Nov 22, 2008

Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have Ourselves a Battle

Perusing around, Bearcats bball blog noted another insanity of tempo free bran flakes:

A 122 possession masterpiece.

Take that VMI.
The battle for tempo supremecy is on.

Nov 15, 2008

A Fresh Slate With a Familiar Ally

It's November. There's snow falling at football games.
It's time for delicious match-ups like Virginia Military Institute vs. Kentucky

VMI has always been a favorite here at TFS.

So, it comes as no surprise that they would put up this nugget to start off the season and shock the Wildcat faithful:

VMI 111 - Kentucky 103
93 possession game
Wildcats turned it over on over 26% of their possessions in this track meet.

If this is any indication of the season to come, I think we're in for a good year.

Mar 18, 2008

Planting the NCAA Seeds

*This is a post I worked up last year and now I've updated with the 2007 numbers. It's just a helpful guide to see what it takes, flat-out numbers-wise to produce a Final Four team and eventual champion. Picking that random 5-12 upset may score you bonus points, but you'll never be in contention unless you've got the champion, finalists and final four nailed down. *

This takes the stats off of kenpom.com and gives us the basic tempo-free breakdowns of the past 4 tournaments' teams. Obviously, as with all stats, this is isn't anywhere near the end-all be-all, just another tool in the shed to use in trying to fill out that pesky bracket better than your 10 year old neighbor kid.

The first two tables are averages for the 4 years, with the data for each year just below those tables. The first one showcases all Final Four teams and their averages. The second just looks at the top 3 seeds, to get some type of idea of what characteristics a pretender, or contender holds in the top 3 seed lines. The goal always is to get the most teams in your bracket to the final four. Hopefully, this gives a little insight as to what to look for in the "better" and "overrated" top 3 seeded teams this year.

Finalists in Bold. Champions in italics.

(Bonus statistical note: The averages are straight averages, not averages off of the raw numbers. So keep that in mind. It may render these averages completely useless. Maybe not.)

Pos: Possessions/40 minutes
Oeff: Offensive Efficiency. Points-per-possession
Deff: Defensive Efficiency.
Margin: Oeff - Deff
Efg: Effective field goal shooting percentage
TO: Turnover rate (turnovers per 100 possessions)
Oreb: Offensive rebounding rate (offensive rebounds per rebound opportunity)
Defg: Effective FG % allowed
Dto: Turnover rate forced
Doreb: Offensive rebounding % allowed


All Final Four Teams








PosOeffDeffMarginEFGTOOrebDefgDefgDtoDoreb


671.190.870.3255%20%36%46%46%22%30%



Averages for the Top 3 seeds based on their finish (Ex: Final 4 - Averages for all Top 3 seeds that made the final four)







PosOeffDeffMarginEFGTOOrebDefgDefgDtoDoreb
Final 466.91.210.870.3455%20%36%45%45%22%31%
Finalists67.71.20.860.3355%20%36%45%45%22%30%
Champions69.71.230.870.3656%20%38%45%45%20%30%
Didn't make Final 467.91.170.90.2753%19%37%46%46%21%31%









Seed2007PosOeffDeffMarginEFGTOOrebDefgDefgDtoDoreb
1Florida66.81.250.870.3860%21%38%45%45%19%28%
1North Carolina73.11.240.860.3854%18%40%47%47%21%30%
1Kansas701.180.820.3655%20%38%43%43%24%30%
1Ohio St.65.41.240.880.3654%17%35%47%47%20%31%
2Wisconsin64.41.170.860.3152%17%35%46%46%22%29%
2UCLA64.31.170.840.3354%18%33%48%48%23%30%
2Memphis69.11.170.870.352%18%40%44%44%24%32%
2Georgetown59.91.250.890.3657%22%40%44%44%19%34%
3Oregon66.91.20.930.2753%18%35%49%49%22%33%
3Pittsburgh63.41.180.90.2853%18%37%46%46%19%32%
3Washington St.60.71.130.890.2352%16%27%46%46%22%32%
3Texas A&M651.20.870.3456%18%34%43%43%22%30%
Final 4Florida66.81.250.870.3860%21%38%45%45%19%28%
Final 4UCLA64.31.170.840.3354%18%33%48%48%23%30%
Final 4Georgetown59.91.250.890.3657%22%40%44%44%19%34%
Final 4Ohio St.65.41.240.880.3654%17%35%47%47%20%31%






