Watching last night got me to thinking what do I really think of where we are as a team? Each game is easy to critique, but overall what do I think of the team and its possibilities (especially over this and next year). My conclusion is that we are really, really hard to assess.
Our results don't really shed much light on this. Good win against Wisco, bad loss against Radford. Solid win on road at RI but let a game we really needed to win at home against St. Louis get away. The rest to me are pretty much all what was expected and don't point much to whether we are good or just no longer bad. I just can't tell.
In addition to the results to date, I am just as confused by both my eye test from having seen almost every minute of every game and from my look at various analytics that I believe can be insightful (most from KenPom, but a few other places too).
Just watching us, our defense still concerns me a good bit. Its no doubt improved, but I still wonder how will it really stand up against better competition and specifically against teams that really are good and aggressive at breaking down their man off the dribble and taking it to the rim. We look much more comfortable to me in this defense, but just looking I still see some areas for concern. Grant is just not a defensive presence at all and Nick still struggles with lateral quickness. And no one else is a really stud defender. JG obviously helps with his elite steals ability, but the rest of his defense is just OK. So we are better - - but are we good (or good enough)? I am just not sure.
Analytics also sorta leave me in no man's land. We defend the three really well (statistically) and its clear we worked on this, but our 2 point defense is not nearly as good. We are just so-so at generating turnovers overall (149th) but looking at how we get them, we are very good at getting steals (58th) and very bad at forcing non-steal turnovers (317th). Steals are better than non-steal turnovers in a vacuum generally (because they lead to easy baskets more often), but its an interesting dichotomy. There are often teams who generate a lot of steals but aren't very good defensively overall (i.e going for steals represents risk and teams can get exploited) . Almost all teams who generate a high volume of non-steal turnovers are excellent overall defensive teams (but the corollary isn't nearly as reliable). But our steals are the product of one guys uncanny ability and not because as a team we go for a lot of steals and get exposed for it so I think its strictly a good thing we get some steals. In the end I guess the analytics and my eyes tell me generally we are OK defensively. Which beats the hell out last year when both pretty clearly said we stunk it up pretty good!
None of that defensive stuff mentions rebounding where there is no doubt about it in my mind or in the analytics. We stink. Still. No doubt about it. Offensively and defensively.
Offensively is the even more interesting take. My sense watching is that we are good offensively and better than last year. But when I really thought about it, I am not so sure how good and certainly not that we are better than last year. Analytics seem to back that up.
I think it all looks better because we are so very evidently more dangerous as a three point shooting team. Just watching Nick back on the floor and Blake in there and its obvious. But just as obvious to me is that Golden has regressed some with his offensive game (except he has stopped shooting threes) and Nathan has been far less aggressive and involved offensively. So, how good are we and are we better than last year?
Analytics are interesting. We are really good at two very important things - - effective FG% (37th) and turning it over (i.e. NOT turning it over) (15th). But we were almost identically as good last year (42nd and 18th). We are much better shooting the three this year and much worse shooting the two (validating what I see perhaps?). Our FT shooting is much better, but we get to the line considerably less often. These two numbers are fascinating to me. We are elite in FT shooting (2nd) and stunningly bad (and a good deal worse than last year) at actually getting there (at 345th). So is FT shooting a strength really? Its clear I'd rather we shoot 80% than 65%, but not sure how much this translates into we are better for our improved FT shooting. Analytically, FT ATTEMPTS has a much, much higher correlation to winning than does FT%. When you combine the two stats and look at what % of your points come from FT (so we offset not getting there by making more for example), we are still really bad (337th in the country). This also has a much higher correlation to winning than FT %.
I think all this shows up in games in some predictable ways: 1. We should be good at closing out games at the FT line; (2) we aren't going to win many games when we don't shoot it very well (because we aren't going to get to the line or get offensive rebounds to offset poor shooting) and (3) we are going to be susceptible to other teams having good runs against us (again because we won't be getting to the line or getting any 2nd chance points to stem the tide etc.).
The last point will bother me watching the most because its hard to watch, but I think its going to be part of who we are. We are a shooting dependent team and going against good teams you are going to have periods where the ball just isn't going in and those are going to be very painful to watch and I just don't think we have the tools to really prevent it. I absolutely do think the coach needs to be aware of this and that we are going to struggle more than many teams to
'play through" these spots and he may need to be more prepared to intervene and do what he can to change things up or run special plays etc. to get us some hoops when this is going on. I think there is far more value in using some TO's here than saving them.
So, in the end, I think I have a not so startling conclusion - - we are a "fine" or "OK" or "above average" maybe even a "good" team (depending on what these terms mean to you). We have some real strengths and some real weaknesses (which I think it better in the long run than just being OK at everything) and I think that gives us some upside as you hope to ride the strengths and efficiently insulate the weaknesses. I'd expect to win another game or two were we are underdogs and but maybe lose 2-3 where we are favored (more of these simply because we have more of them). But I just don't think we have enough to really be a contender for NCAA at-large or A-10 Top 2-3 teams etc. But the NIT looks like a lock and I will say that an A-10 tourney run isn't impossible because its always possible we can shoot our way to wins on any given day.
Our results don't really shed much light on this. Good win against Wisco, bad loss against Radford. Solid win on road at RI but let a game we really needed to win at home against St. Louis get away. The rest to me are pretty much all what was expected and don't point much to whether we are good or just no longer bad. I just can't tell.
In addition to the results to date, I am just as confused by both my eye test from having seen almost every minute of every game and from my look at various analytics that I believe can be insightful (most from KenPom, but a few other places too).
Just watching us, our defense still concerns me a good bit. Its no doubt improved, but I still wonder how will it really stand up against better competition and specifically against teams that really are good and aggressive at breaking down their man off the dribble and taking it to the rim. We look much more comfortable to me in this defense, but just looking I still see some areas for concern. Grant is just not a defensive presence at all and Nick still struggles with lateral quickness. And no one else is a really stud defender. JG obviously helps with his elite steals ability, but the rest of his defense is just OK. So we are better - - but are we good (or good enough)? I am just not sure.
Analytics also sorta leave me in no man's land. We defend the three really well (statistically) and its clear we worked on this, but our 2 point defense is not nearly as good. We are just so-so at generating turnovers overall (149th) but looking at how we get them, we are very good at getting steals (58th) and very bad at forcing non-steal turnovers (317th). Steals are better than non-steal turnovers in a vacuum generally (because they lead to easy baskets more often), but its an interesting dichotomy. There are often teams who generate a lot of steals but aren't very good defensively overall (i.e going for steals represents risk and teams can get exploited) . Almost all teams who generate a high volume of non-steal turnovers are excellent overall defensive teams (but the corollary isn't nearly as reliable). But our steals are the product of one guys uncanny ability and not because as a team we go for a lot of steals and get exposed for it so I think its strictly a good thing we get some steals. In the end I guess the analytics and my eyes tell me generally we are OK defensively. Which beats the hell out last year when both pretty clearly said we stunk it up pretty good!
None of that defensive stuff mentions rebounding where there is no doubt about it in my mind or in the analytics. We stink. Still. No doubt about it. Offensively and defensively.
Offensively is the even more interesting take. My sense watching is that we are good offensively and better than last year. But when I really thought about it, I am not so sure how good and certainly not that we are better than last year. Analytics seem to back that up.
I think it all looks better because we are so very evidently more dangerous as a three point shooting team. Just watching Nick back on the floor and Blake in there and its obvious. But just as obvious to me is that Golden has regressed some with his offensive game (except he has stopped shooting threes) and Nathan has been far less aggressive and involved offensively. So, how good are we and are we better than last year?
Analytics are interesting. We are really good at two very important things - - effective FG% (37th) and turning it over (i.e. NOT turning it over) (15th). But we were almost identically as good last year (42nd and 18th). We are much better shooting the three this year and much worse shooting the two (validating what I see perhaps?). Our FT shooting is much better, but we get to the line considerably less often. These two numbers are fascinating to me. We are elite in FT shooting (2nd) and stunningly bad (and a good deal worse than last year) at actually getting there (at 345th). So is FT shooting a strength really? Its clear I'd rather we shoot 80% than 65%, but not sure how much this translates into we are better for our improved FT shooting. Analytically, FT ATTEMPTS has a much, much higher correlation to winning than does FT%. When you combine the two stats and look at what % of your points come from FT (so we offset not getting there by making more for example), we are still really bad (337th in the country). This also has a much higher correlation to winning than FT %.
I think all this shows up in games in some predictable ways: 1. We should be good at closing out games at the FT line; (2) we aren't going to win many games when we don't shoot it very well (because we aren't going to get to the line or get offensive rebounds to offset poor shooting) and (3) we are going to be susceptible to other teams having good runs against us (again because we won't be getting to the line or getting any 2nd chance points to stem the tide etc.).
The last point will bother me watching the most because its hard to watch, but I think its going to be part of who we are. We are a shooting dependent team and going against good teams you are going to have periods where the ball just isn't going in and those are going to be very painful to watch and I just don't think we have the tools to really prevent it. I absolutely do think the coach needs to be aware of this and that we are going to struggle more than many teams to
'play through" these spots and he may need to be more prepared to intervene and do what he can to change things up or run special plays etc. to get us some hoops when this is going on. I think there is far more value in using some TO's here than saving them.
So, in the end, I think I have a not so startling conclusion - - we are a "fine" or "OK" or "above average" maybe even a "good" team (depending on what these terms mean to you). We have some real strengths and some real weaknesses (which I think it better in the long run than just being OK at everything) and I think that gives us some upside as you hope to ride the strengths and efficiently insulate the weaknesses. I'd expect to win another game or two were we are underdogs and but maybe lose 2-3 where we are favored (more of these simply because we have more of them). But I just don't think we have enough to really be a contender for NCAA at-large or A-10 Top 2-3 teams etc. But the NIT looks like a lock and I will say that an A-10 tourney run isn't impossible because its always possible we can shoot our way to wins on any given day.
