Guest Post: The Rule Of Three(s)

I'm still out of town (Tyler is covering the game today) and I haven't been able to write anything since Thursday night. So now is the perfect time for a Guest Post. All Guest Posts are unlocked and open to anyone, so this post is free.

The author is someone you've heard from before. You even know that he's called The Keeper Of The Stats. Here is Erik📊 to give you his theory:

I’ve got a theory about this edition of Illini basketball and I’d like to get it off my chest.

Hi, I’m Erik. You might recognize me from a couple of Robert’s podcast series talking Illini football and basketball history, and occasionally Robert mentions a comp he and I discussed in one of his columns. Around these parts, I’m usually the “Keeper of the Stats”—the guy who is dedicated above all else to defending our rightful place as, at a minimum, the 12th-best program in the history of college basketball. I’ve not written anything for the site before, and don’t expect this to be a regular thing—Robert, Tyler and Will Leitch have that more than covered. (I am actually a writer—a historian, by trade—just not usually about sports, decades of posts and discussions in various corners of the Illini internet notwithstanding.)

But I’ve been developing a theory about this particular Illini team and need to get it out there, especially after the last few days on Illini social media spaces.  Robert has been kind enough to give me a place to share it. I’m still workshopping a name for the theory, but for now let’s call it The Rule of Three(s)™.

Illini fans are hyperfocused right now on this team’s three-point shooting, and understandably so. As of January 31, we’re 17th out of 18 teams in conference at shooting threes (31.4%). That isn’t a death knell, of course—conference leader Michigan State is even worse (28.9%) and it hasn’t slowed them down. But of course we also shoot a LOT of threes—most in the conference at 31 per game (MSU shoots only 16 per game). A lot of Illini fans are perplexed about how to square those two statistics.  

First, let’s be clear: yes, the three-point shooting is, and should be, a concern. But it shouldn’t be the only thing we pay attention to, and it doesn’t always dictate whether we win or lose. 

Instead, The Rule of Three(s)™ theory states: 

1. There are three factors that determine the outcome of games for this team: three pointers, rebounds, and turnovers. Do all three well and we win in a blowout.
2. All else being equal, we need to do at least two of the three well to win games. 
3. If we only do one of the three well, it will likely result in an uncomfortable loss. 
4. Faring poorly in all three factors equates to a blowout loss.

So, hypothetically, if we shoot lights out from three, we’re probably going to win no matter what . . . unless we turn the ball over 20+ times and give up offensive rebounds to the other team. 

On the flip side, according to the theory, if we shoot poorly from outside, we can still win if we clean up on the glass and avoid turnovers.

If we only do 1/3 of these three things well, it’s going to be uncomfortably close, and probably a loss. Do all three poorly (like the Maryland game), and we’ll get blown out. Do all three well (like the Oregon game) and we’ll blow the other team out.  

Let me try to explain why I think this team’s success boils down to these three factors, and then we can test the theory with some examples.

BOMBS AWAY

Brad Underwood has been asked about the three-point shooting many times over the last month, and each time his response has been something along the lines of “I want us to shoot even more.”  He said the same thing this week after the Nebraska game. (And each time he says that a small subset of the fanbase bursts into flames.) 

But there is good reason for Underwood’s response. It’s well documented what his vision for this team was: positional size and shooting. Put the ball in the hands of a lottery pick PG, pair him in a ball screen offense with a 7’1 big who can shoot and pass, and surround them with shooters—the basics of the modern NBA offense. 

Early on in the season it looked like Underwood had pulled off a master class of roster building: Will Riley came out of the gates shooting 70% from outside, Tomislav Ivisic nailed 6 threes against Arkansas in November, and KJ’s stepback looked unstoppable. Even Ben Humrichous was consistently hitting at a 35–40% clip. And that was without Kylan Boswell hitting much despite being a career 38% three-point shooter on good volume, plus JAKEDAVIS!!! (yes, Mr. Leitch, my boys and I also yell that every time he shoots) and DGL coming off the bench.

Things started to look a little different in December, however, and since the Oregon game on January 2 the shooting has fallen off a cliff. Post-Oregon we’ve shot better than 30% on threes just twice (Penn St. and Indiana), and less than 25% five times (Washington, USC, Michigan St., Maryland, and Nebraska). Our best effort was 34% at Indiana, and our season average has dipped all the way to 31.4% (in conference play it’s a woeful 28.6%). The individual numbers are even more grim: Boswell and Tre White are shooting 24%, KJ has fallen below 40% and Will Riley all the way to 32% (20.5% in conference play).

At first glance, that might look like a pretty simple formula. If we make our threes we win. If we don’t we lose. So, if we have players who aren’t shooting well, why are we shooting so many?  Well, Coach Underwood has also addressed this.

POSSESSED

In his pregame press conference for the Ohio State game he quoted a telling statistic: Illinois is 12-1 when we get over 33% of our misses back and turn it over less than 18% of the time.  We’re 4-6 when we don’t do that.

In other words, it’s all about possessions.

Underwood has said this repeatedly, it’s a simple math game. Threes are worth more than twos.  Ideally you make them at a high clip (see the 32 point win at Oregon). But if you don’t—and we really haven’t for two months outside of two or three games—then you need to win the possession battle and get up more shots than the other team.  

There are lots of ways to do that on a basketball court. Bo Ryan’s Wisconsin teams used to control the pace—play methodical offense, grind down the shot clock to get high percentage looks, and don’t get beat back down the court if you miss. Don’t turn the ball over and let the other team make mistakes. Tony Bennett’s Virginia teams emphasized a pack-line defense and played at a snail’s pace. Controlling pace is especially important if you’re not always the most talented team on the floor—if the other team has better players, you want fewer possessions in a game, not more. 

You can also take the approach that Underwood took in his first couple of seasons here—play hyper aggressive defense and try to generate as many turnovers as possible. Think Nolan Richardson’s 40 minutes of hell at Arkansas in the 1990s, or some of the vintage Bob Huggins teams.

On the other hand, if you’ve got a lot of talent—and despite the January swoon, I still believe this Illini team does—then up the tempo. Get as many shots up and as many possessions as you can. Over time, more possessions in a game are likely to be better for the more talented team.  This is what Underwood has tried to do since he’s been here, especially his emphasis on getting a quality shot in under 7 seconds if the defense gives it to you. Halfway through conference season we play with the fastest pace in the B1G.

But the other way to win the possession battle is rebound. Underwood has said over and over that he wants us to shoot as many threes as possible and he’s not concerned about misses as long as we get them back. He usually cites getting 40% of our misses back as his expectation. Play sound defense and hold the other team to one shot, and then crash the boards when you’re on offense.  And the good news is, we’re really good at that! To wit, these charts from Casual Big Ten on Twitter:

The point is that we’re far and away the best rebounding team in the Big Ten whether you consider volume (rebounds/game), or percentage (normalized for pace). Now some of that is because we take (and miss) a lot of shots, so there are simply more rebounds to be had in our games. But I think the eye test tells us that as well—we’ve got two guys in the top 15 in the conference at rebounds per game, and four in the top 30 (with Tre White just outside at #31).  Morez Johnson averages an insane 6.5 rebounds in just 16.6 minutes per game (that’s a per 40 average of nearly 16 rebounds per game). Using advanced stats we have three players (Ivisic, Morez, and Tre White) whose rebounding rates are in double digits, and Kylan and KJ close behind at 9.1 and 9.7%

So we rebound well.  But if you give the ball back by turning it over, you negate the possession advantage. And unfortunately, in conference play, we’ve done exactly that. Underwood emphasized this after the Nebraska loss as well—you can’t shoot poorly and also lose the possession battle by turning the ball over.  Our starting guards are both averaging more than 3 turnovers per game, and in our worst losses (USC, Maryland, Nebraska) there have been some pretty unseemly turnover numbers. 

KJ is currently turning the ball over on 22% of his possessions.  Some of that comes from high usage—when a player like KJ has the ball in his hands a lot, some turnovers are just going to happen.  But I think any Illini fan who has watched this team regularly has been pulling their hair out at the maddening number of sloppy unforced errors.  And too often those turnovers lead directly to fast break points for the other team.

So that’s the idea behind the theory.  Brad Underwood has made it clear we’re going to shoot threes.  If we make them, great. If we don’t, we need more possessions than the other team by rebounding and avoiding turnovers. Now let’s test it.

Take the game against Maryland. It was a matchup nightmare with Ivisic out sick. The rebounding battle was probably going to be a lost cause no matter what, with Ben Humrichous and Jake Davis trying to match up against Julian Reese and Derik Queen. We needed to shoot well from three, especially because getting looks at the rim would be impossible against their frontcourt. We did not (6/28). 

