On the 2010 College Basketball National Champions

As you might have heard, Duke won the National Championship this year. At first, I felt okay about this: Good on them. As much fun as UNC had kicking their ass up and down the ACC during the Hansbrough years, it's ultimately good that they win some of the time. Duke winning the National Championship is ultimately good for the health and prestige of the rivalry with UNC. I'm happy to admit that, and happy that the rivalry is now even more important.

Speaking of which, I already love Reggie Bullock, Kendall Marshall, and Harrison Barnes on account of some of their trash talking and goofing around at the McDonald's All-American game. They get the rivalry and I love it. Part One and Part Two of DraftExpress's video of the trash talking below, though for what it's worth, if you only watch one, Part Two is the way to go.





Love it.

Bonus rivalry materials: Here's the best profile of Coach K that's ever been written. It's fairly sympathetic, definitely insightful, and honest. Read it if you haven't.

Here is something more noxious: A Duke fan explains the "greatness" of having a white basketball team, the joy of being white man cheering for his white team, and what he feels most simply be the jealousy of other schools who deep in their hearts wish they were in the same situation: glorious white on white action.

Here's a fun quote:

Carolina's Dean Smith, Krzyzewski's arch-nemesis for years, is often credited with leading the drive for racial integration in the state of North Carolina by recruiting black athletes in the '60s. Coach K has achieved much the opposite in creating a singular program in which Anglo-Saxons and Europeans stand tall once again in the game that James Naismith invented.

If you want to vomit, click here to read the article at Alternative right.

Apropos of absolutely nothing, here's a clip from the Daily Show about the attempts to form an all-white basketball league.

Game Recap: UNC vs. Dayton

So there's the season.

I feel fine with this.

Dayton didn't pitch a shut-out, and we managed to shoot over 40%, but we lost because of well, what was that thing I said?

One of the keys to Dayton's defense is getting the defensive rebound. They really excel at this and are one of the nation's very best at keeping the offensive rebounds out of their opponents hands. However, if there is one thing that UNC does, it's snag offensive rebounds.

Dayton won that war. This season, UNC was able to get an unbelievable 38.9% of our misses. It's been a key weapon in our somewhat limited arsenal, and it was the only reason (besides poor officiating) that we beat Rhode Island. Dayton held us to an offensive rebounding percentage of 22.9%. When ever a team can cut the thing the other team does best to half of it's normal efficacy, they stand a good chance of winning.

Besides Dayton's success at defensive rebounding, we also lost because of that hallmark of the 2009-2010 UNC Men's Basketball Offense: Pure impotence. Marcus, John, and Dexter all posted next to nothing in the scoring department, and joined the rest of the team in a half-assed defensive effort that saw the Flyers shooting 48.3% from the line. It's hard to win games when the other team shoots at a nearly 50% clip and half your rotation shows a nearly pathological aversion to scoring. So there's that.

What else? The brillance of Will Graves. He's played some terrible games in the NIT, but as we I mentioned after the UAB game:

Yeah, Graves [and McDonald] kept putting up bricks, but you know, we live with those so that we can enjoy the games where they don't miss.

This was one of those games, and arguably the finest game of Will Graves career. His scoring was unstoppable and, in Will Graves fashion, he found other ways to contribute: Mainly, by continuing his dirty streak he started with the trip in the Rhode Island game with a ridiculously hard shove against a player trying to set a pick. The player crashed into his teammate and apparently crushed a nice chunk of his buddy's groin. He lay on the floor writhing in agony while his coach yelled for Graves to get called for a foul. Real classy, Will, especially considering that this play seemed to help rally the Flyers to regroup and play with purpose against us.

On the other hand, Will did make a lot of threes. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present our senior leadership for 2010-2011.

Finally, on the Year-of-Sucking weakness tracker, I feel obliged to note that Larry Drew, our starting point guard, turned the ball over six times, and the whole team managed to shoot 53.3% from the free throw line. That's right, free throws and turnovers. Again.

Whatever. The season's over. Big UNC season retrospective and looks to the future forthcoming. Also, now that college basketball is over (as far as I really care), look for me to resume way too much NBA silliness.

Scouting Report: Dayton

The NIT Championship Game. This is not something I foresaw at the beginning of the season, the middle of the season, or even the beginning of the NIT. So here we are.

You know what? I'm excited. You know this 4-0 win streak ties the best of the season for UNC? It's true. We are a whole new team, and I'm glad to see us play. The wins haven't been all that pretty, but damn if we aren't winning. It's the most fun and excitement that the team has had all season. Is that kind of sad? Maybe. Who cares? It's fun and I'm still excited. Will I rush Rosemary? Probably not, but I love how the fans have gotten behind the NIT. Sort of.



Here's some fun facts about the NIT run: We have been shooting 25.8% from three-point land all tournament long. Deon, once our free-throw shooting champion, has been the worst from the charity stripe in the NIT, shooting 42.1%. We are still winning. Weird, huh? Just thought you should know.

Here's an actual fun fact: Deon Thompson will set the NCAA record for most college games played by a player. Ever. That's weird, but definitely impressive. I don't know how long the record will stand, but I look forward to the fact that when people try to look up this odd little record they will see Deon's name. For at least a while, he has made a mark an individual mark on college basketball history that extends beyond his team's accomplishments. It's a record that doesn't care about wins or skills. It goes to the guy who shows up the most and keeps playing the longest. I can't imagine anything more appropriate for Deon.

Okay, time to scout Dayton: They are a good team. Ken Pomeroy and his magic numbers think they are really good, particularly on defense. Like, really really good. He ranks them as the seventh best defensive team in the nation. For reference, sixth is Butler, and I understand they are playing well in some other sort of basketball tournament. They succeed on defense by forcing bad shots, holding down opponents field goal percentage, and nabbing defensive rebounds like nobody's business.

Defense is the story for Dayton, and that's how they win games. Their offense is fairly mediocre, Ken Pomeroy ranking them as the 93rd most efficient in the country. How mediocre is that really? Well, UNC is 96th, so that should give you an idea. So what we are looking at is a defensive slugfest. However, we may have an edge.

One of the keys to Dayton's defense is getting the defensive rebound. They really excel at this and are one of the nation's very best at keeping the offensive rebounds out of their opponents hands. However, if there is one thing that UNC does, it's snag offensive rebounds. Offensive rebounding and bad officiating are how we beat URI, and since we can't count on terrible referees, let's concentrate on the rebounds. Seriously, it's the only reason we were even in that last game.

And that's about it. We just have to play our game, hope for another stellar defensive game and try to find a way to score some points. There's some evidence that suggests that Dayton fouls too much and that taking it inside and drawing the foul is particularly effective against them, but we were going to do that anyway right? Beyond that, the plan is the same as it's been for a while now: try to win the turnover battle and try to win the rebound battle and hope that will make up for our inconsistent shooting.

This is it: the last game of the season, and there's nothing special to be done. This is our team for better or worse and this season, we win through luck and hard-scrabble, ugly play. We can probably count on the ugly, now let's hope for the luck. I'm excited, optimistic, and already content. This wasn't the season I wanted , but it will do. I'm happy for Marcus and Deon for taking us on this last little tour, arguably meaningless, though it may be.

Game Recap: UNC vs. URI

If I told you that this game was super fast-paced and that it went to overtime, you might be under the impression that this was a good game. To that all I can say is... well, um, we won? Roy, what do you have to say about this?

"I feel badly that the game ended like that," said Roy Williams, who told his team afterward that sometimes it helps to be lucky.

Yeah.

Long story short, this was a sloppy game full of missed shots, turnovers, and blown dunks. At the end, there were some calls and no-calls that went UNC's ways, and that made a difference, because, looking at the numbers, it's hard to see how we won.

We shot 34.9% from the field, 11.8% from three, and 50.0% from the free throw line. Rhode Island got more steals than us. They got more blocks than us. They shot better than us (35.8%, 25.0%, 66.7%; still terrible, still better). We won. How?

Well, if I had written a scouting report, here's what I would have told you about URI (via Ken Pomeroy): They never turn the ball over (better at this than all the other teams I've said never turn the ball over), they have a great offense, and a mediocre defense, and make their money on fast-break points. I also would have pointed to their most glaring weakness: Defensive rebounding.

True to tendency, the Rams gave us a lot of offensive rebounds. A lot more. Ten more offensive rebounds goes a long away to fixing the inefficiency of bad shooting. Really, the only way to overcome bad shooting and get a win is to take a lot more shots than your opponent. Rebounds helped. So did turnovers.

We turned the ball over 17 times and so did Rhode Island, which was a bizarre and unexpected turn of events considering how good they are at not turning the ball over and how relatively average we are at forcing turnovers. It was just chaos on the court, people falling all over. When both teams play sloppy, the sloppy team benefits, and we did.

We played hard, and we did the right things when the shots weren't falling. We didn't play well, but we did play well enough. Then we got those critical calls.

It wasn't really fair, but what do you want me to say? I try not to resort to cliches, but I like this one and it's as true as anything else I can say: Those are the breaks of the game.

Game Recap: UNC vs. UAB

Obviously, I intended to have the post up earlier, but a combination of problems with Blogger, and, you know, actual life stopped me from getting this out. Anyway, here it is, as for what's next: no scouting report for URI, but I'll post a brief recap and then a quick report on Dayton.

A late recap on this one, but let me assure you, it was good.

