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. Syracuse | 70.3 |
| 2. Providence | 69.7 |
| 3. Notre Dame | 69.3 |
| 4. Seton Hall | 69.1 |
| 5. Marquette | 67.4 |
| 6. Connecticut | 67.1 |
| 7. USF | 65.8 |
| 8. St. John's | 65.2 |
| 9. Villanova | 65 |
| 10. Louisville | 64.2 |
| 11. West Virginia | 64.2 |
| 12. Cincinnati | 63.2 |
| 13. DePaul | 62.9 |
| 14. Pittsburgh | 62.1 |
| 15. Rutgers | 61 |
| 16. Georgetown | 59.5 |
Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)
| 1. Georgetown | 1.14 |
| 2. Louisville | 1.09 |
| 3. Notre Dame | 1.08 |
| 4. West Virginia | 1.08 |
| 5. Pittsburgh | 1.08 |
| 6. Villanova | 1.06 |
| 7. Marquette | 1.04 |
| 8. Providence | 1.03 |
| 9. Syracuse | 1.02 |
| 10. Seton Hall | 1 |
| 11. Cincinnati | 0.98 |
| 12. DePaul | 0.98 |
| 13. Connecticut | 0.95 |
| 14. St. John's | 0.95 |
| 15. USF | 0.93 |
| 16. Rutgers | 0.93 |
Effective FG %
| 1. Georgetown | 56.9% |
| 2. West Virginia | 53.8% |
| 3. Pittsburgh | 52.3% |
| 4. Providence | 51.6% |
| 5. Notre Dame | 50.8% |
| 6. Louisville | 50.2% |
| 7. Syracuse | 49.3% |
| 8. Marquette | 47.4% |
| 9. USF | 47.3% |
| 10. DePaul | 47.1% |
| 11. Villanova | 47% |
| 12. Seton Hall | 45.8% |
| 13. St. John's | 45.7% |
| 14. Cincinnati | 45.2% |
| 15. Connecticut | 42.8% |
| 16. Rutgers | 42.1% |
2-pt Shooting %
| 1. Georgetown | 57.7% |
| 2. West Virginia | 54.9% |
| 3. Providence | 52.3% |
| 4. Louisville | 50.4% |
| 5. Pittsburgh | 50.3% |
| 6. DePaul | 48.9% |
| 7. USF | 47.5% |
| 8. Notre Dame | 47.1% |
| 9. Syracuse | 46.5% |
| 10. Marquette | 46.3% |
| 11. Seton Hall | 43.7% |
| 12. Villanova | 43.4% |
| 13. Cincinnati | 43.4% |
| 14. St. John's | 42.5% |
| 15. Connecticut | 41.2% |
| 16. Rutgers | 40.8% |
3-pt Shooting %
| 1. Notre Dame | 37.9% |
| 2. Pittsburgh | 37.8% |
| 3. Georgetown | 37% |
| 4. Syracuse | 36.2% |
| 5. West Virginia | 35.3% |
| 6. Villanova | 35.3% |
| 7. St. John's | 33.8% |
| 8. Seton Hall | 33.5% |
| 9. Providence | 33.3% |
| 10. Louisville | 33.3% |
| 11. Marquette | 33.1% |
| 12. Cincinnati | 32.2% |
| 13. Connecticut | 31.3% |
| 14. USF | 31.1% |
| 15. Rutgers | 30.1% |
| 16. DePaul | 28.9% |
Turnover %
| 1. Seton Hall | 16.7% |
| 2. Louisville | 16.9% |
| 3. West Virginia | 18.4% |
| 4. Cincinnati | 18.4% |
| 5. Notre Dame | 18.5% |
| 6. DePaul | 18.6% |
| 7. Rutgers | 18.6% |
| 8. Pittsburgh | 20.4% |
| 9. Syracuse | 21.1% |
| 10. Marquette | 21.4% |
| 11. St. John's | 21.8% |
| 12. Connecticut | 21.9% |
| 13. Villanova | 22% |
| 14. Georgetown | 23.5% |
| 15. Providence | 24.1% |
| 16. USF | 24.5% |
Offensive Rebounding %
| 1. Georgetown | 38.3% |
| 2. Providence | 37.9% |
| 3. Villanova | 37.5% |
| 4. Connecticut | 36.7% |
| 5. Marquette | 36.5% |
| 6. Pittsburgh | 35.3% |
| 7. Cincinnati | 33.7% |
| 8. Louisville | 32.2% |
| 9. Notre Dame | 31.2% |
| 10. Syracuse | 30.6% |
| 11. Rutgers | 30.3% |
| 12. St. John's | 30.1% |
| 13. USF | 29.6% |
| 14. DePaul | 29.4% |
| 15. Seton Hall | 27.1% |
| 16. West Virginia | 24.5% |
Efficiency Margin
| 1. Georgetown | 0.16 |
| 2. Louisville | 0.13 |
| 3. Pittsburgh | 0.11 |
| 4. Notre Dame | 0.08 |
| 5. Syracuse | 0.04 |
| 6. Marquette | 0.03 |
| 7. West Virginia | 0.03 |
| 8. Villanova | 0.03 |
| 9. Providence | 0.02 |
| 10. DePaul | 0.01 |
| 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. Louisville | 0.96 |
| 2. Pittsburgh | 0.97 |
| 3. Georgetown | 0.97 |
| 4. Connecticut | 0.97 |
| 5. Syracuse | 0.98 |
| 6. DePaul | 0.98 |
| 7. Notre Dame | 1.01 |
| 8. Marquette | 1.01 |
| 9. Providence | 1.02 |
| 10. Villanova | 1.02 |
| 11. St. John's | 1.04 |
| 12. West Virginia | 1.05 |
| 13. USF | 1.08 |
| 14. Rutgers | 1.08 |
| 15. Seton Hall | 1.09 |
| 16. Cincinnati | 1.11 |
Effective Shooting % Allowed
| 1. Connecticut | 43.3% |
| 2. Syracuse | 43.5% |
| 3. Georgetown | 45.2% |
| 4. Louisville | 46.3% |
| 5. Pittsburgh | 46.6% |
| 6. DePaul | 47.1% |
| 7. Marquette | 47.2% |
| 8. Notre Dame | 47.8% |
| 9. Providence | 48.5% |
| 10. Villanova | 49.4% |
| 11. USF | 49.6% |
| 12. St. John's | 49.9% |
| 13. Rutgers | 50.1% |
| 14. West Virginia | 51.6% |
| 15. Seton Hall | 53.1% |
| 16. Cincinnati | 55.9% |
2-pt Shooting % Allowed
| 1. Syracuse | 40.1% |
| 2. Connecticut | 42% |
| 3. DePaul | 43.9% |
| 4. Georgetown | 44.2% |
| 5. Louisville | 45.3% |
| 6. Villanova | 45.4% |
| 7. Notre Dame | 46.2% |
| 8. USF | 47% |
| 9. Marquette | 47.1% |
| 10. Rutgers | 47.3% |
| 11. Providence | 48.4% |
| 12. Pittsburgh | 48.7% |
| 13. St. John's | 49.6% |
| 14. Cincinnati | 50.4% |
| 15. West Virginia | 53.2% |
| 16. Seton Hall | 54.3% |
3-pt Shooting % Allowed
| 1. Cincinnati | 42.5% |
| 2. Rutgers | 37.4% |
| 3. Villanova | 36.5% |
| 4. USF | 36.4% |
| 5. DePaul | 35.8% |
| 6. Notre Dame | 34.1% |
| 7. Seton Hall | 33.7% |
| 8. St. John's | 33.7% |
| 9. Syracuse | 32.8% |
| 10. Providence | 32.4% |
| 11. Louisville | 32.2% |
| 12. West Virginia | 32.1% |
| 13. Marquette | 31.5% |
| 14. Georgetown | 31.2% |
| 15. Connecticut | 30.9% |
| 16. Pittsburgh | 28.7% |
Turnover % Forced
| 1. Louisville | 23.2% |
| 2. Villanova | 22.7% |
| 3. Marquette | 22.4% |
| 4. West Virginia | 21.9% |
| 5. Cincinnati | 21.9% |
| 6. Seton Hall | 21.8% |
| 7. Connecticut | 21.2% |
| 8. Georgetown | 20.9% |
| 9. Pittsburgh | 20% |
| 10. DePaul | 20% |
| 11. Notre Dame | 19.7% |
| 12. Syracuse | 19.4% |
| 13. St. John's | 19.3% |
| 14. Providence | 18.6% |
| 15. USF | 17.1% |
| 16. Rutgers | 16.8% |
Defensive Rebounding %
| 1. Villanova | 75.5% |
| 2. Pittsburgh | 74.2% |
| 3. DePaul | 73.7% |
| 4. Louisville | 72.2% |
| 5. Seton Hall | 71.9% |
| 6. USF | 71.8% |
| 7. West Virginia | 70.9% |
| 8. Cincinnati | 70.8% |
| 9. Rutgers | 70.8% |
| 10. Notre Dame | 70.5% |
| 11. Marquette | 70.1% |
| 12. St. John's | 69.8% |
| 13. Connecticut | 69.5% |
| 14. Providence | 69.2% |
| 15. Syracuse | 68.5% |
| 16. Georgetown | 67.3% |

No comments:
Post a Comment