Guest Post: Efficiency, Schmeffiency?
Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Rob Lowe)
Sometimes a post or two comes along and we say, "I wish I had thought of that". This is the first of two such posts. A few months ago, MUScoop poster Dr. Blackheart wrote an excellent post on Efficiency, Schmeffiency? and used it to look deeper into Marquette's turnovers.
With his permission, we are republishing a few posts, because some ideas need a wider distribution.
Efficiency, Schmeffiency?
Entering his third year at the helm, Buzz Williams, for the first time, has an entire roster of his recruits in place (including three he recruited as an assistant). Inherited from his days as an assistant were two separate groups of experienced and accomplished guards and a NBA first round forward who have moved on. In are two straight nationally ranked recruiting classes.
What have we learned about Buzz Williams compared to other recent MU seasons that will shed light on who will be seeing the most minutes in the upcoming season? One, we know from Pomeroy that the Warriors were one of the smallest teams (341st in average height) last year, and Buzz has moved to remedy that. Two, he has balanced his classes by bringing in experienced and decorated JUCO's over his first two classes. Three, he has brought in quickness and length with his athletically gifted freshman class. So, who starts?
Offensive Efficiency
MU ranked 22nd in Pomeroy's adjusted efficiency ranking last season and ninth the prior year. Clearly, as Buzz has stated, he values every possession. To provide context, in the top 100 MU games in offensive efficiency since the 1996-97 season, Buzz's two teams own 23 of those games, or 11.5 games per season of a rating in a game over 118.5. In contrast, teams coached by Tom Crean averaged 7.7 games per season over that level while Mike Deane's teams averaged 2.7 games. Why does efficiency matter? MU won 95% of these 100 games!
Low Turnovers Despite High Turnover
So, how has Buzz accomplished this with the Three Amigos graduating and two severely undersized guards replacing them? While MU had a great eFG% year, and Jimmy got to the line at a high rate, the simple answer is a low number of turnovers. Consider this, in the lowest 100 turnover games since the 1996-97 season, a Buzz team owns 36 of these games—or 18 per season. Both Mo (3:1 A/TO, 1st in BE and 4th nationally) and Cubes (2.7:1 A/TO 2nd in the BE and 12th nationally) will be hard to replace from last year as were the Three Amigos. Again in contrast, Crean's teams own 55 of these games, or 6.1 per season. And, Deane's teams own nine or 3 per season. Startling! Even more amazing, Buzz's teams own the lowest six turnover games in the past 14 MU seasons:
Who Starts?
Jimmy Butler led the BE in offensive rating last year and was 6th nationally (editor's note - JFB for POY). Joe Fulce is second among returnees with a ORating of 112.3. DJO equaled Lazar's 108.1. Who else will step up to fill the backcourt gap of Mo (118.4) and Cubes (120.2) then? Junior seems like he fits Buzz's "MO", but he had an Orating of 54.1 and a A/TO ratio of 1.3 in an injury impacted season. Dwight (95.3 OR with a lot of minutes) and EWill (88.8 under limited minutes) were inefficient, as was Otule, in very limited action (87.2). The JUCO POY Crowder, a great passer, perimeter player, and who can go inside to earn a shot at the foul line looks like a good bet over those three—but he is a late arrival as he finishes up his JUCO classes. And, "the best thing about freshman are that they become sophomores".
Whoever gets the starting call will get a quick hook if he turns it over, that is for Buzz sure.
====
Thanks, Dr. Blackheart.
Want to dig in deeper? (Go visit the thread on MUScoop (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21089.0))
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2010/09/guest-post-efficiency-schmeffiency.html
An interesting (for some) anti-addendum to this is a review of the lowest 100 offensive efficiency games since 1996-97.
