Or: Tim’s foray into tempo-free statistics.

Tonight, for the second time in 10 days, Michigan will take on Illinois in Big Ten basketball action. The game is a 8:30 PM Eastern  tonight in Urbana-Champaign, and can be seen live on Big Ten Network.

Tempo-Free and efficiency comparison (if you need an explanation of what any of these things mean, head to KenPom’s website):

Differences of more than 100 places in the rankings garner two-letter advantages, differences of more than 200 get a third. In free throw rate, Michigan has earned the as-yet-unprecedented 4th letter.

Illinois is a good basketball team. Of course, Michigan somehow managed to knock them off less than two weeks ago, so this game certainly isn’t unwinnable. Still, home court advantage is huge in the Big Ten, and from the looks of things, Michigan may have just gotten lucky in Crisler last time. The key when Illinois has the ball is limiting the number of god shots the Illini get. Michigan must keep the Illinois effective field goal percentage down if they want a chance to win. The Illini have a slight advantage in this area, but that includes ridiculous shooting nights by the likes of Savannah State and Indiana, where the shots weren’t really open, they just happened to fall. On the other end of the court, Michigan must get some good shots of their own. The offense works best when DeShawn Sims is able to shoot not only inside the lane, but also from midrange to open up the arc for the likes of Laval Lucas-Perry and Zack Novak. Manny Harris must continue trying to get to the line, and not get frustrated if he doesn’t get the calls early in the game. When that happened in the Wisconsin game, he unwisely kept trying what wasn’t working instead of dishing to more open teammates. Turnover margin should also play a role in this game. Michigan was forcing turnovers out of the 1-3-1 and man looks against the Hawkeyes, though I think the 1-3-1 is a better turnover-producing set. Of course, playing the 1-3-1 is heavily contingent on making shots (as pointed out after the Indiana game by commenter Mr. Ostrander), so again eFG% is important. Ken Pomeroy predicts a 70-61 Illinois win in a 60-possession game. He gives the Wolverines a 16% chance of winning the game.

Illinois is led by Trent Meachem, Demitri McCamey, Chester Frazier, and Mike Davis. Each of those four guys plays 70% or more of the team’s minutes, so getting them in foul trouble – which again leads me to believe Michigan should try to score in the lane in this game – would be helpful. Meachem is the team’s biggest three-point threat, while the 6-10 Davis is primarily an inside scorer. Newly-eligible (following his transfer from Kentucky) is Alex Legion, who has gotten plenty of playing time in Big Ten games. He also forced Zack Novak to get 6 stitches last time these teams squared off.

Call me crazy, but I think with Illinois’s size (3 players over 6-10, and another at 6-7), I think Jevohn Shepherd may get a bit of playing time in this game, if only for his athleticism on defense and to absorb a few fouls to keep DeShawn Sims and Zack Gibson out of trouble. Michigan should also be able to get by on their quickness against a bigger Illinois team.

The Wolverines are the underdog yet again, and this game isn’t a must-win, but it certainly would be nice to get the first 2-game season sweep of the year.

Posted under Analysis, Basketball

The raw data is available in .xls format here. On individual player charts, the time played is now from the boxscore, rather than adding up to the second each player’s time played.

Half 1

Half 2

Game totals

Individual players:

He got an and-1 on one of those fouls in the lane. Manny did what he needs to do for the team, though his hesitation in putting up 3s has really started to annoy me.

Showed some flashes of being able to get to the hoop and draw contact. That will be important down the stretch.

Didn’t shoot the ball much, but he made some defensive plays (along the lines of CJ Lee), and did a good job rebounding, considering he’s 6-5 and playing power forward.

It seemed ike he took (and made) a ton more midrange shots than he actually apparently did. Pretty good day, though he didn’t pull in double-digit boards.

Did what he needs to do. Actually nailed a layup.

Struggled mightily If this is how he plays with almost no post presence on the other team, how will he compete against Goran Suton? BJ Mullens?

WOOO PULS!

Didn’t nail his 3-balls, and his only make was an easy layup on a good cut.

Scrappy, former walk-on, etc. Did a lot more than shoot.

What This Says…

Douglass and Gibson are the only guys who played actual minutes (i.e. not garbage time) who logged negative differentials. I think this surprises nobody. Gibson really struggled today, and Douglass is the lesser of the two freshmen.

This team has so much more success when they don’t take all their shots from three. DeShawn Sims is a major weapon from midrange, and both Manny (obviously) and LLP are able to get to the hoop and draw contact, if not just get their score on. CJ Lee was the team’s MVP, though, despite an unspectacular differential. He made hustle plays left and right, most of which won’t show up in the boxscore.

The story of the day was not the offense (rendering this little exercise at least partially moot), but the stellar defense that the team played. The 1-3-1 forced myriad turnovers, and the team was able to get a few in man as well. They were really playing tenaciously, and I think when they have some success on the offensive side of the court, it inspires them to play better defense (in addition to allowing them to play more 1-3-1).

Posted under Analysis, Basketball

Or: Tim’s foray into tempo-free statistics.

Michigan takes on conference foe Iowa tomorrow morning at 11:30 in Crisler Arena (10:30AM in Iowa City – how’s that for an advantage?). The game can be seen on Big Ten Network.

Tempo-Free and efficiency comparison (if you need an explanation of what any of these things mean, head to KenPom’s website):

Differences of more than 100 places in the rankings garner two-letter advantages, differences of more than 200 get a third.

On paper, this looks to be a very tough game for Michigan. Each team shoots a lot of threes, though Iowa makes many more of them. After a horrific outing at Indiana, most of the Wolverines’ offensive stats have gotten slightly worse. Surprisingly given the first half against the Hoosiers, the defensive rankings have actually gotten better. Looking at the gameplans, Michigan’s offensive performance will be reliant on their ability to make shots. Given their struggles against Indiana, this may be no easy feat. However, the Hawkeyes, like the Wolverines, field a very short team – and that was before Cyrus Tate hurt himself playing against Minnesota on Thursday. Perhaps the Manny Harris method of getting to the basket will be a little more effective, and he’ll be able to draw a foul or two (and actually get them called, for once). Iowa’s lack of size (and 3-point-heavy style) is evidenced by the fact that Michigan actually has a fairly sizeable advantage in rebounding the Hawkeyes’ misses. Iowa will make plenty of those shots though, and Michigan will have to take care of the ball (something they’ve certainly shown they can do) in order to get a win. The right column of the ledger above doesn’t tell the whole story: Michigan was close to getting a third “M” in the turnover column, a second in defensive rebounding(!!), while the Hawkeyes just missed getting a second in their advantage shooting the ball. Ken Pomeroy predicts a 63-60 win in a slow (56 possession) game.

Iowa’s key players are guard Jeff Peterson, who leads the team in assists and getting to the free throw line, freshman forward Matt Gatens, who leads the team in offensive rating and three-point shooting, and forward Cyrus Tate, the team’s lone senior. The 6-8 Tate is by far the team’s best rebounder on both ends of the floor, and he suffered an ankle injury in the first half against the Golden Gophers Thursday. He didn’t return to that game, and even if he does play tomorrow, it’s unclear exactly how effective he’ll be. If he’s limited, Michigan actually has a shot to outrebound their opponent for one of the few times this year – which would go a long way towards helping win.

Posted under Analysis, Basketball

In my infinite hubris, I thought “ain’t no way this game is going to overtime,” and only set the DVR for 2 hours. The shot charting, therefore, only includes regulation. The differentials do include overtime, however. The raw data is available in .xls format here. Newly added: shot clock info for each shot.

NOTE: The total differentials don’t quite add up correctly. If you want to go through and check all my work, please feel free (I’m coming up with Michigan as having 3 points to many, and Indiana having 3 points too few).

Half 1

Half 2

Overtime

Game totals

Individual players:

Way too many inadvisable shots (especially from three) early in the shot clock. Manny wasn’t making a huge effort to slice into the lane.

LLP was inconsistent from 3, and took nary a midrange jumper.

It seemed like Novak was doing a hell of a lot more than it looks like he did just by checking his shot chart. He made a ton of hustle plays (including getting a key deflection leading to a steal and fast-break bucket late in regulation, in addition to a whiteboy block) that really helped Michigan win.

DeShawn was money from midrange in the second half, when the team really needed something from inside to steady them.

Grady got much more time than he did in the previous game, and though he took a couple ill-advised shots, he was a catalyst for the rest of the offense (4 assists, 2 more assist opportunities missed). He also made the lane shot on which he was fouled.

Zack was pretty quiet, especially considering Indiana’s defense was locking down on the three-pointers. you’d think he would get some more looks inside.

Quiet day for Merritt. More on how I think he should be used is below.

Stu had a crappy day, but he did nail one big shot. I still think he’s the far inferior of the freshmen.

The timing of Lee’s shots means more than the shots themselves. He also came up with key defensive plays (including a steal with 40 seconds in regulation and Indiana up 3) and rebounds.

What This Says…

I re-watched the game (the first half, particularly) with a keen eye on how Indiana shot the lights out. In all honesty, I can’t figure it out. Offensive rebounding has something to do with it, and maybe momentum plays a role (though some might question that, I think in college basketball momentum is at least something of a factor). Maybe Michigan, frustrated on the offensive end, was letting their effort on the other end of the court suffer. However, looking at the actual shots themselves, rather than just the final number, there was no explanation for Devan Dumes and this Roth fella in particular having the first half that he did. He would airball a wide open three (which may something negative about Michigan’s defensive effort overall, but doesn’t explain the final stats), and then turn right around and nail one from 5 feet behind the line with Novak right in his face. It appears to me that the hot shooting (in this game, at least; I didn’t UFR the Savannah State or Eastern Michigan games) may be, in large part (or at least SOME part) a ridiculously unlikely statistical anomaly.

Even if you concede the defense was bad, which it may have been at some times, though not all, it was the offense that would have done the Wolverines in. If you allow the other team to score, the offensive output for your own team can’t absolutely sputter. That is what leads to huge runs like Indiana so frequently had in this game. Michigan can play poorly on one end of the court, but this team certainly isn’t good enough to struggle offensively AND defensively if they want to win games. To Indiana’s credit, they were at least playing very well on defense, and deserve some credit for Michigan’s players feeling they had to force things.

That said, I really like Kelvin Grady as a player. However, I think I’d prefer to see Merritt get the start over him, if only to be a calming force should a shellacking at the hands of the worst team in the conference just so happen to break out. Grady is a better player, Merritt is a better leader. Bringing Grady off the bench also can help spark the team with another offensive option (certainly in terms of drawing the defense and dishing it out). I prefer Merritt preventing damage with his leadership in the first place, rather than coming in as damage control later, when the momentum is out of reach. It just seems like those two roles should be reversed, no?

Gibson’s travel midway through the first half was a terrible call. His left foot is anchored, he pivots, pivots again, and suddenly a travel is called. This sounds like a ridiculously small refereeing point to get worked up over, but it happened to occur right at the moment Indiana really started taking off with all their momentum.

My apologies if you happened to see the draft of this that I accidentally published earlier today. It should be done now, sans the issue with the differentials.

Posted under Analysis, Basketball

Or: Tim’s foray into tempo-free statistics.

Michigan takes on conference foe Indiana tonight at 6:30 in Bloomington. The game can be seen on Big Ten Network.

Tempo-Free and efficiency comparison (if you need an explanation of what any of these things mean, head to KenPom’s website):

Differences of more than 100 places in the rankings garner two-letter advantages, differences of more than 200 get a third.

Indiana is really, really bad this year. I’ll allow Spartans Weblog to bring the visual aid:

IU’s defensive efficiency is near the bottom of the conference, but the story for the Hoosiers this year has been their utter ineptitude on offense. This is understandable when you have no players, and that is certainly the case for Indiana. In this particular game, Michigan has 100+ ranking-place advantages in 5 categories, and Indiana only leads the Wolverines in those areas you’d expect Michigan, and perimeter-oriented team, to be weak. Each team’s effective field goal percentage should play a significant role in determining who wins this game. The Wolverines hold huge advantages in this area on each end of the floor. Ken Pomeroy predicts a 72-62 Michigan victory, with the Hoosiers only given a 17% chance to steal a win.

There is no way to spin this game as anything other than a must-win for Michigan. Indiana is a sorry squad this year, and Tom Crean has some major rebuilding to do inside Assembly Hall. One key factor to keep in mind is the home-court advantage. The Wolverines have played only one true road game this year, a 5-point loss to Maryland. That was over a month ago, and Beilein’s crew will have to adjust to playing away from Crisler.

Posted under Analysis, Basketball

After several suggestions, I’ve decided to scrap the play-by-play aspect of the UFR feature, and just include the final stats from the game. The raw data is available in .xls format here.

Half 1

Half 2

Game totals

Individual players:

Much better than last game. He was looking to pass when he got into trouble. A couple of the misses in the lane (noted as a difficulty of 1) probably could have been called fouls.

LLP was hitting the open 3s on this day, but none of the covered ones. Most of his shots came from outside (as per usual).

It seemed like Novak was doing a hell of a lot more than it looks like he did just by checking his shot chart. The importance of the baskets must have played a big role in that. He also made the midrange shot on which he was fouled.

Sims, like Novak, seemed to be a lot more active than his chart would indicate. Both of the times he was blocked could have conceivably be called fouls.

Grady got much more time than he did in the previous game, and though he took a couple ill-advised shots, he was a catalyst for the rest of the offense (4 assists, 2 more assist opportunities missed). He also made the lane shot on which he was fouled.

He played a lot without much in the way of scoring, but a couple of the dunks he had were huge in terms of momentum. He also had an enormous block.

Not much usage for Dave. Interestingly, he was ONLY on the court with the “A-Team” (Lucas-Perry, Harris, Novak, Sims).

Lee and Douglass also played extensive minutes without charting a shot attempt (Douglass 9:59, -11; Lee 4:02, -2). It’s become quite clear that the best lineup consists of Grady-Lucas-Perry-Harris-Novak-Sims. Gibson is hit-or-miss, but is probably overall the next best player to insert in the lineup (removing Novak). Without Grady at the point, the team was -10 (-3 with Merritt, and -7 with Douglass). Standard caveats about sample size, but that’s certainly notable.

Posted under Analysis, Basketball

Or: Tim’s foray into tempo-free statistics.

Michigan takes on conference foe Wisconsin today at 2PM in Crisler Arena. The game can be seen on ESPN2.

Tempo-Free and efficiency comparison (if you need an explanation of what any of these things mean, head to KenPom’s website):

Differences of more than 100 places in the rankings garner two-letter advantages, differences of more than 200 get a third.

For the first time in a while, Michigan has a distinct deficit in multiple categories. Many of these are predictable for a perimeter-oriented team: Wisconsin is much better at rebounding and Michigan doesn’t get to the free throw line very often. Defensively, Michigan doesn’t force as many turnovers as one might hope to give them an advantage over Wisconsin. This is somewhat odd because the 1-3-1 is designed to force the opponent to give up the ball, but the Wolverines have been going with more man-to-man defense of late, so that may be a partial explanation. Overall, Wisconsin is a well-rounded team, ranking in the top 100 in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Michigan is still the favorite though, and Ken Pomeroy predicts a 67-62 Wolverine triumph, with a 70% chance of victory.

In the game plans, the main area that is strongly correlated with both Michigan’s and Wisconsin’s efficiencies is Wolverine effective field goal percentage. Since Michigan has an advantage in it (however slight it may be), the Wolverines may have an advantage in performing well on offense today. The turnover rate for Wisconsin may also play a role. The Badgers have an advantage of nearly 100 places in the national rankings. Regardless, this is definitely the most evenly-matched game Michigan has played in a while.

Of course, with a team in the national spotlight, and one in Michigan’s own conference, the key players will be more known to Wolverines fans, and there are bound to be more of them. Joe Krabbenhoft, Marcus Landry, Trevon Hughes, and Jason Bohannon are all key players for the Badgers. Each has played in at least 73% of available minutes (the next closest player has less than 50%). Landry has star power, and is most mentioned in the national media, but it is Hughes who leads the Badgers in offensive efficiency, eFG%, and free throw rate. The point guard also (obviously) leads the team in assists, and really makes things go for Wisconsin.

This should be the first real test for Michigan in quite some time (since Oakland? Duke even?), and it’s time for the Wolverines to put up or shut up. Has this Michigan team been putting in a lackadaisical effort because they knew they would beat inferior teams anyway? Or are they really just not as good as we think/hope? A big win today would be a great start to making a run through conference season, and hopefully into the tournament.

Posted under Analysis, Basketball

So, now I understand why Brian takes a few days to do a football UFR. Basketball games are far less time-consuming, but it’s still ridiculously hard to finish them in any timely fashion.

The NC Central UFR will come tom orrow sometime, followed by the Wisconsin preview. The NCC UFR is also going to be a 1.1 version, rather than a 2.0. Apologies for the delay, and hopefully once I get into the groove of trying to hammer them out, I’ll be able to complete them in a much quicker manner.

Posted under Analysis, Basketball

Or: Tim’s foray into tempo-free statistics.

Michigan takes on winless North Carolina Central tonight at 7PM in Crisler Arena. The game can be seen on Big Ten Network.

Tempo-Free and efficiency comparison (if you need an explanation of what any of these things mean, head to KenPom’s website):

Differences of more than 100 places in the rankings garner two-letter advantages, differences of more than 200 get a third.

NC Central is dead-last in the KenPom ratings, so its entirely understandable that Michigan has pretty significant advantages in every area. The Wolverines have their first 4-letter advantage of the year, and it’s in an important category: their offensive efficiency against NCC’s defensive efficiency. The only areas in which Michigan has just one-letter advantages are turnover rate on offense, defensive rebounding (astoundingly, they have more than 100 places in separation between the teams in Michigan’s offensive rebounding), and free throw rate on offense. Ken Pomeroy predicts a 96-41 Wolverines victory, with 0% chance of an upset in a 66-possession game.

Taking a look at the game plans, Michigan’s effective field goal percentage against NC Central’s defense should be a good indicator of how the team’s overall offensive performance will go. Considering Michigan has a huge advantage in that area, it should be a good day for the Michigan offense. On paper, this looks to be a great offensive day for Michigan. The one area NCC is fairly good in is blocking opponents’ shots, but that will likely not play a huge role against a perimeter-shooting team like the Wolverines.

NCC has three key players, all of whom have played more than 80% of the possible minutes so far this year. Stevy Worah-Ozimo is the tallest player on the team at 6-9. He is the team’s center, and hasn’t attempted a three-point shot yet this year. Freshman Jamar Briscoe is a Grady-sized (5-10) point guard, and leads the team in assists. The other key player is Vincent Davis, who, at 6-2, would normally be considered a guard, but he may be more of a wing player on such a size-challenged team (3rd shortest in Division I, ahead of only Nebraska and SIU-Edwardsville, the second of which I believe is a data-entry error). The rest of the minutes are filled fairly evenly by the other 5 players on the team.

With the gaps in talent and depth between these teams, it would be surprising if NC Central gave MIchigan much of a game. Of course, stranger things have happened, so be sure to check out the game at 7 tonight on BTN. If nothing else, it should provide an opportunity to see Michigan look like world-beaters.

Posted under Analysis, Basketball

OK, obviously this is very early in a development stage, but I’d like to get it published for the sake of soliciting comments and suggestions from readers. Of course, the inspiration comes from MGoBlog’s UFR of football games. Down the line (likely in the next edition of UFR, unless people don’t like it enough to justify continuing the feature), I plan to add defensive possessions, and certainly have the “notes” section be a bit more thorough (notice that the later in the game this UFR goes, the more notes there are). To split it up a bit, the next one will be put into groups by personnel (which would be the “drives” in Brian’s football UFRs). This first edition grades only the shots taken by Michigan, which I hope to expand to entire possessions in the future.

The very beginnings of this started with the box score, then I sort of filled in the details watching the game. The “Score” colmun indicates the score of the game prior to the shot in question being taken. Shooter, Assist, and Made should be self-evident. The assister is unofficial (i.e. not from the box score), but taken from watching the game. Range indicates where the shot was taken from. Currently, it’s only divided into 3-pt, mid-range, and lane, but I’m certainly open to tweaking those indications. Quality is the only  entirely subjective measure on my part, and indicates how open the shooter is. “3” is a shot that is wide open, and not contested at all. “0” is a shot that is blocked, and has no chance of going in. “1” is a well-defended shot with a hand in the face, and “2” is in between 1 and 3, predictably.

Shot quality shows multiple aspects of a player’s game. First, a guy who shoots a lot of “3” shots either can create his own shot, or only shoots when he is wide open. A guy like Manny, on the other hand, will shoot (and make) a lot of “1”s and “2”s. Players who are shooting “1”s from three-point range are probably making poor decisions, unless the shot clock or other factors are coming into play. Shooting “1”s from the paint is more forgiveable, because there is a much better likelihood of getting fouled. It is also more acceptable to miss “1”s and “2”s. If a guy is missing a ton of “3”s, he’s probably just a bad shooter for that game.If you have any other ways these factors can be interpreted, please leave it in the comments. I’ll be interested to see what you can figure out.

Individual Player Charts:

After the hot start, Stu was little-used.

Quiet day for Gibson.

All of Grady’s shots were from 3, but he was using his quickness in other ways: he finished with 2 assists (and one more would-be on a missed shot).

Manny didn’t get going until the second half. The asterisk next to fouls indicates that he made one of the shots on which he was fouled (need to figure out a better notation for that). One of his midrange misses was a chuck on a low shot clock.

Almost no shots for CJ, and his only attempt was a blocked putback.

LLP showed he can hit open threes, but did next to nothing in the second half. The missed shot from the lane probably should have been made.

Called on to shoot very little, but made the most of his opportunities.

Either he or Douglass seems to be hot from outside in each game. This time, it was Douglass’s turn. However, Novak’s numbers show more desire (ability?) to score in ways other than spotting up for 3.

Little playing time from Jevohn after a pretty good game against Eastern. Might he get a little less playing time now that Beilein seems to like a small lineup?

Good day for DeShawn. He has proven that he can absolutely turn it on when the team needs him.

Obviously this is a very rough draft, and maybe I should have waited until it was a bit more complete to publish, but I’d really like to hear your comments on it to improve it for the future. The next edition of UFR will be a 2.0 with vast improvements, and hopefully it just needs tweaks from there.

Please please please give me your suggestions and concerns with this. Anything is on the table: style, content, aesthetics, and any other feedback you can come up with.

Posted under Analysis, Basketball