Bruce has presented such a quandary, that at some point in the last year or so I started researching specific stats that factor into his success or failure as a coach. I chose a pretty baseline success point as my barometer; simply making the NCAA tournament. I focused only on his 14 full seasons as a P6 conference coach at Illinois and Kansas State. I will admit this analysis has some faults. A) isolating stats can be problematic and B) I had to choose some somewhat arbitrary points to judge these individual stats. Regardless, I think this type of analysis can show what aspects of a team (at least that can be shown from stats) that Bruce focuses on and therefore what he targets as points of emphasis. Bruce definitely has several.
Here's how the chart works. The first part are offensive stats. For each stat, I chose a goal mark somewhere in the middle of the stat range. Then the > column shows that when a Bruce team performs better than that goal, what percent of the time do they make tournament. When they perform worse than the goal (< for offense) what percent do they make the tournament. The 2nd part of the chart is for defense, and the 3rd part is for differential between offense and defense for each stat.
There has been a lot of talk about shooting, specifically the poor performance against Tulsa, and this isn't without merit. When a Bruce team shoots 35% or better from 3, they make the tournament 100% of the time. It seems like a big deal. When they have assists on 60% of their made shots or only turn it over 19% of the time or less, they make it nearly 90% of the time. Shooting an eFG% of 50% or better (fits with 3PT% well), also is in the upper 80s. After that its a little less clear.
Defensively, forcing TOs on 21% of the possessions or more or forcing 3 point attempts on 32% or less of total field goal attempts gives a Bruce team a shot in the upper 80s. I've conceded several times that 3PT% is largely uncontrolled by defense, but more a factor of a teams shooting ability combined with luck. The defensive factor advocated by most stat geeks is this one; force your team to shoot fewer 3s compared to total FGAs and it is sign of good defense. Bruce teams the force TOs and keep teams from shooting a lot of 3s have the most success.
The differential column is a little more tricky, but still telling. Having an efficiency differential of +.14 is kind of no brainer, that is a pretty good team. But Bruce has done it multiple times and made the tournament every time it happens. Also, just having a better 3PT% than opponents, assisting on FGs at a +7% clip, forcing more TOs than committed, and (again) winning the 3PA percentage battle are good indicators, but those all go back to offensive or defensive factors.
Regardless, I do think it gives you a picture of the ideal Bruce team; make 3s, have a ton of assists, limit TOs while forcing a bunch, and keep opponents off the 3PT line. We've focused a lot on rebounding, but overall it hasn't been extremely telling for whether Bruce makes the tournament or not. Since I put this together, I always look at these stats first for individual games and for the season. I posted this year's numbers in the 2018 column so you can see how this year's group (yes, with an extremely week schedule so far) matches up with the Bruceketball ideals.
Here's how the chart works. The first part are offensive stats. For each stat, I chose a goal mark somewhere in the middle of the stat range. Then the > column shows that when a Bruce team performs better than that goal, what percent of the time do they make tournament. When they perform worse than the goal (< for offense) what percent do they make the tournament. The 2nd part of the chart is for defense, and the 3rd part is for differential between offense and defense for each stat.
There has been a lot of talk about shooting, specifically the poor performance against Tulsa, and this isn't without merit. When a Bruce team shoots 35% or better from 3, they make the tournament 100% of the time. It seems like a big deal. When they have assists on 60% of their made shots or only turn it over 19% of the time or less, they make it nearly 90% of the time. Shooting an eFG% of 50% or better (fits with 3PT% well), also is in the upper 80s. After that its a little less clear.
Defensively, forcing TOs on 21% of the possessions or more or forcing 3 point attempts on 32% or less of total field goal attempts gives a Bruce team a shot in the upper 80s. I've conceded several times that 3PT% is largely uncontrolled by defense, but more a factor of a teams shooting ability combined with luck. The defensive factor advocated by most stat geeks is this one; force your team to shoot fewer 3s compared to total FGAs and it is sign of good defense. Bruce teams the force TOs and keep teams from shooting a lot of 3s have the most success.
The differential column is a little more tricky, but still telling. Having an efficiency differential of +.14 is kind of no brainer, that is a pretty good team. But Bruce has done it multiple times and made the tournament every time it happens. Also, just having a better 3PT% than opponents, assisting on FGs at a +7% clip, forcing more TOs than committed, and (again) winning the 3PA percentage battle are good indicators, but those all go back to offensive or defensive factors.
Regardless, I do think it gives you a picture of the ideal Bruce team; make 3s, have a ton of assists, limit TOs while forcing a bunch, and keep opponents off the 3PT line. We've focused a lot on rebounding, but overall it hasn't been extremely telling for whether Bruce makes the tournament or not. Since I put this together, I always look at these stats first for individual games and for the season. I posted this year's numbers in the 2018 column so you can see how this year's group (yes, with an extremely week schedule so far) matches up with the Bruceketball ideals.
