2016 NBPA Top 100 Camp: Advanced Statistics

2016 NBPA Top 100 Camp: Advanced Statistics

Recently, we discussed top performers at the 2014 NBPA Top 100 Camp and how they did in their first year of college. Today, we’ll highlight players who met certain criteria during the 2016 NBPA Top 100 Camp.

As a thank you for visiting us here at LateNightHoops.com, if you would like an Excel file of our individual player database that includes advanced stats for all players at the 2016 camp, please email a request to jbbauer612@gmail.com.

Safe travels to those traveling to Vegas (as we are) and elsewhere this week.
Continue reading 2016 NBPA Top 100 Camp: Advanced Statistics

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Projecting NBPA Top 100 Camp Performance to College

Projecting NBPA Top 100 Camp Performance to College

We believe the best scouting is done with a thoughtful mixture of in-person viewings and statistical analysis.

Our proprietary statistical analysis continues to evolve, but over the years our testing has proven it to be of great value with regard to projecting future performance of prep players.

However, analysis of the numbers is complementary to live viewing. Ideally, we would see players multiple times in various settings (spring/summer travel, high school, camps, international competition, etc.).

Undoubtedly, when we are able to view players and perform rigorous statistical analysis, we are able to project at a high level.

The NBPA Top 100 Camp is a bit unique for a few reasons, including a usage and offensive efficiency mix that tends to be noticeably strong for the older kids.

There are many metrics of interest, but for today we are sharing a simple look at certain high-performing kids at the 2014 camp and how they did in their first year of college.

There were eight players (seven 2015’s and one 2016) who (a) played at least 30% of their team’s available minutes, (b) posted an ORtg of 105.0% or better, and (c) had a usage of at least 24.0%.

Continue reading Projecting NBPA Top 100 Camp Performance to College

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Regents Cry Foul, But Should They? Pitino Buyout and More

Regents Cry Foul, But Should They?

Who’s responsible for approving the Pitino extension that multiplied his buyout by more than two times, to more than $8 million?

The answer is extremely important to the story, and the mainstream media should do the work to report on it.

Ultimately, this falls on the Board of Regents and the President’s office, but the details are important.

In March 2016, certain Regents became vocal and expressed frustration over Pitino’s large buyout (which at that time had amortized to just over $7 million). Some called for more oversight and ability to approve significant contracts.

The reality, however, is that they already had the ability to do so. The Pitino contract situation illustrates the Board of Regents and President’s office not working well together.

This week a resolution will be brought forth that specifies the process on certain contracts (e.g., Board approval required for any initial appointment where an employee’s annual salary will exceed $250,000 or any employment agreement, or amendment thereto, that has at total cost to the University of $600,000 or more.)

However, in the case of Pitino and the other contracts amended in reaction to the very public and shameful resignation of Norwood Teague, the Board should have been brought into the process under existing policy. Continue reading Regents Cry Foul, But Should They? Pitino Buyout and More

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

They Said It: Amy Phenix

They Said It: Amy Phenix

The Board of Regents (“Board”) effectively approved the contract extension of Richard Pitino on August 14, 2015. The Board delegated authority to the President, who delegated to his Chief of Staff, Amy Phenix. Ms. Phenix signed under the big block letters, “REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.”

The timing of certain members of the Board voicing their concern about Pitino’s contract and their claim of a lack of a role in approving it is a topic for another day, but one which certainly is deserving of further discussion.

Now, let us move on to the topic of this article: “They Said It: Amy Phenix”

In a Star Tribune article published on March 31, 2016, Chief of Staff Amy Phenix explained, “The reality is you’re very rarely going to fire someone not for cause in year one of a contract extension,” she said. “It’s just highly unusual.

Let’s quickly explore what “the reality is.”
Continue reading They Said It: Amy Phenix

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

D1 Minnesota Advanced Stats through Session 2 (Atlanta) 2016 adidas Gauntlet

D1 Minnesota Advanced Stats through Session 2 (Atlanta) 2016 adidas Gauntlet

Any questions or comments? Send to latenighthoops@latenighthoops.com or catch us on Twitter.

Click picture below to open up in new tab. [Note: Game 7 statistics per adidas have Jack Sorenson and Jack Hutchison assigned to the wrong Jack. LNH has corrected this known error in the figures below]

D1 through Atlanta

@LateNightHoops

@JBBauer612

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

D1 Minnesota Advanced Stats – adidas Gauntlet Dallas 2016

D1 Minnesota Advanced Stats – adidas Gauntlet Dallas 2016

Attached are D1 Minnesota Advanced Statistics from their 3-1 performance at the first session of 2016 adidas Gauntlet.

For access to the stats, please click on the blue button below [it’s free  — we’re just testing the software]:

By the Numbers… Team Comments:
The team’s strengths, on average, were shooting (51.7% to 45.0% eFG advantage) and offensive rebounding (37.4% to 28.8% OReb edge).

Turnovers (17.3% turnover rate compared to 16.2% defensive turnover rate) were especially bad in game 2 (18 turnovers; 26.8% turnover rate), but they rather easily got the win over a poor-shooting Juice All-Stars team whose defensive style forces turnovers and manufacturers steals (23 forced turnovers on the strength of 17 steals in Juice’s first game!).

Continue reading D1 Minnesota Advanced Stats – adidas Gauntlet Dallas 2016

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Marquette’s Free Throw “Defense”

Marquette’s Free Throw “Defense”

Through February 6, Marquette’s opponents have shot 74.9% from the free throw line. There are only 7 teams in D-I college basketball whose opponents have shot better this season.

On average, D-I basketball teams are 69.6% from the charity stripe this year.

Free throw percentage matters very little in the grand scheme of basketball stats over the course of a season. In terms of importance, the great free throw shooting of Marquette’s opponents shouldn’t even show up on a top 50 list of concern for fans.

Nonetheless, our question was, “Why?”  When it comes to free throw rate – far more important than free throw percentage, yet still way down the list of important factors – Marquette has been very good.  Only ten teams have a defensive free throw rate better than Marquette’s 26.1%.
Continue reading Marquette’s Free Throw “Defense”

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Basketball, Beats & Beyond