2006

Seed2006PosOeffDeffMarginEFGTOOrebDefgDefgDtoDoreb
1Villanova67.21.160.890.2749%17%36%47%47%23%31%
1Connecticut71.51.190.890.352%20%42%43%43%18%31%
1Duke72.21.180.890.2956%19%29%46%46%22%37%
1Memphis72.51.120.870.2551%21%41%43%43%23%30%
2Texas65.81.180.880.3153%20%41%44%44%21%26%
2Tennessee72.81.170.950.2254%18%30%53%53%24%33%
2UCLA63.41.120.840.2853%22%36%46%46%22%29%
2Georgetown59.41.160.920.2453%19%35%48%48%20%29%
3Iowa66.51.040.830.249%22%31%44%44%21%28%
3Gonzaga68.61.191.010.1852%18%34%49%49%18%31%
3North Carolina72.61.160.90.2654%23%40%46%46%21%29%
3Florida68.61.190.870.3257%21%35%45%45%22%31%
Final 4Florida68.61.190.870.3257%21%35%45%45%22%31%
Final 4George Mason64.31.090.90.1954%20%30%44%44%20%30%
Final 4UCLA63.41.120.840.2853%22%36%46%46%22%29%
Final 4Louisiana St.69.41.090.850.2450%22%38%46%46%21%29%


2005


Seed2005PosOeffDeffMarginEFGTOOrebDefgDefgDtoDoreb
1Illinois64.91.230.880.3556%17%34%47%47%22%29%
1Washington72.91.210.950.2654%19%40%51%51%24%34%
1North Carolina73.71.260.880.3856%21%39%46%46%23%30%
1Duke68.81.160.860.352%19%37%42%42%22%35%
2Oklahoma St.67.21.230.940.2956%20%35%50%50%22%29%
2Wake Forest701.250.960.2956%20%40%50%50%20%30%
2Connecticut71.71.130.880.2550%21%42%43%43%17%28%
2Kentucky67.21.140.880.2652%19%35%47%47%26%32%
3Arizona69.11.20.890.3153%21%40%49%49%23%32%
3Gonzaga68.21.180.990.1955%19%38%49%49%18%28%
3Kansas67.11.170.910.2653%21%35%44%44%20%31%
3Oklahoma66.81.150.890.2653%20%38%47%47%23%30%
Final 4Illinois64.91.230.880.3556%17%34%47%47%22%29%
Final 4Louisville67.81.210.90.3155%20%37%45%45%23%30%
Final 4North Carolina73.71.260.880.3856%21%39%46%46%23%30%
Final 4Michigan St.67.71.210.920.2955%20%38%49%49%22%27%


2004


Seed2004PosOeffDeffMarginEFGTOOrebDefgDefgDtoDoreb
1St. Joseph's681.180.880.3156%17%28%44%44%24%35%
1Kentucky68.31.160.880.2853%21%36%46%46%23%29%
1Duke69.81.240.850.3853%19%38%45%45%24%35%
1Stanford66.41.110.860.2653%21%37%44%44%21%27%
2Oklahoma St.661.20.880.3356%20%36%46%46%22%30%
2Gonzaga68.21.190.920.2757%19%37%44%44%18%28%
2Mississippi St.70.51.150.890.2652%21%40%47%47%23%30%
2Connecticut69.61.20.850.3553%19%41%42%42%17%29%
3Pittsburgh61.71.120.840.2851%19%39%43%43%20%33%
3Georgia Tech70.21.140.850.2953%21%31%44%44%27%34%
3Texas66.41.170.90.2750%17%42%45%45%20%30%
3North Carolina St.63.71.220.920.353%20%31%47%47%22%32%
Final 4Oklahoma St.661.20.880.3356%20%36%46%46%22%30%
Final 4Georgia Tech70.21.140.850.2953%21%31%44%44%27%34%
Final 4Duke69.81.240.850.3853%19%38%45%45%24%35%
Final 4Connecticut69.61.20.850.3553%19%41%42%42%17%29%

Mar 12, 2008

It's been a strange year

Obviously, as you can tell, I haven't been able to stay with this site that much this season for a variety of reasons. I'm going to do a final update tomorrow of the conference stats for 2008.

The best time of the year is just beginning...

Feb 22, 2008

Pac 10 Statistical Variation Snapsot

Well, a bunch of numbers were sitting in front of me, so I felt it was time to do some miscellaneous analysis. Below is just a brief snapshot of each team's best and worst stat based on their variation from the average of the conference.

Pac-10 games through 2/18

Arizona
Hits the 3, but they don't pull in their misses. Probably due to their high percentage of shots that are 3's (35%)

Best - 3-pt%. Shooting 40.4%, above the 34.7% average
Worst - Offensive rebounding. Pulling in only 23.9% of their misses vs. 30.7% average.

Arizona St.
Not much variance from the means, but a few telling signs for the Sun Devils.

Best - Forces their opponents to turnover the ball on 20.3% of their possessions vs. the avg of 18.7%
Worst - Offensive rebounding. 25.3% VS. 30.7% average.

Cal
Not much to look at this club. Had to dig for the "best" stat. There were plenty of "worst" stats to look at

Best - 1.09 PPP vs. 1.046 conference average. Yeah, like I said, nothing eye-popping
Worst - Only forcing turnovers on 15.8% of their opponent's possessions vs. conference average of 18.7%. Hence a 1.13 PPP average for their opponents.

Oregon
A snapshot of a team that has significantly dropped from last year.

Best - Shooting 54.3% efg vs. 49.8% average. (better than last year)
Worst - Not forcing turnovers. 15.3% of opponents possessions end in turnovers. Forced 19.7% last year.

Oregon St.
Not much to be proud of this season. Had to really scrape to find a "best"

Best - 17.3% turnover average is at least below the conference average of 18.7%
Worst - Well, the most off-the-mean stat posted, was that of the Beavers' .9 PPP average, vs. the 1.046 average, which during an average 64 possession game works out to 10 points below the average.

Stanford
Defense is the name of the game for this squad in 2008, making up for their sub-par shooting.

Best - 42% efg average allowed, vs. the conference 49.8% average.
Worst - 45.9% efg shooting on the offensive end, vs. the conference average of 49.8%.

UCLA
Beast of the Pac10, balance is what drives the Bruins as their variance on both ends isn't as large as Stanford's.

Best - They grab over 78% of their opponents' misses vs. the average of 69.3%. Second chances, beware!
Worst - As has been documented over at Kenpom.com, opponent 3-pt shooting tends more towards the mean, but their average of 36.5% given up vs. the 34.7% conference avg. is the largest "bad" difference from any average.

USC
If they get a shot off, it goes in more than often. Highlight that "if"

Best - They shoot 56.4% on their 2's, vs. the average of 48.8% conference-wide
Worst - 22.2% of their possessions result in turnovers. This versus the conference average of 18.7%


Washington
Even the Appleby shooting machine can't help their average, but they pull in their misses.

Best - Rebounds 38.1% of their misses vs. 30.7% average. They're helped by only lofting up 26.8% of their shots from beyond the arc
Worst - Only hitting 31.3% of their 3's vs. 34.7% average. Good thing they don't shoot as many.


Washington St.
Bennett has this team dialed into a protective offense and a swarming defense.

Best - Only 16% of their possessions end in turnovers.
Worst - They force their opponents into a turnover 21.8% of the time vs. the 18.7% average.

Feb 15, 2008

Don't Turn the Ball over and Look What Happens!

Rutgers 63     West Virginia 81

Just wanted to highlight this bubble game (for WVA) for an example of how a team can manage to shoot 8 percentage points worse than your opposition yet still come out ahead by 18 points.

This medium-paced (sorry for the Sandler reference) contest of 67 possessions saw The Mountaineers post a 1.205 PPP average vs. Rutgers' .937 average. How did they do that when WVA shot only 47% and The Scarlet Knights shot 55%?
West Virginia turned the ball over a paltry 4 times in the game compared to Rutgers' 17 times for a respective 6% to 25% turnover average! Heck, I'll gladly shoot 47% if I know that I'm getting a shot off on 94% of the possessions.
Couple that with Rutgers only grabbing 17% of their misses and you have yourself a rout.

Bonus note: Rutgers shot 44% on 16 three-point attempts

Feb 7, 2008

Thursday Night Beast Action

UCLA 67     Washington St. 59

The Bruins continued their march as the definitive beast of the Pac10 with a big win in Pullman tonight while the Cougs continued their downward spiral in the table thanks to a balanced and efficient night from Kevin Love and to an offensive rebounding clinic put on by the entire UCLA team.
This 62 possession game saw UCLA post a 1.09 PPP average vs. Wazzu's sub-par .96. UCLA made up for a poor 25% 3pt shooting night by grabbing over 52% of their total misses and by holding Wazzu to a measly 20% offensive rebounding average.
The game was essentially a draw for 35 minutes until UCLA broke out and climbed to a 9 point lead with just over 3 to go thanks to a two minute span of 3 turnovers and only one attempted (and missed) shot over the course of those 2 minutes for Wazzu.

This game essentially was a snapshot of what UCLA has done all season. Rebound the heck out of you, lock down on D and shoot just well enough to finish off a game.

Feb 4, 2008

Numbers

Fixed. 2/6/08

Feb 1, 2008

2008 ACC Tempo-Free Stats

**UPDATE*** Thank you Struttin' Wolf for the notices. I found that the macro running the ACC was only sorting and pulling in 10 teams, not the 12. That has been fixed and updated. As I said previously, any tips on data that looks fishy is appreciated as I simply run the macros off of the data from the conference sites, but there's always the possibility that a number gets mis-sorted
***

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats


Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Duke76.1
2. North Carolina75.6
3. Georgia Tech72.7
4. Maryland72.3
5. Wake Forest72.2
6. Virginia Tech72.1
7. Miami69.8
8. Virginia69.6
9. Boston College69.6
10. Clemson68.8
11. Florida State68.3
12. NC State67.9


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Duke1.13
2. North Carolina1.12
3. Clemson1.08
4. Maryland1.05
5. Georgia Tech1.05
6. Miami1.05
7. Boston College1.03
8. Wake Forest1.03
9. Virginia0.99
10. NC State0.99
11. Virginia Tech0.97
12. Florida State0.97


