Tuesday Night Action

Let's take a look at the close BigTen/ACC challenge games (as there were some duds as well)

Georgia Tech 79 at Indiana 83
Stats were pretty even across the board as Indy put up 1.13 PPP vs. Gtech's 1.07 in a back and forth tussle played out over 74 possessions. Eric Gordon would impress me one minute, and then dumbfound me the next. His 1.34 PPWS were superb, getting 29 points on 14 FGA and 16 FTA, but he turned the ball over 8 times and had 2 assists and no steals to show for it. No doubt this kid is great off the dribble, he just lacked a little discipline at times. The Hoosiers were helped by an 18 attempt edge at the free throw line, mostly added on in the last minute.


Purdue 58 at Clemson 61
KC Rivers bucket with just over 30 seconds proved to be the game winner in a game that saw the biggest lead at 5 points for both teams.
Overall, the game saw some average to sub-average shooting, with the Boilermakers at 42% efg and the Tigers at 52% efg. Purdue ended at 2 for 12 from three-point land for the night. The .81 vs. .85 PPP was delivered by 19 turnovers for Purdue to 20 for Clemson in this 72 possession battle. Raymond Sykes led the charge with this gem: in 18 minutes he had 5 turnovers, 2 points and 2 fouls. Nevertheless, a big holding of serve at home for the ACC.


Bonus-game highlight:

Maryland-Eastern Shore 44 at West Virginia 110
I just couldn't resist taking a look at this one. Here's the stats:
West Virginia shot 70% efg on the way to 1.41 PPP in a 78 possession blowout. MD-Eastern Shore shot 27% in getting only .56 points on each possession. They turned the ball over on a third of their possessions and only grabbed 29% of their misses. Out of the 78 possessions, they only made 14 field goals. Counter this with the Mountaineers 45 made field goals. 13 players saw time for West Virginia, all with at least 7 minutes. Joe Alexander had the line of the night:
In 24 minutes of play, he posted 22 points, 8 boards, 4 assists, 2 blocks and 1 turnover.

Butler at it Again

A lot of happenings over the long, glorious food-infested weekend, so I'll at least get a quick shot out there to highlight Butler's huge start for a second year in a row.

In taking down Michigan, Virginia Tech and Texas Tech, in that order, the Bulldogs of Butler put on quite an offensive efficientizling show:

Michigan game: 79-65. 1.34 points-per-possession while hurling up 32 three's against 55 total shots. Yes, over 58% of their shots came from treyland. But when you shoot 53% from there, en route to a 61% efg, then by all means, keep shooting.

Vtech game: 84-78 in OT. 1.21 PPP on a more human 42% 3pt shooting to go with 58% efg in a faster 70 possession OT game.

Texas Tech game: 81-71. 1.42 PPP!! Straight stats for ya: 67% 3pt shooting on 24 threes out of 60 total shots. 77% efg. You read that correctly. They only needed 47 total shots and 11 free-throws to get to 81 in a 57 possession game. Just unreal.

More side dishes: Their turnover percent went hand-in-hand with their shooting: 12%, 13% and 12% in their games respectively, keeping their TO's in the single digits.

AJ Graves shooting 3's: 5 for 10 against the Wolverines. 4 for 13 against Vtech and 6 for 8 against Texas Tech for an over 48% average during the Tourney. The Senior from Switz City will continue to loft them up and more often than not, will have a good night shooting.


If we want to take a "Glass is half empty" approach, they allowed 1.10, 1.12 and 1.25 PPP respectively in the tourney, far above their season average of .96.

Starting Fresh for 2007

Time to jump right into the pool. There's no better way.

UCLA - 68 MSU - 63
Here we had two Goliaths looking for a good resume-building victory last night in Kansas City. Michigan St. shot surprisingly well (56% efg vs. UCLA's pedestrian 42%) but it was UCLA that made the most of it's missed opportunities. Anytime you're rebounding over 50% of your misses on the offensive end, you're allowed to shoot a little under your average. No doubt UCLA has not shot well thus far (only at 47% efg for the season), they are averaging an over 42% offensive rebounding %.
***correction*** Michigan St. turned it over on 28% of their possessions, led by Kevin Lucas' 4 TO's in just 22 minutes of play in a slow 64 possession contest. UCLA scored 1.06 points-per-possession while MSU was held under .98 for the game.


Duke - 79 Illinois - 66
Duke continues to impress with a quickness on and off the ball that we haven't seen in a few season. The Illini offense was held in check, shooting only 35% efg and posting .97 PPP against Duke's 1.16 PPP and blistering 63% efg. Gerald Henderson was the Beast of the Game, getting 23 points out of 15 field goals for 1.22 PPWS.
One thing to note is Duke's increase in tempo from last year's sluggish pace. They're already averaging around 74 possessions per game, up from last year's 66.



Marquette - 91 Oklahoma St - 61
The Golden Eagles shot the barn down(62% efg), defended well (OK St. got .83 points a possession) and kept the pace up to get 91 points in a 73 possession game.
Wesley Matthews led the 5 Eagles in double digits while getting 13 points only 6 shots from the field and 5 for 5 free-throw shooting. Ousmane Barro was keeper the glass, getting 10 boards in only 18 minutes of play.
The victory sets up a tasty rematch of last year's duel in which Dominic James showcased the tall glass of talent that he possesses.

Let's see what happens with a much-improved Blue Devils squad.




Good to be back in this thing. I'll be out of town, but posts will regain strength next Monday.

Things to look forward to after the 1st month in:

Who's tempo is shifting?
Boards, what are they?
A wish list for stats

Rumblings...

Getting ramped back up for another season of Tempo-Free fantasy. I've been a little caught up in some other workings, so the season has been rolling and the tempo-free stats have been swirling in a vat, waiting to be plucked and perused.

At the latest, this should be up and running full speed after T-day, but I hope to get a few posts rolling this weekend.

Thanks for stopping back, it should be yet another good year.

2007 Tempo Free Stats

2007 All put together in one easy to catch fish barrel:


ACC 2007

Big East 2007

Big South 2007

Big 12 2007

Big 10 2007 (Big 10 Wonk Site)

CAA 2007

Conference USA 2007

MVC 2007

Mountain West 2007

Pac 10 2007

SEC 2007

Apologies....

Had a little situation come up. Sorry for lack of posting.
Enjoy the weekend. Great games ahead.

I'll be posting about once a month after the tourney.

Ahhh, March

What a weekend. Yes, some days were better than others, but really, can you beat the past 4 days?? Had a great time at the Spokane regional.
Got to see the Winthrop upset and the absolute domination of Texas from USC, along with spending 11 hours in the arena on Friday watching basketball.


Here's a brief recap of the picks:

Pitt - Wright St. - 120 o/u
79 - 58 over

Wazzu - Oral Roberts - 120 o/u
70 -54 over

Butler - Old Dominion - 123 o/u
57-46 under
Nevada - Creighton - 133 o/u
77-71 over (ot game) was at 118 at the end of reg.

Boston College - Texas Tech - 136 o/u
84-75 over

Arizona - Purdue - 136 o/u
63 -72 under

So, overall for the first round, ended up at 4-2, with a 1 point loss, and an OT saver.
By the way, in case you were wondering, yes, the Tennessee-Long Beach St. game covered the over of 170 points.
Salukis barely covered the over with their Holy Cross game. Yes, the over was at 109.
For the first round, here's the Vegas numbers (based on lines from Thursday) for games featuring teams seeded 3 through 14
16 teams covered their spreads(yes, lots of blow outs) vs. 7 underdogs staying close and 1 push.
11 games covered the over vs. 13 games under.

Obviously the Kansas and Florida games covered their overs.

Preview and other oddities coming today or tomorrow.

And it begins....

Well, I think we've all beaten the brackets to death. Time to play out the damn thing.
Good luck.

I'll be in Spokane for the regional this weekend starting tomorrow, so hopefully I'll have some PC access in order to post some tempo-free oddities from the greatest first two rounds of any sporting event.


Just for the hell of it, out of my 20+ brackets, my true "money" Final Four has:

Florida
Kansas
Gtown
Tex A&M

With Kansas beating A&M in the final.

The reality? Kansas bombs in the 2nd along with Florida losing to Jackson St. Can't wait!! I don't like Florida, but it's too scary to lay it all on U-dub or the Ducks or Maryland. I've seen all of them too much. I think next I just won't watch any games. Oh wait....

These Pretzels are Making Me Thirsty

Just when you think the tempo-free world is ascending ever closer to that utopia we all clamour for, the USA Today let's out a giant turd on the pavement.

In today's age, we've got the Blue Ribbon giving every conceivable tempo-free stat on each team's sheet.

You've got pretty much every writer and talk-head over at ESPN at least mentioning some stat from time to time (big thanks to Fraschilla and Glockner)

Hell, even the Sports Guy Simmons has gotten into it, referencing the Wonk in continuing his week-long berating of the Big Ten's pace. (I had to agree on the Big Ten's variance of pace vs. other conferences. Quality of play? We'll see)

But, then the USA Today decides to take us back a few decades, with
this piece of analysis.

What they did was essentially total up the 3pt%, 2pt% and FT% of a player, and rank them based on that. It's about the same as looking in your wallet, seeing that you have a third of your bills in 1's, a 3rd in 5's and a 3rd in 50's, but just comparing the number of bills that you have vs. your friend's wallet.

Using this "perspective", which player is the better overall shooter?

Player A
70% 3pt shooting
30% 2pt shooting
60% FT shooting

Player B
30% 3pt shooting
40% 2pt shooting
90% FT shooting

In this article's eyes, these two players are equal shooters. There is no weight given to the fact that a 3pt is worth, well duh, 3 points and that a free throw only gives you 1 point.
One other troubling fact, is that there is no weight given based on the player's frequency of each type of shot; it's not a blended average.

A better picture of quality shooters is this piece over at Ken Pom, as effective Field Goal % blends in the frequency of each shot with it's given point total.

Obviously that one stat doesn't tell the whole picture, but at least it's closer to being *accurate.





*still trying to figure out what that means

Tale of an Upset

Well, we took care of solidifying your Final Four and your Champion with Tempo-Free validity. Now let's try and squeak in some of those pesky early round upsets. Take a look below at all of the 1st and 2nd round upsets involving a team at least 4 seeds below beating the higher seed. You can see, more or less, the "Davids" hold a fairly solid efficiency margin and shoot well enough and they hang onto the ball a good amount of the time. The "Goliaths" aren't anywhere near as efficient as our averages for Final Four teams. Overall, I can't say that the data can really "open up any doors", but it's just interesting to see the stats associated with a "giant-killer" and with a pretender.


Averages for 2004, 2005 and 2006

	2004-2006	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
	Underdog	67.2	1.1	0.93	0.17	51%	20%	33%	47%	47%	22%	31%
	Favorite	68.4	1.14	0.92	0.22	52%	20%	36%	47%	47%	21%	30%

2006

Seed	2006	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
12	Texas A&M	65.2	1.07	0.87	0.2	51%	20%	30%	47%	47%	27%	32%
5	Syracuse	70	1.09	0.93	0.16	50%	21%	37%	46%	46%	22%	34%
.
14	Northwestern St.	69.7	1.04	0.99	0.05	52%	22%	37%	48%	48%	24%	35%
3	Iowa	66.5	1.04	0.83	0.2	48%	22%	31%	44%	44%	21%	28%
.
13	Bradley	71.3	1.07	0.89	0.18	49%	21%	34%	45%	45%	23%	30%
4	Kansas	69.9	1.11	0.84	0.28	52%	22%	37%	43%	43%	24%	31%
.
13	Bradley	71.3	1.07	0.89	0.18	49%	21%	34%	45%	45%	23%	30%
5	Pittsburgh	66.3	1.13	0.89	0.25	51%	20%	38%	46%	46%	19%	26%
.
12	Montana	68.2	1.09	1.01	0.08	55%	19%	32%	50%	50%	20%	31%
5	Nevada	67.8	1.08	0.92	0.16	50%	19%	35%	45%	45%	20%	30%
.
11	Wisconsin Milwaukee	70.3	1.06	0.94	0.12	49%	20%	37%	49%	49%	22%	28%
6	Oklahoma	64.9	1.12	0.96	0.16	51%	22%	43%	50%	50%	21%	27%
.
7	Georgetown	59.4	1.16	0.92	0.24	53%	19%	35%	48%	48%	20%	29%
2	Ohio St.	67.5	1.11	0.9	0.22	54%	18%	29%	47%	47%	20%	30%
.
11	George Mason	64.3	1.09	0.9	0.19	54%	20%	30%	44%	44%	20%	30%
6	Michigan St.	66.8	1.14	0.96	0.18	53%	21%	34%	50%	50%	19%	29%
.
11	George Mason	64.3	1.09	0.9	0.19	54%	20%	30%	44%	44%	20%	30%
3	North Carolina	72.6	1.16	0.9	0.26	54%	23%	40%	46%	46%	20%	29%
.
10	Wichita St.	64.9	1.11	0.94	0.17	50%	20%	34%	47%	47%	19%	27%
2	Tennessee	72.8	1.17	0.95	0.22	54%	18%	30%	53%	53%	24%	33%

2005

Seed	2005	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
12	Wisconsin Milwaukee	70.3	1.11	0.94	0.17	51%	20%	36%	47%	47%	24%	33%
5	Alabama	64.2	1.19	0.95	0.25	56%	19%	34%	47%	47%	17%	28%
.
12	Wisconsin Milwaukee	70.3	1.11	0.94	0.17	51%	20%	36%	47%	47%	24%	33%
4	Boston College	65.8	1.15	0.93	0.21	49%	20%	40%	47%	47%	21%	33%
.
11	UAB	71.8	1.08	0.94	0.14	51%	18%	30%	50%	50%	27%	37%
6	LSU	67.5	1.14	0.97	0.17	52%	19%	34%	51%	51%	18%	27%
.
7	West Virginia	64.3	1.16	0.97	0.19	53%	18%	28%	51%	51%	23%	34%
2	Wake Forest	70	1.25	0.96	0.29	56%	20%	40%	50%	50%	20%	30%
.
14	Bucknell	64.1	1.01	0.93	0.08	51%	24%	30%	45%	45%	24%	31%
3	Kansas	67.1	1.17	0.91	0.26	53%	21%	35%	44%	44%	20%	31%
.
10	North Carolina St.	64	1.16	0.93	0.23	53%	19%	31%	49%	49%	23%	35%
2	Connecticut	71.7	1.13	0.88	0.25	50%	21%	42%	43%	43%	17%	28%
.
13	Vermont	65.5	1.11	0.97	0.14	51%	18%	34%	47%	47%	19%	26%
4	Syracuse	66.9	1.15	0.95	0.21	52%	20%	40%	45%	45%	21%	35%

2004

Seed	2004	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
12	Manhattan	67	1.09	0.94	0.15	49%	18%	33%	46%	46%	24%	32%
5	Florida	67.5	1.18	0.95	0.23	56%	21%	29%	48%	48%	19%	31%
.
9	UAB	72.1	1.09	0.91	0.18	51%	19%	32%	48%	48%	27%	36%
1	Washington	75.2	1.13	0.97	0.16	52%	19%	32%	52%	52%	22%	34%
.
12	Pacific	65.6	1.08	0.96	0.11	53%	21%	29%	46%	46%	19%	32%
5	Providence	67.2	1.13	0.91	0.22	52%	22%	36%	48%	48%	22%	35%
.
10	Nevada	70.4	1.12	0.88	0.24	49%	18%	36%	46%	46%	20%	28%
2	Gonzaga	68.2	1.19	0.92	0.27	57%	19%	37%	44%	44%	18%	28%
.
7	Xavier	65.6	1.16	0.9	0.26	51%	19%	33%	47%	47%	21%	30%
2	Mississippi St.	70.5	1.19	0.92	0.27	52%	21%	40%	47%	47%	23%	30%
.
8	Alabama	66	1.16	0.94	0.22	51%	19%	32%	48%	48%	20%	31%
1	Stanford	66.4	1.11	0.86	0.26	53%	21%	37%	44%	44%	21%	27%

How Does Vegas Know So Much?

They're up by a dozen. There's 15 seconds left. The score is sitting nicely at 75-63. The over/under was at 139.5. You like your spot on that $20 under bet. The rest of the sportsbook like's their spot too. The leaders are slowly just bringing the ball up, the game is sealed. There's no way they're taking a shot, and there's no way that you're losing your bet. You start walking towards the counter to claim your reward, when you hear the groans. The screams. The "what the $%#@ are they doing?". You turn and look as the leading team is just finishing a wide open lay-up, for no reason, except to give you the betting equivalent of a kick in your balls for the next 24 hours.

Ahhh, Vegas and March Madness. A marriage that hopefully has many years ahead of it. Like all relationships, it has its quarrels, it's money issues, it's offspring (see: the 100+ betting insight websites).

Well, let's just throw a few picks out there, utilizing some handy tempo-free stats and some second-guessing from myself.
I look at pace, shooting %, offensive and defensive efficiency and the spread between the "strength" of each team to determine the most likely pace of the game if there's a large spread.

