SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,635
- Like
- 64,740
We just had a game in which Michigan State shot 66 field goal attempts to our 42 and yet we beat them. Fouls were about equal, (20-22), but rebounds were not, (29-52), especially offensive rebounds, (7-29). Despite the lack of a disparity in fouls called, we got to the line a lot more (31-16).But you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight and 15 extra free throw attempts would not normally negate 24 extra field goal attempts- unless there was disparity in shooting percentages. Neither team shot well but the Spartans were worse. Specifically, we shot 14 for 34, (41.2%), inside the arc, 1 for 8, (12.5%) outside of it and 24 for 31, (77.4%) from the free throw line. State was 9 for 29, (31.0%), 8 for 37, (21.6%) and 11 for 16, (68.8%). We got 28 points inside the arc, 3 outside of it and 24 from the line for our 55 points. They got 18 inside, 24 outside and 11 from the line for their 53 points.
An idea popped into my mind from somewhere: how many points would each team have scored if they’d made every shot? We would have scored 68 points inside the arc, 24 outside it and 31 from the line for an impressive 123 points. But the Spartans would have scored 58 inside, 111 outside and 16 from the line, a whopping total of 185 points. A team that could have beaten us by 62 points instead lost by 2!
It seemed like a different and interesting way to look at efficiency: we scored 55 of a possible 123 points (44.7%) while they scored 53 of a possible 185 points (28.6%). Our scoring hardly seemed efficient but their inefficiency was so great that it turned a rout into an upset. It bears noting for tonight’s game: we can’t assume at any other opponent will shoot that badly. We’ve got to do a better job of getting shots and preventing them to have a chance to win.
Of course, no stat tells the whole picture. A missed shot might be wide open or heavily defended. Or it might be from father out that the shooter was used to or taken more quickly than he it used to. Or it might simply be ill-advised due to distance, time on the shot clock, somebody else being more open, etc. It’s impossible to tell the extent to which a number is due to one team’s incompetence or another’s excellence. But the number and type of shots they get off is significant. And the greater number of shots, games and season, the more meaningful the stat is likely to become. I decided to play around with it and see what revelations might occur.
Firstly I looked at the “scoring efficiency” of our individual players in individual games over the course of the season:
Cornell Tyus Battle 18 of 39 points = 46.2%
Iona Tyus Battle 28 of 51 points = 54.9%
Texas Southern Tyus Battle 21 of 32 points = 65.6%
Oakland Paschal Chukwu 12 of 14 points = 85.7%
Toledo Matthew Moyer 11 of 17 points = 64.7%
Maryland Bourama Sidibie 8 of 10 points = 80.0%
Kansas Frank Howard 15 of 34 points = 44.1%
Connecticut Matthew Moyer 18 of 26 points = 69.2%
Colgate Oshae Brissett 20 of 34 points = 58.8%
Georgetown Oshae Brissett 25 of 53 points = 47.2%
Buffalo Oshea Brissett 25 of 40 points = 62.5%
St. Bonaventure Marek Dolezaj 9 of 16 points = 56.25%
Eastern Michigan Paschal Chukwu 15 of 23 points = 65.2%
Virginia Tech Matthew Moyer 11 of 17 points = 64.7%
Wake Forest Paschal Chukwu 10 of 12 points = 83.3%
Notre Dame Tyus Battle 21 of 39 points = 53.8%
Virginia Paschal Chukwu 9 of 14 points = 64.3%
Florida State Paschal Chukwu 10 of 12 points = 83.3%
Pittsburgh Paschal Chukwu 8 of 12 points = 66.7%
Boston College Marek Dolezaj 12 of 12 points = 100.0%
Pittsburgh Bourama Sidibie 18 of 24 points = 75.0%
Georgia Tech Oshea Brissett 11 of 26 points = 42.3%
Virginia Marek Dolezaj 9 of 14 points = 64.3%
Louisville Marek Dolezaj 8 of 13 points = 61.5%
Wake Forest Tyus Battle 34 of 53 points = 64.2%
North Carolina State Mathew Moyer 8 of 10 points = 80.0%
Miami Marek Dolezaj 11 of 14 points = 78.6%
North Carolina Frank Howard 23 of 46 points = 50.0%
Duke Mathew Moyer 5 of 10 points = 50%
Boston College Oshae Brissett 18 of 30 points = 60.0%
Clemson Oshae Brissett 17 of 31 points = 54.8%
Wake Forest Marek Dolezaj 20 of 24 points = 83.3%
North Carolina Oshae Brissett 20 of 37 points = 54.1%
Arizona State Marek Dolezaj 5 of 10 points = 50.0%
Texas Christian Marek Dolezaj 17 of 27 points = 63.0%
Michigan State Frank Howard 13 of 24 points = 54.2%
Marek Dolezaj has been the most efficient scorer 8 times, Oshae Brissett 7 times, Paschal Chukwu 6 times, Tyus Battle 5 times, Matthew Moyer 4 times, Frank Howard 3 times and Bourama Sidibie 2 times.
Seasonal stats:
Paschal Chukwu has scored 191 of a possible 296 points = 64.5%
Marek Dolezaj has scored 201 of a possible 361 points = 55.7%
Bourama Sidibie has scored 79 of a possible 142 points = 55.6%
Matthew Moyer has scored 111 of a possible 218 points = 50.9%
Tyus Battle has scored 693 of a possible 1569 points = 44.2%
Oshae Brissett has scored 538 of a possible 1264 points = 42.6%
Frank Howard has scored 527 of a possible 1308 points = 40.3%
Howard Washington has scored 19 of a possible 56 points = 33.9%
FWIW:
Geno Thorpe has scored 38 of a possible 95 points = 40.0%
It pays to be closer to the basket, both horizontally and vertically. It also matters a great deal how much defensive attention you are getting. Our “Big three” are our least efficient scorers, despite being our best scorers. Two of them are guards and the other plays like one when he has the ball. The other players get less attention and do most of their scoring around the basket. So, as an individual stat, this isn’t all that revealing, although it’s interesting to note that our leading scorer, Tyus Battle, has not been the most efficient one since the second Wake Forest game. He was the most efficient in the first three games and only twice since. Defenses realized he was our primary scorer and he’s been dribbling uphill ever since. But Frank Howard and Oshae Brissett have been most efficient 5 times in the last 8 games. Marek Dolezaj was the MES once in the first 19 games and 7 times in the last 17.
Here are the team scores for this season’s games:
Cornell 77/175 = 44.0% vs. 45/157 = 28.7%
Iona 71/148 = 48.0% vs. 62/162 = 38.3%
Texas Southern 80/168 = 47.6% vs. 67/141 = 47.5%
Oakland 74/154 = 48.1% vs. 50/151 = 33.1%
Toledo 72/164 = 43.9% vs. 64/155 = 41.3%
Maryland 72/164 = 43.9% vs. 70/145 = 48.3%
Kansas 60/165 = 36.4% vs. 76/178 = 42.7%
Connecticut 72/151 = 47.7% vs. 63/136 = 46.3%
Colgate 72/137 = 52.6% vs. 58/141 = 41.1%
Georgetown 86/189 = 45.5% vs. 79/161 = 49.1%
Buffalo 81/144 = 56.25% vs. 74/185 = 40.0%
St. Bonaventure 57/167 = 34.1% vs. 60/151 = 39.7%
Eastern Michigan 62/138 = 44.9% vs. 47/127 = 37.0%
Virginia Tech 68/129 = 52.7% vs. 56/152 = 36.8%
Wake Forest 67/141 = 47.5% vs. 73/155 = 47.1%
Notre Dame 49/116 = 42.2% vs. 51/149 = 34.2%
Virginia 61/152 = 40.1% vs. 68/155 = 43.9%
Florida State 90/189 = 47.6% vs. 101/230 = 43.9%
Pittsburgh 59/132 = 44.7% vs. 45/114 = 39.5%
Boston College 81/134 = 60.4% vs. 63/123 = 51.2%
Pittsburgh 60/149 = 40.3% vs. 55/178 = 30.9%
Georgia Tech 51/138 = 37.0% vs. 55/156 = 35.3%
Virginia 44/133 = 33.3% vs. 59/125 = 47.2%
Louisville 78/148 = 52.7% vs. 73/151 = 48.3%
Wake Forest 78/151 = 51.7% vs. 70/145 = 47.6%
North Carolina State 70/129 = 54.2% vs. 74/134 = 55.2%
Miami 62/129 = 48.1% vs. 55/161 = 34.2%
North Carolina 74/156 = 47.4% vs. 78/167 = 46.7%
Duke 44/139 = 31.7% vs. 60/140 = 42.9%
Boston College 70/149 = 47.0% vs. 85/159 = 53.5%
Clemson 55/145 = 37.9% vs. 52/122 = 42.6%
Wake Forest 73/130 = 56.2% vs. 64/170 = 37.6%
North Carolina 59/163 = 36.2% vs. 78/161 = 48.4%
Arizona State 60/141 = 42.6% vs. 56/146 = 38.4%
Texas Christian 57/143 = 39.9% vs. 52/130 = 40.0%
Michigan State 55/123 = 44.7% vs. 53/185 = 28.6%
We’ve led in this stat 24 times in 36 games.
