Stickied

That last post should sit atop this site no more.  Go read this instead.

Unfathomable sadness, indeed

[Therapy costs a lot of money. Venting on your dormant blog is free.  Commenting is still off.  Dial me up on the Twitters.]

After 120 minutes of football played between Michigan State and Wisconsin this season, the cumulative score is MSU 76, Wisconsin 73.  As a purportedly rational stats-oriented type, it’s tempting to console myself by chalking up last night’s conclusion to the inherent randomness of athletic competition.  Two evenly-matched teams.  One got the late breaks in the first game.  One got them in the second game.

But that doesn’t really work here.  Because, by the numbers, these two teams weren’t evenly matched last night.  MSU was demonstrably superior in all major facets of the game.  They outgained the Badgers by over 100 yards, performing more efficiently in both the running game and the passing game.  The MSU defense sacked a very elusive quarterback three times, while Kirk Cousins was barely touched by the Wisconsin defense.  By the time MSU first punted the ball, Wisconsin had already done so four times.

Ten-point underdogs that fall behind 21-7 don’t usually end up with fourth quarter leads.  But this ten-point underdog executed a masterful offensive gameplan (Dan Roushar’s playcalling has improved by an estimated 341.5% since the Notre Dame game), found its bearings defensively, and went on a decidedly unflukey 22-0 run (221 yards gained, despite a turnover, and three three-and-outs forced).

And you know what?  All that just makes all of this that much worse.  Through 35 quarters of Big Ten football, MSU had emerged a clear head above the rest of the league–a full game better than everyone else over an eight-game schedule (having played as tough a slate as anyone) and eight points up on the team, already vanquished once, that both the experts and the numbers deemed the most talented and capable in the conference.

You could already taste the rose stem in your mouth.  Three decades of mediocrity were on the verge of being, if not erased, overcome.

And that right there, and that alone, should be the source of all of our tears of unfathomable sadness.  Not Michigan going to a BCS game–that’s just a function of a wacked out college football postseason “system.”  (And, truth be told, I’m pretty sure most UM fans would have gladly traded places, raised the division championship trophy, and took the shot at the Rose Bowl.  After all, it’s not “Those who stay will . . . back into a BCS at-large bid.)  Not the inane “Sparty No!” exclamations strewn across Twitter and Facebook.  (The last time MSU had lost a close [one-possession] game?  31 games ago, vs. Minnesota, 42-34.  Implying that this group of Spartan football players is choke-prone is objectively laughable.)  No, it’s all about the Rose Bowl.

The old saw is something like “You can only get as high in the good moments as you were low in the bad moments.”  The problem is that the inverse of closing down an Indianapolis bar, trying to imbibe beer while gripping a rose between your teeth, is a kind of numbing distress that an athletic contest has no business inducing.

And, perhaps making things worse, it’s not even clear who we should be mad at.  The coaching staff made all the right calls, or at least highly defensible calls.  Dantanio’s overly conservative decisions to punt both played out according to his plans.  The players made too many key plays to enumerate in the course of building that 8-point lead.  (Kirk Cousins could not have been any better on his 29 non-INT passing attempts.)  The refs had no choice but to make the running-into-the-kicker call, regardless of the classic Badger flop.

You can be mad at Nick Hill, I guess.  He certainly didn’t follow through on Dantonio’s statement that ball security would be the top priority (or something along those lines).  And Isaiah Lewis had as rough a fourth quarter as you’ll find.  (The 4th-and-7 pass conversion is the one that will haunt me, as it occurred in the corner our seats were in.  In Lewis’s defense, it was a very strange angle and trajectory to be defending a pass against.  Not in his defense, ARRRRRRGH JUST GET ONE HAND ON THE BALL IT’S HANGING RIGHT THERE.)

Blaming those guys won’t help, of course.  In the end, the team came up one play short–or one nonplay short, in the case of the attempted punt block that will live in infamy.  (Underrated candidate: the ball that glanced off Keshawn Martin’s fingers in the endzone that would have put MSU up two scores with under nine minutes to go.  Nobody’s fault, but that was the first crack at nailing the thing shut.)  That should do nothing to reduce our pride in the team–quite the contrary, in fact–but that one unmade play translates into a yawning gulf between the binary outcomes available.

