"My rule was I wouldn't recruit a kid if he had grass in front of his house.
That's not my world. My world was a cracked sidewalk." —Al McGuire

Tuesday, June 04, 2019

Value Add Basketball Official Rules (starts with Rebound Chart)

Roll 20-sided die for position on chart below, and 6-sided die to see if he gets it (if within his 1-6 range on Off Reb or 1-6 on Def Reb).  Following italics ONLY for MISSED FREE THROWS. If 20-sided die is 6-9 after missed free throw, ignore 6-sided die and defensive Power Forward (4) gets rebound. If 16-19, Defensive Center (5) gets rebound. If Off C or Off PF misses FT, then 20-sided gives them chance at rebound (roll of 1-3 or 4-5),Off SF has chance instead.

1Offensive C (bottom of 5 players) 11Defensive C (bottom of 5 players in game)
2Offensive C12Defensive C
3Offensive C13Defensive C
4Offensive PF (4th player in game) #14Defensive PF (4th player in game)
5Offensive PF15Defensive PF
6Offensive SF (middle of 5 players)16Defensive SF (middle of 5 players)
7Offensive SF17Defensive SF
8Offensive SG (2nd from top)18Defensive SG
9Offensive PG (top of 5 players) 19Defensive PG (top of 5 players)
10 or 20: Check all 5 Offensive Ranges of 1-6 for team that shot, and all 5 Defensive Ranges of 1-6, and highest range of all 10 players gets rebound (offense gets tie).

If missed shot or free throw occurs on odd numbered possession (43, 41, 39 … 3) except for final “1”, then ignore chart and instead score as defensive team rebound.

The Offensive Point Guard (or Off PG)  above refers to the "1" or top player of 5 cards of the team that missed the shot. The Offensive Shooting Guard (Off SG) is the "2" or 2nd card of the shoting team, the Offensive Small Forward (Off SF or "3") is the middle of 5 cards, the Offensive Power Forward (Off PF or "4") is the next to the bottom card, and the Offensive Center (Off C or "5") is the bottom of the 5 cards.

Likewise the Defensive player at each of these five positions are the same positions top (1, Def PG) to bottom (5, Def C).

Once you are familiar with the game, you will probably only need to look at the rebound chart above during the game, but for your first couple of games we spell out the various dice results for all four dice.

Official rules of Value Add Basketball

The rebound chart above is actually the 5th of 5 steps in the game. We put it at the top because to play the game the rebound chart down is the first thing you need visible, followed by 2) a score sheet, and 3) 5 player cards visible of the players in the game from top (1) to bottom (5). You also need a 20-sided die, 8-sided die, and two 6-sided dice of different colors to get a roll of 11-66. You roll all 4 dice to start the game with the visitors 44th possession (counting down to the end of the game with the home team’s first (1) possession.

Step 1 (player card column 1, bottom): who gets the ball (look at 8-sided die):

When the 8-sided roll is 1,2,3,4 or 5 the ball goes to that player - 1 to the top player, 5 to the bottom. 

For rolls of 6,7 or 8 refer to any players who have either a “6 7” or just a “7” in the lower left corner - some players will have just a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 for their recommended position (you can play anyone in any of the five), but after that one number some players have an extra "7" or an extra "6 7." At the beginning of the game and anytime the line-up changes, check all five players bottom left corner to determine which scenario applies whenever you roll a 6, 7 or 8.

Scenario 1: No player has “1” OR if none of the 5 players have either a 6 7 or a 7

6 = Roll again
7= Roll again
8 =Roll again

Scenario 2: any player has 6 7

6 - Player with 6 7 gets ball
7 - Player with 6 7 gets ball ignore 11-66 and use his 20-sided die
8 - Ball goes to player nearest top of 5 with a 7, if none of other 4 have a 7 then roll again

Scenario 3 - If no 6 to 7, but at least one player has a 7 

6 - Player nearest the top of 5 players with a 7 gets ball
7 - 2nd player from top with a 7 gets ball, if only one player has a 7 roll again
8 - 3rd player from top with a 7 gets ball, if only 2 players have 7 then  roll again (note if 4 or 5 players all have 7s then the player or players at the bottom including the center my will never get the ball in a roll of 6,7 or 8, but they get the ball more in offensive rebounds)

Roll again - if the 6,7 or 8 roll results in a roll again then the shot clock is running low. Roll all 4 dice again using the same chart but with the following adjustments:

If roll again appears a second time on the same possession, score as a turnover (shot clock violation), record no points scored that possession and roll for the team.

Step 2: 11-66 results (check defender's card on 11-36 or player with ball 41-66)
Note from above (if "7" on 8-sided die and a player with "6 7" is on court, skip to Step 3)

11-16 – if in defender's steal range then steal, if not go to 20-sided die. Note that steal range on card is sometimes adjusted:

If offensive team’s dunk range is 51-57 or 51-58 then all defenders’ steal range is lowered by 1.

