Statistically speaking

Here’s a look at how Kent State stacks up to the rest of the MAC as a team. I’ll look at individual stats another time.

SCORING MARGIN: (1) Akron  +15.9. (2) Ohio  +15.3. (11) Kent State -12.1. (The MAC has 12 teams.)

SCORING AVERAGE: (1). Akron 79.3. (2) Ohio 72.8. (11) Kent State 54.7.

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE: (1) Akron 46.4. (2) Ball State 42.4. (5) Kent State 40.1.

THREE-POINT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE: (1) Ohio 36.0. (2) Akron 33.3. (9) Kent State 27.3.

THREE-POINT FIELD GOALS PER GAME: (1) Ohio 9.7. (2) Bowling Green 6.5. (12) Kent State 2.8.

FREE THROW PERCENTAGE: (1) Bowling Green 78.9. (2) Toledo 74.9. (12) Kent State 56.4.

A little analysis: Kent State’s field goal shooting is the best it’s been in several years. But its three-point percentage (27.6) is very low and it takes and makes very few three-point shots at all. That leads to the packed zone defenses the Flashes face all the time. Its free-throw percentage is awful — 9 percentage points below the next worst team in the league (Ohio).

It also seems that a team with the fifth best shooting percentage would be scoring more points. The lack of three-pointers is part of that. But the Flashes have taken the fourth fewest number of shots in the conference. Part of the reason for that is turnovers. But offsetting that is the fact that KSU is one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the conference. (More on those stats below)

SCORING DEFENSE: (1) Northern Illinois 54.6. (2) Western Michigan 56.6. (10) Kens State 66.8.

FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE DEFENSE: (1) Ohio 34.2). (2) Buffalo 36.0. (12) Kent State 41.7.

THREE-POINT DEFENSE: (1) Buffalo 23.6. (2) Bowling Green 26.7. (12) Kent State 34.5.

Kent’s field goal defense — both two and three-pointers — is among the worst in the conference. It may be KSU is losing more because of defense as because of offense.

REBOUNDING MARGIN: (1) Easternn Michigan +4.2. (2) Akron +4.2. (4) Kent State +2.0.

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS: (1) Eastern Michigan 16.6. (2) Buffalo 16.1. (3) Kent State 14.6.

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDS: (1) Akron 29.4. (2) Eastern Michigan 29.0. (12) Kent State 22.6.

DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING PERCENTAGE (percent of opponents’ missed shots team rebounding: (1) Ohiio 70.3. (2) Central Michigan 69.3. (11) Kent State 62.6.

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING PERCENTAGE (percent of team’s own missed shots it rebounded): (1) Kent State 40.2. (2) Eastern Michigan 37.4. (12) Ball State 62.2.

BLOCKED SHOTS: (1) Buffalo 4.3. (2) Central Michigan 4.2. (3) Kent State 4.1.

The rebounding percentage — sort of a complicated stat — essentially shows that Kent State is giving up a lot of second-chance shots. (There’s no season stat on second-chance points that I can find, but we can infer KSU gives up a lot, I think.) You’d think that a team with Kent’s height would be better.

Kent gets the most offensive rebounds in the conference. How can it get all those offensive rebounds but not the defensive ones?

ASSISTS: (1) Akron 17.3. (2) Ball State 14.3. (6) Kent State 12.4.

PERCENTAGE OF BASKETS WITH ASSISTS: (1) Ball State 64.9. (2) Northern Illinois 64.3. (7) Kent State 56.3.

TURNOVERS: (1) Buffalo 20.1. (2) Miami 18.8. (3) Kent State 18.6.

TURNOVER MARGIN: (1) Ohio +6.1. (2) Northern Illinois +4.6. (11) Kent State -4.8.

ASSIST/TURNOVER RATIO: (1) Akron 1.3. (2) Northern Illinois 1.1. (8) Kent State 0.7.

STEALS: (1) Buffalo 11.7. (2) Eastern Michigan 10.0. (8) Kent State 6.6.

Its turnover margin is bad, though not as bad as it’s been in recent years. The percent of baskets with assists is a statistic I created because Kent’s men’s and women’s broadcasters look at it a lot. KSU’s is pretty good, which I think shows that it’s running its offense. Kent’s assist/turnover percentage — at eighth in the conference — is better than I thought it would be. That’s because of the increased number of assists.

ATTENDANCE: (1) Toledo 3,604. (2) Bowling Green 1,891. (11) Kent State 567.

In the early 2000s, Kent averaged 1,200 or so a game, which was second to Toledo.

You can find the full MAC statistics, including standings, on the conference website.


One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s