Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 10 of 11 « First<891011
Username Post: Lafayette        (Topic#20797)
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 5241

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: Lafayette
12-07-17 02:31 PM - Post#239525    
    In response to Jeff2sf

Max on floor (399 poss):
99 ORAT
98 DRAT

Max off floor (335 poss):
100 ORAT
99 DRAT

AJ on floor (558 poss):
100 ORAT
97 DRAT

AJ off floor (176 poss):
96 ORAT
103 DRAT

AJ without Max on floor (284 poss):
106 ORAT
102 DRAT

AJ with Max on floor (274 poss):
95 ORAT
92 DRAT

The general assumptions are right. Opponents are struggling to get to the rim with Max and AJ in the game (31% of shots versus close to 40% when they're both on the floor). That's translating to a LOT more 2PT Js, which is perfect. The FT rate is through the floor (24%) when they're both on the floor. So, defensively, it's hard to argue that this isn't working.

Offensively, it's not great, but not as bad as many might suggest. Yes, the TO rate is slightly elevated with those two on the floor together. And they get a ton of shots blocked at the rim (probably because the opposing bigs can stay closer to the basket for help blocks). And they don't get to the free throw line that much. And they don't shoot threes well (25% when those two are together versus the 35ish range when not together).

But thus far, the tradeoff has been pretty equal from an efficiency differential standpoint. Better offense without Max, better defense with him, but about 3-4 points per 100 possessions ahead either way.

 
PennFan10 
PhD Student
Posts: 1848

Reg: 02-15-15
Re: Lafayette
12-07-17 02:31 PM - Post#239526    
    In response to mrjames

  • mrjames Said:
I see Penn as 3rd in OREB% in the Ivy behind Yale and Brown (though all Ivy teams are in the bottom half nationally, so I don't expect that to be a differentiating stat). Penn may very well end up as the top Ivy team in OREB% at the end of the day, if it starts making more FTs. Penn's rebounding an absurd percent of 2PT Js (39%), but the layup rebounding rate is believeable at 40%. Ultimately, I expect Penn to be a good rebounding team on both ends of the floor.



From each team's website:

Brown 11.8 ORB per game
Penn 10.9 ORB per game
Yale 9.9 ORB per game

From ESPN:
Brown 11.8
Penn 11.3
Yale 9.9

I'm not sure why ESPN is different for Penn.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 5241

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
12-07-17 02:43 PM - Post#239529    
    In response to PennFan10

Rates are better than per game numbers, which are influenced by the number of missed shots/pace.

Penn’s 3rd by OREB rate, but all the Ivies are below average, so no world-beaters on that end.

 
penn nation 
Professor
Posts: 11542

Reg: 12-02-04
12-07-17 02:49 PM - Post#239532    
    In response to Quakers03

  • Quakers03 Said:
Agreed. However, on the one I am referencing, he spun beautifully and had no need to finish with his right as the left finish was wide open. It showed that he's just not comfortable finishing with that offhand.




Yes, this was shortly after the announcer said he hadn't yet seen AJ go to the left.

 
2genpenn 
Pre-Frosh
Posts: 2

Age: 57
Reg: 11-14-17
12-07-17 03:40 PM - Post#239542    
    In response to Basketball Bruce

Agree, Bruce; he will make AJ, Ryan and the Team BETTER. Give him a chance, SD!

 
Penndemonium 
Masters Student
Posts: 776

Reg: 11-29-04
12-07-17 06:26 PM - Post#239569    
    In response to 2genpenn

Yeah, Romanczuk really made the most of his abilities. He was a bit underrated as an athlete, however.

 
Stuart Suss 
Masters Student
Posts: 960

Loc: Chester County, Pennsylva...
Reg: 11-21-04
12-07-17 10:46 PM - Post#239597    
    In response to Penndemonium

Addressing the team rebounding numbers:

When evaluating rebounding, I ask the following question. When you miss the first shot of a possession, what percentage of the time do you obtain a second chance to score by reason of an individual or team offensive rebound? The same question is asked on the defensive side.

As far as I know, nobody else calculates this number, but it can easily be determined by looking at the play by play sheet from any individual game. In my opinion the advantages of this calculation are:
1. It is a measurement of rebounding rate, not raw rebounding numbers.
2. It is a measurement of the rebounding rate on first field goal attempts of a possession and does not include rebounding of missed foul shots.

Using this measurement, Penn's division 1 opponents this year have obtained second chances on 21.5% of their misses of first field goal attempts of a possession.

This 21.5% is by far the best number I have ever measured for a season segment (defined as either the non-conference season or the 14 game conference season). The next best season segment I have ever recorded for limiting opponent second chances was 23.7% during the Ivy League season of 2003.

So, at least for now, with five non-conference games remaining. I have no hesitation in describing Penn's defensive rebounding rate as excellent.

On the offensive rebounding side, Penn's second chance percentage is 29.8%. The historic average for Penn teams is 31%-32%. Penn teams that won the league averaged 33.5% second chance opportunities during conference games. Conference opponents of Penn teams that won the league averaged 27.7%.

As a point of reference, for last year's Ivy League season, Penn's offensive second chance rate was 29.1% and Penn's opponents second chance rate was 29.8%.


 
Silver Maple 
Postdoc
Posts: 3268

Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
Lafayette
12-08-17 09:18 AM - Post#239606    
    In response to Stuart Suss

Thanks Stu. Sorry I didn't reference this metric in your haiku.

So, by this metric, defensive rebounding for the team this season is excellent, maybe even historically so. Offensive rebounding looks OK, but not terrific, and is a bit improved from last season. Correct?

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 5241

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
12-08-17 10:06 AM - Post#239607    
    In response to Stuart Suss

One thing to keep in mind on the rebounding side of the house are season effects.

In the 2000s, teams were better at (prioritized more) offensive rebounding. Penn's 28.2% figure for offensive rebounding allowed (i.e. defensive rebounding) from 2003 was 29th nationally (average that year was 32.2%).

Last season, 28.2% would have landed just outside the Top 125 (average was 29.3%).

That change over time is primarily the product of changing shot types and relative de-prioritization of offensive rebounding to get back in transition.

Penn is, indeed, doing a very good job rebounding this year, though.

 
PennFan10 
PhD Student
Posts: 1848

Reg: 02-15-15
12-08-17 11:09 AM - Post#239618    
    In response to mrjames

I am not so sure Penn, or any Ivy at this point, cares much about where they sit nationally in any statistical category. I think, given we are a one bid league for now and the foreseeable future, where we sit within the league is much more important.

Penn is the top rebounding team in the league so far by most metrics, which is much better than last year where they ranked between 4th and 7th depending on what metric you looked at. Doesn't mean they are going to win anything, but it is clearly a big part of their team this year.

 
Quakers03 
Professor
Posts: 8027

Reg: 12-07-04
12-08-17 11:26 AM - Post#239622    
    In response to PennFan10

Which is interesting because one of our biggest fears was losing the rebounding that Matt Howard provided. Going the two bigs plus having some others like Darnell do a nice job has really helped.

 
yoyo 
Junior
Posts: 209

Reg: 03-25-09
12-08-17 11:50 AM - Post#239627    
    In response to Quakers03

  • Quakers03 Said:
Which is interesting because one of our biggest fears was losing the rebounding that Matt Howard provided. Going the two bigs plus having some others like Darnell do a nice job has really helped.



Darnell really does show some ups when rebounding. I wish he could use that when finishing around the basket. That floater isn't cutting it.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 5241

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
12-08-17 12:15 PM - Post#239628    
    In response to yoyo

Yeah, the funny thing is that Penn's defensive rebounding isn't that much different with AJ and Max on the floor together (79.3%) versus when they aren't on the floor together (77.7%). Some of that difference is being dampened by the parade to the free throw line and easy-to-rebound missed free throws when they aren't on the floor together versus when they are.

 
TheLine 
Postdoc
Posts: 3758

Age: 55
Reg: 07-07-09
12-08-17 12:19 PM - Post#239629    
    In response to yoyo

Defensive rebounding has been a team effort.

Darnell and Antonio get a lot of defensive rebounds by design. AJ, Max and Ryan (and any other big out there) are responsible for blocking out their men, Darnell and Antonio are responsible for scooping up loose rebounds. Everyone is doing an excellent job at their role.


 
Silver Maple 
Postdoc
Posts: 3268

Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
12-08-17 12:37 PM - Post#239632    
    In response to TheLine

This may be a feature of Donahue's defensive approach. I've been given to understand that he particularly stresses forcing opposing players to take, what are for them, lower percentage shots. If that's the case, then it makes sense that you'd also be stressing rebounding.

 
TheLine 
Postdoc
Posts: 3758

Age: 55
Reg: 07-07-09
12-08-17 12:45 PM - Post#239637    
    In response to Silver Maple

It's all clearly by design.


 
T.P.F.K.A.D.W. 
Masters Student
Posts: 838

Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
12-08-17 01:11 PM - Post#239645    
    In response to TheLine

We also haven't played much zone this year either (haven't been forced to.) We played a air amount of 1-3-1 last year, which was effective on occasion, but made rebounding so much more difficult.

 
91Quake 
Masters Student
Posts: 628

Reg: 11-22-04
12-08-17 02:16 PM - Post#239654    
    In response to mrjames

That is interesting stuff. What other stats show season effects? I would assume to some degree all of them but what has changed the most as the emphasis has changed over time (or as far back as the numbers go)?

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 5241

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
12-08-17 02:21 PM - Post#239657    
    In response to 91Quake

THREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEES (taken - not necessarily made)

 
SomeGuy 
Postdoc
Posts: 4624

Reg: 11-22-04
12-09-17 06:39 PM - Post#239845    
    In response to Basketball Bruce

I don't know if you caught SD's post game interview with the TV guys today, but he sort of addressed this. He didn't mention Silpe by name, but he talked about the importance of Sam Jones and Matt MacDonald, saying something like "we've got guys who have started 20 or 30 games who aren't even playing." He credited MacDonald with changing the culture of the program, and said that everyone's buy in resulted in the win today.

As for not transferring, I think Silpe will be in the mix for minutes next year. With Darnell graduating (and Caleb and Sam), there will be a lot of minutes to replace. Reasonable guess right now is Woods and Williams start if healthy, Donahue next, but it seems like Woods is the closest to a lock, and everything else could be open (with Goodman, Hamilton, and Scott in the mix, too). Lots of ways to go, but graduating the point guard changes the mix significantly and could open up time for Jake.

 
 Page 10 of 11 « First<891011
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

3558 Views





Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.395 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 04:43 AM
Top