Analytics

[GoBearcats31]

KenPom #s through the Wes Miller era:

2022 - #101 overall (145th adjusted offensive efficiency, 75th adjusted defensive efficiency)
2023 - #50 overall (56th, 57th)
2024 - #39 overall (79th, 19th)

[sedz]

Ody's BPM each season: https://barttorvik.com/playerstat.ph...a&t=Cincinnati

2020: -0.3 (-1.9 offense, 1.6 defense)
2021: -1.6 (-0.8 offense, -0.8 defense)
2022: 0.0 (-0.8 offense, 0.8 defense)
2023: -0.3 (-1.2 offense, 0.9 defense)
2024: 2.0 (-1.3 offense, 3.2 defense)

He played significant minutes until this year. He became a good defender in his final season, posting career bests in block rate, steal rate, and foul rate. There were several games in conference I wanted Ody to play instead of Reynolds due to defensive matchups, most notably against OK St when they ran 5 out offense. Jamille had a lower BPM than Ody did this season, partly because he isn't quick enough to defend the perimeter (also because he had the highest turnover rate on the team).

I'll move the Ody discussion over here. Note that the "fancy stats" show that Ody was a good defender this year. 3.2 is third on our team, below Aziz and Day Day but just above Newman and Reed.

[sedz]

On the individual player side, Box Plus Minus or BPM is a player's impact on the scoring margin per 100 possessions. Zach Edey led all players with 15.5 BPM this year, meaning he gave his team a 0.155 point per possession scoring margin when he was on the court. That's almost 11 points over a typical 70 possession game. If he played all 40 minutes in that hypothetical game with 15.5 BPM, he would have 11 / 2 = 5.5 net points (the other half is assigned to the other team as a negative value).

Some of these numbers seem like voodoo at first, but they are simple calculations that make sense when you get into it. The point is to boil contributions down to single numbers that can be compared apples to apples so better decisions can be made.

[sedz]

Forgive my learning curve, but I do actually like statistics. I'm guessing effective field goal percentage has a multiplier for 3-pt attempts? Do any players shoot 54% or better from 3-pt range?

I shouldn't throw terms around like this so much without explaining them. Maybe I should do crash course or glossary of terms at some point this offseason.

Effective field goal percentage converts everything to a two point shot. So yes, there's a 1.5 multiplier applied to three pointers. If you shoot 30% from three, that's 30 x 1.5 = 45% effective field goals.

Doubling the effective field goal percentage gives you points per shot, so 50% effective field goals is a point per shot. True shooting percentage adds free throws. Then you add offensive rebounds and subtract turnovers to figure out how many shots per possession you had, and you end up with points per possession. Those are the basic building blocks of basketball analytics.

[red_n_black_attack]

Top 50 shooting teams make 54% effective field goals, which should be our goal. Only four players in the entire country made that percentage from midrange on at least 100 attempts for the season.

Forgive my learning curve, but I do actually like statistics. I'm guessing effective field goal percentage has a multiplier for 3-pt attempts? Do any players shoot 54% or better from 3-pt range?

[sedz]

You're probably one of those guys that talks about WAR WHIP and other new fangled metrics in baseball. jk

In this week's Reds games the Nationals had wOBA and RC+ on the scoreboard. Even college softball broadcasts use OPS now!

The nerds are taking over sports.

[sedz]

here's a question. it seems that we all love jizzle james. his "signature" (and i'm sure that there's "analytics" that i'm wrong) shot seems to be the midrange, two pointer. since that is now apparently a "bad" shot, should uc make him stop shooting it? **** no - but, my question is somewhat rhetorical - at some point, you have to rely on more than just analytics - different guys have different abiliites and that has to come into play.

If it becomes an efficient shot you give him the green light. Midrange in general is a bad shot. There are only about 25 college players in the country who make a higher percentage from midrange than the national average effective field goal percentage (I don't think there's a single player in the NBA who does). Our effective field goal percentage this year was 50.3%, so a good shot for us is above that. Jizzle made 47% from midrange, so he's really close and he shot it really well late in the season. Vik made 53% with his baby hook. Jamille made 41% and everyone else was under 40%.

Top 50 shooting teams make 54% effective field goals, which should be our goal. Only four players in the entire country made that percentage from midrange on at least 100 attempts for the season.

[red_n_black_attack]

Nate Oats looks at Torvik. Swoon.

"We have a third-party analytics company that does a great job. We look at KenPom a lot, Bart Torvik."
https://www.si.com/college/alabama/c...ess-conference

You're probably one of those guys that talks about WAR WHIP and other new fangled metrics in baseball. jk

[D.A.H.]

here's a question. it seems that we all love jizzle james. his "signature" (and i'm sure that there's "analytics" that i'm wrong) shot seems to be the midrange, two pointer. since that is now apparently a "bad" shot, should uc make him stop shooting it? **** no - but, my question is somewhat rhetorical - at some point, you have to rely on more than just analytics - different guys have different abiliites and that has to come into play.

[sedz]

Nate Oats looks at Torvik. Swoon.

"We have a third-party analytics company that does a great job. We look at KenPom a lot, Bart Torvik."
https://www.si.com/college/alabama/c...ess-conference

[sedz]

Nate Oats gets it: https://twitter.com/JoeyBurton/statu...96152911962248

He hired an analytics company. Pointed out that they only took two midrange shots and 36 threes because they are looking for the most efficient shot. Talked about their effective field goal percentage and offensive efficiency.

The top 3 most efficient offenses are in the final four.

[sedz]

Doug Gottlieb sums up my point quite well here. https://twitter.com/GottliebShow/sta...72024067072009
"Pros do what they do and don’t do anything else … amateurs constantly try and prove they can do what everyone knows they can not"

One minute left in a one point game in the sweet sixteen. Huge possession. UNC's best player RJ Davis has the ball. Alabama blitzes the ball screen and forces Davis to give it up to Jae'Lyn Withers, a 20% three point shooter, up top. Alabama sags off Withers and Davis calls for the ball back to set something else up. Instead Withers shoots the three with 15 on the shot clock, bricks it. No offensive rebounders in position.

Alabama does a great job here of taking away UNC's strength, well aware of the scouting report. UNC does not run their action with the appropriate guys. Pick-n-pop is not a good play with a bad three point shooter. Bacot, Ingram, and Ryan aren't even involved. They've got a good lineup but ran an action with the wrong guys. These things decide games.

[sedz]

It's so easy to second guess coaches on lineups and substitutions. But there's no clear right answer. The first/second unit pattern worked out really well for us in 2011. I think fans focus on that because it's something they can easily recognize and they assume change would be better.

For me the more important thing is usage. Whatever lineup is on the floor, are you setting up offensive actions with the right guys? Are you taking away the one dimensional strengths of the other team?

[GoBearcats31]

Maybe we should try an NBA style substitituion pattern and keep those guys on the floor to open and close each half and play through mistakes.

One of the biggest criticisms of Mike Woodson by Indiana fans is his NBA style substitution patterns. No bueno ... of course, he's often done more of a first unit/second unit thing versus staggering it a bit like you seem to suggest. ... Sometimes you need to just give a guy a breather, but it can be costly. Feel like there was a game late in the season where they took out Aziz briefly, Jamille proceeded to foul the other team on an "and one" situation on the ensuing possession and that contributed to UC losing late...

[sedz]

Are there any analytics that relate to substitutions? How much better or worse does a player do after having a blow or having been taken out of the game for messing up? If a player is hot but looking exhausted is it better to leave him in the game or give him a blow? I get the impression that most coaches are flying by the seat of their pants re these kinds of decisions.

The NBA has substitutions down to a science. The starters or best 5 will stagger their bench minutes around the middle of each half so they are on on the floor as a unit to open and close each half. So you'll see a couple starters sit for the last 4 minutes of the first quarter, then another couple starters will sit for the opening 4 minutes of the second quarter. This keeps the guys fresh for the highest leverage portions of the game and keeps at least a couple of your best players out there at all times. For example, Jayson Tatum almost always sits the last 4 minutes of the first and third quarters, while Jaylen Brown sits the first 4 minutes of the second and fourth quarters. And then there's the controversial practice of sitting healthy players for full games.

But that's the pros, where guys aren't being pulled for mental mistakes or because they are overmatched and someone on the bench can do better. NBA games aren't for teaching. Professionals don't make the roster if that's a consistent problem. College is different because these guys are often being forced to use skills that aren't fully developed. The NBA is full of low usage 3 and D type role players who would be uncomfortable with the ball in their hands, but in college they have to create. There aren't many college players who are competent in every facet of the game, so your high usage guys are going to make mistakes or get exposed. It's hard to stick to a pre-planned substitution pattern because of that. So yeah, I think most coaches fly by the seat of their pants because they have to.

That was kind of a long winded way to say that I'm not aware of analytics for substitutions in college, at least based on fatigue or momentum. Kenpom and EvanMiya do rate individual lineups though, and EvanMiya rates 2, 3, and 4 man units. Aziz and Dan was our best 2 man unit, probably because they're the best rebounders. The best 4 man unit was Aziz, Dan, Simas, and Jizzle, who are hopefully all coming back next year. Maybe we should try an NBA style substitituion pattern and keep those guys on the floor to open and close each half and play through mistakes.