As the Irish struggle through this season, you hear the criticism "
lack of development" over and over again. But there never seems to be much in the way of empirical proof to either support or refute the accusation.
This post will be the first in a series that tries to answer the question about Mike Brey and his knack for developing basketball talent. I'll take a look at the incoming expectations and eventual production of the players that have graced the men's basketball roster during Brey's tenure under the Dome. And while I don't expect everything to boil down to a simple
yay or
nay, I do hope to at least provide some facts and analysis that will be helpful in future debates about the developmental abilities of Coach Brey and his staff.
Of course, all of this begins with a significant question: How do you measure talent development? My solution will be to present each player under Brey's tutelage, starting out with his high school accolades to try and establish some sort of picture of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of a player prior to his enrollment at the University. I will follow that with a statistical look at his production during their time under Brey and conclude with a short summary.
As for the statistical look at each player, allow me to step back briefly and explain all of the metrics I chose. The excellent Marquette blog
Cracked Sidewalks has a side-blog that measures the
Tempo-Free stats of the current Big East teams and players, and it's this base that comprises the number-crunching. (As a primer to TPS, I highly recommend you check out this handy intro composed by the
Big Ten Wonk.)
Simply put,
Tempo-free stats measure a player's effectiveness during the time they are on the court. The benchmark makes sense as a development measure because while anyone can score more points if their playing time is increased, true improvement can be noted if the player actually improves his productivity regardless of minutes played. Also, it usually works on a
per possesion basis, so teams that play a faster brand of basketball can be compared to those that play a more deliberate style.
So let's go over the metrics that will be used to track each player's development (descriptions cribbed from
Ken Pomery's excellent glossary):
Points per Weighted Shot (PpWS). Calculates how many points a player scores per shot attempt. Read more
here. The 0.475 multiplier in the equation is a constant you'll see in many of these formulas. It's a number calculated by Pomery to simulate the percentage of time that free throw results in a change of possession. As a general rule of thumb, I would say that a PpWs rating of 1.15 or over would put a player in the Top 20 in their conference.
PpWS = Pts / (FGA + (0.475 * FTA).Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%). This metric is similar to field goal percentage but gives a bit of a boost to three point field goals. Anything over 60% should be considered very good.
eFG% = (FG + (0.5 * 3FG)) / FGA.Percentage of Shots Taken. A measure of how many shots a player takes as a percentage of all team shots while they are on the floor. It's also a decent approximation for what percentage of a team's possesions that a player uses. As there are five players on the floor at a time, the average is around 20%.
%Shots = FGA / ((Min / (Team Min / 5) * Team FGA).Free Throw Rate. Good players are able to get to the free throw line more. This stat measures how many free throws a player attempts for every field goal shot they attempt. Anything over 50 is good. Over 70 is excellent. Consider that players that play in the low post or drive to the basket frequently will post higher numbers than outside spot-up shooters.
FTR = FTA / FGA.Free Throw Percentage. What percentage of free throws does a player make?
FT% = FTM / FTA.Rebounding Percentage. A measre of rebounding efficiency. It calculates how many rebounds a player gets out of the total possible number of rebounds, based on the percentage of time that a player is actually on the court. 15% and over should be considered very good.
Reb% = Rebounds / (( Team Reb + Opp Reb) * (Min / (Team Min / 5))).Assist Percentage. A calculation of how many assists a player averages per 100 possessions. I don't have a great estimate for this one, but I would guess that anything over 10.0 is excellent.
A/100% = A / (Min / (Team Min / 5) * (Team Possessions)) * 100.Turnover Percentage. Like the assist percentage, this metric tracks how many turnovers a player averages per 100 possessions. It's sort of a hard number for comparison since guards handle the ball far more than big men so their numbers are naturally going to be higher. Context is very important for this number. For example, Chris Quinn, as a senior PG, is naturally going to have a higher TO% than Chris Quinn as a junior SG.
TO/100% = TO / (Min / (Team Min / 5) * (Team Possessions)) * 100.Steal Percentage. Our first defensive metric, it measures how many steals a player gets for every opponent possession. A number over 5% should be considered excellent.
St% = Steals / (Min / (Team Min / 5)* (Team Possessions )) * 100.Block Percentage. Like the steal percentage, the block percentage is a good way to measure how a player, usually a big man in this case, plays defense. This is more of a rough estimate guide than an exact measure since the number only includes opponent's 2-point field goal attempts. The "very good" benchmark for this stat is anything over 8%.
