Our Opposing Offense SOS is #1

[SFHoya99]

The Adjusted Offensive Efficiency of our opponents to date is 107.7, a full point ahead of the #2 team, Oklahoma. (The #11 team, Florida, is a full point behind Oklahoma, so you can see the gap is not small).

I know the defense has taken a beating at times, and it's certainly looked less than impressive at time, but it's worth noting that we've played #1 Wisconsin, #5 Indiana, #10 Villanova twice, #18 Xavier twice, and #40 Providence twice.

That's already accounted for in our #27th ranked Adjusted Defensive Efficiency, but it's worth noting the context to date. And we shouldn't be all that shocked when we completely shut down a Creighton or Seton Hall.

[daymondmyles]

Very interesting. Good perspective.

[NCHoya]

So we have played a schedule of offensive juggernauts, and yet we still rank 27th in defensive efficiency? That is pretty good. I actually think we should continue to improve on defense since the freshman learn more about team defense each game.

Where do our remaining opponents rank on this metric? Specifically, SJU. I am feeling more optimistic we can finish this back third of schedule in very impressive fashion if the match-up with SJU goes well.

[HoyaChris]

I had seen this and was meaning to post on it but SFHoya beat me to it.

At various times we have had long board threads bemoaning our three point defense and our interior defense. And it is a demonstrable fact that we are 341 out of 345 at free throw defense. We must be really good at defending mid-range jump shots!!!

[TBird41]

Feb 13, 2015 13:49:51 GMT -5 NCHoya said:

So we have played a schedule of offensive juggernauts, and yet we still rank 27th in defensive efficiency? That is pretty good. I actually think we should continue to improve on defense since the freshman learn more about team defense each game.

Where do our remaining opponents rank on this metric? Specifically, SJU. I am feeling more optimistic we can finish this back third of schedule in very impressive fashion if the match-up with SJU goes well.

SJU is 51st with an Adj.O of 108.6
DePaul is 53rd, with an Adj.O of 108.4
Butler is 54th, with an Adj.O of 108.2
Seton Hall is 68th, with an Adj.O of 107.2

For comparison's sake, Wisconsin's Adj.O is 124.6, Xavier's is 114.0 and the 25th best Adj.O (aka the minimum a national champion would be expected to have) is 112.2.

We're 42nd with an Adj.O of 110.0

[Jack]

Feb 13, 2015 13:49:51 GMT -5 NCHoya said:

So we have played a schedule of offensive juggernauts, and yet we still rank 27th in defensive efficiency?

That's 27th in adjusted defensive efficiency, which takes into account said juggernauts.

[b52legend]

Feb 13, 2015 13:56:57 GMT -5 Jack said:

Feb 13, 2015 13:49:51 GMT -5 NCHoya said:

So we have played a schedule of offensive juggernauts, and yet we still rank 27th in defensive efficiency?

That's 27th in adjusted defensive efficiency, which takes into account said juggernauts.

What percentage of people actually understand how all of the "advanced statistics" being thrown around today are being calculated? I don't fully discount these numbers and appreciate hearing about them, but I can see points, rebounds, assists, free throws, points per possession, etc. I know exactly what is being measured with those stats and exactly what the inputs are. I can do my own discounting or adjustments as I see fit (e.g., Carmelo Anthony may score a lot of points, but watch him for a few games and its obvious he isn't in the same league as Lebron, Anthony Davis, KD, etc. -- don't need an advanced statistic to tell me that).

When people start talking about "player efficiency rating", "wins above replacement", "adjusted defensive efficiency", etc., I have to admit I glaze over a bit because I simply don't know all of the inputs or calculation being done to arrive at the number. Seems like everyone and their mother refers to KenPom ratings these days (hell I do too), but I doubt less than 1% of people truly understand how those ratings are calculated or what they represent.

[NCHoya]

Feb 13, 2015 13:56:57 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Feb 13, 2015 13:49:51 GMT -5 NCHoya said:

So we have played a schedule of offensive juggernauts, and yet we still rank 27th in defensive efficiency? That is pretty good. I actually think we should continue to improve on defense since the freshman learn more about team defense each game.

Where do our remaining opponents rank on this metric? Specifically, SJU. I am feeling more optimistic we can finish this back third of schedule in very impressive fashion if the match-up with SJU goes well.

