Jan 31, 2007

2006 Tempo Free Stats

All 2006 Tempo-free stats in one convenient aisle:

SEC 2006

ACC 2006

Conference USA 2006

Pac 10 2006

Big East 2006

Big 12 2006

Pace, Tempo and the Cooks that Make It

Over at BigTen Wonk, Mr. Gasaway provided a humorous look at the Big Ten's sluggish pace thus far. As he pointed out here, he's as big of a fan of varying styles as the next guy.

But, in his defense in backing up his response to an email inquiry regarding what is a "good" collection of tempos in-conference, the Big Ten lags far behind in not just pace, but variance between the teams' tempos.

As a hometown fan of the Big Ten, I will stand up for it anytime, but it's interesting to see the big gaps between the major (hello MVC!) conferences:


Average Pace (possessions per 40 minutes)

ACC69.8
SEC67.6
Big 1267.3
Big East65.9
Pac 1064.3
MVC63.8
Big 1060.9


Standard Deviation of Pace

Big East4.3
Big 124.2
ACC3.4
Pac 103.2
SEC2.8
MVC2.2
Big 101.9


Of course, with a smaller sample size (11 teams vs. some of the larger leagues), your standard deviation will be slightly smaller. But just take a look at The Big Ten and compare the teams to the other conferences to see the noticable difference.
(Take Northwestern out of the picture and the average rises to 61.5 but the standard deviation is a miniscule .5)

Big East Tempo Free Stats

The Goliath-sized Big East finally has been posted! Onward to Tempo Free Utopia!!!!

Final 2007 Season Tempo Free Stats


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Syracuse70.3
2. Providence69.7
3. Notre Dame69.3
4. Seton Hall69.1
5. Marquette67.4
6. Connecticut67.1
7. USF65.8
8. St. John's65.2
9. Villanova65
10. Louisville64.2
11. West Virginia64.2
12. Cincinnati63.2
13. DePaul62.9
14. Pittsburgh62.1
15. Rutgers61
16. Georgetown59.5


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Georgetown1.14
2. Louisville1.09
3. Notre Dame1.08
4. West Virginia1.08
5. Pittsburgh1.08
6. Villanova1.06
7. Marquette1.04
8. Providence1.03
9. Syracuse1.02
10. Seton Hall1
11. Cincinnati0.98
12. DePaul0.98
13. Connecticut0.95
14. St. John's0.95
15. USF0.93
16. Rutgers0.93


Effective FG %

1. Georgetown56.9%
2. West Virginia53.8%
3. Pittsburgh52.3%
4. Providence51.6%
5. Notre Dame50.8%
6. Louisville50.2%
7. Syracuse49.3%
8. Marquette47.4%
9. USF47.3%
10. DePaul47.1%
11. Villanova47%
12. Seton Hall45.8%
13. St. John's45.7%
14. Cincinnati45.2%
15. Connecticut42.8%
16. Rutgers42.1%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Georgetown57.7%
2. West Virginia54.9%
3. Providence52.3%
4. Louisville50.4%
5. Pittsburgh50.3%
6. DePaul48.9%
7. USF47.5%
8. Notre Dame47.1%
9. Syracuse46.5%
10. Marquette46.3%
11. Seton Hall43.7%
12. Villanova43.4%
13. Cincinnati43.4%
14. St. John's42.5%
15. Connecticut41.2%
16. Rutgers40.8%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Notre Dame37.9%
2. Pittsburgh37.8%
3. Georgetown37%
4. Syracuse36.2%
5. West Virginia35.3%
6. Villanova35.3%
7. St. John's33.8%
8. Seton Hall33.5%
9. Providence33.3%
10. Louisville33.3%
11. Marquette33.1%
12. Cincinnati32.2%
13. Connecticut31.3%
14. USF31.1%
15. Rutgers30.1%
16. DePaul28.9%


Turnover %

1. Seton Hall16.7%
2. Louisville16.9%
3. West Virginia18.4%
4. Cincinnati18.4%
5. Notre Dame18.5%
6. DePaul18.6%
7. Rutgers18.6%
8. Pittsburgh20.4%
9. Syracuse21.1%
10. Marquette21.4%
11. St. John's21.8%
12. Connecticut21.9%
13. Villanova22%
14. Georgetown23.5%
15. Providence24.1%
16. USF24.5%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Georgetown38.3%
2. Providence37.9%
3. Villanova37.5%
4. Connecticut36.7%
5. Marquette36.5%
6. Pittsburgh35.3%
7. Cincinnati33.7%
8. Louisville32.2%
9. Notre Dame31.2%
10. Syracuse30.6%
11. Rutgers30.3%
12. St. John's30.1%
13. USF29.6%
14. DePaul29.4%
15. Seton Hall27.1%
16. West Virginia24.5%


Efficiency Margin

1. Georgetown0.16
2. Louisville0.13
3. Pittsburgh0.11
4. Notre Dame0.08
5. Syracuse0.04
6. Marquette0.03
7. West Virginia0.03
8. Villanova0.03
9. Providence0.02
10. DePaul0.01
11. Connecticut-0.02
12. Seton Hall-0.08
13. St. John's-0.09
14. Cincinnati-0.13
15. USF-0.14
16. Rutgers-0.15




Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Louisville0.96
2. Pittsburgh0.97
3. Georgetown0.97
4. Connecticut0.97
5. Syracuse0.98
6. DePaul0.98
7. Notre Dame1.01
8. Marquette1.01
9. Providence1.02
10. Villanova1.02
11. St. John's1.04
12. West Virginia1.05
13. USF1.08
14. Rutgers1.08
15. Seton Hall1.09
16. Cincinnati1.11


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut43.3%
2. Syracuse43.5%
3. Georgetown45.2%
4. Louisville46.3%
5. Pittsburgh46.6%
6. DePaul47.1%
7. Marquette47.2%
8. Notre Dame47.8%
9. Providence48.5%
10. Villanova49.4%
11. USF49.6%
12. St. John's49.9%
13. Rutgers50.1%
14. West Virginia51.6%
15. Seton Hall53.1%
16. Cincinnati55.9%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Syracuse40.1%
2. Connecticut42%
3. DePaul43.9%
4. Georgetown44.2%
5. Louisville45.3%
6. Villanova45.4%
7. Notre Dame46.2%
8. USF47%
9. Marquette47.1%
10. Rutgers47.3%
11. Providence48.4%
12. Pittsburgh48.7%
13. St. John's49.6%
14. Cincinnati50.4%
15. West Virginia53.2%
16. Seton Hall54.3%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Cincinnati42.5%
2. Rutgers37.4%
3. Villanova36.5%
4. USF36.4%
5. DePaul35.8%
6. Notre Dame34.1%
7. Seton Hall33.7%
8. St. John's33.7%
9. Syracuse32.8%
10. Providence32.4%
11. Louisville32.2%
12. West Virginia32.1%
13. Marquette31.5%
14. Georgetown31.2%
15. Connecticut30.9%
16. Pittsburgh28.7%


Turnover % Forced

1. Louisville23.2%
2. Villanova22.7%
3. Marquette22.4%
4. West Virginia21.9%
5. Cincinnati21.9%
6. Seton Hall21.8%
7. Connecticut21.2%
8. Georgetown20.9%
9. Pittsburgh20%
10. DePaul20%
11. Notre Dame19.7%
12. Syracuse19.4%
13. St. John's19.3%
14. Providence18.6%
15. USF17.1%
16. Rutgers16.8%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Villanova75.5%
2. Pittsburgh74.2%
3. DePaul73.7%
4. Louisville72.2%
5. Seton Hall71.9%
6. USF71.8%
7. West Virginia70.9%
8. Cincinnati70.8%
9. Rutgers70.8%
10. Notre Dame70.5%
11. Marquette70.1%
12. St. John's69.8%
13. Connecticut69.5%
14. Providence69.2%
15. Syracuse68.5%
16. Georgetown67.3%

2006 Big East Tempo Free Stats

2006, year of the Beast!! Big East 2006 Tempo Free Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Syracuse69.8
2. Marquette69.3
3. Connecticut68.8
4. Providence68
5. Pittsburgh67.7
6. Villanova67.2
7. Cincinnati67.2
8. Seton Hall66.5
9. Louisville66.2
10. Notre Dame65.3
11. Rutgers65.1
12. St. John's64.2
13. West Virginia63.6
14. USF62.5
15. DePaul62
16. Georgetown58.5


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Notre Dame1.15
2. West Virginia1.1
3. Villanova1.1
4. Georgetown1.1
5. Connecticut1.1
6. Marquette1.07
7. Pittsburgh1.06
8. Rutgers1.05
9. Providence1.04
10. Seton Hall1.04
11. DePaul1.04
12. Cincinnati1.01
13. Syracuse0.99
14. Louisville0.99
15. St. John's0.91
16. USF0.9


Effective FG %

1. Notre Dame53.1%
2. Marquette52.8%
3. West Virginia52.7%
4. Georgetown52.4%
5. Pittsburgh51.2%
6. Connecticut50.6%
7. DePaul48.7%
8. Rutgers48.5%
9. Providence48.2%
10. Syracuse48.2%
11. Villanova48%
12. Seton Hall47.7%
13. Louisville46.6%
14. Cincinnati44.9%
15. St. John's44.6%
16. USF44.6%


2-pt Shooting %

1. West Virginia54.9%
2. Georgetown52.1%
3. Pittsburgh50.6%
4. Connecticut50.6%
5. DePaul49.1%
6. Syracuse48.7%
7. Marquette47.4%
8. Providence47.1%
9. Notre Dame46.4%
10. Seton Hall45.9%
11. St. John's45.5%
12. Cincinnati44.3%
13. Louisville43.9%
14. USF43.6%
15. Rutgers43.2%
16. Villanova41.7%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Marquette41.5%
2. Notre Dame41.2%
3. Villanova38.5%
4. Rutgers38.5%
5. Georgetown35.4%
6. Pittsburgh35.1%
7. Seton Hall34.5%
8. Providence34%
9. Connecticut33.9%
10. West Virginia33.8%
11. Louisville33.6%
12. DePaul31.8%
13. Syracuse31.5%
14. USF31.2%
15. Cincinnati31%
16. St. John's27.8%


Turnover %

1. West Virginia11.9%
2. Notre Dame16%
3. Villanova16.5%
4. Cincinnati16.8%
5. Seton Hall17.4%
6. Rutgers17.4%
7. DePaul17.7%
8. Louisville19.5%
9. Georgetown19.8%
10. Marquette20.2%
11. Pittsburgh20.3%
12. Providence20.6%
13. Connecticut20.6%
14. Syracuse21.3%
15. USF24.7%
16. St. John's25.4%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Connecticut42.2%
2. Providence37.1%
3. St. John's34.4%
4. Georgetown34.2%
5. Syracuse33.5%
6. Pittsburgh33.3%
7. Cincinnati33.3%
8. Villanova33.1%
9. DePaul31.9%
10. Notre Dame31.5%
11. USF31.2%
12. Marquette30.9%
13. Seton Hall29.7%
14. Louisville28.5%
15. Rutgers27.3%
16. West Virginia20.7%


Efficiency Margin

1. Connecticut0.14
2. Villanova0.08
3. Georgetown0.08
4. West Virginia0.06
5. Pittsburgh0.06
6. Notre Dame0.03
7. Marquette0.03
8. Rutgers-0.01
9. Seton Hall-0.03
10. Louisville-0.03
11. Cincinnati-0.03
12. DePaul-0.04
13. Providence-0.06
14. Syracuse-0.07
15. St. John's-0.09
16. USF-0.14




Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Connecticut0.96
2. Pittsburgh1
3. St. John's1
4. Louisville1.02
5. Villanova1.02
6. Georgetown1.02
7. West Virginia1.03
8. Marquette1.04
9. Cincinnati1.04
10. USF1.04
11. Rutgers1.06
12. Syracuse1.07
13. Seton Hall1.07
14. DePaul1.08
15. Providence1.09
16. Notre Dame1.12


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut42.3%
2. St. John's47.4%
3. Marquette47.5%
4. USF47.7%
5. Pittsburgh48%
6. Louisville48.2%
7. Cincinnati48.4%
8. Georgetown48.6%
9. Rutgers48.7%
10. DePaul49.9%
11. Providence50.3%
12. Notre Dame50.6%
13. Syracuse51%
14. Seton Hall51.4%
15. Villanova51.8%
16. West Virginia52.9%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut40.7%
2. Cincinnati44.9%
3. Louisville45.8%
4. Marquette46.5%
5. Pittsburgh46.6%
6. USF46.6%
7. St. John's46.9%
8. Syracuse47%
9. Providence47.1%
10. Notre Dame47.1%
11. Rutgers47.6%
12. DePaul47.9%
13. Villanova48.2%
14. Georgetown49.4%
15. Seton Hall50.3%
16. West Virginia52.5%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut30.2%
2. Georgetown31.5%
3. St. John's32.2%
4. Marquette32.7%
5. USF33.3%
6. Pittsburgh33.6%
7. Rutgers34.1%
8. Louisville35%
9. Seton Hall35.6%
10. West Virginia35.9%
11. DePaul35.9%
12. Cincinnati36.7%
13. Providence37.8%
14. Notre Dame38.3%
15. Syracuse38.6%
16. Villanova39.6%


Turnover % Forced

1. West Virginia23.6%
2. Villanova23.4%
3. Louisville21.1%
4. Syracuse20.9%
5. Seton Hall20.5%
6. Georgetown19.8%
7. Cincinnati19.3%
8. Providence18.8%
9. St. John's18.7%
10. Marquette18.6%
11. USF18.5%
12. Rutgers18.1%
13. Pittsburgh17.6%
14. DePaul17.2%
15. Connecticut16.4%
16. Notre Dame13.9%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. St. John's76.4%
2. Pittsburgh75%
3. Villanova74.8%
4. Rutgers73.9%
5. Notre Dame73.1%
6. Seton Hall72.2%
7. Louisville72.1%
8. Georgetown72.1%
9. USF70.9%
10. Syracuse70.6%
11. Cincinnati68.9%
12. Connecticut68.5%
13. DePaul68.4%
14. Marquette68.1%
15. Providence67.5%
16. West Virginia67.2%

Jan 30, 2007

Out of town...

I'm back now, but a little behind. I've posted Pac10 current numbers at least. The rest of the conferences will be up later today.

***UPDATE***

MVC tempo free stats have now joined the ranks.

Just remember, all conference stats are for in-conference games only. A brief explanation of what I'm doing.

Thanks for stopping by.

Missouri Valley Conference - MVC Tempo Free Stats

MVC Stats are now up!!!! Here's to balanced-schedule leagues!!

