tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376494862024-03-08T08:29:05.775-08:00Tempo-Free SuburbiaHelping to spread the urban sprawl of all things related to Tempo-Free stats.
Thanks to kenpom.com and the conference sites for the dataUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-51705747514015185762009-03-17T17:33:00.001-07:002009-03-17T18:43:17.252-07:002009: The Return to Chaotic Final FoursHere's just a quick look at something that I found peering through past wheelings and dealings of recent tournaments:<br /><br />Years 2004-2008<br /><br />- First off, this whole idea that "parity is alive and well in college basketball. We have seen a shift" is a little strong to say. Last year 4 number 1's made the final 4 and the year before it was two 1's and two 2's. Hardly a trend shift before we've even seen how this tournament plays out, but no doubt, a different year from the last two.<br /><br />- Now compare the previous two years to the two years before that and finally back to 2004 regarding total seed counts in the final four:<br /><br />2008 - 4 (All four number 1's) <br />2007 - 6 (Florida repeat year)<br />2006 - 20 (George Mason and no number 1's made it)<br />2005 - 11 (MSU and Louisville outside of the top 3 seeds)<br />2004 - 8 (two 2's, a 3 and a 1 in this one)<br /><br /><br />So, just looking at those recent numbers, there appears to be a good amount of variance. Is there one particular variable that perhaps we can apply a broad stroke to look at what created the crazy (2006) vs. the expected (2008).<br /><br />When in doubt, let's look towards the greatness of efficiency margin.<br /><br />As avid followers of all things tempo-free, you by now understand the importance of looking at a team's efficiency margin.<br />Most recently, Mr Gasaway posted this year's conference numbers for tourney teams <a href="http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=596">here</a><br />Also, in the past we've looked at effiency margins of winners/losers/upsets <a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/03/tale-of-upset.html">here</a> and <a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/03/test.html">here</a><br /><br />In those past analysis, we compared the top 3 seed lines, as a way to evaluate the overall "power" of that year's top teams.<br /><br />Let's reorganize the tourney year's by the average efficiency margin of the teams 3 seed and higher.<br /><br />Again, all of these numbers are courtesy of the king of TFS, kenpom.com<br />All numbers are overall season-long numbers, including non-conference but weighted for Strength-of-schedule.<TABLE width=100%><br /><TR><br /><strong><br /><TD>Year</TD><TD width 33%>Seed Total</TD><TD>Eff. Margin</TD></strong></TR><br /><TR><br /><TD width=33%>2008</TD><TD width=33%> 4</TD><TD>.33</TD></TR><br /><TR><br /><TD width=33%>2007</TD><TD width=33%> 6</TD><TD>.33</TD></TR><br /><TR><br /><TD width=33%>2004</TD><TD width=33%> 8</TD><TD>.29</TD></TR><br /><tr><br /><TD width=33%>2005</TD><TD width=33%> 11</TD><TD>.28</TD></TR><br /><tr><br /><TD width=33%>2006</TD><TD width=33%> 20</TD><TD>.26</TD></TR><br /></table><br /><br />Just eye-balling, you can see the nice dependent order of the numbers.<br />Apply a quick test and you get a correlation coefficient of -.893. <br />-1 would be a perfectly negative correlation (every change in eff. margin has an exact change in seed totals)<br />Very very small data set, but it has given me a reason to expand back to 1999. <br />That will be coming shortly.<br /><br />Stop back for the final analysis. <br /><br />2009's numbers?<br />.27 average efficiency margin within the top 3 seed lines.<br />Slide rule linear test (aka, extremely rough) results in a total of 14 for the seed total of this year's final 4.<br /><br />Oh boy. Hang on tight.<br /><br />There's just one quick thing to pull from this early analysis. <br />While the general position has been that this year's tournament should be pretty wide open, and that this season has been extremely wide open (just look at the conference tournaments), this quick look backs up that position with a little bit of history and numbers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-46897799406641211802009-03-16T13:34:00.000-07:002009-03-16T13:36:59.245-07:00Updated past statsI've awakened from the dead.<br /><br />Updates to this <a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/03/test.html">Post about seed results</a> will be coming soon as I do my own research and post it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-14626918524038748582008-11-22T15:35:00.001-08:002008-11-22T15:37:13.617-08:00Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have Ourselves a BattlePerusing around, Bearcats bball blog noted another insanity of tempo free bran flakes:<br /><br /><a href="http://bearcatsbasketball.blogspot.com/2008/11/167.html">A 122 possession masterpiece.</a><br /><br />Take that VMI.<br />The battle for tempo supremecy is on.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-8942394063201439032008-11-15T10:53:00.000-08:002008-11-22T15:37:40.638-08:00A Fresh Slate With a Familiar AllyIt's November. There's snow falling at football games.<br />It's time for delicious match-ups like Virginia Military Institute vs. Kentucky<br /><br />VMI has always been a favorite here at <a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2006/12/basketball-this-is-pony-racing.html">TFS.</a><br /><br />So, it comes as no surprise that they would put up this nugget to start off the season and shock the Wildcat faithful:<br /><br />VMI 111 - Kentucky 103<br />93 possession game<br />Wildcats turned it over on over 26% of their possessions in this track meet.<br /><br />If this is any indication of the season to come, I think we're in for a good year.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-68836176085648956782008-03-18T08:00:00.000-07:002008-11-22T15:38:32.960-08:00Planting 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. *<br /><br />This takes the stats off of <a href="http://www.kenpom.com/stats.php">kenpom.com</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Finalists in Bold. Champions in italics.<br /><br />(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.)<br /><br />Pos: Possessions/40 minutes<br />Oeff: Offensive Efficiency. Points-per-possession<br />Deff: Defensive Efficiency.<br />Margin: Oeff - Deff<br />Efg: Effective field goal shooting percentage<br />TO: Turnover rate (turnovers per 100 possessions)<br />Oreb: Offensive rebounding rate (offensive rebounds per rebound opportunity)<br />Defg: Effective FG % allowed<br />Dto: Turnover rate forced<br />Doreb: Offensive rebounding % allowed<br /><br /><br /><strong>All Final Four Teams</strong><table width="75%"><br /><tbody><tr><td><br /></td><td><br /></td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td><br /></td><td>67</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.32</td><td>55%</td><td>20%</td><td>36%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>30%</td></tr><br /><br /><br /><br /></tbody></table><br /><br /><br /><strong>Averages for the Top 3 seeds based on their finish</strong> (Ex: Final 4 - Averages for all Top 3 seeds that made the final four)<br /><br /><br /><table width="75%"><br /><tbody><tr><td><br /></td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td>66.9</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.34</td><td>55%</td><td>20%</td><td>36%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>22%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>Finalists</td><td>67.7</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.33</td><td>55%</td><td>20%</td><td>36%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>22%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Champions</td><td>69.7</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.36</td><td>56%</td><td>20%</td><td>38%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Didn't make Final 4</td><td>67.9</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.27</td><td>53%</td><td>19%</td><td>37%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>21%</td><td>31%</td></tr><br /><br /><br /></tbody></table><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="75%"><br /><br /><tbody><tr><td>Seed</td><td>2007</td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Florida</td><td>66.8</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.38</td><td>60%</td><td>21%</td><td>38%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>19%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>North Carolina</td><td>73.1</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.38</td><td>54%</td><td>18%</td><td>40%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>21%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Kansas</td><td>70</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.36</td><td>55%</td><td>20%</td><td>38%</td><td>43%</td><td>43%</td><td>24%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Ohio St.</td><td>65.4</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.36</td><td>54%</td><td>17%</td><td>35%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>20%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Wisconsin</td><td>64.4</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.31</td><td>52%</td><td>17%</td><td>35%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>UCLA</td><td>64.3</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.33</td><td>54%</td><td>18%</td><td>33%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Memphis</td><td>69.1</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.3</td><td>52%</td><td>18%</td><td>40%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>24%</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Georgetown</td><td>59.9</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.36</td><td>57%</td><td>22%</td><td>40%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>19%</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Oregon</td><td>66.9</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.27</td><td>53%</td><td>18%</td><td>35%</td><td>49%</td><td>49%</td><td>22%</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Pittsburgh</td><td>63.4</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.28</td><td>53%</td><td>18%</td><td>37%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>19%</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Washington St.</td><td>60.7</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.23</td><td>52%</td><td>16%</td><td>27%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Texas A&M</td><td>65</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.34</td><td>56%</td><td>18%</td><td>34%</td><td>43%</td><td>43%</td><td>22%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td><em><strong>Florida</strong></em></td><td>66.8</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.38</td><td>60%</td><td>21%</td><td>38%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>19%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td>UCLA</td><td>64.3</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.33</td><td>54%</td><td>18%</td><td>33%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td>Georgetown</td><td>59.9</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.36</td><td>57%</td><td>22%</td><td>40%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>19%</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td><strong>Ohio St.</strong></td><td>65.4</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.36</td><td>54%</td><td>17%</td><td>35%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>20%</td><td>31%</td></tr><br /><br /><br /></tbody></table><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>2006</strong><table width="75%"><tbody><tr><td>Seed</td><td>2006</td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Villanova</td><td>67.2</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.27</td><td>49%</td><td>17%</td><td>36%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>23%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Connecticut</td><td>71.5</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.3</td><td>52%</td><td>20%</td><td>42%</td><td>43%</td><td>43%</td><td>18%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Duke</td><td>72.2</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.29</td><td>56%</td><td>19%</td><td>29%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>37%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Memphis</td><td>72.5</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.25</td><td>51%</td><td>21%</td><td>41%</td><td>43%</td><td>43%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Texas</td><td>65.8</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.31</td><td>53%</td><td>20%</td><td>41%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>21%</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Tennessee</td><td>72.8</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.22</td><td>54%</td><td>18%</td><td>30%</td><td>53%</td><td>53%</td><td>24%</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>UCLA</td><td>63.4</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.28</td><td>53%</td><td>22%</td><td>36%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Georgetown</td><td>59.4</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.24</td><td>53%</td><td>19%</td><td>35%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>20%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Iowa</td><td>66.5</td><td>1.04</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.2</td><td>49%</td><td>22%</td><td>31%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>21%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Gonzaga</td><td>68.6</td><td>1.19</td><td>1.01</td><td>0.18</td><td>52%</td><td>18%</td><td>34%</td><td>49%</td><td>49%</td><td>18%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>North Carolina</td><td>72.6</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.26</td><td>54%</td><td>23%</td><td>40%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>21%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Florida</td><td>68.6</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.32</td><td>57%</td><td>21%</td><td>35%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>22%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td><em><strong>Florida</strong></em></td><td>68.6</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.32</td><td>57%</td><td>21%</td><td>35%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>22%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td>George Mason</td><td>64.3</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.19</td><td>54%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td><strong>UCLA</strong></td><td>63.4</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.28</td><td>53%</td><td>22%</td><td>36%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td>Louisiana St.</td><td>69.4</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.24</td><td>50%</td><td>22%</td><td>38%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>21%</td><td>29%</td></tr><br /><br /></tbody></table><br /><br /><strong>2005</strong><br /><table width="75%"><br /><tbody><tr><td>Seed</td><td>2005</td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Illinois</td><td>64.9</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.35</td><td>56%</td><td>17%</td><td>34%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>22%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Washington</td><td>72.9</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.26</td><td>54%</td><td>19%</td><td>40%</td><td>51%</td><td>51%</td><td>24%</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>North Carolina</td><td>73.7</td><td>1.26</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.38</td><td>56%</td><td>21%</td><td>39%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Duke</td><td>68.8</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.3</td><td>52%</td><td>19%</td><td>37%</td><td>42%</td><td>42%</td><td>22%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Oklahoma St.</td><td>67.2</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.29</td><td>56%</td><td>20%</td><td>35%</td><td>50%</td><td>50%</td><td>22%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Wake Forest</td><td>70</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.29</td><td>56%</td><td>20%</td><td>40%</td><td>50%</td><td>50%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Connecticut</td><td>71.7</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.25</td><td>50%</td><td>21%</td><td>42%</td><td>43%</td><td>43%</td><td>17%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Kentucky</td><td>67.2</td><td>1.14</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.26</td><td>52%</td><td>19%</td><td>35%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>26%</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Arizona</td><td>69.1</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.31</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>40%</td><td>49%</td><td>49%</td><td>23%</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Gonzaga</td><td>68.2</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.99</td><td>0.19</td><td>55%</td><td>19%</td><td>38%</td><td>49%</td><td>49%</td><td>18%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Kansas</td><td>67.1</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.26</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>35%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>20%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Oklahoma</td><td>66.8</td><td>1.15</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.26</td><td>53%</td><td>20%</td><td>38%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td><strong>Illinois</strong></td><td>64.9</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.35</td><td>56%</td><td>17%</td><td>34%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>22%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td>Louisville</td><td>67.8</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.31</td><td>55%</td><td>20%</td><td>37%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td><em><strong>North Carolina</strong></em></td><td>73.7</td><td>1.26</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.38</td><td>56%</td><td>21%</td><td>39%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td>Michigan St.</td><td>67.7</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.29</td><td>55%</td><td>20%</td><td>38%</td><td>49%</td><td>49%</td><td>22%</td><td>27%</td></tr><br /></tbody></table><br /><br /><strong>2004</strong><br /><table width="75%"><br /><tbody><tr><td>Seed</td><td>2004</td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>St. Joseph's</td><td>68</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.31</td><td>56%</td><td>17%</td><td>28%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>24%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Kentucky</td><td>68.3</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.28</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>36%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>23%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Duke</td><td>69.8</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.38</td><td>53%</td><td>19%</td><td>38%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>24%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Stanford</td><td>66.4</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.26</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>37%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>21%</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Oklahoma St.</td><td>66</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.33</td><td>56%</td><td>20%</td><td>36%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Gonzaga</td><td>68.2</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.27</td><td>57%</td><td>19%</td><td>37%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>18%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Mississippi St.</td><td>70.5</td><td>1.15</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.26</td><td>52%</td><td>21%</td><td>40%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Connecticut</td><td>69.6</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.35</td><td>53%</td><td>19%</td><td>41%</td><td>42%</td><td>42%</td><td>17%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Pittsburgh</td><td>61.7</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.28</td><td>51%</td><td>19%</td><td>39%</td><td>43%</td><td>43%</td><td>20%</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Georgia Tech</td><td>70.2</td><td>1.14</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.29</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>31%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>27%</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Texas</td><td>66.4</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.27</td><td>50%</td><td>17%</td><td>42%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>North Carolina St.</td><td>63.7</td><td>1.22</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.3</td><td>53%</td><td>20%</td><td>31%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>22%</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td>Oklahoma St.</td><td>66</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.33</td><td>56%</td><td>20%</td><td>36%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td><strong>Georgia Tech</strong></td><td>70.2</td><td>1.14</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.29</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>31%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>27%</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td>Duke</td><td>69.8</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.38</td><td>53%</td><td>19%</td><td>38%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>24%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>Final 4</td><td><em><strong>Connecticut</strong></em></td><td>69.6</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.35</td><td>53%</td><td>19%</td><td>41%</td><td>42%</td><td>42%</td><td>17%</td><td>29%</td></tr><br /></tbody></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-90347933691777219812008-03-12T18:22:00.001-07:002008-03-12T18:23:51.529-07:00It's been a strange yearObviously, 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. <br /><br />The best time of the year is just beginning...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-20758000022652475462008-02-22T13:46:00.000-08:002008-11-22T15:39:03.187-08:00Pac 10 Statistical Variation SnapsotWell, 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.<br /><br /><u>Pac-10 games through 2/18</u><br /><br /><b>Arizona</b><br />Hits the 3, but they don't pull in their misses. Probably due to their high percentage of shots that are 3's (35%)<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - 3-pt%. Shooting 40.4%, above the 34.7% average<br /><i>Worst</i> - Offensive rebounding. Pulling in only 23.9% of their misses vs. 30.7% average.<br /><br /><b>Arizona St.</b><br />Not much variance from the means, but a few telling signs for the Sun Devils.<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - Forces their opponents to turnover the ball on 20.3% of their possessions vs. the avg of 18.7%<br /><i>Worst</i> - Offensive rebounding. 25.3% VS. 30.7% average.<br /><br /><b>Cal</b><br />Not much to look at this club. Had to dig for the "best" stat. There were plenty of "worst" stats to look at<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - 1.09 PPP vs. 1.046 conference average. Yeah, like I said, nothing eye-popping<br /><i>Worst</i> - 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.<br /><br /><b>Oregon</b><br />A snapshot of a team that has significantly dropped from last year.<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - Shooting 54.3% efg vs. 49.8% average. (better than last year)<br /><i>Worst</i> - Not forcing turnovers. 15.3% of opponents possessions end in turnovers. Forced 19.7% last year.<br /><br /><b>Oregon St.</b><br />Not much to be proud of this season. Had to really scrape to find a "best"<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - 17.3% turnover average is at least below the conference average of 18.7%<br /><i>Worst</i> - 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.<br /><br /><b>Stanford</b><br />Defense is the name of the game for this squad in 2008, making up for their sub-par shooting.<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - 42% efg average allowed, vs. the conference 49.8% average.<br /><i>Worst</i> - 45.9% efg shooting on the offensive end, vs. the conference average of 49.8%.<br /><br /><b>UCLA</b><br />Beast of the Pac10, balance is what drives the Bruins as their variance on both ends isn't as large as Stanford's.<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - They grab over 78% of their opponents' misses vs. the average of 69.3%. Second chances, beware!<br /><i>Worst</i> - 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.<br /><br /><b>USC</b><br />If they get a shot off, it goes in more than often. Highlight that "if"<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - They shoot 56.4% on their 2's, vs. the average of 48.8% conference-wide<br /><i>Worst</i> - 22.2% of their possessions result in turnovers. This versus the conference average of 18.7%<br /><br /><br /><b>Washington</b><br />Even the Appleby shooting machine can't help their average, but they pull in their misses.<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - 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<br /><i>Worst</i> - Only hitting 31.3% of their 3's vs. 34.7% average. Good thing they don't shoot as many.<br /><br /><br /><b>Washington St.</b><br />Bennett has this team dialed into a protective offense and a swarming defense.<br /><br /><i>Best</i> - Only 16% of their possessions end in turnovers.<br /><i>Worst</i> - They force their opponents into a turnover 21.8% of the time vs. the 18.7% average.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-69284373949937936732008-02-15T07:54:00.000-08:002008-02-19T18:08:52.381-08:00Don't Turn the Ball over and Look What Happens!<b>Rutgers 63     West Virginia 81</b><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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%?<br />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. <br />Couple that with Rutgers only grabbing 17% of their misses and you have yourself a rout. <br /><br />Bonus note: Rutgers shot 44% on 16 three-point attemptsUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-2606529763785372182008-02-07T21:45:00.001-08:002008-02-07T21:57:59.105-08:00Thursday Night Beast Action<b>UCLA 67     Washington St. 59</b><br /><br />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. <br />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. <br />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. <br /><br />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.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-22839196358666063282008-02-04T11:58:00.000-08:002008-02-06T11:40:11.959-08:00NumbersFixed. 2/6/08Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-21061041008619160892008-02-01T10:51:00.000-08:002008-02-28T07:26:19.618-08:002008 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<br />***<br /><br />Through 2/27/08<br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/acc-tempo-free-stats.html">2007 Stats</a><br /><p><br /><b>Offensive Stats</b><br /><br /><strong>Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Duke</TD><TD>76.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. North Carolina</TD><TD>75.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>72.7</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Maryland</TD><TD>72.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Wake Forest</TD><TD>72.2</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>72.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Miami</TD><TD>69.8</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Virginia</TD><TD>69.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Boston College</TD><TD>69.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Clemson</TD><TD>68.8</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Florida State</TD><TD>68.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. NC State</TD><TD>67.9</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Duke</TD><TD>1.13</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. North Carolina</TD><TD>1.12</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Clemson</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Maryland</TD><TD>1.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>1.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Miami</TD><TD>1.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Boston College</TD><TD>1.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Wake Forest</TD><TD>1.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Virginia</TD><TD>0.99</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. NC State</TD><TD>0.99</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>0.97</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Florida State</TD><TD>0.97</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Effective FG %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Duke</TD><TD>54%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>53.