- Buzz's teams own only 5 brick games and he is 0-5 in these, or 2.5 games per year
- Crean's teams own 55 of these dogs and was 12-43 for a 21.5 win %--or 6.1 bad games per year
- Deane-o owned 40 of these and was 15-25 for a 37.5% win %, or 13.3 games of terror per year
The Buzzer is a hands down great teacher. What to watch this year for me? How well the frosh develop and earn PT in his first year of really having height and depth. Will MU only have 2 or 3 poorly played offensive games in 2010-11?
Season Ending Update:During the 2010-11 season with a very BE inexperienced squad, MU finished with:
- 11 of the top 100 offensively efficient games since 1996-97--right about Buzz's season average
- Again finished 22nd offensively in Pomeroy (note: VCU has a slight chance to beat this but doubtful)
- 9 of the lowest 100 turnover games, including the lowest with 2 vs. Pittsburgh in a loss
- Only four of the lowest offensive efficient games--aka clunkers including the two UL losses, Gtown and the UNC bleeding debacle
- While trey shooting was down, MU PIP per game were up 28%, while our opponents saw a 8% decline
- MU scored 13 more points per game than our opponents in PIP+FTM
So, with a very different roster make-up, experience level and skillset, Buzz again was able adapt his offense to keep within his general guiding efficiency principles of low turnovers, paint touches and free throws.
Great teams are consistent teams. While Buzz's teams may have had a higher number of efficient games. we didn't fare well against the better teams in the BE. The fact that we drew blood from teams like DePaul and USF didn't help us playing Cinncy and GT. While some of this can be attributed to Buycks playing out of position and Junior's slow maturation at PG, it was also due to the inconsistent play from DJO and Crowder.
Quote from: DaCoach on April 03, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
Great teams are consistent teams. While Buzz's teams may have had a higher number of efficient games. we didn't fare well against the better teams in the BE. The fact that we drew blood from teams like DePaul and USF didn't help us playing Cinncy and GT. While some of this can be attributed to Buycks playing out of position and Junior's slow maturation at PG, it was also due to the inconsistent play from DJO and Crowder.
The great are consistent... except for Butler and UCONN who both had very rough regular seasons.
You just have to get it together by the end of the regular season and go on a good run :)
Quote from: DaCoach on April 03, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
Great teams are consistent teams. While Buzz's teams may have had a higher number of efficient games. we didn't fare well against the better teams in the BE. The fact that we drew blood from teams like DePaul and USF didn't help us playing Cinncy and GT. While some of this can be attributed to Buycks playing out of position and Junior's slow maturation at PG, it was also due to the inconsistent play from DJO and Crowder.
Seems pretty consistent to me...they beat the teams they should have, and lost to the ones that were better.
Quote from: avid1010 on April 03, 2011, 12:43:47 PM
Seems pretty consistent to me...they beat the teams they should have, and lost to the ones that were better.
+1
Offensively, we again finished 22nd in the nation--and with our schedule, we did that against a lot of great teams including Pitt, UCONN, Syracuse, Xavier and UND. Averaging over the past three years, we are Top 10 offensively. Each year, Buzz has a different formula to keep the consistency. That is Elite considering that each year, the key players on the roster were limited, injured and changed out. Major kudos to the coaching staff.
Defensively, we are inconsistent as has been pointed out ad infinitum. We are not very consistent defensively. In fact, we had 17 games this season where opposing offenses had above average offensive games against us. As Sugar points out, fix the defense as we are close to Elite. Good news is, toward the end of the season, we were getting there. However, this is where we need focus on-going as it is a pattern. Defensive stops make up for when an opposing team has a scheme to disrupt your offense and gives MU a base to rely on.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 03, 2011, 04:15:05 PM
+1
Offensively, we again finished 22nd in the nation--and with our schedule, we did that against a lot of great teams including Pitt, UCONN, Syracuse, Xavier and UND. Averaging over the past three years, we are Top 10 offensively. Each year, Buzz has a different formula to keep the consistency. That is Elite considering that each year, the key players on the roster were limited, injured and changed out. Major kudos to the coaching staff.
Defensively, we are inconsistent as has been pointed out ad infinitum. We are not very consistent defensively. In fact, we had 17 games this season where opposing offenses had above average offensive games against us. As Sugar points out, fix the defense as we are close to Elite. Good news is, toward the end of the season, we were getting there. However, this is where we need focus on-going as it is a pattern. Defensive stops make up for when an opposing team has a scheme to disrupt your offense and gives MU a base to rely on.
Let's not delude ourselves with stats built upon playing a poor non Conf schedule. For the season our offense was rated 22nd based upon eFG%. It also showed us as 65th best defensive team. That defensive ranking clearly shows the fallibility of using average stats against differently ranked opponents.
In truth we were terribly inconsistent both offensively and defensively this season. While we were able to shut down teams built upon one key player, the NC game was showed what a big balanced team with a strong game plan can do to us. We have a ways to go to consider we're nearing Elite status.
Quote from: DaCoach on April 03, 2011, 11:24:45 PM
Let's not delude ourselves with stats built upon playing a poor non Conf schedule. For the season our offense was rated 22nd based upon eFG%. It also showed us as 65th best defensive team. That defensive ranking clearly shows the fallibility of using average stats against differently ranked opponents.
In truth we were terribly inconsistent both offensively and defensively this season. While we were able to shut down teams built upon one key player, the NC game was showed what a big balanced team with a strong game plan can do to us. We have a ways to go to consider we're nearing Elite status.
I disagree on your assessment on offense inconsistency. Pomeroy adjusts for differences between teams. But let's look only at the BE games, however...where MU had the 3rd hardest schedule according to Pomeroy. MU was #1 in PPG in
conference play, #3 in offensive efficiency right behind ND (#3 nationally) and Pitt (#5 nationally), #4 in FG% (noting the stats on PIP), #1 in FTA and FTM, #4 in trey shooting %, and #2 in low turnover rate. Again, all in conference play....and consistent over the past three years with very divergent talent.
Yes, some very talented teams took away what MU does well via defense in certain games. Yes, MU needs more talent and experience, yet Buzz has driven his teams to do what they can do well with the talent level. MU's Defense? I agree....not consistent over the course of the season but MU did regroup after SH. This needs focus.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 04, 2011, 12:08:44 AM
I disagree on your assessment on offense inconsistency. Pomeroy adjusts for differences between teams. But let's look only at the BE games, however...where MU had the 3rd hardest schedule according to Pomeroy. MU was #1 in PPG in conference play, #3 in offensive efficiency right behind ND (#3 nationally) and Pitt (#5 nationally), #4 in FG% (noting the stats on PIP), #1 in FTA and FTM, #4 in trey shooting %, and #2 in low turnover rate. Again, all in conference play....and consistent over the past three years with very divergent talent.
Yes, some very talented teams took away what MU does well via defense in certain games. Yes, MU needs more talent and experience, yet Buzz has driven his teams to do what they can do well with the talent level. MU's Defense? I agree....not consistent over the course of the season but MU did regroup after SH. This needs focus.
The AdjustedO and AdjustedD numbers of 114.0 and 95.5 are season numbers, not merely Conf stats. When the Conf only numbers are used, Pomeroy calculates them as 110.3 and 107.0. That's a huge adjustment. Pitts Conf stats are 110.5 and 96.0. Syracuse, a team we beat twice was 107.8 and 98.9
Two things need to be understood. While averages provide a degree of information, I'd prefer to look at median numbers as being more reflective of performance. Also, it is not unusual for teams with poor defense to score more points. Additionally, the tempo of our games was 5th highest in Conf, leading to more scoring.
While it's a very personal opinion what makes a team Elite, I do know that Elite teams have a significant spread between Adjo and AdjD. Ours was not great in Conf last year. We both agree that the area needing most improvement is defense. But I saw too many extended offensive shortcomings to feel overly confidant we are good enough. If we become a better 3pt team next year, that will go a long way. Add more inside points and we can be there. We'll be good. I just want us to be great.