text:
Newsknife finds dramatic changes in Google News ratings

On August 31, 2007, Google announced that it would start hosting material produced by The Associated Press (AP) and three other wire services on Google News. "After just 9 days, it looks like this is already having a big effect on the relevance rankings of news sites there," Newsknife has just reported.

Newsknife, which is based in New Zealand, compared its pre-wire-service rankings for all of August with its wire-services-included rankings for the first nine days of September. While the September sample is small -- only 9,010 listings by 1,092 sites for 72 news stories -- Newsknife finds the changes are dramatic.

In August, the top news sites at Google News were:
1 Forbes
2 New York Times
3 ABC News
4 Reuters
5 Washington Post
6 Guardian Unlimited, UK

Looking at September 1-9, the top news sties at Google News were:
1 Guardian Unlimited, UK
2 New York Times
3 Washington Post
4 The Associated Press
5 BBC News, UK
6 Voice of America

So, within nine days, AP has jumped into the top 6 ratings. And Agence France-Presse, another one of the wire services now hosted on Google News, wasn't far behind.

According to Newsknife, "Such a strong showing by the wire services suggests this is the new reality. Some others sites will presumably move down the Google News rankings to make way."

On August 31, Josh Cohen, the business product manager for Google News, said, "This change will provide more room on Google News for publishers' most highly valued content: original content." And it appears that Google News is rewarding original content.

As evidence, Newsknife pointed to "the other remarkable feature of our September-to-date ratings: the rise of non-wire-service site Guardian Unlimited."

According to Newsknife, "Surely, we can infer here that Google News is rewarding originality. In Newsknife's opinion this is a long-awaited reward."

Newsknife's "Wire Services Watch" will continue tracking the ratings rise and fall for individual news sites over the next few months -- including the wire services. I plan to follow up when it becomes clear who the winners and losers are.

Nevertheless, the early returns indicate that the advice I provided in my SEW blog post on September 3 was on target, "Pitch your next big story directly to one of the 3,000 AP journalists in one of the more than more than 240 AP bureaus worldwide. If they write a story, it has a better chance of appearing in Google News than any of the 'duplicate articles' that might appear in one of the thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television and online customers that AP serves."


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Truncated: length

WARC-Type: response

text:
How can I make the transition to Linux?

I am a systems administrator with several years of experience. I have worked for some very large companies. That was under the Windows platform. I want to change directions and move over to the Linux platform. I could really use some advice on how to transition over. I have Linux loaded on PCs and have administered a few Unix boxes in my days but I have never really done anything with Linux except play around with it.
Linux adoption by corporations is growing quickly and this is driving demand for skilled administrators. Informal, self-directed training is a great way to begin. There are also a number of formalized training curriculums and even certification programs from leading Linux vendors. Your background in Unix gives you a running start with Linux.

Some seemingly small and easy Linux projects leveraging no-cost open source software can lead to very quick paybacks to your organization. Most organizations begin with move edge functions like web serving to Linux as a first step. I might suggest starting with a Linux-based Intranet running an Apache Web server, a database application using MySQL or an anti-spam solution utilizing SpamAssassin. The success of Linux to date is largely from the initiative of IT professionals such as yourself that championed Linux applications that furthered the business goals in your organization.

This was first published in May 2004

Dig Deeper

Have a question for an expert?

Please add a title for your question

Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.

You will be able to add details on the next page.

Forgot Password?

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an email containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-96-226.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-35
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) definition

Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) is a security standard for users of computers equipped with Wi-Fi wireless connection. It is an improvement on and is expected to replace the original Wi-Fi security standard, Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP). WPA provides more sophisticated data encryption than WEP and also provides user authentication (WEP's user authentication is considered insufficient). WEP is still considered useful for the casual home user, but insufficient for the corporate environment where the large flow of messages can enable eavesdroppers to discover encryption keys more quickly.

WPA's encryption method is the Temporal Key Integrity Protocol (TKIP). TKIP addresses the weaknesses of WEP by including a per-packet mixing function, a message integrity check, an extended initialization vector, and a re-keying mechanism. WPA provides "strong" user authentication based on 802.1x and the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP). WPA depends on a central authentication server such as RADIUS to authenticate each user.

Wi-Fi Protected Access is a subset of and will be compatible with IEEE 802.11i (sometimes referred to as WPA2), a security standard under development. Software updates that will allow both server and client computers to implement WPA are expected to become widely available during 2003. Access points (see hot spots) can operate in mixed WEP/WPA mode to support both WEP and WPA clients. However, mixed mode effectively provides only WEP-level security for all users. Home users of access points that use only WPA can operate in a special home-mode in which the user need only enter a password to be connected to the access point. The password will trigger authentication and TKIP encryption.

This was first published in November 2005

Continue Reading About Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA)

Dig Deeper

Find more PRO+ content and other member only offers, here.

Forgot Password?

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an email containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:

File Extensions and File Formats

Powered by:


text:
SOX 404 compliance: Efficiency is key

Gain a better understanding of SOX Section 404 and learn how to improve your compliance efficiency.

What you will learn from this tip: How to better understand SOX Section 404 and improve compliance efficiency.

The intent of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Section 404 is to improve internal control over financial reporting. The number...

and scale of accounting scandals in the wake of the 1990s stock market bubble forced a change from informal to formal control mechanisms. SOX was enacted so investors in public companies could have reasonable confidence that financial reports are prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and therefore fairly represent the results and condition of the company.

More on Sarbanes-Oxely compliance:
Keeping SOX 404 under control

Five steps for SOX compliance
Although the word "control" stresses fraud prevention, it also carries a broader context of safeguarding assets (i.e., preventing undue risk), managing spending and maintaining a sound accounting environment. To address the shenanigans instigated by senior executives, the law made them responsible for having adequate controls over financial reporting, periodically attesting to the effectiveness of their internal controls and reporting any issues with the control systems and methods used to assess their effectiveness.

The vagueness of the law's language, the lack of enforcement history and the potential severity of failing to "pass" has created a great deal of anxiety among senior executives of public companies. Since SOX is here to stay, companies should focus on improving compliance efficiency. One important way to improve compliance efficiency is to reduce the number of points of control. There are at least two ways to do this.

  1. Automate (or otherwise eliminate) manual steps in a financial process.
    Companies were required to document their financial processes in detail in the first stage of the compliance process. They should go through these process maps and look for manual steps that can be automated by passing information from one system to another (rather than manually re-keying it), using statutory consolidation software to perform certain calculations they may be doing on spreadsheets, and so on. Manual steps should be avoided whenever possible because they pose a control risk (for fraud or error) and therefore require auditors to sample or inspect transactions. Moreover, since manual steps create errors they also drive up the cost of detecting and correcting those mistakes –- cost senior executives underestimate.

    Spreadsheets should be avoided as much as possible, but especially in processes where errors or mis-statements will affect external financial reports. By themselves, electronic spreadsheets are inherently unauditable and research shows it is surprisingly easy for them to contain errors regardless of the number of times they are checked. A company that calculates allocations in a spreadsheet and then creates journal entries manually should look for ways to automate this part of the process within their accounting or consolidation software.

  2. Reduce the number of controls the company needs to monitor and test.
    In the wake of their initial compliance effort, many companies have realized they can simplify their control environment and still maintain effective control. Often, they can achieve simplification by relying on higher-level controls

    Many companies will find they can reduce the complexity of their operations by applying process commonality to financial systems wherever possible. It is not uncommon for companies to find they had more than a dozen ways of handling a payables process or billing exception. While some variation is inevitable, simplification is usually practical and pays off in a more common set of controls and systems for monitoring and testing.

How well SOX addresses the original impetus of preventing large-scale, high-level financial fraud remains to be seen. Since public companies are required to comply with the law, many of the actions they take to improve their compliance efficiency will have the added benefit of making their finance operations more efficient.

Robert D. Kugel is CFA, VP and Research Director at Ventana Research. He heads up the Financial Performance Management (FPM) practice, focusing on the intersection of information technology and the finance organization. The FPM research agenda includes the application of IT to financial process optimization and collaborative systems, control systems and analytics, profitability management and advanced budgeting and planning. Rob has been a technology analyst for over 20 years.
This was first published in June 2005

Dig Deeper

Find more PRO+ content and other member only offers, here.

Forgot Password?

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an email containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:


text:
Automating site-to-site failover

I am looking for a system that can switch automatically from one site to a backup site but with standard hardware and without modifying the applications (no clusters like MSCS or HACMP). I think it's easy enough to boot on a virtual disk that is on an EMC CXxxx, HP EVA or IBM FastTxxx and to have a clone of this virtual disk on a remote site.

However, in the case of a disaster, I haven't found any product that can decide to start a server on the backup site automatically or by simply going back to the initial site (data and servers) when the problem has been solved.

Do you of any products that can do such things?
In part because I work for a vendor, -- full disclosure: I work for VERITAS -- I try not to recommend specific products in this space. But since you asked the question so directly, I will do my best to answer.

You don't explain your reluctance to "modify" applications. To the best of my knowledge, MSCS and HA/CMP don't require you to make changes to applications in order to cluster them. MSCS may make some changes on its own but it doesn't make significant changes.

You can certainly do what you are looking for with VERITAS Cluster Server with the Global Clustering Option. VCS will enable automatic (or semi-automatic; more on that in a minute) failover from site to site and does not require application modification. Of course, for site-to-site failover to work, you need a way to get the critical data from one site to the other. The best way to do this is with a data replication product, such as VERITAS Volume Replicator, Hitachi TrueCopy or EMC SRDF.

The issue with automatic site-to-site failover is that performing a site-to-site failover can be an expensive proposition and generally, it's something that you don't want to do by mistake even once. My advice is that you make sure that whatever tool you choose requires some -- but minimal -- human intervention to complete.

Beware of setting too many vendor requirements for achieving a useful and worthwhile goal such as site-to-site recovery. Such requirements may be unnecessary and may disqualify many solutions that could otherwise help you.

Evan L. Marcus

Editor's note: Do you agree with this expert's response? If you have more to share, post it in one of our .bphAaR2qhqA^0@/searchstorage>discussion forums.

This was first published in March 2004

Find more PRO+ content and other member only offers, here.

Have a question for an expert?

Please add a title for your question

Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.

You will be able to add details on the next page.

Forgot Password?

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an email containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:


text:
Saturday, January 8, 2011

Photo's from Giovanna

Some new Mucky Pirates Bay pics from the lovely Miss Giovanna Fasanelli. Thanks for them and for showing me stuff I haven't seen before such as Acoel flatworms, which I didn't even realise were worms till you made them move.

