NU Hoops (the last 10 years)

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I tracked down efficiency stats for NU basketball as far back as this source goes... (https://evanmiya.com)
Only D1 games are included. There are about 355 D1 teams. There are about 75 teams in the Power 6 conferences.

What is immediately obvious is that...

a) under Chris Collins, we have never been a good offensive team.
b) Our best national rank (offensively) in 9 years is 74th. Thats bad.
c) under Collins we have been better on defense than offense 7 out of 9 seasons.
d) the NCAA tournament team was anchored by a strong defense, ranked 19th overall.
e) the injury-riddled team that led to Carmody's dismissal was better offensively than 6 of Collins' 9 teams, but worse on defense than 8 of 9.

Season	Coach	Off Perf	Off Rank	Def Perf	Def Rank	Overall Perf	Wins	Losses
2012-13	Carmody	7.7	106	1.6	152	9.3	13	19
2013-14	Collins	-5.4	237	9.6	76	4.2	14	19
2014-15	Collins	-2.2	208	12.0	54	9.9	15	17
2015-16	Collins	11.4	74	9.7	76	21.1	20	12
2016-17	Collins	9.6	81	20.0	19	29.6	24	12
2017-18	Collins	10.0	79	6.5	104	16.5	12	17
2018-19	Collins	1.0	170	14.3	38	15.3	13	18
2019-20	Collins	-1.1	192	1.2	155	0.1	7	24
2020-21	Collins	3.6	126	5.6	98	9.2	8	15
2021-22	Collins	4.9	122	7.2	91	12.1	14	16

 

[ballerog711]

So to move forward have to stop looking in the past.

Stats are one of many measuring sticks. Does not take into account who was playing for the opposite team and the condition of the present team.

Nance was a little banged up last year, healty maybe they are a over .500 team

Ex. Golden State won the title last year and have wonderful stats, but that does not take into account Morant got hurt and missed the last 3 games. In the title series, Tatum had a fractured wrist and Williams was in one leg.

Same for the Celtics, Middleton was hurt for the Bucks and Herro was injured for the Heat.

So if 4 stars are recruited and they do not live up to their potential its not like NU can get rid of them cause it's a 4 year agreement. You cannot drive them out, like Memphis did to Bates.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

So to move forward have to stop looking in the past.

Stats are one of many measuring sticks. Does not take into account who was playing for the opposite team and the condition of the present team.

Nance was a little banged up last year, healty maybe they are a over .500 team

Ex. Golden State won the title last year and have wonderful stats, but that does not take into account Morant got hurt and missed the last 3 games. In the title series, Tatum had a fractured wrist and Williams was in one leg.

Same for the Celtics, Middleton was hurt for the Bucks and Herro was injured for the Heat.

So if 4 stars are recruited and they do not live up to their potential its not like NU can get rid of them cause it's a 4 year agreement. You cannot drive them out, like Memphis did to Bates.

These offensive and defensive "Perforamnce Ratings" are adjusted for the opponent. At least according to the guy behind the website. I don't know exactly how that is done.

I'm not sure if injuries are accounted for or not.

I posted that info because sometimes people still want to debate whether Collins is better at coaching defense or offense. I think its pretty clear that he has had more success with defense, less with offense.

 

[ballerog711]

I think he is better at offense. I was watching the wisconsin game here and the announcer said NU had missed approx 17 layups and free throws percentage were terrible it like shots are there, players just don't point in the work to get better.

You did point out how the players look stronger this year. Hopefully it translate to making the open shots.

NU shooters are not consistant.

The stats are great, but not sure we have players with killer instinct.

Has NU ever had a 45 percent 3 point shooter?

 

[NJCat]

Has NU ever had a 45 percent 3 point shooter?

Pete Nance shot 45.2% from 3 last year. How soon we forget.....

2021-22 Northwestern Wildcats Men 's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 2021-22 Northwestern Wildcats Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I think he is better at offense. I was watching the wisconsin game here and the announcer said NU had missed approx 17 layups and free throws percentage were terrible it like shots are there, players just don't point in the work to get better.

You did point out how the players look stronger this year. Hopefully it translate to making the open shots.

NU shooters are not consistant.

The stats are great, but not sure we have players with killer instinct.

Has NU ever had a 45 percent 3 point shooter?

I think Roper has the killer instinct you are looking for.
He seems to play with intensity.

 

[ballerog711]

Pete did shoot 45 percent, but only took 3 attempts. If I am an opposing coach, that does not bother me. Maybe he should have had more attempts, drawn his man out of the key and opened up the middle for more guard penetration.

I mean someone taking 7 to 9 attempts per games and defenses have to pay attention to him because he is a sniper.

NU has a beautiful practice facility with a shooting machine. The shooting guards can go get make 300 a day and make themselves better. It like we don't have that type of guy. That can be accomplished in anbout 55 minutes a day

 

[GatoLouco]

These offensive and defensive "Perforamnce Ratings" are adjusted for the opponent. At least according to the guy behind the website. I don't know exactly how that is done.

I'm not sure if injuries are accounted for or not.

I posted that info because sometimes people still want to debate whether Collins is better at coaching defense or offense. I think its pretty clear that he has had more success with defense, less with offense.

Never understood the idea floated here that Collins is more offense than defense. Offense is predictable and within a style of play catered to strong slashing guards. Which we have none of.

 

[NUCat320]

Never understood the idea floated here that Collins is more offense than defense. Offense is predictable and within a style of play catered to strong slashing guards. Which we have none of.

Right. In NU’s best season, the offense was “Nothing doing let’s hope Mc makes a play.” And often he did, and sometimes it was a terrifying hook shot layup hybrid.

 

[NUCat320]

I think he is better at offense. I was watching the wisconsin game here and the announcer said NU had missed approx 17 layups and free throws percentage were terrible it like shots are there, players just don't point in the work to get better.

You did point out how the players look stronger this year. Hopefully it translate to making the open shots.

NU shooters are not consistant.

The stats are great, but not sure we have players with killer instinct.

Has NU ever had a 45 percent 3 point shooter?

How do you get players to put in the work? Seems like part of the recruiting process should be “Do you put in the work?”

Your criticisms are interesting, but also seem to always excuse the coaching staff who has done a poor job of identifying and recruiting a B1G quality roster since the first two seasons.

Gosh, remember when NU would have had a great (I forget the year) season, if only Lathon (now on his third school, minutes declining every season, 37% shooter and 30% from 3) hadn’t screwed up? Ha!

Jordan Lathon College Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Jordan Lathon - Stats, Game Logs, Splits, and much more

www.sports-reference.com

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

“I thought coaching was all about strategy—putting guys in, taking them out, all that stuff. But I realized, being around Coach K, that the most important thing is getting the group of guys that you lead to believe in you and want to fight for you. In order to do that, they first of all have to know that you love them, that you care about them, that you have their best interest at heart.”

“For the first couple of workouts, we didn’t even touch a basketball, which was definitely a change to everyone there,” Lumpkin recalls. “He wanted us to know we were going to be a hard-nosed, blue-collar team. We’re going to stop guys, and the defense was going to win games.”

I think that explains a lot.

How Chris Collins Made a Winner of Northwestern Basketball

After coaching the Wildcats to their first-ever NCAA tourney bid, the former Glenbrook North star is bent on making the program a perennial power.

www.chicagomag.com

 

[CappyNU]

Never understood the idea floated here that Collins is more offense than defense. Offense is predictable and within a style of play catered to strong slashing guards. Which we have none of.

I think Collins has an offensive "system" that he tries to implement, but we don't have the players who can execute that system effectively.
Conversely, Collins has gotten multiple teams to play defense very well, as he's fielded 4 top-40 adjusted defensive ratings per Kenpom - 2014, 2017, 2019 and 2021. I disregard 2021 due to the Covid year weirdness and the fact that the B1G was "the strongest conference in history" before getting embarrassed in the tourney. But for the other three years, the main thing they had in common was preventing opposing teams from shooting 3 pointers.

 

[ballerog711]

Coaches do have responsibility, but I see NU getting shots, they don't make them. Defense is avg at best Defense is about wanting to stop your guy and being in the right help. Rebounding same thing.

