| STAT | VALUE | PCTLE | HISTORICAL COMPARISON |
| Base Stats | |||
| FG% | 37 | 8 |
|
| 3FG% | 12 | 2 | 
|
| 2FG% | 56 | 70 | 
|
| FT% | 86 | 91 | 
|
| fg% | 44 | 37 | 
|
| 3fg% | 45 | 16 | 
|
| 2fg% | 43 | 62 | 
|
| ft% | 93 | 4 |
|
| PTS/POSS | 0.78 | 12 | 
|
| pts/poss | 1.03 | 10 |
|
| TOTPOSS | 146 | 7 |
|
| POSDIF | 6 | 72 | 
|
| %LOB | 14 | 62 |
|
| %lob | 10 | 10 |
|
| SmithIdx | -0.3523 | 4 |
|
| Interesting Stats | |||
| %FROM3 | 43.3 | 95 |
|
| AST/TO | 1.27 | 43 | 
|
| ast/to | 2.00 | 6 |
|
| %RMS | 0.34 | 48 | 
|
| %rms | 0.22 | 56 | 
|
STAT = Statistic being reportd
VALUE = Value of reported stat from the current game
PCTLE = Percentile When Compared to All UNC Games since 1996
Historical Comparison = Graphic Portrayal of PCTLE. Marks depict 20% quintiles, as well as 50%.
FG% = UNC Total Field Goal Percentage (47.0% avg since 1996)
3FG% = UNC 3-point Field Goal Percentage (35.6%)
2FG% = UNC 2-point Field Goal Percentage (51.4%)
FT% = UNC Free Throw Percentage (70.0%)
fg% = Opponent Total Field Goal Percentage (41.6%)
3fg% = Opponent 3-point Field Goal Percentage (33.8%)
2fg% = Opponent 2-point Field Goal Percentage (45.9%)
ft% = Opponent Free Throw Percentage (68.2%)
PTS/POSS = UNC Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.934)
pts/poss = Opponent Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.846))
POSS = UNC Total Possessions (Smith Method, 85.6)
POSDIF = UNC Advantage in Total Possessions (Smith Method, 2.03)
%LOB = UNC Percentage Loss of Ball (TO/POSS, 15.9)
%lob = Opponent Percentage Loss of Ball (to/poss, 16.4)
MOV = Margin of Victory (9.43)
%FROM3 = UNC Percentage of FG Attempts Taken From 3 (35.6%)
AST/POSS = UNC Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.20)
AST/FG = UNC Assists Per Field Goal (0.59)
AST/TO = UNC Assists Per Turnover (1.4)
%from3 = Opponent Percentage of Shots Taken From 3 (33.8)
ast/poss = Opponent Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.16)
ast/fg = Opponent Assists Per Field Goal (0.52)
ast/to = Opponent Assists Per Turnover (1.1)
poss = Opponents Total Possessions (Smith Method) (83.6)
TOTPOSS = Total Possessions in the Game(Smith Method, 169.3)
SmithIdx = UNC Total of Pts/Poss minus Offensive Goal (0.95) + Defensive Goal (0.85) minus Opponent Pts/Poss (avg: -0.01)
VALUE = Value of reported stat from the current game
PCTLE = Percentile When Compared to All UNC Games since 1996
Historical Comparison = Graphic Portrayal of PCTLE. Marks depict 20% quintiles, as well as 50%.
FG% = UNC Total Field Goal Percentage (47.0% avg since 1996)
3FG% = UNC 3-point Field Goal Percentage (35.6%)
2FG% = UNC 2-point Field Goal Percentage (51.4%)
FT% = UNC Free Throw Percentage (70.0%)
fg% = Opponent Total Field Goal Percentage (41.6%)
3fg% = Opponent 3-point Field Goal Percentage (33.8%)
2fg% = Opponent 2-point Field Goal Percentage (45.9%)
ft% = Opponent Free Throw Percentage (68.2%)
PTS/POSS = UNC Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.934)
pts/poss = Opponent Points Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.846))
POSS = UNC Total Possessions (Smith Method, 85.6)
POSDIF = UNC Advantage in Total Possessions (Smith Method, 2.03)
%LOB = UNC Percentage Loss of Ball (TO/POSS, 15.9)
%lob = Opponent Percentage Loss of Ball (to/poss, 16.4)
MOV = Margin of Victory (9.43)
%FROM3 = UNC Percentage of FG Attempts Taken From 3 (35.6%)
AST/POSS = UNC Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.20)
AST/FG = UNC Assists Per Field Goal (0.59)
AST/TO = UNC Assists Per Turnover (1.4)
%from3 = Opponent Percentage of Shots Taken From 3 (33.8)
ast/poss = Opponent Assists Per Possession (Smith Method, 0.16)
ast/fg = Opponent Assists Per Field Goal (0.52)
ast/to = Opponent Assists Per Turnover (1.1)
poss = Opponents Total Possessions (Smith Method) (83.6)
TOTPOSS = Total Possessions in the Game(Smith Method, 169.3)
SmithIdx = UNC Total of Pts/Poss minus Offensive Goal (0.95) + Defensive Goal (0.85) minus Opponent Pts/Poss (avg: -0.01)
Some night things click, and other nights they don't click ... at all. The Heels were bad on both ends of the floor, but it was there worst offensive game since the BC game on 1/26. UNC fell in love with the 3 pointer, shooting 43.3% of their shots behind the arc. That's a feat only surpassed in 56 games in the last 951, 6 from this season. If you're going to shoot that many, you hope to make some, but they only hit on 3 of 26 attempts. Only 19 times since 1996 have they shot worse.
Defensively the Heels were woeful, allowing 1.03 points per possession. VT shot 44% from the field, but 45% from 3 (and took an average proportion of their shots from behind the arc). VT's assist/turnover ratio was 2.0, the 58th highest we've seen from an opponent.
I worked last year on a multiple regression analysis that best explains the margin of victory in a game. Essentially, what stats are important to winning and what are not is what I was determining. Interestingly free throw stats and 3-point shooting stats per se were not relevant to the margin of victory. Of course FG%, FGM, and rebounding for both teams played a role. Assists, turnovers, and steals were factors too.
Surprisingly, though, the 2-point Field Goals Made and 2-point Field Goal Percentage had a negative effect on a team's margin of victory; moreso than the rebounding differential. While 3-point shooting stats were not relevant, I think the conclusion from that is that a team that focuses too much on interior shooting can't keep up. The study included all UNC games reaching back to 1996, so the relatively recent emphasis on 3-point shooting in UNC's program wasn't a big factor.
As we enter the tournament, it's hard to imagine this team getting to the Sweet 16. Most likely this team will have to pass through a #1 seed to get there, and this team's typical night doesn't feature defensive play that is good enough to match up against the elite teams (hint: Duke is the only team in the ACC that typically plays well, but they are not an elite team). I'm OK with that, however.
Since Thanksgiving we've seen that this team is one of the worst in program history at defense. It lost a starter and a prime sub from the bench midway through the season. It lacks a true PG. Making the tournament is an accomplishment for this team, and definitely not a step backward for the program after the play of the last two seasons and the insertion of an inexperienced head coach.
