Final on/off numbers

[Yeah Baby]

So many variables here that skew this. We were a small team and one of our longer guys who was also extremely athletic went down. That hurt. I don’t need stats to tell me that.

Some of these numbers are affected by rotations, home v away, obviously wins v losses, etc.

When we subbed we often left Cam or Caleb on the floor which skews their numbers.

The one thing that stands out to me is most of our losses came when any of our Top 5 were out with injuries. We all knew this already but that’s the real issue here. Even guys playing hurt and foul trouble for Cliff were problems in most games.

 

[RUChoppin]

makes you wonder why NC SOS would be so important to the committee when it's completely illogical and should take anyone about 2 minutes to realize that

I think it's a method they're trying to use to keep the at-large field from being overrun by major conference teams.

The B1G is a grind - you have 20 games in conference, and likely 18+ of those will be against competitive programs. The MWC and A10 are not the same grind - and you only pick up a handful of games against competitive programs.

Because of that, the mid-major conferences need to schedule harder NC games to keep their SOS up, but major conference teams try not to schedule as many because that might limit their ability to get their W/L total up to an acceptable threshold for the tournament.

By focusing on NC SOS, it's a way to penalize major conference schools and limit the number selected, while rewarding mid-major schools with worse overall resumes.

The result of going down this path consistently enough to impact scheduling, though, is that the strong programs will stop scheduling the tournament-fringe mid-major teams... if they get no benefit from beating them, get penalized for losing to them, and get double-penalized for losing by propping up the mid-major into a bubble team with a "strong" NC SOS, what's the incentive to keep those teams on their schedules?

 

[MiloTalon13]

I think it's a method they're trying to use to keep the at-large field from being overrun by major conference teams.

The B1G is a grind - you have 20 games in conference, and likely 18+ of those will be against competitive programs. The MWC and A10 are not the same grind - and you only pick up a handful of games against competitive programs.

Because of that, the mid-major conferences need to schedule harder NC games to keep their SOS up, but major conference teams try not to schedule as many because that might limit their ability to get their W/L total up to an acceptable threshold for the tournament.

By focusing on NC SOS, it's a way to penalize major conference schools and limit the number selected, while rewarding mid-major schools with worse overall resumes.

The result of going down this path consistently enough to impact scheduling, though, is that the strong programs will stop scheduling the tournament-fringe mid-major teams... if they get no benefit from beating them, get penalized for losing to them, and get double-penalized for losing by propping up the mid-major into a bubble team with a "strong" NC SOS, what's the incentive to keep those teams on their schedules?

The last part is the key - it seems like double-counting OOC SOS encourages the opposite of what the NCAA's intentions are.
I actually wouldn't mind that, play 2-3 cupcakes and then all P5 schools - as long as all the other P5 schools did the same. It's a smart road for the big conferences to go down with the intention of eventually leaving the NCAA.

 

[RUChoppin]

The last part is the key - it seems like double-counting OOC SOS encourages the opposite of what the NCAA's intentions are.
I actually wouldn't mind that, play 2-3 cupcakes and then all P5 schools - as long as all the other P5 schools did the same. It's a smart road for the big conferences to go down with the intention of eventually leaving the NCAA.

Well, we're all trying to read the tea leaves on their true intentions.

My guess is that they are concerned about conference realignment and the growing number of at-large teams from a small subset of conferences. It could get to the point where there are 32 AQ teams, and then 36 additional teams from maybe 4-5 conferences. That would start to downgrade what were previously considered "mid-majors" to the point of extinction - leaving just "major" and "minor" conferences.

Many teams that previously had "mid-major" success have been consolidated into multi-bid conferences, leaving their prior conferences without as much competition at the top.

The Big East now has:
Xavier (13 bids from the A10 from 1995-2013)
Creighton (9 bids from MWC from 1998-2013)
Butler (6 bids from Horizon from 2001-2012)
Marquette (4 bids from CUSA from 1995-2005)

The AAC now has:
Cincy (10 bids from CUSA from 1995-2005)
Memphis (9 bids from CUSA from 2002-2013)
Wichita St (6 bids from MWC from 2011-2017)

The P12 now has:
Utah (13 bids from WAC/MWC from 1990-2011)

The ACC now has:
Louisville (14 bids from Metro/CUSA from 1987-2005)

And that's not even considering several other "frequently above .500 as a mid-major" teams that didn't get bids from mid-major conferences that have been picked up by larger conferences, like Tulane, East Carolina, Houston, DePaul, etc. The loss of those teams/markets from mid-majors has dropped their overall competitiveness and slowed the inflow of money.

While the changes to the transfer rules have helped create some more parity, the growing television contracts have had the opposite effect of consolidating the better teams into fewer conference buckets. This road could lead to the major conferences splitting and saying "we'll make our own tournament to include an AQ from the minor conferences and select the at-large from our own ranks".

 

[MiloTalon13]

"Well, we're all trying to read the tea leaves on their true intentions."

Well put. It's a shame they don't specifically state what they want.
Why not say they don't want too many at-large bids from high major conferences? and have X number of at-large bids allocated to mid-majors?

I hope the split does happen and soon.

 

[RUChoppin]

"Well, we're all trying to read the tea leaves on their true intentions."

Well put. It's a shame they don't specifically state what they want.
Why not say they don't want too many at-large bids from high major conferences? and have X number of at-large bids allocated to mid-majors?

I hope the split does happen and soon.

Because if they tip their hand like that, it will accelerate the departure of the major conferences - why stick around in an organization that's telling you your resume will never be good enough if you aren't in the top X of your conference too?

 

[mikeyo]

Caleb is a warrior but I've thought he killed us offensively in a bunch of ways. These numbers back that up nicely

Plus Simpsons numbers probably a little distorted considering his season was really two entirely different segments

 

[needmorecowbell]

I went to hoop-explorer.com and sorted the on the court/off the court data for each individual player. I used filters of "top 250 teams only" and "garbage time excluded." Here they are ordered from best to worst.

Mawot Mag
ON: +15.6 points per 100 possessions
OFF: -4.4 points per 100 possessions
NET: +20.0

I'll use Mag as an example of what these numbers mean. For the entire season, our offense scored 100.4 points per 100 possessions. Our defense allowed 96.8 points per 100 possessions.

With Mag on the floor, our offense scored 103.7 points per 100, and our defense allowed 88.1 points per 100. That's where I get the +15.6 number. With Mag OFF the floor, our offense scored 98.3 points per 100 and our defense allowed 102.7, which is where the -4.4 comes from. Got it?

Cliff Omoruyi
ON: +7.2
OFF: -9.2
NET: +16.4

Jalen Miller (hoo boy do I love small sample sizes)
ON: +11.3
OFF: +3.0
NET: +8.3

Paul Mulcahy
ON: +4.5
OFF: +0.9
NET: +3.6

Team Baseline
NET: +3.6

Cam Spencer
ON: +2.8
OFF: +6.8
NET: -4.0

Derek Simpson
ON: +1.1
OFF: +6.1
NET: -5.0

Aundre Hyatt
ON: +1.4
OFF: +6.7
NET: -5.3

Oskar Palmquist
ON: -1.6
OFF: +4.4
NET: -6.0

Caleb McConnell
ON: +1.0
OFF: +10.6
NET: -9.6

Dean Reiber
ON: -6.9
OFF: +5.2
NET: -12.1

Antwone Woolfolk
ON: -8.6
OFF: +5.6
NET: -14.2

Very interesting. Nice job kcg. Couple of thoughts. The team was playing with at a big disadvantage after Mag when down. The numbers clearly show how much he meant to the team. Everyone who picked up extra mins after the Mag injury suffered too. Obviously the competition played a part due to the late schedule. It was exclusively against Big Ten foes vs the earlier part of the schedule. There is a big drop off when Mag and Cliff were not on the floor. As we all know, depth was the biggest issue for the team and these numbers illustrate that.

 

[needmorecowbell]

You can check various lineup combinations, but can't filter specific games.

But for instance it can tell you that (top 250 and garbage time time filter applied):

Cliff + Mag on the floor together (596 possessions)
Offense: 104.4
Defense: 89.1

Cliff + Mag both on bench (270 possessions)
Offense: 85.9
Defense: 108.3

Cliff on, Mag off (833 possessions)
Offense: 102.3
Defense: 100.8

Mag on, Cliff off (~140 possessions)
Offense: 100.7
Defense: 83.8

I am a huge Mag fan but these numbers indicate that he may of been the most important player on the team.

 

[MiloTalon13]

I am a huge Mag fan but these numbers indicate that he may of been the most important player on the team.

You'd have to see everyone else's number at the point where Mag got hurt to see if they truly indicate that.
Everyone else's numbers were certainly much better at that point.

 

[needmorecowbell]

You'd have to see everyone else's number at the point where Mag got hurt to see if they truly indicate that.
Everyone else's numbers were certainly much better at that point.

I agree but I can’t imagine other players having better numbers.

 

[MiloTalon13]

I agree but I can’t imagine other players having better numbers.

For the 11 games after Mich St - we were outscored 66.9 to 63.1 = 3.8 point per game
That's -42 total.
I'm not sure how that translates to OP's analysis but it seems like a huge difference

 

[Loyal_2RU]

I went to hoop-explorer.com and sorted the on the court/off the court data for each individual player. I used filters of "top 250 teams only" and "garbage time excluded." Here they are ordered from best to worst.

Mawot Mag
ON: +15.6 points per 100 possessions
OFF: -4.4 points per 100 possessions
NET: +20.0

I'll use Mag as an example of what these numbers mean. For the entire season, our offense scored 100.4 points per 100 possessions. Our defense allowed 96.8 points per 100 possessions.

With Mag on the floor, our offense scored 103.7 points per 100, and our defense allowed 88.1 points per 100. That's where I get the +15.6 number. With Mag OFF the floor, our offense scored 98.3 points per 100 and our defense allowed 102.7, which is where the -4.4 comes from. Got it?

Cliff Omoruyi
ON: +7.2
OFF: -9.2
NET: +16.4

Jalen Miller (hoo boy do I love small sample sizes)
ON: +11.3
OFF: +3.0
NET: +8.3

Paul Mulcahy
ON: +4.5
OFF: +0.9
NET: +3.6

Team Baseline
NET: +3.6

Cam Spencer
ON: +2.8
OFF: +6.8
NET: -4.0

Derek Simpson
ON: +1.1
OFF: +6.1
NET: -5.0

Aundre Hyatt
ON: +1.4
OFF: +6.7
NET: -5.3

Oskar Palmquist
ON: -1.6
OFF: +4.4
NET: -6.0

Caleb McConnell
ON: +1.0
OFF: +10.6
NET: -9.6

Dean Reiber
ON: -6.9
OFF: +5.2
NET: -12.1

Antwone Woolfolk
ON: -8.6
OFF: +5.6
NET: -14.2

Caleb's numbers are skewed negative because he missed several blowouts.

 

[needmorecowbell]

For the 11 games after Mich St - we were outscored 66.9 to 63.1 = 3.8 point per game
That's -42 total.
I'm not sure how that translates to OP's analysis but it seems like a huge difference

Yes but it’s about 1/3 of the season. If you just average each 3rd of the season it would be very hard for anyone (other than Cliff) to come close to Mag.

 

[RUChoppin]

The blowouts he missed are already excluded by removing teams ranked below 250.

 

[RUChoppin]

There's a lot more on that Hoop-Explorer site than just overall On/Off... you can look at specific lineups, specific games, etc.

 

[RUChoppin]

Top 3 lineups by # of Possessions

	Net Rtg	P/100	Adj P/100	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTR	A%	3PR	2PR mid	2PR rim	3P%	2P%	2P% mid	2P% rim	Poss	SoS
PaMulcahy ; CaSpencer ; CaMcconnell ; AuHyatt ; ClOmoruyi	8.9	98.8	106.2	47.3	17.6	32.6	22.7	51.6	34.7	25.8	39.6	34.6	44.9	31	53.9	244	110.7
	-3.8	102.5	97.3	56.8	21.4	25.5	24	61.1	39.1	27.1	33.9	37.3	57.3	53.8	60	238	97.9
PaMulcahy ; CaSpencer ; CaMcconnell ; MaMag ; ClOmoruyi	27.8	100	105	46.8	19.2	29.2	32.4	70.5	27	33.5	39.5	34	45.2	24.2	63	219	114.3
	15.9	84.1	77.2	41.4	18.8	23.6	21	57.8	42	26.5	31.5	28.9	40	35.4	43.9	208	100
PaMulcahy ; CaSpencer ; DeSimpson ; CaMcconnell ; ClOmoruyi	38.8	110.4	120	46.7	13	35.7	39.6	60	28.3	28.3	43.4	30	47.4	40	52.2	115	114.2
	22.3	88.2	81.1	41.4	24.5	32.2	49.4	62.1	39.5	19.8	40.7	28.1	40.8	25	48.5	110	97.2

 

[Mbash93]

With no filters applied our baseline was 103.8 on offense and 92.4 on defense for a +11.4 total rating.

Players:

Mag +22.3 on, +3.4 off, +18.9 net

Miller: +26.3 on, +9.6 off, +16.7 net

Cliff: +14.1 on, +2.9 off, +11.2 net

Spencer: +11.0 on, +12.7 off, -1.7 net

Mulcahy: +10.6 on, +13.2 off, -2.6 net

Simpson: +9.8 on, +13.0 off, -3.2 net

Woolfolk: +6.5 on, +12.3 off, -5.8 net

Reiber: +5.6 on, +12.3 off, -6.7 net

Palmquist: +3.3 on, +12.6 off, -9.0 net

McConnell: +6.6 on, +21.3 off, -14.7 net

I love what Caleb accomplished here but I have been saying that losing Caleb might just be a Net Positive for us

 

[MiloTalon13]

I love what Caleb accomplished here but I have been saying that losing Caleb might just be a Net Positive for us

I agree.
Especially replacing him with an outstanding offensive player.

 

[kcg88]

Top 3 lineups by # of Possessions

	Net Rtg	P/100	Adj P/100	eFG%	TO%	OR%	FTR	A%	3PR	2PR mid	2PR rim	3P%	2P%	2P% mid	2P% rim	Poss	SoS
PaMulcahy ; CaSpencer ; CaMcconnell ; AuHyatt ; ClOmoruyi	8.9	98.8	106.2	47.3	17.6	32.6	22.7	51.6	34.7	25.8	39.6	34.6	44.9	31	53.9	244	110.7
	-3.8	102.5	97.3	56.8	21.4	25.5	24	61.1	39.1	27.1	33.9	37.3	57.3	53.8	60	238	97.9
PaMulcahy ; CaSpencer ; CaMcconnell ; MaMag ; ClOmoruyi	27.8	100	105	46.8	19.2	29.2	32.4	70.5	27	33.5	39.5	34	45.2	24.2	63	219	114.3
	15.9	84.1	77.2	41.4	18.8	23.6	21	57.8	42	26.5	31.5	28.9	40	35.4	43.9	208	100
PaMulcahy ; CaSpencer ; DeSimpson ; CaMcconnell ; ClOmoruyi	38.8	110.4	120	46.7	13	35.7	39.6	60	28.3	28.3	43.4	30	47.4	40	52.2	115	114.2
	22.3	88.2	81.1	41.4	24.5	32.2	49.4	62.1	39.5	19.8	40.7	28.1	40.8	25	48.5	110	97.2

Aundre Hyatt: