Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill
President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club
Here are the interior defense numbers, updated to include Georgia Tech. Miller was effective, and I had the same perception that many others on the board did while watching the game -- that Tech would've been well-served to continue pounding the ball into him. The numbers on the first chart back it up. We got "bad results" a very high percentage of the time they got it into the post -- the highest all year, in fact.
The second chart shows a couple of things, some of which may have been apparent in watching the game casually, some not. Georgia Tech got only two points all night that were not generated in the half court, that is, via the fast break or secondary fast break. That surprises me a little, given that they didn't have Robert Carter, Jr. I would've thought they would've tried to run at least a little. But then again, their inside game with Miller was working. GT did get a high percentage of their points on the interior -- 31.6%. That is pure post play, and doesn't include plays such as when they would drive past our perimeter guys and score in the paint. The efficiency numbers all look pretty good for us. Not as good as against Alabama, but taking all three numbers together, one of the better performances of the year given the competition, hard as that may be to fathom given some of the easy shots we gave up in the first half. I guess the lesson is: it's a 40 minute game, and the numbers reflect what happened over the full course of those 40 minutes, not just the lapses in the first half.
Code:
Total Total Catch % Unsucc. GR after NR BR after % BR all%BR after Entries Catches Entries catch catch entriescatch Davidson 23 21 91.3% 2 5 5 11 47.8% 52.4%Kansas 30 24 80.0% 6 1 9 14 46.7% 58.3%UNC-A 10 9 90.0% 1 5 3 6 60.0% 66.7%ECU 4 4 100.0% 2 2 50.0% 50.0%Vermont 6 6 100.0% 2 2 2 33.3% 33.3%Alabama 14 11 78.6% 3 4 1 6 42.9% 54.5%Arizona 22 20 90.9% 2 9 1 10 45.5% 50.0%Michigan 10 9 90.0% 1 4 5 50.0% 55.6%UCLA 4 4 100.0% 3 1 0.0% 0.0%East Mich 7 7 100.0% 1 3 4 57.1% 57.1%Notre Dame 24 21 87.5% 3 7 3 14 58.3% 66.7%G Tech 22 19 86.4% 3 3 2 14 63.6% 73.7%
Total Poss. w/ % Attempted Total Half Court Interior Interior % Interior % Interior Def. Overall Def. Halfcourt Def. Halfcourt Halfcourt Entry Entries Points Points Points of Total Pts. Halfcourt Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Non-Interior Sets Attempts PointsDef Efficiency Davidson 66 23 34.8% 77 61 15 19.5% 24.6% 0.652 1.09 0.924 1.07Kansas 66 29 43.9% 94 67 27 28.7% 40.3% 0.931 1.26 1.015 1.08UNC-A 65 8 12.3% 55 43 6 10.9% 14.0% 0.750 0.85 0.662 0.65ECU 62 4 6.5% 74 58 6 8.1% 10.3% 1.500 1.01 0.935 0.90Vermont 60 6 10.0% 90 81 8 8.9% 9.9% 1.333 1.38 1.350 1.35Alabama 61 14 23.0% 64 46 17 26.6% 37.0% 1.214 0.87 0.754 0.62Arizona 64 22 34.4% 72 57 25 34.7% 43.9% 1.136 1.08 0.891 0.76Michigan 60 10 16.7% 69 56 10 14.5% 17.9% 1.000 1.00 0.933 0.92UCLA 57 3 5.3% 63 59 4 6.3% 7% 1.333 0.86 1.035 1.02East Mich 57 7 12.3% 59 40 2 3.4% 5% 0.286 0.84 0.702 0.76Notre Dame 60 23 38.3% 79 69 21 26.6% 30% 0.913 1.25 1.15 1.30G Tech 63 22 34.9% 57 55 18 31.6% 33% 0.818 0.98 0.873 0.90
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
Sure. The legend was published in one of the early posts, but you're right, I should include it each time. Here it is:
Legend:
--------
Tot Entries: Number of times opponents attempted a post entry
Tot Catches: Number of opponents' successful entry into post
Catch %: Ratio of catches to entries (lower % means we denied the entry better)
Unsucc. Entries: Number of times we denied the entry
GR after catch: Number of good results after the catch (not including denied entry)
NR: Neutral results -- our defense didn't allow opponent to capitalize on the post entry, but also didn't get the ball back
BR: Bad results after catch
%BR all entries: Bad results as a percentage of total entries
%BR after catch: Bad results as a percentage of successful entries
Tot Halfcourt Sets: Number of possessions when opponent ran a halfcourt set
Poss w/ Entry Attempts: Number of possessions when opponent tried to enter into the post
% Att: Possessions w/ attempted entry as a percentage of total halfcourt sets
Total Points: Opponent's total points in the game
Halfcourt Points: Opponent's points scored from halfcourt sets
Interior Points: Opponent's points scored through entry (either by the big or an offensive rebound after the big shoots or after a pass from the big)
Int. % Tot pts: Interior points as a percentage of all opponent's points
Int. % HC pts: Interior points as a percentage of opponent's halfcourt points
Int. Defensive Efficiency: Interior points divided by possessions w/ entry attempts
Overall Def. Eff.: Total points divided by total possessions
Halfcourt Def. Eff.: Halfcourt points divided by total halfcourt sets
As for working in HTML, I have no idea how to do that. All I do is follow the instructions in the FAQ thread: maintain the data in an Excel spreadsheet, copy/paste the sheet onto WordPad or whatever similar thing there is on my Mac, then copy paste it again into a post, and put the Code tags around it.
I used to do charts by just creating a table using the icons at the top of each post, adding columns and rows, etc as needed, but it's much harder to work with and they don't look as good as using the Code tags. That's all I gots!