2013 Season Big 12 Efficiency and Four Factors (regular season adv stats)

[The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep]

As far as stats go, that was by far our best Big 12 game so far, right? I mean crap, we even shot FT's well.

Yes, it was our best game for both offensive and defensive efficiency. A .40 differential between offensive and defensive efficiency is a destruction.

 

[Powercat Posse]

In conf games, Kstate is 3rd in nation out of 345 teams in A/To ratio. And we are 16th in TO%.

 U the man Angel

Also, anyone see the Clones shot 66% last night in their loss. They were twice as bad on TO. Their 25.0% to Osu's 11.8%

[SwiftCat]

I generally wouldn't care about our FTR being so low, but the fact that it's nearly a 20 point difference on our opponents FTR makes me sad.

[kso_FAN]

Your Sunday morning update:

[puniraptor]

The turnover differential is astounding. Is this a defensive system thing or do we just have fast hands and good instincts

[Stevesie60]

I think it's crazier that we're 2nd in offensive efg%. And 3rd is KU, who isn't exactly nipping at our heals.

[kso_FAN]

The turnover differential is astounding. Is this a defensive system thing or do we just have fast hands and good instincts

I think its the system. Outside the game in Ames, we have made it really difficult for opponents to run their offense. Simply my impression, but the main difference between oscar's defensive philosophy and Frank's is that oscar's is a bit more balanced between on ball defense and off ball defense.

Frank's defense was so predicated on ball pressure, denial on the wings, and help in the paint. I made a post about Frank's defense about a year ago, and pointed out how K-State forced a lot of turnovers, but generally didn't have a really high steal percentage. The defense took people out of offense and often teams just threw the ball out of bounds.

I think oscar's is similar, but there is a bit less denial on the wings, so defenders are a bit more likely to end up in passing lanes for steals, thus a slightly higher steal percentage. But overall, the combination of ball pressure and help still forces teams into turnovers at a high rate. And we continue to force teams into what often look like dumb mistakes and players just throw the ball out of bounds. The biggest difference is that even though we still value ball pressure, we take fewer chances, thus we don't end up with as many backdoor cuts or guards getting past ball pressure and to the rim, so our block percentage is down as well.

The differences are slight, but the results are the same and opponents are averaging less than .9 points per possession.

[SleepFighter]

While the DE numbers in conference are the same, our conference rank has dropped, mostly because we are letting teams shoot a better percentage than we did a year ago.  We seem to find a way to give up a fair amount of easy baskets most games.

But again, our shooting percentage is way up, and oscar deserves credit for that.

[kso_FAN]

While the DE numbers in conference are the same, our conference rank has dropped, mostly because we are letting teams shoot a better percentage than we did a year ago.  We seem to find a way to give up a fair amount of easy baskets most games.

I think our conference rank is more from the schedule and it will even out. I'd guess there is a good chance or DEff will be better this year than last. Keep in mind in our 8 conference games we've already played 6 games against Big 12 offenses in the Top 6 in efficiency and only 2 against teams in the bottom 4.

[SleepFighter]

Maybe, but ISU, WVU and Texas (!  good grief they're bad) all shot at or above their season eFG percentages against us.  OU was 1-1 in this regard.  The jury is still out on our defense.

[Powercat Posse]

Two things to point out ---

1) in 8 Conf games, we have 55 steals and have only let our opp. get 30 steals .    The 30 steals allowed is best in the Big 12 and in conf. games we rank 5th best out of 332 teams.   Our 55 steals are 4th best in big 12.   To compare what we have done in yrs past.  Conf rank in ( )

Year ----- Ksu steals ------Opp steals ------
2013          55 (4)                30 (1)
2012         109 (6)               143 (10)
2011         90 (9)               113 (10)
2010         116(4)              118 (11)


2) 2nd thing---  Our A/TO ratio is 1.59 in B12 play.   Our  Big 12 opponents ratio is 0.80. Both league best.  Very sweet having a ratio twice as good.   We have kept the trend going as the last few years we were very good at having our opp. A/To ratio be poor.   Last 3 years ranked 1st (.75), 2nd (.77),
2nd (.74)

[kso_FAN]

I appreciate that posters at goEMAW like advanced stats and have a good understanding of their impact on the game (and usefulness for analysis), but sometimes its helpful to see how they translate back to traditional stats and how they actually impact points scored or not scored during a game.