Games through END OF REGULAR SEASON


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Missouri State66.8
2. Bradley66.6
3. Drake65.4
4. Evansville63.9
5. Illinois State63
6. Wichita State62.9
7. Creighton62.4
8. Northern Iowa62.2
9. Indiana State61.3
10. Southern Illinois60.9


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Missouri State1.11
2. Creighton1.1
3. Bradley1.08
4. Wichita State1.06
5. Drake1.06
6. Evansville1.05
7. Southern Illinois1.04
8. Northern Iowa1.03
9. Illinois State1.01
10. Indiana State0.93


Effective FG %

1. Creighton55.2%
2. Missouri State55.1%
3. Bradley54.3%
4. Evansville53.6%
5. Southern Illinois52.9%
6. Illinois State52.5%
7. Wichita State51.8%
8. Northern Iowa51.1%
9. Drake47.8%
10. Indiana State45.2%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Creighton54.3%
2. Southern Illinois52.7%
3. Missouri State51.9%
4. Wichita State51.1%
5. Bradley50.7%
6. Illinois State50.1%
7. Northern Iowa49.9%
8. Evansville48.3%
9. Drake48.1%
10. Indiana State41.7%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Evansville41.3%
2. Missouri State40.7%
3. Bradley39.4%
4. Creighton37.7%
5. Illinois State37.6%
6. Northern Iowa35.5%
7. Wichita State35.4%
8. Southern Illinois35.4%
9. Indiana State33.5%
10. Drake31.4%


Turnover %

1. Bradley15.6%
2. Drake18.3%
3. Missouri State19.7%
4. Indiana State19.8%
5. Wichita State20%
6. Northern Iowa20%
7. Evansville21.3%
8. Southern Illinois22.2%
9. Creighton22.4%
10. Illinois State22.9%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Drake33.9%
2. Creighton29.1%
3. Missouri State29%
4. Wichita State28.9%
5. Southern Illinois28.8%
6. Illinois State27.4%
7. Northern Iowa24.5%
8. Evansville24.4%
9. Indiana State24.2%
10. Bradley22.4%


Efficiency Margin

1. Missouri State0.11
2. Creighton0.1
3. Southern Illinois0.1
4. Bradley0.01
5. Northern Iowa0
6. Wichita State-0.01
7. Evansville-0.04
8. Illinois State-0.07
9. Drake-0.08
10. Indiana State-0.13




Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Southern Illinois0.94
2. Missouri State0.99
3. Creighton0.99
4. Northern Iowa1.03
5. Wichita State1.06
6. Indiana State1.07
7. Bradley1.08
8. Illinois State1.08
9. Evansville1.09
10. Drake1.15


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Southern Illinois48.4%
2. Creighton49.1%
3. Missouri State49.6%
4. Northern Iowa49.7%
5. Indiana State51.6%
6. Wichita State51.7%
7. Evansville52.4%
8. Illinois State52.9%
9. Bradley54.4%
10. Drake58.6%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Northern Iowa45.9%
2. Southern Illinois46.1%
3. Creighton47%
4. Missouri State48.5%
5. Wichita State49.5%
6. Illinois State50.3%
7. Evansville51.2%
8. Indiana State51.7%
9. Drake54%
10. Bradley54.7%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Indiana State34.2%
2. Missouri State34.3%
3. Creighton35.1%
4. Southern Illinois35.5%
5. Bradley36%
6. Evansville36.1%
7. Wichita State37.1%
8. Northern Iowa37.3%
9. Illinois State38.5%
10. Drake43.1%


Turnover % Forced

1. Southern Illinois23.8%
2. Bradley23.2%
3. Wichita State20.4%
4. Creighton20.2%
5. Drake20.1%
6. Illinois State19.8%
7. Missouri State19.6%
8. Indiana State18.8%
9. Evansville18.4%
10. Northern Iowa17.4%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Missouri State82.9%
2. Southern Illinois82.2%
3. Illinois State80.4%
4. Northern Iowa79.7%
5. Evansville79.5%
6. Wichita State77.6%
7. Drake77.4%
8. Creighton77.1%
9. Indiana State72.8%
10. Bradley70.6%

Pac 10 Tempo Free Stats

Final 2007 Season Tempo Free Stats

(It's about time...)


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Arizona67.1
2. Washington67
3. USC65.1
4. Oregon State64.9
5. Stanford64.6
6. Oregon64
7. California63.8
8. UCLA63.3
9. Washington State59.7
10. Arizona State57.9


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Arizona1.13
2. Oregon1.11
3. UCLA1.1
4. USC1.08
5. Washington State1.06
6. Washington1.05
7. Stanford1.05
8. California1.03
9. Oregon State0.94
10. Arizona State0.94


Effective FG %

1. USC55%
2. UCLA53.7%
3. Arizona53.2%
4. Washington State51.9%
5. Oregon51.5%
6. California51%
7. Washington50.6%
8. Stanford50.2%
9. Oregon State46.3%
10. Arizona State46.2%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Arizona53.4%
2. UCLA53.2%
3. USC52.3%
4. Washington State50.8%
5. California50.2%
6. Washington49.1%
7. Stanford48.7%
8. Oregon State48.5%
9. Oregon47.5%
10. Arizona State46.1%


3-pt Shooting %

1. USC40.9%
2. Oregon37.7%
3. Washington36.5%
4. UCLA36.5%
5. Washington State36.3%
6. Stanford35.9%
7. Arizona35.1%
8. California34.7%
9. Arizona State31%
10. Oregon State28%


Turnover %

1. Washington State15.5%
2. Oregon17.4%
3. California17.4%
4. UCLA18.1%
5. USC18.2%
6. Arizona19.2%
7. Oregon State20%
8. Washington21.6%
9. Stanford22%
10. Arizona State22.7%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Washington36.1%
2. Arizona35.4%
3. Stanford35.1%
4. UCLA31.8%
5. Oregon31.7%
6. Arizona State30.8%
7. Oregon State28.6%
8. USC25.5%
9. California24.1%
10. Washington State21.5%


Efficiency Margin

1. UCLA0.15
2. Washington State0.1
3. Arizona0.06
4. USC0.06
5. Stanford0.03
6. Oregon0.01
7. Washington-0.03
8. California-0.09
9. Arizona State-0.12
10. Oregon State-0.18




Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

1. UCLA0.95
2. Washington State0.96
3. USC1.02
4. Stanford1.02
5. Arizona1.06
6. Arizona State1.06
7. Washington1.08
8. Oregon1.1
9. California1.12
10. Oregon State1.12


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Washington State45.3%
2. Stanford45.9%
3. USC48.6%
4. UCLA48.7%
5. Arizona State50.8%
6. Arizona52.5%
7. Oregon53.5%
8. Washington54.2%
9. Oregon State55%
10. California55.8%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Washington State43.8%
2. Stanford44.4%
3. USC46.7%
4. UCLA46.7%
5. Arizona State49.3%
6. Arizona51.7%
7. Oregon53.7%
8. Washington54.2%
9. Oregon State54.9%
10. California56.4%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Washington State32%
2. Stanford33.3%
3. USC34.5%
4. Arizona State35.3%
5. Oregon35.4%
6. Arizona35.9%
7. Washington36.1%
8. UCLA36.3%
9. California36.3%
10. Oregon State36.9%


Turnover % Forced

1. Arizona State21.6%
2. UCLA21.5%
3. Oregon State20.3%
4. Oregon19.7%
5. Washington State19.7%
6. USC19.5%
7. California18.9%
8. Washington18.6%
9. Arizona17.1%
10. Stanford15.5%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Washington78%
2. UCLA75.9%
3. Arizona State74.7%
4. California74.1%
5. Stanford73.9%
6. Washington State72.7%
7. Arizona72%
8. Oregon State71%
9. USC69.3%
10. Oregon69%

Jan 26, 2007

SEC Tempo Free Stats

I'll begin simply posting tempo-free stats for the other major (including MVC) conferences (except the Big Ten which has plenty of good tempo-free analysis already. Keep in mind, all of these numbers are in-conference numbers only. I feel it's a great way to

1. Compare conference teams between each other with "similar" opponents and
2. Compare the varying conference styles between each other
3. Gather a different perspective as to why "such and such" is occurring to your team
4. Validate or un-de-validate claims that you may have regarding your particular conference

It should be noted (as you already know) that in conferences that don't do a full round robin (every major one but the MVC and Pac10), you may see a slight imbalance of the numbers due to scheduling differences. Just keep that in mind when you see numbers throughout the season.

So, on to the numbers. I've got the SEC up first. In the next few days I'll have the ACC, Big East, Big 12 and MVC (in no particular order)

*****Update 2/20/07- mid-majors, a la their recent success, are making appearances as well. As are the 2006 stats of the conferences. Just see them on the right column ****

(Stats are final for 2007 Season)


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Tennessee71.1
2. Auburn70.8
3. Arkansas69.1
4. Mississippi State69
5. Ole Miss68.1
6. Vanderbilt67.2
7. Kentucky66.7
8. Florida66.5
9. Georgia65.9
10. Alabama65.8
11. LSU64.3
12. South Carolina63.6


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Florida1.13
2. Kentucky1.1
3. Mississippi State1.1
4. Vanderbilt1.09
5. Tennessee1.06
6. Georgia1.05
7. Ole Miss1.04
8. Alabama1.04
9. Auburn1.03
10. South Carolina1.02
11. Arkansas1.01
12. LSU0.98


Effective FG %

1. Florida56.9%
2. Kentucky56%
3. Vanderbilt53.4%
4. Arkansas52.1%
5. Tennessee52%
6. Mississippi State51.7%
7. Georgia50.5%
8. Auburn50.4%
9. Ole Miss49.5%
10. South Carolina49%
11. LSU48%
12. Alabama47.9%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Kentucky56.5%
2. Florida55.6%
3. Arkansas51.6%
4. Tennessee51.1%
5. Mississippi State50.8%
6. Vanderbilt49.7%
7. Ole Miss49.7%
8. Georgia48.4%
9. Auburn48.2%
10. LSU48.2%
11. Alabama46.5%
12. South Carolina44.7%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Florida39.8%
2. Vanderbilt38.8%
3. Kentucky36.8%
4. South Carolina36.7%
5. Auburn36.4%
6. Georgia35.8%
7. Tennessee35.5%
8. Mississippi State35.5%
9. Arkansas35.4%
10. Alabama33.9%
11. Ole Miss32.8%
12. LSU31.7%


Turnover %

1. Ole Miss16.2%
2. South Carolina16.9%
3. Mississippi State17.9%
4. Vanderbilt18.6%
5. Tennessee19%
6. Georgia20.9%
7. Kentucky21%
8. Alabama21%
9. Auburn21.1%
10. Florida21.3%
11. LSU22.4%
12. Arkansas23.2%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Alabama35.7%
2. Georgia34.8%
3. LSU33.2%
4. Mississippi State32.3%
5. Florida31.8%
6. Kentucky30.7%
7. Auburn30%
8. Tennessee29.9%
9. Arkansas29.8%
10. Vanderbilt29%
11. Ole Miss28.7%
12. South Carolina27%


Efficiency Margin

1. Florida0.13
2. Kentucky0.08
3. Mississippi State0.05
4. Arkansas0.03
5. Tennessee0.01
6. Georgia0.01
7. Vanderbilt0
8. Ole Miss0
9. Auburn-0.04
10. LSU-0.05
11. Alabama-0.08
12. South Carolina-0.13



Defensive Numbers

Points per possession Allowed

1. Arkansas0.99
2. Florida1
3. Kentucky1.03
4. LSU1.03
5. Georgia1.04
6. Tennessee1.05
7. Mississippi State1.05
8. Ole Miss1.05
9. Auburn1.07
10. Vanderbilt1.09
11. Alabama1.12
12. South Carolina1.15


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Arkansas46.2%
2. Florida48.1%
3. LSU49.4%
4. Mississippi State50.4%
5. Kentucky50.6%
6. Georgia51.8%
7. Alabama52.1%
8. Tennessee53.1%
9. Vanderbilt53.4%
10. Ole Miss53.7%
11. Auburn53.9%
12. South Carolina54.2%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Arkansas45.3%
2. Mississippi State46.7%
3. LSU47.1%
4. Georgia47.4%
5. Kentucky48.9%
6. Florida50.1%
7. Auburn51.2%
8. Vanderbilt51.7%
9. South Carolina52.7%
10. Ole Miss52.8%
11. Tennessee53.3%
12. Alabama53.6%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Georgia39.3%
2. Auburn39.1%
3. South Carolina38%
4. Mississippi State37.8%
5. Vanderbilt37.2%
6. Ole Miss37%
7. LSU36%
8. Kentucky35.4%
9. Tennessee35.2%
10. Alabama33%
11. Arkansas32.1%
12. Florida29.3%


Turnover % Forced

1. Tennessee23.7%
2. Ole Miss23.1%
3. Vanderbilt21.4%
4. Mississippi State20.8%
5. Auburn19.7%
6. Georgia19.5%
7. Kentucky19.1%
8. LSU18.9%
9. Arkansas18.4%
10. South Carolina18.4%
11. Alabama18.2%
12. Florida17.7%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Georgia77.6%
2. Florida76.9%
3. Ole Miss76.2%
4. LSU75.4%
5. Auburn75.3%
6. Kentucky73.2%
7. Arkansas71.9%
8. Mississippi State71.6%
9. Vanderbilt70.3%
10. Tennessee68.9%
11. Alabama67.8%
12. South Carolina67.4%

2006 Tempo Free Stats

All 2006 Tempo-free stats in one convenient aisle:

SEC 2006

ACC 2006

Conference USA 2006

Pac 10 2006

Big East 2006

Big 12 2006

Big 12 Tempo Free Stats

The boys of the Big 12...

Final 2007 Tempo Free Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Colorado72.6
2. Kansas71.6
3. Missouri71.1
4. Texas67.8
5. Baylor67.4
6. Oklahoma State67.1
7. Kansas State66.5
8. Iowa State66
9. Texas A&M65.7
10. Texas Tech64.5
11. Oklahoma63.6
12. Nebraska62.5


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Texas1.16
2. Texas A&M1.14
3. Kansas1.13
4. Kansas State1.05
5. Texas Tech1.05
6. Missouri1.04
7. Baylor1.03
8. Oklahoma1.03
9. Nebraska0.99
10. Oklahoma State0.99
11. Colorado0.94
12. Iowa State0.91


Effective FG %

1. Kansas55.5%
2. Texas55%
3. Texas A&M54%
4. Missouri51.3%
5. Nebraska49.6%
6. Texas Tech49%
7. Oklahoma State48.9%
8. Baylor48.8%
9. Colorado48.1%
10. Kansas State48%
11. Oklahoma47%
12. Iowa State44.6%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Kansas53.1%
2. Missouri51.5%
3. Texas A&M50.2%
4. Texas48.6%
5. Colorado47%
6. Baylor46.8%
7. Oklahoma State46.2%
8. Nebraska45.7%
9. Oklahoma45.7%
10. Iowa State45.3%
11. Texas Tech45.1%
12. Kansas State44.6%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Texas43.7%
2. Texas A&M43%
3. Kansas41.8%
4. Texas Tech38.9%
5. Oklahoma State36.6%
6. Kansas State36.4%
7. Nebraska36.1%
8. Baylor34.6%
9. Missouri33.9%
10. Colorado33.7%
11. Oklahoma33.1%
12. Iowa State29%


Turnover %

1. Texas Tech17.4%
2. Texas A&M17.6%
3. Texas17.9%
4. Kansas State19.1%
5. Missouri19.1%
6. Nebraska19.6%
7. Kansas19.7%
8. Oklahoma19.8%
9. Baylor20.6%
10. Oklahoma State22%
11. Iowa State22.9%
12. Colorado24.3%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Baylor33.9%
2. Kansas33.3%
3. Oklahoma33%
4. Kansas State32.6%
5. Texas32.5%
6. Oklahoma State29.8%
7. Colorado29.5%
8. Texas A&M29.5%
9. Iowa State29.1%
10. Missouri27.1%
11. Texas Tech26.6%
12. Nebraska23%


Efficiency Margin

1. Kansas0.24
2. Texas A&M0.15
3. Texas0.11
4. Kansas State0.03
5. Oklahoma0.03
6. Missouri0
7. Texas Tech-0.01
8. Nebraska-0.08
9. Oklahoma State-0.09
10. Iowa State-0.1
11. Baylor-0.11
12. Colorado-0.18





Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Kansas0.89
2. Texas A&M0.99
3. Oklahoma1
4. Iowa State1.01
5. Kansas State1.02
6. Missouri1.04
7. Texas1.05
8. Texas Tech1.06
9. Nebraska1.08
10. Oklahoma State1.09
11. Colorado1.12
12. Baylor1.14


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas43.8%
2. Texas A&M45.8%
3. Iowa State47.8%
4. Oklahoma48.3%
5. Texas49.5%
6. Kansas State49.7%
7. Missouri50.1%
8. Nebraska51.8%
9. Texas Tech52.6%
10. Oklahoma State53.1%
11. Baylor53.7%
12. Colorado54.2%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas42%
2. Texas A&M43.1%
3. Texas44.4%
4. Iowa State44.8%
5. Missouri46.7%
6. Nebraska47%
7. Oklahoma48.3%
8. Oklahoma State49.2%
9. Baylor50.5%
10. Kansas State51.9%
11. Texas Tech51.9%
12. Colorado52.1%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas State30%
2. Kansas31%
3. Oklahoma32.1%
4. Texas A&M33.8%
5. Texas Tech35.9%
6. Iowa State37.4%
7. Missouri38.2%
8. Colorado38.6%
9. Texas39%
10. Nebraska39.1%
11. Baylor40%
12. Oklahoma State40.6%


Turnover % Forced

1. Missouri22.8%
2. Texas Tech22.1%
3. Kansas21.8%
4. Kansas State20.8%
5. Nebraska20.4%
6. Oklahoma20.4%
7. Oklahoma State20.3%
8. Texas A&M19.2%
9. Baylor18.3%
10. Texas18.3%
11. Iowa State18.2%
12. Colorado17.7%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Kansas80.9%
2. Texas A&M79.4%
3. Colorado76.6%
4. Oklahoma76.3%
5. Oklahoma State74.8%
6. Kansas State73.8%
7. Iowa State73.3%
8. Baylor72.7%
9. Nebraska72.5%
10. Missouri70%
11. Texas Tech69.2%
12. Texas68.9%

2006 Big 12 Tempo Free Stats

For the 2005-2006 season



Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Iowa State71.9
2. Colorado70.2
3. Kansas70.2
4. Baylor67.3
5. Missouri67.2
6. Texas Tech67.1
7. Oklahoma State66.5
8. Kansas State65.3
9. Nebraska65.1
10. Texas63.5
11. Texas A&M63.5
12. Oklahoma63.3


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Texas1.15
2. Oklahoma1.08
3. Kansas1.07
4. Iowa State1.06
5. Colorado1.03
6. Texas A&M0.99
7. Kansas State0.98
8. Nebraska0.97
9. Oklahoma State0.97
10. Texas Tech0.95
11. Missouri0.94
12. Baylor0.93


Effective FG %

1. Texas53.6%
2. Kansas52.7%
3. Oklahoma51.7%
4. Oklahoma State49.9%
5. Texas A&M49.7%
6. Iowa State48.9%
7. Missouri47.5%
8. Baylor47.4%
9. Kansas State47.1%
10. Texas Tech46.8%
11. Colorado46.5%
12. Nebraska45.2%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Kansas51.1%
2. Oklahoma State49.9%
3. Oklahoma49%
4. Texas48.8%
5. Texas A&M48.2%
6. Iowa State47.1%
7. Missouri46.8%
8. Kansas State44.7%
9. Texas Tech43.5%
10. Colorado43.4%
11. Nebraska42.2%
12. Baylor40.9%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Texas41.7%
2. Oklahoma38.7%
3. Baylor38.4%
4. Texas Tech38%
5. Kansas37.8%
6. Kansas State36.4%
7. Iowa State35.2%
8. Texas A&M35%
9. Colorado34.2%
10. Nebraska33.8%
11. Oklahoma State33.3%
12. Missouri32.6%


Turnover %

1. Iowa State16.7%
2. Colorado19.3%
3. Texas19.7%
4. Texas A&M20.5%
5. Texas Tech20.9%
6. Kansas22.5%
7. Oklahoma22.5%
8. Baylor22.7%
9. Kansas State22.8%
10. Nebraska23.5%
11. Missouri23.6%
12. Oklahoma State25.6%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Texas38.3%
2. Oklahoma38%
3. Colorado35.8%
4. Kansas35%
5. Kansas State34.4%
6. Nebraska33.6%
7. Missouri30.5%
8. Oklahoma State30.2%
9. Iowa State30.1%
10. Texas A&M26.4%
11. Baylor25.5%
12. Texas Tech25.3%


Efficiency Margin

1. Texas0.24
2. Kansas0.18
3. Oklahoma0.06
4. Texas A&M0.02
5. Colorado-0.01
6. Iowa State-0.01
7. Kansas State-0.02
8. Oklahoma State-0.03
9. Nebraska-0.06
10. Texas Tech-0.08
11. Baylor-0.14
12. Missouri-0.14




Defensive Numbers


Points per possession Allowed

1. Kansas0.88
2. Texas0.91
3. Texas A&M0.97
4. Kansas State1
5. Oklahoma State1
6. Oklahoma1.02
7. Nebraska1.03
8. Texas Tech1.03
9. Colorado1.04
10. Iowa State1.06
11. Baylor1.08
12. Missouri1.08


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas44.1%
2. Texas44.5%
3. Kansas State46.3%
4. Oklahoma State48.6%
5. Colorado48.7%
6. Texas Tech48.8%
7. Oklahoma48.9%
8. Nebraska49.1%
9. Texas A&M49.7%
10. Baylor50.3%
11. Missouri53.2%
12. Iowa State54.9%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas39.6%
2. Texas43%
3. Kansas State43.6%
4. Oklahoma44.6%
5. Nebraska44.9%
6. Texas A&M45.1%
7. Texas Tech46.4%
8. Colorado46.5%
9. Oklahoma State46.6%
10. Baylor48.1%
11. Iowa State53.8%
12. Missouri54.3%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Texas31.5%
2. Missouri33.9%
3. Kansas State34.2%
4. Colorado35.5%
5. Kansas35.7%
6. Oklahoma State36%
7. Texas Tech36.3%
8. Baylor36.9%
9. Iowa State38%
10. Nebraska38%
11. Oklahoma39.5%
12. Texas A&M40%


Turnover % Forced

1. Texas A&M25.6%
2. Iowa State25.5%
3. Kansas24.5%
4. Oklahoma State21.9%
5. Texas Tech21.9%
6. Texas21.1%
7. Oklahoma20.8%
8. Missouri20.4%
9. Nebraska20.1%
10. Kansas State19.7%
11. Colorado19.6%
12. Baylor18.6%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Texas A&M76.7%
2. Oklahoma74.9%
3. Texas74.8%
4. Kansas74.2%
5. Nebraska73.1%
6. Iowa State72.5%
7. Oklahoma State71.6%
8. Kansas State70.3%
9. Colorado70%
10. Baylor69%
11. Missouri67.7%
12. Texas Tech65.5%

ACC Tempo Free Stats

Final 2007 season numbers.


