USC Basketball Net Report - 13 Jan

[RileyCock]

The Good News: I don't think there is any.
The Bad News: The schedule is tough and we may an additional problem.

USC Current Ranking: 103 (down 5 spots from last ranking)

Quality Wins: None (#45 UAB, v. #72 Florida State and at #88 Vanderbilt all Quad 2)
Quality Loses: Three (at #66 Clemson, v. #6 Auburn and at #10 Tennessee)
Bad Loses: Two (v. #114 Princeton, at #147 Coastal Carolina). Both teams moved up slightly toward Quad 2.

Remaining:

Quad 1 (7): at #49 Texas A&M, at #47 Mississippi State, v. #10 Tennessee, v. #13 Kentucky, v. #3 LSU, at #23 Alabama, at #6 Auburn
Quad 2 (4): v. #50 Florida, at #83 Arkansas, at #113 Mississippi, v. #47 Mississippi State
Quad 3 (3): v. #88 Vanderbilt; at #222 Georgia
Quad 4 (2): v. #222 Georgia, v. #230 Missouri

As you can see, the schedule is brutal. South Carolina will have to win four of the twelve Quad 1 or Quad 2 games (and win the 4 other games) to even sniff the NCAA Tournament.

Questions and observations.

1. Adjusted NET Efficiency: This takes into account points per possession of offense and defense and then adjusts it for opponent and location. The NCAA is doing a poor job of posting the numbers so I used the same source Tennessee uses to approximate this NET component.

During a different basketball discussion, a poster reasonably asserted that I was placing too much emphasis on team value and quads and ignoring Adjusted Net Efficiency (one of the components of the NET ranking). I pretty much ignored this observation because South Carolina's problems making the tournament centered on two things: (1) SOS not being string enough and (2) A bad Quad 4 loss or two. Neither of those problems exist this year. Further, we always have a really good Adjusted Defense Efficiency so how much can the offense really hurt anyway? Well, it's a lot.

Right now, USC (approximately) has it's normal excellent Adjusted Defense Efficiency at #31 (a Quad 1 team home and away) but the Adjusted Offense Efficiency is #341 (A solid Quad 4 team). Captain Obvious understands that is caused by our horrendous Turnover ratio (#341 in NCAA basketball). What's worse, USC is #28 in Adjusted Turnover Defense so it's amazing that all of the defensive turnovers are not leading to more baskets and better offensive numbers. You know it, I know it, Frank knows it but something has to be done about this

By the numbers in conference play, amount of turnovers expected per 100 plays:

Minott - 51.3
Devin Carter - 41.4
Martin - 38.8
Gray - 35.6
Wright - 32.1
Bryant - 30.9

(Note: Baylor only has one player above 30 and it's a guy who never plays).

By contrast, the five starters at Tennessee (and we lead when they were playing in the first half) Leveque, Wilson, Stevenson, Reese and Cousinard have the least amount to turnovers except for Woodley who is actually the best (this guy seems lost at times but has some of the best raw numbers.)

We, cannot keep playing everyone on the bench in every game. We have no flow and the guys listed above are playing way too many minutes and generate way too much of the turnovers. I would rather lose a little on defense to keep the offense up.

2. The No Real Bad Lose Fallacy: Per #1 above, I didn't think we had your typical Martin home bad loss in 2021-22 (I know a lot of teams have one). However, when you look at the Adjusted Net Efficiency, we actually took a significant efficiency loss against Rider (Quad 4 at home). This is going to pull down our numbers this year and may mean we need 10-8 or have an epic/impossible offensive efficiency change to make it in the end.

Would love to see your comments.

 

[Bud Wiser]

Fire Frank

 

[GamecockWarrior]

How do you say we have no quality wins?

 

[CarolinaCocky83]

The Good News: I don't think there is any.
The Bad News: The schedule is tough and we may an additional problem.

USC Current Ranking: 103 (down 5 spots from last ranking)

Quality Wins: None (#45 UAB, v. #72 Florida State and at #88 Vanderbilt all Quad 2)
Quality Loses: Three (at #66 Clemson, v. #6 Auburn and at #10 Tennessee)
Bad Loses: Two (v. #114 Princeton, at #147 Coastal Carolina). Both teams moved up slightly toward Quad 2.

Remaining:

Quad 1 (7): at #49 Texas A&M, at #47 Mississippi State, v. #10 Tennessee, v. #13 Kentucky, v. #3 LSU, at #23 Alabama, at #6 Auburn
Quad 2 (4): v. #50 Florida, at #83 Arkansas, at #113 Mississippi, v. #47 Mississippi State
Quad 3 (3): v. #88 Vanderbilt; at #222 Georgia
Quad 4 (2): v. #222 Georgia, v. #230 Missouri

As you can see, the schedule is brutal. South Carolina will have to win four of the twelve Quad 1 or Quad 2 games (and win the 4 other games) to even sniff the NCAA Tournament.

Questions and observations.

1. Adjusted NET Efficiency: This takes into account points per possession of offense and defense and then adjusts it for opponent and location. The NCAA is doing a poor job of posting the numbers so I used the same source Tennessee uses to approximate this NET component.

During a different basketball discussion, a poster reasonably asserted that I was placing too much emphasis on team value and quads and ignoring Adjusted Net Efficiency (one of the components of the NET ranking). I pretty much ignored this observation because South Carolina's problems making the tournament centered on two things: (1) SOS not being string enough and (2) A bad Quad 4 loss or two. Neither of those problems exist this year. Further, we always have a really good Adjusted Defense Efficiency so how much can the offense really hurt anyway? Well, it's a lot.

Right now, USC (approximately) has it's normal excellent Adjusted Defense Efficiency at #31 (a Quad 1 team home and away) but the Adjusted Offense Efficiency is #341 (A solid Quad 4 team). Captain Obvious understands that is caused by our horrendous Turnover ratio (#341 in NCAA basketball). What's worse, USC is #28 in Adjusted Turnover Defense so it's amazing that all of the defensive turnovers are not leading to more baskets and better offensive numbers. You know it, I know it, Frank knows it but something has to be done about this

By the numbers in conference play, amount of turnovers expected per 100 plays:

Minott - 51.3
Devin Carter - 41.4
Martin - 38.8
Gray - 35.6
Wright - 32.1
Bryant - 30.9

(Note: Baylor only has one player above 30 and it's a guy who never plays).

By contrast, the five starters at Tennessee (and we lead when they were playing in the first half) Leveque, Wilson, Stevenson, Reese and Cousinard have the least amount to turnovers except for Woodley who is actually the best (this guy seems lost at times but has some of the best raw numbers.)

We, cannot keep playing everyone on the bench in every game. We have no flow and the guys listed above are playing way too many minutes and generate way too much of the turnovers. I would rather lose a little on defense to keep the offense up.

2. The No Real Bad Lose Fallacy: Per #1 above, I didn't think we had your typical Martin home bad loss in 2021-22 (I know a lot of teams have one). However, when you look at the Adjusted Net Efficiency, we actually took a significant efficiency loss against Rider (Quad 4 at home). This is going to pull down our numbers this year and may mean we need 10-8 or have an epic/impossible offensive efficiency change to make it in the end.

Would love to see your comments.