I really need to read more :-)

Squirty squirt squirt
Sea Squirt on the Jetty

I like Candy!
Red Stripe Shrimp

I'm cunningly disguised as a piece of fluff.
Spot the Tiny Seahorse

Like a fellow in Black & Yellow

You what?
Common pipefish

But can you play the mandolin Mr Mandarin?
Mandarin fish

Yes I can
Another Mandarin fish ;-)

No Flash Plea...ouch! my eyes,I gone blind.
White eyed Moray

No dragon or net in this pic?

Damn this things heavy!
& Finally the legendary upsidedown jellyfish crab

Again thanks for sharing a look forward to critter hunting with you again sometime soon.

The Captain

No comments:


text:
Mammoth Tusk To Go On Display This Weekend

View Comments
(photo courtesy: The Burke Museum)

(photo courtesy: The Burke Museum)

(CBS Seattle) — Whenever an expert in any field starts a sentence with ‘I’ve never seen a find like this,’ you know you have something special.

‘It was a pretty amazing experience,’ Burke Museum paleontologist Christian Sidor said about the discovery of a mammoth tusk in South Lake Union. ‘I’ve been in paleontology for 20 years and I’ve never seen a find like this captivate a community. Not just Seattle, it’s been everywhere.’

Largely because of that excitement, the tusk is going on display to the public as part of the museum’s annual Dino Day event this Saturday (March 8). An interactive naming contest also launches that day, where the public is encouraged to submit name suggestions.

PHOTOS: Seattle’s Mammoth Tusk Fossil

Since it was unearthed at a construction site near Mercer St. and Pontius Ave. back in February, the mammoth tusk has been at the Burke Museum in the beginning phases of an extensive conservation process. First, scientists will have to let the water-logged fossil dry out. That process could take about a year because if it dries too quickly, the delicate fossil could crack.  At Dino Day, the tusk will be wrapped partially in plaster, which is part of the process, but Sidor said visitors will still be able to get a good idea of the fossil’s size. It measures 8.5 feet  (tusks can be as long as 15 feet) and it’s the biggest and most complete specimen ever found in the Seattle area. Other mammoth fossils have been discovered in Washington, but most were just teeth and small bones, Sidor explained.

Aside from the size of the tusk, it’s unique also because of where it was unearthed. ‘The thing that has been shocking is finding a fossil like this right downtown,’ said Sidor. Construction workers hit the tusk while they digging about 30 feet down at the site of a future apartment building.

The tusk is believed to be a Columbian mammoth, which is Washington’s state fossil. (Sidor was quick to point out that there is a difference between an woolly mammoth and a Columbian.) The tusk is estimated to be anywhere between 20,000 and 60,000 years old, but carbon dating will also be done to more accurately pinpoint when the animal lived and died.

‘Just knowing when this mammoth was around tells us that glaciers weren’t around at that time,’ said Sidor. Sediment collected from around the fossil is already being studied; it will also tell scientists about the plant life at the time and what other animals might have lived in the area.

RELATED: Following The SLU Mammoth Will Get You Through The Day

The timing of the find couldn’t have been better for the museum; the tusk was found less than a month ahead of Dino Day.

‘We actually have to make an office pool on how big it’s going to be this year,’ Sidor said.

Click here for more information on Dino Day. The fossil will also be available for public viewing at the museum during the last three weekends in March.

-Rachel Ayres, CBS Seattle

(TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

View Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus


text:
Vaporize yourself before Google burns your linking power

PIC-1: Google PageRank(tm) 2007I couldn’t care less about PageRank™ sculpting, because a well thought out link architecture does the job with all search engines, not just Google. That’s where Google is right on the money.

They own PageRank™, hence they can burn, evaporate, nillify, and even divide by zero or multiply by -1 as much PageRank™ as they like; of course as long as they rank my stuff nicely above my competitors.

Picture 1 shows Google’s PageRank™ factory as of 2007 or so. Actually, it’s a pretty simplified model, but since they’ve changed the PageRank™ algo anyway, you don’t need to bother with all the geeky details.

As a side note: you might ask why I don’t link to Matt Cutts and Danny Sullivan discussing the whole mess on their blogs? Well, probably Matt can’t afford my advertising rates, and the whole SEO industry has linked to Danny anyway. If you’re nosy, check out my source code to learn more about state of the art linkage very compliant to Google’s newest guidelines for advanced SEOs (summary: “Don’t trust underlined blue text on Web pages any longer!”).

PIC-2: Google PageRank(tm) 2009What really matters is picture 2, revealing Google’s new PageRank™ facilities, silently launched in 2008. Again, geeky details are of minor interest. If you really want to know everything, then search for [operation bendover] at !Yahoo (it’s still top secret, and therefore not searchable at Google).

Unfortunately, advanced SEO folks (whatever that means, I use this term just because it seems to be an essential property assigned to the participants of the current PageRank™ uprising discussion) always try to confuse you with overcomplicated graphics and formulas when it comes to PageRank™. Instead, I ask you to focus on the (important) hard core stuff. So go grab a magnifier, and work out the differences:

  • PageRank™ 2009 in comparision to PageRank™ 2007 comes with a pipeline supplying unlimited fuel. Also, it seems they’ve implemented the green new deal, switching from gas to natural gas. That means they can vaporize way more link juice than ever before.
  • PageRank™ 2009 produces more steam, and the clouds look slightly different. Whilst PageRank™ 2007 ignored nofollow crap as well as links put with client sided scripting, PageRank™ 2009 evaporates not only juice covered with link condoms, but also tons of other permutations of the standard A element.
  • To compensate the huge overall loss of PageRank™ caused by those changes, Google has decided to pass link juice from condomized links to their target URI hidden to Googlebot with JavaScript. Of course Google formerly has recommended the use of JavaScript-links to prevent the webmasters from penalties for so-called “questionable” outgoing links. Just as they’ve not only invented rel-nofollow, but heavily recommended the use of this microformat with all links disliked by Google, and now they take that back as if a gazillion links on the Web could magically change just because Google tweeks their algos. Doh! I really hope that the WebSpam-team checks the age of such links before they penalize everything implemented according to their guidelines before mid-2009 or the InterWeb’s downfall, whatever comes last.

I guess in the meantime you’ve figured out that I’m somewhat pissed. Not that the secretly changed flow of PageRank™ a year ago in 2008 had any impact on my rankings, or SERP traffic. I’ve always designed my stuff with PageRank™ flow in mind, but without any misuses of rel=”nofollow”, so I’m still fine with Google.

What I can’t stand is when a search engine tries to tell me how I’ve to link (out). Google engineers are really smart folks, they’re perfectly able to develop a PageRank™ algo that can decide how much Google-juice a particular link should pass. So dear Googlers, please –WRT to the implementation of hyperlinks– leave us webmasters alone, dump the rel-nofollow crap and rank our stuff in the best interest of your searchers. No longer bother us with linking guidelines that change yearly. It’s not our job nor responsibility to act as your cannon fodder slavish code monkeys when you spot a loophole in your ranking- or spam-detection-algos.

Of course the above said is based on common sense, so Google won’t listen (remember: I’m really upset, hence polemic statements are absolutely appropriate). To prevent webmasters from irrational actions by misleaded search engines, I hereby introduce the

Webmaster guidelines for search engine friendly links

What follows is pseudo-code, implement it with your preferred server sided scripting language.

if (getAttribute($link, 'rel') matches '*nofollow*' &&
    $userAgent matches '*Googlebot*') {
    print '' + getAnchorText($link) + '';
else {
    print $link;

Probably it’s a good idea to snip both the onmousedown trigger code as well as the rev attribute, when the script gets executed by Googlebot. Just because today Google states that they’re going to pass link juice to URIs grabbed from the onclick trigger, that doesn’t mean they’ll never look at the onmousedown event or misused (X)HTML attributes.

This way you can deliver Googlebot exactly the same stuff that the punter surfer gets. You’re perfectly compliant to Google’s cloaking restrictions. There’s no need to bother with complicated stuff like iFrames or even disabled blog comments, forums or guestbooks.

Just feed the crawlers with all the crap the search engines require, then concentrate all your efforts on your UI for human vistors. Web robots (bots, crawlers, spiders, …) don’t supply your signup-forms w/ credit card details. Humans do. If you find the time to upsell them while search engines keep you busy with thoughtless change requests all day long.

Share/bookmark this: del.icio.usGooglema.gnoliaMixxNetscaperedditSphinnSquidooStumbleUponYahoo MyWeb
Subscribe to      Entries Entries      Comments Comments      All Comments All Comments

18 Comments to "Vaporize yourself before Google burns your linking power"

  1. Matt Pellerin on 16 June, 2009  #link

    Thank you Greg Boser for pointing me to this article… LMFAO!

    I’ve got to bookmark your site and start reading more if you’re always like this.

    I couldn’t agree more about Google wanting us to constantly change OUR code because they found a loophole in THEIR shit.

    Kudos brother, sing it like it is. :-)

  2. The Mules on 17 June, 2009  #link

    Lordy, that spam question was agonizing. In light of recent events, we felt the sum of 5 7 might be 13.7% decayed and that the answer would, in any event, result however you’d decided it should be. Your site, your rules!

    Cute and clever… and as sensible as anything we’ve read in the post-Follorida human SEO scene. Here we thought the farm dog yapped plenty — yet online, it’s been a bucket of overturned puppies all day.

  3. Michael Thomas on 17 June, 2009  #link

    How is 5 7 13.7? What are you on?? 5 7 = 12 ‘The Mules’

    Besides that good post.

    Where does that code go exactly? I agree with Matt about changing code and the way a website works behind the scenes all the time is pretty annoying.

  4. Jessan Dunn Otis on 17 June, 2009  #link

    One word - out-fookin’-standing!

  5. supaswag on 17 June, 2009  #link

    You are funny. I like you.

  6. Sebastian on 17 June, 2009  #link

    Thanks for the compliments :)

    Michael, there are so many ways to implement this functionality, but it’s not copy ‘n paste stuff. First translate the pseudo code above to:

    Feed Googlebot with any HTML element except A that can visualize the link’s anchor text, whilst human visitors get standard hyperlinks, just as before the debacle.

    Then find the routine that formats links in your CMS and implement it there.

    If your CMS isn’t that nicely structured, then perhaps you can parse the generated markup for condomized links to alter them.

    You could also run each and every text/anything (text/plain, text/html, …) output through a parser, regardless which scripts have produced the code, that works even with static HTML.

    There are so many other ways to do it. Anyway, it’s a good practice to have some centralized routine running on your Web server that controls links, and other stuff, regardless which piece of software supplies the markup.

  7. Lee Johnson on 17 June, 2009  #link

    Love the article. Its a great take on what Google has chnaged. Done with a sense of humour but with underlying quality content.

    I cant stop laughing. Love the artificial links. even better was the follow link: rel=”dofollow highly-recommended”.

    Still chuckling………..!

    Keep up the great posts!

  8. nomalab on 17 June, 2009  #link

    Had a good chuckle over this. Thank you.

  9. […] Vaporize yourself before Google burns your linking power […]

  10. Micheal on 17 June, 2009  #link

    I am so disappointed to read this post is about PageRank. I thought you were discussing Google vaporizing green herbs instead of burning them, not green fairy dust. The Volcano Vaporizer is not recommended for vaporizing PageRank ;).

    [Spammy link drop properly vaporized by this blog’s internal PageRank™Flow®-Vaporizer©.]

  11. Jonah Stein on 17 June, 2009  #link

    I really appreciate the comment you left on Matt’s blog about how many man hours Google policy changes require from everyone else.

    I have to differ with you about labeling Michael’s comment as spammy. His take is humorous and in line with the overall tone of your post. You are, after all, telling people to vaporize before Google burns and I might not understand his joke without the link.

    I understand that you choose to nofollow it (since it is your site), but I wouldn’t call it spam.

  12. Sebastian on 17 June, 2009  #link

    Jonah, I’ve changed the URI dropped by Micheal from a sales pitch for “Volcano Vaporizer” to a Google SERP featuring the product. I’ve a comment policy linked right above the input form that states “I don’t link to sales pitches, so please don’t feel offended when I remove a link”.

    I agree that the comment is humorous, that’s why I didn’t delete it. However, link drops pointing to sales pitches are spammy. I’ve just healed the comment’s minor malady. ;)

    By the way … rel="vaporize-nofollow" does not count as link condom. The REL attribute’s content is defined as a space delimited list. Hence a search engine crawler scraping “vaporize-nofollow” from my A element doesn’t count this value as “nofollow”. Maybe the CSS highlighting condomized links in your browser assumes the presence of a link condom, but search engines shouldn’t. And yes, I’m a nitpicking old fart hiding most of the funny stuff from the rendering engine.

  13. dean on 17 June, 2009  #link

    amen brother

  14. Sebastian on 17 June, 2009  #link

    Just curious … anybody spotted the implicit part of the post’s title?

    “Vaporize [your nofollow’ed links] yourself before Google burns your linking power”

    The same goes for the URI

    /dear-google-please-vaporize[links you don’t like for various reasons]-yourself-and-dont-bother-us-webmasters[with policies requiring machine readable tagging of links]/

  15. […] Danny Sullivan responde el 16 también. Mientras tanto, en todo el mundo gente como Errioxa o Sebastian se rebelan, hacen pruebas y comparten el […]

  16. Errioxa on 18 June, 2009  #link

    Other way

    function enlacesnofollow(enlace) {

    trozoUrl = “‘http://”;
    trozoOrden =”window.”;
    trozoOrden2 =”location.”;
    trozoOrden3 = “href=”;

    eva|(trozoOrden trozoOrden2 trozoOrden3 trozoUrl enlace “‘”);

    remove spaces

  17. Sebastian on 18 June, 2009  #link

    Errioxa, I’d say your routine fails after the recent changes at Google. Not only that Google figures out such stuff for ages, for example to detect sneaky JavaScript redirects, nowadays they pass link juice with such links and that’s obviously not what you want when the original link is condomized.

  18. […] Vaporize yourself before Google burns your linking power […]

Leave a reply

[If you don't do the math, or the answer is wrong, you'd better have saved your comment before hitting submit. Here is why.]

Be nice and feel free to link out when a link adds value to your comment. More in my comment policy.


text:
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Thanks, Seniors!

It'll be weird not seeing Engin on the court next season. Remember his first game?

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

It is kinda soothing.

A while back, I posted a couple of clips from a show called The BC. Here's another one. It's over eight minutes long, but you just need to watch the first two minutes.

Taking Another (Very Careful) Look At Wake Forest

Scouting Report / Game Plan
Season Stats (pdf)

Wake Forest Offense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate22.2215
Off Reb Rate32.9188
Wake Forest Defense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate20.9194
Off Reb Rate32.4114

-- With memory of the Ralph Mims Incident still fresh, I'm adopting a strict mock-free diet for this post. No jokes at the other team's expense, no kidding about certain individuals' poor numbers. Probably. This is harder than quitting smoking (not that I would know about that; hi, Mom!). The timing couldn't be worse, either.

-- The Deacons have the least efficient offense in the ACC, and by a comfortable margin, which you can see illustrated in Big Ten Wonk's handy visual aid. What makes them so bad? In addition to being the most turnover prone team in the conference, the Deacs are also 11th in eFG% and 10th in offensive rebounding percentage. Can't shoot, can't grab your misses--this is a problem better known as Chronic Brick Fatigue Syndrome.

In seven conference road games, the offense has been nothing short of terrible: 0.89 points/possession, including a delightful 0.62 pts/poss effort in Durham.

What I'm not going to tell you for fear of the consequences is that Wake Forest hasn't managed to score better than a point per possession in any road conference game this season. I'm definitely not pointing that out.

-- Fellas, we're gonna hafta have a chat. In conference games:
                      FGA/40   %Shots   eFG%    PPWS    ORtg
1.) Anthony Gurley 16.8 30.5 48.8 1.00 86.7
2.) Harvey Hale 15.7 28.6 42.6 0.97 99.1
3.) Kyle Visser 13.8 25.1 54.2 1.17 110.6
This isn't the Anthony Gurley Show. Maybe if you passed a little more often you'd be getting more than 15 minutes a game.

-- Ishmael Smith is 30-70 (.429) from the line this season, 8-23 (.348) in conference play--his field goal percentage is higher than those numbers.

Smith continues his trial by fire in ACC play, and it hasn't been easy for him:
ORtg   eFG%   PPWS    TO%
78.1 41.2 0.83 32.2
Lots of turnovers, but he's feeding his teammates a lot, too. He maintains an assist rate that's among the best in the nation and better than any other ACC point guard's.

-- Pomeroy has the Wolfpack winning 79-73, I've got 77-75.

Labels: ,

Monday, February 26, 2007

The Price Of Turnovers

Last week, Big Ten Wonk examined how effective B10 teams are when they don't turn the ball over. Which team scores the most points on possessions that don't end in a turnover? Letting no good idea go unborrowed, I crunched the same numbers for ACC teams.

Possessions are calculated like this: FGA + (0.475 x FTA) - OReb + TO
By just subtracting turnovers from each team's possessions total, then, we're left with turnover-less possessions.

Points per turnover-less possession (conference games only):
Boston College    1.40
North Carolina 1.39
Georgia Tech 1.37
Florida State 1.36
Duke 1.35
NC State 1.32
Virginia 1.31
Maryland 1.31
Virginia Tech 1.29
Miami 1.26
Clemson 1.25
Wake Forest 1.24
So every time the Wolfpack turns the ball over, it costs us 1.3 points. Every time Gavin dribbles the ball off his foot and out of bounds, 1.3 points go down the tubes. Every time Gavin has a lazy pass intercepted, that's 1.3 points we can never get back. Every time-- Okay, okay.

(By the way, Gavin, you owe us 66 points for your 51 turnovers in ACC games. You can't really pay us back, though...does anyone know the points/wind sprints exchange rate?)

All of this leads to another question: whose overall offensive efficiency is helped/hurt the most by turnovers?

The next table is sorted by turnover rate in conference play. The second column (TOLeP_Rk) is each team's rank in points per turnover-less possession (TOLeP being my awkward abbreviation for turnover-less possessions). The third column (OE_Rk) is each team's rank in offensive efficiency (points per possession, which includes turnovers).

Conference games only:
                   TO%   TOLeP_Rk   OE_Rk
Virginia Tech 15.8 9 3
Miami 17.0 10 6
North Carolina 18.9 2 1
Clemson 19.9 11 11
Florida State 19.9 4 4
Maryland 20.1 8 7
Virginia 20.5 7 9
Boston College 21.0 1 2
Duke 22.8 5 8
Georgia Tech 22.8 3 5
NC State 23.0 6 10
Wake Forest 23.0 12 12
Take turnovers out of the equation and Virginia Tech's offense is revealed as one that's actually quite pedestrian--relative to the rest of the ACC, anyway. The 1.29 points per turnover-less possession scored by the Hokies is just 9th-best in the league. But because the Hokies take care of the ball better than anyone else, their overall offensive efficiency is very good: 3rd-best in the ACC.

It's a similar story for Miami: nothin' special on turnover-less possessions--Miami is the worst shooting team in the conference--but ball security allows them to have an offense that ranks in the conference's top half.

On the flip side, there's NC State. Turnovers have made what is an otherwise decent offense into one of the worst in the league. And this is only tangentially related, but you want to know how much we suck at the secondary offensive factors--how much they drag us down? We're #1 in effective field goal percentage in conference play...and 10th in offensive efficiency. Thanks to turnovers and anemic offensive rebounding, the best shooting team in the ACC has one of the three worst offenses in the ACC.

Wake Forest and Clemson: well, they aren't any good regardless of whether or not they're turning the ball over. If you want to look at the glass as being half full, you can say that although Wake turns the ball over more than anybody else, it costs them fewer points (per turnover) than anybody else. So there is that.

"Talking out of turn...that's a paddlin'. Looking out the window...that's a paddlin'. Staring at my sandals...that's a paddlin'. Turnin' the ball over...ooh, you better believe that's a paddlin'."

Saturday, February 24, 2007

JJ Hickson, McDonald's All-American

The rosters for the 2007 McDonald's All-American game were announced earlier this evening, and JJ Hickson made the cut. You can find the rosters here. Also playing in the game: Chris Wright, former member of the Pack's 2007 class, and Jai Lucas, who's been the cause of much recruiting speculation.

