Bearcats Basketball

24-7

2011-03-07T02:03:00.001-05:00

Cincinnati finished up the regular season by pounding Georgetown (for the second time this season) 69-47 on Saturday. The win brought Cincinnati’s record to 24-7, and 11-7 in the Big East (tied for sixth with West Virginia). Cincinnati is currently ranked 17th by Ken Pomeroy, fifth highest in the BE.

While the Bearcats non-conference schedule was very weak, their overall SOS was 64th (again, according to KenPom). Going 24-7 against the 64th ranked schedule in the country is certainly reason to be optimistic about where this team is right now, and where this program might be going in the future. Not a bad year.

Unlike the last couple of seasons, Cincinnati won’t have to sweat out selection Sunday, as they should be comfortably positioned regardless of the Big East tournament. As a little tribute to a tremendous season, here are Cincy’s best wins:

Opponent	KenPom Rank	Score
Seton Hall	56	70-53
Xavier	36	66-46
@St. Johns	31	53-51
Louisville	13	63-54
@Georgetown	28	58-46
@Marquette	34	67-60
Georgetown	28	69-47

I’m looking forward to post-season play!

Big win at St. Johns

2011-01-24T01:27:00.001-05:00

Probably like you, I’ve been cautiously optimistic in following the Cincinnati Bearcats this year. Yes, they are 17-3, but their schedule hasn’t been great and, in past years, fast starts have culminated in ugly late-season performance. I do feel a little bit different about this team, though.

I mean, no, they aren’t a top ten team. They’ve shown so far that they aren’t quite good enough to beat the Syracuse’s, the Villanova’s, even the Notre Dame’s on the road. With that said, this Bearcats team has shown that they’re good enough to beat everyone they’re expected to beat (including the likes of Xavier, @St. Johns, Seton Hall, Dayton, @Oklahoma), which is no small feat.

St. Johns isn’t an elite team either, but winning in their building is still a quality road victory. The Red Storm have already beat Northwestern, Georgetown, and Notre Dame at home, not to mention West Virginia and Providence on the road.

Cincinnati seems to have some issues opening games (as well as after the halftime break), falling behind St. Johns early but taking a six point lead to the half, only to give it right back in the second half. It took a clutch three-point play from Yancy Gates to put the finishing touches on a narrow win.

The Cats won the game because they, like usual, played good, solid defense and outrebounded St. Johns. They got help on the line as well, as St. Johns shot a pathetic 12-26 on free throws. Outside of Gates, who had a nice second half after a non-existent first, Justin Jackson provided some quality play, scoring eight and grabbing six boards in 29 minutes.

Backup big man Anthony McClain also did good work (four points, six rebounds), though inexplicably (at least to me) got only eight minutes of court time. The Senior center has developed into a pretty solid player, and I think he deserves more minutes. He has good hands and passing ability underneath, and he plays solid defense and is a presence on the glass.

If anything, this is a very deep team. There are no superstars, no go-to guys (besides maybe Gates, at times), but on any night there are a number of players that can really contribute, and if guys like Jackson and McClain can pitch in solid minutes, that’s all the better.

Think about it, Cincinnati got little production from Dion Dixon, Ibrahima Thomas, and Sean Kilpatrick, all regular contributors, and Cashmere Wright had a season-high eight turnovers while Rashad Bishop went 2-11 from the floor, and they still got a nice road win. It’s fun to think about the possibilities if everyone is hitting on high cylinders.

We have a basketball team here

2010-12-20T00:37:00.002-05:00

As usual, it’s taken me a little while to get into the college hoops season, especially with the way the last few years have concluded for the Cincinnati Bearcats. This year, I’ll admit, I was very skeptical after uninspiring wins against the likes of Mount St. Mary’s, IUPU Fort Wayne, and Savannah State. Since the early shakiness, however, Cincinnati has done all you can expect, absolutely destroying a decent Dayton team and now rolling over Oklahoma (sandwiched between routs of Wright State, Utah Valley, and Georgia Southern.

Admittedly, the strength of schedule has been laughably weak (even Dayton and Oklahoma, the two marquee wins, are no Goliaths), but Cincy has done just about all you can ask on the court. The offense still hasn’t been great, but the defense has been very strong. Regardless of the competition, you know you’re doing something right when you play ten straight games against D-1 competition winning by ten points or more in every one of them. edit: not sure what I was talking about here, there were a couple within ten.

The real challenge – the Big East conference schedule – is still to come, not to mention non-conference games against Miami of Ohio and Xavier. Still, UC has set themselves up nicely by taking care of business, and if they finish anywhere near Pomeroy’s projections (22-9, 10-8 BE) the NCAA tourney will, for once, be a lock. Games are played on the court, of course, but I have to say – hesitantly -- that I’m just a little bit excited to see how this one unfolds.

Replacement level in college basketball

2010-06-06T21:40:00.001-04:00

In baseball, the concept of replacement level, popularized in the 1990s by the likes of Keith Woolner (now working for the Cleveland Indians), has developed into the standard way to evaluate players. Arguably, the main reason for using replacement level is to balance rate stats and counting stats, and to provide an accurate assessment of a player’s total marginal contribution to his team.

If you use average as the baseline to rate player performance, then it looks like an average player has no value. We know that an average player does, in fact, have value. A team of average players should win 50% of their games. What we really want to compare a player’s performance to is some baseline below average, preferably at the theoretical replacement level.

Though there is still much debate in the baseball analysis community over how to precisely define replacement level, the overall idea is relatively simple. Here’s a basic definition of replacement level, offered by Woolner (linked above):

Replacement level is the *expected* level of performance the average team can obtain if it needs to replace a starting player at minimal cost.

Here’s a basketball-specific example:

Player	Points/game	Games
Player A	20	25
Player B	15	40

Obviously, using points is simplistic, but the numbers are for illustration purposes only. So, which player is more valuable? Let’s assume a replacement level player scores 5 points a game. In a 40 game season, Player B, playing in every game, provided 15 points/per. However, player A only played in 25 games, so we have to add in 15 games of replacement level production (5 points/game). His new average is 14.4. Or we could say Player B is 400 points better than replacement level (a RL player would score 400 points less, in the same number of games) , and Player A is 375 points above replacement level. Same thing. So, these two players, with different levels of playing time and performance, are basically equal.

But how do we truly define replacement level in basketball? As we have discussed before, basketball analysis is not baseball analysis, for a variety of reasons (most notably, they are different sports!). And, more specifically, college basketball is not NBA basketball.

In the NBA, when a player goes down mid-season, the organization has many options on how to replace that player. They can elect to do it entirely with players already on the roster, simply changing playing time and/or positions around. Or they can go out and look at available free agents or players in the D-League. Trades are also a possibility. In college basketball, once the recruiting period is over and the season has begun, teams are essentially restricted to playing out the season with their roster.

So, we are left with (at least )two questions. How do we define replacement level in basketball? And, specifically to college hoops, how do we apply this concept? Should replacement level be the expected performance of the last player on the bench, or the best player on the campuses club team? These questions are not easy, but if we are able to define replacement level in college basketball, we can gain a better understanding of player value.

Spam – Not good in any form

2010-06-06T03:14:00.001-04:00

I just noticed that the comments section of this blog has been flooded with spam. Nothing worse than poking around a blog, only to see it filled with spam.

I have now enabled comment moderation, which means I’ll have to moderate any comment before it appears on the site. This is not a big deal, as this blog has received a total of about five comments. Please, my fellow humans – no spam-bots allowed! – I encourage you to comment on any posts, whenever you have something to add. I have not been posting much recently, as you have probably noticed, but hopefully that will change.

Thanks,
Bearcat Blogger

Goodbye, Lance

2010-06-06T02:46:00.001-04:00

It has been a while since I’ve written here – the spammers have let me know, flooding the comments section. It has also been a while since I’ve diligently followed the Bearcats, as my interests have given way to baseball, school, and other “priorities.”

Apparently, Lance Stephenson is not returning, as he will enter the NBA draft and has hired an agent. Stephenson had an interesting season with Cincinnati, at times dazzling with his superior athleticism and understanding of the game, while at other times playing a non-factor.

Overall, Stephenson averaged 12.3 points, 5.3 rebounds, and 2.5 assists in 28 minutes a game. He averaged 2.4 turnovers and one steal per game, while shooting .440 from the field, .664 from the line, and an ugly .219 from three (he shot 50% on 2pt FGs).

While Stephenson’s presence will undoubtedly be missed, note this nugget: His effectiveFG% of 46.2% was below the team average of 47.6% (neither figures particularly good, by the way), and Lance shot a team-leading 26% of the time while on the court. He is going to be missed, but his shoes are not impossible to fill.

Best of luck in the NBA, Lance.

Heartbreak city

2010-03-11T23:45:00.002-05:00

I really don't know what to say after a loss like that.

I mean, there are a lot of things to be said -- some good, some bad -- but I don't think I could put them into comprehensible sentences right now.

I don't understand what Dion Dixon was doing, but I feel for the kid. Hopefully it's something he can build on positively, both in his basketball career and his life.

Yeah .... what a tough loss. It's amazing how quickly all of the hope and optimism -- for a huge win and a realistic shot at the NCAA tournament -- can go out the window in a matter of six seconds. What a helpless feeling it is to watch it unravel.

Stephenson staying?

2010-03-04T22:45:00.003-05:00

I missed Bill Koch's piece from a few weeks ago, but in it Lance Stephenson says:

“I think I’m going to stay and keep working,” Stephenson said. “I don’t think I’ve had an NBA season this year so the best choice for me is to stay.”

In what has been another dismal finish to a season, finally some good news. Getting an extra year of Lance Stephenson is at least some consolation for what could be another lost season. Stephenson has shown flashes of brilliance to go along with plenty of freshman struggles. It's definitely fun to think about how good he might be this time next year, hopefully still here at Cincinnati.

On the year, he's averaged 12/5/2.4 in 28 minutes a game. He's shooting 44% from the field, but just under 20% on threes. His 98 Offensive Rating is fifth on the Bearcats.

Cash money

2010-01-31T11:55:00.002-05:00

Cashmere Wright scored a career-high 24 points (on 9-11 shooting) to spark Cincinnati to a 92-88 win over Providence on Saturday night. Wright also recorded five assists, no turnovers, three steals, and four rebounds.

Cincinnati's offense, in general, was tremendous all night, scoring 92 points in 79 possessions. They shot 57% from the field, and 44% (8-18) from three-point range. They did, however, struggle at the line again, with an embarrassing 20-41 performance that allowed Providence to make a game of it late.