So, we missed a lot of shots and then didn’t get those misses back. But even then, for all of the angst about Maryland scoring 60 points in the paint, the real story was turnovers.  

Maryland had 11 more shots in that game—that’s 22 potential points at the rim in a 21-point game. We turned it over 17 times, including 12 from our backcourt.  Maryland scored 27 points off those turnovers and 17 fast break points—most of which came immediately after a turnover.  In other words, a bunch of turnovers led directly to points.  

Think about what that means: if we cut those turnovers by, say, 10 (Underwood has cited keeping turnovers under 10 as the magic number), not only is that 10 fewer possessions for Maryland, it also means we get 10 more possessions. Of course, we weren’t going to score on every one of those added possessions, but it would take points away from Maryland and net additional points for us. 

Even if we take a conservative guess that flipping 10 possessions means 10 fewer points for Maryland and 6 more points for us, a 21-point game becomes a 5 point game. In other words, if we hit on 1 of the three factors (low turnovers against poor shooting and getting beat on the glass), we might not win, but it’s a much closer game. But instead, against Maryland we went 0/3, and the result was a 21 point loss.

On the other end of the spectrum, we all remember the Oregon game. 16/29 from three, +12 on the boards, and only 10 turnovers.  3/3 factors.  32 point win.

How about the next game against Washington?  Bad shooting night, 19% from 3 (5/26), but we were +16 on the glass, including 12 offensive rebounds.  That’s good.  However 13 turnovers—not great, but not terrible.  Let’s say that comes out to 1.5/3 factors.  The result: an uncomfortable three point win.

On the flip side, at Northwestern in December: bad shooting night, 26% from three (9/34).  We only had 9 turnovers, but 4 of them came from KJ.  The rebounding battle was close, but we lost on the offensive glass. The result was 5 more possessions for Northwestern, and a 70-66 loss.  1.5/3 factors, close loss.  Same against Tennessee: poor shooting, and got beat on the boards, but kept turnovers low. 1/3 on the factors, close loss.

Against Missouri: ok shooting (31%, 8/26); great rebounding (+10), bad turnovers (16).  1.5/3 on the factors, close win.

Indiana and Penn State: good shooting (34 and 32%), insane rebounding (16 and 17 offensive rebounds), low turnovers.  3/3, blowout wins.  Northwestern at home, not great shooting (28%), great rebounding (17 offensive rebound), 12 turnovers. Call it 2/3 factors, comfortable win.

And then the most frustrating losses: USC and Nebraska.  Bad shooting (22% and 24%); bad rebounding against USC, but good rebounding against Nebraska, and horrendous turnovers in both. That resulted in three more possessions for USC and five more for Nebraska, translating to a not particularly close loss to USC and close loss to Nebraska.

I think the theory holds up pretty well.  There is just one exception, and that was the Alabama game, where we did reasonably well in all three factors, but they still ended up with 4 more possessions and we lost by 13.  

The point here is that right now there are near-unanimous calls from Illini fans that Underwood needs to go back to the drawing board because a team built around the three-point shot that can’t shoot isn’t working. And I get it. Watching us shoot 25% from three night after night is frustrating.  

But it’s not that simple.  This roster was built to run this offense. We don’t really have a go-to post presence (Underwood acknowledged as much after Nebraska). Yes, it’s up to the coaching staff to try and find some answers, but simply tearing up the blueprints and going back to square one isn’t as easy as it sounds.

The good news the shooting problems aren’t as dire as it may seem. You can actually shoot and miss a lot of threes as long as you get more possessions: control the boards and limit turnovers.  We’re doing one really well right now, but not the other.  As we’ve seen, if you fail to do one of those two and continue to miss threes and it will be tough to win. But keep rebounding like we are and cut down on the turnovers, and we can still eke out some wins if the shooting woes continue.

There’s still a month left until March.  Brad Underwood has shown during his tenure that if nothing else, he is willing to shake things up. There will probably be lineup tweaks (he intimated as much after the Nebraska loss).  

But I’m not sure we’ll stop shooting threes, or that we necessarily should—that’s what this roster was built to do. And if the shooting doesn’t improve? We have consistently rebounded the ball well.  If we can take better care of it there’s still a path to win the math game.

And an even better way to win the math game?  Go on a hot streak and put more of those long shots worth one more point through the round bucket.  Let’s see if that works.