Paul Hewitt Average Efficiency

by GTwill on Jan 28, 2010 4:04 PM EST Comment 7 comments

The following links are from a new basketball blog that Luke Winn linked to in his power rankings. What the author is doing is going through and looking at the average data for all bcs coaches over the last seven years. His results shed some light on our CPH discussions and the time framematches up well with Bird's point guard analysis. There are 72 coaches included so the ranks shown are out of 72.

Pace and Average Efficiency: This shows the average pace and overall offensive and defensive efficiency numbers. I was a little surprised that CPH teams were in the top ten in adjusted pace over the last seven years. CPH's average offensive efficiency was 41 and average defensive efficiency was 22. Those numbers are probably about what we expected. Average offense and above average defense.

Four Factors of Offensive Efficiency: This breaks down the components of offensive efficiency into the four factors that Ken Pomeroy uses to calculate offensive efficiency. Once again there aren't a lot of surprises. CPH's ranks are:

36 eFG%

69 TO%

19 OFFREB%

43 FTA/FGA

To summarize the strength of the team offensively is the ability to get their own misses, while the main weakness is clearly turnovers. This is why CPH's teams so often fail the eyeball test, because turnovers are one of the easiest things for a fan to spot and let's be honest 69th out of 72 is really bad. Also, as the article mentions, it is hard to know whether good offensive rebounding is part of a coaches strategy or is more related to having a player like Gani Lawal.

If the blogger proceeds to break down the defensive side I will try to post those numbers as well. That will be CPH's time to shine.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Rebounding can be coached

But it also depends heavily on having scrappy players like Gani Lawal, Jeremis Smith, Mario West, Is’mail Muhammad, etc. Tech used to be known as “Point Guard U”, but we have a very recent history of great rebounders.

by Portmanteur on Jan 29, 2010 7:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would agree that it can to an extent, but just like all other areas talent plays a large roll.

by GTwill on Jan 30, 2010 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Another thing to note

Offensive Efficiency is Points Per Possession, or frequently points per 100 possessions. The Four Factors are statistics that Dean Oliver wrote about in his book Basketball On Paper, which are the strongest components of a good offense.

by Portmanteur on Jan 29, 2010 7:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

you are exactly right

My bad. The calculation is not related to the four factors. The theory is that those factors have the highest correlation to offensive efficiency, right?

by GTwill on Jan 30, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, he posted the defensive numbers

The defensive rankings for the four factors are
22 eFG%
20 TO%
48 OFFREB%
68 FTA/FGA

The eFG% and TO% are CPH’s calling card. Tough defense. Creating turnovers and forcing difficult shots. The low ranking in FTA/FGA is also expected. Our teams foul a lot and this is part of the reason we create turnovers and force difficult shots because we play aggressive defense. The only number that surprised me is our defensive rebounding. Since we have had good offensive rebounding teams, I would expect a solid number on defensive rebounding. Any ideas? Is it because we go for steals and are out of position for rebounds?

by GTwill on Feb 4, 2010 2:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Shooting percentages

FT% 67.6 (rank 55/72)
2PT% 50.5 (rank 31)
3PT% 35.8 (rank 32)

No surprise, we can’t shoot free throws

by GTwill on Feb 4, 2010 2:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Summary

So basically a CPH team on offense is:

Average shooting, great offensive rebounding, horrendous at turning it over, and gets to line at a below average rate and shoots terribly once we get there.

On defense we:
Force tough shots and turnovers by playing aggressive defense, which also leads to commtting a lot of fouls. In addition we rebound at a below average level.

Stylistically this is not a very pretty way to play basketball, but certainly can be effective. The fouling on defense can get on my nerves but I think the numbers show that this has been an effective approach. We just need the defensive depth to pull it off. Offensively is were the CPH haters (haters according to Bird) can make plenty of noise. The offensive rebounding is most likely the driving factor behind the solid shooting percentages, but the turnovers are what is killing us.

This year’s team fits perfectly in with the seven year trends in every way. This is definetly a CPH team defined. If you don’t like this year’s team you will never like a CPH team. This team is clearly better than the averages in most categories but its greatest strengths are on defense (shooting percentage and turnovers) while awesome at offensive rebounding. While the main achilles heal is offensive turnovers.

by GTwill on Feb 4, 2010 2:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs