Fantastic stuff here by Kirk.
enCYCLONEpedia: Deconstructing a Cliche | News | Men's Basketball | Cyclone Fanatic
enCYCLONEpedia: Deconstructing a Cliche | News | Men's Basketball | Cyclone Fanatic
enCYCLONEpedia: Deconstructing a cliche
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
Excellent. Nice to see some stats to back up my general impressions (and irritation with how this team is depicted).
Khaal, you are the Malcolm Gladwell of Cyclone statistics.
So if it isn't ISU's 3pt performance that determines their success then what factor is it? I'm going to say opponent field goal percentage. But that probably could be said of any team.
So if it isn't ISU's 3pt performance that determines their success then what factor is it? I'm going to say opponent field goal percentage. But that probably could be said of any team.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
We score. It's what we do.
Some for 3, some from 2, some from the FT line. However we have to do it, we score points. The 3 is just one big part to the arsenal, but we can win against good teams without it.
I think the "live by the 3, die by the 3" is just lazy analysis.
Some for 3, some from 2, some from the FT line. However we have to do it, we score points. The 3 is just one big part to the arsenal, but we can win against good teams without it.
I think the "live by the 3, die by the 3" is just lazy analysis.
You're too kind. To be honest I haven't found a single thing that can be correlated to wins and losses throughout this season. For a while it was the combo A:TO ratio of Lucious and Clyburn but that has kind of worn off. Maybe this week I'll go back and try and dig one up again.
We seem to live and die by our bigs foul trouble and Clyburns aggression.
Awesome write up, stats make my dark comptroller soul shine a little brighter.
Awesome write up, stats make my dark comptroller soul shine a little brighter.
Kirk,
a week ago (or so), you looked at fouls/ FT by team for home and away games. I feel like for games we've won - while not making a lot of 3s) we shot and made a lot of FTs. Opposite for games we've lost. Do the stats back this up? How do our FT performances correlate with 3P performances for wins and losses? Care to take this a step further?
a week ago (or so), you looked at fouls/ FT by team for home and away games. I feel like for games we've won - while not making a lot of 3s) we shot and made a lot of FTs. Opposite for games we've lost. Do the stats back this up? How do our FT performances correlate with 3P performances for wins and losses? Care to take this a step further?
This is the same chart as in the article with FTM and FTA included. At a quick glance it is all over the map.
View attachment 19181
Wow. You're right. 10 of 22 against a good team (KSU) and we win. 29 of 34 + #1 ranking 3P performance and we lose. We only shoot 3 against TCU, combined with a poor 3P performance and we win...
Great stuff Kirk! Definitely agree that Iowa State doesn't live and die by the three, but the threat of shooting the three opens up everything else, so it's a juxtaposition of sorts. Always appreciate your work!
Absolutely love your work! This whole 3 point shooting thing has been driving me crazy too. After looking at your analysis I decided to break up the games into three 3pt shooting categories to look for any patterns:
Cat 1. Games we won where our pts/poss were top ten but our 3FG% was in the lower half (in the 11-20 range). Only one game applied OSU(H).
Cat 2. Games we lost where both our pts/poss and our 3FG% were top ten. Two games fell into this category: Kansas(H) and KSU(A)
Cat 3. Games we won where both our pts/poss and our 3FG% was in the lower half (in the 11-20 range). Four games fell into this category: Oklahoma(N), Baylor(H), TCU(A) and WVU(H).
There were 13 games remaining. In theses games we either won with a top ten pts/poss and a top ten 3FG% (7 games) or lost with a bottom half pts/poss and 3FG% (6 games). These games were not considered because we performed as expected.
For the most part, two common factors determined our overachieving or underachieving in these games based on pts/poss and our 3FG%.
The first factor in explaining many of the discrepancies of these games were free throws. We got to the line significantly more than our opponent (and made our free throws) in two of the Cat 3 games, Baylor(H) and WVU(H). Baylor(H) we made 25/30 FT versus 11/17 for them. WVU(H) we made 15/19 FT versus 8/13 for them. We overperformed our relatively poor pts/poss and 3FG% with free throws in these games.
Another game affected by free throws was the Cat 2 KSU(A) game. Here we underperformed our top ten pts/poss and top ten 3FG% by not getting to the free throw line. KSU made 18/22 and we only got to the line 7 times and made 6.
The other factor that determined our over/under achieving was three point shooting by our opponents. Many times they shot a good number of threes in these games and either beat us at our own game, i.e. Kansas(H) or shot the three very poorly (even worse then our bottom half 3FG% games), i.e. OSU(H) and Oklahoma(N).
In the Cat 2 Kansas(H) loss, Kansas really did beat us at our own game. They made 13/25 threes and we made 17/41 threes.
In the Cat 1 OSU(H) win we overcame our number 15 3FG% game by outshooting OSU. They only made an awful 4/23 threes and we made 7/22 threes. OSU tried to play the three game with us and got burned.
In the Cat 3 Oklahoma(N) game again we overperformed our 27% (7/26) three point shooting with Oklahoma only making 3 of their 18 three point attempts (17%).
The only game that did not fall into either free throws or three point shooting by our opponent was the Cat 3 TCU(A) game. Here we overcame our 5/18 three point shooting by significantly overperforming TCU in two point field goals. We shot 66% (25/38) from 2 point range in the game.
Themes for Cyclones three point shooting. When we are efficient in pts/possession and our 3 point shooting percentage we are obviously very tough to beat. The only teams able to overcome that type of efficiency were Kansas (it took 13/25 shooting from three to do it) and KSU with a 18/22 free throw game (we were 6/7).
When Fred's offensive plan is working we can avoid the few times we get upset by not letting our opponent go off on the three ball and/or not fouling at a significant rate more than our opponent.
Also, we can still win games when both our pts/poss and 3FG% are sub-par. It either takes a game we are agressively getting to the foul line (keeping our opponent off the foul line) and making our free throws, and/or a game we we outplay our opponent on the defensive end (mainly by shutting down our opponent from beyond the arc).
Last edited:
Since there were only seven games to look at in my analysis above, a closer look at the games in the four most important game factors (eFG%,TO%,OR%,FTR - from teamrankings.com) may help to give overall themes on how ISU overcomes dying by the three (which it does often). Or, how ISU does not always live by the three and win when shooing the three well (which does happen but seldom).
Below are the seven conference games that ISU either outperformed poor/mediocre three point shooting to overcome dying by the three or shooting the three well (not living by it) and losing games.
-----------Eff ---eFG%--TO%--OR%--FTR
Baylor(A)--0.975 47.6% 16.5% 25.7% 27.0%
ISU(H)----1.085 45.8% 13.7% 30.3% 50.8%
In this game we overcame poor three point shooting (4/24) with a high free throw rate (50.8% vs 27.0%). All other factors were reasonably close in the game.
----------Eff---eFG%--TO%---OR%-FTR
WVU(A)--0.999 48.4% 22.4% 38.5% 21.3%
ISU(H)---1.029 49.1% 19.4% 28.1% 34.5%
Here we were able to barely overcome a below average 8/24 from three (WVU shot 9/24) and being outrebounded on the O boards by 6, by getting to the line and making seven more free throws than WVU.
---------Eff---eFG%--TO%-OR%---FTR
ISU(A)--1.079 60.4% 30.8% 43.5% 13.2%
KSU(H)--1.218 59.8% 21.6% 50.0% 43.1%
K-State beat us on a good three point shooting day (12/27) by outshooting us from three (they shot 9/18) and gettting to the line at a much higher rate (18/22 vs 6/7 for us).
------------Eff--eFG%--TO%--OR% FTR
Kansas(A) 1.264 64.0% 19.9% 30.0% 39.7%
ISU(H)----1.124 47.9% 9.4% 23.8% 48.6%
Here Kansas clearly beat us at our own game and beat us from the 3-point line (13/25 vs. 17/41 for us)
---------Eff--eFG%--TO%--OR%--FTR
OSU(A)-1.033 44.6% 16.3% 30.6% 30.8%
ISU(H)--1.182 58.7% 20.4% 37.0% 67.3%
Against OSU we overcame poor 3 point shooting (7/22) because they even shot it worse fom three (4/23). Free throws were also a factor here. We got to the line 15 times more then OSU and made 8 more free throws than they did.
--------Eff---eFG%-TO%--OR%---FTR
ISU(N)--1.140 48.4% 17.2% 42.4% 23.0%
Okla(N)--1.031 40.5% 7.8% 30.8% 28.6%
Two factors helped us wn this ugly game. The main reason for winning this game was our rebounding. We outrebounded OSU 43 to 31 (and by 2 on the O boards). Also, even though we shot poor from 3 (6/14) they shot it horrible from 3 (3/18).
--------Eff----eFG%--TO%-OR%---FTR
ISU(A)--1.024 54.5% 26.0% 44.0% 5.4%
TCU(H)-0.824 42.2% 22.1% 13.8% 37.3%
We overcame our bad 3-point shooting (5/18) because they even shot it worse from 3 (1/10). But mainly it was our great 2 point shooting that saved us in this game (66%-25/38). They shot 19/45 from 2 for 42%.
Again, a close look at these games confirms that ISU can overcome poor/mediocre three point shooting (and not die) by agressively getting to the foul line (keeping our opponent off the foul line) and making our free throws, and/or games we we outplay our opponent on the defensive end (mainly by shutting down our opponent from beyond the arc). Rebounding also played a factor in one game, but we are just not a good enough rebounding team to make this happen very often.
ISU will also not live by the three when we shoot it well but fail to keep our opponents from even shooting it better then we do from three. We also can not allow our opponents to get to the line at significanly higher rates then us or we can be beaten on a good three night.
Below are the seven conference games that ISU either outperformed poor/mediocre three point shooting to overcome dying by the three or shooting the three well (not living by it) and losing games.
-----------Eff ---eFG%--TO%--OR%--FTR
Baylor(A)--0.975 47.6% 16.5% 25.7% 27.0%
ISU(H)----1.085 45.8% 13.7% 30.3% 50.8%
In this game we overcame poor three point shooting (4/24) with a high free throw rate (50.8% vs 27.0%). All other factors were reasonably close in the game.
----------Eff---eFG%--TO%---OR%-FTR
WVU(A)--0.999 48.4% 22.4% 38.5% 21.3%
ISU(H)---1.029 49.1% 19.4% 28.1% 34.5%
Here we were able to barely overcome a below average 8/24 from three (WVU shot 9/24) and being outrebounded on the O boards by 6, by getting to the line and making seven more free throws than WVU.
---------Eff---eFG%--TO%-OR%---FTR
ISU(A)--1.079 60.4% 30.8% 43.5% 13.2%
KSU(H)--1.218 59.8% 21.6% 50.0% 43.1%
K-State beat us on a good three point shooting day (12/27) by outshooting us from three (they shot 9/18) and gettting to the line at a much higher rate (18/22 vs 6/7 for us).
------------Eff--eFG%--TO%--OR% FTR
Kansas(A) 1.264 64.0% 19.9% 30.0% 39.7%
ISU(H)----1.124 47.9% 9.4% 23.8% 48.6%
Here Kansas clearly beat us at our own game and beat us from the 3-point line (13/25 vs. 17/41 for us)
---------Eff--eFG%--TO%--OR%--FTR
OSU(A)-1.033 44.6% 16.3% 30.6% 30.8%
ISU(H)--1.182 58.7% 20.4% 37.0% 67.3%
Against OSU we overcame poor 3 point shooting (7/22) because they even shot it worse fom three (4/23). Free throws were also a factor here. We got to the line 15 times more then OSU and made 8 more free throws than they did.
--------Eff---eFG%-TO%--OR%---FTR
ISU(N)--1.140 48.4% 17.2% 42.4% 23.0%
Okla(N)--1.031 40.5% 7.8% 30.8% 28.6%
Two factors helped us wn this ugly game. The main reason for winning this game was our rebounding. We outrebounded OSU 43 to 31 (and by 2 on the O boards). Also, even though we shot poor from 3 (6/14) they shot it horrible from 3 (3/18).
--------Eff----eFG%--TO%-OR%---FTR
ISU(A)--1.024 54.5% 26.0% 44.0% 5.4%
TCU(H)-0.824 42.2% 22.1% 13.8% 37.3%
We overcame our bad 3-point shooting (5/18) because they even shot it worse from 3 (1/10). But mainly it was our great 2 point shooting that saved us in this game (66%-25/38). They shot 19/45 from 2 for 42%.
Again, a close look at these games confirms that ISU can overcome poor/mediocre three point shooting (and not die) by agressively getting to the foul line (keeping our opponent off the foul line) and making our free throws, and/or games we we outplay our opponent on the defensive end (mainly by shutting down our opponent from beyond the arc). Rebounding also played a factor in one game, but we are just not a good enough rebounding team to make this happen very often.
ISU will also not live by the three when we shoot it well but fail to keep our opponents from even shooting it better then we do from three. We also can not allow our opponents to get to the line at significanly higher rates then us or we can be beaten on a good three night.
Last edited:
Technically, the team did everything they had to do to win that game, including taking a text book charge. I'm still ****** about that.
khaal just on Murph and Andy discussing this. Well done sir. Glad he was ble to point out how wrong Murph and Andy are on this subject.