Well, the official ClemBenTigerMax bracket is busted. I'm never one to let statistics or projection systems get in the way of irrational fanhood. Let's go the the chart:
(Chart from Statsheet. I can't find win probability charts, but this is pretty close. I assume they are using Bill James' formula to calculate safe leads, but I might be wrong.)
I thought we came out with a solid game plan on both sides of the court. On defense, we might have pressed a little longer than I would have liked, but it didn't matter much since Michigan wasn't really looking for the shot in transition. They got a couple of early open looks from behind the arc but for the most part, it looked like they were really trying to slow the game down (which they successfully did) and run their set offense. I thought we generally did a good job in the halfcourt defense, much better than some recent outings. In the first half I we were collapsing too much on drives into the lane, leaving guys open out on the perimeter. But in the second half we adjusted, and I thought the perimeter defense was as good as I've seen it this year. Manny Harris was the only reason Michigan was scoring in the second half; he's a great talent and his driving, shooting, and passing almost exclusively led to Michigan's second half points.
On offense, the plan seemed to boil down to getting it inside to Booker. No one could really guard him, and when they brought the double team, Booker was finding wide open shooters who knocked down some of our only outside shots. We even did a great job of not turning over the ball--first time I can say that since the Boston College game, I think. Unfortunately, there was a span of about 15 minutes between the last five minutes of the first half and the first ten minutes of the second half where we just executed poorly on offense and made bad decisions. A lot of crazy, well-guarded three point shots (even when the pass inside was open) were taken, sprinkled in with some ill-considered drives to the basket. I thought Michigan was doing well defending against anyone slashing to the hoop, and when that's happening you have to wonder who is drawing up the Tanner Smith-driving-to-the basket plays. I know Booker was looking winded during some of that same stretch, but even a winded Booker could have drawn in the defense, opening up the outside a little more.
None of this touches on Terrence Oglesby. All season I have tried to hold my peace on his extreme lack of poise. But after tonight, I have to wonder out loud if he will be back on the team next year. Purnell must be seething right now, not just about the intentional foul and ejection, but the overall sloppy play leading up to it. I think Oglesby is a valuable role player when used in the right way, and he even has some upside suggesting he could be something more, but last night makes you wonder if someone else can't do the same job without bringing the same baggage.
Its a shame the season ended the way it did. All in all, the coaches did something amazing with a set of players who were arguably less talented than a year before. I'm glad they managed to come back and make it close, showing flashes of the team that had everyone's hopes up back in January.
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Friday, 20 March 2009
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
CLEMSON 2009 NCAA TOURNAMENT: First Round Preview
I've uploaded two consecutive posts laden with optimism about Clemson's chances of making a run; now its time to throw a little reality onto any expectations I might have raised. Michigan is going to cause some very difficult matchup problems for Clemson, and honestly, given Purnell's coaching tendencies, I think we're in for a battle.
Clemson on Defense
There are two main areas of concern for Clemson's defense, first, Michigan is 16th best in the country at not turning the ball over, an obvious problem for a team that thrives on creating turnovers. Granted, a low turnover rate does not necessarily guarantee a team will handle a full-court press as good as Clemson's, but we can safely view this as a pretty good indicator that the press isn't going to be exceptionally effective. Second, Michigan shoots the three to the tune of 6th most in country. Clemson can expect roughly one of every two Michigan shots to come from behind the arc.
Now, these two points have been made here and around the Clemson blogosphere over the last couple of days, usually with the qualification that while Michigan likes to shoot the three they aren't particularly good at it; ranking well below average for division I (207th). But what I haven't seen anyone point out in the same breath is the rapid decline of Clemson's three-point shooting defense. We have gone from being pretty good at defending the three to slipping to average to free-falling into downright atrocious. We now rank 263rd in the country at defending the three. That's really just embarrasing for a team playing in a top conference. If you've read the blog at all, we've been pounding the same theme over and over--teams that break Clemson's press have been pulling up for open three-point looks instead of driving to the basket (which often allows a very athletic Clemson team to get back and defend or block layup-attempts). This strategy has really cut into Clemson's defensive efficiency, dropping our ranking from the inside the top ten to 52nd in the country.
If and when Michigan breaks the press, I expect nothing but three point attempts. And therein lies the real problem for Clemson, giving up open 3-point looks will substantially improve every shooter in the Michigan lineup and negate their overall poor 3-point shooting percentage. If, as is customary, Purnell and Clemson insist on running the press full time, the team will almost certainly look to the scoreboard at the five minute mark in the first half and find themselves staring down a 10-15 point deficit. To be clear, I'm not advocating complete abandonment of the press; I think Purnell just needs to be more judicious in its application during this game. Use it as a weapon, attack them for the first few minutes of each period, try to catch them by surprise by using it out of timeouts, and try different variations to slow them down.
Now, admittedly, Clemson's halfcourt defense has been way too porous of late, particularly around the perimeter. This has undoubtably also contributed to their declining defense. From my vantage, I feel this is more a product of a frustrated team losing its discipline. If playing in the NCAA tournament isn't enough to motivate Clemson into tightening up the defense, we can fold up the tents right now.
Clemson on Offense
The good news: Clemson should more or less have its way on offense. They should control the boards (on both ends of the court), hopefully leading to a few highlight Booker/Sykes dunk put-backs. Michigan does defend the three fairly well, 42nd best in the country, but they struggle against the inside shot. This leads to one fairly obvious conclusion--everything will run through Booker. Because Michigan lacks a significant height advantage, we can hope for the love of all that's holy that feeding the post won't be as difficult as in recent games. Eventually this will open up the perimeter for some bombs from Oglesby and Rivers. I don't think Michigan will be quick to double-team Booker, they might instead try to neutralize him with 6'10 Zack Gibson. This will certainly be a matchup to watch, but Booker isn't slowed by just height, tall players also must play excellent defense to keep him in check and I don't think Gibson is quite that caliber of a defender. If he does manage to slow Booker, Clemson can always turn to Stitt and Potter to open up the offense by slashing to the hoop.
Summary
This is fairly straightforward for Clemson. The only way I see Michigan winning is by getting into a situtation where they are trading threes for twos with Clemson's offense. If we relax the full-court press and concentrate on getting some stops in the half-court, we should win fairly handily. The question is, will Purnell turn down the press early and often enough? I don't know too many Clemson fans willing to place a "yes" bet.
Clemson on Defense
There are two main areas of concern for Clemson's defense, first, Michigan is 16th best in the country at not turning the ball over, an obvious problem for a team that thrives on creating turnovers. Granted, a low turnover rate does not necessarily guarantee a team will handle a full-court press as good as Clemson's, but we can safely view this as a pretty good indicator that the press isn't going to be exceptionally effective. Second, Michigan shoots the three to the tune of 6th most in country. Clemson can expect roughly one of every two Michigan shots to come from behind the arc.
Now, these two points have been made here and around the Clemson blogosphere over the last couple of days, usually with the qualification that while Michigan likes to shoot the three they aren't particularly good at it; ranking well below average for division I (207th). But what I haven't seen anyone point out in the same breath is the rapid decline of Clemson's three-point shooting defense. We have gone from being pretty good at defending the three to slipping to average to free-falling into downright atrocious. We now rank 263rd in the country at defending the three. That's really just embarrasing for a team playing in a top conference. If you've read the blog at all, we've been pounding the same theme over and over--teams that break Clemson's press have been pulling up for open three-point looks instead of driving to the basket (which often allows a very athletic Clemson team to get back and defend or block layup-attempts). This strategy has really cut into Clemson's defensive efficiency, dropping our ranking from the inside the top ten to 52nd in the country.
If and when Michigan breaks the press, I expect nothing but three point attempts. And therein lies the real problem for Clemson, giving up open 3-point looks will substantially improve every shooter in the Michigan lineup and negate their overall poor 3-point shooting percentage. If, as is customary, Purnell and Clemson insist on running the press full time, the team will almost certainly look to the scoreboard at the five minute mark in the first half and find themselves staring down a 10-15 point deficit. To be clear, I'm not advocating complete abandonment of the press; I think Purnell just needs to be more judicious in its application during this game. Use it as a weapon, attack them for the first few minutes of each period, try to catch them by surprise by using it out of timeouts, and try different variations to slow them down.
