With and Without Fischer (and the zone defense)

[Henry Sugar]

EDIT: Please see further posts for clarifications. It's not all due to Fischer.

Some stats that I thought were interesting on the team before/after Fischer started playing

Offensive Efficiency
Without Fischer: 1.03 ppp (would rank #114)
With: 1.10 ppp (would rank #26)

Off eFG%
Without: 49.8% (would rank #125)
With: 54.9% (would rank #20)

OR%
Without: 27% (#294)
With: 31% (#175)

TO% and FTR - no significant difference

Summary - Take the rankings with a grain of salt, but still MU is more efficient offensively, and a big chunk of that is on eFG% improvement. The improved OR% is noticeable but it's not like MU is good at rebounding offensively.


Defensive Efficiency
Without: 1.05 ppp (#254)
With: 0.88 ppp (#8)

Def eFG%
Without: 54.4% (#316)
With: 43.4% (#33)

TO%
Without: 25.2% (#10)
With: 20.3% (#135)

OR%
Without: 37.7% (#337)
With: 28.5% (#75)

FTR - slight difference

Summary - Again, a big improvement in defensive efficiency, largely driven by the better eFG% defense. There is a big drop in TO% emphasis, but that's improved by an even better OR% defense.

All hail eFG%, King of the Four Factors!

[ATL MU Warrior]

Is this adjusted in any way to take into account the quality of competition since Luke has been playing? 

In other words, are the improvements due to playing mostly lower quality opponents or because Luke is playing or likely both?

[Pakuni]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but how does this account for quality if competition (or does it)?

[Silkk the Shaka]

Stuff like this is why Sugar is a top 5 poster here

[Henry Sugar]

good questions. It's not adjusted for quality of competition.

The average Pomeroy rank without Fischer (#108) and with Fischer (#211) certainly will help pad the stats. In addition, MU has played three >#300 ranked teams during this stretch. Last, MU played a stinker of a game offensively against UW, which is an outlier and drags down the stats.

Let's say I take out the UW game as an outlier.
Offensively, there isn't as big of a change. The without numbers are 1.07 ppp on 52% eFG%. Defensively, the story is still consistent. MU let teams score a high ppp on high defensive eFG%, with an emphasis on turnovers and bad defensive rebounding.

To be more fair, the switch to the zone (starting GT) also tells a similar transition defensively.
(1.05 ppp before, 0.95 after; 57% def eFG% before, 47% after). The defensive TO% and OR% follow the same path (27% TO before, 22% after; 36% DR% before, 33% after).

Let's also look at the ASU (#68) and PC (#52).
I'm not including the DPU game because that was a crap offensive game, and since I'm cherry picking data... Offensively, the team still scored 1.06 ppp on 54% eFG%. Defensively, those opponents averaged 0.95 ppp on 47% eFG%. Even DPU only scored 0.95 ppp on 45%.

Is it because of Fischer? Not entirely. The zone started the defensive transition.
Does strength of schedule impact. Yes, but also not entirely.

My current interpretation is:

• Fischer's addition into the offense has meant for a modest boost offensively, primarily due to a slight eFG% improvement
• The zone defense was the start of fixing the eFG%, which has improved the ppp, and started the trend for less TO% and more defensive rebounding
• Fischer's addition has resulted in a similar modest boost defensively
• Now that we are in conference play, the real trends will start to show. Non-conf stats are always flaky in comparison to conference stats.

[brandx]

My current interpretation is:

• Fischer's addition into the offense has meant for a modest boost offensively, primarily due to a slight eFG% improvement
• The zone defense was the start of fixing the eFG%, which has improved the ppp, and started the trend for less TO% and more defensive rebounding
• Fischer's addition has resulted in a similar modest boost defensively
• Now that we are in conference play, the real trends will start to show. Non-conf stats are always flaky in comparison to conference stats.

I think we all could see the manifestation of the four points here just watching the games - but is is nice to see the numbers to quantify what we see.

Thanks for the continuing work you do.

[brewcity77]

Great stuff. No doubt the team has been better with Luke and watching the strides has made this season one to watch. Though as much as I love reading stuff like this I worry about inflated expectations. Those numbers, especially the defensive efficiency, are the stuff Final Four teams are made of, and I'm not ready to peg is as a tourney team, much less one playing to the end.

[Nephew]

good questions. It's not adjusted for quality of competition.

The average Pomeroy rank without Fischer (#108) and with Fischer (#211) certainly will help pad the stats. In addition, MU has played three >#300 ranked teams during this stretch. Last, MU played a stinker of a game offensively against UW, which is an outlier and drags down the stats.

Let's say I take out the UW game as an outlier.
Offensively, there isn't as big of a change. The without numbers are 1.07 ppp on 52% eFG%. Defensively, the story is still consistent. MU let teams score a high ppp on high defensive eFG%, with an emphasis on turnovers and bad defensive rebounding.

To be more fair, the switch to the zone (starting GT) also tells a similar transition defensively.
(1.05 ppp before, 0.95 after; 57% def eFG% before, 47% after). The defensive TO% and OR% follow the same path (27% TO before, 22% after; 36% DR% before, 33% after).

Let's also look at the ASU (#68) and PC (#52).
I'm not including the DPU game because that was a crap offensive game, and since I'm cherry picking data... Offensively, the team still scored 1.06 ppp on 54% eFG%. Defensively, those opponents averaged 0.95 ppp on 47% eFG%. Even DPU only scored 0.95 ppp on 45%.

Is it because of Fischer? Not entirely. The zone started the defensive transition.
Does strength of schedule impact. Yes, but also not entirely.

My current interpretation is:

• Fischer's addition into the offense has meant for a modest boost offensively, primarily due to a slight eFG% improvement
• The zone defense was the start of fixing the eFG%, which has improved the ppp, and started the trend for less TO% and more defensive rebounding
• Fischer's addition has resulted in a similar modest boost defensively
• Now that we are in conference play, the real trends will start to show. Non-conf stats are always flaky in comparison to conference stats.

Sugar, in your research have you noticed any statistically significant differences in Def Efficiency &/or Def eFG% between our time in a 2-3 zone and (what I believe to be) a 1-3-1 zone?  I ask because the zone we used against Georgetown was at times effective at turning them over.

Great stuff, thanks for posting.

[brandx]

Sugar, in your research have you noticed any statistically significant differences in Def Efficiency &/or Def eFG% between our time in a 2-3 zone and (what I believe to be) a 1-3-1 zone?  I ask because the zone we used against Georgetown was at times effective at turning them over.

Great stuff, thanks for posting.

I also noticed the 1-3-1 and wonder what effect it had on creating turnovers or should I say on not creating turnovers.