Superbowl XLIV

Archive for the 'Analysis' Category

The Life of a Freshman Point Guard

Guard Darius Morris (#4) during Michigan's 67-53 victory over Arkansas-Pine Bluff at Crisler arena on Saturday December 5th 2009.  (SAM WOLSON/Daily)Point guard is the hardest position to play as a true freshman. Similar to the quarterback position on the football field, the point guard has an overwhelming amount of responsibility. First, he has to have a great understanding of the offense. He is also typically tasked with defending one of the opposition’s best players. And even more importantly, he has to keep the team grounded through thick and thin because he has the ball in his hands every possession.

Because of the stress surrounding the point guard position, it’s very hard to find true freshmen making a major impact as point guards. The John Walls, Derrick Roses, and Mike Conleys of the world are the exception rather than the norm.

The strenuous nature of the point guard position is also why I think that Darius Morris has the ability to make a major jump in production from year one to year two.

Inconsistency is the trademark of a freshman point guard. Flashes of brilliance are intertwined with boneheaded turnovers. It’s no surprise that teams led by freshmen point guards also tend to be woefully inconsistent.
Continue reading ‘The Life of a Freshman Point Guard’

51 Comments

Winning Without Rebounds

It’s a consensus that Michigan struggled to rebound the ball last year. They played a 6-foot-8 center and a 6-foot-5 power forward so the results are not all that surprising.

On the season Michigan’s defensive rebounding percentage ranked 222nd in Division 1 while their offensive numbers were even worse at 282nd. They shored up their defensive rebounding in conference play, ranking 3rd, but were still 9th on the offensive glass. Despite the improved numbers in conference play, Michigan still had several painful rebounding games.

Luckily, John Beilein seems to have figured out a way to win without rebounding.

Using Ken Pomeroy’s correlation statistics, which compare the effect on offensive and defensive efficiency of each of the four factors (eFG%, OR%, TO%, FTR). Here are Pomeroy’s correlation numbers for Michigan last year:

                          Correlations
                        to OE       to DE
                 Pace:  +0.18       -0.41 

                 eFG%:  +0.87*      -0.23
                  OR%:  +0.07       -0.06
                  TO%:  -0.44*      -0.06
                  FTR:  +0.23       +0.00 

             Opp eFG%:  -0.34       +0.72*
              Opp OR%:  +0.08       +0.17
              Opp TO%:  -0.17       -0.45*
              Opp FTR:  -0.47*      +0.52*

             Bold  values are significant with a 95% confidence
             Bold* values are significant with a 99% confidence

The effect of some statistics is blatantly obvious. Naturally, shooting percentages are going to have dramatic effects on offensive and defensive efficiency. Some of the other numbers allow us to make some interesting conclusions about a specific team. For a further explanation of the correlation numbers, check out Ken Pomeroy’s thoughts on the matter.

The issue at hand is Michigan’s rebounding numbers. There appear to be no significant correlations between Michigan’s offensive rebounding and their offensive efficiency. Similarly, on the defensive side of the ball, there is minimal correlation between defensive rebounding and defensive efficiency.
Continue reading ‘Winning Without Rebounds’

14 Comments

Black Eyes

It’s easy to remember the exciting parts of last season. Whether it is the early season win over UCLA or rushing the court after the Duke game. Maybe finally winning a big road game at Minnesota or the NCAA tournament win over Clemson. Last season was a breath of unexpected fresh air that caught most Michigan fans off guard.

Now, expectations are real: this is an NCAA tournament team. Michigan has typically fallen in the 10-20 range in most pre-season polls and success is expected.

All signs point to a successful season this year but let’s play devil’s advocate for a bit now and take a look at five of Michigan’s not so glorious moments. It’s important to remember that although they made their first NCAA tournament appearance in a decade, Michigan was a couple bounces (versus Savannah State or Indiana for example) away from the NIT.

No team looks great every time they take the floor, but these five games stand out as the worst performances by Michigan last year and reminders that there is still a ways to go.

Continue reading ‘Black Eyes’

23 Comments

Preseason Three Point Analysis

stu-douglass-three llp-three novak-three

Like it or not, John Beilein’s basketball teams are perimeter oriented teams. Beilein has a model and, besides a few tweaks here and there, he is comfortable sticking to it because it works. The ideology behind a POT is that you shoot a lot of threes while sacrificing offensive rebounding for not turning the ball over; the catch is that you have to make your threes.

While Michigan’s statistical profile last year was a lot closer to the West Virginia Beilein model than the year before, it still wasn’t quite there. The main issue was Michigan’s team three point shooting percentage of 33.4% (32.1% in conference).

Luke Winn points out that Michigan doesn’t return any one who made over 34.5% of their three point shots while Beilein’s best team at West Virginia returned 6 players that topped that mark.

Basically Michigan managed to win a lot of games last year despite being a perimeter oriented team who can’t make threes – the cardinal sin. To repeat that success, or improve upon last year, they are going to have to make more of their threes if when they shoot so many.

To put this in perspective, I put together a scatter plot of 3PA/FGA (how many threes a team takes) versus 3pt field goal percentage.

image

(The Big Ten teams are all listed with conference-only numbers, while Beilein’s WVU teams are from their entire season.)

The axes are aligned at conference averages (35% 3PFG%, 37% 3PA/FGA) which leaves us with four quadrants.

  • Bottom left: teams who shoot few three pointers and make them at a below average rate.
  • Top left: teams who shoot a lot of three pointers and make them at a below average rate.
  • Top right: teams who shoot a lot of three pointers and make them at an above average rate.
  • Bottom right: teams who shoot few three pointers but make them at an above average rate.

Continue reading ‘Preseason Three Point Analysis’

16 Comments

On Harris v. Lucas

harris-lucas

Without saying a word this site has ended up in the middle of a debate: who’s the better point guard, Michigan State’s Kalin Lucas or Michigan’s Manny Harris.

John Gasaway started the debate on this very site with this comment on Manny Harris:

In fact, I want to pipe up on behalf of one of your players. I read the interview you did with KJ of The Only Colors and I have to take issue with your statement that Michigan State’s Kalin Lucas “is easily the best point guard in the conference.” Really? What about a certain Manny Harris? Oh, I know last year there were always other Wolverines on the floor alongside Harris who proudly wore the “point guard” label (Kelvin Grady, C.J. Lee, Stu Douglass, etc.). I for one don’t buy it. Harris had by far the highest assist rate on the team and, more importantly, he ran this offense in the literal Beilein-ian sense. Plus Lucas is hapless inside the arc, making an anemic 40 percent of his twos last year. I’ll grant you that Lucas made Sherron Collins look really bad at a propitious moment (less than a minute left in a tie game) in the Sweet 16 and is clearly superior to Harris when it comes to nailing threes. I’m just sayin’. Not open and shut from my chair.

KJ ran the numbers to try to determine a winner. Looking at only conference numbers, KJ concludes that Lucas has the advantage in the point guard battle because he turns the ball over less and shot much better from three point range. The other two stats that KJ looked at were assist and free throw rates, which turned out to be roughly equivalent.

The most interesting point that KJ makes is that Kalin Lucas morphs into whatever Michigan State needs him to be based on the opponent:

Against non-Big Ten foes, Lucas fits the mold of the traditional pass-first point guard.  He distributes the ball to his teammates, minimizes turnovers, and scores at a relatively modest rate.  And it isn’t just a case of padding the ball-handling stats against weaker opposition; the numbers don’t change much if you restrict the sample to nonconference opponents from BCS conferences.

Against Big Ten adversaries, meanwhile, Lucas morphs into a shoot-first point guard.  The assist number drops substantially, with an uptick in turnovers, and the scoring average shows an offsetting increase.

Let me state my theory on Lucas in broader (and less emotionally-detached) terms : Kalin Lucas does what his team needs him to do to win games.  Against faster-paced opponents, he runs the fast break with superb efficiency.  Against more plodding opponents, he finds ways to score in the half-court offense.

I think the moral of the story is that Kalin Lucas and Manny Harris are very different players who somehow come away with similar stat lines because of the role each plays for his team.

Lucas is a pure point guard in every sense of the phrase. Luckily for him, he plays in an offense that relies on a guy like him to control the ball and make plays in the half court offense. When MSU runs, he is able to shift gears and turn into a pass first player, distributing the ball to MSU’s stable of wings in transition.

Michigan, on the other hand, runs a two guard offense that was designed to eliminate the need for a true point guard. Beilein’s offense revolves around spacing and doesn’t call for one player to dominate the ball in the half court set. Manny Harris does a little bit of everything for Michigan but it prevents him from falling into any traditional role. He plays the three but distributes like a point guard, scores like a wing, and attacks the defensive glass like a big man.

I concede that Kalin Lucas is a better point guard than Manny Harris, especially in Big Ten play when Lucas snapped out of his early season funk. But I think the most impressive point here is that Manny had a higher assist rate in conference play than one of the top point guards in the country. Not to mention that Harris’ defensive rebounding percentage in conference games was in the same league as Big10 rebounding elites such as Joe Krabbenhoft, Mike Davis, and Paul Carter.

The obvious argument against Harris’ remarkable statistical well-roundedness is that he is forced to do everything as a product of his teams’ flaws. For example, Brian Cook points out that his rebounding is merely a function of being the second tallest player on his team. Maybe so, but I have a hard time believing that Harris wouldn’t be a tremendous defensive rebounder for any school in the country.

11 Comments