Analytics

[leo from jersey]

I thought about doing that, but final AP is a better proxy for what most people judge a season on, which is tournament results. Plus this shows that algorithms are better than human voters at predicting their own poll. There's just so much information at our disposal, and computer models are now better able to sort through it than humans are.

Does CWM have access to those analytics? If he does/did he really has no excuses for further failure except for coaching or injuries.

[London 'Cat]

Does CWM have access to those analytics? If he does/did he really has no excuses for further failure except for coaching or injuries.

If someone like sedz - no offense intended - has access to these as a college coach outsider, I would imagine CWM has access to this data and even more data. The question is does CWM use it, or use it correctly.

[leo from jersey]

If someone like sedz - no offense intended - has access to these as a college coach outsider, I would imagine CWM has access to this data and even more data. The question is does CWM use it, or use it correctly.

I was posting tongue in cheek. One other view. Just having stats doesn't automatically = wins or makes one a better coach. There is a major human factor. Stat prediction often disappear in the heat of a game and a coach must, adapt, improvise and overcome.

: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
Yogi Berra

[leo from jersey]

This is another astute observation by the great Yogi

1. "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

Do they still play as they practice?

[sedz]

If someone like sedz - no offense intended - has access to these as a college coach outsider, I would imagine CWM has access to this data and even more data. The question is does CWM use it, or use it correctly.

Haha, no offense taken. I only use free public data. Coaching staffs have access to that and can pay for much more. I don't think Wes uses analytics as a primary tool though. There are a couple of obvious clues - players with poor metrics have the highest usage and we run a midrange heavy offense. Brannen was supposed to be an analytics guy, but there is no way he was using metrics to evaluate players. Chris McNeal and Rapolas Ivanauskas had terrible metrics even before they came here. Tari Eason had the best metrics and he rode the bench.

Maybe Corey Evans will help.

[sedz]

We are the worst power conference team in the country at scoring off the dribble. Only 0.70 points per possession against top 100 opponents. At the top is Alabama, scoring more than 1.3 points per possession off the dribble, nearly twice as efficient as us. Their screens are designed for the ballhandler to get downhill all the way to the rim. No pull up jumpers.

https://x.com/jgtrends/status/2009682327341863024

[Bearcat1996]

We are the worst power conference team in the country at scoring off the dribble. Only 0.70 points per possession against top 100 opponents. At the top is Alabama, scoring more than 1.3 points per possession off the dribble, nearly twice as efficient as us. Their screens are designed for the ballhandler to get downhill all the way to the rim. No pull up jumpers.

https://x.com/jgtrends/status/2009682327341863024

That is eye opening! Seems like an easy problem to fix, in my opinion.

[leeraymond372@gmail.com]

We are the worst power conference team in the country at scoring off the dribble. Only 0.70 points per possession against top 100 opponents. At the top is Alabama, scoring more than 1.3 points per possession off the dribble, nearly twice as efficient as us. Their screens are designed for the ballhandler to get downhill all the way to the rim. No pull up jumpers.

https://x.com/jgtrends/status/2009682327341863024

Yeah. You can see that in how UC plays. I wonder what are the team objectives when UC practices. If you practice like a champion, you will play like a champion. If that is the case, what can be said about the practice habits of a last place team?. Surely UC is not concerned with getting to the rim.

[sedz]

Minor changes in screen placement or timing can have a major effect. We saw that in the second half of the Clemson game. Alabama either sets their screens on the elbows/wings, allowing the guard to come off and then downhill through a vacant lane, or they run actions on the wings before the ball screen, which gets the defense moving side to side and allows the guard to choose whether to accept or reject the screen based on the defender's momentum. We run a lot of stagnant ball screens right at the top of the key. So the ballhandler ends up coming off toward the elbow rather than the lane, and the defenders are balanced and ready to defend either direction. It's the 2000-2010 style of ball screen. This team would be so much better if we just updated our schemes.

Another thing to notice from that chart is almost every team (except Alabama, Stanford, and Georgia) is much more efficient scoring off the ball. The axes are centered at 1.20 points per possession off ball and 1.00 points per possession on ball. We score around 1.13 off ball compared to 0.7 on ball. If we can't execute ball screens well, we should abandon them. If we had any analytics guys on the staff, we would have done that a long time ago. We abandoned it against Clemson for about 15 minutes, but no one seems to have identified that.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

Sedz, I'd like to know what your basketball background is?

[leeraymond372@gmail.com]

Minor changes in screen placement or timing can have a major effect. We saw that in the second half of the Clemson game. Alabama either sets their screens on the elbows/wings, allowing the guard to come off and then downhill through a vacant lane, or they run actions on the wings before the ball screen, which gets the defense moving side to side and allows the guard to choose whether to accept or reject the screen based on the defender's momentum. We run a lot of stagnant ball screens right at the top of the key. So the ballhandler ends up coming off toward the elbow rather than the lane, and the defenders are balanced and ready to defend either direction. It's the 2000-2010 style of ball screen. This team would be so much better if we just updated our schemes.

Another thing to notice from that chart is almost every team (except Alabama, Stanford, and Georgia) is much more efficient scoring off the ball. The axes are centered at 1.20 points per possession off ball and 1.00 points per possession on ball. We score around 1.13 off ball compared to 0.7 on ball. If we can't execute ball screens well, we should abandon them. If we had any analytics guys on the staff, we would have done that a long time ago. We abandoned it against Clemson for about 15 minutes, but no one seems to have identified that.

What about double screens at the top of the key? I recently saw a pro game (Charlotte and Orlando) where Charlotte ran a lot of double screens at the top of the key. By running the ball handler around 2 screens, that action created open shots on the wings and opportunities at the rim when the players setting the screens broke to the rim. The double screen made it difficult for the defender to get around 2 bigs. Sometimes one of the screeners broke to the rim. In other cases, both players that set the screens broke to the rim. It was an interesting display of different possibilities on offense.

Do not expect UC to do anything differently from what it has been doing. That is the sad part.

[sedz]

What about double screens at the top of the key? I recently saw a pro game (Charlotte and Orlando) where Charlotte ran a lot of double screens at the top of the key. By running the ball handler around 2 screens, that action created open shots on the wings and opportunities at the rim when the players setting the screens broke to the rim. The double screen made it difficult for the defender to get around 2 bigs. Sometimes one of the screeners broke to the rim. In other cases, both players that set the screens broke to the rim. It was an interesting display of different possibilities on offense.

Do not expect UC to do anything differently from what it has been doing. That is the sad part.

Yeah, double screens at the top are easy to do out of a horns set, which is extremely common in the pros. It's really hard to defend the paint and both corners out of that. Drive and kick to the corner is still the most efficient action for most NBA teams.

Still, the most important lesson from that chart is that ball screens are out of date in modern college basketball. Only three teams score more using ball screens than off ball actions. We are at the bottom, and we should just stop. It's not working.

[sedz]

Scoring was up yet again again this season as teams continue to push offensive efficiency to new highs. College scoring now matches NBA output from 2018 when Curry and Durant won the title. Coaches can't just rely on what has worked in the past. Evolve or get left behind.

Points per possession
2026: 1.09
2025: 1.07
2024: 1.06
2023: 1.04
2022: 1.02

[leo from jersey]

Scoring was up yet again again this season as teams continue to push offensive efficiency to new highs. College scoring now matches NBA output from 2018 when Curry and Durant won the title. Coaches can't just rely on what has worked in the past. Evolve or get left behind.

Points per possession
2026: 1.09
2025: 1.07
2024: 1.06
2023: 1.04
2022: 1.02

so where does the defense figure in. We saw UC scoring go down when the bigs were double teamed a couple of games ago. Could the high offense be because of less attention to defense. How was say Arizona's or Duke points per possession allowed?

[sedz]

so where does the defense figure in. We saw UC scoring go down when the bigs were double teamed a couple of games ago. Could the high offense be because of less attention to defense. How was say Arizona's or Duke points per possession allowed?

I do not hold the cynical attitude that teams are scoring more because defense is worse. Strategy is different now. More threes and rim, less midrange. The data is clear on that. Innovation works.

Duke and Arizona both have top 3 defenses, holding average opponents to 0.91 points per possession. Defending the modern game is just as important.