Some thoughts

1. The ND defense, contrary to most of its history, was very good and trailed only teams with elite post players (South Carolina, Stanford, LSU) or traditionally strong defenses (great coaching) UCONN.

2. Without trying to be a jerk, scoring more than you give up is a recipe for success. Probably parts 2 and 3 will parse down and delve into the whys.

3. Delta rebounds are pretty much equivalent to turnovers, with an exception IMO for a defensive rebound on a missed free throw.

4. It's nearly impossible to separate "easy" baskets from "hard" baskets, but the efg% benefits if you can make layups and follows and don't depend on contested shots

5. I wonder if the data will show that we were a poor 3-point shooting team or we didn't use that shot as often as good teams do.

6. At the elite level games are won very often in the last quarter or final 5 minutes. I don't know how to measure that other than looking at games against (say) top-25 opponents

Some good points. *

Thoughtful thoughts!

While we might compliment each other too much on the Bench, these are some great thoughts. (Hmm…maybe one can never compliment others too much.)

1. Yes, it was. We can look at the opponents' eFG% to compare. You named the good schools. So. Carolina and Stanford were ridiculous. ND didn’t have the greatest eFG%, but net was pretty good. Defense!

2. I’m reminded of the coach(es) who shout, “Put the ball in the hoop!” Yes, It’s why eFG% is typically cited as most important. I tried a number of stats but was confident eFG% would be one of them. I was surprised how the net of two stats could come so close to predicting team success. I live for surprises.

Actually, no, this site is for fans, so, as MPG guessed, I’ll gush about how Coach Ivey and staff will improve those numbers with our freshman class.

3. I wouldn’t argue, but I tried rebounds and they were all over the place. Maryland actually was out rebounded by opponents this year. Indiana, Iowa, and Villanova barely out rebounded their opponents.

4. Amen. I am continual frustrated when people yell, “Ya gotta hit the bunnies!”, as if a lay up with a couple of players hanging on you is easy. This is why I said turnovers leading to a fast break are …well, easier than a lot of other shots.

5. We shot less 3’s than any of the other top 10 teams. Indeed we shot less 3’s than any of the 60 teams I track. Of course, our coaching staff is not dumb. We also had the lowest rate of any of the top 10 teams. (Some of the 60 teams I track had slightly lower rates.)

6. I have no insights here. I guess this analysis is how a team gets to the final 5 minutes with a chance to win against a top 25 opponent.

Rebounds and easy shots

I really like how you nailed the value of a turnover (steal a possession from the opponent and possibly get an easy basket). So many announcer prattle on about points after a turnover and neglect the defensive gain).

It always seemed to me that grabbing an offensive rebound has a similar effect (stealing an opponent's possession it should have had (extra possession for you). It seems similar to a TO unless I'm missing something. Maybe TO% and rebound% don't scale very well.

The efg is affected by both the ability of the shooters and the difficulty of the shots taken. Someone commented that Indiana ran their offense very well and had a high efg - perhaps outperforming their innate skill. Also reliance on 3 point shooting leads to large deviations and potential upsets. Having a reliable floor, such as Briana Turner points, helps at this level

I only brought up the end of game due to the horrible 4th quarters during the COVID year. I'm not sure if teams/players are better/worse in the clutch or not. I've seen a vast improvement (players and coaches) over the last couple of years.