A new look at 3-point shooting

During last night's win over Georgia Tech, the announcers reiterated Steve Donahue's goal of ten made three-pointers per game. In the past Donahue's talking points indicated that he uses advance basketball stats and trends (probably more than Skinner ever did), so I assume he found a clear demarcation point between nine converted 3s and ten. What's important to remember though is that three-point shooting is still very luck based. Kenpom explained it well last week. Even if you have a team of great shooters, your 3-point shooting will have a degree of randomness that most coaches would like to avoid. Kenpom compares it to playing the lottery.

What I find interesting is that Kenpom also list Michigan's John Beilein as a coach who is willing to gamble with the 3. Of all the coaches in big-time programs, Donahue's desired schemes are most closely aligned with Beilein's. If you want to look at the future direction of our program, you would be wise to see how Beilein implemented his schemes at Michigan and West Virginia. What BC fans should also remember are some of Beilein's West Virginia teams that buried BC with hot shooting nights from 3.

What most excites me about gambling with the 3 is where it can lead. VCU showed last year that you just need to get hot and you can outshoot more talented teams. If Donahue can get BC to become a regular tournament team, his willingness to gamble might give us one of those runs we've been waiting for.

Statistical Snapshot of the Basketball team: Take 2

Earlier in the year I looked at the basketball team's basic Kenpom stats. My belief was that the team was better than its start and that we would be competitive late in the season. With only a few games left, it is time to ask if BC has improved and if we are better than our record.

In December our offense was 254th. Things have actually gotten worse. Our adjusted offense is now 288th. As we played better teams and better defenses, we had more trouble scoring. Part of this was rebounding and part was BC's inconsistency from 3. Given Donahue's track record for offense and his success with offense last year, I am disappointed that we have not improved offensively. The final three games gives BC a chance to improve the numbers, but not dramatically.

The defense tells a much better story. In December we were ranked 296th in adjusted defense. We are now 198th in adjusted defense. There are multiple factors in the improved defense. We've been better in transition and generated a good amount of turnovers. BC has also helped limit possessions with decent defensive rebounding. The improvement wasn't enough to help us win games, but the improvement should be noted.

Donahue has positioned this season as a learning experience. If you watch him during the games, it is obvious that he is trying to win, but he is also trying to teach these guys how to play together and play his way. These final three games need to be a different type of learning experience. Donahue needs to win two out of three. Not to win over BC fans, but to build confidence in his players as they head into their second season together.

Statistical Snapshot of the Basketball team

We are not a good basketball team right now. But because we've struggled through the easier part of our schedule it is going to be tough to measure progress in terms of wins and losses. If we only get one win in ACC play does that mean we didn't get better? I think to measure success, we should measure our statistics and efficiency. Right now Donahue has no set rotation. He is giving his minutes to everyone and looking for anyone to step up. Six weeks from now I believe we will have a more consistent rotation, a more consistent use of minutes and guys who better understand our offense and defense.

To get a benchmark of where we are, I decided to use Kenpom's high level ratings. I did this because he measures efficiency not necessarily just points and averages.

Currently we are 254th in adjusted offense and 296th in adjusted defense.

I don't know how much that defense number will change but I think the offense will get much, much better. If it doesn't and our record is terrible, then we will have to start asking tough questions about this group of freshman. Until then though, let's do our best to measure the baby steps.

In defense of a good offense

Many BC fans hated Skinner's flex. I loved it. When Donahue arrived people welcomed the move to Motion but still had concerns that his reliance on the 3 would be exposed in the ACC. It still might be exposed but as yesterday's win over Maryland showed when that when you have a relentless, efficient and slightly unconventional offense, you can beat anyone on your schedule. We got up early with the 3. We bought minutes with our bench with the 3. We muted Maryland runs with the 3. And in the end we closed the game out with a big 3. It was fun to watch and I think will start to get fans excited. But outside of excitement, I love the pressure it put on Maryland. There is nothing more frustrating in sports to a player then when you think you are better than your opponent but they keep hanging around.

We made 13 3-point baskets yesterday. Maryland followed those thirteen makes with six pointless possessions. They made one foul shot. Four two point baskets and only answered a 3 with their own three twice.

It wasn't all perfect though. The press gave us a bit of trouble. After a hot start Rubin cooled off a bit and didn't do much defensively. We struggled with their bigs. And Josh Southern -- who has looked so good passing out of the post -- forced some bad shots.

The statistical gurus are loving it all though. Check out Kenpom's tweets during the game.

Now our style is not perfect or particularly balanced (see Yale) but our tough early schedule has proven that we can and will hang with anyone. It also showed that we are going to be fun to watch.

What can the stats tell us about the basketball swoon

From the beginning of this blog I've been a big believer in college hoops stat guy Kenpom. While trying to figure out what is wrong this year, I went to look at his BC profile and compared it to our 2005 profile. I assumed we were better shots in 2005. I was wrong (2005-- Effective FG%: 49.2 [177]; 2010-- Effective FG%: 49.1 [167]). In fact our effective FG% is better now than then.

So what's the reason for the struggles now? I think the biggest factor is that we are not getting to the line as often as 2005 did. Back then we generated 23.6% of our points from foul shooting. Now we only get 18.7%. Why the difference? I don't think we are taking those shots close to the basket that invite physical play and fouls. It is such a waste too since, Sanders and Trapani close to the basket should mean easy points.

Our defense was also better then but there is no smoking gun to the difference. We just did every defensive thing a little better then.

So can we fix it before Duke? Kenpom doesn't think so...he only gives us a 3% chance to beat the Blue Devils.