The standard routine at this point in a post-loss blog post is to try to find a silver lining.  I find none.  Yes, this team has built another piece of the foundation for future success for the Michigan State football program.  But that was true before the team took the field last night and would have remained (and does remain) true regardless of how the game played out.  The opportunity was there to turn future success into current success–to send Cousins, Cunningham, Martin, Nichol, Foreman, Robinson, et al. out as fully deserving participants in the Granddaddy of Them All.  But, for reasons that are both starkly obvious and, at the same time, defiant to rational analysis, it was not to be grasped.

A note from amidst the mothballs

To avoid paying any more monthly server costs, I’ve moved the SW archives back over to the free WordPress platform.  I think the only major loss is the Java-based StatSheet charts.  Other than that, everything should be here for your browsing pleasure.  If anyone finds any other major glitches, shoot me an e-mail.

For fresh Spartan blogging content, of course, head over to The Only Colors.

The end of the beginning

Barring future developments of an unforeseen nature, this is the final post of the Spartans Weblog.  Commenting will be shut down in a few days; the site will remain up for archival purposes as long as Mrs. SW lets me continue to pay the server costs (or I figure out how to upload the contents back to the free WordPress service).

I won’t repeat everything I said when I first announced the transition to the new site, except to say how much I’ve appreciated everyone’s kind words about my work here.  (Announcing the end of this blog has been the best thing I’ve ever done for my ego.)  You, my friends, are the primary reason that my blogging career is not ceasing entirely.

The conversation will continue–with more voices and a more interactive blogging setup–at the following address:

WWW.THEONLYCOLORS.COM

See you on the other side.

Tom Izzo: A Numerical Summary

14 seasons as head coach

14 .500-or-better Big Ten regular season finishes

12 NCAA Tournament appearances

12 first-team all-Big Ten player selections

10 20-win seasons

8 Sweet Sixteens

6 Elite Eights

5 Final Fours

5 Big Ten regular season championships

5 former assistants currently coaching Division 1 teams

4 Big Ten player-of-the-year selections

3 30-win seasons

2 Big Ten Tournament championships

2 national championship game appearances

1 national championship

.738 NCAA Tournament winning percentage (31-11)

.711 all-time winning percentage (336-137)

.690 Big Ten regular season winning percentage (160-72)

Zero 4-year players without a Final Four appearance

Nothing but class

Friday Morning Links

• Anatomy of a Basketball Possession
  Super sweet flowchart.  (Hat tip: UMHoops.)
• A Tough Decision
  Why Mike Kebler didn’t get to play in the national championship game.
• Big Ten in 2010
  Beware Purdue.
• It’s never too early to predict the 2009-2010 Big Ten basketball standings
  The Daily Gopher agrees re: Purdue.
• KANSAS DUO RETURNING TO SCHOOL; JAYHAWKS PRESEASON NO. 1
  How many other teams bring back more than we do?
• Spring game particulars
  Next Saturday, 1:30.  Cousins vs. Nichols.
• Record crowd watches Spartans top Lugs, 12-2
  The SW clan took this one in amidst a sea of rowdy MSU students.  Good news: the Official Children of the Spartans Weblog both got baseballs from the Lugnuts bullpen guys.

Breaking down the defense

A couple months ago, KenPom added something called “defensive fingerprint” on each team page.  Mr. Pomeroy’s explanation:

Defensive Fingerprint attempts to objectively identify the style of a team’s defense. Inputs into the system are the departure from the D-1 norm of the following defensive characteristics…

– assist percentage (triple weight, higher means a more likely zone team)
– 3-point attempt percentage (triple weight, higher means a more likely zone team)
– free throw attempt percentage (double weight, higher means a more likely man team)
– turnover percentage (single weight, higher means a more likely man team)
– defensive rebounding percentage (variable weight depending on offensive rebounding percentage, higher means a more likely man team)

All those factors go into a super-secret formula that calculates whether, based on its stats, a given team is likely a zone team or a man-to-man team.

What’s interesting is that, despite the fact that MSU played man-to-man defense for all but a handful of possessions this past season, the formula spits out an “inconclusive” on our team page.  To investigate this phenomenon, I’ve put together a table showing MSU’s rankings for the five stats used in the formula.  The first set of numbers are the full season; these are the numbers that KenPom is using.

All Games/National Rank
	MSU Value	MSU Rank	Indicates
Assist %	52.4	131	Neutral
3PA/FGA	35.8	271	Zone
FTA/FGA	36.5	178	Neutral
TO%	19.9	190	Neutral
Opp OReb%	27.3	11	Man-to-Man

You can see why the formula can’t identify us as a man-to-man team.  Our opponents shot a lot of 3-pointers, which makes us look like a zone defense.  But we ranked 11th nationally in defensive rebounding percentage, which implies that we play man-to-man defense.  For the remaining three factors, we’re very near the national averages, so the formula has nothing to go on.

One reading of these numbers is that Tom Izzo’s defensive scheme got the best of both worlds this season:

• By placing in emphasis on preventing dribble penetration by hedging off shooters, the team forced a lot of perimeter shots from its opponents (the primary benefit of a zone defense).
• But the fact the team was fundamentally playing man-to-man defense, particularly on the interior, meant the team didn’t sacrifice anything in terms of defensive rebounding (generally the main weakness of a zone defense).

Before declaring victory in the age-old quest to find the perfect defensive scheme, though, I think we meed to get a little more definition on those three middle-of-the-road formula factors.  To do so, I pulled the same numbers for conference games only (with ranks within the Big Ten).

Conference Games/Rank
	MSU Value	MSU Rank	Indicates
Assist %	54.2	2	Man-to-Man
3PA/FGA	32.4	9	Zone
FTA/FGA	34.7	7	Man-to-Man
TO%	20.7	8	Zone
Opp OReb%	24.7	1	Man-to-Man

For assist percentage and free throw rate, we look more like a man-to-man team.  For turnovers, we look more like a zone team.

I’m not sure the low assist percentage is necessarily a major asset or weakness.  But the other two numbers are unfavorable.  Playing physical man-to-man defense resulted in a relatively higher number of fouls that created additional free throw opportunities for our opponents.  At the same time, the fact that our perimeter defenders were more focused on preventing penetration than with disrupting our opponents’ offensive rhythm meant we didn’t create a lot of turnovers.

Overall, then, we had one strength (defensive rebounding) and one weakness (fouling quite a bit) generally associated with man-to-man defense and one strength (forcing perimeter shots) and one weakness (not creating turnovers) generally associated with zone defense.

On net, the way this team played defense obviously worked pretty well, as they finished the season ranked 10th in the country in adjusted defensive efficiency.  Most of the numbers above are pretty consistent with the team’s numbers over the past several seasons, indicating that Tom Izzo’s approach to defense hasn’t changed much in recent years.  The biggest change from 2007-08 to 2008-09 was an increase in defensive rebounding percentage of roughly 4 percentage points.  As one might expect with a Tom Izzo-coached team, the key to success was rebounding.

P.S. You can probably sense I’m stalling for time by throwing a lot of numbers at you.  There’s been a bit of a delay in getting the new site launched.  It should be ready to go late this week or first thing next week.

Just how good was MSU's rebounding this season?

From a four factors perspective, rebounding was clearly the dominant strength of this year’s MSU basketball team.  The team ranked 6th nationally in offensive rebounding percentage and 11th nationally in defensive rebounding percentage.  In none of the other six offensive/defensive four factor components did MSU rank higher than 50th nationally.

It seems clear that, given the fact MSU ranked in the top 20 nationally in adjusted efficiency on both sides of the ball, the combined level of rebounding the team sustained over the course of the season must have been among the nation’s best.  But just exactly how good was it?

Here’s a list of the top ten BCS conference teams in the country in rebounding percentage margin (offensive rebounding percentage minus defensive rebounding percentage; figures include all games):

Michigan St.	13.4
Pittsburgh	12.3
Washington	10.8
Kansas St.	10.2
Connecticut	9.8
West Virginia	9.2
Kansas	7.8
North Carolina	7.2
Tennessee	6.8
Louisiana St.	6.8

Only nine other major conference teams in the country had a margin equal to even half of MSU’s.  (And MSU’s margin of 13.4% still ranks #1, even if you include all Division 1 teams in the rankings.)

One thing that jumped out at me in looking at the rebounding data is that offensive and defensive rebounding percentages are not as highly correlated as I might have thought:

• Of the top 25 teams in the country in defensive rebounding percentage, only 5 also ranked in the top 25 in offensive rebounding percentage.
• Looking at just the top 10 defensive rebounding teams , only one team ranked higher than 150th in the nation in offensive rebounding percentage (Albany).
• Looking at the top 10 offensive rebounding teams, only three teams ranked higher than 100th in the nation in offensive rebounding percentage (MSU, Pittsburgh, Washington).
• The statistical correlation between team offensive and rebounding percentages is a relatively modest 12.1%.

It would appear that, for the majority of college basketball teams, excellence on the boards is a skill that can only be maximized on one end of the court or the other.  To some extent, that may be a function of strategy: teams with conservative approaches to the game secure defensive rebounds before they send players down court and eschew crashing the offensive glass so they can get back on defense.  It may also have something to do with personnel: defensive rebounding is more about size and position, while offensive rebounding is more about quickness and aggressiveness.

As a visual aid, here’s where MSU falls in a scatterplot of rebounding percentages for all 344 Division 1 basketball teams this season:

Because of the emphasis Tom Izzo has placed on rebounding during his tenure as head coach, I’d come to assume that top-notch offensive and defensive rebounding generally went hand in hand.  Last season, I was puzzled as to why MSU only ranked 104th nationally in defensive rebounding percentage when they ranked 8th in offensive rebounding percentage.

This season, the team put it all back together in terms of crashing the boards with abandon on both ends of the floor.  And our appreciation for that statistical combination should be even more heightened than perhaps it has been.

The Top Ten Performances of the 2008-09 Season

I’ve decided not to post any commentary of a forward-looking nature until we get over to the new site. For now, let’s revel in the season that has been.

One of the things that made this season so special was the number of guys who stepped up at various times during the season to get the team to 31 wins, despite multiple injuries disrupting the regular lineup during the season.  For the season, nine different players led the team in scoring at least once, seven different players led the team in rebounding at least once, and five different players led the team in assists at least once (including ties in all three cases).

To look back at some of those contributions, I’ve put together a list of the top ten individual performances over the course of the season.  I’ve split the list into five regular season performances and five postseason performances.

Regular Season Performances

5. Raymar Morgan vs. Oklahoma State
29 points on 9-11 FG shooting and 11-13 FT shooting, 5 rebounds
Few MSU fans got to see this game, after MSU dropped the opener in the Old Spice Classic, but Morgan put up some huge numbers against a team that would eventually make the NCAA Tournament.

4. Delvon Roe at Michigan
14 points on 5-7 FG shooting, 10 rebounds
From the game recap: “Delvon Roe finally put together the kind of game we’ve been hoping for against a smaller lineup: 14 points and 10 rebounds in 28 minutes.  He took advantage of the mismatch against Zach Novak and the other guards that were matched up with him inside–and made 4 of 6 free throws to boot.”

3. Kalin Lucas at Illinois
18 points on 7-14 FG shooting, 4 assists, 1 turnovers
You could put Lucas on this list as many times as you wanted, but we’ll go with his extremely efficient performance in MSU’s best win of the Big Ten season.  That performance included a layup Lucas created out of nothing to put MSU ahead 60-58 with 5 minutes go after Illinois had rallied from a 7-point second-half deficit.

2. Durrell Summers at Ohio State
26 points on 6-9 three-point shooting, 4 rebounds
From the game recap: “The tale of the first half was Durrell Summers single-handedly keeping the team afloat, scoring 16 of the team’s 26 points as the rest of the team struggled with turnovers and 3-point shooting against the Ohio State 3-2 zone.”

1. Goran Suton vs. Wisconsin
16 points on 6-6 FT shooting, 10 rebounds, 2 assists
From the game recap: “Suton was a warrior.  After not starting the game (apparently to reward Tom Herzog–he of the graceful reverse layup–for his hard work in practice), Suton posted 16 points and 10 rebounds–most of them in the second half.  He pulled down a couple huge offensive rebounds, as did Raymar Morgan (5 rebounds in 17 minutes), during the comeback from 12 down.  Give Suton credit for keeping his composure after the airballed 3-pointer (his third 3-point miss of the game) and leading the team to victory.”

Honorable Mention: Travis Walton’s back-to-back 16-point performances at the Old Spice Classic.  Marquise Gray’s back-to-back 12-point performances in the same setting.  Suton’s 18-point performance against Texas in just his second game back from the knee injury.  Morgan’s 22-point/13-rebound performance against Northwestern to help MSU open the conference season with two road wins.  Chris Allen’s 17-point performance (on 4-7 three-point shooting) in the same game, against the 1-3-1 zone.  Lucas’ 21-point performance against Purdue in the regular season finale.  And just for Mrs. SW: Austin Thornton’s 9-point performance (on 3-3 three-point shooting) in the opener against Idaho.

Postseason Performances

5. Goran Suton vs. North Carolina
17 points on 3-4 three-point shooting, 11 rebounds, 2 blocks
While the outcome of the game was a disappointment, let’s not forget Suton went toe to toe with one of the most celebrated post players in the history of college basketball and matched him almost play for play.

4. Kalin Lucas vs. Kansas
18 points on 7-7 FT shooting, 7 assists, 4 steals
From the game recap: “Kalin Lucas could not be any more clutch.”  I think this play will forever pop into my head whenever I hear the phrase “and one.”

3. Raymar Morgan vs. UConn
18 points on 7-13 FG shooting, 9 rebounds, 5 steals
From the game recap: “Raymar Morgan played the best game of his career . . . against the very epitome of the kind of tall, athletic opponent he normally struggles against.  I thought his confidence would melt away after he had his first shot of the game blocked by Thabeet, but MSU retained the ball (on a team rebound) and Morgan came right back and knocked down a shot.  From there, his confidence swelled.”

2. Goran Suton vs. Louisville
19 points on 3-5 three-point shooting, 10 rebounds, 4 assists
From the game recap: “Tom Izzo’s game plan in the half-court offense was to put Suton in the middle of the top two defenders in Louisville’s 2-3 zone and use Suton’s shooting/passing skills to break down the defense.  Suton responded beautifully, almost single-handedly keeping MSU even with the Cardinals through the first 20 minutes.  On defense, he completely shut down Samardo Samuels.  On his first three touches of the ball in the post, Samuels traveled, missed a shot, and got called for an offensive foul.  Samuels never bounced back and went scoreless for the game.”

1. Travis Walton vs. USC
18 points on 8-13 FG shooting, 2 assists, 2 steals
From the game recap: “On the first possession of the game–when USC came out employing the box and one–Walton got the ball about 18 feet from the basket in an open spot in the zone.  Usually, you’d expect him to hesitate at least briefly before shooting the ball so early in the game.  But, instead, he immediately squared up and knocked down the shot.  From their, his confidence ballooned; eventually he knocked down a couple shots where he had to adjust the arc of the shot due to an onrushing USC defender.”

Honorable Mention: Chris Allen’s 17-point performance against Minnesota in the conference tournament.  Korie Lucious’ 16-point performance to try to mount a comeback against Ohio State in the conference tournament.  Draymond Green’s 16-point performance against Robert Morris.  Suton’s 20-point/9-rebound performance against Kansas.  Lucas’ 21-point/5-assist performance against UConn.

Who would have thought that Travis Walton, of all players, would end up making having arguably the key offensive performance of the entire season?  And we’re not even talking about his defense.  The games in which he locked down A.J. Abrams, Manny Harris, and A.J. Price could have easily been included on the lists above.

Coffee Talk: What do all of you think?  Which performance merits top billing?  What great individual performances did I miss?

Post-Tournament Links

• Lucious, Allen break bones
  Talk about a game going as badly as it possibly could have.  On a positive note, my sense is that a broken bone doesn’t involve major rehab.  (Hat tip: MooTheKow.)
• Spartans can find motivation in loss to Tar Heels
  Draymond Green: Leader.  (Hat tip: Jason.)
• 2009-10 Insanely Too Early Rankings
  Consensus: MSU is #3, behind Kansas and Syracuse.
• Tom Izzo says assistants deserve head-coaching jobs
  Might Mark Montgomery or Dwayne Stephens move up/out?
• 2009 Spring Preview Series – Michigan State Spartans
  Football, anyone?

Updates:

• USA bid committee identifies 70 venues as potential World Cup sites
  Futbol, anyone?  (Spartan Stadium is on the list of potential venues.)

At least one reader (Mark in DC) thinks recovering from a broken bone in your foot/ankle can potentially be as complicated as an ACL injury.  Anyone else have information on this topic?