inicio mail me! sindicaci;ón

Offensive/Defensive efficiency.

5-2 through the front half of Ivy League play, this is a fine stoppage point to look at half-by-half offensive and defensive numbers for these seven conference contests.

A spreadsheet plus some thoughts on this data can be found after the jump.

.

PRINCETON OPPONENTS

.

First Second Total First Second Total

.

vs. Penn 98.1 108.7 103.5 69.6 99.1 84.4

.

vs. Cornell 107.8 126.5 117.1 92.4 89.5 90.9

.

vs. Columbia 131.5 117.0 123.8 128.0 100.3 113.5

.

vs. Brown 103.9 121.1 112.6 60.9 103.3 82.2

.

vs. Yale 112.8 128.3 121.7 147.5 115.2 129.2

.

at Dartmouth 176.4 94.9 129.2 117.6 82.7 97.3

.

at Harvard 107.2 88.8 97.0 122.6 113.3 117.5

.

119.7 112.2 115.0 105.5 100.5 102.1

The national average for efficiency is 100.2.

No surprise, the second half at Harvard was the poorest Ivy offensive effort as Princeton scored 0.89 points-per-possession.

It was surprising however to see the Tigers' first half against Penn was the worst opening 20 minutes but holding the Quakers to .70 points/possession more than made up for that number.

Scoring 1.76 points in the opening half at Dartmouth is what happens when you only have one turnover and get points almost every time down the floor.

You can see here the offensive numbers were good enough to win against Yale but the Tiger defense played their worst first half out of the seven as well as their worst second half out of the seven.

To give some conference-only context, the Tigers' offense is best in the league (115.4 OE trumping Harvard's 111.6 according to Ken Pomeroy's similar data) while the Crimson's EFG% (59.5) is slightly higher than Princeton's (58.7).

The Crimson are fourth nationally in three point percentage while the Tigers are ninth.

On defense Princeton are fifth in league (102.4) with Penn on top (96.9%). Their defensive EFG% is second (49.3%) but the numbers are hindered by forcing a league-worst turnovers on 19.1 of all opponent possessions.

Steven Postrel said,

February 19, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

Thanks for the data.

I think that poor DR% is as important as low turnovers forced in explaining the gap between a pretty good eFG% allowed and overall defensive efficiency. It doesn't seem like the Tigers are fouling excessively, so I'd be surprised if the problem lay with giving up too many points at the line.

Jon Solomon said,

February 19, 2013 @ 7:40 pm

If there are any numbers you want me to try and compile, just say the word!

Steven Postrel said,

February 20, 2013 @ 7:58 pm

Since you offered, I'd like to see the defensive rebounding % and defensive FT/FGA. My hypothesis is that Princeton is underachieving at defensive rebounding, which largely explains their defensive efficiency being behind their eFG% defense.

The gap in ranking between overall and eFG% can only be attributable to three potential factors: Rate of TOs forced, which you flagged, DR%, and FT/FGA (along with opposing FT%). I think the low TOs forced is bad, but I suspect that the low DR% is what's really doing the damage, with FT/FGA not being much of a factor. But I could be wrong! (There is a bit of a confounding effect because some of the fouls the Tigers commit occur after the opposition gets an OR.)

Jon Solomon said,

February 20, 2013 @ 8:00 pm

Game-by-game, full-season or just in Ivy contests?

Steven Postrel said,

February 20, 2013 @ 10:03 pm

At this point, I'd like to see the Ivy stuff to maintain comparability with your post (and because I think there is a structural break pre- and post-Brase). Thanks in advance.

Jon Solomon said,

February 20, 2013 @ 10:49 pm

23.1 8.0 15.7 - Penn
8.3 95.2 48.9 - Columbia
56.0 42.3 49.0 - Cornell
18.2 45.0 31.0 - Brown
19.0 11.5 14.9 - Yale
28.0 39.1 33.3 - Dartmouth
14.3 44.8 32.0 - Harvard

Above are Princeton's first half / second half / total FTA to FGA.

Below are the opponents' first half / second half / total FTA to FGA.

32.0 14.8 23.1 - Penn
24.1 37.0 30.4 - Columbia
3.3 56.5 26.4 - Cornell
8.3 50.0 30.0 - Brown
20.0 72.7 47.6 - Yale
28.0 39.1 33.3 - Dartmouth
14.3 44.8 32.0 - Harvard

I'll get to OR% in a bit...

Jon Solomon said,

February 20, 2013 @ 11:07 pm

18.8 30.8 24.1 - Penn
20.0 35.7 29.2 - Columbia
27.8 33.3 30.0 - Cornell
0.0 20.0 9.5 - Brown
58.3 45.5 52.2 - Yale
60.0 33.3 44.0 - Dartmouth
30.0 36.4 34.4 - Harvard

Princeton's OR% is above. Opponents' OR% is below.

30.0 31.2 30.6 - Penn
42.9 17.6 29.0 - Columbia
29.4 25.0 27.3 - Cornell
29.4 33.3 31.6 - Brown
42.9 61.5 55.0 - Yale
38.9 0.0 22.6 - Dartmouth
46.2 25.0 36.0 - Harvard

If you could add each column and divide by seven, I would appreciate it.

Steven Postrel said,

February 21, 2013 @ 5:20 pm

Princeton OR%: 1st=30.7, 2nd=33.6, Total=31.9
Opponent OR%: 1st=37.1, 2nd=27.7, Total=33.2

This supports my hypothesis. What's more, in a simple model with only first- and second-chance points and i.i.d. FG%, the impact of OR% on scoring is maximized at a FG% of 50%, close to what the Tigers are holding opponents to.

Princeton FTA/FGA: 1st=23.8, 2nd=40.8, Total=32.1
Opponent FTA/FGA: 1st=18.6, 2nd=45.0, Total=31.8

No signs of a big problem here, although the big jump in the second halves of games for opponents may bespeak some stamina issues leading to reaches-- this occurred in games the Tigers led as well as those they trailed.

RSS feed for comments on this post

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.