SJU is 51st with an Adj.O of 108.6
DePaul is 53rd, with an Adj.O of 108.4
Butler is 54th, with an Adj.O of 108.2
Seton Hall is 68th, with an Adj.O of 107.2

For comparison's sake, Wisconsin's Adj.O is 124.6, Xavier's is 114.0 and the 25th best Adj.O (aka the minimum a national champion would be expected to have) is 112.2.

We're 42nd with an Adj.O of 110.0

Thank you for this update.

I was hoping SJU would be worse. I want to beat those guys bad. I just do not like that senior class they have over there. Not saying we won't beat them now, just wanted one more reason to feel confident.

[aleutianhoya]

Feb 13, 2015 14:10:56 GMT -5 b52legend said:

Feb 13, 2015 13:56:57 GMT -5 Jack said:

That's 27th in adjusted defensive efficiency, which takes into account said juggernauts.

What percentage of people actually understand how all of the "advanced statistics" being thrown around today are being calculated? I don't fully discount these numbers and appreciate hearing about them, but I can see points, rebounds, assists, free throws, points per possession, etc. I know exactly what is being measured with those stats and exactly what the inputs are. I can do my own discounting or adjustments as I see fit (e.g., Carmelo Anthony may score a lot of points, but watch him for a few games and its obvious he isn't in the same league as Lebron, Anthony Davis, KD, etc. -- don't need an advanced statistic to tell me that).

When people start talking about "player efficiency rating", "wins above replacement", "adjusted defensive efficiency", etc., I have to admit I glaze over a bit because I simply don't know all of the inputs or calculation being done to arrive at the number. Seems like everyone and their mother refers to KenPom ratings these days (hell I do too), but I doubt less than 1% of people truly understand how those ratings are calculated or what they represent.

Many of them are complicated, but many of them really aren't. Defensive efficiency is pretty simple. All it's doing is first figuring out how many points per 100 possessions you give up. That's fairly simple math that involves adding/multiplying/etc. the typical box-score stats you point to. Then it adjusts that raw number by how good your competition was (basically by figuring out how above or below average all of your opponents' offensive points per possession numbers are). Sounds complicated, but it's just an average.

He does add some things like slightly weighting more recent games and factoring in a slight home-court advantage to come up with his overall offensive and defensive efficiency ratings. But at its core, it simply a calculation of how many points you would score (or give up) per possession against an average opponent based on how many you score or give up per possession against your actual opponents.

Pretty simple way to do two things: Take pace out of the equation, so an offense that scores 75 points per game but uses a ton of possessions to do it isn't misunderstood as a strong offensive team versus a team (like, say, some of our teams) that scores less but scores on a lot more of its possessions. And, second, try to accurately account for strength of schedule.

[professorhoya]

Feb 13, 2015 13:50:16 GMT -5 HoyaChris said:

I had seen this and was meaning to post on it but SFHoya beat me to it.

At various times we have had long board threads bemoaning our three point defense and our interior defense. And it is a demonstrable fact that we are 341 out of 345 at free throw defense. We must be really good at defending mid-range jump shots!!!

This is a deceptive stat that Dhall brought up in the other thread. Disregarding that there is a 3-5 game difference in games played for teams.

Teams that play a 2-3 zone will not foul much.
Syracuse is 13th in the nation.
Marquette 36th in the nation.

Teams that play the 1-3-1 zone will not foul much.
George Washington 20th in the nation.

Teams that play Pack the Line defense also will not foul much.
Wisconsin #1 in the nation.
UVA #3 in the nation.
Arizona #100
Butler #147
Michigan State #167
Xavier #218


Agressive Man to Man D will foul alot.
West Virgina #342 (4th from last in the nation)
Georgetown #280
UNC #269

With the current rules taking away forearm checks and touching the offensive player with the arm to defend, Man to Man defense will foul even more. But Man to Man D will create the most turnovers, pressure and easy fast break points (the weakness of Pack the Line). So there's a trade off but fouls for the most part are greatly effected by the style of play of the defense.



Fewest Fouls:
www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/642/p1

[TBird41]

Feb 13, 2015 14:36:59 GMT -5 professorhoya said:

Feb 13, 2015 13:50:16 GMT -5 HoyaChris said:

I had seen this and was meaning to post on it but SFHoya beat me to it.

