The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I was playing around over at Barttorvik.com, and in looking at our efficiency stats, was making some observations. Since I was already doing this for myself, I decided to share what I learned:

We are a very average offensive team overall (compared to all of Division I), but well below average by high-major conference standards. In fact, I compared our offensive efficiency rating to the P5 + Big East, and by my count, there are only 6 schools in those conferences who rank below us -- one in each league, interestingly enough. In the AAC, we rank 7th out of 11, and we are ranked 173rd nationally.

Why is our offense rated so low? Poor 3-point shooting and free throw shooting seem to be likely culprits. We rank 320th out of 347 Division I schools in 3-point shooting percentage, and 313th in free throw percentage. We’re a slightly above average 2-point shooting team at 50.3%, which is good for 148th. We’re a solid rebounding team overall, but we are far better on the defensive glass. Our offensive rebound percentage is 29.2, good for 137th nationally and 6th in the AAC.

This will come as a surprise to no one, but an area we really struggle in is turnovers. Our turnover rate puts us at 263rd nationally, and 8th in the AAC. We are an up tempo team, ranking 49th in adjusted tempo. We get to the free throw line a fairly average amount, ranking 177th in that category.

Defensively, we are solid, but nowhere near elite. Right now, we are ranked 61st nationally in defensive efficiency, and 4th in the AAC. In the previous 5 seasons, we finished ranked 53rd, 28th, 2nd, 12th, and 18th, going in reverse chronological order. We would rank in the middle of the pack in the top 6 conferences. The last time we finished a season ranked lower than we are currently was 2008-09, when we finished the season ranked 107th nationally. So our defense is performing better than Cronin’s rebuilding years, but not as well as the teams we had during our NCAA Tournament streak. Oddly enough, this year’s team is performing better defensively and worse offensively than Cronin’s worst teams in the early years.

We are a very good defensive rebounding team, ranking 35th nationally and 1st in the AAC. Teams shoot an Effective FG% of 49.2% against us, which is pretty good considering the D1 average is 50.1%. We also force turnovers at a rate of 19.8%, which is a little above the D1 average of 19.2%. Teams shoot 50.4% against us on 2-pointers for a ranking of 189th, and 31% from 3 for a ranking of 65th. One area we really struggle in is fouling. Teams shoot a lot of free throws against us, as our defensive FT rate ranks near the bottom nationally -- 322nd.

What’s the TLDR of all this? We are a solid, but not spectacular defensive team, and a poor offensive team. We shoot a respectable percentage on 2-point baskets, but we are well below average from 3 and the foul line. We turn the ball over too much (possibly a result of playing too fast), and we foul too often. However, we are a pretty good rebounding team. Our defense is good at defending the 3-point line, and slightly above average otherwise.

I also think some of the data above points to how important 3-point shooting is in today's game. To be a tournament caliber team, you either need to shoot the 3 at a respectable clip, or be an elite defensive team. The only poor 3-point shooting team currently ranked in the top 25 polls is Missouri, but they make up for it by being a really good defensive team and getting to the foul line at an elite rate. They are also a top 50 2-point shooting team. So I think this points to the fact that, if you're a poor 3-point shooting team, it takes a lot of other strengths to mask that deficiency.

If we could half our turnovers, we'd likely be above.500 now, despite the other shortcomings mentioned above. I think we're just a young team that plays well in spurts and not so much in others and is being forced to figure it out on the floor. We'll see where we are at the end of the year.

I thought Dejulius would be a much better 3 pt shooter. He has sucked behind the arc. Keith was never a great shooter. Davenport is surprising as he seems to be the best 3 pt shooter and Harvey seems to have improved this year.

But yeah... cleanup the turnovers and get some of these guys to hit shots and we look a lot better.

(02-11-2021 07:23 AM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  I thought Dejulius would be a much better 3 pt shooter. He has sucked behind the arc. Keith was never a great shooter. Davenport is surprising as he seems to be the best 3 pt shooter and Harvey seems to have improved this year.

But yeah... cleanup the turnovers and get some of these guys to hit shots and we look a lot better.

Listened to the Brannen show yesterday and he mentioned with Keith he wants more 3's and shots at the rim; said a mid range shot is a bad shot unless it's late in the shot clock. Not a great shooter but a 30% 3pt shooter is better than a high degree of difficulty 2pt shooter.

(02-10-2021 07:48 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I was playing around over at Barttorvik.com, and in looking at our efficiency stats, was making some observations. Since I was already doing this for myself, I decided to share what I learned:

We are a very average offensive team overall (compared to all of Division I), but well below average by high-major conference standards. In fact, I compared our offensive efficiency rating to the P5 + Big East, and by my count, there are only 6 schools in those conferences who rank below us -- one in each league, interestingly enough. In the AAC, we rank 7th out of 11, and we are ranked 173rd nationally.

Why is our offense rated so low? Poor 3-point shooting and free throw shooting seem to be likely culprits. We rank 320th out of 347 Division I schools in 3-point shooting percentage, and 313th in free throw percentage. We’re a slightly above average 2-point shooting team at 50.3%, which is good for 148th. We’re a solid rebounding team overall, but we are far better on the defensive glass. Our offensive rebound percentage is 29.2, good for 137th nationally and 6th in the AAC.

This will come as a surprise to no one, but an area we really struggle in is turnovers. Our turnover rate puts us at 263rd nationally, and 8th in the AAC. We are an up tempo team, ranking 49th in adjusted tempo. We get to the free throw line a fairly average amount, ranking 177th in that category.

Defensively, we are solid, but nowhere near elite. Right now, we are ranked 61st nationally in defensive efficiency, and 4th in the AAC. In the previous 5 seasons, we finished ranked 53rd, 28th, 2nd, 12th, and 18th, going in reverse chronological order. We would rank in the middle of the pack in the top 6 conferences. The last time we finished a season ranked lower than we are currently was 2008-09, when we finished the season ranked 107th nationally. So our defense is performing better than Cronin’s rebuilding years, but not as well as the teams we had during our NCAA Tournament streak. Oddly enough, this year’s team is performing better defensively and worse offensively than Cronin’s worst teams in the early years.

We are a very good defensive rebounding team, ranking 35th nationally and 1st in the AAC. Teams shoot an Effective FG% of 49.2% against us, which is pretty good considering the D1 average is 50.1%. We also force turnovers at a rate of 19.8%, which is a little above the D1 average of 19.2%. Teams shoot 50.4% against us on 2-pointers for a ranking of 189th, and 31% from 3 for a ranking of 65th. One area we really struggle in is fouling. Teams shoot a lot of free throws against us, as our defensive FT rate ranks near the bottom nationally -- 322nd.

What’s the TLDR of all this? We are a solid, but not spectacular defensive team, and a poor offensive team. We shoot a respectable percentage on 2-point baskets, but we are well below average from 3 and the foul line. We turn the ball over too much (possibly a result of playing too fast), and we foul too often. However, we are a pretty good rebounding team. Our defense is good at defending the 3-point line, and slightly above average otherwise.

The only thing surprising about this post is that I've never heard of that website. Everything else is easy to see watching any UC game.

I was not a fan of Cronin's pace of play but I'd watch a slow winning team than what I've seen from Brannen thus far.

Before Vogt's injury last season, we saw someone who knew his own capabilities and played within them; primarily as an efficient scorer in the low post. Maybe he's still hampered by that injury or others but if he were delivering the performance we saw in November/December 2019, this team would also have some more wins.

Close losses earlier this year have flipped to close wins the last two games. Those are encouraging, but playing in games with 2-4 point finishes is probably a 50/50 win/loss proposition that often swings on a bad bounce, a terrible call from an official or an unlikely make or miss at the goal.

I think we're all glad that the team didn't just fold and lose out which seemed like a distinct possibility a few weeks ago. Context is everything I suppose--it's been fun watching these guys and tough out some wins in conference at SMU, Temple and Tulane.

(02-11-2021 08:45 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(02-10-2021 07:48 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I was playing around over at Barttorvik.com, and in looking at our efficiency stats, was making some observations. Since I was already doing this for myself, I decided to share what I learned:

We are a very average offensive team overall (compared to all of Division I), but well below average by high-major conference standards. In fact, I compared our offensive efficiency rating to the P5 + Big East, and by my count, there are only 6 schools in those conferences who rank below us -- one in each league, interestingly enough. In the AAC, we rank 7th out of 11, and we are ranked 173rd nationally.

Why is our offense rated so low? Poor 3-point shooting and free throw shooting seem to be likely culprits. We rank 320th out of 347 Division I schools in 3-point shooting percentage, and 313th in free throw percentage. We’re a slightly above average 2-point shooting team at 50.3%, which is good for 148th. We’re a solid rebounding team overall, but we are far better on the defensive glass. Our offensive rebound percentage is 29.2, good for 137th nationally and 6th in the AAC.

This will come as a surprise to no one, but an area we really struggle in is turnovers. Our turnover rate puts us at 263rd nationally, and 8th in the AAC. We are an up tempo team, ranking 49th in adjusted tempo. We get to the free throw line a fairly average amount, ranking 177th in that category.

Defensively, we are solid, but nowhere near elite. Right now, we are ranked 61st nationally in defensive efficiency, and 4th in the AAC. In the previous 5 seasons, we finished ranked 53rd, 28th, 2nd, 12th, and 18th, going in reverse chronological order. We would rank in the middle of the pack in the top 6 conferences. The last time we finished a season ranked lower than we are currently was 2008-09, when we finished the season ranked 107th nationally. So our defense is performing better than Cronin’s rebuilding years, but not as well as the teams we had during our NCAA Tournament streak. Oddly enough, this year’s team is performing better defensively and worse offensively than Cronin’s worst teams in the early years.

We are a very good defensive rebounding team, ranking 35th nationally and 1st in the AAC. Teams shoot an Effective FG% of 49.2% against us, which is pretty good considering the D1 average is 50.1%. We also force turnovers at a rate of 19.8%, which is a little above the D1 average of 19.2%. Teams shoot 50.4% against us on 2-pointers for a ranking of 189th, and 31% from 3 for a ranking of 65th. One area we really struggle in is fouling. Teams shoot a lot of free throws against us, as our defensive FT rate ranks near the bottom nationally -- 322nd.

What’s the TLDR of all this? We are a solid, but not spectacular defensive team, and a poor offensive team. We shoot a respectable percentage on 2-point baskets, but we are well below average from 3 and the foul line. We turn the ball over too much (possibly a result of playing too fast), and we foul too often. However, we are a pretty good rebounding team. Our defense is good at defending the 3-point line, and slightly above average otherwise.

The only thing surprising about this post is that I've never heard of that website. Everything else is easy to see watching any UC game.

I was not a fan of Cronin's pace of play but I'd watch a slow winning team than what I've seen from Brannen thus far.

Not saying you're ready to bury Brannen, but the more the season wears on, the more I think he deserves a pass on this year. Other teams with similarly constructed rosters (lack of experience in the system) are struggling as well. Next year, we should be back in the tournament, and if not, Brannen should be on the hot seat, with another tournament miss in year 4 being grounds for dismissal.