Category Archives: College Basketball

Source? Be Careful With Your Nike EYBL Stats

Source? Be Careful With Your Nike EYBL Stats

The D1Circuit.com website looks nice and has some good information within it. However, when it comes to statistics, they’ve quickly proven to have major issues again in 2017.

In the past, we’ve approached D1Circuit with comments, but have been unable to find a willing ear.

Simply put, we’d recommend you double-check them as a primary source for statistics unless they put in some basic logic and controls for identifying bad data.

The latest example relates to Howard Pulley and their opening night game. Several in the Twin Cities media have stated 3-point shooting statistics for 2018 Gabe Kalscheur that don’t jibe with the NikeEYB.com site or Gamechanger.com.

Let’s take a look:

 

Continue reading Source? Be Careful With Your Nike EYBL Stats

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Markus Howard Compared to Rivals’ Top Freshmen List

Markus Howard Compared to Rivals’ Top Freshmen List

Rivals.com released their ‘top ten freshman’ to date and added another seven who they felt were in the conversation. Neither of Marquette’s freshmen were included, but both have enjoyed strong year one campaigns.

Sam Hauser, who sports a top-40 offensive rating, doesn’t make the cut because of his low usage. Markus Howard has a great argument for inclusion, but his minutes played are a bit low compared to the Rivals’ group.

Here’s the list, along with each player’s respective offensive rating and usage (per KenPom.com):

Continue reading Markus Howard Compared to Rivals’ Top Freshmen List

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Marquette’s Defensive Rebounding Remains Strong Despite Size

Marquette’s Defensive Rebounding Remains Strong Despite Size

Entering the 2016-17 season, many were concerned with Marquette’s defensive rebounding and with good reason. A year ago, MU ranked just #225 in defensive rebounding percentage after allowing opponents to rebound 30.7% of their misses. The Warriors also lost their top defensive rebounder Henry Ellenson (24.1% DR%) to the NBA.

Marquette allowed nonconference opponents an OR% of greater than 30.0% eight times in 13 games last season. In 12 nonconference games this year, Marquette has done so only once (IUPUI – 33.3%). MU’s is allowing an opponent OR% of 25.5% – good for #43 in the nation. The two top OR% teams MU has faced were uw-madison (avg 38.9%; against MU had just 29.6%) and Georgia (33.2% avg; 22.9%).
Continue reading Marquette’s Defensive Rebounding Remains Strong Despite Size

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

December Update on Gophers 2016-17

December Update on Gophers 2016-17
The following is a look at our preseason comments regarding the outlook for the Gophers in 2016-17,

We said: “It’s not unreasonable to set a goal of 9th or 10th place in the Big Ten.”

Most preseason prognosticators slotted Minnesota at #12 or #13 in the Big Ten. We continue to believe the Gophers can exceed those expectations. As of today, Minnesota is ranked #8 in the Big Ten per KenPom.

Continue reading December Update on Gophers 2016-17

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Pitino Not on The “Hot Seat”; Gophers 2016-17 Outlook

Pitino Not On The “Hot Seat”; Gophers 2016-17 Outlook

Many preseason “coaches on the hot seat” articles list Minnesota head coach Richard Pitino and state that a poor season on the court would spell trouble for Pitino. We believe the only way Pitino would be on the hot seat is if there are continued off the court issues for the program’s student-athletes. There are a few reasons why we don’t see Pitino being on the hot seat absent off the court issues. Those reasons are listed below.

Large Buyout

Late last summer, Minnesota entered into an amendment with Pitino which effectively caused his buyout to skyrocket should he be fired without cause. If Minnesota were to terminate Pitino’s employment next March, the buyout would still be nearly $6 million.

Continue reading Pitino Not on The “Hot Seat”; Gophers 2016-17 Outlook

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Four Factors Differentials in 2015-16; Marquette in 2016-17

Four Factors Differentials in 2015-16; Marquette in 2016-17

This article serves two purposes: (1) it’s a reminder of what matters the most – effective field goal percentage; and, (2) it offers commentary on ways Marquette might improve compared to last season.

Let’s take a somewhat different-than-normal look at what matters to a team’s success.  Below you’ll find a graph for each of the four factors that illustrate, by team, the differential in each of the factors vs. their overall KenPom team ranking (adjusted efficiency margin) for the 2015-16 season.

Free Throw Rate
Below shows each team’s free throw rate (“FTR”) differential (offensive FTR minus defensive FTR) on the y-axis and their KenPom ranking on the x-axis. You’ll see Marquette indicated by a red diamond (a 12.5 FTR differential and a 97 team ranking).
Continue reading Four Factors Differentials in 2015-16; Marquette in 2016-17

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Marquette’s Schedule Improved in 2016-17

Marquette’s Schedule Improved in 2016-17

cupcake1

Based on our current projections of the 2016-17 win-loss records (excluding games vs. Marquette) of Marquette’s opponents, we estimate a .0189 improvement in the RPI OWP component (50% of the RPI calculation) as compared to 2015-16.

A year ago, MU played 11 games against teams with sub-.300 winning percentages (on an OWP calculation basis). Those games were: St. John’s (x3), DePaul (x2), Chicago State, Grambling State, San Jose State, Maine, Stetson, and Presbyterian. Chicago State and Grambling State were especially bad at 1-27 and 4-23, respectively.

Had the Warriors’ OWP component been .0189 better a year ago, their Selection Sunday RPI ranking would jumped from #110 to #86. To further illustrate the magnitude, last year’s #50 RPI team on Selection Sunday would have jumped to #27 with an additional .0189.

It’s possible that in 2016-17, MU will play ZERO games against sub-.300 winning percentage teams (Western Carolina at .310 is the lowest projection we have).

While a team like St. Francis (PA) has a preseason KenPom rank of #326, the reality is they’re still projected to go 8-10 in their conference and we project them to finish 10-18 (,357) for MU’s OWP purposes.

Ultimately, Marquette needs to win a lot of games in order for the improved schedule to matter. But, without a doubt, they’re in a much better position than they were a year ago from an RPI-potential perspective.

@LateNightHoops
@JBBauer612

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