At various times we have had long board threads bemoaning our three point defense and our interior defense. And it is a demonstrable fact that we are 341 out of 345 at free throw defense. We must be really good at defending mid-range jump shots!!!

This is a deceptive stat that Dhall brought up in the other thread. Disregarding that there is a 3-5 game difference in games played for teams.

Teams that play a 2-3 zone will not foul much.
Syracuse is 13th in the nation.
Marquette 36th in the nation.

Teams that play the 1-3-1 zone will not foul much.
George Washington 20th in the nation.

Teams that play Pack the Line defense also will not foul much.
Wisconsin #1 in the nation.
UVA #3 in the nation.
Arizona #100
Butler #147
Michigan State #167
Xavier #218


Agressive Man to Man D will foul alot.
West Virgina #342 (4th from last in the nation)
Georgetown #280
UNC #269

With the current rules taking away forearm checks and touching the offensive player with the arm to defend, Man to Man defense will foul even more. But Man to Man D will create the most turnovers, pressure and easy fast break points (the weakness of Pack the Line). So there's a trade off but fouls for the most part are greatly effected by the style of play of the defense.



Fewest Fouls:
www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/642/p1

Free throw defense measures how much better/worse your opponents shoot their free throws against you compared to how you'd expect based on their free throw shooting over the entire season. It's a way of showing whether a team has been lucky / unlucky, since you can't really control your opponents free shooting percentage.

So, a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 70% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 65% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play would have a worse free throw defense than a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 65% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 70% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play.

Another way to think about it--Providence had good free throw defense against Mikael Hopkins in Providence, while Marquette had horrible free throw defense against Hopkins in Milwaukee.

[seaweed]

Feb 13, 2015 14:10:56 GMT -5 b52legend said:

Feb 13, 2015 13:56:57 GMT -5 Jack said:

That's 27th in adjusted defensive efficiency, which takes into account said juggernauts.

What percentage of people actually understand how all of the "advanced statistics" being thrown around today are being calculated? I don't fully discount these numbers and appreciate hearing about them, but I can see points, rebounds, assists, free throws, points per possession, etc. I know exactly what is being measured with those stats and exactly what the inputs are. I can do my own discounting or adjustments as I see fit (e.g., Carmelo Anthony may score a lot of points, but watch him for a few games and its obvious he isn't in the same league as Lebron, Anthony Davis, KD, etc. -- don't need an advanced statistic to tell me that).

When people start talking about "player efficiency rating", "wins above replacement", "adjusted defensive efficiency", etc., I have to admit I glaze over a bit because I simply don't know all of the inputs or calculation being done to arrive at the number. Seems like everyone and their mother refers to KenPom ratings these days (hell I do too), but I doubt less than 1% of people truly understand how those ratings are calculated or what they represent.

Is that you Charles Barkley?

[TBird41]

Feb 13, 2015 14:10:56 GMT -5 b52legend said:

Feb 13, 2015 13:56:57 GMT -5 Jack said:

That's 27th in adjusted defensive efficiency, which takes into account said juggernauts.

What percentage of people actually understand how all of the "advanced statistics" being thrown around today are being calculated? I don't fully discount these numbers and appreciate hearing about them, but I can see points, rebounds, assists, free throws, points per possession, etc. I know exactly what is being measured with those stats and exactly what the inputs are. I can do my own discounting or adjustments as I see fit (e.g., Carmelo Anthony may score a lot of points, but watch him for a few games and its obvious he isn't in the same league as Lebron, Anthony Davis, KD, etc. -- don't need an advanced statistic to tell me that).

When people start talking about "player efficiency rating", "wins above replacement", "adjusted defensive efficiency", etc., I have to admit I glaze over a bit because I simply don't know all of the inputs or calculation being done to arrive at the number. Seems like everyone and their mother refers to KenPom ratings these days (hell I do too), but I doubt less than 1% of people truly understand how those ratings are calculated or what they represent.

Especially on this board. We all know that SFS grads break out in hives if they even think about math

[sleepy]

Numbers be damned, the most encouraging aspect of our defense going forward is that in the last few weeks we've gone from having the worst zone defense I've ever seen to a bad-decentish 2-3. Improvement like that brings hope!

