Tempo-Free Stats

#26
I see that everyone but Rayvonte Rice and some kid named Kaminsky have at least a little red in their line.
 
#28
I wouldn't count Holt, his ranking is based on a lot less playing time than the rest.
Vitto Brown for Wisconsin, as well. I'm thinking of moving the threshold from 10 minutes to 14 minutes, maybe after the non-conference.

It should also be noted that this list is biased toward well-rounded players. There are some players that excel in one or two areas but not so much in others. For example, Shannon Scott (Ohio St.) leads in both assists and steals, and Kendall Stephens (Purdue) leads in made threes.
 
#30
Surprising that Pettaway from Neb is not in top 25.
Petteway is at #41. For one, he's a chucker. He's 2nd in FGA but 16th in FGM. Secondly, he turns it over a lot. Out of the 121 players averaging 10 or more minutes, his turnover rate is the third highest (as a point of comparison, it's just under three times the rate at which Rice turns it over).
 
Last edited:
#31
Orange Krush '04 & '05
Thanks for the charts Urbanite. If you saved your old charts, can you make a change per week chart for our players? For instance, starks has gone from 18, 11, 8, to 7.

Would be interesting to see trends per player and if they match your instincts as you watch the game.

Thanks again, even if you say no to my request :thumb:
 
#33
Really informative. Shows that Rayvonte has been really, really good this year, Malcom Hill has taken a big step foward, and the Illini need one or two players to emerge as reliable contributers on offense if they want to be competetive in conference play.
 
#34
Bloomington, IL
Really informative. Shows that Rayvonte has been really, really good this year, Malcom Hill has taken a big step foward, and the Illini need one or two players to emerge as reliable contributers on offense if they want to be competetive in conference play.

The real problem this year is defense. We play decent team defense but our on ball defending and defensive rebounding (all rebounding really) are horrible.
 
#36
Aurora, IL
For games through December 14:




We obviously need a PG...
 
#37
For games through December 21:





I won't be able to post next Monday, but wanted to get the below up before conference play. I've been debating whether or not to post this, because it's a bit misleading, but I think it's worth looking at. It takes the normalized stats of each player on a team, divides them by 40, multiplies them by the player's average minutes, then sums all players on the team. It's misleading because most teams aren't simply the sum of their parts. But I think it's useful in showing team tendencies.

 
#38
Through January 4:

Big Ten "Rankings":



Top 25:



It's worth noting that in the above rankings, Ohio State has nine players in the top 50 while Illinois has only two.

Now that we're playing conference opponents, I can easily present stats for those. I've moved Illinois' roster down here so it can be more easily compared with the others.



Maryland:



Nebraska:



As can be seen in the team "rankings" chart, both Maryland and Nebraska are turnover-prone, ranking 14th and 13th in conference, respectively. Illinois is not, ranking 2nd in conference, so hopefully this will be an advantage in both games. A positive turnover margin would be particularly helpful against Maryland, which ranks 1st in defensive rebounding while Illinois ranks 12th in offensive rebounding; second-chance opportunities will likely be few. Another similarity between Maryland and Nebraska is that both are good at getting to the line; Maryland ranks 1st by a good margin and Nebraska ranks 4th. Illinois ranks 6th in lowest fouling rate, so it will be interesting to see how this aspect plays out. I expect Maryland will still get a good amount of points at the line.
 
#43
Just amazing to me that the scoring by player has not changed since the first week that you posted the player stats. I mean, yes, it has changed by tenths of a point, but not by any meaningful amount. Here are our top 8, as I see it.
Ray 23
MH 18
KN 15
Leron 14
Aaron 12
Ahmad 12
NE 10
Tate 8
Add 'em up and you get about 110 points, but that is for 8 players, 40 minutes each. Too many. Multiply by 5/8 to get down to the right base and our expected for a B1G game is 70 points. That is a tad too high, since sometimes MM comes in or maybe someone else, but it is a pretty good estimate.

Those figures are nearly identical to the numbers from January 4th. Interesting to me is the fact that almost no one has gone down in points/40. Would have expected a drop over the course of the conference season. NE are LB are down a point, everyone else is the same or better. Not sure what to do with this info, but interesting.
 
#44
Just amazing to me that the scoring by player has not changed since the first week that you posted the player stats. I mean, yes, it has changed by tenths of a point, but not by any meaningful amount.
They're based on season totals, so they'll generally change less as the season goes on. However, they have changed; here are some examples:

Code:
        11/23   11/30   12/07   12/14   12/21   01/04   01/11   01/18   01/25
Black:   21.1    19.1    16.9    16.3    14.4    14.9    14.3    14.2    13.9
Hill:    19.3    21.0    20.8    19.7    18.2    18.5    19.0    18.3    18.3
Nunn:    15.2    15.5    14.2    13.6    14.5    13.6    13.3    15.1    15.4
Starks:  22.1    14.3    12.8    11.6    11.7    11.2    11.0    12.3    11.8
Tate:     4.9     4.4     6.1     6.1     7.2     7.4     7.8     7.7     8.3
Black has been on a downward trend since the season began, Hill has been fairly consistent, Nunn has been up and down but overall pretty consistent, Starks has been relatively consistent since mid-December, and Tate has improved overall.

Also, note that these stats are averages per 66 possessions, not per 40 minutes.
 
#46
Updated through February 8:



I realized that my ranking of teams based on composite player performance was flawed because of injuries, etc., so I'll just show team efficiency margins here from now on.

And since I'm now calculating possessions myself (using the same formula as KenPom) for the above, I'm now using that average instead of TeamRankings for the stats below.



Illinois:



Michigan:



Wisconsin:

 
#47
I'm curious what the team efficiency stats look like broken down separately into conference and non-conference.

With all but Rutgers, and NW having a positive efficiency margin, I only assume that's a carry over from the non-conference schedules. With each team playing varying difficulties of non-conference slates, and with the better teams generally playing a more difficult schedule the non-conference aspect should have a converging influence on the overall numbers.

Thanks for the posts!
 
#48
I'm curious what the team efficiency stats look like broken down separately into conference and non-conference.
Here are margins per possession for each stat, conference play only. Shooting percentage margins of course aren't per possession, and are based on the margin of team percentage vs. opponents percentage, not the percentage of e.g. FT and FTA margins. Average possessions (AP) is per game.

 
#49
CU Expat
Chicago
Question for you guys that subscribe to KenPom. Can you download the stats from his site? Say in csv or SPSS?