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Maryland</TD><TD>52.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Boston College</TD><TD>51.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Clemson</TD><TD>51.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. NC State</TD><TD>51.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Wake Forest</TD><TD>50.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. North Carolina</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Miami</TD><TD>48.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Florida State</TD><TD>48%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Virginia</TD><TD>46.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>45.6%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>53.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Duke</TD><TD>52.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Maryland</TD><TD>51.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Wake Forest</TD><TD>50.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. North Carolina</TD><TD>49.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Clemson</TD><TD>48.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Boston College</TD><TD>48.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. NC State</TD><TD>48%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>47%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Florida State</TD><TD>46.9%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Miami</TD><TD>46.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Virginia</TD><TD>45.1%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Boston College</TD><TD>39%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. NC State</TD><TD>38.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Clemson</TD><TD>37.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Duke</TD><TD>37.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Maryland</TD><TD>37.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. North Carolina</TD><TD>36.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>35%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Wake Forest</TD><TD>35%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Miami</TD><TD>34.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Florida State</TD><TD>33.2%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Virginia</TD><TD>32.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>27.9%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Turnover %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Virginia</TD><TD>17.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Duke</TD><TD>18.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Clemson</TD><TD>18.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. North Carolina</TD><TD>20%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Wake Forest</TD><TD>20%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Miami</TD><TD>20.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Boston College</TD><TD>20.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Maryland</TD><TD>21.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>21.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>21.9%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Florida State</TD><TD>22.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. NC State</TD><TD>24%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Rebounding %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. North Carolina</TD><TD>39.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Clemson</TD><TD>36.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Miami</TD><TD>34.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>31%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Wake Forest</TD><TD>30.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>30.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Duke</TD><TD>30.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Florida State</TD><TD>29.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Maryland</TD><TD>29.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Boston College</TD><TD>28.4%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Virginia</TD><TD>28.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. NC State</TD><TD>27.8%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Efficiency Margin</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. North Carolina</TD><TD>0.15</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Duke</TD><TD>0.14</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Clemson</TD><TD>0.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Maryland</TD><TD>0.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>-0.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>-0.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Miami</TD><TD>-0.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Wake Forest</TD><TD>-0.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Boston College</TD><TD>-0.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Virginia</TD><TD>-0.07</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Florida State</TD><TD>-0.07</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. NC State</TD><TD>-0.14</TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><br /><b>Defensive Stats</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Points per possession Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. North Carolina</TD><TD>0.97</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>0.99</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Duke</TD><TD>0.99</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Clemson</TD><TD>1</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Florida State</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Maryland</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Wake Forest</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Virginia</TD><TD>1.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>1.07</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Miami</TD><TD>1.07</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Boston College</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. NC State</TD><TD>1.12</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Effective Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Maryland</TD><TD>47.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Clemson</TD><TD>48.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. North Carolina</TD><TD>48.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Boston College</TD><TD>49.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>49.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Duke</TD><TD>50.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Miami</TD><TD>50.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Florida State</TD><TD>51.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>51.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Wake Forest</TD><TD>51.6%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. NC State</TD><TD>52.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Virginia</TD><TD>53%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Maryland</TD><TD>45.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Miami</TD><TD>46.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>46.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Florida State</TD><TD>47.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. North Carolina</TD><TD>48.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Clemson</TD><TD>49%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Boston College</TD><TD>49.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. NC State</TD><TD>50.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Wake Forest</TD><TD>50.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Virginia</TD><TD>51%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Duke</TD><TD>51.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>52.1%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Clemson</TD><TD>30.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Boston College</TD><TD>31.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Duke</TD><TD>32.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. North Carolina</TD><TD>32.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>32.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Maryland</TD><TD>35.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Wake Forest</TD><TD>36.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>36.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Virginia</TD><TD>37.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Florida State</TD><TD>37.9%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Miami</TD><TD>39.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. NC State</TD><TD>40.6%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Turnover % Forced</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. NC State</TD><TD>24%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Florida State</TD><TD>22.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>21.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>21.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Maryland</TD><TD>21.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Boston College</TD><TD>20.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Miami</TD><TD>20.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. North Carolina</TD><TD>20%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Wake Forest</TD><TD>20%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Clemson</TD><TD>18.8%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Duke</TD><TD>18.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Virginia</TD><TD>17.7%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Defensive Rebounding %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Virginia Tech</TD><TD>78%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Virginia</TD><TD>77.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. North Carolina</TD><TD>76.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Duke</TD><TD>73.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Maryland</TD><TD>73.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Wake Forest</TD><TD>72.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Miami</TD><TD>70.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Florida State</TD><TD>70.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Georgia Tech</TD><TD>69.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. NC State</TD><TD>68.4%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Boston College</TD><TD>68%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Clemson</TD><TD>66.2%</TD></TR></TABLE>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-12440389543530256592008-01-31T14:25:00.000-08:002008-02-28T07:30:05.200-08:002008 SEC Tempo-Free StatsThrough 2/27/08<br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/sec-tempo-free-stats.html">2007 Stats</a><br /><br /><br /><b>Offensive Stats</b><br /><br /><strong>Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Tennessee</TD><TD>72.2</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Ole Miss</TD><TD>69.4</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Alabama</TD><TD>69.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Arkansas</TD><TD>69.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Florida</TD><TD>69</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>68.5</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Auburn</TD><TD>68.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Georgia</TD><TD>67.7</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Mississippi State</TD><TD>66.7</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. LSU</TD><TD>66</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. South Carolina</TD><TD>64</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Kentucky</TD><TD>63.1</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Florida</TD><TD>1.11</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Tennessee</TD><TD>1.11</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Auburn</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Mississippi State</TD><TD>1.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>1.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. South Carolina</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Ole Miss</TD><TD>1.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Arkansas</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Kentucky</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Alabama</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. LSU</TD><TD>0.98</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Georgia</TD><TD>0.96</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Effective FG %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Mississippi State</TD><TD>54.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Florida</TD><TD>53.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Auburn</TD><TD>51.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>51.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Tennessee</TD><TD>51.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Arkansas</TD><TD>50.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Kentucky</TD><TD>50.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. South Carolina</TD><TD>49.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Alabama</TD><TD>48.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Ole Miss</TD><TD>47.2%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. LSU</TD><TD>45.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Georgia</TD><TD>45.3%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Florida</TD><TD>55.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Mississippi State</TD><TD>54.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Auburn</TD><TD>50.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>50.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Alabama</TD><TD>49.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. South Carolina</TD><TD>49%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Arkansas</TD><TD>48.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Kentucky</TD><TD>48.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Tennessee</TD><TD>48.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. LSU</TD><TD>46.2%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Georgia</TD><TD>45.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Ole Miss</TD><TD>45.3%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Tennessee</TD><TD>37.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Kentucky</TD><TD>35.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>35.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Auburn</TD><TD>35.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Mississippi State</TD><TD>35.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Arkansas</TD><TD>35.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Ole Miss</TD><TD>34.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. South Carolina</TD><TD>33.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Florida</TD><TD>33%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Alabama</TD><TD>31.8%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Georgia</TD><TD>30%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. LSU</TD><TD>29.8%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Turnover %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. South Carolina</TD><TD>15.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Auburn</TD><TD>17.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Ole Miss</TD><TD>18.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>18.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Tennessee</TD><TD>18.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Florida</TD><TD>18.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Alabama</TD><TD>19.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. LSU</TD><TD>19.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Georgia</TD><TD>20.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Arkansas</TD><TD>20.7%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Kentucky</TD><TD>22.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Mississippi State</TD><TD>23.3%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Rebounding %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Ole Miss</TD><TD>36.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Tennessee</TD><TD>35.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Mississippi State</TD><TD>33.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Georgia</TD><TD>32.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Arkansas</TD><TD>32%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Florida</TD><TD>31.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. LSU</TD><TD>31.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Alabama</TD><TD>30.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Kentucky</TD><TD>30.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Auburn</TD><TD>29.1%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. South Carolina</TD><TD>28.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>26.3%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Efficiency Margin</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Tennessee</TD><TD>0.14</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Mississippi State</TD><TD>0.09</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arkansas</TD><TD>0.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>0.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Florida</TD><TD>0.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Kentucky</TD><TD>0</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Alabama</TD><TD>-0.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Ole Miss</TD><TD>-0.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Georgia</TD><TD>-0.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. South Carolina</TD><TD>-0.07</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Auburn</TD><TD>-0.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. LSU</TD><TD>-0.08</TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Defensive Stats</b><br /><br /><strong>Points per possession Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Mississippi State</TD><TD>0.96</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Tennessee</TD><TD>0.97</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arkansas</TD><TD>0.98</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Kentucky</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Georgia</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Alabama</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. LSU</TD><TD>1.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Florida</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Ole Miss</TD><TD>1.09</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. South Carolina</TD><TD>1.11</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Auburn</TD><TD>1.16</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Effective Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Mississippi State</TD><TD>41.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Arkansas</TD><TD>45.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Kentucky</TD><TD>46.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Tennessee</TD><TD>47.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>47.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. LSU</TD><TD>50.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Alabama</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Ole Miss</TD><TD>51.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Georgia</TD><TD>52.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Florida</TD><TD>53.2%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. South Carolina</TD><TD>53.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Auburn</TD><TD>58.6%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Mississippi State</TD><TD>39.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Kentucky</TD><TD>44.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arkansas</TD><TD>44.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>47.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. LSU</TD><TD>47.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Alabama</TD><TD>48.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Ole Miss</TD><TD>50.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Tennessee</TD><TD>50.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. South Carolina</TD><TD>52.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Florida</TD><TD>53%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Georgia</TD><TD>55.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Auburn</TD><TD>59%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Tennessee</TD><TD>28.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Mississippi State</TD><TD>29.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arkansas</TD><TD>31.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Georgia</TD><TD>31.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>32.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Kentucky</TD><TD>33.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Florida</TD><TD>35.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. South Carolina</TD><TD>36%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Ole Miss</TD><TD>36.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Alabama</TD><TD>36.2%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. LSU</TD><TD>37.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Auburn</TD><TD>38.6%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Turnover % Forced</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Tennessee</TD><TD>23.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. South Carolina</TD><TD>22.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Alabama</TD><TD>21.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Auburn</TD><TD>21%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Arkansas</TD><TD>19.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Florida</TD><TD>19.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>18.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. LSU</TD><TD>18.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Kentucky</TD><TD>18.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Georgia</TD><TD>17.7%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Ole Miss</TD><TD>17.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Mississippi State</TD><TD>16%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Defensive Rebounding %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Georgia</TD><TD>79.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Tennessee</TD><TD>76.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Alabama</TD><TD>74%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Ole Miss</TD><TD>73.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Florida</TD><TD>72.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Kentucky</TD><TD>72.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Arkansas</TD><TD>71.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Vanderbilt</TD><TD>70.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. LSU</TD><TD>70.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Auburn</TD><TD>69.7%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Mississippi State</TD><TD>68.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. South Carolina</TD><TD>62.2%</TD></TR></TABLE>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-77849188654406767362008-01-31T14:16:00.000-08:002008-02-28T07:43:31.531-08:002008 Big 12 Tempo-Free StatsThrough 2/27/08<br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/big-12-tempo-free-stats.html">2007 Stats</a><br /><br /><b>Offensive Stats</b><br /><br /><strong>Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Baylor</TD><TD>71.9</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Kansas State</TD><TD>70.5</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Missouri</TD><TD>70.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Texas Tech</TD><TD>69.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Kansas</TD><TD>69.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Iowa State</TD><TD>67.7</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>64.9</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Texas</TD><TD>64.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Nebraska</TD><TD>64.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oklahoma</TD><TD>63.5</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Texas A&M</TD><TD>63.4</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Colorado</TD><TD>60.7</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Kansas</TD><TD>1.13</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Kansas State</TD><TD>1.11</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Texas</TD><TD>1.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Baylor</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Texas A&M</TD><TD>1.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Missouri</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Oklahoma</TD><TD>1</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Texas Tech</TD><TD>0.99</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Colorado</TD><TD>0.97</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Nebraska</TD><TD>0.97</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Iowa State</TD><TD>0.91</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Effective FG %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Kansas</TD><TD>53.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Colorado</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Missouri</TD><TD>50.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Kansas State</TD><TD>50.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>50.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Baylor</TD><TD>49.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Texas A&M</TD><TD>49.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Texas Tech</TD><TD>48.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Texas</TD><TD>47.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Nebraska</TD><TD>47.3%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Oklahoma</TD><TD>46.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Iowa State</TD><TD>45%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Kansas</TD><TD>52.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Missouri</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Colorado</TD><TD>49.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Kansas State</TD><TD>49%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Texas A&M</TD><TD>48.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>47.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Nebraska</TD><TD>47.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Baylor</TD><TD>46.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Texas Tech</TD><TD>45.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Texas</TD><TD>45.1%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Oklahoma</TD><TD>44.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Iowa State</TD><TD>43.9%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Baylor</TD><TD>37.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Kansas</TD><TD>37.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Texas Tech</TD><TD>37%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>36.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Kansas State</TD><TD>35.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Texas</TD><TD>35.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Colorado</TD><TD>35.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Texas A&M</TD><TD>33.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Missouri</TD><TD>33.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oklahoma</TD><TD>33.1%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Nebraska</TD><TD>31.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Iowa State</TD><TD>31.3%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Turnover %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Texas</TD><TD>14%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Baylor</TD><TD>17.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Missouri</TD><TD>18%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Texas A&M</TD><TD>18.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Kansas</TD><TD>18.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Oklahoma</TD><TD>19.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Kansas State</TD><TD>19.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Texas Tech</TD><TD>19.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Iowa State</TD><TD>19.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Nebraska</TD><TD>19.7%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Colorado</TD><TD>21.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>21.6%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Rebounding %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Kansas State</TD><TD>38.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Texas</TD><TD>36.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Kansas</TD><TD>33.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Texas A&M</TD><TD>31.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Oklahoma</TD><TD>31.