Howe: Hawkeye Turnaround Result of Hard Work

I was hardly convinced of this, but my preseason prediction was that this year would be a bounce back from last year, and it would be more similar to Fran's previous teams.

That said - I figured they'd be more of a bubble team, having to scrap and claw for an NCAA bid rather than playing for seed. So in that sense, yes, I am surprised.

As spider just said, though - still a lot of work to do. So I'm not getting TOO cozy just yet. If we get down to 3-4 games to go and we're still at least holding steady, then OK. I'll feel pretty good.

Up next: @Rutgers, and any road game always has me on pins and needles. I don't care who the opponent is.
 
Last edited:
SpiderRico said:
I love this team, but I'm sorry, I'm just not there....not yet anyway....not with 7 games still left in the season. Rutgers (twice) is no gimme; Maryland just blitzed Purdue; Indiana is due; at OSU, at Wisky, and at Nebraska is no walk in the park.

If we go 2-5 or 1-6, are we going to be talking about a turnaround or talking about another choke job?

Our defense still isn't to be trusted....not with giving up nearly 80 to NW or nearly 100 to Minnesota recently.

I'll believe a "turnaround" in the program has happened if we can finish strong/get to the weekend in the BTT/get to the 2nd weekend of the NCAAs.
Click to expand...
I was thinking Iowa would be decent, perhaps a tournament qualifier, if Wieskamp was as good as advertised. He has been.

There are a lot of games to be won yet, or not. This team can start hitting on all cylinders and do very well, but, well, we know the other option too well.

They seem confident, and not the emotional wrecks they were last year. They are worthy of a like! Like!
 
CP87 said:
Okay, here is another assignment for you @RobHowe (or maybe @JG10Hawk , since Rob admitted on Twitter that he is a little mathed out after quantifying just how much the Hawks and Cyclones have improved this year):

What do the advanced #s say with regard to just where this turnaround came from? Who was using Joe W's minutes last year, and what did their productivity look like (Win shares, PER, etc.)? Who was using Connor's minutes? Which rotation guys have made big jumps, either in overall usage, or in efficiency? I am not sure what defensive metrics are available at the college level, but how do we explain their improvements from 240-something last year (abysmal) to 110-something this year (just regular bad) in team defensive efficiency?

My gut sense: Joe Wieskamp is light-years beyond whose ever minutes he assumed in terms of efficiency and PER (the direct Wieskamp effect). I also feel like Baer has reverted to sophomore form (except better) with a return to a consistent role that maximizes his strengths (the indirect Wieskamp effect). Baer is the kind of player who shines on a good team because he can excel without the ball (open 3s, cutting, O-Reb, attacking a scrambled defense); but if you stick him on a lousy team and expect him to soak up a ton of usage or create offense from nothing, his limitations stick out.

Of course beyond that it seems like everyone in the current rotation has improved from last year save Bohannon. And it's not like Bohannon has gotten worse, he is just assuming a different role and getting used to everything that entails. It seems like it is starting to come together for him, as well.

Okay, get to work.
Click to expand...
You should give yourself more credit, as you basically answered your own question.

Adding Joe is like adding an all conference level player (currently above 20 PER). Then you have Baer, who if you recall had the very poor shooting season last year. His PER was ~15 last year and it is above 20 this season, which is very good for a bench player.

All the other guys have made some improvements to their game.

Two other notes I would add which are just my theories.

1. The smaller rotation has helped. Last year we just played too many guys and their wasn’t a consistent rotation. (Gives me a little reason for concern next year)

2. This will be my second hot take of this thread but I actually believe the conference is down from last year. On a national level compared to their peers it might be a better league but let’s take a look at the individual teams. In my opinion:

Teams that are worse this year than last:

-Michigan State (Lost two 1st round picks and lost Langford to injury)

-Ohio State (Lost Keita Bates Diop and Jasean Tate)

-Penn State (Lost Tony Carr and Shep Garner plus injuries)

-Purdue (Lost Vince Edwards, Haas, and Thompson)

-Michigan (Lost Wagner and Robinson)

-Northwestern (Lost McCintosh and Lindsey)


Teams about the same:

-Maryland

-Indiana

-Rutgers (better record but not sure they are much better)

-Nebraska


Teams better:

-Wisconsin (healthy)

-Iowa (Wieskamp)

-Minnesota (slightly better)

-Illinois
 
NikeHawk21 said:
You should give yourself more credit, as you basically answered your own question.

Adding Joe is like adding an all conference level player (currently above 20 PER). Then you have Baer, who if you recall had the very poor shooting season last year. His PER was ~15 last year and it is above 20 this season, which is very good for a bench player.

All the other guys have made some improvements to their game.

Two other notes I would add which are just my theories.

1. The smaller rotation has helped. Last year we just played too many guys and their wasn’t a consistent rotation. (Gives me a little reason for concern next year)

2. This will be my second hot take of this thread but I actually believe the conference is down from last year. On a national level compared to their peers it might be a better league but let’s take a look at the individual teams. In my opinion:

Teams that are worse this year than last:

-Michigan State (Lost two 1st round picks and lost Langford to injury)

-Ohio State (Lost Keita Bates Diop and Jasean Tate)

-Penn State (Lost Tony Carr and Shep Garner plus injuries)

-Purdue (Lost Vince Edwards, Haas, and Thompson)

-Michigan (Lost Wagner and Robinson)

-Northwestern (Lost McCintosh and Lindsey)


Teams about the same:

-Maryland

-Indiana

-Rutgers (better record but not sure they are much better)

-Nebraska


Teams better:

-Wisconsin (healthy)

-Iowa (Wieskamp)

-Minnesota (slightly better)

-Illinois
Click to expand...

I get your premise, and it might even be right, but I'm not convinced it is. Teams lose good players and end up being better all the time. Teams like Michigan and OSU look worse on paper. But are they? I really don't know.
 
PCHawk said:
I get your premise, and it might even be right, but I'm not convinced it is. Teams lose good players and end up being better all the time. Teams like Michigan and OSU look worse on paper. But are they? I really don't know.
Click to expand...
Ohio State is blatantly worse it’s not even very close. Michigan could be debated as could several others on my list in each category.

Iowa didn’t lose anyone of note, and gained Joe Wieskamp. Of the 13 other B1G teams I’ve speculated that 10 are either worse or not noticeably better. Iowa has made a huge jump in that timeframe.
 
NikeHawk21 said:
Ohio State is blatantly worse it’s not even very close. Michigan could be debated as could several others on my list in each category.

Iowa didn’t lose anyone of note, and gained Joe Wieskamp. Of the 13 other B1G teams I’ve speculated that 10 are either worse or not noticeably better. Iowa has made a huge jump in that timeframe.
Click to expand...

I dont remember exactly what Ohio State did in the non conference, but they were ranked pretty high. Then the started playing conference games and started losing. How do you know it's not because this conference is really good? Same with Indiana. Beat a couple really highly ranked teams in the non conference, one of which was just up 22 on Duke, then lost 9 of their last 10. You can say with certainty that it isn't because the conference is better from top to bottom? I honestly don't know, I'm just surprised you're so convinced.
 
CP87 said:
Okay, here is another assignment for you @RobHowe (or maybe @JG10Hawk , since Rob admitted on Twitter that he is a little mathed out after quantifying just how much the Hawks and Cyclones have improved this year):

What do the advanced #s say with regard to just where this turnaround came from? Who was using Joe W's minutes last year, and what did their productivity look like (Win shares, PER, etc.)? Who was using Connor's minutes? Which rotation guys have made big jumps, either in overall usage, or in efficiency? I am not sure what defensive metrics are available at the college level, but how do we explain their improvements from 240-something last year (abysmal) to 110-something this year (just regular bad) in team defensive efficiency?

My gut sense: Joe Wieskamp is light-years beyond whose ever minutes he assumed in terms of efficiency and PER (the direct Wieskamp effect). I also feel like Baer has reverted to sophomore form (except better) with a return to a consistent role that maximizes his strengths (the indirect Wieskamp effect). Baer is the kind of player who shines on a good team because he can excel without the ball (open 3s, cutting, O-Reb, attacking a scrambled defense); but if you stick him on a lousy team and expect him to soak up a ton of usage or create offense from nothing, his limitations stick out.

Of course beyond that it seems like everyone in the current rotation has improved from last year save Bohannon. And it's not like Bohannon has gotten worse, he is just assuming a different role and getting used to everything that entails. It seems like it is starting to come together for him, as well.

Okay, get to work.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ignore the returning 4 starters as they have for the most part posted similar numbers. It's the newcomers and Baer that have have been the biggest keys.

As I pointed out in the ~Joe Wieskamp's Shooting - What the Advanced Stats Say~ thread, he's having the second most efficient shooting year of anyone that's played under Fran at Iowa. That's some impressive production from anyone yet alone from a freshman.

You could say Joe and Connor replaced Ellingson's, Nunge's, Pemsl's, and Wagner's minutes from last year. That group took up about 48.5 mpg (1,600 minutes / 33 games). Joe and Connor are at about 45.5 mpg (1,092 minutes / 24 games). So now let's dig into the numbers for each group and throw in Baer for his comparison (about the same mpg as last year).

TS%
  • Last year's group:
    • Ellingson - 51.9%
    • Nunge - 54.6%
    • Pemsl - 59.9%
    • Wagner - 49.5%
    • Baer - 49.8%
  • This year's group:
    • McCaffery - 54.3%
    • Wieskamp - 65.8%
    • Baer - 56.2%
Summary - Connor is about on par with last year's group while Joe is light years ahead. Baer is back to the exact same TS% he posted as a sophomore. In other words huge plus here vs last year's squad.
​
Usage %
  • Last year's group:
    • Ellingson - 14.5%
    • Nunge - 19.1%
    • Pemsl - 18.1%
    • Wagner - 12.2%
    • Baer - 14.4%
  • This year's group:
    • McCaffery - 14.1%
    • Wieskamp - 18.7%
    • Baer - 16.6%
Summary - Joe does not shoot enough. Possessions ended with Nunge last year more than they have ended with Joe this year. That's not a slight on Jack, just that Joe has been rather elite on offense and him having a lower usage rate is not ideal.
​
PER
  • Last year's group:
    • Ellingson - 9.2
    • Nunge - 17.2
    • Pemsl - 16.2
    • Wagner - 8.0
    • Baer - 15.3
  • This year's group:
    • McCaffery - 13.9
    • Wieskamp - 20.4
    • Baer - 20.3
Summary - Joe is playing beyond everyone he replaced, Connor is about on par with the average of the 4 not playing this year. Baer is back to his soph year exactly.
​
D Rating (estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions)
  • Last year's group:
    • Ellingson - 115.3
    • Nunge - 108.6
    • Pemsl - 110.0
    • Wagner - 113.1
    • Baer - 106.8
  • This year's group:
    • McCaffery - 106.1
    • Wieskamp - 103.6
    • Baer - 96.3
Summary - Connor and Joe have been better than everyone they replaced from last year's group. Baer is posting his best number D rating of his career. 99.2 and 99.5 as a frosh and soph.
​
AST% (estimate of percentage of FGs a player assisted while on the floor)
  • Last year's group:
    • Ellingson - 16.0%
    • Nunge - 11.3%
    • Pemsl - 15.2%
    • Wagner - 10.4%
    • Baer - 13.7%
  • This year's group:
    • McCaffery - 25.9%
    • Wieskamp - 7.0%
    • Baer - 12.0%
Summary - Not having a second PG behind Bohannon last year hurt big time. Connor is leading this year's team in this stat. JBo is down from 29.2% sitting at 20.3% due to playing more off ball. This is about the only knock on Joe's offensive game. This should improve when his role changes down the road and he becomes more ball dominant vs spot up shooter.
​
So what does all of this mean? Basically Connor has been on par with the minutes he's replaced but adds the much needed depth at PG and better defense. Joe has been, to quote Fran, phenomenal. Baer is back to his old self after never finding his rhythm last year.

Individual defense is a tricky one to measure with stats so one thing to keep in mind is that with the upgraded offensive production, the ball goes through the hoop more allowing Iowa's defense to get set more often.

PS - I'd say your assumptions were pretty spot on compared to what the data says.
 
Last edited:
PCHawk said:
I dont remember exactly what Ohio State did in the non conference, but they were ranked pretty high. Then the started playing conference games and started losing. How do you know it's not because this conference is really good? Same with Indiana. Beat a couple really highly ranked teams in the non conference, one of which was just up 22 on Duke, then lost 9 of their last 10. You can say with certainty that it isn't because the conference is better from top to bottom? I honestly don't know, I'm just surprised you're so convinced.
Click to expand...
They beat Cincy the first game of the year who is solid, but their other good wins Creighton and UCLA have turned into nothing special.

Out of all the teams you could have argued you picked Ohio State, probably the most obvious of the group. They are at 32 in the KenPom right now, they finished last year 16. They got a 5 seed last year right now they are a bubble team.

They lost a consensus All American and B1G player of the year Keita Bates Diop. They lost Jaesean Tate.

Ohio State is a worse team this year than last. Again many of the others on the list could probably be argued.
 
RobHowe said:
Windsor also has been high on this time since the start.
Click to expand...
I was optimistic for 3 reasons. Our defense was going to be better by default...couldn’t get worse.

We were losing nothing and adding 2 guys that I was confident would make us better overall...and on D.

Other teams were losing a lot. See below. Juniors have been through it twice. Freshmen...even elite freshmen...have a learning curve. Advantage Iowa.


OSU - Tate, Williams and Bates-Diop
MSU - Bridges and Jackson
PU - V. Edwards, Haas, Mathias and Thompson
NE - Gill and Taylor
MI - Abdur-Rahkman, Robinson and Wagner
PSU - Garner and Carr
IN - Johnson, Newkirk and Hartman
NW - Lindsey, McIntosh and Skelly
MD - Cekovsky, Nickens and Jackson
WI - No one
IA - No one
MN - Mason and Lynch
RUT - Freeman, Williams and Sanders
IL - Alstork, Black, Finke, Smith and Lucas


The 2 teams that lost no one are in the top 6. PSU was dcrewed the day Carr left. Purdue’s success is the shocker.
 
NikeHawk21 said:
They beat Cincy the first game of the year who is solid, but their other good wins Creighton and UCLA have turned into nothing special.

Out of all the teams you could have argued you picked Ohio State, probably the most obvious of the group. They are at 32 in the KenPom right now, they finished last year 16. They got a 5 seed last year right now they are a bubble team.

They lost a consensus All American and B1G player of the year Keita Bates Diop. They lost Jaesean Tate.

Ohio State is a worse team this year than last. Again many of the others on the list could probably be argued.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not really arguing for them per say. But if they're a bubble team this year due to a poor conference record, how do we know it's not because of how much better the conference is?
 
PCHawk said:
Well I'm not really arguing for them per say. But if they're a bubble team this year due to a poor conference record, how do we know it's not because of how much better the conference is?
Click to expand...
Again as I wrote earlier it’s just my opinion. You’re not really disputing it you’re just saying how do we know for sure, and the answer is I guess we don’t.

I believe college basketball is way down this year, so compared to the rest of the conferences the B1G is looking better and might get more bids, but compared to last year I believe the B1G is actually slightly down. That would lead me to believe that other conferences are down even more. Again while I don’t know for sure I believe the PAC12 is way way down, the league is a flat out joke this year, I also believe the Big East is down, and the Big12 is down.

Fortunately or unfortunately none of this can really be proved or disproved it’s just my theory based on my following of college basketball.
 
WindsorHawk said:
I was optimistic for 3 reasons. Our defense was going to be better by default...couldn’t get worse.

We were losing nothing and adding 2 guys that I was confident would make us better overall...and on D.

Other teams were losing a lot. See below. Juniors have been through it twice. Freshmen...even elite freshmen...have a learning curve. Advantage Iowa.


OSU - Tate, Williams and Bates-Diop
MSU - Bridges and Jackson
PU - V. Edwards, Haas, Mathias and Thompson
NE - Gill and Taylor
MI - Abdur-Rahkman, Robinson and Wagner
PSU - Garner and Carr
IN - Johnson, Newkirk and Hartman
NW - Lindsey, McIntosh and Skelly
MD - Cekovsky, Nickens and Jackson
WI - No one
IA - No one
MN - Mason and Lynch
RUT - Freeman, Williams and Sanders
IL - Alstork, Black, Finke, Smith and Lucas


The 2 teams that lost no one are in the top 6. PSU was dcrewed the day Carr left. Purdue’s success is the shocker.
Click to expand...
Maryland list would include Huerter who went in the 1st round and starts for the Hawks.
 
NikeHawk21 said:
Again as I wrote earlier it’s just my opinion. You’re not really disputing it you’re just saying how do we know for sure, and the answer is I guess we don’t.

I believe college basketball is way down this year, so compared to the rest of the conferences the B1G is looking better and might get more bids, but compared to last year I believe the B1G is actually slightly down. That would lead me to believe that other conferences are down even more. Again while I don’t know for sure I believe the PAC12 is way way down, the league is a flat out joke this year, I also believe the Big East is down, and the Big12 is down.

Fortunately or unfortunately none of this can really be proved or disproved it’s just my theory based on my following of college basketball.
Click to expand...

I dont want it to come off like I'm picking a fight or anything. It's just always been an interesting topic for me. How people rank teams or conferences. There's virtually know what to know which teams are better or what conferences are better. It's all based on a handful of games played at the beginning of the year. You could pick out 5 big 10 non conference close wins this year and change them to close losses and all the sudden the conference sucks in everyone's eyes. The 9th and 10th teams might make the dance this year because Indiana beat Louisville and Iowa beat Iowa State.
 
Our veteran leadership is showing.

The players are familiar with Fran's system, leading to fewer of our famous "scoring droughts"

We're winning close games.

We're not putting up with the cheap nonsense we did last year, starting with Iowa State. Teams are noticing and not trying to pull as much stuff as they did last year.

Like spider, I need to see more. And I need to see more in more than one year. But unlike spider, I'm enjoying the journey. By the time he feels that we're immune to the dreaded collapse, the regular season will be over. Rutgers won't be easy, but few games since Illinois have been

Sunday night convinced me that this team isn't collapsing. And if Bohannon is talking trash on twitter it could very well be crap beimg said on the floor that we don't know about.

And as for the conference being down, KenPom doesn't buy it. It's just a matter of personal preference how many of us buy KenPom.
 
I am sure this is all sorts of wankery to someone who truly knows how to utilize the advanced stats, but I decided to look at the main rotation players and calculate min/G as well as WS/min for both this year and last. I found the product of these to look at WS/G.

The team as a whole has produced roughly +0.2 WS/G this year compared to last. Of that gain, 40% comes from Wieskamp and McCafferey replacing Nunge/Ellingson/Pemsl/Wagner (most of that from Joe, of course), 18% comes from Cook's improvement, 16% from Baer, 13% Kriener, 10% Moss, and 5% Garza.

Bohannon (-2%) and Dailey (-4%) have contributed negatively to the change in WS/G. I think for both that can be largely attributed to a change in role this year, as well as to an early shooting slump from Bohannon that he seems to have emerged nicely from.

upload_2019-2-14_5-23-20.png
 
CP87 said:
I am sure this is all sorts of wankery to someone who truly knows how to utilize the advanced stats, but I decided to look at the main rotation players and calculate min/G as well as WS/min for both this year and last. I found the product of these to look at WS/G.

The team as a whole has produced roughly +0.2 WS/G this year compared to last. Of that gain, 40% comes from Wieskamp and McCafferey replacing Nunge/Ellingson/Pemsl/Wagner (most of that from Joe, of course), 18% comes from Cook's improvement, 16% from Baer, 13% Kriener, 10% Moss, and 5% Garza.

Bohannon (-2%) and Dailey (-4%) have contributed negatively to the change in WS/G. I think for both that can be largely attributed to a change in role this year, as well as to an early shooting slump from Bohannon that he seems to have emerged nicely from.

View attachment 5025
Click to expand...

Nice work.

Keep in mind comparing the WS/min would be more accurate for gauging improvement/regression for the individual. So while Bohannon's WS/game is down for the team, it's because of his decreased minutes. When looking at his WS/min, he has actually improved. Using his WS/min from this season and plugging it into his number of minutes and games last year, would correlate to .107 compared to the actual .102 he posted.

Using the WS/game for the comparison like you did would correctly estimate the actual production the team has received from the player, which I think was your ultimate goal.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top