Author Topic: Big 12 stats.... (Read 1469 times)

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 10:39:14 AM

Quote

SCORING OFFENSE
## Team G W-L Pts Avg/G
--------------------------------------------
1.Texas............... 13 10-3 1057 81.3
2.Kansas.............. 13 11-2 1047 80.5
3.Missouri............ 13 6-7 951 73.2
6.Kansas State........ 13 8-5 892 68.6

SCORING DEFENSE
## Team G Pts Avg/G
--------------------------------------
1.Texas A&M........... 13 789 60.7
2.Kansas.............. 13 813 62.5
Oklahoma............ 13 813 62.5
6.Kansas State........ 13 870 66.9

SCORING MARGIN
## Team G OFF DEF Margin
----------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 80.5 62.5 +18.0
2.Texas A&M........... 13 71.3 60.7 +10.6
3.Texas............... 13 81.3 72.1 +9.2
5.Kansas State........ 13 68.6 66.9 +1.7

FREE THROW PERCENTAGE
## Team G FTM FTA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Texas Tech.......... 13 208 260 .800
2.Oklahoma............ 13 185 248 .746
3.Texas............... 13 222 301 .738
5.Kansas State........ 13 236 322 .733

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 394 783 .503
2.Texas............... 13 358 759 .472
3.Texas A&M........... 13 315 670 .470
10.Kansas State........ 13 286 710 .403

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 276 735 .376
2.Texas A&M........... 13 260 677 .384
3.Texas............... 13 336 798 .421
8.Kansas State........ 13 305 690 .442

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Texas............... 13 119 279 .427
2.Texas A&M........... 13 73 176 .415
3.Kansas.............. 13 82 204 .402
5.Kansas State........ 13 84 236 .356

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Kansas State........ 13 61 225 .271
2.Oklahoma............ 13 58 199 .291
3.Kansas.............. 13 86 290 .297

REBOUNDING
## Team G Reb Avg/G
--------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 538 41.4
2.Texas............... 13 476 36.6
3.Colorado............ 13 472 36.3
8.Kansas State........ 13 450 34.6

REBOUNDING DEFENSE
## Team G Reb Avg/G
--------------------------------------
1.Texas A&M........... 13 397 30.5
2.Oklahoma............ 13 406 31.2
3.Kansas.............. 13 422 32.5
4.Kansas State........ 13 424 32.6

REBOUNDING MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 538 41.4 422 32.5 +8.9
2.Texas A&M........... 13 463 35.6 397 30.5 +5.1
3.Oklahoma............ 13 450 34.6 406 31.2 +3.4
4.Kansas State........ 13 450 34.6 424 32.6 +2.0

BLOCKED SHOTS
## Team G Blocks Avg/G
-----------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 79 6.08
2.Texas............... 13 63 4.85
3.Colorado............ 13 52 4.00
10.Kansas State........ 13 34 2.62

ASSISTS
## Team G Assists Avg/G
------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 220 16.92
2.Texas............... 13 187 14.38
Kansas State........ 13 187 14.38

STEALS
## Team G Steals Avg/G
-----------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 119 9.15
2.Missouri............ 13 117 9.00
3.Texas............... 13 91 7.00
11.Kansas State........ 13 60 4.62

TURNOVER MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Missouri............ 13 177 13.6 215 16.5 +2.92
2.Texas Tech.......... 13 158 12.2 186 14.3 +2.15
3.Kansas.............. 13 187 14.4 205 15.8 +1.38
5.Kansas State........ 13 158 12.2 173 13.3 +1.15

ASSIST-TO-TURNOVER RATIO
## Team G Asst Avg Turn Avg Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Texas A&M........... 13 183 14.1 154 11.8 1.19
2.Kansas State........ 13 187 14.4 158 12.2 1.18
3.Kansas.............. 13 220 16.9 187 14.4 1.18

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS
## Team G No. Avg/G
---------------------------------------
1.Baylor.............. 13 190 14.62
2.Kansas State........ 13 168 12.92
3.Kansas.............. 13 165 12.69

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDS
## Team G No. Avg/G
---------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 373 28.69
2.Texas A&M........... 13 331 25.46
3.Texas............... 13 316 24.31
9.Kansas State........ 13 282 21.69

3-POINT FIELD GOALS MADE
## Team G 3FG Avg/G
---------------------------------------
1.Texas............... 13 119 9.15
2.Nebraska............ 12 95 7.92
3.Baylor.............. 13 101 7.77
5.Kansas State........ 13 84 6.46

As I look at those, several things stand out;
1) We've become a pretty good ballhandling team under Huggs. Despite the overblown arguement of "no true PG", these guys have bought in and Huggs system allows a team to have several guys be distributors in a shared load. And our numbers here would be even better if we were a better shooting team.
2) I'm surprised by some of our defensive numbers, particularly FG % defense. We aren't great there, but have done enough to win games.
3) The underrated stat of the year; we lead the Big 12 in FT attempts, and shoot well enough that it has helped us.
4) Not great, but still a much better 3 PT % team than I expected. I suppose Martin has helped that quite a bit.
5) A couple other stats that have helped a bunch are 3 PT FG % defense and offensive rebounding. Those things help negate some our less than stellar issues, namely FG %.
6) Still a very small margin for error with only a +1.7 scoring differential.

lynchmb1029 · February 23, 2007, 10:52:41 AM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 23, 2007, 10:39:14 AM

Quote
SCORING OFFENSE
## Team G W-L Pts Avg/G
--------------------------------------------
1.Texas............... 13 10-3 1057 81.3
2.Kansas.............. 13 11-2 1047 80.5
3.Missouri............ 13 6-7 951 73.2
6.Kansas State........ 13 8-5 892 68.6

SCORING DEFENSE
## Team G Pts Avg/G
--------------------------------------
1.Texas A&M........... 13 789 60.7
2.Kansas.............. 13 813 62.5
Oklahoma............ 13 813 62.5
6.Kansas State........ 13 870 66.9

SCORING MARGIN
## Team G OFF DEF Margin
----------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 80.5 62.5 +18.0
2.Texas A&M........... 13 71.3 60.7 +10.6
3.Texas............... 13 81.3 72.1 +9.2
5.Kansas State........ 13 68.6 66.9 +1.7

FREE THROW PERCENTAGE
## Team G FTM FTA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Texas Tech.......... 13 208 260 .800
2.Oklahoma............ 13 185 248 .746
3.Texas............... 13 222 301 .738
5.Kansas State........ 13 236 322 .733

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 394 783 .503
2.Texas............... 13 358 759 .472
3.Texas A&M........... 13 315 670 .470
10.Kansas State........ 13 286 710 .403

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 276 735 .376
2.Texas A&M........... 13 260 677 .384
3.Texas............... 13 336 798 .421
8.Kansas State........ 13 305 690 .442

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Texas............... 13 119 279 .427
2.Texas A&M........... 13 73 176 .415
3.Kansas.............. 13 82 204 .402
5.Kansas State........ 13 84 236 .356

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
1.Kansas State........ 13 61 225 .271
2.Oklahoma............ 13 58 199 .291
3.Kansas.............. 13 86 290 .297

REBOUNDING
## Team G Reb Avg/G
--------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 538 41.4
2.Texas............... 13 476 36.6
3.Colorado............ 13 472 36.3
8.Kansas State........ 13 450 34.6

REBOUNDING DEFENSE
## Team G Reb Avg/G
--------------------------------------
1.Texas A&M........... 13 397 30.5
2.Oklahoma............ 13 406 31.2
3.Kansas.............. 13 422 32.5
4.Kansas State........ 13 424 32.6

REBOUNDING MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 538 41.4 422 32.5 +8.9
2.Texas A&M........... 13 463 35.6 397 30.5 +5.1
3.Oklahoma............ 13 450 34.6 406 31.2 +3.4
4.Kansas State........ 13 450 34.6 424 32.6 +2.0

BLOCKED SHOTS
## Team G Blocks Avg/G
-----------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 79 6.08
2.Texas............... 13 63 4.85
3.Colorado............ 13 52 4.00
10.Kansas State........ 13 34 2.62

ASSISTS
## Team G Assists Avg/G
------------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 220 16.92
2.Texas............... 13 187 14.38
Kansas State........ 13 187 14.38

STEALS
## Team G Steals Avg/G
-----------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 119 9.15
2.Missouri............ 13 117 9.00
3.Texas............... 13 91 7.00
11.Kansas State........ 13 60 4.62

TURNOVER MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Missouri............ 13 177 13.6 215 16.5 +2.92
2.Texas Tech.......... 13 158 12.2 186 14.3 +2.15
3.Kansas.............. 13 187 14.4 205 15.8 +1.38
5.Kansas State........ 13 158 12.2 173 13.3 +1.15

ASSIST-TO-TURNOVER RATIO
## Team G Asst Avg Turn Avg Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Texas A&M........... 13 183 14.1 154 11.8 1.19
2.Kansas State........ 13 187 14.4 158 12.2 1.18
3.Kansas.............. 13 220 16.9 187 14.4 1.18

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS
## Team G No. Avg/G
---------------------------------------
1.Baylor.............. 13 190 14.62
2.Kansas State........ 13 168 12.92
3.Kansas.............. 13 165 12.69

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDS
## Team G No. Avg/G
---------------------------------------
1.Kansas.............. 13 373 28.69
2.Texas A&M........... 13 331 25.46
3.Texas............... 13 316 24.31
9.Kansas State........ 13 282 21.69

3-POINT FIELD GOALS MADE
## Team G 3FG Avg/G
---------------------------------------
1.Texas............... 13 119 9.15
2.Nebraska............ 12 95 7.92
3.Baylor.............. 13 101 7.77
5.Kansas State........ 13 84 6.46

As I look at those, several things stand out;
1) We've become a pretty good ballhandling team under Huggs. Despite the overblown arguement of "no true PG", these guys have bought in and Huggs system allows a team to have several guys be distributors in a shared load. And our numbers here would be even better if we were a better shooting team.
2) I'm surprised by some of our defensive numbers, particularly FG % defense. We aren't great there, but have done enough to win games.
3) The underrated stat of the year; we lead the Big 12 in FT attempts, and shoot well enough that it has helped us.
4) Not great, but still a much better 3 PT % team than I expected. I suppose Martin has helped that quite a bit.
5) A couple other stats that have helped a bunch are 3 PT FG % defense and offensive rebounding. Those things help negate some our less than stellar issues, namely FG %.
6) Still a very small margin for error with only a +1.7 scoring differential.

Its interesting when looking at those all together. I think what you said is so true, that just shows how little our margin of error is. In fact, looking at those numbers one would wonder how we are 4th and in position to maybe take over 3rd by the time the season is over (

)

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 10:59:27 AM

Those stats combined with our conference record just magnify what an incredible job Huggins has done with this team.

michigancat · February 23, 2007, 10:59:39 AM

We're tied for 2nd in fewest turnovers. If you look back at Pomeroy's Big XII preview, he noted that one thing Huggins' teams consistently do well is take care of the ball.

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 11:11:45 AM

Quote from: Rusty on February 23, 2007, 10:59:39 AM

If you look back at Pomeroy's Big XII preview,

You been hanging out with sys?

Dan Rydell · February 23, 2007, 11:16:46 AM

One thing that I've noticed more and more as the year has gone on, and which is shown by the stats, is our lack of steals. Now, our defense forces other types of turnovers (travels, throwing the ball out of bounds, etc.), but the nice thing about those steals (like ku gets) is that they frequently lead to lay-ups in transition and really fuel the type of runs that set teams like ku and aTm apart from other teams in the conference...the runs that make games against teams like Nebraska and Baylor "laughers" for the top teams.

Is our lack of steals due to our lack of quicks? When our guys do lunge for the ball, they're usually just a bit too late to knock the ball away. Or is it just due to the style of defense? I noticed that Huggs' Cincy teams in the late 90's/early 00's usually averaged right around 5 steals per game, although one year (maybe 03-04?) they averaged 7.5.

michigancat · February 23, 2007, 11:32:45 AM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 23, 2007, 11:11:45 AM

Quote from: Rusty on February 23, 2007, 10:59:39 AM
If you look back at Pomeroy's Big XII preview,

You been hanging out with sys?

I really like his blog.

Quote from: bslimz on February 23, 2007, 11:16:46 AM

Is our lack of steals due to our lack of quicks? When our guys do lunge for the ball, they're usually just a bit too late to knock the ball away. Or is it just due to the style of defense? I noticed that Huggs' Cincy teams in the late 90's/early 00's usually averaged right around 5 steals per game, although one year (maybe 03-04?) they averaged 7.5.

I think the lack of physical quickness if a factor, and I'm guessing there's a significant learning curve for team defense when you're going for steals. Guys away from the ball have to be able to recognize where help is needed quickly...I'd be willing to bet there's too much thinking going on still to go all out with ball pressure.

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 11:44:08 AM

Yeah, we're a ball pressure team, but we don't take a bunch of chances going for steals b/c that would lead to breakdowns in the help defense. If we had a couple more athletes, we might, but we really can't afford to take chances with the make-up of this team.

pissclams · February 23, 2007, 12:14:08 PM

Is = this year
Was = last year

SCORING OFFENSE
## Team G W-L Pts Avg/G
--------------------------------------------
Is: 6.Kansas State........ 13 8-5 892 68.6
Was: 9.Kansas State........ 28 15-13 1911 68.2
B12: 7.Kansas State........ 16 6-10 1031 64.4

SCORING DEFENSE
## Team G Pts Avg/G
--------------------------------------
Is: 6.Kansas State........ 13 870 66.9
Was: 5.Kansas State........ 28 1788 63.9
B12: 5.Kansas State........ 16 1049 65.6

SCORING MARGIN
## Team G OFF DEF Margin
----------------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 68.6 66.9 +1.7
Was: 7.Kansas State........ 28 68.2 63.9 +4.4
B12: 7.Kansas State........ 16 64.4 65.6 -1.1

FREE THROW PERCENTAGE
## Team G FTM FTA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 236 322 .733
Was: 5.Kansas State........ 28 423 595 .711
B12: 7.Kansas State........ 16 223 319 .699

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 10.Kansas State........ 13 286 710 .403
Was: 7.Kansas State........ 28 683 1538 .444
B12: 7.Kansas State........ 16 366 858 .427

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 8.Kansas State........ 13 305 690 .442
Was: 3.Kansas State........ 28 620 1557 .398
B12: 3.Kansas State........ 16 357 889 .402

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 84 236 .356
Was: 5.Kansas State........ 28 122 337 .362
B12: 6.Kansas State........ 16 76 209 .364

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 1.Kansas State........ 13 61 225 .271
Was: 2.Kansas State........ 28 183 556 .329
B12: 3.Kansas State........ 16 110 322 .342

REBOUNDING
## Team G Reb Avg/G
--------------------------------------
Is: 8.Kansas State........ 13 450 34.6
Was: 6.Kansas State........ 28 1018 36.4
B12: 6.Kansas State........ 16 570 35.6

REBOUNDING DEFENSE
## Team G Reb Avg/G
--------------------------------------
Is: 4.Kansas State........ 13 424 32.6
Was: 4.Kansas State........ 28 908 32.4
B12: 6.Kansas State........ 16 532 33.2

REBOUNDING MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
Is: 4.Kansas State........ 13 450 34.6 424 32.6 +2.0
Was: 5.Kansas State........ 28 1018 36.4 908 32.4 +3.9
B12: 5.Kansas State........ 16 570 35.6 532 33.2 +2.4

BLOCKED SHOTS
## Team G Blocks Avg/G
-----------------------------------------
Is: 10.Kansas State........ 13 34 2.62
Was: 7.Kansas State........ 28 95 3.39
B12: 8.Kansas State........ 16 50 3.13

ASSISTS
## Team G Assists Avg/G
------------------------------------------
Is: Kansas State........ 13 187 14.38
Was: 5.Kansas State........ 28 452 16.14
B12: 6.Kansas State........ 16 232 14.50

STEALS
## Team G Steals Avg/G
-----------------------------------------
Is: 11.Kansas State........ 13 60 4.62
Was: 10.Kansas State........ 28 169 6.04
B12: 11.Kansas State........ 16 88 5.50

TURNOVER MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 158 12.2 173 13.3 +1.15
Was: 8.Kansas State........ 28 419 15.0 404 14.4 -0.54
B12: 8.Kansas State........ 16 240 15.0 208 13.0 -2.00

ASSIST-TO-TURNOVER RATIO
## Team G Asst Avg Turn Avg Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------
Is: 2.Kansas State........ 13 187 14.4 158 12.2 1.18
Was: 6.Kansas State........ 28 452 16.1 419 15.0 1.08
B12: 8.Kansas State........ 16 232 14.5 240 15.0 0.97

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS
## Team G No. Avg/G
---------------------------------------
Is: 2.Kansas State........ 13 168 12.92
Was: 7.Kansas State........ 28 357 12.75
B12: 7.Kansas State........ 16 196 12.25

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDS
## Team G No. Avg/G
---------------------------------------
Is: 9.Kansas State........ 13 282 21.69
Was: 6.Kansas State........ 28 661 23.61
B12: 5.Kansas State........ 16 374 23.38

3-POINT FIELD GOALS MADE
## Team G 3FG Avg/G
---------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 84 6.46
Was: 12.Kansas State........ 28 122 4.36
B12: 12.Kansas State........ 16 76 4.75

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 23, 2007, 10:59:27 AM

Those stats combined with our conference record just magnify what an incredible job Huggins has done with this team.

I don't want to derail this Huggins Lovefest too much but comparing last year to this year we aren't a hell of a lot better in most statistical categories than we were a year ago despite the Big XII North in whole getting worse. In all actuality, he's got us overachieving to the tune of 3-4 games that otherwise we might not have won. A positive spin on it though is that despite the poor talent we have playing close to, or worse, than we did last year, we've gotten more wins, which can be attributed to the talent we're playing against getting worse and the coaching getting better. At this point I think it's a bit of a stretch to characterize this year as "an incredible job" by Huggs.

fatty fat fat · February 23, 2007, 12:15:44 PM

Nice post Piss/clams; bad analysis.

These aren't Huggins players, these are players that fit the jim wooldridge scheme to perfection (perfection for wooly = 6-10 w/many close losses)

So you shouldn't expect better statistics. It only reinforces the fact that he is a great coach because we aren't very talented (the statistics prove this) yet we are in 4th place.

michigancat · February 23, 2007, 12:23:28 PM

Big 12 Conference (2005-06)
TEAM    CONF W-L    TOTAL W-L
Texas    13-3    27-6
Kansas    13-3    25-7
Oklahoma    11-5    20-8
Texas A&M    10-6    21-8
Colorado    9-7    20-9
Nebraska    7-9    19-13
Kansas State    6-10    15-13
Iowa State    6-10    16-14
Oklahoma State    6-10    17-15
Texas Tech    6-10    15-17
Missouri    5-11    12-16
Baylor    4-12    4-13

Big 12 Conference (2006-07)
TEAM    CONF W-L    TOTAL W-L
Kansas    11-2    24-4
Texas A&M    11-2    23-4
Texas    10-3    20-7
Kansas State    8-5    19-9
Missouri    6-7    17-9
Texas Tech    6-7    17-11
Oklahoma    6-7    15-11
Oklahoma State    5-7    19-8
Iowa State    5-8    14-13
Nebraska    4-8    15-11
Baylor    3-10    13-13
Colorado    2-11    6-17

There really isn't much change in the B12N...KSU, ku, and MU are better, ISU and NU are about the same, and only CU is a lot worse.

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 12:24:40 PM

I'm not sure. I think it would be more interesting to see this years Big 12 stats (which is what I posted) compared to last years Big 12 stats, not the entire season stats. I think that's a more accurate comparison b/c our OOC was pretty weak last year and this year's OOC was a lot of time in transition and then waiting on Bill and getting Bill before losing Bill.

I'm not so sure the Big 12 is that much weaker this year. Last year was a 4 big league (granted, a bunch of mid-majors got at large bids) and this year is looking like a probably 5 bid league.

ku is better.
aTm is better.
KSU is better.
MU is better.
Tech is better.
BU is better. (slightly)

OU is worse.
UT is worse. (but still good this year)
CU is worse.
NU is worse. (slightly)
ISU is worse.

