"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

Wednesday, December 25, 2019

Really Big East: 2020 NCAA Mock Bracket

When the Big East sent 11 teams to the NCAA Tournament in 2011, it was a record for the most teams in the field, but not the highest percentage of teams to make it. That year, the 68.8% of the Big East going to the NCAA Tournament was not a record, and while the Big 12 (2014, 2015, 2016, 2018) and Big East (2017) would send 7 out of 10 teams to their respective tournaments, 70% was also not a record.

In 1991, the Big East sent 7 of their 9 teams to the Big Dance, a 77.8% rate. That record has stood for 28 years, but if the Tournament started today, the current Big East would blow that record out of the water as Cracked Sidewalks can project 9 of 10 Big East teams in the NCAA field, with only Providence missing out.

The league's strong week has Butler on the edge of a 1-seed, saw Villanova and Creighton move up to 5-seeds and 4 of the remaining 6 teams (Marquette, DePaul, Seton Hall, & St. John's) improve their position.

If I'm honest, I don't expect this to hold. Teams like Georgetown and Seton Hall will face real challenges to make the field with depleted rosters, St. John's and DePaul have to prove that their solid non-con wins aren't a fluke, and the league would need incredible parity for everyone to get the 8-10 wins needed to make the field. Most likely some of these teams fall off, but it seems highly likely the league has enough quality to place at least 6 teams in the field and 7 or even 8 are very realistic.

For the bracket on the whole, it gets really messy around the 6 line and from there on down it felt like I was struggling to find teams worthy of the seed. Every year we talk about how weak the field is and this year is no exception. It's early in the year, so hopefully teams will build better resumes as the season goes on, but when I'm seriously looking at a team like Arkansas with a combined zero Quadrant 1+2 victories, it's bad.



Before I get to the S-Curve, a few more notes on the bubble. At this point, I have Virginia, Kentucky, Purdue, and North Carolina all out of the field. The majority of Bracket Matrix disagrees with me, but I try to base my field on how things stand now, and those teams simply don't have the resumes to warrant inclusion. Virginia has zero Quadrant 1 wins and a Quadrant 3 loss. Kentucky has 1 Quadrant 1 win, but their next best win is a single Quadrant 3 win and they also have a Quadrant 4 loss. Purdue has zero Quadrant 1 wins and two Quadrant 3 losses. North Carolina has a Quadrant 1 win, but also has a Quadrant 4 loss and a sub-90 NET.

Compare that to the at-large teams that I have in Dayton. Minnesota has the best home court win in the nation over Ohio State, no losses outside Quadrant 2, and a top-30 NET. Virginia Tech's best win is the same Quadrant 1 win Kentucky has, but they also have a Quadrant 2 win and no losses outside Quadrant 1. Houston has a Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2 win with no losses outside Quadrant 2. And Miami has two Quadrant 1 wins and no losses outside Quadrant 2. Quite simply, the teams in my field have as good or better quality of wins as the blue bloods I have outside and their worst losses are far better than the worst losses of the marquee names I left out.

Here's the full S-Curve:

1-Seeds: 1-GONZAGA 2-Ohio State 3-Baylor 4-Duke
2-Seeds: 8-West Virginia 7-KANSAS 6-LOUISVILLE 5-BUTLER
3-Seeds: 9-OREGON 10-SAN DIEGO STATE 11-Maryland 12-Michigan
4-Seeds: 16-Florida State 15-AUBURN 14-Penn State 13-MEMPHIS
5-Seeds: 17-Wichita State 18-Villanova 19-Iowa 20-Creighton
6-Seeds: 24-Colorado 23-Indiana 22-DAYTON 21-MICHIGAN STATE
7-Seeds: 25-Marquette 26-Oklahoma 27-Stanford 28-DePaul
8-Seeds: 32-Seton Hall 31-NORTHERN IOWA 30-Washington 29-Oklahoma State
9-Seeds: 33-Georgetown 34-St. John's 35-Arizona 36-LIBERTY
10-Seeds: 40-Byu 39-Xavier 38-Utah State 37-Tennessee
11-Seeds: 41-Texas Tech 42-Vcu 43-St. Mary's 44-N.C. State
12-Seeds: 50-YALE 49-EAST TENNESSEE STATE 48-Miami (Fl)/47-Houston 46-Virginia Tech/45-Minnesota
13-Seeds: 51-LOUISIANA TECH 52-VERMONT 53-BELMONT 54-NEW MEXICO STATE
14-Seeds: 58-UC-IRVINE 57-GEORGIA STATE 56-WRIGHT STATE 55-KENT STATE
15-Seeds: 59-NORTHERN COLORADO 60-RADFORD 61-COLGATE 62-ORAL ROBERTS
16-Seeds: 68-BETHUNE COOKMAN/67-SACRED HEART 66-PRAIRIE VIEW A&M/65-STEPHEN F AUSTIN 64-RIDER 63-HOFSTRA

NIT 1-Seeds: Temple, Virginia, Iowa State, Mississippi
NIT 2-Seeds: Florida, Kentucky, Illinois, USC

Multi-bid Leagues
Big East: 9
Big 10: 8
Big 12: 6
ACC: 6
Pac-12: 5
West Coast: 3
American: 3
SEC: 2
Mountain West: 2
Atlantic-10: 2

Christmas Break 2003 Marquette vs. 2010 West Virginia

The time between Christmas Eve decorating and 10 p.m. Mass left just enough time to play the 2003 Marquette team in their first round East Region vs. the 2010 West Virginia team in Value Add Basketball (click for free game). Like Marquette 2003, West Virginia 2010 stunned a great Kentucky team (No. 2 in 2010 and No. 1 in 2003) in the Elite 8 before falling hard in the Final Four.

The 1977 Marquette team already defeated Rick Majerus' Utah 1998 Final Four team in the 96 All-Time Great Teams West Region,

The Marquette-West Virginia winner would advance to the second round to play the 2018 National Champions from Villanova, the 4-seed in our East Region.




The game proved a great show down between Da'Sean Butler and Dwyane Wade. With eight minutes left, both had drawn four fouls on the other in a back and forth game. Wade scored a game-high 25 points to best Butler (18 points), however with Marquette bringing it up the court down 70-68, Butler stole the ball to start a fast break and Wade fouled out at the other end.

Travis Diener helped Marquette retake the lead 74-73 with their high powered offense even without Wade (the game starts 20-20 and the 44 possessions are played out in the game, so 74 is a strong showing against a great defense like Huggins Mountaineers). However, I was reminded Marquette's defense was actually one of the worst to ever make a Final Four.

With two possessions left for each team, West Virginia missed but Devin Ebanks grabbed the rebound and scored - which was the 8th time in the game that either Ebanks or Kevin Jones grabbed an offensive rebound and scored.

Robert Jackson actually had a game-high 10 rebounds to give Marquette a 35-32 lead on the boards, but I noticed both Jackson and Jones were great offensive rebounders but not as great on the defensive boards - and in fact I checked after the game and West Virginia led the nation in offensive rebounds that year. While Marquette's player cards appeared to make them a slight favorite in the game and dice give the same basic variance as games - it also appeared West Virginia may have had the right strength in offensive rebounding to exploit Marquette's weakness.

Based on www.kenpom.com Marquette 2003 had the second best offense in the country, but only the 109th best defense overall and only the 251st best defensive rebounding team (one of the worst 100 in the country).

One other interesting stat is that Steve Novak - who plays 15 possessions of the 44 in the game based on his freshmen minutes that year was fouled three times. Free throws are determined by a 20-sided die with the higher rolls being the missed free throws. Three of Novak's six rolls were a 19, 19 and 20 - but because Novak is one of the only 1-19 free throw made (rounded to 95%) of early 1000 player cards in the game - that resulted in five of his six free throws being good. I guess you could say the two 19s actually touched the rim, and the real Steve Novak would have likely spent the whole night correcting his free throws.

Here is the East Bracket after Marquette's loss. The 1977 team is in the West Region.








Monday, December 23, 2019

Have some Scrambed Egg Nog

Full disclosure, we stole the episode title from Andy Benjamin on twitter but it was way too good not to use. This holiday episode of Scrambled Eggs we revisit the past week of games and discuss what the outcome tells us about the upcoming Big East season. We also talk about the Howard brothers all-time record set against North Dakota State. We then talk about the Central Arkansas game and any takeways we can get from that game. Lastly, we have a conversation about Marquette and Markus Howard's place in the sports media landscape. We hope to pod again in a week but either way we wish all our listeners Happy Holidays and a Merry Christmas. Enjoy! https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/mf/play/xd2ipp/scrambledeggs_edit_122219.mp3

Thursday, December 19, 2019

S-Curve 2020 Take 1

I decided to start bundling teams today in order to have a head-start on my first bracket projection for Christmas. After spending 30 minutes or so in that rabbit hole, I found myself sucked into doing a full S-Curve. Quite simply, this is a mess. It got really hard to differentiate teams in the middle of the 4-line, and the separation between the teams on the 6-line and the teams on the bubble is miniscule. I could make an honest case for Kentucky to be out of the field and Arkansas in based on resume, which feels a bit insane.

What really stood out was that I have 8 Big East teams in the field, though Seton Hall would be in a precarious position if they lose to Maryland. Just hard to justify anyone at 6-5, especially as North Carolina was dismissed fairly quickly once I got to the staggering 27 teams I had for the final 16 spots. If UNC isn't very close to being in, Seton Hall isn't far from being out.

As far as how I did this, with the exception of the ACC (Louisville) and Big 10 (Michigan State), the autobid winner is the highest ranked team in the league per Pomeroy. Those two exceptions are based on league standings.


1-Seeds: 1-KANSAS 2-GONZAGA 3-Ohio State 4-Duke
2-Seeds: 8-BUTLER 7-Baylor 6-Maryland 5-LOUISVILLE
3-Seeds: 9-West Virginia 10-OREGON 11-Florida State 12-Auburn
4-Seeds: 16-Penn State 15-SAN DIEGO STATE 14-Wichita State 13-MEMPHIS
5-Seeds: 17-Michigan 18-DAYTON 19-Virginia 20-MICHIGAN STATE
6-Seeds: 24-KENTUCKY 23-Indiana 22-Iowa 21-Arizona
7-Seeds: 25-Villanova 26-Marquette 27-Tennessee 28-Creighton
8-Seeds: 32-Georgetown 31-Stanford 30-Xavier 29-Washington
9-Seeds: 33-Oklahoma State 34-DePaul 35-Oklahoma 36-Purdue
10-Seeds: 40-Seton Hall 39-Texas Tech 38-Florida 37-St. Mary's
11-Seeds: 41-NC State 42-Byu 43-Texas/44-Colorado 45-Illinois/46-Richmond
12-Seeds: 50-YALE 49-LOUISIANA TECH 48-LIBERTY 47-NORTHERN IOWA
13-Seeds: 51-EAST TENNESSEE STATE 52-VERMONT 53-AKRON 54-EASTERN WASHINGTON
14-Seeds: 58-NORTHERN KENTUCKY 57-STEPHEN F AUSTIN 56-UC IRVINE 55-BELMONT
15-Seeds: 59-NEW MEXICO STATE 60-RIDER 61-COLGATE 62-GEORGIA STATE
16-Seeds: 68-BETHUNE COOKMAN/67-ST FRANCIS (PA) 66-PRAIRIE VIEW A&M/65-SOUTH DAKOTA STATE 64-RADFORD 63-NORTHEASTERN

First Four Out: Arkansas, Utah State, VCU, LSU
Next Four Out: Duquesne, Oregon State, Connecticut, Iowa State

Multi-bid Leagues:

Big Ten -- 9
Big East -- 8
Big 12 -- 7
ACC -- 5
Pac-12 -- 5
SEC -- 4
West Coast Conference -- 3
American -- 2
Atlantic-10 -- 2

A few more notes. This was written before the SHU over Maryland upset. It's early enough in the season that I'm not going to worry about that. The Big East has a massive 8 bids, but only Butler is included on the top-6 lines. The league needs teams like Villanova, Marquette, Creighton, and Xavier to start winning Quadrant 1 games to earn favored seeds.

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Breaks over, lets talk buy games and your questions

Quick summary for this podcast, we focused on 3 key topics: -What do we want to get out of the buy games? -Initial NET rankings are out, what are our take-aways and thoughts? -We polled the #mubb twitterverse for questions you want answered and boy did you deliver We're hoping to be back with a pod before Christmas, enjoy! https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/e/breaks-over-lets-talk-buy-games-and-your-questions/

Friday, December 13, 2019

Building a Resume



While Selection Sunday is months away, a tweet from the Marquette Twitter this week really grabbed my attention. I have lauded this schedule in articles on this site, on Twitter, and on MUScoop.com, but this single tweet captured the importance of Marquette's non-conference schedule:


h
https://twitter.com/MarquetteMBB/status/1204125214503772160?s=20

I can't underscore enough how well constructed this schedule is, though I did try to do so in this article from before the season began. There are four critical numbers that have led to Marquette's impressive non-conference schedule ranking.

0: Sub-300 Opponents
In Wojo's first 5 seasons, Marquette played 14 sub-300 opponents, at least two each year. As of this writing, we have no sub-300 teams on the 2019-20 resume. Bottom feeders really hurt in a metric like kenpom or the NET. Previously, our worst average opponent was 340.4 per Pomeroy. This year it's 296. With an average of 2.8 sub-300 opponents per year, that means that one 340 average was never the only team worse than any of the non-con opponents we will see this year. Great job by Mike Broeker and the athletic department to secure quality guarantee games.

6: Top-100 Opponents
Marquette has played (at the moment) 6-Purdue, 9-Maryland, 54-Wisconsin, 59-USC, 74-Davidson, and 78-Kansas State. When I started with the top of the Big East and saw Butler had also played 6 top-100 opponents, I questioned the strength of this statistic. Thankfully, I kept going. Butler, along with Georgetown and West Virginia, are the only 3 other high-major teams in the country to have played as many top-100 non-conference teams. While there are teams that have played more top-100 teams overall (such as Maryland with 7) that is because those teams have already started conference play.


8: Non-con opponents projected top-half of their league
Two-thirds of Marquette's non-conference opponents are expected to finish in the top-half of their league. That means once conference play begins, our opponents will be expected to win games which will continue to improve Marquette's NET and potentially improve their NCAA seed. Further, of the four teams projected to finish in the bottom half (Wisconsin, Robert Morris, Kansas State, Central Arkansas), only one (KSU) is projected to finish more than one game under .500. Even the lesser non-con opponents should be competitive.

9: Non-con opponent wins last weekend
Kudos to The Anonymous Eagle Podcast crew for pointing out that Marquette jumped up from #30 in Pomeroy's rankings on Friday to #24 after the K-State win. In a straight seed debate, that's the difference between the second 8-seed and the last 6-seed, which is a significant two seed-line jump. But half of that jump came before Marquette took the court. Marquette's non-conference opponents went 9-3 over the weekend, and their 8-1 weekend record (at the time) moved Marquette from #30 to #27 before they entered the Octagon of Doom. This might seem minor, but the metric which most closely approximates the NET is kenpom, and in a straight NET seeding, that difference would be enough to make a seed line jump from the 8-line to the 7-line. When we consider that one of those losses was by Kansas State, the weekend went about as well as it could have gone, and having strong non-conference opponents, especially come conference play.

I know that numbers aren't always sexy. The amount of time I spend breaking down the differences between a Loyola-Maryland and IUPUI or Central Arkansas and Chicago State seems insignificant to casual fans and November weeknight plans. That said, these decisions will be the difference between protected and unprotected seeds as well as teams that get to Dayton or see their bubbles burst on Selection Sunday.



For another example of how these shifts can impact kenpom and the NET, consider Butler playing at Baylor. Coming into that game, Baylor was ranked #12 in kenpom, which would be the last 3-seed, while Butler was ranked #13, the first 4-seed. Despite winning the game, Baylor actually dropped to #13 while Butler climbed to #11 because the margin was smaller than the metrics would have expected. So in a loss, Butler moved up a seed line while Baylor dropped a seed line despite winning. This is because Baylor only won by 1 point, so the presumption is that Butler would be better on a neutral court.

The other thing that matters but even less popular is scoring margins. I don't have the full day-by-day NET tracking, but consider that last year, Marquette began the season in November at #29 in Pomeroy and despite starting 18-3, had fallen in the rankings to 35 by the end of January. The reason was because those three losses had come by an average of 17.3 points while few of the winning margins had been overwhelming to expectations (most notably the 7-point win over UTEP that saw Marquette drop 6 spots on Pomeroy). Thanks to the NET, running up the score tangibly helps you when it comes to your ranking and how the Selection Committee views you on Selection Sunday.

The argument against this line of scoring margins would be "the Selection Committee will see through these individual data points, so Baylor in winning would still be seeded higher." I think this argument would be patently false. At the end of the year, the NET is adhered to relatively closely because it is an equation of 30+ data points. So despite Baylor winning, the result reflected more positively on Butler and the way that impacts the equation would help the latter more than the former. The RPI ignored scoring margins, but the NET does not. Honestly, it's the only thing that matters to the NET. Yes, it factors in where you play and who you play, but ultimately it's all about how much you win or lose by. You might need a 35-point margin over a cupcake at home to get the same boost you would receive from beating a high-major like Purdue at home by 10 (which is why Marquette got the same rough rank benefit from beating Loyola-Maryland as they did beating Purdue) but the only thing you can control is the margin, so it's imperative to run up winning scores and minimize losing deficits.

Monday, December 09, 2019

It was a good week, now lets go win at finals

It's a pretty straight forward pod this week. #mubb got two wins this week, including a solid road win against a potential Big 12 bottom dweller. So we talked about the two games this week and what we learned from them. We also marvel at the development of Jamal Cain and whether there are any late game Markus concerns. Quick pod for your morning drive. Enjoy! https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/mf/play/x6brgp/scrambledeggs_edit_120919.mp3

Sunday, December 08, 2019

Majerus Memory Showdown - 1998 Utah vs. 1977 Marquette

My all-time March Madness featured a "Rick Majerus game" as his 1998 Utah team seeded #22 in the West drew the #11 seed 1977 National Champs from Marquette. Majerus was on the bench when both teams beat UNC in the Final 4 - Marquette for the title of course and Utah in the semifinal before losing to Kentucky. (click here for complete free game)

The following is the basic set-up of the game with suggested positioning of the cards and the one sheet score sheet in the bottom right that is used to track the running score and stats per player:


This is a zoom on the actual player cards of the starters.


One trick in playing eras of course is the 3-point play. For teams that played without the 3-point line we do make one in five shots a three-point play, to match the average from when the line was put into place, but need to use your imagination in assuming the guards are actually 3-point shots whereas the big men are scoring on traditional 3-point plays. However, the overall level of competition and average points scored and allowed for each team is carefully calibrated to balance any differences between eras so that all of the 96 great teams should be as strong offensively and defensively per a 66 possession game as they should be based on a dunk range and dunk defense that balance all out.

Michael Doleac's 3-point play with 6:41 (11 possessions left) cut the Marquette lead to 66-61, but most of the game Marquette dominated inside. The next two possessions Bo Ellis (27 points, 12 rebounds) grabbed three offensive rebounds and ended up fouled both times.

A couple of trips later Andre Miller would have made another 3-pointer to cut the lead to 68-64 except that Jim Boylan stole the ball to deny the shot (because four dice are rolled at once and are read in order we actually know what the result would have been if Miller had gotten off a shot). Boylan's fast break, one of only a couple for Marquette, made it 70-61 and Marquette never looked back.

Jerome Whitehead (10 points, 13 rebounds) joined Ellis in doubling the number of rebounds any Utah player grabbed to give Marquette a decisive 34-23 edge on the boards.

Player of the Year Butch Lee added 21 points. All Value Add Basketball Games last 66 possessions, so even though Marquette played at a slower pace that would have likely held the overall score lower for both teams, the 79-69 score was the result of 66 possessions rather than an actual timed game simulation.

The cards indicate how many possessions a player can play before being tired. In a credit to Marquette's history of keeping stats, MU's minutes were tracked even back in 1977 so the players are on the court the correct number of possessions, while Utah 1998 stats do not including minutes therefore their players get the "average" in the game - which is 37 possessions for starters after 7 possessions for reserves (the game assumes a 20-20 score with all players having played 11 possessions when the actual board game starts so the box score below lists which of the final 44 possessions each player was in the game at which position).


#22 Utah 1998PtsRebStlsBlksFoulsPossessions Played
Alex Jensen7210237-1 (3)
Hanno Mottola8202437-1 (4)
Michael Doleac10600237-1 (5)
Andre Miller15220137-1 (1)
Drew Hansen13411237-1 (2)
Jordie Mctavish2100144-38 (2)
David Jackson4100144-38 (4)
Trace Caton2100144-38 (3)
Britton Johnsen6100144-38 (1)
Jon Carlisle2300144-38 (5)
69234316
#11 Marquette 1977PtsRebStlsBlksFoulsPossessions Played
Jim Boylan7131332-1 (1)
Butch Lee21201144-1 (2)
Bill Neary4300123-1 (3)
Bo Ellis271202444-43, 40-1 (4)
Jerome Whitehead101302342-1 (5)
Gary Rosenberger2110144-33 (1)
Ulice Payne4110144-30 (3)
Bernard Toone4100344-43 (5), 42-41 (2), 29-24 (3)
Robert Byrd00000DNP
Jim Dudley00000DNP
79345617

In the second round, Marquette now faces the Texas Western 1966 team (now UTEP) that featured the first team to start five black players in a national championship - the team that fittingly upset Adolph Rupp - Al McGuire's hated rival who split four tournament games between the two. The two teams are on the opposite side of the bracket of Bill Walton's 1972 UCLA team - my No. 1 overall seed.


Majerus Breakthrough in Game


Rick Majerus coached two of the great defensive teams in the game - he was an assistant for the 1977 Marquette champions whose dunk range is a mediocre 51-50 (meaning no automatic dunks vs the average 51-53) and was head coach for 1998 Utah which had the same 51-50 dunk range. However, on defense Marquette had perhaps the greatest on-ball defense (everything except blocked shots, steals, and defensive rebounds) in the entire game with a -11 adjustment on opponent's dunks, and Utah was also excellent a -5.

The first step you always take in a game is to adjust the Offenses dunk range by the defenses adjustment, so this would give Marquette a 51-45 and Utah a 51-39. In the past I had always simply upped the lower team to 51-50 (no dunks) meaning Utah had no dunk range but adjusting Marquette by the same margin gave them a 51-56 - and that is how I played the game. Then it occurred to me - while exactly accurate in the correct gap between the two teams - what I had done is made Utah's offense almost average and Marquette's good (relative to all-time great teams) whereas really this match-up should have resulted in Marquette's defense being stifling against Utah's mediocre offense and Marquette also having some trouble against Utah's defense.

This led me to realize the the truly accurate way to make this adjustment (and these ranges are both already precisely calibrated to measure how many "other" things each offense and defense should do based on their overall strength of adjusted scoring, era, offense and defense) is to leave the ranges how they fall but have a reverse dunk range for defensive struggles that actually lets the defense stifle the offense.

I developed the table below, and if I played this game in the future Marquette would not have received a 51-56 dunk range, but actually their 51-45 calculation below would mean that they would instead have a range of 51-55 where they did NOT score. Utah's 51-39 range would result in them not only have a range of 51-61 where they did NOT score, but also the turnover range of each of their players would increase by 2 (e.g. 41-42 becomes a turnover on 41-44) and each of Marquette player's steal ranges would also increase by 2 (e.g. steal range of 11-14 becomes 11-16).  The following is the new table in the instructions:

When you first set up your two teams, look at the dunk range of the players on one team (e.g. 51 to 53 = Off Dunk) and then add or subtract the opposing team's "adj. opponent's dunk by __. If the second number does not have a "minus" (-) sign by it then that number is added to the range, but if a minus sign is designed then subtract. Find the resultant range down the left hand column of this chart - this is a very important number that adjusts each team for level of competition and offensive and defensive overall performance to make the team as good as it should be overall after accounting for all of the other ranges on their team's cards.

Dunk Range + - Def Adjust50s and 60s ResultChanges to Team's or Opponents Stl/TO
51 - 6651 - 66 dunk-2 Opp Steals, -2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 6551 - 65 dunk-2 Opp Steals, -2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 6451 - 64 dunk-2 Opp Steals, -2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 6351 - 63 dunk-2 Opp Steals, -2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 6251 - 62 dunk-2 Opp Steals, -2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 6151 - 61 dunk-2 Opp Steals, -2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 6051 - 56 dunk-2 Opp Steals, -2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 5951 - 56 dunk-2 Opp Steals, -1 Team's Turnovers
51 - 5851 - 56 dunk-1 Opp Steals, -1 Team's Turnovers
51 - 5751 - 56 dunk-1 Opp Steals
51 - 5651 - 56 dunkNo other changes
51 - 5551 - 55 dunkNo other changes
51 - 5451 - 54 dunkNo other changes
51 - 5351 - 53 dunkNo other changes
51 - 5251 - 52 dunkNo other changes
51 - 5151 - 51 dunkNo other changes
51 - 50No Dunk or MissNo other changes
51 - 4951 - 51 miss, def rebNo other changes
51 - 4851 - 52 miss, def rebNo other changes
51 - 4751 - 53 miss, def rebNo other changes
51 - 4651 - 54 miss, def rebNo other changes
51 - 4551 - 55 miss, def rebNo other changes
51 - 4451 - 56 miss, def rebNo other changes
51 - 4351 - 56 miss, def reb-1 Opp Steals
51 - 4251 - 56 miss, def reb+1 Opp Steals, +1 Team's Turnovers
51 - 4151 - 56 miss, def reb+2 Opp Steals, +1 Team's Turnovers
51 - 4051 - 56 miss, def reb+2 Opp Steals, +2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 3951 - 61 miss, def reb+2 Opp Steals, +2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 3851 - 62 miss, def reb+2 Opp Steals, +2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 3751 - 63 miss, def reb+2 Opp Steals, +2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 3651 - 64 miss, def reb+2 Opp Steals, +2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 3551 - 65 miss, def reb+2 Opp Steals, +2 Team's Turnovers
51 - 3451 - 66 miss, def reb+2 Opp Steals, +2 Team's Turnovers

51-51 or higher. In most cases a team will have a dunk range of 51-51 or higher. In those cases, every time a range ends up in the range then the player who gets the ball on the roll of 1-8 gets to the basket and scores 2 points. However, if the 20-sided die would have resulted in a 3-point goal made, or in a foul drawn that would foul out an opposing player, the team with the ball can choose the result of the 20-sided die instead.  (e.g. Team A has a 51-55 dunk range, and the opponents have a -2 adjust - on all rolls of 51-53 Team A scores two points).

51-50. Nothing happens on rolls of 51-66 - just play the other three dice.

51-49 or lower. A weak offense against a strong defense could result in a range below 51. In that case, use the middle column to determine a range of times in which the team would NOT score. For example, if the same Team A with a 51-55 range played the 1977 Marquette team, which has a great defense and adj dunk range of -11, then subtracting 11 from that 11-55 range would leave the team with a 11-44 range in the left column, which translates in the middle column to NOT SCORING on rolls of 51-56. In those cases, record zero points for the trip, the player who received the ball due to the 8-sided die misses a shot with the player guarding him getting the rebound on a 1-5, or turns the ball over on a 6,7 or 8.

Optional: If both teams have positive dunk ranges, you can decrease the worse team's DUNK range to 51-50 so roll of 51-66 are ignored for them and you just refer to the other three dice. In that case you also lower the other team's range by the same number. If both teams have negative dunk ranges resulting in NO SCORE, then you can increase the better team to 51-50 so they have no range, and increase the lower teams by the same number so that they have a smaller NO SCORE range. You must decide on this adjustment before the game starts.

Note that if the calculated range is 51-57 or higher, then the offensive team's turnover range and/or their opponent's steal range are both lowered. If a team's calculated 51-43 or lower then the team's turnover range and opponent's steal range are both higher as well.

If you ever had an extreme case when a team's resulted range went higher than 51-66 (e.g. a 51-63 and defensive +8 would be 51-71) then count how many you need to subtract to get down to 51-66 for that team (-5 in that case) and lower the opposing range by that many (e.g. if the better team was 51-71 and the lesser team was 51-52, then subtract five from both to get 51-66 and 51-47.


Monday, December 02, 2019

Markus is not human, then he is...so goes Orlando Invitational

We're back after #mubb wraps up it's time in Orlando and going to break down how it went. We, first, generally meander around how the Invitational went and what we take away from the Maryland game. We also talk about whether some of the "found pieces" on offense like Brendan Bailey and Sacar Anim are flashes or portend things to come. We then pivot to the week ahead, first by nodding at the Jacksonville match up before moving on to the meat of the week, Kansas State. We break down the match up and discuss whether we should be worried or not (especially given how not worried we were about Wisconsin). Lastly, we close out with old but still exciting news, Dawson Garcia is committed to MU and what does that mean for next years team and get a little excited about some potential line-ups. As always, enjoy! https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/mf/play/2mrzu5/scrambledeggs_edit_12119.mp3