ADVERTISEMENT

Looking at the B1G style of play

CappyNU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Mar 3, 2004
4,459
4,069
113
Chicago
Based on some of the discussion in recent days about whether the conference needs to change its style of play to be successful, here's a brief analysis taken from a guide to the tourney that I've used in recent years, with data coming from Synergy Sports.

First, some definitions for the different categories you'll see below (from here):
Cut - These include times a player, without a screen, cuts out or toward the ball to receive it (like for a V cut).
Hand Off - Handoffs are the dribble handoffs or flip/pitch plays. They may come from the passer being stationary or the passer dribbling at the receiver and then handing the ball off.
Iso - Self-explanatory, but also includes times when another action is run and then disrupted, before the ball handler attacks
Off Screen - These possessions are generated by a player running off of a screen, whether it be a pin-down, flare screen, elevator screens, or any other of the plethora of screen variations before they receive the ball. That player catches the ball coming off of a screen and either shoots immediately, dribbles into a pull up, dribbles into a floater, or dribbles and takes a shot at the rim. Occasions where a player curls off of a screen toward the basket are also counted.
Pick and Roll Ball Handler - These are possessions finished by the ball-handler in the pick-and-roll. This includes pull-ups, floaters, and shots at the rim by that player. It also includes possessions where the ball-handler shoots before even dribbling off of the screen, as well as when he denies the ball screen and dribbles away from the pick.
Pick and Roll Roll Man - These are the slips, rolls, and pops from screeners in the pick-and-roll.
Post-Up - These are all of the traditional post-ups we’re accustomed to. This category counts back-to-the-basket and face-up post possessions.
Spot-Up - Similar to off-screen possessions, but there’s no screen being used before the player catches the ball. Players spotting up don’t need to be stationary, but they can’t be running off of screens before catching the ball. Players just standing in the corner before catching-and-shooting, or guys relocating to the 3-point line or fading to the corner and getting the ball on a kick out are all spotting up. These possessions aren’t just catching and shoot. They can be catching-and-shooting, but attacking a close-out by dribbling into a pull-up, dribbling into a floater, or driving to the rim are also included.
Transition - Transition possessions are about the defense not being set, and don’t have anything to do with the time left on the shot clock. That means there’s no time cutoff that makes a possession a halfcourt possession rather than a transition possession.
Put-back/Misc - Putbacks are the tip ins and quick shots after offensive rebounds. Very rarely this will also includes long rebounds that result in a quick shot. Misc. includes: Possessions where the ball goes off a leg or is deflected and is picked up by another player and shot; Players being fouled in the backcourt; Illegal screen offensive fouls; Errant passes out of bounds or that are intercepted from players not currently in one of the other actions; Possessions where the player dribbles into a pull up 3-point shot in the halfcourt; Inbounds passes that go directly out of bounds.

Second, here is a table looking at teams in the tourney from different lenses:

TypeCut FreqCut PPPHand Off FreqHand Off PPPISO FreqISO PPPOff Screen FreqOff Screen PPPPR Ball Handler FreqPR Ball Handler PPPPR Roll Man FreqPR Roll Man PPPPost-Up FreqPost-Up PPPSpot-Up FreqSpot-Up PPPTransition FreqTransition FG% PercentilePut-Back/Misc Freq
All teams8.2%1.173.8%0.844.8%0.804.2%0.9113.6%0.784.2%1.018.0%0.8425.2%0.9322.3%50th5.7%
Northwestern6.6%1.206.8%0.876.2%0.787.1%0.8116.5%0.694.5%1.143.0%0.7824.4%0.9514.5%13th10.4%
Big 10 Tourney teams7.3%1.274.4%0.874.6%0.885.4%0.8213.5%0.823.9%1.1710.3%0.9024.8%0.9621.6%55th5.2%
Other P6+MWC+AAC Tourney teams9.1%1.213.2%0.854.8%0.804.7%0.9113.6%0.784.4%1.047.4%0.8823.8%0.9422.9%61st6.6%
Low/Mid-Major Tourney teams8.5%1.193.6%0.894.5%0.873.8%0.9513.4%0.834.5%1.027.6%0.8524.9%0.9723.9%64th5.3%
Teams that made Round of 328.6%1.233.8%0.854.6%0.814.3%0.9214.0%0.804.6%1.087.3%0.8624.6%0.9622.9%64th6.1%
Teams that made Sweet 168.6%1.233.4%0.844.6%0.814.6%0.9813.9%0.804.4%1.107.8%0.8823.7%0.9523.7%62nd6.2%

So, what can we learn from this?

