MU must boost its eFG% differential in 2016-17

[Jay Bee]

Lots more AT THIS LINK on each of the four factors, but an excerpt re: eFG% differentials in college bball in 2015-16 and some thoughts on MU in 2016-17:

Effective Field Goal Percentage

Now we're into the realm of relevance. You need to travel down the rankings to #44 to find a team who had a negative eFG% differential (Providence, with a -1.3% eFG% differential, but who had a great advantage in turnover and FTR differential). The worst team who had an eFG% differential greater than 0.1% was ranked #231 of #351 teams. That is, no team who shot at least 0.1% eFG% better than their opponent was ranked in the bottom third of all college basketball teams.

The top 30 eFG% differential teams were ranked an average of #47, with only 4 sub-100 squads. If you're a power-six team that has a 2.0% eFG% or better differential, it would be rare to find yourself with a sub-100 ranking. A year ago, Marquette (+3.3%) and Alabama (+3.0%) came close because of negative turnover and rebounding differentials, but they still made the top 100 cut.

On Offense...

The somewhat concerning fact about Marquette last year is that they shot the ball well. Their 52.0% eFG% was good for #72 in the nation and at 51.2% in conference play, only Villanova and Xavier were better. How much can they improve?

Freshman Haanif Cheatham posted an eFG% of 54.3%; Luke Fisher was at 60.8%; JaJuan Johnson 56.4%... is it reasonable to project significant improvement in 2016-17? Probably not.

However, Henry Ellenson took a lot of shots, but only hit at a 48.0% eFG% clip.

On 2-point shots MU was 52.4%, placing them in the top 50 in the nation. It was also a historically high percentage for the program. Nearly every regular was good, with the exception of Traci Carter (36.8%, but he was a true freshman) and the team stat was weighted down somewhat by Ellenson's 49.5% and heavy volume. Certainly it's not a slam dunk for MU to repeat their 2015-16 2FG%, but the hope would be to maintain.

3-point shooting is where things could change dramatically. First, as a percent of total field goal attempts, Marquette's 3FGA's should see one of the largest increases in all of college basketball. The Warriors were ranked #286 at 30.3% 3FGA/FGA a year ago. They shot 33.9%, which isn't terrible, but imagine this team with a 38.3% 3FGA/FGA (~#100 in the nation) and a 36.3% 3FG% (again, ~#100 in the nation)... if they maintained their 52.4% 2FG%, the result would be an eFG% of 53.2%, a 1.2% improvement from a year ago.

Or...how about MU's 3FGA/FGA and 3FG% both come in ~#50 in the nation? Now we're talking an eFG% of 53.8%. This would still only place Marquette around the top 30 of eFG% teams. To aim for 53.8% would be a lofty goal, but it's not wildly unreasonable with a (likely) dramatic change in shot selection, talented snipers and a little luck.

On Defense...

Marquette's defensive eFG% was 48.7% (#107 nationally) for the year and 50.7% (#7) in conference. Both 2FG% and 3FG% against were mediocre. Obviously MU loses Henry Ellenson (4.4% blks) without adding much interior size, but the coaching staff is creative and smart.

It's difficult to project a big drop in defensive eFG%, but let's say MU can push it down by 1.3% while improving their eFG% by 1.2% (or some other combination of the two). A net improvement of 2.5% in eFG% differential means a +5.8% and places Marquette in or around the top 35 of eFG% differential, by far the most important of the four factors. Do that, and they are in business even without improvement in rebounding.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Awesome post, reminds me of a Henry Sugar or Dr. Blackheart analysis, the best stuff this board has to offer

[tower912]

JB, I hope you are right.    I still can't get past the scenario of holding onto the ball, shooting well, playing good defense until the shot goes up and then never being able to secure the defensive rebound and giving up putback after putback. 

[Silkk the Shaka]

JB, I hope you are right.    I still can't get past the scenario of holding onto the ball, shooting well, playing good defense until the shot goes up and then never being able to secure the defensive rebound and giving up putback after putback.

If the 2010 team could do it, this team should be able to do it too, and possibly even better. Our shooting should increase dramatically and Wojo seems laser focused on decreasing turnovers. I think we're being slept on. Can't wait for tonight.

[Marcus92]

Great post. Thanks for the in-depth analysis and rationale.

Marquette wasn't that far off last year as a very young team. We return virtually everyone (eliminating the inexperience factor). And the newcomers should help address some of our other shortcomings (primarily 3-point shooting).

Will that be enough to overcome the loss of Henry and lack of rebounding in general? We'll get our first data point tonight.

[Henry Sugar]

Good stuff, JB.

I agree with you that the offensive eFG% should improve, largely driven by the 3 point quantity (and hopefully by the quality).

For defensive eFG%, I'm more skeptical that there will be an improvement until we see some games. Fingers crossed, though.

[Slim]

JB, where is the best place to learn (in depth) about these advanced statistics?

[Cooby Snacks]

Good stuff, thanks for digging into the numbers.

But I think the real keys to success are our FT% and % of crystal bowl picks for top-100 recruits.