DobbsRover2
Slap me 10
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 4,329
- Reaction Score
- 6,720
The thread on how UConn can improve the most for next year naturally led to the smart-alecky thought of "Not lose any games," and the corresponding equally annoying analysis of how they can accomplish that feat of "By scoring more points than the opposition every game." But a better question then came to mind of "Why did they lose four games last year?" And though each of the games has separate specific reasons that can be cited, I was wondering if what the statistics would show if you took the totals for the four game to see if there were any big clues as to what UConn needs to do this year to keep from losing. Do they need to dominate the boards, or shoot better, or keep a better handle on the ball? Do the statistics show that there were things they did right in their wins last season that they screwed up in the four losses?
Comparing UConn and opponents overall averages for the season against the averages in the four games is misleading because NDx3 and Baylor (ND3-B) were not average teams. When you are playing the two teams that entered the NCAA tourney no. 1 and 2, there is no way that the Huskies can expect to ring up their usual dominating statistics (even if they often do do it against top 10 teams). Also, the two opponents have different playing tendencies than average opponents, as neither team took many 3 pt FGAs while UConn lived (and I guess sometimes died) on the perimeter a lot. Still, the overall stats do give some clues as to what went wrong for UConn. And again, each game had some separate issues, but generally here is why UConn was not perfect last year, ignoring any frozen nerves or horrible passes that happened in crunch time. No one who watched the games will be surprised by what the stats show, but sometimes some misconceptions creep into later "memories" of the games.
Was it the shooting that did UConn in? This was definitely a moderate factor, as Huskies at 43.7% were about 6% below their season average, but a bigger difference was that ND3-B shot 8.4% better than average opponents with a 40.0% mark. So UConn shot better than ND3-B, but the problem was that they made 1 less basket and put up 27 fewer shots. If that was balanced off by more visits to the free throw line, then it wouldn't have been a big issue, but you know that against Baylor and ND, that wasn't likely to happen much. The Huskies actually outscored ND3-B by 7 points from the field.
Did the perimeter shooting doom the Huskies? Again, this is a moderately large factor, as the Huskies shot 10% worse than on average for 3s at 27.8%, while ND3-B was 1.4% under opponents norm at 27.2%. So again UConn shot better than ND3-B, but here they were hoisting up 28 more threes than their perimeter-shy opponents, and not doing very well. Of course missed threes also lead to other issues like long rebound breakaways and general frustration. And though UConn's decent 3-pt shooting in the Baylor and second ND kept them in the games, a 5-23 effort in ND-1 and a horrendous 0-5 in ND-3 were if not the kiss of death at least a peck of queasy stomach.
Did UConn get killed at the FT line? This is a big bingo factor. Although UConn did not get that many points on the FT line last season with only 14% of their total points produced there, ND lived off the FT line to an ugly extent, getting 22% of their points there. Baylor was at 17%. UConn on average made 3.4 successful FTs more than opponents last year who averaged 8.3 points on the line. For ND3-B, the average was 15.25 while UConn made an average 9.50. The Huskies lost the four games by an average 4.5 points, so the -5.75 difference at the FT line was the killer. ND3-B did get 21 more attempts than the Huskies, but they also converted them at an 85.9% rate, while UConn shot its season average 76%. UConn actually made 3 more FTs than ND in the third game, but the Irish went 6-6 in a game where they reversed roles with UConn at the perimeter also.
Did the Huskies get nailed on the boards? The battle for rebounds was pretty close in all four games, with Huskies getting 4 more Rebs total than ND and 3 less than Baylor. So overall the battle appeared pretty even but with one key difference: UConn had 17 more defensive rebounds but lost the battle on the offensive glass by 16, and that can hurt for second chance baskets. Still, the key factor was probably not the battle for caroms.
Was it the Personal Fouls? Well, yeah, as UConn was called for more fouls in every game, though in the first and third ND game the difference was just 1. The main factor was that the fouls against the Huskies tended to be FT shooting calls at a much larger extent than were the ones called against ND3-B.
Were the dishes good? UConn had 3.3 more assists per game than ND3-B, who had half again as many assists than the average UConn opponents, while the Huskies were 2 under their usual. Not a big factor, but still an issue.
Did TOs turn off the Huskies? This was another big factor, as UConn averaged 4 more TOs per game than ND3-B and had 50% more than their season's average. It was a glaring issue especially in the Baylor game (more for the -8 margin than the total) and a dagger in the back in the 35 TO effort in the OT second ND game.
Did Baylor have a block party against UConn? Not at all, as UConn actually got 9 to the Bears' 3, and won the overall battle in ND3-B by 28-12.
Did UConn have the games stolen from them? The battle for steals was pretty even in ND3-B. UConn had a -2 margin, and the big differences were in the first ND game where they were at +4 and the Baylor game where they were at -5. But for a team that usually had 4 more steals than their opponents, this was a smaller factor.
So what's the takeaway? No dumb fouls that put the opponents at the line, step up the defense against top opponents, don't throw the ball away, and don't shoot at around 28% from behind the arc. If followed, these totally novel concepts will keep UConn undefeated next year.
Comparing UConn and opponents overall averages for the season against the averages in the four games is misleading because NDx3 and Baylor (ND3-B) were not average teams. When you are playing the two teams that entered the NCAA tourney no. 1 and 2, there is no way that the Huskies can expect to ring up their usual dominating statistics (even if they often do do it against top 10 teams). Also, the two opponents have different playing tendencies than average opponents, as neither team took many 3 pt FGAs while UConn lived (and I guess sometimes died) on the perimeter a lot. Still, the overall stats do give some clues as to what went wrong for UConn. And again, each game had some separate issues, but generally here is why UConn was not perfect last year, ignoring any frozen nerves or horrible passes that happened in crunch time. No one who watched the games will be surprised by what the stats show, but sometimes some misconceptions creep into later "memories" of the games.
Was it the shooting that did UConn in? This was definitely a moderate factor, as Huskies at 43.7% were about 6% below their season average, but a bigger difference was that ND3-B shot 8.4% better than average opponents with a 40.0% mark. So UConn shot better than ND3-B, but the problem was that they made 1 less basket and put up 27 fewer shots. If that was balanced off by more visits to the free throw line, then it wouldn't have been a big issue, but you know that against Baylor and ND, that wasn't likely to happen much. The Huskies actually outscored ND3-B by 7 points from the field.
Did the perimeter shooting doom the Huskies? Again, this is a moderately large factor, as the Huskies shot 10% worse than on average for 3s at 27.8%, while ND3-B was 1.4% under opponents norm at 27.2%. So again UConn shot better than ND3-B, but here they were hoisting up 28 more threes than their perimeter-shy opponents, and not doing very well. Of course missed threes also lead to other issues like long rebound breakaways and general frustration. And though UConn's decent 3-pt shooting in the Baylor and second ND kept them in the games, a 5-23 effort in ND-1 and a horrendous 0-5 in ND-3 were if not the kiss of death at least a peck of queasy stomach.
Did UConn get killed at the FT line? This is a big bingo factor. Although UConn did not get that many points on the FT line last season with only 14% of their total points produced there, ND lived off the FT line to an ugly extent, getting 22% of their points there. Baylor was at 17%. UConn on average made 3.4 successful FTs more than opponents last year who averaged 8.3 points on the line. For ND3-B, the average was 15.25 while UConn made an average 9.50. The Huskies lost the four games by an average 4.5 points, so the -5.75 difference at the FT line was the killer. ND3-B did get 21 more attempts than the Huskies, but they also converted them at an 85.9% rate, while UConn shot its season average 76%. UConn actually made 3 more FTs than ND in the third game, but the Irish went 6-6 in a game where they reversed roles with UConn at the perimeter also.
Did the Huskies get nailed on the boards? The battle for rebounds was pretty close in all four games, with Huskies getting 4 more Rebs total than ND and 3 less than Baylor. So overall the battle appeared pretty even but with one key difference: UConn had 17 more defensive rebounds but lost the battle on the offensive glass by 16, and that can hurt for second chance baskets. Still, the key factor was probably not the battle for caroms.
Was it the Personal Fouls? Well, yeah, as UConn was called for more fouls in every game, though in the first and third ND game the difference was just 1. The main factor was that the fouls against the Huskies tended to be FT shooting calls at a much larger extent than were the ones called against ND3-B.
Were the dishes good? UConn had 3.3 more assists per game than ND3-B, who had half again as many assists than the average UConn opponents, while the Huskies were 2 under their usual. Not a big factor, but still an issue.
Did TOs turn off the Huskies? This was another big factor, as UConn averaged 4 more TOs per game than ND3-B and had 50% more than their season's average. It was a glaring issue especially in the Baylor game (more for the -8 margin than the total) and a dagger in the back in the 35 TO effort in the OT second ND game.
Did Baylor have a block party against UConn? Not at all, as UConn actually got 9 to the Bears' 3, and won the overall battle in ND3-B by 28-12.
Did UConn have the games stolen from them? The battle for steals was pretty even in ND3-B. UConn had a -2 margin, and the big differences were in the first ND game where they were at +4 and the Baylor game where they were at -5. But for a team that usually had 4 more steals than their opponents, this was a smaller factor.
So what's the takeaway? No dumb fouls that put the opponents at the line, step up the defense against top opponents, don't throw the ball away, and don't shoot at around 28% from behind the arc. If followed, these totally novel concepts will keep UConn undefeated next year.
