Mick's Best Offense By Far

[justinhub2003]

We all kinda hoped and believed that this would be Mick's best Offense to date. And After 14 games, its very much on pace to be the best offensive team in the Cronin Era.

Lets look at where Crucial Offensive Stats stack up against other Cronin teams:

Avg Possession Length: 16.7 sec (#1)
Effective FG%: 54.2% (#1 and its better than any team Bob Huggins coached in his last 4 years at UC)
2Pt FG%: 52.5% (#1 and best in UC Kenpom era 2002-present)
3Pt FG%: 38.4% (#1)
FT %: 68.1% (#4)
FT Rate: 36.9 (#4)
Assist %: 61.9% (#1)
Off Reb %: 37.9 (#3)

The only Spot where we need to improve (and we are) is Turnovers:
TO%: 18.4% (#5)

And even that is no where near as bad as it seems.


This is Micks best Offensive teams hands down. Get the TO's down to 16% and we are an offensive powerhouse with elite scoring from all levels.


Here is how we great out in Synergy on various Aspects of Offensive:

There are 6 categories: Poor, Below Average, Average, Good, Very Good and Excellent. This is graded on Points per possession.

Transition: Very Good
Overall Half Court Offense: Good
Against Man to Man: Very Good
Against Zone: Average
After Timeouts: Good
Spot Up Jumper: Good
Transition: Very Good
Cut to the basket: Below Average
Post UP: Very Good
Putbacks: Very Good
Isolation: Poor
Pick N Roll Man: Good
hand Off: Good

 

[ervins84]

We are at 112.3 Adj points per 100 possession

Last year we were 114.9.

Shooting and assist numbers are the best in his tenure, but unless we really continue to cut down on the turnovers, I don't think we're gonna crack 115.

That said, if our defense stays sub 90, we'll be fine.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

We are at 112.3 Adj points per 100 possession

Last year we were 114.9.

Shooting and assist numbers are the best in his tenure, but unless we really continue to cut down on the turnovers, I don't think we're gonna crack 115.

That said, if our defense stays sub 90, we'll be fine.

turnovers are problem but we have missed a bunch of very convertable 2pt looks.

 

[justinhub2003]

We are at 112.3 Adj points per 100 possession

Last year we were 114.9.

Shooting and assist numbers are the best in his tenure, but unless we really continue to cut down on the turnovers, I don't think we're gonna crack 115.

That said, if our defense stays sub 90, we'll be fine.

It’s much easier to be efficient offensively when you play at a dreadfully slow pace.

While offensive effiency is a good stat, it doesn’t make you a good offense. I’ll take this years offense over last years any day.

Our TO are improving IMO and we had a few really bad TO games that really inflated our TO rate. In our 4 big games 2 were good and 2 were bad. In the cayman trip we had 2 aweful TO games.

I’ll take better shooting, higher scorer, faster pace and overall better to watch offense over a few more TO

 

[ervins84]

It’s much easier to be efficient offensively when you play at a dreadfully slow pace.

You have any proof supporting this? I get that it's easier to have fewer turnovers, but you're also always playing vs a set defense and get limited easy transition buckets. I really doubt this is true.

Think about it. If this was true, waaaay more teams and coaches would be playing super slow.

Without something supporting this, I really couldn't disagree more. IMO it's a lot harder to score efficiently in the half court facing a set defense every possession.

 

[david aka the TYZ]

You have any proof supporting this? I get that it's easier to have fewer turnovers, but you're also always playing vs a set defense and get limited easy transition buckets. I really doubt this is true.

Think about it. If this was true, waaaay more teams and coaches would be playing super slow.

Without something supporting this, I really couldn't disagree more. IMO it's a lot harder to score efficiently in the half court facing a set defense every possession.

Completely agree

 

[justinhub2003]

You have any proof supporting this? I get that it's easier to have fewer turnovers, but you're also always playing vs a set defense and get limited easy transition buckets. I really doubt this is true.

Think about it. If this was true, waaaay more teams and coaches would be playing super slow.

Without something supporting this, I really couldn't disagree more. IMO it's a lot harder to score efficiently in the half court facing a set defense every possession.

I should have been more clear. Teams like cincinnati seem to be more efficient in slower paces because we play from the inside out. Gary Clark and Kyle Washington are suited to score against set defenses and because we protect the ball better in slower tempo, I can see why UC was more efficient last season.

But I think this year we are the better offense no matter what the effiency numbers say.

Villanova is the #2 offense and is #171 in pace
St Mary is the #3 offense and is #335 in pace
Arizona is the #6 offense and is #142
Mich st and Zaga are not top 50 in pace yet have offensive effiency
Wichita State is #13 offensively and 122 in pace

Add in that Virginia is always a top 50 in effiency yet no one would say they are a good offense.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

I should have been more clear. Teams like cincinnati seem to be more efficient in slower paces because we play from the inside out. Gary Clark and Kyle Washington are suited to score against set defenses and because we protect the ball better in slower tempo, I can see why UC was more efficient last season.

But I think this year we are the better offense no matter what the effiency numbers say.

Villanova is the #2 offense and is #171 in pace
St Mary is the #3 offense and is #335 in pace
Arizona is the #6 offense and is #142
Mich st and Zaga are not top 50 in pace yet have offensive effiency
Wichita State is #13 offensively and 122 in pace

Add in that Virginia is always a top 50 in effiency yet no one would say they are a good offense.

Are these supposed to be examples of slow paced teams? At minimum, shouldn't you have to be in the lower half?

 

[juckerrules]

It’s much easier to be efficient offensively when you play at a dreadfully slow pace.

While offensive effiency is a good stat, it doesn’t make you a good offense. I’ll take this years offense over last years any day.

Our TO are improving IMO and we had a few really bad TO games that really inflated our TO rate. In our 4 big games 2 were good and 2 were bad. In the cayman trip we had 2 aweful TO games.

I’ll take better shooting, higher scorer, faster pace and overall better to watch offense over a few more TO

from KenPom
top 10 teams in adjO on left, 10 worst on right
I have listed their adjusted tempo
73.1 70.8
70.1 66.2
64.2 70.4
73.4 67.3
70.0 68.9
68.7 71.1
71.4 67.0
70.4 68.5
73.2 69.8
67.8 70.1
Averages
70.23 69.01

 

[ervins84]

I should have been more clear. Teams like cincinnati seem to be more efficient in slower paces because we play from the inside out. Gary Clark and Kyle Washington are suited to score against set defenses and because we protect the ball better in slower tempo, I can see why UC was more efficient last season.

But I think this year we are the better offense no matter what the effiency numbers say.

Villanova is the #2 offense and is #171 in pace
St Mary is the #3 offense and is #335 in pace
Arizona is the #6 offense and is #142
Mich st and Zaga are not top 50 in pace yet have offensive effiency
Wichita State is #13 offensively and 122 in pace

Add in that Virginia is always a top 50 in effiency yet no one would say they are a good offense.

Hand picking teams like that from one 12-15 game season sample size isn't what I meant by proof. I meant what is the correlation coefficient between tempo and offensive efficiency?

I can do the same thing by finding fast teams who score efficiently, and fast teams that are inefficient. Same with slow teams.

There might be a correlation. I really don't know. I doubt it's a strong one though if it is.


Fwiw, I do agree that we have the capability to be a better offense. And should be. But the end result matters, and right now, were just a hair below what we were last year. Doesn't mean we won't finish better, or that our numbers so far are predictive of what we will be going forward. Hopefully they keep cutting down on the turnovers. If they do, and we keep shooting, Orebd, and passing like we have, we will be more than fine.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

This is just my opinion from watching the games but from my view we are not converting a lot of very makeable 2pt baskets. Yesterday we were 0-3 on our first 3 possessions inside of 2ft. Evans missed a layup right before the half. The offense we are running is getting us good looks we are not converting at a high level.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

This is just my opinion from watching the games but from my view we are not converting a lot of very makeable 2pt baskets. Yesterday we were 0-3 on our first 3 possessions inside of 2ft. Evans missed a layup right before the half. The offense we are running is getting us good looks we are not converting at a high level.

I agree. Feels like there has been a lid on the basket for Clark at times.

 

[cincyguy13]

Our offense against terrible teams has never been the problem. Our problem has been scoring when good teams don’t turn it over. I think this team definetly has the weapons.

 

[justinhub2003]

Our offense against terrible teams has never been the problem. Our problem has been scoring when good teams don’t turn it over. I think this team definetly has the weapons.

This is the one concern about Thursday night I have. Temple like always, never turns the ball over

 

[ThomasMac]

Our offense against terrible teams has never been the problem.

My thoughts exactly... sure its great that our offensive numbers look good now, but I'll be interested to see how they look after conference play. But this team definitely has the weapons and leaders to make this Mick's best offensive efficient team in his era.