Analytics

[sedz]

I'll be analyzing the transfers we're connected with and using BPM as the main measuring stick. Here's a quick and dirty grading scale:

10+: All-American, top 20 nationally
8-9: All Conference
6-7: Star Player
4-5: Major Rotation Player
2-3: Role Player or Specialist
1 or Below: Project

In the portal I'm mainly looking to bring in 4+ BPM players. Mitchell was our only guy in the Star Player category. It would be nice to get another star, or for Mitchell to increase his usage and move up to All Conference Caliber.

If you add up the BPMs for all five positions, you get the team's efficiency margin. Kenpom uses that for his NetRtg that he sorts teams by. Duke's was 39.3 this year, or an average 8 BPM per position. They are basically running out an all conference player at all 5 positions.

Our NetRtg this year was 14.9, or an average 3 BPM per position. We're running out a bunch of role players. We had one star in Mitchell, but we also had a bunch of minutes from 1 or below BPM players that brought the average down. If we can average 4 BPM at each position, that will push our NetRtg up to 20, which would comfortably be in the field. That should be our goal.

[sedz]

An average rebounding team has an OReb rate of 30%. Spread across a traditional roster it looks like:
C: 10%
PF: 8%
SF: 6%
SG: 4%
PG: 2%

A top 50 rebounding team, which we should aim for, has an OReb rate of 34%. One way to do that is get an elite rebounding big with a 14% OReb rate. That's what Texas Tech Does. Or you can play two bigs who get 11% each. That's what Clemson does. Both of those will give you an extra 4%. But as we see in the portal, good players with even a 9% OReb rate are hard to find, much less 11% or 14%. Another strategy is to boost the guard spots. That's what Illinois does. Their distribution looks like:
C: 11%
PF: 7%
SF: 7%
SG: 5%
PG: 5%

That adds up to 35%, which makes them a top 20 rebounding team despite getting an average 18% from the frontcourt. And I think we could have done that this year. We got about 18% combined from Aziz and Mitchell. But we only got 2.6% from Simas and 2.3% from Jizzle. Even without Aziz on the floor we could have had a 34% rebounding team:
Mitchell: 9%
Reed: 6%
Skillings: 8%
Griffith: 7%
Day Day: 4%

[sedz]

I'll be analyzing the transfers we're connected with and using BPM as the main measuring stick. Here's a quick and dirty grading scale:

10+: All-American, top 20 nationally
8-9: All Conference
6-7: Star Player
4-5: Major Rotation Player
2-3: Role Player or Specialist
1 or Below: Project

In the portal I'm mainly looking to bring in 4+ BPM players. Mitchell was our only guy in the Star Player category. It would be nice to get another star, or for Mitchell to increase his usage and move up to All Conference Caliber.

[sedz]

Skillings, Mitchell, and Reed are more than capable of slashing to the rim if we run any kind of off ball down or flare screens on the wings. But we don't. They're all capable ball handlers, none of them turn it over much. Philon and Nelson have higher turnover rates than any of our wings but they get to the rim all the time.

This is a constant issue with Wes teams, it doesn't matter who is on the roster.

[longtimefan]

I'm firmly on the coaching is the problem train. It was apparent the first time we took the floor this season that our philosophy hadn't changed. I posted this when we were up 23 at the half in game 1:

Our high usage players don't try to get to the rim, so they don't score efficiently, don't get fouled, and don't draw second defenders to allow dump off passes or putbacks. We don't put pressure on defenses. Allowing your players to throw up a 37% midrange jumper every other minute is a coaching choice. Bringing a second defender to the ball with pick n roll is a coaching choice. Tailoring your offense for jumpshots by guards with effective field goal percentages under 48% is a coaching choice. Counting on offensive rebounds when you play two small guards and an unathletic wing (all with offensive rebounding rates under 3%) is a coaching choice.

Wes needs to hire someone who can teach him how to implement basic basketball analytics or we'll continue to have a bad offense no matter how much toughness and effort we show. It's 2025. Scoring this season is 1.07 points per possession, the highest it's ever been and up from 1.02 just a few years ago. Offensive philosophy is being pushed forward by analytical minds like Nate Oats, Dennis Gates, and Mark Pope. Some of the old heads like Bruce Pearl and Mark Few have adapted. The rest are gone or get by with a top 5 defense (Sampson, Pitino, Barnes). Our defense isn't that good and we're playing offense from a different era. It's not good enough. We have to get with the times.

The problem is we don’t have long guys who can handle the ball.

[sedz]

Alabama has taken just 228 midrange shots this year, exactly half the amount we have taken.

Alabama has shot 785 free throws compared to our 426. Their 6'1 PG got to the FT line 209 times by himself, more than 4 times as many attempts as any of our guards.

Jizzle has taken 153 midrange shots this year, 3 times as many as any player on Alabama.

These shot choices are determined by the coach.

[sedz]

I'm firmly on the coaching is the problem train. It was apparent the first time we took the floor this season that our philosophy hadn't changed. I posted this when we were up 23 at the half in game 1:

My concern remains the midrange shot. I think Jizzle put up 5 in the first half? With long guys who can handle the ball, we should be trying to get rim looks every play.