It was the Clemson game thread in which I brought up the efficiency numbers. Though I certainly didn’t articulate that in great detail. All the efficiency numbers seem to do is put data on the eye test. If you play ugly and get beat, well your efficiency numbers aren’t going to be good.
It is obvious you have spent some time gathering all these numbers and it is interesting to look at. Great job at displaying all these numbers and where we are.
Sadly none of it is surprising. But one fact remains in whether it is our schedule, the bad losses or how our efficiency ranks. That being the lack of consistency.
My opinion is when the roster turnover rate is the way it is you fail to capitalize on building a team. I believe we have the talent but we are piecing together a roster and then spending the time configuring out the rotation and roles.
So am I really surprised we have a number of guys with those turnover numbers? I’m not. I am surprised at wright and carters numbers.
I do agree on limited minutes for some of our players, and Bryant being one of those. He shouldn’t have the ball in his hands longer than 3 seconds as his handles are weak and too often tries to force something instead of playing within his strengths in which he brings great value to our team.
I do believe we will get a couple of quad one wins, as hard as that is to imagine, but unfortunately I don’t see us getting to 10-8, which I agree will have to be done at minimum.
Side note: the only game I attended this year was the Rider game and quite honestly surprised that wasn’t our BAD loss for the year though it seemingly still had the same effect. So BAD wins can exist!

 

[RileyCock]

How do you say we have no quality wins?

This isn't my take. The NCAA explaining NET lists quality wins as Quad 1 and bad losses as Quad 3 and 4 losses. By that definition, we do not have a quality win.

Time will tell but I think UAB was a quality win regardless of arbitrary Quad boxes.

 

[RileyCock]

It was the Clemson game thread in which I brought up the efficiency numbers. Though I certainly didn’t articulate that in great detail. All the efficiency numbers seem to do is put data on the eye test. If you play ugly and get beat, well your efficiency numbers aren’t going to be good.
It is obvious you have spent some time gathering all these numbers and it is interesting to look at. Great job at displaying all these numbers and where we are.
Sadly none of it is surprising. But one fact remains in whether it is our schedule, the bad losses or how our efficiency ranks. That being the lack of consistency.
My opinion is when the roster turnover rate is the way it is you fail to capitalize on building a team. I believe we have the talent but we are piecing together a roster and then spending the time configuring out the rotation and roles.
So am I really surprised we have a number of guys with those turnover numbers? I’m not. I am surprised at wright and carters numbers.
I do agree on limited minutes for some of our players, and Bryant being one of those. He shouldn’t have the ball in his hands longer than 3 seconds as his handles are weak and too often tries to force something instead of playing within his strengths in which he brings great value to our team.
I do believe we will get a couple of quad one wins, as hard as that is to imagine, but unfortunately I don’t see us getting to 10-8, which I agree will have to be done at minimum.
Side note: the only game I attended this year was the Rider game and quite honestly surprised that wasn’t our BAD loss for the year though it seemingly still had the same effect. So BAD wins can exist!

This was an interesting and perhaps an exercise in futility. But, for adjusted efficiency purposes, you can have can have bad wins and good losses.

For example, at Coastal Carolina was -23.1 and we have no wins that are better that. The Rider win (-6.4) was the same as the loss to Clemson (-6.4) and worse than the losses to Auburn (-0.9) and At Tennessee (-1.3) (remember these are adjusted numbers). So, you get no value boost from a Quad 4 Rider like you do with a Quad 1 Clemson but have the same efficiency deficit.

Our best wins were v. Western Kentucky (+17.3) and Army (+17.3). The Army game was particularly important because it's already adjusted. At the rate we played offense that game over the course of the season, we would have the second best offense in the NCAA. So, at least it's not impossible to see a dramatic increase in offensive efficiency.

Another negative related to conference play, we only have three players better than average (Wilson, Leveque and Stevenson). Our best total shooting lineup (2pt, 3pt and FT) is Leveque, Wilson, Stevenson, Reese and Wright. So, our best shooting lineup also has four of the lowest turnover guys (swap Wright for Cousinard) and these number don't affect one another. In fairness, most of these guys have more minutes played but Martin (#8 in shooting, #11 in not turning the ball over) had more minutes played than Wilson (#2 in shooting and #2 in not turning the ball over).

Personally, I'd like to see the bench shortened a little bit.

Last, then I'll stop posting numbers. South Carolina is #28 in adjusted tempo. So, we play very fast and turn the ball over at a high percentage, which hammers our adjusted offensive efficiency. A little confirmation bias between my eyes and the numbers but I think the team is moving too fast a lot of the time.

 

[GamecockWarrior]

This isn't my take. The NCAA explaining NET lists quality wins as Quad 1 and bad losses as Quad 3 and 4 losses. By that definition, we do not have a quality win.

Time will tell but I think UAB was a quality win regardless of arbitrary Quad boxes.

Well I think Quad 1 and 2 wins should qualify for a quality win.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

This was an interesting and perhaps an exercise in futility. But, for adjusted efficiency purposes, you can have can have bad wins and good losses.

For example, at Coastal Carolina was -23.1 and we have no wins that are better that. The Rider win (-6.4) was the same as the loss to Clemson (-6.4) and worse than the losses to Auburn (-0.9) and At Tennessee (-1.3) (remember these are adjusted numbers). So, you get no value boost from a Quad 4 Rider like you do with a Quad 1 Clemson but have the same efficiency deficit.

Our best wins were v. Western Kentucky (+17.3) and Army (+17.3). The Army game was particularly important because it's already adjusted. At the rate we played offense that game over the course of the season, we would have the second best offense in the NCAA. So, at least it's not impossible to see a dramatic increase in offensive efficiency.

Another negative related to conference play, we only have three players better than average (Wilson, Leveque and Stevenson). Our best total shooting lineup (2pt, 3pt and FT) is Leveque, Wilson, Stevenson, Reese and Wright. So, our best shooting lineup also has four of the lowest turnover guys (swap Wright for Cousinard) and these number don't affect one another. In fairness, most of these guys have more minutes played but Martin (#8 in shooting, #11 in not turning the ball over) had more minutes played than Wilson (#2 in shooting and #2 in not turning the ball over).

Personally, I'd like to see the bench shortened a little bit.

Last, then I'll stop posting numbers. South Carolina is #28 in adjusted tempo. So, we play very fast and turn the ball over at a high percentage, which hammers our adjusted offensive efficiency. A little confirmation bias between my eyes and the numbers but I think the team is moving too fast a lot of the time.

You’ve clearly done your research and I enjoy reading your posts.

I personally hate that offensive efficiency even factors in at all. Did you win? Did you lose? How good was your opponent? Where did you play? I get why all these things matter and should be taken into account.

As a basketball coach myself, when a game gets out of hand (win or lose) I’m looking to get new guys in and build depth and experience.

I don’t disagree that our bench needs to be shortened in tight games. I just hate to think that a coach is thinking offensive efficiency toward the end of a 20-40 point blowout game.

 

[RileyCock]

I personally hate that offensive efficiency even factors in at all. Did you win? Did you lose? How good was your opponent? Where did you play? I get why all these things matter and should be taken into account.

The NET is the overreaction to the old RPI system (25% wins, 50% SOS, 25% Opp SOS) adjusted for where a team played (multipliers for road wins, home loses; less emphasis on road loses and home win). People also begin to think systems like KenPom (USC #102) were better than mere RPI. Finally, the arbitrary Quads with location adjustment replaced the old Quality Wins (Top 50), Bad Losses (Bottom 150 - I think).

The new NET removed margin of victory and now emphases only Team Value (your emphasis) and Adjusted Net Efficiency. Adjusted Net Efficiency also is not transparent. The NCAA is not publishing values or team pages and the rankings do not match up across rating sites (KenPom, T-Rank, etc.).

In all, it appears under the new system turnovers and opponent second chance points are going to really hurt Carolina unless they turn things around.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

The NET is the overreaction to the old RPI system (25% wins, 50% SOS, 25% Opp SOS) adjusted for where a team played (multipliers for road wins, home loses; less emphasis on road loses and home win). People also begin to think systems like KenPom (USC #102) were better than mere RPI. Finally, the arbitrary Quads with location adjustment replaced the old Quality Wins (Top 50), Bad Losses (Bottom 150 - I think).

The new NET removed margin of victory and now emphases only Team Value (your emphasis) and Adjusted Net Efficiency. Adjusted Net Efficiency also is not transparent. The NCAA is not publishing values or team pages and the rankings do not match up across rating sites (KenPom, T-Rank, etc.).

