Offensive Efficiency vs Tulsa: off the charts...

[Stuck in Seattle]

StatSheet (http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/nevada)is becoming my favorite stat site as A) It's free and has all the tempo free and regular stats; B) it has the stats for every game going back to the '96-'97 season; and C) They post stats faster than the other major sites like Pomeroy and BBState.

Anyway,

The Pack's offensive efficiency vs Tulsa was 143.5. That means the Pack averaged 1.435 points for every possession in the game. That is easily the best offensive efficiency for any Nevada team in any game going all the way back to the '96-'97 season. And that includes games against DII teams.

That was an offensive performance for the ages against a team with a good defense.

[Blueblood]

StatSheet (http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/nevada)is becoming my favorite stat site as A) It's free and has all the tempo free and regular stats; B) it has the stats for every game going back to the '96-'97 season; and C) They post stats faster than the other major sites like Pomeroy and BBState.

Anyway,

The Pack's offensive efficiency vs Tulsa was 143.5. That means the Pack averaged 1.435 points for every possession in the game. That is easily the best offensive efficiency for any Nevada team in any game going all the way back to the '96-'97 season. And that includes games against DII teams.

That was an offensive performance for the ages against a team with a good defense.

Thanks for the breakdown SiS. Too bad these kids couldn't play defense like they play offense.

[justintime]

Since when are the Pack an offensive juggernaut in the mold of early 90's Loyola Marymount?

I take it this is Coach Carter's influence? I can't imagine a Fox team moving quickly enough to do this, no matter what the efficiency.

[Packfan11]

Since when are the Pack an offensive juggernaut in the mold of early 90's Loyola Marymount?

I take it this is Coach Carter's influence? I can't imagine a Fox team moving quickly enough to do this, no matter what the efficiency.

one of Carter's biggest changes he wanted to implement coming in was to push the ball and RUUUUUUUNNN! Gone are the days of slow, zone-busting halfcourt sets. I think we defaulted to a slower pace with the likes of Fazekas on the floor as he could torch any team in the half court set. This team is fun to watch and I think we've had more dunks this year than in the last 2 combined IMO.

[Packfan11]

ESPN says this was our second highest point total of the year besides the Houston game. I guess they weren't watching the game yesterday when we scored 104:


LAS VEGAS -- Luke Babbitt (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=41425) scored 24 points and had 11 rebounds to lead Nevada over Tulsa 99-68 in the final round of the Las Vegas Classic on Wednesday night.
Brandon Fields (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=32075) and Armon Johnson (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=36326) each added 17 points for the Wolf Pack (7-5), and Ray Kraemer (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=36327) had 11.

Jerome Jordan (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=31565) led the Golden Hurricane (9-3) with 15 points and 10 rebounds while Ben Uzoh (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=31567) had 14 points.

Tulsa took an early 5-2 lead, but Nevada then went on a 8-0 run and never trailed again. The Wolf Pack led 48-30 at intermission, started the second half with a 23-5 run and led by as many as 39.

Nevada shot 56.3 percent (36 for 64) while posting its second-highest point total this season. It scored 112 in a victory over Houston on Nov. 21.

[justintime]

one of Carter's biggest changes he wanted to implement coming in was to push the ball and RUUUUUUUNNN! Gone are the days of slow, zone-busting halfcourt sets. I think we defaulted to a slower pace with the likes of Fazekas on the floor as he could torch any team in the half court set. This team is fun to watch and I think we've had more dunks this year than in the last 2 combined IMO.

Good points.

To continue it further, it seems like the best way to beat Nevada in the Fazekas era was to push the pace and force the big man to get up and down (like a girl, I'm contractually obligated to mention).

Can't wait for your game with NMSU, who is currently 20th in possessions/40. I expect another game in the 90s. Now that we have McKines back, I think there will be an interesting fight for the conference team scoring crown, and I expect the winner to be in the low 80s.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Good points.

To continue it further, it seems like the best way to beat Nevada in the Fazekas era was to push the pace and force the big man to get up and down (like a girl, I'm contractually obligated to mention).

Can't wait for your game with NMSU, who is currently 20th in possessions/40. I expect another game in the 90s. Now that we have McKines back, I think there will be an interesting fight for the conference team scoring crown, and I expect the winner to be in the low 80s.

