What's with all the low scores?

[ChrisP]

I was perusing the box scores from yesterday's games and couldn't help but notice that SDSU - the team ranked #15 in the NATION scored a whopping 9 points in the first half against Wyoming. Really? Nine points? And I thought Duke's stinker of a 1st half against GT the other night was bad. Wyoming is an interesting team. I only recently realized that former Clemson head man Larry Shyatt is the coach there. In looking at the box from yesterday's game, I also noticed that Larry Nance, Jr., son of former Clemson standout, Larry Nance is on the team. I don't have my Clemson coach chronology memorized (say THAT ten times fast!), but I don't think Shyatt would have been Nance Sr's coach, would he? Anyway, interesting Clemson connections up in Laramie.

Anyway, I also noticed that F$U scored an underwhelming 15 in the 1st half against UVA. Not to worry though, they did better in the second half - they scored 21. For those of you keeping track at home, that's 36 points...in a whole game! For a major college team. Yikes! The 'Noles had one of those days shooting from 3pt range that I have nightmares about for Duke, going 1-15! Interestingly, they shot almost 54% from two point land. That's just weird.

And of course we got that gem of a college b-ball game from Tennessee and Georgetown back in November when the teams COMBINED for 73 points (with G'town eking out a 37-36 victory).

Not sure what to make of these low scores but...it sure is ugly! It can't just be good defense - there has to be some pretty awful offense in there somewhere, too.

[-jk]

I suspect part of it's an artifact of refs not being employees of the NCAA, and thus no consistent standards of reffing.

A couple decades ago, the ACC decided that the NCAA tourney was called much more loosely than the ACC, and Fred Barakat wanted to call the ACC more like the NCAA to better prepare. We went from a more touch-foul conference to a much more physical conference. Seeing the landscape out there, I can only surmise everyone else has done the same thing.

Also, fans don't want the refs to "decide the game" - even if the player who fouled made the decision; the ref just called it. And after a ref makes that late game call, how many times have you heard an announcer incredulously say "you can't call that now"? (And, yes, Boozer was fouled.)

Until there's a concerted effort - much like the NBA did - to clean it up, it'll remain physical. "Finishing through contact" shouldn't have to be the goal.

-jk

[subzero02]

I have seen some very bad shooting in a few games this year. If a team goes cold from 3 point range and has no inside presence or slashers then you get some ghastly offensive displays..

[tommy]

New Mexico -- ranked 15th in the nation-- scored 34 points today in its loss to San Diego St.

[Greg_Newton]

If you think you could score five points in 20 minutes of college basketball, NIU wants you: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8884525/northern-illinois-huskies-held-record-low-4-points-1st-half

[wsb3]

New Mexico -- ranked 15th in the nation-- scored 34 points today in its loss to San Diego St.

Wisconsin Minnesota 45-44..It amazes me in the age of the shot clock and 3 pointer..Last year I think SMU scored 29 in a game..Who was that coach? Duh...Doh...?

[Atlanta Duke]

Not sure what to make of these low scores but...it sure is ugly! It can't just be good defense - there has to be some pretty awful offense in there somewhere, too.

Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution agrees it is not good defense - Bradley says the college game simply is not a good product anymore


College hoops: Alas, a great sport has gone sour

Proving that scoring isn’t a snap even when you’re ranked No. 1 and the greatest coach since Wooden is seated on your bench, Duke went to Coral Gables last week and trailed Miami 42-19 at the half

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/mark-bradley/2013/jan/28/college-hoops-great-sport-has-gone-sour/

[vick]

Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution agrees it is not good defense - Bradley says the college game simply is not a good product anymore


College hoops: Alas, a great sport has gone sour

Proving that scoring isn’t a snap even when you’re ranked No. 1 and the greatest coach since Wooden is seated on your bench, Duke went to Coral Gables last week and trailed Miami 42-19 at the half

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/mark-bradley/2013/jan/28/college-hoops-great-sport-has-gone-sour/

Well, maybe. I'm not going to argue that college basketball is played at the same level as before early entry was so dominant (although, if you sit down and watch games like the 1992 Final Four with objective eyes, the number of terrible plays on both sides can be pretty shocking--I don't think the gap is as large as some observers say). And I believe Bilas has argued that an unwillingness to call fouls, particularly off the ball, has impeded offense. But, when I sat down and looked at the numbers, offensive efficiency doesn't seem to have really dipped at all. I looked at 1993-2012 from the NCAA record book, and here are points per game, pace, and offensive efficiency across Division I men's college basketball:

3148

A couple of very technical caveats: The NCAA chart does not include minutes per game (i.e. how frequently overtime occurs), so efficiency is slightly overstated across the board. Also, there is no separate breakout for offensive and defensive rebounds, so I just estimated that 30% of rebounds are offensive. I think neither of these really changes the basic story.

So, looking at the graph, offensive efficiency hasn't really fallen at all over the past couple of decades, as far as I can tell. Rather, pace has gradually drifted downward, and this appears to be the dominant driver of lower scores.

Now, there are any number of plausible objections to this. Maybe efficiency is flat across college basketball but down among the top teams that people tend to see on television. This data doesn't include 2012-2013 so maybe this year is particularly terrible. And slow pace doesn't explain two utterly atrocious performances from Northern Illinois this year. But I don't think blaming offenses really tells the whole story here.

[wilko]

A couple decades ago, the ACC decided that the NCAA tourney was called much more loosely than the ACC, and Fred Barakat wanted to call the ACC more like the NCAA to better prepare. We went from a more touch-foul conference to a much more physical conference. Seeing the landscape out there, I can only surmise everyone else has done the same thing.

I absitively posolutely HATE this trend.
We have lost the "technician" aspect of the game and it seemingly solely rests on the physicality of the athlete. Boo hiss!!


Also, fans don't want the refs to "decide the game" - even if the player who fouled made the decision; the ref just called it. And after a ref makes that late game call, how many times have you heard an announcer incredulously say "you can't call that now"? (And, yes, Boozer was fouled.)

Sure I do! I just want them to decide it in my teams favor!
Some folks seem to think that a games entertainment value should be derived from its play. I tend to say that Duke winning the game is entertainment enough...

[sporthenry]

So, looking at the graph, offensive efficiency hasn't really fallen at all over the past couple of decades, as far as I can tell. Rather, pace has gradually drifted downward, and this appears to be the dominant driver of lower scores.

Now, there are any number of plausible objections to this. Maybe efficiency is flat across college basketball but down among the top teams that people tend to see on television. This data doesn't include 2012-2013 so maybe this year is particularly terrible. And slow pace doesn't explain two utterly atrocious performances from Northern Illinois this year. But I don't think blaming offenses really tells the whole story here.

This is pretty interesting. Are there any numbers on fouls? Perhaps less fouls called causes the offense to have to use more of the shot clock? Or maybe coaches have recognized that they can be more efficient by playing at a lower pace so in reality, the lower pace should have seen an uptick in efficiency but since it stayed flat, efficiency is actually worse? Certainly an interesting study and I don't doubt that a lot of it is just people thinking the sport was better back in the day when that wasn't necessarily the case.

[vick]

This is pretty interesting. Are there any numbers on fouls? Perhaps less fouls called causes the offense to have to use more of the shot clock? Or maybe coaches have recognized that they can be more efficient by playing at a lower pace so in reality, the lower pace should have seen an uptick in efficiency but since it stayed flat, efficiency is actually worse? Certainly an interesting study and I don't doubt that a lot of it is just people thinking the sport was better back in the day when that wasn't necessarily the case.

There are numbers on fouls called, which drifted down from 19.6 per game in 1993 to 18.1 in 2012. This is pretty much flat on a per-possession basis, from 0.306 to 0.297. But, and this is where I think statistical analysis needs to be supplemented with the naked eye, these are only fouls called, and coaches and players are generally very good at adapting to referee behavior. If, as Bilas has argued, there is a lot of off-ball fouling that isn't being called, then you might be able to explain what's happening in college basketball as: there are a number of possessions that would have led to a made shot in maybe 15 seconds if defenders weren't fouling that instead take 25 seconds for the same shot, so the game slows down even though offenses are not actually less efficient. I think that's very plausible actually, and seems consistent with the fact that other "fundamentals" haven't declined--turnover rate per possession and free throw percentage have actually improved over the past 20 years. The good news there would be that you can change this fairly quickly by instructing referees to call more of these off-ball fouls.

What I don't buy is the "too many one and done" explanation offered by Bradley. There were a grand total of nine freshmen drafted last year to go along with thirteen sophomores. For the vast, vast majority of teams (and certainly the Northern Illinois of the world), early entry has had a fairly minimal effect--your typical middle-of-the-conference type team might be missing one player who would otherwise be there (it's impossible to say precisely since early entry also affects where players are willing to commit). I don't doubt that the very top teams would be somewhat better without early entry, but as an explanation for broad trends across the sport? I don't think so--I think fans of top programs like Duke, UNC, (especially) Kentucky, etc. may have a distorted view of just how common it is for young stars to leave early.

[sagegrouse]

hat I don't buy is the "too many one and done" explanation offered by Bradley. There were a grand total of nine freshmen drafted last year to go along with thirteen sophomores. For the vast, vast majority of teams (and certainly the Northern Illinois of the world), early entry has had a fairly minimal effect--your typical middle-of-the-conference type team might be missing one player who would otherwise be there (it's impossible to say precisely since early entry also affects where players are willing to commit). I don't doubt that the very top teams would be somewhat better without early entry, but as an explanation for broad trends across the sport? I don't think so--I think fans of top programs like Duke, UNC, (especially) Kentucky, etc. may have a distorted view of just how common it is for young stars to leave early.

I agree with your point that early entry shouldn't distort the scoring across all of Div I, which consists of over 300 teams.

But "nine freshman drafted last year to go along with thirteen sophomores," if repeated every year, would mean that 53 players would be out of college and presumably in pro ball somewhere. That's nine times three missing years plus 13 times two. (Damned that Duke math degree comes in handy! If, for once, I did it right.) Lots of teams would be stronger.

Imagine the ACC with Kyrie at Duke and the three UNC undergrads drafted last year! Yowza!

sagegrouse

[mo.st.dukie]

I agree with your point that early entry shouldn't distort the scoring across all of Div I, which consists of over 300 teams.

But "nine freshman drafted last year to go along with thirteen sophomores," if repeated every year, would mean that 53 players would be out of college and presumably in pro ball somewhere. That's nine times three missing years plus 13 times two. (Damned that Duke math degree comes in handy! If, for once, I did it right.) Lots of teams would be stronger.

Imagine the ACC with Kyrie at Duke and the three UNC undergrads drafted last year! Yowza!

sagegrouse

And with Austin at Duke as well. How about Kentucky with seniors John Wall and DeMarcus Cousins. Kansas with a senior Thomas Robinson this year or Ohio State with Sullinger or Florida with Bradley Beal or Michigan with a senior Darius Morris. There's probably several others. Certainly at the top of college basketball it has affected the overall offensive talent and you also have to factor in the trickle down effect and how it could force talent to spread out more. Like if Calipari had reeled in the same 2009 and 2010 classes he did and all of them stayed 3-4 years what kind of an impact would that have on recruiting in the 2011 and 2012 classes? Do guys like Davis, MKG, Jones, Teague, Goodwin, Noel, etc. decide to got to other schools? What if Austin stays at Duke for 3-4 years, do Sulaimon, Jones, or Hood go elsewhere?

I can see the argument about officiating and how that could bring down the pace of the game but also the talent level can bring down the pace. Teams could probably create better shots quicker if the offensive talent and the athletic talent is at a higher level even if the game is called loosely. Put Irving and Rivers out there for Duke this year and we are probably averaging close to 90 ppg and playing at a very fast pace. Same thing with the other teams I listed above. So it's probably a combination of more physical play and less top-end talent but I lean more towards not having the talent. That would affect the perceptions as well because the top teams would be scoring at a very high level and the teams that still struggle to score would just be viewed as worse teams that those at the top.

[sporthenry]

And with Austin at Duke as well. How about Kentucky with seniors John Wall and DeMarcus Cousins. Kansas with a senior Thomas Robinson this year or Ohio State with Sullinger or Florida with Bradley Beal or Michigan with a senior Darius Morris. There's probably several others. Certainly at the top of college basketball it has affected the overall offensive talent and you also have to factor in the trickle down effect and how it could force talent to spread out more. Like if Calipari had reeled in the same 2009 and 2010 classes he did and all of them stayed 3-4 years what kind of an impact would that have on recruiting in the 2011 and 2012 classes? Do guys like Davis, MKG, Jones, Teague, Goodwin, Noel, etc. decide to got to other schools? What if Austin stays at Duke for 3-4 years, do Sulaimon, Jones, or Hood go elsewhere?

I can see the argument about officiating and how that could bring down the pace of the game but also the talent level can bring down the pace. Teams could probably create better shots quicker if the offensive talent and the athletic talent is at a higher level. Put Irving and Rivers out there for Duke this year and we are probably averaging close to 90 ppg and playing at a very fast pace. Same thing with the other teams I listed above. So it's probably a combination of more physical play and less top-end talent but I lean more towards not having the talent. That would affect the perceptions as well because the top teams would be scoring at a very high level and the teams that still struggle to score would just be viewed as worse teams that those at the top.

One thing about the one and dones. Certainly, the teams in the 90's were more teams in the amount they played together but the individual players seem more prepared than previously. With AAU, the specialized high schools and more access to top notch coaching, these freshmen seem to be coming in and playing at a level that would outpace many freshmen back in the day.

Then as you mention, the trickle down effect is rather large. You would see NBA or McD AA's types going from the blue bloods to other big programs like a Pitt or Nova or Texas and their recruits going to mid majors. Personally, I think this set up seems to benefit the blue bloods more (although we often complain about only a year of Kyrie) because it keeps the top talent at these places.

[FerryFor50]

South Carolina with 10 - TEN - points in the first half against Florida. Ew.

[davekay1971]

More teams need to play our defense (in it's current state). Then we'd see higher scores.

[mr. synellinden]

Michael Weinreb of Grantland is the lastest to tackle this issue with some very interesting perspectives (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8959324/college-basketball-scoring-problem-west-liberty-university-coach-jim-crutchfield).

[dball]

Michael Weinreb of Grantland is the lastest to tackle this issue with some very interesting perspectives (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8959324/college-basketball-scoring-problem-west-liberty-university-coach-jim-crutchfield).

The WV school may not be crediting them but Grinnell in Iowa initiated this sort of rapid offense with little concern for defense a number of years ago. Earlier this season, Jack Taylor of Grinnell scored 138 (you read that right) points in a game. (n.b. Grinnell is Div III but West Liberty is not DI either)