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>27.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Baylor</TD><TD>27.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Missouri</TD><TD>26.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Nebraska</TD><TD>26.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Texas Tech</TD><TD>23.1%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Colorado</TD><TD>22.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Iowa State</TD><TD>21.8%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Efficiency Margin</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Kansas</TD><TD>0.2</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Kansas State</TD><TD>0.12</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Texas</TD><TD>0.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Texas A&M</TD><TD>0.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Baylor</TD><TD>0.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>-0.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Nebraska</TD><TD>-0.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Texas Tech</TD><TD>-0.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Missouri</TD><TD>-0.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oklahoma</TD><TD>-0.09</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Iowa State</TD><TD>-0.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Colorado</TD><TD>-0.14</TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><br /><b>Defensive Stats</b><br /><br /><strong>Points per possession Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Kansas</TD><TD>0.93</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Kansas State</TD><TD>0.99</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Texas</TD><TD>1</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Iowa State</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Texas A&M</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Nebraska</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Texas Tech</TD><TD>1.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Baylor</TD><TD>1.07</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Missouri</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Oklahoma</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Colorado</TD><TD>1.11</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Effective Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Kansas</TD><TD>44.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Texas</TD><TD>44.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Iowa State</TD><TD>48%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Texas A&M</TD><TD>49%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>49.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Baylor</TD><TD>49.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Kansas State</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Nebraska</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Oklahoma</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Missouri</TD><TD>50.9%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Texas Tech</TD><TD>50.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Colorado</TD><TD>51.3%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Kansas</TD><TD>42.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Iowa State</TD><TD>45%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Texas</TD><TD>45.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Texas A&M</TD><TD>46%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>46.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Kansas State</TD><TD>47.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Oklahoma</TD><TD>48.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Baylor</TD><TD>48.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Missouri</TD><TD>49.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Nebraska</TD><TD>50.5%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Colorado</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Texas Tech</TD><TD>52.2%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Texas</TD><TD>29.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Kansas</TD><TD>32.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Texas Tech</TD><TD>32.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Baylor</TD><TD>34.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Nebraska</TD><TD>34.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Colorado</TD><TD>35%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Missouri</TD><TD>35.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>36.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Texas A&M</TD><TD>36.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Iowa State</TD><TD>36.8%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Oklahoma</TD><TD>37.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Kansas State</TD><TD>38.5%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Turnover % Forced</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Nebraska</TD><TD>21.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Kansas State</TD><TD>21.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>21.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Texas Tech</TD><TD>20.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Missouri</TD><TD>19.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Iowa State</TD><TD>18%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Kansas</TD><TD>17.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Texas</TD><TD>17.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Colorado</TD><TD>17.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Baylor</TD><TD>17.2%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Oklahoma</TD><TD>16.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Texas A&M</TD><TD>16.6%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Defensive Rebounding %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Kansas</TD><TD>80.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Texas A&M</TD><TD>78.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Baylor</TD><TD>78.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Nebraska</TD><TD>78%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Kansas State</TD><TD>77.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Oklahoma</TD><TD>76.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Iowa State</TD><TD>76.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Oklahoma State</TD><TD>73.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Texas Tech</TD><TD>73.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Colorado</TD><TD>71.2%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Texas</TD><TD>70.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Missouri</TD><TD>70%</TD></TR></TABLE>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-69160486989046565122008-01-29T09:33:00.000-08:002008-02-28T07:22:42.476-08:00Big East 2008 Tempo-free StatsThrough 2/27/08<br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/big-east-tempo-free-stats.html">2007 Stats</a><br /><br /><b> Offensive Stats</b><br /><br /><br /><strong>Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Notre Dame</TD><TD>72.7</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Syracuse</TD><TD>69.7</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Seton Hall</TD><TD>69.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Marquette</TD><TD>69.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Villanova</TD><TD>69.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Connecticut</TD><TD>67.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. DePaul</TD><TD>67.2</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Louisville</TD><TD>67.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Rutgers</TD><TD>66.9</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Providence</TD><TD>66.8</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. St. John's</TD><TD>65.4</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. West Virginia</TD><TD>64.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Cincinnati</TD><TD>64.3</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. USF</TD><TD>63.8</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>63.5</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. Georgetown</TD><TD>62.8</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Efficiency (points per possession) </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Notre Dame</TD><TD>1.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Connecticut</TD><TD>1.09</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Marquette</TD><TD>1.07</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Louisville</TD><TD>1.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. West Virginia</TD><TD>1.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Georgetown</TD><TD>1.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Seton Hall</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Providence</TD><TD>1.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Syracuse</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. DePaul</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Villanova</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. USF</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Cincinnati</TD><TD>0.99</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. St. John's</TD><TD>0.88</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. Rutgers</TD><TD>0.88</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>Effective FG % </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Louisville</TD><TD>52.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Georgetown</TD><TD>52.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Providence</TD><TD>50.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Notre Dame</TD><TD>50.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Connecticut</TD><TD>50.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Marquette</TD><TD>49.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>49.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Cincinnati</TD><TD>48.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Seton Hall</TD><TD>48.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. USF</TD><TD>48%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Syracuse</TD><TD>47.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. DePaul</TD><TD>47.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. West Virginia</TD><TD>47.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Villanova</TD><TD>46.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. Rutgers</TD><TD>45.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. St. John's</TD><TD>42.4%</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting % </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Louisville</TD><TD>53.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Georgetown</TD><TD>52.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Syracuse</TD><TD>49.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Connecticut</TD><TD>49.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>48.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. USF</TD><TD>48.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Providence</TD><TD>47.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Marquette</TD><TD>47.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Cincinnati</TD><TD>47.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. West Virginia</TD><TD>46.8%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. DePaul</TD><TD>46%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Villanova</TD><TD>45.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Notre Dame</TD><TD>45.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Seton Hall</TD><TD>45%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. Rutgers</TD><TD>42.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. St. John's</TD><TD>41.3%</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting % </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Notre Dame</TD><TD>40.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Providence</TD><TD>37.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Marquette</TD><TD>36.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Seton Hall</TD><TD>36.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Georgetown</TD><TD>34.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Connecticut</TD><TD>34.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Cincinnati</TD><TD>34.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. DePaul</TD><TD>34.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Rutgers</TD><TD>34.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Louisville</TD><TD>33.5%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>33.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. West Virginia</TD><TD>32.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Villanova</TD><TD>32.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. USF</TD><TD>31.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. St. John's</TD><TD>30.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. Syracuse</TD><TD>28.2%</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>Turnover % </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. West Virginia</TD><TD>15.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Seton Hall</TD><TD>16.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>17.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Marquette</TD><TD>17.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. DePaul</TD><TD>17.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Louisville</TD><TD>18.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Connecticut</TD><TD>18.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Notre Dame</TD><TD>19.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. USF</TD><TD>20.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Villanova</TD><TD>20.6%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Syracuse</TD><TD>21%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Georgetown</TD><TD>21.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Providence</TD><TD>21.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Cincinnati</TD><TD>21.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. Rutgers</TD><TD>22.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. St. John's</TD><TD>23.4%</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Rebounding % </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>36.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Notre Dame</TD><TD>34.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Connecticut</TD><TD>34.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Syracuse</TD><TD>33.