We played some incredible defense, taking a series of terrific stands and forcing them into the type of game they didn't want to play. We won this game through good defense, superior strategy, and a surprisingly effective half-court offense.

UAB came to play their game, and their main offensive scoring weapon, getting to the line to shoot free-throws, was working all game long. The shot 26 free throws, which doesn't seem like that many, until you realize that UAB only took 52 field goals. I'll buy that you maybe don't frequently stare at FTA/FGA rates, but take my word (or at least Ken Pomeroy's) when I tell you that only four teams have averaged a percentage greater than the %50 that the Blazers achieved in this game. The point being is that the Blazers executed this part of the game plan quite well, and honestly, we countered as well as we could, playing them smartly and not fouling nearly as often as we might have been tempted too. We played this correctly, but we have to give a check to UAB for executing this strategy better than we stopped it. So what did we do right to slow down their offense?

Well, we did, in fact, bait them into a bunch of threes. And you know what? They actually shot slightly better than their season average from the three point line, but it doesn't matter, because playing the percentages worked: They are a terrible three-point shooting team, and shot an anemic 31.6%. If they had taken their normal proportion of threes that wouldn't have been so bad, but, of course, they did not take their normal proportion. Typically, UAB shoots 31.5% of all shots from the three-point line, but we induced them to take 36.5% from downtown. Anytime you get a team to go away from it's strengths and play a game based on their weaknesses, that is some kind of victory. On the other hand, this whole discussion of their three-pointing and foul-shooting has been a little bit silly, because it hides the real story of our defense against their offense.

UAB shot 28.8% from the field. On a night when they were shooting three-pointers at their usual mediocre rate, it turns out that the long-ball might have been their best option. UAB was shooting an incredibly anemic 27.3% from inside the arc, and our front court managed to collapse the middle, stay in front of their man and force terrible shots. Our guards were quick and prevented the drive. Howard Crawford, Kenneth Cooper, and Aaron Johnson, 60% of the starting line-up for UAB, made only a single field goal out of 20 shots and turned the ball over 8 times. For basically, the last ten minutes of the second half, they didn't score a field goal.

That is why we won.

On offense, we played well: Deon is playing as well as he ever has, John Henson is playing about three times as well as he did at the beginning of the season, Marcus Ginyard has taken it upon himself to prove that his defensive reputation is completely merited (near shut-out of Elijah Millsap in the first half), and Larry Drew is playing with a ridiculous level of swagger. Dexter already had that swagger, but now he executes, and if Tyler Zeller is going to not score so much in one game and still contribute defensively, that's perfectly okay; dude was just coming back from that nasty shot to the head. Yeah, Graves and McDonald kept putting up bricks, but you know, we live with those so that we can enjoy the games where they don't miss. It was weird to watch us play this slowed down game. We are running plays, people are making cuts, setting screens. It's not that the Carolina teams of the recent past didn't ever run plays, it's just not something we ever relied on, or really, could rely on. Even last year, I would get nervous to see our half court set, but knew I could count on Ty Lawson spinning a broken play into gold or the startling and seemingly unstoppable efficacy of the "get-the-ball-to-Tyler-and-let-him-draw-contact" play. All those teams wanted is fast-breaks and chaos, and don't get me wrong, it totally ruled. This year though, we execute. Sure there are turnovers (though those have thankfully plummeted), but finally, I trust our guys to run our stuff, and that sure is nice.

We are playing as well as we played all year, including those blow-outs at the beginning of the year, and, I must say, the NIT has grown on me.

Scouting Report: UAB

This is a team that doesn't shoot the three-pointer. After the bomb-happy William and Mary and Mississippi State, I was beginning to worry that the NIT field might be solely populated by "live-by-the-three-die-by-the-three" fanatics whose inconsistency was problematic enough to stop them from making the NCAA field, but still occasionally deadly enough, and, likely to kill some good teams every once and a while. UAB takes a little less than the average number of threes, and, fortunately, they shoot them pretty terribly, averaging around 31.1% as a team.

So, they are distinctly different from William and Mary and Mississippi State. Well then, what are they like? Let's go to the numbers.

In essence, UAB is Elijah Millsap, a dynamic small forward who scores in a myriad of ways, but mainly by putting his head down and getting to the free throw line. He leads the team in scoring, rebounding, and steals. The rest of the team's job is to play superior defense and hit open shots or draw a foul and then take that open shot at the free throw line. If you are looking for an NBA comparison, the UAB Blazers have a stat profile a bit like the early-Lebron-era Cavaliers.

Millsap is good, and we are by no means done talking about him, but the main obstacle with the Blazers is the defense. Ken Pomeroy places them as the 25th best defense in the country, which is way better than the majority of the teams in the NCAA field. Their defense is good on every front. They stop 3's, they stop 2's, they stop offensive rebounding, and they force turnovers. They do this all by playing stifling man to man defense and not fouling terribly often (with some exceptions). Our offense has looked pretty uninspired against quality defenses, and against a quality defense that forces turnovers, there is a chance that we will look completely impotent.

They key here seems to be hammering it inside when we can. The second banana on this team is Howard Crawford, a talented power forward who does a good deal of scoring (though, weirdly, not too much rebounding). Crawford is foul-trouble prone. So is Kenneth Cooper, their starting center. This means that it's Deon time. Deon's crafty post-moves and ability to draw fouls can get their front line in a lot of trouble and give us scoring opportunities at the line. In this case, the best defense might turn out to be good offense: While UAB has a relative amount of size on the bench, none of their reserve big men are big scorers, rebounders, or really much of anything aside from bench warmers. Now, in the event that Ovie Soko or Cameron Moore end up burning us, I want to apologize for jinxing everything.

Now let's talk about their offense: It works because they get to the line. They are as good at getting free throws as any team we have played this year. In fact, they are way better at it than any other team we have played this year. Here's the comparison: Deon has taken 148 free throws, Ed Davis has taken 132, and Larry Drew has taken 96. It drops off steeply after that. On UAB, Millsap has taken 230, Crawford has taken 140, Aaron Johnson has taken 139, Cooper has taken 112. Look at Millsap's alone and you know they do this way better than us. If you want to get all picky and look at tempo-free FT rate, you get to learn some fun facts like, 5'8" Aaron Johnson draws fouls at a rate equivalent to Ed Davis (who, you might recall, isn't playing due to injury). The point remains: They draw fouls and get to the line. The question is, how do we stop them?

Well, some good news. Carolina doesn't foul. Hardly ever. We are ridiculously good at not fouling. Marcus Ginyard, who will undoubtedly get the task of guarding Millsap, happens to be the very best on the team at not fouling (how you feel about this match-up depends a lot in if you still believe Marcus is an elite defender). So, who knows, we might actually be able to neutralize some of their foul line advantage simply by virtue of the way we play. But, just in case, I have a gambit:

We stay back to prevent the drive and allow a number of open looks at the three for basically every player on their team but designated-sharpshooter Jamarr Sanders. Fouls are often committed when a player is playing real close on a ball handler who then uses his quickness to get by; once he's slipped by, the only recourse is fouling them. So, we play them for the drive, staying back and staying in front of them, while generally conceding the three-point shot. In fact, in most cases, we should bait them into taking the three.

Jamarr Sanders is basically Will Graves. He's a good, but not great shot, and over the course of the year has jacked up and made about the same number of threes as Will. We'll guard him closely, hope he doesn't get hot, and take our medicine. Aaron Johnson is a pretty good shot too, but it's clearly secondary to his driving prowess, so the best we can do is hope that Drew and Strickland's can stay in front of him and that their size bothers the little guy, and keeping him off his game. But let's talk about the other three-point shooters on their team: George Drake is UAB's sixth man, and a gunner off the bench. He has taken 107 three-pointers on the season, which would make him the second-leading shooter if he were on UNC. He has taken 107 shots; he has made an anemic 24. He is shooting 22% from beyond the arc. That's a shot that we can live with, and should potentially encourage. Even more interesting is that while Milsapp likes to play like a mini-Lebron a lot of the time, he apparently also has the instincts of a mini-Josh-Smith. Milsapp, who has the ball on most plays, apparently has a problem with ill-advised threes. He has taken 77 three pointers this season and converted them at a not-exactly-blistering rate of 24.7%. So, all I'm saying is that we take a step back and clog the lane when we can. If driving becomes so frustrating that Millsap falls in love with his long shot, then, well, we stand a good chance at winning.

It's admittedly risky. If they get hot, we got burned. That said, taking away the shot they are good at shooting and forcing them to take bad shots is, over time, a pretty good strategy by the numbers.

In summary, we need to hammer the ball inside, focus on stopping the drive and avoiding fouls, and exploit their thin bench by getting their starters in foul troubles and speeding up the game (I didn't talk about this, but this team plays at a slowish pace and hardly plays any of the bench players so the more we can wear out the starters, the better). We still are the underdogs in this one, but if we execute our game plan smartly, if Marcus Ginyard is actually as good on defense as we've seen him be in the past, and, frankly, if Tyler Zeller is able to play (season winning percentage with Zeller: 66%; without Zeller 20%: (!)), I like our chances better than I did against Mississippi State.

So there's that.

And here's this: Things John Henson Should Eat This Summer.

Game Recap: UNC vs. Mississippi State

Is Larry Drew a clutch player? Would you have truthfully answered yes before today? I don't think I would have. This is a guy who Roy had to take out of a close game trying to protect a lead after Drew missed free throw after free throw. Larry Drew, however, is now, officially, clutch.

Do you realize what he did? With limited time on the clock, Larry Drew drove right on the best shot blocker in the history of college basketball, a man who obliterated Shaq's old SEC single season shot blocking record. He took it right into the teeth of a guy who had nastily and, with extreme prejudice, blocked four shots already. He did this, knowing that Jarvis Varnado usually averages FIVE blocked shots a game and was patiently preparing to leap into the air and knock that ball into the upper deck and the game into overtime. Larry Drew, a man who barely ever finishes at the rim, who almost always prefers the pass to the shot, who prefers the long shot to the acrobatic drive and finish, who gets nerves so bad that he can't seem to hit free throws when the game is on the line, was going right at Varnado.

The arc of the layup was so high. A left-hander. Off the glass, and, miraculously, in.

Now, is Drew anymore clutch after the shot than he was before it? After Dean Smith won his first National Championship, he famously turned to Roy and said, "I'm not that much better a coach now than I was two and a half hours ago." Larry Drew remains Larry Drew, but let's appreciate the sheer audacity of his play, the ballsy moxie that won us a game that we could have very well lost.

This was a tough game.

In terms of offensive efficiency, this game was almost the converse of how we played against William and Mary: No one was all that efficient except for Will Graves. Will was sensational, and really, everyone else played pretty well enough. As a team, UNC shot 48.5% from the field, which is, all things considered, fairly blistering. Unfortunately, we only made one three pointer outside of Graves, and shot a measly ten free throws (Mississippi State kept with its rare fouling policy, as opposed to William and Mary who abruptly abandoned it). The point being that, while we didn't play great, we played well-enough. Hopefully we'll make that leap from well-enough to great pretty soon, but for now, well-enough is all I ask.

John Henson was dominant in the first half with ten points, seven rebounds, two blocks, and two steals including some nasty throw-downs and clever post moves. Trying to play him on the perimeter was a clever idea, born of our abundance of post players and the belief that Henson was too skinny to be effective. It was a nice experiment, but let's be honest: It failed and based on a shaky premise. Right now, having seen how Henson plays down low, it feels like a sin that we haven't been playing him down low all year. How many extra games do we win if we had let him play at his natural power forward position all along? It seems like at least one or two. I feel pretty good watching him get better and better every game.

Oh, Dexter Strickland played really well too. His hyperspace drives give me Ty Lawson flashbacks in the absolute best way.

Scouting Report: Mississippi State

In a weird way, Mississippi State is a lot like William and Mary, and some of the scouting from that game is still relevant and hopefully some of the keys to our success against them will hold constant as well. As always, the bulk of the scouting information comes from the wise Ken Pomeroy (namely, here). Like W&M, Miss St. relies on three pointers to a ridiculous extent, and is in the top ten of all college basketball team in terms of jacking up the three, making them at a slightly better clip than W&M. In the more similarities department: They rarely turn the ball over, rarely force turnovers, and rarely foul. The tempo is a little faster than the pokey Tribe, and they don't adhere quite so dogmatically to Tony Shaver's offensive efficiency system, but, when push comes to shove, Miss St. is basically running the same offensive style as William and Mary with all the same weaknesses (live by the three, die by the three).

What's the difference? An elite defense anchored by Jarvis Varnado. While William and Mary tried to show tough defense, the truth was that they were soft, and like I said, Deon and Tyler got what they wanted basically at will. Varnado changes that. Jarvis Varnado is the all-time NCAA leader in blocked shots. In the SEC, he holds the single season record that had been set by Shaquille O'Neal. He is a one-man wrecking crew on defense and this season he has Miss St. first in the nation of percentage of shots blocked. This, combined with superior rebounding, means that Mississippi St. has the seventh best two-pointer defense in the nation. They are elite.

A commitment to man to man defense and quick guards mean that they have decent three-pointer defense, and more importantly, seem to try to deny the three and funnel the guards into the paint, or as they call it, "Jarvis's Killing Grounds." Note: I don't know if they actually call it that, but they probably should.

So how do we counter? At first it seems like this team is custom made for destroying us, and on some level, they probably are. Their offense assaults a known weakness: three-point defense; while their defense takes away our primary method of scoring: post-play. That said, I think there are some things we can do.

First, we have to go at them in the post anyway. While Miss St. as a whole doesn't foul that much, their big men do seem to foul at an average to above average rate. Having four legit big men to send against Varnado and their power-forward Kodi Augustus could get Miss St. in foul trouble: They are very thin on the bench, especially in terms of quality forwards. And, while it might be a sore topic, the foul line is a good place to earn easy points (even if this year they aren't particularly easy). On a similar note, I think we have a potentially okay match-up with Augustus on defense. Augustus is a stretch-four who pops outside to shoot lots of three-pointers (in a weird coincidence, Augustus and Larry Drew have shot and madethe exact same number of threes). Against lots of teams, opponents probably have a hard time finding a big who can match up with him and guard him effectively on the perimeter, but Henson and Wear are able to defend the perimeter when needed.

Second, we shouldn't try to overcompensate and shoot more threes, especially not in the half-court game. Pull ups in transition, open looks, and off of offensive rebounds only. We try to do more and we force things ineffectively and Will Graves shoots us out of the game.

Third, we have to figure out how to shut down their shooters. Marcus has to live up to his old Reddick-killer reputation, Drew needs to strive towards his slower-Lawson-with-better-defense reputation, and Dexter Strickland needs to do whatever voodoo he was using on Tuesday to be so seemingly effective. Will Graves, do your passable thing. My roommate and I used to joke that Will Graves was only good for random hot streaks and for playing really mediocre defense. Well, we need that mediocre defense.

This is a hard game, and there is an argument to be made that Mississippi State is the best team in this tournament. We need to win it. Also, NC State needs to win their game. If they do, we will get to play against each other Carmichael. That needs to happen.

Game Recap: UNC vs. William and Mary

Let me say this first: Carmichael rocked. The smaller, historic arena was sold out and the crowd came to cheer. It was hot, loud, and filled with energy. Wearing the throwback uniforms, and playing potentially the last game of the season, UNC played hard. The crowd, the whole crowd stood most of the times. At various points in the game, I would see students go down to the Rams Club section where the older, richer, more staid, and frankly disinterested alumni sit and basically deliver short sermons, demanding that they too stand. And they did. It was truly remarkable and I hope that UNC investigates the possibility of playing more games there in the future. The fans, players, and Roy himself all just absolutely loved it.

Now, that said, let me slip in this: The Dean Dome is mostly perfect for UNC. The more students, alumni, and fans that can attend UNC games in person, the better. The Dean Dome is, in some very basic sense, about equality and giving everyone a shot to see the game. I really like, for the sake of the comprehensive polar images, that UNC plays in the Dean Dome and Duke plays in Cameroon Indoor. One is large, open, affordable, and welcomes all. The students get their tickets by open and fair lottery, and most students, in their time, get to come and participate in Carolina basketball. At Duke, tickets are limited, ridiculously expensive, and the right to buy them directly from the university is basically done exclusively through a complex system of monetary patronage where you buy your rights to even think about buying tickets (I know the Rams Club exists at UNC, but it has nowhere near the prominence of the Iron Dukes system). The students basically get tickets through displays of who has the most resources: either time or money. Many Duke students won't get to go to a game through the normal ticket distribution process. So, as much as I liked Carmichael, a large venue suits Carolina. It just feels right. Now, they still need to let more students closer to the court at the Smith Center, but that's another issue.

Now, let's talk about the game.

William and Mary is a smart team. They shot 43 three-pointers (making 37.2% of them) over the course of the game, out of 62 total shots. I believe all but two more of the shots were taken directly at the rim. No mid-range floaters, no tough penetration, just pure high-efficiency looks. This is an unconventional strategy, but it's smart as hell and you'd like it if more teams had the guts to play this way. Despite some lock-down moments in the first half and one very nice stretch at the end of the game, Carolina was mostly unable to stop their offense from executing. Fortunately, they had the same problem.

North Carolina's offense looked right for the first time in some time. Efficient, balanced scoring from almost everyone on the team. When I look at a box score, one of my favorite things to do is check total points divided by field goal attempts, which can provide a quick and dirty way to check on the offensive efficiency of a particular player. It's a nice little cheat because it gives some weight to good shooting, getting to the line and hitting threes. What you look for when you make this comparison is for the player in question to score significantly more points than they take shots. This is a long way of saying, when I looked at the box score, I was delighted. Our team is normally terribly inefficient on offense, getting to the line at a good clip, but not really shooting that well from there or anywhere else and not taking enough threes. It was a delight to see that Deon had 20 points on 13 shots, that Zeller had 13 points on six shots, while Drew, Henson, and Strickland also posted fairly efficient games. Even Marcus and Will, who were, admittedly off offensively weren't really terrible offensively, and didn't shoot us out of the game, and, at this point, that's all I ask.

The key to our efficiency was what it always has been: getting to the line. In an effort to play tough and make up for the lack of size, William and Mary fouled far more than you might expect from a team that normally makes a habit of not fouling. They were trying to keep our big men off their spots and to hassle our guards on the perimeter, and the refs seemed content to let this style of play go on without too many whistles until UNC started to force the issue by taking the ball right at the rim. William and Mary uncharacteristically fouled and we did our best to take advantage.

