CUOrange Blog

Clemson Tiger Sports…and other stuff…

  • Blog Stats

    • 11,276 hits
  • You don’t ever know about a football coach until you get in a ditch. He worked his way out of a ditch pretty good. That’s a good sign. - Danny Ford on Dabo Swinney
  • Recommended: AE’s Tiger Gear

    Adam is a Clemson grad, fellow CUTiger.com member and an all around good guy. Click here to check out all of his stylish Clemson related products.
  • RSS Clemson Basketball

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Clemson Football

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Mystery Number

    3,496

Archive for December, 2009

54 years of futility

Posted by cuorange on December 31, 2009

No, not the Clemson Tigers in Chapel Hill.  Here are some fast facts on Clemson Tiger free throw shooting over the last 54 years:

  • In the last 54 seasons Clemson has shot over 70% in free throws 12 times.
  • In those same 54 years opponents have shot over 70% in free throws 27 times.
  • In the last 35 years Clemson has shot over 70% in free throws 4 times.
  • In the last 54 years opponents have out shot Clemson in free throws in 43 years.
  • Twice Clemson has shot under 60% in free throws.
  • Opponents have never shot under 65.6% in 54 years.
  • Clemson has shot under 65.6% 15 times during that same time.
  • Currently 121 of 347 Division I teams average 70% in free throws or better. 
  • Clemson is currently ranked 311th of 347 teams in free throw shooting for this season.
Advertisements

Posted in ACC Basketball, Clemson Basketball, College Basketball | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Tigers hold off S.C. State

Posted by cuorange on December 30, 2009

I haven’t written much about the basketball version of the Tigers (12-2) this year, because well, it was football season. And I am beginning to wonder if there is much to write about.

Sure it was a game sandwhiched between Christmas and Duke, but S.C. State had the ball and was down by 1 with as little as 20 seconds to go. You know, S.C. State that has lost to the likes of High Point.

The Tigers are shooting 62.6% from the free throw line and unfortunately the guy who goes there the most (Trevor Booker) is shooting 55.9% (38 for 68) from the line.

Not good, when you are looking at nothing but ACC games from here on out.

Posted in ACC Basketball, Clemson Basketball, College Basketball | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

CBB contenders through December 26

Posted by cuorange on December 27, 2009

Here’s a quick look at teams that are playing their way into contention as of 12/26/2009.

Here’s the criteria to reach the final four:
1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 25 or better
2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 50 or better
3. RPI ranking of 27 or better

With those numbers in mind here are the teams that look like they are on the right path. Again – it’s early and a lot of teams are playing directional schools which is hurting their RPI. Obviously, as the season goes forward and teams start conference play RPI’s will improve and more teams will qualify.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 3 5 1
West Virginia 6 20 5
Texas 14 1 4
Syracuse 5 13 10
Kansas 2 9 16
Purdue 47 8 13

Once a team reaches the final four, offensive efficiency becomes much more important.

National championship criteria:
1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 16 or better
2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 4 or better
3. RPI ranking of 16 or better

Kansas joins Duke as potential national champions, though barely.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 3 5 1
Kansas 2 9 16

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pick ’em – Bowl edition 2

Posted by cuorange on December 26, 2009

Game Spread AccuScore Predicted Score Actual Score AccuScore CUOrange Texas D B. Rink A. Eargle
NW vs. Auburn NW +7  31-21 Auburn  38-35 AU  AU  AU  NW  NW  AU 
WVU vs. Florida St. FSU +3  33-29 WVU  33-21 FSU  WVU WVU  WVU WVU  WVU 
Penn St. vs. LSU  LSU +3 25-20 PSU   19-17 PSU  PSU PSU  PSU  LSU  LSU 
Ohio State vs. Oregon OSU +3.5    26-22 OU  OSU 26-17  OU OU   OU OU   OU
Florida vs. Cincinnati  UC +12 34-24 UF  51-24 UF  UC  UF   UF UC   UC
SC vs. UConn UConn +4.5  27-24 SC  20-7 UC   UC UC UC  SC  SC 
Oklahoma St. vs. Mississippi  OSU +3 25-23 UM   21-7 UM OSU  UM   UM UM  UM 
Arkansas vs. East Carolina ECU +8  35-27 UA  20-17 UA   ECU  UA ECU  UA  ECU
Michigan St. vs. Texas Tech  MSU +8.5  34-26 TTU 41-31 TTU   MSU  MSU  MSU MSU  MSU 
Boise St. vs TCU BSU +8  TCU 32-25  17-10 BSU  BSU  TCU  TCU  BSU  TCU 
Iowa vs. Georgia Tech  Iowa +4  27-26 GT  24-14 Iowa  Iowa GT   Iowa GT  GT 
Texas vs. Alabama Texas +4.5  25-19 Bama  37-21 Bama  Bama  Texas  Texas  Bama   Bama

