Putting Clemson’s close losses into context

Clemson has lost a lot of close games this season. Is that poor late-game performance an anomaly?

The Clemson Tigers entered the 2016-17 season with high hopes. Having not made the NCAA Tournament since his first season in 2010, they were expected to get back. Safe to say that has not gone to plan. The Tigers had a strong 10-2 showing in the non-conference portion of their schedule. They then beat Wake Forest in their ACC opener, finishing the game on a 15-0 run to win by 5. Since then, their aptitude in close games has gone by the wayside.

Clemson has gone 4-12 following that win to bring their record to 15-14 on the season, outside of NCAA Tournament consideration. Of those 12 losses, nine have come by two possessions (six points) or less. The Tigers have found a myriad of ways to lose those close games, whether it’s missing free throws, being beaten at the buzzer, or not getting their own shot off at the end. These constant failures late in games and no hope for an NCAA Tournament appearance have led to much of the Clemson fanbase asking for Brownell’s firing. I decided to dig into the numbers behind those games. Hopefully I can find something that gives some reason as to why this is happening.

(Disclaimer: I attended Clemson for my undergraduate degree and worked for Brownell and the Men’s Basketball team there during the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons.)

The losses

Clemson is now 2-9 in ACC games decided by six points or less. Astoundingly, this isn’t the worst record in such games in recent ACC history. With a minimum of five games, Clemson’s winning percentage of 18.2 percent is behind the 2014-15 Georgia Tech team, who went 0-10. Even Pittsburgh this season is worse with a 1-6 record (14.3 percent), though they have lost in tough fashion less times overall. But these blown games are nothing new to Brownell and the Tigers.

Since 2010-11, his first season with the program, Clemson has gone 18-41 (30.5 percent) in ACC games decided by six points or less. That is the worst winning percentage in such games of any ACC team over that span. Boston College (34.1 percent) and Georgia Tech (36.5 percent), two of the worst teams in the conference in recent years, are the only other teams to come in below 40 percent. You can see why some fans may want Brownell out. One can only take so many close losses. Both the Eagles and Yellow Jackets moved on from their coaches sooner, as Boston College’s Steve Donahue — hired in 2010 — was fired after the 2014 season and Georgia Tech’s Brian Gregory — hired in 2011 — was fired after the 2016 season.

Clemson has lost at least five such games every year since Brownell’s first season in 2010-11. They have eight more of those losses than the next-closest team, Georgia Tech. Every other ACC team has had at least one year with as few as three. That can’t be a coincidence, right? I decided to look deeper into the underlying performances in those games. The data I’m using is only from this year, though with 11 games the sample should be enough.

Clemson has actually been good

I looked at performance in the last five minutes and overtime of the 11 games in question. While five minutes is an arbitrary cutoff, it should provide us with solid insight. Let me tell you right off the bat, I was shocked with what I found. Clemson is by no means playing worse down the stretch than they do normally.

Their field goal percentage late in those ACC games sits at 45.4 percent, right in line with their season average of 45.1 percent. In fact, overall in conference games they are shooting exactly the same, 45.4 percent. They are shooting the ball well from deep, too. Their mark of 44.1 percent is over six points higher than their season or conference averages. I looked at 60 total minutes — the last 5 of 11 games and one OT period — and Clemson turned it over 12 times. They average just over 10 turnovers per 40-minute game, so over 60 minutes that would put them over 15. So the Tigers are playing better than usual on offense. That must mean their defense has slipped, right?

Over those 60 minutes of late-game action, Clemson has held opponents to 35.6 percent shooting. That number is over 10 percentage points lower than conference opponents are shooting against them this season. They’ve turned it over to Clemson 17 times, just below the conference’s 60-minute average. Brownell appears to have his guys locked in on defense late in games to go with good offense. If Clemson appears to be out playing their opponents, why are these close losses so prevalent?

A whole lotta luck

So far this season, Clemson’s opponents are shooting a preposterous 77.6 percent on free throws against them. That is 351st among 351 Division I teams. Dead last. It’s gotten no better in conference play, either. They’re last in the ACC in the same category, with opponents converting 80 percent of free chances. It stands to reason that late in games, opponents would shoot roughly the same percentage. They might shoot a little worse on account of being tired. They don’t. Down the stretch in those games, the Tigers’ opponents have made 36 of 42 free throws (85.7 percent).

That 42 attempts stat may seem like a lot, and it is. Clemson has held conference opponents to just over 22 free throw attempts per 60 minutes this year. That’s the best mark in the ACC. With the bonus and Clemson having to intentionally foul because of being behind late, an uptick isn’t unheard of. Nearly doubling the number, though, seems excessive. Keeping opponents off the line is a big part of Clemson’s game. It’s the one part they haven’t been able to keep the same or even do better in tight games and that’s come back to bite them.

The Tigers haven’t done itself any favors on the other end, either. They are shooting 59.5 percent from the stripe, over 25 percent worse than opponents. They have taken a few less attempts, and that all correlates to 14 less makes late in the 11 close games. Over one point per game is a lot, especially when five of the games have been decided by 2 or less and one went to overtime. A little regression to the mean and Clemson could be firmly in the field of 68. We wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

How does Brownell fit into all of this?

It seems like coach Brownell is getting a bum rap here. Of those 11 games, Clemson was behind at the 5:00 mark nine times. Once they were winning — in a buzzer-beating loss to Syracuse — and once they were tied — in an eventual win over NC State. Brownell has actually been leading comebacks, often against better teams like UNC, Virginia and Duke. It’s just that unfortunately those comebacks have come up short against everyone but Wake Forest.

You can nitpick all you’d like, but the fact of the matter is that luck is as big a factor as any in Clemson losing so many close games. While there were questionable decisions that have led to some of the losses, Brownell’s team probably shouldn’t have been in such close games that much of that time. Clemson ranks 303rd of 351 teams in Kenpom’s luck rating. Even if they were somewhere near the middle, this season might be totally different for the Tigers. Brownell, headed to the NCAA Tournament, might not be on the hot seat.

Next: College Basketball ACC Power Rankings: Week 17

While it’s certainly frustrating, I hope the decision-makers at Clemson dig a little deeper. Brownell doesn’t deserve to be fired, at least not for late-game mistakes this season. Were he on the right side of luck, the same people calling for his job would likely be singing his praises.