Road Woes

[HC]

http://sectionee.blogspot.com/2012/12/road-shooting-woes.html

I think there are explanations for why we struggle shooting the ball on the road.  What do you think?

[wh]

We turn the ball over an average of 18 times a game on the road.  By contrast, Butler is averaging 13 TO's/game on the road against a much tougher road schedule.  How can that be?  Butler doesn't even have a true point guard on their entire roster, and yet they protect the ball much better than we do.  That is as unexplainable as it is embarrassing.

Poor shooting combined with turning the ball over on 35-40% of your possessions pretty much guarantees a loss on the road against practically anyone. 

[HC]

Yes, turnovers are keys to winning/losing any game.  They definitely played a role in the loss at New Mexico.  I was more looking at if, and if so why we shoot so poorly on the road vs. at home.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

It would be helpful to know what the average visiting team shoots in those arenas--or what a standard split between a team's shooting at home and on the road would be, for context.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

just as a f'rinstance...let's look at New Mexico, and their fabled PIT of DESPAIR.
page 26: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nm/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/2012-13/release/release.pdf

--Valpo's 2pt% (48.6%) in that game was better than everyone else that has played at UNM this year--except for USC, but including SDSU, who dealt them their only loss (so far).

--Valpo's 3pt% (44.4%) in that game was higher than everyone else that has played at UNM this year--period.

--Now, our FT% (61.5%) was only 6th best of 8 teams to play at the Pit.  Of course, only 2 teams shot fewer FTs than we did...

NOW...turnovers...quite a different story.  We had 23.  No other visiting team has had more than 18--but that was SDSU, and they won.

Now, when people say "we don't shoot as well on the road" and "we turn the ball over on the road more", i kind of want to say, "well, duh".  How many teams do better on the road than at home?

[HC]

There are no excuses or explanations for turnovers, my goal was to try and first see if our shooting was much worse on the road and then give reasons why that might be.

[zvillehaze]

There are no excuses or explanations for turnovers, my goal was to try and first see if our shooting was much worse on the road and then give reasons why that might be.

I don't want to oversimplify things, but Valpo's home opponents consist of a mediocre NAIA team and 6 D-I teams with an average RPI of 287 and a combined record of 15-53 vs. D-I competition.  I would expect an average D-I team to shoot well against that level of competition, wouldn't you?

[vu72]

There are no excuses or explanations for turnovers, my goal was to try and first see if our shooting was much worse on the road and then give reasons why that might be.

I don't want to oversimplify things, but Valpo's home opponents consist of a mediocre NAIA team and 6 D-I teams with an average RPI of 287 and a combined record of 15-53 vs. D-I competition.  I would expect an average D-I team to shoot well against that level of competition, wouldn't you?

Would yo care to talley the win/loss record of our road opponents?  The road woes was the subject of this post.

[HC]

I mention the quality of opponent in the post as a consideration, however an open look against Purdue Cal is the same open look against Nebraska. Why does one go in and one not? That is what I was putting to task. Valpo has had many open looks rim away on the road while at home they are dropping, I was just exploring reasons why that might be.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

'72,  the whole point is that nothing makes a great deal of sense out of context.  It is the shooting at home that makes the shooting on the road seem poor.  If we weren't a whole lot better at home, then we wouldn't be wondering why we struggle on the road--because we would know we just weren't very good.


So--'Haze has the great point that instead of looking at why are we so bad on the road, look at the flip side of the coin--why are we so good at home?  The Occam's Razor answer would be the difference in the level of competition--and as far as "open looks", well, those happen at quite different rates for good teams and bad teams.


Probably the only "control" group that could substantiate a claim that "we don't shoot as well on the road" would be to compare free throws--as the level of defense is the same regardless of opponent--but even then you'd have to control for who was shooting the shots--i.e. a road game in which Buggs had more attempts and Rowdy fewer would obviously look worse than a home game with the reverse, but then, is that really a function of the road, either?

[DMvalpo18]

'72,  the whole point is that nothing makes a great deal of sense out of context.  It is the shooting at home that makes the shooting on the road seem poor.  If we weren't a whole lot better at home, then we wouldn't be wondering why we struggle on the road--because we would know we just weren't very good.


So--'Haze has the great point that instead of looking at why are we so bad on the road, look at the flip side of the coin--why are we so good at home?  The Occam's Razor answer would be the difference in the level of competition--and as far as "open looks", well, those happen at quite different rates for good teams and bad teams.


Probably the only "control" group that could substantiate a claim that "we don't shoot as well on the road" would be to compare free throws--as the level of defense is the same regardless of opponent--but even then you'd have to control for who was shooting the shots--i.e. a road game in which Buggs had more attempts and Rowdy fewer would obviously look worse than a home game with the reverse, but then, is that really a function of the road, either?

So with all that said, is being on the road more indicative of what kind of team we really are as opposed to how we are at home?

[LaPorteAveApostle]

For the reasons stated above, FT shooting is the great control.  Statements like "we have a lot of open looks on the road" are far too subjective to be of any use.  The disparity in quality of home and road opponents also makes any valid comparison of 2pt FG% impossible, and as Ken Pomeroy has pointed out (if not conclusively proven), '3pt FG defense' is not a thing.  At least free throws allow us to compare the same people in the same place (an unguarded open look from 15 feet) in a similar environment (variances in lighting, depth, noise, etc.) to see if it really is true that we're poorer on the road.

Thus here's a comparison of how FT shooting % varies from home to away games.  (Immediately we run in to sample size issues, though:)

Broekhoff 27-28 (H) 18-20 (A)
Bogan      6-6  (H)  1-2  (A)
Boggs      9-9  (H)  7-9  (A)
Buggs      6-7  (H) 12-24 (A)
Capobianco 7-12 (H)  3-5  (A)
Coleman    6-12 (H)  8-14 (A)
Dority    15-17 (H) 12-14 (A)
Fernandez  4-11 (H)  0-2 (A)
Kenney     6-12 (H)  5-7 (A)
Van Wijk  26-37 (H) 36-43 (A)

Basically we have the same three types of FT shooters everyone has, but in a strange distribution.

Rick Barry Division  57-60 (H) 95% (!!!) -- 38-45 (A) 84.4%
Broekhoff (season 93.8%, career 80.9%)
Bogan (season 87.5%, VU career 77.8%)
Boggs (season 88.9%, VU career 83.1%)
Dority (season 87.1%, career 90.2%)

These players are all excellent shots wherever they are, but each does slightly better at home (again, small sample size caveat).

Natalie Novosel Division*
KVW (77.5% season, 67.6% career)

Kevin is our only shooter in the average group, and has lifted himself there solely on the strength of this year (sub-65% previously).  He actually does substantially better on the road (83.7% vs. 70.3%)--and given the largest sample size, is the safest conclusion of all statements about individuals.  (Average for the NCAA, last 40 years, is around 69%, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/sports/basketball/04freethrow.html?_r=2&hp&)
(*google the phrase "an average free-throw shooter")

Ben Wallace Division 29/54 (H) 53.7% -- 28/52 (A) 53.8%
Buggs (58.1% season, 46.6% career)
Capo (55.6% season, 49.1% career)
Coleman (53.8% season/career)
Fernandez (30.7% season/career)
Kenney (57.9% season, 65.5% career)

Whoo boy, we sure do have a lot of Dwight Howardses.  Buggs and Fernandez seem to do better at home, whereas Capo, Coleman, and Kenney seem to do better on the road.  While here the smallest sample sizes apply, together, it's seen to be a wash.

TEAM
HOME:  74.2% (112/151)
ROAD:  72.9% (102/140)

Verdict:  negligible.  For every 100 FTs at home and away, we'll make 1.3 more at home.  The Shaqs gonna Shaq, and KVW's road prowess almost makes up for the Rob Cavanaugh division being extra deadeye at home.

Now, this is more context than we had previously, but we still need greater contextual evidence--such as, what does the average team shoot at home/away?  If rims, lighting, depth perception, noise, etc. were really such factors, we would expect to do substantially better at home, where we're much more used to all those factors.  Perhaps this would best be revisited at the end of the season where we have more data upon which to draw, than just the 13 games as of now.

So if we're on the whole basically shooting the same at home as the road, then why are we so much better at home--because our record still (unfortunately) stands?

--rebounding?  except we outrebounded Nebraska (but not Kent); Oakland (but not IPFW).

--turnovers?  we have 100 TOs at home (14.3/gm) and 107 on the road (17.8/gm).  And yet, we turned it over 11 times vs. Nebraska and lost; and 20 times at Kent (OT) and won.  But again, the rate of turnover has got to be somewhat correlative with

--the quality of teams played.  The best teams we've played were all road games.

Really, that's all our road woes can convincingly be attributed to at this point.  To find out which is the more representative picture of the team, well, I guess we'll have to get more info both home and away.  But to go back to my first observation, doesn't everyone expect to do better at home?

If winning on the road were easy, the Nazis would have taken the Soviets.