Pre-Conference Schedule Records

The pre-conference schedule is done for Syracuse this year, with the Big East season starting Thursday night for the Orange. I’m sure a lot of Orange fans such as myself are glad it’s done; it has not been a start to a season that we’re accustomed to from Jim Boeheim’s squads.

I went back to determine how Boeheim’s teams have done in previous seasons in the “pre-conference” games; I’ve defined a pre-conference game as any non-conference game that occurs before the start of the Big East season plus any non-conference games that occurred in the first week of the Big East season; I excluded the first year of Big East play where there were only 6 Big East games for the Orangemen. Including this year, Syracuse is 260-27 over 27 seasons in pre-conference games. That’s a winning percentage of 90.6%.

Here’s the breakdown by year.

A few things to note. From the 1984-85 season to the 1993-94 season, Syracuse was an amazing 94-2 in the preseason games. I don’t care who you’re playing; that’s great. During that time frame they played in the Big East / ACC Challenge, along with some other tournaments, so not all the games were “creampuffs”. The only two losses during that time frame where to North Carolina and Arizona, both in the 1987 Great Alaska Shootout.

Even more amazing, from the 1988-89 season to 1993-94, the Orangemen didn’t lose a single pre-conference game, going 57-0. That includes memorable win over Indiana in 1988, Missouri in 1988, Duke in the 1989 ACC/Big East Challenge, Indiana & Iowa State in the 1990 Maui Classic, NC State in the 1990 ACC/Big East Challenge, Florida State in 1991, Tennessee in 1992 and 1993, and Arizona in 1994. So for those critics of Jim Boeheim, please review that list again.

In the 27 seasons of Big East play, Syracuse has only twice lost more than 2 games in the pre-conference schedule. In 1996-97, they went 8-4. That team would end up 19-13 overall, 9-9 in the Big East, and would lose in the first round of the NIT. Not one of the better Boeheim teams.

The other team is this year’s squad, at 11-3 as previously mentioned. I don’t know what that means, but not a good sign. The pre-conference schedule this year has had several setbacks to slow down the team’s progress. Darryl Watkins broke his nose, Terrence Roberts hurt his knee, several players missed games due to viral illness, and Eric Devondorf struggled through some off the court personal tragedies. So the team really hasn’t had too much time to be focused and cohesive. Unfortunately, the Big East season is now here, so they’ll have to put it all together in the big games.

Speaking of the “big games”; detractors of Coach Boeheim like to point out to his ‘cream puff’ schedule for all his wins. As pointed out, he is 260-27 in his pre-conference games, however as I’ve also mentioned, some of those were against some very good squads. Boeheim’s teams were 366-208 in all remaining games during that 27 year period: those would be Big East games, non-conference games in mid-season (typically a solid major conference team), Big East tournament games, and NCAA & NIT games. Boeheim’s squads win 64% of those games too. That’s a pretty good winning percentage against quality teams, almost 2/3rds.

Boeheim has a pretty good recipe: basically win all the games he’s supposed to win, and then win 2/3 of the tough games. There are always bumps in the road; nobody wins them all. But he wins most of them.

RY

Statistics I'd Like to See

One of my pet peeves is to hear someone state that statistics are meaningless. Anyone familiar with this blog or my website OrangeHoops.org, would easily deduce that I do place value into the numbers of the game. I do not think that statistics tell the whole story, but you can certainly tell a heck of a lot about a player from his statistics, and given the right statistical information you can predict a lot of future performances.

Let’s say you have two college players. Player A scores 25 points a game with 10 rebounds, 7 blocked shots, and 5 assists a game, while shooting 60% from the floor and 85% from the free throw line. Player B scores 9 points a game, with 2 rebounds, 0.5 blocked shots, 1 assist a game, while shooting 35% from the floor and 50% from the free throw line. Assuming no injury is impacting Player B’s statistics, I don’t think anyone would argue that Player B is better than Player A, even though you had not seen either player perform. Clearly, the statistics have some meaning.

Similarly, if Player C scores 17.9 points a game, and player D scores 17.1 points a game, there’s no conclusion at all that can be reached about the value of those two players, other than the fact they both average roughly 17 points a game. In this case, they have little meaning.

I think there are three reasons why a segment of fans disregard statistical evidence. First, is what I would call the Jeter Effect. I plan to write more about this concept at some other time, but suffice it to say it is when you place extreme value on the intangibles of a player and credit him with every good thing that ever happened, and throwing out all statistical evidence because it doesn't measure the intangibles.

