The Mark Gottfried Track Record: Offense Part I

by Akula Wolf on May 9, 2011 5:23 PM EDT

In the first installment of this potentially excessive series on Mark Gottfried's track record in conference games at Alabama, I examined the overall picture. Today I'm going to start getting into some of the specific factors, beginning with his offenses.

Shooting Accuracy From The Field, Or The Lack Thereof

First up, how Alabama ranked in a few important shooting categories from 1999 to 2008.

Alabama Shooting	eFG%	2FG%	3FG%
Average Rank In SEC	8.6	8.6	7.2

(If it's not clear, this means that Alabama ranked 8th or 9th in the SEC in eFG% in an average season, and so on.)

As I've been combing through all of the numbers, a few strengths have become apparent. Shooting, unfortunately, isn't one of them. Far more often than not, his Alabama teams finished in the bottom half of the SEC in these three shooting categories (see the line chart below; click to embiggen).

His 2004 and 2005 offenses were pretty good all over the floor, but as you can see, those two years account for six of the seven occasions where Alabama finished in the top half of the league in these categories. Given the above I'm a little surprised at how often he was able to piece together offenses near or slightly better than the league average in terms of points per possession. Alabama's average conference rank by offensive efficiency was 6.3, a good two spots higher than their average eFG% rank, so clearly Gottfried's offenses had other strengths to prop them up. (Which I'll get to.) Unlike, say, Sid Lowe's early offenses that relied entirely on eFG%.

	eFG%	2FG%	3FG%	SEC Avg eFG%	SEC Avg 2FG%	SEC Avg 3FG%
1999	45.4	44.7	32.1	48.7	47.3	34.4
2000	47.1	43.9	35.1	49.4	48.6	33.9
2001	45.6	43.5	33.2	49.7	48.9	34.2
2002	46.8	49.2	27.8	49.4	49.2	33.2
2003	47.7	47.7	31.8	50.2	49.2	34.7
2004	51.4	47.4	39.2	49.6	48.2	34.9
2005	56.3	53.5	40.7	50.4	49.5	34.8
2006	49.5	49.0	33.9	50.5	49.7	34.8
2007	47.9	46.5	33.9	51.4	50.1	35.9
2008	49.3	49.1	33.1	50.2	49.4	34.4

(Bold years -- Alabama made NCAA tournament.)

These figures raise some questions, because it's not like Gottfried was working with a lot of inferior talent during his tenure, especially the NCAA tournament years. Is there something systemic to his teams' underwhelming performances from the field, some failure of the high-post offense as executed by this particular coach? Does it have anything to do with the types of players he recruited?

Blow The Whistle

Alabama Free Throws	FT Rate	FT%
Average Rank In SEC	3.6	3.7

While Alabama's accuracy from the field left a lot to be desired, they were very productive in getting to the line and converting free throw attempts. These were teams you didn't want to foul, because of their two- and three-point percentages as well as their free throw accuracy, and whether opponents recognized that fact or not, it never made a difference. This is an area where it's clear the offense was able to take advantage of an obvious strength

(Click to enlarge.)

Ten times Alabama finished first or second in the SEC in one of these categories, compared to just a pair of bottom half finishes. That's a strong record. Just based on free throws and the other shooting categories, It's easy to see why Gottfried's 2005 offense was an elite unit in terms of efficiency. They led the SEC in eFG%, 3FG%, FT%, and free throw rate. They had a versatile bunch of contributors that year, led by Kennedy Winston. It's tough to fail when you shoot so well from everywhere.

Alabama Offense	FT Rate	FT%	SEC Avg FTR	SEC Avg FT%
1999	32.8	73.1	35.1	68.9
2000	35.3	73.5	34.6	67.3
2001	41.9	68.1	35.7	67.2
2002	44.6	75.8	36.3	68.7
2003	37.8	69.9	34.4	69.1
2004	38.2	71.0	38.1	69.1
2005	47.3	74.5	35.6	67.7
2006	39.6	71.8	33.0	68.5
2007	34.5	72.4	32.2	68.7
2008	35.4	62.5	32.3	67.9

There were a couple of exceptions, but you could pretty much count on Alabama to beat the league average in both of these categories. Gottfried's teams weren't interested in taking very many threes, and their focus on the interior paid big dividends here.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

2 things...

First, I’m not sure how much of the FT stats will carry over with the Swoff still in charge and the officiating being so poor in the league.

Secondly, I’m interested in seeing how much of Coach Gottfried’s philosophy has changed in his time off. I’m hoping he’s a much better coach than he was when he left, or even during his more successful seasons. Time will tell.

by packalum08 on May 10, 2011 12:20 AM EDT reply actions

I'm not sure

how to take the raw shooting percentage and efficiency numbers. Was his offensive system bad at getting high percentage shots? I guess with the right players, the offense was better, but it is a little worrying that Gottfried might not be able to maintain an effective offense when the players change. I do like the FTR stat. It shows that we should expect a more aggressive offense.

by PACKHOOLIGAN on May 10, 2011 8:14 AM EDT reply actions

good stats article.

i will quote Al Davis: just win, baby, win!
it will be interesting to see how the current staff does with their recruitment of Lacey for this year, and Purvis, Warren and Graham for 2012. from what i have read, Purvis and Grahm are playing pick-up games at Dial and are friends with Tyler Lewis. getting just one or two of these four will be great; getting all of them will be unbelievable. i note that John Wall played at Dial and went to Kentucky, so that can mean nothing. however, Leslie played there and came to State.

by sbas2 on May 10, 2011 10:39 AM EDT reply actions

in the words of Britt: opps, i did it again.

another error by me. Lewis is friends with Purvis and Warren. he might also be friends with Graham, but in the articles i read, it was Purvis and Warren whom were mentioned.

or should it have been “who were mentioned”.
from grammar girl: So here we go. The words who and whom are both pronouns. I’ll have a quick and dirty trick for you later, but first I want you to actually understand the right way to use these words.

First, to know whether to use who or whom, we need to talk about the difference between subjects and objects because you use who when you are referring to the subject of a clause and whom when you are referring to the object of a clause.

that was no help to me. so i will stick to “whom were mentioned”.

by sbas2 on May 11, 2011 7:34 AM EDT up reply actions

who were mentioned

passive voice … WHICH IS THE REAL CRIME!!!!

/strunk-and-white

by PeeDub on May 11, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions

"who were mentioned" definitely sounds better.

so, Purvis and Warren are the subjects of the clause as opposed to the object of the clause?

from grammar girl, the quick and dirty trick referenced above:
Still too hard to remember? OK, here’s the quick and dirty tip. Like whom, the pronoun him ends with m. When you’re trying to decide whether to use who or whom, ask yourself if the answer to the question would be he or him. That’s the trick: if you can answer the question being asked with him, then use whom, and it’s easy to remember because they both end with m. For example, if you’re trying to ask, “Who (or whom) do you love?” The answer would be “I love him.” Him ends with an m, so you know to use whom. But if you are trying to ask, “Who (or whom) stepped on Squiggly?” the answer would be “He stepped on Squiggly.” There’s no m, so you know to use who. So that’s the quick and dirty trick: if you can’t remember that you use whom when you are referring to the object of the sentence, just remember that him equals whom.

still no help for me. i bow to you knowledge of grammar PeeDub. as such it is: who were mentioned.

by sbas2 on May 11, 2011 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions

now try to find such discussions

on any other blog about State sports. BTP the BEST!

by sbas2 on May 11, 2011 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions

It's not like I enjoy knowing this ...

but yeah.

You wouldn’t say “Me was mentioned”. You’d say “I was mentioned”.

by PeeDub on May 11, 2011 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Fears Confirmed

Hopefully he’ll improve with the influence of his ‘all star’ staff, and two year sabbatical.

by Wolphpack on May 10, 2011 1:34 PM EDT reply actions

Remember wolphpack

our staff will be “second to none” and that “is not hyperbole”. lol

by PACKHOOLIGAN on May 10, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

dude you better watch it

You’re going to end up on the Saboteur List if you keep up this kind of talk.

Backing The Pack
Good luck Wuffies Good luck Wuffies Good luck Wuffies

by Akula Wolf on May 10, 2011 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I like that the FT's work with his recruting

He recruits 6’6" to 6’9" athletes that aren’t great shooters out of preps but are fearless at taking to the cup. His offense gets the ball to the elbow extended with a SF or PF who is going to go mano-y-mano with his man with no help defense to rotate in sight. He recruited guys like he did that have the power, skill set and mentality to attack the basket a draw contact. His aim is to get them to improve their shooting over the years and during the better part of his campaign all his key contributers would improve statistically each year in shooting %. The biggest problem came in ‘07 when he had a 5 player class followed by a 2 player class in which there just wasn’t enough weapons brought in. A lot of 3 star guys that were good but not dazzling. He knows they F-ed up recruiting and that is what you will see improved upon. Purvis would be awesome but I’m looking at Warren as being the ideal fit for his system.

by Sportin'L.A.Gear on May 10, 2011 8:51 PM EDT reply actions