If offensive team’s dunk range is 58 or higher then all defenders’ steal range is lowered by 2.

If roll occurs with a roll of 6, 7 or 8 roll (instead of 1-5 below) then all defender’s steal range is cut in half and rounded DOWN, so 11-11 becomes no steal, 11-12 or 11-13 becomes 11-11, 14-15 becomes 11-12 etc.

21-26 – if in defender's block range then blocked shot, if not go to 20-sided die. Note that steal range on card is sometimes adjusted.

Use same three possible reductions to block range as you make to the steal range above.

31 – If any of 5 defenders on court have steal range of 11-19 after any adjustments above, defensive player steals the ball no matter which player has it.

32 – If any player has block range of 21-29 or higher after any adjustments, he blocks the shot and check for rebound if an even numbered possession as you would any missed shot.

33-36 – If falls with defenders foul range he commits foul for at least two shots. This is the one case in which you use both the 33-36 range on defense AND the 20-sided die. Player normally gets two shots, BUT if occurs on 3-point shot made or 2-point shot made he gets the score and gets one free throw. If fouled on missed 3-points shot then he gets three free throws.

41-46 – If player with ball has turnover range that die roll falls within, mark as team turnover with no points scored that possession then roll all dice for other team’s possession.

If teams’ offensive dunk range is 51-58 or 51 -59 then lower turnover range by 1. If range is 51-60 or higher, then lower turnover range then lower turnover range by two.

51-66 – If falls within offensive dunk/layup range minus the defender's adjustment, then scores 2 points, but if 20-sided die indicates a 3-point shot made then he makes a 3-pointer instead. 

Since all players on a team have the same dunk range and all their defenders have the same adjustment range for their dunk range, it is easiest to write each dunk range on the scoresheet at the beginning of the game. Assume the following dunk ranges and adjustment to dunk ranges:

Step 1:

Find below middle column  Team A.       Team B
Dunk range.                           51-56.          51-52
Adjust dunk.                           -2.                2
Add\subtract opp 2nd line.   51-58.          51-50   


Step 2

The LOWER player's dunk range minus opponent's adjustment must always be between 51-50 (no dunks) and 51-53. 

Scenario A - in the caee above the lower range is 51-50, so no further adjustment is needed and those two ranges will be used for the whole game with Team A never getting a dunk and Team B scoring a dunk of layup on any roll of 11-58 (really 11-56 since there is no 57 or 58).

Scenario B - if instead Team A's range calculated to 51-54, it would need to be lowered by 1 to 51-53, and thus Team B would also be decreased by 1 to 51-57.

Scenario C - if Team A's range were instead 51-46, then it would need to be increased by 4 to 51-50 and Team B would.likewise be increased by 4 to 51-62.

Step 3 - because their are really no rolls of 57, 58, 59 or 60 on the two 6-sided dice, a team in those ranges instead lessens the chance of a steal or turnover. 

If team B's dunk range is 51-57, then write above team A "-1 from all steals."

If team B's range is 51-58, then also write "-1 from all turnovers" above team B."

If team B's range is 51-59, so both but make it "-2 from all steals" over team A."

If team B's range is 51-60 or higher, then also write "-2 from all turnovers" above team B.

So in scenario C above where Team B has a 51-62, any of their players score immediately on a roll of 51-62, but also anytime a team A player has a chance for a steal it is lowered by 2 (e.g. a steal 11-15 becomes 11-13) and any time the Team B player might turn it over it is lowered by two (e.g. a 41-44 becomes 41-42).

If the 11-66 roll does not fall into the relevant player range above, then proceed to the 20-sided die.

Step 3: 20-sided die for shot or fouled while shooting

If nothing on the 8-sided die or 11-66 roll ends the action, then the player gets off a shot. Refer to the 20-sided die for the result of that shot.

If a team had to roll again on the same possession because the first roll included a 6, 7 or 8 that did not match a player, then all odd numbered rolls of the 20-sided die (1, 3 ... 19) become missed shots and the defense gets a team rebound. In all other cases, simply read the result and apply one of five results:

3-pt made range: add three points to the team’s score on the running score on the possessions and if scoring players add three points to his total.

2-point made range: add two points, otherwise same as above.

Fouled, 2 shots: take two fouls shots as noted in Step 4 below.

Misses 3: Shot is missed, odd numbered possessions except for final “1” possession record that no points were scored and record defensive team rebound. On even numbered (shaded on scoresheet) or last “1” possession, go the rebound chart at top.

Misses 2: same as above for misses 3. The only reason we break down whether it is a missed 3 or missed two is in case the player is also fouled on a 33-36 roll and we need to know if he gets 2 or 3 shots.

Only if playing a game with players from different teams -  A roll of 19 or 20 is a missed shot. However, if you are playing a team of different players like an all-conference team or mix and match, look for any player on the court with an A: 19-20 (Ethan Happ of Wisconsin or Ja Morant of Murray State) or an A:20. These indicated those rolls for any of their four teammates are changed to a 2-point basket. Do NOT use this when playing a team, because the great assists player is already built into their cards shooting.