First, I think it's clear that at least amongst the tourney teams this year, the Big 10 is definitely playing a different style in many aspects. Within the conference, teams do fewer cutting, more dribble hand-offs, more off-screen plays with worse results, fewer P&R roll man, significantly more post-ups (yes, Edey skews this a bit but we offset it), and fewer transition possessions with worse shooting results.

Second, as a team, NU used cuts even less, dribble hand-offs even more, more ISO with worse results, more off-screen with worse results, way more P&R ball handler with terrible results, significantly less post-ups, and a very low transition frequency with horrific results. I don't think any of this is a surprise to our fans.

I could potentially look at this for other seasons too, but that will take a while as it's entirely manual for me to copy the data over. Hope you find it interesting.
 
I appreciate the effort but the numbers are so slight it’s difficult for me to make head or tails of things. 1.8% less cuts feels like… not that much of a factor relative to just not having a program that pulls in big time one and done guys. But basketball is a game of small percentages, so maybe I’m just not seeing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hungry Jack
I appreciate the effort but the numbers are so slight it’s difficult for me to make head or tails of things. 1.8% less cuts feels like… not that much of a factor relative to just not having a program that pulls in big time one and done guys. But basketball is a game of small percentages, so maybe I’m just not seeing it.
It’s not 2.0% fewer cuts (8.6% minus 6.6%), it’s 23% fewer cuts (6.6/8.6). That’s significant.

Brendan Haywood said it on both game broadcasts. “Whenever NU needs a basket, they go to that one play.” That play being a pindown screen to a handoff so that Boo got it isolated at the top of the key.

NU iso’d 35% more than a Sweet 16 team. (6.2/4.6), and literally executed twice as many handoffs. (6.8 v 3.4)

NU spent lots of time installing defensive concepts in October, and considerably less time on the offensive approach. Hopefully, with a half-dozen returning rotation members, NU can spend more time next October installing an effective offensive approach while also maintaining defensive effectiveness.

NU was good when the screener got the ball. MOAR NICHOLBOMBS

@CappyNU this is amazing data.
 
Last edited:
I would expect a team of NU’s defensive caliber to have a much higher transition frequency.
Really interesting stats. Thanks for posting these. Clearly the concerns about too much iso with relatively lower success seem to ring true from these. Transition points are the most significant. I do think that NU really needs to improve at making the call of when to run and when to slow it down on offense. They need to make a call more often to get an easier transition shot. We can all recall, however, many offensive possessions over the season where it was clear that Boo was slowing the ball down so the team could essentially “rest” on offense after a very intense defensive stop. With the dependence on high minutes from our two main guards and some concern about past injury, this made some sense and worked for us. But how can they be smarter about when to take or create a much easier scoring opportunity in transition versus slowing it down. And when we do slow it down, how do we avoid a bad possession that ends in an iso with time running out. These are both definite opportunities for the team next year. We had a stretch where we were going to the line a lot and out scoring teams in free throws. It’d be worth it to watch this film again. I’d guess that many of those FTs were created by drives that came from within the offense and not through fouls that occurred in an iso situation when everyone else was standing and watching the guard with the ball. It’s so much easier to drive and score when a player does so within a moving offense and the other four defenders are chasing or following their own men (or women as the case may be).
 
It’s not 2.0% fewer cuts (8.6% minus 6.6%), it’s 23% fewer cuts (6.6/8.6). That’s significant.

Brendan Haywood said it on both game broadcasts. “Whenever NU needs a basket, they go to that one play.” That play being a pindown screen to a handoff so that Boo got it isolated at the top of the key.

NU iso’d 35% more than a Sweet 16 team. (6.2/4.6), and literally executed twice as many handoffs. (6.8 v 3.4)

NU spent lots of time installing defensive concepts in October, and considerably less time on the offensive approach. Hopefully, with a half-dozen returning rotation members, NU can spend more time next October installing an effective offensive approach while also maintaining defensive effectiveness.

NU was good when the screener got the ball. MOAR NICHOLBOMBS

@CappyNU this is amazing data.
However, that 23% fewer cuts adds up to about 1 fewer cut per game, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ricko654321
So much of what you do depends on what you got. You play to your strengths. I thought NU did this well this year. Beran is pretty much a stand and shoot guy, Nicholson not incredibly mobile either. If you look at the strengths of the offense, ball in Audige or Buies's hands was probably the best option...penetrate to the basket or penetrate and dish to shooters. I think when we got 3pt contibutions from Berry or Beran we did pretty well. High screens and handoffs often used to give Buie some room and seperation from defender. As for using more cuts you need guys who are quick enough to get the ball w/o a screen or brush hand off.
As for transition baskets we were limited as we had to send 5 guys to the basket to rebound.
As for the BIG10 probably correct that they are behind but I think that is related to personnel as well. Since they have focused on not allowing hand checking, guards have been able to get to the hoop easier. The B10 does not seem to have a lot of great guards who can drive but B10 teams have centers and 3 pt shooters...I think teams that count on the 3 really suffer in the 2 games in 3 days format.
Thanks for the article, intersting stuff
 
I added in Sweet 16 and beyond data for 2021 and 2022 along with B1G-specific date for same years.
Once again, what jumps out is that the B1G is incredibly reliant on post-ups compared to the successful teams that make it far in the tourney each year, and runs much less cutting action, which has the highest PPP of any play type. B1G teams also run more Off Screen plays and fewer transition action, doing both less effectively than successful teams. Basically, and I'll have to confirm through the roster data, but my hypothesis is that the B1G does not have the same level of athletes as other successful teams, leading to the lack of transition and reliance on post-ups. Also, I'm curious if the league's inability to ever call fouls on cutters being bumped has led to a decrease in that action vs an increase in Off Screen action.

TypeCut FreqCut PPPHand Off FreqHand Off PPPISO FreqISO PPPOff Screen FreqOff Screen PPPPR Ball Handler FreqPR Ball Handler PPPPR Roll Man FreqPR Roll Man PPPPost-Up FreqPost-Up PPPSpot-Up FreqSpot-Up PPPTransition FreqTransition FG% PercentilePut-Back/Misc Freq
All teams8.2%1.173.8%0.844.8%0.804.2%0.9113.6%0.784.2%1.018.0%0.8425.2%0.9322.3%50th5.7%
Northwestern 20236.6%1.206.8%0.876.2%0.787.1%0.8116.5%0.694.5%1.143.0%0.7824.4%0.9514.5%13th10.4%
Big 10 Tourney teams 20237.3%1.274.4%0.874.6%0.885.4%0.8213.5%0.823.9%1.1710.3%0.9024.8%0.9621.6%55th5.2%
Other P6+MWC+AAC Tourney teams 20239.1%1.213.2%0.854.8%0.804.7%0.9113.6%0.784.4%1.047.4%0.8823.8%0.9422.9%61st6.6%
Low/Mid-Major Tourney teams 20238.5%1.193.6%0.894.5%0.873.8%0.9513.4%0.834.5%1.027.6%0.8524.9%0.9723.9%64th5.3%
Teams that made Round of 32 20238.6%1.233.8%0.854.6%0.814.3%0.9214.0%0.804.6%1.087.3%0.8624.6%0.9622.9%64th6.1%
Teams that made Sweet 16 20238.6%1.233.4%0.844.6%0.814.6%0.9813.9%0.804.4%1.107.8%0.8823.7%0.9523.7%62nd6.2%
Teams that made Sweet 16 20228.7%1.243.5%0.864.4%0.833.8%0.9813.0%0.804.2%1.109.3%0.9024.3%0.9522.6%70th6.1%
Big 10 Tourney teams 20227.3%1.213.3%0.833.7%0.835.1%0.9013.8%0.814.2%1.1613.3%0.9522.5%0.9922.0%69th4.8%
Teams that made Sweet 16 20218.0%1.223.2%0.905.6%0.823.8%0.9612.8%0.814.6%1.096.8%0.8726.0%1.0125.1%74th4.2%
Big 10 Tourney teams 20216.9%1.213.2%0.824.1%0.764.4%1.0112.6%0.794.2%1.1612.0%0.9125.8%0.9822.8%68th3.9%
Teams that made Sweet 16 2021-38.4%1.233.4%0.874.9%0.824.1%0.9813.2%0.84.4%1.108.0%0.8824.6%0.9723.8%68th5.5%
Big 10 Tourney teams 2021-37.2%1.223.6%0.844.1%0.834.9%0.9113.3%0.814.2%1.1611.9%0.9224.4%0.9722.1%64th4.7%
 
However, that 23% fewer cuts adds up to about 1 fewer cut per game, no?
In an average ~70 possession game, yes, it's about 1-2 possessions, but we're replacing those possessions that have a PPP of 1.20 with ones that have a PPP of 0.69 - 0.87, likewise with the lack of transition, successful teams can get easy points on those and they're doing it 50% more than we are. When you're looking at games decided by a few points, it adds up.
 
Really interesting stuff, Cappy. Any similar stats on defensive tendencies?

As I think about evaluating this as an issue with the conference as a whole, I keep fighting with myself because this isn't the 1970s anymore. Staffs have not been locked down for decades, and jobs are not passed to assistants with the same system. Of the 14 coaches, 8 of them have been hired in the last six years. So I have a hard time thinking this is a systematic thing,

More specifically, I'd say 7 B10 coach MIGHT be considered hardcore, no-doubt-about-it B10 guys with any potential systems and tendencies ingrained in their DNA - Izzo, Painter, Gard, Woodson, Shrewsberry, Johnson and Howard.

And Woodson, Shrewsberry and Howard most probably are just as influenced by their NBA time as any B10 experience - especially Woodson and Howard. Also, Howard probably has a strong influence from Martelli.

That leaves Izzo, Painter, Johnson and Gard as the only B10 DNA guys. The other ten coaches are bringing extremely strong influence and experience from outside the league.

OTOH, Izzo, Painter and Gard are running the programs that everyone is consistently chasing over the last 8-10 year and beyond. So is everyone adjusting their style of play to match these three? I wouldn't think so, but it's the best explanation I have.

The other issue that no one has mentioned in these two threads about the B10 tournament problems is any concern about the metrics driving the rankings. To me, OBVIOUSLY this is a HUGE problem. Outside the league, it's pretty clear their metrics have a bias to P6 programs. They obviously don't have an understanding about the minimal difference between the P6 programs and the best mid-major teams.

As for the metrics of the B10 conference, I really don't have an answer. My only guess is that mediocrity shouldn't continue to be rewarded statistically. The conference was incredibly average all year long. Granted, every team except Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska was average, so that's more than the usual conference. But obviously that was over-rewarded in the metrics.

We've seen it for several years now. The B10 doesn't have much of any championship contenders. However, the metrics allow them to make up for it and build apparent conference strength with a larger number of mid-level teams. Should that influence conference strength like it has? That's what I'd want to address for more accurate predictors if I were KenPom, etc. My best guess is some type of less statistical weight on "good" teams, much more weight on championship teams, and probably less weight on "strong" early-season wins.
 
Really interesting stats. Thanks for posting these. Clearly the concerns about too much iso with relatively lower success seem to ring true from these. Transition points are the most significant. I do think that NU really needs to improve at making the call of when to run and when to slow it down on offense. They need to make a call more often to get an easier transition shot. We can all recall, however, many offensive possessions over the season where it was clear that Boo was slowing the ball down so the team could essentially “rest” on offense after a very intense defensive stop. With the dependence on high minutes from our two main guards and some concern about past injury, this made some sense and worked for us. But how can they be smarter about when to take or create a much easier scoring opportunity in transition versus slowing it down. And when we do slow it down, how do we avoid a bad possession that ends in an iso with time running out. These are both definite opportunities for the team next year. We had a stretch where we were going to the line a lot and out scoring teams in free throws. It’d be worth it to watch this film again. I’d guess that many of those FTs were created by drives that came from within the offense and not through fouls that occurred in an iso situation when everyone else was standing and watching the guard with the ball. It’s so much easier to drive and score when a player does so within a moving offense and the other four defenders are chasing or following their own men (or women as the case may be).
I helped coach my son’s middle school team and told them to walk the ball up on almost all possessions. 4 of 5 kids were playing all 40 minutes, and it was clear some were getting gassed when they tried running.
 
In an average ~70 possession game, yes, it's about 1-2 possessions, but we're replacing those possessions that have a PPP of 1.20 with ones that have a PPP of 0.69 - 0.87, likewise with the lack of transition, successful teams can get easy points on those and they're doing it 50% more than we are. When you're looking at games decided by a few points, it adds up.
Yes, I definitely see the math on how it’s a half a point here and a half a point there, but that doesn’t mean one possessions game strikes me driven by a big stylistic difference as much as it is more likely driven by less high end talent and maybe less successful offensive coaching. So I don’t really see evidence that most of the Big Ten is trying really hard to play some drastically different style as much as statistics that reflect not having an elite program, not usually having elite perimeter talents and play, and having less elite offensive coaches among its better coaches (cough, Matt Painter).
 
Really interesting stuff, Cappy. Any similar stats on defensive tendencies?

As I think about evaluating this as an issue with the conference as a whole, I keep fighting with myself because this isn't the 1970s anymore. Staffs have not been locked down for decades, and jobs are not passed to assistants with the same system. Of the 14 coaches, 8 of them have been hired in the last six years. So I have a hard time thinking this is a systematic thing,

More specifically, I'd say 7 B10 coach MIGHT be considered hardcore, no-doubt-about-it B10 guys with any potential systems and tendencies ingrained in their DNA - Izzo, Painter, Gard, Woodson, Shrewsberry, Johnson and Howard.

And Woodson, Shrewsberry and Howard most probably are just as influenced by their NBA time as any B10 experience - especially Woodson and Howard. Also, Howard probably has a strong influence from Martelli.

That leaves Izzo, Painter, Johnson and Gard as the only B10 DNA guys. The other ten coaches are bringing extremely strong influence and experience from outside the league.

OTOH, Izzo, Painter and Gard are running the programs that everyone is consistently chasing over the last 8-10 year and beyond. So is everyone adjusting their style of play to match these three? I wouldn't think so, but it's the best explanation I have.

The other issue that no one has mentioned in these two threads about the B10 tournament problems is any concern about the metrics driving the rankings. To me, OBVIOUSLY this is a HUGE problem. Outside the league, it's pretty clear their metrics have a bias to P6 programs. They obviously don't have an understanding about the minimal difference between the P6 programs and the best mid-major teams.

As for the metrics of the B10 conference, I really don't have an answer. My only guess is that mediocrity shouldn't continue to be rewarded statistically. The conference was incredibly average all year long. Granted, every team except Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska was average, so that's more than the usual conference. But obviously that was over-rewarded in the metrics.

We've seen it for several years now. The B10 doesn't have much of any championship contenders. However, the metrics allow them to make up for it and build apparent conference strength with a larger number of mid-level teams. Should that influence conference strength like it has? That's what I'd want to address for more accurate predictors if I were KenPom, etc. My best guess is some type of less statistical weight on "good" teams, much more weight on championship teams, and probably less weight on "strong" early-season wins.
Totally based on personal and faulty memory. But am I the only one who thinks we saw way less zone in the B1G over the last season?
 
Totally based on personal and faulty memory. But am I the only one who thinks we saw way less zone in the B1G over the last season?
Again, only off of the tourney teams, but in the B1G, the teams saw the following percentage of zone on offense and played the following percentage on defense:

Illinois: 8.0% (played Syracuse), 0.4%
Indiana: 13.6%, 0.6%
Iowa: 3.7%, 15.9%
Maryland: 4.5%, 11.0%
Michigan St: 6.8%, 0.8%
NU: 7.8%, 0.3%
Penn St: 3.4%, 1.6%
Purdue: 4.4%, 0.0%

Not sure why IU saw so much more zone than the other teams, and don't have the numbers for the other 6 teams in conference.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT