What's next for Hoop Vision?
An update from HQ + reliving FGCU's cinderella run
Welcome back to the Hoop Vision Weekly
This is — sadly — our first offseason edition.
The COVID-19 pandemic has already had an unprecedented impact on the world at large, and it’s certainly shaken up our little slice of the world, bringing the 2019-20 college basketball season to an abrupt end — and upending Hoop Vision at our biggest time of the year.
Last week, we had to take a step back, reflect, and try to truly absorb the impact of the NCAA Tournament’s cancellation and what it meant for Hoop Vision: the business implications, the path forward, and how we could stick tight with this amazing community that we’ve all built together.
By no means is Hoop Vision unique. We completely understand that. Major, high-impact businesses all around the world are being deeply affected by the pandemic. But it was a bit surreal — particularly as a seemingly innocent online basketball business — to be so instantly hit by the NCAA Tournament cancellation.
During this time of confusion and uncertainty, however, we’ll continue to carry on and do what brought us all together in the first place. While this is not a normal time — and we shouldn’t pretend it is — there’s nothing wrong with a little bit of normalcy and escapism through our shared love of this sport.
After taking last Friday off, we went back to the drawing board, and we’re excited about what’s ahead for Hoop Vision in the next couple months.
We hope you’ll support and join us for the ride.
In today’s edition:
The latest on the NCAA Tournament Bible e-book
Introducing the “March Madness Rewind” series
A look back at FGCU’s “Dunk City” run from 2013
Data around Cinderella upsets and runs, and the strategies employed
An update on what’s to come with Hoop Vision this offseason
The NCAA Tournament Bible, now in HV+ form
We started things off this week by converting our (now defunct) Tournament Bible e-book into Hoop Vision Plus articles. On Monday, we released team breakdowns for the top 10 teams in the final kenpom rankings.
Duke Blue Devils [**unlocked for all to read, no subscription required**]
We will be releasing the next batch of teams this coming Monday for Hoop Vision Plus subscribers. If you were considering purchasing the full e-book, we’d urge you to consider joining us on HV+ to get the experience and look back on the season that was.
Introducing March Madness Rewind
With no live sports scheduled in the near future, it’s a great opportunity to go back to some of the classics. As such, we’ve launched a new series of “March Madness Rewind” videos.
Yesterday’s first edition focused on Florida Gulf Coast’s “Dunk City” run from the 2013 NCAA Tournament. Like a typical Hoop Vision video, the Dunk City one is a 12-minute voiceover breakdown, detailing the coaching decisions and the players behind FGCU’s first round upset over Georgetown.
Video topics include:
Andy Enfield’s favorite lob play
Georgetown’s defensive gameplan and ball screen coverage
Brett Comer’s passing and transition pushes
FGCU exploiting Georgetown’s baseline out of bounds defense
Georgetown’s late-game adjustments
FGCU’s decision to keep pushing the ball in transition, even with a big lead
We also put out even more FGCU-related content over on Twitter, with a thread on the three main ways FGCU generated dunks during the 2013 season. Links:
———
FGCU: The Anti-Cinderella
One of the more striking aspects of the FGCU run was the team’s contrast in style from the typical archetype for an upset.
Traditionally, the preferred strategy for a potential Cinderella team is to slow the game down and shoot threes. The logic behind the strategy is — in theory — to increase the variance of the game in a single-elimination setting.
Let’s use the FGCU-Georgetown game as an example. FGCU entered the first round matchup as a 13.5-point underdog. Given that information, it seems reasonable for FGCU to consider playing the game at a slower place. Slowing the game down means fewer possessions, and fewer possessions means less opportunity for the favorite to show why they are the favorite.
There’s a similar logic behind shooting more three-pointers. If it’s going to take a significant amount of good fortune to pull off an upset — as the 13.5-point spread indicated — then shooting more threes might be a high-variance strategy worth taking.
The issue, however, is that slowing the game down and shooting threes was the opposite of FGCU’s team identity. Andy Enfield’s team ranked:
19th in average offensive possession length
10th in transition points per game
191st in the three-point percentage
137th in three-point volume
It would be easy to craft a narrative for why FGCU’s style of play would fail against Georgetown. The Hoyas were long and athletic defensively, ranking fourth in the NCAA in adjusted defensive efficiency.
Presumably, FGCU would be unable to get out and run against Georgetown relative to their Atlantic Sun opponents. Once in the halfcourt, FGCU would be unable to have the shooters to stretch the Hoyas out.
Obviously, that didn’t happen. There were 75 possessions in the FCGU-Georgetown game, the fastest game Georgetown played in all season; FGCU took just 15 threes, hitting six of them.
We all know how the rest of the story played out: not only did FGCU beat Georgetown, but they became the first 15-seed to reach the Sweet 16 after knocking off San Diego State two days later.
Which begs the question…
Have Cinderella teams actually used higher variance strategies?
The following graph plots every NCAA Tournament win by a 13, 14, 15, or 16 seeds from 2002 to 2018. The x-axis is the number of possessions in the upset win. The y-axis is the Cinderella team’s season average tempo.
The fastest-paced upset wins were: FGCU over Georgetown (2013) and UNC-Wilmington over USC
The slowest-paced upset win was Ohio over Michigan (2012)
Overall, the Cinderella played faster than their season average in 14 out of 29 games (48%)
On average, pace decreased slightly, from 66.7 possessions in the full season to 66.3 possessions in NCAA tourney upsets
Moving on, we can look at the same graph but for three-point volume. Do Cinderella teams start chucking from three in upset wins?
The highest three-point volume in an upset win was Bucknell over Kansas (2005)
The lowest three-point volume in an upset win was Bradley over Pitt (2006)
Overall, the Cinderella shot more threes than their season average in 13 out of 29 games (45%)
On average, three-point volume decreased from 34.4% in the full season to 34.3% in NCAA tourney upsets
Finally, we look at three-point efficiency.
The highest three-point percentage in an upset win was Tulsa over Dayton (2003)
The lowest three-point percentage in an upset win was UAB over Iowa State (2015)
Overall, the Cinderella shot a better percentage from three than their season average in 20 out of 29 games (69%)
On average, three-point percentage increased from 35.5% in the full season to 40.4% in NCAA tourney upsets
It’s a tiny sample size of only 29 games, but there is no apparent evidence to support the “higher variance” strategy. The Cinderella teams shot a higher percentage from three in their upset wins (duh), but didn’t take more of them.
Coming Soon to Hoop Vision
Our March Madness Rewind series is just beginning. Look for a new video to drop next week.
In addition to that, we will, of course — just like last year — be continuing the Hoop Vision Weekly all spring and summer. The focus in the offseason will be on more research-intensive deep dives, like last year’s Defending the Three or Visualizing Offensive Scheme reports.
We are also working on lining up new guests for the Solving Basketball podcast. Reply here or tweet @hoopvision68 if there is a guest you would like to hear from. And lastly, we are working on a potential Hoop Vision competition for all to participate in.
Please consider supporting Hoop Vision with a subscription to HV+. By subscribing for $10/month or $100/year, you enable us to continue to produce the independent college basketball content and analysis unshackled from the need for clickbait or advertisers.
Do another pod with Pyper!