Block% = Blocks / (Min / (Team Min / 5) * (Opp 2FGA).Minutes per game. While the above metrics do a great job of breaking things down to a per possession basis, it's still important to recognize simply how much a player plays. If a player gets less than 8-10 minutes of PT a game, their results will tend to be unreliable based on the small sample size.
Min/G = Total minutes / Number of games.With the math section of the post over, let's move on to the player capsules. A few qualifiers:
• I included only those players that had at least 3 years under Coach Brey -- a reasonable time period to measure development -- but that means no Murphy, Graves, Swanagan, Humphrey, or any of the transfers. Also, Jere Macura never played enough minutes a game -- another debate for another time -- to have statistically relevant numbers so he was left off as well. Today we'll look at the players in the Class of 2003 and 2004. Tomorrow I will cover the Class of 2005, the Class of 2006 on Thursday, and finally the classes of 2007 and 2008 on Friday.
• I only used statistics from Big East conference games. This was done to keep the quality of the opponents as similar as possible as well as the number of games.
• As noted above, the results can be rather misleading if a player doesn't average at least 10 minutes of playing time a game. Otherwise the numbers are skewed by the smaller sample size or by the fact that most PT probably occured during garbage time. I included everyone's numbers for the sake of completeness, but years where a player didn't average a statistically meaningful amount of minutes will be shaded in gray.
• Finally, I want to be clear that any perceived improvement is as much a credit, if not more, to the player in question and his work ethic as it is to the coaches. Likewise though, barring injuries, a failure to develop should rightly fall on the player's shoulders as much as the coaching staff's.
Class of 2003
Matt Carroll
High SchoolRSCI ranking - 40
Rivals.com ranking - info not availableScout.com ranking - info not available
Carroll entered Notre Dame with some lofty accolades. He is the only player in Pennsylvania high school history to be named state Player of the Year twice, and in the southeastern portion of the state trails only Kobe Bryant in terms of career scoring. Furthermore, as a two-year member of the USA Junior National Team, Carroll was named to the 12-man roster for the
1999 USA Basketball Men's Junior World Championship team that took home the silver in Portugal. Known as a shooter and a scorer with more experience against top talent than the average high school player, Carroll came to ND ready to contribute right away. Despite the lack of an exact number from rivals or scout, Carroll was generally considered to be a Top 30-50 player by various recruiting gurus.
Carroll at Notre DameClass | PPWS | eFG% | %Shots | FTR
| FT%
| Reb%
| A/100 | TO/100 | Steal% | Block% | Min/G |
FR * | 1.00 | 46.8 | 26.2 | 0.26 | 73.0 | 5.8 | 3.55 | 1.92 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 25.9 |
SO | 1.21 | 56.5
| 19.1 | 0.27 | 87.2 | 7.1 | 6.57 | 3.39 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 33.5 |
JR | 1.19 | 57.8 | 22.9 | 0.14 | 78.3 | 6.8 | 3.30 | 2.59 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 32.4 |
SR | 1.18 | 53.4 | 28.4 | 0.38 | 85.4 | 8.0 | 2.75 | 3.04 | 1.5 | 0.3
| 37.2 |
* Carroll's freshman year was under Coach Doherty.SummaryAlthough he did arrive at ND with an impressive bunch of creditentials, Carroll didn't need to be the star on a team that featured Troy Murphy. Still his talent was noted early on as Coach Brey called Carroll
an NBA prospect during his sophomore year. After a summer touring Europe with the
NIT-All Stars, Carroll returned to have a junior year that saw an increase in shooting efficiency but a slight drop in other categories. As a senior he took a big leadership role on the team on route to being named
the team's MVP and
First Team All-Big East as well as an
honorable mention All-American. One statistic of note from his senior year is his improvement in free throw rate from 0.14 to 0.38. That tells me that he worked on his ability to drive to the basket and draw fouls. A shooter who continues to hang out by the three-point line rarely gets to the line and an sudden increase in FTR usually reflects a more aggressive attitude with the ball. His increase in steals also seem to indicate a better job defensively. So while he came to ND with a notable resume, I think it's very fair to say that Carroll continued to develop each year as an all-around basketball player under Coach Brey. Currently Carroll is a member of the NBA's
Charlotte Bobcats.
Class of 2004
Torrian JonesHigh School
RSCI ranking - not in Top 100
Rivals.com ranking - info not available
Scout.com ranking - info not available
A two time all-state selection, Jones received recruiting attention from a few Big East schools as well as Boston College and Stanford before receiving and accepting an offer to Notre Dame. There isn't much pre-college material on Jones out there , but he was an athletic scorer in high school who hit nearly 44% of his three points attempts. Jones was also noted as a good defender. At 6'4" he was probably too short to be considered an elite wing player, yet also not polished enough to be ranked as an elite guard prospect. Still, he had more than enough talent to develop into a quality D-1 player.