[seaweed]

Feb 13, 2015 15:25:57 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

We all know that SFS grads break out in hives if they even think about math

explains a lot about international economics

[nathanhm]

Feb 13, 2015 15:02:17 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Feb 13, 2015 14:36:59 GMT -5 professorhoya said:

This is a deceptive stat that Dhall brought up in the other thread. Disregarding that there is a 3-5 game difference in games played for teams.

Teams that play a 2-3 zone will not foul much.
Syracuse is 13th in the nation.
Marquette 36th in the nation.

Teams that play the 1-3-1 zone will not foul much.
George Washington 20th in the nation.

Teams that play Pack the Line defense also will not foul much.
Wisconsin #1 in the nation.
UVA #3 in the nation.
Arizona #100
Butler #147
Michigan State #167
Xavier #218


Agressive Man to Man D will foul alot.
West Virgina #342 (4th from last in the nation)
Georgetown #280
UNC #269

With the current rules taking away forearm checks and touching the offensive player with the arm to defend, Man to Man defense will foul even more. But Man to Man D will create the most turnovers, pressure and easy fast break points (the weakness of Pack the Line). So there's a trade off but fouls for the most part are greatly effected by the style of play of the defense.



Fewest Fouls:
www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/642/p1

Free throw defense measures how much better/worse your opponents shoot their free throws against you compared to how you'd expect based on their free throw shooting over the entire season. It's a way of showing whether a team has been lucky / unlucky, since you can't really control your opponents free shooting percentage.

So, a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 70% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 65% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play would have a worse free throw defense than a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 65% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 70% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play.

Another way to think about it--Providence had good free throw defense against Mikael Hopkins in Providence, while Marquette had horrible free throw defense against Hopkins in Milwaukee.

To me I always assumed our bad free throw percentage defense was a sign we fouled guard too frequently, since they are traditionally better free throw shooters.

[TBird41]

Feb 15, 2015 9:57:13 GMT -5 nathanhm said:

Feb 13, 2015 15:02:17 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Free throw defense measures how much better/worse your opponents shoot their free throws against you compared to how you'd expect based on their free throw shooting over the entire season. It's a way of showing whether a team has been lucky / unlucky, since you can't really control your opponents free shooting percentage.

So, a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 70% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 65% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play would have a worse free throw defense than a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 65% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 70% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play.

Another way to think about it--Providence had good free throw defense against Mikael Hopkins in Providence, while Marquette had horrible free throw defense against Hopkins in Milwaukee.

To me I always assumed our bad free throw percentage defense was a sign we fouled guard too frequently, since they are traditionally better free throw shooters.

There might be something too that, but you'd need a lot more data to figure out how much.

[hoyainspirit]

Feb 15, 2015 9:57:13 GMT -5 nathanhm said:

Feb 13, 2015 15:02:17 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Free throw defense measures how much better/worse your opponents shoot their free throws against you compared to how you'd expect based on their free throw shooting over the entire season. It's a way of showing whether a team has been lucky / unlucky, since you can't really control your opponents free shooting percentage.

So, a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 70% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 65% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play would have a worse free throw defense than a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 65% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 70% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play.

Another way to think about it--Providence had good free throw defense against Mikael Hopkins in Providence, while Marquette had horrible free throw defense against Hopkins in Milwaukee.

To me I always assumed our bad free throw percentage defense was a sign we fouled guard too frequently, since they are traditionally better free throw shooters.

In general, we do foul too frequently. Our defensive FTA/FGA: 45.1%, #309 in the nation.

[hoyainspirit]

Feb 15, 2015 9:57:13 GMT -5 nathanhm said:

Feb 13, 2015 15:02:17 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Free throw defense measures how much better/worse your opponents shoot their free throws against you compared to how you'd expect based on their free throw shooting over the entire season. It's a way of showing whether a team has been lucky / unlucky, since you can't really control your opponents free shooting percentage.

So, a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 70% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 65% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play would have a worse free throw defense than a team who, for whatever reason, has their opponents shoot 65% against them in every game they play, but their opponents average 70% from the line on all of their free throws in every game they play.

Another way to think about it--Providence had good free throw defense against Mikael Hopkins in Providence, while Marquette had horrible free throw defense against Hopkins in Milwaukee.

To me I always assumed our bad free throw percentage defense was a sign we fouled guard too frequently, since they are traditionally better free throw shooters.

In general, IMO we do foul too frequently. Our defensive FTA/FGA: 45.1%, #309 in the nation.