As was expected, we took serious advantage of our size in the post, and as I noted earlier Deon and Tyler basically rampaged in the paint, scoring at will. While the overall rebound totals might indicate only a slight advantage for UNC, we mostly owned the glass when it counted. Single-handedly, Henson had six offensive rebounds, compared to seven offensive rebounds for the entirety of William and Mary. Henson, for the record, did have a field day: ten rebounds, nine points, two blocks, an assist and a steal in only 23 minutes, and the way Deon and Tyler were playing it's hard to blame Roy for not playing him more.

Tyler Zeller, for one night, almost made me forget how much I miss Ed Davis. He was simply stellar on offense and defense making big plays that kept the crowd fired up. Not once, but twice, he stole the ball on the perimeter and took off down the court dribbling as best as he could. It was awkward, but you can't help but love that hustle from a seven footer. Those steals also are emblematic of another one of the keys for this game: winning the turnover battle.

All season, we have been really bad at getting steals. It's sad, but true. This game, against a team that rarely ever turns the ball over, Marcus Ginyard alone got five steals, and, in total, William and Mary turned the ball over 17 times. UNC won the turnover battle. I'm as stunned as you are. It's amazing how that will put you in a good position to win ball games. Wait, no, that's not amazing; that's really obvious. Whatever, I'm going to enjoy it for this one game.

Let's talk about Larry and Dexter. Neither shot well from the field, but both made a positive impact on the team. They both played tough defense, shadowing the ever-screening guards of William and Mary and closing out on shooters quickly (Dex even got the rare block of a three-pointer and you are out of your mind if you think this didn't cause Carolina fans to lost its collective shit). Drew was the classic floor general in this one, utilizing the power of his deadly pull-up three in transition and even putting the ball on the deck and driving (finally!). As for Dex, man, this is one of the few times all season I have seen a player on our team make an earnest effort to take over the game. In the last few minutes, Dex was driving with lightning speed and keeping William and Mary on their heels. He got to the line with regularity and iced the game by hitting his shots with cool aplomb, which was a refreshing change from what Carolina fans have seen at the line all season. It was more than that though. Dex sparked the rest of the team, and somehow, his brand of kamikaze defense based on quick feet and rapid close-outs was somehow super effective against William and Mary. I may be wrong about this, but he seemed like the best defender on the team at times. When I was watching the whole game I couldn't help but think, "I bet his plus/minus is really high," and sure enough, he led the team with a whopping +21. The best is yet to come with Dexter Strickland.

I loved this game. The whole team played with a lot of heart and played well. Deon was diving on the floor, scoring at will, and seemingly loving this game more than anything I've ever seen him play. Throughout the game he would encourage the fans and they would respond wildly. I can't help but love his post-game comments:

"I have played a lot of game in this North Carolina jersey, including a couple Final Fours, but being out there on that floor tonight with those fans and all the history in Carmichael, is something that I will always remember... It was what college basketball is all about, enjoying wins with the kids you get to go to class with every day. I really enjoyed playing in this place tonight."

If this is what playing in the NIT means, then let the NIT roll on.

Scouting Report: William and Mary

Listen: I've been patiently waiting for this season to end so I can write up the post-mortem of the season, looking at all the ugliness of the past season and hopefully showing how it points to a bright future. That has to wait for at least one more night. After an embarrassing final game at Duke and a flame-out in the first round of the ACC tournament, the prophetic taunting of our opponents has come true: North Carolina is in the NIT.

There has been some thinking that the NIT is beneath us. This is ridiculous of course, and honestly seems to be mostly driven by the fear that we lose early on in that. This is possible of course, but at this point in the season, you would think that we've gotten over the embarrassment of losing. My thought is simple: Our team is young and the more practice our team gets in tough competitive games, the stronger we will be in the long run. It took Tyler Hansbrough and company, four years to get enough game experience to be ready to win.

Finally there is one other motivating factor, simple and delicious: Revenge. Who was one of the primary taunters of "NIT"? Virginia Tech. Who has been reduced to being nothing more than the favorite in the NIT? Virginia Tech. Who would it be so sweet to beat in the NIT? Virginia Tech. If petty vendettas are all that remain for us, aside from the dubious honor of actually winning the NIT, then petty vendettas shall rule the day. To our petty vendetta!

The first step in this process is beating William and Mary in Carmichael. Let me get this note out of the way quickly: We're playing in Carmichael! That's so awesome! I've been excitedly talking to my friends about how cool it would be if we ever would play one or two games a season in the House Where Jordan Played. The Dean Dome, as big and nice as it is kind of sucks. Most of the students sit too far away and the wine and cheese crowd that fill the lower bowl never stand and leave with five minutes left in close Duke-Carolina games. It's just disgusting. I'm so excited about the possibility of a packed and loud Carmichael.

Okay, now: William and Mary. Checking out their breakdown at the Pomeroy Ratings (something you should all be very familiar with as you fill out your brackets for you know, that OTHER tournament), you get a really clear picture of this team. They shoot the three. They shoot the three a lot. More than all but two teams in all of college basketball. They never turn over the ball. They play slower than almost every single team in college basketball. William and Mary plays a style that seems the polar opposite of UNC's offensive style. This should concern us. This should concern us, because William and Mary is playing very smartly.

The mid-major recipe for college basketball success has focused on maximizing a number of advantages that other teams undervalue and that are fairly coachable and achievable regardless of the fact that your team has inferior athletes or less overall "talent" than the other team. Slowing down the the tempo, not turning over the ball, and shooting a lot of threes are how the Davids have been slaying the Goliaths in March since the dawn of the Tournament. William and Mary are very good at all of these things. If they shoot well, they will win a lot of games, because they have done an excellent job maximizing their offensive efficiency. They are a more efficient offensive team than UNC.

So there's that. Now, how do we beat them:

William and Mary does not turn the ball over, but they also don't force opponent turnovers. This means they will have a hard time taking advantage of UNC's greatest weakness this season. They also rarely foul, which while usually a key to efficient play, may be a secret blessing considering UNC's other Achilles heel.

William and Mary's other weaknesses seem to mostly stem from the curse of a large portion of the mid-majors: lack of quality big men. Despite having one of the nation's best offensive rebounders in Marcus Kitts, as a whole, William and Mary are terrible at rebounding both offensively and defensively. Less critical, but more embarassing, the team gets blocked at an extravagant rate.

John Henson should have a field day.

What it comes down to is this: William and Mary is pretty good offensively, but North Carolina is far better defensively. If their talented, sharp-shooting guards get hot and are allowed to bomb from long range, they will win. Carolina wins if the game becomes an ugly scramble, where defensive pressure on the perimeter forces them to try their luck against the still stout Carolina front-line and John Henson blocks trigger Carolina fast-breaks while a Drew and Zeller combo force the issue by taking the ball to the hoop again and again, kicking to Graves when needed. They mostly play zone, and if they've done any scouting, will likely happily cede us some open three-point shots: Graves and Drew must make them pay, so that we can open up the post for Deon and Zeller, where, given the front-line of William and Mary, they should get us some of those buckets we've struggled with for much of the season.

We can and should win this one. I won't be surprised if we lose, but Marcus is playing with a lot of pride in the final games of his career and maybe the House of Jordan will inspire the team to new heights. Maybe. I hope.

The Houston Rockets and the Value of Will Graves

Trevor Ariza was an essential role player on the Lakers team that won the championship last year. He played hard-nosed defense, made lots of hustle plays, and hit the open three when Kobe inevitably drew the double team. He had plenty of key steals and key scores as the Lakers marched through the play-offs. He couldn't pick a better time to play the best basketball of his career: That summer, after everyone saw how Trevor Ariza helped the Lakers win another championship, Trevor Ariza was a free agent and certainly in-demand.

When the Lakers elected to use the money they could have used to re-sign Trevor Ariza on notorious head-case/lock-down-defender/mercurial-forward Ron Artest, Ariza essentially took his place on Artest's former team, the Rockets. On the Rockets, however, Trevor Ariza assumed a very different role.

The Rockets had been constructed in the early 2000s as a team based around the dynamic duo of two superstars: Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady. Both players, when signed were absolutely phenomenal, and when they were on the court together and healthy, they were incredibly successful. The rest of the team simply had to play their roles and victory would come to the Rockets. Trevor Ariza was hired to merely be Robin to McGrady's Batman, or maybe to be the Gleek to McGrady and Yao's Wondertwins. The point is that he was a sidekick. Well, like every Justice League ever (going to keep trying with the super hero references), when Superman and Batman are captured/busy/incapacitated, the rest of the Justice League has to step up, and someone has to take on the mantle of leadership. Unfortunately, bad luck struck in Houston: Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming were both laid low with injuries and the role players became headliners.

And that's how Robin got the spotlight. It might not surprise you to realize that maybe there was a reason Robin was only a sidekick and didn't try to do everything Batman did. And so it was with Ariza: While he thrived as a sideman in Los Angeles, he struggles in Houston as the Rockets primary offensive option. He shoots too much and makes a really low percentage of his shots. He shoots inefficient shots and that hard-nosed hustle, and unselfish passing disappeared under the weight of his new responsibility as The Man for Houston. It's been ugly.

I bring this because for a long time, I thought Will Graves was basically Trevor Ariza. I believed that he could thrive as a role-player for a contender, as a complementary piece, supporting his star teammates but that if asked to shoulder the burden of being the primary offensive option for his team that he would falter and his team would fail. That's the difference between Trevor Ariza on the Lakers and the Rockets and I thought it was also the difference between Will Graves on last year's championship winning Tar Heels and this year's cringe-inducing Tar Heels. That's just how I saw it. You know this, because I talked a lot about things like the Will Graves Theory.

Now, at this point, the savvy reader will note that I carefully said that this is what I "thought" about Will Graves. Past tense! Well, savvy reader, you caught me: my perspective may have changed for the more optimistic.

See, Will Graves isn't Trevor Ariza: Will Graves is Shane Battier.

But wait, doesn't Shane Battier just suck at everything but defense? And even there, isn't he really overrated? Well, casual NBA fan, that myth was actually dispelled almost exactly one year ago when Michael Lewis penned an article about Shane Battier, the Houston Rockets, and advanced basketball stats. It was basically the "Moneyball" of the NBA story and is still probably the most important thing written about the NBA in the past two years or so. If you haven't read it, you should read it now.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Okay, so now you know about how Shane Battier is underrated, how conventional stats don't capture his team contributions, and about how a smart and savvy player can help his team in nearly invisible ways? Right, well that's good. But you still don't know how this pertains to Will Graves? Doesn't he shoot too much and play as Robin-gone-power-mad-in-Batman's-absence like Ariza?

Well, lets focus on this:

One well-known statistic the Rockets’ front office pays attention to is plus-minus, which simply measures what happens to the score when any given player is on the court. In its crude form, plus-minus is hardly perfect: a player who finds himself on the same team with the world’s four best basketball players, and who plays only when they do, will have a plus-minus that looks pretty good, even if it says little about his play. Morey says that he and his staff can adjust for these potential distortions — though he is coy about how they do it — and render plus-minus a useful measure of a player’s effect on a basketball game. A good player might be a plus 3 — that is, his team averages 3 points more per game than its opponent when he is on the floor. In his best season, the superstar point guard Steve Nash was a plus 14.5. At the time of the Lakers game, Battier was a plus 10, which put him in the company of Dwight Howard and Kevin Garnett, both perennial All-Stars. For his career he’s a plus 6. “Plus 6 is enormous,” Morey says. “It’s the difference between 41 wins and 60 wins.” He names a few other players who were a plus 6 last season: Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony, Tracy McGrady.

You can see where I'm about to go with this: Someone has calculated plus/minus for the NCAA this season. Guess who leads UNC in plus/minus? Well, actually Justin Watts, but set that aside for now and you get Will Graves. That's right, in an averaged pace game, having Will Graves on the court amounts to 7.4 extra points a game on offense and prevents the other team from scoring 4.0 extra points, giving him a plus/minus total edge of 11.4. Ed Davis, by contrast scores a 4.0.

So, some caveats: This data was only crunched up through late January. This is crude plus/minus (with a minor tempo adjustment), not the full-on mathematically-adjusted wizardry of the Rockets. Even if it was, there's still a looming question of how useful plus/minus data is due to noisiness of the data and the huge error bars. But bare with me for a second: is it possible that Will Graves of the ill-advised shots is potentially helping his team win in more ways than conventional statistics is letting on?

The short answer is that it seems plausible: Watching Will Graves play, he often makes the tough hustle plays and is often all over the place helping out his team. Less controversial advanced statistics also point to some hidden value in his game. For example, check out this. Did you realize that Will Graves turned the ball over so little? I didn't. He actually leads the ACC in lowest turnover rate and is one of the very best in the country! See how he also commits so few fouls. Remember how in the Michael Lewis article they talk about avoiding fouling as a hallmark of efficient defense? There is is: Hidden basketball value in Will Graves. Of course, looking at the Ken Pomeroy stats page, you can see it's not that hidden: Will Graves actually snuck past Ed Davis as the player on UNC with the highest offensive efficiency rating!

Now offensive efficiency rating is a stat developed by Dean Oliver and detailed in his book, Basketball on Paper, but, in short, the aim of the stat is to more thoroughly account for how well a player is scoring by taking into consideration the different values of three-pointers and free-throws, the players proficiency at each weighted into the equation. The one thing that this stat does, above and beyond what you get with True Shooting is take into account efficiency by possession rather than just shot. That is to say that, amongst other things, Offensive Rating adjusts for turnovers and offensive rebounding. So here's what this means: Because Will Graves rarely turns the ball over, he uses offensive possessions more reliably than players like Larry Drew who is a much better shooter, but turnover prone. A possession used by Will Graves results in a shot more often than other players who turn the ball over before they can even get off a shot. In the long run, Will's bad shooting and low turnovers are worth more on offense than Drew's good-shooting and high turnovers.

Long story short, it seems logical and likely that the plus/minus data is meaningful. Will Graves seems to be much better than the stats were giving him credit for.

What's this mean? Well, I still stand by much of what I said. The one thing that is truly different between Will Graves and Shane Battier is Shane's insistence on taking high efficiency shots. Will's proclivity for low-efficiency shots has been well-documented in this space before. And while technically a Will Graves possession is more offensively efficient than an Ed Davis one, I still stand by the idea that an active Ed Davis who gets a lot of touches makes our whole team play a lot better; not that there's anything revolutionary in suggesting a balanced attack.

In any case, my basic point remains: Will Graves isn't Trevor Ariza. He's Shane Battier and far better than many people (including and especially me) think.

Game Recap: UNC Vs. Maryland

In this game, UNC got off more shots than Maryland (69 vs. 68), won the rebounding battle, got to the foul line more and lost by 21 points.

This was a very different loss than the one against Virginia Tech where our strategic failings and unwillingness to make scrappy plays let a poor-shooting VT team get away with the win anyway. Maryland won because they can shoot the ball and they play tough defense. They outplayed us. It's as simple as that.

Right after the game, I tried to rationalize it, like fans do: They were just unreasonably hot and we got some unlucky bounces. In all fairness, they were pretty hot: 12 of 23 from the three-point line is pretty damn good and shooting 51.5% from the field overall is pretty excellent. Almost any team would be hard pressed to deal with that. What I want to stress, however, is that this isn't unusual for Maryland.

Look at this.

Maryland is the 17th best three-point shooting team in the nation. They are the best in the ACC. They have a number of players who are having incredible seasons from behind the arc. It was a good night for them, but you know what? Kind of just par for the course.

Now look at their defense. I thought that they had just absolutely had their best night ever on defense. I mean, they largely shut us down. Held to 37.7% from the field and 31.3% from the the three-point line is a first-class effort. Check those Maryland stats again; this is apparently just what they do. Maryland has the fourth best two-pointer defense in the entire nation, and they aren't slouches on three-point defense either. Our percentages on defense were about the same as every team that's played Maryland. They are just a top-notch defensive crew.

Looking at Marylands other numbers, it's hard not to be impressed: A sweet shooting, lock-down defensive team that never turns the ball over and has an elite playmaker in Grievis Vasquez? Wow. Maybe they are just a mirage, but if you guys want a sleeper pick for a team to make some noise in the NCAA Tournament, look no further. Maryland has all the ingredients, and, if they can deploy them right, are due some post-season success.

Right. So I guess we have to talk about UNC now. Well, Marcus Ginyard overcame his shooting slump and had an overall great game. Actually, if you just looked at the boxs core, you could be excused for thinking there was a clerical error and they'd actually swapped Marcus and Larry Drew's line-- Drew took and missed six shots and had four turnovers. So good job, Marcus; snap out of it, Drew.

Deon, Ed, and Will had passable, if not great games. Mediocre, but not terrible play from Henson and Strickland, and the rest of the bench was pretty invisible. It was nowhere close to our worst performance of this season, which isn't a comforting thought, I know, but it was progress. Sadly, that's just not enough to compete against a really good Maryland team.

That's all I've got. Sorry.

Duke is Wednesday. A lot more to come.

Game Recap: UNC vs. Virginia Tech

We held Virginia Tech to 38.8% from the field and 21.1% from beyond the arc. We still lost. How is that possible? Well, we shot terribly, but amazingly we actually did shoot slightly better than Virginia Tech. If you've been following UNC this season, you can probably see the answer coming: Turnovers.

It was an error-prone mess. We also didn't do a particularly good job rebounding. As a result, we shot the ball 53 times and they got off 67 shots. They overcame our slight advantage in quality with sheer quantity.

In terms of who got the most shots, the team apparently decided to creep me out after I made a big deal about the wrong players taking way more shots than the other players. Six players took exactly seven shots apiece, with one more taking six. It was a creepily balanced attack. This is better than the wrong players taking far too many shots, but still not ideal. Ed Davis continued his ultra high efficiency onslaught, scoring 15 points off of only seven attempts from the field including two monster slams that would have blown the roof off the Dean Dome. Ed Davis should get a minimum of ten shots a game: That would go a long way towards winning.

John Henson had his coming out party, delivering, finally, on some of that super-high potential which I love so much. David Wear also delivered, coming through in ways that make me trust him a lot more. Sweet shooting and tough offensive rebounding almost make up for his other weaknesses. They both had big games and both made me excited about the future. Notably, their good minutes seemed to come at the power forward position. Roy has been trying Henson out at power forward from time to time and while it's clear that his small frame is still a liability on the defensive end, he's been way more successful on offense than at the small forward.

I think I jinxed Will Graves who took four three pointers and missed all of them. He did a much better job of playing in the flow of the offense though. Marcus Ginyard broke his shooting slump, sort of, by hitting two shots out of seven. He's up to four of twenty-four on the past four games. Marcus came off the bench in favor of Dex Strickland, who made the start and, puzzlingly, considering his past willingness to attack the rim, took only two shots for the second game in a row. Dex Strickland can have more shots once he stops turning the ball over.

A tough loss, but at least it offers an answer to the question, "What can you do when you shoot terribly, turn the ball over a lot, and fail to get the ball to your best player enough?" Just enjoy John Henson getting freaky on his way to hoop.

Where We Are Right Now

This is a post about UNC Men's Basketball. This might be a little bleak. You probably already knew that. I'm going to reiterate something that I have stated before and then try to add a little nuance. In the past two games, we have one a game and we have lost a game. What's been the difference: Will Graves.

That's right. It's back: The Will Graves Theory. For those unfamiliar with the concept, the Will Graves Theory basically states that UNC will struggle when Will Graves tries to takes the most shots on the team and that UNC will do better when Will plays within the flow of the offense and concentrates on just shooting open threes when they are available. This theory is based on the basic idea of efficient scoring. In short, Will Graves isn't nearly as efficient at scoring points as Ed Davis (amongst others). If UNC leans heavily on its more efficient options and less on its less efficient options it will win games. The past two games illustrate this.

In the games against NC State and Virgina, we took 56 and 57 shots, and won by 15 and lost by 15 respectively. Excuse me if I steal the punchline, but you can see it coming anyway, so here we go: The reason we were so successful in one and not the other has to do with the distribution of the shots (and obviously other things like defense, but stick with me on this, okay?). Our most efficient option is easily Ed Davis. In the NC State game, he took eight shots; in the Virginia game, he took three shots. How does our best offensive player only get three shots? Let's talk about WIll Graves now. In the NC State game, Will Graves shot the ball seven times; in the Virginia game, Will Graves shot the ball 15 times-- he made roughly 30% of his shots in both outings. Will Graves, the worst shooting starter on our team, shot the ball five more times than our best shooting player, Ed Davis. Ladies and gentlemen, we can't win this way.

Will Graves is a fine player and an excellent complement in our offense. There is simply no way we can win when he is taking that many shots at the expense of our bread and butter scoring of Ed Davis. So please, everyone on the North Carolina Tar Heels, please, for the love of Dean Smith, get that ball to the low post! And Will Graves: Use better shot selection!

What constitutes better shot selection you say, Will? Well, the answer might make you happy: I'd like you to only concentrate on open threes. You know, those shots you effortlessly swish and take so much gusto in shooting, those shots that make the crowd lose its collective shit?

Excuse me, Will, let me explain for the audience.

Will Graves can shoot threes. He's been totally reliable at hitting the three over the past few games. In the NC State game, he shot three and made two. In the Virginia game, shot nine and made four. He's shooting 50% from the three point line in the past two games. That is beyond excellent. That makes a Will Graves three one of the most efficient shots available to the entire team. The problem is not Will Graves shooting too many threes. The problem is every other shot in his repertoire.

Outside of threes, Will Graves has shot 10% from the field in the past two games. He has made one shot in ten. You read that correctly. This is not just recently, either. On the season Will Graves shoots 32.8% on two-pointers and 40% on three-pointers. Because three-pointers are worth (as you might expect, you math whiz, you) more than two-pointers the difference is magnified. Effectively, you are looking at the choice between a 32.8% shot and a 60% shot. So, Will Graves, here is the secret to your own and to team success: cut the two-pointers out. Make it a three or look for a better shot.

It's not just Will Graves either: Larry Drew, you are honestly pretty great, but you need to either work on your drives or have more confidence in your long-bombs. Drew II shot made four out of eight three-pointers in the Virginia game and just one out of five two-pointers. Have I ever mentioned that UNC, in general. needs to take more threes? Oh, wait.

These guys can hit the three. If they can't drive or shoot mid-range jumpers, why wouldn't they shoot the three? Don't get me wrong, inside to Ed Davis should still be option one, but if we can't get it inside: Bombs, away.

Except for you, Marcus. Fun fact: Marcus Ginyard, a starter for your North Carolina Tar Heels has made exactly zero baskets over the past two games, and is two of 17 over the last three.

Sorry to throw in that last bit of bleakness there. I know things are bad now, but I really do believe that adjusting who gets the shots on our team will help us in a big way. I hope so at least. There is only so much yelling at the heavens I can do when I see Will chuck up contested mid-ranger jumper after contested mid-range jumper.

UNC Needs to Shoot More Threes

First a note about some stats: Ken Pomeroy has flipped his magic switch so advanced player stats are available for all the college players and teams you could desire, meaning that you don't have to rely on my half-cocked analysis gleaned from downloaded box scores and haphazardly rigged spreadsheets. I highly recommend using this site for the majority of your college hoops stats needs. Now, back to the matter at hand.

The UNC men's basketball team needs to shoot more threes. We've suffered some tough losses and horrific halves due to an unwillingness, originating either by the players or the coaching staff, to shoot three pointers. Let me break it down, point by point.

1. We don't shoot a lot of threes.
2. We are a pretty good three point shooting team.
3. Shouldn't we should shoot more threes?

We don't shoot a lot of threes
UNC has a reputation for this. We are known for hammering it down low when we can, relying on the athleticism and talent of our players rather than hoisting up a lot of long bombs and praying for the best. This is a apparently a conscious stylistic decision by our coaching staff and one that has often served us well. There are 347 Division I NCAA teams that Ken Pomeroy tracks with his stats. UNC ranks 344th in percentage of shots that are threes. There are only three teams in all of Division I that shot less threes than us right now. Wow.

We are a pretty good three point shooting team
It's true. People don't want to believe this, but it's absolutely true. Think of it this way: Last season we shot the three pretty well right? Ty, Wayne, and Danny could all shoot pretty well. Ty Lawson almost led the ACC in three-point shooting last season, shooting a blistering 47.2% from beyond the arc. Larry Drew is shooting 47.1%. What about the shooting guard and the wing? Wayne Ellington and Danny Green shot 41.7% and 41.8% respectively. Marcus Ginyard is shooting 44.1% from beyond the arc (consistent with his 44.8% he shot in 2008 as a starter). Okay, so sure, Will Graves is "only" shooting 39.7%, but don't let that throw you too far off the trail: This team has the players to shoot the three as well as last year's team.

Shouldn't we shoot more threes?
Yes. Now, I'm not advocating a barrage of threes, I'm simply asking for Roy Williams to give Drew II and Marcus the go-ahead to shoot an open three point shot when available. Too often have I seen these two pass up three point shots for ill-fated, turn-over-prone drive and kicks or other mismanaged plays. The point of a drive-and-kick is to hit an open three point shooter for an easy shot- following that with another drive and kick is usually nonsensical. The open three is a good shot, and honestly, at the rate these two guys are hitting them, there really are few better shots we can get.

This strategy has other advantages that help us. Our team is astoundingly turnover prone: Shooting open threes usually means a shot earlier in the shot-clock and reduces the opportunities for turnovers. It means less putting the ball on the court and dribbling into traffic (another opportunity for turnovers). But isn't a miss really just a turnover too? It is, but fortunately, we are one of the absolute best at offensive rebounding: We get the ball back on an astounding 40.5 % of misses. For us, a miss is SIGNIFICANTLY better than a turnover.

Most importantly, our unwillingness to shoot the three is handicapping our offense. The best offensive option on this team is still Ed Davis in the low post. Without the threat of outside shooting, teams are feeling free to double team him and collapse into the point with impunity. If we can shoot just enough threes per game to stretch defenses, Ed Davis will become even more devastatingly effective.

Marcus and Drew need to shoot when they are open, otherwise a lot of games are going to look like the Clemson game.

The Small Forward Puzzle

It has occurred to me that perhaps I have been too hard on Will Graves. Early in the season, I was bewildered as to why Will Graves was starting over John Henson. Then, of course, very recently, I mentioned the relatively poor efficiency of Will Graves and unveiled his eponymous theory. While I did briefly try to give a little credit for Graves free-throw shooting (especially in comparison to the rest of the team), I don't think I've given Will the full benefit of the total comparison.

So, using percentage stats because they control for differing minutes and pace (as opposed to raw totals, or per-36 minutes or anything like that), let's have a side-by-side look at the players who have logged the major minutes so far this season at the small forward position. The two main contenders are Will Graves and John Henson, though at least one (and maybe both? I'm actually not sure if they both play the position or if it's just one of them, and if so, which one. More on this later.) of the Wear twins have put in the minutes here. This is also Marcus Ginyards natural position, but since he's been starting at shooting guard and playing back-up point guard as needed, it looks like he won't be playing much at the small forward. Technically I think Justin Watts or Leslie McDonald might've played a few minutes at this position too, but let's constrain the comparisons to Will Graves, John Henson, David Wear, and Travis Wear. It bears mentioning that since both of the Wears spend time some time at the power forward position, comparing their stats to Graves and Henson won't be as exact, but is worth a look anyway. First we'll look at scoring.

True shooting percentage
Will Graves 50.5%
John Henson 43.4%
David Wear 43.0%
Travis Wear 50.8%

Usage percentage
Will Graves 20.5%
John Henson 17.3%
David Wear 13.1%
Travis Wear 18.6%

As inefficient a scoring option as Will Graves is compared to his starting peers, he's actually a fairly good scorer compared with this motley lot. If you wanted to get points on the board from this position, it seems like Will Graves is a good way to go. Travis Wear actually appears to be a slightly better shooter, but his lower usage than Will Graves makes Graves the better option for putting points on the board.

