zone, opponent offensive rebounding, and % of three pt att

[Millhouse]

Since 2010-11, we give up the most offensive rebounds. Teams have different opportunities to offensive rebound. Some good teams score too easily to need offensive rebounds so I divide opponents offensive rebounds by opponents misses. It's still pretty bad. We're 44th (too perfect) and the other schools around us are pitiful sub mid majors.

31% of our opponents misses are rebounded by opponents. Michigan state is near the top at 23%

Since 2010-11, we're tenth in the country in highest percentage of opponents' shots being three pointers. It would seem like the more three pointers an opponent takes, the more offensive rebounds you'd give up (a little more up for grabs) but the stats don't really show that correlation

Zone haters will now stop hating posts with simple measures and say AHA

We have 44 games (!!) where we've given up 15+ offensive rebounds since 2010-11 and we we have the 7th most wins among teams who've given up 15 or more offensive rebounds. Louisville, Kansas, and Duke are name schools with more. Our record in those games is 29-15. Duke's is 33-10. Kansas 29-6

We are 97th in losses when giving up that many.

Tough guys are offended by offensive rebounds - it doesn't matter to them how important they are. They love to say "BOX OUT". I think Boeheim has intuition about what's important and what isn't and part of the reason he uses the zone is because other coaches put too much weight on offensive rebounding

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Is there an accurate stat for points per possession? Would be interested to know where we stand.

Sure 3 point shots are lower percentage shots but when they go in, you get more points. If on top of that 1/3 of the missed 3s are rebounded, a team still has possession.

I would guess that mathematically the zone is worse off than man to man.

 

[20Plus]

Is there an accurate stat for points per possession? Would be interested to know where we stand.

Sure 3 point shots are lower percentage shots but when they go in, you get more points. If on top of that 1/3 of the missed 3s are rebounded, a team still has possession.

I would guess that mathematically the zone is worse off than man to man.

Actually you’re dead wrong SU is number 30 in the country

 

[upperdeck]

the falicy thats its hard to rebound out of the zone is just dumb.. its till box out and find the ball. We dont have re bounders period. The would struggle in man just the same..

there have been some real good rebound teams in the past that played zone, but you need a center first.

 

[Cuse'91]

the falicy thats its hard to rebound out of the zone is just dumb.. its till box out and find the ball. We dont have re bounders period. The would struggle in man just the same..

there have been some real good rebound teams in the past that played zone, but you need a center first.

True that...
Where are our power forwards? Coleman, Wallace, Warrick, even Fair? The school that idolizes the "44 power forward" just seems to have lost its way...

 

[Millhouse]

the falicy thats its hard to rebound out of the zone is just dumb.. its till box out and find the ball. We dont have re bounders period. The would struggle in man just the same..

there have been some real good rebound teams in the past that played zone, but you need a center first.

it's easier to find someone to box out when you're guarding them the whole time

 

[upperdeck]

but rebounding isnt all about boxing guys out.. its about knowing where the ball is going.. we had tons of rebounds we lost because our guys just dont know how to rebound and had guys boxed out.

seal, maintain pressure, explode to the ball. we dont do any of those most of the time.
we dont know how to slide step, or spin, and we really struggle to catch the ball, and the backside guard needs to come down hill..

we are a wait and see where it bounces team which is never good.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

View attachment 157449

Actually you’re dead wrong SU is number 30 in the country

What makes up that stat? Is it the same as I question? What is a possession? Every shot or every trip down the floor?

 

[20Plus]

What makes up that stat? Is it the same as I question? What is a possession? Every shot or every trip down the floor?

You answered your own question with how you formed the question

 

[malpearl31]

What makes up that stat? Is it the same as I question? What is a possession? Every shot or every trip down the floor?

It's as simple as you probably think it is. Assume your team wins the tip. That's your first possession. The possession ends when you either score (most likely a 2-pt or 3-pt field goal) or turn the ball over, or don't collect an offensive rebound. (But note, you could secure multiple offensive rebounds on any given possession - but it's still counted as that same one possession.) How many points did you score on that possession? If you hit a 3-pointer, your offensive PPP is now 3.0. If your next possession ends in a missed shot or a turnover, now your offensive PPP stands at 1.5 for the game.

At the end of the day, points-per-possession is what it's all about - you want your offense to have a high one, and you want your defensive PPP to be low. And there are many different ways to get to a low PPP on defense. There's been a bunch of chatter on these boards about 3-pt shooting percentage over the past couple of days... and it's an important stat, for sure, but one thing I think a lot of people miss about Boeheim's zone is that we historically turn our opponents over at a pretty high rate. (We were 11th best in the nation in that category this year - we forced turnovers by our opponents on 23.1% of their possessions.) Theoretically, you could allow a team to shoot 75% from the floor against you - but if you force that team to turn it over on 50% of their total possessions, you're probably gonna win that game.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

It's as simple as you probably think it is. Assume your team wins the tip. That's your first possession. The possession ends when you either score (most likely a 2-pt or 3-pt field goal) or turn the ball over, or don't collect an offensive rebound. (But note, you could secure multiple offensive rebounds on any given possession - but it's still counted as that same one possession.) How many points did you score on that possession? If you hit a 3-pointer, your offensive PPP is now 3.0. If your next possession ends in a missed shot or a turnover, now your offensive PPP stands at 1.5 for the game.

At the end of the day, points-per-possession is what it's all about - you want your offense to have a high one, and you want your defensive PPP to be low. And there are many different ways to get to a low PPP on defense. There's been a bunch of chatter on these boards about 3-pt shooting percentage over the past couple of days... and it's an important stat, for sure, but one thing I think a lot of people miss about Boeheim's zone is that we historically turn our opponents over at a pretty high rate. (We were 11th best in the nation in that category this year - we forced turnovers by our opponents on 23.1% of their possessions.) Theoretically, you could allow a team to shoot 75% from the floor against you - but if you force that team to turn it over on 50% of their total possessions, you're probably gonna win that game.

And where is that stat? The one provided is in the 80s is that 0.8?

 

[Cusedad2X]

Since 2010-11, we give up the most offensive rebounds. Teams have different opportunities to offensive rebound. Some good teams score too easily to need offensive rebounds so I divide opponents offensive rebounds by opponents misses. It's still pretty bad. We're 44th (too perfect) and the other schools around us are pitiful sub mid majors.

31% of our opponents misses are rebounded by opponents. Michigan state is near the top at 23%

Since 2010-11, we're tenth in the country in highest percentage of opponents' shots being three pointers. It would seem like the more three pointers an opponent takes, the more offensive rebounds you'd give up (a little more up for grabs) but the stats don't really show that correlation

Zone haters will now stop hating posts with simple measures and say AHA

We have 44 games (!!) where we've given up 15+ offensive rebounds since 2010-11 and we we have the 7th most wins among teams who've given up 15 or more offensive rebounds. Louisville, Kansas, and Duke are name schools with more. Our record in those games is 29-15. Duke's is 33-10. Kansas 29-6

We are 97th in losses when giving up that many.

Tough guys are offended by offensive rebounds - it doesn't matter to them how important they are. They love to say "BOX OUT". I think Boeheim has intuition about what's important and what isn't and part of the reason he uses the zone is because other coaches put too much weight on offensive rebounding

I understand and appreciate all the time you have put into this rebounding/zone analysis. the 3s would be comparable to other teams defensive efficiency ONLY IF SU AND each team always played the same defense...ALL THE TIME. That's a variable you could never account for when comparing teams.

 

[malpearl31]

And where is that stat? The one provided is in the 80s is that 0.8?

KenPom is the only website I know of that includes the number of possessions for each game and the PPP ratings for each team in their boxscore. Looks like sports-reference.com lists an "ORtg" for each team that probably comes closest to KenPom's PPP numbers (if you divide the ORtg by 100, you get pretty close to the PPP value).

You won't find these types of advanced statistics at espn.com, though.

 

[Cusefannotindc]

Since 2010-11, we give up the most offensive rebounds. Teams have different opportunities to offensive rebound. Some good teams score too easily to need offensive rebounds so I divide opponents offensive rebounds by opponents misses. It's still pretty bad. We're 44th (too perfect) and the other schools around us are pitiful sub mid majors.

