Buffalo Recap - Net Plays and Key Stats | The Boneyard
.

Buffalo Recap - Net Plays and Key Stats

Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
14,144
Reaction Score
77,099
Strange and disjointed game in many ways where the players who had been playing well didn't play as well, so I decided to keep the positive/negative play charting going. We really only went 7 deep in this one.

A non-exhaustive list of positive plays are nice drives, noteworthy passes (not necessarily just assists), offensive or contested rebounds, strong 1v1 defense, drawing fouls, steals, denials, blocks, especially strong screens. Negative plays are sloppy plays, bad passes, lazy efforts, poor communication, awareness, or positioning on D, bricking wide open shots (missing the right contested shot is neutral), actual detrimental fouls (not just what was called). Sometimes a positive and negative play will cancel out on same play (eg Sanogo steals the ball but then loses the ball over the backboard). Even if net result of the play is positive/negative I'm looking at the cumulative individual processes not the result.

Name (Positive/Negative, Net)
Diarra - 8/5 +3 - Not very impactful in first half and I thought he would've had a field day with their turnover prone nature. Picked up 2 fouls with 12 min left in 1H. Came out with good D in 2nd half, but also had a couple drives going nowhere where he got too deep. Literally broke a guy's ankle on one play that led to a Clingan dunk. Only took 3 shots for 2nd game in a row, but today didn't have the table setting or getting to the line.
Newton - 35/10 +25 MVP - Newton had a 20/5 at halftime, 15/5 after. Both awesome play and also extremely involved in general. That's a full game worth of plays in both halves. By far most active game of any I charted so far this season, both most positives, best net, and most total plays. Previous 2 MVPs were +16, so +25 is substantial. Had a few sloppy plays and missed open shots, but the vision, the relentless attacking, the foul drawing, the contested rebounding, even the deflections and steals. This is the player I was salivating over while scouting the ECU tape in the transfer window. If he plays 80% of this well throughout the season we will win the conference, and theoretically he could even play better since he went 0/5 from 3 tonight.
Alleyne - 16/8 +8 - Dude played hard on defense last night. At least half his positive notes are things like "Great 1v1 D" "Completely stopped ball 1v1 in transition." And most of the negatives are "Missed completely wide open 3." If he can break out of the slump and shoot consistently he'll be a very useful player, a championship level complementary 6th man.
Karaban - 14/8 +6 - Uneven first half. Some defensive breakdowns, one nice move but overall not super productive on offense in the 1st. Couple nice takes in the 2nd. He's not going to get flashy block numbers but pretty good at verticality defending the rim. He's so cerebral and fast processing. Just picks his spots really well. A couple miscommunications on D and O, led to open shots/turnovers. Hard to adjudicate who was in the wrong, and normally Id lean towards the freshmen being wrong in most cases, but he's so smart they may not have been his fault. Small sample size but he's 6th in Big East in defensive RAPM so far.
Sanogo - 14/5 +9 - Sanogo had a really strong defensive start to the game which is where bulk of his net production comes from. But twice in 1H had bad reads against double teams. Once he still got a good shot off, but there was a wide open 3 available, the 2nd he threw up a prayer. Sat with 3 fouls for first 10 minutes of 2H. Scored an own goal later that half. Goes to show that he's still very valuable even in a bad game.
Calcaterra - 13/6 +7 - 9/2 in first half. His best game of the year. Gave us the spark to take and grow the lead after they came back. Feels like all his 3s are daggers. Much ado about his D. Charted 4 +D plays, 3 -D plays for the game (may have been 1 more neg that camera didn't catch). Actually had a couple drives for layups in this one, hadn't made a 2 in the previous 2 games.
Clingan - 18/6 +12 - When he's not called for illegal screens, he sets some good ones. He's so big, it's tough to get around him. Also starting to have a really nice gravity effect on his rolls in PnR. He's just so productive on a per-minute basis, partially because teams really try to attack him in PnR defense (and that often backfires). Quiet 1st, but 15/4 in 2nd half (tho a couple pos plays in garbage time). Shooting 75% for the season and is 4th in the nation in block rate.
 
While he only played 4 minutes early in 1st half, Springs had 3 rebounds, went 0-2 shooting at a time when everyone was ice cold, and picked up a foul. Don't really understand why he didn't get back in the game after that, especially once game was in hand. With Johnson out, I figured Richie would get a bit more run. Once AJax and Hawk return, wondering if Richie sees anything but garbage time from here on out.
 
While he only played 4 minutes early in 1st half, Springs had 3 rebounds, went 0-2 shooting at a time when everyone was ice cold, and picked up a foul. Don't really understand why he didn't get back in the game after that, especially once game was in hand. With Johnson out, I figured Richie would get a bit more run. Once AJax and Hawk return, wondering if Richie sees anything but garbage time from here on out.
One of his shots was an airball that he did a rushed stepback for some reason and the other was blocked by the rim on a putback.

He didn't help on one drive when Calcaterra got beat, so we had no rim protection.

He can definitely rebound, that's his main strength. But we have Sanogo and Clingan and our point guard got 10 rebounds and soon we'll have Jackson. Rebounding is not a struggle. He doesn't stretch the court far enough (long baseline 2s, yuck), and offers no rim protection from the 4.

We got outscored 5-1 in 3+ minutes he was in. Most not his fault, I'd have scored him as +0 (contested rebound+ offset by shot blocked-, contested rebound+, deflection+, deflection+, no help on D-, airball open shot-, foul on rebound-). But his minutes carry an opportunity cost, especially going forward with Jackson (and eventually Johnson) back in the fold.
 
One of his shots was an airball that he did a rushed stepback for some reason and the other was blocked by the rim on a putback.

He didn't help on one drive when Calcaterra got beat, so we had no rim protection.

He can definitely rebound, but that's about it. And we have Sanogo and Clingan and our point guard got 10 rebounds and soon we'll have Jackson. Rebounding is not a struggle. He doesn't stretch the court far enough (long baseline 2s, yuck), and offers no rim protection from the 4.

We got outscored 5-1 in 3+ minutes he was in. Most not his fault, I'd have scored him as +0 (contested rebound+ offset by shot blocked-, contested rebound+, deflection+, deflection+, no help on D-, airball open shot-, foul on rebound-). But his minutes carry an opportunity cost, especially going forward with Jackson (and eventually Johnson) back in the fold.

This is one of those cases where he looks decent in his limited minutes, but you've gotta trust the staff. They've seen Springs play for hundreds and hundreds of hours over the years. It's not like they're going to sit a kid who could help us win out of some personal grudge. If he hasn't sniffed the floor, it's for good reason.

Personally, I think the complaints about PT are almost always unfounded when it's someone who isn't playing AT ALL. Even just watching college practices, it doesn't usually take long to notice who the top 8 or 9 guys are.
 
Auror, thanks - I love these recaps, keep 'em going!

Yeah, I was a little bummed Richie didn't get more time as he's looked pretty decent and has earned some playtime (as long as he's a positive of course) but I think Dan Hurley wanted to make sure we pulled away and never look back after the struggle in the first 10mins or so. Just saw you post above me, great explanation of his play time, thanks Auror.

WTF was up with our shooting? The guys are playing pretty decently but stuff just isn't dropping. Feeling some flashbacks to last year which I don't want!
 
Somewhat interesting is Karaban had a +28 for the game. It's not just the plays he makes for himself, it's how opposing teams have to play when he is on the court and what that does for AK's teammates.
 
If you're looking at process, shouldn't missing an open shot be neutral at best?

Yeah, you want them to make the shot, but good shot selection is a big part of the process.

Similarly, forcing a contested shot (made or missed) should be a negative.
 
While he only played 4 minutes early in 1st half, Springs had 3 rebounds, went 0-2 shooting at a time when everyone was ice cold, and picked up a foul. Don't really understand why he didn't get back in the game after that, especially once game was in hand. With Johnson out, I figured Richie would get a bit more run. Once AJax and Hawk return, wondering if Richie sees anything but garbage time from here on out.
You answered your own question.

If Springs isn't getting meaningful minutes with Johnson (direct competition at the 4), Jackson (indirect competition at the 3/4) and Hawkins (not his position, but his absence squeezes other guys to different positions) out, he's not going to play.
 
Strange and disjointed game in many ways where the players who had been playing well didn't play as well, so I decided to keep the positive/negative play charting going. We really only went 7 deep in this one.

A non-exhaustive list of positive plays are nice drives, noteworthy passes (not necessarily just assists), offensive or contested rebounds, strong 1v1 defense, drawing fouls, steals, denials, blocks, especially strong screens. Negative plays are sloppy plays, bad passes, lazy efforts, poor communication, awareness, or positioning on D, bricking wide open shots (missing the right contested shot is neutral), actual detrimental fouls (not just what was called). Sometimes a positive and negative play will cancel out on same play (eg Sanogo steals the ball but then loses the ball over the backboard). Even if net result of the play is positive/negative I'm looking at the cumulative individual processes not the result.

Name (Positive/Negative, Net)
Diarra - 8/5 +3 - Not very impactful in first half and I thought he would've had a field day with their turnover prone nature. Picked up 2 fouls with 12 min left in 1H. Came out with good D in 2nd half, but also had a couple drives going nowhere where he got too deep. Literally broke a guy's ankle on one play that led to a Clingan dunk. Only took 3 shots for 2nd game in a row, but today didn't have the table setting or getting to the line.
Newton - 35/10 +25 MVP - Newton had a 20/5 at halftime, 15/5 after. Both awesome play and also extremely involved in general. That's a full game worth of plays in both halves. By far most active game of any I charted so far this season, both most positives, best net, and most total plays. Previous 2 MVPs were +16, so +25 is substantial. Had a few sloppy plays and missed open shots, but the vision, the relentless attacking, the foul drawing, the contested rebounding, even the deflections and steals. This is the player I was salivating over while scouting the ECU tape in the transfer window. If he plays 80% of this well throughout the season we will win the conference, and theoretically he could even play better since he went 0/5 from 3 tonight.
Alleyne - 16/8 +8 - Dude played hard on defense last night. At least half his positive notes are things like "Great 1v1 D" "Completely stopped ball 1v1 in transition." And most of the negatives are "Missed completely wide open 3." If he can break out of the slump and shoot consistently he'll be a very useful player, a championship level complementary 6th man.
Karaban - 14/8 +6 - Uneven first half. Some defensive breakdowns, one nice move but overall not super productive on offense in the 1st. Couple nice takes in the 2nd. He's not going to get flashy block numbers but pretty good at verticality defending the rim. He's so cerebral and fast processing. Just picks his spots really well. A couple miscommunications on D and O, led to open shots/turnovers. Hard to adjudicate who was in the wrong, and normally Id lean towards the freshmen being wrong in most cases, but he's so smart they may not have been his fault. Small sample size but he's 6th in Big East in defensive RAPM so far.
Sanogo - 14/5 +9 - Sanogo had a really strong defensive start to the game which is where bulk of his net production comes from. But twice in 1H had bad reads against double teams. Once he still got a good shot off, but there was a wide open 3 available, the 2nd he threw up a prayer. Sat with 3 fouls for first 10 minutes of 2H. Scored an own goal later that half. Goes to show that he's still very valuable even in a bad game.
Calcaterra - 13/6 +7 - 9/2 in first half. His best game of the year. Gave us the spark to take and grow the lead after they came back. Feels like all his 3s are daggers. Much ado about his D. Charted 4 +D plays, 3 -D plays for the game (may have been 1 more neg that camera didn't catch). Actually had a couple drives for layups in this one, hadn't made a 2 in the previous 2 games.
Clingan - 18/6 +12 - When he's not called for illegal screens, he sets some good ones. He's so big, it's tough to get around him. Also starting to have a really nice gravity effect on his rolls in PnR. He's just so productive on a per-minute basis, partially because teams really try to attack him in PnR defense (and that often backfires). Quiet 1st, but 15/4 in 2nd half (tho a couple pos plays in garbage time). Shooting 75% for the season and is 4th in the nation in block rate.
Thanks for your insights and effort. Objectivity at it's finest.
 
You answered your own question.

If Springs isn't getting meaningful minutes with Johnson (direct competition at the 4), Jackson (indirect competition at the 3/4) and Hawkins (not his position, but his absence squeezes other guys to different positions) out, he's not going to play.
Not really. On this particular night, there was no real reason I can think of to not give him more minutes. Once AJax and Hawk are back, sure.
 
If you're looking at process, shouldn't missing an open shot be neutral at best?

Yeah, you want them to make the shot, but good shot selection is a big part of the process.

Similarly, forcing a contested shot (made or missed) should be a negative.
Its certainly up for debate, but this is how I do it. There's a component of shot selection that I do give a negative for a force or bad shot and I generally give credit for creating the open shot (with good passes or drives). I only do a negative for the quality of the outcome when the shot is blocked or in some way has no chance of going in, or is completely wide open and missed. For all of them, I think there is a big opportunity cost of someone else better taking the shot.
 

Online statistics

Members online
41
Guests online
2,174
Total visitors
2,215

Forum statistics

Threads
164,524
Messages
4,399,946
Members
10,214
Latest member
illini2013


.
..
Top Bottom