First we'll look at TO%. K-State has an impressive advantage of almost 6%, .159 compared to .217. The net impact of that when you factor in K-State's average of 62.7 possessions per game ends up giving K-State 3.6 "extra" possessions compared to their opponent. When factored into K-State's average of 1.06 points per possession, on paper that gives K-State an advantage of 3.8 points per game, but I think the impact actually becomes a bit larger because of other factors that I'll get to later.

Next is OR%. K-State has started to even out, but still is at a -2.4% margin, .290 to .314. However, the impact is much less because through Big 12 games K-State averages 56 shots and 31 misses. At a .290 OR%, that means K-State gains 9.0 offensive boards per game. Meanwhile opponents average only 49 shots (see TO%) and 27 misses; or 8.5 off boards per game. As a result of forcing TOs and getting more shot opportunities, K-State ends up with .5 more offensive boards per game than opponents.

When we look at FT rate, this is the only factor that nets K-State a negative impact. K-State's opponents are averaging a .434 FT rate in conference games; when multiplied by 49 shots, that nets 21.3 FT attempts, and at .629 FT%, opponents score 13.4 points per game at the FT line. Meanwhile, K-State's .240 FT rate when multiplied by 56 shots gives K-State 13.4 attempts at .673 FT% for 9 points per game for a significant difference of 4.4 points per game.

However, now we go back to eFG% where K-State gains a huge advantage. That TO% and 3.6 more possessions gives K-State extra shot opportunities (and the FT rate disadvantage takes away opponent shot attempts), giving K-State the shot advantage of 56 attempts compared to 49 for opponents. Then when you factor in K-State's eFG% advantage of .515 to .481, the Cats end up with 28.8 "made shots" compared to only 23.6 "makes" for opponents. Of course, eFG% factors in 3PT makes as 1.5 2PT "makes", so you can just multiply the "made shots" by 2 to get the net advantage. As a result K-State scores 57.6 points off of "shooting" compared to only 47.1 for opponents and an impressive 10.5 points per game advantage. This more than overrides the disadvantage on from FT rate, and when you add total points per game scored from "shooting" (57.6 to 47.1) and FTs (9.0 to 13.4), you get K-State's net advantage in Big 12 play of 66.6 to 60.5.

Again, this illustrates why TO% and eFG% differentials are more important than OR% and FT rate. Of course you want to win all of them, and if K-State closes the gap in FT rate and continues to be near even in OR% while maintaining the eFG% and TO% numbers, 2nd should be vary attainable, and possibly 1st with the continued problems KU continues to show, especially in TO%.

[pissclams]

 

[mocat]

Holy crap, advanced stats manifesto

[sys]

when it comes to winning games, nothing has more impact than efg.  but kstate's relatively high in-conference efg is an anomaly (not as much of an anomaly now as it was two games ago, but still higher than reality).

this team's outstanding strength is to%, just as martin's teams' was oboarding.  it might be a little harder to craft an identity around to% compared to oboarding, but it's still a great thing to specialize in - it's basically how bo ryan has top 25 teams every year.  if weber can consistently get teams to have a ridiculously good to%, then he's going to find it hard to get himself fired here.  looking at his career record, he has enough teams with great to% numbers that it appears to be a consistent strength.  but he also has a number of teams with very pedestrian numbers.  those teams tended to not have very good win-loss%s.

[kso_FAN]

when it comes to winning games, nothing has more impact than efg.  but kstate's relatively high in-conference efg is an anomaly (not as much of an anomaly now as it was two games ago, but still higher than reality).

this team's outstanding strength is to%, just as martin's teams' was oboarding.  it might be a little harder to craft an identity around to% compared to oboarding, but it's still a great thing to specialize in - it's basically how bo ryan has top 25 teams every year.  if weber can consistently get teams to have a ridiculously good to%, then he's going to find it hard to get himself fired here.  looking at his career record, he has enough teams with great to% numbers that it appears to be a consistent strength.  but he also has a number of teams with very pedestrian numbers.  those teams tended to not have very good win-loss%s.

Good points. I'm not sold how much of an anomaly our shooting it is at this point though. We may not stay at 51.5%, but I'd say 50% is doable for Big 12 play. We still have over half our games left against defenses that are allowing 48% or better eFG% on defense.

[sys]

We may not stay at 51.5%, but I'd say 50% is doable for Big 12 play.

that's probably about right, at least as a goal.  50% would be in the area of the top third of all teams in efg.  that's getting into the fat part of the distribution, so it's not outlandish.  in contrast, 55%, for back during those heady days, is like top 5%, which this team clearly was not.

[kso_FAN]

it's basically how bo ryan has top 25 teams every year.

And because of pace, like Ryan's teams, we are going to get more credit than deserved for our defense. The ESPN power poll already brought up that K-State leads the league in "scoring defense" at 60.5 PPG. In reality our defense has been okay, allowing .964 PPP in league games which is a solid 4th, but not a lot better than the NCAA average of .998 PPP.

[8manpick]

First we'll look at TO%. K-State has an impressive advantage of almost 6%, .159 compared to .217. The net impact of that when you factor in K-State's average of 62.7 possessions per game ends up giving K-State 3.6 "extra" possessions compared to their opponent. When factored into K-State's average of 1.06 points per possession, on paper that gives K-State an advantage of 3.8 points per game, but I think the impact actually becomes a bit larger because of other factors that I'll get to later.

As I understand it, and perhaps it is a misunderstanding, we aren't really getting "extra" possessions.  The turnovers are factored into PPP, so I think the math is a little different.  So more turnovers will lower a teams PPP, but it isn't really "extra" possessions and a turnover is and empty possession, the same as a missed shot except without the change in eFG%.   

[mocat]

it's basically how bo ryan has top 25 teams every year.

And because of pace, like Ryan's teams, we are going to get more credit than deserved for our defense. The ESPN power poll already brought up that K-State leads the league in "scoring defense" at 60.5 PPG. In reality our defense has been okay, allowing .964 PPP in league games which is a solid 4th, but not a lot better than the NCAA average of .998 PPP.

  It's 2013, and ESPN is spouting out PPG stats 

[kso_FAN]

First we'll look at TO%. K-State has an impressive advantage of almost 6%, .159 compared to .217. The net impact of that when you factor in K-State's average of 62.7 possessions per game ends up giving K-State 3.6 "extra" possessions compared to their opponent. When factored into K-State's average of 1.06 points per possession, on paper that gives K-State an advantage of 3.8 points per game, but I think the impact actually becomes a bit larger because of other factors that I'll get to later.

As I understand it, and perhaps it is a misunderstanding, we aren't really getting "extra" possessions.  The turnovers are factored into PPP, so I think the math is a little different.  So more turnovers will lower a teams PPP, but it isn't really "extra" possessions and a turnover is and empty possession, the same as a missed shot except without the change in eFG%.   

With a TO you lose the ability to shoot or go to the FT line on that possession. Yes, TOs are factored into PPP, but because of our TO% differential we have 3.6 more possessions than our opponent to either put up a shot or get fouled, which contributes to us having 7 more shot attempts per game than our opponents, especially when we don't have a higher OR%. Like I said, FT rate factors into getting more shots as well, because teams lose shot attempts on possessions and have FTs instead. I made the connection that the net possession differential equals out to 3.6 possessions per game, and I think on paper that works out, the problem is you can't completely make the connection what happens (FT attempts or shot attempts) on those "extra" possessions, but certainly it factors into the fact that we have more shot attempts which is a very good thing when we shoot as well as we do.

Its not a lot unlike what happened under Frank, but we used a combination of OR% and TO% differentials to achieve those extra shots. However, we relied much more on OR% because our TO% differential was at best 2-3% and a few seasons it was negative. Plus our eFG% was never more than 1% better than our opponents. Typically FT rate was pretty much a wash.

[8manpick]

First we'll look at TO%. K-State has an impressive advantage of almost 6%, .159 compared to .217. The net impact of that when you factor in K-State's average of 62.7 possessions per game ends up giving K-State 3.6 "extra" possessions compared to their opponent. When factored into K-State's average of 1.06 points per possession, on paper that gives K-State an advantage of 3.8 points per game, but I think the impact actually becomes a bit larger because of other factors that I'll get to later.

As I understand it, and perhaps it is a misunderstanding, we aren't really getting "extra" possessions.  The turnovers are factored into PPP, so I think the math is a little different.  So more turnovers will lower a teams PPP, but it isn't really "extra" possessions and a turnover is and empty possession, the same as a missed shot except without the change in eFG%.   

With a TO you lose the ability to shoot or go to the FT line on that possession. Yes, TOs are factored into PPP, but because of our TO% differential we have 3.6 more possessions than our opponent to either put up a shot or get fouled, which contributes to us having 7 more shot attempts per game than our opponents, especially when we don't have a higher OR%. Like I said, FT rate factors into getting more shots as well, because teams lose shot attempts on possessions and have FTs instead. I made the connection that the net possession differential equals out to 3.6 possessions per game, and I think on paper that works out, the problem is you can't completely make the connection what happens (FT attempts or shot attempts) on those "extra" possessions, but certainly it factors into the fact that we have more shot attempts which is a very good thing when we shoot as well as we do.

Its not a lot unlike what happened under Frank, but we used a combination of OR% and TO% differentials to achieve those extra shots. However, we relied much more on OR% because our TO% differential was at best 2-3% and a few seasons it was negative. Plus our eFG% was never more than 1% better than our opponents. Typically FT rate was pretty much a wash.

Gotcha, I think I focused on the "extra possessions" phrase too much and sort of misunderstood what you were getting at since the "possessions" stat is basically always going to be the same for both teams +/- 1.

[kso_FAN]

Gotcha, I think I focused on the "extra possessions" phrase too much and sort of misunderstood what you were getting at since the "possessions" stat is basically always going to be the same for both teams +/- 1.

That was a good question and point of clarification, and yes the possession totals (+/- 1) still remain consistent for both teams. Probably saying the other teams "wastes" 3.6 possessions would be a better way of saying it.

[Powercat Posse]

Yes, TOs and TO% are a big strength for this team.   We had one game when we werent real good and that was WV where we had 14 TOs and it was he only game when our TO% was 20 or higher.   The other 7 games, we are only ave 9.3 TOs

Another key or us has been 3pt shooting and 3pt defense.    We lead the league in B12 games shooting 37.1% and are 2nd in made 3pt shots

On defense, the Isu game was bad (they are a good 3pt shooting team and our 2nd half D was awful that game).   In 7 of the 8 other games, our 3pt defense has been very good...... allowing only 28.9% and only allowing 22 made 3s.   That is only 3 made 3pt shots per game. 

Good 3pt offense and defense obviously helps when it comes to eFG% difference

[catzacker]

when it comes to winning games, nothing has more impact than efg.  but kstate's relatively high in-conference efg is an anomaly (not as much of an anomaly now as it was two games ago, but still higher than reality).

this team's outstanding strength is to%, just as martin's teams' was oboarding.  it might be a little harder to craft an identity around to% compared to oboarding, but it's still a great thing to specialize in - it's basically how bo ryan has top 25 teams every year.  if weber can consistently get teams to have a ridiculously good to%, then he's going to find it hard to get himself fired here.  looking at his career record, he has enough teams with great to% numbers that it appears to be a consistent strength.  but he also has a number of teams with very pedestrian numbers.  those teams tended to not have very good win-loss%s.

Good points. I'm not sold how much of an anomaly our shooting it is at this point though. We may not stay at 51.5%, but I'd say 50% is doable for Big 12 play. We still have over half our games left against defenses that are allowing 48% or better eFG% on defense.

we shot around 46.7% in the OOC.  seems like we're running at a rate higher than normal.   9 of the 13 OOC we shot under 50%, we've only shot under 50% twice in conference.  though the other side of the coin is that defensively, we're running at a "worse" rate, so you'd have to expect that to be better.