Guest Post: Efficiency, Schmeffiency?

Sometimes a post or two comes along and we say, "I wish I had thought of that". This is the first of two such posts. A few months ago, MUScoop poster Dr. Blackheart wrote an excellent post on Efficiency, Schmeffiency? and used it to look deeper into Marquette's turnovers.

With his permission, we are republishing a few posts, because some ideas need a wider distribution.

Efficiency, Schmeffiency?

Entering his third year at the helm, Buzz Williams, for the first time, has an entire roster of his recruits in place (including three he recruited as an assistant). Inherited from his days as an assistant were two separate groups of experienced and accomplished guards and a NBA first round forward who have moved on. In are two straight nationally ranked recruiting classes.

What have we learned about Buzz Williams compared to other recent MU seasons that will shed light on who will be seeing the most minutes in the upcoming season? One, we know from Pomeroy that the Warriors were one of the smallest teams (341st in average height) last year, and Buzz has moved to remedy that. Two, he has balanced his classes by bringing in experienced and decorated JUCO’s over his first two classes. Three, he has brought in quickness and length with his athletically gifted freshman class. So, who starts?

Offensive Efficiency

MU ranked 22nd in Pomeroy’s adjusted efficiency ranking last season and ninth the prior year. Clearly, as Buzz has stated, he values every possession. To provide context, in the top 100 MU games in offensive efficiency since the 1996-97 season, Buzz’s two teams own 23 of those games, or 11.5 games per season of a rating in a game over 118.5. In contrast, teams coached by Tom Crean averaged 7.7 games per season over that level while Mike Deane’s teams averaged 2.7 games. Why does efficiency matter? MU won 95% of these 100 games!

Low Turnovers Despite High Turnover

So, how has Buzz accomplished this with the Three Amigos graduating and two severely undersized guards replacing them? While MU had a great eFG% year, and Jimmy got to the line at a high rate, the simple answer is a low number of turnovers. Consider this, in the lowest 100 turnover games since the 1996-97 season, a Buzz team owns 36 of these games—or 18 per season. Both Mo (3:1 A/TO, 1st in BE and 4th nationally) and Cubes (2.7:1 A/TO 2nd in the BE and 12th nationally) will be hard to replace from last year as were the Three Amigos. Again in contrast, Crean’s teams own 55 of these games, or 6.1 per season. And, Deane’s teams own nine or 3 per season. Startling! Even more amazing, Buzz’s teams own the lowest six turnover games in the past 14 MU seasons:

Who Starts?

Jimmy Butler led the BE in offensive rating last year and was 6th nationally (editor's note - JFB for POY). Joe Fulce is second among returnees with a ORating of 112.3. DJO equaled Lazar’s 108.1. Who else will step up to fill the backcourt gap of Mo (118.4) and Cubes (120.2) then? Junior seems like he fits Buzz’s “MO”, but he had an Orating of 54.1 and a A/TO ratio of 1.3 in an injury impacted season. Dwight (95.3 OR with a lot of minutes) and EWill (88.8 under limited minutes) were inefficient, as was Otule, in very limited action (87.2). The JUCO POY Crowder, a great passer, perimeter player, and who can go inside to earn a shot at the foul line looks like a good bet over those three—but he is a late arrival as he finishes up his JUCO classes. And, “the best thing about freshman are that they become sophomores”.

Whoever gets the starting call will get a quick hook if he turns it over, that is for Buzz sure.
====
Thanks, Dr. Blackheart.

Want to dig in deeper? (Go visit the thread on MUScoop)

Is the Aggressive Defense Worth it?

During the two-part Big East Preview, there were a number of questions that popped up in the MUScoop.com thread. One poster, Pardner, who has helped contribute information regarding Official Bias, wondered if we were going to see any change in the fact that TC's teams always outfouled the competition. So I decided to look into this a little bit further.

If you look at the 2007 Pomeroy Marquette page and the 2008 Pomeroy Marquette page, one can see Marquette's Defensive Free Throw Rate (FTA / FGA) ranking. In the last two years, Marquette ranked #236 (in 2007) and #262 (in 2008). Despite being a Top 15 team according to Pomeroy, Marquette was one of the worst teams in the country at preventing opponents from getting to the line. Last year Marquette fit in comfortably between Albany and Sacred Heart. yeesh

While one could say that this is a product of our guard-centric lineup and big man deficiency, I don't believe that roster mix is the reason. After all, Marquette put our opponents on the line more regularly than South Carolina Upstate. (did you even know that was a school? yes, they exist)

Instead, I attribute this more to our defensive philosophy, which is commonly known as an aggressive style defense that favors deflections and steals. In fact, my key assumption is that the there is a link between the aggressive style of defense, increased opponent turnovers and more fouls committed. Marquette had a stingy and thieving defense last year, ending up #11 in the country at steal percentage. We forced turnovers (#49 in the country), and when the defense was working we were off and running for easy points.

But was the defensive strategy worth it?

If you look at the Pomeroy Game Plan for Marquette, you'll see that Marquette had a 99% significant correlation between our Opponent's Free Throw Rate and our Defensive Efficiency. In other words, when our opponent had a good Free Throw Rate, our defense suffered. (As I say all the time, it sounds intuitive, but it's not the same for every team. It doesn't apply to Wisconsin) We allowed our opponents to have a FTR of 41% last year. That means that an average opponent, shooting 54 FGA, would also take 22 free throws. To repeat, this was #262 in the country.

Against Top 100 opponents, the story is even worse. Our opponent's FTR goes up to 46% (~25 Free Throw Attempts per game).

Yeah, but so what? The average impact of this Free Throw Rate was a worsening of our Defensive Efficiency of 26.2, with a range from 16.9 (low) to 35.5 (high). Keep in mind our season Defensive Efficiency was 87.8, so this impacted our defense by 20-40%. I calculate that the way we put opponents on the line cost Marquette an average of 17.8 ppg with a standard range from 11.5 ppg to 24.2 ppg.

As previously stated above, Marquette's aggressive defense was one of the best in the nation. How much did we benefit from our aggressive defense? Going back to the Game Plan, we also see a 99% significant correlation between our Opponent's Turnover Rate and our Defensive Efficiency. More turnovers from our opponent means that our defense was better. (Still sounds intuitive, but it doesn't apply to Pittsburgh). We forced opponents into a turnover rate of 23.4%, meaning that our opponents ended up with about 16 turnovers per game, or almost one out of every four possessions.

Against Top 100 opponents, the turnover story is also not as good. Better teams protect the ball more. We only forced opponents into a turnover rate of 21.7%. Remember that 20% is considered average (a turnover one out of five possessions).

We come back to the so what? The average benefit on our defense was an improvement of our Defensive Efficiency of 13.2 with a range from 10.2 to 16.3. On a percentage basis, this is about 10-20% of our defensive results. I calculate that the turnovers for our opponents cost them (and benefited Marquette) an average of 9.0 ppg with a standard range from 6.9 ppg to 11.1 ppg.

If the assumption is right, then the style of defense that's taught is to focus on deflections and steals, which leads to more turnovers and fouls committed. The problem is that this benefit to our defense is not enough to overcome the negative implications from the extra fouls we commit. The extra trips to the free throw line for our opponent are worse for us than the times our opponent commits a turnover.

Furthermore, since conventional wisdom tells us teams protect the ball better in the post-season, does Marquette's defense get exposed even further? Our ability to force turnovers went way down last year in the post-season, but I'll have to do more analysis before saying the defensive strategy gets worse for MU.

If the assumption is wrong, then I can't blame the defensive strategy and emphasis on turnovers for the extra fouls committed. However, the fact remains that there is a significant impact on team performance from allowing our opponents to head to the free throw line so much. One thing is certain, no matter what the implications of the defensive strategy may be, the coaching staff needs to emphasize that we stop putting opponents on the free throw line so much.