Statistical Breakdown

[fan2011]

Part 1: Tempo

*This stuff may not be very interesting to most people, but it is fascinating to me. Some more interesting analysis on our offense and defense will come soon*

The possession is an important concept in analyzing basketball performance. What a possession is and why they are used are talked about here. Our team has been one of the slowest in the country recently, meaning we had a low number of possessions per game.

In 2015 we average 62.0 possessions per game, which is 308th lowest in the country. The national average was 64.8 possessions per game. What causes us to have few possessions? It turns out the biggest factor in our low possession numbers was actually our defense.

We are known for slowing things down on offense, so long offensive possession times are expected, but our defensive possession times are significantly longer. Our average time of possession on offense is 18.9 seconds (232nd), which is ~0.5 seconds longer than the national average. However, on defense we force teams to take an average of 19.6 seconds (328th). The long defensive possession times are due to three things:

1) Taking away transition offense from opponents. Only 15.9% of our opponent's shot attempts came in transition. This is the 6th best in the country in terms of preventing transition shot attempts. Since our opponents don't get many quick baskets their possessions tend to be longer.

2) Low defensive rebounding rate. We only pulled down 66.6% of our defensive rebounding opportunities, which was 280th best in the country. The national average was 68.9%. Since offensive rebounds extend the possession, allowing opponents more offensive rebounds leads to longer defensive possessions.

3) It takes teams a long time to find good looks against our defense. 41.7% of our opponents' shots were 2pt jump shots, the least efficient shot in college basketball. We were the 9th best team in the country at forcing opponents to take the mid-range jumper with our defense because we were effective at taking away both the 3 and layup/dunk.

So we know why we have a low number of possessions per game, but what does that mean for our team? All of D1 has become slower and slower over the past decade. This has lead to lower scores while scoring efficiency has remained relatively constant. Lower scoring games allow more chances for upsets, and this can be seen with home court winning percentages dropping along with the pace of the game. I have heard from some credible sources that the NCAA is very likely to go to the 30s shot clock next year which should increase the number of possessions per game, and scoring, but I think Mooney's offense and defense will always keep us on the low end of the tempo spectrum.

I'll post some more analysis on our team in the next few days.

 

[Ulla1]

Great analysis, 2011!

 

[MrTbone]

Really interesting. I never thought about the impact our defense has on possessions but makes total sense.

 

[SouthJerseySpiderFan]

I believe UR slowing it up even more would be beneficial. Copy everything Wiscy does would be my advice. Wiscy competes at a high level every year with the best teams without having as many of the so-called elite HS talent coming in. Cause they are as efficient as one can get.

UR trying to up the pace on offense as some here have suggested probably won't help get more wins. Improvement will happen easily by two rebounding aspects worked on extensively: send some players to the offensive glass and toughen up on the defensive boards.

I'm hoping TA, TJ, and ANO will be starting upfront next season so don't see this being a team that will produce fast break points quickly on offense and that's not a bad thing.. Plus we all want TJ in there as much as possible so making the pace slower not faster will help with that.

CM has done a good job with his slow style and if the Spiders are a bigger team on the court next year why not take advantage of it and go inside as much as possible. TA and TJ have shown they are good at it and an improving ANO could be also. Means less 3 PTA but that wasn't a strength this year plus going inside produces more offensive rebounds along with getting the other team in foul trouble. Good coaches become great coaches when they can tweak their system effectively.

 

[SpiderVol]

UR trying to up the pace on offense as some here have suggested probably won't help get more wins. Improvement will happen easily by two rebounding aspects worked on extensively: send some players to the offensive glass and toughen up on the defensive boards.

The main reason we were 6th best in the country in taking away transion baskets and forcing opponents to take the least efficient shots in the game, 2 pt jumpers, is because we don't crash the boards and get back in transition defense. I would like to see what would be more valuable for us, getting a couple extra offense rebounds or giving up more transition baskets.

Also a reason we give up more offense rebounds is that we force low FG% because we extend defenses and force a very high % of those 2 pt jumpers that are the least efficient shot in the game. Not saying we can't get better in the rebounding area but we do pick our poison when it comes to these things.

 

[PhillySpider]

The part that stands out to me is the defensive rebounding and how being so poor at it goes against everything else we do philosophically. We want to get back in transition - - ok I get it and so we sacrafice offensive boards,but if you are going to be a defense first team (and that what we appear to want to be) then you must also rebound. Meaning you must emphasize it. All that good we get from giving up no transition buckets and playing hard nosed D we give back when we give up offensive rebounds. We need a philosophy were the pieces fit together a bit better/differently. I too love the Wisconsin philosophy because it all fits together.

 

[fan2011]

I really like what Wisconsin does as well. However, we actually were more efficient on defense than Wisconsin this past season.

Points per possession (raw):
Richmond: .968 (57th)
Wisconsin: .975 (72nd)

Points per possession (adjusted for competition):
Richmond: .954 (46th)
Wisconsin: .963 (54th)

Wisconsin was such a good team because they had the best offense in the country. Their defense was on par or slightly worse than ours in terms of points per possession, even when adjusted for opponents.

Rebounding is by far our biggest issue on defense. When I look at our defense I will put some what-if scenarios up looking at how increasing our rebounding numbers might affect our defensive efficiency.

 

[MrTbone]

I suspect defensive rebounding is also hampered by two other things: 1) we often play help defense in the paint, often leaving someone unguarded, and 2) we regularly get caught in mismatches and this leads often to a weak side rebounding problem where a big switches to the shooter and a guard end up on one of the other teams bigs.

None of this means a hill of beans when we regularly get out rebounded by 5+ on defense if the margin is all people care about. I care about if we win, and there isnt any consistent correlation between rebounding margin and wins/losses, so I will hope we are better at rebounding but don't gave a crap if we win regardless.

 

[9Legs]

2011- Good Stuff! I have another project for you. I would like to know our team's offensive points scored and defensive points allowed for this past year when both TD and DT are in the line-up at the same time. We know the coach likes to make offensive/defensive substitutions but sometimes can't get the defensive guys out and the offensive guys in due to the flow of the game. TD and DT are widely acclaimed as defensive standouts but have offensive challenges. I would like to know the positive or negative for the time that both are in the game at the same time. Is there anyway that your data base can quickly produce this info?

 

[SpiderTrap]

I agree our defense is very good as shown by your analysis. And I don't mind the low possession, boring games that some complain about as long as we are winning. I think UVA is probably a better example than Wisconsin. UVA's defense also causes teams to slow down to find a good shot, and they don't give up a lot of fast break points. The difference, however, is efficiency on offense. If your going to play a low possession game, then each possession has more value than say a "run and gun" style offense. You have to make each possession count. Also - in a low possession game, an 8 point deficit is more of a mountain to come back from because 8 points could take 8 minutes to get, whereas in a more uptempo style - 8 points might go by in 1 minute.

But our biggest issue I think, and not sure if any statistical analysis exists on this one - is scoring droughts. Every college game is full of runs by both teams. But it just seemed like we always ran into a scoring drought in the 2nd half of games and would get behind and not be able to climb back. We just were not able to put a stop to opponents runs at the right time or get that KEY basket when we needed it.

 

[spiderman]

the defensive rebounding issue to me isn't the switching or the help. as the stats show, we defend the 3 point line and defend the rim. typically the best rebounding teams aren't great defending the 3 point line in particular. if we're out to the line and also protecting against layups, the middle area where most rebounds end up is up for grabs a little. we try to rebound. we do. but like everything CM does, it's a matter of picking your poison. he's not willing to pack it in more to be a better rebounding team because 3 point shots aren't difficult and he want to limit them. just like he's not willing to crash the offensive boards as much as some here would like because transition baskets are easier than working for a basket against our half court defense.

 

[PhillySpider]

Virginia plays the Pack line defense. My AAU team plays pack line as well and I can tell you that every pack line team there ever was emphasizes defensive rebounding - - - meaning we practice and drill it a LOT and pack line teams are almost always good defensive rebounding teams as a result. MY AAU team is a great defensive rebounding team and we are consistently shorter, slower and less athletic (almost to a man) than teams we play. We get very few offensive rebounds however and the pack line also emphasizes transition defense.

The Pack line is very similar to our D in that it is a help defense and is designed to make finding good shots very difficult and time consuming and is not a real pressure defense designed to create turnovers. Both our D and the pack line are often confused with what folks call a "match-up zone" (we have even heard announcers call our D that even though it isn't). As such, defensive rebounding HAS to be part of the philosophy - - you can't have a defense that doesn't create turnovers AND doesn't defensive rebound because you are simply too negative on possessions (be careful of NCAA possession stats too as they can be misleading) no matter how otherwise efficient you are. Its fine for a VCU type defense to struggle at times rebounding because they create a ton of turnovers, but teams like UR that play less pressure based defenses that are designed to limit good shots can't!

Virtually every coach/team that I know that plays this type of defense absolutely preaches defensive rebounding (meaning you practice it and drill it a lot and if a player can't or won't do what it takes, he/she doesn't play) and it at least decent at it as a result. Ummm - - save maybe one coach/team I know I guess that is!

 

[spiderman]

Philly, isn't pack line a sagging man to man defense? we're more zone in that we TRY to keep our guards up top, though they can't stay there if there's nobody in that area. then they have to follow which is what gets them low sometimes.

