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%