Pre-conference:
In Wins: 819/1682 = 48.7% vs. 679/1661 = 40.9%
In Losses: 117/332 =35.2% vs. 136/329 = 41.3%
Total: 936/2014 = 46.5% vs. 815/1990 = 41.0%
Conference:
In Wins: 541/1117 = 48.4% vs. 469/1146 = 40.9%
In Losses: 620/1442 = 43.0% vs. 704/1570 = 44.8%
Total: 1161/2559 = 45.4% vs. 1173/2716 = 43.2%
Post Season:
In Wins: 245/537 = 45.6% vs. 225/631 = 35.7%
In Losses: 59/163 = 36.2% vs. 78/161 = 48.4%
Total: 304/700 = 43.4% vs. 303/792 = 38.3%
Season totals:
In Wins: 1605/3336 = 48.1% vs. 1373/3438 = 39.9%
In Losses: 796/1937= 41.1% vs. 918/ 2060 = 44.6%
Total: 2401/5273 = 45.5% vs. 2291/5498 = 41.7%
In the pre-conference games, our defensive stats were extremely consistent: the big difference was our offensive efficiency. Of course the sample of lost games is very small: only 2. In conference games and the post season, (which includes the ACC tournament), our scoring went down and the oppositions scoring went up, as you would anticipate. The big thing the numbers give us is what an average game should look like: Our 44.7% in the Michigan State game is pretty normal: their 28.6% is the worst we or any of our opponents have had all year, with the only game really close to it being Cornell in the opener (28.7%). Even Arizona State and TCU were nowhere near that level of inefficiency. For that reason, we can’t depend on Duke or any future opponent to be nearly that bad.
Finally, I looked at Historical team numbers from the information in the media Guide. It’s also available from Cuse.com site: Year-by-Year Statistics/Final Release which has everything from 1981 onward and selected years before that. And this site has the numbers a going all the way back to 1950: Syracuse Orange Basketball Season Records although they don’t give opponent’s numbers and were not kind enough to give team totals, (so individual totals have to be added up). For now I’ll leave it at the Jim Boeheim era, plus two significant years:
1965-66 2773/6260 = 44.2% vs. 2311/5003 = 46.2%
1974-75 2627/5128 = 51.2% vs. 2370/4954 = 47.8%
1976-77 2608/5111 = 51.0%
1977-78 2644/4689 = 56.4%
1978-79 2660/4701 = 56.6%
1979-80 2575/4534 = 56.8%
1980-81 2630/4611 = 57.0% vs. 2440/4791 = 50.9%
1981-82 2296/4127 = 55.6% vs. 2197/4086 = 53.8%
1982-83 2612/4657 = 56.1% vs. 2311/4557 = 50.7%
1983-84 2512/4612 = 54.5% vs. 2311/4659 = 49.7%
1984-85 2263/4227 = 53.5% vs. 2104/4218 = 49.9%
1985-86 2674/4845 = 55.2% vs. 2184/4573 = 47.8%
1986-87 3145/5894 = 53.6% vs. 2766/6028 = 45.9%
1987-88 2965/5667 = 52.3% vs. 2466/5361 = 46.0%
1988-89 3410/6278 = 54.3% vs. 2891/6132 = 47.1%
1989-90 2721/5458 = 49.9% vs. 2349/5081 = 46.2%
1990-91 2681/5407 = 49.6% vs. 2380/5231 = 45.5%
1991-92 2383/5231 = 45.6% vs. 2259/4885 = 46.2%
1992-93 2303/4727 = 48.7% vs. 2139/4671 = 45.8%
1993-94 2517/5116 = 49.2% vs. 2248/5067 = 44.4%
1994-95 2471/4955 = 49.9% vs. 2202/4950 = 44.5%
1995-96 2897/5872 = 49.3% vs. 2607/6149 = 42.4%
1996-97 2397/5309 = 45.1% vs. 2208/5154 = 42.8%
1997-98 2481/5401 = 45.9% vs. 2345/5396 = 43.5%
1998-99 2387/5188 = 46.0% vs. 2086/4904 = 42.5%
1999-00 2400/4898 = 49.9% vs. 2033/4782 = 42.5%