Step 4: Free Throws (roll 20-sided die only and refer to FT)

If in players “Free Throws” range in bottom right, free throw is made, if not, missed.
If last free throw is missed, roll 20-sided die again and use chart above but note # and @ results of 6 to 9 and 16 to 19 go directly to defensive PF or C regardless of 6-sided die (in games, offense only gets 14% of missed free throws, less than half of 29% of missed shots).


Step 5: Check for Rebound (back to top)

If a player misses a shot or the last free throw, check to see who gets the rebound.

1. If the miss occurs on an odd numbered possession (39, 37 ... 3) except for the final "1" possession, then record a defensive team rebound and no points for the offense on that possession.

2. If the miss occurs on the even numbered possession (shaded on the score sheet) or on the final "1" possession, then roll the 20-sided die and one 6-sided die and refer to the Rebound Chart at the top of this blog.

3. If the miss occurs on an even numbered possession but on a free throw, use the rebound chart but note rolls of 6-9 or 16-19 always go to the defense on a free throw.

At the end of a possession record the team's new score - adding 3 for a 3-pointer, 2 for a 2-pointer, 1 for each free throw, but leaving the score the same if the possession ends with a defensive rebound, turnover or steal.  However, if the possession continues after a score because a player scores and is fouled, or gets an offensive rebound off a free throw after shooting, we recommend writing a small 1, 2 or 3 in the corner to note that many points already have been scored but that there could be more points scored before the possession is over and you write the new score.

If you use google sheets and google docs and want all components of the game including players in one google sheet, just click here.

Player cards are now broken into conferences to make printing easier:
Big 12 cards

Big Ten cards





Sunday, June 02, 2019

McDermott Top Offensive Player of Century; Adding Creighton & Other Greats to Game

In the basketball board game I picked the 42 teams (7 teams for 6 conferences) who made the Final 4 or finished in the top 5 of www.kenpom.com. However, when I decided to round out each conference with an 8th team based on the greatest team on a school not represented, I missed one thing that should have jumped out at me years ago in www.valueaddbasketball. Here are the playing cards for the six new teams.

Doug McDermott is by far the best offensive college basketball player of the century.

While there are many great one and dones, I realized only two players were ever one of the best five offensive players in the country more than once (see list of the top 5 offensive players every year - including Travis Diener, Steve Novak and Jimmy Butler).

In 2005, Duke's JJ Redick was the third best offensive player in basketball, and in 2006 he improved to be the best offensive basketball. Truly amazing, and yet ...

In 2012 and 2013 in the Missouri Valley Conference McDermott was the third best offensive player in the country (keep in mind Value Add adjusts for competition, so this means it is estimated he would have ranked as the third best offensive player whether he played in the ACC, old Big East, Big Ten etc.

Only four players ranked in the top 5 overall players (Offense, defense and position adjustment); Boston College's Troy Bell in 2002 and 2003, Duke's Shelden Williams in 2004 and 2005, Davidson's Stephen Curry in 2007 and 2008 and Utah's Delon Wright in 2013 and 2014. You may assume Steph would have made the offensive list but not the overall - but actually he played in a stretch of years where the guards were so roughed up that their actual numbers were much lower than front line players - and it is actually the position adjustment that made it clear he was a top five player both years.

Adding the Teams of these Great Players to the Game


As for the game, I am adding McDermott's Creighton team to the Big East, Curry's Davidson team to the "SEC," and Wright's Utah team to the Pac-12. I did toy with adding Kawhi Leonard's San Diego State team instead of Utah since Kawhi is the greater NBA player in the headlines and both teams wee equal as No. 8 at www.kenpom.com and both losing to the eventual national champ in the Sweet 16 (UConn and Duke). However, at the college level Kawhi's best year was 11th ranked, and Wright was the only player to finish in the top two twice - so I went with him and did not he had triple doubles a few times after taking over the starting position for the Grizzlies this year.

To fill out the other conferences with a great player, I went with Reggie Evan's Iowa team from the beginning of the Century as the 8th team in the Big East, Chris Paul's Wake Forest team for the ACC and Michael Beasley's K-State team for the Big 12.

McDermott's Legacy


For the debut of the realigned Big East in 2014, McDermott was even better as the best offensive player in the country. More importantly for the Big East, he was selected as the National Player of the Year by all six major selection groups.

Marquette and the rest of the Big East owe the McDermott's a lot for that 2014 debut season - when people still weren't sure about the Big East after alignment. Obviously everyone owes Villanova for the two national titles, but having the greatest offensive player of the Century for a debut season went a long way.


Top 5 Offensive Players Each Season 2002 to 2019


Off rankPlayerTeamOverall RankYear
1Henry DomercantEastern Illinois92002
2Reece GainesLouisville22002
3Steve LoganCincinnati12002
4Rasual ButlerLa Salle52002
5Chris DavisNorth Texas472002
1Adam HessWilliam & Mary92003
2Chris WilliamsBall St.112003
3Troy BellBoston College32003
4Mike SweetneyGeorgetown12003
5Brett BlizzardNorth Carolina Wilmington82003
1Devin HarrisWisconsin12004
2Travis DienerMarquette72004
3Luke JacksonOregon22004
4Chris PaulWake Forest32004
5Ryan GomesProvidence42004
1Taylor CoppenrathVermont82005
2Andrew BogutUtah12005
3JJ RedickDuke62005
4John LucasOklahoma St.322005
5Spencer NelsonUtah St.22005
1JJ RedickDuke22006
2Adam MorrisonGonzaga62006
3Brandon RoyWashington42006
4Quincy DoubyRutgers52006
5Steve NovakMarquette172006
1Kevin DurantTexas12007
2Jared DudleyBoston College32007
3Drew NeitzelMichigan St.62007
4Jaycee CarrollUtah St.282007
5Adam HaluskaIowa82007
1Tyler HansbroughNorth Carolina32008
2Michael BeasleyKansas St.12008
3Maarty LeunenOregon62008
4Kevin LoveUCLA22008
5Ryan AndersonCalifornia82008
1Ty LawsonNorth Carolina12009
2Aaron JacksonDuquesne372009
3Jerome RandleCalifornia162009
4Blake GriffinOklahoma22009
5DeJuan BlairPittsburgh32009
1Jon ScheyerDuke12010
2James AndersonOklahoma St.102010
3Jimmy ButlerMarquette52010
4Kyle SinglerDuke22010
5Quincy PondexterWashington62010
1Jordan TaylorWisconsin12011
2Kemba WalkerConnecticut22011
3Charles JenkinsHofstra112011
4Reggie JacksonBoston College162011
5Noah DahlmanWofford192011
1Kevin JonesWest Virginia42012
2Anthony DavisKentucky12012
3Doug McDermottCreighton172012
4John JenkinsVanderbilt132012
5Damian LillardWeber St.192012
1Trey BurkeMichigan12013
2Erick GreenVirginia Tech42013
3Doug McDermottCreighton142013
4Kyle BaroneIdaho732013
5Nate WoltersSouth Dakota St.102013
1Doug McDermottCreighton72014
2Billy BaronCanisius62014
3Bryce CottonProvidence492014
4Nik StauskasMichigan442014
5Joseph YoungOregon242014
1Frank KaminskyWisconsin32015
2Jerian GrantNotre Dame52015
3Delon WrightUtah12015
4Aaron WhiteIowa62015
5Kevin YogiIndiana702015
1Quinton HookerNorth Dakota52016
3Buddy HieldOklahoma22016
4Anthony BarberNorth Carolina St.202016
5Kay FelderOakland152016
1Mike DaumSouth Dakota St.292017
2Dallas MooreNorth Florida712017
3Frank MasonKansas22017
4Luke KennardDuke72017
5Monte MorrisIowa St.42017
1Nick MastersonKennesaw St.1912018
2Trae YoungOklahoma62018
3Jeff RobersonVanderbilt162018
4Yante MatenGeorgia32018
5Jordan HowardCentral Arkansas1092018
1Zion WilliamsonDuke12019
2Cassius WinstonMichigan St.42019
3CJ MassinburgBuffalo62019
4Ja MorantMurray St.82019
5Sam MerrillUtah St.182019

Saturday, June 01, 2019

Villanova 2018 Nudges Louisville 2013 to Start 2-0 in Simulation; Syracuse 2003 Leads ACC

Carmelo Anthony (22 ppg) led Syracuse 2003 to a buzzer beater win over Duke and 1st place in my simulated "ACC" replay but Villanova's 2018 Mikal Bridges (28.5, 8.0 rebound) has been even better as Nova nudged Louisville 2013 to take first in the Big East.

Obviously it is only a 2-game sample and while I believe the player cards in the free game are now very accurate, dice lead to the same variations as you see in real games. In fact, in the first two games of my SEC play, Kentucky 2012, Florida 2006 and Auburn 2019 are all 2-0, but using the same player card for Sidarius Thornwell (who we still have nightmares about from the South Carolina tournament game a few years ago) scored 33 points against VCU after being held to 7 by Florida. Partly that is the result of tougher defensive match-ups, but part is just the dice from game to game - and likewise as awesome as Marquette fans saw both Bridges and 2002 Cincinnati great Steve Logan are, they will not keep their current 28.5 and 26.0 points per game over the course of several games.

With the disclaimer that it is only two games, here are Big East leaders in four categories followed by the stats for all Marquette players who played enough to have a card, followed by the standings and box scores from the seven games played so far.


Big East Scoring leaders (2 games)PtsRebStlBlock
Bridges, Villanova 201828.58.00.02.0
Logan, Cincinnati 200226.02.51.50.0
Gordon, Connecticut 200423.52.01.00.5
Green, Georgetown 200721.55.01.52.0
Smith, Louisville 201319.55.02.51.0
Big East Rebound leaders (2 games)PtsRebStlBlock
Okafor, Connecticut 200417.516.51.50.5
Dieng, Louisville 20137.010.00.00.5
Hibbert, Georgetown 200711.09.50.05.0
Bridges, Villanova 201828.58.00.02.0
Spellman, Villanova 201810.07.52.00.0
Davis, Cincinnati 20024.57.51.50.0
Big East Steals leaders (2 games)PtsRebStlBlock
Siva, Louisville 201319.01.54.50.0
Wade, Marquette 200314.56.03.50.5
McElroy, Cincinnati 200210.53.03.50.5
Brown T, Connecticut 20042.51.53.50.5
Brunson, Villanova 201815.50.03.50.5
Big East Blocks leaders (2 games)PtsRebStlBlock
Hibbert, Georgetown 200711.09.50.05.0
Williams, Connecticut 20041.50.01.02.5

Bridges, Villanova 201828.58.00.02.0
Green, Georgetown 200721.55.01.52.0
Boone, Connecticut 20045.55.00.02.0
Other Marquette 2003 PtsRebStlBlock
Jackson, Marquette 200315.56.00.00.0
Diener, Marquette 200314.52.51.00.0
Novak, Marquette 20035.54.00.00.0
Townsend, Marquette 20034.01.01.51.0
Merritt, Marquette 20033.84.00.00.0
Chapman, Marquette 20033.50.00.00.0
Grimm, Marquette 20032.51.50.00.0
Bradley, Marquette 20030.00.00.00.0

Here are the standings. After the 6-game round robin the tie breaker will be point differential and teh top two make my tournament, but 2nd place team must win two play-in games (like being in the round of 32 to start) while the champ goes right to the Elite 8. I would say Marquette's road is a little uphill due to a very weak defense and the fact that they have not played and of the three defending national champs, but as we all know from 2003 MU's fire power gives them a shot even against a No. 1. This is the same setup for my Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12 and SEC, but because the addition of Syracuse 2003 gives the ACC five national champs, I am giving them the two extra spots for their 3rd and 4th place team in the preliminary round of my tournament.

Just updated the standings after McDermott scored another 32 points against UConn to up his mark to a national best 31.5 ppg, but UConn dominated 86-61 to move into second place due to a 12-point average margin of victory.


Big East (past & present)WLPtsPtsAllPt Dif
Villanova 201820836716.0
Connecticut 200421736112.0
Marquette 20032173730.0
Louisville 20131174695.0
Georgetown 20071176715.0
Cincinnati 2002117175-4.0
Creighton027285-13.0
Butler 2010025480-26.0

Finally these box scores would be a little more neat of I did not include the info to the left, but it is helpful when others play the game. It shows the position at which I play each player and which of the last 44 possessions I have them on the court when playing the game. For example, Steve Novak has the best three-point card and the best free throw card of all players on all 42 teams, but the card shows he can play 14 of the last 44 possessions, so I play him at the end in possessions 14-1 (1 is the final). Todd Townsend is actually the workhorse, so he plays from the 1st possession (44) down to when Novak enters (so "44-15"). Here are the instructions of you want to try any matchups yourself, and it links to cards for all 353 teams from 2019 if anyone is curious about current.


Villanova 201877
Louisville 201373
G-FPossVillanova 2018PtsRebStlsBlks
141-1Brunson13041
237-1DiVincenzo18141
335-1Paschall3130
442-1Bridges31501
535-1Spellman6500
Bench
0000
0000
144-42Gillespie3000
2,3,444-38,37-28,27-25Booth3200
544-36Cosby-Roundtree0200
Total7716113
G-FPossLouisville 2013PtsRebStlsBlks
140-1Siva25260
244-41,34-1Smith15731
338-35,31-1Hancock17410
431-1Dieng3901
530-1Behanan4500
Bench
0000
1,2,344-41, 40,35, 34-32Ware0202
344-39Van Treese3000
4.344-32,31-24Blackshear0400
544-31Harrell6200
Total7335104
Connecticut 200471
Butler 201047
G-FPossConnecticut 2004PtsRebStlsBlks
139-1Brown T5261
2allGordon23201
330-1Brown D0400
424-1Boone5504
538-1Okafor191231
Bench
144-40Williams3005
344-31Villanueva5202
444-25Anderson8400
544-40Armstrong3700
539 - sTooles0100
Total7139914
G-FPossButler 2010PtsRebStlsBlks
144-39,34-1Mack7001
238-1Nored7440
339-1Veasley14310
431-1Howard12200
543-1Hayward7510
Bench
2,10000
344-39,38-35Vanzant0020
444-40Butcher0000
444-32Hahn0100
544Jukes0100
Total471681
Cincinnati 200279
Georgetown 200777
G-FPossCincinnati 2002PtsRebStlsBlks
1allLogan27130
239-1McElroy18301
344-30,20-1Davis6430
435-1Stokes6700
529-1Little10600
Bench
0000
0000
244-40Barker0100
444-36Williams7200
5,344-30, 29-1Maxiell5622
Total793083
G-FPossGeorgetown 2007PtsRebStlsBlks
142-1Wallace12400
244-43, 41-1Sapp13110
3allGreen13500
432-1Summers23210
532-1Hibbert12804
Bench
0000
1,244-43, 42Macklin0000
444-33Ewing0202
444-38Rivers0100
537-33Egerson4100
Total772426
Marquette 200373
Cincinnati 200262
G-FPossMarquette 2003PtsRebStlsBlks
1allDiener22410
242-1Wade11661
314-1Novak8500
437-1Merritt121100
536-1Jackson7900
Bench
10000
4,544-43Chapman0000
444-15Townsend8132
544-38,37Merritt0200
544-38Grimm5200
Total7340103
G-FPossCincinnati 2002PtsRebStlsBlks
1allLogan25400
239-1McElroy3370
344-30,20-1Davis31100
435-1Stokes11410
529-1Little3813
Bench
0000
0000
244-40Barker0100
444-36Williams4100
5,344-30, 29-1Maxiell13400
Total623693
Marquette 200362
Georgetown 200774
G-FPossMarquette 2003PtsRebStlsBlks
1allDiener7110
242-1Wade18610
314-1Novak3300
437-1Merritt3200
536-1Jackson24300
Bench
10000
4,544-43Chapman7000
444-15Townsend0100
544-38,37Merritt0100
544-38Grimm0100
Total621820
G-FPossGeorgetown 2007PtsRebStlsBlks
142-1Wallace16500
244-43, 41-1Sapp7130
3allGreen30534
432-1Summers3400
532-1Hibbert101106
Bench
0300
1,244-43, 42Macklin3602
444-33Ewing0100
444-38Rivers3100
537-33Egerson3100
Total7538612
Villanova 201889
Butler 201060
G-FPossVillanova 2018PtsRebStlsBlks
141-1Brunson18030
237-1DiVincenzo13400
335-1Paschall14300
442-1Bridges261103
535-1Spellman141040
Bench
0000
0000
144-42Gillespie0000
2,3,444-38,37-28,27-25Booth0130
544-36Cosby-Roundtree4100
Total8930103
G-FPossButler 2010PtsRebStlsBlks
144-39,34-1Mack8500
238-1Nored17111
339-1Veasley3300
431-1Howard20800
543-1Hayward12501
Bench
2,10000
344-39,38-35Vanzant0220
444-40Butcher0000
444-32Hahn0100
544Jukes0100
Total602632
Connecticut 200461
Louisville 201374
G-FPossConnecticut 2004PtsRebStlsBlks
139-1Brown T0110
2allGordon24220
330-1Brown D3410
424-1Boone6500
538-1Okafor162100
Bench
144-40Williams0020
344-31Villanueva0000
444-25Anderson12130
544-40Armstrong0120
539 - sTooles0100
Total6136110
G-FPossLouisville 2013PtsRebStlsBlks
140-1Siva13130
244-41,34-1Smith24321
338-35,31-1Hancock17630
431-1Dieng111100
530-1Behanan4311
Bench
0000
1,2,344-41, 40,35, 34-32Ware0020
344-39Van Treese0120
4.344-32,31-24Blackshear4120
544-31Harrell1320
Total7429172

dddddd

Monday, May 20, 2019

Nothing for #mubb, but we do close out the Sports Movie Bracket

Breathe, there is absolutely nothing to talk about when it comes to #mubb, so we're going to take advantage of the opportunity to spend 90 minutes closing out the Sports Movie Bracket. We name a champion, but not without controversy and debate along the way. Let us know if you think we got it right or wrong (@joemccann3 @mooof23). Enjoy! https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/mf/play/mz344s/scrambledeggs_edit_051919.mp3

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Results of Marquette 2003 vs. Georgetown 2007 and Cincy 2002; Nova 2018 Dominates

The scoresheet below was supposed to be of the Georgetown 2007 vs. Marquette 2003 team which brought back so many memories of going to my first Marquette game in 20 years. However, let's just say I'd forgotten just how bad our Final Four team's defense was at keeping opponents away from the hoop and off the glass and Roy Hibbert took full advantage. However, MU did manage to survive the second game despite 24 points by Cincinnati's Steve Logan and Coach Huggins great defense, so here are the early standings of my replay and the full game scoresheet further down.

Of course, Cincy, Butler and MU were really not in the Big East yet and Louisville has since left, but I've shuffled to make six 7-team conferences.


Big EastWonLostScoredAllowed
Villanova 2018108960
Louisville 2013107461
Georgetown 2007107462
Marquette 200311135136
Cincinnati 2002016273
UConn 2004016174
Butler 2010016089
(I am playing Syracuse 2003 and Pitt in the ACC, keeping all 6 conferences with 7 teams)

I never went to the Bradley Center until March 1, 2008, and decided if I was going to pay for a trip form Alabama I was buying seats three rows behind Tom Crean to see Georgetown - a year off a Final Four - come to town. It was my first time in the lower bowl of a college game, and I was stunned at how impossible the it seemed to even complete a pass against the speed and length you could only appreciate from this close to the action.

The heart break of fellow Alabama native Jonathan Wallace fouled by Dominic James on a 3-pointers in the final second to send the game into overtime where the Hoyas won was still exciting enough to start me on my 11 year streak of season tickets and making all March Madness games. I thought starting my Value Add Basketball game Big East play with the 2007 Georgetown team against the team that started making me watch Marquette on TV again - the 2003 Marquette seemed fitting.

Wallace even repeated being fouled on a three and hitting them all. Let's move on from that game and instead present the scoresheet from Marquette's second game.

Until late, it looked similar to the five games played between the two teams during Dwyane Wade's two years - during which the average score was Marquette 70, Cincinnati 67 as MU ended the Bearcats 20-game winning street as one of three wins.

Here is the scoresheet Cincinnati and the running score for the final 6:14 and 10 possessions of the first half, and then possessions 33 to 22 to start the second half. The numbers to the left show which possessions each player will play unless someone fouls out or a strategic change is made. The 5 "starters" are really "finishers," so Logan (who I ranked as the best player in 2002) can play "all" 44 possessions we play in the game, while McElroy can play possessions 39-1 (his card lets him play 39 possessions without being tired). You can see on the backups, Barker is down to play possessions "44-40." We start the game assuming all players have played about 11 of the first 22 possessions and the score is tied 22, so a player with a 39 really averaged 50 possessions that year, etc.



While we show total points for each player, we only record "contested" rebounds each player gets - since every other possession the rebound simply goes to the defense to keep the game moving - but the cards give all players the ranges to average the correct number of rebounds overall by giving offensive players twice as good a chance as they would really have of getting a rebound every other possession.


You may notice I choose to "start/finish" Steve Novak even though that just means he plays the final 14 possessions (14 to 1).  This is not because I am judging him better than Townsend, which he was not yet as a freshman, but if MU is down late in the game I'd rather have him as the best 3-point shooter of all 42 great teams in the game, and if MU is holding a lead late, I'd rather have him as the best free throw shooter in the game. However, you will notice Townsend had 9 points, 2 steals and a blocked shot to help key the win.

Logan cut the lead to 66-62 on yet another poor defensive play by Marquette, but Cincinnati could get no closer as they missed five straight shots after grabbing 4 straight offensive rebounds as well as Wade stealing the ball twice on plays that would have otherwise been made 3-pointers (which we only know in the game because we roll all the dice at once).

Cincy then had to foul Diener who hit both, and Novak hit a three with 1:15 left and MU scored on its final possession to end on a 7-0 run.

In the other games:

I was curious if Louisville's insane defensive pressure or UConn's dominant big man play would win out, but in this game Louisville stole the ball on 7 of UConn's first 11 possessions I played and Dieng gave Louisville enough rebounding to prevent a comeback for the 74-61 win. Siva, Smith and Hancock all had 3 steals - more like 4 or 5 since we don't track the first third of the game through the 20-20 tie. Eight of 9 Cardinals had steals, and the only one who didn't was the games leading rebounder Dieng who won 6 contested rebounds to offset UConn's size inside. Behenan fouled out trying to guard Okafor and then Harrell game back in and came within one foul of fouling out as well, but Okafor hit his average 50% of free throws (1-10 on 20-sided die) with 7 of 14 from the line.

Villanova appears the most dominant team in the conference, but Butler hung around to stay within 58-48 with Bridges picking up his 4th foul. However, between then and the 6:05 mark Nova went on one of their crazy 17-4 runs with a 3-pointer by DiVincenzo, 3 by Spellman, Brunson dunk, Bridges rebound and score, Pascall 4-point play and another 3 by DiVincenzo. Bridges never fouled out and finished with 26 points with a game-high 6 contested rebounds (we don't include the half of the misses that just go to the defense or those in the first 22 possessions) and Brunson added 19. Hayward scored 15, Mack 17 and Howard 18 for Butler in the 89-60 blowout win.

Finally, Green was dominant for Georgetown, getting past Marquette's defense early and often for a game high 28 points and 4 blocked shots (really like 6 blocks over all 66 possessions). Roy Hibbert started hot by blocking Jackson's first three shots and grabbing a game-high 5 rebounds, however Jackson turned it on in the second half to finish with a game-high 22 points to help Marquette make the final reasonable at 74-62.

No surprisingly, Kentucky is 2-0 in my SEC conference, and I have not started the Big 12, Big Ten, ACC or Pac-12 seasons yet.


Saturday, May 18, 2019

Would you rather have MU's defense - blind comparison

I've been surprised at the number of people who believe MU did not have a good defense in 2019, and turning it into one of the "unfair" attacks against Wojo. I lined up a comparison of Marquette's defense against a mystery team so you can do a blind test.

I know the table is not that easy to read, but the overall top number is Ken Pomeroy's master calculation - adjusting how many points are allowed per 100 trips adjusted for the opposing offenses.

Clearly from the outset MU was much better than the other team, and in fact the mystery team played in an era in which fewer points were scored, so MU was the 45th best defense in the land compared to a very mediocre 109th.

MU was elite on the most important stat, holding opponents to only 46 percent eFG% (effective Field Goal percentage, which gives teams and extra half  "shot made" for 3-pointers) - so Wojo had excellent defense. MU was also a very good defensive rebounding team at 81st in the country while the mystery team was one of the worst. MU was the better shot blocking team.

The only place the mystery team was better was at steals due to one player being very good at steals, though other than that both teams had very few steals (often the trade off when you shut down opponents' shooting like MU did this year or Wisconsin does many years).

So anyone going into a game would much rather have Wojo's excellent defense than the very poor defense of Team A. And Team A is ... (go below chart)


CategoryTeam AMU
Adj. Efficiency99.2 10996.7 45Team a much worse than MU at overall defense, adjusted for opponents.
Four Factors
Effective FG%:47.3 7546.3 18MU much better at denying opponents shots.
Turnover %:18.1 30616.6 297Both teams terrible at forcing turnovers, MU a few spots better.
Off. Reb. %:34.3 25126.1 81MU way above average on defensive glass, while Team A much worse than average when they played.
FTA/FGA:32.5 7535.9 252Only thing Team A better at is not fouling, and slightly better at steals.
Misc
3P%:33.2 8532.4 65MU slightly better at denying 3-pointers.
2P%:45.9 7645.1 19MU much better (19th) at stopping 2 pointers, though Team A played when 2-pt % much lower.
FT%:69.2 14667.9 38The one we joke about - FT defense - teams shot terrible free throw percentage against MU :-)
Block%:9.1 12611.2 81MU much better at blocking shots.
Steal%:8.8 2496.9 325Both terrible at steals, though Team A better due to one player who was great at steals.


... the awful defensive unit of the 2003 Final Four Marquette team.

I realized just how bad that defense was when playing the game I invented with 42 great teams, and realizing how bad MU's 2003 defense was compared to other great teams and then realizing they were just bad compared to most major conference teams.

Obviously having the No. 2 offense in the country and the most dominant player in the tournament in Dwyane Wade covered up a very poor defensive team, but to those who keep pretending Wojo did not put a very good defensive unit on the floor are simply deniers.

Those who say watching Ja Morant, the likely No. 2 pick in the upcoming NBA draft, destroy MU's defense proves the former National Defensive Player of the Year Wojo is not a good defensive coach should go back and look at Kansas running a first half track meet against MU in the Final 4. Did that one game prove that MU 2003 really wasn't a great team and that the wins over three of the top 6 teams in the country culminating with the win over No. 1 Kentucky did not really mean anything.

If you are willing to look at facts, Wojo put the most improved defensive unit in the country on the floor last year, and this is a sign of good things to come.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Value Add Basketball Game: Marquette 2003 vs. Auburn 2019

We calculated and compiled these 42 great teams from the 21st Century, and set up this scoresheet to play games between them. The only other item you need is four dice. In this case the yellow 8-sided die of 3 indicates the small forward gets the ball, the roll of 32 on the two 6-sided dice in the middle column number is used to see if the defender stops the player in the 11-36 range, or if the player with the ball turns it over or dunks in the 41-66 range. Finally if nothing happens on those dice, then the 20-sided (green) die determines if the player with the ball can score or draw a shooting foul using the right column.

We added this video of how to set up the game to make sure it all made sense.


The following is Dwyane Wade's 2003 card, the more of an explanation under each column. Below that we show the other cards for the Marquette 2003 and Auburn 2019 Final Four teams to give my friends from both places the chance to play - but you can find those teams and 40 others on the link above. They are divided into seven great teams from the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Big East, Pac-12 and SEC, but great teams from other conferences were placed in one of the other conferences to set up a season.


The following is the team card and one possible line-up for Marquette 2003 - which puts Steve Novak into the starting line-up as the best 3-pointer shooter and free throw shooter on any of the 42 great teams in the game.






We filled in a score sheet with the Auburn 2019 Final Four team as the visitor and the 2003 Marquette Final Four team as the home team. The blue ink indicates items we would have written into the score sheet to start the game, as well as notes on when players would enter the game to avoid anyone becoming tired. We have steadily simplified the game without losing any of the key components, and we are finding it takes us 25 minutes to play a game.




The following is a starting line-up for Auburn. You could certainly play starters against starters to try to game, but the reserves on both teams and all 40 other great teams are available on the link at the top of this post.



Feedback is always welcome at pudnerjohn@gmail.com. Yes a few rough edges still and will continue to cleanup the goofy decimals etc.