Rashad Bishop went 3-3 from deep, scoring 16 points on nine shots. He also added six rebounds. Lance Stephenson quietly had a solid game with 12 points and a team-high nine rebounds. Deonta Vaughn scored just 12 points on eight shots, and went 5-10 at the line (where he had been shooting nearly 90% all year).

The Providence defense is 15th in the Big East, according to Pomeroy's ratings, so it is not surprising that Cincy had a great night offensively (though it's still very encouraging). Conversely, their offense is very talented, ranking 27th in the country. After making their first six three pointers, though, they went just 7-28 from beyond the arc the rest of the night.

What we saw on Saturday night was not a familiar sight : a fast-paced, high scoring game that Cincinnati clearly took control of. The defense was not up to par, but offensively they showed that they can win a shootout.

Can ya say offense?

2010-01-21T00:34:00.001-05:00

Cincinnati rolled over South Florida earlier tonight, 78-70. Sure, they only won by eight points, but for the most part they controlled the game, maintaining a ~ten point advantage throughout the second half.

The offense finally came to life, as Cincy shot 56% overall and 36% from beyond the arc. They were led by the sharp shooting of Deonta Vaughn (20 points on 10 field goals), Rashad Bishop (15 pts/11 fgs), and Jaquon Parker (15 pts/8fgs). Those three also combined for 12 rebounds, 12 assists, and only 2 turnovers.

Yancy Gates played only 10 minutes due to foul trouble, but did score 8 points and grab 2 bounds. Lance Stephenson did not play because of a sore ankle.

The offensive efficiency is promising because South Florida is a pretty solid defense, 50th in the nation in Pomeroy’s adjusted efficiency. Cincinnati shot the three ball relatively well in the first half, hitting 4 of 11 from long range, but what you have to like is that, despite that, they went inside in the second half. They shot 14-21 on two point point field goals in the second half, and only attempted 3 threes. They also got to the line 14 times (though only converted on 6 of those attempts).

Overall, it was nice to see some solid offensive play, mixing the occasional three point attempt with some easy buckets down low. The defense was not quite up to par, but tonight, for once, the offense picked up the slack.

From the Big Win Department

2010-01-16T18:50:00.001-05:00

In a tie game, Deonta Vaughn lobbed a pass to Yancy Gates in the final moments; Gates missed his first attempt, but followed successfully with just over two seconds to play. Notre Dame’s desperation shot hit the net, and UC got a well earned, much needed victory, 60-58.

Cincinnati improves to 12-6 (3-3 BE) on the year, while the Irish fall to 14-4 (3-2). Coming into the game Notre Dame was ranked 71st in the country by Pomeroy, and the Bearcats 55th. The game featured a big contrast in strengths, with ND’s high powered offense (4th, by Pomeroy) squaring off against Cincy’s strong defense (32nd).

The Bearcats held the Irish to 46% from two point range, and 29% from three. On the year, they were shooting 53% on twos and 43% on threes. The Cats forced Luke Harangody into eating up way too many ND possessions, as he shot 20 times (plus 2-6 on free throws), and turned it over 4 times, while managing to score just 14 points. UC also controlled the glass 50-31, led by 13 rebounds from Yancy Gates.

The only negative from this game, and it’s a pretty big one, is the offense. Against a terrible defense, ranked 237th in the country, Cincy shot just 32% in the game, and 24% from deep. That’s just ugly. The free-throw shooting was improved (13-18) and they only turned it over eight times, but they have to find a way to generate some offense.

Overall, though, this is a very big win obviously. South Florida, up next.

Bump in the road or annual collapse?

2010-01-15T12:28:00.001-05:00

If you look at the Mick Cronin Era, it is not hard to spot at least one trend. His Cincinnati teams tend to start hot, and finish poorly. Now the composition of the schedule, with many cupcakes coming early in the season and Big East clashes coming later, undoubtedly has something to do with this. But it is interesting to note, nonetheless:

2006-07: 9-3 start, 2-16 finish
2007-08: 13-12 start, 0-7 finish
2008-09: 10-2 start, 8-12 finish

This year’s team was at one point 10-3, with three very impressive wins over Maryland, Vanderbilt, and Connecticut. Now, just four games later, they site at 11-6, losing games to Pittsburgh, Seton Hall, and St. Johns.

These next two games, home contests against Notre Dame and South Florida, both beatable but tough teams, may play a big role in deciding how this season will finish up. After this short two game home stand, Cincy has a slew of difficult games remaining on the schedule, including at Louisville, at Notre Dame, Syracuse, at UCONN, at South Florida, Marquette, at West Virginia, Villanova, and at Georgetown. Welcome to Big East basketball. There are really no “easy” games remaining, outside of maybe DePaul.

UC routed by UAB, rolls over Limpscomb

2009-12-19T20:23:00.001-05:00

The game at UAB set up as a trap for Cincinnati, coming off a hard-fought loss to rival Xavier, and against a solid team with a great home court advantage (UAB is 33-2 at home since the 2007-‘08 season). They lost 64-47.

It is easier to look at the positives for the Cats, then to look at what they did bad (mostly everything). They played solid defense, holding UAB to a 39% mark from the field and forcing 19 turnovers.

Offensively, Cincy was terrible, scoring just 47 points in 69 possessions. They shot 32% from the field, 14% on threes, and had 17 turnovers of their own.

Deonta Vaughn continued his shooting struggles, making just two of nine shots (1-7 on threes). He also had five turnovers and just two assists, but did add seven rebounds. Yancy Gates was also contained, scoring just seven points while collecting six boards. Cincinnati was dominated on the glass overall, losing the rebounding battle 47-34.

****

On Saturday, Cincinnati rolled over Limpscomb 80-52. The Beatcats shot the ball well, hitting on 54% of their shots from the field (39% from three). Cincy’s defense was great, holding a solid offense (ranked 96th in the country by KenPom) to 29% from the field, and 52 points in 69 possessions.

Lance Stephenson lead the way from UC, scoring 19 points on just 11 shots, adding five assists without a turnover. Ibrahima Thomas logged a solid 18 minute effort for the Cats (after looking shaky, to say the least, in his debut against Xavier), scoring ten points (4-5 shooting) and picking up six rebounds. Rashad Bishop did not miss in five shots (three from deep) and scored 13.

Yancy Gates played just four minutes, apparently due to a lack of effort. Cincinnati takes on Winthrop on Tuesday.

What is wrong with Vaughn?

2009-12-15T13:04:00.001-05:00

If you look at Deonta Vaughn’s raw numbers, he looks like a player in decline. He debuted as a freshman averaging 14.5 points a game, and peaked in his sophomore year at just over 17. This year, his senior season, his average is just under 11 points a game, his career low. However, is he really playing worse basketball?

Kenpom.com updated its individual player stats page today, so let’s take a closer look at the numbers:

YR	%Mins	ORtg	%Shots	eFG%	DR%	ARate	TORate	2pt%	3pt%
FR	82	100	29	45	10	25	17	47	29
SO	83	110	28	56	9	31	21	49	40
JR	89	105	24	49	11	27	23	47	34
SR	66	114	20	50	15	30	18	53	33

(edit: these stats don’t include the Xavier game)

Most of the stats in the table are explained here.

So, what do we make of the above numbers? The first thing that stands out is Deonta’s decline in minutes so far this year, compared to the rest of his career at UC. Deonta has always been the go-to guy, needed on the court at all times for Cincy to have a chance (or, precisely, about 85% of the time). This year, however, with an improved supporting cast, and scorers like Lance Stephenson on the floor, Deonta does not have to log as many minutes.

He is also shooting the ball less. His %shots (percentage of team shots while on the floor) has actually declined since his freshman year – his worst shooting year, percentage wise – and this year it is down to 20%. This coincides with point one; that there are currently more options on the floor than in the past.

Vaughn’s best shooting% year was indeed his sophomore campaign, but he’s actually shooting just as well this year as he did last year, and well better than his freshman year. He’s also posting career-best rebounding marks, grabbing 15% of possible defensive boards while on the court, a solid number for a 6-1 guard.

It looks like moving off the point has also helped his game. His assist rate has remained high despite playing a lot at shooting guard, giving way to Cashmere Wright at the point, and his turnover rate has dropped. If Vaughn can recapture the three-point shooting touch of his sophomore season, he could be absolutely lethal for this team. But even as it is now, he is still very productive, and any talk of deteriorating skills or production are probably premature.

Deonta Vaughn’s rate stats appear to be in decline, and in some ways, they are. But he is adjusting to his new role on this team, and he is arguably playing better basketball than he has played in the past.

*I should note, as a huge caveat, it is always dangerous to rely too much on early season stats. They certainly do not tell the whole story eight games into the season.

Cannot shoot free throws

2009-12-13T22:06:00.001-05:00

Cincinnati was shooting 63% from the line coming into tonight’s game against Xavier, good for 301st in the nation. Tonight, that number went down. They shot 10-22 from the line, which clearly helped Xavier sneak by UC in two OTs. Seriously, that is unacceptable.

Other notes:

Lance Stephenson is awesome.
This is a very solid basketball team.
That is a very tough loss to stomach.

UC takes on Xavier

2009-12-13T14:57:00.001-05:00

Cincinnati faces arguably their toughest challenge today, as they take on Xavier in the Crosstown Shootout (at the Cintas Center). Both teams have been relatively similar so far, by Pomeroy’s rating. Xavier is ranked 80th in adjusted offensive efficiency, and 20th in defense. Cincy is ranked 143 on offense, but 28th defensively.

UC should get a bit of a test on the glass, with 6-9 Jason Love and 6-8 Jamel Mclean leading the way for Xavier (combining for 17 boards per game), but Cincy should still at least hold their own in rebounding.

I think the game will come down to how the Cats play from three-point land, both offensively and defensively. Cincy has shot just 29% from three so far, and they’ve allowed opponents to shoot 34% from long range. Xavier is ranked 7th in the country, knocking down 44.5% of their three point attempts. However, opponents shoot almost 36% against them.

If Cincinnati can finally knock down some threes, and if they can defend Xavier well on the perimeter (a tough task), they should be in great position to pull of a huge road win. If not, well, it could be a long night.

Either way, it will be a fun one tonight, as it always is when these two teams do battle. Let’s go Cincy!

Ranked

2009-12-01T01:23:00.002-05:00

Cincinnati is ranked in the top 25 for the first time since 2006 (h/t: Bill Koch). That is a long time to go unranked, especially for a program with such a winning tradition. Followers of this blog may recall my apathetic take on the top 25 rankings, but hey, I’m not going to complain now : )

KenPom.com has Cincy rated as the 41st best team in the country, so it is not unreasonable that they are in the top 25. Not to mention, of course, the early ratings are pretty unreliable because of the small number of games played.