Our high usage players don't try to get to the rim, so they don't score efficiently, don't get fouled, and don't draw second defenders to allow dump off passes or putbacks. We don't put pressure on defenses. Allowing your players to throw up a 37% midrange jumper every other minute is a coaching choice. Bringing a second defender to the ball with pick n roll is a coaching choice. Tailoring your offense for jumpshots by guards with effective field goal percentages under 48% is a coaching choice. Counting on offensive rebounds when you play two small guards and an unathletic wing (all with offensive rebounding rates under 3%) is a coaching choice.

Wes needs to hire someone who can teach him how to implement basic basketball analytics or we'll continue to have a bad offense no matter how much toughness and effort we show. It's 2025. Scoring this season is 1.07 points per possession, the highest it's ever been and up from 1.02 just a few years ago. Offensive philosophy is being pushed forward by analytical minds like Nate Oats, Dennis Gates, and Mark Pope. Some of the old heads like Bruce Pearl and Mark Few have adapted. The rest are gone or get by with a top 5 defense (Sampson, Pitino, Barnes). Our defense isn't that good and we're playing offense from a different era. It's not good enough. We have to get with the times.

[sedz]

UC = 2-8 in Big 12 ... my analytics say that isn't good

Indeed, lol.

Leo asked about our conference only numbers earlier. Well here's our offensive ranks.

Offensive efficiency #16
Offensive rebounding #15
Free throw rate #16
Free throw shooting #14
2pt shooting #14
3pt shooting #16
Assist rate #13

Gross. We're bottom 3 in almost everything that matters and a distant last in overall efficiency. The only thing we do ok is take care of the ball, where we rank #7.

[GoBearcats31]

UC = 2-8 in Big 12 ... my analytics say that isn't good

[sedz]

I want to offer an analogy and hopefully clear the air a little bit. Basketball metrics have a lot in common with temperature metrics. The average person doesn't understand what temperature is really measuring (it's not heat!). But you don't have to understand temperature to know that 70 feels nice or that it might snow under 32. You can set your thermostat or decide what to wear without taking a course in thermodynamics. You can also say that temperature doesn't tell the whole story, that just going outside is better. That's true. Humidity, air pressure, dew point, elevation, wind, cloud cover, sun angle, and solar irradiance can also affect how the air feels. So we have a "heat index" or "feels like" temperature that takes all of that into consideration. Box Plus Minus is like that. It takes a bunch of individual rate stats along with the score to generate a sort of "performance index" for basketball players.

Maybe you think heat index and BPM are mumbo jumbo. That's fine - you don't have to use them. Using rate stats or BPM is like using Celsius instead of Fahrenheit. Anyone can do it, you don't have to be smart. You just have to learn a new system that opens up all kinds of analysis that's impossible under the old system.

[Lobot]

The NCAA has announced that the BartTorvik.com rankings will now be included on official teamsheets during NCAA selection committee proceedings.

[GoBearcats31]

As of this morning, UC is 9th in the country in "2023-24 Power 6 Production" (scoring) on next year's roster
https://twitter.com/CoachAdragna/sta...26573838032932

[sedz]

The Pelicans are putting on a masterclass in how to defend with no bigs. They are switching everything, and the Lakers are getting LeBron matched up against tiny Alvorado, but the Pelicans are doubling to force the ball out of his hands.

[sedz]

What do analytics, especially defense tell us about the one and done players the past five seasons- versus players drafted with 3 or 4 years in college? It seems to me that the NBA doesn't play or cherish defense in the "younger guys with a ton of potential". I'm curious to see if what helps a player help his team win at the college level is what helps him get drafted higher. My thesis is the NBA only cares about defense outside the Lottery picks (except the kid from France whose name I couldn't spell if I did watch more NBA).

The NBA is so different from college basketball it might as well be a different sport. With the shooters they have, screens have to be defended out to 30 ft and the defense has to scramble to cover a huge area. Length, athleticism, and quickness are absolutely critical. If you have those qualities, you'll get drafted and they will teach you how to shoot and defend. I don't think NBA GMs and scouts care much at all about statistical output in college. They just want to see the tools. We've seen that on our teams. Lance Stephenson was our highest draft pick since Kenyon, but he was worse than Rashad Bishop and Deonta Vaughn as a college player. Sean Kilpatrick and Gary Clark went undrafted. They care about a player's potential to defend the more open NBA game. They don't care if you can shut down college players.

[sedz]

If Reed can improve his offense, do the stats show him to be as good a defender asI think he is? He made mistakes in both the past two seasons, but seemed to be the guy relieving Newmann and being a lockdown defender mid way through this year. Maybe if you can break down his stats just to conference games, will we see an improvement over first part of the year? Also, add Rayvon as RS freshman. I believe the year on the bench will let him shine next year,

Yes, you're exactly right. In conference play, Reed was our top defender statistically. If we remove Ody due to low minutes, Reed was tied with Newman as our third best defender over the whole season, behind Aziz and Day Day. His ability to defend all five positions is very valuable. Hopefully he can add something on offense.