and made 9 of 19 free throws in that span.
Last year we attempted 1368 two point shots to 993 for the opposition and scored 1028 PIP to 753. We committed 546 fouls to 598 and went to the line 720 to 607 times, suggesting that there should be a relationship between two points attempts and points in the point and how many fouls are called on the other team and how many times you got to the line. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled was 2.3 for us and 1.8 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled was 1.7 for us to 1.4 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team was 1.2 for us and 1.1 for them.
This year we have taken 591 two point shots and scored 484 points in the paint. We’ve been fouled 247 times and taken 282 free throws. Our opposition has taken 485 two point shots and scored 326 points in the paint. They’ve been fouled 209 times and taken only 216 free throws. The ratio of two point attempts to times fouled has been 2.4 for us and 2.3 for them. The ratio of points in the paint to times fouled has been 2.0 for us to 1.6 for them. The ratio of free throw attempts to fouls called on the other team has been 1.1 for us and 1.0 for them.
“MY MAN”
A reporter once asked Casey Stengel how come he won so many games with the Yankees. He said “Because I never play a game without “my man”. The reporter wondered who his man was. Casey suggested “You could look it up.” The reporter did look it up and found that Yogi Berra had played in every game that season at some positon: catcher, left field, pinch-hitting, something. He was the player Stengel had the highest regard for and the most trust in, so he didn’t want to do without him.
Who is Jim Boeheim’s “man” this season? The only way to tell is to see who plays the most minutes each game. In this game, Trevor Cooney played all 40 minutes. Trevor Cooney has been the “Man” 9 times, Chris McCullough and Kaleb Joseph 4 times Michael Gbinije twice and Rakeem Christmas once. Cooney has re-taken the team lead in minutes played with 503, 62 more than any other player. In the beginning of the season, I think it was because he “used up” a defender on the perimeter. Now I believe it’s because of his all-around skills in handling the ball, driving to the basket and shooting. He’s become the guy Boeheim most wants with the ball in his hands.
Last edited:
