Marquette Elitism?

Dr. Blackheart is back for more, this time looking at the concept of Marquette Elitisim -- topical given the ongoing 'Buzz Williams to NAME A SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY' speculation that is driving many fans completely bonkers.

*********************************************

Marquette University is one of only 12 basketball programs that have made six straight NCAA Tournament appearances, including: Duke, Gonzaga, Kansas, Michigan State, Pittsburgh, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Villanova, Wisconsin and Xavier. Over the past five Big Dances, these teams have won two national championships, reached five Final Fours, thirteen Elite 8’s, and twenty-six Sweet Sixteens. Every team but one has at least a Sweet 16 finish. Six of these teams had three Sweet 16 finishes or better (including Xavier the last three in a row), and three others had two Sweet 16’s or better. The Sweet 16 outlier? I think we know the painful answer to that question—even despite the presence of (then) four future NBA players.

As a result, the MU fan base has morphed itself into a group of tortured artists, doubting every good win, over-analyzing every close loss (which have been many), and agonizing over every freak injury, missed Jim Burr call, or Buzz rumor or decision. However, the fact that MU has now made the NCAA Dance every year it has been a member of the Big East is amazing, and a sure sign of a great program.

Three in a Row…

Buzz Williams and Hank Raymonds are the only MU head coaches in history who have made the NCAA’s their first three seasons at the helm. Both inherited a strong returning group of players, but Buzz’s journey was tougher due to the roster/recruit turnover when Tom Crean left for Indiana. Previously, I reviewed Dan Hanner’s blog piece which singled out Buzz’s performance among the up and coming coaches hired 2-3 years ago. It was also pointed out that many MU coaching alums drew note in Hanner’s blog piece—a strong sign of MU’s elite coaching tree.
So, taking some liberty with Pomeroy’s statistics (meant to be reflective of a current season, but consistent enough in methodology and statistical ranges to use here for discussion purposes across the past three seasons), I compiled Pomeroy averages on overall ratings (Pythagorean), offensive and defensive efficiency ratings, and the difference between the two to compare all D1 teams. This can provide a relative measuring stick on how well Buzz’s Warriors rank versus the elite programs.

So let’s take a look at MU over these trio of years versus other top teams.

• Buzz’s teams rack-up as #23 on the overall rating tote board, or 7th in the Big East with ND on our heels. The Top 25 summary clearly shows who the consistently elite teams are, and that the Big East dominates.
• Offensively, MU’s offensive efficiency ranked a superb #9 nationally, third in the BE and just behind the Badgers who are sixth nationally.
• Defensively, MU is 52nd nationally (only Top 25 Overall teams are shown) and 9th in the BE. Clearly a weak link when talking elite.
• On offense-defense differential, MU’s +21.2 positive gap ranks 19th, tied with Georgetown and our future foe Xavier.
• X Outlook: Offensively, MU is slightly better than Xavier. The X-Men are a better defensively. The gap is a wash as is the Vegas line. Will MU finally break-through to the Sweet 16? Rob shows that teams who play good defense are the ones who advance deep. However, for the first time in five seasons, MU has a post-presence advantage in the NCAA, so I am predicting a MU win on Friday and a long-deserved Sweet 16 trip after a season sweep of Syracuse on Sunday.
  

3 Year Kpom Pyth Rank	Team/2011 Seed	3 Year Off. Eff. AVG.	3 Year Def. Eff. AVG.	O VS. D Gap
1	Duke 1	120.3	87.9	32.3
2	Kansas 1	118.8	88.1	30.7
3	Syracuse 3	116.9	90.2	26.6
4	Pittsburgh 1	117.8	91.2	26.6
5	Purdue 3	111.3	87.1	24.3
6	West Virginia 5	115.0	90.1	24.9
7	Ohio St. 1	118.7	91.4	27.3
8	Texas 4	113.7	89.4	24.2
9	Brigham Young 3	116.2	91.8	24.4
10	Louisville 4	113.1	89.1	24.0
11	Wisconsin 4	117.3	92.8	24.4
12	Washington 7	114.0	91.1	22.9
13	Kentucky 4	114.1	89.8	24.4
14	Missouri 11	114.1	90.8	23.2
15	Villanova 9	115.4	92.9	22.5
16	Connecticut 3	112.9	89.5	23.4
17	North Carolina 2	114.3	90.2	24.1
18	Clemson 12	111.6	90.6	21.0
19	Michigan St. 10	112.3	90.7	21.6
20	Xavier 6	113.3	92.1	21.2
21	Georgetown 6	113.9	92.7	21.2
22	San Diego St. 2	111.2	90.3	20.9
23	Marquette 11	115.7	94.6	21.2
24	Kansas St. 5	112.0	91.2	20.8
25	Notre Dame 2	119.0	97.3	21.7

Let’s Go (Marquette)!

So, is MU an elite program today or is it a qualified stepping stone? Consecutive NCAA appearances say yes. Coaching tree says yes. Offensive efficiency says yes. History, financials, facilities and attendance say yes. Recruiting says close. NCAA finishes and defense say not yet. Will Buzz continue to build his legacy at MU? The Elite Tag tipping point will be decided this weekend.

Let the hand wringing begin.

Charity Ice

Dr. Blackheart is back for more .... here's the latest in his on-going series of guest columns which look in-depth at the Warriors on a variety of topics.

*****************************************
As our Feared Warriors march into the post-season tournaments with only “do or die” games remaining, the chance that these games will be decided by free throws will be very likely—as seen in our last four NCAA games which were decided by a total of eight points. Due to the nature of this sudden death, the topic of free throw shooting always is a controversial one this time of year as a missed charity shot at the end is “oh so” immediate. This controversy has percolated from time to time during the season as well as Buzz has stated that he does not spend formal practice time on free throw shooting.

As a result of all of this, I dug into this issue to get the discussion agenda going as MU heads into the Big East Tournament and beyond.

Buzz’s Teams Making MU History
At the close of this regular season, Buzz’s first three teams combined have the best free throw shooting percent in MU’s recorded history at 72.1%. This is a little less than 4% points higher than MU’s average over the past 63 years. This is contra to the trend in the NCAA and NBA which have seen virtually no change in free throw shooting percents over the past 50 years. Obviously, this is a point on the board for Buzz’s philosophy in this endless and emotionally charged debate as he is going against Hall of Fame coaches on this list. Certainly 24/7/365 player access to “The Al” has also helped in this regard.

Coach	FTA	FTM	FT %
Tex	1223	1819	67.2%
Nagle	2635	3876	68.0%
Hickey	2392	3712	64.4%
McGuire	6042	8914	67.8%
Raymonds	2258	3236	69.8%
Majerus	1236	1822	67.8%
Dukiet	1121	1626	68.9%
O'Neill	2231	3136	71.1%
Deane	2145	3235	66.3%
Crean	4289	6031	71.1%
Williams	1704	2362	72.1%
Total MU Recorded History	27,966	40,842	68.5%

2010-11 Season Strong
This season’s team is ranked at 154 according to Pomeroy in free throw shooting at 69.8%, a few decimal points above the national mean of 69.2%. In Big East play, MU is shooting an improving 70.1%, good for 8th in league play. MU leads the BE is both free throws attempted and made, which is a reflection of Buzz’s paint touch offensive philosophy. In support of the fact that MU’s offense is the 14th most efficient nationally and that MU scored the most points per game of any Big East team, Buzz earns another point, as MU’s opponents only shot 65.8% against us (69.0% for the Big East foes).

	FTA	FTM	FT %
MU All Minutes	547	784	69.8%
OPP All Minutes	354	538	65.8%
MU BE All Minutes	324	462	70.1%
BE OPP All Minutes	238	345	69.0%

Crunch Time Blues
In the recently published book Scorecasting, the authors dug into various sports’ myths including the impact of icing a placekicker or free throw shooter in pressure situations. They looked at reams of play-by-play data and found icing does not work: “Icing doesn’t freeze a player or heat them up. You might call it a lukewarm strategy.”

Curious, I mined this season’s play-by-play data to see how these situations look for our Warriors, who are relatively inexperienced to pressure play. I segmented play into two buckets when the pressure of free throws is seemingly greater and players are more fatigued: 1) the last two minutes of the game and OT and 2) the last four minutes. What I found was a bit surprising, and actually fairly consistent across the games.

• Despite shooting at a near 70% clip, MU shooters tightened up at the end of games. This has been especially true in Big East games (50% free throw shooting). More so, MU is an abysmal 40% on the road in BE play and a lackluster 60% at home.
• Our opponents, who shot below the national average in the games against MU, stepped it up considerably at crunch time. In fact, our BE enemies shot a whopping 83.3% in the last two minutes of games, an increase from 69%.
• Excluding the crunch time data, MU shot at 73% for the rest of the game in Big East play, which would put this team at the average of Buzz’s first two experienced teams and just off the BE team lead. Our BE opponents shot a paltry 65% for the remaining majority of the games. One point against Buzz’s philosophy he again adopted for this season's inexperienced players.

	Free Throw %
	Last 2 Minutes	Last 4 Minutes
Marquette
All Games	60.2%	63.0%
BE Games	50.0%	55.6%
BE Home	60.0%	61.5%
BE Away	40.0%	50.0%
Opponents
All Games	77.0%	74.8%
BE Games	83.3%	78.7%

Outlook
Tired legs and shaky nerves lay ahead. As we saw at Seton Hall, Buzz will have to go deeper into his bench to save energy. But, at crunch time, let’s get the ball into Jimmy Butler’s hands who is 10th in Big East and who has been in the pressure cookers before. Go MU!

“Share the Tagamet”

Coaching Carousel Redux

We're pleased to welcome Dr. Blackheart back to the blog for an historical overview of the coaching carousel. Originally, this was scheduled for last week, but then "stuff" got in the way. Regardless, the content in this post is well worth revisiting after yet another road loss.
_______________________________________________________

Back in 2008, right after Tom Crean left Marquette for the “Quadruple I”, the Bleacher Report published an article on fast risers in the college coaching profession. Among the names listed at the time were Anthony Grant of VCU, Brad Brownell of Wright St., Sean Miller of Xavier, Tony Bennett of Washington St. and Keno Davis of Drake (who had just been named National Coach of the Year). All were rumored to have been potential candidates for the vacant Marquette job. Absent from the list was one Brent “Buzz” Williams, a virtual unknown even to ardent MU followers.

Fast forward to February 2011, and each of these names have assumed the head coaching throne at a new, top BCS-level job: Grant to Bama, Brownell to Clemson, Miller to Arizona, Bennett to UVA and Davis to Providence. Also on the list with MU connections besides Crean were former assistant Darrin Horn (who had just taken the South Carolina spot at the time of this article) and Kevin O’Neill, former head coach, who has now assumed the USC lead. And, of course, Buzz has moved down the hall to the corner office in “The Al”.

Recently, blogger Dan Hanner of the Yet Another Basketball Blog (YABB) revisited the coaching hires over the past three years to evaluate which of these head coaches have made a difference. Hanner used Pomeroy efficiency statistics to rate these new coaches versus their predecessors. The surprising results:

• Besides John Calipari and Mike Montgomery, no other 2-3 year head coach has improved the lot of their new teams more so than “The Buzzer”. Considering that the other two have NBA experience and past high NCAA success, Buzz has been able to move the needle in the right direction for MU—past the “Three Amigos+Zar” era and now with his own recruits—and Crean had left him with a much higher bar to beat than either Coach Cal or Montgomery inherited.
• Yet, the shadow of doubt and his predecessor still seems to hang over the one not on the 2008 list. Quoting Hanner: “Is Buzz Williams a better coach than Tom Crean? His teams have had better efficiency margins than Crean’s did. And this data includes Crean’s team with Dwayne Wade. Until Williams gets to a Final Four, I think the answer is no. But I will say this: Buzz Williams' teams almost never get blown out. (editor's note - the next Cracked Sidewalks t-shirt will have the "no double-digit losses" banner on the back)
  
• Three first year Big East Coaches made the “Positive Impact” list including former MU assistant Mike Rice—along with Steve Lavin of SJU and Kevin Willard of Seton Hall. Each of these also was left with seasoned upperclassmen. The question will be if any of these three will be “one hit wonders”, a tag that Buzz is starting to put behind him?
• On the “Negative Impact” list are eleven names with 2-3 years on the job at their current gig, including four of the rising stars mentioned with MU in 2008, and MU coaching alumni Crean, O’Neill and Horn. Brownell, in his first year at Clemson after taking over for Oliver Purnell, is near break even. Grant seems to have Bama on the right path with defense, as the Crimson Tide is 8-2 and contending in the weaker SEC West.

So, is MU a much better job than the pundits and the so-called “hot coaches” are willing to admit or recognize? Is Buzz still underestimated, even by the MU faithful? Is the grass always greener at these high visibility jobs? On a day like today, when the fan base questions how good a coach Buzz actually is, the remainder of the season awaits to help answer these questions.
______________________________________________________

Excellent post, Dr. Blackheart. Thank you very much!

Guest post: Marquette, pace and the rest of the schedule

The time has come to head back to math class and take a hard look at this year's Marquette basketball team and we're pleased to welcome the inimitable Dr. Blackheart back to Cracked Sidewalks for another guest post.

To a degree today's post builds on Dr. Blackheart's recent look at MU's defense. Yes, the good doctor's expertise is habit-forming. Thanks again, Doc.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Possessed

From the bar stools of Old World Third Street and the Third Ward to the keyboards of the interwebs, every MU fan with a right index finger (to order the next round or to hunt ‘n peck for that second exclamation point) has anointed themselves the next “Coach in Waiting” based upon their theories about MU’s defense. According to Statsheet, our vaunted Warriors are #1 in Big East play in offensive efficiency (1.18 PPP). MU can “tickle the twine” like no other in a tough, tough conference with great, experienced coaches who know how to shut a team down. Conversely, our defensive efficiency of 1.09 PPP is second to last, tied with a few conference standing bottom feeders after DePaul.

This is not news to anyone who follows Buzz’s Dozen as the sale of Tagamet in Greater Milwaukee is up 75% with all these “so close but yet so far” games. The boys really stepped up against Syracuse and are learning how to finish off opponents. However, our defensive efficiency still was not great (1.08) against the Orange, especially in the 2nd half where SU shot a blistering 68.2%. The outcome was favorable this weekend, but the symptoms of the patient are still present.

As a fan, I have always been most interested in strategy of coaches more than other aspect of the game. The Big East is the #1 competitive conference in the land, but the ability and creativity of the coaches are legendary. On top of that, the schedule and pressure are grueling with quick turnarounds, packed houses and national TV audiences. Word of a team or player strength or weakness travels quickly in today’s digital world. Being curious, I dove a little deeper into the advance stats on the internet to see what an opposing coach might see about MU that maybe isn’t so apparent by perusing the box score.

Beyond the Averages

Taking a step back, we discussed previously how Buzz uses his defense—like Lovie Smith’s in football-- to limit an opponent’s offense by pressuring for turnovers at pinch points in order to feed the energy of MU’s offensive juggernaut. One way to statistically define energy is by looking at the number of possessions. Last season, with MU’s make-up, Buzz wanted to limit possessions. This season, he wants to increase that energy--which is more his stated natural philosophy. To delve deeper, I took a look at each of our games to see how this looks in numbers.

First, I segmented games from this season into above average possession games (>69 per game) and those at/below the average. Here is what I found:

• MU is 7-2 in above average possession games.
• MU is 7-6 in games at or below that average.
• MU’s offensive efficiency in both segments of the games is almost exactly the same (1.16 vs. 1.17)
• MU defensive efficiency in fast paced games is 0.89, while average to slower paced games the statistic is 1.10. Ah, the magic bean: “Slow MU down and you can break them down!”

More so, in faster paced games, MU’s opponents assist less and turn the rock over at a higher rate (0.90 assist to turnover ratio vs. 1.36), and their opponents’ offensive (28% vs. 36%) and defensive (58% vs. 68%) rebounding rates are lower. This is further “proof in numbers” of how offensive energy is so critical in Buzz’s defensive philosophy this season—and why coaches are trying to slow MU down, especially with adjustments after MU has jumped to leads.

Buzz has always stressed a highly efficient offensive philosophy, predicated on paint touches. What did this offensive-defensive difference look like last season when MU wanted a slower paced game to fight starter attrition—with this leading to a record number of close games? The answer: the same. While the game possession average was down (65), fast and slow/average paced games saw MU with similar levels of offensive efficiency, but MU’s defensive efficiency was much lower (better) in faster paced games at 96.0 vs. 104.2 in slower grinders.

So, the chess game between coaches will continue: Brey stressing his “Burn Offense”, Pitino with the switching zones and the three quarters trap, Boeheim with the 2-3 zone, Calhoun slowing down Walker and putting their younglings in a position to score by working the shot clock. Upcoming, Nova likes a faster paced game as does Providence, but the remainder of the teams on the schedule like to take the air out of ball or are even paced. Buzz will try to feed the offensive vortex from the get-go.

My advice: Try Tum’s if the Tagamet is sold out.