In deference to Henry Sims

Image from here

About two years ago on this site, Alan was compelled to write the post "In defense of Henry Sims" after the cognoscenti on HoyaTalk had given Sims a particularly unpleasant splenetic going-over after a hard-fought win against the Johnnies.

This season, Nate Lubick had been ably filling the role of whipping-boy for most of the season, but now that Senior Day is upon us, it seems that the poison darts are starting to head back to Henry.

Since I've had this sitting on my laptop for a couple of days now, I thought it might be useful to post a massively unfair comparison between Henry and two other players who operated in essentially the same role (running the offense from the high post) over the past five seasons.

First, some offensive stats (conf. games only):

Player Name          G  %Min %Poss  %Shot  O Rtg  TS%   eFG% OReb%  TO% A Rate FTA/FGA
Sims, Henry (2012)  15  70.9  28.8   23.1   88.1  46.6  37.6  7.5  26.8  26.6    69.6
Sims, Henry (2011)  19  31.8  17.8   13.8   89.2  54.3  55.8  8.0  31.0  11.4    51.2

Monroe, Greg (2010) 23  82.6  27.0   23.6  106.2  58.5  55.2  6.6  22.4  23.2    56.9
Monroe, Greg (2009) 19  79.9  23.6   21.6  104.8  58.5  55.6  8.7  23.5  20.5    48.0

Hibbert, Roy (2008) 23  69.1  25.6   26.4  119.6  64.0  60.6 10.3  17.0  17.6    47.1

The first item to note is that both Sims and Monroe basically held to their offensive rating while increasing their usage (Greg a little, Henry a lot). Since the trend is generally that players are less efficient with greater usage, this is actually showing improvement year-over-year, especially for Sims.

This concept is something we've already look at (you'll have to scroll to the bottom of this epic post) - if Henry had the luxury of using possessions at the same rate as last season, we'd expect that he'd have an ORat = 97 or so. Not great, but not horrible. But due to both the makeup of the team and his own decision-making, Sims is using a ton of possessions.

Other points from this table:

• Henry's biggest problem is his shooting - more on that in a second.
• Sims is turning the ball over too much, but is also generating more assists than either Monroe or Hibbert did.
• Henry is also drawing fouls at a greater rate than either of his predecessors. That offsets his poor shooting from the floor to some degree (note the difference between eFG% and TS%; the second accounts for FTs made).
• Daammmnn! Roy had an amazing senior season. You can forget that sometimes.

Conference Play So Far: What Happened?

Nine games into conference season and the Hoyas' offense has cratered.  Despite a strong start, it's ranked 51st nationally just weeks after it was top 20.  In conference it is ranking 9th, decidedly mediocre for the first half and has registered sub-90 efficiencies in four of its nine games.  This hasn't been overly uncommon -- but it just happens in those years like last year or 2008-09. 

The usual commentary will be written:  people have figured out Georgetown's (gimmick) offense.  On one hand, it's not illogical that this offense would perform better out of conference than in -- after all, few out of conference teams will take the time to prepare as well as a team that sees Georgetown two to three times a year.

On the other hand, it doesn't fit all the facts.  For one, the offense has been in place for years, opposing coaches have seen it for years and as late as Season 6 of the John Thompson era, we had a Top 10 offense.  In addition, plenty of programs runs offenses with Princeton elements, and Georgetown incorporates a lot of elements from non-Princeton sources.  Those other teams aren't suddenly shut down, either.

So, what is it?  As always on this blog, let's look at the facts before coming to a conclusion.

Let's look at some basic team numbers, non-conference and in conference play. I've included the 2007-08 team so we can contrast current stats with a successful team -- after all, we'd expect every team to be worse in conference play. Just how worse is the question. I'm also not claiming 2007-08 as perfectly representative of how much the competitive increase affects these stats -- but it's an easy way to get some reference.