 

[SouthJerseySpiderFan]

We need a philosophy were the pieces fit together a bit better/differently. I too love the Wisconsin philosophy because it all fits together.

This is what I was thinking in my post. A few adjustments and the pieces could fit better together. My rebounding comment was meant as saying defensive must be sound but offense can't take a back seat. Can't get a win with UR 0 Opponent -2 as a final score.

My Wiscy comment wasn't meant as one particular aspect say of what they do. Philly I guess states it best as being the philosophy I want to copy.

 

[SpiderTrap]

We typically try to make up for our rebounding deficiencies with 3 point shots on the offensive end. JB was the same way when he was at UR. The thought being - I am okay giving up some offensive rebounds, which result in 2 point baskets - as long as we make enough 3 point shots to counter those scores. And usually - that means keeping more shooters on the floor who might not be the best rebounders.

Maybe its the type of players we have - not usually big, strong, tough guys - more lean and athletic. Remember when JW was here, rebounding was less of an issue, and his defense was straight up, hard nosed defense similar to a Michigan State style. Maybe he emphasized more in practice - who knows. But I think we can all agree to throw rebounding out the window. We are never going to be great at it - never have under Mooney, so while all of a sudden would that change?

 

[TBSpyder]

I guess I'll be the devil's advocate here. First of all, Terry Allen has been great on the boards, all 3 NIT games, he recorded double doubles. I think Trey was a little less productive in rebounding. I think an interesting statistic, would be how many rebounds our guards pulled down versus our opponents. All the attention is on the bigs. But plenty of long caroms can give the guards opportunities. Leading rebounder in Miami game, was a guard, who had 12, Terry had 11, a Miami forward had 10. Last year, we had a very small backcourt, maybe too small to snag the long rebounds, plus they may have been pulling back too soon. This year, we will clearly have a bigger backcourt, will they be able to narrow the margin, a little?

 

[spiderman]

good point, TBS. we get little rebounding from guards, with Kendall and SDJ playing a lot of minutes and accounting for less than 3 rpg combined.
comparing last year's rebounding to 2010/11, the biggest difference is SDJ (1.1) compared to K Anderson (2.8). The others are very comparable.
Terry = Harp, Trey = KSmith, ANO = Garrett+DWill, Cline = Geriot, Kendall = Brothers, Deion = Martel.

 

[PhillySpider]

Spiderman - - Pack line is a sagging man (although way oversimplifies it) but always with ball pressure. How you play screens can be different and some pack line teams will look a lot like is if they choose to switch screens. Virginia and most all Dick Bennett based packline teams hat switching, but some others play pack line and switch a lot. The system is like ours in that it designed to make getting good looks etc. very difficult and swaps out some pressure (and turnovers) for never giving up easy hoops (which includes easy put backs off offensive rebounding).

Height in rebounding is totally overrated. Yeah its a factor if KO switches onto Jahill Okafor, but rebounding is totally "culture". ANY team that's willing to commit to it (and the expense of both (a) time spent on other things and (b) giving up other things (i.e. like giving up more threes) can be a good rebounding team. Rebounding is simply so misunderstood. For example, the notion that if you are not a very big team, you should play zone to help your rebounding. Totally wrong! Its much easier to rebound in man (leave aside our version of man) because knowing your block out and finding him/her etc. is so much easier. Zone makes defensive rebounding very tough and is a sacrifice you make to gain some of the other advantages a zone may offer. So, if you are short, you may want to play zone to protect your smallish bigs from foul trouble etc. or to prevent getting abused defensively on the block, but NEVER to help you rebound!

My point is I don't know of another team that "marries" a defensive philosophy like ours (real emphasis on transition D and no easy baskets no matter what) with anything other than a real strong rebounding commitment because they are so naturally tied. Look at teams like Arizona, Mich. St., Xavier. All play tough defenses, really emphasize transition defense and no easy buckets, and are not defenses intended to generate an abundance of turnovers at the expense of good looks. They all play different defenses but with those similar qualities and all emphasize the s__t out of rebounding cause what good is all that great defense if you don't get the ball back as a result! This is why I struggle so much with what we do. All of it is fine in isolation, but it just doesn't all fit together to me at all. And include in that a system that enables us to put players on the floor that fit all of what we want to do. We have zero players who seem to fit both offensively and defensively what we want to be. Everyone is one or the other save maybe TA. I just don't get it sometimes! But certain parts we are really good at!

Its tough to judge, but in the end I'd like us to have more of some sort of defined identity - - something the players really grasp and understand and take pride in and know they must deliver on!

 

[spiderman]

great stuff, Philly.
we do give up some rebounding to cover the line. it's a trade off not many make. works pretty well, though. I don't think defense has been holding us back much, though it can be even better. I think we're close to putting it all together. just a queston of who steps up next season.