Speaking of boards, let's look at rebounds:

Offensive rebounding percentage
Will Graves 6.2%
John Henson 8.6%
David Wear 1.4%
Travis Wear 12.8%

Defensive rebounding percentage
Will Graves 12.3%
John Henson 16.7%
David Wear 9.2%
Travis Wear 10.9%


The slight edge in rebounding goes to John Henson who dominates rebounding on the defensive end and has a slight edge over offensive rebounding leader Travis Wear in total rebounding (13.0% to 11.8%). It's useful, I think, to reflect on how impressive this is: a full-time small forward is out-rebounding guys who spend a big chunk of their time as power forwards. Those long, spindly arms know how to corral loose balls, even out on the perimeter. That's not all those long arms are good for either.

Block percentage
Will Graves 0.5%
John Henson 9.5%
David Wear 1.1%
Travis Wear 0.0%


Okay, so you probably already knew that Henson was a superior shot blocker to the other three candidates, but it's worth seeing the magnitude of his greatness. Also, here's another useful figure: 8.3%. What's that? That's monster shot-blocker Ed Davis's shot blocking percentage. Henson, so far this season, is an even better shot blocker than the supremely talented Ed Davis. Impressive, huh? Let's look at some of the more "guard-oriented" stats where we might expect Will Graves to have the edge.

Steal percentage
Will Graves 2.9%
John Henson 2.8%
David Wear 1.3%
Travis Wear 1.3%


Turnover percentage
Will Graves 10.5%
John Henson 11.0%
David Wear 20.2%
Travis Wear 14.9%


Assist percentage
Will Graves 6.2%
John Henson 13.7%
David Wear 9.1%
Travis Wear 1.6%

Looking at these numbers, you can see that Graves and Henson are nearly equal in steals and turning the ball over, though it bears mentioning that Will Graves does have the slightest of edges in both categories. It also bears mentioning that the two are both also amongst the best on the team in stealing and minimizing turnovers. When it comes to assists though, Henson is the clear favorite. He is far and away the best passer amongst all of the Carolina big men (Deon, Ed, and Tyler don't get any higher than Ed Davis's 6.5% assist rate).

So what's the verdict? Well, let's go ahead and disqualify the Wears. Despite Travis Wear's skillful shooting and rebounding, it seems pretty obvious that he does most of his work at the power forward position. Travis gets more offensive rebounds, draws more fouls, and shoots more accurately than David who has shot more threes and has a dramatically higher assist rate. Of the two, it seems more likely that David is playing the small forward more that Travis, who's statistical profile pretty much screams power forward. So if we disqualify Travis for mostly being a power forward and David for just not being better than the others at a single thing (exception: by virtue of his two out of three 3-point shooting, David is technically the best 3-point shooter on the team), we have a two man race between Will Graves and John Henson.

John Henson is a superior passer, rebounder, and shot-blocker. Will Graves is a better scorer. Who do you pick? Well, if you are me, and happen to believe that Will Graves very problem is that he is focused too much on scoring despite being an inefficient option, you might find that John Henson contributes more all around. At this point in his still young college career, Henson seems like the ultimate glue guy, facilitating the offense with his court-vision and great passing, terrorizing the perimeter on defense with his length, quick hands, and knack for shot-blockling, and creating a whole world of match-up Hell that most coaches are going to dread figuring out. He's like a bizzaro Kevin Durant, and I mean that in the best possible way: blessed with the same lanky frame, but instead of being a largely one-dimensional scoring machine, he lacks that polished shot but is a shot-blocking, quick-passing, ball-thief and a long-striding night terror on defense.

If the numbers (or at least my take on them) seem to point to Henson, why does Roy insist on Graves. Well, there are a couple clear reasons that don't show up on the stat sheet. As good as I think Henson looks out there most of the time, it's pretty obvious (and logically sound) that Will Graves simply knows the playbook better. He has a veteran's understanding of the offense and knows how to make his rotations properly on defense. He has experience under the bright lights and he knows Roy well-- this is Will's fourth year with the team. Henson is a freshman. There is a very good chance that these things matter.

Short of someone giving me the plus/minus numbers, I can't really prove one way or another who actually makes the more positive impact on the court. I get why Will Graves starts at small forward, and I think that Roy probably does in fact know what he's doing. I simply wanted to highlight an argument for John Henson getting some more playing time. The dude is genuinely gifted, would make good use of extra minutes, and is only going to get better. I also think that there's a real benefit to making Graves the leader of the second-unit and having him and Zeller provide a potent and balanced one-two punch while letting Henson serve as the glue guy facilitating the already ultra-efficient scoring of the starters. Just my opinion.

All that said, still can't figure a good reason to play the Wears extended minutes at small forward. That shit needs to stop. Numbers don't back support it, and somehow it almost always manages to make for the most cringe-worthy moments of the entire game (assuming Marcus hasn't blown a dunk yet).

The Easy Ones

I want to talk to you about free-throws. Specifically, I want to talk to you about how well the 2009-2010 UNC men's basketball team is shooting them. Last year, a large part of the success and efficiency of the UNC offense had to do with drawing fouls and turning those free throws into points. UNC was one of the very teams at getting to the line and was an excellent free throw shooting team. A lot of this had to do with Tyler Hansbrough, who basically made his living at the free throw line, but it was truly a team effort: Ty Lawson and Wayne Ellington were also superb at getting to the line and even better at knocking down free throws. Danny Green shot 85%. As a team, UNC shot over 75%. Unfortunately, those who remained are significantly worse at shooting free throws. Deon, Ed Davis, and Larry Drew were all major liabilities on the line. Danny would often play power forward to finish games to prevent opponents from playing hack-a-Deon in close games.

Now that these three are the core of the team, what's the story? Well, it's a mixed one. Let's see the raw numbers:

Free throw shooting percentages
Travis Wear 87.5%
Deon Thomas 79.2%
Will Graves 75.0%
Tyler Zeller 70.8%
Larry Drew II 68.2%
Ed Davis 63.8%
Marcus Ginyard 57.9%
Dexter Strickland 44.4%
John Henson 41.7%
Justin Watts 40.0%
David Wear 25.0%
Leslie McDonald 16.7%

Team 64.2%

So, the bad news first: This is not a great free-throw shooting team. 64.2% overall is really bad. In particular, our guards and the freshmen are just shooting horribly. Aside from Travis Wear, who has only taken nine free throws so far, no one is shooting over 80%. There are five rotation players who are shooting under 50%. We can talk in greater depth about the bad stuff later, but let's touch on some sunshine first.

Here is the good news: Deon is shooting really well, as in nearly 80% well. I don't know what it is, but he's shooting way better than he did in his first three years where he shot 65% for two of those years and an abysmal 60% for his sophomore year. In fact, ignoring Travis Wear (, he's the best free throw shooter on the team. Would Deon shoot the technicals this year? The same clang-clang-groan-when-he-get's-fouled Deon? Yes. Wow. Great job, Deon.

Some more good news: Larry Drew and Ed Davis, while still not great, are both improving. Larry Drew shot an abysmal, Ben Wallace-like 41.2% last season and has now made an amazing improvement to 68.2%. Now, that's incredible, taken at face value, but a word of caution: Last year's number was based on 17 free throws and this year's number is based on 22. Due to the small sample size, Larry Drew's "actual skill level" could be anywhere in between (and really a good bit higher or lower). So, cautious optimism is the rule for Larry's free throw shooting. Ed Davis's progress looks a little less amazing, but is all the more important and is probably more concrete. Ed Davis shot 57.3% last year and is shooting 63.8% this year. This is nothing but good news. Ed Davis draws fouls at the highest rate of anyone on the team this year and his ability to shoot a higher percentage from the free throw line will turn his already insane scoring efficiency totally nuclear. This is good stuff.

Equally good, Tyler Zeller and Will Graves seem to be shooting pretty well, and this seems to be consistent with their past performance. Good job, guys.

Now, let's talk about the bad stuff: Marcus Ginyard is shooting 57.9%. This is bad, but fortunately, it's not typical. In his previous four years at Carolina, Marcus is a 73.6% free throw shooter. Hopefully, we can expect him to shoot closer to that as the season goes on. Justin Watts (admittedly, on only five shots) is shooting 40%. The bad news is that his first year at Carolina, he shot 42.9%, so don't expect the same upswing that we might expect for Marcus.

Now, Dexter Strickland, John Henson, David Wear, and Leslie McDonald: they need to practice some damn free throws. I get that they are freshmen playing on bigger stages that ever before, but jitters or not, they are all shooting worse than Shaq. Hell, some of them are shooting worse than Ben Wallace. Free throws are really easy to practice and not at all difficult to improve. I am willing to bet, however, that all of these guys usually do shoot a lot better than this, and as the season goes on, these numbers should all steadily climb towards reasonable and respectable values in the 60s-70s range. Likewise, sadly, we probably can't expect Travis Wear to shoot nearly 90% all season. But anyway, for now: Great job, Travis! Practice your free-throws, the rest of the freshmen class!

The message, overall, is a simple one: Yes, this is a bad free-throw shooting team, but so far, there has been improvement, and, fortunately, we can probably count on even more gains in the free-throw department.

An Apology and the Will Graves Theory

Once upon a time, I promised to do recaps of every Carolina basketball game for both the men and women. Clearly, and unfortunately, this hasn't happened. I've really dropped the ball on the women, who are playing really great, and I promise to blog about them and the NBA soon. As for the men, there have been six games since then and nary a recap in sight.

Well, my friends, this is my apology and with a full week of no games, I thought it might be a good time to reflect on what's happened and talk about how things can get better. In the six games the men have played, there have been two great wins, two wins that while not meaningless, were expected, and two losses. What's the key to understanding this? Well, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce you to The Will Graves Theory.

The Will Graves Theory
Will Graves is the current starting small forward for UNC. Though he starts, he splits his minutes with a lot of other people and is currently averaging only about 19 minutes a game. Will Graves is a great player, a tough rebounder, a hustler, and from time to time, a lights out three point shooter. In more than a few of these games, he's made some really savvy, heads-up plays that have really helped the team.

There is a problem. Despite all the good things he does, Will Graves is not shooting terribly well this season and he's taking a lot of shots, shots that should probably be going to other players. Let's take a look at some numbers,

First, let me back up my assertion that he's not shooting well. Let's look at true shooting percentage, a measure that weights and accounts for the value of three pointers and free-throws.

True shooting percentage
Deon Thompson 59.3%
Ed Davis 69.2%
Ginyard, Marcus 61.6%
Tyler Zeller 60.0%
Larry Drew II 63.2%
Will Graves 50.5%

Very clearly, you can see that of the players who get major minutes, Graves is shooting the poorest. He is still shooting pretty well, but is really way below the other guys getting major minutes in terms of how well he's scoring. If you just saw this chart, and you were planning your offense, it becomes clear that Graves should be taking the fewest shots. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Let's look at usage percentage, "an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."

Usage percentage
Deon Thompson 28.0%
Ed Davis 20.0%
Ginyard, Marcus 15.6%
Tyler Zeller 25.5%
Larry Drew II 17.6%
Will Graves 20.5%

Aside from the number one scoring option, and understanding that Tyler Zeller is the second-unit's main scoring option, Will Graves is getting the most touches. He is getting more touches than Ed Davis, who is shooting the ball at nearly a 70% true shooting rate! Davis has played 237 minutes so far this season while Graves has played 167. In 70 extra minutes of playing time, Davis has attempted a field goal only three more times than Graves. Now obviously, this is a little unfair. Davis is shooting phenomenally and is not getting nearly enough touches for how well he is scoring. However, my point could be made with any of the other players. Will Graves is an inefficient scoring option and is using possessions at a disproportionate rate.

Is it costing UNC games? It seems like it. In the loss to Kentucky, Graves had ten attempted field goals, good for second most attempts on the team (behind Deon) and tied with Kentucky's superstar phenom John Wall. Should the worst shooting starter on UNC be taking the same number of shots as probable number one NBA draft pick John Wall? Probably not. In the game against Syracuse, Graves led UNC in field goal attempts with twelve. He made two.

It's really hard to win games where your least efficient scoring option is taking the most shots. Carolina's offense is at it's best when the ball is moving freely and patiently. We have time in our half-court set, and we should be trying to get Deon the ball on the block or to Ed by the hoop, or turn a Larry Drew drive into a Marcus Ginyard open three. When other teams stop the ball movement and force Will to be a major component of our offense, we lose. I'm not saying that Will should stop shooting-- I still think he should keep trying to create and definitely do his best to knock down those open threes that we know he can get. I just want him to stop trying to put the team on his back. I want him to consider the extra pass, think about all the ways he can contribute without taking bad shots.

In the game against Michigan State, Will led the team in offensive rebounding. He took two shots, and made them both. It's been our best game of the year so far, and that's no accident.

Will Graves is the key to Carolina's offense: when he lets go and embraces his role with that zen-like shooter's detachment and plays within the flow (Wayne Ellington was the master of this), our offense hums smoothly. When he tries to force things and dominates the ball, our offense grinds to a standstill. The Will Graves Theory. Tell your friends.

Game Recap: UNC vs. Valparaiso

This was a disappointing game. It was an 11 point victory against the over-matched Crusaders, but it was a pretty disappointing game because, in short, Carolina didn't look like a top-flight team. They didn't dominate. Now, I know this sounds unfair, but everyone knows the deal, everyone knows that's expected against a team like Valparaiso. This is the point where everyone starts to get nervous about what happens when Carolina plays a competitive team.

In all fairness, everything went right for the Crusaders, and their game plan went down about as well as could be hoped. That said, Carolina is going to be playing teams that are hot or lucky or a combination of both. We need to be ready. Let's break down the game:

What went right: Deon, Cortez, and Zeller know what's up and are legitimately scary. They are getting their blocks and rebounds easy. They are shooting at a great clip, getting to the line, and shooting free throws well (all over 80%!). Drew II seems to be for real: He's making great plays, shooting well, and taking the big step. Marcus is Marcus and that's great. Defensively, we held them to under 35% from the field and below 30% from the 3-point line.

What went wrong: In the second-half, Valpo shot 53% from the field and 70% from the 3-point line. Our defense couldn't stop anything and all of the second-team outside of Zeller seemed hopeless. We couldn't put them away, we couldn't ice it, we couldn't snap their necks and insult their mommas and make them cry on the bus ride back. We just sort of ran up and down the court until we won, or whatever, just leave me alone okay. In any case, the lack of focus was fairly disturbing.

What we know: We have to turn the ball over less. We have to defend the perimeter better. We have to focus.

What we don't know: How will this team defend against legit big men? Every team, UNC has played so far has tried to play outside of the point to avoid the bigger UNC players by the basket. The post-defense of the UNC frontcourt has yet to really be tested. How well will this team play against top-notch competition? Can this team consistently make use of the three? How good are the new guys on the second unit? What do we really know about Strickland, McDonald, Watts, and the Wears?

When we find out these questions, we'll find out a lot about our team.

On the small forward position: We started Will Graves at this spot, but lots of other people have been getting minutes at this spot. Notably, John Henson, Marcus, and the Wears. Frankly, these minutes should be going to Henson. Will Graves has some veteran experience, but he's just not showed a lot of game so far: He's supposed to be the teams designated 3-point shooter but is hitting under 30%. Right now he's a specialist who is sucking at his specialty. Marcus Ginyard is great, but his ball-handling skills (Yeah, I know he had five turnovers tonight...), defense, and touch on this guard poor team mean that he's going to have to spend most of his time at shooting guard and even point guard. Now, let's talk about the Wears and the one thing that really clearly seems to not be working: They aren't small forwards. They can't guard other small forwards on the perimeter and they sure don't seem comfortable trying to play that position on the offense. They seem real happy playing up in the front court, and I know Roy wants to make full use of the bench, but for the most part, Wears to the front. So by now, I bet you've guessed where I'm going with this right? Well, if you haven't, you ain't been paying attention: Henson. Henson is the answer at small forward, and he should probably start and plays should be run for him. He has a great shooting touch, he plays smart and wily, he blocks like a crazy man, he runs the floor, and has amazing passing. Roy needs to read up on "point forward" and give Henson the minutes. I can't help, but think that Roy is trying to hide him like he tried for Ed last year.

So, long story short: Play Henson more at small forward and we'll know a lot more about this team after this week. Gulp.

Game Recap: UNC vs. North Carolina Central University

Sorry this is late, but here you go:

No one expected this to be a good game, and at 89-42 it really wasn't. There are always a couple like this at the beginning of the year: warm-up games. These are the games where a few lowly teams are led to the slaughter. In the years past, this would be an opportunity for Carolina to put up over 120, pad the stats for the ESPN color guys who love to mention how many 100 point games Carolina has had in a given season. This year it's different. We haven't put up 100 this year at all. No biscuits yet. This is not a cause for alarm.

In years past, we would put up 120 and let them put up 90. Still a 30 point blow-out, but always cause for the finger-wagging sanctimony of the basketball self-righteous, aghast that a team would have so little self-respect as to give up 90 points. Well, this year may be different. This year, I think that if this team gives up 90 points, it will only be in an unwatchable, catastrophic rout. If it happens at all.

This team is really good defensively. I know it's only Central, but wow. We held them to 26% and unleashed a slew of devastatingly demoralizing blocks. This team will make an offense work and outright prevent baskets. Our offense isn't there yet, and we've yet to play a team with traditionally effective post-up big men, but so far, the defense looks good.

First things first: Marcus looked good. He shot the ball well, he ran the offense and defense well. He looked athletic, and on defense did his Shane Battier hand-in-face impression the whole game-- shooters loved it. Zeller looked good. After the Florida International game, I'd pegged New Tyler as the worst defensively of the Carolina big men, as well as maybe the teams worst passer. Now I feel bad about this. Dude had a good game: no turnovers, lots of points on perfect shooting from the field and three blocks! The worst of the main Carolina big men had three blocks. What a good year this will be.

Ed Davis didn't continue his statistical domination as strongly, but the fact remains: He's going to be ridiculously good. His heart-breaking blocks and complete and utter ability to become unstoppable in the low post were a comforting sight. Jon Henson botched a couple of big plays, including a potentially mind blowing reverse ally-oops that my roommate was sure would get him benched for show-boating, but the idea that these astonishing plays could have happened was enough. He handles the ball well, his limbs are long enough to scare people, and he has a deft passing ability I had underestimated. Even if he couldn't get it all together tonight, the potential is there and I can't wait to see it unleashed. He has some great assists.

Drew II is coming along. I'm happy.