This game was never close to ever being in doubt. Calvin's win probability hit 98% one minute into the second half, and hit 100% about two minutes after that. Even while Calvin's 30 point lead was in the process of being trimmed all the way down to 17, the number never wavered below 100%. Obviously 100% is never 100% unless the clock says zero-zero, but it in this case 100% means the team that's ahead will lose the game in less than 1 time in 10,000 identical situations (or, that's what it would say if our data set had an infinite number of games).
Rotations
I go back and forth about whether or not to post this data on a game-by-game basis because it's really easy to put too much emphasis on small sample sizes, but my current mood says that this can be fun, so whatever. Here are all of the player combinations from Saturday's game (as reported by the box score's play-by-play data).
| G | G | F | F | C | MIN | PF | PA | +/- | O-Pos | D-Pos | OEff | DEff | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Vallie | Kruis | 5.2 | 13 | 11 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 144.4 | 122.2 | 22.2 |
| Rietema | DeBoer | Snikkers | DeVries | Kruis | 5.1 | 17 | 4 | 13 | 9 | 10 | 188.9 | 40.0 | 148.9 |
| Powell | Haverdink | Mast | DeBoer | Kruis | 3.5 | 8 | 11 | -3 | 7 | 8 | 114.3 | 137.5 | -23.2 |
| Rietema | Haverdink | Snikkers | DeVries | Van Eck | 1.8 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| Rietema | Snikkers | Dykstra | DeVries | Van Eck | 1.7 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 66.7 |
| Rietema | Snikkers | Vallie | Dykstra | Kruis | 1.6 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 133.3 | 0.0 | 133.3 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Vallie | Van Eck | 1.6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 60.0 |
| Powell | DeBoer | Snikkers | DeVries | Kruis | 1.3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 100.0 | 200.0 | -100.0 |
| Rietema | Mast | DeBoer | Snikkers | Kruis | 0.9 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 200.0 | 0.0 | 200.0 |
| Powell | DeBoer | Snikkers | Vallie | Van Eck | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Rietema | Snikkers | Dykstra | DeVries | Kruis | 0.8 | 2 | 3 | -1 | 2 | 1 | 100.0 | 300.0 | -200.0 |
| Powell | Mast | Vallie | Dykstra | Van Eck | 1.9 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 120.0 | 120.0 | 0.0 |
| Rietema | Snikkers | Dykstra | DeVries | DeYoung | 1.5 | 0 | 6 | -6 | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 200.0 | -200.0 |
| Powell | Mast | Vallie | DeVries | Kruis | 1.3 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 200.0 | -200.0 |
| Rietema | Powell | Haverdink | DeBoer | Kruis | 1.2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 66.7 |
| Rietema | Mast | Vallie | DeVries | DeYoung | 1.2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 150.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 |
| Powell | Haverdink | Mast | DeBoer | Van Eck | 1.2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 200.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Rietema | Mast | DeBoer | Snikkers | DeYoung | 1.1 | 0 | 5 | -5 | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 250.0 | -250.0 |
| Powell | Snikkers | Vallie | Dykstra | Van Eck | 1.1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 200.0 | 66.7 | 133.3 |
| Rietema | Powell | Dykstra | DeVries | Kruis | 1.0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 200.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Rietema | Haverdink | DeBoer | Snikkers | DeYoung | 0.8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.0 | - | - |
| Rietema | Haverdink | Mast | Dykstra | Henry | 0.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | DeVries | Van Eck | 0.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Snikkers | Van Eck | 0.6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 150.0 | 150.0 | 0.0 |
| Rietema | Haverdink | DeBoer | Snikkers | Henry | 0.6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Powell | Mast | Dykstra | DeVries | Van Eck | 0.5 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 300.0 | 0.0 | 300.0 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Snikkers | Kruis | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | - | - |
| TOTAL | - | - | - | - | 40.00 | 83 | 63 | 20 | 72 | 72 | 115.3 | 87.5 | 27.8 |
PF - Points for
PA - Points against
O-Pos - Offensive possessions
D-Pos - Defensive possessions
They only played about five minutes together in total this time around, but the starting lineup continues to kill it statistically. Against Trinity, they only allowed four points in 10 possessions, and scored 17 in only nine of their own. That's good for a whopping 148.9 efficiency margin.