Effective FG %

1. Duke54%
2. Georgia Tech53.1%
3. Maryland52.5%
4. Boston College51.2%
5. Clemson51.2%
6. NC State51.1%
7. Wake Forest50.9%
8. North Carolina50.7%
9. Miami48.2%
10. Florida State48%
11. Virginia46.6%
12. Virginia Tech45.6%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Georgia Tech53.4%
2. Duke52.7%
3. Maryland51.4%
4. Wake Forest50.1%
5. North Carolina49.6%
6. Clemson48.6%
7. Boston College48.1%
8. NC State48%
9. Virginia Tech47%
10. Florida State46.9%
11. Miami46.6%
12. Virginia45.1%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Boston College39%
2. NC State38.4%
3. Clemson37.7%
4. Duke37.2%
5. Maryland37.1%
6. North Carolina36.4%
7. Georgia Tech35%
8. Wake Forest35%
9. Miami34.6%
10. Florida State33.2%
11. Virginia32.8%
12. Virginia Tech27.9%


Turnover %

1. Virginia17.7%
2. Duke18.1%
3. Clemson18.8%
4. North Carolina20%
5. Wake Forest20%
6. Miami20.3%
7. Boston College20.6%
8. Maryland21.3%
9. Virginia Tech21.6%
10. Georgia Tech21.9%
11. Florida State22.3%
12. NC State24%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. North Carolina39.7%
2. Clemson36.7%
3. Miami34.2%
4. Virginia Tech31%
5. Wake Forest30.6%
6. Georgia Tech30.5%
7. Duke30.4%
8. Florida State29.2%
9. Maryland29.2%
10. Boston College28.4%
11. Virginia28.3%
12. NC State27.8%


Efficiency Margin

1. North Carolina0.15
2. Duke0.14
3. Clemson0.08
4. Maryland0.01
5. Georgia Tech-0.01
6. Virginia Tech-0.02
7. Miami-0.02
8. Wake Forest-0.02
9. Boston College-0.05
10. Virginia-0.07
11. Florida State-0.07
12. NC State-0.14



Defensive Stats



Points per possession Allowed

1. North Carolina0.97
2. Virginia Tech0.99
3. Duke0.99
4. Clemson1
5. Florida State1.04
6. Maryland1.04
7. Wake Forest1.04
8. Virginia1.06
9. Georgia Tech1.07
10. Miami1.07
11. Boston College1.08
12. NC State1.12


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland47.5%
2. Clemson48.2%
3. North Carolina48.4%
4. Boston College49.1%
5. Virginia Tech49.4%
6. Duke50.6%
7. Miami50.6%
8. Florida State51.1%
9. Georgia Tech51.1%
10. Wake Forest51.6%
11. NC State52.9%
12. Virginia53%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland45.1%
2. Miami46.2%
3. Virginia Tech46.8%
4. Florida State47.9%
5. North Carolina48.1%
6. Clemson49%
7. Boston College49.7%
8. NC State50.3%
9. Wake Forest50.4%
10. Virginia51%
11. Duke51.2%
12. Georgia Tech52.1%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Clemson30.7%
2. Boston College31.9%
3. Duke32.2%
4. North Carolina32.6%
5. Georgia Tech32.7%
6. Maryland35.3%
7. Wake Forest36.1%
8. Virginia Tech36.5%
9. Virginia37.4%
10. Florida State37.9%
11. Miami39.1%
12. NC State40.6%


Turnover % Forced

1. NC State24%
2. Florida State22.3%
3. Georgia Tech21.9%
4. Virginia Tech21.6%
5. Maryland21.3%
6. Boston College20.6%
7. Miami20.3%
8. North Carolina20%
9. Wake Forest20%
10. Clemson18.8%
11. Duke18.1%
12. Virginia17.7%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Virginia Tech78%
2. Virginia77.7%
3. North Carolina76.8%
4. Duke73.7%
5. Maryland73.4%
6. Wake Forest72.8%
7. Miami70.7%
8. Florida State70.2%
9. Georgia Tech69.2%
10. NC State68.4%
11. Boston College68%
12. Clemson66.2%

Jan 31, 2008

2008 SEC Tempo-Free Stats

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats


Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Tennessee72.2
2. Ole Miss69.4
3. Alabama69.3
4. Arkansas69.1
5. Florida69
6. Vanderbilt68.5
7. Auburn68.3
8. Georgia67.7
9. Mississippi State66.7
10. LSU66
11. South Carolina64
12. Kentucky63.1


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Florida1.11
2. Tennessee1.11
3. Auburn1.08
4. Mississippi State1.05
5. Vanderbilt1.05
6. South Carolina1.04
7. Ole Miss1.03
8. Arkansas1.02
9. Kentucky1.01
10. Alabama1.01
11. LSU0.98
12. Georgia0.96


Effective FG %

1. Mississippi State54.1%
2. Florida53.3%
3. Auburn51.7%
4. Vanderbilt51.5%
5. Tennessee51.2%
6. Arkansas50.3%
7. Kentucky50.2%
8. South Carolina49.6%
9. Alabama48.9%
10. Ole Miss47.2%
11. LSU45.7%
12. Georgia45.3%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Florida55.6%
2. Mississippi State54.6%
3. Auburn50.5%
4. Vanderbilt50.2%
5. Alabama49.5%
6. South Carolina49%
7. Arkansas48.9%
8. Kentucky48.8%
9. Tennessee48.5%
10. LSU46.2%
11. Georgia45.4%
12. Ole Miss45.3%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Tennessee37.1%
2. Kentucky35.7%
3. Vanderbilt35.6%
4. Auburn35.6%
5. Mississippi State35.5%
6. Arkansas35.3%
7. Ole Miss34.1%
8. South Carolina33.6%
9. Florida33%
10. Alabama31.8%
11. Georgia30%
12. LSU29.8%


Turnover %

1. South Carolina15.5%
2. Auburn17.9%
3. Ole Miss18.3%
4. Vanderbilt18.4%
5. Tennessee18.5%
6. Florida18.8%
7. Alabama19.1%
8. LSU19.2%
9. Georgia20.6%
10. Arkansas20.7%
11. Kentucky22.9%
12. Mississippi State23.3%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Ole Miss36.7%
2. Tennessee35.2%
3. Mississippi State33.1%
4. Georgia32.5%
5. Arkansas32%
6. Florida31.8%
7. LSU31.7%
8. Alabama30.9%
9. Kentucky30.5%
10. Auburn29.1%
11. South Carolina28.3%
12. Vanderbilt26.3%


Efficiency Margin

1. Tennessee0.14
2. Mississippi State0.09
3. Arkansas0.05
4. Vanderbilt0.04
5. Florida0.03
6. Kentucky0
7. Alabama-0.03
8. Ole Miss-0.05
9. Georgia-0.06
10. South Carolina-0.07
11. Auburn-0.08
12. LSU-0.08




Defensive Stats

Points per possession Allowed

1. Mississippi State0.96
2. Tennessee0.97
3. Arkansas0.98
4. Kentucky1.01
5. Vanderbilt1.01
6. Georgia1.02
7. Alabama1.04
8. LSU1.06
9. Florida1.08
10. Ole Miss1.09
11. South Carolina1.11
12. Auburn1.16


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Mississippi State41.3%
2. Arkansas45.5%
3. Kentucky46.3%
4. Tennessee47.8%
5. Vanderbilt47.9%
6. LSU50.6%
7. Alabama50.7%
8. Ole Miss51.7%
9. Georgia52.3%
10. Florida53.2%
11. South Carolina53.3%
12. Auburn58.6%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Mississippi State39.6%
2. Kentucky44.5%
3. Arkansas44.8%
4. Vanderbilt47.3%
5. LSU47.9%
6. Alabama48.2%
7. Ole Miss50.2%
8. Tennessee50.4%
9. South Carolina52.8%
10. Florida53%
11. Georgia55.1%
12. Auburn59%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Tennessee28.7%
2. Mississippi State29.8%
3. Arkansas31.2%
4. Georgia31.7%
5. Vanderbilt32.7%
6. Kentucky33.1%
7. Florida35.7%
8. South Carolina36%
9. Ole Miss36.1%
10. Alabama36.2%
11. LSU37.3%
12. Auburn38.6%


Turnover % Forced

1. Tennessee23.1%
2. South Carolina22.2%
3. Alabama21.1%
4. Auburn21%
5. Arkansas19.6%
6. Florida19.3%
7. Vanderbilt18.7%
8. LSU18.5%
9. Kentucky18.4%
10. Georgia17.7%
11. Ole Miss17.2%
12. Mississippi State16%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Georgia79.7%
2. Tennessee76.4%
3. Alabama74%
4. Ole Miss73.5%
5. Florida72.1%
6. Kentucky72.1%
7. Arkansas71.5%
8. Vanderbilt70.6%
9. LSU70.4%
10. Auburn69.7%
11. Mississippi State68.4%
12. South Carolina62.2%

2008 Big 12 Tempo-Free Stats

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats

Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Baylor71.9
2. Kansas State70.5
3. Missouri70.3
4. Texas Tech69.3
5. Kansas69.1
6. Iowa State67.7
7. Oklahoma State64.9
8. Texas64.6
9. Nebraska64.3
10. Oklahoma63.5
11. Texas A&M63.4
12. Colorado60.7


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Kansas1.13
2. Kansas State1.11
3. Texas1.1
4. Baylor1.08
5. Texas A&M1.05
6. Missouri1.02
7. Oklahoma State1.02
8. Oklahoma1
9. Texas Tech0.99
10. Colorado0.97
11. Nebraska0.97
12. Iowa State0.91


Effective FG %

1. Kansas53.1%
2. Colorado50.7%
3. Missouri50.6%
4. Kansas State50.5%
5. Oklahoma State50.4%
6. Baylor49.9%
7. Texas A&M49.4%
8. Texas Tech48.2%
9. Texas47.8%
10. Nebraska47.3%
11. Oklahoma46.5%
12. Iowa State45%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Kansas52.1%
2. Missouri50.7%
3. Colorado49.6%
4. Kansas State49%
5. Texas A&M48.9%
6. Oklahoma State47.8%
7. Nebraska47.1%
8. Baylor46.5%
9. Texas Tech45.9%
10. Texas45.1%
11. Oklahoma44.9%
12. Iowa State43.9%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Baylor37.4%
2. Kansas37.4%
3. Texas Tech37%
4. Oklahoma State36.1%
5. Kansas State35.7%
6. Texas35.3%
7. Colorado35.1%
8. Texas A&M33.8%
9. Missouri33.5%
10. Oklahoma33.1%
11. Nebraska31.8%
12. Iowa State31.3%


Turnover %

1. Texas14%
2. Baylor17.5%
3. Missouri18%
4. Texas A&M18.3%
5. Kansas18.8%
6. Oklahoma19.1%
7. Kansas State19.2%
8. Texas Tech19.3%
9. Iowa State19.6%
10. Nebraska19.7%
11. Colorado21.3%
12. Oklahoma State21.6%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Kansas State38.9%
2. Texas36.2%
3. Kansas33.3%
4. Texas A&M31.8%
5. Oklahoma31.1%
6. Oklahoma State27.4%
7. Baylor27.2%
8. Missouri26.4%
9. Nebraska26.1%
10. Texas Tech23.1%
11. Colorado22.1%
12. Iowa State21.8%


Efficiency Margin

1. Kansas0.2
2. Kansas State0.12
3. Texas0.1
4. Texas A&M0.04
5. Baylor0.01
6. Oklahoma State-0.02
7. Nebraska-0.05
8. Texas Tech-0.05
9. Missouri-0.06
10. Oklahoma-0.09
11. Iowa State-0.1
12. Colorado-0.14



Defensive Stats

Points per possession Allowed

1. Kansas0.93
2. Kansas State0.99
3. Texas1
4. Iowa State1.01
5. Texas A&M1.01
6. Nebraska1.02
7. Texas Tech1.03
8. Oklahoma State1.04
9. Baylor1.07
10. Missouri1.08
11. Oklahoma1.08
12. Colorado1.11


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas44.5%
2. Texas44.9%
3. Iowa State48%
4. Texas A&M49%
5. Oklahoma State49.2%
6. Baylor49.4%
7. Kansas State50.7%
8. Nebraska50.7%
9. Oklahoma50.7%
10. Missouri50.9%
11. Texas Tech50.9%
12. Colorado51.3%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas42.4%
2. Iowa State45%
3. Texas45.2%
4. Texas A&M46%
5. Oklahoma State46.8%
6. Kansas State47.4%
7. Oklahoma48.1%
8. Baylor48.7%
9. Missouri49.6%
10. Nebraska50.5%
11. Colorado50.7%
12. Texas Tech52.2%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Texas29.5%
2. Kansas32.2%
3. Texas Tech32.3%
4. Baylor34.1%
5. Nebraska34.1%
6. Colorado35%
7. Missouri35.9%
8. Oklahoma State36.5%
9. Texas A&M36.7%
10. Iowa State36.8%
11. Oklahoma37.6%
12. Kansas State38.5%


Turnover % Forced

1. Nebraska21.8%
2. Kansas State21.6%
3. Oklahoma State21.1%
4. Texas Tech20.1%
5. Missouri19.8%
6. Iowa State18%
7. Kansas17.9%
8. Texas17.7%
9. Colorado17.4%
10. Baylor17.2%
11. Oklahoma16.7%
12. Texas A&M16.6%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Kansas80.2%
2. Texas A&M78.8%
3. Baylor78.6%
4. Nebraska78%
5. Kansas State77.3%
6. Oklahoma76.8%
7. Iowa State76.1%
8. Oklahoma State73.6%
9. Texas Tech73.1%
10. Colorado71.2%
11. Texas70.3%
12. Missouri70%

Jan 29, 2008

Big East 2008 Tempo-free Stats

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats

Offensive Stats


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Notre Dame72.7
2. Syracuse69.7
3. Seton Hall69.6
4. Marquette69.3
5. Villanova69.1
6. Connecticut67.3
7. DePaul67.2
8. Louisville67.1
9. Rutgers66.9
10. Providence66.8
11. St. John's65.4
12. West Virginia64.6
13. Cincinnati64.3
14. USF63.8
15. Pittsburgh63.5
16. Georgetown62.8


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Notre Dame1.1
2. Connecticut1.09
3. Pittsburgh1.08
4. Marquette1.07
5. Louisville1.06
6. West Virginia1.06
7. Georgetown1.05
8. Seton Hall1.04
9. Providence1.03
10. Syracuse1.02
11. DePaul1.02
12. Villanova1.01
13. USF1.01
14. Cincinnati0.99
15. St. John's0.88
16. Rutgers0.88


Effective FG %

1. Louisville52.3%
2. Georgetown52.2%
3. Providence50.6%
4. Notre Dame50.3%
5. Connecticut50.1%
6. Marquette49.7%
7. Pittsburgh49.3%
8. Cincinnati48.6%
9. Seton Hall48.3%
10. USF48%
11. Syracuse47.7%
12. DePaul47.7%
13. West Virginia47.6%
14. Villanova46.7%
15. Rutgers45.4%
16. St. John's42.4%


2-pt Shooting %

1. Louisville53.5%
2. Georgetown52.7%
3. Syracuse49.7%
4. Connecticut49.7%
5. Pittsburgh48.9%
6. USF48.3%
7. Providence47.1%
8. Marquette47.1%
9. Cincinnati47.1%
10. West Virginia46.8%
11. DePaul46%
12. Villanova45.8%
13. Notre Dame45.7%
14. Seton Hall45%
15. Rutgers42.4%
16. St. John's41.3%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Notre Dame40.1%
2. Providence37.8%
3. Marquette36.4%
4. Seton Hall36.4%
5. Georgetown34.3%
6. Connecticut34.3%
7. Cincinnati34.3%
8. DePaul34.1%
9. Rutgers34.1%
10. Louisville33.5%
11. Pittsburgh33.5%
12. West Virginia32.7%
13. Villanova32.2%
14. USF31.3%
15. St. John's30.2%
16. Syracuse28.2%


Turnover %

1. West Virginia15.1%
2. Seton Hall16.2%
3. Pittsburgh17.5%
4. Marquette17.7%
5. DePaul17.7%
6. Louisville18.5%
7. Connecticut18.7%
8. Notre Dame19.2%
9. USF20.2%
10. Villanova20.6%
11. Syracuse21%
12. Georgetown21.1%
13. Providence21.2%
14. Cincinnati21.4%
15. Rutgers22.3%
16. St. John's23.4%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Pittsburgh36.1%
2. Notre Dame34.1%
3. Connecticut34.1%
4. Syracuse33.7%
5. Marquette32.1%
6. Providence32%
7. DePaul32%
8. USF31.5%
9. Villanova31.3%
10. Cincinnati30.2%
11. St. John's29.7%
12. West Virginia29.4%
13. Georgetown29%
14. Louisville28.4%
15. Seton Hall26.9%
16. Rutgers24.6%


Efficiency Margin

1. Louisville0.16
2. Georgetown0.13
3. Marquette0.1
4. West Virginia0.08
5. Notre Dame0.06
6. Connecticut0.06
7. Pittsburgh0.04
8. Syracuse0
9. Villanova-0.01
10. Cincinnati-0.01
11. Seton Hall-0.06
12. Providence-0.07
13. DePaul-0.07
14. USF-0.1
15. St. John's-0.13
16. Rutgers-0.19



Defensive Stats


Points per possession Allowed

1. Louisville0.9
2. Georgetown0.92
3. Marquette0.97
4. West Virginia0.98
5. Cincinnati1.01
6. St. John's1.01
7. Syracuse1.02
8. Villanova1.02
9. Connecticut1.03
10. Notre Dame1.04
11. Pittsburgh1.04
12. Rutgers1.07
13. DePaul1.09
14. Providence1.1
15. Seton Hall1.1
16. USF1.11


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Georgetown42%
2. Louisville43%
3. Connecticut46.1%
4. Cincinnati46.7%
5. Marquette46.9%
6. Notre Dame47.3%
7. Syracuse48.6%
8. Pittsburgh49.2%
9. West Virginia49.5%
10. Villanova50.1%
11. Providence50.2%
12. USF50.9%
13. Rutgers51.3%
14. Seton Hall51.4%
15. St. John's51.7%
16. DePaul52.6%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut40.7%
2. Georgetown41.1%
3. Louisville42%
4. Notre Dame46%
5. West Virginia47.2%
6. Seton Hall47.6%
7. Rutgers48.2%
8. Marquette48.4%
9. Cincinnati48.4%
10. USF48.4%
11. Syracuse48.6%
12. Pittsburgh48.8%
13. Villanova48.9%
14. Providence49.5%
15. St. John's51%
16. DePaul52.4%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Marquette29.1%
2. Georgetown29.2%
3. Cincinnati29.2%
4. Louisville30%
5. Syracuse32.4%
6. Notre Dame33.1%
7. Pittsburgh33.2%
8. Providence34.6%
9. Villanova34.9%
10. DePaul35.3%
11. St. John's35.6%
12. West Virginia36%
13. Connecticut37.9%
14. USF38.1%
15. Seton Hall39.2%
16. Rutgers39.3%


