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

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

Three Freshmen Guards We Can’t Doubt

Three Freshmen Guards We Can’t Doubt

5’10”, 165 pounds…5’11”, 175 pounds…5’7″, 150 pounds… once you get past their freshman designation, height and weight, these are three guards who look great on paper.

Our statistical analysis says these guys will be very good college players. Our in person evaluations of the same guys over the years supports the stats. We’ll be monitoring their performance and progression throughout the year as they provide good tests for our evaluation methodology and beliefs.

Jared Harper, Auburn
Harper’s numbers with the Georgia Stars as a rising senior were phenomenal. When you first see him step on the court, there’s nothing physically that would indicate greatness. But, it becomes quickly apparent through his high usage, high efficiency game that he is a potential gem.

The Georgia Stars certainly were a talent team and Harper benefited from his supporting cast, including bruisers on the blocks, but the year prior with a different type of roster, Harper shined playing up for Southern Stampede.
Continue reading Three Freshmen Guards We Can’t Doubt

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

Basketball, Beats & Beyond