Some games that jump out to cover the over:

Pitt - Wright St. - 120 o/u
Wazzu - Oral Roberts - 120 o/u
Butler - Old Dominion - 123 o/u
Nevada - Creighton - 133 o/u
Boston College - Texas Tech - 136 o/u
Arizona - Purdue - 136 o/u

Games that I would watch just to see if they could touch the over.

Tennessee - Long Beach St.
Both teams run in the 72 possession a game range, and averaging 1.15 and 1.10 ppp respectively with a bad defense on the part of LBS (1.05 ppp allowed). Vegas is calling 170 as the over. Let's see it.

Maryland - Davidson
Almost the exact same pace and stat discrepancy as the Tennessee game. Over under is at 156 however because Davidson also carries some weight on D.


Some other interesting Vegas line notes:

- No confidence in Wazzu. Only 6 point favorites in their 3-14 game as opposed to Texas A&M being a 13.5 point favorite. I don't have historical spreads, but I would venture to guess that that's pretty damn low for a 3 seed. And you know what, it's not even that far off. Two 2000 point scorers for Oral Roberts? Yikes
- Arkansas is actually the favorite at a few books. I've got them listed here as 1 point underdogs. I believe Montana was a 12 seed favorite last year, correct?
- Staying true to form, 3 of the 4 8-9 games are favored by the 9 seed.
- Southern Illinois - Holy Cross game over/under is at 109, and I still don't think they'll hit it. They both run in the low 60's, and aren't all that great on offense, but have solid defensi. 40-38, here we come!



Good luck to all you Vegas venturers this week.


I'm sure I'll go 0 for 6 on the first round.

By the way, great story here from ESPN writer Gene Wojciechowski from the offices of the Las Vegas oddsmakers.

Stop with the insanity!!

Just a quick thought on people's arguments over bubble teams:

Answer: Who have you played, who have you beaten and who did they beat.

This answer can be applied to the following five rants/complaints for bubble teams:

1. History. "Winning 20 games and 10 games in conference guarantees a bid every year". Unbalanced league and non-conference schedules make this point moot
2. "My team is over .500 in conference". See response to question 1.
3. "My team is on a roll right now"
4. "Our conference had 6 teams last year, there's no way there should be less this year"
5. "Our conference had 2 teams in the final four last year, there should be a lot more from our conference this year because of that"


No question you can make valid arguments on who Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St., Florida St. etc have beaten compared to the likes of Illinois, Stanford, Arkansas, etc. Just please, stop with those 5 reasons for excluding or including a team in the tournament.

Statistical salutations to follow later today. On with the greatest 3 weeks of the year! ******updated******** Well, here's some quick thoughts actually:

See previous posts below for previous year's quick snapshot of tempo-free bran flakes.
Here's how the top 5 seeds look this year:

2007 NCAA Tournament Bracket Tempo-Free Snapshot

Seed	2007	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
1	North Carolina	73	1.23	0.84	0.39	55%	19%	39%	46%	46%	22%	30%
1	Kansas	69.6	1.18	0.81	0.37	54%	20%	38%	43%	43%	24%	30%
1	Florida	66.4	1.23	0.87	0.36	59%	21%	37%	45%	45%	20%	29%
1	Ohio St.	65.4	1.22	0.86	0.35	54%	18%	35%	46%	46%	21%	32%
2	Georgetown	60.2	1.24	0.88	0.35	57%	23%	40%	44%	44%	20%	33%
2	Wisconsin	64.3	1.17	0.85	0.32	52%	18%	36%	46%	46%	22%	29%
2	UCLA	64.3	1.18	0.87	0.31	54%	18%	34%	48%	48%	23%	30%
2	Memphis	69.4	1.16	0.86	0.3	52%	19%	39%	43%	43%	24%	32%
3	Texas A&M	65.6	1.2	0.86	0.34	56%	19%	34%	43%	43%	22%	30%
3	Pittsburgh	62.9	1.19	0.9	0.28	53%	18%	37%	46%	46%	19%	32%
3	Oregon	67	1.19	0.93	0.26	53%	19%	36%	49%	49%	22%	32%
3	Washington St.	60.9	1.12	0.9	0.22	52%	16%	27%	46%	46%	22%	31%
4	Maryland	72.9	1.15	0.86	0.29	53%	21%	36%	43%	43%	23%	36%
4	Texas	68.5	1.22	0.94	0.28	52%	17%	37%	48%	48%	20%	34%
4	Southern Illinois	61.8	1.09	0.87	0.21	52%	22%	32%	48%	48%	24%	29%
4	Virginia	69	1.14	0.94	0.2	51%	19%	37%	47%	47%	19%	32%
5	Virginia Tech	64.4	1.15	0.91	0.24	51%	16%	34%	48%	48%	22%	34%
5	Butler	59.3	1.18	0.94	0.24	53%	15%	30%	46%	46%	21%	33%
5	Tennessee	72.5	1.15	0.93	0.22	51%	19%	34%	52%	52%	25%	36%
5	Southern California	67.8	1.12	0.91	0.21	53%	21%	30%	45%	45%	21%	34%

And seeds 6 through 12:

Seed	2007	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
6	Duke	65.6	1.14	0.85	0.29	53%	23%	36%	46%	46%	22%	30%
6	Notre Dame	71.1	1.21	0.93	0.28	54%	18%	37%	47%	47%	21%	31%
6	Louisville	64.9	1.15	0.88	0.27	50%	19%	37%	45%	45%	22%	34%
6	Vanderbilt	67.5	1.16	0.96	0.2	53%	18%	29%	51%	51%	21%	33%
7	Indiana	65.5	1.19	0.92	0.27	52%	19%	36%	47%	47%	22%	33%
7	Boston College	64.7	1.19	0.97	0.22	53%	21%	38%	49%	49%	18%	37%
7	Nevada Las Vegas	66	1.12	0.93	0.19	51%	16%	35%	48%	48%	23%	35%
7	Nevada	67.2	1.17	1	0.17	55%	19%	37%	46%	46%	17%	30%
8	Kentucky	67.5	1.18	0.91	0.27	54%	21%	34%	47%	47%	19%	32%
8	Arizona	69.1	1.2	0.95	0.25	53%	20%	38%	51%	51%	17%	31%
8	Marquette	68.7	1.14	0.91	0.23	50%	21%	39%	47%	47%	24%	35%
8	Brigham Young	68.6	1.16	0.97	0.19	55%	19%	36%	49%	49%	19%	29%
9	Michigan St.	62.1	1.14	0.87	0.26	52%	24%	41%	44%	44%	20%	30%
9	Villanova	66.8	1.15	0.89	0.26	49%	20%	40%	48%	48%	23%	32%
9	Purdue	67.9	1.11	0.88	0.23	52%	21%	35%	48%	48%	24%	33%
9	Xavier	67.5	1.18	0.95	0.23	56%	19%	36%	48%	48%	21%	33%
10	Georgia Tech	68.3	1.19	0.91	0.27	55%	22%	41%	50%	50%	24%	32%
10	Creighton	63.7	1.14	0.91	0.23	51%	20%	34%	48%	48%	22%	31%
10	Gonzaga	68.1	1.15	0.96	0.19	55%	19%	34%	47%	47%	19%	30%
10	Texas Tech	65.7	1.12	0.96	0.16	51%	17%	29%	52%	52%	23%	36%
11	Stanford	66.8	1.11	0.92	0.18	50%	21%	37%	46%	46%	17%	29%
11	Virginia Commonwealth	65.8	1.15	1	0.15	52%	17%	36%	51%	51%	24%	32%
11	Winthrop	63.1	1.1	0.96	0.14	55%	20%	35%	47%	47%	21%	28%
11	George Washington	67.7	1.05	0.94	0.11	51%	20%	36%	47%	47%	25%	35%
12	Illinois	62.8	1.07	0.85	0.22	50%	21%	38%	46%	46%	23%	30%
12	Arkansas	67.4	1.11	0.89	0.22	52%	22%	35%	47%	47%	20%	33%
12	Old Dominion	67.1	1.08	0.93	0.14	50%	18%	35%	47%	47%	21%	29%
12	Long Beach St.	72	1.1	1.05	0.05	52%	19%	35%	51%	51%	22%	34%

And not to be left out, seeds 13-16

13	Davidson	72.7	1.1	0.96	0.14	49%	25%	39%	45%	45%	26%	31%
13	New Mexico St.	70.6	1.07	0.99	0.09	54%	23%	35%	52%	52%	23%	30%
13	Holy Cross	63.3	1.01	0.93	0.08	51%	19%	27%	49%	49%	21%	34%
13	Albany	64.9	1.03	1.03	0.01	47%	18%	32%	53%	53%	21%	28%
14	Oral Roberts	67.3	1.06	0.97	0.09	49%	23%	35%	47%	47%	23%	33%
14	Miami Oh	59.2	1.04	0.95	0.09	53%	22%	30%	45%	45%	20%	32%
14	Wright St.	63.6	1.04	0.95	0.08	56%	21%	29%	49%	49%	19%	34%
14	Pennsylvania	69.3	1.07	0.99	0.08	54%	22%	34%	53%	53%	22%	32%
15	Texas A&M Corpus Chris	68.9	1.11	1.05	0.05	49%	19%	34%	50%	50%	19%	35%
15	Belmont	67.4	1.04	0.99	0.05	53%	22%	33%	43%	43%	20%	35%
15	Weber St.	66.2	1	1.04	-0.04	48%	23%	32%	48%	48%	22%	38%
15	North Texas	70.2	0.99	1.03	-0.04	50%	24%	33%	49%	49%	26%	35%
16	Niagara	69.3	1.05	1.08	-0.02	48%	22%	31%	49%	49%	19%	32%
16	Central Connecticut	64.6	1.02	1.04	-0.03	47%	22%	35%	50%	50%	20%	37%
16	Eastern Kentucky	62	0.99	1.03	-0.04	51%	21%	30%	54%	54%	27%	45%
16	Florida A&M	68.2	0.98	1.11	-0.13	49%	23%	33%	54%	54%	22%	36%
16	Jackson St.	70.8	0.95	1.12	-0.17	45%	20%	33%	60%	60%	27%	35%

Save the Children, Cover your Eyes!! Oh the Humanity!

ACC Bracket? It just got demolished. Pac10? Down goes Frazia!! March is starting off pretty strong. Thank you's go to those early low-major conference championships that started the month off right. If the past 2 weeks are any indication, this tourney is shaping up to be one of the most highly-contested, wide-open fields in a long time.

To continue our look back at potential bracket-busters from the "power" conferences:

ACC
Florida St. followed suit with the rest of the ACC, knocking off it's "higher" seeded rival. Of course, I failed to really single out Al Thornton as being the biggest key to the team who might carry this team into the tourney himself. How'd they look tempo-free style?
Well, we asked them to launch more three's, which they didn't exactly do, but they did shoot 43.8% on their way to 55% efg and 1.06 points-per-possession on offense. Their D, as expected didn't exactly "lock-down" the Tigers, allowing the same 55% efg and 1.05 points-per-possession in this 63 possession game. In fact, when you look at the stats, they got beat in almost every area. But it was the clutch performances from Thornton that obviously sealed the deal. Let's see what they change for UNC's explosive defense.


Big12
Missouri blew any hope that they had of stealing a bid in their 97-83 loss to Baylor yesterday. Well, they held Baylor to only 9 offensive rebounds for a 23% offensive rebounding rate, a strong improvement from their season average, but it didn't matter as Baylor just lit up the nylon. They shot 71% efg, going 60% from beyond the arc on their 15 attempts. Oh, they also had 32 free-throw attempts, but only sank 20 of those. Baylor's 1.23 ppp vs. Missouri's 1.05 ppp powered them to the 14 points victory in this extremely fast 79 possession game. Game balls go to Curtis Jerrells and Henry Dugat, who combined for 56 points on 21 of 28 shooting, going 6 for 8 from the 3-pt line. They also both hauled in 10 boards and dished out 8 assists.


SEC
We asked the Hogs to limit their turnovers, and reap the benefits of their stellar shooting. Did they answer the call? With vengeance!!! Only giving away the ball a lowly 4 times in a 64 possession game, good for a 6% turnover rate! The shooting department kept up their bargain, hitting 54% efg on their way to a 1.29 ppp average vs. The Gamecocks .82 ppp. Even with the good shooting, they rebounding 41% of their misses and kept South Carolina at a 26% offensive rebounding rate. Balanced scoring (4 were in double digits) was led by Darian Townes 16 points in only 22 minutes of play on 9 shot attempts, good for a 1.53 ppws. A match up with Vandy looms today, a team they beat by 15 just a week ago.


Pac10
Washington took care of business yesterday, but came up short against a solid Washington St. Cougars squad. Almost eerily, they allowed their average of 55% efg and of course, limited Wazzu's second chances, only giving up a 24% offensive rebounding rate. But, they couldn't shoot as well (48% efg) and turned it over 22% of the time vs. Wazzu's expected 13% in this Wazzu-pace dictated game of 63 possessions. Wazzu finished at 1.18 ppp vs. Washington's 1.02 average. Balanced scoring by Wazzu (double digits for 4 guys) was led by Taylor Rochesties 20 points on 9 shots and 7 for 7 free throw shooting. Watch for a deep NIT run from this young, but athletic crew.

Looking back

Taking a quick look back at what we were hoping for from Providence tonight.

Turnovers? Well, they were slightly under their season in-conference average of 24%, turning it over 15 times in this 67 possession game for a 22% rate. Sharaud Curry was the biggest instigator, coughing it up 6 times in 34 minutes of play.
Obviously, the turnovers were somewhat of a moot point as West Virginia shot the lights out, hitting 54.8% of their 31 attempted three's on the way to a 64.8% efg shooting average and 92 points in the average-paced game. They also took care of the ball, only giving it up 8 times during the game.

The Mountaineers poured in an astounding 1.37 points-per-possession vs. the Friars highly respectable 1.18 ppp.

Providence's post-season journey now resides in the NIT. West Virginia probably still will need a victory over Louisville to bump back into the picture.

MWC 2007 Tempo Free Stats

Mountain West!!

Final 2007 Tempo Free Stats

I finally was able to work with the data on this one.

Yes, I was just as amazed as you probably were to see how "poorly" (all-relative) Air Force shot in-conference compared to their early season run of incredible shooting. I double checked the numbers just to make sure. If you want to check it out, see the conference numbers.


For a great stats/links database, check out this site




Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Wyoming	69.2
2. San Diego State	69.1
3. TCU	67.6
4. New Mexico	67.5
5. Colorado State	67.5
6. BYU	66.5
7. UNLV	66.4
8. Utah	65.4
9. Air Force	59.3

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. BYU	1.18
2. UNLV	1.09
3. Utah	1.07
4. Air Force	1.07
5. New Mexico	1.06
6. Colorado State	1.05
7. Wyoming	1.02
8. San Diego State	0.99
9. TCU	0.93

Effective FG %

1. BYU	59%
2. Colorado State	55%
3. Utah	54.8%
4. Air Force	53.5%
5. New Mexico	52.3%
6. UNLV	50.4%
7. Wyoming	49.2%
8. San Diego State	48.1%
9. TCU	46.8%

2-pt Shooting %

1. BYU	54.4%
2. Colorado State	54.1%
3. Air Force	52.5%
4. Wyoming	51.9%
5. Utah	51.4%
6. San Diego State	49.4%
7. UNLV	48.1%
8. New Mexico	48.1%
9. TCU	44.4%

3-pt Shooting %

1. BYU	45.7%
2. Utah	40.7%
3. New Mexico	38.9%
4. Colorado State	38.1%
5. UNLV	36.6%
6. Air Force	36.4%
7. TCU	34.4%
8. San Diego State	29.8%
9. Wyoming	28.9%

Turnover %

1. UNLV	17.2%
2. New Mexico	17.2%
3. Air Force	17.7%
4. San Diego State	18.8%
5. BYU	18.9%
6. Wyoming	19.9%
7. Utah	22.8%
8. TCU	23.9%
9. Colorado State	25.2%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. UNLV	32.8%
2. Colorado State	32.6%
3. BYU	32.2%
4. TCU	30.3%
5. San Diego State	28.8%
6. Utah	27.7%
7. New Mexico	27.1%
8. Wyoming	25.7%
9. Air Force	20.7%

Efficiency Margin

1. BYU	0.14
2. Air Force	0.1
3. UNLV	0.05
4. San Diego State	0.05
5. Colorado State	-0.01
6. Wyoming	-0.05
7. New Mexico	-0.06
8. Utah	-0.09
9. TCU	-0.12

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. San Diego State	0.95
2. Air Force	0.97
3. BYU	1.03
4. UNLV	1.04
5. TCU	1.05
6. Colorado State	1.06
7. Wyoming	1.08
8. New Mexico	1.13
9. Utah	1.15

