Belmont Stats

[Dr. Blackheart]

Henry Sugar will not be updating stats this year and Statsheet is also on to bigger things...but being the lazy ass I am, I found another free site for us to track to.  Included in this site are both Offensive and Defensive Ratings, which I think we have all mostly become familiar with, along with the key four factors that Dean Oliver identified and Pomeroy uses.  If readers have questions on the statistics, there is a metrics dictionary there to refer to.

Some observations:

> Belmont's Orating for the game was a 109.2 while Marquette's was a 105.3.  Last season, MU was a 101.5 in Pomeroy and Belmont's was a 108.5 for comparison sake.
> Obviously, the Drating for each team is just the inverse of the opponent's Orating.  Last season, MU's Pomeroy Drating was a 97.6 and Belmont was a 101.0.
> So, Belmont was slightly above their norm on offense and MU is improved with the ball.  MU was almost 11 clicks worse defensively.
> Although use of caution should be used with only ten game minutes to his name, Sacar was MU's highest rated player on both sides of the ball (206 Orating and a 98 defensively). Two offensive rebounds and two steals created four possessions in those 10 minutes to go with a bucket. His energy was a key reason for a climb back by MU.
> While Bradds killed MU (139 OR), MU did a number on Bradshaw (79 OR), especially in the 2nd where he was only 2-9 from the field. Sandy had a 140 Orating, slightly higher than the Evanator, however.
> Haanif was only a 95 vs. Traci's 106 on Orating. Both were similarly bad with most of the rest of the team defensively.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/2015-11-13-marquette.html

[Jay Bee]

*Cringe*

That website's stats are hosed. Awful. I will get to work on throwing something together later today.

As an example of the atrocities of that website's stats... team offensive rebounds are ignored. In the case of game 1, Belmont had 3 team OR's and 2 team DR's.. MU just 1 team DR. So, OR% per that website were 22.2% Belmont, 40.5% MU.

The more appropriate OR%'s were 27.5% and 38.5%, respectively.

Outside of eFG%, all their figures are hosed a bit.

[bilsu]

Bemomt was 109.5 vs 108.5 last year. Given the new rules that are designed to benefit offenses it would seem to me that MU defended Belmont as effectively or more than teams did last year.

[Jay Bee]

Bemomt was 109.5 vs 108.5 last year. Given the new rules that are designed to benefit offenses it would seem to me that MU defended Belmont as effectively or more than teams did last year.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges -- what is the source(s) of your 109.5 and 108.5?

[Jay Bee]

Individual advanced stats (I think all of these should equal kenpom.com's with the exception of FD/40 [slightly diff calcs])...



+ 28% to 30% feels comfortable for Henry's usage and shot% this season. Game one was't out of line with what I consider optimal projections.
+ Fischers %Shots look artificially low due to the high FTR. His usage was just fine.
+ Duane's Ortg benefitted from 4 assists and 0 turnovers. eFG% of 39.3% is far too low and it would be nice to see a couple of rebounds.
+ Yes, Sacar's Ortg looks great, but his usage (and time on the court) was minimal. Quality game, but not a huge impact.

Team stats...


As previously discussed, MU won 3 of the 4 factors, but lost the most important one by a wide margin. MU gave up a 54.5% eFG to Belmont; was 0-10 when giving up higher than 50.0% eFG last season.
Belmont's 54.5% eFG is good, but last season they shot better than that mark 16 times (13-3 in those games). Their 56.4% eFG% a year ago was top 5 in the nation.
MU had only 5 games last season in which they had a better OR% than the 38.5% posted against Belmont.
MU had only 6 games last season in which they had a better offensive TO% than the 14.9% against Belmont.

Heat map...

[bamamarquettefan]

Bemomt was 109.5 vs 108.5 last year. Given the new rules that are designed to benefit offenses it would seem to me that MU defended Belmont as effectively or more than teams did last year.

Actually efficiency has been up a little in opening games - more points PER TRIP, but you would think the 30 second shot clock would lower the points per trip. More fouls has probably offset it. The actual points per game should stay higher this year.