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