University of North Carolina Athletics
Lucas: UNC Basketball Mailbag Jan. 31
January 31, 2006 | Men's Basketball
Jan. 31, 2006
By Adam Lucas
Straight to the questions, because we've got some good ones this week...
I believe the current method of evaluating offensive rebound success is flawed. I often hear one team did better than the other because they got more offensive rebounds than the other team. I believe this is an unlike fruit comparison (i.e.: apples and oranges). I would think to truly evaluate offensive rebound superiority you have to calculate offensive rebounds versus rebound opportunities off the same glass. Due to the nature of the game, I am thinking anything over 33% offensive rebounds versus rebound opportunities would be a healthy success rate. And holding a team to under 20% offensive rebounds is a good indicator of success. You have access to more historical data than I do, so I would be interested in some checking of these ratios to see if it holds significance.
Al Ward, '76; son of '42, brother of '70, father of '05
You're on to something here.
Sometimes in sports we get so used to "magic numbers" that we don't pay attention to the conditions surrounding those numbers. For example, 500 home runs in baseball. Sure, it was once impressive, but does it mean the same thing today it did in 1950? Probably not. But people still treat 500 home runs with reverence.
In basketball, for example, you might hear someone say, "The Tar Heels committed 18 turnovers. That's not very good." It might not be, but you'd have to know more about the way the game was played to reach that conclusion. 18 turnovers against a slow-down team would be horrendous. 18 turnovers against the late 1980s Loyola Marymount squad would be manageable.
That's a long-winded way of saying I like the way you're trying to frame rebounds in a larger context. There's a stat called defensive rebound efficiency that is primarily used in the NBA--it measures the amount of defensive rebounds taken down from missed shots. There's a similar idea known as offensive rebound efficiency, which simply measures the amount of available offensive rebounds that a team corrals. One area where that stat breaks down, however, is that it's hard to take free throws into account just by looking at the box score because there's no way to know which missed shots could result in an offensive rebound (a missed front end of a 2-shot foul would be different from a missed front end of a 1-and-1). So eliminating free throws from the discussion entirely (which means these numbers will be somewhat artificially high), the ACC offensive rebounding statistics would look like this:
Wake Forest: 601 missed shots, 287 offensive rebounds: 47.8%
Georgia Tech: 565 missed shots, 264 offensive rebounds, 46.7%
oston College: 585 missed shots, 269 offensive rebounds, 46.0%
Carolina: 506 missed shots, 231 offensive rebounds, 45.7%
Miami: 628 missed shots, 281 offensive rebounds, 44.7%
Maryland: 611 missed shots, 270 offensive rebounds, 44.1%
Clemson: 680 missed shots, 299 offensive rebounds, 44.0%
Virginia: 533 missed shots, 231 offensive rebounds, 43.3%
Florida State: 471 missed shots, 190 offensive rebounds, 40.3%
Virginia Tech: 608 missed shots, 216 offensive rebounds, 35.5%
NC State: 551 missed shots, 186 offensive rebounds, 33.8%
Duke: 535 missed shots, 181 offensive rebounds, 33.8%
Compare that to the current ACC offensive rebounding stats and you'll see some fairly significant differences.
Individually, there's also a stat called "rebound rate." That stat evaluates rebounders based on the number of rebounds per opportunities (missed shots) while they are in the game. Numbers that specific aren't available for the college game, unfortunately. If I was an enterprising young person with a desire to work in the college basketball field, I'd start crunching some of those numbers and present it to a handful of basketball offices over the summer. I bet there's a forward-thinking coach somewhere in Division I who would greatly appreciate the opportunity to put some of the numbers to work for his team.
Is the maxim that home court advantage is more important in college basketball than any other sport true? (based on home winning percentages of professional and college major sports...)
And if so, is there any reason this is true beyond the fact that players
feed off the energy of their fans, which I guess can be a difference
maker in a game ruled so much by runs and energy?
Thanks for the interesting question, David. In college I took a statistics course because I thought it would be things like points per game and rebounds per minute. It turned out, of course, to be much different. I remember wondering how people that enjoyed that type of thing would ever put it to practical use.
Now I know. Research for this question turned up numerous scholarly articles on the importance of home court advantage in college basketball, most of them containing phrases such as "variable coefficient." Three of my favorites (Warning--do not click on these without plenty of free time):
Investigating Homecourt Advantage
Teaching Statistics with Sports Examples
The Homecourt Advantage in Contemporary College Basketball (Yes, he's a Duke guy, but it's an interesting article.)
The home team wins about 70 percent of the time in college basketball. Now we know why--the second article suggests that home court is worth as much as 12 points. But is the home court advantage at, say, the Smith Center better than at Montana State? Maybe not, according to Ken Pomeroy.