OSU is about the same.

Really, only OU and CU are clearly worse teams than last year.

catzacker · February 23, 2007, 12:27:22 PM

So for last year's stats, does pissclams stats include OOC games? Or did we play 28 conference games last year?

pissclams · February 23, 2007, 12:32:41 PM

Quote from: fatty fat fat on February 23, 2007, 12:15:44 PM

Nice post Piss/clams; bad analysis.

These aren't Huggins players, these are players that fit the jim wooldridge scheme to perfection (perfection for wooly = 6-10 w/many close losses)

So you shouldn't expect better statistics. It only reinforces the fact that he is a great coach because we aren't very talented (the statistics prove this) yet we are in 4th place.

That's pretty much what I said, I gave Huggs props for coaching up bad/not his players, but at the end of the day he should be judged on where we are, which is 3-4 wins better than last year despite being statistically worse.

Quote from: catzacker on February 23, 2007, 12:27:22 PM

So for last year's stats, does pissclams stats include OOC games? Or did we play 28 conference games last year?

I included the entire season stats.

Arthur Carlson · February 23, 2007, 12:34:21 PM

I think it is borderline amazing the Cats are tied for 2nd in assists, but 10th in field goal percentage.

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 12:37:24 PM

Quote from: pissclams on February 23, 2007, 12:14:08 PM

Is = this year
Was = last year

SCORING OFFENSE
## Team G W-L Pts Avg/G
--------------------------------------------
Is: 6.Kansas State........ 13 8-5 892 68.6
Was: 7.Kansas State........ 16 6-10 1031 64.4

SCORING DEFENSE
## Team G Pts Avg/G
--------------------------------------
Is: 6.Kansas State........ 13 870 66.9
Was: 5.Kansas State........ 16 1049 65.6

SCORING MARGIN
## Team G OFF DEF Margin
----------------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 68.6 66.9 +1.7
Was: 7.Kansas State........ 16 64.4 65.6 -1.1

FREE THROW PERCENTAGE
## Team G FTM FTA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 236 322 .733
Was: 7.Kansas State........ 16 223 319 .699

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 10.Kansas State........ 13 286 710 .403
Was: 7.Kansas State........ 16 366 858 .427

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 8.Kansas State........ 13 305 690 .442
Was: 3.Kansas State........ 16 357 889 .402

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 84 236 .356
Was: 6.Kansas State........ 16 76 209 .364

3-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE
## Team G FG FGA Pct
---------------------------------------------
Is: 1.Kansas State........ 13 61 225 .271
Was: 3.Kansas State........ 16 110 322 .342

REBOUNDING
## Team G Reb Avg/G
--------------------------------------
Is: 8.Kansas State........ 13 450 34.6
Was: 6.Kansas State........ 16 570 35.6

REBOUNDING DEFENSE
## Team G Reb Avg/G
--------------------------------------
Is: 4.Kansas State........ 13 424 32.6
Was: 6.Kansas State........ 16 532 33.2

REBOUNDING MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
Is: 4.Kansas State........ 13 450 34.6 424 32.6 +2.0
Was: 5.Kansas State........ 16 570 35.6 532 33.2 +2.4

BLOCKED SHOTS
## Team G Blocks Avg/G
-----------------------------------------
Is: 10.Kansas State........ 13 34 2.62
Was: 8.Kansas State........ 16 50 3.13

ASSISTS
## Team G Assists Avg/G
------------------------------------------
Is: Kansas State........ 13 187 14.38
Was: 6.Kansas State........ 16 232 14.50

STEALS
## Team G Steals Avg/G
-----------------------------------------
Is: 11.Kansas State........ 13 60 4.62
Was: 11.Kansas State........ 16 88 5.50

TURNOVER MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 158 12.2 173 13.3 +1.15
Was: 8.Kansas State........ 16 240 15.0 208 13.0 -2.00

ASSIST-TO-TURNOVER RATIO
## Team G Asst Avg Turn Avg Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------
Is: 2.Kansas State........ 13 187 14.4 158 12.2 1.18
Was: 8.Kansas State........ 16 232 14.5 240 15.0 0.97

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS
## Team G No. Avg/G
---------------------------------------
Is: 2.Kansas State........ 13 168 12.92
Was: 7.Kansas State........ 16 196 12.25

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDS
## Team G No. Avg/G
---------------------------------------
Is: 9.Kansas State........ 13 282 21.69
Was: 5.Kansas State........ 16 374 23.38

3-POINT FIELD GOALS MADE
## Team G 3FG Avg/G
---------------------------------------
Is: 5.Kansas State........ 13 84 6.46
Was: 12.Kansas State........ 16 76 4.75

Fixed it. Again, last year's margin was small and so is this year. By being a team that gets to the FT line a bunch more, handles the ball a little better, hits the offensive boards better, and defends the 3 PT line better we've gone from a clear lower division team to a clear upper division team. With about the same team and a league about the same, that's a pretty good job by Huggs, especially considering the "no Walker, Walker, no Walker" deal that this team went through.

cas · February 23, 2007, 12:41:11 PM

The only statistic that really matters at the end of the day.

IS= this year
WAS= last year

IS= 19-9
WAS= 15-13

Through 28 games.

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 12:43:45 PM

Quote from: csourk on February 23, 2007, 12:41:11 PM

The only statidtic that really matters at the end of the day.

IS= this year
WAS= last year

IS= 19-9
WAS= 15-13

Through 28 games.

Definately. I'm just curious to see how we got there at the end of a long break between games.

sys · February 23, 2007, 12:46:06 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on February 23, 2007, 12:43:45 PM

Definately. I'm just curious to see how we got there at the end of a long break between games.

with the game being cu, it is basically like 8 days between real games. it sucks incredibly.

thank god we have the yale vs cornell matchup tonight to carry us through till tues.

pissclams · February 23, 2007, 12:48:24 PM

Damn Fan I just added the B12 stats to mine too

Here's where I'm at- using the "he's using Wooly's players" arguement doesn't fly.
We judged Wooly on what he did with his players, we should judge Huggy on what he does with the same players.
Statistically we're pretty much on par with where we were last year, with the exception of 3-4 wins.

It's tough to argue that the B12 North isn't weaker than it was last year given that it:
A) Can't be measured on Wins and Losses since we're beating each other up.
B) Is hard to accept given the amount of coaching turnover the North has seen (inclusive of CU, given their circumstances, CU, NU, ISU, KSU, MU).

Comparing the baseline (last year's players + this year's players) statistically we're similar to last. Huggs gets the 3-4 wins. Not incredible.

sys · February 23, 2007, 12:52:00 PM

Quote from: pissclams on February 23, 2007, 12:48:24 PM

It's tough to argue that the B12 North isn't weaker than it was last year given that it:
A) Can't be measured on Wins and Losses since we're beating each other up.

the big 12 goes .500 against itself every year. amazing consistency.

catzacker · February 23, 2007, 12:56:57 PM

Quote from: pissclams on February 23, 2007, 12:48:24 PM

Here's where I'm at- using the "he's using Wooly's players" arguement doesn't fly.
We judged Wooly on what he did with his players, we should judge Huggy on what he does with the same players.

We judged Wooly on 6-10, not whether we averaged 68ppg or 64ppg.

Quote

Statistically we're pretty much on par with where we were last year, with the exception of 3-4 wins.

I can't believe 3-4 wins is an "exception". That's the difference.

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 12:57:20 PM

Quote from: pissclams on February 23, 2007, 12:48:24 PM

Damn Fan I just added the B12 stats to mine too

Here's where I'm at- using the "he's using Wooly's players" arguement doesn't fly.
We judged Wooly on what he did with his players, we should judge Huggy on what he does with the same players.
Statistically we're pretty much on par with where we were last year, with the exception of 3-4 wins.

It's tough to argue that the B12 North isn't weaker than it was last year given that it:
A) Can't be measured on Wins and Losses since we're beating each other up.
B) Is hard to accept given the amount of coaching turnover the North has seen (inclusive of CU, given their circumstances, CU, NU, ISU, KSU, MU).

Comparing the baseline (last year's players + this year's players) statistically we're similar to last. Huggs gets the 3-4 wins. Not incredible.

I see what you're saying, but I still think its more significant than you're making it out to be. While I can see your point about the north, I'd say that each north team upgraded their coaching.

And while many of the stats are a wash, I don't think you can downgrade the large improvements in key stats like FT attempts (we already have 13 more attempts through 3 less conference games) TO margin, and assist to TO ratio. We're a better team in the W-L column because of stats like those, not inspite of them.

michigancat · February 23, 2007, 01:03:34 PM

Quote from: pissclams on February 23, 2007, 12:48:24 PM

Damn Fan I just added the B12 stats to mine too

Here's where I'm at- using the "he's using Wooly's players" arguement doesn't fly.
We judged Wooly on what he did with his players, we should judge Huggy on what he does with the same players.
Statistically we're pretty much on par with where we were last year, with the exception of 3-4 wins.

It's tough to argue that the B12 North isn't weaker than it was last year given that it:
A) Can't be measured on Wins and Losses since we're beating each other up.
B) Is hard to accept given the amount of coaching turnover the North has seen (inclusive of CU, given their circumstances, CU, NU, ISU, KSU, MU).

Comparing the baseline (last year's players + this year's players) statistically we're similar to last. Huggs gets the 3-4 wins. Not incredible.

You're saying:

A) Winning 3-4 more games with a new coach this year isn't impressive

because:

B) New coaches have made the league weaker

I would also argue that we aren't on a par statistically to last year, because:

1) We shoot and make 25% more FT's a game
2) We allow 30% fewer 3's a game
3) We make 36% more 3's a game
4) We have 20% fewer turnovers a game

chum1 · February 23, 2007, 01:04:43 PM

So, is Huggins better than Wooldridge or what?

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 01:06:19 PM

Quote from: chum1 on February 23, 2007, 01:04:43 PM

So, is Huggins better than Wooldridge or what?

Some people seem to be saying a little bit and some say a lot. I say a lot.

Dan Rydell · February 23, 2007, 01:07:28 PM

The 27-point loss at ku really skews the scoring margin stat. Take that game out, and in the rest we have an offensive average of 68.48, a defensive average of 64.39, for a margin of 4.09...which is an increase in margin of 5.19 from last year, which is pretty significant when you're talking about the number of close games we lost under Wooldridge.

Building on what FAN said, it's really not too hard to see where this additional 5.19 points of margin comes from...more made three-pointers, more free throws attempted and made, more second-chance points from offensive rebounds, and giving up fewer points off turnovers by not turning the ball over so much.

michigancat · February 23, 2007, 01:09:36 PM

Quote from: bslimz on February 23, 2007, 01:07:28 PM

The 27-point loss at ku really skews the scoring margin stat. Take that game out, and in the rest we have an offensive average of 68.48, a defensive average of 64.39, for a margin of 4.09...which is an increase in margin of 5.19 from last year, which is pretty significant when you're talking about the number of close games we lost under Wooldridge.

Building on what FAN said, it's really not too hard to see where this additional 5.19 points of margin comes from...more made three-pointers, more free throws attempted and made, more second-chance points from offensive rebounds, and giving up fewer points off turnovers by not turning the ball over so much.

Like sys said in another thread, people don't realize how significant 4-5 points/game really is.

sys · February 23, 2007, 01:12:05 PM

the big 12 is weaker than last. at least w. respect to a middle of the pack like ksu team.

last year 3 teams were clearly better* - ku, ut and ou. this year just 2 - ku and a&m.
last year 1 team was clearly inferior* - bu. this year 3 - bu, isu, and cu.
last year 1 team was marginally better* - a&m. this year, also 1 - ut.

it is clearly easier to get a couple more wins this year. all that said, i think ksu is a better team than last year.

* yes i realize what happened in ksu matchups against these individual teams in both years. head to head results are far less meaningful than overall record.

ksu_FAN · February 23, 2007, 01:13:45 PM

I agree the league is weaker b/c of the reasons you stated. However, its not like we're the Patriot League all of a sudden.