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. North Carolina74.7
2. Maryland72.3
3. Wake Forest71.4
4. Virginia69.1
5. Georgia Tech68.1
6. Clemson67.8
7. Duke67.3
8. NC State66.9
9. Florida State66.2
10. Boston College65.6
11. Miami65.5
12. Virginia Tech64.8


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. North Carolina1.12
2. Florida State1.1
3. Boston College1.09
4. Virginia Tech1.09
5. Georgia Tech1.07
6. Maryland1.06
7. Miami1.06
8. Virginia1.04
9. Duke1.04
10. Clemson1.01
11. NC State1.01
12. Wake Forest0.95


Effective FG %

1. NC State53.1%
2. North Carolina52.9%
3. Boston College52.6%
4. Duke52.6%
5. Georgia Tech52.5%
6. Florida State52.4%
7. Virginia Tech51%
8. Maryland50.7%
9. Clemson50.6%
10. Virginia48.9%
11. Wake Forest47.6%
12. Miami47%


2-pt Shooting %

1. North Carolina53.8%
2. Boston College53.6%
3. Georgia Tech52.9%
4. Duke51.9%
5. NC State51.9%
6. Clemson50.8%
7. Virginia Tech50.4%
8. Maryland49.5%
9. Florida State48.7%
10. Wake Forest45.7%
11. Virginia45.6%
12. Miami44.8%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Florida State39.9%
2. NC State37%
3. Maryland36.6%
4. Duke36.1%
5. Virginia36%
6. Virginia Tech35.6%
7. Miami34.6%
8. Georgia Tech34.4%
9. Wake Forest34.4%
10. Boston College33.7%
11. Clemson33.6%
12. North Carolina33.3%


Turnover %

1. Virginia Tech16.2%
2. Miami17.2%
3. North Carolina18.7%
4. Maryland19.5%
5. Clemson19.5%
6. Florida State19.6%
7. Virginia20.4%
8. Boston College21.7%
9. Georgia Tech22.2%
10. Duke22.2%
11. Wake Forest22.2%
12. NC State22.5%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Georgia Tech35.8%
2. North Carolina34.9%
3. Boston College34.2%
4. Miami34.2%
5. Virginia32.5%
6. Florida State32.2%
7. Maryland31.8%
8. Duke31.7%
9. Clemson31.5%
10. Wake Forest29.5%
11. Virginia Tech27.4%
12. NC State23.7%


Efficiency Margin

1. North Carolina0.17
2. Maryland0.06
3. Duke0.04
4. Virginia0.02
5. Boston College0.02
6. Virginia Tech0.01
7. Florida State0.01
8. Georgia Tech0.01
9. Clemson-0.02
10. NC State-0.1
11. Miami-0.12
12. Wake Forest-0.12






Defensive Numbers



Points per possession Allowed

1. North Carolina0.95
2. Duke0.99
3. Maryland1
4. Virginia1.02
5. Clemson1.04
6. Georgia Tech1.06
7. Boston College1.07
8. Virginia Tech1.08
9. Wake Forest1.08
10. Florida State1.09
11. NC State1.11
12. Miami1.17


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Virginia46.1%
2. North Carolina47.8%
3. Maryland47.9%
4. Virginia Tech49.7%
5. Duke50%
6. NC State51.2%
7. Boston College51.3%
8. Florida State52.9%
9. Clemson53%
10. Wake Forest53%
11. Georgia Tech53.3%
12. Miami57.2%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Virginia44%
2. North Carolina45.4%
3. Virginia Tech48.1%
4. Duke48.2%
5. Maryland48.4%
6. NC State49.4%
7. Boston College50.3%
8. Florida State52.5%
9. Clemson53.1%
10. Georgia Tech54.1%
11. Wake Forest54.2%
12. Miami55.4%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland31.1%
2. Wake Forest33.8%
3. Virginia33.9%
4. Georgia Tech34.4%
5. Clemson34.9%
6. Virginia Tech35.4%
7. North Carolina35.6%
8. Florida State35.7%
9. Boston College35.9%
10. Duke37.4%
11. NC State37.5%
12. Miami40%


Turnover % Forced

1. Clemson24.5%
2. Georgia Tech23%
3. Duke21.9%
4. North Carolina21.1%
5. Maryland20.9%
6. Wake Forest20.1%
7. Florida State19.5%
8. Virginia Tech19.2%
9. Miami18.8%
10. Virginia17.7%
11. Boston College17.6%
12. NC State17.1%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Miami77.4%
2. Duke76.8%
3. Wake Forest75.9%
4. North Carolina75.7%
5. Georgia Tech74.8%
6. Virginia71.9%
7. Florida State71.8%
8. Virginia Tech70.6%
9. Boston College68.8%
10. Maryland68%
11. Clemson67.3%
12. NC State66.5%

ACC 2006 Tempo Free Stats

Just for some perusing to fulfil your appetite.
I'll start posting 2006 season numbers for all of the in-conference games.
Feel free to relive, compare or simply disregard them.

ACC 2006 season


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Maryland74.5
2. Duke73.9
3. North Carolina72
4. Florida State70.3
5. Georgia Tech69.8
6. Clemson69.6
7. Wake Forest67.6
8. Virginia66.4
9. Virginia Tech65.8
10. NC State65.4
11. Miami62.9
12. Boston College62.5


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Duke1.12
2. North Carolina1.11
3. NC State1.11
4. Boston College1.1
5. Miami1.08
6. Wake Forest1.05
7. Florida State1.04
8. Virginia Tech1.02
9. Georgia Tech1
10. Virginia0.99
11. Clemson0.99
12. Maryland0.96


Effective FG %

1. NC State55.6%
2. Duke55.4%
3. North Carolina54.1%
4. Florida State52.3%
5. Boston College51.7%
6. Georgia Tech51.2%
7. Wake Forest49.2%
8. Virginia Tech48.9%
9. Clemson48.4%
10. Miami48.4%
11. Maryland45.7%
12. Virginia45.5%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Duke52.1%
2. North Carolina51.3%
3. NC State51.3%
4. Boston College51%
5. Florida State50%
6. Virginia Tech49.3%
7. Clemson48.3%
8. Georgia Tech47.4%
9. Miami46.5%
10. Wake Forest46%
11. Virginia44.4%
12. Maryland44.2%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Georgia Tech41.4%
2. Duke40.9%
3. NC State40.5%
4. North Carolina40%
5. Florida State38.8%
6. Wake Forest37.4%
7. Boston College35.5%
8. Miami35%
9. Maryland34.6%
10. Clemson32.4%
11. Virginia31.8%
12. Virginia Tech31.8%


Turnover %

1. Virginia Tech16.6%
2. Miami17.7%
3. Duke20.1%
4. NC State20.3%
5. Boston College20.7%
6. Virginia21.6%
7. Clemson21.7%
8. Wake Forest21.8%
9. Florida State22.2%
10. Maryland23.2%
11. North Carolina23.5%
12. Georgia Tech25.8%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Boston College35.7%
2. Miami35.4%
3. Clemson34.5%
4. Wake Forest34.4%
5. Maryland33.9%
6. Duke33.2%
7. Virginia Tech33.1%
8. Virginia32.1%
9. Florida State32%
10. North Carolina31.7%
11. Georgia Tech31.6%
12. NC State28.5%


Efficiency Margin

1. North Carolina0.13
2. Duke0.13
3. NC State0.03
4. Boston College0.02
5. Florida State0.01
6. Miami0
7. Clemson-0.01
8. Virginia Tech-0.04
9. Maryland-0.05
10. Georgia Tech-0.06
11. Virginia-0.07
12. Wake Forest-0.08




Defensive Numbers



Points per possession Allowed

1. North Carolina0.98
2. Duke0.99
3. Maryland1.01
4. Clemson1.01
5. Florida State1.03
6. Virginia1.06
7. Virginia Tech1.06
8. Georgia Tech1.06
9. Boston College1.08
10. Miami1.08
11. NC State1.08
12. Wake Forest1.14


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. North Carolina46.3%
2. Duke46.9%
3. Maryland48.3%
4. NC State48.5%
5. Georgia Tech50.6%
6. Virginia51.1%
7. Boston College51.9%
8. Florida State52.4%
9. Miami52.4%
10. Clemson52.5%
11. Wake Forest52.9%
12. Virginia Tech53.8%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland42.9%
2. North Carolina46.2%
3. Duke46.5%
4. Boston College47.8%
5. Florida State47.9%
6. Miami48%
7. Georgia Tech49.1%
8. NC State49.2%
9. Wake Forest49.4%
10. Virginia50.8%
11. Virginia Tech51.9%
12. Clemson51.9%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. North Carolina31%
2. NC State31.2%
3. Duke32.6%
4. Virginia34.5%
5. Georgia Tech36.2%
6. Clemson36.2%
7. Virginia Tech38.2%
8. Maryland39.1%
9. Wake Forest39.3%
10. Boston College39.9%
11. Miami39.9%
12. Florida State40.6%


Turnover % Forced

1. Clemson25.9%
2. Virginia Tech24.3%
3. Florida State24%
4. Miami23.4%
5. Maryland21.9%
6. Duke21.9%
7. Georgia Tech21%
8. Boston College20.2%
9. North Carolina18.6%
10. Wake Forest18.4%
11. NC State18.2%
12. Virginia17.8%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Virginia74.2%
2. Georgia Tech74.2%
3. North Carolina72.6%
4. Clemson72.2%
5. Wake Forest72%
6. Miami70.3%
7. Virginia Tech69.6%
8. Florida State69.2%
9. Boston College68.8%
10. NC State68.5%
11. Maryland67%
12. Duke64.2%

I Want Numbers!!!

Some other things to take care of (trying to pull other conference data) so the recaps will be short and sweet, with only tempo-free stats to fill your mind:

Oregon 77 Washington 89
Oregon shot well (63% efg vs. 57% efg) in this Indy 500 style 73 possession game that felt faster than that. High 25% turnover rate for the Ducks and once again bad defensive rebounding (giving up 43% offensive rebounding) along with attempting half as many free-throws as the home team. Washington finished with 1.22 points-per-possession vs. the Ducks' 1.06

UCLA 62 California 46
Big road win for the Bruins in this Ursa Major match in which they shot 53%efg vs. Cal's 41% brickfest. In addition, UCLA hauled in 37% of their misses, and only gave up 19% of Cal's misses back to them. This slow 57 possession game saw efficiencies of 1.09 for UCLA and a dreadful .81 for the Bears.

Oregon St. 55 Washington St. 70
The Cougs took care of business at home on 52% efg and limiting the Beavers to just .84 points a possession in this "fast" (for Wazzu) game of 65 possessions. Oregon St. took 15 more shots than Wazzu, but managed 15 less points than the boys in Pullman. Big home match this Saturday for the red and white.

USC 50 Stanford 65
Stanford did what it needed to do to take steps towards an NCAA berth in an ugly-tempo-free match on 53% efg and limiting the Trojans to only 31% efg. The Cardinal had 20 turnovers in this 72 possession game for a less-than-nice 28% turnover rate. This kept the scoring down, and resulted in efficiencies of a porous .69 ppp for USC and .88 ppp for Stanford.


Big big added stats coming soon!!!! Fear not you east-coast and midcoast and high-plain folks, Tempo-free goodness is coming to a conference near you!!!!

Jan 25, 2007

A Slurry of Salacious Games in Store

First, to last night:

Arizona St. 47 Arizona 71
The Wildcats took care of business as expected, but did so in a 15 possession slower game than what they've been averaging.
This 55 possession game saw some "expected" effective shooting and efficiency from Arizona (59% efg and 1.29 points-per-possession) and a predicted poor performance from the Sun Devils at 44% efg and .85 ppp. If the 'Cats weren't hitting nylon, they were grabbing 10 of their 25 misses on the night, led by Chase Budinger's 5 offensive boards, for a stellar 24% individual rate. He also led all scorers with 21 points on 12 shots for a 1.37 points-per-weighted shot average.


On to tonight's festivities:

Some big steps back or forward can be taken with this week's slate of games (well, in this strong of a Pac10, I guess every weekend means a lot).

UCLA and Oregon can really distance themselves with at least a split, if not more on their road swings to the Bay area and the Apple state respectively.
Or they could easily lose both, and really make the Pac10 leader board a jumbled mess for all to grab.

Oregon at Washington
Huskies are almost essentially out of the NCAA picture, unless they run the table, starting with the home stand against the Oregon schools. Aaron Brooks, after his infamous elbow will be finishing off his suspension by sitting out this game. No one probably predicted that the Ducks would've preferred him to sit out this over sitting out the Wazzu game.
Washington will run big and attempt to get Maarty Leunen in foul trouble early in order to make Coach Ernie Kent really stretch the effectiveness of his already-shallow bench. A big plus for Oregon, is that Tajuan Porter has improved his play as of late, and will be called on to shoulder some of the void left from Brooks' absence.


Oregon St. at Washington St.

The Cougs shouldn't have an issue with the Beaver's visit to Pullman, in the first home match as a ranked team in 57 years. Wazzu is leading the league in efficiency marginthanks to an offense that doesn't turn the ball over and a defense that is only allowing .93 points to be scored each possession. On the other end, Oregon St. is last in efficiency margin, giving up a huge .18 more points per possession than they're putting in. This shouldn't be a problem for the Cougs as long as they don't look ahead to their big showdown on Saturday


UCLA at California

Two similarly efficient offenses face off against two very different defensi. UCLA's claim to fame this season has been it's staunch effort against some high-powered offenses and the numbers back it up. A second-best .95 ppp allowed along with a second best-20.9% turnover rate. While they're roughly middle of the pack in shooting percentage allowed, they are hauling in those misses at an astounding 79.9% defensive rebounding rate. Cal isn't exactly a solid offensive rebounding team either. This is a good test to for the Bears to boost their NCAA profile

USC at Stanford
In a similar NCAA boat as Cal, Stanford and USC desperately need to start adding some more marquee wins to their resume after somewhat lax pre-conference schedules. Nick Young and Taj Gibson will have a little more work to keep their high PPWS numbers up against the presence of the Lopez brothers. On the other end, the Cardinal have been inconsistent as of late, shooting 44% and 67% efg in their split at the Oregon schools last weekend. Going up against an extremely strong shooting defense in USC will probably expose that weakness even more unless they can improve the ball rotation using their bigs.
Either way, one of these teams is adding a strong W to their list.

Jan 24, 2007

Wildcats Looking to Spark

A must win tonight, and on paper, what should be an easy win for Arizona over their in-state rivals.
While The Sun Devils would love to keep it slow the Wildcats will be running and gunning trying to get their offense back in line after a tough road stretch in the brutal La La land. The very fact that Wazzu got out of there with a split is even more impressive now.
Arizona is no doubt a pretty solid lock for the NCAA's, but I doubt after their impressive start, they'd be happy with anything less than a 4 seed.

With a nice soft game at home tonight, this may just be the spark they need leading up to their showdown against UNC on Saturday.

Jan 23, 2007

Pac 10 PPWS Leaders

Here's the top 20 Points-per-weighted shot producers in the Pac10. Stats are for all games. Working on conference-only numbers right now.
Games are through 1/21/2007


Darren Collison, UCLA1.32
Mustafa Shakur, Arizona1.31
Bryce Taylor, Oregon1.3
Daven Harmeling, Washington State1.29
Ivan Radenovic, Arizona1.28
Taj Gibson, Southern California1.27
Chase Budinger, Arizona1.25
Jeff Pendergraph, Arizona State1.25
Abdoulaye N'Diaye, Southern California1.25
Nick Young, Southern California1.23
Ryan Anderson, California1.23
Malik Hairston, Oregon1.23
Ryan Appleby, Washington1.22
Aaron Brooks, Oregon1.21
Lawrence Hill, Stanford1.21
Mac Hopson, Washington State1.2
Quincy Pondexter, Washington1.19
Arron Afflalo, UCLA1.18
Omar Wilkes, California1.18
Derrick Low, Washington State1.17

Jan 22, 2007

Lute Olsen, oh my!!!

Quite a weekend in sports.
Here's the rundown of the Pac10 games.
Updated Pac 10 Tempo Free Stats are now posted.

Washington 47 Washington St. 75
Huskies continue their downward spiral as the boys from the east side continue there rise. Wazzu shot 60% efg and only the turned the ball over 6 times in this slow 63 (for the Huskies) possession game that was obviously dictated by the Cougs. Wazzu was led by Kyle Weaver who posted a 1.72 ppws with 17 points, 4 assists, 2 steals and 8 boards. Washington only shot 34% efg on its way near the bottom of the Pac10 while Wazzu clipped at a 1.19 points-per-possession efficiency compared to Washington's .75 ppp.

Arizona 69 UCLA 73
Arizona lost it's 3rd Pac10 game in a row under Lute Olson for the first time since his inaugural season in 1983. The Bruins kept the pace slower (67 possessions) than the Wildcats would have preferred and also out shot them 55% vs. 42%. With 5 guys averaging over 55% efg on the season, Arizona has shot 42%, 42% and 51% over the past 3 losses. It didn't help the cause that 'Zona only shot 20% on their 15 attempts.

Arizona St. 49 USC 58
Nick Young and Taj Gibson provided most of the Trojans' offense, with Young getting 18 points on 1.27 ppws, and Taj Gibson adding 11 points and grabbing 21% of available defensive rebounds. Both teams weren't exactly efficient in this 59 possession game with USC almost at a point a possession and the Sun Devils at .83 ppp. Offensive rebounds were hard to come by (28% for the visitors vs 22% for USC) and they both only shot around 45% efg. USC commanded a 19 free throw attempt edge that overcame their poor offensive performance.

California 84 Oregon 92
Compare this game to the USC-Zona St. game, and it's a completely different picture. This medium paced game (66 possessions) saw efficiency of Stephen Hawking proportions!! 1.27 ppp for Cal and 1.39!!! for the Ducks. Cal shot 62% efg to Oregon's 68% average and both teams kept their turnovers low at 18% vs. 14% as the Ducks mounted a tremendous 2nd half comeback. The Ducks got beat yet again on the offensive glass (41% vs. 33%) but their starters all poured in double digit scoring, led by Malik Hairston's 1.92 ppws on 19 points and only 8 attempts to get there. Brooks led the total numbers with 22 points while dishing 6 assists and hitting 4 of his 5 threes.


Stanford 67 Oregon St. 56
The Cardinal shot extremely well (67%) but coughed up an inordinate amount of gimmes (31% turnover rate on 18 tosses) in a slow 59 possession game. (Side thought: What happened to the lightning "fast" pace of Pac10 play???? 59, 59, 66, 67 and 63 possession games????? I want my horse races!!!!)
Lawrence Hill dropped in 5 of 9 threes on his way to 24 points. Stanford also had a 13 attempt advantage from the charity line and hauled in a big chunk of their few misses at a 40% offensive rebounding rate. To see the difference in efficiency, look no further than the line of field goal attempts: Stanford 38, Oregon St. 61. Not a way to win a game if you're missing that many chances.

Jan 19, 2007

Oh what a night

Cal 77 Oregon St. 74
The Beavers' Jack McGillis' 3 went through, but he let it go after the buzzer as Cal held off a 6 point comeback from the home squad.
Both teams were extremely efficient in this 63 possession game (1.21 ppp for Cal, 1.16 for O St.).
Great shooting on both sides (63% vs. 61%) as Eric Vernheisel posted 13 points in only 26 minutes of play on 5 field goal attempts for a homicidal 2.18 points-per-weighted shot. Marcel Jones did his best for the Beavers, draining 29 points for a 1.58 ppws average, his second best point total of the season. Cal took care of business before it's big road game in Eugene.


Stanford 59 Oregon 66
Another close win for the Ducks in a game that they probably would have given away last year. Oregon shot poorly, and was dominated in the paint for the first half of the game. Stanford recorded 10 blocks, or in other words, almost 20% of all attempted Ducks shots were blocked. Yikes. But, they overcame this by getting the big Lopez boys in foul trouble by driving to the lane more often. This kept Stanford small and also gave Oregon a 23 free throw attempt advantage in which they made 81% of them. Brooks led the game with 18 points, despite shooting 4 for 13. Stanford missed some easy looks and only made 21% of their threes. Oguchi's shot from the corner was the key shot of the game.


Arizona St. 73 UCLA 80
No problem holding serve at home for the Bruins before their big one on Saturday. They held the Sun Devils to .95 ppp and only 13 points in the second half while posting another sub-par 1.03 ppp themselves. The game was extremely slow, as expected at only 58 possessions and was uncharacteristically ugly in the turnover field, 26% recorded by both teams. Mbah a Moute had 5 of those turnovers, but he hauled in 14 total boards, 7 offensive to post a salacious 30% offensive rebounding percentage and hauling in 32% of Arizona St.'s misses while he was on the floor.


Arizona 73 USC 80
Big win for the Trojans against an Arizona team that has now lost one game each of the past three weeks. USC shot well, 58% efg, led by Nick Young posting 1.37 ppws while getting 30 points and hauling in 8 rebounds. On the other side, Arizona shot extremely poorly, only 42% efg with Jawann Mclellan dropping a .5 ppws turd on the court on 1 of 7 shooting from the floor. This after he's been averaging over 1.2 ppws in the Pac10. The game was fast as expected at a nice 77 possession clip. USC also cradled the ball like a small puppy, only giving up 16% of their possessions in turnovers. Not bad in a 100 yard dash of a game.

Jan 18, 2007

Where are they going now?

In a fairly wide-open Pac10 field this year (8 legitimately can still make the NCAA, 5 have real shots at winning the conference), it's good to try and see how conference play has affected a team's stats. Any indication of future play can help. If a team's numbers are inflated due to their schedule strength, we'd like to dig that up, shake it around and beat it like a dirty old rug.

When comparing total pre-conference numbers to Pac10 play, here's just some numbers that pop out:

Of course, offensive efficiency will drop as you enter conference play, but the Bruins has dropped the most.
After cruising at 1.20 ppp pre-conference, UCLA is running at 1.06 ppp in Pac10 play.
USC has actually increased, .05 points a possession to 1.12. .05 may seem like a drop in the bucket, but with a 68 possession-on-average game, that translates into 3.4 points a game. I'm guessing they will gladly keep those 3.4 points in their 2 points win over Oregon.

On the same note, defensive efficiency will also drop (well, rise in points-per-possession allowed), however the biggest change has been Oregon, going from .9 ppp to 1.08 (facing UCLA, Arizona and USC will do that to you).
Also up there are Washington (.96 to 1.14), Arizona (.95 to 1.11) and Stanford (.92 to 1.08).
Washington St. has held steady, only going from .89 to .96 ppp.

As a cause of the Trojans increase in efficiency, USC is shooting 5.2% better in Pac10 play compared to their 53% effective FG% posted pre-conference. Thank Taj Gibson's 66.7% efg and Nick Young's 61.4% efg for that improvement.

Even better, they're turning the ball over 6.1% less in conference play. They were turning it over 24% of the time pre-conference!

Oregon wasn't great pre-conference on the offensive glass (38%), but now they're over 10% worse in conference so far. Marty Leunen can only do so much to help the cause on the boards.

UCLA meanwhile has improved their defensive rebounding by over 13%. They are currently at an incredible 84.3% rate, almost 8% better than the next highest team.

I'll post this data shortly....




Quick previews for tonight:

Stanford at Oregon
Get the ball into the hands of Lawrence Hill (58%efg, only 11% Turnover rate) and the Cardinal have at least a shot to keep it close.
Ducks have 4 guys (including limited games Hairston) shooting over 55% efg. Wowzers.

California at Oregon St.
Beavers need to force Cal into at least the 23% turnover average that Oregon St. has been forcing to have a chance. Cal has limited their exposure, only giving up 17% overall. They lost the one game that they went over 23%.

Arizona at USC
A big home win potentially for the Trojans. Look for this game to move, and potentially hit the 150's in total points. We'll see if USC's improved shooting can keep up. Oh, Arizona has 5 guys over 55% efg by the way.

Arizona St. at UCLA
Both teams will keep this one slow. UCLA better not look ahead to Saturday.