Best Quarterback

With all the Heisman talk regarding Johnny Manziel of Texas A&M, I decided to take a deeper look into whether or not he was really the best quarterback in the country this year. What follows does not answer that question, but this analysis serves to frame the discussion in something approaching an objective way. I want to first note that, in this context, by “best” I mean “most production within a given offense and/or scheme”. There is no practical way to separate out the effect of the quarterback from that of the rest of his offense, so I am not going to try. This is why we have eyes and minds, to sort out the effects of scheme and surrounding talent, but I prefer to start with the stats and work from there rather than the other way around.

I have taken the quarterbacks with the most attempts this season from the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and SEC, and rated them in a variety of ways using their stats from conference play only. This is to limit the discussion to a major conference players, among which we may reasonably expect to find the best quarterback, and the opposition to the rough standard of “major conference opposition.” I no longer consider the Big East to be a major conference in football, so I left them out. I compared each player to the average of the group in the study in the following metrics, listed below with the reason for inclusion:

Touches per game – In this case, total touches means pass attempts plus rushes. This is to give credit where credit is due for a player being expected to carry his team.
Yards per game – This is to measure raw total progress toward scoring for his team, even if he did not record the ultimate score.
Completion percentage – This is to account for passing accuracy.
Yards per pass – This is to account for success throwing deep, as well as the ability to lead a receiver so that he can get yards after the catch.
Passing touchdown percentage – This is the percentage of passes resulting in touchdowns, and accounts for a quarterback’s scoring by that means.
Interception percentage – This is the percentage of passes that are intercepted, which is an attempt to account for ending drives without the ability to score.
Yards per rush – This is to measure how effectively a quarterback runs. Note that in the NCAA, sacks and the lost yardage from them are counted as runs, so quarterbacks who get sacked more often tend to have lower figures. I also adjusted this so that the lowest figure was a zero, and rated players from there.
Rushing touchdown percentage – This is the percentage of runs leading to touchdowns, and accounts for scoring by that means.

Personally, I would have left out the running aspects, but since Johnny Manziel was the inspiration for the study, it would have been incomplete to leave out quarterback running. Each number for each quarterback was compared to average, and all six figures then averaged to get a final score for each player. This results in passing skill having twice the impact of either sheer productivity or running skill. I am fine with this, as even running quarterbacks generally have throwing the ball as their primary job.

Now, then, I am going to list the top ten quarterbacks with over 30 touches per game in alphabetical order. In my opinion, they all have arguments for claiming to have been the best this year. Again, remember that technically each player’s name does not represent only the player himself, but the player in the context of team and scheme in which he plays, so “Johnny Manziel” really means “Johnny Manziel, with Texas A&M’s offensive personnel and Kevin Sumlin’s offensive scheme.” Take it for what you will.

Tajh Boyd, Clemson
Passing: 177/267, 2620 yards, 27 TD, 10 INT
Running: 113 att, 391 yards, 8 TD

Tajh Boyd racked up 47.5 touches per game, one of the highest marks in the group studied. He averaged 376.4 yards per game, including 9.8 per pass. Boyd completed an excellent 66.3% of his passes, and 10.1% of his passes went for touchdowns, the only player to top double digits. Boyd averaged 3.5 yards per carry, which is effective if not spectacular.

Nick Florence, Baylor
Passing: 182/302, 2821 yards, 19 TD, 9 INT
Running: 82 att, 301 yards, 8 TD

Nick Florence averaged 48 touches per game for Baylor, quite a vote of confidence by Art Briles as he followed up Robert Griffin III. While he only completed 60.3% of his passes, he still averaged 9.3 yards per pass and 3.7 yards per carry en route to 390.3 yards per game to lead an elite Bear offense.

Brett Hundley, UCLA
Passing: 200/294, 2407 yards, 18 TD, 7 INT
Running: 107 att, 163 yards, 7 TD

Hundley was the center of the Bruin offense this year with 44.6 touches per game, but he only tallied 285.6 yards per contest. He excelled in hitting his targets and protecting the ball though, with a completion percentage of 68.0% and an interception rate of only 2.4%. Hundley didn’t rack up a lot of yards on the ground, but he did score 6.5% of the time.

Collin Klein, Kansas State
Passing: 129/199, 1697 yards, 9 TD, 4 INT
Running: 125 att, 577 yards, 16 TD

Klein isn’t quite as central as some of the other quarterbacks in this list, but with 40.5 touches per game he is still plenty involved. While not a great passing-touchdown machine, only generating touchdowns on 4.5% of his throws, he has completed 64.8% of his passes to help keep the chains moving. Klein averaged 4.6 yards per carry and is the only quarterback in this list to notch a touchdown on over 10% of his runs.

Johnny Manziel, Texas A&M
Passing: 200/284, 2289 yards, 11 TD, 6 INT
Running: 128 att, 698 yards, 10 TD

The inspiration for this study, Johnny Manziel is among the best runners in the group, averaging 5.5 yards per carry and a touchdown on 7.8% of his carries. Highly accurate, Manziel completed 70.4% of his throws, the only quarterback in this list to achieve that feat. Given the volume of passes, his interception rate is very good at 2.1%, but he has only thrown touchdowns on 3.9% of his passes, the lowest rate on this list.

Marcus Mariota, Oregon
Passing: 160/235, 1837 yards, 22 TD, 5 INT
Running: 76 att, 582 yards, 4 TD

Famed for running Oregon’s hyperspeed attack, Mariota only averaged 34.6 touches and 268.8 yards per game, both the lowest marks in this list. That said, he averaged 7.8 yards per pass and 7.7 per run, while throwing touchdowns on 9.4% of his passes. He was typically right on target as well, completing 68.1% of his throws and only turning the ball over on 2.1%.

Matt McGloin, Penn State
Passing: 187/306, 2265 yards, 15 TD, 3 INT
Running: 43 att, -80 yards, 3 TD

This was the biggest surprise of this entire project for me. He was rather average in this group for the most part, though he did carry a lot of the load for Penn State with 43.6 touches per game. What really set him apart, however, was that he practically never turned the ball over with a 1.0% interception rate. Three rushing touchdowns with only 43 carries was a pretty good rate as well.

Taylor Martinez, Nebraska
Passing: 130/216, 1605 yards, 12 TD, 7 INT
Running: 119 att, 642 yards, 6 TD

Martinez put up good numbers across the board when running the ball, which carried his relatively unimpressive 60.2% completion percentage and 7.4 yards per pass. Racking up 41.9 touches per game helped as well.

Geno Smith, West Virginia
Passing: 231/348, 2525 yards, 25 TD, 5 INT
Running: 44 att, 82 yards, 1 TD

Early Heisman candidate Geno Smith has rather unimpressive running numbers. That said, he takes a lot of touches (49.0) and puts up a lot of yards (325.9) for the Mountaineers. A touchdown rate of 7.2% against an interception rate of only 1.4% over 348 passes puts him in the conversation.

Bo Wallace, Mississippi
Passing: 158/250, 2126 yards, 12 TD, 11 INT
Running: 91 att, 184 yards, 6 TD

This was another surprise. Wallace put up the worst interception rate (4.4%) of anyone on this list, and his 4.9% touchdown rate was only about average in the whole group. He did put up 42.6 touches per game with 288.8 yards per contest, which combined with good (for a quarterback in the study) running stats gives him an argument.

Those are the guys who have claims to “best quarterback” status. Some arguments are stronger than others, clearly, and while Manziel may win the Heisman, I think this shows that he’s not the slam-dunk candidate that some people think he is.

Top 15 2011-12 ASC players in steal and block rates, again minimum 40% team minutes played.

ASC Men
Steal Rate
1. Chris McDermott, CTX – 4.7%
2. Justin Lindsey, TLU – 4.6%
3. Darius Anderson, CTX – 4.2%
4. Steven Jones, MCM – 4.2%
5. Derrick Jefferson, HSU – 4.1%
6. Bryce Hill, MCM – 4.1%
7. Jourdan Hughes, LETU – 3.9%
8. Jarell English, TLU – 3.8%
9. Matt Addison, HSU – 3.6%
10. James Allen, UMHB – 3.5%
11. Tyrie Prince, SU – 3.4%
12. Michael Flores, TLU – 3.4%
13. Jeremy LaGarde, ETBU – 3.4%
14. Stevan Guerrero, SU – 3.3%
15. Brian Todd, UMHB – 3.3%

Block Rate
1. Josh Johnson, CTX – 8.9%
2. George Nelson, HSU – 6.4%
3. Derrick Gardner, LC – 4.4%
4. Dorian Purnell, UMHB – 4.1%
5. Korey Salmon, LC – 3.7%
6. Ja’Kalan Gayden, HPU – 3.1%
7. Kyle Schleigh, UTD – 3.0%
8. Joshua Dada, HPU – 2.6%
9. Darren Houliston, UTT – 2.5%
10. Chad Jones, MC – 2.4%
11. Andy Spears, HSU – 2.3%
12. Mack Dunbar, ETBU – 2.2%
13. Ronnie Dodd, UO – 2.2%
14. Trey Perkins, LETU – 2.0%
15. Chris Barnes, UTD – 2.0%

ASC Women
Steal Rate
1. Valeri Stewart, MC – 7.7%
2. Jasmin Thomas, HPU – 7.5%
3. Margaret Milling, CTX – 7.2%
4. Natosha Gottlieb, LC – 7.1%
5. Keshia Collins, MCM – 5.4%
6. Alison Villines, UO – 5.1%
7. Sharday Cotton, LETU – 4.9%
8. Keana Frank, LC – 4.9%
9. Lashanda Luckey, CTX – 4.8%
10. Shamika Singleton, CTX – 4.7%
11. Melody Criswell, LC – 4.6%
12. Tory Salazar, MCM – 4.5%
13. Roslyn Wilmer, LC – 4.4%
14. Brittany Roberson, HPU – 4.4%
15. Elizabeth Brooks, MC – 4.3%

Block Rate
1. DeShante Thomas, LETU – 7.9%
2. Brittany Houston, UTD – 4.2%
3. Sabrina Goddard, UO – 4.0%
4. Celeste Belizario, MCM – 3.7%
5. Natosha Gottlieb, LC – 3.6%
6. Ashley George, UTD – 2.9%
7. Bridget Dorn, MCM – 2.7%
8. Olivia Swarner, SU – 2.6%
9. Kara Looten, HSU – 2.5%
10. Rebecca Valdez, TLU – 2.4%
11. Julencia Curtis, LETU – 2.3%
12. Keshia Collins, MCM – 2.3%
13. Jamie Wilson, MCM – 2.1%
14. Shamika Singleton, CTX – 2.1%
15. Caitlin Brown, MC – 1.9%

Crashing the Glass

Here, we have the best rebounders of the year in the ASC, minimum 40% of team minutes played. I have separate offensive (OR%) and defensive (DR%) numbers since I tend toward considering them different (though related) skills. The numbers represent the percentage of possible rebounds the player in question grabbed while on the floor. For example, if a player logged 100 minutes out of a possible 1000 while getting 5 offensive rebounds, and his team had 100 possible offensive rebounds, that works out to 5/(100*10%)=50% of possible rebounds. This is the best way I have ever found to rate rebounding, since it strips out the effects of both pace and opportunity. First the men, then the women.

Offensive Rebounding, ASC Men
Name, TM – %MIN/OR%
1. Dominick Walker, MCM – 48.4%/17.5%
2. Adam Smith, MC – 44.2%/16.7%
3. Travis Pflughaupt, SU – 79.5%/14.8%
4. Greg Wiernas, UMHB – 55.4%/14.6%
5. Steven Jones, MCM – 59.9%/11.9%
6. Trey Perkins, LETU – 48.4%/11.8%
7. Ahnre Gray, ETBU – 43.8%/11.8%
8. Colton Thompson, SRSU – 52.9%/11.0%
9. Anthony Johnson, MCM – 44.6%/10.9%
10. Trevon Malone, MC – 68.7%/10.7%
11. Ja’Kalan Gayden, HPU – 54.0%/10.1%
12. Carter Nash, UTD – 68.3%/10.0%
13. Mack Dunbar, ETBU – 42.9%/9.9%
14. Darren Houliston, UTT – 70.3%/9.6%
15. Dorian Purnell, UMHB – 46.9%/9.2%

Defensive Rebounding, ASC Men
Name, TM – %MIN/DR%
1. Dominick Walker, MCM – 48.4%/31.1%
2. Darren Houliston, UTT – 70.3%/23.4%
3. Ahnre Gray, ETBU – 43.8%/23.3%
4. Steven Jones, MCM – 59.9%/23.0%
5. Ja’Kalan Gayden, HPU – 54.0%/22.7%
6. Josh Johnson, CTX – 42.4%/21.8%
7. Travis Pflughaupt, SU – 79.5%/21.2%
8. Kyle Schleigh, UTD – 83.7%/21.0%
9. Greg Wiernas, UMHB – 55.4%/20.6%
10. Andy Spears, HSU – 49.9%/19.8%
11. Colton Thompson, SRSU – 52.9%/19.7%
12. Ronnie Dodd, UO – 69.1%/19.2%
13. Eric Garcia, SRSU – 44.2%/18.8%
14. Mack Dunbar, ETBU – 42.9%/18.8%
15. Korey Salmon, LC – 77.1%/18.1%

Offensive Rebounding, ASC Women
Name, TM – %MIN/OR%
1. Sharday Cotton, LETU – 53.5%/14.7%
2. Holly Phelps, ETBU – 66.1%/14.4%
3. Olivia Swarner, SU – 70.6%/13.8%
4. Roshonda Gayden, HPU – 56.8%/13.4%
5. M.J. Vickers, MCM – 65.6%/12.9%
6. Ebony Williams, MC – 53.4%/12.9%
7. Brittany Houston, UTD – 60.9%/12.6%
8. Rebecca Valdez, TLU – 51.5%/12.4%
9. Erika Brown, ETBU – 63.3%/12.2%
10. Keshia Collins, MCM – 80.8%/11.8%
11. Afritina Anderson, UTT – 42.0%/11.4%
12. Celeste Belizario, MCM – 52.0%/11.1%
13. She’Cara Humphrey, UTT – 61.0%/10.1%
14. Jovana Miles, UMHB – 52.1%/9.8%
15. Shamika Singleton, CTX – 60.7%/9.7%

Defensive Rebounding, ASC Women
Name, TM – %MIN/DR%
1. Angela Newcombe, HSU – 91.5%/26.9%
2. Holly Phelps, ETBU – 66.1%/23.8%
3. DeShante Thomas, LETU – 56.9%/21.6%
4. Olivia Swarner, SU – 70.6%/20.3%
5. Afritina Anderson, UTT – 42.0%/20.0%
6. Ashley George, UTD – 43.1%/19.1%
7. Sharday Cotton, LETU – 53.5%/18.6%
8. Shamiya Domino, UTT – 65.4%/17.3%
9. Rebecca Valdez, TLU – 51.5%/17.2%
10. Lyndsey Smith, UTD – 80.5%/17.2%
11. Erika Brown, ETBU – 63.3%/17.0%
12. Shamika Singleton, CTX – 60.7%/16.8%
13. Roslyn Wilmer, LC – 52.0%/16.8%
14. Sabrina Goddard, UO – 71.1%/16.8%
15. Roshonda Gayden, HPU – 56.8%/16.7%

ASC Scorers, 2011

For some time now, I have wanted to look at who the best scorers in ASC play were this past season. Now, I am going to do it. I am going to base the notion of “best scorer” on three factors: workload, shooting skill, and ball protection. For workload, I am using a player’s shot percentage (Shot%), or how many of his team’s shots he took while on the floor. Most high workloads will be upwards of 25% of a team’s shots while he is on the floor. For shooting skill, I am using true shooting percentage (TS%), which translates a player’s shooting percentages on twos, threes, and free throws into an equivalent two-point shooting percentage. For ball protection, I am using a player’s turnover percentage (TO%), or the percentage of the time a player commits a turnover relative to the number of times he tries to score.

For the player pool, I am removing all players who played less than 40% of available minutes and took less than 20% of available shots during those minutes, resulting in a group of 41 players on the men’s side and 49 players for the women. I am doing this to restrict the group of “scorers” to only those who played significant minutes and were expected to score during those minutes. To generate a player’s scoring rating (SCR), I took a player’s percentage above or below the group average for all three statistics (a Shot% of 26.3%, a TS% of 0.528, and a TO% of 15.6% for the men; 25.6%, 0.486, and 18.1% for the women) and averaged them out. In this way, I think I have a fairly accurate read on who the best scorers were during this past season.

ASC Scoring Top 15, Men
# Name, Team – SCR (Shot%/TS%/TO%)
1. Marlon Miller, UMHB – 124.4 (34.3%/0.526/10.9%)
2. Nick Haynes, CTX – 120.5 (25.9%/0.631/10.9%)
3. Bryce Hill, MCM – 120.2 (30.6%/0.542/11.0%)
4. John Derr, HSU – 115.2 (27.5%/0.543/11.3%)
5. Jeremy LaGarde, ETBU – 112.3 (32.5%/0.575/15.0%)
6. Danny Sumner, LC – 111.6 (22.8%/0.468/9.8%)
7. Matt Addison, HSU – 110.8 (35.5%/0.618/19.4%)
8. Steven Jones, MCM – 110.7 (33.7%/0.515/14.7%)
9. Trevon Malone, MC – 110.2 (33.6%/0.531/15.3%)
10. Ronnie Dodd, UO – 109.5 (32.7%/0.531/15.0%)
11. Brandon Irwin, HPU – 109.1 (27.7%/0.583/14.0%)
12. Travis Pflughaupt, SU – 107.5 (25.8%/0.573/13.5%)
13. Kyle Schleigh, UTD – 106.6 (23.8%/0.672/15.3%)
14. Colton Thompson, SRSU – 105.3 (31.8%/0.624/20.3%)
15. Darren Smith, SU – 103.6 (24.6%/0.605/15.2%)

ASC Scoring Top 15, Women
# Name, Team – SCR (Shot%/TS%/TO%)
1. Natosha Gottlieb, LC – 137.0 (28.3%/0.540/9.5%)
2. Roslyn Wilmer, LC – 129.3 (29.0%/0.520/10.8%)
3. Rebecca Valdez, TLU – 125.7 (33.0%/0.551/13.4%)
4. Dana Marrs, HPU – 125.0 (27.7%/0.492/10.9%)
5. Sabrina Goddard, UO – 123.9 (34.9%/0.483/13.3%)
6. Britani Gattis, HPU – 117.4 (20.2%/0.519/10.8%)
7. Jasmine Lewis, HSU – 114.1 (30.1%/0.535/15.7%)
8. Lyndsey Smith, UTD – 113.7 (30.9%/0.548/16.8%)
9. Alexis Popelar, HSU – 112.7 (27.7%/0.515/14.5%)
10. Caitlin Brown, MC – 109.7 (32.2%/0.438/15.9%)
11. Brandace Latin, ETBU – 109.3 (29.7%/0.466/15.5%)
12. Jamie Wilson, MCM – 108.5 (20.6%/0.486/12.4%)
13. Celeste Belizario, MCM – 107.3 (25.0%/0.496/14.8%)
14. Jasmin Thomas, HPU – 107.2 (24.7%/0.479/14.3%)
15. Krista Ford, SRSU – 107.2 (30.7%/0.514/18.8%)

The Case for Jeremy LaGarde and Kyle Schleigh

A few days ago, I commented at d3boards.com that Chris Barnes (F, Texas-Dallas) should not have won the ASC East Division Player of the Year award (hereafter, East POY) and that Jeremy LaGarde (G, ETBU) or possibly Kyle Schleigh (F, Texas-Dallas) should have gotten it instead. Today, I am making that case. First, I want to point out that this is a statistical case only. I have not watched any of the three players named, and my case will not touch on intangibles such as leadership or on-ball defense. I do not mean to denigrate such skills and attributes, and in fact Barnes may possess them in sufficient amounts to overcome what I consider to be a middling statistical performance. However, being a numbers-oriented kind of guy, I tend to lean toward the quantifiable over the non-quantifiable when possible. So then, I present to you…

The Case for Jeremy LaGarde

A 6-3 guard from East Texas Baptist, LaGarde led the Tigers in scoring with 20 points per game, whereas Barnes (a 6-6 forward) finished in essentially a dead heat with Schleigh (another 6-6 forward, but more on him later) for the Comets’ scoring title. That, however, does not cover the entirety of LaGarde’s scoring skill. LaGarde took 32.5% of ETBU’s shots while he was on the floor, an impressive rate which indicates his importance to the Tiger offense, while making 54.6% of his twos and 34.8% of his frequent threes; in comparison, Barnes only took 26.4% of the Comets’ shots while posting marks of 50.4% and 34.7%, respectively. These numbers translate to an advantage in effective field-goal percentage of 0.537 to 0.511 for LaGarde, indicating that he was the better shooter from the floor even though he had to carry a heavier load. LaGarde was the better free-throw shooter as well (0.762 to 0.689), resulting in an even greater advantage in true shooting percentage of 0.575 to 0.540. However, since scoring is not the only basketball skill (though it may be the most celebrated), let us now look at LaGarde’s secondary skills.

Barnes rebounded 4.9% of UTD’s misses and 14.8% of their opponents’, very respectable marks for a 6-6 player. LaGarde, on the other hand, posted marks of 3.5% and 13.3% despite being three inches shorter. In addition to his scoring load noted above, LaGarde assisted on 26.0% of his teammates made shots during his minutes while maintaining a turnover rate of only 15.0% of his possessions. Barnes, on the other hand, only assisted on 8.4% of his teammates makes but turned the ball over more often (18.1% of his possessions). Defensively, LaGarde blocked shots almost as frequently as Barnes (1.4% of opponents’ field goals to 2.0%), but racked up steals on a stellar 3.4% of opponents’ possessions while Barnes only managed a mark of 1.3%. LaGarde even fouled slightly less often, earning a whistle on 4.3% of ETBU’s possessions as opposed to Barnes’ 4.9% mark.

All in all, in almost every measurable, Jeremy LaGarde improved on the marks belonging to Chris Barnes, suggesting that even though ETBU did not have a better record than UTD, they might have had the better player. However, there is a general trend to name the best player on the best team as MVP or POY, but even so that leads us to…

The Case for Kyle Schleigh

The comparison between Schleigh and Barnes is somewhat simpler than comparing Barnes to LaGarde, since both players are the same height (6-6) and played against the same opponents. Schleigh shot somewhat less often than Barnes (23.8% of shots to 26.4%), but made an impressive 62.5% of his twos and even more impressive 46.0% of his also-frequent threes. This gives him an effective field goal percentage of 0.652 against Barnes’ 0.511 mark, and when combined with his free-throw shooting Schleigh owns a 0.672-0.540 advantage in true shooting percentage. This means that while Barnes shot a little more often, Schleigh shot significantly better.

Schleigh sweeps the secondary skills when compared to Barnes. He had rebounding rates of 6.8% on offense and 21.0% on defense against Barnes’ 4.9% and 14.8% marks, and he did it while only fouling on 3.3% of team possessions while Barnes earned a whistle 4.9% of the time. Though both players are 6-6 forwards, Schleigh tallied assists over twice as often as Barnes (17.7% to 8.4%) and turned the ball over less often (15.3% to 18.1%). Defensively, Schleigh boasted 3.0% marks in both block and steal rates, against Barnes’ rates of 2.0% and 1.3%, respectively.

All this suggests that Kyle Schleigh, rather than Barnes, powered Texas-Dallas’ run to the East title this season and made him deserving of the nod as East POY. Again, none of this is to degrade Chris Barnes, as he is a fine basketball player and may possess excellent immeasurables. Rather, this exercise has been to show that the best player in a league may not be on the best team, and even if he is, then it may not be who you expect.

ASC Men & Women – Most Productive Players

At long last, I have finished compiling the individual statistics for the 2011-12 conference season for both ASC men’s and women’s basketball. I would like to start publishing those statistics by starting with what I consider the most productive players on both sides. To do this, I am using a modified version of John Hollinger’s Game Score. Since I am working with a whole season’s statistics, instead of a single game, I have transitioned Game Score into a per-40-minutes rating (AGS below) and limited eligibility to players who have played at least 40% of their team’s minutes (%Min below) during the conference season. The results give a general sense of who was most productive during their time on the floor, though pace is not accounted for so Concordia-Texas (men) and Louisiana College (women) get an additional boost for that. Now, the top 25 players for both the ASC men and women.

ASC Men
# Name, Team – AGS, %Min
1. Matt Addison, Hardin-Simmons – 22.8, 72.5%
2. Steven Jones, McMurry – 20.1, 59.9%
3. Jeremy LaGarde, East Texas Baptist – 19.3, 72.6%
4. Travis Pflughaupt, Schreiner – 18.7, 79.5%
5. Kyle Schleigh, Texas-Dallas – 18.5, 83.7%
6. Colton Thompson, Sul Ross State – 18.2, 52.9%
7. Nick Haynes, Concordia-Texas – 17.3, 60.5%
8. Bryce Hill, McMurry – 16.1, 62.4%
9. Darren Smith, Schreiner – 15.9, 80.7%
10. Kitrick Bell, Mary Hardin-Baylor – 15.9, 52.9%
11. Brandon Irwin, Howard Payne – 15.7, 89.2%
12. Darius Anderson, Concordia-Texas – 15.7, 54.8%
13. Adam Smith, Mississippi College – 15.7, 44.2%
14. Trevon Malone, Mississippi College – 15.6, 68.7%
15. Josh Johnson, Concordia-Texas – 15.1, 42.4%
16. Ronnie Dodd, Ozarks – 15.1, 69.1%
17. Marlon Miller, Mary Hardin-Baylor – 15.1, 72.0%
18. Marcus Bobb, Ozarks – 15.0, 79.1%
19. Korey Salmon, Louisiana College – 14.9, 77.1%
20. Andy Spears, Hardin-Simmons – 14.4, 49.9%
21. Darren Houliston, Texas-Tyler – 14.3, 70.3%
22. Dominick Walker, McMurry – 14.2, 48.4%
23. Justin Lindsey, Texas Lutheran – 14.0, 48.5%
24. Derrick Jefferson, Hardin-Simmons – 13.9, 72.1%
25. Isaac Williams, Texas Lutheran – 13.8, 71.2%

ASC Women
# Name, Team – AGS, %Min
1. Natosha Gottlieb, Louisiana College – 27.6, 50.8%
2. Roslyn Wilmer, Louisiana College – 23.2, 52.0%
3. Brittany Roberson, Howard Payne – 17.9, 65.7%
4. Melody Criswell, Louisiana College – 16.5, 45.6%
5. Jasmin Thomas, Howard Payne – 15.6, 54.4%
6. Rebecca Valdez, Texas Lutheran – 15.3, 51.5%
7. Lyndsey Smith, Texas-Dallas – 14.9, 80.5%
8. Ashley George, Texas-Dallas – 14.7, 43.1%
9. Jasmine Lewis, Hardin-Simmons – 14.7, 49.4%
10. Lashanda Luckey, Concordia-Texas – 14.6, 49.3%
11. Angela Newcombe, Hardin-Simmons – 14.5, 91.5%
12. Sharday Cotton, LeTourneau – 14.0, 53.5%
13. Sabrina Goddard, Ozarks – 13.6, 71.1%
14. Brittany Houston, Texas-Dallas – 13.5, 60.9%
15. Erika Brown, East Texas Baptist – 13.5, 63.3%
16. Brandace Latin, East Texas Baptist – 13.3, 63.3%
17. Roshonda Gayden, Howard Payne – 13.3, 56.8%
18. Celeste Belizario, McMurry – 13.3, 52.0%
19. Kara Looten, Hardin-Simmons – 12.9, 67.4%
20. Alexis Popelar, Hardin-Simmons – 12.9, 63.2%
21. Keshia Collins, McMurry – 12.6, 80.8%
22. Shamika Singleton, Concordia-Texas – 12.4, 60.7%
23. Keana Frank, Louisiana College – 12.3, 40.6%
24. Valeri Stewart, Mississippi College – 12.3, 43.7%
25. Olivia Swarner, Schreiner – 11.9, 70.6%

ASC Men’s Basketball Tournament Profiles

Below are statistical profiles for each team in the ASC Men’s Basketball Tournament, including my thoughts on why each team can win the tournament, and also what could be their eventual downfall.

1W – Mary Hardin-Baylor Crusaders (20-1, +0.16)

Pace: 75.3 possessions/40 minutes
Offense: 1.05 (0.506 EFG%, 20.4 TO%, 35.0 OR%, 30.0 FTrt)
Defense: 0.89 (0.440 EFG%, 24.1 TO%, 30.5 OR%, 29.5 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
The Crusaders just do not let opponents score. Opponents miss often, get second chances even less often, and hardly ever get trips to the line. Combined with an offense which does not turn the ball over much, and UMHB should walk away with a conference title and NCAA bid.

Why They Won’t:
That turnover rate is the only notable feature the offense has going for it. UMHB does not have an offense geared toward shootouts, and should they suffer turnovers at an average rate or have a bad defensive day, they will have to watch someone else win on their home court.

2W – Hardin-Simmons Cowboys (16-5, +0.10)

Pace: 78.1 possessions/40 minutes
Offense: 1.05 (0.506 EFG%, 21.0 TO%, 34.2 OR%, 27.8 FTrt)
Defense: 0.95 (0.458 EFG%, 22.1%, 32.1 OR%, 44.0 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
The Cowboys best traits are good shooting and good offensive boardwork, so that when they do miss they get second chances. Combined with a good turnover rate, Hardin-Simmons is capable of outshooting almost everyone. A defense which doesn’t allow many makes helps.

Why They Won’t:
Aside from preventing makes, Hardin-Simmons has a rather average defense. Should an opponent have a good day from the field, the Cowboys could easily find themselves in a shootout, where anything can happen.

3W – McMurry War Hawks (13-8, +0.07)

Pace: 79.7 possessions/40 minutes
Offense: 1.07 (0.489 EFG%, 22.6 TO%, 45.5 OR%, 27.9 FTrt)
Defense: 1.00 (0.504 EFG%, 23.4 TO%, 30.9 OR%, 48.5 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
McMurry’s offense only has one skill of note, but it is arguably the single most exception skill in the conference. The War Hawks rebound almost every other miss, giving them more chances at points than most. That skill carries over to the defensive side, where opponents usually get at most one shot. Should the offensive rebounding hold true, McMurry could shock the conference’s heavy hitters.

Why They Won’t:
McMurry’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. If an opponent can find a way to keep them off the offensive glass, the War Hawks transform from an offensive powerhouse to a merely average offense which will be hard-pressed to make up for an average defense.

4W – Schreiner Mountaineers (11-10, +0.01)

Pace: 79.1 possessions/40 minutes
Offense: 0.99 (0.474 EFG%, 21.6 TO%, 33.8 OR%, 33.5 FTrt)
Defense: 0.98 (0.497 EFG%, 24.5 TO%, 31.7 OR%, 44.1 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
Schreiner comes in with a defense capable of holding opponents to one shot and forcing turnovers at above-average rates. With that defense combined with an offense which doesn’t turn the ball over much, the Mountaineers can easily get hot and reel off three wins.

Why They Won’t:
Despite not turning the ball over, Schreiner’s offense fails to score even one point per trip on average, and they will have to improve on that. If the Mountaineer defense does not have a good day, or the offense does not get hot, Schreiner will be headed back to Kerrville early.

1E – Texas-Dallas Comets (16-4, +0.14)

Pace: 67.2 possessions/40 minutes
Offense: 1.08 (0.551 EFG%, 23.7 TO%, 32.7 OR%, 31.9 FTrt)
Defense: 0.94 (0.468 EFG%, 21.6 TO%, 29.9 OR%, 25.5 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
Nobody in the league scores like the Comets. Not only do they shoot better than anyone in the conference, they also get to the line more often than most. Paired with an excellent one-and-done defense, the Texas-Dallas is ready to take home a title.

Why They Won’t:
Mildly prone to turnovers and not terribly good at rebounding their rare misses, the Comets are one cold shooting day away from being an offensive afterthought and becoming vulnerable to a particularly good shooting day from an opponent.

2E –East Texas Baptist Tigers (11-9, +0.02)

Pace: 75.7 possessions/40 minutes
Offense: 1.01 (0.517 EFG%, 24.0 TO%, 33.2 OR%, 22.2 FTrt)
Defense: 0.99 (0.481 EFG%, 21.1 TO%, 32.2 OR%, 37.1 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
The Tigers can shoot with anyone and do a fair job of keeping their opponents from doing the same. Three good shooting days in a row could send ETBU to the NCAA tournament.

Why They Won’t:
ETBU has to shoot well to win. Somewhat prone to turnovers on offense, they also do not produce much from the line. Their defense has the opposite problem, not forcing many turnovers and putting teams on the line too often. If that happens during the tournament, the Tigers go home.

3E –Louisiana College Wildcats (9-11, -0.05)

Pace: 75.3 possessions/40 minutes
Offense: 0.95 (0.463 EFG%, 19.5 TO%, 28.7 OR%, 19.2 FTrt)
Defense: 1.01 (0.498 EFG%, 24.6 TO%, 39.1 OR%, 34.4 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
The Wildcats do a good job of protecting the ball and getting extra shots because of it. With a defense which does not give up a lot of free throws, that can be enough to pull off an upset or three.

Why They Won’t:
Louisiana College does not shoot, rebound, or get to the line well on the offensive end. Since the defense is about average, the offense will need to improve to stay alive in the tournament.

4E –Mississippi College Choctaws (7-13, -0.04)

Pace: 74.1 possessions/40 minutes
Offense: 0.99 (0.537 EFG%, 25.2 TO%, 31.5 OR%, 27.5 FTrt)
Defense: 1.03 (0.496 EFG%, 20.0 TO%, 33.7 OR%, 29.4 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
The Choctaws can shoot as well as almost anyone, which is arguably the most important skill a team can have. By doing that and keeping opponents from getting free points from the line, Mississippi College can threaten an upset.

Why They Won’t:
The Choctaw defense does not force many turnovers while allowing opponents to make shots at a decent clip. With an offense that is mildly turnover prone, Mississippi College will have to overcome a turnover deficiency to manage an upset.

ASC Women’s Basketball Tournament Profiles

Below are statistical profiles for each team in the ASC Women’s Basketball Tournament, including my thoughts on why each team can win the tournament, and also what could be their eventual downfall.

1W – Concordia-Texas Tornados (18-3, +0.14)

Pace: 77.2 possessions/game
Offense: 0.87 (0.440 EFG%, 27.8 TO%, 37.0 OR%, 22.7 FTrt)
Defense: 0.73 (0.386 EFG%, 36.0 TO%, 38.3 OR%, 41.6 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
Nobody in the conference plays defense like the Tornados. Teams are lucky to even get a shot off, and even then have a hard time making the shot. A defense this good easily covers for an offense which is only slightly above average and can send Concordia to the NCAA tournament.

Why They Won’t:
That defense is prone to giving up second chances and free throws, and the offense does not get much from the line. These weaknesses make Concordia vulnerable to a failure in any of their strengths, particularly a hot shooting day from an opponent.

2W – McMurry War Hawks (16-5, +0.16)

Pace: 70.4 possessions/game
Offense: 0.92 (0.417 EFG%, 24.8 TO%, 44.3 OR%, 18.2 FTrt)
Defense: 0.76 (0.379 EFG%, 30.4 TO%, 33.2 OR%, 37.4 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
McMurry forces misses in abundance, at least on those occasions when an opponent manages to get a shot off. With an offense that rebounds their own misses more often than anyone else, the War Hawks are built to weather the tournament storm.

Why They Won’t:
McMurry has to get those offensive rebounds to power an offense that does not shoot or produce from the line particularly well. Without them, or if their opponent manages to hold onto the ball or get hot from the field, McMurry will be heading back to Abilene without a title.

3W – Howard Payne Lady Jackets (16-5, +0.16)

Pace: 75.7 possessions/game
Offense: 0.96 (0.464 EFG%, 23.0 TO%, 36.3 OR%, 22.3 FTrt)
Defense: 0.79 (0.414 EFG%, 30.4 TO%, 32.9 OR%, 32.6 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
Howard Payne never turns the ball over and makes more of their shots than anyone else. That is a recipe for a championship-level offense. With a defense that does a fair job preventing makes and forces turnovers with regularity, the Lady Jackets are well-suited to make a run to the top.

Why They Won’t:
The Lady Jackets are roughly average at getting to their own misses and do not produce much from the line, making them susceptible to turnovers and poor shooting. If their defense fails to get enough turnovers or gives up too many makes, Howard Payne will be headed back toBrownwood.

4W – Hardin-Simmons Cowgirls (11-10, +0.08)

Pace: 72.1 possessions/game
Offense: 0.94 (0.442 EFG%, 25.1 TO%, 36.6 OR%, 31.9 FTrt)
Defense: 0.86 (0.422 EFG%, 23.1 TO%, 29.5 OR%, 37.5 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
Hardin-Simmons boasts a solid one-and-done defense to pair with an offense that shoots well and tends to get the rebound when they do miss. In addition, the Cowgirls protect the ball well and get good production from the line. When they are hitting on all the above, the Cowgirls can beat anyone.

Why They Won’t:
The defense has to force misses and keep their opponent off the glass since they do not force turnovers and give opponents more free throws than average. If someone manages to make shots and/or crashes the offensive glass, the HSU offense will have to be truly stellar to keep the Cowgirls in the tournament.

1E –Louisiana College Lady Wildcats (18-2, +0.23)

Pace: 90.8 possessions/game
Offense: 0.98 (0.419 EFG%, 19.9 TO%, 41.3 OR%, 17.6 FTrt)
Defense: 0.75 (0.434 EFG%, 38.4 TO%, 38.1 OR%, 47.4 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
Witness the power of turnover differential. The Lady Wildcats protect the ball better than anyone, despite a blistering tempo, and force opponents to turn it over almost twice as often. Having that many more shots, plus rebounding a fair amount of your own misses, easily makes up for lackluster shooting and minimal production from the line.

Why They Won’t:
Louisiana College is hugely dependent on that turnover differential. Should they run into someone who solves their pressure or forces them into turnovers, their advantage is likely to rapidly dissipate. They are also prone to giving up free throws, not a good thing in a closely contested tournament.

2E – Texas-Dallas Comets (15-5, +0.13)

Pace: 70.0 possessions/game
Offense: 0.87 (0.444 EFG%, 27.9 TO%, 33.7 OR%, 23.9 FTrt)
Defense: 0.75 (0.368 EFG%, 28.4 TO%, 35.0 OR%, 34.0 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
Even if they give up a shot, the Comets do not let you make it, with the best defense against shooting in the conference. With a slightly above average offense boasting some skill at shotmaking, the Comets have the tools to beat anyone.

Why They Won’t:
Being fairly average across the board, except for shooting offense and defense, gives the Comets little margin for error. Should an opponent get hot from the field, or should UTD find their own shots off target, their other skills will struggle to pick up the slack and keep the Comets chasing a NCAA bid.

3E –Mississippi College Lady Choctaws (13-7, +0.02)

Pace: 72.3 possessions/game
Offense: 0.80 (0.443 EFG%, 30.9 TO%, 30.2 OR%, 25.2 FTrt)
Defense: 0.78 (0.402 EFG%, 30.9 TO%, 36.6 OR%, 28.9 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
The ladies from Clinton can play defense with anyone. While they are somewhat prone to giving up second chances, they force enough turnovers to make up for it. Keeping opponents off the line helps as well.

Why They Won’t:
The ladies from Clinton struggle to score. They shoot well enough, but they are prone to turnovers and do not get second chances. In a field full of tough defenses, the Lady Choctaws will need to find a way to score to make some noise in the tournament.

4E – Ozarks Lady Eagles (9-11, -0.04)

Pace: 72.6 possessions/game
Offense: 0.85 (0.438 EFG%, 24.7 TO%, 27.1 OR%, 24.0 FTrt)
Defense: 0.90 (0.411 EFG%, 22.7 TO%, 36.0 OR%, 30.4 FTrt)

Why They’ll Win:
Ozarks protects the ball fairly well and shoots about the same. Given that the Lady Eagles also force misses pretty well, the ladies from Clarksville could make some noise in the tournament.

Why They Won’t:
The Lady Eagles do not force turnovers and give up too many second chances to make up for it. With an offense which frequently goes one-and-done, Ozarks will need to be at the top of its game to win the tournament.

Point Differential, American Southwest Conference

Below are per-possession point differentials for every team in the NCAA Division III American Southwest Conference. Why do this? My alma mater, Concordia-Texas, plays in the conference and I wanted to see how their basketball teams stacked up. I plan to revisit this every week of the season, if possible, to track their progress. The concept is inspired by the Tuesday Truths column at basketballprospectus.com. I apologize if the columns are not entirely straight, as I am still working out getting tables in HTML properly.

PPP = Points per possession
Opp. PPP = Opponents points per possession
+/- = differential
Pace = possessions per game

ASC West – Men
Team (W-L)                         PPP        Opp. PPP    +/-          Pace
Hardin-Simmons (5-0)       1.21        0.93                +0.29    72.2
McMurry (4-1)                       1.21         1.03               +0.18     73.6
Texas Lutheran (4-1)           1.08        0.93               +0.16     73.0
Mary Hardin-Baylor (4-0) 1.04        0.89               +0.15     77.0
Schreiner (3-2)                       1.06        1.02               +0.04     75.8
Concordia-Texas (2-2)        1.01        1.01                +0.00    92.6
Sul Ross State (3-3)               0.89        0.90              -0.01      64.5
Howard Payne (2-3)             1.00        1.06               -0.06      72.5

Average                                     1.06        0.97               +0.09    74.4

Mary Hardin-Baylor may be ranked, but Hardin-Simmons is the class of the division so far. With arguably the best offense in the league, as well as one of the better defenses, the Cowboys are outscoring their opponents by almost a third of a point every trip down the court. That said there is a very significant drop-off between the Crusaders at number four and Schreiner at number five. At this point, it is almost guaranteed that the ASC West tournament representatives will be Hardin-Simmons, McMurry, Mary Hardin-Baylor, and Texas Lutheran in some order.

ASC East – Men
Team (W-L)                       PPP      Opp. PPP       +/-            Pace
Louisiana College (4-1)     1.13      1.11                    +0.02     72.1
Texas-Dallas (3-1)               1.06     1.04                   +0.02     67.3
Mississippi College (1-4)  1.01      1.08                   -0.07      71.2
East Texas Baptist (2-4)   1.01      1.11                    -0.10       77.6
Ozarks (0-6)                          0.98     1.11                    -0.14        75.3
Texas-Tyler (1-5)                0.92     1.07                  -0.15        71.7
LeTourneau (0-5)               0.80     1.01                  -0.21         76.4

Average                                  0.98      1.08                 -0.10         73.4

Why does the East have so few positive differentials and the West so many? In inter-division play, the West has outscored the East by a tenth of a point per possession. If Louisiana College can get its defense in order, though, the Wildcats could be dangerous come tournament time. Meanwhile, the Comets and Wildcats wait for another team or two to separate themselves from the rest of the East pack.

ASC West – Women
Team (W-L)                            PPP        Opp. PPP             +/-          Pace
Concordia-Texas (4-0)          1.00        0.71                        +0.29     75.3
McMurry (5-0)                          0.96        0.77                        +0.19     67.1
Howard Payne (3-2)                1.00        0.96                        +0.05     75.2
Hardin-Simmons (2-3)           0.96        0.92                        +0.04     72.1
Texas Lutheran (2-3)              0.87        0.93                        -0.07      71.2
Schreiner (1-4)                          0.80        0.93                        -0.13      69.0
Mary Hardin-Baylor (0-4)    0.71        0.88                        -0.17      68.0
Sul Ross State (1-5)                  0.72        1.05                        -0.34      75.0

Average                                        0.88        0.91                        -0.03      71.7

It looks like Concordia-Texas and McMurry will be one and two at the end of the year; the games in Abilene (1/19) and Austin (2/9) should be among the best contests of the season. Howard Payne and Hardin-Simmons look to fill out the West side of the bracket; do not expect the Cowgirls to stay under .500 for long.

ASC East – Women
Team (W-L)                        PPP        Opp. PPP      +/-          Pace
Louisiana College (5-0)     1.09        0.78                 +0.31    83.8
Texas-Dallas (3-1)                0.97       0.81                  +0.17   67.3
Mississippi College (3-2)   0.88       0.77                 +0.10   70.7
Ozarks (3-3)                            0.88       0.90                 -0.02    69.4
LeTourneau (2-3)                 0.81       0.88                 -0.07    72.0
Texas-Tyler (2-4)                 0.88       0.96                 -0.09    74.1
East Texas Baptist (2-4)     0.85       0.97                -0.12     73.0

Average                                    0.91       0.87                +0.03   73.0

One week from tomorrow, Concordia-Texas hosts Louisiana College in what promises to be a huge game, one which will say a lot about how real each team’s start is. The Lady Cats will bring the best offense in the league thus far into Austin to face the league’s top defense. Texas-Dallas and Mississippi College look to challenge (despite LC’s 71-56 win against MC this past weekend), while Ozarks looks to hold off the rest of the division for the final tournament spot.

NBA Greatness, Round 2

I have finally finished the data entry for all the players in NBA history for my all-time greats project. There is still some refining to be done, but I am quite pleased with the results thus far. I was going to separate players by eras, but I grouped everyone in a single bunch and the results seem to make sense to me. Also, I divided the players from the guard/forward/center groups into guard/guard-forward/forward/forward-center/center, and I think the results work and fit better with the five positions on the court. Surprisingly, the benchmarks are not as close to each other as I thought they would be. Below is the current list of all-time greats as I have them in alphabetical order, with currently active players marked by an asterisk. Comments welcome.

Guards (33.2 peak/47.9 other)
Ray Allen*
Tiny Archibald
Chauncey Billups*
Kobe Bryant*
Sam Cassell
Maurice Cheeks
Bob Cousy
Joe Dumars
Walt Frazier
Tim Hardaway
Derek Harper
Hersey Hawkins
Jeff Hornacek
Allen Iverson
Mark Jackson
Kevin Johnson
Jason Kidd*
Andre Miller*
Sidney Moncrief
Calvin Murphy
Steve Nash*
Chris Paul*
Gary Payton
Terry Porter
Bill Sharman
Steve Smith
John Stockton
Rod Strickland
Jason Terry*
Dwyane Wade*
Jerry West
Lenny Wilkens

Guard/Forwards & Forward/Guards (39.3/66.3)
Paul Arizin
Adrian Dantley
Clyde Drexler
Julius Erving
John Havlicek
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Reggie Miller
Scottie Pippen
Oscar Robertson
Chet Walker
Dominique Wilkins

Forwards (33.0/48.6)
Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Larry Bird
Elton Brand*
Terry Cummings
Dale Davis
Alex English
Kevin Garnett*
Grant Hill
Bailey Howell
LeBron James
Rashard Lewis*
Karl Malone
Shawn Marion*
Anthony Mason
Tracy McGrady*
Dirk Nowitzki*
Paul Pierce*
Glen Rice
Dennis Rodman

Forward/Centers & Center/Forwards (38.4/65.3)
Tim Duncan*
Patrick Ewing
Horace Grant
Elvin Hayes
Ed Macauley
Moses Malone
Kevin McHale
Larry Nance
Bob Pettit
Dolph Schayes
Jack Sikma
Wes Unseld
Buck Williams

Centers (40.4/71.4)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Walt Bellamy
Wilt Chamberlain
Bob Lanier
George Mikan
Shaquille O’Neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
Robert Parish
David Robinson
Bill Russell