31% of our opponents misses are rebounded by opponents. Michigan state is near the top at 23%

Since 2010-11, we're tenth in the country in highest percentage of opponents' shots being three pointers. It would seem like the more three pointers an opponent takes, the more offensive rebounds you'd give up (a little more up for grabs) but the stats don't really show that correlation

Zone haters will now stop hating posts with simple measures and say AHA

We have 44 games (!!) where we've given up 15+ offensive rebounds since 2010-11 and we we have the 7th most wins among teams who've given up 15 or more offensive rebounds. Louisville, Kansas, and Duke are name schools with more. Our record in those games is 29-15. Duke's is 33-10. Kansas 29-6

We are 97th in losses when giving up that many.

Tough guys are offended by offensive rebounds - it doesn't matter to them how important they are. They love to say "BOX OUT". I think Boeheim has intuition about what's important and what isn't and part of the reason he uses the zone is because other coaches put too much weight on offensive rebounding

This had me curious, so I pulled all SU games during that time frame (conveniently exactly what is available on sports reference play index tool) to analyze what stats influenced losses. What I found is that rebounding matters but is not enough to cause a loss.

SU has 222 wins and 97 losses (70% win pct) during that time. The main split is on opponent's field goal percentage, when they shoot at or above 46% SU won just 26% of the time (19-53). If opponents are under 46%, SU has won 82% (204-43). Against hot shooting opponents, has mostly won by shooting even better, win 74% (17-6) when shooting better than 45% from the field and a 13-0 when keeping turnovers under 12. Failing to keep pace with opponents shooting efficiency, SU went 2-45.

The most obvious way SU loses when keeping opponents under 46% fg, is a lack of offense. SU is 1-14 in the games where their fg is under 34%. They have a 87% win pct (202-31) in the games remaining games, where SU's fg% is over 34% and the opponent's is under 46%.

This is where rebounding comes in, if SU has collected over 68% of opponent's misses, they win 98% of games (130-3). Now even when they allow their opponent to collect over a third of their misses on offense, SU is still winning 72% of games (72-28).

Opponents need to get to the free throw line, and be away from the carrier dome to win though. If opponents have a free throw rate (FTA/FGA) of less than 39%, SU wins 85% of the time (58-10). When it rises to 39% or higher, opponents are winning 56% of the time (14-18). It is highly dependent on location though, at home SU is 11 and 2 in these games but on the road or at a neutral site they are 3-16.

 

[Louie and Bouie]

Is there an accurate stat for points per possession? Would be interested to know where we stand.

Sure 3 point shots are lower percentage shots but when they go in, you get more points. If on top of that 1/3 of the missed 3s are rebounded, a team still has possession.

I would guess that mathematically the zone is worse off than man to man.

Points per possession for Syracuse this season

Offense: 1.005 (184th in D-I) up from .997 last season

Defense: .953 (47th in D-I) consistent with .954 last season

These are unadjusted numbers meaning SOS isn't factored into the rating. Its a pure number based upon possessions and points scored.

 

[Millhouse]

This had me curious, so I pulled all SU games during that time frame (conveniently exactly what is available on sports reference play index tool) to analyze what stats influenced losses. What I found is that rebounding matters but is not enough to cause a loss.

SU has 222 wins and 97 losses (70% win pct) during that time. The main split is on opponent's field goal percentage, when they shoot at or above 46% SU won just 26% of the time (19-53). If opponents are under 46%, SU has won 82% (204-43). Against hot shooting opponents, has mostly won by shooting even better, win 74% (17-6) when shooting better than 45% from the field and a 13-0 when keeping turnovers under 12. Failing to keep pace with opponents shooting efficiency, SU went 2-45.

The most obvious way SU loses when keeping opponents under 46% fg, is a lack of offense. SU is 1-14 in the games where their fg is under 34%. They have a 87% win pct (202-31) in the games remaining games, where SU's fg% is over 34% and the opponent's is under 46%.

This is where rebounding comes in, if SU has collected over 68% of opponent's misses, they win 98% of games (130-3). Now even when they allow their opponent to collect over a third of their misses on offense, SU is still winning 72% of games (72-28).

Opponents need to get to the free throw line, and be away from the carrier dome to win though. If opponents have a free throw rate (FTA/FGA) of less than 39%, SU wins 85% of the time (58-10). When it rises to 39% or higher, opponents are winning 56% of the time (14-18). It is highly dependent on location though, at home SU is 11 and 2 in these games but on the road or at a neutral site they are 3-16.

the more i dig, the more i realize that JB just gets it - he has such a great memory and intuition that he might not need the stats as much as other coaches. he's just knows - he finds low hanging fruit, he has an advantage over other people's judgment that's not driven by stats. meatheads just know deep down that the offensive rebounds given up in a zone hurt you too much. boeheim knows that really, it's just not as big a deal

i wonder if the zone fouls less than other defenses. that might be an unseen benefit of the zone that doesn't really register with us. we remember the games where teams go off and don't see the games where they might've gone off against man but outside of a few odd games, we don't really remember getting murdered by FTs - i bet boeheim remembers though

I'm guessing here - I think Boeheim maximizes the floor for how bad we can be because he has some humility about how much impact he can have on the ceiling. He can affect the height of the floor and he can't affect the height of the ceiling - that just comes with spectacular players. guys like sherman, coleman, wallace get you over the semifinals hump, anthony gets you over the finals hump, and guys like richardson and MCW can get you over the regional finals hump

 

[Melancer46]

it's easier to find someone to box out when you're guarding them the whole time

It's a little more difficult, but most of the time, you have 3 or 4 guys that are guarding someone when a shot goes up. The whole point of a zone defense is to be aware of who is in your zone at all times. If players are failing to box out because they aren't aware that they have someone nearby, then they simply aren't playing the zone defense correctly in the first place.

SU's players literally don't try to box out. It's not just Syracuse; a ton of teams have this issue, but it's definitely an issue for Syracuse that nobody makes an attempt to box players out.

Look at the highlights from the tournament game and look at how lazy our players are on the vast majority of these. Granted they're highlights so the shots are going in but it's littered with examples of everyone just sort of walking towards the hoop, not caring if a Baylor player is in front of them, and just waiting to see if the shot goes in before they attempt to get into position to rebound.

It's just a lazy mentality and has nothing to do with the defensive system that they're using. Credit to Brissett, who I generally dislike as a player; there's actually a couple examples where he sees a Baylor player in front of him and works to get around them to position himself for a rebound, though even for him, it's not a consistent thing.

 

[Millhouse]

It's a little more difficult, but most of the time, you have 3 or 4 guys that are guarding someone when a shot goes up. The whole point of a zone defense is to be aware of who is in your zone at all times. If players are failing to box out because they aren't aware that they have someone nearby, then they simply aren't playing the zone defense correctly in the first place.

SU's players literally don't try to box out. It's not just Syracuse; a ton of teams have this issue, but it's definitely an issue for Syracuse that nobody makes an attempt to box players out.

Look at the highlights from the tournament game and look at how lazy our players are on the vast majority of these. Granted they're highlights so the shots are going in but it's littered with examples of everyone just sort of walking towards the hoop, not caring if a Baylor player is in front of them, and just waiting to see if the shot goes in before they attempt to get into position to rebound.

It's just a lazy mentality and has nothing to do with the defensive system that they're using. Credit to Brissett, who I generally dislike as a player; there's actually a couple examples where he sees a Baylor player in front of him and works to get around them to position himself for a rebound, though even for him, it's not a consistent thing.

we had just about the same percentage of offensive rebounds on our misses as Baylor had on theirs. they probably show more baylor highlights since they won

 

[SUFan44]

the more i dig, the more i realize that JB just gets it - he has such a great memory and intuition that he might not need the stats as much as other coaches. he's just knows - he finds low hanging fruit, he has an advantage over other people's judgment that's not driven by stats. meatheads just know deep down that the offensive rebounds given up in a zone hurt you too much. boeheim knows that really, it's just not as big a deal

i wonder if the zone fouls less than other defenses. that might be an unseen benefit of the zone that doesn't really register with us. we remember the games where teams go off and don't see the games where they might've gone off against man but outside of a few odd games, we don't really remember getting murdered by FTs - i bet boeheim remembers though

I'm guessing here - I think Boeheim maximizes the floor for how bad we can be because he has some humility about how much impact he can have on the ceiling. He can affect the height of the floor and he can't affect the height of the ceiling - that just comes with spectacular players. guys like sherman, coleman, wallace get you over the semifinals hump, anthony gets you over the finals hump, and guys like richardson and MCW can get you over the regional finals hump

And guys like we have now get you nowhere.

I think I agree with the majority of this.

The problems I have with the program isn't the style of play, necessarily. Though the offense is pretty horrendous these days.

But a lot of that horrendousness (not a word) is due to players not being good enough or not getting better. Battle, Brissett, Dolezaj, Hughes... they've all shown signs they're good enough. But they aren't consistent and aren't getting better at deficiencies.

I also don't agree with all the metrics saying we're still a very good program. We aren't. We haven't been for a full recruiting cycle. Whether through sanctions or whatever it is, we just aren't.

We are slightly above average and slipping.

 

[OttoMets]

the more i dig, the more i realize that JB just gets it - he has such a great memory and intuition that he might not need the stats as much as other coaches. he's just knows - he finds low hanging fruit, he has an advantage over other people's judgment that's not driven by stats. meatheads just know deep down that the offensive rebounds given up in a zone hurt you too much. boeheim knows that really, it's just not as big a deal

...

Maybe that's true. But after having spent decades watching Boeheim go totally berserk when an opponent's missed three pointer bounces away from one of our perimeter defenders who had no realistic hope of ever getting the rebound, I'm not convinced that he doesn't think it's a big deal.

 

[Millhouse]

And guys like we have now get you nowhere.

I think I agree with the majority of this.

The problems I have with the program isn't the style of play, necessarily. Though the offense is pretty horrendous these days.

But a lot of that horrendousness (not a word) is due to players not being good enough or not getting better. Battle, Brissett, Dolezaj, Hughes... they've all shown signs they're good enough. But they aren't consistent and aren't getting better at deficiencies.

I also don't agree with all the metrics saying we're still a very good program. We aren't. We haven't been for a full recruiting cycle. Whether through sanctions or whatever it is, we just aren't.

We are slightly above average and slipping.

you must be filtering who you're comparing us against to get to slightly above average

 

[SUFan44]

you must be filtering who you're comparing us against to get to slightly above average

8 seed, 9 seed, 10 seed, barely in...

For the 353 college basketball teams, yes -- we are an above average program.

For the teams we should be comparing ourselves against, we are slightly above average.

 

[Millhouse]

8 seed, 9 seed, 10 seed, barely in...

For the 353 college basketball teams, yes -- we are an above average program.

For the teams we should be comparing ourselves against, we are slightly above average.

ok. i just don't know what anyone's talking about with mediocre. compared to what? mediocre compared to pretty good programs? ok but that means you're a pretty good program. you have a pretty low ceiling when frank howard is playing too much. boeheim's last bet is on girard. fingers crossed

 

[Jasoncuse]

the more i dig, the more i realize that JB just gets it - he has such a great memory and intuition that he might not need the stats as much as other coaches. he's just knows - he finds low hanging fruit, he has an advantage over other people's judgment that's not driven by stats. meatheads just know deep down that the offensive rebounds given up in a zone hurt you too much. boeheim knows that really, it's just not as big a deal

i wonder if the zone fouls less than other defenses. that might be an unseen benefit of the zone that doesn't really register with us. we remember the games where teams go off and don't see the games where they might've gone off against man but outside of a few odd games, we don't really remember getting murdered by FTs - i bet boeheim remembers though

I'm guessing here - I think Boeheim maximizes the floor for how bad we can be because he has some humility about how much impact he can have on the ceiling. He can affect the height of the floor and he can't affect the height of the ceiling - that just comes with spectacular players. guys like sherman, coleman, wallace get you over the semifinals hump, anthony gets you over the finals hump, and guys like richardson and MCW can get you over the regional finals hump

Isn’t the biggest issue everyone has with the program the offense? I think many understand that the zone can be an effective difference maker in the Tourney, but our offense will continue to limit our ceiling.

 

[Millhouse]

Isn’t the biggest issue everyone has with the program the offense? I think many understand that the zone can be an effective difference maker in the Tourney, but our offense will continue to limit our ceiling.

gifted forwards fix everything and bazley was supposed to be that guy. hopefully guerrier is a home run after some misses.