In all, it appears under the new system turnovers and opponent second chance points are going to really hurt Carolina unless they turn things around.

Unfortunately whether it’s the metrics or the scoreboard I think you nailed it on the last paragraph.

Personally I think they’re making something more complicated than it has to be. There are only 36 at large births. There are usually only a handful of teams that don’t make it that have a legitimate argument. Just talk it out amongst basketball guys and get the best in the tournament

 

[vacock#]

People still follow this team? Joke

Sometimes it’s hard to watch so I turn off the TV. Best wishes though.

 

[Scuba_do]

To be the best, you have to beat the best. We, obviously, are NOT the best, so none of this really matters. Are we lobbying for a top 64 berth? And if we get it, will we be happy when we lose first round, or will it begin another round of trying to figure out how good/bad we are?

 

[Cock-a-Doo]

I really enjoy these post as well by the OP and the insights and time spent on the information/analysis presented.

I feel like this team is a relatively talented group, probably still lacking against some of the other top programs in the SEC, but we are getting in my opinion a net negative production output from what our telent level is and it's due to what I believe is the coaching philosophy/strategy/decisions.
We have the talent level of a team that needs an extra 6-10 points per game boost FROM good coaching and so things staying as they are we are just going to have a really miserable season with probably several close heart breaking losses.

I have tried so hard to like Frank and to support him but year after year its the same stuff. he's great for a sound bite or a word of perspective on some things but that's just run its course and doesn't mean a whole bunch when you aren't winning. It's simply not working and we need to move on.

 

[Neanderthal]

You’ve clearly done your research and I enjoy reading your posts.

I personally hate that offensive efficiency even factors in at all. Did you win? Did you lose? How good was your opponent? Where did you play? I get why all these things matter and should be taken into account.

Back in the day (before retirement), we’d measure our offensive efficiency about midway thru the season and right at the beginning of conference play. Calculate efficiency of fast break, delayed break, man sets, zone sets, OB sets, etc. but only against the best 5-6 opponents we’d played. Also, takes too much time to run it vs all teams. You figure, did it work against the good teams?

Is this what you do?

Thanks to the OP for the data. Interesting stuff. Take the analytics and put in an equal share of “a coach knows what works/intuition/feel” and then go with it. Analytics tells a lot but it doesn’t tell it all.

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

Back in the day (before retirement), we’d measure our offensive efficiency about midway thru the season and right at the beginning of conference play. Calculate efficiency of fast break, delayed break, man sets, zone sets, OB sets, etc. but only against the best 5-6 opponents we’d played. Also, takes too much time to run it vs all teams. You figure, did it work against the good teams?

Is this what you do?

Thanks to the OP for the data. Interesting stuff. Take the analytics and put in an equal share of “a coach knows what works/intuition/feel” and then go with it. Analytics tells a lot but it doesn’t tell it all.

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread.

I am recently retired from coaching, but I can tell you I was big into stats and analytics. If for no other reason to know who to play and who to not play. I’ve always said that every coach in the country is too high on one kid and not high enough on another each year. I also did it for the random parent that wanted to complain about why their kid doesn’t play….like leading the team in turnovers in limited minutes.

I can tell by the questions you’re asking you were a pretty good coach. Some coaches just run or stall no matter what. In reality you should do what you do best, but have a pretty good idea of opponent strengths and weaknesses. I also like your comment about man and zone sets. Early on in my career I would call those on “feel”. Later on I would call them more based on the stats. What we ran best we ran at crunch time. However, sometimes you have to feel for what player or play has been doing better that day. To me the big Gamecock example was Justin McKie in the Gonzaga game. Statistically he was not our best player in a lot of games, but I thought in that big moment he played as well as anyone we put out there and probably should have played more that day.

 

[Silver_Coconut]

People still follow this team? Joke

Sometimes it’s hard to watch so I turn off the TV. Best wishes though.

I know for some it's hard to remain supportive when things aren't perfect, but for some of us we love and will follow the gamecocks no matter what.

 

[will110]

I really enjoy these post as well by the OP and the insights and time spent on the information/analysis presented.

I feel like this team is a relatively talented group, probably still lacking against some of the other top programs in the SEC, but we are getting in my opinion a net negative production output from what our telent level is and it's due to what I believe is the coaching philosophy/strategy/decisions.
We have the talent level of a team that needs an extra 6-10 points per game boost FROM good coaching and so things staying as they are we are just going to have a really miserable season with probably several close heart breaking losses.

I have tried so hard to like Frank and to support him but year after year its the same stuff. he's great for a sound bite or a word of perspective on some things but that's just run its course and doesn't mean a whole bunch when you aren't winning. It's simply not working and we need to move on.

This is exactly where I am on Carolina basketball. I've supported Frank and given him the benefit of the doubt over and over, but at some point the product is what it is. After ten years, it's the same thing over and over again.

 

[vacock#]

I know for some it's hard to remain supportive when things aren't perfect, but for some of us we love and will follow the gamecocks no matter what.

I follow them but …
“We could have been a contender”

 

[Silver_Coconut]

I follow them but …
“We could have been a contender”

We're 10-4 man with 13 SEC games left. Try to enjoy.

 

[Cock-a-Doo]

We're 10-4 man with 13 SEC games left. Try to enjoy.

I think most of us want to do that - I think what’s hard is just feeling like you’re watching the same script you know the ending to play out again….it feels that way 3 games in at least

 

[vacock#]

We're 10-4 man with 13 SEC games left. Try to enjoy.

How many of those 13 do you expect us to win?

 

[Silver_Coconut]

How many of those 13 do you expect us to win?

I don’t have a guess man. I honestly don’t. Just waiting to see how it plays out.

 

[CarolinaCocky83]

We have 15 games left, as we play a 18 game conference schedule.

Home games - UF, UGA, VANDY, UT, UK, LSU, MSU, AND MIZZOU. We need to win 6 of these, with 5 being more likely with the best chance against UGA VANDY MSU AND MIZZOU. And steal, hopefully, 2 out of the rest. Getting a win tomorrow would be big.

Away games - @ARKY @TAMU, @MSU, @UGA, @OLE MISS, @BAMA, @AUBURN - Need to win 3 of these.

We can play and hang with the big boys when we are on. But as pointed out as to what the biggest culprit to us reaching our potential is turnovers. We seemed to be hitting a stride before Covid, but now we are stuck trying to reach that again in conference. We have the ability to get to 10 wins in conference. Will we? Well thats left up to our guys. We have the offensive capability, but lack consistency which I believe is attributed to simply not taking care of the ball and then looking like we are pressing because of all the lost possessions.

Also, if we just win 8 of those, we end up 9-9 in conference, which overall would be 18-12 before conference tourney. Go 2-1 and we sit at 20-13. Would that be enough? Hard to tell and dependent on how many teams project for the tourney out of our conference. The depth at the top should propel the SEC to more bids as it isn't UK and everyone else. Why I feel going 10-8 is paramount to our chances and not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Gamekem]

In terms of NET rankings and most expectations leading up to that game, losing to Tennessee really wasn't that bad. But in terms of the eye test, that was a horrible loss and will ultimately hurt the team even if they somehow manage a 9-9 record.

 

[Jaybird1010]

Um we are 10-5. Florida will be a tough win. There offer in the sec. there bound to win. Devin has played like trash since conference has started. He is a turnover machine like Bryant. Neither can dribble. This team will never make the dance. They can’t shoot, the can’t shoot free throws and they turnover the ball way to much.

 

[Jaybird1010]

I wish Frank would sometimes play four guards and Wildens or start Bryant at the four.

 

[CockofEarle]

I know for some it's hard to remain supportive when things aren't perfect, but for some of us we love and will follow the gamecocks no matter what.

👍