2014-15 college basketball

[Rage Against the McKee]

sagarin has our schedule as number 2.  who knew

kenpom says 7. Opponent's O SOS is #25 and opponent's D SOS is #5. And that's after our OOC SOS was only 196.

Also, think are schedule is deceptively hard because we spent way too much time on the road. That is completely on the coaching staff.

Yeah, we had more jet lag than any other team in America.

[Yard Dog]

sagarin has our schedule as number 2.  who knew

kenpom says 7. Opponent's O SOS is #25 and opponent's D SOS is #5. And that's after our OOC SOS was only 196.

Also, think are schedule is deceptively hard because we spent way too much time on the road. That is completely on the coaching staff.

Yeah, we had more jet lag than any other team in America.

Jet Laggie 

[nicname]

2nd OT my God. Check these highlights later guys. Insanity

#TheWesIsTheFuture

I went away from this game when VCU was down 12 in the second half. Disappointed I missed it.

[SdK]

2nd OT my God. Check these highlights later guys. Insanity

#TheWesIsTheFuture

I went away from this game when VCU was down 12 in the second half. Disappointed I missed it.

Was definitely worth that watch man.

#TheWesIsTheFuture

[wetwillie]

The pissclams trophy game has not disappointed so far. 

[MakeItRain]

sagarin has our schedule as number 2.  who knew

kenpom says 7. Opponent's O SOS is #25 and opponent's D SOS is #5. And that's after our OOC SOS was only 196.

Also, think are schedule is deceptively hard because we spent way too much time on the road. That is completely on the coaching staff.

What? Are you confusing K-State with Savannah State? We played 2 non-conference road games.

[cDubya]

sagarin has our schedule as number 2.  who knew

kenpom says 7. Opponent's O SOS is #25 and opponent's D SOS is #5. And that's after our OOC SOS was only 196.

Also, think are schedule is deceptively hard because we spent way too much time on the road. That is completely on the coaching staff.

Yeah, we had more jet lag than any other team in America.

I'm not gonna do all the distance checks, you all did play @Pitt, @Tennessee, and out to Long Beach, but would that top coming out to the Midwest every week or 2 for the whole conference schedule? Oh, and there was also the trip to Puerto Rico in November, lol.

[Kat Kid]

We played Pitt in maui

[cDubya]

We played Pitt in maui

Well, crap. 

[cDubya]

On another note, this Arizona/Utah game is great...

[Cire]

Pac Smells

[nicname]

SMU is the most overrated team in the country by both metrics and people.

[kso_FAN]

Seth Davis' lengthy piece about college basketball. http://www.si.com/sports-illustrated/video/2015/03/02/si-now-monday-march-2-2015

He makes some good points, but mixing tempo free and traditional stats is weird. Still, this does come down to coaches wanting to be in control

Plus, looking at stats since 2002 its logical to deduce several things.



1) Coaches are always concerned about turnovers, and over-coaching has achieved the desired result of reducing TO%.
2) Coaches don't like giving up transition points, and it would appear gradually teams have reduced the number of oboarders, thus OR% has continually dropped.
3) The foul rules worked, but for only 1 year. Pace efficiency (and FT rate) spiked back up while TO% dropped more than expected, but now everything is back to where things were before the rules changes.

The rules on fouling worked, but most coaches didn't like it, and the officials changed back to what coaches like (physical play). It will be interesting to see what effect a shorter shot clock actually has if the rules on fouls stay the same.

Also, most people think of "over-coaching" manifesting itself on the offensive end, and this is true. However, the principle of "tough man to man defense" which many coaches emphasize now shows itself in the physical play we see today. Of course, this happens because officials allow it, so it creates a vicious circle.

[j rake]

as usual, the morons that are trying to 'fix' college basketball are looking in all the wrong places.

seth davis just wrote a 2,000-word column trying to explain why scoring is down and he didn't even bring up the most obvious reason.

[kso_FAN]

as usual, the morons that are trying to 'fix' college basketball are looking in all the wrong places.

seth davis just wrote a 2,000-word column trying to explain why scoring is down and he didn't even bring up the most obvious reason.

Yeah. Its clear that enforcing the rules on fouling was working perfectly, but coaches said I want to play my tough man defense and the officials caved.

[Mixed-Nutz]

as usual, the morons that are trying to 'fix' college basketball are looking in all the wrong places.

seth davis just wrote a 2,000-word column trying to explain why scoring is down and he didn't even bring up the most obvious reason.

Davis wants to throw water on a grease Fire.

[j rake]

as usual, the morons that are trying to 'fix' college basketball are looking in all the wrong places.

seth davis just wrote a 2,000-word column trying to explain why scoring is down and he didn't even bring up the most obvious reason.

Yeah. Its clear that enforcing the rules on fouling was working perfectly, but coaches said I want to play my tough man defense and the officials caved.

again, i think they're looking in all the wrong places. shrinking the shot clock won't have a meaningful impact on scoring. the average offensive possession length is currently 18 seconds per possession. with rare exceptions, no team uses up more than 20 seconds on average.

everybody knows you don't need the full 35 seconds, but it's there if you want it. what will happen if there's a 30-second clock is you'll see teams bring more full-court pressure in an attempt to slow down offenses and get them ever closer to late-clock situations. with the current clock, every team that wants to get a shot off in time can largely get one.

if they decided to move the 3-pt line back as davis suggests, that would lead to more zone - and teams would constantly change up zones in an effort to confuse offenses. the fact that more teams are playing zone has led to the slow down. (it naturally takes up more time to get off a quality shot against a good zone). if you lengthen the 3-pt line, you'll see longer possessions than you currently see (tons of teams would scrap m2m entirely) and you'll see 3-pt shooting percentages drop to the low 30s or, for some teams, the upper 20s.

the real reason for the decline in scoring is use of analytics/better scouting. synergy technology has been a game changer for coaches in recent years. not all coaches were early adopters as the technology became available, but now it's a must-have at almost every program. prepping a team for a saturday-to-monday or thursday-to-saturday turnaround is far easier than it used to be. you can cut up plays easier than you ever could. in short, defenses know the opposing teams' offense/tendencies just as well as the opposing team itself by the time they take the floor.

[kso_FAN]

again, i think they're looking in all the wrong places. shrinking the shot clock won't have a meaningful impact on scoring. the average offensive possession length is currently 18 seconds per possession. with rare exceptions, no team uses up more than 20 seconds on average.

everybody knows you don't need the full 35 seconds, but it's there if you want it. what will happen if there's a 30-second clock is you'll see teams bring more full-court pressure in an attempt to slow down offenses and get them ever closer to late-clock situations. with the current clock, every team that wants to get a shot off in time can largely get one.

if they decided to move the 3-pt line back as davis suggests, that would lead to more zone - and teams would constantly change up zones in an effort to confuse offenses. the fact that more teams are playing zone has led to the slow down. (it naturally takes up more time to get off a quality shot against a good zone). if you lengthen the 3-pt line, you'll see longer possessions than you currently see (tons of teams would scrap m2m entirely) and you'll see 3-pt shooting percentages drop to the low 30s or, for some teams, the upper 20s.

the real reason for the decline in scoring is use of analytics/better scouting. synergy technology has been a game changer for coaches in recent years. not all coaches were early adopters as the technology became available, but now it's a must-have at almost every program. prepping a team for a saturday-to-monday or thursday-to-saturday turnaround is far easier than it used to be. you can cut up plays easier than you ever could. in short, defenses know the opposing teams' offense/tendencies just as well as the opposing team itself by the time they take the floor.

I agree with all that, and yes, advanced scouting has made a huge difference.

But I don't think the bump in every stat last year (except oboarding) was an anomaly. When certain fouls were emphasized the game was cleaner overall. Yes, FT rate jumped a bunch, but pace was higher, efficiency and shooting were better, and turnovers were down. It worked, and that statistical bump was mainly from 1/2 to 1/3 of the season because by the end of last year the game was back to where it was the year before. This seems pretty clear to me based on the numbers.

[j rake]

When certain fouls were emphasized the game was cleaner overall. Yes, FT rate jumped a bunch, but pace was higher, efficiency and shooting were better, and turnovers were down. It worked, and that statistical bump was mainly from 1/2 to 1/3 of the season because by the end of last year the game was back to where it was the year before. This seems pretty clear to me based on the numbers.

when the FT rate jumps, pace will be higher - but it's artificially higher. i wouldn't consider that to be good pace. in terms of watchability, i'd much prefer a northern iowa-missouri state game played at 55 tempo...but is free of whistles...than a stanford-oregon game played at 67 tempo but both teams are in the double bonus in both halves.

also, i think people are making too much of Year 1 observations with the rules changes. yes, there was more pace and higher efficiency with better shooting. but it's impossible to say if that would have continued into this year (i'd argue that it didn't continue through to the end of last year). there was much more zone being played last year (certainly as the season progressed) after coaches adjusted to the rules changes, and you've seen a huge increase in zone this year. among the reasons for teams playing more zone? an attempt to protect their players from getting into foul trouble...a direct result of the rules changes.

[kso_FAN]

When certain fouls were emphasized the game was cleaner overall. Yes, FT rate jumped a bunch, but pace was higher, efficiency and shooting were better, and turnovers were down. It worked, and that statistical bump was mainly from 1/2 to 1/3 of the season because by the end of last year the game was back to where it was the year before. This seems pretty clear to me based on the numbers.

when the FT rate jumps, pace will be higher - but it's artificially higher. i wouldn't consider that to be good pace. in terms of watchability, i'd much prefer a northern iowa-missouri state game played at 55 tempo...but is free of whistles...than a stanford-oregon game played at 67 tempo but both teams are in the double bonus in both halves.

also, i think people are making too much of Year 1 observations with the rules changes. yes, there was more pace and higher efficiency with better shooting. but it's impossible to say if that would have continued into this year (i'd argue that it didn't continue through to the end of last year). there was much more zone being played last year (certainly as the season progressed) after coaches adjusted to the rules changes, and you've seen a huge increase in zone this year. among the reasons for teams playing more zone? an attempt to protect their players from getting into foul trouble...a direct result of the rules changes.

Good points.

[j rake]

i'd have to check on this, but i'd guess that 1H vs 2H scoring disparity last year was the highest in recent memory. when fouls are high, as they often were in the non-con (vegas totals in november and december were unbelievably inflated compared to january and february), you're naturally going to see more late-game shenanigans (foul fests, etc.) which is essentially pointless points in the final two minutes that look good on paper but add nothing to the game's watchability.

if you have a disproportionately high amount of foul fest finishes, scoring will increase (i.e., 20 points in final 2 minutes), efficiency will be artificially inflated (easy layups and late-game FT's boosting PPP #'s), and tempo will also rise. don't get me wrong, the increases won't be dramatic when you figure that thousands of games are being played. but it's surely enough to move the meter.

[kso_FAN]

i'd have to check on this, but i'd guess that 1H vs 2H scoring disparity last year was the highest in recent memory. when fouls are high, as they often were in the non-con (vegas totals in november and december were unbelievably inflated compared to january and february), you're naturally going to see more late-game shenanigans (foul fests, etc.) which is essentially pointless points in the final two minutes that look good on paper but add nothing to the game's watchability.

if you have a disproportionately high amount of foul fest finishes, scoring will increase (i.e., 20 points in final 2 minutes), efficiency will be artificially inflated (easy layups and late-game FT's boosting PPP #'s), and tempo will also rise. don't get me wrong, the increases won't be dramatic when you figure that thousands of games are being played. but it's surely enough to move the meter.

All true, but there were so many dramatic increases in tempo free stats last year that it doesn't seem like it can ALL be do to more FTs.

[sys]

3) The foul rules worked, but for only 1 year. Pace efficiency (and FT rate) spiked back up while TO% dropped more than expected, but now everything is back to where things were before the rules changes.

did pace and efficiency go up, if you remove the effect of increased ft rate?  free thows cut possessions short and allow teams to score more efficiently.  i'd like to see if there was any effect on the those variables aside from the impact of more free throws.

[j rake]

one other dumb observation (sorry, this topic interests me and i've spent plenty of time thinking about it)...

many coaches are taking more control of their teams late in games. in the big ten, i've regularly seen chris collins, john groce and tom crean tell their players to slow it down, and then their guards will take orders from the sideline while burning clock. this typically happens when games are close and when possessions become more important.

look at this indiana-northwestern game from last week, played at a 58 tempo: http://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=4865

until the late foul fest, look at how spaced out the possesions were in the second half (for those unaware, you can tell by the #'s on the bottom of the chart). collins was ordering super-long possessions and nw rarely entered its offense until the 15 to 20-second mark. guess what! this was still an exciting game. the lack of tempo didn't take away from the game at all. in all honesty, it probably enhanced it.

in the first half, the game was wild. indiana made 10 3's and northwestern also made a handful. collins is smart enough to know that indiana gets 31 percent of its initial shot attempts in transition, and that 42 percent of those transition shot attempts are 3-pointers (where indiana converts at an absurd 40 percent rate). quite obviously, if you want to beat indiana, you can't let them run. that means you must concede offensive rebounds and get back on defense, slowing their transition opportunities and forcing them to play halfcourt offense (where they can struggle).

this to me is basketball at its best. i enjoyed the crap out of this game.

dana altman is another late-game clock bleeder. on paper, this oregon-washington game (http://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=3883) looked like a snoozer. only 62 possessions! yet, the first half was played at a 67 pace - above average - before the 2nd half slowed way down as oregon slowed way down, choosing to value possessions and work for the best possible shot against a defense that continually broke down as it tried to adjust to life without robert upshaw.

[j rake]

free thows cut possessions short and allow teams to score more efficiently.  i'd like to see if there was any effect on the those variables aside from the impact of more free throws.

free throws cut possessions short when it's an on-the-floor defensive foul and the offensive team is in the bonus. but there's likely to be three to four possessions prior to the bonus where fouls actually lengthen possessions for a given team (i.e., a handcheck foul with 8 seconds left on the shot clock, followed by a 25-second possession, becomes a 52-second offensive possession).