                       Difference (Conf. Play - OOC Play)
Statistic              2011-12 (thru 9 games)     2007-08

Overall
Offensive Efficiency         -15.7                 -12.1
Defensive Efficiency         -10.4                 - 5.0

Offense
eFG%                         - 5.0                 - 7.6
TO Rate                      + 4.0                 + 1.7
OReb Rate                    - 1.8                 - 2.9
FTA/FGA                      + 3.8                 - 0.4

2PT FG%                      - 5.6                 - 7.9
3PT FG%                      - 2.1                 - 4.9
FT%                          - 9.2                 +12.1

Defense
eFG%                         + 2.4                 + 1.7
TO Rate                      - 2.5                 + 1.6
OReb Rate                    + 3.6                 - 2.4
FTA/FGA                      + 4.9                 + 9.5

2PT FG%                      + 0.8                 + 2.6
3PT FG%                      + 3.9                 + 0.7
FT%                          + 5.3                 + 0.0

In absolute terms, the offense has cratered worse than the defense from the non-conference to conference play, but neither has held up well. In 2007-08, the Hoyas actually declined similarly on offense and much less on defense, but this quick glance says that neither side of the ball is holding up particularly well.

When we look at the components, it's not surprising what is driving many of the losses on offense. The team is, of course, shooting worse, as anyone would expect. But the decline from preseason to conference play in both 2PT and 3PT field goals is actually less than the 15-3 '07-'08 team saw. And this Hoya team, thanks to the Rutgers game, is actually shooting more free throws than in non-conference.

However, there are two key declines that are perhaps worse than expected. First, the team is giving away 2-3 more turnovers a game. That decline in offensive efficiency is about 10 points per game -- and turnover account for about three of those. One would expect an increase, but that amount -- going from 17.8 to 21.8%, is fairly disastrous.

The other unexpected problem is FT shooting. Turnovers can be caused by many things, but poor FT shooting is fairly isolated to just poor play if there isn't a huge shift in who is shooting the FTs. The 2007-08 improved to over 70% in conference play while this year's Hoya team is down near 60% in conference play. That's worth a point or two on average.  

On defense, the issues are more standard across the board. Our comparison year helped keep its defense strong by forcing more turnovers and did better defending the three. That team extended its perimeter D but Hibbert was there to stop those that tried to take advantage of that aggressiveness. This team has not been able to control the three point line as well, though some of that may be opposition and luck.

Breaking it down by player after the jump

A Comparison

Color me optimistic this morning.  I'm pretty sure the source is simply halo from the Louisville win and general guilt from having let Brian carry this blog for the past two months, but either way, it occurred to me that this team is kinda, sorta, in that-wow-we-might-be-really-good way similar to the last Hoya Big East regular season champs.

This website keeps non-conference stats, and 2011-12 has all of one conference game played, so non-conference stats are what I'm going to use to compare.  I won't be ignoring the important (read: conference) games in the commentary, but the stats listed will all be non-conference.

The Center of Attention.

Stat           Hibbert [Sr]       Sims [Sr]
Poss%             26                 29  
ORating          122                118
OReb%             14                  9
DReb%             17                 18
ARate             15                 31
TORate            14                 18
Goofiness          8                 10
Block %           10                  8
Team Def Rating   88                 86
Indiv D Rating    89                 84
Monster Points     1                  0

I know. I'm as surprised as you. They have different strengths and weaknesses, but offensively, they have been similarly effective. We know that Roy's performance translated well to conference play -- his low post moves did not lose effectiveness, but we did see his offensive rebounding decline and turnovers increase as he became the focus of better defenses.

That's a concern for Sims; similar slides in either or more games where his shot is rolling out, and his effectiveness will start to rely almost entirely on his passing. And we know from experience the backdoors are severely cut down in conference play.

It is interesting to note that this year's Hoyas are statistically superior to the '07-08 Hoyas in non-conference defense. Some of that is opponent, but it's a nice sign for this year's Hoyas and Sims in particular.  

Verdict: Sims isn't having a Ya-Ya year; he's having what we'll call a Sims year in the future. Ya-Ya went from nothing to decent; Sims is well beyond that. But Roy was still better, though possibly by not as much as I thought.

the rest of the breakdown after the jump

The Back-up Quarterbacks

The argument for the bench players.

Henry Sims versus Julian Vaughn

Copyright AP 2010

Is Henry Sims even the backup quarterback anymore? Yes, Vaughn is averaging more minutes right now, but Henry played more versus Appalachian State, Utah State, Missouri, and NC State. That's four of the last six games, excepting only Temple and Asheville.

Vaughn does do several things better than Henry. He obviously has a better low post game from a footwork and moves standpoint.

He's a superior rebounder right now, which actually shocked me a bit. I'd definitely say he's a better offensive rebounder (even after accounting for all those he gets off his own misses), and defensively, he's held his own as well, upping his game recently.

I think most people would be surprised to know that he also doesn't turn over the ball as much as Henry does on a percentage basis. Neither one is exactly Roy Hibbert there -- they are both a liability. But Julian has been less of one.

Still, Henry's been just as effective offensively. Mostly because he's a superior passer and a better shooter. Julian is shorter and isn't a great jumper, so he gets blocked/misses a lot of close in shots. Henry doesn't have as much a problem with those.

Perhaps the biggest advantage for Henry over Julian offensively has nothing to with Henry or Julian's efficiency, but rather the focus. For some reason, when Julian is on the floor, the ball is fed to him (26% poss, 22% shooting). In fact, when Julian is on the floor, he's the #1 option.

Julian's a good player. But he's often the worst offensive option on the floor. That's not a knock; it's speaking to the abilities of our perimeter players. He shouldn't be using more possessions than everyone else.

Henry, in contrast, isn't taking up possessions nearly as much (16% poss, 14% shooting). Which doesn't make him a better offensively player -- he's likely worse -- but it might makes the team better on offense when he's on the floor, depending on who is out there with him. In fact, one could argue Julian is better suited to play with the bench players as there's a greater need for an offensive player.

Defensively, Julian blocks significantly more shots, but it's my impression that he's not as much of a presence down low. No one publishes stats on altered shots (or really could), but subjectively, our interior defense seems to look worse with him on the floor.

As evidence of this, I give you the lineup work Brian did here.

There have been a ton of lineups, which means small samples abound, but here's some comparable lineups and their D efficiencies:

Lineup                      w Vaughn   w Sims
CW - AF - JC - HT              94         91
CW - AF - JC - JB             111         87
CW - AF - JC - NL              89         75 

Those are the six lineup with 28 defensive possessions played or more. The next highest lineup was only on the floor for 18 possessions, and that seems a little too low to mean anything.

Vaughn comes out as a superior defender in the net points calculation, which isn't surprising. He blocks more shots and that calculation takes overall team D during the player's time on the floor and allocates based on statistics like those.

However, when looking at comparable lineups (above), the lineups with Sims are significantly better. Sometimes, this can be due to easier competition, but Sims' time on the floor has often been in tougher games (NC State, Mizzou, Utah State), really only missing on Temple and ODU (who are stronger defensively). In other words, it doesn't seem all that likely that the differences are competition-driven instead of actually being better defense.

If I had to pick, I'd take Sims defensively.

Overall, I'd really consider swapping Vaughn and Sims in general. I think there's value in giving more time to Vaughn with the backups - Lubick, Starks, etc. -- who are not offensive creators. Vaughn simply fits with them better with his superior low post moves. Most likely, III is going to continue to do what he's been doing -- playing match-ups -- with Sims' minutes moving steadily upward.

Random Thoughts after Mizzou

Some random thoughts:

• Where's the national Austin Freeman is Awesome articles? We've had plenty of Kemba Walker articles, but Austin is doing this over 7 games: 21.7 ppg while shooting 57% from 3 and committing only eight turnovers. Brian is waiting on the PBP from the Mizzou game to update the stats, but his ORating is probably sitting at about 140-150 after playing some darn good competition, mostly away from home. If Jon Wallace was a 180 shooter, Austin is a 201 shooter right now (60%+57%+84%).

• Henry Sims' emergence is something we fans can learn from. I'm not a believer in not criticizing players' play -- or this would be a poor analytical blog -- but there's a huge difference in "player X is not playing well right now" and "player X will never be any good." Many fans bailed on Henry over the course of two years despite some fairly obvious signs of potential (height, a nice stroke, good athleticism for his size). All college players are early in their careers and unlike a 26-year old NBA player, they generally improve. It's just not always a linear path. So when we look at someone like Aaron Bowen (who generally doesn't look ready yet), it's important to see that he seems to have good shooting fundamentals, a guard-level handle, and great size and athleticism. There's real potential there.

• In the whole Vee Sanford debate, I've settled into a fairly lame but reasonable position -- the "Vee is awesome but we're crowded at guard so what do you do?" Well, here's a couple ideas. One is, I think all three of the guards could have benefited from more rest in the Mizzou game (though it's important to not have Jason Clark as the ball handler when Chris is out -- Markel and Vee should be in then). But in a more fun vein, how about Vee for Power Forward? If we are going to go four guard, a la Nova in 2006, Vee should be the guy playing PF. Nate, Hollis, Julian and Henry only played 83 of a possible 90 minutes for bigs -- Jerelle got the rest. But Vee is the best rebounding guard we have, and while he'd be a really short PF, he's quick and pesky and could force a lot of steals. On the other end, unlike Jerelle, he's an offensive mismatch against a four, as he can hit the three and drive. If nothing else, he should play the three when Hollis is PF -- but I'd love to see him at PF for five minutes a game when the bigs can't play all 80.

In defense of Henry Sims

Seaweed has made a post very similar to this on HoyaTalk (see here: Link) but since I already had this post planned out and might have a slightly different angle, I'm doing it anyway.

"Sims absolutely killed us today with his non existant defense"

"IT'S TIME TO GIVE JERELLE A FEW MINUTES, WE CAN'T BE LOSING ANYTHING MORE THAN WHEN HENRY IS OUT THERE"

"Negatives: 1) Henry."

"Sims was absolutely godawful in the second half. I've never seen anyone play so badly that they were solely responsible for a 10 point swing, but that was basically what you saw when St. John's took the lead by 1 - and the sad thing is we're only talking about a 2 minute stretch."

Confirmation bias is one of the key reasons why I always make sure to check the statistics. No matter how self-aware, every person has a tendency to to remember data that supports their preconceptions and ignore anything that that contradicts them.

This post could have been written about Chris Wright, but its about Henry Sims, who is the current Hoyatalk whipping boy.

Sims has had more than his share of struggles, but his detractors no longer see Henry in an unbiased light. His performance in the St. John's game is a perfect example.

Of particular focus to his detractors was this sequence:

10:19   Justin Brownlee drives past Henry Sims for a dunk
10:06   Henry Sims turns it over
9:55    Justin Brownlee (Sims' man) makes a three
9:42    Henry Sims turns it over

That's not a good sequence. Positioning the three as a defensive breakdown is somewhat up for debate, but I'll give it to the detractors. The Hoyas' seven point lead shrunk to one.

Still, that's not a ten point swing. There WAS a ten point swing in there, but it included a Chris Wright turnover, an offensive rebound given up, two forced threes by Jason Clark and two crazy-I-can't believe-that-went in threes that occurred when Henry wasn't in the game.

So this sequence, while bad, wasn't nearly as bad as folks would have you think.

Second, the turnover-fueled loss of a lead is hardly a Henry Sims-only phenomenon. While this is not exactly a dynamic defense of Henry Sims, it is an interesting data point in the area of preconceived notions altering reality.

For example, this was Greg Monroe's offensive sequence at then end of the first half when the lead suddenly went from ten to two:

4:12   Monroe Missed 3pter
3:12   Monroe Turnover
2:50   Monroe Offensive Foul
2:00   Monroe Missed Jumper
1:29   Monroe Missed Layup

Five of six offensive possessions ended at Monroe -- and he failed to convert any one of those-- but this sequence was not mentioned after the game. Yes, Monroe is a much, much better player. But this sequence was just as damaging as Sims'.

Finally, and most importantly, why ignore the good in Sims' game?

From the HD box score:

• Henry was +11. The team was better with him on the floor in this game. It doesn't mean Henry is the driving reason, or even playing well, but it does mean the team wasn't losing ground overall, even despite the four play breakdown.
• Henry assisted on 2 of 13 made buckets in his time on the floor -- a 15% Assist Rate -- and saved a would-be Hollis turnover and dished it to Monroe for some free throws. There's no assist there, but it was a nice play on both counts.
• He stopped a three on one playing excellent position defense.
  
• He grabbed two of 11 possible defensive rebounds. Not superman on the boards, but not awful. He didn't grab any offensive boards, but there were only three Hoya misses while he was on the floor.

So yeah, Henry has his ups and downs. But his detractors see only what they are predisposed to see. Sims' mistakes cost the Hoyas five or so points but he becomes the sole reason for a ten point swing. What was a bad match-up with no help on defense becomes "looking lost." What was a solid first half stretch (and a very effective stretch for his role) becomes forgotten.