                                 High School, State
No. Name Pos. Hgt. Wgt. (Original Hometown) College

33 Nick Calathes G 6-6 190 Lake Howell High School, FL Florida
(Casselberry, FL)
4 Johnny Flynn G 6-0 172 Niagara Falls High School, NY Syracuse
(Niagara Falls, NY)
3 Austin Freeman G 6-5 215 DeMatha Catholic Georgetown
High School, MD
(Mitchellville, MD)
20 Donte Greene F 6-9 210 Towson Catholic Syracuse
High School, MD
(Baltimore, MD)
2 J.J. Hickson F 6-10 240 Wheeler High School, GA N.C. State
(Marietta, GA)
31 Kosta Koufos C 7-1 260 GlenOak High School, OH Ohio State
(Canton, OH)
30 Gani Lawal F 6-9 220 Norcross High School, GA Georgia
(Norcross, GA) Tech
32 O.J. Mayo G 6-4 190 Huntington High School, WV USC
(Huntington, WV)
54 Patrick Patterson F 6-8 230 Huntington High School, WV Undecided
(Huntington, WV)
22 Nolan Smith G 6-3 190 Oak Hill Academy, VA Duke
(Upper Marlboro, MD)
24 Corey Stokes F 6-6 220 St. Benedict's Prep, NJ Villanova
(Bayonne, NJ)
1 Chris Wright G 6-1 200 St. John's College Georgetown
High School, DC
(Bowie, MD)

Allow Me To Refund Your Subscription Fee

Box Score (Unofficial. For some reason the people running FSU's website never post the official box, probably because they know this pisses me off.)

NC State
Four Factors
Turnover Rate29.4
Off Reb Rate16.7
Florida State
Four Factors
Turnover Rate21.7
Off Reb Rate40.6

We should be able to score effectively in the paint on them, and I don't think our turnover rate will be too high, either.

And I hope everyone noticed:
       FG-A    3FG-A    PTS
Mims 5-8 2-4 12
...which looks suspiciously like a productive afternoon.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Previewing Florida State

Scouting Report / Game Plan
Season Stats

Florida State Offense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate21.1146
Off Reb Rate35.988

How much does Toney Douglas matter? Since he broke his shooting hand against Clemson, replacing his production has been a challenge, the FSU offense has averaged less than a point-per-possession, and the Seminoles haven't won a game. Douglas was unquestionably the second scoring option--he was the only Seminole not named Al Thornton using an above-average number of possessions and taking an above-average proportion of shots.

Take a look at how Douglas's conference numbers compare to the man who's replaced him in the starting lineup, Ralph Mims:
           ORtg   eFG%   %Poss   %Shots   Pts/40   FGA/40   PPWS   TO%
Douglas 106.1 48.4 23.1 23.3 16.1 12.7 1.08 20.5
Mims 93.4 43.8 16.2 13.3 8.4 7.2 0.97 29.0
It's not that Douglas's numbers were especially good (they weren't), but when you have to replace him in your lineup with a role player who isn't good enough to be anything more than a light contributor (and who struggles even at that), you are going to have problems. All the sudden you have a vortex of unproduction in the starting five, and this vortex can sometimes engulf unassuming bystanders like Jason Rich and Isaiah Swann. The suck is the most contagious disease of them all.

There is a baseball stat I like to use called Value Over Replacement Player (VORP). VORP is basically meant to answer this question: how many runs does a player contribute over what his backup (a "replacement-level" player) would? The differential can be huge. A replacement-level player is by definition below average; I'd say Ralph Mims fits that description.

Here's Mims since being thrust into a starting role:
Min/G  FG-FGA  3FG-3FGA  eFG%
36.3 6-22 3-12 34.1
Thirty-six minutes per game, this guy! That hurts. It's no wonder Leonard Hamilton gets that incredulous WTF? look on his face eight times a game.

Isaiah Swann (6-1, 203) -- Sports a 1.5:1 assist-turnover ratio and has the best assist rate on the team in conference play. He's scored in double figures in every game since Douglas went down, the only NTN (Non-Thornton Nole) to do so. He shoots a team-best 57.5% in conference games and is the most frequent three-point shooter.

Ralph Mims (6-2, 210) -- Aforementioned vortex of unproduction. Don't get too close.

Jason Rich (6-3, 200) -- As mentioned in that article I linked above, Rich is struggling added pressure to score: 8-32 from the field over the last four games. Still, his overall conference shooting numbers remain good and he's not someone we can overlook defensively.

Al Thornton (6-8, 220) -- No team in the ACC asks more of one player than the Seminoles do of Al Thornton. In conference play, he's using 29.8% of the possessions and taking 33% of the shots when he is on the court--and still has managed to shoot 54.1% and post an offensive rating over 120. He scores efficiently from everywhere on the court, including the free throw line. He doesn't turn the ball over and is an unbelievable offensive rebounder. All of this is why I'd pick Thornton for ACC Player of the Year. No ACC team asks more of one player than the Seminoles do of Thornton.

Uche Echefu (6-9, 220) -- Fancies himself an inside-outside player, and is second on the team in 3FGAs in conference play (but he's only shooting 30.8% from out there). Florida State could use another consistent offensive threat in the front court, as currently there is Al Thornton and Al Thornton, but Echefu isn't there yet.

Expect to see Jerel Allen (6-4, 192), Casaan Breeden (6-8, 200), Ryan Reid (6-8, 232), and Florida State's Trevor Ferguson equivalent, Josue Soto (6-0, 165). Breeden has been the most productive scorer of the bench guys.

Florida State Defense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate23.650
Off Reb Rate36.1

The Noles have the 10th-ranked defense in conference play, ahead of NC State and, of course, Miami. Their field goal percentage defense (more specifically, their two-point FG% defense) stinks and they're letting teams grab a lot of offensive rebounds. That defensive turnover rate looks good, but it hasn't translated to conference play, where opponents are turning it over just 18.9% of the time.

We should be able to score effectively in the paint on them, and I don't think our turnover rate will be too high, either.

Predict-O-Meter has Florida State by five, 76-71.

Take her down, Smithers!

"Uh, you're flying the plane, sir..."

The schmoozing must go on, winds be damned.

Due to high winds in the Raleigh area, the pilot of North Carolina State football coach Tom O'Brien and his crew said he was unable to get his airplane up in the air on Thursday afternoon.

O'Brien, who was hired to replace Chuck Amato on Dec. 6, showed his loyalty to his Wolfpack fans by getting into a Chevy Suburban with his entourage and making the long haul from Raleigh to Fletcher to arrive at 7:05 p.m. at the Wolfpack Club dinner at the WNC Agricultural Center's Pony Express Cafe.

"Sorry about the landing, boys. This fog
is so thick I can't even see my own

Do you have to scream like that? My ears hurt.

The official Duke basketball page has posted a story about last night's win, and the accompanying photo is...

Thursday, February 22, 2007

UNC 83, NC State 64

Box Score

NC State
Four Factors
Turnover Rate24.4
Off Reb Rate16.7
Four Factors
Turnover Rate18.6
Off Reb Rate47.1

-- Through the first half, things couldn't have gone much better for us offensively. We only turned the ball over a handful of times, we shot 51.8%, and we played them to a draw on the glass at both ends. All of which put us easily on pace to post the mose efficient performance by a conference foe in the Dean Dome this season. Then the second half happened.
            Pts  Poss  Off_Eff  OR  DR   OR%   DR%   TO   TO%
1st Half 40 35 114.3 4 13 23.5 76.5 5 8.6
2nd Half 24 35 68.6 1 5 7.7 29.4 12 34.3
The difference in rebounding between the two halves is staggering. In the final 20 minutes, the Tar Heels grabbed 12 offensive rebounds in 17 opportunities--over 70%. We had six total rebounds in the entire half. The Heels finished the game +15 in second chance points. Like us, they were turnover prone in the second half (28.6%), but their dominant offensive rebounding sustained them. Carolina shot the ball about the same in both halves (slightly better in the 1st), but scored significantly more points per turnover-less possession in the second half.

1.3 points per turnover-less possession scored in the 1st, when we limited their second opportunities; 1.7 pts per turnover-less possession in the 2nd, when we didn't. If they'd only managed 1.3 in the second half instead of 1.7, they'd have scored 9 fewer points and been under a point/possession overall in the half.

-- Ben McCauley: 3 field goal attempts and 6 turnovers in 38 minutes. It was clear right off the bat that Roy Williams wasn't going to let Ben operate one-on-one in the post. The Heels managed to completely take him out of the game; his possession usage was a paltry 14.2%, well under the 23.4% he averages in conference play.

-- I guess you have to take the small victories in a situation like this. We got an enjoyable half of basketball, a few dunks, some pretty three-pointers by Costner and Atsur, an air-balled jumper by Ginyard, and Tyler Hansbrough was whistled for traveling.

-- Sidney Lowe is out of the hospital.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Feel Better, Sidney!

No post-game updates from WRAL. All we know is he's dehydrated and in the hospital.

Liveblog! NC State @ UNC -- Second Half

[10:00PM] We're in it! Go figure.

[10:04PM] Unofficially:

       eFG%  Pts  Poss   Off_Eff

NCSU 51.8 40 35 114.3
UNC 55.2 41 35 117.1
We aren't winning this game without some better defense in the second half. Very encouraging offensive performance, though.

[10:09PM] You know, I just can't get enough Mellencamp. This is our countreeeee. If you hate Mellencamp, you hate America.

[10:11PM] Where's Reyshawn Terry, you ask? Committing a foul somewhere, I'm guessin'.

Sidney Lowe didn't come out of the locker room...apparently he's sick (with glee!).

[10:12PM] Monte Towe is the worst coach this team has ever had! We need the red blazer.

Carolina gets nothing on its first couple of possessions, Hansbrough gets called for a charge (?!).

[10:14PM] Give Monte credit; he does look official. Hope Sidney is okay.

[10:15PM] Three fouls on Big Ben, Heels up by three 43-40.

Great move by Costner in the lane. He's been fabulous. Walk on Hansbrough, mouth agape. Not lacking for oxygen, that guy.

[10:17PM] Second chance points again, dammit. 45-42 Heels.

BC from Winston-Salem, kids. Winston. Salem. 45-45.

Wright scores quickly at the other end.

[10:18PM] Turnovers are killin' us. We've been lucky so far.

Hey, look, Reyshawn finally scored. It only took 25 minutes.

[10:22PM] Gavin makes a bad pass, Frasor gets two more fastbreak points for the Heels. Sidney has been taken to the hospital--it's dehydration.

Pack turns it over again. Crap.

[10:23PM] Thompson gets a put-back, Heels up six. Fells misses a shot, Thompson scores a layup. Timeout Monte Towe with the Tar Heels up 55-47.

[10:26PM] Our mojo left with Sidney Lowe's red jacket. Far too many giveaways this half.

