eFG% and Other Stats of Note

[Dr. Blackheart]

After the Butler game and now at the half way point in conference play, fans might be surprised to learn that MU:

• Has a higher offensive eFG% (51.5%) than every Buzz team except the Midgets (52.8%).
• Has allowed the lowest defensive eFG% (45.4%) of this century, tied only with the Sweet 16 2011-12 team.

With TO rate, OR rebounding rate and FT rate, Wojo's teams are in the lowest ranges, however.  Some of this is experience (maturity). Some of this is coaching philosophy (paint touches vs. high tempo, crash the glass vs. retreat and defend). Some of this is the roster make up.

Reflective of this, versus the NCAA average (where an index of 100=average):

• MU gets more points than average from the center (126), power forward (103) and shooting guard (105) positions, and less from the SF (87) and PG positions (80)
• On offensive and defensive rebounding, the center spot (141/99) is way above offensively and right at the average defensively. The PF spot (87/118) is below average offensively and significantly above average defensively. Meanwhile, SF (61/86), SG (74/82), and PG (96/109) are at or way below average for their positions.

One can see why opposing defenses have been keying on Luke and Henry, while offenses are going at them defensively. One also can see that MU employs a retreat and defend philosophy on the offensive glass leaving Luke to go it alone. We are all aware of the high freshmen turnover rates. One can also see that SF and PG are MU's two positions of need with the current experience and roster make up. One can see that when Traci, Haanif, JJJ or Sandy have big games, MU does well. These are the positions to watch for progressive improvement and post-season hopes.

[brewcity77]

One of the things that made me happiest yesterday was seeing Duane, Haney, Traci, and Sandy active on the boards. That was our best team rebounding effort in awhile. Could still stand to do better on keeping teams off the offensive glass, but at least guys other than Henry and Luke were pulling down boards.

[Marcus92]

Always appreciate a thoughtful analysis. The numbers don't tell the whole story, but they can provide key insight and perspective.

Seems like there are signs of this team getting comfortable in the offense, embracing their roles, knowing when to drive, shoot or pass. Hopefully we'll see similar improvement on the turnover front.

[Jay Bee]

After the Butler game and now at the half way point in conference play, fans might be surprised to learn that MU:

• Has a higher offensive eFG% (51.5%) than every Buzz team except the Midgets (52.8%).
• Has allowed the lowest defensive eFG% (45.4%) of this century, tied only with the Sweet 16 2011-12 team.

Careful, though. We're played less than half of our Big East games this season and even after yesterday's huge game, our eFG% is at 48.8% in conference. In other words, the 51.5% will decline and your comparison is unfairly weighting competition levels.

Defensive... same story.

Reflective of this, versus the NCAA average (where an index of 100=average):

• MU gets more points than average from the center (126), power forward (103) and shooting guard (105) positions, and less from the SF (87) and PG positions (80)
• On offensive and defensive rebounding, the center spot (141/99) is way above offensively and right at the average defensively. The PF spot (87/118) is below average offensively and significantly above average defensively. Meanwhile, SF (61/86), SG (74/82), and PG (96/109) are at or way below average for their positions.

One can see why opposing defenses have been keying on Luke and Henry, while offenses are going at them defensively. One also can see that MU employs a retreat and defend philosophy on the offensive glass leaving Luke to go it alone. We are all aware of the high freshmen turnover rates. One can also see that SF and PG are MU's two positions of need with the current experience and roster make up. One can see that when Traci, Haanif, JJJ or Sandy have big games, MU does well. These are the positions to watch for progressive improvement and post-season hopes.

Remember on this that Ken's system doesn't know what position a kid plays. It only knows heights. MU's "center" is the first 100% of minutes played by the tallest players... thus, it's a combo of Henry and Luke. The weighting? I haven't tested it, but it could be weighted either way as both are 6'11" in the system. At a high level (based on DR% breakdowns) it appears our center is Luke 70% & Henry 30%.. [anyone know what the tiebreakers are in the system?... i.e., "for purposes of rebounding %, the code looks at ties in height and assigned the player with the stronger rebounding numbers as the taller position"???]

Henry OR Luke also makes up the first 50% of MU's PF and BOTH have strong OR%'s... Luke of course a bit better. However, let's say it's 50% of Henry at a solid 9.1%.. then we drop down to Matt Heldt.. only 9% minutes, but poor rebounding numbers... then where does it go? 6'6"... if it's Sandy, it makes PF look even worse.. if it's Wally's 22% before including Sandy, it's helped a bit by Wally's solid rebounding numbers.. again, at a high level without testing it, it looks like Wally is including as a component of our PF before moving onto ~20% of Sandy.

Anyway, not trying to take all the fun out of it, but it's important to know what "MU's PF" means... it *looks like* at a high level it's 50% Henry, 9% Matt, 22% Wally and the rest Sandy. I think the normal person looks at "MU's PF" and says, 'oh, that's Henry'... but, not so. [/list]

[Dr. Blackheart]

Marquette just had its tenth game against Top 100 opponents, and its first with an offensive efficiency over 100 (115 vs. Butler). In fact, the first St. John's game was the only other Big East game over the 100 average (104). I am looking for and expecting progression as the season winds down, not just wins and loseses, with the young team.

I always say that a typical team has five games that they underperform and five where they over perform. By my count, we have had four stinkers and the Butler game was the first over (one could argue PC but that was due to defense).  I am expecting a rise up by MU the second time through the conference on offense, and thus an increase in offense (versus a lackluster first walk through).

As for KPom and the position averages, one could argue either way, but those pretty much are the tale of the tape.  We need more production and less turnovers 1-3.

[Jay Bee]

Marquette just had its tenth game against Top 100 opponents, and its first with an offensive efficiency over 100 (115 vs. Butler). In fact, the first St. John's game was the only other Big East game over the 100 average (104). I am looking for and expecting progression as the season winds down, not just wins and loseses, with the young team.

I always say that a typical team has five games that they underperform and five where they over perform. By my count, we have had four stinkers and the Butler game was the first over (one could argue PC but that was due to defense).  I am expecting a rise up by MU the second time through the conference on offense, and thus an increase in offense (versus a lackluster first walk through).

As for KPom and the position averages, one could argue either way, but those pretty much are the tale of the tape.  We need more production and less turnovers 1-3.

1st paragraph) The Butler game was on the strength of 10/17 3FG shooting. Can't reasonably expect that to be predictive  of a trend we'll see going forward... would love to think otherwise (and I know Henry is a better long range shooter than he's shown this year), but I'd wager with you if you believe MU's eFG% is going to increase from its current 51.5%.

2nd para) No comment

3rd para) I think when you consider what the system is kicking out for the PF position you can come to the conclusion that we could really use help from another big(ger) man, especially in the area of rebounding. Steve leaving hurts the upside for this team's statistical profile, imo.