Category Archives: Stats

Statistics

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

Marquette Four Factors: Win-Loss Record

Picture source: Marquette Men’s Basketball Facebook Page

Marquette Four Factors: Win-Loss Record
(through January 28, 2017)

eFG% better than opponent: 14-0
eFG% worse than opponent: 0-7
TO% better (lower) than opponent: 11-5
TO% worse (higher) than opponent: 3-2
OR% better than opponent: 7-3
OR% worse than opponent:7-4
FTR better than opponent: 7-0
FTR worse than opponent: 7-7
Continue reading Marquette Four Factors: Win-Loss Record

Sharing Options:
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmail

Marquette’s Dramatic 3FG% & 3FGA/FGA Improvement

Marquette’s Dramatic 3FG% & 3FGA/FGA Improvement

Prior to the season tipping off we explained that in order for Marquette to be good, they needed to improve their eFG% differential and that they had the potential to improve their turnover rate differential. So far, so good.

We said, “A net improvement of 2.5% in eFG% differential means a +5.8% and places Marquette in or around the top 35 of eFG% differential, by far the most important of the four factors. Do that, and they are in business even without improvement in rebounding.”

As of today, Marquette has 6.7% eFG% advantage over their opponents (57.9% to 51.2%).

Their offensive eFG% is fifth-best in the nation and 5.9% higher than last year’s respectable 52.0%.
Continue reading Marquette’s Dramatic 3FG% & 3FGA/FGA Improvement

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

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

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