Offensive foul on the Wolfpack, called on Costner--he's got three. We're coming up empty every time. Damn hell ass.

[10:28PM] Holy shit--mark this down: Hansbrough called for traveling in Chapel Hill.

Fells with a three, Wright gets two off an offensive board. 57-50.

Grant right back; gotta box out, boys.

[10:30PM] Wright hits one of two free throws, 58-52. Another NCSU turnover leads to an easy UNC bucket. Goddammit!

Gavin accepts a pass by putting it on his shoe, resulting in a tie up. That's brilliant, Gavin. You know, sometimes I forget how to dribble, too. Of course, I don't have an athletic scholarship. Turnovers have absolutely been the difference this half.

[10:34PM] Down eight... Gavin scores, UNC comes right back.

Fells misses a jumper--stunning! Thompson misses a two, Lawson grabs the board and hits a three. The loose balls are all going to the Heels at this point.

Wolfpack turnover; our ninth of the second half.

[10:35PM] My friend IMs: "Herb never cared enough about UNC to get dehydrated."

[10:36PM] Wow, this sucks.

Heels up 14. "You can call this game over," says Packer. He's right.

[10:38PM] And this is why we drink.

We're under eight, Heels 68-56.

[10:41PM] Man, this is sad. If you're out of town, consider yourself lucky that you can't see this second half.

[10:42PM] Heels up 70-56 with 6:15 to go. We have 16 points in the second half.

[10:43PM] Hee hee. "Coach Boobas."

[10:45PM] "Tar Heels in command." How dare you!

Second chance points. Second chance points. Twenty-two for Wright.

Three from Fells.

[10:46PM] Defense? What's that?

Fells blocked on a layup attempt. Green misses a three, Grant drives and is blocked. Dude, Gavin, what say you pay attention? How 'bout you not drive on Wright?

[10:51PM] Ass. This game now sucks ass.

Hansbrough puts the Heels up 15, Pack turns it over once again. Here, Carolina, have the ball. You're welcome.

Heels score again, courtesy Hansbrough. Ooh, guess what? Another NC State turnover.

[10:52PM] Costner fouls out with a charge. You could give us a break, ref.

[10:54PM] "Wes Miller's in..." I love it when that happens.

We're down 19, less than two minutes to go.

McCauley hits one of two FTs, we're down 18.

[10:56PM] Get bent, Wes Miller. You 27-footer shooting piece of garbage.

[10:56PM] It's final: 83-64 Tar Heels.

Liveblog! NC State @ UNC -- First Half

[8:53PM] As we near the tip, I'm watching Tech finish off its dismantling of Boston College. Think the Hokies were a bit angry?

Last night I had this weird dream about lions that had snakes for tails. I can only assume this portends something for tonight's game, but what? Also, what would you call these mythical creatures? I haven't been able to come up with anything catchy.

[9:03PM] In other news, Georgia Tech is finishing off Wake Forest, while Miami and UVa are tied at 51 with less than eight minutes to go.

[9:04PM] Got my drink and my sarcastic skepticism. Let's go!

[9:06PM] We open with Gavin taking a three, UNC scores quickly at the other end.

McCauley with a turnover...they're doubling him immediately. Hansbrough lobs ball to no one, giving it back to us.

[9:08PM] Crap...two bricks early on. I was hoping for a quick start. And Fells misses a wide open three. Definitely a bad sign there.

Gavin ties it up with a dunk! Pretty up-and-down so far; I'm not comfortable with this. I just really hope we don't shoot like 34% tonight.

[9:09PM] Christ, there's another open three missed; that's two early attempts from three for Gavin. Stop leaving him open, would you, Tar Heels?

Costner with an acrobatic play, and he's fouled. Nails the FT: it's 5-5.

[9:11PM] Hansbrough converts, swallowing three flies in the process. Mmm...crunchy. Turnover by BC and we're under 16:00. Sloppy so far, but we've at least kept them from an early-game spurt.

[9:13PM] Billy says we're playing 5-on-10, but when you include the officials it's 5-on-13.

Sweet rejection by Ben McCauley.

[9:16PM] Lawson drives and turns it over. Fells gets fouled by air at the other end, hits one of two freebies.

More sloppiness leads to a fast break layup for Wayne Ellington. We cannot keep committing these turnovers...

[9:19PM] Horner and Nieman in there for the Pack. Roy says, "I'll see your white boys," inserts Wes Miller and Bobby Frasor.

Branden Wright converts a three point play to put the Heels up four. And there's Engin with our first three! Boy is that good to see.

Hey, what do you know, we were called for a foul.

[9:22PM] Carolina gets an offensive board off of a missed FT, and Marcus Ginyard of all people hits a three. Sidney Lowe calls a quick timeout to nip it. This is one of the things I like about Sidney the most--he's very quick to call a timeout. Not in the middle of a run, not after it, but when he senses one might be coming.

Atsur for three again.

[9:23PM] Offensive foul on Marcus Ginyard, we're under 12:00. Who told him he could dribble? 16-14 Heels.

[9:26PM] Haven't heard from Ben McCauley to Carolina. Costner with a good move in the lane to tie it, but Hansbra puts the bad guys back on top quickly.

Costner hits the three and NC State takes the lead! Fells for two, Pack up three. Lovin' it.

[9:28PM] "There's a lot of confidence on that State bench," says Billy.

Atsur takes the worst shot in college hoops, so he at least had the courtesy to make it. UNC comes up dry, Gavin scores at the other end to give the Wolfpack a five point lead. I'm scared.

[9:30PM] Hansbrough hits a pair of free throws. 25-22 State.

Costner swishes a, was that pretty! Lawson scores and is fouled at the other end.

[9:31PM] Fans in Chapel Hill booing; this can only be a good thing. Lawson has two fouls; Atsur has one Oscar nomination. Turnover; our fourth.

[9:32PM] Reyshawn's all like, "what you talkin' bout, ref?" That's a foul, son. Deal with it. We're under 8:00.

[9:34PM] Wow, I went crazy with the semicolons there for a second. Sorry about that.

[9:36PM] Can we please get rid of rebounding margin? It's worthless. Percentages, people. Percentages.

Ellington scores to bring the Heels within two. Quentin Thomas, assist machine!

Costner attempts a hook...not so much. Good rebound on the defensive end, though.

Q fouls Atsur, Pack still up two.

[9:39PM] Quentin Thomas hits a J...someone really should tell him he doesn't have a J. Figures.

Carolina gets a stop, and Costner picks up his second foul at the defensive end.

[9:41PM] McCauley commits an offensive foul, his second. Ugh. He's been invisible at the offensive end.

Billy thought Green got fouled because Green flopped to the ground. Do try to pay attention, Billy.

Horner hits the first of a one-and-one, thanks in no small part to his shitty tattoo. Make that two of two.

[9:43PM] Atsur for three again. "He's seen a big basket lately."

More second chance points for UNC...crap. Have I mentioned lately that I really like Danny Green's game? A scrum on the floor leads to a beautiful dime from Quentin Thomas. I am instinctively disgusted yet appreciative.

[9:45PM] "Here's a situation where you have to understand who your teammates are," says Billy. Quentin Thomas remembers, "oh yeah, my teammates all kick ass," and passes the ball to one of them for a score. We're under four.

[9:47PM] Heels up 37-34 after Frasor hits one of two FTs.

[9:49PM] McCauley FINALLY scores; Horner commits a foul at the other end. Thankfully, it puts Wright on the line.

He gets one of two, Carolina 38-36. Horner misses a three, Gavin rejects the hell out of Wright--it's all ball, and Billy agrees--but gets called for a foul.

[9:52PM] Engin's had a fantastic first half. Sixteen points. Heels up 39-38.

State in the two-three zone. Wow...Ginyard, wide open, air balls a seventeen-footer. Loller.

Grant draws a foul at the other end, one minute to go in the half.

[9:54PM] Gavin hits two FTs, Pack up 40-39.

Wright gets an easy two against the zone, Heels up one.

Wolfpack turns it over on their final possession (Heels are lookin for that pick and roll from Atsur to McCauley); Frasor narrowly misses a long one. Carolina up 41-40 at the half.

Ghost Of Three-Pointers Past

There are few exercises more futile than attempting to affect the outcome of a sporting event with a superstitious act, but we all do it anyway. Once in a while, you're certain it was your actions that allowed your team to come through; for instance, after the White Sox lost game one of the 2005 ALCS, I made a wardrobe change that keyed their subsequent eight-game winning streak. I'm sure of it. But more often than not, you end up being let down by [that thing] you swore was lucky.

Some casualties of mine:

-- Pom pom from NCSU/Texas football game in 1999: killed in action during Carolina game that year.

-- 2002-2003 Student Wolfpack Club T-shirt: as always, the shirt was worn to all football games, but because we were on a huge winning streak, I never washed it. Shirt was discarded after providing no help in the Georgia Tech game.

-- AL Central Champs T-shirt: worn to game two of Hurricanes first round playoff series against Montreal last year, Canes still lost. Shirt banished to recesses of dresser.

One item I'll never toss aside is the C.C. Harrison jersey I like to bust out from time to time. As far as I'm concerned, it'll always bring good fortune, though sometimes in ways less obvious than the final score.

The Harrison jersey is particularly apt this evening, because it was nine years ago today...
        eFG%      OR%      TO%   FTM/FGA   Pts    Poss   Off_Eff

NCSU 58.3 33.3 13.8 62.5 86 65 132.3
UNC 50.0 35.3 18.4 24.1 72 65 110.8

                MP  FG    FT    OR R  A  PF Pt  3FG   TO BL S

Inge * 40 3 6 10 10 4 12 3 1 16 0 1 1 4 0
Kelley * 18 2 4 3 4 2 4 1 5 7 0 0 3 0 0
Williams * 29 1 7 2 2 1 6 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 1
Harrison * 37 10 14 3 4 1 5 1 4 31 8 9 2 0 0
Benjamin * 38 4 11 8 8 0 2 4 1 16 0 2 2 0 7
Miller N 25 3 6 4 4 0 0 3 2 12 2 4 0 0 0
Gainey N 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
Buffum N 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
TEAM W 200 23 48 30 32 9 31 13 18 86 10 16 9 5 9

            ORtg    %Poss   %Shots   eFG%    PPWS    TO%     OR%     DR%    %Stls

Inge 161.3 18.4 12.5 50.0 1.49 8.4 14.8 23.5 0.0
Kelley 95.1 29.3 18.5 50.0 1.19 34.9 16.5 13.1 0.0
Williams 82.0 13.3 20.1 14.3 0.50 0.0 5.1 20.3 2.1
Harrison 164.0 21.9 31.5 100 1.95 15.2 4.0 12.7 0.0
Benjamin 117.2 23.5 24.1 36.4 1.08 13.8 0.0 6.2 11.3
Miller 172.9 16.6 20.0 66.7 1.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(With thanks to Charlie Board's ACC stats archive.)

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Warm & Fuzzy With Math

From the San Jose Mercury News:

Armed with spreadsheets and dizzying formulas with names such as WINVAL, ProductivityValue and Player Efficiency Rating, some very smart people are trying to measure an individual's contributions in a complex team game.

``We absolutely take this very seriously,'' said Pete D'Alessandro, the Warriors' director of basketball operations. ``If you're not doing this, you're probably not keeping up. I can't imagine a team out there that at least isn't paying attention to it.''

Some franchises are adding front-office evaluators who know far more about snapping pencils than breaking ankles. The Houston Rockets' general manager in waiting, Daryl Morey, is a graduate of MIT's Sloan School of Management who has no coaching, playing or scouting experience.

Taking Another Look At North Carolina

Scouting Report / Game Plan / Preview of First Meeting
Season Stats (pdf)

North Carolina Offense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate18.945
Off Reb Rate39.916
North Carolina Defense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate21.8145
Off Reb Rate29.221

What happened last time?

Just, you know, this:

North Carolina's typically tough field goal percentage defense was no where to be seen, as the Wolfpack made 64.3% of its twos and 53.3% of its threes en route to a stunning upset win. Courtney Fells scored 21 points on 8-11 shooting, Ben McCauley didn't miss a shot from the field, and Engin Atsur added 10 assists.

In addition to shooting well, NC State rebounded far better than could have been reasonably expected. From my recap:

Rebounding in ACC games:

OR%    DR%

NCSU Avg 25.3 62.6
vs. UNC 33.3 68.6
Getting the better of such a great rebounding team (the Heels are probably the best rebounding team we'll see all year) is no small potatoes. Carolina came into Saturday grabbing about 41% of their misses in conference play but only managed to grab 31.4% against the Pack. And with them not turning the ball over much, limiting their second opportunities was obviously a key to victory.

And it will be again.

What's been goin' on with UNC in the mean time?

The Heels have played four game since our first meeting, winning three times. They struggled with their outside shooting over that span (19-61, 31.1%), though, and their in-conference 3FG% ranks 9th in the league. The Tar Heels with 10+ three point attempts in ACC play:

                 3FGM-3FGA    3FG%

Wayne Ellington 17-56 30.2
Ty Lawson 14-31 45.2
Reyshawn Terry 14-31 45.2
Danny Green 10-31 32.3
Wes Miller 9-26 34.6
Bobby Frasor 1-10 10.0
Lawson and Terry have been deadly, while the rest reside in meh territory. It's a minor weakness since the Heels don't rely on the three very much, but it's hopefully something we can take advantage of.

How the hell do you beat Carolina in the Dean Dome?

You've simply got to catch them on an off night (the Heels shot 42.3% and scored 1.01 pts/poss in the loss to Virginia Tech), and even then nothing is assured because the Tar Heels play such excellent defense.

Best home defenses in conference play:

1.) UNC 88.0
2.) Duke 94.1
3.) UMd 95.7
4.) Va Tech 98.6
5.) Ga Tech 98.7
And for good measure, the best home offenses in conference play...

1.) UNC 116.4
2.) Miami 116.1
3.) BC 115.8
4.) FSU 115.0
5.) UVa 110.1
In today's N&O, Chip Alexander offers up a few things NC State needs to do in order to beat Carolina, but didn't touch on rebounding. In conference home games, the Tar Heels have grabbed 40% of their misses and 72.1% of their opponents' misses. They've dominated the rebounding at both ends and they've done it against some quality rebounding teams like Virginia and Georgia Tech. We have to match that energy. A big factor in Virginia Tech's upset in Chapel Hill was its ability to be competitive on the boards. The rebounding was basically even, and most importantly, the Heels were held to a low offensive rebounding percentage. The Hokies matched Carolina in second chance points, 13-13.

You need only glance at the respective Game Plans to see that defensive rebounding is vital for us. Look at the relationships between OR% and UNC's offensive efficiency, and between opponent OR% and NC State's defensive efficiency.

What else did Virginia Tech do? Protected the ball, for one thing: they committed 10 turnovers in the game, a 12.7% turnover rate. They got to the line a lot, which helped them offset a tough night from the field. They limited the pace: the game had 70-ish possessions in regulation, and that is right where we're gonna want to be.

From the N&O article:

Some wondered why the Heels didn't apply more fullcourt pressure against State, which has had some ball-handling adventures.

"We didn't do a good job of it," Williams said. "We allowed State to set the pace of the game."

Carolina had 10 fast-break points, a pittance for a team that likes to stay on fast forward and can be lethal in transition.

"We took our time and did a pretty nice job of keeping control of the tempo of the game," NCSU coach Sidney Lowe said. "The key was we were very patient on the offensive end, took what was there and obviously were able to knock down some shots."

In addition to being patient, we'll also need to do a better job avoiding turnovers this time. We turned it over on 30% of our possessions in Raleigh and had a -10 turnover margin. Under normal circumstances, you can't give an extra ten possessions to Carolina and survive. In the Game Plan, you can see that opponent TO% correlates strongly with UNC's defensive efficiency.

Score Predictor says Carolina 89-70 in a game with 75 possessions. Pomeroy's got 91-66.

Labels: , ,

Monday, February 19, 2007

Livebloggin' the Carolina game on Wednesday.

Now that I am officially on a liveblog winning streak (a one-game winning streak, but still), I think it's a good idea to continue the mojo on Wednesday. I hope you'll join me.

As much of a boost as this will no doubt provide the basketball team, we'll probably need a little more help. Fortunately I have just the thing.

Blimp attack? Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

You go, Herb!

Sun Devils get first conference win. It's always nice to get that first conference win under your belt here in December. What? You said it's the middle of February? Dear god!

Sunday, February 18, 2007

NC State 81, Virginia Tech 56

Box Score

NC State
Four Factors
Turnover Rate18.6
Off Reb Rate22.2
Virginia Tech
Four Factors
Turnover Rate16.9
Off Reb Rate22.6

-- Our five best offensive performances in conference play:
                  Pts   Poss  Off_Eff

1.) vs. VT 81 59 137.3
2.) at Wake 88 75 117.3
3.) vs. UNC 83 73 113.7
4.) vs. Clemson 76 67 113.4
5.) at VT 70 63 111.1
Notice who checks in twice. Poor Hokies. Today's win was our offensive pièce de résistance, our most efficient showing in a regular season conference game since at least the 2003-2004 season. Wish I could go back further, but I only have a few seasons worth of data. Our high mark last season was 1.33 pts/poss against Boston College.

-- I didn't think it was possible to shoot better than we did against the Tar Heels, but we did--a lot better, in fact. The run we had coming out of the locker room was shocking; I figured we would get tired, go cold, and end up having to fight with the Hokies down the stretch. Instead we scored 26 points in the first nine minutes, putting us at 71 with 11:00 to go. Imagine if we hadn't slowed down in the last quarter of the game.

-- The individuals:
          %Poss   ORtg    eFG%   PPWS

Atsur 29.4 133.9 95.0 1.91
McCauley 26.9 144.9 60.0 1.29
Costner 20.8 112.3 85.7 1.64
Fells 19.7 138.9 77.8 1.56
Grant 14.7 165.2 83.3 1.58
-- Before our last meeting with Carolina, Roy Williams said:

State proved to me they are 34 points better than we are, because they beat Virginia Tech by 11, and they were kicking our tails by 23 at one time.

So let's see if I can apply some Roy Williams Math here... Tech has since beaten Carolina again, this time leading by as much as eight, making them a total of 31 points better than the Heels. We beat Tech again, this time by 25, making us a total of 36 points better than the Hokies. But then again, if for the sake of consistency I go with our biggest leads rather than final scores, that makes us...Christ, I'm gonna need a new piece of paper. You know what--forget it. Okay, 31 plus 36 is 67; we are 67 points better than the Tar Heels. If you're really nice, Roy, we might only beat you by 20 on Wednesday. Might.

"Is it the shoes?"

At Halftime...

       Pts   Poss  Off_Eff  eFG%

Tech 33 30 110 59.6
NCSU 45 30 150 78.8

Not bad, eh?

Friday, February 16, 2007

Wolfpack Women Knock Off Second-Ranked Tar Heels

Nice win for the NCAA tournament resume; this should lock up a bid. The women are now assured a winning record in conference play, and they were already in the RPI top 30 before tonight's game.

Pitchers and catchers, baby.

[Photo: Associated Press]

Players are reporting to their respective spring training destinations this week, and Kerry Wood is injured, so that must mean the baseball season isn't too far off. It can't get here fast enough. Soon, the eternal struggle of Good versus Evil will resume--though the bad guys will probably win again. Those jerks.

I went to high school with three guys who could be everyday players in MLB this season: Brian Anderson (CF, White Sox), Ian Kinsler (2B, Rangers), and Chris Duncan (OF, Cardinals). Two of them already have World Series rings. Me, I have a blog that no one reads. But who's counting?

We weren't much for football or basketball while I was in school, but those Canyon del Oro baseball teams, as you might imagine, were always good. The Anderson/Kinsler/Duncan team won the Arizona state title in 1997; Anderson and Kinsler won another title in 2000, a year after Duncan graduated.

Friday Items

-- (nice looking website, by the way) has a preview of the VT/NCSU game posted.

And in case you were wondering, nc state is the only team in the ACC that averages fewer offensive rebounds per game than VT. Tech won on the offensive glass 12-7 in the game in January. This is not a very athletic team (other than Fells and Grant), but they are tall.

This provides an opportunity for a brief tempo-free stats public service announcement. Why use rebounding percentages? Because percentages give you context! Virginia Tech only "won" on the offensive glass because it had many more opportunities (17 more) than NC State to grab them (this tends to happen when one team shoots 37% and the other shoots 58%). The Wolfpack had the higher offensive rebounding percentage in the game.

-- Mechelle Voepel profiles Kay Yow for

"Some people said, 'I think you should just rest, and next year … '" Yow said after practice. "But I have Stage 4 cancer. I'm taking major chemo. There is nothing that assures me that next year I could do it any more than I could now. Or it could be less. I have no assurance. If I had a cold or pneumonia, something that rest will cure …

"This is something that I love to do. My doctor agreed that if I felt like it, I could do it. I don't feel it has any negative effect on my cancer. It has a positive effect on my spirit and my emotions and just feeling better. I just love being here on the court. Believe me, it was hard for 16 games not to be here."

-- For more on Duke, see Ken Pomeroy's post today.

-- I learned something new thanks to this article about the Kansas Jayhawks:

The origins of the play can be traced back to the mid-1970s. According to, North Carolina State was the first team to regularly execute the alley-oop.

The Wolfpack had one of the game’s best leapers on their team: David “Skywalker” Thompson. In order to utilize Thompson’s 48-inch vertical leap, they had to discover a way to get him an easy shot without dunking the ball (dunking was illegal back then). Thus, the alley-oop was born. NC State guards lobbed the ball high in the air to Thompson, who soared over his overmatched opponents and dropped the ball in the hoop, mid-air. Most oops end with dunks rather than layups.

So there's this, and Everett Case started the tradition of cutting down the nets, and...? Any other hoops legacies I'm missing?

In the wikipedia entry for alley-oop, David Thompson is listed as one of several "Notable Alley-Oopers." Do you think he puts that on his business card? Because I would.

-- Here's an article on Cullen Jones from an Australian newspaper. Cullen's competing at next month's world championships in Melbourne.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Looking At The Adjusted Conference Standings

In the table below, teams are ordered by their expected conference records, which are derived from each team's offensive and defensive efficiency in conference play. Expected W-L records are calculated using the pythagorean theorem, and you can read all about it here.

ExpW-L = Expected Win-Loss Record
ActW-L = Actual Win-Loss Record

Conference Games Only
Rank TeamGamesOFF EFF (Rk)
EFF MarginExpW-LActW-L
1 UNC11112.1 (2)
91.3 (1)
2 Duke12104.1 (7)
96.5 (2)
3 Boston College
12113.3 (1)
107.0 (7)
4 Virginia Tech
11107.5 (4)
105.7 (6)
5Virginia11103.5 (8)
101.8 (T3)
6 Clemson11103.2 (9)
102.6 (5)
7 Maryland11102.2 (10)
101.8 (T3)
8 Florida State
12109.7 (3)
110.3 (10)
9Georgia Tech
11106.5 (6)
107.2 (8)
10NC State
11101.3 (11)
112.1 (11)
11 Miami11106.7 (5)
119.5 (12)
12Wake Forest1293.9 (12)
108.0 (9)

(The conference average is about 105 for OFF EFF and DEF EFF.)

You can see the tiers breaking down like so:

North Carolina

Boston College

Virginia Tech
Florida State
Georgia Tech

NC State

Labels: ,

Let's Revisit

Remember that Providence Journal article I mentioned yesterday? Believe it or not, the part I excerpted was actually the least ignorant paragraph in the whole thing.

Memo to Boston College fans who’ll attend tonight’s basketball game against Duke at Conte Forum: When you win, don’t rush the court.

And you will win.

The reality is that Duke isn’t all that good. In large part because their longtime coach, the legendary Mike Krzyzewski, suddenly seems to be having as much trouble winning games as most people do spelling his name.

Whoops! I love it when sports columnists go with the BOLD PROCLAMATION.

Duke has been underrated and misunderstood all season. And I can't believe I had to write that sentence. Damn you, mainstream media! I'm going to have to wash my hands after this.

I said it when I previewed Duke and I'll do so again: underestimate the Blue Devils at your bracket's peril!

Maryland 85, NC State 70

Box Score

NC State
Four Factors
Turnover Rate19.8
Off Reb Rate40.0
Four Factors
Turnover Rate17.0
Off Reb Rate37.5

-- Everyone can relax--DJ Strawberry found his jumper. It was in the last place he looked. Honestly, I don't know why I even bother writing game previews. "Here is something that Oscar Opponent has been doing all season but will cease doing now that I've pointed it out." Strawberry makin' jump shots, Maryland's offense looking functional...and did Will Bowers shave? That's just kicking me while I'm down, man.

-- Maryland's five best offensive performances in conference play:
                  Pts    Poss    OFF_EFF

1.) vs. Clemson 92 75 122.7
2.) at NC State 85 71 119.7
3.) at FSU 79 69 114.5
4.) vs. Ga Tech 80 74 108.1
5.) at Wake 79 76 103.9

-- Maryland's defensive rebounding was as bad as advertised. Too bad it didn't matter.

-- In our six conference home games the average score is Visitor 79, Wolfpack 67.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Oh, ass.

Here is the box score. I think I'll have more later. Maybe.

During the game I was wondering, how many times do you think Gary Williams has said, "Goddammit, Bowers!" during Will Bowers's four years in College Park? I'm thinking at least 500 times.

A round of applause for Georgia Tech.

They finally broke through. Last night's 63-57 win in Tallahassee broke a 14-game conference road losing streak.

Florida State has some work to do; they're 5-7 in the league and finish with three of four on the road. Their offense has been well above average in conference play, but their defense is killin' them.

Why you cotton pickin'...!

The man's talkin' own his fancy typin' machine agin, y'all.

So, BC fans, unless you want to look like the sort of total yokels who’d make fans from N.C. State and Clemson seem sophisticated, then when your Eagles beat the Blue Devils tonight, you’ll give them a well-deserved cheer and then say: Bring on the Tar Heels — a real basketball team.

So we're now getting cheap shots from the Providence Journal of all places. I guess we've really made it as fans.

Brandine:  Cletus, what are you beating your gums about?
Cletus: Never you mind, Brandine! You just go back to birthing that baby!

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Previewing Maryland

Scouting Report / Game Plan
Season Stats

Maryland Offense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate22.3206
Off Reb Rate35.5109

The normal association that goes with "up tempo," at least for me, is "fun to watch," but Gary Williams's team proves that effectiveness is far more important than pace when it comes to aesthetic apeal. Maryland is again one of the 10-15 fastest teams in the country this season, and is, again, one of the most painful teams in the conference to watch. They eschew the three-pointer in favor of a plodding, whistle-heavy, lane-clogging style that is neither attractive nor effective.

They had the ACC's worst offense in conference play last season (96.4 pts/100 poss on dreadful 45.7% shooting) and they're 11th this season (100.4, 48.7%). Their starters in conference games this year:
              ORtg    %Poss    eFG%    PPWS  %Shots    TO%

Gist 112.5 22.3 57.3 1.19 25.2 15.7
Jones 99.9 18.2 48.9 1.05 22.4 18.1
Vasquez 96.0 20.1 46.0 1.01 20.3 24.0
Strawberry 95.0 20.5 40.6 0.91 20.1 17.1
Ibekwe 93.2 22.2 50.7 1.09 18.6 26.6

Aside from James Gist, who has been very good, the numbers are dreadful. If anyone's seen DJ Strawberry's jumpshot, let him know...I'm sure he's looking for it. One thing I applaud the Terps for: they understand that Gist is their most productive player and allow him to take more shots than anyone else.

Greivis Vasquez (6-5, 195) -- Sometimes I think he shoots too much, but then I look at the above table and think, "okay, but who'd you prefer take them?" Vasquez is one of the team's few outside shooters, and I don't think they'd want Jones taking any more threes than he already is. Vasquez's assist rate is a modest 19.9% in ACC games, but this is mainly because he splits the PG role with Strawberry and Eric Hayes. Let me say also that I'm disappointed people aren't taking advantage of the pun opportunities offered by Vasquez's first name.
"And Vasquez throws it away..."
"A grievous error indeed, Jim."

Mike Jones (6-5, 204) -- 41.7% on threes for the year, but only 32.7% in conference games.

DJ Strawberry (6-5, 201) -- As mentioned, the shooting hasn't been there, but he distributes the ball without committing too many turnovers and he has a lot of value at the defensive end.

Ekene Ibekwe (6-9, 220) -- Turning the ball over a ton: you might could live with his 26.6 TO% in conference play if he were, say, the point guard. And if he happened to be the team's primary scoring option and a high-usage player, it might be understandable. But he obviously isn't those things. What he does do well: get to the free throw line, rebound the ball at both ends, block shots.

James Gist (6-8, 223) -- After posting effective field goal percentages around 49.0 in his first two seasons, he's at 55.3% this year, and that's made a big difference for the Terps. He is Maryland's most productive scorer in conference play, averaging 15 PPG and 20.4 pts/40 min. Solid rebounder at both ends and a good shot blocker.

Bambale Osby (6-8, 250), Eric Hayes (6-3, 175), Parrish Brown (6-1, 175), Will Bowers (7-1, 262) should all see some time, with Hayes playing the most. In conference games, Hayes sports a better assist-to-turnover ratio (1.8) than either Vasquez or Strawberry.

In ACC games Osby has, for whatever reason, become more active at the offensive end; if anything, though, he should be taking fewer shots now that the competition is tougher...
         FGA/40min   eFG%

Non-Conf 10.4 63.0
In-Conf 13.8 44.4
That 44.4% shooting in conference play comes with a turnover rate of 24.3%. Yikes.

I love me some Will Bowers because he looks allergic to both weightlifting and shaving. I'm not sure the Christ-this-hangover-is-killing-me look really works on the basketball court, though it is fitting when you consider that he also plays like he's hungover. He's the foulin'-est, turnoverin'-est tall dude you ever gon' see.

Maryland Defense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate23.852
Off Reb Rate37.0299

Defensive rebounding has been a huge issue for the Terps, which is strange because it wasn't a problem in 2006 and there hasn't been much change to the roster. Did Travis Garrison make that big a difference?

The problem is even bigger in conference games: opponents are grabbing 41.2% of their misses. Two opponents (FSU, UVA) have managed to grab more than half of their misses against the Terps.

Still, the Terps have an excellent overall defense. They rank 13th nationally in defensive efficiency and only three ACC teams have a better defensive efficiency in conference games. The primary reason is FG% defense, and they also force a lot of turnovers.

If you look in the scouting report, you can see that opponents are struggling to shoot from both inside and outside. Maryland has no shortage of big guards, and its post players are very good shot blockers; that's a nice combination.

Predict-O-Meter has Maryland 81-71, but I expect it to be closer than that. The Terps haven't been a good road team for a while now.

Labels: ,

Monday, February 12, 2007

Say what?

Every time we play Maryland, I'm reminded of this weird poster:

Oh yeah, he went there.

(By the way, you might be wondering what Nik is up to these days. It so happens that he is playing for the illest franchise in the CBA. And here I thought Isiah Thomas killed the CBA.)

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Barbarism Begins At Home

Box Score

NC State
Four Factors
Turnover Rate19.8
Off Reb Rate27.6
Four Factors
Turnover Rate14.9
Off Reb Rate55.3

How do we allow Miami to grab 55% of its misses when other, far more proficient offensive rebounding teams haven't come close to that preposterous level of success? How does a 6-5 walk-on who came into the game averaging 4 rebs/40 minutes in conference play grab nine offensive rebounds by himself (while NC State had eight offensive boards as a team)? It's best not to ponder these things.

80 pts allowed / 60 possessions = a defensive efficiency of 133.3. Our worst defensive showing in conference play.

Despite this oh so odious outing, I'm keeping the faith. We're going to get to the NIT.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Here, have some hilarious gifs.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Previewing Miami

Scouting Report / Game Plan
Season Stats

Miami Offense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate18.533
Off Reb Rate36.674

Last year it was Lethal Weapon 3. This year it's, what, The Lone Gunman? Anthony Harris no longer has Robert Hite and Guillermo Diaz by his side, and his front court teammates have been dropping like flies. The latest casualty, Ray Hicks, joins Anthony King and Jimmy Graham on the sideline thanks to a suspension.

Despite all the turnover in personnel, Miami's offense hasn't taken a hit. Take a look at their 2006 and 2007 numbers--almost identical.

The Hurricanes continue to maintain a guard-oriented attack, with Jack McClinton playing the (very) poor man's Guillermo Diaz. They don't shoot well, but they protect the basketball and they're pretty good on the offensive glass even with a bunch of forwards missing in action. They've struggled to score on the road in conference play, but they've more than held their own at home--they have the fourth-best home offense in the ACC (112.9 pts/100 poss).

Probable Starters:

Denis Clemente (6-0, 178) -- Splits the point guard duties with Anthony Harris; in conference play Clemente is fourth on the team in both field goal attempts and scoring. His shooting has improved across the board, and after shooting 38.5% in 2006, he's hitting better than 50% this year.

Anthony Harris (6-2, 187) -- Good ol' Anthony Harris. He remains as high-usage and inefficient as always. He's hitting just 27.4% (20-73) of his threes in 2007, resulting in an ugly 44.2 effective FG%. If this is the last time we see you, Tony, farewell. We'll miss you.

Jack McClinton (6-1, 185) -- McClinton, a transfer from Siena, came right in and asserted himself as Miami's go-to guy, and while he did well in the non-conference portion of the schedule, the ACC slate has exposed him: 41.0 eFG%, 0.93 PPWS. Shooting better from three (36.5%) than he is from two (27.7%). He sports a sub-100 offensive rating in ACC games and provides nothing aside from his inefficient scoring.

Brian Asbury (6-7, 214) -- Outta no where! Asbury played sparingly as a freshman in 2006 (8 min/g) and finished the year 11-55 (2-24 in conference games) from the field. In 2007, he is logging 30 min/g and ranks second on the team in FGAs and PPG. He takes threes as often as Harris and Clemente do but probably shouldn't. Not much of a rebounder.

Dwayne Collins (6-8, 232) -- Here's something odd: Collins has more offensive rebounds this season (75) than he does defensive rebounds (67). He is in fact a brilliant offensive rebounder--one of the best in the country. In that regard at least, he gives the Canes what they're missing with Anthony King injured. The Hurricanes might think about looking to Collins for scoring more often; his 51.5% in-conference eFG% (on 7 FGA/g) is tops among the starters.

This is where it gets ugly.

James Dews (6-3, 198), Keaton Copeland (6-5, 245), Lawrence Gilbert (6-7, 201), Fabio Nass (6-11, 202)--a freshman, a senior walk-on, a freshman, and a juco transfer, respectively--are the reserves. Copeland may start on Saturday depending on how Frank Haith wants to match up. Copeland and Dews have been getting 10+ minutes in conference games, while the other two will play sparingly. Don't expect to see too many shots from any of them.

Copeland's conference-only stats suggest he's in way over his head, but he might just be distracted. Will he be the next forward to go down? He could be attacked by a shark. He could slip in the shower. He could draw the ire of the 7th Floor Crew. Or get trapped under a gas truck--that's the worst.

Raymond Hicks had been the Canes most productive bench player. What little scoring punch they had on the bench went bye bye when he got caught doing whatever he was doing. The starting five plus Hicks account for 90% of Miami's in-conference scoring.

Miami Defense 06-07
Four FactorsPercentNat'l Rank
Turnover Rate20.6217
Off Reb Rate33.9180

The real impact of the injuries/suspsensions has been felt here at the defensive end. This is where the loss of forwards is showing most clearly. Opponents' interior shooting:
       2FG%  Rank

2006 44.2 39
2007 50.6 225

This is fantastic news for NC State since the Pack is an excellent two-point shooting team (57.1% on the year). Their perimeter defense has been suspect from the moment they entered the ACC (in three conference games against the Canes, NC State is 36-69 (.522) from beyond the arc), and now it appears we're in position to kill them inside as well.

The Miami D's in-conference numbers are worse:

Miami Defense in ACC Games
Four FactorsPercentConf Rank
Turnover Rate18.39
Off Reb Rate36.99

It amounts to a defense that allows 120.8 pts/100 poss, one that's not even in the same hemisphere as the 11th-worst defense in the ACC (this gap graphically represented here). Miami: where they play defense like the Washington Generals.

That 57.2% shooting by opponents breaks down to 54.1% on twos and 41.3% (!) on threes. At home, on the road, it doesn't matter. In eight of their ten conference games, opponents have had an offensive efficiency rating above 120, and four times broke 130. At one point, UM opponents shot 60% (eFG) or better in five consecutive games (Duke, BC, FSU, VT, UNC). That there is some stunningly poor defense.

Score Predictor says Pack 77-72 in a game with 67 possessions. Remember, their offense keeps them competitive at home...if you go into Saturday expecting an easy one, I think you'll end up disappointed.

Labels: ,

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Glancing Back At The 2006 ACC Football Season

Statistically Speaking's Matt Melton takes an interesting look back at the 2006 ACC football season. He takes the points scored and points allowed by each team and compares those numbers to the league average and standard deviation. One of his conclusions:

Teams Likely to Improve: Virginia and NC State
The Cavs were a very young team in 2006, but were still actually about average. Expect 2007 to be Groh’s best in Charlottesville. NC State finished 2-6, but they were much closer to Maryland in terms of SDPI than either or their basement brethren on Tobacco Road. Tom O’Brien was a great hire and NC State will contend for a bowl game in 2007.

A Few Items

-- Ken Pomeroy has a blurb on the Wolfpack in his latest post:

For five consecutive halves they looked like the best team in the ACC. It can be a challenge to distinguish between an anomaly and a trend. But I’m going to put this one in the anomaly category and say that Engin Atsur cannot possibly mean that much to a team.

I'm sure some of y'all will disagree, but I don't.

-- Big Ten Wonk is talking ACC today and he includes a handy graphical illustration of each team's offensive and defensive efficiency in conference play. I mentioned this in a post earlier in the week, but the graph really hits the point home: Miami's defense is hellacious.

-- A tip of the hat to the excellent DC Sports Bog for alerting me to this piece about beer pong:

If you're anything like me, you spent hours playing beer pong in college. Chasing pingpong balls into the corners of rooms that haven't been cleaned since the Truman administration was a regular weekend occurrence.

I vividly remember pulling up a pingpong ball once that was covered in about 15 strands of hair. All of different length and colors. It almost made me throw up. But I survived and kept playing.

And now I credit my strong immune system to the fact that I was exposed to every pathogen known to man during these games. From the red party cup sharing, to the hands holding the balls (yeah, I know), to the nasty ball-washing cup, to the girls who seem to think the pingpong ball is going to dry faster if they blow on it -- beer pong and all it's accessories are basically one large Petri dish for germs. Usually, however, you're too drunk to notice.

Every now and then when I'm playing, I'll pull a ball out of a made cup only to find that there's still a hair on it (this is usually a clue it's time to change out the water cup). Or I'll be drinking a cup, and--what's that?--yep, there's a hair in my mouth. And inevitably, with the ball hitting the gound as much as it does, a pube finds its way onto it...that's always fun. A couple of George Washington students actually ran lab tests to see just what kinds of bacteria (and how much) the game exposes people to.

ClayNation: What were your results?

Morrissey: Disgusting. Our first move was to test the water cups using a statistical test which assesses the "most probable number" of a certain type of bacteria being present. Normally, using dilutions, some samples come up positive, some come up negative, and accordingly you can calculate the amount of bacteria present. When we first did this, every single one of the tubes came up positive, leading our teacher to exclaim that those levels were "dangerous."

When isolating, we found Enterobacteria present, which include strains like E. coli and salmonella. While this initially sounds really bad, take this with a grain of salt. Not all strains of bacteria are virulent. However, it's generally not a good idea to play Russian roulette with a potentially very pathogenic bacteria (see Taco Bell), so there most definitely is a risk involved. In general, the less bacteria you consume, the less likelihood of you becoming ill.

Duke's New Basketball Stats Website

So I'm at looking for the box score from tonight's game, and I stumble on this:

The website features in-depth and comprehensive statistics of Duke's men's basketball program. The website currently features every boxscore in Duke history since the 1936-37 season. Two of an anticipated four main sections are now available. The season section looks at each team since 1937 and has rosters, team stats, schedule and results and much more. The player section looks at the statistics from each player who saw action in a game since 1937.

"This was a massive project," Duke Director of Internet Operations Curtis Snyder said. "But we wanted to make this public as soon as we felt we had most of the bugs out. This is the culmination of a three-and-a half year project researching and building the website. We want our fans to have access to the most statistical information available about Duke Basketball."

Every box score since 1936...oh man, if NC State had something like this... [/drool]

Kudos to Duke for taking the initiative and putting this stuff out there for the public. You can dig around particular seasons and find things like Danny Ferry's 58-point effort against Miami (23-26 from the field!) in 1988. And you can look for hilarious old-timey names like Cornelius McGillicuddy.

South Carolina's Grady Wallace attempts 40 shots.
Eight Duke players score in double digits, but Duke loses to Wake 122-109.
David Thompson goes for 40 and 14 in Pack's 113-87 win in 1974.
DT gets 31 & 10, Tommy Burleson goes for 13 & 14 on 2-21-73.

Okay, I'm stopping now.