The efficiency numbers for the 'new' starting lineup aren't quite as staggering when looked at for the season as a whole, but they may be even more impressive due to the larger sample size. The chart below shows the season data for the lineup combinations that have played together for a total of 10 minutes or more (the 'new' starting lineup is bolded second on the list). They've played a total of about 37 minutes (mostly against Aquinas, Carthage, Wheaton, and Trinity), and have accumulated a 49.3 efficiency margin (they score 49.3 more points than they allow per 100 possessions). They're nearly at one game's worth of time together (a bit shy of 40 minutes), and so far they've outscored the opposition by 34 points. Nice!
| G | G | F | F | C | MIN | PF | PA | +/- | O-Pos | D-Pos | OEff | DEff | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rietema | Haverdink | Snikkers | Vallie | Kruis | 47.0 | 88 | 94 | -6 | 85 | 85 | 103.5 | 110.6 | -7.1 |
| Rietema | DeBoer | Snikkers | DeVries | Kruis | 36.5 | 75 | 41 | 34 | 69 | 69 | 108.7 | 59.4 | 49.3 |
| Powell | Haverdink | Snikkers | Vallie | Kruis | 16.4 | 20 | 31 | -11 | 26 | 24 | 76.9 | 129.2 | -52.2 |
| Powell | Haverdink | Mast | Vallie | Van Eck | 12.2 | 21 | 22 | -1 | 18 | 20 | 116.7 | 110.0 | 6.7 |
| Powell | Mast | DeBoer | Vallie | Kruis | 10.0 | 24 | 15 | 9 | 19 | 17 | 126.3 | 88.2 | 38.1 |
| Powell | Haverdink | Snikkers | Vallie | DeVries | 10.0 | 25 | 16 | 9 | 20 | 16 | 125.0 | 100.0 | 25.0 |
Game Chart
| Player | %Min | %Shots | eFG% | PPWS | FTr | Ar | TOr | Rb% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeBoer | 0.60 | 0.22 | 0.700 | 1.40 | 0.30 | 0.37 | 0.05 | 0.07 |
| Kruis | 0.58 | 0.20 | 0.444 | 0.95 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.15 |
| Powell | 0.58 | 0.20 | 0.556 | 1.16 | 0.11 | 0.27 | 0.00 | 0.04 |
| Mast | 0.53 | 0.25 | 0.550 | 1.14 | 0.30 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.06 |
| Rietema | 0.50 | 0.10 | 0.375 | 0.81 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.08 | 0.11 |
| Snikkers | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.500 | 1.00 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.20 |
| DeVries | 0.43 | 0.15 | 0.200 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.10 |
| Vallie | 0.38 | 0.21 | 0.667 | 1.29 | 0.33 | 0.41 | 0.18 | 0.18 |
| Dykstra | 0.28 | 0.05 | 1.000 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.08 |
| Van Eck | 0.28 | 0.09 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.16 |
| Haverdink | 0.23 | 0.29 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05 |
| DeYoung | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
| Henry | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.44 |
| Calvin | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.481 | 0.99 | 0.18 | 0.79 | 0.12 | 0.61 |
| Trinity | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.371 | 0.87 | 0.35 | 0.50 | 0.13 | 0.39 |
Calvin's overall offensive efficiency was right where we wanted it to be for this game (it was up above 115), but they didn't necessarily score very efficiently. The shooting percentage for the game was adequate, but they didn't get to the free throw line very much (just a free throw rate of 0.18), and when they did, they didn't shoot a very high percentage (only about 64%). This all made for a very mediocre 0.99 points per weighted shot for the game. But, they did take care of the ball (a 12% turnover rate is excellent), and they killed it on the glass to give themselves plenty of opportunities for second chance points (20 offensive rebounds).
Calvin just isn't going to win many games with jump shots this year, but they have shown an exceptional rebounding ability. They'll need to keep that up, and they'll need more games like this with low turnover numbers if they hope to sustain good offensive numbers.
Want to stay up to date on the happenings at FFTMAG? Follow me on Twitter, “like” us on Facebook, and grab our RSS Feed. Need a ride to a game? Check out the Ride Board and post your needs.