Doc Rivers was great with the Celtics, with different players in the Clippers and 76ers, he has blown the most 3 to 1 playoff series lead. Same style, different players Garnet would not let them lose. Clippers and Sixers do not have that guy.

Recruiting is getting to watch players, check references etc. Then when the players get to school the work ethic does not translate. Not just for NU, but college wide. Look at Kentucky (now he should be fired with all the talent he has) best players in the country, should make final 8 every year.

I just believe in getting rid of some just to do it. If there is a plan and NU has identified 3 or 4 candidates and doing the back channel negotiations fine. Buy that new could should prove that he and his staff can recruit and build a killer defense. If not wait another year to,come up with that plan.

Tommy Amaker would never leave Havard, but someone like him an he has BIG experience.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

For further color, here's Ken Pom - his data goes back thru Carmody... I dropped Carmody's first couple seasons to make the table symmetric.

CARMODY					COLLINS
Season	Rank	Off Rtg	Def Rtg	Luck	Season	Rank	Off Rtg	Def Rtg	Luck
04-05	124	188	73	44	13-14	134	288	23	101
05-06	123	169	84	156	14-15	122	100	151	161
06-07	136	144	139	285	15-16	68	71	87	178
07-08	191	142	261	302	16-17	38	59	32	135
08-09	65	45	102	250	17-18	85	96	90	326
09-10	84	30	180	167	18-19	74	204	19	348
10-11	50	15	152	157	19-20	132	131	150	334
11-12	72	16	202	57	20-21	79	132	37	331
12-13	132	141	143	241	21-22	87	101	73	331

 

[GatoLouco]

I don't think I will ever get over the luck rating

 

[SDakaGordie]

I don't think I will ever get over the luck rating

You realize you are relying on a “luck” rating to once again denigrate Collins; essentially, something the Pomeroy model can’t explain?

 

[GatoLouco]

You realize you are relying on a “luck” rating to once again denigrate Collins; essentially, something the Pomeroy model can’t explain?

You realize you discard it because you love CC?

 

[SDakaGordie]

The ol’ question avoidance tactic again. I just question others’ opinions of him. It’s telling how my defending him gets you riled up enough to not even answer a question.

Even if you assume the stat is useful in commenting on a coach’s ability (which I disagree with), his rating was much better earlier in his career. How is that explained?

And even if you again assume it’s legitimate, to think an impact of one or two games here and there is due solely to the coach and not to a missed shot or free throw or bad pass or turnover is just not supportable.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Ken Pom's Luck stat is the deviation between a team's expected winning percentage and its actual winning percentage.

So it seems that in order to have bad "luck," you

a) lose a significant majority of games where the teams are evenly matched
b) play really well against bad teams
c) play better than expected against better teams, while still losing.

and I think thats us.

 

[IGNORE2]

The ol’ question avoidance tactic again. I just question others’ opinions of him. It’s telling how my defending him gets you riled up enough to not even answer a question.

Even if you assume the stat is useful in commenting on a coach’s ability (which I disagree with), his rating was much better earlier in his career. How is that explained?

And even if you again assume it’s legitimate, to think an impact of one or two games here and there is due solely to the coach and not to a missed shot or free throw or bad pass or turnover is just not supportable.

Y'all can have the same ole argument with a different twist but it won't change minds on either side. Here is one thing SD cannot argue away - butts in seats, eyes on the tube, advertising, merch, gameday revenue, STH sales. I bet the attendance is miserable this year and heavily the wrong color. I suspect few students attend. Media gone. Advertisers will be goofy and local. The team will be less relevant than many high school teams.

And the sad part is - the supporters won't care. They just want a clean program. Ironically, they won't attend the non-revenue events. They WILL NOT SAY ONE WORD on the budget disparity between the rev and non rev teams. And they don't care about winning - or it is far down the priority list.

These folks should really find a non-rev team or two and throw their interest in it. Money is smaller, fanbase less rabid, winning is not the only thing as about 0% of the athletes expect to go on to a career in their sport. But in bball and fb, you are what your record says you are. Not your graduation rate, not your stats, not your loyalty reputation.

The measuring stick at NU is high character, good student - not BB or FB, at NU. Chess club or football. That is the prerequisite. To say PF or CCC runs a good, clean program that graduates everybody is meaningless. That is the expectation. Those two get paid handsomely because they are expected to navigate those challenges and win. CCC is not winning. (Neither is PF) Great guys, but not earning their extreme paychecks. Time to move on.

 

[SDakaGordie]

Ken Pom's Luck stat is the deviation between a team's expected winning percentage and its actual winning percentage.

So it seems that in order to have bad "luck," you

a) lose a significant majority of games where the teams are evenly matched
b) play really well against bad teams
c) play better than expected against better teams, while still losing.

and I think thats us.

Or it means that the model he created can’t explain why this actual vs. expected variance happened, so it’s “luck” either way. Use carefully.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Or it means that the model he created can’t explain why this actual vs. expected variance happened, so it’s “luck” either way. Use carefully.

The model can't explain the "why", thats for sure.

But a really bad "lucK" stat says you lose significantly more than you should, given the overall quality of the team, based on all its results.

 

[vee4three]

The ol’ question avoidance tactic again. I just question others’ opinions of him. It’s telling how my defending him gets you riled up enough to not even answer a question.

Even if you assume the stat is useful in commenting on a coach’s ability (which I disagree with), his rating was much better earlier in his career. How is that explained?

And even if you again assume it’s legitimate, to think an impact of one or two games here and there is due solely to the coach and not to a missed shot or free throw or bad pass or turnover is just not supportable.

To be fair, Northwestern has NEVER been a good close-and-late team under Collins. Even the tourney year was merely fine...won as many two-possession games as they lost. Defending 5 straight seasons ranked in the 300s because the 4 seasons before that were in the 100s isn't super persuasive.

Clearly no one knows the formula to properly attribute that "luck" discrepancy. But how many guys have you trusted to make a shot when the game is tight? How often have you expected them to come up with a stop when they've needed it? It's not just Xs and Os or substitution patterns -- Collins hasn't put together teams lately that have the characteristics of "overachievers," for lack of a better term. It's disingenuous to suggest that Northwestern's record in close games is just because they've flipped a bunch of tails.

 

[SDakaGordie]

To be fair, Northwestern has NEVER been a good close-and-late team under Collins. Even the tourney year was merely fine...won as many two-possession games as they lost. Defending 5 straight seasons ranked in the 300s because the 4 seasons before that were in the 100s isn't super persuasive.

Clearly no one knows the formula to properly attribute that "luck" discrepancy. But how many guys have you trusted to make a shot when the game is tight? How often have you expected them to come up with a stop when they've needed it? It's not just Xs and Os or substitution patterns -- Collins hasn't put together teams lately that have the characteristics of "overachievers," for lack of a better term. It's disingenuous to suggest that Northwestern's record in close games is just because they've flipped a bunch of tails.

All fair comments except one. Admittedly, he has not found players to get this done, all “luck” aside. But, I never subscribed to the “luck” idea, so I don’t think I’m being disingenuous. I just disagree with those who think it’s his coaching more than his players when it comes to close games. And if he could bring in any player he wanted, we could have a fairer discussion.

 

[vee4three]

All fair comments except one. Admittedly, he has not found players to get this done, all “luck” aside. But, I never subscribed to the “luck” idea, so I don’t think I’m being disingenuous. I just disagree with those who think it’s his coaching more than his players when it comes to close games. And if he could bring in any player he wanted, we could have a fairer discussion.

Fair enough. But even coaches without academic restrictions or historical limitations don't bring in every player they want. Carmody's teams weren't this extreme. The ratings just don't strike me as completely, or mostly, random.

 

[GatoLouco]

Fair enough. But even coaches without academic restrictions or historical limitations don't bring in every player they want. Carmody's teams weren't this extreme. The ratings just don't strike me as completely, or mostly, random.

There's no single statistic that is a tell all. Obviously there isn't. "Luck" is no exception. But, just like every statistic, it's an indication pointing in one direction.

Also happens to be several years in a row of solidly in the 300's. One year, two years, sure, it's "luck". Consistency in "luck" suggests problems.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I think everybody is being fair here. Having luck in the bottom 10% five years in a row is not just random...
But it can't all be Collins drawing up bad plays or putting the wrong guys out there in close games.
You have to score to win close games and many of our players have struggled to do so in big situations.

