BC Results

$`Four Factors`
  OPP      NAME ORTG perEFG perORB  FTR TORATE
1  BC     Total 1.21   0.54   0.38 0.32   0.13
2  BC oppTotals 1.03   0.51   0.21 0.30   0.15

$`Last Game`
           POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
Bullock      10 0.80 0.19    NaN   0.38     0.33   0.00   0.27  0.50 0.00   0.50  0.04   0.20
McAdoo       21 0.81 0.36   0.50   0.35      NaN   0.10   0.25  0.38 0.30   0.35  0.12   0.05
Hubert        1 4.00 0.05    NaN   1.00      NaN   0.09   0.09  1.00 0.00   1.00  0.00   0.00
Strickland   16 0.88 0.30   1.00   0.40      NaN   0.00   0.08  0.55 0.60   0.40  0.17   0.19
Paige         7 1.14 0.13   1.00   0.33     0.33   0.04   0.12  0.55 0.50   0.42  0.25   0.14
James         0  NaN 0.00    NaN    NaN      NaN   0.00   0.00   NaN  NaN    NaN  0.00    NaN
Hairston      6 2.33 0.29   0.67   0.80     1.00   0.00   0.00  1.11 0.60   1.20  0.33   0.00
Johnson       4 1.50 0.21    NaN   0.75      NaN   0.11   0.22  0.75 0.00   0.75  0.00   0.25
McDonald     NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Tokoto        3 1.00 0.14   0.50   0.50      NaN   0.00   0.09  0.52 1.00   0.50  0.21   0.00
Davis        NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Simmons       3 2.67 0.08    NaN   0.80      NaN   0.17   0.06  0.80 0.00   0.80  0.06   0.33
Total        68 1.21 1.00   0.75   0.48     0.54   0.38   0.73  0.58 0.32   0.54  0.67   0.13
oppTotals    68 1.03 1.00   0.76   0.45     0.35   0.21   0.56  0.55 0.30   0.51  0.48   0.15

$`Season Totals`
         NAME POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
1     Bullock  199 1.31 0.20   0.86   0.47     0.45   0.07   0.13  0.62 0.15   0.60  0.13   0.13
2      McAdoo  306 0.96 0.28   0.58   0.45     0.00   0.10   0.19  0.48 0.41   0.45  0.06   0.18
3      Hubert   25 1.08 0.06   0.21   0.50      NaN   0.07   0.11  0.45 0.58   0.50  0.01   0.40
4  Strickland  186 0.87 0.19   0.63   0.43     0.20   0.02   0.08  0.49 0.46   0.45  0.21   0.16
5       Paige  198 0.65 0.21   0.85   0.32     0.30   0.01   0.09  0.42 0.14   0.38  0.22   0.24
6       James   50 1.18 0.12   0.56   0.52      NaN   0.09   0.16  0.54 0.33   0.52  0.03   0.30
7    Hairston  205 1.15 0.30   0.82   0.41     0.38   0.08   0.12  0.57 0.27   0.53  0.11   0.13
8     Johnson  123 1.22 0.26   0.53   0.57      NaN   0.09   0.23  0.57 0.12   0.57  0.04   0.12
9    McDonald  111 1.06 0.24   0.69   0.40     0.43   0.05   0.07  0.54 0.16   0.52  0.11   0.12
10     Tokoto   76 1.11 0.18   0.38   0.54     0.10   0.10   0.13  0.53 0.35   0.54  0.13   0.25
11      Davis    9 0.89 0.07   1.00   1.00     1.00   0.00   0.03  1.39 1.00   1.50  0.42   0.67
12    Simmons   16 2.88 0.07   1.00   0.68      NaN   0.16   0.11  0.73 0.29   0.68  0.05   0.25
13      Total 1484 1.07 1.00   0.65   0.45     0.37   0.38   0.68  0.53 0.27   0.50  0.61   0.18
14   oppTotal 1484 0.93 1.00   0.68   0.40     0.35   0.30   0.63  0.50 0.27   0.46  0.50   0.21

NC State Results

Not a surprise but the Heels are going to have to do 2 things better on the return trip, rebounding and maybe earn a few more trips to the line. Or they could throw all of that out and play like they did in the second half. That is probably what was simultaneously the more annoying and the least troubling about the game. UNC played a clean game (few TO's, decent decision making), but given all the bad defense NC State's offensive rating was exactly where KP's numbers predicted it. The Heels just missed too many shots, and the absence of McAdoo in the 1st half was probably not helping much.

So, coming out of that game, we know exactly what we knew going in. UNC is an inexperienced team prone to lapses on defense but with some spotty offensive firepower. The Heels scored 50 points in the last 13 minutes of the game, 50! A lot of that was thanks to PJ Hairston as you can see from the bottom graph. On the same graph you can witness how poorly Reggie and Marcus played. Hopefully those are one game trends, but only time will tell.

$`Four Factors`
      OPP      NAME ORTG perEFG perORB  FTR TORATE
1 NCState     Total 1.02   0.52   0.24 0.14   0.17
2 NCState oppTotals 1.12   0.55   0.35 0.35   0.20

$`Last Game`
           POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
Bullock      13 0.77 0.19    NaN   0.36     0.33   0.00   0.14  0.45 0.00   0.45  0.18   0.15
McAdoo       11 1.18 0.22   0.75   0.50      NaN   0.08   0.43  0.55 0.40   0.50  0.00   0.09
Hubert        0  NaN 0.00    NaN    NaN      NaN   0.00   0.00   NaN  NaN    NaN  0.00    NaN
Strickland    8 0.75 0.15   1.00   0.29     0.00   0.00   0.05  0.38 0.29   0.29  0.28   0.00
Paige        15 0.47 0.26   1.00   0.18     0.20   0.00   0.08  0.29 0.18   0.23  0.17   0.20
James         4 1.50 0.16    NaN   0.75      NaN   0.00   0.10  0.75 0.00   0.75  0.00   0.00
Hairston     14 1.36 0.41   1.00   0.60     0.62   0.00   0.07  0.87 0.20   0.85  0.07   0.21
Johnson       5 1.20 0.25    NaN   0.38      NaN   0.30   0.12  0.38 0.00   0.38  0.00   0.00
McDonald     NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Tokoto        8 1.25 0.23    NaN   0.71     0.00   0.06   0.07  0.71 0.00   0.71  0.21   0.25
Davis         3 0.00 0.25    NaN    NaN      NaN   0.00   0.00   NaN  NaN    NaN  0.40   1.00
Simmons       1 6.00 0.03    NaN   1.00      NaN   0.14   0.08  1.00 0.00   1.00  0.00   0.00
Total        81 1.02 1.00   0.90   0.46     0.36   0.24   0.68  0.55 0.14   0.52  0.64   0.17
oppTotals    81 1.12 1.00   0.87   0.49     0.54   0.35   0.79  0.61 0.35   0.55  0.69   0.20

$`Season Totals`
         NAME POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
1     Bullock  189 1.34 0.20   0.86   0.48     0.46   0.07   0.12  0.62 0.15   0.60  0.14   0.12
2      McAdoo  286 0.97 0.28   0.59   0.46     0.00   0.10   0.19  0.49 0.42   0.46  0.06   0.19
3      Hubert   24 0.96 0.06   0.21   0.45      NaN   0.07   0.11  0.41 0.64   0.45  0.01   0.42
4  Strickland  170 0.87 0.18   0.60   0.44     0.20   0.02   0.08  0.49 0.45   0.45  0.21   0.15
5       Paige  191 0.63 0.21   0.82   0.31     0.30   0.01   0.09  0.41 0.12   0.38  0.22   0.24
6       James   50 1.18 0.12   0.56   0.52      NaN   0.09   0.16  0.54 0.33   0.52  0.04   0.30
7    Hairston  198 1.12 0.29   0.83   0.40     0.36   0.08   0.12  0.56 0.26   0.51  0.10   0.13
8     Johnson  119 1.21 0.26   0.53   0.56      NaN   0.09   0.23  0.56 0.12   0.56  0.04   0.12
9    McDonald  111 1.06 0.24   0.69   0.40     0.43   0.05   0.07  0.54 0.16   0.52  0.11   0.12
10     Tokoto   73 1.11 0.18   0.36   0.54     0.10   0.11   0.13  0.53 0.33   0.54  0.13   0.26
11      Davis    9 0.89 0.07   1.00   1.00     1.00   0.00   0.03  1.39 1.00   1.50  0.42   0.67
12    Simmons   13 2.92 0.07   1.00   0.65      NaN   0.16   0.13  0.72 0.35   0.65  0.05   0.23
13      Total 1417 1.06 1.00   0.64   0.45     0.37   0.38   0.68  0.52 0.27   0.50  0.61   0.19
14   oppTotal 1417 0.93 1.00   0.68   0.40     0.35   0.30   0.64  0.49 0.27   0.46  0.51   0.21

GT Wrap & NC State odds

$`Four Factors`
          OPP      NAME ORTG perEFG perORB  FTR TORATE
1 GeorgiaTech     Total 0.98   0.47   0.30 0.31   0.17
2 GeorgiaTech oppTotals 0.78   0.39   0.35 0.08   0.23

$`Last Game`
           POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
Bullock      10 1.70 0.16   1.00   0.58     0.29   0.09   0.08  0.68 0.08   0.67  0.00   0.10
McAdoo       15 0.93 0.28   0.40   0.38     0.00   0.14   0.16  0.40 0.77   0.38  0.05   0.07
Hubert        2 0.00 0.04   0.00   0.00      NaN   0.04   0.19  0.00 0.33   0.00  0.00   0.00
Strickland    9 0.67 0.19   0.50   0.40      NaN   0.00   0.14  0.44 0.80   0.40  0.33   0.22
Paige         9 0.33 0.16    NaN   0.17     0.50   0.00   0.12  0.25 0.00   0.25  0.30   0.33
James         2 2.00 0.10    NaN   0.67      NaN   0.09   0.00  0.67 0.00   0.67  0.13   0.00
Hairston     14 1.07 0.41   1.00   0.45     0.50   0.00   0.10  0.63 0.18   0.59  0.08   0.14
Johnson       6 0.67 0.23   1.00   0.20      NaN   0.00   0.31  0.34 0.40   0.20  0.21   0.00
McDonald     NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Tokoto       11 0.73 0.30    NaN   0.44     0.00   0.10   0.09  0.44 0.00   0.44  0.15   0.36
Davis        NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Simmons       2 3.00 0.12   1.00   1.00      NaN   0.11   0.00  1.04 1.00   1.00  0.00   0.00
Total        81 0.98 1.00   0.59   0.43     0.35   0.30   0.67  0.50 0.31   0.47  0.63   0.17
oppTotals    81 0.78 1.00   0.83   0.36     0.27   0.35   0.75  0.41 0.08   0.39  0.30   0.23

$`Season Totals`
         NAME POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
1     Bullock  176 1.38 0.20   0.86   0.49     0.46   0.08   0.12  0.63 0.16   0.61  0.14   0.12
2      McAdoo  275 0.96 0.28   0.58   0.45     0.00   0.10   0.18  0.49 0.42   0.45  0.06   0.19
3      Hubert   24 0.96 0.06   0.21   0.45      NaN   0.07   0.11  0.41 0.64   0.45  0.01   0.42
4  Strickland  162 0.88 0.18   0.58   0.45     0.21   0.02   0.08  0.50 0.46   0.46  0.20   0.16
5       Paige  176 0.65 0.21   0.80   0.33     0.31   0.01   0.09  0.42 0.12   0.40  0.22   0.24
6       James   46 1.15 0.12   0.56   0.50      NaN   0.10   0.17  0.52 0.36   0.50  0.04   0.33
7    Hairston  184 1.10 0.29   0.82   0.39     0.34   0.08   0.12  0.54 0.27   0.49  0.10   0.12
8     Johnson  114 1.21 0.26   0.53   0.58      NaN   0.08   0.23  0.58 0.13   0.58  0.05   0.12
9    McDonald  111 1.06 0.24   0.69   0.40     0.43   0.05   0.07  0.54 0.16   0.52  0.11   0.12
10     Tokoto   65 1.09 0.18   0.36   0.52     0.12   0.11   0.14  0.51 0.37   0.52  0.12   0.26
11      Davis    6 1.33 0.05   1.00   1.00     1.00   0.00   0.03  1.39 1.00   1.50  0.42   0.50
12    Simmons   12 2.67 0.07   1.00   0.60      NaN   0.17   0.13  0.68 0.40   0.60  0.06   0.25
13      Total 1336 1.06 1.00   0.63   0.45     0.37   0.38   0.68  0.52 0.28   0.50  0.61   0.19
14   oppTotal 1336 0.92 1.00   0.66   0.40     0.34   0.30   0.63  0.49 0.26   0.46  0.49   0.21

> prediction(117.2,98.9,68.8,107.3,91.6,73.7)
$HomePts (NC State)
[1] 84.41233

$AwayPts
[1] 78.89632

$Pace
[1] 75.34264

$HomeWinP
[1] 0.6850672

(Late) Maryland Wrap

$`Four Factors`
       OPP      NAME ORTG perEFG perORB  FTR TORATE
1 Maryland     Total 0.87   0.39   0.33 0.28   0.17
2 Maryland oppTotals 0.73   0.41   0.29 0.26   0.30

$`Last Game`
           POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
Bullock      17 1.41 0.29   0.86   0.47     0.57   0.05   0.11  0.66 0.47   0.60  0.00   0.06
McAdoo       18 1.06 0.30   0.43   0.50     0.00   0.13   0.21  0.50 0.44   0.50  0.05   0.22
Hubert        0  NaN 0.00    NaN   0.00      NaN   0.06   0.08  0.00 0.00   0.00  0.00    NaN
Strickland    9 0.67 0.19   0.50   0.33      NaN   0.03   0.09  0.39 0.67   0.33  0.13   0.22
Paige         7 0.29 0.12    NaN   0.14     0.00   0.00   0.11  0.14 0.00   0.14  0.33   0.00
James         4 1.00 0.20    NaN   0.40      NaN   0.08   0.00  0.40 0.00   0.40  0.00   0.00
Hairston      9 0.33 0.20    NaN   0.12     0.20   0.07   0.10  0.19 0.00   0.19  0.21   0.33
Johnson       5 0.40 0.35    NaN   0.17      NaN   0.11   0.14  0.17 0.00   0.17  0.00   0.00
McDonald     NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Tokoto        1 2.00 0.06    NaN   1.00      NaN   0.10   0.12  1.00 0.00   1.00  0.39   1.00
Davis        NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Simmons       1 0.00 0.08    NaN    NaN      NaN   0.00   0.00   NaN  NaN    NaN  0.00   1.00
Total        71 0.87 1.00   0.61   0.35     0.29   0.33   0.71  0.43 0.28   0.39  0.61   0.17
oppTotals    71 0.73 1.00   0.64   0.40     0.08   0.29   0.69  0.44 0.26   0.41  0.24   0.30

$`Season Totals`
         NAME POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
1     Bullock  165 1.37 0.20   0.86   0.48     0.48   0.08   0.13  0.63 0.17   0.60  0.14   0.12
2      McAdoo  260 0.96 0.28   0.60   0.46     0.00   0.09   0.18  0.49 0.40   0.46  0.06   0.20
3      Hubert   21 1.10 0.06   0.23   0.53      NaN   0.07   0.10  0.47 0.68   0.53  0.01   0.48
4  Strickland  153 0.89 0.18   0.59   0.45     0.21   0.02   0.08  0.50 0.45   0.46  0.20   0.16
5       Paige  167 0.66 0.21   0.80   0.33     0.30   0.01   0.08  0.43 0.12   0.40  0.22   0.24
6       James   44 1.11 0.12   0.56   0.49      NaN   0.10   0.18  0.51 0.39   0.49  0.03   0.34
7    Hairston  170 1.11 0.28   0.81   0.39     0.33   0.09   0.13  0.53 0.27   0.48  0.10   0.12
8     Johnson  108 1.24 0.26   0.46   0.59      NaN   0.09   0.23  0.59 0.12   0.59  0.04   0.13
9    McDonald  111 1.06 0.24   0.69   0.40     0.43   0.05   0.07  0.54 0.16   0.52  0.11   0.12
10     Tokoto   54 1.17 0.16   0.36   0.53     0.14   0.11   0.14  0.52 0.43   0.54  0.12   0.24
11      Davis    6 1.33 0.05   1.00   1.00     1.00   0.00   0.03  1.39 1.00   1.50  0.42   0.50
12    Simmons   10 2.60 0.07   1.00   0.56      NaN   0.18   0.15  0.63 0.33   0.56  0.07   0.30
13      Total 1255 1.07 1.00   0.64   0.45     0.37   0.39   0.68  0.52 0.27   0.50  0.60   0.19
14   oppTotal 1255 0.93 1.00   0.66   0.40     0.35   0.30   0.62  0.49 0.28   0.46  0.50   0.21

FSU Wrap-up

    There is really only one main takeaway from Saturday's game in terms of team advanced stats. Let me reiterate how the Four Factors work (in case they've slipped your mind). Dean Oliver decided that it would be best to distill any game into 4 measures of a team's production: Shooting, Rebounding, Free Throws and Turnovers. They carry importance in that order and are measured in a tempo-free way in the following graph I show all of you after each UNC game:

     Now, something should stick out about that graph. You may proceed to the raw numbers below to confirm, but you will find that yes, UNC lost three of the four factors including shooting, the most important. However, the Heels did such a phenomenal job on the glass that they won the game. The things that go into an offense can be widely varied, but the important thing to learn from Oliver's factors are that many things can alter the number of points a team gets. Even though UNC turned the ball over more, took fewer free throws, and missed a higher percentage of their shots, they got enough second (and third) chances and prevented FSU from doing the same which created 10 extra shots for UNC*. So, if you take one thing away from the beautiful pentagon graph above, note the giant edge in perORB and understand that is the reason UNC won Saturday.

           OPP      NAME ORTG perEFG perORB  FTR TORATE
1 FloridaState     Total 1.22   0.55   0.58 0.27   0.22
2 FloridaState oppTotals 1.14   0.59   0.21 0.34   0.16

    Now, to be honest I'm not great at spotting overall trends, but I've got to assume that two things went into that advantage, game planning and a renewed effort on the boards and I can only hope this trend continues. This iteration of North Carolina basketball doesn't have a formidable big man to create a rebounding edge, but does maintain a size advantage at positions 1-4 and should be able to rebound well. This is potentially vital going forward, as offensive rebound is one of the more simple remedies for poor shooting. Shooting will always win games, but if a team is regularly able to corral its own misses it has something of a security blanket against bad shooting nights.

    On to the individual offensive performances. Inconsistency continues to be the only rule here, as each player continues to find new directions on my game graph. Hairston ventures out to territory unseen since McNeese State, while McAdoo and Bullock took fewer shots and saw their efficiency improve. Brice Johnson had an uncharacteristically poor game, though two of his turnovers were on entry passes "over the top" of a defender that was fronting him in the post. That hasn't been a common avenue for delivering the basketball to him, hopefully he can improve his pass catching from that angle. Paige had a high usage game, but wasn't impressive and Dexter returned back from purgatory with a lackluster game. Desmond Hubert continues to improve, putting the ball in the basket when asked on one end while playing successful defense on the other.

    With so many ho-hum performances, how did the Heels nab victory from the jaws of defeat? The answer, in a few words, is Jackson Simmons. He's missing on the graph above, because he wrecks the curve. Below is the same graph with his inclusion, Simmons used 1 possession and scored 8 points. He took and made 3 shots and 2 free throws with 1 turnover and 4 offensive rebounds. While on the floor he rebounded 33% of UNC's missed shots. I'm not sure if his role will continue to be this large, but he certainly has played like the Brice Johnson-Joel James combo many have been yearning for. His offensive production was both timely and significant, while he was always in the right place on defense and seldom got beat for points. Florida State doesn't boast the most menacing front court in the league, but they're not small by any means.

    One last note, in Tallahassee last year the Seminoles took 27 three-point field goals and made 12, Saturday they took 22 and made only one fewer, 11. I'm not directly comparing the production, but given that the 'Noles were nearly as hot as the team that knocked off last year's #3 squad the fact that this year's Tar Heels were able to come away with a win is indicative of the moxie I hope these Heels continue to show. If they do we'll be in for a fun ACC season.

           POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
Bullock       7 1.71 0.13    NaN   0.45     0.33   0.18   0.12  0.55 0.00   0.55  0.16   0.14
McAdoo       13 1.08 0.24   0.57   0.45      NaN   0.10   0.21  0.50 0.64   0.45  0.08   0.15
Hubert        2 2.00 0.11    NaN   1.00      NaN   0.00   0.12  1.00 0.00   1.00  0.00   0.00
Strickland    5 0.80 0.13   0.67   0.33     0.00   0.00   0.17  0.46 1.00   0.33  0.11   0.20
Paige        15 0.53 0.34   1.00   0.22     0.50   0.00   0.15  0.40 0.22   0.33  0.20   0.33
James         1 0.00 0.16    NaN   0.00      NaN   0.00   0.33  0.00 0.00   0.00  0.00   0.00
Hairston     15 1.53 0.34   0.50   0.64     0.44   0.04   0.15  0.77 0.14   0.79  0.05   0.07
Johnson       7 0.57 0.40    NaN   0.40      NaN   0.00   0.12  0.40 0.00   0.40  0.00   0.29
McDonald     NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Tokoto        0  NaN 0.00    NaN   0.00      NaN   0.14   0.00  0.00 0.00   0.00  0.34    NaN
Davis        NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Simmons       1 8.00 0.04   1.00   1.00      NaN   0.33   0.00  1.03 0.67   1.00  0.09   1.00
Total        63 1.22 1.00   0.69   0.48     0.40   0.58   0.79  0.57 0.27   0.55  0.55   0.22
oppTotals    63 1.14 1.00   0.76   0.48     0.50   0.21   0.39  0.63 0.34   0.59  0.71   0.16

    As promised, a few thoughts on the Tar Heel's performances to open the ACC season. My general feeling is that UNC has played two games well and one game poorly and unfortunately for them if you rearrange the performances in most other ways they'd be 2-1. That said, though the overall performances haven't been great (and certainly not at the team's ceiling) the players appear to be buying in more than they were earlier in the year. I can't quantify effort with any one stat, but I'm prepared to provide rebounding as a proxy. Below I've plotted UNC's rebounding performance against all of their KenPom top-100 opponents. As you can see, earlier in the year the Heels were getting out-rebounded by most of their top-flight competition. In recent games those numbers have improved. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come, as a rebounding edge would certainly improve the defense and make the offense more robust.

$`Season Totals`
         NAME POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
1     Bullock  148 1.36 0.19   0.86   0.48     0.47   0.08   0.13  0.63 0.14   0.61  0.15   0.13
2      McAdoo  242 0.95 0.28   0.62   0.46      NaN   0.09   0.18  0.49 0.40   0.46  0.06   0.19
3      Hubert   21 1.10 0.06   0.23   0.56      NaN   0.07   0.10  0.48 0.72   0.56  0.01   0.48
4  Strickland  144 0.90 0.18   0.60   0.45     0.21   0.02   0.07  0.51 0.44   0.47  0.20   0.15
5       Paige  160 0.68 0.22   0.80   0.34     0.32   0.01   0.08  0.44 0.13   0.42  0.21   0.25
6       James   40 1.12 0.11   0.56   0.50      NaN   0.10   0.18  0.52 0.44   0.50  0.03   0.38
7    Hairston  161 1.15 0.29   0.81   0.40     0.34   0.09   0.13  0.55 0.29   0.50  0.10   0.11
8     Johnson  103 1.28 0.26   0.46   0.62      NaN   0.09   0.23  0.61 0.13   0.62  0.04   0.14
9    McDonald  111 1.06 0.24   0.69   0.40     0.43   0.05   0.07  0.54 0.16   0.52  0.11   0.12
10     Tokoto   53 1.15 0.17   0.36   0.52     0.14   0.11   0.14  0.51 0.44   0.53  0.11   0.23
11      Davis    6 1.33 0.05   1.00   1.00     1.00   0.00   0.03  1.39 1.00   1.50  0.42   0.50
12    Simmons    9 2.89 0.07   1.00   0.56      NaN   0.19   0.16  0.63 0.33   0.56  0.07   0.22
13      Total 1184 1.08 1.00   0.64   0.45     0.37   0.39   0.68  0.53 0.27   0.51  0.60   0.19
14   oppTotal 1184 0.94 1.00   0.66   0.40     0.36   0.30   0.62  0.49 0.28   0.46  0.52   0.21

*An aside here, for those of you interested Dean Smith's book "Multiple Offense and Defense" explains his game charting methods. He would have counted these rebounds as extra possessions which they essentially are, but it throws off a lot of tempo-free stat counting if you do the accounting that way.

Miami Stats

 $`Four Factors`

    OPP      NAME ORTG perEFG perORB  FTR TORATE
1 Miami     Total 0.94   0.45   0.32 0.13   0.17
2 Miami oppTotals 1.08   0.56   0.27 0.25   0.19

$`Last Game`
           POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
Bullock      18 0.61 0.34    NaN   0.25     0.38   0.06   0.15  0.34 0.00   0.34  0.25   0.22
McAdoo       15 0.93 0.30   0.80   0.36      NaN   0.07   0.17  0.43 0.36   0.36  0.00   0.07
Hubert        0 -Inf 0.00   0.50   0.00      NaN   0.18   0.00  0.27 2.00   0.00  0.00    NaN
Strickland    1 0.00 0.02    NaN   0.00      NaN   0.00   0.00  0.00 0.00   0.00  0.00   0.00
Paige        10 1.00 0.19    NaN   0.57     0.67   0.00   0.20  0.71 0.00   0.71  0.25   0.30
James         1 2.00 0.16    NaN   1.00      NaN   0.00   0.33  1.00 0.00   1.00  0.00   0.00
Hairston      8 0.62 0.20    NaN   0.29     0.25   0.04   0.10  0.36 0.00   0.36  0.13   0.25
Johnson       7 1.43 0.25   0.00   0.62      NaN   0.12   0.07  0.59 0.12   0.62  0.09   0.14
McDonald     NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Tokoto        3 1.33 0.16    NaN   0.50      NaN   0.09   0.22  0.50 0.00   0.50  0.14   0.00
Davis        NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Simmons       1 2.00 0.21    NaN   1.00      NaN   0.00   0.50  1.00 0.00   1.00  0.56   0.00
Total        63 0.94 1.00   0.62   0.40     0.40   0.32   0.70  0.46 0.13   0.45  0.62   0.17
oppTotals    63 1.08 1.00   0.69   0.47     0.35   0.27   0.70  0.58 0.25   0.56  0.40   0.19

$`Season Totals`
         NAME POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
1     Bullock  141 1.35 0.20   0.86   0.48     0.48   0.07   0.13  0.63 0.15   0.61  0.15   0.13
2      McAdoo  228 0.95 0.28   0.62   0.46      NaN   0.09   0.18  0.49 0.38   0.46  0.06   0.20
3      Hubert   19 1.00 0.06   0.23   0.50      NaN   0.08   0.10  0.44 0.81   0.50  0.02   0.53
4  Strickland  139 0.91 0.19   0.59   0.46     0.22   0.02   0.07  0.51 0.42   0.48  0.20   0.15
5       Paige  145 0.70 0.21   0.77   0.36     0.31   0.01   0.08  0.45 0.12   0.43  0.21   0.24
6       James   39 1.15 0.11   0.56   0.51      NaN   0.10   0.18  0.54 0.46   0.51  0.03   0.38
7    Hairston  146 1.11 0.28   0.83   0.38     0.32   0.09   0.13  0.53 0.30   0.47  0.10   0.12
8     Johnson   96 1.33 0.25   0.46   0.63      NaN   0.09   0.23  0.62 0.13   0.63  0.04   0.12
9    McDonald  111 1.06 0.24   0.69   0.40     0.43   0.05   0.07  0.54 0.16   0.52  0.11   0.12
10     Tokoto   53 1.15 0.17   0.36   0.53     0.14   0.11   0.14  0.52 0.45   0.54  0.10   0.23
11      Davis    6 1.33 0.05   1.00   1.00     1.00   0.00   0.03  1.39 1.00   1.50  0.42   0.50
12    Simmons    8 2.25 0.07   1.00   0.47      NaN   0.17   0.20  0.54 0.27   0.47  0.07   0.12
13      Total 1122 1.07 1.00   0.64   0.45     0.37   0.38   0.68  0.53 0.27   0.50  0.61   0.19
14   oppTotal 1122 0.93 1.00   0.65   0.39     0.35   0.30   0.63  0.49 0.27   0.46  0.51   0.21

at FSU prediction

> prediction(106.4,93.7,70.5,107.4,92.7,74.5)
$HomePts
[1] 80.33294

$AwayPts
[1] 77.49864

$Pace
[1] 78.04235

$HomeWinP
[1] 0.6018243

UVA Wrap Up

I would normally write a few paragraphs, but sometimes pictures really are worth a thousand words. I've explained this style of graph several times, but I don't think I need to even introduce it to know that it both confirms everything anyone watching the game saw as well as the main reason the Heels didn't "steal anyone's brownies" last night:

I watched the game with Cason (as much as one can from two and a half hours away). We took a number of things away from this game, mainly that the defensive team that showed up against UNLV apparently isn't here to stay. Maybe UNLV has more of an individual style of offense, and when you have a talented set of players you can defend an offense of individuals. Last night UVA showed (much as ECU did in December) that UNC has a ways to go in the team defense/communication area.

From a more broad point of view, it doesn't really do significant damage to this team to lose this game. If UVA plays the remainder of the season to their current KenPom rating they'll be an NCAA tournament team. Assuming the ACC has 5 or 6 tournament teams I would only predict UNC wins half of those road games if they're lucky. What stuck in my craw more during last night's game was the fact that it was one UNC could have won, even playing some poor basketball in spots. Reggie Bullock played so well that it was 51-50 late in the second half, but the same team defense issues and poor offensive decisions appeared and prevented the Tar Heels from winning their ACC opener. I am willing to bet that (some time in late February) everyone is going to wish UNC had taken advantage of this opportunity and won a winnable game, largely because if this team doesn't improve its consistency it will take every win they can find to make the NCAA tournament.

$`Four Factors`
  OPP      NAME ORTG perEFG perORB  FTR TORATE
1 UVA     Total 0.83   0.42   0.22 0.33   0.19
2 UVA oppTotals 0.97   0.53   0.16 0.37   0.17

$`Last Game`
           POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
Bullock       9 2.44 0.18   1.00   0.78     0.67   0.07   0.12  1.02 0.44   1.00  0.07   0.00
McAdoo       15 0.67 0.32   0.50   0.44      NaN   0.00   0.30  0.46 0.44   0.44  0.00   0.27
Hubert        3 1.00 0.10   0.50   0.50      NaN   0.00   0.13  0.52 1.00   0.50  0.00   0.00
Strickland    7 0.57 0.16    NaN   0.29      NaN   0.00   0.00  0.29 0.00   0.29  0.23   0.00
Paige         9 0.22 0.20    NaN   0.14     0.00   0.00   0.14  0.14 0.00   0.14  0.15   0.22
James         4 0.00 0.28   0.00   0.00      NaN   0.00   0.57  0.00 2.00   0.00  0.00   0.50
Hairston     10 0.80 0.29   0.33   0.33     0.20   0.05   0.24  0.39 0.33   0.39  0.19   0.10
Johnson       2 1.00 0.13    NaN   0.50      NaN   0.11   0.12  0.50 0.00   0.50  0.21   0.50
McDonald      5 0.00 0.21    NaN   0.00     0.00   0.00   0.00  0.00 0.00   0.00  0.00   0.40
Tokoto        2 0.50 0.18   0.50   0.00      NaN   0.17   0.00  0.17 1.00   0.00  0.00   0.00
Davis        NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Simmons      NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA     NA
Total        63 0.83 1.00   0.53   0.37     0.29   0.22   0.87  0.44 0.33   0.42  0.47   0.19
oppTotals    63 0.97 1.00   0.50   0.45     0.57   0.16   0.75  0.54 0.37   0.53  0.64   0.17

$`Season Totals`
         NAME POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE TORATE
1     Bullock  123 1.46 0.18   0.86   0.51     0.49   0.07   0.13  0.67 0.17   0.64  0.15   0.11
2      McAdoo  213 0.95 0.28   0.61   0.46      NaN   0.09   0.18  0.50 0.38   0.46  0.06   0.21
3      Hubert   19 0.95 0.06   0.18   0.53      NaN   0.07   0.11  0.45 0.73   0.53  0.02   0.53
4  Strickland  138 0.91 0.20   0.59   0.46     0.22   0.02   0.07  0.51 0.42   0.48  0.22   0.15
5       Paige  135 0.67 0.21   0.77   0.34     0.28   0.01   0.07  0.43 0.13   0.40  0.21   0.24
6       James   38 1.13 0.11   0.56   0.50      NaN   0.10   0.17  0.52 0.47   0.50  0.03   0.39
7    Hairston  138 1.14 0.29   0.83   0.38     0.33   0.10   0.13  0.53 0.32   0.48  0.10   0.11
8     Johnson   89 1.33 0.25   0.50   0.63      NaN   0.09   0.24  0.63 0.13   0.63  0.03   0.12
9    McDonald  111 1.06 0.23   0.69   0.40     0.43   0.05   0.06  0.54 0.16   0.52  0.11   0.12
10     Tokoto   50 1.14 0.18   0.36   0.53     0.14   0.11   0.14  0.52 0.49   0.54  0.09   0.24
11      Davis    6 1.33 0.05   1.00   1.00     1.00   0.00   0.03  1.39 1.00   1.50  0.41   0.50
12    Simmons    7 2.29 0.07   1.00   0.43      NaN   0.18   0.19  0.51 0.29   0.43  0.05   0.14
13      Total 1059 1.08 1.00   0.64   0.45     0.37   0.39   0.68  0.53 0.28   0.51  0.61   0.19
14   oppTotal 1059 0.92 1.00   0.65   0.39     0.35   0.30   0.62  0.48 0.28   0.45  0.51   0.21

Current Prediction (Math-based, sorry Bethy)

UNC 70, Miami 69

Win Prob 53%, Pace 70

Easy-B's Questionable D?

I read this article today and decided to investigate some of its claims:

Does Brice Johnson’s Offensive Explosiveness Make Up For His Defensive Lapses?

In the piece they argue that Brice Johnson is a defensive liability who shouldn't get playing time in conference until he proves himself. They also cite his 8.9 PPG scoring as coming largely on dunks (ok, this is an overstatement, but they're not as in love with his offensive production as I am, which is an extremely high bar to set).

Ok, first let's look over his shots by location:(http://www.scacchoops.com/tt_player_page.asp?hplayer=697&tab=3) Johnson has taken 27 dunks/layups and 44 'other' types of shots (other meaning likely not from transition). To me he isn't getting all his offense from dunks (some of which he is creating with offensive rebounds* and not out of transition) and he is an extremely valuable offensive player, something most of you have already grown tired of hearing me say. The article above seems to indicate that a lot of his offense comes on fast breaks and any player on the court would be capable of collecting those points. This backs up the fact that KenPom's numbers have him at the 2nd highest Offensive Efficiency on the team (1.33 to Bullock's 1.38).

Furthermore, advanced stats show that Brice is the best defensive rebounder on the team, collecting 25% of opponent misses (second is McAdoo at 18%). Many people forget, but this is a valuable defensive skill and can serve as a "pro" to balance out the "cons" of his slender frame and poor post defense.

Basically, I just wanted to take a moment to point out how advanced stats can help to prove or disprove common wisdom and what we see as we watch basketball. Brice Johnson isn't a defensive force, but he rebounds the ball very well and his offense is more valuable than might be evident at first glance. I do think any McAdoo-Johnson pairing should be used sparingly when playing a team with a strong offensive post presence and I'd be floored to see Johnson as the only 5-man on the floor. That said, I don't think Johnson should expect his time to shrink as the team enters the ACC portion of the schedule. In fact given how this team is under performing past UNC squads on offense and Roy's inner desire to shirk the 3 ball, Easy-B should see more P.T.

*Johnson has 16 offensive rebounds on the year, if a third of these were immediate layup/dunk put backs the numbers go to 22 fast break dunks and 49 others

UVA odds & UNLV post-game

Primarily, I'd like to laud the team (as most have already done) for the victory against UNLV. They played cohesively and for the first time all season looked consistently above average on defense all game. On the offensive end, McAdoo (among others) got to the free throw line, and was able to shake off another shaky start. From a less statistical viewpoint, it was impressive to see the team not give up and let a game slip away that was very tenuous in the second half. The ability of 19 and 20 year old kids to maintain focus and play through losing the lead in a tight game is something Tar Heel fans frequently take for granted. Games like this one are what really give me enjoyment out of the "rebuilding years", the ones that you can almost see everyone taking a step forward and growing into a better team.

This game had nearly the opposite trend that I complimented against McNeese St. In that game Strickland and Paige got out of the way, and had elevated efficiency ratings by using fewer possessions. This game was just as positive an outcome in nearly the opposite direction. Both players took more shots than average while improving their rating. I wouldn't have predicted that to be successful, at least in Paige's case but it worked and the more these two perform at this level the better the offense as a whole will look.

Similarly the trips to the foul line improved markedly. As you can see from the pentagon graph, UNC was on a similar level with UNLV in 3 of the 4 factors (perEFG, perORB, TORate) but the Free Throw Rate was much higher. The large advantage there and to a lesser extent the small one in TORate led to the efficiency advantage that won the game.

$`Four Factors`
   OPP     NAME ORTG perEFG perORB  FTR TORATE
1 UNLV    Total 1.10   0.54   0.33 0.60   0.17
2 UNLV oppTotal 1.01   0.53   0.38 0.36   0.24

The Heels also did an excellent job forcing turnovers and running the secondary break. This is crucial as it gives the offense the best set of looks (one on an initial break and another in the secondary) possible and yields much better offensive performance than playing against a set half-court.

Speaking of the set half-court, up next is UVA. Tony Bennett's Virginia squad is notoriously slow, playing the 342nd slowest pace in the country. Fast breaks will be few and far between, something that could make things appear quite ugly. KenPom's prediction makes this the slowest game the Heels have played this season (LBSU at 70 holds the current low mark). Looking to that game for clues, offensive rebounding will be big. When the offensive isn't performing well, rebounding can help UNC puts points on the board. As always 3pt shooting is important, but especially so this weekend with UVA's "pack-line" defense. If Bullock can play and he and the other shooters are hot, it could give the offense a little more room to operate. Similarly with the pack-line in operation, the long jumpers of McAdoo and Johnson could prove pivotal. That said, UVA isn't exactly torching the nets themselves, ranking 80th in offense (OE 105.2). With the defense coming off a strong performance (the kind I doubted the existence of after the Texas game) this could be another opportunity for a strong showing.

UVA Prediction:

UVA 68.2, UNC 63.6

67.937 Poss

Home Win % 0.69169

Along with the following breakdown of individual players:

$`Last Game`
           POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE
Bullock      NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA
McAdoo       15 0.87 0.25   0.60   0.38      NaN   0.11   0.19  0.43 0.38   0.38  0.13
Hubert        3 1.00 0.08   0.50   1.00      NaN   0.00   0.17  0.80 2.00   1.00  0.00
Strickland   14 1.14 0.24   0.60   0.62     0.00   0.00   0.10  0.65 1.25   0.62  0.09
Paige        14 0.86 0.23   0.75   0.33     0.00   0.04   0.10  0.48 0.89   0.33  0.17
James         3 0.00 0.56    NaN   0.00      NaN   0.00   0.00  0.00 0.00   0.00  0.00
Hairston     10 1.50 0.17   0.75   0.50     0.40   0.08   0.07  0.64 0.40   0.60  0.04
Johnson       8 1.50 0.30   0.00   0.75      NaN   0.25   0.07  0.68 0.25   0.75  0.00
McDonald      4 1.25 0.12    NaN   0.50     0.50   0.00   0.06  0.62 0.00   0.62  0.00
Tokoto        2 1.50 0.10   0.50   1.00      NaN   0.11   0.10  0.80 2.00   1.00  0.26
Davis        NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA
Simmons      NA   NA   NA     NA     NA       NA     NA     NA    NA   NA     NA    NA
Total        72 1.10 1.00   0.61   0.51     0.30   0.33   0.59  0.57 0.60   0.54  0.43
oppTotal     72 1.01 1.00   0.52   0.46     0.47   0.38   0.73  0.53 0.36   0.53  0.56

And the season's stats in total:

$`Season Totals`
         NAME POSS ORTG  USG perFTM perFGM perFGM.3 perORB perDRB perTS  FTR perEFG ARATE
1     Bullock  114 1.38 0.19   0.82   0.49     0.48   0.07   0.13  0.64 0.15   0.62  0.15
2      McAdoo  198 0.97 0.28   0.62   0.46      NaN   0.10   0.18  0.50 0.38   0.46  0.06
3      Hubert   16 0.94 0.06   0.11   0.54      NaN   0.08   0.11  0.44 0.69   0.54  0.02
4  Strickland  131 0.93 0.20   0.59   0.47     0.22   0.02   0.08  0.52 0.45   0.49  0.22
5       Paige  126 0.71 0.21   0.77   0.35     0.30   0.01   0.07  0.45 0.14   0.42  0.21
6       James   34 1.26 0.10   0.64   0.52      NaN   0.10   0.16  0.55 0.42   0.52  0.04
7    Hairston  128 1.16 0.30   0.87   0.38     0.34   0.10   0.12  0.54 0.32   0.48  0.09
8     Johnson   87 1.33 0.26   0.50   0.63      NaN   0.09   0.25  0.63 0.14   0.63  0.03
9    McDonald  106 1.11 0.24   0.69   0.41     0.45   0.05   0.07  0.56 0.16   0.54  0.11
10     Tokoto   48 1.17 0.17   0.35   0.56     0.14   0.11   0.14  0.54 0.47   0.57  0.10
11      Davis    6 1.33 0.05   1.00   1.00     1.00   0.00   0.03  1.39 1.00   1.50  0.40
12    Simmons    7 2.29 0.07   1.00   0.43      NaN   0.18   0.19  0.51 0.29   0.43  0.05
13      Total  996 1.09 1.00   0.64   0.46     0.37   0.40   0.66  0.54 0.28   0.51  0.61
14   oppTotal  996 0.91 1.00   0.66   0.39     0.34   0.31   0.61  0.48 0.27   0.45  0.51