Actually, Nevada isn't pushing the ball all that fast, but they do push it up after missed shots. We're only averaging around 2 possessions per game more than last season.

I think the biggest change is that they don't wast so much time passing the ball around the perimeter and the offensive plays develop good shots quickly off of movement and spacing. It can be seen in the Pack's 2pt FG% which is 55.7% and ranked around 10th in the nation after this game.

[AJ fan]

Actually, Nevada isn't pushing the ball all that fast, but they do push it up after missed shots. We're only averaging around 2 possessions per game more than last season.

I think the biggest change is that they don't wast so much time passing the ball around the perimeter and the offensive plays develop good shots quickly off of movement and spacing. It can be seen in the Pack's 2pt FG% which is 55.7% and ranked around 10th in the nation after this game.

I for one am so happy to see the dead possesions a thing of the past. By that I mean our offense would pass it around especially against the zone then all of a sudden realize there are only 10 seconds left on the shot clock better get it to Luke, Armon, Marcellus etc and get out of the way. It is boring basketball and I prefer to watch an offense with more off ball movement like we have now. I think this shows in Armon's outrageous 2pt shooting percentage. So much for his poor shot selection eh?

[student4ever]

After this tournament against two good defensive teams, Nevada now has Pomeroy's #6 offense. The defense is still rated #223. If the Pack can improve on their defense, we will be very dangerous. Right now, Nevada has an efficiency differential of +14.3, which is higher than Nevada has had since the 29-5 year three years ago and is almost identical to the differential the team had in Fox's first year.

[justintime]

Actually, Nevada isn't pushing the ball all that fast, but they do push it up after missed shots. We're only averaging around 2 possessions per game more than last season.

I think the biggest change is that they don't wast so much time passing the ball around the perimeter and the offensive plays develop good shots quickly off of movement and spacing. It can be seen in the Pack's 2pt FG% which is 55.7% and ranked around 10th in the nation after this game.


Your point about efficiency in taking quality shots soon is a good one. Even if you don't get something in a 3-2 or 2-1 situation, there's still that defensive set up lag time from about ~31-25 on the shot clock. Many good shots can be had in that time period. Over the offseason I plotted every possession a certain WAC squad (Ok, it was NMSU) had last year. I ignored possessions less than 3 seconds (as those are almost always uncontested layups or dunks off a backcourt turnover), and plotted eFG% relative to the time a possession took. What I found was that the highest percentages were seen in that 31-25 window, and they tailed off slowly after that to about 20 seconds, plateaued from 20 to 5 seconds, and then dropped off again. I've switched computers since then, so I'll have to dig up the actual plot on my old hard drive.

FWIW, When I looked at BBState last night, I saw 68.6 poss/game last year and 73.2 this year. To me, that's not an insignificant difference as 68.x is around the national average, and teams at 71 or above can be considered to be pushing the pace fairly regularly, according to my arbitrary criteria.

[PackWard03]

According to this article http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/TU/article.aspx?subjectid=94&articleid=20091223_94_0_LsVgse218415 they make it sound as if Tulsa lost to a bad team and they are so much better than the other teams that were there and this is some sort of tragedy.

Ya that got smoked, which is bad, but it's not like we're South Dakota State. We could've plugged in these numbers on a lot of teams, if BYU didn't shoot 1000% the other day they could've been in a similar spot (maybe not by 30+) but quit talking like the sky is falling. Give us some dam respect people!!! People forget that we've been competitive in every game this year and haven't exactly played a soft schedule either. It sucks to think that if we could've pulled off wins in half of these losses, our chances at an at large would be alive and well because I can't say that any of our losses are bad to this point...but I digress. Merry Merry

[Stuck in Seattle]

Your point about efficiency in taking quality shots soon is a good one. Even if you don't get something in a 3-2 or 2-1 situation, there's still that defensive set up lag time from about ~31-25 on the shot clock. Many good shots can be had in that time period. Over the offseason I plotted every possession a certain WAC squad (Ok, it was NMSU) had last year. I ignored possessions less than 3 seconds (as those are almost always uncontested layups or dunks off a backcourt turnover), and plotted eFG% relative to the time a possession took. What I found was that the highest percentages were seen in that 31-25 window, and they tailed off slowly after that to about 20 seconds, plateaued from 20 to 5 seconds, and then dropped off again. I've switched computers since then, so I'll have to dig up the actual plot on my old hard drive.

FWIW, When I looked at BBState last night, I saw 68.6 poss/game last year and 73.2 this year. To me, that's not an insignificant difference as 68.x is around the national average, and teams at 71 or above can be considered to be pushing the pace fairly regularly, according to my arbitrary criteria.


That's very interesting and makes a lot of sense. For years I wondered why the Pack walked the ball up the court after every basket, not because I thought that they needed to run and get breakaway layups, but because it's easier to score in transition before everyone is set.

I used Pomeroy rather than BBState for my Tempo stats. They compute possessions a little differently. After the last two games Pomeroy has Nevada averaging almost 3 possessions per game more than last season. He has Nevada at 70.5ppg and 99th in the nation compared to last year with 67.7ppg, 113th in the nation.

[justintime]

That's very interesting and makes a lot of sense. For years I wondered why the Pack walked the ball up the court after every basket, not because I thought that they needed to run and get breakaway layups, but because it's easier to score in transition before everyone is set.



I think many teams could benefit from pushing the pace a little more, perhaps looking for that early shot, but having the discipline to pull back if a good shot isn't available and run offense. An incomplete list of reasons not to (and maybe one of these describes the pre-Carter Pack)

1.) You want to shorten the game, because the other team is better.
2.) Related, but not the same, the other team gets back quickly but struggles to maintain focus for 25+ defensive seconds.
3.) You are extremely shallow on the bench and your starters tire quickly
4.) Your best player(s) are not capable of continuously running the floor.

Of course, the early offense cuts both ways. An undisciplined team can get themselves in a world of trouble by forcing low percentage shots early.

[Posturedoc]

According to this article http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/TU/article.aspx?subjectid=94&articleid=20091223_94_0_LsVgse218415 they make it sound as if Tulsa lost to a bad team and they are so much better than the other teams that were there and this is some sort of tragedy.



Now don't go all Boise on us (looking for insults where there aren't any), PW. That article doesn't really make any claims, bad or good, about the Pack. The article uses words like disgusting loss and other negative adjectives, but none of them refer to the Nevada team, just the manner in which Tulsa lost the game. They had their butts handed to them in an ugly manner.

[Jeg315]

I've been following this team since their sweet 16 run in 2003. I'd argue that the 2003 team was more fun to watch, but this years team is different. I really enjoy watching offensive games, and sure we need to step up the defense a bit, but this is great offensive basketball.

[pfan8]

I think many teams could benefit from pushing the pace a little more, perhaps looking for that early shot, but having the discipline to pull back if a good shot isn't available and run offense. An incomplete list of reasons not to (and maybe one of these describes the pre-Carter Pack)

1.) You want to shorten the game, because the other team is better.
2.) Related, but not the same, the other team gets back quickly but struggles to maintain focus for 25+ defensive seconds.
3.) You are extremely shallow on the bench and your starters tire quickly
4.) Your best player(s) are not capable of continuously running the floor.

Of course, the early offense cuts both ways. An undisciplined team can get themselves in a world of trouble by forcing low percentage shots early.

I think that's the key here. It's not so much pace, but getting good shots. The thing I like about this Nevada team is they get a lot of good shots, regardless of where the shot clock is at.

[PackWard03]

Now don't go all Boise on us (looking for insults where there aren't any), PW. That article doesn't really make any claims, bad or good, about the Pack. The article uses words like disgusting loss and other negative adjectives, but none of them refer to the Nevada team, just the manner in which Tulsa lost the game. They had their butts handed to them in an ugly manner.


I think I was just reading too much into it or being too sensitive...figures

[furry]

[QUOTE=justintime;3470]Good points.

To continue it further, it seems like the best way to beat Nevada in the Fazekas era was to push the pace and force the big man to get up and down (like a girl, I'm contractually obligated to mention).


Please Mr. J in T, Fazekas did not run like a girl, he runs like a t-rex, and would still make one heck of a Toronto Raptor.