2000-01 2475/5337 = 46.4% vs. 2294/5261 = 43.6%
2001-02 2603/5704 = 45.6% vs. 2404/5621 = 42.8%
2002-03 2785/5638 = 49.4% vs. 2435/5967 = 40.8%
2003-04 2265/4753 = 47.7% vs. 2096/4950 = 42.3%
2004-05 2548/5161 = 49.4% vs. 2197/5299 = 41.5%
2005-06 2535/5630 = 45.0% vs. 2412/5596 = 43.1%
2006-07 2645/5611 = 47.1% vs. 2380/5982 = 39.8%
2007-08 2765/5570 = 49.6% vs. 2601/5870 = 44.3%
2008-09 3046/6181 = 49.3% vs. 2725/6555 = 41.6%
2009-10 2832/5411 = 52.3% vs. 2324/5717 = 40.7%
2010-11 2568/5307 = 48.4% vs. 2216/5369 = 41.3%
2011-12 2742/5689 = 48.2% vs. 2257/5514 = 40.9%
2012-13 2816/6128 = 46.0% vs. 2347/5937 = 39.5%
2013-14 2311/4966 = 46.5% vs. 2012/4626 = 43.5%
2014-15 2096/4694 = 44.7% vs. 1965/4612 = 42.6%
2015-16 2589/5776 = 44.8% vs. 2409/5695 = 42.3%
2016-17 2594/5372 = 48.3% vs. 2416/5485 = 44.0%
2017-18 2401/5273 = 45.5% vs. 2291/5498 = 41.7% (so far)
The famous 1965-66 steam that scored 99 points a game wasn’t all that efficient at scoring. They just played the game at such a pace that they got huge numbers of shots off. I never saw them play, even though I started to follow SU basketball that year via the newspapers. I wish I had seen them play. The thing that really jumps out at you is the +50% efficiency of the teams from the mid 70’s to the mid 80’s and the fact that it goes down into the mid and occasionally the high 40’s after that. The 2010 team was so fun to watch because they were our best offensive team in 21 years. This year’s team is our best defensive team since 2013, a team they have been compared to.
An idea popped into my mind from somewhere: how many points would each team have scored if they’d made every shot? We would have scored 68 points inside the arc, 24 outside it and 31 from the line for an impressive 123 points. But the Spartans would have scored 58 inside, 111 outside and 16 from the line, a whopping total of 185 points. A team that could have beaten us by 62 points instead lost by 2!
It seemed like a different and interesting way to look at efficiency: we scored 55 of a possible 123 points (44.7%) while they scored 53 of a possible 185 points (28.6%). Our scoring hardly seemed efficient but their inefficiency was so great that it turned a rout into an upset. It bears noting for tonight’s game: we can’t assume at any other opponent will shoot that badly. We’ve got to do a better job of getting shots and preventing them to have a chance to win.
Of course, no stat tells the whole picture. A missed shot might be wide open or heavily defended. Or it might be from father out that the shooter was used to or taken more quickly than he it used to. Or it might simply be ill-advised due to distance, time on the shot clock, somebody else being more open, etc. It’s impossible to tell the extent to which a number is due to one team’s incompetence or another’s excellence. But the number and type of shots they get off is significant. And the greater number of shots, games and season, the more meaningful the stat is likely to become. I decided to play around with it and see what revelations might occur.
Firstly I looked at the “scoring efficiency” of our individual players in individual games over the course of the season:
Cornell Tyus Battle 18 of 39 points = 46.2%
Iona Tyus Battle 28 of 51 points = 54.9%
Texas Southern Tyus Battle 21 of 32 points = 65.6%
Oakland Paschal Chukwu 12 of 14 points = 85.7%
Toledo Matthew Moyer 11 of 17 points = 64.7%
Maryland Bourama Sidibie 8 of 10 points = 80.0%
Kansas Frank Howard 15 of 34 points = 44.1%
Connecticut Matthew Moyer 18 of 26 points = 69.2%
Colgate Oshae Brissett 20 of 34 points = 58.8%
Georgetown Oshae Brissett 25 of 53 points = 47.2%
Buffalo Oshea Brissett 25 of 40 points = 62.5%
St. Bonaventure Marek Dolezaj 9 of 16 points = 56.25%
Eastern Michigan Paschal Chukwu 15 of 23 points = 65.2%
Virginia Tech Matthew Moyer 11 of 17 points = 64.7%
Wake Forest Paschal Chukwu 10 of 12 points = 83.3%
Notre Dame Tyus Battle 21 of 39 points = 53.8%
Virginia Paschal Chukwu 9 of 14 points = 64.3%
Florida State Paschal Chukwu 10 of 12 points = 83.3%
Pittsburgh Paschal Chukwu 8 of 12 points = 66.7%
Boston College Marek Dolezaj 12 of 12 points = 100.0%
Pittsburgh Bourama Sidibie 18 of 24 points = 75.0%
Georgia Tech Oshea Brissett 11 of 26 points = 42.3%
Virginia Marek Dolezaj 9 of 14 points = 64.3%
Louisville Marek Dolezaj 8 of 13 points = 61.5%
Wake Forest Tyus Battle 34 of 53 points = 64.2%
North Carolina State Mathew Moyer 8 of 10 points = 80.0%
Miami Marek Dolezaj 11 of 14 points = 78.6%
North Carolina Frank Howard 23 of 46 points = 50.0%
Duke Mathew Moyer 5 of 10 points = 50%
Boston College Oshae Brissett 18 of 30 points = 60.0%
Clemson Oshae Brissett 17 of 31 points = 54.8%
Wake Forest Marek Dolezaj 20 of 24 points = 83.3%
North Carolina Oshae Brissett 20 of 37 points = 54.1%
Arizona State Marek Dolezaj 5 of 10 points = 50.0%
Texas Christian Marek Dolezaj 17 of 27 points = 63.0%
Michigan State Frank Howard 13 of 24 points = 54.2%
Marek Dolezaj has been the most efficient scorer 8 times, Oshae Brissett 7 times, Paschal Chukwu 6 times, Tyus Battle 5 times, Matthew Moyer 4 times, Frank Howard 3 times and Bourama Sidibie 2 times.
Seasonal stats:
Paschal Chukwu has scored 191 of a possible 296 points = 64.5%
Marek Dolezaj has scored 201 of a possible 361 points = 55.7%
Bourama Sidibie has scored 79 of a possible 142 points = 55.6%
Matthew Moyer has scored 111 of a possible 218 points = 50.9%
Tyus Battle has scored 693 of a possible 1569 points = 44.2%
Oshae Brissett has scored 538 of a possible 1264 points = 42.6%
Frank Howard has scored 527 of a possible 1308 points = 40.3%
Howard Washington has scored 19 of a possible 56 points = 33.9%
FWIW:
Geno Thorpe has scored 38 of a possible 95 points = 40.0%
It pays to be closer to the basket, both horizontally and vertically. It also matters a great deal how much defensive attention you are getting. Our “Big three” are our least efficient scorers, despite being our best scorers. Two of them are guards and the other plays like one when he has the ball. The other players get less attention and do most of their scoring around the basket. So, as an individual stat, this isn’t all that revealing, although it’s interesting to note that our leading scorer, Tyus Battle, has not been the most efficient one since the second Wake Forest game. He was the most efficient in the first three games and only twice since. Defenses realized he was our primary scorer and he’s been dribbling uphill ever since. But Frank Howard and Oshae Brissett have been most efficient 5 times in the last 8 games. Marek Dolezaj was the MES once in the first 19 games and 7 times in the last 17.
Here are the team scores for this season’s games:
Cornell 77/175 = 44.0% vs. 45/157 = 28.7%
Iona 71/148 = 48.0% vs. 62/162 = 38.3%
Texas Southern 80/168 = 47.6% vs. 67/141 = 47.5%
Oakland 74/154 = 48.1% vs. 50/151 = 33.1%
Toledo 72/164 = 43.9% vs. 64/155 = 41.3%
Maryland 72/164 = 43.9% vs. 70/145 = 48.3%
Kansas 60/165 = 36.4% vs. 76/178 = 42.7%
Connecticut 72/151 = 47.7% vs. 63/136 = 46.3%
Colgate 72/137 = 52.6% vs. 58/141 = 41.1%
Georgetown 86/189 = 45.5% vs. 79/161 = 49.1%
Buffalo 81/144 = 56.25% vs. 74/185 = 40.0%
St. Bonaventure 57/167 = 34.1% vs. 60/151 = 39.7%
Eastern Michigan 62/138 = 44.9% vs. 47/127 = 37.0%
Virginia Tech 68/129 = 52.7% vs. 56/152 = 36.8%
Wake Forest 67/141 = 47.5% vs. 73/155 = 47.1%
Notre Dame 49/116 = 42.2% vs. 51/149 = 34.2%
Virginia 61/152 = 40.1% vs. 68/155 = 43.9%
Florida State 90/189 = 47.6% vs. 101/230 = 43.9%
Pittsburgh 59/132 = 44.7% vs. 45/114 = 39.5%
Boston College 81/134 = 60.4% vs. 63/123 = 51.2%
Pittsburgh 60/149 = 40.3% vs. 55/178 = 30.9%
Georgia Tech 51/138 = 37.0% vs. 55/156 = 35.3%
Virginia 44/133 = 33.3% vs. 59/125 = 47.2%
Louisville 78/148 = 52.7% vs. 73/151 = 48.3%
Wake Forest 78/151 = 51.7% vs. 70/145 = 47.6%
North Carolina State 70/129 = 54.2% vs. 74/134 = 55.2%
Miami 62/129 = 48.1% vs. 55/161 = 34.2%
North Carolina 74/156 = 47.4% vs. 78/167 = 46.7%
Duke 44/139 = 31.7% vs. 60/140 = 42.9%
Boston College 70/149 = 47.0% vs. 85/159 = 53.5%
Clemson 55/145 = 37.9% vs. 52/122 = 42.6%
Wake Forest 73/130 = 56.2% vs. 64/170 = 37.6%
North Carolina 59/163 = 36.2% vs. 78/161 = 48.4%
Arizona State 60/141 = 42.6% vs. 56/146 = 38.4%
Texas Christian 57/143 = 39.9% vs. 52/130 = 40.0%
Michigan State 55/123 = 44.7% vs. 53/185 = 28.6%
We’ve led in this stat 24 times in 36 games.
Pre-conference:
In Wins: 819/1682 = 48.7% vs. 679/1661 = 40.9%
In Losses: 117/332 =35.2% vs. 136/329 = 41.3%
Total: 936/2014 = 46.5% vs. 815/1990 = 41.0%
Conference:
In Wins: 541/1117 = 48.4% vs. 469/1146 = 40.9%
In Losses: 620/1442 = 43.0% vs. 704/1570 = 44.8%
Total: 1161/2559 = 45.4% vs. 1173/2716 = 43.2%
Post Season:
In Wins: 245/537 = 45.6% vs. 225/631 = 35.7%
In Losses: 59/163 = 36.2% vs. 78/161 = 48.4%
Total: 304/700 = 43.4% vs. 303/792 = 38.3%
Season totals:
In Wins: 1605/3336 = 48.1% vs. 1373/3438 = 39.9%
In Losses: 796/1937= 41.1% vs. 918/ 2060 = 44.6%
Total: 2401/5273 = 45.5% vs. 2291/5498 = 41.7%
In the pre-conference games, our defensive stats were extremely consistent: the big difference was our offensive efficiency. Of course the sample of lost games is very small: only 2. In conference games and the post season, (which includes the ACC tournament), our scoring went down and the oppositions scoring went up, as you would anticipate. The big thing the numbers give us is what an average game should look like: Our 44.7% in the Michigan State game is pretty normal: their 28.6% is the worst we or any of our opponents have had all year, with the only game really close to it being Cornell in the opener (28.7%). Even Arizona State and TCU were nowhere near that level of inefficiency. For that reason, we can’t depend on Duke or any future opponent to be nearly that bad.
Finally, I looked at Historical team numbers from the information in the media Guide. It’s also available from Cuse.com site: Year-by-Year Statistics/Final Release which has everything from 1981 onward and selected years before that. And this site has the numbers a going all the way back to 1950: Syracuse Orange Basketball Season Records although they don’t give opponent’s numbers and were not kind enough to give team totals, (so individual totals have to be added up). For now I’ll leave it at the Jim Boeheim era, plus two significant years:
1965-66 2773/6260 = 44.2% vs. 2311/5003 = 46.2%
1974-75 2627/5128 = 51.2% vs. 2370/4954 = 47.8%
1976-77 2608/5111 = 51.0%
1977-78 2644/4689 = 56.4%
1978-79 2660/4701 = 56.6%
1979-80 2575/4534 = 56.8%
1980-81 2630/4611 = 57.0% vs. 2440/4791 = 50.9%
1981-82 2296/4127 = 55.6% vs. 2197/4086 = 53.8%
1982-83 2612/4657 = 56.1% vs. 2311/4557 = 50.7%
1983-84 2512/4612 = 54.5% vs. 2311/4659 = 49.7%
1984-85 2263/4227 = 53.5% vs. 2104/4218 = 49.9%
1985-86 2674/4845 = 55.2% vs. 2184/4573 = 47.8%
1986-87 3145/5894 = 53.6% vs. 2766/6028 = 45.9%
1987-88 2965/5667 = 52.3% vs. 2466/5361 = 46.0%
1988-89 3410/6278 = 54.3% vs. 2891/6132 = 47.1%
1989-90 2721/5458 = 49.9% vs. 2349/5081 = 46.2%
1990-91 2681/5407 = 49.6% vs. 2380/5231 = 45.5%
1991-92 2383/5231 = 45.6% vs. 2259/4885 = 46.2%
1992-93 2303/4727 = 48.7% vs. 2139/4671 = 45.8%
1993-94 2517/5116 = 49.2% vs. 2248/5067 = 44.4%
1994-95 2471/4955 = 49.9% vs. 2202/4950 = 44.5%
1995-96 2897/5872 = 49.3% vs. 2607/6149 = 42.4%
1996-97 2397/5309 = 45.1% vs. 2208/5154 = 42.8%
1997-98 2481/5401 = 45.9% vs. 2345/5396 = 43.5%
1998-99 2387/5188 = 46.0% vs. 2086/4904 = 42.5%
1999-00 2400/4898 = 49.9% vs. 2033/4782 = 42.5%
2000-01 2475/5337 = 46.4% vs. 2294/5261 = 43.6%
2001-02 2603/5704 = 45.6% vs. 2404/5621 = 42.8%
2002-03 2785/5638 = 49.4% vs. 2435/5967 = 40.8%
2003-04 2265/4753 = 47.7% vs. 2096/4950 = 42.3%
2004-05 2548/5161 = 49.4% vs. 2197/5299 = 41.5%
2005-06 2535/5630 = 45.0% vs. 2412/5596 = 43.1%
2006-07 2645/5611 = 47.1% vs. 2380/5982 = 39.8%
2007-08 2765/5570 = 49.6% vs. 2601/5870 = 44.3%
2008-09 3046/6181 = 49.3% vs. 2725/6555 = 41.6%
2009-10 2832/5411 = 52.3% vs. 2324/5717 = 40.7%
2010-11 2568/5307 = 48.4% vs. 2216/5369 = 41.3%
2011-12 2742/5689 = 48.2% vs. 2257/5514 = 40.9%
2012-13 2816/6128 = 46.0% vs. 2347/5937 = 39.5%
2013-14 2311/4966 = 46.5% vs. 2012/4626 = 43.5%
2014-15 2096/4694 = 44.7% vs. 1965/4612 = 42.6%
2015-16 2589/5776 = 44.8% vs. 2409/5695 = 42.3%
2016-17 2594/5372 = 48.3% vs. 2416/5485 = 44.0%
2017-18 2401/5273 = 45.5% vs. 2291/5498 = 41.7% (so far)
The famous 1965-66 steam that scored 99 points a game wasn’t all that efficient at scoring. They just played the game at such a pace that they got huge numbers of shots off. I never saw them play, even though I started to follow SU basketball that year via the newspapers. I wish I had seen them play. The thing that really jumps out at you is the +50% efficiency of the teams from the mid 70’s to the mid 80’s and the fact that it goes down into the mid and occasionally the high 40’s after that. The 2010 team was so fun to watch because they were our best offensive team in 21 years. This year’s team is our best defensive team since 2013, a team they have been compared to.
