The anatomy of a winning COLLEGE WOMEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM

[HoopDR]

So I ran across this today via Twitter. It was very interesting to see. The info is provided by a company called KrossOver. They are in the business of stat-ing ball games. Programs send their game film to KrossOver and they do all the film break down and statistics. Here are the items they determined are the number that make up a winning college team along with how they compared to the LVs last season. I will list them KO/LV


Shooting Percentage 41%/40.8%
Points per game 72/65.6
Three pointer made 6/3.6
PTS off Fast Breaks 8/?
2nd Chance Points 11/?
PTS off Turnovers 12/?
Offensive rebounds 15/15
Possessions 77/?
Free Throw Attempts 20/17
Turnovers <18/16.1

Can anyone help fill in the question marks?

any comments

 

[orangeluvr]

Looks like we're pretty close to winning.

 

[Coach Jumper]

So I ran across this today via Twitter. It was very interesting to see. The info is provided by a company called KrossOver. They are in the business of stat-ing ball games. Programs send their game film to KrossOver and they do all the film break down and statistics. Here are the items they determined are the number that make up a winning college team along with how they compared to the LVs last season. I will list them KO/LV


Shooting Percentage 41%/40.8%
Points per game 72/65.6
Three pointer made 6/3.6
PTS off Fast Breaks 8/?
2nd Chance Points 11/?
PTS off Turnovers 12/?
Offensive rebounds 15/15
Possessions 77/?
Free Throw Attempts 20/17
Turnovers <18/16.1

Can anyone help fill in the question marks?

any comments

Boy did you open a good one. :dance2:
I will have fun with those numbers tomorrow at work.

I will look at them as if they were analyzing them as my own team's in-game stats... Use em to show both how great and how bad we are, with the very same set of stats. Till then,, Hd

 

[bobkitten]

what does KO stand for? Is it mythical team? I am confused.

 

[Coach Jumper]

what does KO stand for? Is it mythical team? I am confused.

Krossover

 

[GameTime]

The real secret is to just outscore your opponent....
That will do it every time....

 

[CannonVol80]

Points off turnovers, 2d chance points, and points off fast breaks were only reported for 33 of the Lady Vol games (why they weren't reported for the other 3, I don't know), but the averages for those games reported are:

Points off Fast breaks 7.75

2d chance points 13.09

Points off TOs 15

Jim

 

[xanamanax]

What do they consider a winning team? One game above .500 is a winning record. I don't think it would help much to compare us with that if that were the case. Our standards should be way higher.

 

[supersmo18]

Abbreviated thread title on homepage is misleading…



Disappointed.

 

[VolPack22]

Are they doing stats compared to "winning teams" or championship teams? There's a bit of a difference in my book. We did happen to make it to the Elite 8 which I would consider a winning team. I guess I'm a little confused.

 

[armchair]

Compare our assist/turnover ratio, and shooting percentage, against UConn and ND over the last 10+ years. Those two important stats will tell the story. The first one is most definitely a coaching issue. If you don't have a good/very good coaching staff, you are not going to be a good team, no matter your personnel. That's where it starts. If you bring in good players but you have a mediocre staff, you'll be knocked out by teams with better coaching.

 

[HoopDR]

Ok ArmChair, I'll bite on that. or nibble...because I think that the last 10 yrs of stats for any team is irrelevant. Plus no way I would take the time to look up those stats! I'll give you what I could find from last year.

So here it is.....KO/LV/ND/UC
Shooting Percentage 41%/40.8%/49.6%/53%
Points per game 72/65.6/80/88
Three pointer made 6/3.6/5.9/7.8
PTS off Fast Breaks 8/7.75/?/?
2nd Chance Points 11/13.1/?/?
PTS off Turnovers 12/15/?/?
Offensive rebounds 15/15/11/12.6
Possessions 77/?/?/?
Free Throw Attempts 20/17/20.7/14.9
Turnovers <18/16.1/14.65/11.9
ASSIST to TURNOVER ?/.84/1.23/1.8

 

[Volfan2012]

As most of us realized we are really lacking in the three point game and overall needed to average about 10 more ppg on 70 plus possessions. We didn't average one point per possession and it cost us many games. Lack of scoring was the reason we lost 14 games. We couldn't score 70 against Arkansas, Bama, LSU, Miss. St., Va. Tech. on and on it goes. If we aren't better offensively meaning consistent from the three point line and consistent in scoring efficiency per possession look for double digit losses again next season.

