Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Speechless
    Points: 252,770, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    BryceC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    16,503
    Points
    252,770
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 64
    Given: 0

    2011 Tempo/Random Individual Stats

    It is interesting to compare some of the stats for our team and players from this last year to previous years. Individual numbers were greatly inflated due to lack of quality depth and the tempo we played. Iíd like to look at a few team things first which I thought were pretty interesting.

    We had a debate earlier this season about whether we were really playing faster or not. We ended the season with an adjusted tempo of 70.4 possessions per game per KenPom, good for 33rd fasted team in the nation. The list of major conference teams that played faster than us? Providence, Mizzou, UNC, Maryland, Washington, and Texas Tech. I honestly did not expect to see TT on that list.


    Last year we played at a tempo of 69.1 possessions per game, good for 80th. Doesnít sound all that different, so lets look at some raw numbers.

    This year, we had 1993 shots and 1171 rebounds. Last year, we had 1873 shots and 1227 rebounds. Obviously, 120 extra shots is only about 4 more per game over a 30 game season. There were only about 30 more offensive rebounds in 2010 as opposed to 2011 as well. 4 shots may not sound like a lot, but I think many Cyclone fans would agree it appeared there was a real difference in how the tempo of the games, even if the stats donít make it appear like it would be all that different.


    One final thought Ė the difference between the ISU (who I would consider to be a very fast team) and UNI (A very, very slow team, 340th of 345) is only about 10 possessions per game. They had 1702 shots from the field and to our 1993. They averaged 51 shots per game. We averaged 62. Thatís 11 shots per game, but it makes the games seem worlds apart. 4 shots per game IMO would make a considerable difference in the perception of how quick a team is playing.


    Finally, there were some pretty interesting statistical anomalies because of the minutes this season. First, Diante. One of the best raw numbers seasons in ISU history for an individual. The shooting stats are hilarious though Ė he attempted 518 shots this seasonÖ after attempting 531 the previous two seasons COMBINED.

    Christopherson is the current career three point % record holder for ISU basketball, at 43.7%. #2 as you would guess is SullivanÖ who barely beat out our own Vanderbeken. In fact, Jake was a career 42.386% shooter, JVB was 42.352. In fact, had Jaime made just one more 3 pointer he would have been the career leader in school history.

    Jake had a very interesting season. In his short career, he finished with 7.2 RPG. He will be the only guard in the ISU top 20, a strange list dominated by guys who played back when freshman didnít play (and also, when they collected ridiculous rebounding numbers) and guys who were junior college players who didnít have lower freshman stats to drag down their career numbers. Iím really happy he made his way into the ISU record books though.

    Sorry, I know this got long I just thought it was some cool stuff.




  2. #2
    Pro
    Points: 100,791, Level: 98
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 259
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    Your first GroupVeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience Points
    khaal53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,413
    Points
    100,791
    Level
    98
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 31
    Given: 0

    Re: 2011 Tempo/Random Individual Stats

    Just to chime in...

    A couple of reasons for the extra shots this year besides just more possessions and the offensive rebounds. Last year we shot 691 FT's compared to 527 in 2010-11 and we had 439 TO in 2009-10 compared to 397 in 2010-11.




    I'm on Twitter: @khaal53

  3. #3
    Addict
    Points: 89,185, Level: 92
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 165
    Overall activity: 25.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    awd4cy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Peru, IL
    Posts
    7,298
    Points
    89,185
    Level
    92
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 148
    Given: 116

    Re: 2011 Tempo/Random Individual Stats

    Thanks for the post. Some very interesting statistics. I cant believe that Garrett attempted almost as many shots as his sophomore and junior season combined, thats crazy!



  4. #4
    Speechless
    Points: 311,858, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 73.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    bawbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts
    18,000
    Points
    311,858
    Level
    100
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 323
    Given: 841

    Re: 2011 Tempo/Random Individual Stats

    Quote Originally Posted by BryceC View Post

    We had a debate earlier this season about whether we were really playing faster or not. We ended the season with an adjusted tempo of 70.4 possessions per game per KenPom, good for 33rd fasted team in the nation. The list of major conference teams that played faster than us? Providence, Mizzou, UNC, Maryland, Washington, and Texas Tech. I honestly did not expect to see TT on that list.
    I found it interesting that none of the Final Four teams ranked in the top half in tempo: They were 197th (VCU), 210th (UK), 240th (UConn) and 277th (Butler).

    That's probably just coincidence, but I would probably be worth a statistical analysis to see if slow tempo teams tend to perform better in the tournament.



  5. #5
    Pro
    Points: 100,791, Level: 98
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 259
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    Your first GroupVeteranCreated Album pictures50000 Experience Points
    khaal53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,413
    Points
    100,791
    Level
    98
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 31
    Given: 0

    Re: 2011 Tempo/Random Individual Stats

    Typically slow-tempo teams do, solely because it is easier to slow a game down and force their style on the opponent. Limiting possessions also helps to makeup obvious talent deficiencies....not that I have numbers to back up that claim at the moment.




    I'm on Twitter: @khaal53

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • Football
  • Iowa State vs. North Dakota State
  • August 30, 2014
  • 06:00 PM