Home Sweet Home
Posted by kj on Thursday, February 21st, 2008
Following last night’s win, MSU now stands at 7-0 at home in conference play vs. just 2-4 on the road. That’s a 4.5 game difference in home and away performance. The next biggest spread in home-vs.-away records is Ohio State’s at just 2.5 games (5-1 at home; 3-4 on the road).
And this is actually an improvement from last season, when MSU went 7-1 at home and 1-7 on the road. In the 2005-06 season, the split was only slightly less extreme: 6-2 at home, 2-6 on the road.
So what explains the Spartans’ dual personalities inside and away from the Breslin Center? Let’s check out the tempo-free stats. The table below shows MSU’s averages for the major tempo-free indicators in home and away games, looking at conference games only.
| MSU 2008 Conference-Only Tempo-Free Stats | |||
| Home Avg | Away Avg | Difference | |
| Pace | 63.7 | 63.5 | 0.2 |
| Offensive efficiency | 110.3 | 99.0 | 11.3 |
| Effective FG% | 53.8 | 52.2 | 1.7 |
| Offensive TO% | 21.4 | 25.7 | (4.3) |
| Offensive Reb% | 38.3 | 31.5 | 6.8 |
| Offensive FT Rate | 39.8 | 33.8 | 6.0 |
| Defensive efficiency | 89.1 | 103.9 | (14.9) |
| Opponent’s Eff FG% | 42.5 | 50.0 | (7.5) |
| Opponent’s TO% | 17.5 | 16.8 | 0.6 |
| Opponent’s Off Reb% | 26.6 | 30.9 | (4.2) |
| Opponent’s FT Rate | 27.3 | 45.8 | (18.5) |
The Spartans have been substantially better on both ends of the floor when playing at home–but the difference in efficiency is actually larger on the defensive end than on the offensive end: 14.9 points per 100 possessions vs. 11.3 points per 100 possessions. And if you remove the two outlier games this season (Iowa on the road and Penn State at home), their offensive efficiency is actually equalized between home and away games.
This is somewhat odd given the focus on turnovers as MSU’s major problem this season. While MSU has turned the ball over slightly less at home than on the road, 21.4% vs. 25.7%, they haven’t exactly been models of efficient ball-handling at the Breslin Center. They’ve turned it over on more than 22% of their possessions in 4 of 7 home games (vs. 5 of 6 road games).
Their shooting is only slightly better at home than on the rood, while they’ve had more success getting offensive rebounds and getting to the free throw line when playing in East Lansing. In terms of overall offensive efficiency, they’ve scored over 1.0 points per possession in 5 of 7 home games. They’ve managed to do the same in 3 of 6 road games. So they’ve been better on offense on the road–but not consistently better.
On the defensive end, the differences are more distinct. They’ve held 6 of 7 opponents below 1.0 points per possession at home, while managing that feat in just 2 of 6 road games. And removing the two outliers from the defensive comparison (Illinois at home and Penn State on the road) still leaves a sizable gap between average home and road defensive efficiency.
The major contributor to MSU’s defensive prowess at home is forcing tough shots. They’ve held all 7 home opponents to an effective FG% under 50%. They’ve done this against only 2 of 6 road opponents.
There’s almost no difference in MSU’s ability to create turnovers home and away, they’ve rebounded just slightly better on the defensive end at home, and the Penn State and Iowa losses have driven up their opponent’s average free throw rate on the road.
So maybe there is something to be said for this team needing more “toughness”–at least in conference road games. The Spartans seem to buckle down on the defensive end and force their opponents to work harder for good shots when playing in front of the boisterous Izzone faithful. If they could translate that ability to some road games, it could have the added benefit of fueling more offensive transition opportunities off defensive rebounds.
For reference, here are the same home-vs.-away splits for last season:
| MSU 2007 Conference-Only Tempo-Free Stats | |||
| Home Avg | Away Avg | Difference | |
| Pace | 58.5 | 60.1 | (1.6) |
| Offensive efficiency | 111.1 | 94.9 | 16.2 |
| Effective FG% | 54.0 | 49.4 | 4.6 |
| Offensive TO% | 24.3 | 25.4 | (1.1) |
| Offensive Reb% | 46.4 | 34.5 | 11.9 |
| Offensive FT Rate | 49.0 | 31.4 | 17.6 |
| Defensive efficiency | 88.3 | 103.7 | (15.4) |
| Opponent’s Eff FG% | 41.5 | 47.6 | (6.1) |
| Opponent’s TO% | 23.4 | 16.7 | 6.8 |
| Opponent’s Off Reb% | 31.7 | 29.7 | 1.9 |
| Opponent’s FT Rate | 36.9 | 48.8 | (11.9) |
MSU was also significantly better at forcing tough shots by their opponents at home last season. There were, however, also larger differences in offensive rebounding and creating turnovers. I’d also note there were similar outliers in terms of offensive efficiency last season: a home win against Iowa (81-49) and road loss against Purdue (62-38).
The road games against Illinois and Ohio State to close the regular season will be illuminating. Can MSU play well defensively in two hostile arenas against two pretty average offenses? If they can, it will provide some hope they can step up on defense in pressure-packed conference and NCAA tournament games.
Reader Feedback Thursday
Rob Parker tries to throw some cold water on our mini-buzz after last night’s win. He points to (1) MSU’s struggles on the road the last three years, (2) the turnover problems, and (3) the improved coaching around the Big Ten in recent years. He implies, but never directly says, that Izzo may be past his prime relative to the rest of his conference.
So here’s this week’s reader feedback questions: Which Big Ten coaches, if any, do you think are on par with or better than Izzo? Which program threaten’s MSU’s place as the most nationally-respected program in the Big Ten over the next five years?
To spark some discussion, here’s my own view on how the current batch of Big Ten coaches rank in terms of expected conference and NCAA tournament performance over the next 5 years. I’ve excluded Izzo and soon-to-be-not-in-Bloomington Kelvin Sampson. Numbers 4 through 7 are the toughest to rank–a potentially-fading Weber and the three new guys.
| 1. Matta: Best combination of recruiting and coaching; steady rise since taking over in Columbus |
| 2. Ryan: Track record of conference success; can he get the talent to get to final fours? |
| 3. Painter: Conference title favorite relying almost entirely on freshman/sophomores; future is bright |
| 4. Smith: National title on resume; getting the most out of little talent this year |
| 5. Weber: Program fading since 2005 title game appearance with Self’s players, but good recruiting base |
| 6. Beilein: System will work eventually; question is getting enough talent to win big |
| 7. Lickliter: Could be higher, arguably; offensive/defensive systems fit Midwest tradition |
| 8. DeChellis: Nothing to indicate program is on rise through first five seasons in State College |
| 9. Carmody: Probably not in Evanston much longer |
It’s an impressive list. There are solid reasons to think the first seven guys on the list could all be positioned for success down the road. Plus Izzo’s not going away. And IU will certainly get a highly-qualified coach to succeed Sampson. Only Penn State and Northwestern fans have reason to be pessimistic about the futures of their programs.
I’d put Izzo no lower than 2nd on this list. Have at it . . .
Filed in michigan state basketball, stats analysisComments Off
No Responses to “Home Sweet Home”
TMadison25on 22 Feb 2008 at 9:36 am 11. Matta: The recruits (past, present and future) are ridiculous. Great coach with a great attitude. Hands down the best.
2. Ryan: Consistently in the mix. He always has the glue guys to compete, but is his D-I ceiling the Elite 8?
3. Beilein: May be a shocker, and I hate throwing a bone to the wolves… I just liked what he did at WV. I think that he will get the Wolverines back into the tournament (but never finish higher than the Spartans).
4. Painter: Doin’ great with the young guns.
5. Smith: Turning around a team that did so poorly the year before.
6. DeChellis: I feel as if DeChellis will get a break some day. Between transfers and injuries, his teams had moments of resiliency.
7. Weber: Not convinced, although that EG-issue just crushed this team this year.
8. Lickliter: Perhaps his success at Butler will transfer over to Iowa.
9. Carmody: Ugh.
10. Sampson: He has the ability to cheat wherever he goes. Give him credit… firings and fines have not stopped him at doing what he loves to do.
Before I compiled this list, I was certain that my realistic view of Izzo would be to put him 2nd or 3rd, but really… He’s still #1. He is frequently putting them in a good spot to make a run in the tournament (an even better chance if we don’t play any Wolfpack team in the first round). The last three years we have had some mediocre finishes in the Big Ten, but the future is still bright. We can’t be one of the best every year. Right?
Huberton 22 Feb 2008 at 10:50 am 2I Think there are many very good coaches in the Big Ten, and ranking them is hard because every uiniversity provides a different setting. Carmody will be at the bottom of everyone’s list, and yet it’s not clear to me that anyone can win regularly at Northwestern, at least by playing by the strict rules Northwestern administrations have imposed historically.
There are three dimensions to being a great coach: one is recruiting. No matter how good you are, you need the horses. There’s no doubt that Matta is proving to be an amazing recruiter to Ohio State. Indeed, his ability to bring in several; 5 star players every year to a program that has not been able to do this for the last thirty years, has to be suspicious. Ryan is great at bringing in the kind of player he needs to win. That was Belein’s reputation at Michigan. Painter appears to be an excellent recruiter (note by the way that Robbie Hummel was a three star HS player, and not hugely recruited). But for my money, Izzo is right behind Matta, for his ability to recruit top players year in year out.
The second dimension I would call managing the season. Keeping your players out of trouble, getting the team to peak at the right time, managing your bench. I would put Izzo again right at the top, here, along with Ryan and Smith. Matta and Sampson are less impressive on this front. It’s just too early to tell for Painter.
The third dimension is game coaching: who makes the best in game adjustments? Whose teams are best prepared day in day out? I think Izzo is a great tactician, and his scouting is legendary, but his teams are too often flat on the road, at least before March. Ryan does a better job here, though I don’t think he makes great in game adjustments, and he has underperformed in March. Matta is not a great game coach.
My overall ranking? I would put Izzo, Ryan and Smith at about the same level, at the top. Painter needs to do it for a couple years before I include him. Same with Lickliter. Matta is just a great recruiter, but an average college coach otherwise. Belein is a very good coach, but not in the same league as the top three, and I don’t think you can win consistently with that kind of reliance on the three point shot. Sampson is a very good coach, but his recruiting violations and the fact that his Oklahoma teams often disintegrated during the course of the season bothers me.
kjon 22 Feb 2008 at 2:06 pm 3Ran across this today:
http://yetanotherbasketblog.bl.....mbers.html
It’s an attempt to rate college basketball coaches statistically. I haven’t examined the methodology in detail, but it looks pretty sophisticated: incorporates data on recruiting, regular season performance, and NCAA tournament performance.
For the Big Ten coaches with established track records, the results are what we’d expect:
Matta (solid across the board)
Izzo (better on NCAA tournament measure)
Ryan (better on regular season measure)
Weber
DeChellis
Carmody
Not enough data on the other guys in their current situations to evaluate them very well using stats.
Hubert, this season is making me thing Matta is more than just a recruiter. He’s gotten a team that lost all but one key player to play at a pretty consistent level this season–particularly on the defensive end. He’s the one guy who’s a major threat to Izzo’s status as the Big Ten coach with the most overall success (conference + NCAA tournament).
Tmadison, your even lower ranking of Weber is interesting, but defensible. Regarding Gordon, he’s a one-and-done player, so if the Illinois program declines, people shouldn’t blame it on the loss of Gordon.
TMadison25on 22 Feb 2008 at 3:04 pm 4kj…
I think the 5 year time-frame is what makes the question interesting. Bruce Weber did well his first two seasons, the second one being the 37-2 year. They returned all of their starters that year, so some (not all, I understand) of that success came via the amazing recruiting class that Bill Self handed him. Since that point… 5 conference losses, and then 7 conference losses, and now 11 conference losses (and counting). I guess I am not sold on him yet. Not to mention that their incoming class is ranked 9th in the Big Ten.
Good point about EG. I also couldn’t agree more regarding Matta.
So there is a good chance at Sampson being suspended. How will the Hoosiers respond (particularly that contest on March 2nd)?
kjon 22 Feb 2008 at 3:44 pm 5Well, the initial response of the Hooiser players was . . . mutiny.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....ml?eref=T1
Sounds like they’ve reached an understanding, though.
I think IU will do fine down the stretch. They rely more on the talents of White and Gordon than on a particular system or tactical strategy.
spartanproduceron 23 Feb 2008 at 9:34 am 6even though I’m a day late to this debate, here’s my two cents
1. Izzo- only one to win an NCAA title at his current school, also the only one with mulitple final four trips and four league titles. It will be several years at least before any other league coach can catch him.
2. Ryan- a tough call over Matta, tougher because I don’t like him but have to respect what he’s built. Has a great system and knows how to get guys that fit it, lack of NCAA tournament success a big downer though, don’t think his teams are versatile enough to be successful there.
3. Motta- has made OSU very good very quickly, back to back league titles is impressive, however while they made a nice tourney run last year, they lost the 2nd game (as a high seed) the year before. However with the facilities and his recruiting ability, they should always be good, I have him below Ryan in part because Bo has a longer record of success.
4. Painter- lets not forget how bad this program was when Keady left, Painter made them good last year and has obviously elevated that this year. Also has them playing “the right way”. Too early to tell on NCAA success, though their one win and decent loss to Florida last year were a good start.
5. Smith- too early to judge much at Minny, though he’s made a horrible team competitive and has brought some life to the program.
6. Weber- obviously the program has slipped, especially this year, yet losing Gordon and Smith (who provide much of the same skills) has hurt. If we lost Neitzel and Allen (our two best outside shooters) we’d struggle too. Supposedly has some good recruits two years down the road, but how low will the program sink by that point. Good guy though and that’s worth extra points.
7. Beeline- sorry I’m not yet convinced he’s the next John Wooden as the Detroit media seems to think. His “success” at WV is a bit overrated, he never won a league title, made one nice tourney run to the Elite 8. . where his team choked and blew a 20 point lead in the 2nd half. I mean isn’t this the resume Amaker brought to AA?? His gimmicky system may make them better, but top to bottom this league has better coaches than the Big East, is Beeline really going to outcoach or outrecruit Motta or Izzo??
8. Lickliter- Iowa is better than predicted this year, though still not very good (or pretty) The “bore everyone and play defense” style may work well with the challenges of recruiting in Iowa but again, is this style going to be beat the Izzos, Ryans and Mottas over 18 games??
9 Carmody- I don’t buy the “NW can’t win cause of their academic standards” argument- their football progam has been pretty good over the past decade and I’m guessing they have the same rules.
and of course IU will likely get someone good (and who probably isn’t a cheater) making things even tougher for the bottom few. The league may very well have 9 real good coaches next year, but it’s not possible for all to succeed, will be interesting to see who drops off.
kjon 23 Feb 2008 at 12:22 pm 7Here’s an average of our four rankings (I’ve implied some things where people didn’t fill in all the blanks and left Sampson out for obvious reasons):
1. Izzo (1.5)
2. Ryan (2.5)
3. Matta (2.75)
4. Painter (4.25)
5. Smith (4.5)
6. Beilein (6.0)
7. Weber (7.0)
8. Lickliter (7.25)
9. DeChellis (8.5)
10. Carmody (9.25)
I think the league is definitely on the upswing. I’d also note this list of coaches doesn’t necessarily make IU as attractive a job as one might initially think, especially considering (1) White and Gordon won’t be around next year and (2) NCAA sanctions remain a possibility.