University of North Carolina Athletics
Lucas: UNC Basketball Mailbag
January 27, 2009 | Men's Basketball, Featured Writers, Adam Lucas
Jan. 27, 2009
By Adam Lucas
I am currently watching UNC play Clemson and keep thinking about Wayne Ellington's 3 at the end of the half. I've noticed Roy Williams always calls a time out before the last possession at the end of the first half, and notice they almost always score. Is there a statistic about this kept in the NCAA? "Most final posession of half points by a team?"
Nate Zager
Penfield, NY
This question makes the cut this week to point out a couple of things. Unfortunately, Nate, the answer is no. No one keeps that statistic. But we'd disagree that Roy Williams "always" calls a timeout in the situation you describe. Lately, you're correct, but there have also been times this season that the Tar Heels have declined to call a timeout with seconds remaining in the first half. In many cases it makes sense to do so, of course, because if a team doesn't call a timeout in the first half, they lose one of them anyway. So, basically, if you don't use it, you lose it. In the first two ACC games this season, the Tar Heels weren't very effective at the end of the first half (including a brutal stretch against Boston College). Since then, they've been better. Williams has used that timeout effectively to set up the offense in a handful of recent games, and Ellington's three-pointer against Clemson was a big momentum boost.
On the topic of keeping statistics, several recent emails have wondered who keeps which official stats. The answer is that it varies at every school. Carolina has a stats crew at the Smith Center that keeps the official game stats, and it's easy to get spoiled by them. Until you've actually done that job--and I've only done it once, and it was in a scrimmage situation so the pressure was lighter--it's hard to understand how much is going on. There are multiple people involved, so at any one time you could have someone saying, "Steal, Green, assist, Lawson, basket, Hansbrough, foul, Smith." When you look over at the scorer's table and see the guys in blue vests wearing headsets, that's what they're doing. That's also why the best source for the game's official box score is the school's official site. Those are the final, official numbers. As you've probably noticed, the box scores on ESPN.com or Yahoo.com can sometimes be very different.
In the interest of full disclosure, though, just because they are the "official" stats doesn't always mean they're infallible. In Carolina's game at Virginia earlier this year, Danny Green was incorrectly given a turnover that should've gone to Ty Lawson, a fact Roy Williams noticed immediately upon being handed the postgame stat sheet. Carolina's athletic communications department went back the next morning and correctly credited the turnover to Lawson, which is now reflected in the official cumulative season stats. In a game this season that didn't involve Carolina, one ACC stats crew had a player in the official box score--and credited him with a rebound--who had actually transferred from the school in question a year ago. Wake Forest's stats crew has the reputation as being stingy with assists; Carolina's reputation in that category, especially during the Dean Smith era, was probably more liberal.
Carolina's win over Clemson was great. It was a nice relief after three tough games against the Tigers last year. Another great relief is that The Streak still lives. Which brings me to my question: What's the closest Clemson has come to breaking The Streak? I would imagine last year's game would be high on the list. Have the Tigers ever had a better chance than last season to end the misery?
Greg
Wake Forest
Last year's game, which the Tar Heels won in double-overtime, is the closest Clemson has come to a Chapel Hill victory. In terms of final margin, the closest call was a 61-60 win for fourth-ranked Carolina over unranked Clemson in 1974. Clemson has come into the game at Carolina as the higher-ranked team just twice--1980 (a 73-70 Tar Heel victory) and 1997 (a 61-48 UNC win).
By the way, one of the great untold stories of Wednesday's win was the heroic play of Eric Hoots. Never heard of him? He's Carolina's video coordinator. About 30 minutes before tip-off, he noticed a group of students in the front row of the risers who had painted their chests with the accurate-yet-jinx-laden slogan, "53-0." Nice sentiment, appreciate the support, but terrible mojo. Hoots offered/bribed the students with some Carolina Basketball t-shirts to cover up the offending numbers--which would've also irked Roy Williams, who quieted a chant late in the game poking fun at Clemson's futility in Chapel Hill--and Carolina's good fortune continued for another year.
It seems that in every TV broadcast they put up stats showing Carolina as the top scoring team in the conference. But with our style, don't we give up a lot of points, too? Where do we rank in number of points given up per game? How about 3-pointers given up?
Alan Bernard
Saratoga, CA
If your friendly television analyst is seriously using points per game or points allowed as a measure of offensive or defensive success, you need a new television analyst. It's simply not a very effective way of measuring offense or defense. At the moment, the Tar Heels do indeed rank second in the nation in scoring offense. But the Tar Heels also rank 229th in scoring defense. What does that mean?
Not much. If you want to more effectively judge a team's efficiency, you have to look at efficiency numbers. Carolina ranks second in Ken Pomeroy's current adjusted offensive efficiency numbers and 10th in defensive efficiency. That's a much more accurate measure of how many points a team scores (or allows) per 100 possessions, and Pomeroy also adjusts for the quality of opposing defenses, game site, and weights the numbers toward more recent games.
Opponents are currently hitting 31.7% of their 3-pointers against Carolina, which puts the Tar Heels 9th in the league. That would actually be the best 3-point percentage defense figure for UNC since the 1999-00 season, and the second-best since the shot was installed at the 19 feet, 9 inches mark for the 1986-87 season. Of course, the line was also moved back this season, and so far it's had a minimal impact. Last year, teams across the nation made 35.1% of their three-pointers; this year, that figure is 34.0%.
Brownlow's Down Low
This year's Tar Heel team is considered to be one of the deepest in the country. How does it compare to other UNC teams in terms of number of players with, let's say, 7-10 minutes per game or more on average? (Total number of players who "got into the game" for 1-5 minutes won't tell us much due to so many blow outs this year.) Also, how did the top 3-5 deepest teams fare in March of those given years?
Blane Sanders
San Antonio, TX
Lauren writes:
It's hard to really get an accurate look at this because minutes played weren't accurately tracked until the mid-to-late 1980's. Still, there is a pretty big sample size in that window, so we can look at that. There aren't many Tar Heels who have averaged in the 7-10 minute range, so it's easier just to go with double digits.Since the 1984-85 season, Carolina has been to eight Final Fours and had 16 non-Final Four seasons. Of the Final Four seasons, Carolina has averaged 7.4 players with double-digit minutes. In the 16 non-Final Four seasons, Carolina has averaged 8.3 players in double-digit minutes. The 1991 team came the closest to the 7-10 range with two averaging nine minutes and one at 8.8 minutes. Brendan Haywood's 8.1 minutes also nearly qualified him in 1998.
During the Dean Smith and Bill Guthridge eras during that time, no Tar Heel team had more than seven players in double-digit minutes and reached the Final Four. The 1998 team with the infamous alphabetical starting line-up had just those six players in double-digit minutes. There's really no way to predict it, though - seven Carolina teams have had nine or more players in double-digit minutes. Of those, one went to the Final Four (last year's team) and three went to the Elite Eight. But two lost in the second round (the 1994 and 2006 teams, differing stories to be sure) and one didn't make the Tournament (the 2001-02 team, surprisingly).
This year's team might seem deep, and it is, but it has nowhere near the depth that it had at the beginning of the season. With 11 players averaging double-digit minutes, it would seem deep but two of those - Tyler Zeller and Marcus Ginyard - are not playing right now. Still, everyone now averaging double-digit minutes plays an important role. Bobby Frasor, Larry Drew and Will Graves have become increasingly valuable in the absence of Marcus Ginyard. Carolina certainly misses the post depth that Tyler Zeller would have provided.
In fact, teams thought to have been potentially Carolina's best have often suffered injuries. The 1984 team with Kenny Smith going out late in the year comes to mind. Who knows what the 1979-80 team might have done with a healthy James Worthy? But if guys are able to step into that role, play those minutes and as not mess up, Carolina will be able to survive the lost depth. It's something that will also pay dividends for these young freshmen down the road as well.
Adam Lucas is the publisher of Tar Heel Monthly. He is also the author or co-author of four books on Carolina basketball.