Now, admittedly, Clemson's halfcourt defense has been way too porous of late, particularly around the perimeter. This has undoubtably also contributed to their declining defense. From my vantage, I feel this is more a product of a frustrated team losing its discipline. If playing in the NCAA tournament isn't enough to motivate Clemson into tightening up the defense, we can fold up the tents right now.
Clemson on Offense
The good news: Clemson should more or less have its way on offense. They should control the boards (on both ends of the court), hopefully leading to a few highlight Booker/Sykes dunk put-backs. Michigan does defend the three fairly well, 42nd best in the country, but they struggle against the inside shot. This leads to one fairly obvious conclusion--everything will run through Booker. Because Michigan lacks a significant height advantage, we can hope for the love of all that's holy that feeding the post won't be as difficult as in recent games. Eventually this will open up the perimeter for some bombs from Oglesby and Rivers. I don't think Michigan will be quick to double-team Booker, they might instead try to neutralize him with 6'10 Zack Gibson. This will certainly be a matchup to watch, but Booker isn't slowed by just height, tall players also must play excellent defense to keep him in check and I don't think Gibson is quite that caliber of a defender. If he does manage to slow Booker, Clemson can always turn to Stitt and Potter to open up the offense by slashing to the hoop.
Summary
This is fairly straightforward for Clemson. The only way I see Michigan winning is by getting into a situtation where they are trading threes for twos with Clemson's offense. If we relax the full-court press and concentrate on getting some stops in the half-court, we should win fairly handily. The question is, will Purnell turn down the press early and often enough? I don't know too many Clemson fans willing to place a "yes" bet.
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
CLEMSON 2009 NCAA TOURNAMENT: Projecting Clemson's Chances
I’ve just finished running some simulations for 2009 tourney, and unfortunately my optimism from yesterday has been tempered somewhat. That being said, I still think Clemson’s got a pretty good draw here, and I’ll explain why in a second.
Let me start this post by saying that statistics-based projections like these are never going to substitute for a detailed look at the actual matchups. On the other hand, I don’t know anyone (including most national columnists) who has enough knowledge of all 65 teams to make a detailed matchup-based projection that covers all 63 games in the tournament. I see these projections as a supplement of sorts to aid in more detailed looks ate the weaknesses and strengths of teams that could matchup with one another.
Here’s a quick outline of what I’m doing. Every year I take the field and using a Markov-like process I start with the first round and go through all the games; picking winners based on the probability of a given team winning the game. Calculating the probability is probably the hardest part about this, and there are many ways to do it. The methods for this are a little dry for a blog post, but I’m more than willing to discuss the process with anyone who’s interested, just drop a comment or we can work something out via email. At any rate, after I get the probability of winning for two teams playing each other, I simply generate a random number. This number determines the winning team according to the probabilities (for example, if you think Clemson has a 70% chance of beating Michigan and the number you generate is 56, Clemson wins. If you generate 79, Michigan wins). Then I continue with the winners and move up round by round until finishing the tournament, keeping tally of which teams finished where. Then I rerun the process a million times; this gives the percent likelihood of each team advancing through to a round.
The chart below shows how well Clemson fares in the simulations, I’m showing it alongside Clemson’s numbers from the 2007 tournament for reference (initially I thought of showing the 2006 numbers as well, but yeah…)
The percentages in each column indicate the likelihood of Clemson making it through to that round. First thing to keep in mind is that all teams see substantial drops as they move through the bracket (well, except the 1 and 2 seeds in the first round) because with every round the pool of teams that can reach a particular spot increases. For example, there are eight teams vying for any particular sweet sixteen spot, so the percentages have to be divided up among all eight teams.
By my projections, Clemson is looking at about a 16-17% chance at reaching the elite eight. Oklahoma has the best chance in our group of eight, clocking in at about 32%, with Syracuse and Arizona State around 25% each and the other four teams at fractional percentages. Doesn’t sound like anything to write home about, yeah? But these are really fascinating results—you don’t usually see such an equal distribution for a sweet sixteen spot and that’s a pretty low percentage for a two seed. Moreover, Clemson comes out way in front of other 7/10 seeds, no one else clears 5% in the simulations. Clemson even equals or performs better than exactly half of the 4/5/6 seeds. I think we can take this as pretty strong evidence that Clemson is grossly under-seeded. If I’m an Oklahoma fan, I’m pretty upset about Clemson being in the neighboring game.
Well, I don’t want to dwell too long on this, because like I said, it’s a poor substitute for looking directly at the matchups. Tomorrow I’ll try to add to what ClemBen said about Michigan in his last post. If anybody has any specific questions about the simulations, drop a question in the comments. I’m probably going to tweak a few things in the next day and see how they come out. I don’t think it’s wise to post the entire projection before Thursday because I don’t want anyone taking this too seriously (just look at Clemson’s chances last year—we all know how that turned out). Plus, I can’t have ClemBen stealing any of my picks…
Let me start this post by saying that statistics-based projections like these are never going to substitute for a detailed look at the actual matchups. On the other hand, I don’t know anyone (including most national columnists) who has enough knowledge of all 65 teams to make a detailed matchup-based projection that covers all 63 games in the tournament. I see these projections as a supplement of sorts to aid in more detailed looks ate the weaknesses and strengths of teams that could matchup with one another.
Here’s a quick outline of what I’m doing. Every year I take the field and using a Markov-like process I start with the first round and go through all the games; picking winners based on the probability of a given team winning the game. Calculating the probability is probably the hardest part about this, and there are many ways to do it. The methods for this are a little dry for a blog post, but I’m more than willing to discuss the process with anyone who’s interested, just drop a comment or we can work something out via email. At any rate, after I get the probability of winning for two teams playing each other, I simply generate a random number. This number determines the winning team according to the probabilities (for example, if you think Clemson has a 70% chance of beating Michigan and the number you generate is 56, Clemson wins. If you generate 79, Michigan wins). Then I continue with the winners and move up round by round until finishing the tournament, keeping tally of which teams finished where. Then I rerun the process a million times; this gives the percent likelihood of each team advancing through to a round.
The chart below shows how well Clemson fares in the simulations, I’m showing it alongside Clemson’s numbers from the 2007 tournament for reference (initially I thought of showing the 2006 numbers as well, but yeah…)
The percentages in each column indicate the likelihood of Clemson making it through to that round. First thing to keep in mind is that all teams see substantial drops as they move through the bracket (well, except the 1 and 2 seeds in the first round) because with every round the pool of teams that can reach a particular spot increases. For example, there are eight teams vying for any particular sweet sixteen spot, so the percentages have to be divided up among all eight teams.
By my projections, Clemson is looking at about a 16-17% chance at reaching the elite eight. Oklahoma has the best chance in our group of eight, clocking in at about 32%, with Syracuse and Arizona State around 25% each and the other four teams at fractional percentages. Doesn’t sound like anything to write home about, yeah? But these are really fascinating results—you don’t usually see such an equal distribution for a sweet sixteen spot and that’s a pretty low percentage for a two seed. Moreover, Clemson comes out way in front of other 7/10 seeds, no one else clears 5% in the simulations. Clemson even equals or performs better than exactly half of the 4/5/6 seeds. I think we can take this as pretty strong evidence that Clemson is grossly under-seeded. If I’m an Oklahoma fan, I’m pretty upset about Clemson being in the neighboring game.
Well, I don’t want to dwell too long on this, because like I said, it’s a poor substitute for looking directly at the matchups. Tomorrow I’ll try to add to what ClemBen said about Michigan in his last post. If anybody has any specific questions about the simulations, drop a question in the comments. I’m probably going to tweak a few things in the next day and see how they come out. I don’t think it’s wise to post the entire projection before Thursday because I don’t want anyone taking this too seriously (just look at Clemson’s chances last year—we all know how that turned out). Plus, I can’t have ClemBen stealing any of my picks…
Monday, 16 March 2009
CLEMSON 2009 NCAA TOURNAMENT: First Thoughts
By now everyone has had a chance to pore over the brackets and formulate a few first impressions. My initial reaction: I think its a fantastic draw for Clemson. I'm sure the selection committee looked at our four losses in the last five games and used that to justify the seven seed (but hey, we avoided the 8/9 seed of death). One thing to keep in mind, though, is Clemson just played 5 of their last six games against two of the top five tallest teams (in terms of effective height) in division I, and another team ranked 28. These same teams were all ranked in the top 30 in effective defense. Clemson players must be looking at Michigan's below average height for division I and 67th ranked defense and breathing a sigh of relief.
Looking quickly at the broader picture, of the immediate 8 teams in Clemson's draw none fall in the list of the potential matchups of doom from the last post. In fact, this is probably the most wide open group of 8 teams in the tournament this year--I don't think you can choose an overwhelming favorite. Just look at the Kenpom rankings for the top four teams:
12. Arizona St.
15. Syracuse
17. Oklahoma
22. Clemson
Now I know Kenpom has underrated Oklahoma all season relative to other ranking systems (most of which peg OU at a 10-13 rank), and also Oklahoma has the advantage of playing close(r) to home in Kansas City. But I think the takeaway here is Clemson's got more than a fighting chance to come out of this group. I had been harboring hope for the last several weeks that they might draw Oklahoma, as they seemed to be the best matchup for Clemson of all the teams likely to land a one or two seed. Now, if they do manage the miracle run to the elite eight, they likely run into one of two brick walls: Gonzaga or North Carolina (if by some unlikely chance they get through, Illinois does not present a very appealing matchup either). I plan to run some simulations of the tournament in the next day or so, and I'll let you know how Clemson fares, but I'm holding out hope that they have better odds than other 7/10 seeds.
The bad news, though, is that none of these 8 teams are a perfect matchup for Clemson; each team seems to play well to a Clemson weakness of some kind. For example, Michigan is superb at handling the ball. This is clearly not good for Clemson as Fight Tigers astutely pointed out in a recent post--to be most effective, Clemson's defense really has to force turnovers. I'll try to take a closer look at the Clemson-Michigan matchup before Wednesday.
A couple of random, half-formed thoughts from quickly looking over the bracket:
Looking quickly at the broader picture, of the immediate 8 teams in Clemson's draw none fall in the list of the potential matchups of doom from the last post. In fact, this is probably the most wide open group of 8 teams in the tournament this year--I don't think you can choose an overwhelming favorite. Just look at the Kenpom rankings for the top four teams:
12. Arizona St.
15. Syracuse
17. Oklahoma
22. Clemson
Now I know Kenpom has underrated Oklahoma all season relative to other ranking systems (most of which peg OU at a 10-13 rank), and also Oklahoma has the advantage of playing close(r) to home in Kansas City. But I think the takeaway here is Clemson's got more than a fighting chance to come out of this group. I had been harboring hope for the last several weeks that they might draw Oklahoma, as they seemed to be the best matchup for Clemson of all the teams likely to land a one or two seed. Now, if they do manage the miracle run to the elite eight, they likely run into one of two brick walls: Gonzaga or North Carolina (if by some unlikely chance they get through, Illinois does not present a very appealing matchup either). I plan to run some simulations of the tournament in the next day or so, and I'll let you know how Clemson fares, but I'm holding out hope that they have better odds than other 7/10 seeds.
The bad news, though, is that none of these 8 teams are a perfect matchup for Clemson; each team seems to play well to a Clemson weakness of some kind. For example, Michigan is superb at handling the ball. This is clearly not good for Clemson as Fight Tigers astutely pointed out in a recent post--to be most effective, Clemson's defense really has to force turnovers. I'll try to take a closer look at the Clemson-Michigan matchup before Wednesday.
A couple of random, half-formed thoughts from quickly looking over the bracket:
- I cracked a malicious smile when I saw BYU's eight seed. It seems no matter how well they fare, they just can't break out of the 8/9 seed. But as much as I hate to admit it, they have a halfway decent team this year and I think this turns out to be a really bad draw for UConn in the second round.
- Most under-seeded team: WVU. I know they don't have the record, but they could do some damage from the sixth seed. Runner-up for me is probably Gonzaga.
- Most overrated: Michigan State? In other words, what Dave Cameron said.
- Biggest surprise inclusion: probably Maryland. I have a hard time getting worked up about the last two or three teams in, most of the time these teams lose in the first round anyways. I just mention Maryland because I happen to have seen them a few times this year, and I each time I thought: NIT material. Maybe the committee owes Gary Williams a favor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)