The second is a segment of our population is poor at math, and anything to do with numbers to them is inherently bad. There’s really no way to convince these individuals that numbers can be good (there’s probably some of them who would argue that I can’t tell that Player A is better than Player B given my scenario above).

The third reason is that we are often given the wrong set of numbers, or incomplete information. And basketball is full of false numbers. If you don’t look at statistics in the proper context, they give a false impressions. I’m amazed when fans are impressed by a NBA player scoring 40 points in a given game when he’s shot 18 for 48 for the night. Heck, you take 48 shots, you had better score 40 points! Now 40 points on a 20 for 26 shooting effort is quite impressive. Extremely impressive.

When Wilt Chamberlain scored his record 100 points, the overlooked statistic is that The Stilt shot 28-32 from the free throw line that night. That's absolutely amazing, for any player, much less a guy who shot 51% from the line for his career. He was also 36 of 63 from the floor that night, a solid 57%. His 100 point night was a truly amazing night, even for him. Anyhow, I am sidetracked at the moment.

Cuse Country did an excellent job a week ago showing how offensive rebounding can be quite misleading, so I won’t go too much into it here. But simply put, the number of rebounds in a game are a combination of an individual’s ability to get a rebound combined with the number of missed shots. If there were no missed shots in a game, there would be no rebounds. So if a team shots 60% from the floor there will be less opportunity for rebounds than if a team shoots 30% from the floor. And you do need to factor that in, somehow. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, nobody tracks that information in college basketball.

There are other statistics that I think could be useful in providing us all with a clearer picture of what a player has accomplished. And as such, here are the five statistics I would like to see in college basketball.

Earned Rebound Average (ERA): I figure there are roughly 25 missed baskets a game, by each team [We could use any number, but 25 will do; it is all relative]. So in a given game, there are approximately 50 opportunities for a rebound. The ERA would be [number of rebounds] / [missed baskets by both teams] * 50. So if Player A had 10 rebounds in a game where both teams missed a combined 42 shots, then he would have an ERA of 11.90.

Assists In the Paint (AIP): Assists were designed to help show how another player, especially a point guard, has helped set up his teammates for baskets. I would like to see assists broken down a few ways. One way would be to show Assists in the Paint. This is the number of assists a player has to players who have scored while they were inside lane (‘the paint’). I think an assist to a player taking a perimeter jumper is valuable, especially if the point guard has driven into the lane and pulled defenders off the perimeter shooter, but sometimes that feels ‘cheap’ to me. AIP would at least allow us to quantify the different types of assists a player gets.

Free Throw Assists (FTA): We have all seen the spectacular pass to the inside player who goes up for the basket and is fouled hard by the opposition, missing what would have been a sure basket. The player gets to the free throw line, but the player who passed him the ball gets no credit. I think the purpose of the Assist is to measure how well a player sets up his teammates; and clearly, in these situations, he set them up well, and he should be given some credit. I would not tie the statistic to whether or not the player makes the free throws [why penalize a guy because his teammate is poor free throw shooter?]; if the guy gets fouled in the act of shooting, the player passing the ball should bet an FTA. Can you imagine how many FTA Sherman Douglas would have had?

Defensive Plus / Minus (+/-): I’m stealing a concept from hockey here. Defense is extremely difficult to measure statistically. Guys who block a lot of shots often are well out of position and actually playing poor defense, while other guys are holding their ground and preventing the other team from scoring by playing smart defense. That never gets measured. You cannot really look at how a guy does statistically against the guy he is ‘matched up against’. First of all, that has no value in a zone defense… the defender is guarding an area, not a specific player. Second of all, double teams occur, players switch off, etc. A +/- would be the difference in points scored by a team against points given up by a team during the time the player is on the court. Sure, a player would be hurt by being on the court with bad defensive players, but it would give us an additional measurement of how he is doing. A basketball player is 1/5 of the defense when he is on the court, so he’s going to have some impact, plus or minus.

Free Throw Percent broken down by First & Second Effort: We know a guy shoots 70% from the free throw line. But what we do not know is does he usually make the front end of a one and one, or does he miss it. There’s a big difference between shooting 60% on the front end, and 80% on the back end, versus 80% on the front end and 60% on the back end.

Assume two players; both are fouled 100 times in one and on situations. Player E shoots 65% on first effort, 80% on second. He would make 65 free throws out of 100 first attempts (65% of 100), and then 52 out of 65 (80% of 60 second attempts). He would score 117 points and shoot 117 of 165, or 71%.

Player F shoots 80% on the first effort, and 60% on the second. He would make 80 free throws out of 100 first attempts (80% of 100), and then 48 out of 80 (60% of 80 second attempts). He would score 128 points and shoot 128 out of 180, or 71 %.

Both players shoot 71% from the line, but Player F scored 11 more points for his team, which his clearly more valuable.

Now I do not know what the difference between shooting the front end and back end of a one and one are. But I think I would believe there is a difference. The second free throw attempt the player has the confidence of making the first one, less pressure since a second shot is not dependent upon it, and the player is more relaxed since more time has passed since he was actively playing.

I’m sure there are more statistics we could come up with. Let me know if you have any. I would love to have access to these five. With today’s technology, I could go throw line by line of every Syracuse game and derive these numbers myself. But frankly, I don’t have the time. I think it would be revealing. These aren't the answers to everything, but sure do help to answer some questions.

At the least, it would help paint a better picture of what the player was actually doing on the court. Who knows, we may actually find out if Craig Forth was indeed a better player than Jeremy McNeil? Or if Paul Harris or Eric Devendorf is a better two-guard.

RY

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you all. I hope everyone has a wonderful holiday, and Santa Claus is kind to you this season!

Devo's Okay

A lot of rumors have been floating around about Eric Devendorf regarding the lack of playing time he's had, his performance while on the court, and his demeanor off the court. Jim Boeheim respect's the privacy of his players, and is usually mum about their personal business, leaving it up to the player to decide if he wants it to be public knowledge or not. In absence of real information, this fuels the rumor mill for the Orange Fan Nation.

Well, Devo played well last night against Hofstra, and opened up to WTVH News on what's been going on.

RY

To Zone or Not

The Orangemen’s free throw shooting was outstanding tonight; what’s in the water on the Hill these days? 33 of 40 for the team (it did help that my whipping boy Terrence Roberts was out of the game, though even he went 3-4 the other day). 21 of 24 versus Drexel the other evening. But I recently wrote about good free throw shooting (prior to the Orangemen’s recent improvement), so I thought I’d mention a few things about zone defense (in general). Just to be different. And perhaps there's a correlation to the Orangemen's improvement and the topics I choose (Isn't that every fan's dream?).

Syracuse’s zone defense was a big key in the win over Hofstra tonight, 85-60. "Syracuse's size and length when they are in that zone and their ability to come out and contest shots made it very difficult," Hofstra coach Tom Pecora said. "They did a very good job of extending their zone, and we weren't able to make plays on the baseline." (AP).

So for the holiday weekend, here are five reasons why I would use a zone defense, and then six more reasons why and when I would not.

First the reasons for the zone.

Reason 1: Teams are unfamiliar with running an offense against it, and any defense that is unfamiliar, is too tough for another team to quickly adjust to it. It is also tough for them to mimic it during practice during the week. I am a huge fan of running an offensive / defensive scheme in any sport that other teams are unfamiliar with. I think in addition to the strategic advantage, it gives you a big recruiting advantage (I was a huge fan of the Orangemen’s pass option offense for that reason, and I think for close to a decade the Steelers had a huge advantage in the NFL being one of the only teams to run a 3-4 defense).

There are types of players that are well suited for the zone defense that don’t necessarily work well in a man-on-man. Players like Kueth Duany and Hakim Warrick are perfect for zone defense work; less suited for man-on-man where they could get muscled around. They are slender and long limbed; they reach into a lot of space, and quickly move to areas on the court. Similarly, big bodied slow players with a good court IQ are perfect for the center position on the zone (guys like Craig Forth). They don’t have to put up a lot of stats, but they take up a lot of space, preventing opposing teams from running players through the middle of the court. Demetris Nichols has the prototype body to excel at playing forward in a zone defense.

Reason 2: When played well, the zone defense is highly successful at reducing shooting percentage. The zone defense invites teams to take the low percentage shot (which is what you want to happen); the opponent thinks they have an open shot, but it’s one the defender can quickly close on and force the opponent to shoot. When guys stay focused on defense, and don’t wander from their zone duties, it reduces the impact of offenses running picks and screens (because a defender is guarding a space, not a player, and a pick works because you are preventing a defender from following the player as he moves from one space to another).

Plus, you can very effectively trap from a zone, particularly in the corners of the court. The zone defense invites the offensive to swing the ball around the perimeter, and you can draw them into swinging it into the corner for a designed trap.

Reason 3: It slows down the opposition’s offense and the clock is your friend. You have to work the ball around the zone to break it down. Many teams are impatient of offense, looking for the quick strike. This causes turnovers and frustration for the opposition.

Reason 4: It can help protect a guard who is in foul trouble. Since he doesn’t have individual player responsibility he can lay off the opponents in his area a little bit, and reduce his risk of a foul.

Reason 5: You can run a fast break well off a well played zone defense. Since the guards don’t have a man responsibility, it’s easier for one of them to break out down court during the defensive rebounding phase (the other guard needs to stay ‘home’ and rotate into a block out).

Now there are definite reasons why I would stay away from the zone at times in a game.

Reason 1: You can not hide a big man in a zone, and if he’s in foul trouble he can quickly draw more. If Darryl Watkins has 4 fouls, the opposing team just needs to attack the center of the zone. If Watkins shies from the player, that player gets an easier basket. And if he challenges him, he’s increasing the risk of the foul.

Reason 2: If the opposing team is having a very hot night of shooting, they may be stretching your zone defense out too far, opening up the low entry pass too much. Sometimes the other team is playing well, no matter how well your zone is doing, and you’ve got to switch out of it.

Reason 3: If you’re trailing in the game and need to make up points with time running short, the zone defense eats up too much time. At this point the clock is your enemy, and you need to make the opposing team’s offense act quickly.

Reason 4: You’re players are too physically or mentally tired. Contrary to what many people think, playing an effective zone is very tiring and requires a lot of movement. Zone defensives fail when players start to stand around, or get lost in the scheme. Man-to-man defense, while also tiring, is more intuitive for a player to keep moving… the nature of following one man on defense motivates the defender to keep moving.

Reason 5: You have the wrong personnel to play the zone. Small players like Josh Wright are not the ideal players for the top of a zone; he’s more effective in a man defense situation where he can get up close to an opponent and hound him around the court; if the opposition has a big shooting guard, they could overload to Wright’s side of the court and create mismatches.

Great shot blocking centers can often be a detriment to your zone defense. While they clean up the mistakes of their teammates, they often leave their position to do so; one of the biggest sins in a zone defense is leaving your space unguarded. If the shot blocker leaves his space, someone else needs to rotate into the position. So if your defensive players don’t know what they are doing, they will leave openings everywhere on the court that smart opponents will take apart.

Reason 6: It’s tough to block opponents out in the zone defense. The defender is responsible for a space, not a player, and when the ball goes up for a shot, he’s got to block out a space anticipating an opponent being there, while looking for the rebound. In man defense, he likely already has a position next to his opponent, and can feel where he is while looking for the rebound.

One of the biggest reasons I think coaches don’t play zone defense is that you look bad when the opposition beats it, and it makes it look like you’re not coaching. It’s very easy for a fan to second guess the zone. When the opposition is making its shots, it looks like you’re not defending at all. And when they are missing their shots, you often don’t get credit; people just credit the poor shooting to poor shooting, not your defense.

Whereas if you are playing man-to-man defense, your players are moving around constantly. If you get beat, the fans will blame the players, because its easy to see which players got beat by their individual man.

It’s akin to coaches playing ‘prevent defense’ in the NFL. Most coaches will do it, even though it’s been proven over and over again, that all the prevent defense really does is prevent the defensive team from winning. But if an NFL coach were to play his normal defense and one of his defensive backs gets beat deep, it’s the coach’s fault for playing a defense that allowed that. Whereas if you play a ‘prevent defense’, it’s the greatness of the opposing team’s quarterback moving the ball down the field (even though your defense is inviting him to do that!).

There are situations for all types of defense in college hoops. I’m an advocate for a healthy mix of them, particularly switching the zone and man-to-man during the regular flow of the game. It requires discipline on the court and a good court leader to get that message across.

Bottom line, no matter what defense you play, if you execute it well, you will win more often than not. And likewise, when you play your defense poorly you will likely lose.

Orange vs. Drexel

Just a few comments out of the disappointing loss to Drexel tonight:

Last time Syracuse had 3 losses in a season by December 19th was in the 1998-1999 season. That team started out 7-3, and had its 3rd loss by December 12th. That was an experienced team too, with juniors Jason Hart, Ryan Blackwell, Etan Thomas, and sophomores Allen Griffin and Damone Brown in the starting lineup. They would make the NCAA tournament but lose in the first round to Oklahoma State.

Glad to see Demetris Nichols finally get over 30 points, totaling 31 on a decent effort. He’s the first SU player to score 30 since Gerry McNamara scored 30 versus Louisville last February 18th, and the most points scored since GMac had 38 versus Davidson almost one year ago today (12/18/2005). Last small forward to score 30+ for Syracuse was some obscure guy named Carmelo Anthony, with 30 versus Texas in the Final Four, March 18, 2003. Nichols has been on a scoring tear averaging 27.8 ppg his last four games.

Unfortunately this team is looking a lot like last year regarding the offense. A bunch of guys standing around letting a senior take on the whole burden and carrying the offense. Take last years’ team, replace GMac with DNic, and it looks very similar (on offense).

I’ve been bashing Terrence Roberts all year with friends. I think he’s a lousy shooter, clearly a horrendous free throw shooter, has terrible hands, and is a turnover waiting to happen. He does make occasional defensive plays, but not consistently, and while leading the team in rebounding, he again is inconsistent there. He’s one of those guys who looks like he should be a much better player than he is. Having said all that, SU needs him on the court. With the loss of Onuaku, the Orange have no alternative at power forward, and even with his shortcomings Roberts is the best they have. Without him on the court in the second half tonight, it was obvious the damage other teams could do to the Orangemen.

Also regarding the Terrence Roberts free throw watch: Roberts was on fire from the line tonight, going a blistering 3-4 from the line, raising his season average to 43.3% on 22-52, and his career average is now at 136-291, 46.7%. Don't worry... he's still got the career record in the bag.

The Orangemen shot 87.5% (21-24) from the free throw line? Unbelievable. Not only was Roberts hot from the line, but Darryl Watkins goes 4 for 4? Wow. And they still lost?

Andy Rautins started again; not a bad game but not a great one either. Jim Boeheim sees these guys in practice everyday, and he knows the team’s strengths and weaknesses better than any of us. That and 30 years of coaching give him a huge edge on any of us; so I trust he knows what he’s doing. I know Rautins has tremendous court IQ. I just wish I knew what was up with Eric Devondorf… he’s clearly a shell of his former self. Paul Harris has his weaknesses, but is still getting the playing time and impact off the bench. But Devo has completely fallen apart.

RY

SportsCenter No More

I used to be a faithful watcher of ESPN’s SportsCenter. In the early 90s a friend asked me why I enjoyed it so much, and after thinking about it for a while, the answer was simple:

The rest of the world news was depressing, about violence, things gone bad, things gone wrong. But sports news, and specifically ESPN, was always good stuff. It was about who won this, who won that; what adversities people had overcome. Generally good stuff. Occasionally you'd have bad news (Magic's HIV; Steve Olin & Tim Crews death; cheating in sports, etc); but the bad news was rare, and when it occurred, it helped ground you into reality (a little). And if there was truly significant world news that needed to be covered, ESPN would cover it.

So watching SportsCenter each night was a pleasure.

Mid 90s I stopped watching it religiously, and now I almost never watch. Partly because my children were born, and the reality of what was truly important came along. But also the sports news started to take a nasty turn. Now it was no longer about who was winning, but it was about the corruption in sports, the endless cheating, the drug use, the Pete Rose betting scandal, etc. It seems to me it’s now all about tearing people down, rather than building them up.

Today, no matter how small the incident, it gets blown up into huge proportions and gets endless play over the internet, radio and television. Perhaps the media is just a reflection of our society; people only want to tear down others, and so the media panders to them. I know I’ve talked to a lot of fans who seem to behave that way. I’ve known many past co-workers whose joy in life seemed to be tearing down all aspects of management around them.

You know, if you look hard enough, there’s bad in everything. But there’s a lot of happiness and joy out there, good things going on. Paul Harris was over hyped beyond belief this year; it was almost impossible for him to meet the expectations of fans. But if you sit back and watch him play, you’ll see a young man playing with a lot of intensity and hard work, a real joy to watch play. He’s having a heck of a freshman season, making a difference out there.

Dick Vitale used to be great for college basketball. He over hyped everything, but he was a ball of positive energy. Every player was great! Everyone on his all-Windex team, everyone a diaper dandy, everyone an all-American. Now days, it appears that Vitale is like so many others on television; he takes advantage of his airtime, gets on his soapbox and preaches, instead of doing what truly was gifted at doing… making others feel good.

And now, I realize, I’ve been on my soapbox too long… so I’ll step down. Good day.

RY