What a season. Despite the fact that UNC started the season ranked 8th (AP) in the nation and ended season ranked 7th, and that Doc, THF and I almost nailed our preseason predictions, this season was nothing like what was expected. For both good and bad reasons, this may have been one of the most memorable, non-championship seasons in a long, long, time. On the other side of the break, the season’s final edition of Beyond the Box will explore and dissect the statistics behind this wild season.
Four Factors
| eFG% | TO% | OR% | FTR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 Tar Heels | 49.2 | 18.3 | 37.1 | 37.9 |
| 2011 Opponents | 46.2 | 19.5 | 30.1 | 24.8 |
| 2010 Tar Heels | 48.0 | 20.8 | 39.1 | 37.2 |
| 2010 Opponents | 47.1 | 18.8 | 32.7 | 24.5 |
I decided to make this not only an examination of how UNC did in relation to its opponents this season, but also an opportunity to compare the overall performances of this year’s team versus last year’s. In looking at these data, while Carolina certainly shot and defended better this year than they did last year, what really stands out are the turnover numbers. The Heels went from a team that threw the ball all over the gym last season (TO%: 20.8) to a team that was in the top 20% in terms of protecting the basketball (TO%: 18.3). The difference in TO% between the two seasons equates to about 2 less turnovers per game; given that the Heels won an incredible nine games that were decided by one possession (including the overtime win against Clemson), it is pretty easy to see what a dramatic difference protecting the basketball can make. Moreover, the Heels were able to flip the script entirely this year, going from a team who turned the ball over approximately 2 more times a game than their opponent, to a team that forced their opponents into an extra turnover a game.
While the comparison between the last two seasons is important, what is more important is the comparison of this year’s team based on who was the starting point guard:
| Pos/Game | eFG% | TO% | OR% | FTR | AST% | Raw EM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drew Starting | 73.5 | 49.3 | 19.5 | 35.7 | 42.0 | 54.7 | 13.5 |
| Marshall Starting | 71.3 | 49.0 | 17.5 | 38.4 | 34.5 | 55.1 | 10.9 |
What jumps out immediately is the fact that the Heels actually had a significantly better raw EM with Drew starting than they did with Marshall starting. A very obvious explanation for this would be that UNC was played a much more difficult schedule the second half of the season, and this turns out to be absolutely true. The approximate cumulative Pythagorean winning percentage for Carolina’s opponents during the Drew-started games was 0.728, while in the Marshall-started games it shot up to 0.867. However, even when the efficiency margins are (roughly) adjusted to compensate for relative strength of schedule, there still is very little difference between the performance of the Drew-led Heels (EM: 23.8) and the Marshall-led Heels (EM: 23.2).
So what gives? Well, there are two things, actually. First, due to Drew’s departure and Bullock’s injury, the Heels actually played a large portion of the games started by Kendall Marshall significantly short-handed. In perhaps UNC’s best performance of the season, at BC, the Heels got terrific performances off of the bench from both Drew and Bullock. Unfortunately, that was really the last time they were able to count on their bench for any level of production. The second thing that has to be considered is the improvement in TO% (19.5 to 17.5) UNC experienced after Marshall took over the starting position. Under Marshall, UNC was 7-0 in games that were decided by one possession. Had they maintained their early-season TO% (19.5) in those games (again, another 2 turnovers per game), it is very possible that they could have lost 3, 4, or maybe more of those 7 games than they did win, which would have dramatically changed the overall tenor of the season.
Statistical Highlights
- For the 4th season in a row (and 5th time under with Roy Williams as head coach) North Carolina lead the nation in total possessions (16th in the nation in PPG).
- The Heels also lead the nation in defensive and total rebounds. UNC’s 1578 total rebounds is the 3rd most in school history, trailing only the 2008 and 2009 teams (the only two teams to crack the 1600 mark).
- With 206 blocks, the 2011 season marks only the second time in school history that a Tar Heel team had more than 200 blocks (1993-94: 219).
- For only the second time in his career, Roy Williams had back-to-back teams with less than 4 players who averaged 10+ points per game. Each of Roy’s 7 Final Four teams had at least 4 players score 10+ points per game, and the two champions had 5.
Beyond the Box Player of the Year
The final BTB POY rankings are presented in the table below. The rankings were based on a points system in which a player got 10 points for being named the POG and 3 points for having a top five ORtg, with a 2 point bonus for having the top ORtg.
| Player | POGs | Top-5 ORtgs (Top ORtg) | POY Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zeller | 10 | 29 (8) | 203 |
| Barnes | 8 | 26 (3) | 164 |
| Henson | 9 | 17 (1) | 143 |
| Marshall | 4 | 26 (8) | 134 |
| Strickland | 3 | 21 (3) | 99 |
| McDonald | 2 | 21 (7) | 97 |
| Bullock | 14 (2) | 46 | |
| Knox | 13 (2) | 43 | |
| Watts | 5 (2) | 19 |
Tyler Zeller had a tremendous year and was an obvious choice for the BTB Player of the Year. Zeller was the ACC’s leader in Floor % (63.2) and finished in the Top-5 in the conference in ORtg,, field goals made, FG%, free throws made and attempted, free throw percentage, points, and offensive rebounds, while also finishing 9th in blocked shots. But what really demonstrates how very good Zeller was this season, is a comparison of his 2011 season with Tyler Hansbrough’s sophomore campaign:
| ORtg | Pts/40 | Reb/40 | Steal% | Block% | eFG% | TS% | Floor% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Zeller | 120.8 | 22.3 | 10.3 | 1.4 | 4.1 | 54.9 | 60.0 | 63.2 |
| Tyler Hansbrough | 120.0 | 24.6 | 10.6 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 52.6 | 59.8 | 63.0 |
It should be noted that even though Zeller was a junior this season, he had almost half as many career minutes (587) entering the season than Hansbrough did entering his sophomore season (943). And yet, the two seasons are almost identical, with Hansbrough having a slight edge in points, rebounds and steals, and Zeller the edge in ORtg, eFG%, TS%, and Floor %, while having nearly three times as many blocked shots. Despite the similarities in the two seasons, there is one area in which the two season diverge fairly dramatically, and that is usage. Tyler Hansbrough was the unquestioned focal point of the Carolina attack and during the 2007 season and led UNC with a possession % of 26.0. Tyler Zeller, on the other hand, finished third on the team in possession % (22.9) and ended the season with 111 less possessions than Hansbrough (544 – 433). Given that the seasons ended at the same stage (Elite-8) and with similar overall records (31-7 vs. 29-8), it is hard to say that UNC would have gone further had the team focused on getting Zeller the ball more, but there is almost no question that it cost him consideration for individual accolades. Whether those accolades come next year will have a lot to do with whether or not Harrison Barnes decides to return; however, should Barnes leave, then expect a significant portion of that lost production to be made up with an increased focus on getting Tyler Zeller the ball, in much the same way Brandan Wright’s departure was made up for by feeding Hanbrough the ball more in 2008 (increase of 102 possessions from 2007 to 2008).
In other words, the sky is the limit for what Zeller (and the Heels) could accomplish next season, and it is going going to be a long seven months having to wait to watch it!
Note: For reference, a full stats glossary can be found at StatSheet.com.
![[Bloglines]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/bloglines.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
THE 2011 TEAM’S PLACE IN UNC-HOOPS HISTORY:
I took the 32 years of UNC hoops statistics (1980-2011) at http://home.roadrunner.com/~unc92sax/2011ratings.html and graded each team with a combo of win% and per-minute, pace-adjusted game stats from both UNC and our opponents (in games vs. UNC only). I used NCAA tournament results to break ties. The results seem to pass the eyeball test — even more-so than the KenPom rankings of recent UNC teams.
OVERALL RATING=(win%)+(UNC team rating)+(1-opponent rating vs. UNC)
All raw scores were then converted into a percentage of the best team’s score.
1. 1982 (worthy/perkins, champs), 100%
2. 1998 (jamison/carter, final4), 99
3. 1984 (jordan/perkins, sweet16), 99
4. 2005 (may/mccants, champs), 98
5. 2009 (lawson/hansbrough, champs), 98
6. 2008 (hansbrough/lawson, final4), 98%
7. 1987 (wolf/k.smith, elite8), 98
8. 1993 (lynch/montross, champs), 97
9. 2007 (wright/hansbrough, elite8), 94
10. 1986 (daugherty/hale, sweet16), 94
11. 1991 (fox/davis, final4), 93%
12. 1994 (stackhouse/phelps, 2ndRd), 91
13. 1997 (carter/jamison, final4), 90
14. 1983 (jordan/perkins, elite8), 90
15. 1995 (wallace/stackhouse, final4), 90
16. 1988 (reid/k.smith, elite8), 88%
17. 1989 (bucknall/madden, sweet16), 88
18. 1981 (wood/perkins, final4), 87
19. 2011 (ZELLER/HENSON, ELITE8), 87 — this year’s team
20. 1985 (daugherty/martin, elite8), 87
21. 2001 (forte/capel, 2ndRd), 86%
22. 2006 (hansbrough/terry, 2ndRd), 86
23. 1980 (wood/okoren, 1stRd), 83
24. 1999 (okulaja/cota, 1stRd), 83
25. 1992 (davis/lynch, sweet16), 83
26. 1996 (mcinnis/jamison, 2ndRd), 80%
27. 2004 (mccants/may, 2ndRd), 80
28. 2000 (forte/haywood, final4), 78
29. 1990 (williams/fox, sweet16), 77
30. 2010 (zeller/thompson, NIT), 71 — last year’s team
31. 2003 (mccants/may, NIT), 71%
32. 2002 (capel/lang, nothin’), 54
Based on this data, the 2011 team also has the following rankings out of the 32 teams from 1980-2011: win%=17th/32, offense=28th/32, defense=13th/32.
GO HEELS!! CHAMPIONSHIP IN 2012!!
we will remember this year our whole lives for Drew leaving. and your numbers bear out how unnecessary it was for him to go, if he’d just been a team first guy.
he wasnt. he isnt.
i bet if you asked 10 strangers on the street, theyd never guess Tyler had as good a year as TYLER did..in any season.
cant wait til November.
and…Barnes will be back.
Now the season is over and we are now washed with “S O K ” can u PLEEEESE remove that picture of him on the top right corner of this SITE????
Nxt year will be “Special”……..
GO HEELS!
The real issue is that Zeller rarely dunks the ball. He’s quietly productive so people don’t generally notice just how much he’s producing on each end of the court.
Somehow, I’ve trained myself and I don’t even see SOK when I glance at the banner. There are a lot of things I’ll remember about this sason, but that . . . .uhh . . . uhh . . . SOK guy will not be among them.
Thank you C. Michael for doing these Beyond the Box columns. They have added a lot to my enjoyment and understanding of the Tar Heels this year. Hopefully you can do them again next year in a Final Four campaign.
UNCfansince76 –
I like the picture, because it shows Hansbrough gathering the team to himself, and is thus perfectly representative.
As for Drew, I’ll just say this: Virtue is its own reward, and so is vice.
@ rathskellar68
and drew is on the outside pretty much as far from the rest of the team as possible
The presence of 11 in that picture is more than compensated by Bobby Frasor celebrating. I suspect that if we want a new photo, we need a new championship team. What says THF?
I vote “approximate cumulative Pythagorean winning percentage” as the all-time most bizarre stat.
TheUNCFan –
Me too, if I understood what it is, which I might, after just three more semesters of calculus.
Couple points to keep in mind regarding the Pre vs. Post SOK stats:
1 – Even when SOK was the starter KM still got some playing time, so its tough to do a straight comparison.
2 – After KM’s debut against FSU the rest of the ACC took notice and we ended up facing heavy doses of zone defense in many of the subsequent games
University of Miami officials have visited with Tommy Amaker.
^But have not spoken to Frank Martin who has publicly said that he’s open to speaking with them.
Very impressive Stat is the SMALL number of total minutes actually played by Zeller on the way to a huge season this year. I thought he looked spent at the holiday break, but he somehow came back to play amazingly well and steadily improve in ACC play.
NBA owners pushing for a two year and age 20 limit to enter NBA draft.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2011-03/2011-nba-draft/story/changes-in-labor-deal-could-affect-austin-rivers-nba-entry
There were four games where Marshall started but Drew played 19-20 minutes. These games are more similar to the early season where Drew played 25 minutes than to the late season where Drew played zero minutes. So it might be useful to make the split between Drew and non-Drew rather than Drew starting and Marshall starting.
It would be interesting to find out whether the change of point guards affected Zeller’s usage rate or efficiency. It certainly looked like Marshall made Zeller much more effective. Some of the other changes, such as the improved rebounding and Barnes’ improved efficiency, would be less directly related to the PG change, if at all. (Barnes started making the same jumpers that he was missing earlier, and in my impression he created most of his own shots rather than being assisted.)
CM’s comparison of TH and TZ is interesting and well done.
^^Perry Jones just joined Jared Sullinger to become the 2nd of the projected top 10 picks in this year’s draft to decide to come back for another year of college instead. (Obviously I’m still crossing my fingers and hoping that a certain other projected top 10 pick decides to do the same thing…)