Powe-Wow
08.17.05
For those who missed it, the preseason top 50 for the Wooden Award was announced last week. The list isn't binding in any way - someone not on the list can ultimately win the award in March as the nation's best player. It's strictly a publicity stunt, but it's one I welcome at this time of year. It's a great way to get reacquainted with the top talent in the game. Click here for the complete list.
The preseason list doesn't contain any freshmen and according to a press release, is based on the following criteria...
The list is composed of 50 student athletes who, based on last year's individual performance and team records, are the early frontrunners for college basketball's most coveted trophy.
But that statement isn't true for two of the players that made the list.
One of those is Leon Powe of Cal, who missed all of last season while recovering from reconstructive knee surgery. He may not have much of a chance to win the Wooden, but he has a great chance to fill the shoes of Ike Diogu as that obscure west coast star that plays with little supporting cast but manages to salvage a respectable season for his team almost single-handedly.
Listed at 6-8, 245, Powe's dimensions are similar to Diogu's, and so is his game in some respects. Let's compare Powe's freshman season of '04 to Diogu's of '03, starting with the boring stuff.
PPG RPG BPG APG Diogu '03...19.0 7.8 1.0 0.8 Powe '04....15.1 9.5 0.6 0.7
That doesn't tell me enough, so digging in a little deeper...
Player
Team OE Off Rtg %Poss %Min
Diogu.... 112 121 25.4 79.8
Powe..... 100 107 27.1 71.5
Both players used much more than their fair share of possessions, and both were more efficient relative to their teammates in doing so. Powe played fewer minutes, likely due to the problems with his knee, which started with a torn ACL in the summer before he arrived at Cal.
The biggest statistical similarity between the two is the ability to get to the line in large quantities.
FTA/FGA Diogu...0.712 Powe....0.704
This is about as good as it gets for guys who carry as much of the offensive load as these two did. Diogu even pushed his FT rate closer to 0.8 over the next two seasons.
As shown above, Diogu was significantly more efficient than Powe on the offensive end and that boils down to how well each shot the ball.
FG% FT% Diogu...60.8 73.5 Powe....48.8 60.1
Powe's shooting percentage looks more pedestrian next to Diogu's unearthly total. Not only did Diogu shoot well, but he shot a lot (344 FGAs). For reference, last season only three players had at least 300 FGAs and shot better than 60%. Throw in the fact that Powe only took one three-pointer in '04 compared to Diogu's 24 attempts in '03, and the chasm between the two is that much greater.
Powe figures to get both FGAs and FTAs by the bucketful again this season. If his shooting percentage gets into the low 50s, then he can vault into the superstar category. Adding 10 points to the free-throw shooting would also help. Powe's not so bad that it pays to foul him, but for a guy that will get to the line 7-8 times a game, a competent FT% could contribute to an extra win or two.
There were some things that Powe did better than Diogu.
TO% OR% DR% Diogu...20.4 11.2 17.1 Powe....14.7 12.9 25.2
Powe's ability to take care of the ball while being the focus of the defense was impressive, especially for a freshman. In addition, Powe's aptitude for getting to the glass was outstanding. This was the sore spot in Diogu's game, especially defensively. Ike's defensive rebounding percentage hardly improved over his three seasons at ASU. Look at it this way - the average team gets 68% of the possible defensive rebounds. That means the average player on the floor gets about 13%. But each player isn't expected to carry an equal part of the load. For a power forward with Ike's skills, 17% is disapointing unless teammates are picking up the slack. (Which to some extent they did. ASU was good defensive rebounding team.) At the extreme, Andrew Bogut posted a 16.1/31.0 OR%/DR% split in 2005, helping Utah to finish 12th nationally in OR% and 1st in DR%.
Some uncertainty surrounds Powe's game regarding his ability to recover from the knee surgery. News on that front is encouraging, with Powe having been named MVP of the San Francisco ProCity pro-am summer league. Granted, the "Pro" portion of the league consisted of guys like Luke Whitehead, so there wasn't really NBA talent here. In addition, Powe's shooting numbers were still below 50%. But this was totally outside of Ben Braun's offensive framework, so there's not much to read into it. We'll learn a little bit more from how Powe plays on Cal's tour of Italy over the next two weeks. But we won't know about him for sure until the real games begin in November.
There wouldn't have been much reason to stay up for an Arizona State/Cal game last season were it not for Diogu. This season, that matchup would be similarly unwatchable - except for the presence of Powe.
The Value of Ben Gillery
07.05.05
After John Thompson said goodbye to Patrick Ewing and before he said hello to Alonzo Mourning, he had a void at the center position. In light of the quality of the aforementioned players, it was a huge void. In 1987, Thompson brought seven-footer Ben Gillery to Georgetown from the junior college ranks. Gillery, in a word, was a "project" and he never quite panned out. What I remember about him was that he would start a game, be pulled at the first stoppage, and never return. I marveled at box scores where he was listed as a starter, played 2 minutes, and the rest of his line was filled with zeroes. It was like his only purpose was to win the jump ball.
In truth, my memory can't be too accurate, since according to Jazzy J's site, Gillery averaged about eight minutes a game during his career. So the two-minute games must have been rare. Nonetheless, I want to test how important a Ben Gillery as I remembered him would be. How important is it to win the opening tip?
Actually, what I really want to know is this: how important is it to have one more possession that your opponent? When computing possession statistics, by convention it's assumed that each team has an equal number of possessions. But in reality, this doesn't have to be true. Because teams alternate possessions, if one team starts and ends a half with the ball, they can have one more possession than the opponent in each half. This happens in roughly 50% of all games. Winning the opening tip doesn't guarantee you an extra possession for the game, but it certainly increases your chances.
To demonstrate how much of an advantage this is, I'll use the Pythagorean formula. As regular readers have figured out by now, I think this formula can be used to solve any of college basketball's great mysteries. And here's another example.
Let's say teams A and B both average a point per possession. In a 70 possession game, you'd expect each team to score 70 points (totally ignoring defense). So A's expected winning percentage against B would be...
70^10 / ( 70^10 + 70^10 ) = .500
We didn't need to work through this formula to know that Team A has a 50% chance to beat a team equal to it. But what if Team A gets an extra possession? They would be expected to score 71 points in their 71 possessions. Their expected winning percentage in this scenario would be...
71^10 / ( 71^10 + 70^10 ) = .535
So the Gillery effect results in an increased chance of winning of 3.5% in this case. As I said before, winning the tip does not guarantee an extra possession. But in the long haul, teams winning the tip will average about a half a possession more than their opponent. (Actually, for reasons I won't get into it's probably slightly less than that.) Since losing the tip results in a loss of a half possession, it's accurate to say that the tip itself is worth a possession.
Naturally, in a game with fewer possessions, the tip is more valuable. Here's a list of the increased chance of winning in games with various tempos.
Incr. in Poss Win% 85 2.9 80 3.1 75 3.3 70 3.5 65 3.8 60 4.1 55 4.5 50 4.9
So in those methodical Horizon League games, the tip means more than in the relatively frenetic ACC games.
But this is the best case scenario. As teams become more unequal, the extra possession means less. If All-American Team is playing Intramural Scrubs, it doesn't matters who gets the extra possession, All-American Team will win all of the time.
For a more realistic example, let's use teams that average 1.1 and 0.9 points per possession. With each team getting 70 possessions, Team A wins 88.1% of the time...
77^10 / ( 77^10 + 63^10 ) = .881
Give Team A an extra possession and that figure improves to 89.6...
78.1^10 / (78.1^10 + 63^10 ) = .896
That's a difference of only 1.5%, compared to 3.5% for the game between equal teams.
This is more than we really needed to know on the impact a seldom used Georgetown center had on the game over 15 years ago. Nonetheless, this exercise illustrates that the jump ball is more than a ceremonial start to the game.
Cants Win It All Without Rashad
03.09.05
UNC's Rashad McCants has missed the Tar Heels last four games due to a mysterious intestinal disorder. UNC has won all four games, but not surprisingly, they have not been as dominant without him. Most of the minutes vacated by McCants have been snapped up by the offensively-challenged and smaller Melvin Scott. How has McCants' absence affected his team? Let's look at how UNC performed in the four games without him, and against those same opponents earlier in the season when McCants played.
With McCants Without McCants
-Opponent- Tempo OE DE Tempo OE DE
NC St. 67.9 140 105 62.9 129 113
Maryland 89.4 122 84 72.6 117 114
Florida St. 68.0 119 88 73.4 124 103
Duke 71.5 98 99 68.0 110 107
Average 74.2 120 94 69.2 120 109
If you have been reading this blog for a while then you're familiar with what these numbers mean, but for those who aren't...
Tempo: Number of possessions in the game. It's estimated from box score data, so that's the reason there aren't round numbers listed.
OE: Offensive Efficiency. It's 100 multiplied by points scored divided by possessions. Higher numbers are better.
DE: Defensive Efficiency. It's 100 multiplied by points allowed divided by possessions. Lower numbers are better.
From this simple analysis, UNC's change has taken place on the defensive end where they have been unable to keep any of their last four opponents under a point per possession. We're only talking four games here, but the difference is significant enough to take note of.
As a few of the stats page zealots have noted, Carolina's defense has been more exceptional than their offense this season. It's a fact you're not likely to hear in any tournament previews, which will mainly gush about how many points the Heels score. But their adjusted defensive efficiency ranks first nationally, while in the same stat on the offensive side they rank fourth.
I don't think it takes much of a leap to say that it's because of that defensive prowess that UNC is able to score consistently and score quickly. UNC has enough scorers to fill the McCants void, but they aren't getting the fast break opportunities that they used to get, because they aren't forcing as many missed shots and turnovers as they used to. This is reflected in the decrease in tempo, although in fairness, most of the decrease is attributable to the difference in the Maryland games.
The reduction in defense is one reason why UNC is less upset-proof without McCants, but the decrease in possessions is also important because it gives UNC fewer opportunities for their talent to demonstrate its superiority. So if UNC is going to make a run at a title, they need to get McCants back.
Or alternatively, try to suit up the other McCants that will be in the tournament.