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. San Diego State	49%
2. UNLV	49.6%
3. BYU	49.9%
4. Wyoming	50.3%
5. Air Force	50.3%
6. Colorado State	51%
7. TCU	53.9%
8. New Mexico	56.7%
9. Utah	58.4%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. UNLV	45.8%
2. Colorado State	47.3%
3. San Diego State	48.3%
4. Wyoming	50.2%
5. BYU	50.5%
6. Air Force	51.7%
7. TCU	51.8%
8. Utah	52.8%
9. New Mexico	56.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Air Force	31.9%
2. BYU	32.3%
3. San Diego State	33.4%
4. Wyoming	33.7%
5. UNLV	37.7%
6. New Mexico	38%
7. TCU	38.3%
8. Colorado State	38.8%
9. Utah	45.6%

Turnover % Forced

1. Air Force	24.1%
2. San Diego State	23%
3. TCU	22.7%
4. UNLV	21%
5. New Mexico	20.6%
6. BYU	18.6%
7. Colorado State	18.2%
8. Wyoming	17.4%
9. Utah	16.8%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Utah	81.3%
2. Colorado State	78.3%
3. BYU	77.9%
4. Wyoming	76.5%
5. TCU	75.3%
6. Air Force	74.9%
7. New Mexico	74.6%
8. San Diego State	72.3%
9. UNLV	71%

All Stats Final

Pac-10 has finally been updated on their site. Their stats are now final along with the Big 12 courtesy of Okie St. and Nebraska finishing up on Monday.

Eric Maynor, MVP for a night

Talk about a guy just taking over a game for his team, Eric Maynor's last 2 minutes are right up there with the Reggie Miller's 1995 Eastern Conference semifinals 8 points in 8.9 second splurge.

Hopefully you caught it last night. The two steals, the and-1's, the clutch free throws. 9 straight points from the veteran guard to lead the team from a 5 point deficit in the last 2 minutes.

Played before the first sell-out crowd in CAA tourney history, this was a classic Monday night match-up.

The week is just getting warmed up....

Who's Busting Who??

As we get set for some major-conference tourney action, there's always the possibility of some meddling sub-par or below-bubble major to make a run and steal a bid from the Missouri St. and Drexel's of the world. Here's just a few snapshots of some teams that much like Michigan St, could greatly benefit from fixing just one or two glaring weaknesses in time for this weekend's slate of games.

Big East
Providence - Currently turning the ball over 24.1% of the time but they are shooting well (51.6 efg%) and aren't bad, just merely average on defense (1.02 ppp allowed). If they could bring their turnover rate down to average (20.4%) levels, they would be averaging 1.10 ppp vs. their current 1.03. Watch if Geoff McDermoott and Sharaud Curry can limit their give-aways. The road begins with an overrated Mountaineers squad, and then a hot-but-vulnerable Louisville team.

Big 12
Missouri - Overall, Mike Anderson's defense isn't all that bad, his team is just giving up far too many second chance points, allowing over 30% offensive rebounding for their opponents. They force a good number of turnovers (22.8%) and keep their opponents under 47% from 2-pt, but give up 38% on 3's. They shoot well (51.3% efg) and also hold onto the ball (19.1% to rate). Locking down the defensive boards could be a key that helps this young, undersized team make a run. A match-up against a hobbled-Durant can only help the cause.

ACC
Florida St - This team "might" be in, depending on who you ask. Of course, making a nice run in the toughest of tough ACC tourney-fields would help boost their chances on Sunday. Where can they improve? Their solid offense (1.10 ppp, 52.4% efg, 19.6% turnover-rate) is offset severely by a lack of defense (1.09 ppp allowed, 53% efg and only 19.5% turnover rate forced). This team can shoot the three (40% in-conference) and are also a great free-throw shooting team (5th best in the nation), two elements that are key come tourney time. Probably too late in the season to drastically improve your defense, but with 3-pt shooting like that, they might as well increase their 3-pt shot frequency from their current rate of 1 out of ever 3 shots. Maybe not Princeton levels, but closer. A tough draw in the tourney may be a blessing in disguise.

SEC
Arkansas - The hogs are in a similar spot as Providence, as they are a solid shooting team (52.1% efg) but just cough up far too many turnovers (23.2% of possessions). Their defense is actually better than average at .99 points-per-possession allowed and they hold opponents to under 46% efg shooting. This team, like the Seminoles, is probably looking in from the outside at the moment as far as NCAA position goes, but a strong run to the finals could pop them back in, and leave some other noteworthy teams out. Limit the bloodbath of turnovers (I'm looking at you Gary Ervin and Sonny Weems), and they may have a shot at making a run. Dropping the turnover rate to a respectable number of 19.9%, and their offensive efficiency rises from 1.01 to 1.05 points-per-possession. I think they will gladly take those three points in what should be a easier-than-expected draw to the finals.

Pac10
Washington - A team that most pundits have labeled as a "bubble-bursting" Pac10 tourney team, this collection of young athletic folk could very easily piece it all together and make a run to the final. They rebound the heck out of the ball on the offensive end (36.1% rate, also 2nd nationally at 42.1%) and they only allow their opponents to get a measly 21.3% of their misses back. But, they're allowing 55% efg shooting and almost 1.10 points a possession on defense. Can the average (50.4% efg) shooting improve and can they clamp down on their opponents shots? Tune in on Wednesday to find out. They probably have the *easiest road to the finals of the 1st round Pac10 teams.

*all relative!! East-coast bias shmias.

Final stats are concluded

Well, besides the snow-ravaged Big 12 finishing up tonight.
Conference tourney outlooks will be posted tonight.

JB, shoot an email over.

Quick update...

Conference USA 2006 and 2007 season stats now up!
I've been a little pre-occupied with other dealings. Some more regular posting besides updating the stats will commence hopefully by the end of the week.

Championship weeks, you are upon us!!


***Note, for whatever reason, the MVC site does not provide 2006 season stats. I again, apologize for the inconvenience.

Number 1 vs. Number 1....and the Time-Space Vortex has Collapsed!!

	UW	OSU
PPP	.813	.83
EFG %	39.5%	46.7%
TO %	19%	20%
OREB %	34%	18%
2-PT %	37.5%	48.4%
3-PT %	29.4%	28.6%

I'll simply throw up the numbers. Good defense, bad offense or two teams that just know each other too well? You decide.
A nice and easy 59 possession game in Columbus.

Some Corn, Wheat and Water for Your Thursday Night

Sorry, was out of town for a few days, so I will try to catch up on my promise. Final two conferences will be tomorrow hopefully.

(You like that quick 2 second stat posted during the MSU-Wisconsin game? Sometime after the Spartans had spent about a 1:30 period rebounding their 6 misses, they threw up a "41.5% offensive rebounding percentage was 5th best in the nation by MSU" stat. Tack another one up on the tempo-free world)


BIG 12

The Great:
Kansas - Every has lauded (including here) Texas A&M's stout defense, however it's the Jayhawks that have actually produced the better overall numbers, coming on as of the last half-dozen games. .87 points-per-possession allowed is a full 2.2 standard deviations less than the league average of 1.03. (Side note: they're shooting 53.9% from inside the arc, 1.9 stdev's better than the average)

The Ugly:
Colorado - Almost as bad as MSU in league play, the Buffs are turning it over on 25.2% of their possessions, or a full 2.3 stdevs above the average of 20.3%.

Nebraska - While shooting about around the average at 49.5%, they are only hauling in a league-worst 18.5% of their misses, compared to a league average of 30.2%. That amounts to a full 2.5 stdevs off of the mean. Offensive boards? We hardly knew thee.




MVC
Smaller league, less deviations from a mean. Still some interesting notes:

The Great:
Southern Illinois - Much like Kansas, the pride and joy of their league in terms of defensive prowess. Currently, they're sitting at .93 ppp, a full 1.94 stdev's below the 1.05 average. Oh they're also forcing a league-best 23.9% turnover rate, also 1.93 stdev's above the 20% average.

The Ugly:
Drake - Worst defense in the conference is giving up 58% efg against a league average of 52%, 2.14 stdev's above. That's built on a 43.2% 3-pt shooting defense that is 2.44 stdev's above the average of 37%. Better luck by their opponents or a weak perimeter presence?

Indiana St - Take your pick in this offensive-devoid metropolis of poor shooting. .94 points-scored per possession is 2.2 stdev's below the league average of 1.05. 41.7% 2-pt shooting is 2.34 stdev's worse on their way to posting 44.9% efg shooting against a conference average of 52%. That win against Butler feels like it was eons ago.



(Not to degrade any one team... I shouldn't talk as my alma mater is the worst in it's league in just about every known stat. NIT in 2015 baby! Some interesting far extremes nonetheless...)

Who Wants to Be Normal Anyway??

Let's take a look at the aberrations of the "other" 6 leagues. I say other, because the Wonk has illuminated upon the 3 most far-from-normal stats in the Big Ten already.

Why should only the Big 10 get the glory of praising (or humiliating) the utmost best and worst of various statistical abnormalities in their league. On to torch the *rest of the nation!!!



* Rest involves 2 conferences today. 2 more on Wednesday and the final 2 on Thursday. Yes, I apologize, they are the "major" conferences only...



ACC

The Good:
Clemson - Well, when you press, you're bound to get some turnovers, right? 25.6% forced turnover rate is 2.02 standard deviations (stdev) above the average of 20.4%

The Ugly:
Wake Forest - .96 points-per-possession on offense. League average 1.1. Ouch, yes, ouch. (2.1 stdev below)

Miami - Not only do they shoot poorly (46.1 efg%, 2.08 stdev below the 51% avg), but they are "giving" up 41.5% 3 pt shooting. (An awful 2.22 stdev above the average of 35.1%)

The Indifferent:
UNC - 75 possessions per game. League average 68.6. They run. Yes, they run (2.08 stdev above that)


Big East
Larger sample set, means more extremes from the mean

The Good:
Georgetown - Case in point. The most efficient offense in America is indeed 2.49 stdev above the Big East average of 1.02 points-per-possession and are 2.43 stdev better than the 48.9 efg% in conference play, at 1.19 ppp and 60.2% efg!!

Villanova - 19.5% offensive rebounding allowed is a full 3.05 stdev below the average of 28.3% allowed. No one particularly stands out besides Sumpter's 19% defensive board rate that he halls in himself. Balanced out-stretched arms on this team...

The Ugly:
Cincinnati: - Allowing a monstrous 44% 3 pt shooting percentage which is 2.44 stdev above the 34.1% average on their way to allowing 58% efg and 1.13 ppp defensively. It's a cold, dark lonely basement down there....

Small update...

2006 stats also up for SEC and Big East. Never fear MVC, you are next....

Bubble? What Bubble?

Un-pseudo-related to tempo-free musings, I'd just like to share some brief thoughts on bubbles, the media and the fans that put them there.

Every year, as the season winds down, there are always a slew of teams that have been moderately holding around that off the bubble on the bubble position. Mostly because they've won enough games, regardless of the competition or because they chalked up some "wins" early on, that really shouldn't be valued as heavily (i.e. anyone using LSU as a big win).

Then what happens? Well, some of those teams get a "huge" win, and all of the previous flaws are forgotten, and they're immediately locked into NCAA stature. Be wary of these teams, and question always, the true merits of why they're being placed in the way that they are:

West Virginia:

Record: 19-6
RPI: 49
SOS: 115
Vs. RPI 1-25: 2-2
RPI 26-50: 0-3
"Big" (I'm using this term loosely) wins: Villanova, UCLA

Recap: A team that shouldn't have been considered above a slew of other teams gets a home win against a team missing one of it's best players, and immediately, this team is "safe" and has it's "big" win to secure a birth? Show me at least one good road win and I'd reconsider.

Texas:

Record: 19-7
RPI: 46
SOS: 91
Vs. RPI 1-25: 0-3
RPI 26-50: 3-3
"Big" wins: @ Texas Tech, Arkansas, Oklahoma St (who probably couldn't win at Iona)

Recap: Let's not talk about what Durant is doing for Texas on the court, how about what he's doing off the court, as in single handily securing a bid (or higher than deserved seed) simply by his name alone. In the mock Selection Sunday put on by the national writers, Texas apparently was discussed as "a team with great potential":

From Andy Katz's blog:
"If Texas were to be close to making the field, I'm convinced the Longhorns would get in based on their ability to win games, the overall youthful talent on the team led by Kevin Durant and D.J. Augustin, and a desire to see this team entertain. Remember, the chore is to put together the 34 best at-large teams to make a competitive field. Texas has been one of the most competitive teams in the country this season, playing overtime games and late-possession games constantly.
So, when it came time to vote, I had no issue making a plea to our group that Texas would make it a better field. The reality is that I didn't care what the Longhorns' RPI was, nor did I check it, because I know Texas would be a tough team to face for anyone in the bracket. Once again, there's nothing wrong with that logic to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if Texas is discussed in that manner next month."

Well, if that's the case, VMI should be in because I know they'll be a tough team for anybody to run with. Always value Katz's opinions, I just cringe however when profiles, results and the like are thrown out in favor of "gut feelings"

I don't doubt that they'll be in this year, but let's not base it on karma, competitiveness, or the fact that they're 9-3 in conference.



Louisville:

Record: 18-8
RPI: 52
SOS: 41
Vs. RPI 1-25: 1-4
RPI 26-50: 1-2
"Big" wins: well, the obvious two this week. Huge no less, but that's it, nothing more.

Now, is that the profile of a 9/10/11 seed? Perhaps. Heck, Butler has been riding their 3 wins all season long from the comfortable perch of a protected seed. Such a soft bubble this year.... but let's not heap the praise on, bump them up to a 7 all of a sudden and just forget the previous 24 games even happened, especially since they could easily close out the final 3 with wins (St. John's, @ uconn, Seton Hall).



Just three listed here, obviously there's a few others. Feel free to put in your two cents.

I will now return to my little bubble of tempo-free silliness.

Fran Fraschilla, an MLK Jr. for the Tempo-free faithful

Former coach and ESPN college basketball analyst Fran Fraschilla has often been pushing the tempo-free stats ware this season. He'll often give shout outs to Kenpom.com as a trusty stats reference site.
In the "Power Poll 16" for this week, he even threw out a "Georgetown has the most efficient offense in the country, shooting over 60 percent inside the arc and rebounding offensive misses at a 41 percent rate, the seventh highest in the country."

Offensive rebounding rate?? That's what we like to see!

Been a little hectic, so I'll get the updated conference stats up today. Sorry for the delay.

Some teams need some "Roger Federer Advice"

Getting back to my old way of posting (pulling stats out of the air, coming up with convoluted ideas, tempo free stats here, tempo free stats there, etc...)

Some highlight games of last night (home teams? where are you? Hold serve!!!!):


Virginia Tech 81 UNC 80

Yeah, the score was in the 80's but both teams threw up some duds, tempo-free-wise in the Hokies big big upset in Chapel Hill in this 81 possession game. Both teams were pretty much even on the stat sheet, with each posting a 42% efg, a low 12% (vt) and 11% (unc) turnover rate and in the low 30's% in offensive rebounding on the way to averaging 1.00 points-per-possession for vtech and .989 for unc, far below their averages of 1.09 and 1.13 respectively. Zabian Dowdell lead the way with 19 free-throw attempts, 17 of them made and 33 points total for a 1.37 points-per-weighted-shot average. UNC pulled their shooting percentage down with a 3 for 17 brick fest from beyond the arc.


Texas Tech 77 Texas A & M 75

You can see the difference in efficiency between this game and the UNC game, as this one clipped at a much slower 68 possession pace, but both teams almost hit 80 points as Tech averaged 1.13 ppp and A&M was at 1.10 even though turnovers were high (26% vs. 24% for a&m). They both shot well, 57% for the winners and 56% efg for the home team and were fairly in every stat as well, but it was the work of Jarrius Jackson, not just with his buzzer-beater but the total body of work: He hoisted 37% of Tech's shots, but he was making 1.39 points-per-weighted shot on his way to 31 points. The Raiders normal struggle on the offensive glass were non-existent as they hauled in 41% of their available misses, compared to a low 28.3% average they've had in-conference.


Southern Illinois 51 Missouri St. 47

The Salukis further solidified their position as king of the MVC with this "ugly" but complete win away from Carbondale. This 64 possession game, (faster than S. Illinois' usual pace of 60) saw some poor shooting (37% for the Salukis, 43% for the Bears) and an overall low scoring efficiency (.8 ppp for the winners vs. .74 ppp). Randal Falkner lead the way with 20 points on 11 shots, grabbing 12 total boards in a game that definitely lacking in second-chance opportunities (20% offensive rebounding vs. 22%).
Big win nonetheless for the boys from Carbondale.

Kentucky 85 Tennessee 89

In a night when the home teams were dropping their serves, the Vols managed to hold off a pesky Kentucky team behind some effectively efficient offensive displayage. This 74 possession game saw a total of 174 points, with Tennessee hitting 56% efg vs. Kentucky's 64%. However, it was the Vols' care taking of the ball (only 8 turnovers in the game vs. 19 for the 'Cats) that was the difference-maker as they also didn't rebound all that well on the offensive glass (29% vs. 42%), which has been the norm for the Vols.

2006 Tempo Free Stats Coming...

I'm pulling together the 2006 Tempo Free Stats for as many conferences as I can so that you can compare and bemoan the accession or decline of your particular team.
The menu on the right will keep them listed as they're added.

Quick recap of what's going on here

Big South Tempo Free Stats

CAA got up here first, but this was right behind...

Winthrop, as expected, is the dominator of the league on paper as well. Of course, I've always been intrigued by VMI's pace of play.

Final 2007 Big South Tempo Free Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. VMI	95.9
2. Liberty	73.9
3. High Point	73.6
4. Radford	73.6
5. UNC Asheville	70.8
6. Coastal Carolina	70.2
7. Charleston Southern	69.4
8. Winthrop	68.6

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Winthrop	1.12
2. Liberty	1.08
3. High Point	1.08
4. Coastal Carolina	1.07
5. VMI	1.06
6. UNC Asheville	1
7. Radford	0.96
8. Charleston Southern	0.95

Effective FG %

1. Winthrop	57.3%
2. Liberty	55.2%
3. High Point	53.7%
4. Coastal Carolina	51.8%
5. VMI	51.1%
6. UNC Asheville	50.4%
7. Charleston Southern	48.9%
8. Radford	48%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Winthrop	58.4%
2. Liberty	56.1%
3. VMI	55.9%
4. High Point	54%
5. Coastal Carolina	51.6%
6. Charleston Southern	49.3%
7. UNC Asheville	48.8%
8. Radford	48.6%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Winthrop	36.8%
2. UNC Asheville	36.2%
3. High Point	35.4%
4. Coastal Carolina	34.8%
5. Liberty	34.6%
6. Charleston Southern	32%
7. Radford	30.8%
8. VMI	30.7%

Turnover %

1. VMI	17.1%
2. Winthrop	20.1%
3. High Point	20.5%
4. Coastal Carolina	20.9%
5. UNC Asheville	22.7%
6. Liberty	23.1%
7. Radford	23.8%
8. Charleston Southern	24.5%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Coastal Carolina	35.2%
2. Winthrop	32.1%
3. Radford	31.7%
4. UNC Asheville	31.2%
5. Liberty	31%
6. High Point	30.2%
7. Charleston Southern	29.2%
8. VMI	26.7%

Efficiency Margin

1. Winthrop	0.22
2. High Point	0.09
3. Liberty	0.04
4. Coastal Carolina	0.01
5. VMI	-0.03
6. UNC Asheville	-0.05
7. Radford	-0.11
8. Charleston Southern	-0.16

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Winthrop	0.9
2. High Point	1
3. Liberty	1.04
4. UNC Asheville	1.05
5. Coastal Carolina	1.06
6. Radford	1.07
7. VMI	1.09
8. Charleston Southern	1.11

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Winthrop	45.7%
2. High Point	47%
3. UNC Asheville	49.7%
4. Liberty	51%
5. Radford	53.6%
6. Coastal Carolina	53.7%
7. Charleston Southern	55.6%
8. VMI	58.1%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

	44.3%
2. High Point	49.4%
3. Liberty	51%
4. UNC Asheville	51.6%
5. Coastal Carolina	54.3%
6. Radford	54.5%
7. Charleston Southern	54.5%
8. VMI	59.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. High Point	28.1%
2. UNC Asheville	30.7%
	32.2%
4. Liberty	34%
5. Radford	34.6%
6. Coastal Carolina	35%
7. VMI	35.3%
8. Charleston Southern	38.3%

Turnover % Forced

1. VMI	26.3%
2. Coastal Carolina	22.4%
3. Radford	21.6%
4. Winthrop	20.7%
5. High Point	19.9%
6. UNC Asheville	19.9%
7. Liberty	19.4%
8. Charleston Southern	19.3%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Winthrop	83.1%
2. Liberty	80.4%
3. Radford	75.7%
4. UNC Asheville	73.6%
5. Charleston Southern	73.5%
6. High Point	72%
7. Coastal Carolina	69.4%
8. VMI	65.1%

CAA Tempo Free Stats

For a good CAA blog, check out this

Final 2007 Stats


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Old Dominion	66.4
2. Towson	64.5
3. VCU	64.1
4. Hofstra	63.9
5. Delaware	63.5
6. UNC Wilmington	63.1
7. Northeastern	63
8. Georgia State	63
9. Drexel	62.8
10. William Mary	62.5
11. James Madison	62
12. George Mason	60.8

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. VCU	1.2
2. Hofstra	1.14
3. Old Dominion	1.1
4. Towson	1.07
5. Drexel	1.03
6. George Mason	1.03
7. Northeastern	1.02
8. William Mary	1.01
9. James Madison	0.98
10. Georgia State	0.97
11. UNC Wilmington	0.96
12. Delaware	0.95

Effective FG %

1. VCU	54.1%
2. Hofstra	53.1%
3. Towson	52.2%
4. George Mason	51.3%
5. Old Dominion	50.6%
6. Northeastern	50.5%
7. William Mary	50.2%
8. Georgia State	49.4%
9. Drexel	49.3%
10. James Madison	48%
11. Delaware	47.3%
12. UNC Wilmington	47%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Towson	54.9%
2. William Mary	51.5%
3. George Mason	51.5%
4. Old Dominion	49.2%
5. Hofstra	49%
6. VCU	48.9%
7. Drexel	48.6%
8. James Madison	48.5%
9. Georgia State	47%
10. UNC Wilmington	46.9%
11. Delaware	45.9%
12. Northeastern	45.1%

3-pt Shooting %

1. VCU	43.5%
2. Hofstra	41.1%
3. Northeastern	39.3%
4. Georgia State	36.6%
5. Old Dominion	35.5%
6. Drexel	33.9%
7. George Mason	33.8%
8. Delaware	33%
9. William Mary	32.4%
10. UNC Wilmington	31.5%
11. James Madison	31.4%
12. Towson	31.3%

Turnover %

1. Hofstra	15.6%
2. VCU	15.9%
3. Old Dominion	17.5%
4. Towson	17.8%
5. Northeastern	18.8%
6. George Mason	18.9%
7. Drexel	19.7%
8. Delaware	20%
9. William Mary	20.3%
10. James Madison	21.9%
11. UNC Wilmington	22.2%
12. Georgia State	23.1%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. VCU	32.6%
2. Old Dominion	30.7%
3. James Madison	30.6%
4. UNC Wilmington	30.2%
5. George Mason	30.1%
6. Georgia State	29.6%
7. Hofstra	29.3%
8. Drexel	28.4%
9. William Mary	26.7%
10. Towson	26.5%
11. Northeastern	24.5%
12. Delaware	20.9%

Efficiency Margin

1. Old Dominion	0.17
2. VCU	0.15
3. Hofstra	0.09
4. Drexel	0.08
5. George Mason	0.08
6. Towson	0.02
7. Northeastern	-0.02
8. William Mary	-0.04
9. UNC Wilmington	-0.1
10. Georgia State	-0.12
11. James Madison	-0.13
12. Delaware	-0.19

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Old Dominion	0.93
2. Drexel	0.95
3. George Mason	0.95
4. Northeastern	1.04
5. VCU	1.05
6. Hofstra	1.05
7. William Mary	1.05
8. Towson	1.06
9. UNC Wilmington	1.06
10. Georgia State	1.09
11. James Madison	1.12
12. Delaware	1.14

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Old Dominion	44.5%
2. Drexel	45.4%
3. George Mason	46.7%
4. Hofstra	48.2%
5. Northeastern	50.1%
6. UNC Wilmington	50.1%
7. Towson	50.9%
8. William Mary	51.2%
9. Georgia State	51.9%
10. VCU	52.1%
11. Delaware	55.7%
12. James Madison	57.9%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Old Dominion	41.4%
2. Drexel	42.8%
3. George Mason	44.8%
4. Hofstra	48.3%
5. Northeastern	49.9%
6. VCU	50.2%
7. Towson	50.5%
8. UNC Wilmington	50.5%
9. William Mary	50.6%
10. Georgia State	51.4%
11. James Madison	54.4%
12. Delaware	54.8%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Hofstra	32.1%
2. UNC Wilmington	32.9%
3. George Mason	33.1%
4. Northeastern	33.7%
5. Old Dominion	33.8%
6. Towson	34.4%
7. Drexel	34.6%
8. William Mary	34.8%
9. Georgia State	35.3%
10. VCU	37.2%
11. Delaware	38.4%
12. James Madison	41.8%

Turnover % Forced

1. VCU	21.9%
2. Old Dominion	21.9%
3. Drexel	21.2%
4. James Madison	20.9%
5. George Mason	19.7%
6. Towson	19.1%
7. William Mary	18.9%
8. Northeastern	18.8%
9. Georgia State	17.6%
10. Hofstra	17.5%
11. Delaware	17.2%
12. UNC Wilmington	16.6%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. UNC Wilmington	82.6%
2. Old Dominion	78.8%
3. Towson	77.5%
4. VCU	76.6%
5. William Mary	76.4%
6. James Madison	76.3%
7. Drexel	75.6%
8. George Mason	75.6%
9. Delaware	75.3%
10. Hofstra	75%
11. Northeastern	72.6%
12. Georgia State	71.1%

Beer Pong = Good for your health

Somewhat unrelated-related to the fine state of Basketball, I stumbled upon this from the NC State blogger. For any of you that took part in some version of beer pong during college (99% efg probably), and you're still alive, your immune system is probably capable of handling anything short of the Bubonic plague. And to think, I thought the game was so clean with those cups of anti-bacterial healing water??

Stats will be updated tonight following the games.

Welcome Wonk readers! Questions or thoughts about the conference stats, email me.

Thoughts, Revelations or General Misunderstandings...

Been a little busy lately (why can't this just be a full-time job), but I've got all of the conference stats updated through yesterday's games.

Some interesting tidbits that pop out of the pages:

Big East
Georgetown is better than we all think, and is far and away the most efficient offense in the Big East. Yes they sit in the middle of the pack in total points scored per game, but they only run at 57 possessions a game. 1.19 points-per-possession is .08 points better than the next best team. Their incredible shooting (61.8% efg) is overcoming their less-than-great turnover percentage of 23.9%.

ACC
UNC a brutal force on the defensive end??? Whoda thunk?? The Tar Heels boast a .89 ppp allowed on defense, .05 points better than Duke's "vaunted" D. Numbers that great explain the .22 efficiency margin that they are currently posting. Oh, they're also clipping at a 76.3 possession per game pace. What I would pay to see a match up between UNC and Air Force.


Big 12
Kansas St's surprising (or not if you're a Bob Huggins believer) rise this season has been with a strange collection of stats. They are currently last in 2-pt shooting (an awful 41.9%) but they're rebounding a good portion of their misses (1st in the league at 37.1%). Their D is average (allowing 1.01 ppp) but they've had the benefit of a vile display of shooting from their opponents, as they are only "giving up" 27.7% 3-pt shooting.


SEC
It's common knowledge that Florida is steps ahead of the rest of the jumbled SEC. Heck they're shooting 47.6% from beyond the arc. Next best is Vandy at 39.9%. They're also only giving up 46.2% efg on their way to a "best-in-what-stats-I-post" .23 efficiency margin. And the Tigers? Stuck at the bottom of the offensive efficiency rung at only .95 points a possession scored. NIT is a long way to fall.


MVC
Ahh, the nice medium paced MVC, a spokes-conference for parity! All of the teams range from -.1 to .12 in efficiency margin for a .22 ppp range total. Compare that to .4 in ACC, .34 in the Big East and Big 12, .41 in the Pac 10, .43 in the SEC and .43 Big Ten!! Truly an all out bloodbath-winner-takes-all conference with the Salukis somehow on top despite not being terribly efficient on the offensive end. Their Defense butters their bread with their opponents slowed to a 59.9 possession per game average and only .96 points scored on each of those few and far between possessions. If an opponent has a possession, they're turning the ball back over a league-leading 24.1% of the time.


Pac10
Arizona is still a scary team come Pac10 tourney time as their offense (save for the UNC disaster) can score at will in their horse race of a game. Washington St. of course is holding on to the ball like it's their youngest child, only giving up 13.6% of their possessions to turnovers. UCLA as expected is solid on both sides, shooting well and not giving up much either (3rd in the league in both Efg %)


Big Ten
On to the Wonk!!

Conference USA Tempo Free Stats

Stats through 2/25/07


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. UTEP	73
2. Tulane	70.5
3. Memphis	68.4
4. Houston	67.6
5. Southern Miss	67.5
6. Marshall	67.3
7. Rice	66.6
8. Tulsa	66.2
9. UAB	64.1
10. East Carolina	64
11. UCF	63.4
12. SMU	63.3

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Memphis	1.15
2. Houston	1.06
3. UCF	1.05
4. Rice	1.02
5. Tulane	1.01
6. UTEP	0.99
7. Southern Miss	0.98
8. UAB	0.97
9. Tulsa	0.96
10. SMU	0.93
11. Marshall	0.92
12. East Carolina	0.85

Effective FG %

1. Memphis	53.2%
2. UCF	51%
3. Rice	50.3%
4. Tulane	49.5%
5. Houston	49%
6. UAB	47.3%
7. SMU	46.4%
8. UTEP	46.1%
9. Southern Miss	45.1%
10. Tulsa	44.3%
11. East Carolina	43.3%
12. Marshall	42%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Memphis	51%
2. UAB	49.8%
3. UCF	49.4%
4. Rice	48.2%
5. Houston	47.8%
6. Tulane	47.2%
7. UTEP	44.2%
8. Southern Miss	43.4%
9. SMU	42.9%
10. Marshall	41.8%
11. East Carolina	40.2%
12. Tulsa	39.8%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Memphis	38.2%
2. Tulane	37.9%
3. Rice	36.9%
4. UCF	35.8%
5. Tulsa	35%
6. SMU	34.1%
7. Southern Miss	33.5%
8. Houston	33.4%
9. UTEP	33.3%
10. East Carolina	32.2%
11. UAB	29.3%
12. Marshall	28.2%

Turnover %

1. Houston	16.8%
2. Memphis	17.3%
3. UAB	19.9%
4. UTEP	20%
5. Rice	20.3%
6. Southern Miss	21.1%
7. Tulane	22.5%
8. UCF	22.7%
9. East Carolina	23.2%
10. Marshall	23.5%
11. Tulsa	23.5%
12. SMU	25.2%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Marshall	36.1%
2. Memphis	35.3%
3. Tulsa	32%
4. Southern Miss	31.9%
5. UCF	31.3%
6. SMU	30.8%
7. UAB	29.6%
8. UTEP	29.6%
9. Tulane	28.9%
10. Houston	26.7%
11. Rice	26.5%
12. East Carolina	25.9%

Efficiency Margin

1. Memphis	0.29
2. Houston	0.06
3. UCF	0.04
4. UTEP	0.02
5. Tulane	0.02
6. UAB	0
7. Southern Miss	0
8. Tulsa	-0.01
9. Rice	-0.02
10. Marshall	-0.08
11. SMU	-0.11
12. East Carolina	-0.23

Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Memphis	0.85
2. UTEP	0.96
3. UAB	0.97
4. Tulsa	0.97
5. Southern Miss	0.98
6. Marshall	0.99
7. Tulane	0.99
8. Houston	1
9. UCF	1.01
10. SMU	1.04
11. Rice	1.05
12. East Carolina	1.08

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Memphis	42.2%
2. Tulane	44%
3. Tulsa	44.5%
4. UAB	44.7%
5. Marshall	45.7%
6. UCF	47%
7. Southern Miss	47.2%
8. UTEP	48.1%
9. East Carolina	50.3%
10. Houston	51.3%
11. Rice	51.6%
12. SMU	52%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Tulsa	40.6%
2. Tulane	41.3%
3. Memphis	41.5%
4. UAB	43.7%
5. Southern Miss	44.3%
6. Marshall	44.5%
7. UTEP	45.4%
8. UCF	46.2%
9. Houston	48.8%
10. East Carolina	49.8%
11. Rice	50.1%
12. SMU	52.6%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Memphis	29.1%
2. UAB	30.8%
3. Marshall	31.8%
4. UCF	32.3%
5. SMU	34%
6. Tulane	34.1%
7. East Carolina	34.1%
8. Southern Miss	34.8%
9. UTEP	35.4%
10. Rice	35.9%
11. Tulsa	36%
12. Houston	37.1%

Turnover % Forced

1. Memphis	25.4%
2. Houston	24.9%
3. UTEP	24.6%
4. Rice	22.3%
5. UCF	20.9%
6. Southern Miss	20.5%
7. Marshall	20.1%
8. East Carolina	19.7%
9. UAB	19.6%
10. SMU	19.6%
11. Tulsa	19%
12. Tulane	18.5%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Southern Miss	79.5%
2. Tulsa	78.6%
3. UTEP	76%
4. Houston	75.8%
5. Tulane	75.8%
6. East Carolina	74.9%
7. SMU	74.1%
8. Rice	73.6%
9. Memphis	72.6%
10. Marshall	71.7%
11. UAB	71%
12. UCF	69.1%