Tag Archives: Defensive Charting

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

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