Joined
·
5,063 Posts
UMBC 2022-2023 Season Review
It was an up-and-down season for UMBC this year, but for the first time in almost a decade, the team was playing it's worst basketball in March. Despite several impressive wins (26 point win @ Lehigh, 2 wins vs. Bryant), several bad losses (35 point loss @Maine, losses to NJIT and Albany) and a winless conference tournament leave a bitter taste in the fanbase's mouth heading into a critical offseason for head coach Jim Ferry, who must replace five of eight rotation players in 2023-24.
While Jim Ferry preaches high tempo and 3-point shooting as key tenants of his coaching philosophy, this year's team was 160th in possessions per game and 181st in 3 point percentage. With no offensive identity and a defense that makes KenPom scream and hide, Ferry must put together a team next year that can better flourish in his own system.
First, let's take a quick look at some advanced stats and +/-, followed by some noticings:
![Rectangle Font Line Parallel Pattern]()
Of players with more than 500 possessions, Brown and Fagan led the way in productivity, +/- and efficiency. Lawrence finished a team worst -63, while Brown (69) and Fagan (68) pulled away from the pack on the positive end. Picarelli had a great offensive season, but really poor defensively.
Next we'll take a look at the team’s shot chart (heat map & zones):
![Rectangle Font Circle Parallel Pattern]()
![Product Font Parallel Circle Slope]()
UMBC shot 51.6% on 2’s this year, a decent clip. However, they really struggled from 3, particularly from the wing, shooting 31.7% and 30.5% from the left and right wing respectfully. Their only strengths from 3 were from the left corner and straightaway. As seen on the heat map, the abundance of wing three attempts, and poor make-rates, was this team’s offensive demise.
For comparison’s sake, here is their shot chart/zones from 2021-22:
![Rectangle Font Line Circle Pattern]()
![Font Parallel Diagram Circle Slope]()
As you can see, despite struggles from the paint and the upper midrange, last year’s team hit threes at very effective rates thanks to Kennedy, Owens, Johnson and Rogers. The team’s eFG% was nearly 2% higher, despite .being 2% lower in total FG%.
Here is a look at each player’s shot chart, with notes:
![Font Line Parallel Circle Rectangle]()
Yaw saw his FG% drop with higher volume, but was effective from the short corners and at the rim. Yaw once again struggled mightily from 3, despite his ability to make them in junior college. If Yaw is back in 2023, which would be good for Ferry and the team, his shot chart will likely look similar. If he can hit 3’s at all, his game would be elevated significantly and likely would help increase his paint percentages as well.
![Font Parallel Circle Diagram Slope]()
Doles struggled from 3 this season, and was 0 for 17 from the left side of the floor. Not much to write home about here for Doles, aside from his success from limited midrange jumpers and an above average 69.4% at the basket.
![Product Font Rectangle Parallel Circle]()
Fagan puts his fellow frontcourt mates to shame with his shooting. Fagan finished with a remarkable 61.6% eFG% and 57.2% overall, with 63/38 splits. Fagan also only took 8 midrange shots, a beautiful sight for analytical models and lovers. Fagan’s 77.2% conversion rate at the basket was one of the best in the country. If UMBC was ‘required’ to have an All-Conference member, Fagan should’ve been the representative.
![Product Font Parallel Slope Circle]()
In limited minutes, Sapp had some small glimpses of hope. The JUCO transfer was 7/11 from 2, and 9 of those attempts were from the paint. From 3, Sapp was rather effective from the wing and straightaway, but was 0/4 from the corner.
![Font Parallel Rectangle Circle Slope]()
Third-teamer Colton Lawrence had the worst eFG% from qualified players, and shot only 41.2% overall. Lawrence shot an abysmal 55.8% at the basket, and a poor 39% from the paint. Lawrence’s hot spots were the short corner and the left corner three (8 for 14), but he struggled to shoot from the left wing and straightaway. His inability to finish at the basket and in the paint made him a bad offensive player once teams forced him to run off the three-point line in conference play.
(Part 2 in next post due to attachment limit)
It was an up-and-down season for UMBC this year, but for the first time in almost a decade, the team was playing it's worst basketball in March. Despite several impressive wins (26 point win @ Lehigh, 2 wins vs. Bryant), several bad losses (35 point loss @Maine, losses to NJIT and Albany) and a winless conference tournament leave a bitter taste in the fanbase's mouth heading into a critical offseason for head coach Jim Ferry, who must replace five of eight rotation players in 2023-24.
While Jim Ferry preaches high tempo and 3-point shooting as key tenants of his coaching philosophy, this year's team was 160th in possessions per game and 181st in 3 point percentage. With no offensive identity and a defense that makes KenPom scream and hide, Ferry must put together a team next year that can better flourish in his own system.
First, let's take a quick look at some advanced stats and +/-, followed by some noticings:
Of players with more than 500 possessions, Brown and Fagan led the way in productivity, +/- and efficiency. Lawrence finished a team worst -63, while Brown (69) and Fagan (68) pulled away from the pack on the positive end. Picarelli had a great offensive season, but really poor defensively.
Next we'll take a look at the team’s shot chart (heat map & zones):
UMBC shot 51.6% on 2’s this year, a decent clip. However, they really struggled from 3, particularly from the wing, shooting 31.7% and 30.5% from the left and right wing respectfully. Their only strengths from 3 were from the left corner and straightaway. As seen on the heat map, the abundance of wing three attempts, and poor make-rates, was this team’s offensive demise.
For comparison’s sake, here is their shot chart/zones from 2021-22:
As you can see, despite struggles from the paint and the upper midrange, last year’s team hit threes at very effective rates thanks to Kennedy, Owens, Johnson and Rogers. The team’s eFG% was nearly 2% higher, despite .being 2% lower in total FG%.
Here is a look at each player’s shot chart, with notes:
Yaw saw his FG% drop with higher volume, but was effective from the short corners and at the rim. Yaw once again struggled mightily from 3, despite his ability to make them in junior college. If Yaw is back in 2023, which would be good for Ferry and the team, his shot chart will likely look similar. If he can hit 3’s at all, his game would be elevated significantly and likely would help increase his paint percentages as well.
Doles struggled from 3 this season, and was 0 for 17 from the left side of the floor. Not much to write home about here for Doles, aside from his success from limited midrange jumpers and an above average 69.4% at the basket.
Fagan puts his fellow frontcourt mates to shame with his shooting. Fagan finished with a remarkable 61.6% eFG% and 57.2% overall, with 63/38 splits. Fagan also only took 8 midrange shots, a beautiful sight for analytical models and lovers. Fagan’s 77.2% conversion rate at the basket was one of the best in the country. If UMBC was ‘required’ to have an All-Conference member, Fagan should’ve been the representative.
In limited minutes, Sapp had some small glimpses of hope. The JUCO transfer was 7/11 from 2, and 9 of those attempts were from the paint. From 3, Sapp was rather effective from the wing and straightaway, but was 0/4 from the corner.
Third-teamer Colton Lawrence had the worst eFG% from qualified players, and shot only 41.2% overall. Lawrence shot an abysmal 55.8% at the basket, and a poor 39% from the paint. Lawrence’s hot spots were the short corner and the left corner three (8 for 14), but he struggled to shoot from the left wing and straightaway. His inability to finish at the basket and in the paint made him a bad offensive player once teams forced him to run off the three-point line in conference play.
(Part 2 in next post due to attachment limit)