Posted in College Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

In depth look at third downs

Posted by cuorange on December 23, 2009

Here’s a table with the results of every third down situation this year (including 3rd and goal to go of the various distances). When you’re clicking along at 38.67% (70 for 181) overall you know there are going to be some ugly stats mixed in there and we don’t have to look far to find those.

While 59.1% doesn’t sound so bad, it doesn’t really sound great when it’s third and 1. Think about that. Over 40% of the time the Tigers failed on 3rd and 1. Wow. And when you get to third and 5 or more, well lets just say the chances aren’t good.

The moral of the story for the Tigers is to go into third down with 4 or less yards to go that way Clemson has a 59.7% chance of converting. Otherwise, it’s 26.3% chance for the Tigers, basically one of every 4.

There are a couple of interesting anomalies in the numbers though. While the Tigers are 5 for 15 on 3rd and 6 and 1 for 16 on 3rd and 8 (what the hell?) they are 6 for 12 on 3rd and 7 and 4 of 8 on 3rd and 11. So, 33% on 3rd and 6, 6% on 3rd and 8, but 50% on 3rd and 7 and 3rd and 11.  Alrighty.

To Go Made/Att PCT
 1  13/22   59.1
2  7/12  58.3
3  10/16  62.5
4  10/17  58.8
5  4/13  30.8
6  5/16  31.3
7  6/12  50.0
8  1/16  6.3
9  4/11  36.4
10  4/14  28.6
11  4/8  50.0
12  0/6  0.0
13  0/3  0.0
14  1/2  50.0
15  1/5  20.0
16  0/2  0.0
19  0/1  0.0
20  0/2  0.0
21  0/1  0.0
23  0/1  0.0
49  0/1  0.0

Posted in ACC Football, Clemson Football, College Football | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Bank on these two…

Posted by cuorange on December 22, 2009

if you have money to lose.

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
12/22/09 Clemson Western Carolina 15 1/2 WCU Loss 
12/22/09 Texas Michigan State 8 1/2 Texas Win 
12/16/09 Clemson East Carolina 14 ECU Loss
12/13/09 Clemson Furman 21 1/2 Furman Loss
12/12/09 Butler Ohio State 3 1/2 Ohio State Loss
12/12/09 Kentucky Indiana 9 Kentucky Win
12/12/09 Gonzaga Dayton 12 1/2 Gonzaga Loss
12/12/09 Purdue Alabama 4 1/2 Purdue Win
12/11/09 Tennessee Middle Tennessee State 20 MTSU Loss
12/10/09 Michigan State Oakland (Mich) 21 1/2 Oakland Loss
12/10/09 Cincinnati Miami, OH 14 1/2 Cincinnati Loss
12/10/09 Syracuse Florida 2 Florida Loss

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

CBB contenders through games of Dec. 19

Posted by cuorange on December 20, 2009

It’s early in the college basketball season, but here’s a quick look at teams that are playing their way into contention as of 12/19/2009.

Here’s the criteria to reach the final four:
1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 25 or better
2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 50 or better
3. RPI ranking of 27 or better

With those numbers in mind here are three teams that look like they are on the right path. Again – it’s early and a lot of teams are playing directional schools which is hurting their RPI. Obviously, as the season goes forward and teams start conference play RPI’s will improve and more teams will qualify.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 3 4 2
West Virginia 11 21 7
Texas 9 1 6
Syracuse 7 11 9
Kansas 2 8 20

Once a team reaches the final four, offensive efficiency becomes much more important.

National championship criteria:
1. Defensive efficiency ranking of 16 or better
2. Offensive efficiency ranking of 4 or better
3. RPI ranking of 16 or better

One team currently meets this criteria.

Team O Efficiency D Efficiency RPI
Duke 3 4 2

The pasting of Gonzaga helped Duke’s defensive numbers immensely.

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PER per game

Posted by cuorange on December 18, 2009

John Hollinger developed Player Efficiency Rating (PER) as an attempt to combine all of a player’s contributions into one number.  Hollinger also developed a simpler formula called the Hollinger Game Score to quantify a player’s performance in a single game.
 
I’ve taken the Hollinger Game Score formula and tweaked it a bit to fit the college game (40 minutes vs. 48 in the NBA) and made it an average score of all games played in order to determine who is contributing the most (or least) for a team.
 
It’s no surprise that using my version of Hollinger’s formula shows Trevor Booker and Tanner Smith are the biggest contributors to the Tigers this year.  It is a little surprising to see Andre Young ranked third and Demontez Stitt 4th.  Turnovers play a big role here.  Young is averaging 1 turnover every 15.1 minutes played, while Stitt is at one turnover every 10.5 minutes.  What do you want your point guard to NOT do?  Turn the ball over.

Player PER/G
T. Booker  15.2 
Smith 11.4
Young  10.0 
Stitt  9.3 
Grant 8.9
Potter 8.3
Jennings 4.5
D. Booker  4.4
Johnson   4.0 
Narcisse   3.2 
Hill   2.1

That David Potter is so far down the list is also a little disappointing and could be something to keep an eye on going forward.  If teams are able to stop Trevor Booker the Tigers are going to need Potter to score or they have little chance.
 
Jerai Grant is quietly putting together a nice year, given his playing time, ranking ahead of Potter and equal to Devin Booker and Milton Jennings combined.
 
Noel Johnson and Bryan Narcisse have had their moments, but Donte Hill is an afterthought at his point though not much was expected of Hill offensively.
 
It should be noted that the PER and my incarnation of it here largely measures offensive performance and PER (and my version) is not an appropriate measure of a player’s defensive ability and does not take into account intangible elements such as drive, leadership, durability, conditioning, or hustle, because there is no real way to quantitatively measure these things, which are often based on opinion.

Posted in ACC Basketball, Clemson Basketball, College Basketball | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

College hoops predicition

Posted by cuorange on December 16, 2009

I trudge onward.

Date Favorite Underdog Spread Pick Result
12/16/09 Clemson East Carolina 14 ECU Loss 
12/13/09 Clemson Furman 21 1/2 Furman Loss
12/12/09 Butler Ohio State 3 1/2 Ohio State Loss
12/12/09 Kentucky Indiana 9 Kentucky Win
12/12/09 Gonzaga Dayton 12 1/2 Gonzaga Loss
12/12/09 Purdue Alabama 4 1/2 Purdue Win
12/11/09 Tennessee Middle Tennessee State 20 MTSU Loss
12/10/09 Michigan State Oakland (Mich) 21 1/2 Oakland Loss
12/10/09 Cincinnati Miami, OH 14 1/2 Cincinnati Loss
12/10/09 Syracuse Florida 2 Florida Loss

Posted in College Basketball | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Pick ’em – Bowl edition 1

Posted by cuorange on December 15, 2009

Game Spread AccuScore Predicted Score Actual Score AccuScore CUOrange Texas D B. Rink A. Eargle
Oregon St. vs. BYU  BYU +3  32-31 BYU 44-20 BYU  BYU  OSU  OSU   OSU BYU 
Utah vs. California Utah +3  28-27 Cal   37-27 Utah Utah   Cal Cal   Cal Cal 
Pittsburgh vs. UNC  UNC +3  26-21 Pitt 19-17 Pitt  Pitt  Pitt  Pitt   UNC UNC 
Boston College vs. USC  BC +9 28-18 USC  24-13 USC   USC BC  USC  USC  USC 
Kentucky vs. Clemson  UK +7.5  29-21 CU 21-13 CU   CU UK  UK  UK UK 
Texas A&M vs. Georgia TAMU +7  35-27 UGA   44-20 UGA  UGA TAMU   UGA  UGA UGA 
Miami (FL) vs. Wisconsin  UW +3 28-26 UM   20-14 UW  UW UM  UW   UM UM 
Arizona vs. Nebraska UN +1  22-21 UN   33-0 UN UN  UA  UA   UA  UN
Houston vs. Air Force AFA +5  33-30 UH  47-20 AFA AFA   UH  UH  UH UH 
Oklahoma vs. Stanford  SU +8  34-25 OU  31-27 OU OU  OU   SU OU  SU 
Navy vs. Missouri Navy +6  29-23 UM  35-13 Navy  UM  UM   Navy  UM  UM
Minnesota vs. Iowa State ISU +2.5   23-23  14-13 ISU ISU  ISU  ISU  ISU   UM
Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee  UT +4.5 28-21 VT  VT 37-14   VT  UT UT   VT VT 

Posted in College Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »