Falcon Basketball Meets Statistical Analysis

I am, I confess now, a big fan of sabremetics. I have read Bill James since his earliest days in the 1980's, and I firmly believe that statistical analysis can help to yield revelations into the game that are missed even by those who participate. What makes baseball so perfect for it is that there are so many wonderful, discrete events that can be counted.

I wondered if anyone was doing similar work for college basketball. I found there was...though it does appear to be more on the team side than the individual side.

From a scanning of the Internet, it would appear that the primary trend in statistical analysis is to look at team stats in a tempo-free fashion. (This data is from kenpom.com, which I am hoping I am not stealing). For example, Buffalo runs an up-tempo attack. Accordingly, they led the MAC in scoring. But, does that mean their offense was the best? Conversely, a team that slows things down (such as Miami and BG), among others, won't score as many points as Buffalo, but does need to maximize each possession.

What does this mean for our Falcons? Well, let's remember, first of all, where we stood based on the usual statistical suspects....(offense first for today).

Offensively, we just had lots and lots of challenges. We were:

• 10th in scoring, 12th in FT%
• 8th in 3FG%
• 11th in 3s made
• 8th in assists
• 11th in turnover margin
• tied for 9th in offensive turnovers
• 8th in offensive rebounds

The new analysis tells much the same story, if with different. words. First, on the matter of tempo, or pace. BG's tempo/pace was ninth in the MAC, with 65.4, which is less than the average for the nation as well (note: I don't exactly know what the unit of measurement is here, but it doesn't really matter, either).

The next question is about offensive efficiency--which means how many points we would expect to score over 100 possessions. This removes an up-tempo or down-tempo team from the equation and puts everyone on the same footing.

Here we find a team that was tenth (precisely where we were for scoring, in fact), with 97.5, which was four points below the national average team.

But what about the diagnostics? What's causing these problems. Well, look at it this way? If our team is going to play down tempo, it makes sense that we have to make every possession count. We have to maximize each possession by limiting turnovers, making shots, and making free throws. And, if you can make some threes, that surely helps.

At this point, we can introduce a concept known as the effective field goal %. This is the same FG% you grew up with, but a 2FG counts as 1 and a 3FG counts as 1.5, thus rewarding teams that make three's and giving a clearer idea of production per shot.

We were sixth in FG% and 8th in 3FG%, but 11th in threes made, which really matters here. And we were eighth in the conference in effective FG%. (Other studies say this is the most important stat in college hoops offensive analysis).

We were also 10th in terms of % of possessions in which we turned the ball over, and 10th in terms of the ratio of free throws made to field goal attempts. (Which measures both ability to get to the line and ability to make free throws).

Did this reveal anything really new? I guess I don't think it did. We're a down tempo team that shot 2s OK, but didn't make enough 3s or take care of the ball well enough or get FTs enough to compete. I suspect we all would have been able to figure that out.

Maybe the defense will reveal something different. I do like the tempo-free analysis, and it is an interesting way to drill deeper into the performance of a college offense.

Here, if anyone cares, are links to the data compiled from the website for the MAC teams only, but all games.

Offensive data
Summary Data