Sorry - hit "enter" too early - finished editing about 12:30pm
I thought it might be interesting to compare this season to past seasons. So I looked back at all our 21st century teams (and I threw in the 1999-2000 season just to make it a round number of 20.) Each factor is followed by this season's conference rank and the rank among the last 20 Pack teams. (The last 20 include 7 Sendek, 5 Lowe, 6 Gottfried and 2 Keatts teams.)
Stats are for ACC games only, to remove as mush schedule bias as possible. ACC schedule difficulty doesn't vary much year to year, unlike non-conference schedules.
Efficiency
Offensive Efficiency = 1.047 points/possession (5th in ACC, 10/20)
Defensive Efficiency - 1.041 points/possession (10th in ACC, 10/20)
Four Factors- Offense:
I thought it might be interesting to compare this season to past seasons. So I looked back at all our 21st century teams (and I threw in the 1999-2000 season just to make it a round number of 20.) Each factor is followed by this season's conference rank and the rank among the last 20 Pack teams. (The last 20 include 7 Sendek, 5 Lowe, 6 Gottfried and 2 Keatts teams.)
Stats are for ACC games only, to remove as mush schedule bias as possible. ACC schedule difficulty doesn't vary much year to year, unlike non-conference schedules.
Efficiency
Offensive Efficiency = 1.047 points/possession (5th in ACC, 10/20)
Defensive Efficiency - 1.041 points/possession (10th in ACC, 10/20)
Both of these numbers are almost exactly on our 20-year averages. We got there in an unusual way, but the bottom line is that the results were average. Or mediocre if you're a pessimist.
Four Factors- Offense:
Effective FG% = 47.7% (10 in ACC, 16/20) Our 20-year average is 50.3%. Only two of Sendek's teams and two of Lowe's were worse. We can debate shot selection versus skill, and shot chart analysis might be a fun future post, but whatever the cause we struggled to score way too often. We shot only 32.7% on threes and 47.7% on twos -- both worse than in 15 of the prior 19 seasons. (Which is odd because we were a really good free throw shooting team.) But we did pretty well in getting extra shot opportunities via TO and OR -- we got a whopping 153 more shots than our opponents in 18 games.
Turnovers = 17.1% (4th in ACC, 6/20) This stat actually improved when we got to ACC play. Every turnover eliminated is an extra shot taken, which is why we count them as important. This number represents almost two extra possessions per game compared to our average. (Not posted here but points per non-turnover-possession is a stat I actually used to keep track of in the days when we were turning it over 22-25% of the time. It's a better measure of scoring ability.)
Offensive Rebounds = 34.9% (2nd in ACC, 4/20) Every OR is a chance at an extra shot for us and not one for them. This is better than our 20-year average and a seriously good performance for an undersized team.
FTA/FGA = 27.0% (15th in ACC, 20/20) Is anyone surprised that we don't get to the line much? (I really need to haul out the shot charts to explain this. It isn't referees, it's the shots we take.)
Four Factors- Defense:Turnovers = 17.1% (4th in ACC, 6/20) This stat actually improved when we got to ACC play. Every turnover eliminated is an extra shot taken, which is why we count them as important. This number represents almost two extra possessions per game compared to our average. (Not posted here but points per non-turnover-possession is a stat I actually used to keep track of in the days when we were turning it over 22-25% of the time. It's a better measure of scoring ability.)
Offensive Rebounds = 34.9% (2nd in ACC, 4/20) Every OR is a chance at an extra shot for us and not one for them. This is better than our 20-year average and a seriously good performance for an undersized team.
FTA/FGA = 27.0% (15th in ACC, 20/20) Is anyone surprised that we don't get to the line much? (I really need to haul out the shot charts to explain this. It isn't referees, it's the shots we take.)
Effective FG% = 50.0% (10 in ACC, 10/20) Roughly average for the century, though we got there differently than any other Pack team of the century. We defended threes very well (ranking 2/20) holding opponents to 31% -- only Sendek's last team was slightly better. One result of our defensive tactics is that our opponents attempted very few threes, fewer than anyone else in the conference, and only hit a miserable 31% of those attempts so points from outside were really low. But two point defense (uh, like shots allowed at the rim) was well below par (16/20) and near the bottom of the conference -- opponents shot almost 52% inside the arc, which usually means a lot of gimmees.
Turnovers = 19.6% (2th in ACC, 6/20) Good job, good hustle, and a good way to limit opponent shot attempts.
Offensive Rebounds = 31.2% (9th in ACC, 4/20) We were a much better defensive rebounding team than usual despite lack of interior size, another testament to hustle. Not particularly great at this, but better than our history.
FTA/FGA = 42.2% (15th in ACC, 17/20) Corollary to offense: Is anyone surprised that we foul a lot? Surely this is more a function of shot selection and interior defense than of referee bias. Our opponents take and make few threes -- they get their points on shots that are much more likely to draw fouls.
Turnovers = 19.6% (2th in ACC, 6/20) Good job, good hustle, and a good way to limit opponent shot attempts.
Offensive Rebounds = 31.2% (9th in ACC, 4/20) We were a much better defensive rebounding team than usual despite lack of interior size, another testament to hustle. Not particularly great at this, but better than our history.
FTA/FGA = 42.2% (15th in ACC, 17/20) Corollary to offense: Is anyone surprised that we foul a lot? Surely this is more a function of shot selection and interior defense than of referee bias. Our opponents take and make few threes -- they get their points on shots that are much more likely to draw fouls.
Last edited:
