menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Ohio Assists to Field Goals Made
Page: 1 of 1
mail
Ted Thompson
3/13/2017 3:14 PM

After watching Ohio the last half of the season, I was wondering about Ohio's lack of passing the basketball. In terms of Assists to Field Goals Made Percentage, there has been a noticeable drop-off in that metric under Saul.

  A/FGM    
Season Rate Rank Coach
2009 61.5% 33 Groce
2010 57.4% 75 Groce
2011 59.4% 54 Groce
2012 53.9% 161 Groce
2013 66.8% 3 Christian
2014 58.9% 33 Christian
2015 46.6% 304 Phillips
2016 52.1% 171 Phillips
2017 49.0% 250 Phillips

However, looking into it further it turns out that Saul's offenses can be very effective without a high assists/field goals made percentage. In 2009 and 2014, his team's offenses were in the Top 25 in offensive efficiency (points/100 possessions) but very low in assists/field goals made percentage.

Saul   Offense A/FGM
Season Record Rank Rank
2008 16-13 120 168
2009 26-7 24 226
2010 11-18 263 111
2011 14-15 130 262
2012 17-14 114 163
2013 24-10 123 228
2014 26-7 24 333
2015 10-20 197 304
2016 23-12 82 171
2017 20-11 148 250

It should noted that there was a huge drop-off in assists/field goals made percentage after Tony Campbell went down with injury.

Opponent Assists FGM Rate
Southern 11 26 42.3%
Sam Houston 18 33 54.5%
Ga Tech 13 25 52.0%
Tenn Tech 13 22 59.1%
Marshall 16 31 51.6%
Bryant 19 26 73.1%
Iona 13 29 44.8%
Milwaukee 14 27 51.9%
Cleveland St 15 23 65.2%
WKU 15 25 60.0%
Urbana 19 25 76.0%
WMU 20 32 62.5%
Kent St 20 31 64.5%
Buffalo 9 22 40.9%
EMU 7 14 50.0%
Akron 11 28 39.3%
NIU 13 30 43.3%
Toledo 14 30 46.7%
BG 16 38 42.1%
WMU 14 29 48.3%
Akron 10 23 43.5%
CMU 14 26 53.8%
Ball St. 10 27 37.0%
EMU 14 19 73.7%
BG 19 35 54.3%
Miami 10 30 33.3%
Kent St 10 28 35.7%
Buffalo 12 28 42.9%
Miami 11 21 52.4%
Toledo 8 29 27.6%
Kent St 8 24 33.3%
Total 416 836 49.8%
       
With Campbell 215 377 57.0%
W/o Campbell 201 459 43.8%
Last 10 116 267 43.4%
mail
OU_Country
3/13/2017 3:20 PM
Thanks for the analysis Ted. I would also be curious to know where we ranked in offensive efficiency before and after Tony. The slide from last year to this year looks big, but without Tony it might not as significant.
mail
Ted Thompson
3/13/2017 3:51 PM

Here are the raw numbers. KenPom adjusts based on quality of defense faced. That was too much work for me but I think this is a pretty good proxy. No drop-off in efficiency without Tony.

Opponent Points Possessions Rate
Southern 77 74           1.04
Sam Houston 96 77           1.25
Ga Tech 67 70           0.96
Tenn Tech 68 65           1.05
Marshall 88 82           1.07
Bryant 79 69           1.14
Iona 75 71           1.06
Milwaukee 71 72           0.99
Cleveland St 71 75           0.95
WKU 66 75           0.88
Urbana 77 68           1.13
WMU 89 72           1.24
Kent St 85 80           1.06
Buffalo 74 79           0.94
EMU 49 62           0.79
Akron 68 67           1.01
NIU 78 69           1.13
Toledo 76 65           1.17
BG 96 75           1.28
WMU 85 72           1.18
Akron 85 72           1.18
CMU 87 77           1.13
Ball St. 79 72           1.10
EMU 79 78           1.01
BG 95 72           1.32
Miami 79 71           1.11
Kent St 67 73           0.92
Buffalo 79 73           1.08
Miami 69 69           1.00
Toledo 67 66           1.02
Kent St 66 70           0.94
Average 77 72           1.07
       
With Campbell 1083 1029           1.05
W/o Campbell 1304 1203           1.08
Last 10 767 721           1.06
mail
Ted Thompson
3/13/2017 4:06 PM

Again, on a raw basis, there was a drop in defense. About 1/10th of a point per possession is significant (when multiplied by a normal 70 possession game). However, some of that could be adjusted away given some of the high-powered MAC offenses that Ohio faced. Still, it looks like it was the defense that probably accounted for the 9-8 finish after the 11-3 start.

Opponent Points Possessions Rate
Southern 67 74           0.91
Sam Houston 75 77           0.97
Ga Tech 61 70           0.87
Tenn Tech 57 65           0.88
Marshall 88 82           1.07
Bryant 53 69           0.77
Iona 79 71           1.11
Milwaukee 69 72           0.96
Cleveland St 53 75           0.71
WKU 67 75           0.89
Urbana 50 68           0.74
WMU 58 72           0.81
Kent St 67 80           0.84
Buffalo 72 79           0.91
EMU 53 62           0.85
Akron 83 67           1.24
NIU 69 69           1.00
Toledo 79 65           1.22
BG 72 75           0.96
WMU 90 72           1.25
Akron 70 72           0.97
CMU 97 77           1.26
Ball St. 77 72           1.07
EMU 71 78           0.91
BG 75 72           1.04
Miami 62 71           0.87
Kent St 70 73           0.96
Buffalo 83 73           1.14
Miami 55 69           0.80
Toledo 66 66           1.00
Kent St 68 70           0.97
  70 72           0.97
       
With Campbell 916 1029           0.89
W/o Campbell 1240 1203           1.03
Last 10 724 721           1.00

 

mail
person
Kevin Finnegan
3/13/2017 5:08 PM
How do teams that make the tournament perform? Is this an indicator of success?
mail
OU_Country
3/13/2017 5:20 PM
finnOhio wrote:expand_more
How do teams that make the tournament perform? Is this an indicator of success?
Here's the link to Ken Pom's site. Peruse and see what you think. I see that offensive efficiency is more likely an indicator of a tourney team that defense - this year anyway.

http://kenpom.com/index.php?s=RankAdjDE
Showing Messages: 1 - 6 of 6
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)