UCLA off/def statistical analysis

by Penny2i on Nov 20, 2008 11:15 PM PST Comment 12 comments

Since I got flamed for an off the cuff post about offensive deficiencies and called out for a lack of statistical backup I took the suggestion to go to the kempom site and break it down. I posted this as a reply, but no one is probably still reading it so I am reposting it below....

offense eft fg% TO % OFF reb% FTM/FGA raw adj

2008 UCLA[1] (P10) 52.2 ( 75) 18.6 ( 47) 39.3 ( 10) 27.4 ( 89) 11 7

2007 UCLA[2] (P10) 53.5 ( 41) 18.4 ( 36) 33.5 (166) 21.9 (274) 41 23

2006 UCLA[2] (P10) 53.2 ( 36) 22.3 (224) 36.2 ( 50) 26.6 (112) 54 28

2005 UCLA[11] (P10) 50.9 ( 94) 22.0 (211) 33.1 (123) 27.6 ( 83) 120 79

defense

2008 UCLA[1] (P10) 46.5 ( 37) 21.7 (131) 27.8 ( 9) 25.6 ( 9) 8 3

2007 UCLA[2] (P10) 47.6 ( 76) 23.2 ( 54) 29.9 ( 38) 30.2 ( 47) 10 2

2006 UCLA[2] (P10) 45.9 ( 37) 22.1 (104) 29.1 ( 49) 31.7 ( 73) 23 3

2005 UCLA[11] (P10) 49.4 (172) 19.8 (245) 28.8 ( 46) 33.0 ( 96) 133 58

I may have overstated my disenchantment with the offense making it seem like I am displeased with Howland. If I had to grade his tenure it would be the best since I have been watching UCLA basketball since 1981 or so... an A-. If I have 1 critiique of the tenure using your kenpom it would be to point out our offensive ability trails our defensive ability. the adjusted final rankings each year reflect that. Clearly I think we would all agree last year was our best offensive team both with our eyes and the final number.

Notice in the breakdown where we really shined was the offensive glass which propelled our final adjusted number. In the other categories we don't finish higher than 47th in 2008. We have clearly improved year to year over the last 4 in the adjusted number. Obviously minus Love/mbah a moute/mata/and westbrook gone it is a ton to replace and will most likely crush our 10th rating in offensive rebounding. It is illogical to expect to improve this year on offense unless we attempt something different in my opinion.

Here is my point on expecting to shut down superior offensive teams with a great defense...all over our big wins came against teams who were not statistically among the top few teams, but our losses were against superior offensive teams that would be difficult to keep under 70.

offense eft fg% TO % OFF reb% FTM/FGA raw adj

2008 Kansas[1] (B12) 56.6 ( 5) 19.1 ( 61) 37.8 ( 24) 25.7 (161) 2 2

2008 Memphis[1] (CUSA) 52.8 ( 53) 16.5 ( 8) 38.3 ( 19) 24.8 (193) 9 4

2007 Kansas[1] (B12) 54.5 ( 20) 20.0 ( 94) 37.8 ( 38) 23.9 (213) 27 17

2007 Florida[1] (SEC) 59.6 ( 1) 20.7 (132) 37.6 ( 42) 30.2 ( 41) 1 1

2006 Gonzaga[3] (WCC) 52.3 ( 55) 17.5 ( 12) 33.7 (115) 35.5 ( 2) 1 1

2006 Memphis[1] (CUSA) 51.2 ( 91) 21.0 (150) 40.7 ( 6) 26.9 ( 98) 37 29

2006 LSU (4] (SEC) 50.1 (131) 21.9 (196) 38.4 ( 18) 25.9 (130) 114 50

2006 Florida[3] (SEC) 56.9 ( 3) 20.7 (139) 34.5 ( 88) 30.3 ( 22) 2 2

The exception was that dramatic, frenetic win over gonzaga in a miracle comeback.

gonzaga's defense however was not nearly up to par with the other squads that beat us or in Kansas case went on to win the title the last 3 years.

defens

2006 Gonzaga[3] (WCC) 49.4 (156) 18.4 (312) 31.2 (121) 32.0 ( 76) 223 178

2006 Florida[3] (SEC) 45.0 ( 15) 22.4 ( 92) 30.9 (108) 29.4 ( 42) 19 5

2007 Florida[1] (SEC) 45.2 ( 18) 18.8 (290) 28.1 ( 8) 27.7 ( 13) 14 12

2008 Kansas[1] (B12) 44.3 ( 9) 21.9 (114) 28.8 ( 23) 31.0 ( 64) 4 1

2008 Memphis[1] (CUSA) 43.4 ( 6) 21.9 (119) 29.2 ( 36) 31.7 ( 73) 2 4

Again I believe these statistics reflect that our offense needs to improve to get over that hump. Clearly we can't be championship contenders every year and perhaps howland can work his magic and we can grit our way to a nice run this season. Also I believe this system contrary to the mainstream media's opinion is absolutely perfect for getting his players into the NBA. He forces them to play lockdown straightup defense and the NBA loves that. No one is more prepared fundamentally on defense to play in the NBA than Howland players. That being said winning titles may require something else or some serious ungodly offensive talent given our framework at the moment.

I apologize for appearing to bandwagon losses. I read here all the time and appreciate on the insight. I do care as much about football, but I only post because I have something different to say. What more could I have said about Dorrell's horrible tenure that was football's Lavin/Farmer/Hazzard tenures rolled into one. I am not going crazy with the tough season we are having at the moment in football because I believe we will be going in the right direction at the moment and that is well covered territory. My only issue that seems to ride against prevailing opinion is just this one item about our offense.

I would be happy to post on wins when I feel it was not up to snuff as well. I think we escape many games thanks to our defense and timely play over the last few years. I also think we have played some excellent offensive games along the way just not consistently. I would be happy to throw a mention on those moments as well if it will keep me from getting dumped on.

Sorry for the long post, but I felt the least I could provide was a more substantive analysis.

Poll

Should I be allowed to post again?

Yes

13 votes

No

1 votes

I don't care

5 votes

19 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Uh yeah

Clearly our win against Kansas in 2007 was not against a top offensive team.

Did you also forget how we shut down Memphis in 2006 or may be you don’t remember it because you probably became a UCLA basketball fan in 2007 and discovered BN?

Also, you did note how our offense has improved every year under Howland according to the statistics you shared yourself? Guess how that happens? It’s because Howland has been bringing in more and more talent next season.

I appreciate the fact that you made an attempt to do a statistical analysis, but just by taking a quick look, it appears you couldn’t interpret the numbers you threw up here.

by Nestor on Nov 21, 2008 4:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like fact based posts as much as the next guy, but ...

(There’s always a but, isn’t there.)

The “but” here is that I don’t understand what the numbers mean, and hence don’t understand the point you’re making. Your first set of numbers is 2008 UCLA1 (P10). I think I understand this – It’s UCLA in 2008, which finished first in the Pac 10. Then you lose me. You point out that we have an “eft fg %” of 52.2, which is apparently 75th in something. I assume theat you mean we were 75th in the NCAA. If that’s so, I would have liked to know 75th out of how many. Or it could be 75th percentile, but I don’t know. But more importantly, I don’t know what “eft fg %” is. Similarly, I don’t know what a “TO%” is. Is it how many possessions result in a turnover? And how and why are any of these numbers “adjusted.” If we get to adjust numbers, I would like to adjust my waist size, and the final scores of certain games.

Anyway, my criticism is not your concept, just your execution. When you express opinions without facts to back them up you leave yourself open to criticism. Now you expressed opinions with a gazillion facts to back them up, but haven’t explained what those facts are (or at least I don’t understand them), and then I think you left out the key word in any exegesis – the word “because.” Why do those numbers prove whatever point you’re making?

These are real questions which I hope you answer. I think you have good information which I would like to know. The problem for me is that I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make because you make the assumption that I understand the significance of the numbers you are using to prove your point, and the fact of the matter is that I don’t.

by Fox 71 on Nov 21, 2008 5:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

read the post

actually my simple point is our offense lags behind our defensive abilities and according to kenpom’s measure that the last 3 national champions ranked 2nd (08)/1st (07)/2nd(06) in offense (2 of which we lost to)

“Clearly our win against Kansas in 2007 was not against a top offensive team. Did you also forget how we shut down Memphis in 2006…”

I take that 1st part as sarcasm and will reiterate what I posted…
Kansas according to his stats in 2007 was 27th raw/17th adjusted in offense not quite at the level of 2008 (4th/1st) and Memphis 2006 (37th/29th) was inferior to its 2008 crew (4th/1st)

“Also, you did note how our offense has improved every year under Howland according to the statistics you shared yourself?”

Clearly I acknowledged our improvement year to year in the post if you read it. (paragraph 2 above) Its nice to believe that defense wins titles, but is it an anomoly that a top 2 offense has won the last 4 titles? the last 2 numbers are the raw then adjusted rank in offense. All of these teams had superior offenses to defenses.

2008 Kansas1 (B12) 56.6 ( 5) 19.1 ( 61) 37.8 ( 24) 25.7 (161) 2 2
2007 Florida1 (SEC) 59.6 ( 1) 20.7 (132) 37.6 ( 42) 30.2 ( 41) 1 1
2006 Florida3 (SEC) 56.9 ( 3) 20.7 (139) 34.5 ( 88) 30.3 ( 22) 2 2
2005 UNC (1] (ACC) 56.0 ( 4) 21.0 (149) 39.0 ( 15) 32.0 ( 14) 3 1

Lastly I would add last season’s final 4 vs memphis was the only game i was disappointed at not because we lost, but because we failed to put up the competitive game I think we should have. I am pretty sure everyone who reads this site would acknowledge it as our best team and the numbers reflect that. Florida to me was just a better team with better talent the previous 2 years. I do not believe Memphis was at all. I also think if you expect our trend of improvement to continue this season you will be up for disappointment. Yes we will improve during the year, but to expect another final 4 run is asking alot. And when that happens you can hold me up with crow feathers hanging from my mouth, happily enjoying the feast.

“or may be you don’t remember it because you probably became a UCLA basketball fan in 2007 and discovered BN?”

I am not sure why taking pot shots at me is necessary though.. I also mentioned how I have been avidly watching since 81.. If I bandwagoned it would have been in Brown’s 1980 team when I was 10. My favorite players then were Mike Sanders and the Rocket Rod Foster who Farmer the next year like a moron brought off the bench to start a lame/slow point guard in Jackson. That has been my team since those crappy years.

Here is the site for those who don’t understand the numbers
http://kenpom.com/rate.php?y=2008
You can break down each year by clicking stats.. the last number is your adjusted ranking overall. And it is out of the entire NCAA of 300+ teams

by Penny2i on Nov 21, 2008 5:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Clearly you don’t read us on a regular basis because if you did you will find no one here predicted that we are expecting offensive improvements this year from last. In case you might have missed it we have been bringing up 2005-06 a lot noting how we expected the same struggle we experience that season.

No one here is calling this a Final-4 or bust season. We take it day by day, game by game.

Also in your second para if you want to get cute you only mentioned how Howland had his best offense last year leaving out the detail how we improved each year.

We also go to KenPom a lot (if you actually read this blog carefully you would find it in our blogroll). But we don that after have few games under our belt giving us a better sample to judge our team. We don’t go to it for knee jerk posts after three games into a season.

So take your lecture somewhere else.

by Nestor on Nov 21, 2008 5:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I clicked on the Kenpom site

I don’t think Mr. Kenpom explained the basis for his numbers any better than you did. Maybe he did, but he seemed to be talking to physics majors and not to econ majors. One think I noticed though was his analysis (apparently for baseball) that a .600 team should beat a .400 team 69% of the time. Assuming that is true, then a subpar team (a .400 team) should expect to beat a superior team (a .600) team 31% of the time. But since you can’t win a part of a one-game series, then the predictive ability of Mr. Kenpom’s system breaks down. Every team that starts its season with a win should go undefeated, and every team that starts with a loss should never win in basketball. We know from experience that this assumption is false.

Also, I dispute the predictive ability of any formula which has “adjustments” in it.

I guess my problem here is that I don’t care for a system that predicts, nor do I care for using a system to predict things unless I’m going to bet on a game which I don’t do. I use stats to measure past performance. Sure, you can use past performance to predict in a sense, but you still have to play the game. Question – who did Mr. Kenpom predict at the beginning of the season to win the American League East? I don’t know what his system said. My system of measuring past performance shows that the Tampa Bay Rays won the American League East. My system is to look at the number of wins for the Rays, and compare that to the number of wins by the other teams in the division. How about using that system part of the way through the season to predict how the season will end? Answer – ask some of the teams who collapsed down the stretch in various years.

Again, I read your post. I have no criticism of your attempts to use statistics and systems to convince. I still criticize your attempts to convince using the stats and the arguments you used, because you haven’t explained why the stats demonstrate your point. It seems to me that what you have shown is that teams which score more points than their adversaries will generally win. If that is indeed your point, then I heartily agree. I don’t agree based on any system. I have observed over a lifetime of watching sporting events that with the exceptions of golf and hearts and a few others, the team with the most points is declared the winner.

by Fox 71 on Nov 21, 2008 6:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

kenpom

I only used that site because I was called out on the board and told to go there to show how hasty my initial post (not seen) was. I agreed with the person who called me out and using the source they told me to use discovered it statisically showed what I was talking about.

If I have a bias it is that I enjoy watching great offense over great defense. For instance I hated how the 80s Lakers were maligned for no defense and being timid, but knew they played enough defense (via trapping to get easy baskets) to compensate for not being a top defense. I believed a good enough defense with their great offense was enough to get them titles. When the Lakers got older and boring teams like the ‘bad boy’ pistons become vogue it irritated me to no end. That trend continued for too long. It still exists, but hopefully the NBA is moving away from that.

Again I only have one criticism of what we have done for the last few years and that is we stagnate for whatever reason for long periods of time on offense. I can only assume using 30 seconds before we get aggressive at times is by design a little bit (perhaps to rest players for defense? perhaps to avoid costly turnovers and give up easy baskets?) Whatever the reason that stagnation frustrates me.

Howland has done a great job and exceeded my expectations. I don’t understand why it’s so easy to criticize players Shipp for not being aggressive enough (which I agree with) And it’s hands off on Howland in this one area on the offense he runs. I think he is the 1st to acknowledge he has things to work on.

by Penny2i on Nov 21, 2008 6:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't show what you're talking about

It shows that you overreached. I’m glad that you went to the site and found out that you were wrong.

by Tydides on Nov 21, 2008 9:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

so are offense and defense are equally strong?

I am happy in your world you can compartmentalize opinion as right and wrong. I would ask you this.. on a scale of 1-10 rate both our offensive system and defensive system. If you believe that both are equal then you won’t understand the nuance of the point I am trying to get across.

by Penny2i on Nov 21, 2008 9:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't really understand the nuance(s) or anything else about the point(s) you are trying to make

I think your point is that you want us to score more points, on the assumption that if we score more points the likelihood is that we’ll win more games. I want to go on record as saying I support wholeheartedly the notion that we should score more points than the other side. I assume that your point is something beyond that simplistic (and a little sarcastic) description. Assuming that you have a better or different point, I want to know it. It may be a great point. It may change the way I look at things. Please start your argument over, and take it one step at a time. Throw in a “because” here and there. Explain what your statistics mean.

For example, I read (but don’t contribute) to a baseball blog, and there is a guy who will go to the grave thinking that an RBI is a meaningless statistic. He offers something like 20 reasons, but explains almost none of them. One of his arguments is that it is more important for a guy to get credit for getting a hit to move a runner from first to third where he can score on an out than it is to get the guy home. I disagree, though, because I think that RBI’s measure one thing – runs batted in. And I think that’s an important statistic. To digress further, there was a guy named Pat Tabler who played in the 80’s. He was at best a journeyman, but he had incredible numbers with the bases loaded. He hit some enormous amount – .850 or something like that. To me, it’s a good stat to know how particular guys do in particular situations. If I have a Pat Tabler on the bench as a pinch hitter, I’m going to save him for a bases loaded situation rather than have him lead off an inning.

Your (or I suppose Kenpom’s) stats don’t really mean anything to me in the abstract, because I don’t know what they’re measuring and I don’t know where the measurement compares with other teams. You are so passionate about proving your point that I am sure there is something there, and I want to know what it is that has you so stirred up. Here’s my request. I don’t know about the other guys, but I like things simple. How about, “My point is XYZ.” Point X is established by facts 1, 2 and 3, BECAUSE blah, blah, blah. Point Y is established by facts 4, 5 and 6 BECAUSE….." The most important part of your argument as far as I am concerned is the “because.”

On the other hand, there is merit in the notion that we have beaten this point to death already, and I should go play golf and you should go do your golf or golf-equivalent.

by Fox 71 on Nov 21, 2008 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Kenpom has a lot of numbers

The easiest way I can explain those is that the “adjustment” is done because not all teams play at the same pace. So it is more accurate to measure offensive and defensive efficiency in terms of the number of points you score or give up per a certain number of possessions. By this measure, we have been near the top of all of Division I over the past few Final Four seasons, which is a far cry from this:

I agree our offense is terrible and to be honest has never been that good.

It’s really that simple and was the only point I was making.

What penny is trying to do is walk back and broaden the argument in order to find sturdier footing, but I do not forget the original claim that easily. It is tangential and overly simplistic to say that because we couldn’t beat Memphis and Florida that it’s all because the offense is “bad”. Especially when stating, in the exact same sentence, that our defense in those games was also poor.

PS. The Lakers had a hard time containing Derrick Rose. And these are guys that get paid more than SUC Football players. I guess that’s not a problem specific to UCLA.

by Tydides on Nov 21, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I backtracked on original comment

You were correct to call me on the original claim of ‘terrible’ and I did in fact backtrack on my original rash comment based on just last night and noted that somewhere in this post. I don’t remember stating our defense was poor against memphis and florida, but rather as you pointed out good offensive teams just can’t be shut down as indicated by your Rose PS.

The only point I am trying to make is that to beat in the end teams that have a player like Rose or horford and noah we need to be able to put up more points to win. We are well built to grind it out against lesser offensive teams, but to get over that hump ultimately we need to be able to score at that next level somehow. I believe our coaches need to figure out a way to run a better consistent offense that is quicker to attack and not just do that back and forth swing perimeter passing or the over-dribbling at the top from Collison. That stuff goes back even to Farmar so we have really only had two starting point guards when Howland got going.

This becomes apparent only when teams are smart and zone us. We stagnate against many decent zones not just the 1-3-1. I do not think our offense is awful in general although there have been many games in the past where they have played awful. We usually destroy man-to-man and why opposing coaches begin in that against us I will never know. I do however think we need to get a tad more effective against the zone than we have been to get over the hump. Now maybe that is personnel or maybe it has to do with coaching.. chicken or the egg argument I guess.

This season could provide a bit of a dilemna and it will fun to see if we adapt with our lack of interior scoring. keefe is more comfortable catching and shooting a 3 then catching a ball inside and going up strong, aboya almost the same. Morgan I think has better hands then either of them, but he has freshman legs at the moment. We are faced with the fact we have far less interior play than the past 3 years unless one of them develops quickly. Gordon I think shows the most promise as a finisher down the line and our guards need that because double teams on drives will come hard if no one can finish adequately inside. Will we move toward more 3 guard offenses if no one steps up? Or will we stay with the status quo and hope people improve in the system? It will be interesting to see… Hollins a few years ago bloomed late in his senior season to become that x-factor.. will one of our players now provide that boost?

by Penny2i on Nov 21, 2008 11:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

By midseason we may do better against zones

Based on what I’ve seen, I actually have more confidence in outside shooting than in previous years (I’d rather have Lee, Holiday, Roll shooting threes than Luc or even KLove). A more conventional zone that can’t pin us against the sidelines when we go that way should provide us with more opportunities to bust it with a couple of 3s. I always feared the zone when we had KLove in the middle because those teams could sit down in the middle and force guys like Luc to take 16 footers.

This is, of course, predicated on our ability to shoot like I think we can. If I were an opposing team and I saw that our bigs were untested and haven’t been reliable, I’d extend the defense out in a man to man and try to make Aboya and Keefe beat me inside.

by Tydides on Nov 21, 2008 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs