Author Archives: Adrian

About Adrian

I'm the editor of Maple Street Press's Tar Heel Tip-off, and live in Raleigh with my wife and 2-year-old daughter. I grew up along the banks of the Allegheny River, and terrorized the WPIAL as a pass-first point guard. Follow me on Twitter @FreeportKid.

ACC Defensive Charting: The Good (BC and Miami), The Bad (FSU), and the Ugly (Still FSU)

I’ve been charting every Carolina defensive possession since the 2004-05 season. This concept, aided by Luke Winn’s terrific Sports Illustrated piece, is finally getting some national attention. It’s a great way to measure individual defensive contributions and to see who’s making consistently timely and effective help-side rotations (the backbone of Roy Williams’s- and virtually any– defensive system). Click on the Winn link to read a little more about the charting process. (And here’s a piece by David Hess with even more on defensive charting.)

Some definitions:

FG-FGA: the made field goals and field goal attempts that a player is responsible for (both as a primary and help defender)– same for 3Pt-A and FT-FTA
Pts All.: the number of opponents’ points that a defender is responsible for allowing
TOF: forced turnovers (including offensive fouls drawn (OFD))
Defl.: deflections
DR (ORA): defensive rebounds and offensive rebounds allowed
Denies: when a player can deny an opponent or force an offensive reset by making a strong individual defensive play (of the type that doesn’t force a turnover or missed shot– i.e., wouldn’t otherwise show up in the defensive box score)

Defensive Box Score vs. Boston College

Player FG-FGA 3Pt-A FT-FTA Pts All. TOF (OFD) Defl. Floor burns DR (ORA) Denies
Marshall  1-4 1-4 0-0 3 2.5 (0) 5 1 1 (0)  2
Strickland 1-2 0-1 0-0 2 4 (0) 6 2 2 (0) 3
Barnes 3-7 1-5 1-1 8 4.5 (0) 8 1 4 (0) 0
Henson 6-14 1-5 1-2 14 3 (0) 6 0 6 (2) 0
Zeller 0.5-8.5 0.5-1.5 0-2 1.5 4 (0) 2 0 6 (1) 1
Bullock 0.5-0.5 0-0 0-0 1 2 (0) 1 0 5 (0) 0
McAdoo 3-6 0.5-1.5 0-0 6.5 0 (0) 0 1 4 (1) 0
Hairston 3-5 1-3 1-4 8 0 (0) 0 0 1 (1) 1
Watts 0-1 0-0 0-0 0 0 (0) 2 2 0 (0) 0
Simmons 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 (0) 0 0 0 (1) 0
Hubert 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 (0) 0 0 1 (0) 0
Dupont 0-1 0-0 0-0 0 0 (0) 0 0 0 (0) 0
White 1-1 0-0 0-0 2 0 (0) 0 0 0 (0) 0
Team 5-7 4-6 0-0 14 0 (0) 0 0 0 (1) 0
Totals  24-57 9-27 3-9 60 20 (0) 30 7 30 (7) 7

Boston College Shooting by Level of Contestedness:

Continue reading

Posted in Miscellaneous | 2 Comments

Do the Evolution

Note: all numbers in this piece do not include the Boston College game– only the Heels’ 15 non-conference contests.

With the non-conference slate now in the rear-view mirror (OK, OK, enough with the Pearl Jam references already) and ACC season nearly upon us, let’s take a few minutes to analyze how Carolina’s returning players have evolved as scorers.

Harrison Barnes

 Year (Class)
 %Min. ORating %Poss. %Shots eFG% TS% FTRate OR% DR% St% Bl%
 2011 (FR) 73.2 105.8 25.0 29.3 49.0 52.2 24.9 7.2 12.8 1.4 1.4
 2012 (SO) 65.0 114.2 26.0 29.2 53.7 57.1 38.1 7.9 9.7 2.0 1.4

The numbers is the above table are pulled from Ken Pomeroy’s terrific site (well worth the $20 annual subscription). For those unfamiliar with the metrics that he employs, here’s a primer. As one might expect, Barnes’s offensive efficiency (representing by his ORating) has dramatically improved so far as a sophomore. While on the floor, he’s using nearly an identical percentage of the team’s possessions/shots as last season– he’s just doing so in a more efficient manner. One reason is the spike in FTRate. Barnes is now earning 38 trips to the stripe for every 100 field goals he attempts– up significantly from last year’s 25. To examine some other reasons for Barnes’s improved scoring efficiency, let’s take a look at some charting data that I collected. %FGA can be interpreted as the percentage of a player’s total field goal attempts that fall within a given category of shot (e.g., 29.0% of Barnes’s attempts this season have been close shots). FG% is just a standard shooting percentage.

How Barnes Scores: A Comparison between 2011 and 2012

2011 2012
 Type of Shot %FGA FG% %FGA FG%
Close (lay-ups/dunks) 24.3 62.8 29.0 76.4
5-10 feet 10.5 34.6 15.3 37.9
10-20 feet 26.0 38.0 35.3 31.3
3-pointers 39.2 34.4 20.5 48.7
Dunks 4.2 90.5 10.5 100.0
Lay-ups 20.1 57.0 18.4 62.9
Close: off-dribble 8.9 56.8 12.6 75.0
Floaters 9.7 37.5 9.5 44.4
Mid-range: off-dribble 17.1 37.6 28.4 29.6
Mid-range: catch-and-shoot 2.4 58.3 3.7 42.9
Turnaround jumpers 4.4 31.8 7.4 21.4
2nd-chance/putbacks 9.5 57.4 7.9 53.3
Weak hand 3.4 70.6 2.6 60.0
“And 1s” 4.0 75.0* 6.3 66.7*
* This represents the percentage of (old-fashioned) 3-point plays converted.

It’s no surprise that Barnes’s rate of 3-point attempts has dropped dramatically as a sophomore (from 39.2% of all attempts as a FR to 20.5% this year). So where are those extra attempts being taken? Continue reading

Posted in Miscellaneous | 2 Comments

Cumulative UNC +/- Stats through 15 Games

With the non-conference portion of the schedule behind us, it seems like an appropriate time for a cumulative +/- report (sorry for my gross negligence in keeping up with the game-by-game reports on here).

Let’s start with an individual player breakdown:

Player Min Pts-Pts All (Net) Off Eff Def Eff Net Eff Off OnC/OffC Def OnC/OffC Net OnC/OffC
Zeller 385.6 854-605 (+249) 120.6 86.4 +34.2 +9.5 +6.9 +16.4
Henson 410.5 896-657 (+239) 117.7 86.0 +31.7 +2.3 +9.3 +11.6
Marshall 452.0 1001-747 (+254) 119.9 89.9 +30.0 +11.0 -3.2 +7.8
Barnes 392.9 868-647 (+221) 117.4 87.7 +29.7 +1.1 +3.8 +4.9
Bullock 274.0 626-464 (+162) 119.6 89.1 +30.5 +4.8 -0.1 +4.7
TEAM 600.0 1321-1003 (+318) 117.0 89.0 +28.0 * * *
Hairston 194.0 444-344 (+100) 122.3 94.9 +27.4 +7.8 -8.7 -0.9
McAdoo 213.9 474-366 (+108) 117.3 90.4 +26.9 +0.5 -2.1 -1.6
Strickland 380.1 793-616 (+177) 113.5 88.3 +25.2 -9.4 +2.0 -7.4
Watts 90.4 207-166 (+41) 115.6 96.8 +18.8 -1.6 -9.2 -10.8

As a reminder:

Off Eff: the points scored per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Def Eff: the points allowed per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Net Eff: Off Eff – Def Eff
Off OnC/OffC: offensive on-court/off-court rating– how many points better (+) or worse (-) per 100 possessions the team is offensively with a given player on the court (as compared to the minutes with him on the bench)
Def OnC/OffC: defensive on-court/off-court rating– how many points better (+) or worse (-) per 100 possessions the team is defensively with a given player on the court
Net OnC/OffC: net on-court/off-court rating– Off OnC/OffC + Def OnC/OffC

So, from an on-court/off-court perspective, Marshall has been UNC’s most valuable (read: irreplaceable) offensive player, Henson its most valuable defensive player, and Zeller its most valuable overall player (followed by Henson and Marshall). Barnes and Bullock round out the top 5 for net on-court/off-court. With Strickland on the floor, UNC has been slightly better on the defensive end, but much worse offensively. With Hairston on the court, the Heels have been much better on the offensive end, but significantly poorer while defending. Say what you will about +/- (I’ll say it: it’s noisy as hell), but, to me, that looks like a pretty accurate reflection of reality after 15 games.

Continue reading

Posted in Miscellaneous | 3 Comments

At the Quarter Mark: Some Defensive Charting Stats and Observations

We’re 10 games into a season that optimistic Tar Heel fans hope will go the full 40 (31 regular season games + 3 ACCT + 6 NCAAT). Through the season’s opening quarter, Carolina’s adjusted defensive efficiency places 11th in the country– a slight drop from last year’s final ranking of 6th. This post will try to shine some light on which UNC defenders are already in mid-season form, and which ones are still trying to shake off that early-season rust.

Kendall Marshall

2011 (all)
2012 (1st 10 games)
FG% All 37.6 40.0
3Pt% All. 26.5 35.3
FTA Rate 18.8 13.3
TS% All. 47.0 51.3
Pts. All. / 40 10.7 14.6
Deflections / 40 4.17 6.13
Forced TOs /40 2.56 2.30
Off. Fouls Drawn / 40 0.22 0.00
Denies / 40 0.91 0.77
DR% 7.6 7.5
Stop % 58.9 53.8
%Possessions 15.5 17.5
Def. On-Court/Off-Court +2.1 -8.3

Marshall, now firmly entrenched as a starter, is being game-planned against and attacked like one. Teams are challenging him more on the defensive end, hoping to exploit his relative lack of lateral quickness. After being involved (from a defensive charting perspective) in 15.5% of defensive possessions while on the court last season, that number has jumped to 17.5% this year. That, in conjunction with a drop in Stop% from 58.9 to 53.8, has resulted in Marshall allowing 14.6 points / 40– up from 10.7 as a freshman. Part of the reason for Marshall’s lower Stop% might involve some tactical decisions by Roy Williams. Marshall saw significant defensive minutes against both Jordan Taylor and Casper Ware– the types of assignments that might be increasingly handled by Strickland as the games get more and more important.

Continue reading

Posted in UNC | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The Case for Reggie Bullock

Carolina, the overwhelming preseason favorite to cut down the nets, has sputtered out of the gate to a 6-2 start. And, although one of the losses was on the road to fellow heavyweight Kentucky, that means the natives are getting restless in Chapel Hill. While it certainly wouldn’t solve all of the team’s problems (mediocre rebounding on both ends, inability to consistently finish in the paint, and poor free throw shooting, to name three), I’d like to propose one remedy for UNC’s tepid start: replacing Dexter Strickland in the starting line-up with Reggie Bullock.

Don’t get me wrong: I love Strickland. He’s made huge strides as a junior–namely as a ball-handler/back-up PG/facilitator of the offense and a mid-range shooter (hitting 45% (9-20) of his 10-20 footers through 8 games after connecting on just 27% last season). Strickland’s defense– his calling card– has also been better and more consistent as a junior. The logic for starting Dexter is compelling and straightforward: his strengths (attacking off the dribble in transition, defending ultra-quick point guards) help to offset the weaknesses of backcourt partner Kendall Marshall. He’s also Carolina’s best complementary ball-handler and play-maker– a trait Roy Williams covets from his 2-guard to maximize secondary break efficiency. Add all that to Strickland’s incumbency, and it’s easy to see why he remains in the starting line-up. From a purely basketball perspective, Strickland’s presence in the starting line-up makes far more sense than, say, Drew over Marshall last season. But, while Strickland’s strengths compensate for some of Marshall’s weaknesses, the two share a common flaw: the inability/reluctance to knock down 3-point jumpers. And in a system predicated on feeding the post as a primary option, this shared weakness has had deleterious effects on floor spacing/halfcourt offensive efficiency.

Continue reading

Posted in UNC | Tagged , | 2 Comments

+/- and Defensive Charting Bonanza: Tennessee State, South Carolina, and UNLV

Caveat: Single-game +/- figures are so “noisy” (i.e., influenced by randomness) that they’re rendered practically useless. Even with a complete season’s worth of data, the +/- metric (especially in this– its unadjusted– form) suffers from this noisiness. Still, when taken in conjunction with the defensive box score, traditional box score, and old-fashioned “eye test,” the single-game +/- can be a part of the total evaluation process. It also serves as a good summary of Roy Williams’s substitution patterns/rotation.

Some definitions:

Pts-Pts All.: the points scored and points allowed by the team during a given player’s minutes
Off Eff: the points scored per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Def Eff: the points allowed per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Net Eff: the scoring margin per 100 possessions with a given player on the court

Since I’m dumping three games worth of data, I won’t provide many thoughts/explanations/trends/nuggets in this post. I’ve been posting a bunch of +/- and defensive charting tidbits on Twitter @FreeportKid, so definitely check that out if you’re interested in this kind of stuff. Once the schedule slows down a little (four games in one week is pretty intense), I’ll post a summary article discussing some +/- and defensive charting trends, analyses, and insights (especially some defensive stuff that relates to the UNLV loss, and some thoughts regarding Strickland/Bullock/Hairston and the allocation of minutes in the Carolina backcourt). Sorry this is essentially a pure data dump; I promise some analysis later (to provide some context and meaning to this sea of numbers).

Continue reading

Posted in Miscellaneous | 2 Comments

Carolina vs. Miss. Valley St.: +/- and Defensive Charting

Caveat: Single-game +/- figures are so “noisy” (i.e., influenced by randomness) that they’re rendered practically useless. Even with a complete season’s worth of data, the +/- metric (especially in this– its unadjusted– form) suffers from this noisiness. Still, when taken in conjunction with the defensive box score, traditional box score, and old-fashioned “eye test,” the single-game +/- can be a part of the total evaluation process. It also serves as a good summary of Roy Williams’s substitution patterns/rotation.

Some definitions:

Pts-Pts All.: the points scored and points allowed by the team during a given player’s minutes
Off Eff: the points scored per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Def Eff: the points allowed per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Net Eff: the scoring margin per 100 possessions with a given player on the court

Continue reading

Posted in UNC | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Carolina vs. UNC-Asheville: +/- and Defensive Charting

Caveat: Single-game +/- figures are so “noisy” (i.e., influenced by randomness) that they’re rendered practically useless. Even with a complete season’s worth of data, the +/- metric (especially in this– its unadjusted– form) suffers from this noisiness. Still, when taken in conjunction with the defensive box score, traditional box score, and old-fashioned “eye test,” the single-game +/- can be a part of the total evaluation process. It also serves as a good summary of Roy Williams’s substitution patterns/rotation.

Some definitions:

Pts-Pts All.: the points scored and points allowed by the team during a given player’s minutes
Off Eff: the points scored per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Def Eff: the points allowed per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Net Eff: the scoring margin per 100 possessions with a given player on the court

+/- Stats vs. UNC-Asheville

Player Minutes Pts-Pts All. Off Eff Def Eff Net Eff
Watts 9.4 27-19 145.9 108.6 +37.3
Marshall 32.9 80-58 121.2 90.6 +30.6
Barnes 30.1 69-51 113.1 86.4 +26.7
Zeller 29.2 67-52 113.6 90.4 +23.2
Hairston 11.4 32-27 145.5 122.7 +22.8
TEAM 40.0 91-75 115.2 94.9 +20.3
Henson 29.2 63-54 107.7 92.3 +15.4
McAdoo 9.3 23-21 127.8 113.5 +14.3
Strickland 29.5 58-51 100.0 87.9 +12.1
Bullock 11.8 31-32 129.2 128.0 +1.2
Hubert/Simmons/Cooper/Crouch 1.5 1-2 50.0 66.7 -16.7
Dupont 1.1 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0
White 0.4 1-2 100.0 200.0 -100.0

Continue reading

Posted in UNC | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Carolina vs. Michigan State: +/- and Defensive Charting

Before getting to the first +/- table of the season, some words of caution: single-game +/- figures are so “noisy” (i.e., influenced by randomness) that they’re rendered practically useless. Even with a complete season’s worth of data, the +/- metric (especially in this– its unadjusted– form) suffers from this noisiness. Still, when taken in conjunction with the defensive box score, traditional box score, and old-fashioned “eye test,” the single-game +/- can be a part of the total evaluation process. It also serves as a good summary of Roy Williams’s substitution patterns/rotation.

Some definitions:

Pts-Pts All.: the points scored and points allowed by the team during a given player’s minutes
Off Eff: the points scored per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Def Eff: the points allowed per 100 possessions with a given player on the court
Net Eff: the scoring margin per 100 possessions with a given player on the court

+/- Stats vs. Michigan State

Player Minutes Pts-Pts All. Off Eff Def Eff Net Eff
Hairston 8.9 19-11 126.7 73.3 +53.3
McAdoo 16.3 36-27 124.1 87.1 +37.0
Marshall 32.8 57-41 101.8 73.2 +28.6
Zeller 30.9 52-39 100.0 76.5 +23.5
Strickland 33.7 55-41 94.8 73.9 +20.9
TEAM 40.0 67-55 97.1 79.7 +17.4
Henson 30.5 43-36 81.1 69.9 +11.2
Barnes 31.6 48-44 87.3 80.0 +7.3
Bullock 11.7 19-24 90.5 106.7 -16.2
Hubert/White 1.3 3-4 150.0 133.3 +16.7
Watts 1.1 0-4 0.0 266.7 -266.7
+/- by Backcourt
Combo Minutes Pts-Pts-All.
Marshall-Strickland 27.8 48-31
Marshall-Bullock 4.5 9-10
Strickland-Hairston 3.7 7-4
Strickland-Bullock 2.2 0-6
White-Hairston 1.3 3-4
Marshall-Hairston 0.5 0-0
+/- by Frontcourt
Henson-Zeller 22.6 31-24
McAdoo-Henson 7.8 12-12
McAdoo-Zeller 7.2 21-11
McAdoo-Hubert 1.3 3-4
Watts-Zeller 1.1 0-4
Most-used Line-ups
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-Henson-Zeller 22.1 31-24
Strickland-Hairston-Bullock-McAdoo-Henson 3.7 7-4
Marshall-Strickland-Hairston-McAdoo-Zeller 3.0 9-3
Marshall-Strickland-Barnes-McAdoo-Zeller 2.4 8-4

When Bullock and Hairston were paired together on the wings, I called Hairston the 2 and Bullock the 3. Continue reading

Posted in UNC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Greatest Carolina Players in the ACC Era: A Summary

Now that the top 100 list is complete, I figured I’d do some quick post-game analysis.

Which state has produced the most top 100 Heels? It’s actually a tie at the top:

1. North Carolina: 22
1. New York: 22
3. Pennsylvania: 12
4. Virginia: 9
5: International: 5
6. Maryland: 4
6. New Jersey: 4
8. Indiana: 3
8. Ohio: 3
10. South Carolina: 2
10. Florida: 2
10. California: 2
10. Tennessee: 2
14. 8 tied with 1

And what is the distribution by decade (using peak seasons)? Continue reading

Posted in UNC | Tagged , | 2 Comments