However, the coach is also responsible for knowing who can perform under pressure and who can't.

 

[EagerFan]

Man those 08 - 12 seasons always come back to me ... just thiiiiis close soo often.

 

[SDakaGordie]

There's no single statistic that is a tell all. Obviously there isn't. "Luck" is no exception. But, just like every statistic, it's an indication pointing in one direction.

Also happens to be several years in a row of solidly in the 300's. One year, two years, sure, it's "luck". Consistency in "luck" suggests problems.

Or it suggests that we play in a tough conference against tough opponents, year in and year out, and historically have never had much success in close games because of those consistently tough opponents, and more so when our team is lacking an alpha dog player.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Or it suggests that we play in a tough conference against tough opponents, year in and year out, and historically have never had much success in close games because of those consistently tough opponents, and more so when our team is lacking an alpha dog player.

Not really. It doesn't matter if your conference is good or not. The stat is how often do you win compared to how often you are supposed to win. For the last 5 years we have won less often than Ken Pom's numbers say we should.

Unless you are saying that the other teams in the Big Ten are always good at winning close games - thats a tough argument to make, in my opinion. Of course, it is technically possible. Just highly unlikely.

 

[vee4three]

There's no single statistic that is a tell all. Obviously there isn't. "Luck" is no exception. But, just like every statistic, it's an indication pointing in one direction.

Also happens to be several years in a row of solidly in the 300's. One year, two years, sure, it's "luck". Consistency in "luck" suggests problems.

Here are some numbers to support this. Since the 2017-2018 season, the frequency of finishing 300th or lower in the KenPom Luck rating:

• 0 times: 159 teams
• 1 time: 136 teams
• 2 times: 52 teams
• 3 times: 9 teams
• 4 times: 0 teams
• 5 times: 2 teams

Who's the other unluckiest team? None other than...Vanderbilt!!! Frankly, I'm fine with accepting the explanation that some Higher Basketball Power put a late-game curse on both teams after the Matthew Fisher-Davis foul.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Here are some numbers to support this. Since the 2017-2018 season, the frequency of finishing 300th or lower in the KenPom Luck rating:

• 0 times: 159 teams
• 1 time: 136 teams
• 2 times: 52 teams
• 3 times: 9 teams
• 4 times: 0 teams
• 5 times: 2 teams

Who's the other unluckiest team? None other than...Vanderbilt!!! Frankly, I'm fine with accepting the explanation that some Higher Basketball Power put a late-game curse on both teams after the Matthew Fisher-Davis foul.

Excellent work. Thanks for the effort.
This brings up the possible explanation that intelligent players choke and it must be blamed on admissions.

 

[Styre]

The

Not really. It doesn't matter if your conference is good or not. The stat is how often do you win compared to how often you are supposed to win. For the last 5 years we have won less often than Ken Pom's numbers say we should.

This could suggest that there's an inherent problem with the team, but it could also suggest a problem with the algorithm when it comes to evaluating NU. This year's preseason rating of #70 is incomprehensible to me.

 

[uiguy]

Pete did shoot 45 percent, but only took 3 attempts. If I am an opposing coach, that does not bother me. Maybe he should have had more attempts, drawn his man out of the key and opened up the middle for more guard penetration.

I mean someone taking 7 to 9 attempts per games and defenses have to pay attention to him because he is a sniper.

NU has a beautiful practice facility with a shooting machine. The shooting guards can go get make 300 a day and make themselves better. It like we don't have that type of guy. That can be accomplished in anbout 55 minutes a day

I'd like to see the explanation from the NW Advanced Analytics and Calculus Department's math behind that 45% average on 3 attempts.

 

[Styre]

I'd like to see the explanation from the NW Advanced Analytics and Calculus Department's math behind that 45% average on 3 attempts.

3 (well, 3.1) attempts per game

 

[uiguy]

3 (well, 3.1) attempts per game

Ah, per game. And so the guy that posted that doesn't think that is enough 3's in a year to provide any cred to a 45% make percentage? LOL.