Tag Archives: mubb

Projecting Marquette’s 2018-19 Usage

We recently commented on the difficulty in projecting minutes for Marquette’s stacked 2018-19 roster. Today, we look at projecting usage play-by-player, which is (or at least feels like) a much easier task.

Before getting to our projections, we also looked at how many games each player posted a single-game usage greater than 25% thus far in their career (using KenPom.com data; minimum of 10 minutes playing time in a game).

Only three 2018-19 eligible Warriors have had more than five >25% usage games in their career, led by Markus Howard’s 34 over two seasons.

Continue reading Projecting Marquette’s 2018-19 Usage Sharing Options:

Marquette’s Experience Ranking in 2018-19

Marquette’s Experience Ranking in 2018-19

Last season it was said that Marquette was a young team and that was true. The Warriors’ KenPom experience ranking sat at #313 (of 351 teams) with an experience score of 1.21. The NCAA D-I average was 1.70, with the median slightly higher at 1.74.

Going through the process of projecting MU’s experience score in 2018-19 highlights the mostly-wonderful dilemma the upcoming season brings: how do you distribute the minutes?
Continue reading Marquette’s Experience Ranking in 2018-19 Sharing Options:

Markus Howard Off to a Strong, But Different, Start

Markus Howard Off to a Strong, But Different, Start

As a freshman, Markus Howard shot a nation-leading 54.7% from 3-point range. As we projected his sophomore campaign, expecting him to best or even match that percentage was not reasonable. We expect his 3-point shooting percentage to decline in 2017-18.

How, then, could he improve this year? The answer includes turnover rate and 2-point field goal percentage. So far, so good. We should note that in Marquette’s first four games they’ve played our preseason pick for second place in the Big Ten (Purdue), the nation’s #6 ranked team (Wichita State) and a pesky VCU squad. It’s not as if he’s faced a long string of weak opponents.

Continue reading Markus Howard Off to a Strong, But Different, Start Sharing Options:

Marquette Again Improves Schedule in 2017-18

Marquette Again Improves Schedule in 2017-18

As they did a year ago, Marquette has improved their scheduling and projected RPI “strength of schedule”.

Last year MU’s SOS, worth 50% of RPI, was .5621. Late Night Hoops projects an SOS of .5882 in 2017-18. That equals an RPI improvement in the SOS component of .0131.

Had MU’s RPI been .0131 better in 2016-17, their Selection Sunday RPI ranking of 61 would have moved up to 50.

Marquette’s scheduling still has room for improvement, but it’s encouraging that it has improved yet again in 2017-18.

The Warriors begin their season on Friday vs. Mount St. Mary’s.Sharing Options:

Marquette’s Shots Aren’t Adding Up

Marquette’s Shots Aren’t Adding Up
December 26, 2013

Marquette’s starting five are an unusual group in that the sum of their individual %Shots falls far short of 100%. We believe this starting lineup puts the team and senior Jamil Wilson at a considerable offensive disadvantage.

We’ll get to a suggestion to remedy the issue, but first some background information.

The following circle lists the year-to-date %Shots (per KenPom.com) for each of the starting MU players. The shortfall to 100% is labeled “BAD! – 10.6%”.


Continue reading Marquette’s Shots Aren’t Adding Up Sharing Options:

Marquette’s Recent Efficiency

March 16, 2013
Marquette’s Recent Efficiency

After reading through Cracked Sidewalk’s Deconstructing the Season So Far article which commented on Marquette’s recent trends in actual offensive and defensive efficiencies, we decided to take a quick look at Marquette’s adjusted efficiencies (adjusted based on opponents’ Adj OE & DE).

The resulting visual of adjusted efficiencies doesn’t appear quite as ugly as the unadjusted chart:

Five-game moving averages – Actual efficiencies  [source: CrackedSidewalks.com]
O&D eff 5G MA

Five-game moving averages – Adjusted Efficiencies
Adj Eff 5G MA

CrackedSidewalks (“CS”) makes some points about individual factors and their related concerns. The commentary is good and valid, but we’ll throw out some additional food for thought.

♦ The last 5 games included 3 against tough competition (Syracuse; Notre Dame twice) and the other two were on the road.

Marquette’s eFG% hasn’t been consistently great (although the 64.9% eFG vs. Notre Dame in Milwaukee was a Big East season best), but it’s been solid. Their worst performance in the past 11 games was at St. John’s. While not a good team overall, the kids from Queens are very good defensively and have the nation’s top shot blocker (block %) in Chris Obekpa. MU made 22/45 2FG for 48.9% despite being blocked 11 times, including 7 alone courtesy of Obekpa.

♦ Turnovers are ugly, there’s no denying that.

♦ CS notes that the OR% differential has narrowed recently and that, “since the Villanova game, defensive rebounding has been worse and worse and now no longer masks the turnover deficiencies.”

While that’s how the 5-game trend calculates out, the reality is that Marquette’s DR% has improved sequentially in its past 4 games (Opponent’s OR% starting 5 games ago to most recent: 45.5%, 43.6%, 40.0%, 36.2%, 31.6%). It’s worth noting that the 45.5% belongs to Syracuse, one of the best OR% teams in the nation.

♦ Finally, a subject we don’t like to give much time to because it’s so far down on the list of factors important to winning a basketball game: Free throws. CS comments that they are “leaving out FTR, because it’s irrelevant (repeat after me: FTR is irrelevant).” Normally, we’d love this comment and often make similar statements.

However, getting to the line may be more important for Marquette than it is for their peers.
Marquette’s 2012-13 record when their free throw rate is better/same/worse than the other team:

MU’s FTR is… Win – Loss
Better 20-2
Same 0-1
Worse 3-5
  TOTAL 23-8

In terms of correlation of FTR to OE, for all Big East teams combined excluding MU the average is +.005 over the last two seasons. The Warriors sit above +.040.

Free throws aren’t a big deal at the end of the day. However, for a team like Marquette that isn’t a dominant squad, the FTR differential can become more of a factor in games than it might for others.

This team earned its 14-4 conference record, but it’s still a bit surprising/impressive that they were able to do it. Despite an ugly turnover rate in conference, MU’s offense still had the Big East’s top efficiency. Were eFG% and OR% more important than FTR? Absolutely. But to call FTR irrelevant to this Marquette team is something we can’t quite do.

Follow @LateNightHoops on Twitter

This MU shooting shirt & other gear is ON SALE at the link below!

Marquette Golden Eagles Jordan College On Court Shooting Shirt – Mens – Amarillo
Some cut & pasted data is included below, should anyone want it. Adj OE, Adj DE for each Big East game is shown, as is the 5 game differential and the specific, one game differential.

Adj OE Adj DE 5G avg Diff Game Diff
Connecticut 110.7405 94.68134 16.05912456 23.81317
Georgetown 108.9579 93.33936 15.61854156 25.20559
Pittsburgh 117.37 93.76949 23.60054642 40.38621
Seton Hall 115.708 91.44983 24.25813039 16.21000
Cincinnati 115.1463 91.13241 24.01388347 14.45446
Providence 118.1078 92.80057 25.30719308 30.27972
South Florida 118.3791 93.37838 25.00072103 23.67323
Louisville 113.3161 95.90145 17.41467184 2.455961
South Florida 115.6749 93.35303 22.32189016 40.74609
DePaul 119.8825 97.15278 22.72967526 16.49338
Georgetown 113.3329 94.44453 18.88835112 11.07310
Pittsburgh 120.6765 96.85236 23.82409691 48.35196
Seton Hall 122.4754 91.19187 31.28351566 39.75305
Villanova 118.1994 93.38285 24.81658038 8.411410
Syracuse 118.8345 90.47177 28.36268801 34.22392
Notre Dame 121.2129 89.09054 32.12233605 29.87134
Rutgers 113.4167 87.64597 25.77076047 16.59408
St. John’s 111.6409 91.94839 19.69255654 9.362035
Notre Dame 113.2028 93.77409 19.42866233 7.091939

 Sharing Options: