Hoya Analytics 20/21

[jwp91]

Restarting this conversation....

Has anyone sprung for a Hoopslens or Synergy subscription this year?

Have you seen anything useful?

[rhw485]

I didn't splurge for hooplens or synergy but have had some fun looking at hoop-math.com.  I wasn't aware of this one and there's some interesting stuff in there, particularly as it relates to team defense


hoop-math.com/Georgetown2021.php

• Our overall defensive shot distribution remains terrible, no real surprise.  Yielding 40% of shots at the 3pt line AND 32.5% of shots at the rim puts you so far behind the 8 ball.
• The table where it breaks out the type of defensive possession is interesting as well.  If you look at the rows where the offense uses more than 10 seconds, the numbers are just mind-boggling

            Off rebound, 11-30s: % shots 3s: 43.9%
            Off score, 11-30s: % shots 3s:47.9%(!!!!)
            Steal, 11-30s: % shots 3s: 57.1%(!!!!)  Very small number of possessions here as steals usually result in quick shot but still

[hoyasaxa2003]

Dec 21, 2020 10:49:30 GMT -5 rhw485 said:

I didn't splurge for hooplens or synergy but have had some fun looking at hoop-math.com.  I wasn't aware of this one and there's some interesting stuff in there, particularly as it relates to team defense


hoop-math.com/Georgetown2021.php

• Our overall defensive shot distribution remains terrible, no real surprise.  Yielding 40% of shots at the 3pt line AND 32.5% of shots at the rim puts you so far behind the 8 ball.
• The table where it breaks out the type of defensive possession is interesting as well.  If you look at the rows where the offense uses more than 10 seconds, the numbers are just mind-boggling

            Off rebound, 11-30s: % shots 3s: 43.9%
            Off score, 11-30s: % shots 3s:47.9%(!!!!)
            Steal, 11-30s: % shots 3s: 57.1%(!!!!)  Very small number of possessions here as steals usually result in quick shot but still

We are really vulnerable to almost any offense. Against teams with fast pace/passing, our defense is almost always out of position. In contrast, when we play a slow deliberate team, like Navy, they can just be deliberate in the half-court until they catch our defense out of position, and they get an easy shot.

I do not have Hoop Lens or Synergyy, and while it's a very small sample size (almost everything is at this point, though), here are some interesting Big East stats from KenPom:

Adjusted Offensive Efficiency: 106.9 (7th)
Adjusted Defensive Efficiency: 116.1 (7th) - This is really atrocious

On defense, we are allowing opponents to shoot 47.5% from two (which is actually best in Big East-only play), but 39.5% from three (6th) which is really terrible. We are first in blocks, but we are terrible on allowing steals and turnovers on both sides (giving up the ball, and forcing opponents to do so).

To pull it out to overall stats:

- We are horrible at forcing turnovers. Ranked 324th of 357 D-1 teams.

- We turn it over a lot. Ranked 250 of 357 teams.

- We are horrible at allowing steals (299th worse), and forcing steals (296).

- We aren't drawing a ton of fouls. Our FTA/FGA is ranked 262.

- Given our size, our rebounding isn't horrible, but also not good. Offensive Rebounding percentage is ranked 125, defense 102.

Our shot distributions is:

37% threes
47.9% twos
15.1% free throws.

I actually don't mind the distribution, which favors threes a lot more than last season, but we shoot way too many long/mid-range twos. I'd also like to see more free throws, but with our roster, that's just not going to happen.

On the individual level, excluding Malcom Wilson and Berger because they have barely played, we only have three guys with O ratings higher than 100: Blair (115.8), Wahab (111.6), and Carey (109.9). Pickett is at 97.4, which is his best thus far in D-1 play.

This is not breaking news, but Bile is playing way too much. He has the highest usage on the team at 26.2% of possessions, his O rating is 78.8. The only guy who is at that level on our roster is Jalen Harris. Bile has been a huge liability.

[RockawayHoya]

Big problems with those turnover numbers (both offense and defense). Combined with the FT disparity, that's essentially saying that unless we shoot a drastically higher FG% than our opponent or just kill them on the boards, we're going to lose since we endure such a great possession deficit otherwise. Great if you can shoot the lights out like we did against SJU in the first game or kill UMBC on the boards. Bad for nearly every other game where you have to rely on basic tenets like getting stops and taking care of the basketball.

Individual defensive metrics per Sports Reference (may not be adjusted, but still provides a frame of reference):

Clark: 92.7 (spot minutes)
Ighoefe: 94.7
Holloway: 96.3 (spot minutes)
Wahab: 96.4
Bile: 98.7
Pickett: 99.6 (also best of his 4 years so far)
Sibley: 103.6 (spot minutes)
Dante Harris: 105.1
Carey: 105.5
Jalen Harris: 105.6
Berger: 105.7 (spot minutes)
Wilson: 105.8 (spot minutes)
Blair: 107.4

[daveg023]

Dec 21, 2020 14:52:05 GMT -5 RockawayHoya said:

Big problems with those turnover numbers (both offense and defense). Combined with the FT disparity, that's essentially saying that unless we shoot a drastically higher FG% than our opponent or just kill them on the boards, we're going to lose since we endure such a great possession deficit otherwise. Great if you can shoot the lights out like we did against SJU in the first game or kill UMBC on the boards. Bad for nearly every other game where you have to rely on basic tenets like getting stops and taking care of the basketball.

Individual defensive metrics per Sports Reference (may not be adjusted, but still provides a frame of reference):

Clark: 92.7 (spot minutes)
Ighoefe: 94.7
Holloway: 96.3 (spot minutes)
Wahab: 96.4
Bile: 98.7
Pickett: 99.6 (also best of his 4 years so far)
Sibley: 103.6 (spot minutes)
Dante Harris: 105.1
Carey: 105.5
Jalen Harris: 105.6
Berger: 105.7 (spot minutes)
Blair: 107.4
Wilson: 119.2 (spot minutes)

Perfectly said. They way we are playing has such a thin margin for error and really is dependent on our opponents making or missing shots. That’s not a sustainable model for long term success.

[jwp91]

Since we have been lamenting the % of our opponents' shots that occur from behind the arc, I thought I would share something from a Xs and Os newsletter to which I subscribe.

[1] Northern Colorado three-point defense
Northern Colorado has played just three DI games, but they are already once again ranked number one defensively at taking away three-point attempts. Just 18% of the shots taken against Northern Colorado by Colorado, Denver, and Utah State were from behind the arc.
It is Steve Smiley’s first season as head coach at Northern Colorado, but he was responsible for the defense under former head coach Jeff Linder. On top of that, Smiley even presented on three-point defense — “Understanding the shots that will beat you” — in an online clinic over the summer.
The most consistent trait among defenses that take away the three-point line is passive ball screen defense (see our newsletter from April: The On-Ball/Off-Ball Spectrum). These types of defenses try to guard the ball screen by playing 2-on-2 as much as possible — with minimal help from the other three defenders.
To no surprise, Northern Colorado was doing exactly that against Utah State.

Video omitted

By dropping the big and relying on the guard to stay in front of the handler, Northern Colorado takes away catch-and-shoot jump shots.
It’s interesting to see just how quickly shot selection statistics (like three-point rate) stabilize. Even though the season is still young, the coaches most known for taking away threes have already risen to the top.
Defensive three-point volume ranks (3PA/FGA):
• Northern Colorado — #1 (Steve Smiley)
• Texas — #12 (Shaka Smart, Yaklich previously on staff last season)
• Wyoming — #13 (Jeff Linder, previously the head coach at Northern Colorado)
• Illinois Chicago — #28 (Luke Yaklich)
This is consistent with Krishna Narsu’s findings at Nylon Calculus on the stability of three-point rate.
(But as we’ve said in the past, there is still little to no correlation in the NCAA between taking away threes and defensive efficiency. There are good and bad defenses on both ends of the spectrum.)


Ewing and staff have forgotten more basketball than I will know, but I hope someone trusted on the inside is sharing these points of view and forcing them to think through what they think and why.

[SFHoya99]

Dec 22, 2020 13:58:54 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Since we have been lamenting the % of our opponents' shots that occur from behind the arc, I thought I would share something from a Xs and Os newsletter to which I subscribe.

[1] Northern Colorado three-point defense
Northern Colorado has played just three DI games, but they are already once again ranked number one defensively at taking away three-point attempts. Just 18% of the shots taken against Northern Colorado by Colorado, Denver, and Utah State were from behind the arc.
It is Steve Smiley’s first season as head coach at Northern Colorado, but he was responsible for the defense under former head coach Jeff Linder. On top of that, Smiley even presented on three-point defense — “Understanding the shots that will beat you” — in an online clinic over the summer.
The most consistent trait among defenses that take away the three-point line is passive ball screen defense (see our newsletter from April: The On-Ball/Off-Ball Spectrum). These types of defenses try to guard the ball screen by playing 2-on-2 as much as possible — with minimal help from the other three defenders.
To no surprise, Northern Colorado was doing exactly that against Utah State.

Video omitted

By dropping the big and relying on the guard to stay in front of the handler, Northern Colorado takes away catch-and-shoot jump shots.
It’s interesting to see just how quickly shot selection statistics (like three-point rate) stabilize. Even though the season is still young, the coaches most known for taking away threes have already risen to the top.
Defensive three-point volume ranks (3PA/FGA):
• Northern Colorado — #1 (Steve Smiley)
• Texas — #12 (Shaka Smart, Yaklich previously on staff last season)
• Wyoming — #13 (Jeff Linder, previously the head coach at Northern Colorado)
• Illinois Chicago — #28 (Luke Yaklich)
This is consistent with Krishna Narsu’s findings at Nylon Calculus on the stability of three-point rate.
(But as we’ve said in the past, there is still little to no correlation in the NCAA between taking away threes and defensive efficiency. There are good and bad defenses on both ends of the spectrum.)


Ewing and staff have forgotten more basketball than I will know, but I hope someone trusted on the inside is sharing these points of view and forcing them to think through what they think and why.

I think part (but not all) of the issue is that talent gap between the NBA and college. The way you defend the 3 most effectively is probably greatly impacted by the talent level on both offense and defense.