You'd probably get some argument from the statheads about whether vague ideas such as "runs" and "getting hot" truly exist. Some of these people are the same ones who will tell you a curveball doesn't really curve, when in reality you and I know it does curve, or else I'd be playing second base for the Cubs right now (and wondering why every reliever who signs with the Cubs immediately loses the ability to get hitters out). But there are also factors besides feeding off the crowd's energy. Fans sometimes underrate the importance of a team having to travel to a road game. If I was going to do a study on home court advantage, I'd factor in the distance traveled to play the game. My theory would be that longer distances (especially when crossing multiple time zones) equal poorer results--such as Carolina losing at Southern Cal and Arizona losing at Carolina. There's also the basic familiarity with the arena and rhythm of the day: basketball courts will always be 94 feet, but it can be hard to have to sit around all day in a hotel room, emerging only to go fire up some shots in unfamiliar surroundings.
It was hard to find much information comparing home court advantage across several sports. If anyone has good data on that topic, drop us an email and we'll come back to this topic in a future column.
I have been a Tar Heel fan for years, and I am pleased to report that my two children, a daughter age 11 and a son age 9 seem to be following in my footsteps. We are excited not only about the men this year, but are also following the Tar Heel women's basketball team with great interest. So here is my question--do the men's team and the women's team ever practice or scrimmage together, and are they friends with each other?
Gene S. Brandt, River Forest, IL
Their paths cross frequently, but not in practice. The women practice in Carmichael and the men practice in the Smith Center. Members of the men's team are regular attendees at virtually all women's home games, and Byron Sanders made the trip over to Cameron Indoor Stadium Sunday night to watch the Heels take over the nation's top ranking. Sanders, as readers of Tar Heel Monthly learned in a recent issue, is very close with LaToya Pringle.
There's been a surge in interest in the women's squad over the past week or so. That means there's likely to be a corresponding surge in attendance at the four remaining home games. Don't forget that you can buy tickets in advance and assure yourself of a seat. The Duke game sold out yesterday, and the Maryland and Boston College games are against top-25 (Maryland is top-10) foes. Thursday's game against NC State, of course, will be the team's first contest with the number-one ranking. Crowd support will make a huge difference in all those games, especially for a team that seems to thrive off the fans.
My question is, in the BC game, what was going on with our man to man defense against BC? It appeared the Heels left the base line unprotected and that's where the majority of BC's points were made. Why would we not go to a zone, and cut out that open back door?
Nina Mann, Harrisburg, N.C.
There may be no more misunderstood defense in the Carolina world than the point zone. The problem it that it looks like a man-to-man, because it's essentially a matchup defense, but it's really a zone. Coming off a win against Florida State when the zone got some credit for the win, several emailers wanted to know "why we didn't play zone against BC." The answer--the Tar Heels were playing several possessions of zone, it just wasn't working as well. Unfortunately, the Eagles were such a good interior passing team that they frequently took advantage of slow rotation and picked up easy layups. If you're trying to diagnose which defense Carolina is using, it really helps to be at the game rather than watching on TV, because sometimes it's hard to see the rotation and way the defense reacts to cuts on television. If you're at the game, there's a surefire way to tell if the Heels are in the point zone--if they're playing it correctly, the player guarding the ball is always supposed to call, "Point, point!" when he's guarding the ball in addition to visibly pointing at the offensive player with the ball.
A good basic reference tool for the point zone, along with other Carolina defenses, can be found here.
While watching the freshmen on this year's Tar Heel team has been impressive and fun, I've been most impressed with Byron Sander's overall improvement. Last year whenever he came into the game or touched the ball I grimaced. This year, he's handling the ball with more confidence, rebounding with authority, finishing on the break and his moves in the post are leaps and bounds above what he did during the 2005 season. He has turned into more of an all around basketball player (minus the free throw shooting) and seems more confident when he's on the floor.
I'm extremely impressed and wanted Byron to know that I'm one fan who has noticed his continued development. Did an assistant coach work with him over the summer or did an alum take him under their wing to teach him a few things? What do we owe his improved play to? How many more minutes is he getting this year? I know he has to be averaging more points, rebounds and assists, could you give his stats?
Byron Sanders for President,
Thomas Ashley Balderson, Buford, GA
Most people don't keep their New Year's resolutions. I certainly don't keep mine (I'm not telling what it was, but let's just say I officially broke it by the first television timeout of the first Duke game after Jan. 1). Byron Sanders is different--he makes resolutions and keeps them.
When the calendar turned to 2006, it began to sink in that this was his last opportunity to be a Tar Heel basketball player. Through Dec. 31, he'd averaged 2.4 points per game and 2.8 rebounds per game in an average of 13.3 minutes per game. He decided that wasn't good enough. "That was my New Year's resolution," he said. "It was 2006 and things had to change. I wanted to come out strong and work hard because it's my senior year. This is my last chance."
Since Jan. 1, he's averaging 4.7 points per game and 3 rebounds per game. Not coincidentally, his minutes have increased--he's played 16 minutes per contest in 2006. Those aren't overwhelming numbers, but they're exactly what Carolina is asking the senior to do. And he's just seemed more comfortable lately, especially with the way he's running the floor, which has always been one of the aspects of the game Roy Williams has stressed the most with him.
His overall current stats--57.5% from the field, 2.9 rebounds per game, and 3.4 points per game--all represent major jumps over any previous season high. His 10 points at Florida State were also a career high. And let's not forget that we're talking about someone who was Academic All-ACC as a sophomore and won the Athletic Director's Scholar-Athlete Award for men's basketball last season, so he's positioned himself very well to do whatever he wants in the future.
Brownlow's Down Low
With Tyler Hansbrough leading the Heels in scoring this season, it made me remember that Rashad McCants, under Matt Doherty, and Joseph Forte, under Bill Guthridge, also accomplished that same thing as freshmen. If Hansbrough continues on his current pace, then he will become the 3rd freshmen to lead the Heels in scoring since Dean Smith retired. I was curious how many times, if ever, a freshman led the team in scoring during Coach Smith's tenure.
Joey Gleason, Raleigh, NC
The short answer is that no freshman ever led the Heels in scoring during Coach Smith's tenure, though some Tar Heels did come close. Phil Ford has the third-highest scoring average for a freshman in Carolina history with 16.4 points a game, but Mitch Kupchak led the Heels in scoring that year with 18.5 points per game. Antawn Jamison has the fourth-highest freshman average at 15.1 points per game, but Jeff McInnis led the Heels in scoring that year with 16.5 points per game. The fifth-highest freshman average is Sam Perkins's 14.9 points per game, but Al Wood's 18.1 led the Heels that year. J.R. Reid had the fourth-highest total of points for a freshman, but Kenny Smith's 16.9 points per game led the way that year.
Carolina has had six ACC rookies of the year - Sam Perkins (1981), Michael Jordan (1982), J.R. Reid (1987), Ed Cota (1997), Joe Forte (2000), and Marvin Williams (2005). Two of them have come post-Smith, and only one of them led the team in scoring (Joe Forte). Jerry Stackhouse, Rasheed Wallace, Antawn Jamison, Kris Lang, Jawad Williams, Rashad McCants and Raymond Felton made the ACC All-Freshman team (which started in 1992-93). Twenty Carolina players have started in their first game as Tar Heels, including Raymond Felton, Sean May and Rashad McCants.
The common perception of Coach Smith is that he was "anti-freshman" in some way. The truth is somewhat different. Even before minutes per game and games started were kept as a statistic, the averages of players like Mike O'Koren, Walter Davis, and Phil Ford stayed fairly constant throughout all four years at Carolina. Once they started tracking minutes per game and games started, it's clear that players like Sam Perkins, Brad Daugherty, J.R. Reid, and Antawn Jamison were treated fairly consistently in terms of playing time and starts. Interestingly enough, Michael Jordan's minutes per game actually went down slightly from his freshman to sophomore year, from 31.7 to 30.9, though his scoring average went up from 13.5 to 20.
Jeff Lebo went from starting 10 games as a freshman to all 34 games as a sophomore, though his minutes per game only went up five. Scott Williams only started in one game as a freshman, but started all but one game as a sophomore, and saw his minutes per game go up 11.5. Derrick Phelps had one of the biggest minutes per game increases when his 9.8 minutes per game as a freshman increased to 31.1 minutes per game as a sophomore, and he went from starting in just four games as a freshman to all 33 as a sophomore. Donald Williams saw a similar increase in minutes per game from his freshman to sophomore year, going from 4.3 to 24.3 and from starting in zero games to starting in 14. Jeff McInnis also had a dramatic increase, his minutes per game increasing by almost 20 and from starting in one game to starting in all but two games. Jerry Stackhouse saw his minutes per game increase by 13 and his starts go up from just one to all but one game.
The reason a freshman didn't lead the Heels in scoring until after Coach Smith's tenure isn't as complicated as it seems, and it has nothing to do with whether Coach Smith liked freshmen or not. Recruiting was affected by the transition, and some of our more recent Tar Heels have had to deal with some topsy-turvy times. Melvin Scott saw his minutes per game yo-yo from 22.9 as a freshman to 19.6 as a sophomore, back to 21.2 as a junior and down to 16.3 as a senior. His starts were similarly erratic - 21 as a freshman, but only 4 as a sophomore, back up to 27 as a junior and down to seven as a senior. Jackie Manuel saw fairly consistent minutes in his career, but his starts went from 16 as a freshman to 30 as a sophomore, down to just two as a junior and back up to all 37 games as a senior. David Noel went from starting 17 games as a freshman to starting only three games a sophomore and zero last year. He has started all 17 games so far this year. Byron Sanders hasn't started a game since his freshman year, but has seen his minutes per game go from 15.7 to 4.7 to 3.0 and back up to 14.4 this year. Knowing that these guys have had to go through not only the adversity but also the inconsistency makes us perhaps appreciate them a little bit more.
Adam Lucas is the publisher of Tar Heel Monthly and can be reached at alucas@tarheelmonthly.com. He is the coauthor of the official book of the 2005 championship season, Led By Their Dreams, and his book on Roy Williams's first season at Carolina, Going Home Again, is now available in bookstores. To subscribe to Tar Heel Monthly or learn more about Going Home Again, click here.
