For those that hate numbers, this will probably make your eyes glaze. I’m going to look at some of the more esoteric numbers. Overall for Pitt, given the level of their opponent, this was probably the best team game from them.
Pitt:
Poss 69.4 Pace Moderate
O-Rating 105.2 D-Rating 92.2 (Eff. Margin +13.0)
eFG% 60.2 PPWS 1.2
A/TO 1.3 TO Rate 20.2% A/B 66.7%
Floor Pct 50.8% FT Prod 28.6Wisconsin:
Poss 69.5 Pace Moderate
O-Rating 92.1 D-Rating 105.0 (Eff. Margin -12.9)
eFG% 44.7 PPWS 1.0
A/TO 1.1 TO Rate 20.1% A/B 62.5%
Floor Pct 49.3% FT Prod 22.8
A little explanation. Stats in basketball are slowly getting more advanced, much like in all other sports.
The first line contains the possession number (explanation here). That goes to explaining the pace, which was considered “moderate.” The average pace for a NCAA game is somewhere around 69.0 possessions.
The offensive/defensive ratings are based on points per 100 possessions. So on offense you want a high number, while on defense it should be lower. The effieciency margin is simply the O-Rating – D-Rating. The higher the number on the positve end indicates just how good the team is over the course of the season. In a per-game use, it is of less value, but Pitt was below its season average in both for this game. Not surprising considering the higher quality foe faced. It still points out a team playing very, very well.
Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%) is an attempt to take into account the 3-point shot and its value rather than simple FG %. eFG%= (FGM + (0.5 x 3PM))/FGA.
In the Wisconsin game, Pitt’s eFG% was huge. This is Pitt’s eFG% for the whole season (including the Wisconsin game).
(286 + (o.5 x 79))/620 = 325.5/620 = .525 = 52.5% Season eFG%
It just points out how well Pitt was doing shooting, period.
Then there is Points Per Weighted Shot (PPWS), which goes to understanding the efficiency of players and teams in translating shot and free throw attempts into points.
PPWS = PTS/(FGA + (0.475 x FTA))
It also serves to give better understanding the value of individual players. Here are the top 4 scorers for Pitt, the overall team, and opponents for the season.
Krauser: 1.19 PPWS = 190/(136+(.475*51))
Gray: 1.12 PPWS = 128 / (89 + (.475*54))
Young: 1.30 PPWS = 90 / (55 + (.475*30))
Kendall: 1.11 PPWS = 81 / (57+(.475*33))PITT: 1.08 PPWS = 820 / (620 +(.475*244))
OPP: 0.94 PPWS = 610/ (564 + (.475*185))
Pitt had one of its best days, even with less than spectacular free throw shooting.
It also suggests that Gray is doing fine work at Center on offense and that Young is going to keep taking minutes from Kendall and/or DeGroat as long as he maintains the defensive effort. Kendall isn’t playing that badly, it’s just that Young is playing that much better.
Getting back to the next line, those are mostly common numbers. Pitt’s assist/TO ratio was not as good as one would like, but not surprising considering the number of offensive fouls called against Pitt in the game (those count as turnovers). That’s how Gray had 3 TO in his limited minutes. TO Rate is TO/Poss.
Floor Pct means the percentage number of possessions that result in baskets: (FGM + OR) / (FGA + Turnovers). Even with the turnovers Pitt had, they were still doing well because of the the high shooting percentage. Usually Pitt’s number is kept higher because the number of offensive rebounds it gets, but without Aaron Gray inside, that number was lower.
FTProd stands for Free Throw Production: (FTM / FGA).