Anyway, tomorrow the Cats take on a Texas Southern team that is only 1-4 against Division 1 teams so far (3-4 overall). Their offense has been decent, however, ranking 117th in the country by Pomeroy’s Adjusted Efficiency, and lead by 39% shooting from beyond the arc. Cincinnati has struggled a bit defending the three (36% against) – so that is something to watch for.

Maui tested, Maui approved

2009-11-26T02:03:00.001-05:00

Despite the disappointing loss to Gonzaga in the final (a great game, by the way), this was obviously a very good three game stretch for Cincinnati in Hawaii. They beat up on two very solid teams in Vanderbilt and Maryland, and were easily as good as the Zags in the finale.

For some perspective, last year kenpom.com had Vanderbilt ranked as the 77th best team in the country, Maryland at 54, and Gonzaga at 7. Gonzaga has lost some key players from last year’s team, but Vandy and Maryland returned most of their key players. Point being, these are good basketball teams.

The positives for Cincy so far have to be the overall toughness they’ve shown on defense and on the glass. Not counting tonight’s loss to Gonzaga, UC’s offensive rebounding percentage of 46% is 8th in the country (obviously, a small sample of four games). There’s a good amount of depth on this team and a lot of guys who can contribute on both sides of the floor.

That said, there’s still a lot to work on. The 3-point shooting so far has not been good, at around 28%. Also, Cincy has not done a good enough job going inside and getting to the free throw line, highlighted (lowlighted?) by tonight’s 5-11 performance from the line (Gonzaga was 16-23).

It is going to be fun to watch this team grow up together, though, with a good mix of talented youngsters like Stephenson and Wright joining experienced vets like Vaughn and Gates.

Panic time?

2009-11-16T20:23:00.003-05:00

Hey, I’m back. Should have some time to blog this season.

I haven’t followed the offseason too closely, but I do know that Cashmere Wright is back, and that the Bearcats brought in a few highly regarded freshmen, and that valuable players like Deonta Vaughn and Yancy Gates are still here.

I also know that Cincy is trailing Prairie View A&M 33-22, with just over three minutes to play in the first half.

To answer my question in the title, I’m going to say “no.” Cincinnati should come alive here,the shots should start falling, and they should win this one running away. But this is definitely not the way you want to draw it up, opening against a SWAC team (albeit, a pretty good one) at home, and struggling big time.

We’ll see what happens here.

edit: Well, okay, Cincy has taken control of this one, and they now lead by nine with a couple mintues left in the game. What can ya say? Not an impressive win, but there isn't too much to gain from these games, either way. They did what they had to do in the second half, as both the offense and defense picked up.

Still here

2009-06-11T00:57:00.001-04:00

Just wanted to let you know that I’m still here. I plan on blogging the upcoming season, even if it’s just a post or two a month. I’ll probably check out the recruiting landscape sometime soon, and check back in here.

Thanks for dropping in!

Sheehan’s bubble

2009-03-10T11:25:00.001-04:00

Joe Sheehan takes a look at who’s on the bubble at Basketball Prospectus. The guy obviously knows his stuff, but I’m not sure if I agree with his Big East bubble teams.

His BE locks are (with KenPom ratings in parenthesis): UCONN (3), Louisville (8), Pitt (4), Villanova (20), Marquette (23), Syracuse (21), and West Virginia (9).

Bubble: Georgetown (24), Providence (76), and Notre Dame (36).

I don’t have a problem with Georgetown and Notre Dame, but why Providence and not Cincy? Providence’s rating is 76 and UC’s is 82 (Seton Hall is also right there are 78).

I think it’s safe to say that the selection committee probably relies more on RPI, but 1) KenPom ratings are probably better and 2) I don’t believe there’s any way I can access RPI online for free. Anyway, let’s do a little comparison, Providence vs. Cincy, using KenPom’s great data:

Teams	Cincinnati	Providence
Record	18-13	18-12
BE record	8-10	10-8
SOS	29	46
vs. KenPom top 50	5-9	3-7
vs. KenPom top100	7-12	6-11
Offensive rating	64 (ncaa rank)	43
Defensive rating	106	129

It looks to me like the two teams are pretty equal. The advantages for the Friars is their slightly better overall and BE record and their two wins against the Bearcats. The advantages for UC is a slightly better SOS and (again, slightly) better performance against top teams.

The point is not that one team is better than the other; just that, if one of them is considered a bubble team, they both should be.

Fun night of college hoops

2009-03-09T21:10:00.002-04:00

Right now you’ve got College of Charlestown vs. Chattanooga on espn (it’s 63-51, Chattanooga; a mild upset in the making). Despite being 26-7, Charlestown isn’t a huge favorite, as their SOS is 314th in the country, according to KenPom. Chattanooga is 17-16, but has a 236 SOS, making them a bit stronger than they appear, relative to C of C. Anyway, it is a must win for both teams, and it looks like Chatt. is going to the NCAA tournament.

On espn2, Virginia Commonwealth is headed for a victory over George Mason, as they lead 53-37 with about six minutes to play. These were the two premier teams in the CAA, though it looks like George Mason is going home with this lose (KenPom rating of 86).

Western Kentucky and North Texas are locked in a close battle to decide the Sun Belt Conference (edit: Duh, this wasn't the conference championship ...). Western Kentucky is the better team (104 rating; North Texas is at 160), but it’s obviously a must win for both teams.

Let me add that I know there are other tournaments, outside of the NCAAs, that some of these teams will be eligible for. So when I say “must win,” I’m assuming everyone is shooting for the NCAA tourney.

Later on, you’ve got the two marquee games, imo.`Patty Mills is back in action for St. Mary’s (51 rating), as they take on WCC (and national) powerhouse Gonzaga. Mills is having another fine year, shooting 48% from two point range, 36% from three, and averaging 18.4 points a game. His return is certainly big, as he came back last night against Portland, but make no mistake, this St. Mary’s team has a very good supporting cast, led by Omar Somhan (his offensive rating is ranked 109th, block percentage 93rd, and offensive rebound% 17th in the nation, all by KenPom). St. Mary’s probably has an outside chance of getting in the tourney with a loss, but I’m sure they’d rather not leave it in the hands of the committee.

The other game is Siena against Niagara in Albany (Siena’s home court). The teams line up back-to-back in Pomeroy’s ratings, Niagara 68th and Siena 69th. Both teams have tourney hopes with a loss, but both desperately want the win. Like I mentioned, Siena’s at home, where they are very good.

Alright, alright, a few predictions … just for fun:

St. Mary’s beats Gonzaga 78-75
Siena beats Niagara 88-83

Check in later tonight to make fun of those …

Collapse, 2009 edition

2009-03-08T20:23:00.001-04:00

Over the last three years, Cincinnati has collapsed, in some way or another, down the home stretch of the season. Sure, part of it is switching from a much easier non-conference schedule to Big East play, but part of it is also, well, ugly basketball.

In 2007 (the 06-07 season), UC started out 9-3 and had quality wins against teams like Xavier and NC State. They looked like a decent team. After that start, however, they went 2-16 the rest of the way and lost 11 of their last 12 games.

Last year’s team was sitting at 13-12, coming off a nice three game winning streak. They did not win again, and finished the year 13-19.

This year’s collapse, if you wish to call it that, was much more of a quick, punch in the gut, than a long, drawn out string of poor performance. Again, after a three game winning streak, the wins coming against Notre Dame, Georgetown, and St. Johns, the Bearcats sat at 17-8 (7-5 in the BE) and were in prime position to make the NCAA tournament. They lost back to back tough games against Pitt and Louisville, but came back to get a big win against Bobby Huggins’ West Virginia team. Then UC lost the final three against Syracuse, South Florida, and Seton Hall, making an at large bid extremely unlikely. Losing five out of the final six just isn’t going to cut it.

The good news is that we’ve still got the Big East tourney left this year. The 2007 and 2008 seasons are over : ) UC will face the #16 seed DePaul, who went winless in conference play, on Tuesday. Assuming a win there, a solid Providence team is up next. Then it’s number one seed Louisville. To really reestablish a possibility of an at-large bid, I think Cincy has to win those first three games, and that is no easy task. Heck, if we get that far, we may as well just win the final two games and get the automatic berth.

The other good news is that we should be happy that we’re disappointed with an 18-13 season. Cincinnati was expected to play much worse than they did this year, and I think progress is being made. If you look at Pomeroy’s ratings over the last three years, you can see it:

2007: 113
2008: 98
2009: 81

It may be slow, but it’s progress. If you trust Pomeroy’s ratings, this team picked up a lot of good wins: UNLV (57), UAB (38), Georgetown twice (24), Notre Dame (36), and West Virginia (9).

Anyway, while I’m upset with the regular season finish, we can salvage things -- to a degree anyway -- with a good tournament performance. I’m looking forward to that.

Two crucial home games

2009-02-15T21:32:00.001-05:00

Obviously, at this point of this season, every game is critical. But I think that, the next two home games vs. Louisville and West Virginia, really stand out. If UC can win one of these two, they have a great chance of making the NCAA tournament, imo.

They will both be tough games; Pomeroy has Louisville ranked 16th in the country and WV 6th. But I think there’s a decent chance the Bearcats can pull off a win.

Anyway, since we’ve last chatted, UC has beat Notre Dame at home, Georgetown on the road, St. Johns at home, and lost to Pitt on the road. You had to figure winning two out of those four would have been impressive; three is just great.

Cincy now has some real quality wins to hang their hat on:

@ #47 UNLC
#41 UAB
#21 Georgetown
#37 Notre Dame
@ #21 Georgetown

The worst loss is a respectable one – #71 Providence at home.

UC’s NCAA tourney hopes rest on two things: one, how they perform in their final five games and the BE tourney. Two, how the committee evaluates the likes of Georgetown and Notre Dame, very good teams that have less-than-spectacular records.

It is a toss up at this point, whether UC will be dancing or not. But, let’s face it, nobody expected to even be thinking about it this year.

Shots per minute

2009-02-01T23:28:00.002-05:00

I continue my consistently inconsistent blogging with a look at shots per minute. That’s simply shots per minute played and it gives us a decent look at who is most likely to pull the trigger when they’re on the floor. In the table below, along with shots per minute, I’ll also list shots per 40 minutes, which puts things into perspective a little bit:

Player	Shots/min	Shots/40
Gates	.42	16.6
Vaughn	.36	14.5
Mitchell	.34	13.5
Davis	.31	12.2
Dixon	.30	12.1
Williams	.26	10.5
McClain	.25	9.8
Bishop	.22	9
Wilks	.17	6.7
Toyloy	.16	6.3

I left of Miller, but for the sake of completeness, he shoots .38 shots per minute, which is like 15 per 40 (though he has only played 32 mins).