 

[Coach Jumper]

As most of us realized we are really lacking in the three point game and overall needed to average about 10 more ppg on 70 plus possessions. We didn't average one point per possession and it cost us many games. Lack of scoring was the reason we lost 14 games. We couldn't score 70 against Arkansas, Bama, LSU, Miss. St., Va. Tech. on and on it goes. If we aren't better offensively meaning consistent from the three point line and consistent in scoring efficiency per possession look for double digit losses again next season.

That's not gonna happen this year.
Nope.

I wasn't as mixed in with the area UT culture so much last year. Though a fan forever, i hadn't even found out about the VN site till February. . . And hadn't yet tried to volunteer with the players, staff or the university yet. So they were as unaware about me as I was to them. Not anymore...So this year could be interesting. There is a phrase, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." I am a friend of this program and an enemy of under-performance. I don't care who it is that is under-performing. (staff, player or outside influences) They will get my lauding. If not from the sidelines and practice court, then right here from the VolNation forum......The one thing I can guarantee is that the girls are not happy with their team's marks or performances last year. None of them ARE! And they ARE taking it upon themselves to change their destinies over the off-season. . .

I believe in the talent we possess.; Where my uncertainty lies is within the construction of their influences. These girls need someone on the staff to coach their personalities, not just their bodies. ((( You can say how old they are and how mature they should be all you want, but an athlete is an athlete and SOME athletes need more guidance, than others))).... They have to be confident when they walkout on that court. They have to know they will not be second-guessed if they shoot and miss. (Permission to fail, is permission to succeed)...On the flipside, when the player does something dumb, and walks back to the bench after being subbed for doing something dumb and gazes at each and every person on the bench as they walk back...They better not be able to make that whole path without someone on the staff handling it right!

These girls are the real thing. This team with it's new personnel is easily equal to last year's mix. Yes we lost an MDAA, but we got two sizable forwards in exchange. We are losing Draya, but all of the guards that are left are out to get "those minutes".

The anatomy of winning has little to do with numbers, hard core... It has everything to do with mentality. "The mentality of a champion is an expectation of success" (self)...These girls come to UT from successful ventures, so it is in their DNA's. The variable is coaching. The staff has changed little in the post-Summitt era. What hasn't happened is a replacement for what Pat brought to the group. Confidence. . . And if you look up "traits of the elite athlete, champions, etc... the one thing that comes up most consistently is that, confidence!.. We were not confident last year. The players, the coaches, the media, the fan, no one... And you see what it got us.

This year, the confidence has to be re instilled in these girls. . . I predict it will. I predict a very different year.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Abbreviated thread title on homepage is misleading…



Disappointed.

Yep. All I saw was 'Anatomy of a Women's basketball...'
and thought we might get some Brittany Jackson pics.

 

[HoopDR]

Yep. All I saw was 'Anatomy of a Women's basketball...'
and thought we might get some Brittany Jackson pics.

See that is where the problem is when you look at ArmChair's idea of 10+ yrs ago. It is just not a good representation of what things look like NOW!

 

[Coach Jumper]

See that is where the problem is when you look at ArmChair's idea of 10+ yrs ago. It is just not a good representation of what things look like NOW!

Every now and the, there is "that one or two" postings, that simply screw up a good thread's flow...

Cha Ching

 

[UCMiami]

Interesting thread. And an interesting idea of looking at a particular group of stats to determine what benchmarks a 'winning team' reaches. The problems I see:

1. These stats are all individual team stats and not comparative - there are two teams on the court and as was mentioned above a winning team scores at least one point more than a losing team so relative performance is an important measure. Especially in a universe where conference play constitutes 50% of the games and conference generally have significant differences in 'style of play' absolute numbers can be misleading. The SEC is know for physical deliberate play and most teams struggle offensively to consistently score 70 points. Other conferences play more open styles and winning teams consistently reach 80 points.

2. If the standard for a 'winning team' is having a winning percentage above 50% it is too low a standard. No coaching staff or fan base is going to be excited about a 15-14 overall record or even a 9-7 conference record.

3. Related to #2, WCBB as a whole is too wide a universe because talent drops off so quickly - teams ranked 100-350 are just not good enough to generate meaningful team stats when playing against teams in the top 25. Even in strong conferences the bottom dwellers are not competitive against the top of the conference. Stats generated by teams that play 70% of their games against dubious competition can be artificially elevated.

4. Most of these benchmarks are offensive stats (as are most basketball stats) so they overstate offensive 'efficiency' and ignore defensive prowess. Cviv during her best years at Rutgers ran an offensively challenged team that won because it played some of the best defense in the country, and Pat's teams were also typically very strong defensively.

For a program with higher aspirations than mediocrity, it would be more interesting to see this type of statistical benchmark based on games against top 25 or top 50 competition, and with things like defensive FG percentages allowed, steals, fouls for and against, and points allowed. Adding in or replacing FG% with effective FG% (points scored vs. shots taken) or points per per possession (both for the team and the opponent) might also improve the stats.

 

[armchair]

You can't play like PS's Vol teams and V. Stringer's Rutgers teams--meaning put most of your emphasis on defense--and expect to win a national title. It doesn't work anymore unless you have exceptional defensive talent. When was the last time Rutgers was a contender--it seems like they've fallen off quite a bit. And we haven't been lighting it up either. Teams are much better offensively now than when UT was in its prime years--they are better coached, have players with more offensively ability--and shoot better, especially the three. Look at the Syracuse loss. UConn dominates because they are very good offensively and defensively--very efficient on offense. ND and others shoot the three very well. You have to score nowadays, and be efficient on offense--something that became a noticeable problem for us a long time ago, but the coaches never quite seem to get it.

 

[Coach Jumper]

You can't play like PS's Vol teams and V. Stringer's Rutgers teams--meaning put most of your emphasis on defense--and expect to win a national title. It doesn't work anymore unless you have exceptional defensive talent. When was the last time Rutgers was a contender--it seems like they've fallen off quite a bit. And we haven't been lighting it up either. Teams are much better offensively now than when UT was in its prime years--they are better coached, have players with more offensively ability--and shoot better, especially the three. Look at the Syracuse loss. UConn dominates because they are very good offensively and defensively--very efficient on offense. ND and others shoot the three very well. You have to score nowadays, and be efficient on offense--something that became a noticeable problem for us a long time ago, but the coaches never quite seem to get it.

You'll get no argument from me.... Offense wins games, defense wins championships.

Offense is all about "flow". You teach offensive flow by running 11-man at least 20-30 minutes a practice (Initially, then less as they begin to incorporate what it teaches.. . . And doing: Shooting drills, driving drills and such. Offense has and will never be about running plays. . . When you run a play once maybe you catch me by surprise, if you run it a second time, I begin to see the choreography... from there it is a simple process of interrupting points of the set-play.

I have long stood by these percentage numbers... Offense is:

• 30% plays (NOT "SET" MOVEMENT PLAYS,, Those are for timeouts and startups after stoppages,,, I mean: giveNgos, screenRolls, PickNrolls, etc. All of which are plays)
• 30% fast-break
• 40% creating off the dribble, movement or pass

"Set motion or specific movement" plays are for children who don't understand where, when, or how to move. It is a good thing for 10-11 year-olds. From that point on they better be the better skilled team if they want to succeed.

The three is truly a weapon, but one that must be shot with a clear head as the margin for error is much greater because of the distance of the shot.

 

[UCMiami]

You can't play like PS's Vol teams and V. Stringer's Rutgers teams--meaning put most of your emphasis on defense--and expect to win a national title. It doesn't work anymore unless you have exceptional defensive talent. When was the last time Rutgers was a contender--it seems like they've fallen off quite a bit. And we haven't been lighting it up either. Teams are much better offensively now than when UT was in its prime years--they are better coached, have players with more offensively ability--and shoot better, especially the three. Look at the Syracuse loss. UConn dominates because they are very good offensively and defensively--very efficient on offense. ND and others shoot the three very well. You have to score nowadays, and be efficient on offense--something that became a noticeable problem for us a long time ago, but the coaches never quite seem to get it.

Agree that you have to score points but the main reason that Uconn has dominated WCBB for the last stretch is because on top of playing very good offense, they have been at the top in points allowed, blocked shots, steals, and defensive FG percentage, while still committing fewer fouls a game. Everybody has off shooting nights, but defense doesn't lie.
I just think that if you are looking for what makes a 'winning team' and you only look at offensive statistics, you would assume that a team like Oregon from a few years back should have won the NC - they were scoring close to 100 points a night, but they were giving up 100+ points a night and so they were pretty poor. Of if you look at that Rutgers team that lost to TN in the NC game you would think they were a .500 team at best, because they were doing it with their defense.
And specific to the SEC which sent so many teams to the NCAA last year - only three teams FL, KY, and, SC (in that order) passed the 72 ppg threshold for a 'winning team'.