Looking For Differences - Home Vs. Away And Win Vs. Loss

Looking For Differences - Home Vs. Away And Win Vs. Loss

Submitted by LSAClassOf2000 on February 19th, 2014 at 10:24 AM

DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE IN CONFERENCE PLAY

As there is not much in the way of game action until Sunday for Michigan, I thought it might be an interesting exercise to look at the differences in performance for Michigan basketball in two sets of scenarios. Before I begin, I should remind everyone that we are 10-3 in the conference, so conference averages for losses – which are one of the dynamics here – will look perhaps a little skewed. Having said that, the conclusions you may draw might only be so strong at this point when it comes to how we play in loss scenarios this season.

In any case, I built tables for two comparisons.

First, I compiled our conference averages along various metrics for wins and compared them to losses, then I added one more column to show the margin. In the case of Michigan, you’ll be looking at “win minus loss”, or the difference in the averages for these. Second, I divided the games as home and away and then did the same thing, subtracting the two averages to see the typical margin in performance between the two.

I also did this with our opponent averages, so in these tables, you will see how they have performed when we have won or lost as well as how they have performed when we played in Ann Arbor versus at their venues. Again, in each case, you will see the margins, but in the case of opponents, I switched this around and made it “loss minus win”, so you could see on average how much better (or worse) the performance against Michigan is in each case.

WIN VERSUS LOSS:

Here is the table for Michigan’s performance –

 

WINS

LOSSES

MARGIN

Field Goal %

51.19%

40.77%

10.42%

Three Point %

43.15%

32.19%

10.96%

Effective FG%

59.32%

46.76%

12.55%

Free Throw %

76.95%

79.63%

-2.68%

Off. Rebound %

27.53%

25.79%

1.74%

Def. Rebound %

70.87%

62.57%

8.30%

Assist / Turnover Ratio

1.52

0.79

0.73

True Shooting %

63.77%

52.85%

10.91%

Free Throw Rate

37.10%

36.87%

0.23%

Possessions

60.50

58.53

1.97

Points / Possession

1.23

1.03

0.21

Turnover %

14.81%

15.34%

-0.53%

POINTS

74.6

60.3

14.27

Here is the table for opponent performance. Again, “Wins” here means we won, and the margin shows how much better (or worse) the performance has been in “loss minus win” format. For anyone gawking at the Three Point % line, that is largely the work of one player in a game we would probably want to forget –

 

WINS

LOSSES

MARGIN

Field Goal %

43.99%

48.62%

4.62%

Three Point %

26.69%

53.85%

27.16%

Effective FG%

48.57%

56.46%

7.90%

Free Throw %

72.98%

71.15%

-1.83%

Off. Rebound %

29.13%

37.43%

8.30%

Def. Rebound %

72.47%

74.21%

1.74%

Assist / Turnover Ratio

1.21

2.87

1.65

True Shooting %

52.18%

59.80%

7.62%

Free Throw Rate

27.94%

35.72%

7.77%

Possessions

61.58

57.73

-3.85

Points / Possession

1.03

1.28

0.25

Turnover %

14.92%

10.89%

-4.03%

POINTS

63.6

74.3

10.73

So, the sample for losses is again quite limited, but one thing that does stand out is that we simply shoot worse than is typical in those games – the difference in  effective FG being 12.55% is significant. Interestingly, if you look at the other factors in the “four factors”, we have been relatively stable when it comes to wins and losses, so other vital aspects of Michigan’s game seem relatively unaffected in each case. If we apply the same analysis to our opponents, we find that, in Michigan losses, the effective FG% has been on average nearly 8% better than when Michigan wins, but there are substantially better performances in offensive rebounding and free throw rate. Further, in losses, our opponents have played rather disciplined ball in comparison to us.

HOME VERSUS AWAY:

Here are the averages for Michigan at Crisler versus away from Crisler –

 

HOME

AWAY

MARGIN

Field Goal %

50.56%

47.27%

3.29%

Three Point %

38.96%

42.05%

-3.09%

Effective FG%

58.54%

54.60%

3.94%

Free Throw %

83.58%

72.42%

11.16%

Off. Rebound %

27.90%

26.47%

1.43%

Def. Rebound %

72.44%

65.96%

6.48%

Assist / Turnover Ratio

1.52

1.21

0.31

True Shooting %

63.58%

59.25%

4.34%

Free Throw Rate

34.97%

38.82%

-3.85%

Possessions

60.90

59.31

1.59

Points / Possession

1.22

1.15

0.07

Turnover %

14.91%

14.95%

-0.04%

POINTS

74.5

68.6

5.93

Here is the same table for our opponents. In this table, “Home” means we were in Ann Arbor.

 

HOME

AWAY

MARGIN

Field Goal %

43.02%

46.82%

3.80%

Three Point %

25.28%

39.53%

14.26%

Effective FG%

47.17%

53.15%

5.98%

Free Throw %

71.50%

73.46%

1.96%

Off. Rebound %

27.56%

34.04%

6.48%

Def. Rebound %

72.10%

73.53%

1.43%

Assist / Turnover Ratio

1.60

1.59

-0.01

True Shooting %

50.63%

56.78%

6.15%

Free Throw Rate

26.69%

32.35%

5.66%

Possessions

61.77

59.77

-2.00

Points / Possession

1.02

1.16

0.14

Turnover %

13.70%

14.24%

0.54%

POINTS

62.7

69.0

6.33

For Michigan, there aren’t too many things which stand out as significantly better or worse other than perhaps our free throw percentage being noticeably worse when we are away when compared to being at Crisler. One that is intriguing when you look at it like this, however, is the almost non-existent difference in turnover rate and the relatively small difference in A/T ratio. Much of that is having won on the road and quite handily on a few occasions, but it suggests that we are typically able to play our own game more or less regardless of venue (save for some noted exceptions this season). For our opponents, once again, the Three Point % is largely through the effort of one person, but one thing that is interesting here is the relatively small difference here in opponent points per possession, which lends some credence to the statement a fellow MGoBlogger put out there after the game on Sunday – the defense is what it is, it seems, and indeed, almost regardless of location.

OBLIGATORY:

Iowa-Indiana postponed due to metal from ceiling falling at Assembly Hall

Iowa-Indiana postponed due to metal from ceiling falling at Assembly Hall

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on February 18th, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Just heard it on the radio and it's all over the twitter.

Luckily nobody was hurt.

Good thing it happened now instead of during the game. The metal fell from the ceiling down to the stands.

Media Fail = CNNSI Beller: "Michigan had a terrible week... lost to Ohio State" and is 18-8

Media Fail = CNNSI Beller: "Michigan had a terrible week... lost to Ohio State" and is 18-8

Submitted by jtmc33 on February 18th, 2014 at 11:18 AM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20140217/bracket-watch-louisville-cardinals-syracuse-florida-arizona-wichita-state/

I know this board often debates the worthiness of rankings, mid-season seeding predictions, etc., but they are at least enteraining, provide some insight, and give insight into what the national media thinks about our beloved teams. 

However, like or dislike, I think that we all can agree that if you get paid (a lot of money) to be an "expert" then know what the hell you are talking about.  CNNSI is in the top-2 for sports-media and has a goof declaring that the 18-8 Wolverines had a horrible week that began with a loss at Ohio State.

Fail.

2015 MBB Recruiting: 3* OH SF Kyle Ahrens

2015 MBB Recruiting: 3* OH SF Kyle Ahrens

Submitted by ypsituckyboy on February 18th, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Per Sam Webb on the WTKA recruiting roundup this morning, Michigan is close to offering 2015 SF Kyle Ahrens out of Versailles, Ohio, after his visit for the Wisconsin game over the weekend. This was at least Ahrens' second visit and UM looks to be in pretty good position should they offer. However, John Beilein would like to see him play in person once more before an offer goes out. The coaching staff has presumably had plenty of opportunity to watch Ahrens live since he plays on the same AAU team as UM's #1 target Luke Kennard, but Ahrens broke his tibia and fibula a few months back so it looks like Beilein just wants to make a final check-up re: his health.

Sparty has offered, as have Cincinnati, Butler, Xavier, Vanderbilt, Iowa, and Boston College, among others. He is a 3-star to Rivals, the #146 player overall, and the #12 SF. At this point, he seems pretty underrated. Given his combo of shooting and athleticism, I'd be surprised if he's not a top 100 guy by the time the next AAU season ends.

I don't think this means UM eases up off the gas in their recruitment of Kennard, though. since there's a chance Stauskas, Robinson, and LeVert are gone by the time the 2015's get on campus, leaving us very thin at the 2/3.

Inside Michigan Basketball Episode 9

Inside Michigan Basketball Episode 9

Submitted by goblue16 on February 17th, 2014 at 11:03 PM

Heres episode 9 of inside michigan basketball. Great feature on the OSU game and covers the Wisconsin mess. Also covers the ladies win against the Illini. MSU lost so no harm but Sunday will be a MONSTER game they must be focused to win this game. Enjoy and BEAT STATE!!! GO BLUE!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHyE29RDrOw

One man beating the team

One man beating the team

Submitted by michiganman01 on February 17th, 2014 at 7:54 PM

I think Brian pointed this out, but in recent games against MSU, IU, Iowa, OSU, and now Wisconsin, there has been that one guy we cant stop.

MSU: Harris 27 points 36% of team's points (win)

Indiana: Ferrel 27 points 43% of team's points (loss)

Iowa: Marble 26 points 31% of team's points (loss)

OSU: Ross 24 points 40% of team's points (win)

Wisconsin: Kaminsky 25 points 33% of team's points (loss)

Our record is 2-3 on these 5 games, but that could also be attributed to the play of Nik Staukas. However we would have beaten IU if we could somehow contain Ferrel to a good but not great 15-17 points. If we could have cut Kaminsky's production by 10 points, we are in the game till the end. I dont know if this is a major problem or not, after all our offense made up for it vs MSU and OSU, but it's really frustraring seeing one guy seemingly effortlessly beating out team. 

Michigan a 4 seed in latest Bracket Matrix

Michigan a 4 seed in latest Bracket Matrix

Submitted by MH20 on February 17th, 2014 at 4:39 PM

After the most recent Bracket Matrix update (today, 1:10PM), Michigan is now the top 4 seed, unsurprisingly dropping from their previous spot as the second 3 seed.

36 brackets were updated today; here are the seeds given to Michigan and their frequency:

  • 2 (one bracket -- all hail HoopsHD!)
  • 3 (six brackets)
  • 4 (21 brackets -- including ESPN, CBS, and Yahoo)
  • 5 (seven times)
  • 7 (one bracket)

Once again, Drew's Bracketology, who you'll discover is a Minnesota fan if you click over to his page (or just read this sentence), is quite bearish on Michigan (and Iowa), listing both as 7 seeds.  His bias does not carry over to his Gophers, though, as he has them barely in the field as a 12 seed.

Other B1G seeds according to the Matrix:

  • MSU: 2 seed
  • Wisconsin: 3 seed
  • Iowa: 5 seed
  • OSU: 6  seed
  • Minnesota: 10 seed

In addition, Nebraska is now listed on two brackets as a 12 seed.  For reference there are currently 81 brackets in the Matrix.

Michigan #20 in AP & Coaches Poll

Michigan #20 in AP & Coaches Poll

Submitted by MH20 on February 17th, 2014 at 12:47 PM

AP: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2014/poll/1

B1G teams: MSU #13, Iowa #15, Wisconsin #16, Michigan #20, OSU #24

 

Coaches: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2014/poll/2

B1G teams: MSU #14, Iowa #15, Wisconsin #18, Michigan #20, OSU #23

 

Beat State!!

Despite loss to Wisconsin today, Michigan remains tied for first in the Big Ten

Despite loss to Wisconsin today, Michigan remains tied for first in the Big Ten

Submitted by Benvom on February 16th, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Despite the 75-62 loss to Wisconsin this afternoon, Michigan and Michigan State remain tied at 10-3 apiece atop of the Big Ten after Nebraska took down the No. 9 Spartans on the road 60-51.