In a perfect world, the guys who shoot most often would also be the best shooters. Let’s take a look. To measure shooting, we’ll use effective field goal %, which adjusts for the three point shot: fg + (.5* 3pt fg)/fg att

Yancy Gates’ eFG% is essentially his actual fg% because he’s shot only four threes all year. It’s at 49.4%, good for fourth on the team, and ahead of everyone with substantial playing time, outside of Toyloy.

Vaughn’s eFG% is right behind Gates’ at 49%. So far, no problems.

Alvin Mitchell, who shoots a three 70% of the time, has an eFG% of 47.8%. Larry Davis, another three point specialist, is at 45.7%. Dion Dixon, the third straight long range threat, is at 43%, or last on the team. In defense of Dixon, he’s shot 41% over the last seven games and looks to be a better shooter than his early numbers would indicate.

Mike Williams has an eFG% of 48%, just behind Gates and Vaughn. McClain doesn’t play too much, but shoots a ridiculous 69% from the field. Bishop’s eFG% is a decent 46.3. Wilks is a solid 53.4%, but like McClain, doesn’t see a lot of playing time.

Toyloy, who rarely shoots, is at an impressive 60%, as that is what he’s shot on the year (all 2 pointers).

Okay, so this is easy; Toyloy is the second best shooter on the team, by eFG%, so make him shoot more! Not so fast; Toyloy’s shooting percentage is high because he shoots a lot of very makeable shots. He only pulls the trigger when he has a good chance of scoring. On the other hand, someone like Gates or Vaughn, take many more difficult shots. So, if Toyloy was all the sudden asked to shoot as much as those guys, his field goal percentage would almost certainly go down, as he’d no longer be able to wait for an “easy” shot.

That’s why it’s not so cut and dry as to how often players should shoot. Replacing Vaughn’s, Davis’, Dixon’s, and Mitchell’s threes with more shots by Toyloy and McClain makes sense on paper, but probably wouldn’t work so well in real games.

It appears to me that, in general, the Bearcats are doing a decent job distributing their shots to their better scorers. It’s not like we’ve got a guy who is a poor shooter, who is getting the most shots on the team. Williams may want to shoot more often, Dixon and Davis a little less. Working in some more shots for some of the role players, like McClain and Toyloy, may also be a good idea.

Escaping Eastern Kentucky

2008-12-20T22:17:00.004-05:00

This was really a fun game to watch. Yeah, yeah, Cincy shouldn't have struggled so much with Eastern Kentucky. No, they shouldn't have, but I still prefer a win over a loss, thank you very much.

What do these numbers tell ya?

UC
2 pt fg%: 47%
2 pt fga: 34

3 pt fg%:30.6%
3 pt fga: 36

Believe or not, the answer might not be the obvious one. Cincy scored .94 points per shot on 2 point field goals and .92 pps on 3s. There's really nothing there that says they should have shot more 2s; they were equally effective inside and outside the arc.

Now, I realize that's an extremely simplified analysis that doesn't take into account many things, but I thought it was sorta interesting nonetheless. During the game, I really felt UC had the advantage inside and that they should start pounding it in there more often. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe not.

Any way you look at it, the big men inside won this one for the Cats, mainly due to a 45-26 rebounding advantage. Mike Williams had a great game with 13 points (on just 7 fga) and 16 bounds (9 offensive!). Big Yancy gates had 17 and 8.

Deonta Vaughn, despite shooting 5 of 13 from the field, had a nice all-around game. He scored 20 and dished out 7 assists (with just 2 turnovers; overall, UC took care of the ball with just 10 team turnovers).

Sure, it should have been easier, but I'll take the W ... and the exciting finish!

***

Since I posted last after the win vs. UNLV Cincinnati has:

beat UAB 87-80
lost to Xavier 76-66
beat Charleston Southern 74-55
beat Miss. State 75-63

They are now 9-2, and ranked 49th in the country by Pomeroy (not counting tonight's performance). Pomeroy's model expects them to go 19-12, which is probably bubble territory. It's fun to be back into contention, although we can't forget UC was 8-3 two years ago at this point, and stumbled to an 11-19 season. 11 non-conference games don't always tell ya everything. But thing's are definitely looking better.

***

Regarding the blog, if anyone is still here, expect things to continue to be sporadic and relatively inactive. Thanks for stoppin' by, though!

UC 67, UNLV 65

2008-11-30T02:08:00.004-05:00

Coming off the loss to Florida State, this is a very good win for Cincinnati. Basketball Prospectus 2009 predicts UNLV to go 13-3 in the Mountain West and Vegas had them favored by ~6 tonight (oh, yeah, they were also playing in Veges ... where they are usually pretty tough).

If you were to look at the box score without looking at the final score, it'd probably be tough to pick out the winner. Here's a comparison:

FG% on 2-point fgs
UC: 41%
UNLV: 43%

FG% on 3-point fgs
UC: 36%
UNLV: 30%

Rebounds
UC: 36
UNLV: 34

Assists
UC: 14
UNLC: 13

TO
UC: 15
UNLV: 12

Okay, you get the point. There really isn't an area of the game that jumps out and says ... "that's why we won this game." Well, maybe there is, but it isn't really in the box score (and I didn't watch/listen to the game -- I've heard that's helpful in determining these things : ). Anyway, it really makes you (me, anyway) think about the almighty win. Does Cincinnati really deserve 100% of a win and UNLV 0% of one? Shouldn't it be more like 55/45 or something? Okay, those aren't really questions. Just remember that when we're talking about "win shares" in college hoops in like 2022, you heard it here first!

Anyway, there were about 70 possessions in this one. That's .96 points per possession and .93 allowed for Cincy. When the differential is on the plus side vs. a solid team, you'll take it. Some random notes:

Deonta Vaughn led the team in points and assists (16 and 6) ... but he had a pretty bad game. He shot 5-19 from the floor and had 7 turnovers. A simple way to illustrate his struggles: Vaughn scored .84 points per shot. The rest of the Bearcats scored 1.1 points per shot. Redistribute Vaughn's shots to his teammates and Cincinnati would have scored like 5 more points in the game. Okay, not really. It's a team game and you can't just do that, but (hopefully) you get my point.

Larry Davis also did not have a good one. 0-10 from the floor doesn't need much of an explanation.

On the plus side, Yancy Gates had 16 points (7-10 fg-fga) and 7 rebounds in 19 minutes. Dion Dixon also had a good one, scoring 13 points on just 7 shots.

I'm really super-impressed with this win, despite the random nitpicks in my "recap." Next up is another big test against UAB on December 6th.

167?

2008-11-21T00:09:00.004-05:00

I was going to make a short post about VMI's 133 point night vs Stevensen, but then I scrolled down a bit more and saw ... Texas Tech, 167, East Central 115. There were ~122 possessions in this one. I don't know what the record is, but that's crazy. The average per game is like 65-70. Anyway, that's 1.37 pts/poss. (137 per 100). Or it's like 96 points for a 70 possession game, a normal pace. So, yeah, they were very efficient offensively, but you can see the kind of effect pace has on a team's final score. Tech had 18 turnovers, which is pretty bad at first glance. Again, this is an area where tempo-free stats can help us out. They had only .15 TO per poss. -- that's 15 per 100 possessions, a well above average number.

Back to the VMI game real quick. There were about 101 possessions in the game. VMI scored 133, so that's 1.32 per poss. Check out Chavis Holmes' line: 21 pts, 9 rebs, 4 asts, 5 stls, 4 blks, 8-13 fg-fga ... all in 21 minutes!

Crazy stuff ....

Rollin' past Texas Southern

2008-11-18T22:39:00.004-05:00

Both teams had about 70 possessions in this one. Cincinnati scored 82 points, or about 117 points per 100 possessions (that's just about as efficient as they were in their game vs. South Dakota). They allowed 51 points, or about 73 per 100. Again, a pretty dominant performance.

Individually, the standout was probably Alvin Mitchell, who scored 15 points on just 8 shots and 22 minutes on the floor. He went 4-7 from three and 3-4 from the line. Deonta Vaughn had a solid all around game with 12 points, 6 assists, and 5 rebounds in a team-leading 31 minutes. Other good performers:

Dion Dixon: 4 pts, 5 ast, 10 reb, 19 mins
Steve Toyloy: 11 pts, 7 reb, 5-5 fg-fga, 19 mins

The only real negatives from the Bearcats' side were the 17 turnovers and poor shooting from the line (12-21, 57%).

FWIW, Big East teams are like 24-2 so far this year.

UC 77, South Dakota 46

2008-11-16T23:10:00.003-05:00

I thought South Dakota was a D2 school, but I guess they made the jump to D1 this year, as part of the Great West conference. You can call them D1, I guess, but they are probably about as close to D2 as you can get. Either way, Cincy has to play the games on the schedule, and it looks like they did about as much as you could ask tonight.

According to the formula for estimating possesions in a game, the Cats had about 65 possessions in the game. They scored 77 points, so that's like 1.18 points per possession. For some context, last year the NCAA average efficiency (points per 100 poss.) was 102. The number one team, IUPUI, was at 118. Cincinnati had a very efficient offensive game vs. South Dakota, but obviously we must consider the competition.

South Dakota had 69 possessions and they scored 46 points. That's .67 points per possession or 67 per 100 possessions, depending on how you want to look at it (it's the same thing, of course). That's also ... pretty bad. Again, for some context, the leader in defensive efficiency last year was Kansas at 83. So, we'll have the best offense and defense in the nation ... if we keep playing Great West teams : )

Some other random notes:

Yancy Gates had quite a debut: 16 pts, 11 reb, 3 blks, 7-11 from the field. What's more impressive is that he only played 20 minutes. So that's 32 points, 22 rebounds, and 6 blocks per 40. Yeah, not a bad start.

Also a nice start for Mike Williams, having not played in two years. He had 8 points and 9 boards in 26 minutes.

Junior transfer Steve Toyloy had a good, under-the-radar-type game: 8 points, 7 rebounds in just 16 minutes.

Okay, I'm runnin' out of bullet points here. It was a nice game all around. Quick turn around Tuesday against Texas Southern, who brings back all five of their starters ... though, they went 7-25 last year.

Hey, I should keep this thing goin'

2008-11-16T21:14:00.003-05:00

Hey, folks ... sorry for not posting in such a long time. I thought about just shutting this thing down, but I saw that Mr. Koch linked to me (thanks, Bill!), and that encouraged me to give it another shot. Going forward, the content here will remain mostly UC hoops, but I'll 'cover' college ball in general (I especially enjoy tracking some smaller D1 schools) and even the NBA on occasion.

If you happen to be new around these parts, please feel free to comment on any posts. It'd be great if we could get some intelligent discussion going ... God knows I'm not going to provide it by myself : )

Anyway, I like to try to look at things from a statistical perspective. I'm surely not going to provide much insight from a scouting standpoint, and I think the stats can be pretty interesting. I've been following sabermetrics (that's what they call this stuff in baseball) for a good 4-5 years, but I'm pretty new to the basketball stuff -- so we'll be learning together, if we learn anything.

Thanks for stopping by. I'm a bit more busy than I have been in the past, but I hope I can do a better job of following the Bearcats this year. I'll try to have a little recap up of the game vs. South Dakota either tonight or tomorrow night.

Retiring numbers

2008-05-20T03:16:00.003-04:00

Bill Koch writes that only three UC basketball men's basketball players have had their numbers retired.

A mini-debate in the comments centered around whether or not Cincy should retire more numbers and how those players (and their accompanying numbers) should be selected. A couple people said, essentially, take out the subjective aspect -- make it be a requirement that the player had won a national player of the year award.

I say ... hmm, that is basing it completely on something subjective -- the selection of the national player of the year is certainly subjective. Now, you kind of take it out of the universities hands, so there will be no controversy there, but this method would not exactly take the subjectivity out of the process.

Furthermore, who's to say that's a good 'method' anyway. Aren't three years as a top ten player better than one year as the best player and two or three relatively insignificant ones. I don't know for sure, but I'd certainly say so.

Unless you create some sort of detailed, uber-stat, there is always going to be subjectivity in something like this (and you could even argue it'd still exist, even if you did that). Personally, I'd put together a committee of past players, writers, etc. to have some type of vote to determine the numbers that would be retired. Heck, have some type of internet vote for the fans. Nobody knows a team's players like its fans, collectively.

CBI? ... News to me

2008-03-18T03:40:00.003-04:00

More games, huh?

Looks like Cincy isn't done yet (yeah, I'm a little late with the news). Frankly, I didn't know about this tourney (the College Basketball Invitational) and figured the Bearcats were finished for the year. According to Koch, they'll now face Bradley in the first round of the CBI.

Personally, I'm excited that there are more games, and we'll see what happens here.

But I wanted to take a moment to address a couple of larger issues. I'm not a controversial person by nature (at least at this point) and since nobody reads this anyway, I doubt my thoughts on these issues will be deemed controversial. Anyway ...

The negative approach

The general negativity from a large portion of fans is quite hard to believe. I guess, maybe it's understandable, but it goes beyond simply be frustrated with the season. It is like some people will make a negative comment on any issue that comes up (in the few blogs/forums that I read). Sure, any fans who post their thoughts on the 'net are "super fans" and probably not that representative of Bearcat fans as a whole, but it seems like there are quite a lot of them with negarive views.

Anyway, is there any reason to be particularly upset with getting an invite to this little tournament? It's more games to watch (maybe; if they're on tv), it's another game for the seniors, another game for the younger guys, perhaps there's a chance for some recognition, etc. etc. Where's the bad stuff? Sure, it's no big deal, really. It's not the NCAA tournament, but who's making it out to be that? Better than nothin', I say. Either way, to each their own ...

What's that about wins and losses?

The other thing that I think is interesting is that many fans cannot seem to look past win-loss record. Sure, it's important; nobody would deny that. But a win and a loss is on such a cut and dry scale. Imagine this: Cincy loses to #1 ranked, oh let's say Duke, 65-61. Marquette loses to #255 ranked Longwood by 20. That's all the info you have on both teams. Are they equal because they're both 0-1? Not if I have anything to say about it. Now over the course of the season, things like that are supposes to balance out and W/L record will become pretty telling, right? Well, sure, to a degree. But record by itself serves little purpose. I mean, just take a mid-major variety ball club. They could easily go 25-5 and not be ranked all year (and righlty so). North Carolina does that and they're a top team. That brings us to the novel concept of ...

Strength of schedule. Pomeroy has UC's SOS at 21st in the nation. That's second best in the Big East and, well, 21st overall out of some 300+ teams. Now it's 13-18 against much better than average competition. Pomeroy then has UC ranked 100th overall. Nah, it isn't great, but it's a lot better than you'd expect from a 13-18 record, and a lot of that is due to that tough schedule.

So is there awkwardness with UC getting into this tourney? I don't see it. Bradley and their much more respectable 17-15 mark are ranked 85th by Pomeroy's measure, just 15 spots better than Cincy. Brown, another CBI team, is ranked a whopping 148th in the country, but of course their 19-9 record makes them look, well, pretty damn good. They played in the Ivy League, folks.

A bad 30 point game?

This is turning into a longer post than I planned and, quite frankly, I'm having fun with it. I was meaning to post this the other night but I didn't get around to it. Anyway, is it possible to score 30 points in a 40 minute game and have a bad night offensively (I'm only considering shooting here; not passing, ball control, defense, etc.)? The quick answer would probably be no, not really. But did you see Deonta Vaughn the other night vs. Pitt? Outside of being electrifying at times, he had a pretty rough night. He scored 30 in 39 minutes, but he shot an ugly 8-25 from the field.

Let's pretend Vaughn took every Bearcat shot that night (all 54) and got to the line as much as he did, relative to his field goal attempts. That gets us:

from the field: 17.28-54
from 2: 6.48-21.6
from 3: 10.8-32.4
from the line: 19.5-26

Total points = ~65

I'm all over the place here. If you can't follow what I did there, you're in good company, as I can't either. I think I did it right, though, and the point is: Vaughn barely increased UC's point total, relative to how his teammates performed (Cincy actually scored 64 points). Of course, this is an oversimplified "analysis," as players don't take all of their team's shots. if they did, they'd be blanketed more than Deonta was, and they'd shoot an even worse.

I'll go a step further and say that part of the reason Vaughn had to shoot so much was because he was the only player that could consistently get open. Yeah, the rest of the team shot 45% compared to Deonta's 32%, but if they only shot when they were open and they didn't get open often, what was he supposed to do? Now, I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm merely throwing it out there as something to chew on.

Men of Bradley

So we've got this game with Bradley coming up. Who are these guys? They're 5-11 vs teams in Pomeroy's top 115. That means they're like 12-4 vs. teams outside of the top 115. So they beat up on bad teams ... but who doesn't? Plus, the 115 number was just an arbitrary selection by me (it's close to Cincinnati's ranking).

They play to about 70 possesions a game compared to Cincy's 65, so the game might be a battle of conflicting interests, at least in terms of pace. They're also real dangerous from 3 with 5 guys who've made at least 20 on the year.

We'll see you around.

Well, that's that

2008-03-14T03:32:00.001-04:00

I think the loss to Pittsburgh is a pretty good example of what happens when you have one, and only one, real scoring threat. Vaughn is awesome, but if he's the only guy that's going to score, the defense is going to play him tighter and tighter. And I think that's what happened, especially late. Sure, he got on fire there, and that was pretty special. But then the d tightened up even more and then you've got trouble ... and that led to an ugly overall shooting night for Deonta (8-25 from the floor), despite some late magic. If someone could have buried a couple of 3's there or they could have got something going inside, then Vaughn gets freed up a little bit and maybe shoots better down the stretch. As it was, Pitt was all over him and he struggled getting off solid shots. It's a lot of game theory, really, I think. They need more weapons next year and I hope they'll have them.

As for the season in general, it was a disappointing finish, but -- as I've said before -- I think they outperformed expectations by a good bit. I understand there are already two factions in the Cincy online world (and as I follow more teams via the net, I find that is more often than not the case). I am not really on either side of the hate/love Mick Cronin debate. Frankly, I don't follow things closely enough, or know enough about basketball, to be really entrenched on one side or the other. Hopefully I can fall somewhere in between and try to offer a somewhat "objective" take, although I try to be an optimistic person in general.

And that takes me to this final note: the future of this blog. It isn't going anywhere (well, I might change the domain name in the future, but we'll see), as there's no reason for that. I'd certainly like to update it more next season and even in this offseason. Currently, I'm writing for a couple of baseball blogs and I maintain another, smaller web site. I have made a 88 cents overall in close to a year of blogging on the net (although making money is certainly not a priority, or even a goal at this point), I go to college, and I try to do some non-internet related things every once in a while. You'd be surprised at how much time I have left over, but a lot of it goes to baseball, a sport I know a bit better. Either way, I'm going to update this blog occasionally over the next few weeks with my thoughts on the tournaments, college sports in general, and possibly a few UC offseason things. I'm not particularly impressed with my first go around with this blog, and I bet you're not either. Hopefully, if I keep things up for a while, I'll improve and we'll create a nice little community here.

It's go time!

2008-03-12T17:32:00.003-04:00

Well, I don't know about you (all one of you : ), but I am excited about the game tonight vs. Pitt at MSG. The way I look at, who cares about the last 5 games? Who cares about the loss to UCONN, or for that matter, every other game this season? It all comes down to one game ... and then, of course, one game tomorrow ... and one game until we win this Big East tourney. Of course, that's easy for me to say. I'm not on the team and I haven't played a competitive sport in years. Can you just wipe out a 45 point loss and a disappointing 5 game losing streak? I'm not sure, but why not? If the final goal of a National Championship -- and I'll assume that's the ultimate goal -- is still in reach, then why not give it all you've got and see what happens? Sure, a championship of National or Big East variety is a stretch to say the least, but there's really no reason to not go all out for it, despite the odds.

Anyway, it has been a nice run. Yeah, I've caught up on some of the online reaction on the finish -- as much as I can stomach, which is not much. What did everyone expect? I mean, while I say the "final goal" is an NCAA championship that is more of a dream than anything. For the most part, this team outperformed expectations, perhaps even destroyed them. It's human nature, I suppose, to allow the recent games to put the season into a negative light ... but there's time to right that ship and turn things around, if you if think this was somehow a disappointing season.

Pomeroy (for some reason, can't hyperlink: http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?y=2008&c=BE&t=p) has Pittsburgh as the 30th best team in the country and UC at 100. But let's not forget we beat this club back in January and we only lost by six in Pitt. With no real home court advantage, the oddsmakers have Pitt as a 9 point favorite. Seems a bit high to me -- did I mention anything about weighting recent performance too much?

Anyway, there would be no better way to finish off the season than with an exciting run in New York. Let's get this thing started tonight. With nothing to lose myself, I'll make some "bold" predictions.

Cincy -- 83
Pitt -- 81

Vaughn buries two late threes and racks up, let's say ... 41 on the night.

Rough loss

2008-03-06T21:28:00.003-05:00

Hey, I'm still here. As you can see, I haven't posted much of late. I'm not sure that will change, but we'll see.

Anyway, this loss to Depaul was a frustrating one. I listed to the last 10 minutes or so on the internet radio feed after tracking the score on espn. Seems like they simply didn't shoot well down the stretch and made too many big turnovers. Still, I thought they had a real chance down 2 with Depaul still being in the one and one. I just can't see how you foul Burns there and then foul him again after he missed the free throw. Make him give the ball up. The announcers were saying he was the only good free throw shooter on the court for Depaul. In his career, he's hit 78% of his free throws. I'm not sure who exactly was on the court, but Green and Walker are just slightly over 70% for their careers and the rest of the team is worse. Sure, it's only percentage points, but it may have made a difference.

Of course, if they rebounded Burns' first miss, it may not have mattered.

UC takes on West Virginia, Huggins

2008-01-30T19:44:00.000-05:00

Cincinnati looks solid early here -- West Virginia looks awful, at least offensively. Anyway, it's 29-21 with 2:32 to go in the first half. Really, it's frustrating to just have an 8 point lead as WV has shot just 24% and UC has hit 50% of their shots. It's the fouls -- some ticky take ones -- that are keeping WV in the game. The shots are going to start falling most likely, so Cincinnati has to keep it coming here ... but what an impressive start. I'll update this a few times ... if you happen to stop by, make a comment n the game if you'd like (it will appear instantly ; ).

UPDATE: 43-29 UC with 11:42 to play. Just unbelievable here. They were 13.5 point underdogs. We've just caught West Virginia on an off night shooting-wise (with some great defense) and played really well. Still, this is a critical point in the game. Don't want to get tentative and let them creep back in it. Go for the knockout right here.

UPDATE: Well, yeah, that's what I'm talking about! 7-0 run since I last posted like a minute ago.

UPDATE: Well, folks, that's a great win. But you don't need me to tell you that. I don't know how often a 13-14 point underdog beats a team by 23, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's pretty rare. I think it's getting pretty clear that this team is dangerous ... Marquette should be fun on Saturday.

Cracking the top 25?

2008-01-23T00:03:00.000-05:00

First a miniature rant. I'm not really sure what the point of the top 25 is in NCAA D1 basketball. I haven't paid attention to it for years. I mean, what is it, the aggregate opinion of a group of writers ... what's the point? When it comes down to tournament time, you're going to have to go past the top 25 anyway, so it doesn't really serve much of a purpose there. And why stop at 25? What's the difference between #25 and #26. I just don't see the point. I'm sure it's largely made to create excitement, but it just seems pointless to put too much stock into it.

Anyway, I read a post over at Bill Koch's blog on Cincy receiving a couple of votes for the top 25. Now, I don't care about "being ranked," but the natural question does come up: where should UC be ranked out of all 341 division 1 teams? Well, even if we wanted to use the writer's or coach's poll, we can't, as it doesn't cover every team. So, instead, we'll go to Pomeroy's ratings, RPI, and Jeff Sagarin's ratings.

Pomeroy: 105
RPI: 96
Sagarin: 109

Quickly average those and you get 103. So, by the numbers, UC is somewhere around the 100th best team in basketball. Or, at least, that's where they should be ranked based on their performance so far against their schedule. Anybody voting them up near 25 is either overestimating their early performance or great at identifying good basketball teams before they're good. That being said, Cincinnati has played extremely well of late and their recent play should probably be weighted more heavily. With a couple more big wins, they could definitely start to merit some consideration for that prestigious top 25. But I think that Bill (or anyone else) is pretty justified in his belief that they're not a "top 25 team" (not that anyone cares what i think).

Downing Pitt

2008-01-20T15:13:00.000-05:00

I'm late with the recap for this one. Since I didn't see or hear it, I don't have much to add anyway. Glancing through the box score, it looks like UC made a conscious effort to dial in the 3's a little bit. They only shot 8 and saw their field foal percentage rise to almost 47% because of it. They shot a little better than Pittsburgh, they got to the line more (and converted at a higher rate), and they held their own on the glass. Basically, they played a little better game and ended up on top by 3. Another fantastic win over a very good team.

UCONN coming up next as it doesn't get any easier.

Taking on the Irish

2008-01-15T15:17:00.001-05:00

Let's start with the obvious: this is a difficult game. Notre Dame has a .786 winning percentage under Mike Brey at home. They haven't lost as home since February 6, 2006. Pomeroy's model predicts a 77-60 ND win and only a 6% chance of a UC victory. He has Notre Dame as the 23 best team in the country and Cincinnati at 115.

Here's the scouting report on ND.

69 possessions per 40 minutes puts them at 134th in the country. They play slightly faster than average, but nothing too extreme. However, they're 26th in (adjusted) offensive efficiency and 37th on the defensive side. They're deadly from downtown with a 41% shooting percentage, but they don't take too many 3's. They're defense is, on the other hand, great at defending 2 point field goals (40% -- 9th in the nation), but much more susceptible from long range (35%). We'll see if Cincinnati looks to get up a lot of 3 pointers, as they have been recently.

Anyway, Harangody's the big threat inside (and he takes 35% of their shots). Ayers and McAlarney are the 3 point specialists. Kurz can also score it and Jackson, the point guard, has the 61st best assist rate in the country.

They're a tough team and we'll have our hands full ... but, with this team, you never know. Vaughn and Gentry need to be dialed in from deep. Let's go Cincinnati!

(as a side note, I'm not sure if this one's on espn2 or espnu yet ... hopefully it's on the deuce).

Vaughn vs. Logan, part 2

2008-01-14T20:52:00.000-05:00

It's the latest buzz on the 'net. Deonta Vaughn is the next Steve Logan. Anytime you get to watch a guy like Logan for 4 years, you're going to be quick to anoint this guy or that guy as "the next Steve Logan." Who wouldn't want to see another one? Anyway, Bill Koch made a post about it last week and there's been some talk on the forums, as well. Let's take a look at some numbers and see how they compare.

It seems to me that the first thing we want to compare is Logan vs. Vaughn in their first two years. We can't compare Vaughn to the senior version of Steve Logan, because that just wouldn't be fair. The next problem that presents itself is that fact that Logan didn't play that much in his first two seasons, while Vaughn has been a starter who has racked up a ton of minutes. So we can't just compare raw numbers. Let's take it by the minute ...

Logan as freshman -- as sophomore
2 point fg: 53% -- 42%
3 point fg: 33% -- 42%
Points per 40 minutes: 16.6 -- 14.7
Shots per 40: 13.5 -- 10.9
Rebounds per 40: 2.9 -- 2.7
Assists per 40: 4.1 -- 5.3
Turnovers per 40: 2.3 -- 1.9
Steals per 40: .7 -- 1.1

Vaughn as freshman -- as sophomore
2 point fg: 47% -- 55%
3 point fg: 29% -- 42%
Points per 40: 17.6 -- 21
Shots per 40: 16.5 -- 14.5
Rebounds per 40: 4.2 -- 4
Assists per 40: 4.3 -- 5
Turnovers per 40: 3 -- 3.9
Steals per 40: 2.2 -- 1.1

For the sake of, um, clearity, I left plenty of things out (like free throws, free throw%, etc.). Click on their player cards and check out some other stuff, plus, I'll leave some stuff for another day. Anyway, through their first two years, let's try to make some general comparisons between Logan and Vaughn.

they are similar shooters both from 2 and 3
Vaughn's a better overall scorer
Vaughn is also a much larger part of his team's offense (at least shots-wise)
Vaughn's a better rebounder
Logan has (or had, whatever) better ball control
They are similar in assists
Vaughn's a litter better at creating steals

All in all, this seems to look very good for Deonta Vaughn. Over his first two years (or really, year and a half), he's been a comparable, if not better, player than Steve Logan was in his first two years.

The reason I stressed first two years and keep mentioning it is because Logan blossomed into one of the best players in the country over his last two years. You can't expect every above average sophomore to turn into Steve Logan as a senior. But after glancing at these admittedly quick-and-dirty numbers, there's certainly a chance that something like that happens and it wouldn't exactly be shocking if it did. Let's touch on a few other things.

These numbers, besides the fact that they are just numbers, don't account for a lot of things -- like, for instance, the pace of these teams, the teammates surrounding each player, the strength of opponents, the player's role, etc. They also don't account for scouting and/or things that aren't captured in the numbers. Leadership, defense, actual skills are a few examples. Like I said, it's just a quick look.

For Vaughn, sustaining this type of play isn't going to be easy. If he continues to play like this, opponents are going to start focusing on him more and more. Basically, it's tough to keep playing at an above average level and it's a credit to Logan that he was able to do so for so long. That said, if there's anyone that has reminded me of Logan since his departure, it's Vaughn. Be it size, stature, or numbers -- I can see a glimpse of Steve Logan when I watch Deonta Vaughn play, and that's why the comparisons seem so natural. Let me tell you, there isn't anyone who would want to see another Logan in Cincinnati more than me (well, I'm sure there are some people, like Mick for example). Steve Logan is still one of my favorite athletes ever. Who can forget going the length of the court against Memphis. Or the finish at the shoe against Marquette in his senior year ... beating Southern Missisippi by himself (literally). The guy is larger than life to me. And I didn't even really start following UC basketball until Logan's junior year.

Deonta Vaughn has a long way to go if he wants to fill Logan's shoes. But he's off to one hell of a start.

Cincinnati 69, Villanova 66

2008-01-12T23:26:00.000-05:00

Creative title, ey?

Another fantastic win. I don't have espnu, so I listened to this one on the radio (via the internet).

Vaughn was great again (more on that in another post soon). Williamson had a solid game, as usual. Bishop buried the huge 3 with 22 seconds to go. How about that recap ...

Couple of random things. I was watching the highlights on espn's Cincinnati site. I believe it was just a clip from the espnu post game show, but somehow they managed not to show the Bishop 3. I mean, if you're going to show anything, show Bishop's 3.

Also, let me try to understand what the analyst half of the announcing team was trying to say while I was listening on the radio(believe it or not, I don't even know his name). I think (but I could be wrong) that he said that he'd foul if Williamson made both free throws to make it a 4 point Cincy lead with 5.6 seconds to play. I haven't done or seen a comprehensive analysis, but that has to be the wrong play. Just let them dribble up the court and fire a 3 with no time remaining .... game over, even if it goes in. If you foul, you give them the slight chance of making the first, missing the second, and burying a 3 to tie. Maybe I heard him wrong.

Anyway, what a great win.

Strength of schedule

2008-01-12T00:56:00.000-05:00

Bill Koch mentioned the Bearcats' tough schedule in a post today. He actually mentions how Mick talks about the non-conference schedule a lot. Let's go to Pomeroy's ratings.

He has Cincinnati's non-conference strength of schedule (NCSOS) at 55. Believe it or not, that's third in the Big East behind Syracuse (shocker, ey? ... they're at 25) and Depaul (35). The 55th hardest SOS may or may not initially be impressive, but when you compare it to the rest of the Big East teams, you see that a lot of them go with a really easy non-conference slate. West Virginia, Seton Hall, Rutgers, Villanova, and Notre Dame are all over 200 in NCSOS.

So, Mick is pretty spot on talking about his team's tough out of conference schedule. I mean, I know some people don't give a crap about strength of schedule and all of these different ratings, but I don't see how you can't at least acknowledge it in someway, especially if you accept the ratings.

Anyway, Cincinnati's overall SOS sits at 16 right now, and I'm guessing it's not going to go down much form here. This could be a big factor when selection day comes around ... of course, we've got a long way to go before really becoming a major player there.

Great win

2008-01-10T00:17:00.000-05:00

It sounds like I've been saying this quite a bit of late ... but that had to be Cincinnati's best game of the year. At least it was right there with the Louisville win and maybe a couple of others. I was interested in how the pace of this one would go. If we use the formula for estimating possessions in a game we can figure that out.

Poss. = FGA-OR+TO+0.475xFTA

Cincy ...55-17+16+(.475*29) = 67.8

Cuse ... 54-11+13+(.475*24) = 67.4

So let's say 68 possessions. As I noted yesterday, Syracuse and Cincinnati were quite different in teams in terms of pace. Before tonight, Syracuse averaged about 75 possessions a game and Cincy 66. It looks like Cincinnati won the battle here, as the game was probably much slower than Syracuse wanted. This was probably largely due to the Bearcats getting that big lead and then being able to sit on the ball late.

Vaughn was the star again, scoring 29 points on 16 shots from the field. He also chipped in with 5 assists and 3 rebounds. Jamual Warren had a nice line: 5 points, 6 rebounds, 7 assists. Won't get headlines, but that's a nice game (he also had 3 steals, a block, and just 2 turnovers). McClain had 7 points and 7 rebounds in just 23 minutes. I'm going to guess his minutes will keep going up.

Anyway, it was a great win all around. The real difference was Cincinnati's rebounding. They beat Syracuse on both sides of the ball:

offense
Cincy: 17
Cuse: 11

defense
Cincy: 21
Cuse: 18

Of course, there are still things to improve on. They had 16 turnovers, which is a bit high. 7-26 from 3 isn't going to get it done on most nights. A good Villanova team comes in on Saturday and Cincinnati looks for a 3-1 Big East start.

Shades of Steve Logan

2008-01-09T20:51:00.000-05:00

Deonta Vaughn has 20 points on 10 1st half shots.

Cincinnati is dominating the glass with 22 rebounds (including 10 on the offensive side) to Syracuse's 10. The Bearcats have shot as ridiculous amount of 3's against the zone (6 for 18). Anyway, things couldn't be much better right now. I'll check back in when this one is over. Let's keep this up!

Cincy-Syracuse

2008-01-09T02:09:00.000-05:00

The odds makers have Syracuse as a 3 point favorite for tonight's game. Of course, with the game being in Cincinnati, that means the Orangemen are pretty clear favorites. Anyway, if you look at something like Ken Pomeroy's site, 3 points may be a little light. He has Syracuse ranked as the 33rd best team in the country. The Bearcats come in at 136. If you look at the link there, his model predicts a 81-71 'Cuse win and just an 18% chance of a UC victory. In fact, he only has Cincinnati winning 3 more times all year ... all in tight games. Obviously the Bearcats early performance is not one that is going to get a lot of support in a model that is based on early performance. That being said, it's still .... um ... early. Statistics are fun to look at, at least for me, but they're certainly not the end-all-be-all (especially at this point).

Anyway, take a look at the "scouting report" on Syracuse. I didn't even realize all of this stuff existed on Pomeroy's site (perhaps I shouldn't even update any stats -- they are all right there). The Orange are a fast based team, as they play at about 75 possessions per 40 minutes (12th in the country). If you look at the report, you can see that their offense has been borderline elite, while the defense is much more middle of the pack.

They basically start 5 guys and play them a whole bunch of minutes (all 5 over 30). I'm not sure about their depth, so maybe the key for Cincy will be to get them into foul trouble. It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. Syracuse is a high paced, high scoring team. Cincinnati is a much slower paced team (66 poss. per game). We'll see if the Bearcats try to slow things down or if they try to keep up with Greene and company. Needless to say, this is a big game.

Cincy stuns Louisville

2008-01-01T17:34:00.000-05:00

I'm not surprised by close Bearcat games anymore. It seems like every game -- whether it's Western Carolina at home or Louisville on the road -- is going to be close. They've done a fine job, if you want to call it that, of playing to the level of the competition so far.

So I'm not sure if I was really stunned by this outcome, but they were getting about 14 points. Pomeroy's ratings had Louisville at 27 and Cincinnati at 140. Add in the fact that the game was on the road, and I think it was quite a shocker.

Anyway, I got to see this one on espn and what a win it was. This definitely had to be one of their best performances of the year. Cincinnati held the Cardinals to 36% shooting from the field (including 3-23 from three point range). The Bearcats shot 47% and made 8 of 14 from shots from downtown. Vaughn is really having a nice year. He just doesn't seem to be forcing shots like I think he was at times last year. Here's how his scoring numbers compare to last year's:

07-08
2 point: 47%
3 point: 43%
Shots/game: 11.2
Points/game: 15.3

06-07
2 point: 47%
3 point: 29%
Shots/game: 13.6
Points/game: 14.5

The main difference is of course the huge improvement on three's. You can see that he's taking less shots and scoring more points per game this season. Of course, last season's numbers count a full slate of Big East games, while this year's are mostly non-conference. We'll have to see if Vaughn keeps up the improved play.

I don't know too much about either McClain or Hrycaniuk, but I feel a lot more comfortable with McClain out on the floor. He's much more of a presence on the defensive side of the ball and at least he can finish with a dunk offensively.

(checking the numbers) ... To my surprise, Adam H. has actually been pretty good offensively. I guess it just scares the hell out of me when the guy touches the ball.

Anyway ... great win. The team played good on both sides of the ball and beat a tough team on the road. What a way to start Big East play!

So long, Josh

2007-12-29T23:54:00.000-05:00

Well, I was going to make a post on Cincy's 56-50 win over Miami of Ohio tonight. I went over to Josh Katzowitz's blog to see if he mentioned the point spread for the game. I didn't find that, but I found out that The Post is shutting down and Katzowitz is going to be out of a job. If you remember my first post, you know that I don't live anywhere Cincinnati ... I have no idea about the newspaper dynamic there or anything like that. But I had really come to enjoy Katzowitz's blog over the last few months.

Personally, I've always felt things are going to make a shift to the internet. It's inevitable. We're certainly seeing signs of that as virtually ever major newspaper has a website and writers like Katzowitz are blogging. It's simply a more effective way to do the job. Breaking news is easy to report ... the interaction with fans is great.

What can sometimes be forgotten, at least for me, is that real people are actually affected by this stuff. It's not just newspapers vs. blogs/internet. It's a guy like this losing a job. Anyway, based on what I've read on his blog, I'm sure Josh won't take long to find a job in the newspaper industry if that's what he wishes. Hopefully, he'll start up another blog (I don't know if he's still going to cover UC sports, but that would be awesome). His game updates were way faster than espn's and his commentary was always insightful and interesting. I'm going to miss the blog.

So this stranger just wanted to wish you well, Josh. Best wishes ...

***

I promise I'll have some updates to the per 40 minutes stats sometime relatively soon. Relatively soon for this blog is sometime before 2009 ; ). I'll also try to do some stuff with per possession stats and maybe actually start to post on a somewhat regular basis sometime soon, as well.

Anyway, it's good to see the Bearcats pick up the win tonight. From the box score, it didn't really seem like an overly impressive performance (especially considering the opponent). At this point, however, a win is a win. They really impressed me against Xavier and Memphis (and losing by 8 to NC State doesn't seem bad either, although I didn't see that one). Maybe this is the start to an impressive little run. They are certainly a little better than I expected and may actually make some noise here as we enter Big East play. We'll see, I guess.

Just short against Xavier

2007-12-13T03:08:00.000-05:00

Yea, I'm still here ...

Well, that was a pretty impressive performance on the road against a good Xavier team. I mean it was an ugly game all around, at least offensively. The difference basically came down to Xavier getting to the line 6 times more than Cincinnati and converting 7 more free throws. The Bearcats shot the 3 ball well, going 8-18 from downtown. They were terrible from 2 with a 30% shooting percentage (14-47). Hopefully, Gentry is okay after that collision.

I don't really have much else right now. It was a tough loss. A frustrating one. But in the end, you really have to be impressed that they hung with them that long and had a legit chance to win. It certainly doesn't get easier with Memphis coming up Wednesday.

I'll start updating some per 40 minute stats and maybe some per possession stats as the season goes on.

Rough Start

2007-11-16T22:06:00.000-05:00

First off, thanks to Cuse Country for the link. I was not expecting that : ) Secondly, I'm not sure how much I'll post here. I'll probably post more later in the year when baseball news dies down (I have a baseball blog too), but who knows. If you stop by -- thanks, and feel free to leave a comment or anything. It's tough to blog about a team you can't even watch ....

Anyway, not a great start for the Bearcats. I'm sure you know by now, but here are the early results:

L 86-75 vs. Belmont
w 66-64 vs. Western Car.
L 69-67 vs. Bowling Green
W 74-59 vs. Coastal Car.

They're playing very average basketball, but that's against opponents that will probably be some of the easiest on the schedule. The one problem, I think, continues to be the 3 pointer. UC is shooting 31.3% from beyond the arc, while they're allowing their opponents to shoot 35.6% from 3. They're going to have to find a way to defend the 3 point shot better on defense, and shoot it better (or less often) on offense. So far here are their percentages from 3 and from 2:

Cincy
2: 50.4%
3: 31.3%

Opponents
2: 52.2%
3: 35.6%

They have done a better job getting to the line and converting from there, but the defense just has to tighten up. After a nice win tonight against Coastal Carolina (where Deonta Vaughn 36 points on 19 shots from the field), they have 8 days to work on it before facing Fairfield.

Games to play ...

2007-11-09T14:35:00.001-05:00

Well, the 2007-2008 regular season starts tonight against Belmont! Last year, Belmont went 23-10 in an impressive campaign. They were, however, just 9-6 out of conference and 10-6 on the road.

That being said, they are dangerous tonight as they're lethal from beyond the 3 point line. Last year they went 288-811 from three (35.5%). That's 8.7 3-pointers made per game. They get back their three best options from beyond the arc in Justin Hare, Andy Wicke, and Matt Dotson. In his three year career, Hare has buried 146 3's (37.8%). Junior Andy Wicke shoots 3's more often and is more accurate. He's already made 140 (41.8%) in just 61 games at Belmont. His game revolves almost completely around the 3, as 76% of his field goals come from 3 point land. The final part of the trio is Matt Doston, a 6-8 Junior forward who is 67-197 from 3 in his 2 seasons at Belmont.

This does not bode well for a Cincinnati team that gave up 231 3's last year (2nd most per game amongst big east teams) and a 37.7% against from beyond the arc (2nd worst in big east). Hopefully, as you'd expect, they worked on defending 3's and are ready for Belmont's long range attack. This one probably won't be as easy as some think, but I think Cincy will get by when it's all said and done. As long as they avoid being hit by a 3 point barrage, their physicality and athleticism should get them past a dangerous Belmont team.

The basis of this basketball analysis

2007-10-22T22:32:00.001-04:00

As I mentioned in my first post, I am no expert in advanced basketball analysis. It appears, however, that much of the analysis is based off one important concept: estimating possessions.

Estimating possessions is important because it is a way to put teams on equal footing, so to speak. Let's just take a random example with numbers for illustration only. One offense gets about 67 possessions a game and they score 63 points a game. Another team gets 77 possessions a game and scores 72 points per game. Now, if you're looking at the basic stats, it looks like the second offense (the one that scores 72 a game) is clearly better. However, once you realize that they receive more possessions, i.e., more opportunities to score per game, you see that they really aren't the better offense. The first team scored .94 points per possession, while the second one scores .935 points per possession. In the end, they're of course very similar, but the first team is probably a little better offensively (at least they're more efficient). It's the style of the second team (more fast paced) that allows it to score more point per game.

On Ken Pomeroy's site, this is the definition he gives for estimating possessions for teams: field goal attempts - off. rebounds + turnovers + .475*free throw attempts. Doing this with Cincinnati in 2007 -- they had about 1,977 possessions in 30 games, or about 66 a game. That's right around the the ncaa average of 67. (For some reason, he gets 65 possessions per game for Cincy, while I get 66. I believe it may have something to do with adjusting for overtime games, but I'm not sure. Anyway, it's not a huge deal, but I may look into it in the future.) That put Cincy at about 98 points per 100 possessions, which ranks them 236 out of 336 division I teams. However, after Pomeroy adjusts that number (Im guessing for competition, i.e., playing in the big east), they end up ranking 138th in offensive efficiency. That's another story, though.

And, of course, it doesn't stop with points. You can look at blocks, rebounds, turnovers, etc. per possession and adjust for a team's style of play. Is Air Force really great at not turning the ball over year in and year out (I don't even know if they are -- I'm assuming their TO numbers are relatively low), or is it just because they get 10-15 less possessions per game than the average team? Once you look past the regular numbers and adjust for a team's context, you can get a better feel for how they play the game. A lot of the analysis on this blog will be based on per possession stats.

How bad was Cincinnati last year: Pythagoras weighs in

2007-10-18T16:32:00.000-04:00

A while back, baseball researcher Bill James developed a simple formula to estimate winning percentage for a team (called pythagorean record or expectation). The formula is still around today (although there have been some minor improvements) and is right here:

(runs scored^2)/(runs scored^2)+(runs allowed^2)= winning percentage

Quite simply, then, the relationship between runs scored and runs allowed is a very good indicator of what a team's record should be. Generally, large variations off this are considered to have a large degree of luck involved. For example, when a baseball team scores, say, 800 runs and allows 800 in a year, you'd figure they'd be around a .500 team. If they go 90-72 it's safe to say that some of their success was indeed luck (mostly as in performing well in close games .. which inherently involves more luck and randomness).

This concept can be applied to other sports as well. In college basketball, the only thing that changes is the exponent -- it appears it needs to be changed to 10 instead of 2. Also, because of the imbalance in competition, most analysts only calculate pythagorean record with conference games only. With only 16 in conference games (in the Big East) that doesn't leave us with a very large sample from which to test. However, it can shed some light on which teams underperformed and which ones over performed.

Here's a spreadsheet I made with BE pythagorean records from 06-07.

From left to right, we've got points for, points against, point differential, wins (just plain old in-conference wins), pythagorean winning percentage, pythagorean wins, regular wins minus pythag wins.

The three "luckiest" teams were:
St. Johns: + 2 wins
Marquette: +1
Depaul: +.6

Unlucky
Cincinnati: -1.5
Uconn: -1.1
Seton Hall: -1

You can see there isn't a large difference between pythagorean wins and regular wins, overall. It does it's job. Also, the varitation within 16 games is certainly more limited (than in baseball, or the nba, or so on) because of the shortage of games.

Nonetheless, it's good news that UC was unlucky, I suppose. They "should" have won 3.5 games instead of the measly 2 that they picked up. That's still of course not good, but it's a better starting point than 2 is for next year.

We can also see how the BE kind of split into four sections last year. You had the top four clearly defined with GU, Louisville, Pitt, and ND. The good but not great pack ranging from Syracuse to Marquette. The bad but not horrible guys -- Uconn, St Johns, Seton Hall. Depaul was pretty much average. And then the trailers with UC, Rutgers, and South Florida.

With the large turnover in rosters, this is limited of course in future projections. However, it gives us a place to build on that is probably more reliable than basic wins and losses. Now, Cincinnati has to improve 4-5 games to get into the .500 range instead of 6. Of course, there are things that can be further explored like "clutch shooting", playing well late in games, etc. that could essentially allow a team to beat pythagoras and use skill, rather than luck to win more (or less games) then expected. My expectation is that these things don't really exist, or aren't real transferable skills. However, I haven't seen research in basketball on those topics. Then again, I've admittedly not followed basketball research closely over the last few years. Well get into that stuff.

Some simple adjustments to some simple stats

2007-10-12T15:11:00.000-04:00

Forget about me saying that I wouldn't make any posts until the season starts ...

Anyway, the first problem about the stats printed on many websites is that they are based on per game averages. That's all fine and dandy, but how fair is it to compare one guy to another when one guy plays 20 minutes a game and the other plays 35? So, I threw the stats on the UC website into a spreadsheet and quickly calculated some averages per 40 minutes, instead of per game.

Here's the spreadsheet from google docs

And here are the top 5 in a few categories (at least 200 total minutes)

Points per 40 minutes
Vaughn 17.6
Williamson 17.5
Sikes 12.9
McGowan 11.6
Gentry 11.5

Rebounds per 40
Williamson 9.5
McGowan 7.1
Sikes 6.8
Barwin 5.3
Warren 5.1

Steals minus turnovers per 40
Gentry -.11
Barwin -.67
Vaughn -.73
Warren -.78
Crowell -.96

That last "stat" I just made up. A positive number is of course better, as you want to have more steals than to's if possible. I figured that if you fault someone for making turnovers you also have to credit them for creating to's. A guard may have more opportunities for more to's, but he also has more opp's for steals, so it makes it somewhat equal between guards and big men. Anyway, take it with a grain of salt ...

It's pretty surprising how good Gentry was in that category, though. He averaged 1.8 TO and 1.7 steals per 40 minutes. He was the only Bearcat even close to an even 0. Also, check out his in conference numbers (1.7 steals, 1.4 to's) ... he actually improved against Big East teams. Actually, for some reason, most UC players improved in this category versus BE teams ... kinda strange. Gentry, though, is the only one to have a positive numbers.

I calculated effective field goal % (eFG%), explained here. The formula is (fg + .5*3P)/fga. It simply adjusts for the fact that a 3 pointer is worth one more point than a regular field goal. Here's the top 5:

Williamson 50%
Sikes 50%
Crowell 49%
McGowan 47%
Vaughn 45%

Welcome

2007-10-11T23:29:00.000-04:00

Well, I was just looking for some Bearcats blogs to catchup with the recruiting and the outlook on the 08 team. Turns out, I couldn't really find any active ones ... maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but I was pretty surprised, nonetheless.

As for me, I've been a fan of UC hoops for about a whopping 6-7 years. I can't really remember the exact moment I started following them, but I believe it was the night of a Xavier game (where they lost a close one) early in the 00-01 season. The next year I pretty much followed every game and was really into the team. My favorite player is/was Steve Logan and my favorite "moment" was the win against Marquette in 01-02, where Logan hit a 3 late and then dished off to Donald Little for the win moments later.

Anyway, there are a couple of reasons why I put "outsiders perspective" under the title. For one, I don't go to/didn't go to Cincinnati. I live miles and miles away and have only witnessed one game live (a win in Syracuse two years ago). I'm not a basketball expert at all and I don't really keep up with recruiting like I should (or really at all). So, if you come upon this blog looking for some Bearcats stuff, you may get it, but there's a very, very good chance you'll know a lot more about the team than me. Keep that in mind.

You might wonder why I'm making a blog then ... Well, like I said, there really isn't one out there that's active (outside of Katzowitz's, which is football too ... but seems pretty good). Also, I kind of like the "sabermetric" side of sports analysis (specifically baseball) and I figured I could learn a little about how that applies to basketball here on this blog. And, make no mistake, I'm a pretty big fan. I watch every game that's on and listen to quite a few on the internet/radio feed.

As for this blog, if you do happen to stumble upon it, don't expect too much until around the start of the season. If I get some time, I may take a look back at some things last year, but I'm not sure how many posts I'll make here in these first few weeks. I'll put a bunch of links up on the sidebar in the coming days, both for me to catch up on and for you to browse if you haven't checked them out.

Thanks for stopping by. Feel free to leave a comment, especially as I get this thing going. It's going to be a big bounce back year ... right!?