Jones at Notre DameClass | PPWS | eFG% | %Shots | FTR
| FT%
| Reb%
| A/100 | TO/100 | Steal% | Block% | Min/G |
FR | 1.02 | 50.0 | 11.7 | 0.89 | 50.0 | 1.9 | 1.05 | 9.46 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 4.5 |
SO | 1.08 | 51.2 | 10.8 | 0.74 | 58.1 | 4.9 | 3.73 | 4.39 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 16.3 |
JR | 1.19 | 56.5 | 11.5 | 0.44 | 70.8 | 10.5 | 3.39 | 3.92 | 1.4 | 2.8 | 19.8 |
SR | 0.96 | 44.1 | 16.3 | 0.44 | 64.3 | 11.0 | 3.61 | 3.72 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 33.8 |
SummaryJones didn't play much as a freshman but as a sophomore started to make more of an impact on the team. Playing in nearly 40% of the team's Big East conference minutes, Jones' Steal % indicate a good defensive mentality and his free throw rate was exceptional for a guard. Considering he wasn't the primary ball-handler, his TO rate was a bit high and that, combined with the high FTR, suggest a player that drove the lane hard looking for the foul but also occasionally turned the ball over. His junior year he seems to have settled down a bit as his shooting became more efficient and he cut back on the turnovers. Also of note is the doubling of his rebounding percentage. His increased blocking percentage is another testament to his defense. As a senior and captain, his playing time and responsibilities increased but Jones seems to have plateaued a bit as his shooting efficiency dipped while the rest of his numbers stayed about constant.
I want to keep the analysis as quantifiable as possible, but I do admit that such an approach can omit other areas of development. While his numbers didn't improve much, Jones definitely took on the role of
vocal team leader. Still, while his numbers did creep up his first three years, they leveled off once he saw a lion's share of the minutes his senior year. Overall I'd say that Jones' improvement wasn't perhaps as rapid as some fans might hope, but he did get better and really emerged as a leader his senior year. It would have been interesting to see what he would have done with more playing time as a junior. I'd also suggest that while his pro prospects early in his career were rather dim, Jones is currently a member of the NBA Development League's
Florida Flames. The fact that he is still getting paid to play basketball is a testament to his development at Notre Dame. Then again, the fact that he is still playing professional basketball means it's very likely that with better coaching he could have developed even more while at ND.
Tom TimmermansHigh SchoolRSCI ranking - not in Top 100
Rivals.com ranking - info not available
Scout.com ranking - info not available
Growing up in the Netherlands, Tom Timmermans came to Blue Ridge Academy in Virginia as a high school senior to develop his basketball skills and hopefully attract more attention from college coaches. While earning all-state honorable mention that year he managed to attract some attention from schools like Tennessee, Southern Methodist, and Oregon, but was not a highly sought-after recruit. Although he would grow to around 6'11" by the end of his year in Virginia, he entered his senior year of high school closer to 6'8" which certainly limited his initial attractiveness to college coaches.
Timmermans at Notre DameClass | PPWS | eFG% | %Shots | FTR
| FT%
| Reb%
| A/100 | TO/100 | Steal% | Block% | Min/G |
FR | 0.40 | 20.0 | 35.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 11.36 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 |
SO | 0.73 | 34.5 | 15.4 | 0.48 | 42.9 | 12.5 | 1.81 | 3.17 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 9.7 |
JR | 1.09 | 51.0 | 16.4 | 0.35 | 70.6 | 13.4 | 2.58 | 4.02 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 12.3 |
SR | 1.02 | 46.9 | 14.2 | 0.43 | 68.6 | 9.6 | 2.95 | 3.41 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 24.5 |
SummaryTimmermans barely played as a freshman due to nagging injuries and the fact that Troy Murphy was ahead of him on the depth chart. The following year he saw more time but was not a very effecient shooter, especially from the free throw line. He did contribute to team rebounding, but was still a backup option behind Harold Swanagan. Junior year he remained a backup option to freshman Torin Francis but became a much more productive player on offense shooting the ball. As a senior, his numbers seem to remain about the same although he did come on strong later in the season when Torin Francis went out with a back injury. Case in point: a 20-point
breakout game against UCLA in late February that isn't included in these conference statistics. Timmermans came into ND as a lightly recruited big man with very little basketball experience and developed into a player who was invited to the
Portsmouth Invitational for top senior NBA prospects and ultimately
found work in professional leagues in Europe.
Next up: Class of 2005 - Chris Thomas and Jordan Cornette.