Turnover % Forced

1. Marquette24%
2. Villanova22.6%
3. West Virginia22.4%
4. St. John's20.7%
5. Georgetown20.6%
6. Louisville20.2%
7. DePaul20.1%
8. Providence19.5%
9. Pittsburgh19.4%
10. Syracuse19%
11. Seton Hall19%
12. Cincinnati18.1%
13. Rutgers17.6%
14. Notre Dame16.3%
15. USF16.2%
16. Connecticut15.9%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. Cincinnati81.3%
2. St. John's81.1%
3. West Virginia77.9%
4. Louisville76.9%
5. Villanova75.9%
6. Syracuse75.5%
7. Rutgers74.1%
8. Georgetown73.1%
9. USF72%
10. Notre Dame71.8%
11. Marquette70.1%
12. Pittsburgh69.7%
13. Connecticut68.5%
14. Seton Hall68.4%
15. Providence68.1%
16. DePaul67.9%

Jan 24, 2008

2008 Pac 10 Tempo-Free Stats

Well, sorry about that. Now that I've returned, I can start posting again. Since we're almost a month into the conference season, time for the first posting of the 2008 Conference Tempo-Free Stats.
The Pac10 (my current residence) have been updated first. The rest will soon follow. If some number looks fishy, please let me know. I had to dust off my program, and so something may have been miscalculated.

Once again, thank you to the conference sites for posting usable data formats and to KenPom and Wonk (now at BBall Prospectus) for initiating this trend into tempo-free wilderness.

Pac 10 2008 Stats
Through 2/27/2008

2007 Stats


Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. California67.8
2. Washington67.6
3. Oregon State65.9
4. USC65.4
5. UCLA64.9
6. Arizona63.6
7. Oregon63.6
8. Stanford63.1
9. Arizona State62.8
10. Washington State58.6


Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. UCLA1.13
2. Oregon1.11
3. Arizona1.08
4. California1.08
5. Washington State1.08
6. USC1.06
7. Stanford1.05
8. Washington1.01
9. Arizona State1
10. Oregon State0.87


Effective FG %

1. Oregon55.3%
2. USC54.7%
3. Arizona53.1%
4. Washington State52.8%
5. UCLA52%
6. Arizona State51.1%
7. California50.7%
8. Washington47.4%
9. Stanford46.5%
10. Oregon State40.2%


2-pt Shooting %

1. USC54%
2. UCLA52.6%
3. Arizona State52.1%
4. Oregon51.9%
5. Arizona50.7%
6. Washington State49.8%
7. California49.2%
8. Washington47.5%
9. Stanford45%
10. Oregon State39%


3-pt Shooting %

1. Oregon39.9%
2. Washington State38.9%
3. Arizona38.3%
4. USC37.6%
5. California36.1%
6. Stanford34%
7. UCLA33.5%
8. Arizona State33.2%
9. Washington31.6%
10. Oregon State28.5%


Turnover %

1. Washington State16.2%
2. Arizona17.5%
3. Oregon State18%
4. California18.1%
5. Oregon18.5%
6. Stanford18.5%
7. UCLA18.9%
8. Washington19.4%
9. Arizona State20.6%
10. USC21.2%


Offensive Rebounding %

1. Washington37%
2. Stanford36.5%
3. UCLA36.5%
4. California29.6%
5. USC28.4%
6. Oregon State28.2%
7. Oregon27.7%
8. Washington State24.7%
9. Arizona24.3%
10. Arizona State22.7%


Efficiency Margin

1. UCLA0.17
2. Stanford0.08
3. Washington State0.08
4. USC0.05
5. Arizona0.03
6. Oregon0.01
7. Washington-0.02
8. Arizona State-0.02
9. California-0.06
10. Oregon State-0.3



Defensive Stats

Points per possession Allowed

1. UCLA0.96
2. Stanford0.97
3. USC1.01
4. Washington State1.01
5. Arizona State1.02
6. Washington1.03
7. Arizona1.05
8. Oregon1.1
9. California1.14
10. Oregon State1.17


Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Stanford43.9%
2. USC45.5%
3. Arizona State49.4%
4. UCLA49.6%
5. Washington50.3%
6. Washington State50.7%
7. Arizona51.5%
8. Oregon51.7%
9. California53.9%
10. Oregon State55.6%


2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Stanford42.4%
2. USC43.7%
3. Arizona State47.5%
4. UCLA47.6%
5. Washington47.9%
6. Washington State50.3%
7. Arizona50.9%
8. Oregon52%
9. California53.6%
10. Oregon State54.4%


3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Stanford32.3%
2. USC32.8%
3. Oregon34.1%
4. Washington State34.5%
5. Arizona State35%
6. Arizona35.3%
7. California36.2%
8. Washington36.7%
9. UCLA37%
10. Oregon State38.9%


Turnover % Forced

1. Washington State22%
2. UCLA21.2%
3. Arizona State20.2%
4. Washington20%
5. Arizona19.7%
6. Oregon State19%
7. USC18.2%
8. Stanford16.9%
9. Oregon15.6%
10. California14.8%


Defensive Rebounding %

1. UCLA79.3%
2. Washington77%
3. California76.7%
4. Washington State74.1%
5. Stanford74%
6. Arizona State73%
7. Oregon72.8%
8. Oregon State72%
9. Arizona71.3%
10. USC65.9%