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Marquette</TD><TD>32.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Providence</TD><TD>32%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. DePaul</TD><TD>32%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. USF</TD><TD>31.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Villanova</TD><TD>31.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Cincinnati</TD><TD>30.2%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. St. John's</TD><TD>29.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. West Virginia</TD><TD>29.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Georgetown</TD><TD>29%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Louisville</TD><TD>28.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. Seton Hall</TD><TD>26.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. Rutgers</TD><TD>24.6%</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>Efficiency Margin </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Louisville</TD><TD>0.16</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Georgetown</TD><TD>0.13</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Marquette</TD><TD>0.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. West Virginia</TD><TD>0.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Notre Dame</TD><TD>0.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Connecticut</TD><TD>0.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>0.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Syracuse</TD><TD>0</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Villanova</TD><TD>-0.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Cincinnati</TD><TD>-0.01</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Seton Hall</TD><TD>-0.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Providence</TD><TD>-0.07</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. DePaul</TD><TD>-0.07</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. USF</TD><TD>-0.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. St. John's</TD><TD>-0.13</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. Rutgers</TD><TD>-0.19</TD></TR></table><br /><br /><br /><b>Defensive Stats</b><br /><br /><br /><strong>Points per possession Allowed </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Louisville</TD><TD>0.9</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Georgetown</TD><TD>0.92</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Marquette</TD><TD>0.97</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. West Virginia</TD><TD>0.98</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Cincinnati</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. St. John's</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Syracuse</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Villanova</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Connecticut</TD><TD>1.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Notre Dame</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Rutgers</TD><TD>1.07</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. DePaul</TD><TD>1.09</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Providence</TD><TD>1.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. Seton Hall</TD><TD>1.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. USF</TD><TD>1.11</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>Effective Shooting % Allowed </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Georgetown</TD><TD>42%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Louisville</TD><TD>43%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Connecticut</TD><TD>46.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Cincinnati</TD><TD>46.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Marquette</TD><TD>46.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Notre Dame</TD><TD>47.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Syracuse</TD><TD>48.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>49.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. West Virginia</TD><TD>49.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Villanova</TD><TD>50.1%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Providence</TD><TD>50.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. USF</TD><TD>50.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Rutgers</TD><TD>51.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Seton Hall</TD><TD>51.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. St. John's</TD><TD>51.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. DePaul</TD><TD>52.6%</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting % Allowed </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Connecticut</TD><TD>40.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Georgetown</TD><TD>41.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Louisville</TD><TD>42%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Notre Dame</TD><TD>46%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. West Virginia</TD><TD>47.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Seton Hall</TD><TD>47.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Rutgers</TD><TD>48.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Marquette</TD><TD>48.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Cincinnati</TD><TD>48.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. USF</TD><TD>48.4%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Syracuse</TD><TD>48.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>48.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Villanova</TD><TD>48.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Providence</TD><TD>49.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. St. John's</TD><TD>51%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. DePaul</TD><TD>52.4%</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting % Allowed </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Marquette</TD><TD>29.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Georgetown</TD><TD>29.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Cincinnati</TD><TD>29.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Louisville</TD><TD>30%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Syracuse</TD><TD>32.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Notre Dame</TD><TD>33.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>33.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Providence</TD><TD>34.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Villanova</TD><TD>34.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. DePaul</TD><TD>35.3%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. St. John's</TD><TD>35.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. West Virginia</TD><TD>36%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Connecticut</TD><TD>37.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. USF</TD><TD>38.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. Seton Hall</TD><TD>39.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. Rutgers</TD><TD>39.3%</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>Turnover % Forced </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Marquette</TD><TD>24%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Villanova</TD><TD>22.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. West Virginia</TD><TD>22.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. St. John's</TD><TD>20.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Georgetown</TD><TD>20.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Louisville</TD><TD>20.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. DePaul</TD><TD>20.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Providence</TD><TD>19.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>19.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Syracuse</TD><TD>19%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Seton Hall</TD><TD>19%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Cincinnati</TD><TD>18.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Rutgers</TD><TD>17.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Notre Dame</TD><TD>16.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. USF</TD><TD>16.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. Connecticut</TD><TD>15.9%</TD></TR></table><p><br><p><strong>Defensive Rebounding % </strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Cincinnati</TD><TD>81.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. St. John's</TD><TD>81.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. West Virginia</TD><TD>77.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Louisville</TD><TD>76.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Villanova</TD><TD>75.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Syracuse</TD><TD>75.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Rutgers</TD><TD>74.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Georgetown</TD><TD>73.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. USF</TD><TD>72%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Notre Dame</TD><TD>71.8%</TD></TR><tr><TD>11. Marquette</TD><TD>70.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>12. Pittsburgh</TD><TD>69.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>13. Connecticut</TD><TD>68.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>14. Seton Hall</TD><TD>68.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>15. Providence</TD><TD>68.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>16. DePaul</TD><TD>67.9%</TD></TR></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-22508299615555027672008-01-24T07:34:00.000-08:002008-03-17T13:20:47.134-07:002008 Pac 10 Tempo-Free StatsWell, 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. <br />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. <br /><br />Once again, thank you to the conference sites for posting usable data formats and to KenPom and Wonk (now at <a href="http://basketballprospectus.com/">BBall Prospectus</a>) for initiating this trend into tempo-free wilderness.<br /><br /><b><i>Pac 10 2008 Stats</b></i><br />Through 2/27/2008<br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/pac-10-tempo-free-stats_30.html">2007 Stats</a><br /><p><br /><b>Offensive Stats</b><br /><br /><strong>Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. California</TD><TD>67.8</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Washington</TD><TD>67.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Oregon State</TD><TD>65.9</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. USC</TD><TD>65.4</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. UCLA</TD><TD>64.9</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Arizona</TD><TD>63.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Oregon</TD><TD>63.6</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Stanford</TD><TD>63.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Arizona State</TD><TD>62.8</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Washington State</TD><TD>58.6</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. UCLA</TD><TD>1.13</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Oregon</TD><TD>1.11</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arizona</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. California</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Washington State</TD><TD>1.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. USC</TD><TD>1.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Stanford</TD><TD>1.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Washington</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Arizona State</TD><TD>1</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oregon State</TD><TD>0.87</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Effective FG %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Oregon</TD><TD>55.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. USC</TD><TD>54.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arizona</TD><TD>53.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Washington State</TD><TD>52.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. UCLA</TD><TD>52%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Arizona State</TD><TD>51.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. California</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Washington</TD><TD>47.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Stanford</TD><TD>46.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oregon State</TD><TD>40.2%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. USC</TD><TD>54%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. UCLA</TD><TD>52.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arizona State</TD><TD>52.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Oregon</TD><TD>51.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Arizona</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Washington State</TD><TD>49.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. California</TD><TD>49.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Washington</TD><TD>47.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Stanford</TD><TD>45%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oregon State</TD><TD>39%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Oregon</TD><TD>39.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Washington State</TD><TD>38.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arizona</TD><TD>38.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. USC</TD><TD>37.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. California</TD><TD>36.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Stanford</TD><TD>34%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. UCLA</TD><TD>33.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Arizona State</TD><TD>33.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Washington</TD><TD>31.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oregon State</TD><TD>28.5%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Turnover %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Washington State</TD><TD>16.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Arizona</TD><TD>17.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Oregon State</TD><TD>18%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. California</TD><TD>18.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Oregon</TD><TD>18.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Stanford</TD><TD>18.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. UCLA</TD><TD>18.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Washington</TD><TD>19.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Arizona State</TD><TD>20.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. USC</TD><TD>21.2%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Offensive Rebounding %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Washington</TD><TD>37%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Stanford</TD><TD>36.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. UCLA</TD><TD>36.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. California</TD><TD>29.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. USC</TD><TD>28.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Oregon State</TD><TD>28.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Oregon</TD><TD>27.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Washington State</TD><TD>24.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Arizona</TD><TD>24.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Arizona State</TD><TD>22.7%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Efficiency Margin</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. UCLA</TD><TD>0.17</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Stanford</TD><TD>0.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Washington State</TD><TD>0.08</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. USC</TD><TD>0.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Arizona</TD><TD>0.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Oregon</TD><TD>0.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Washington</TD><TD>-0.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Arizona State</TD><TD>-0.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. California</TD><TD>-0.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oregon State</TD><TD>-0.3</TD></TR></TABLE><br /><br /><br /><b>Defensive Stats</b><br /><br /><strong>Points per possession Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. UCLA</TD><TD>0.96</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Stanford</TD><TD>0.97</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. USC</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Washington State</TD><TD>1.01</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Arizona State</TD><TD>1.02</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Washington</TD><TD>1.03</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Arizona</TD><TD>1.05</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Oregon</TD><TD>1.1</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. California</TD><TD>1.14</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oregon State</TD><TD>1.17</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Effective Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Stanford</TD><TD>43.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. USC</TD><TD>45.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arizona State</TD><TD>49.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. UCLA</TD><TD>49.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Washington</TD><TD>50.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Washington State</TD><TD>50.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Arizona</TD><TD>51.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Oregon</TD><TD>51.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. California</TD><TD>53.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oregon State</TD><TD>55.6%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>2-pt Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Stanford</TD><TD>42.4%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. USC</TD><TD>43.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arizona State</TD><TD>47.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. UCLA</TD><TD>47.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Washington</TD><TD>47.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Washington State</TD><TD>50.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Arizona</TD><TD>50.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Oregon</TD><TD>52%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. California</TD><TD>53.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oregon State</TD><TD>54.4%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>3-pt Shooting % Allowed</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Stanford</TD><TD>32.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. USC</TD><TD>32.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Oregon</TD><TD>34.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Washington State</TD><TD>34.5%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Arizona State</TD><TD>35%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Arizona</TD><TD>35.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. California</TD><TD>36.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Washington</TD><TD>36.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. UCLA</TD><TD>37%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. Oregon State</TD><TD>38.9%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Turnover % Forced</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. Washington State</TD><TD>22%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. UCLA</TD><TD>21.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. Arizona State</TD><TD>20.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Washington</TD><TD>20%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Arizona</TD><TD>19.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Oregon State</TD><TD>19%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. USC</TD><TD>18.2%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Stanford</TD><TD>16.9%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Oregon</TD><TD>15.6%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. California</TD><TD>14.8%</TD></TR></TABLE><p><br><p><strong>Defensive Rebounding %</strong><p><TABLE><TR><TD>1. UCLA</TD><TD>79.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>2. Washington</TD><TD>77%</TD></TR><TR><TD>3. California</TD><TD>76.7%</TD></TR><TR><TD>4. Washington State</TD><TD>74.1%</TD></TR><TR><TD>5. Stanford</TD><TD>74%</TD></TR><TR><TD>6. Arizona State</TD><TD>73%</TD></TR><TR><TD>7. Oregon</TD><TD>72.8%</TD></TR><TR><TD>8. Oregon State</TD><TD>72%</TD></TR><TR><TD>9. Arizona</TD><TD>71.3%</TD></TR><TR><TD>10. USC</TD><TD>65.9%</TD></TR></TABLE>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-24803484602087110662007-11-28T06:52:00.000-08:002007-11-28T06:55:35.145-08:00Tuesday Night ActionLet's take a look at the close BigTen/ACC challenge games (as there were some duds as well)<br /><br /><b>Georgia Tech 79 at Indiana 83 </b><br />Stats were pretty even across the board as Indy put up 1.13 PPP vs. Gtech's 1.07 in a back and forth tussle played out over 74 possessions. Eric Gordon would impress me one minute, and then dumbfound me the next. His 1.34 PPWS were superb, getting 29 points on 14 FGA and 16 FTA, but he turned the ball over 8 times and had 2 assists and no steals to show for it. No doubt this kid is great off the dribble, he just lacked a little discipline at times. The Hoosiers were helped by an 18 attempt edge at the free throw line, mostly added on in the last minute. <br /><br /><br /><b>Purdue 58 at Clemson 61</b><br />KC Rivers bucket with just over 30 seconds proved to be the game winner in a game that saw the biggest lead at 5 points for both teams. <br />Overall, the game saw some average to sub-average shooting, with the Boilermakers at 42% efg and the Tigers at 52% efg. Purdue ended at 2 for 12 from three-point land for the night. The .81 vs. .85 PPP was delivered by 19 turnovers for Purdue to 20 for Clemson in this 72 possession battle. Raymond Sykes led the charge with this gem: in 18 minutes he had 5 turnovers, 2 points and 2 fouls. Nevertheless, a big holding of serve at home for the ACC.<br /><br /><br />Bonus-game highlight:<br /><br /><b>Maryland-Eastern Shore 44 at West Virginia 110</b><br />I just couldn't resist taking a look at this one. Here's the stats:<br />West Virginia shot 70% efg on the way to 1.41 PPP in a 78 possession blowout. MD-Eastern Shore shot 27% in getting only .56 points on each possession. They turned the ball over on a third of their possessions and only grabbed 29% of their misses. Out of the 78 possessions, they only made 14 field goals. Counter this with the Mountaineers 45 made field goals. 13 players saw time for West Virginia, all with at least 7 minutes. Joe Alexander had the line of the night:<br />In 24 minutes of play, he posted 22 points, 8 boards, 4 assists, 2 blocks and 1 turnover.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-48563892282326690712007-11-26T15:04:00.000-08:002007-11-26T15:11:23.781-08:00Butler at it AgainA lot of happenings over the long, glorious food-infested weekend, so I'll at least get a quick shot out there to highlight Butler's huge start for a second year in a row. <br /><br />In taking down Michigan, Virginia Tech and Texas Tech, in that order, the Bulldogs of Butler put on quite an offensive efficientizling show:<br /><br />Michigan game: 79-65. 1.34 points-per-possession while hurling up 32 three's against 55 total shots. Yes, over 58% of their shots came from treyland. But when you shoot 53% from there, en route to a 61% efg, then by all means, keep shooting. <br /><br />Vtech game: 84-78 in OT. 1.21 PPP on a more human 42% 3pt shooting to go with 58% efg in a faster 70 possession OT game. <br /><br />Texas Tech game: 81-71. 1.42 PPP!! Straight stats for ya: 67% 3pt shooting on 24 threes out of 60 total shots. 77% efg. You read that correctly. They only needed 47 total shots and 11 free-throws to get to 81 in a 57 possession game. Just unreal.<br /><br />More side dishes: Their turnover percent went hand-in-hand with their shooting: 12%, 13% and 12% in their games respectively, keeping their TO's in the single digits. <br /><br />AJ Graves shooting 3's: 5 for 10 against the Wolverines. 4 for 13 against Vtech and 6 for 8 against Texas Tech for an over 48% average during the Tourney. The Senior from Switz City will continue to loft them up and more often than not, will have a good night shooting. <br /><br /><br />If we want to take a "Glass is half empty" approach, they allowed 1.10, 1.12 and 1.25 PPP respectively in the tourney, far above their season average of .96.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-48178916443829598852007-11-21T09:25:00.000-08:002007-11-26T06:26:37.270-08:00Starting Fresh for 2007Time to jump right into the pool. There's no better way. <br /><br /><b>UCLA - 68 MSU - 63</b><br />Here we had two Goliaths looking for a good resume-building victory last night in Kansas City. Michigan St. shot surprisingly well (56% efg vs. UCLA's pedestrian 42%) but it was UCLA that made the most of it's missed opportunities. Anytime you're rebounding over 50% of your misses on the offensive end, you're allowed to shoot a little under your average. No doubt UCLA has not shot well thus far (only at 47% efg for the season), they are averaging an over 42% offensive rebounding %. <br />***correction*** Michigan St. turned it over on 28% of their possessions, led by Kevin Lucas' 4 TO's in just 22 minutes of play in a slow 64 possession contest. UCLA scored 1.06 points-per-possession while MSU was held under .98 for the game. <br /><br /><br /><b>Duke - 79 Illinois - 66</b><br />Duke continues to impress with a quickness on and off the ball that we haven't seen in a few season. The Illini offense was held in check, shooting only 35% efg and posting .97 PPP against Duke's 1.16 PPP and blistering 63% efg. Gerald Henderson was the Beast of the Game, getting 23 points out of 15 field goals for 1.22 PPWS. <br />One thing to note is Duke's increase in tempo from last year's sluggish pace. They're already averaging around 74 possessions per game, up from last year's 66. <br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Marquette - 91 Oklahoma St - 61</b><br />The Golden Eagles shot the barn down(62% efg), defended well (OK St. got .83 points a possession) and kept the pace up to get 91 points in a 73 possession game. <br />Wesley Matthews led the 5 Eagles in double digits while getting 13 points only 6 shots from the field and 5 for 5 free-throw shooting. Ousmane Barro was keeper the glass, getting 10 boards in only 18 minutes of play. <br />The victory sets up a tasty rematch of <a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2006/11/classic-tuesday-night.html">last year's duel</a> in which Dominic James showcased the tall glass of talent that he possesses. <br /><br />Let's see what happens with a much-improved Blue Devils squad. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Good to be back in this thing. I'll be out of town, but posts will regain strength next Monday. <br /><br />Things to look forward to after the 1st month in:<br /><br />Who's tempo is shifting?<br />Boards, what are they?<br />A wish list for statsUnknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-91415704808132506502007-11-15T13:08:00.000-08:002007-11-15T12:13:22.209-08:00Rumblings...Getting ramped back up for another season of Tempo-Free fantasy. I've been a little caught up in some other workings, so the season has been rolling and the tempo-free stats have been swirling in a vat, waiting to be plucked and perused. <br /><br />At the latest, this should be up and running full speed after T-day, but I hope to get a few posts rolling this weekend. <br /><br />Thanks for stopping back, it should be yet another good year.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-34729976399298747932007-03-31T18:49:00.000-07:002008-01-31T18:55:15.150-08:002007 Tempo Free Stats2007 All put together in one easy to catch fish barrel:<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/acc-tempo-free-stats.html">ACC 2007</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/big-east-tempo-free-stats.html">Big East 2007</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/02/big-south-tempo-free-stats.html">Big South 2007</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/big-12-tempo-free-stats.html">Big 12 2007</a><br /><br /><a href="http://bigtenwonk.blogspot.com/2007/01/team-tempo-free-stats-offense.html">Big 10 2007 (Big 10 Wonk Site)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/02/caa-tempo-free-stats.html">CAA 2007</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/02/conference-usa-tempo-free-stats.html">Conference USA 2007</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/missouri-valley-conference-mvc-tempo.html">MVC 2007</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/03/mwc-2007-tempo-free-stats.html">Mountain West 2007</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/pac-10-tempo-free-stats_30.html">Pac 10 2007</a><br /><br /><a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/sec-tempo-free-stats.html">SEC 2007</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-68114803663428036822007-03-30T07:43:00.000-07:002007-03-30T07:44:31.599-07:00Apologies....Had a little situation come up. Sorry for lack of posting. <br />Enjoy the weekend. Great games ahead. <br /><br />I'll be posting about once a month after the tourney.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-90191172305985407182007-03-20T06:58:00.000-07:002007-03-20T07:05:58.949-07:00Ahhh, MarchWhat a weekend. Yes, some days were better than others, but really, can you beat the past 4 days?? Had a great time at the Spokane regional. <br />Got to see the Winthrop upset and the absolute domination of Texas from USC, along with spending 11 hours in the arena on Friday watching basketball.<br /><br /><br />Here's a brief recap of the picks:<br /><br />Pitt - Wright St. - 120 o/u <br />79 - 58 over<br /><br />Wazzu - Oral Roberts - 120 o/u<br />70 -54 over<br /><br />Butler - Old Dominion - 123 o/u<br />57-46 under<br />Nevada - Creighton - 133 o/u<br />77-71 over (ot game) was at 118 at the end of reg.<br /><br />Boston College - Texas Tech - 136 o/u<br />84-75 over<br /><br />Arizona - Purdue - 136 o/u<br />63 -72 under<br /> <br />So, overall for the first round, ended up at 4-2, with a 1 point loss, and an OT saver. <br />By the way, in case you were wondering, yes, the Tennessee-Long Beach St. game covered the over of 170 points. <br />Salukis barely covered the over with their Holy Cross game. Yes, the over was at 109. <br />For the first round, here's the Vegas numbers (based on lines from Thursday) for games featuring teams seeded 3 through 14<br />16 teams covered their spreads(yes, lots of blow outs) vs. 7 underdogs staying close and 1 push. <br />11 games covered the over vs. 13 games under.<br /><br />Obviously the Kansas and Florida games covered their overs. <br /><br />Preview and other oddities coming today or tomorrow.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-85929107413268254812007-03-15T06:21:00.000-07:002007-03-15T06:39:34.825-07:00And it begins....Well, I think we've all beaten the brackets to death. Time to play out the damn thing. <br />Good luck. <br /><br />I'll be in Spokane for the regional this weekend starting tomorrow, so hopefully I'll have some PC access in order to post some tempo-free oddities from the greatest first two rounds of any sporting event.<br /><br /><br />Just for the hell of it, out of my 20+ brackets, my true "money" Final Four has:<br /><br />Florida<br />Kansas<br />Gtown<br />Tex A&M<br /><br />With Kansas beating A&M in the final.<br /><br />The reality? Kansas bombs in the 2nd along with Florida losing to Jackson St. Can't wait!! I don't like Florida, but it's too scary to lay it all on U-dub or the Ducks or Maryland. I've seen all of them too much. I think next I just won't watch any games. Oh wait....Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-71459802896570687662007-03-14T14:44:00.000-07:002007-03-14T16:11:21.777-07:00These Pretzels are Making Me ThirstyJust when you think the tempo-free world is ascending ever closer to that utopia we all clamour for, the USA Today let's out a giant turd on the pavement. <br /><br />In today's age, we've got the <a href="http://assets.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney07/blueribbon/free/2483.pdf">Blue Ribbon </a> giving every conceivable tempo-free stat on each team's sheet. <br /><br />You've got pretty much every writer and talk-head over at ESPN at least mentioning some stat from time to time (big thanks to Fraschilla and Glockner)<br /><br />Hell, even the Sports Guy Simmons has gotten into it, <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/blog/index?entryDate=20070314&name=simmons">referencing the Wonk</a> in continuing his week-long berating of the Big Ten's pace. (I had to <a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/01/pace-tempo-and-cooks-that-make-it.html">agree</a> on the Big Ten's variance of pace vs. other conferences. Quality of play? We'll see)<br /><br />But, then the USA Today decides to take us back a few decades, with <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/tourney07/2007-03-13-shooters_N.htm"><br />this piece</a> of analysis.<br /><br />What they did was essentially total up the 3pt%, 2pt% and FT% of a player, and rank them based on that. It's about the same as looking in your wallet, seeing that you have a third of your bills in 1's, a 3rd in 5's and a 3rd in 50's, but just comparing the number of bills that you have vs. your friend's wallet. <br /><br />Using this "perspective", which player is the better overall shooter?<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Player A</span><br />70% 3pt shooting<br />30% 2pt shooting<br />60% FT shooting<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Player B</span><br />30% 3pt shooting<br />40% 2pt shooting<br />90% FT shooting<br /><br />In this article's eyes, these two players are equal shooters. There is no weight given to the fact that a 3pt is worth, well duh, 3 points and that a free throw only gives you 1 point. <br />One other troubling fact, is that there is no weight given based on the player's frequency of each type of shot; it's not a blended average. <br /><br />A better picture of quality shooters is <a href="http://www.kenpom.com/leaders.php?c=eFG">this piece</a> over at Ken Pom, as effective Field Goal % blends in the frequency of each shot with it's given point total. <br /><br />Obviously that one stat doesn't tell the whole picture, but at least it's closer to being *accurate.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />*still trying to figure out what that meansUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37649486.post-14242179715135141912007-03-14T09:28:00.000-07:002007-03-14T10:03:11.619-07:00Tale of an UpsetWell, we took care of <a href="http://tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com/2007/03/test.html">solidifying</a> your Final Four and your Champion with Tempo-Free validity. Now let's try and squeak in some of those pesky early round upsets. Take a look below at all of the 1st and 2nd round upsets involving a team at least 4 seeds below beating the higher seed. You can see, more or less, the "Davids" hold a fairly solid efficiency margin and shoot well enough and they hang onto the ball a good amount of the time. The "Goliaths" aren't anywhere near as efficient as our averages for Final Four teams. Overall, I can't say that the data can really "open up any doors", but it's just interesting to see the stats associated with a "giant-killer" and with a pretender.<br /><br /><br />Averages for 2004, 2005 and 2006<br /><table width=75%><br /><tr><td></td><td>2004-2006</td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Underdog</td><td>67.2</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.17</td><td>51%</td><td>20%</td><td>33%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>22%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Favorite</td><td>68.4</td><td>1.14</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.22</td><td>52%</td><td>20%</td><td>36%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>21%</td><td>30%</td></tr><br /></table><br /><br /><br />2006<br /><table width=75%><br /><tr><td>Seed</td><td>2006</td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Texas A&M</td><td>65.2</td><td>1.07</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.2</td><td>51%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>27%</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Syracuse</td><td>70</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.16</td><td>50%</td><td>21%</td><td>37%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>22%</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Northwestern St.</td><td>69.7</td><td>1.04</td><td>0.99</td><td>0.05</td><td>52%</td><td>22%</td><td>37%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>24%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Iowa</td><td>66.5</td><td>1.04</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.2</td><td>48%</td><td>22%</td><td>31%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>21%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Bradley</td><td>71.3</td><td>1.07</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.18</td><td>49%</td><td>21%</td><td>34%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Kansas</td><td>69.9</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.28</td><td>52%</td><td>22%</td><td>37%</td><td>43%</td><td>43%</td><td>24%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Bradley</td><td>71.3</td><td>1.07</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.18</td><td>49%</td><td>21%</td><td>34%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Pittsburgh</td><td>66.3</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.25</td><td>51%</td><td>20%</td><td>38%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>19%</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Montana</td><td>68.2</td><td>1.09</td><td>1.01</td><td>0.08</td><td>55%</td><td>19%</td><td>32%</td><td>50%</td><td>50%</td><td>20%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Nevada</td><td>67.8</td><td>1.08</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.16</td><td>50%</td><td>19%</td><td>35%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Wisconsin Milwaukee</td><td>70.3</td><td>1.06</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.12</td><td>49%</td><td>20%</td><td>37%</td><td>49%</td><td>49%</td><td>22%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Oklahoma</td><td>64.9</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.16</td><td>51%</td><td>22%</td><td>43%</td><td>50%</td><td>50%</td><td>21%</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Georgetown</td><td>59.4</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.24</td><td>53%</td><td>19%</td><td>35%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>20%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Ohio St.</td><td>67.5</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.22</td><td>54%</td><td>18%</td><td>29%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>George Mason</td><td>64.3</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.19</td><td>54%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Michigan St.</td><td>66.8</td><td>1.14</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.18</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>34%</td><td>50%</td><td>50%</td><td>19%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>George Mason</td><td>64.3</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.19</td><td>54%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>North Carolina</td><td>72.6</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.26</td><td>54%</td><td>23%</td><td>40%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>20%</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Wichita St.</td><td>64.9</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.17</td><td>50%</td><td>20%</td><td>34%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>19%</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Tennessee</td><td>72.8</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.22</td><td>54%</td><td>18%</td><td>30%</td><td>53%</td><td>53%</td><td>24%</td><td>33%</td></tr><br /></table><br /><br /><br />2005 <br /><table width=75%><br /><tr><td>Seed</td><td>2005</td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Wisconsin Milwaukee</td><td>70.3</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.17</td><td>51%</td><td>20%</td><td>36%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>24%</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Alabama</td><td>64.2</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.25</td><td>56%</td><td>19%</td><td>34%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>17%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Wisconsin Milwaukee</td><td>70.3</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.17</td><td>51%</td><td>20%</td><td>36%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>24%</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Boston College</td><td>65.8</td><td>1.15</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.21</td><td>49%</td><td>20%</td><td>40%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>21%</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>UAB</td><td>71.8</td><td>1.08</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.14</td><td>51%</td><td>18%</td><td>30%</td><td>50%</td><td>50%</td><td>27%</td><td>37%</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>LSU</td><td>67.5</td><td>1.14</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.17</td><td>52%</td><td>19%</td><td>34%</td><td>51%</td><td>51%</td><td>18%</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>West Virginia</td><td>64.3</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.19</td><td>53%</td><td>18%</td><td>28%</td><td>51%</td><td>51%</td><td>23%</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Wake Forest</td><td>70</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.29</td><td>56%</td><td>20%</td><td>40%</td><td>50%</td><td>50%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Bucknell</td><td>64.1</td><td>1.01</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.08</td><td>51%</td><td>24%</td><td>30%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>24%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Kansas</td><td>67.1</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.26</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>35%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>20%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>North Carolina St.</td><td>64</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.23</td><td>53%</td><td>19%</td><td>31%</td><td>49%</td><td>49%</td><td>23%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Connecticut</td><td>71.7</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.25</td><td>50%</td><td>21%</td><td>42%</td><td>43%</td><td>43%</td><td>17%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Vermont</td><td>65.5</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.14</td><td>51%</td><td>18%</td><td>34%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>19%</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Syracuse</td><td>66.9</td><td>1.15</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.21</td><td>52%</td><td>20%</td><td>40%</td><td>45%</td><td>45%</td><td>21%</td><td>35%</td></tr><br /></table><br /><br /><br /><br />2004<br /><table width=75%><br /><tr><td>Seed</td><td>2004</td><td>Pos</td><td>Oeff</td><td>Deff</td><td>Margin</td><td>EFG</td><td>TO</td><td>Oreb</td><td>Defg</td><td>Defg</td><td>Dto</td><td>Doreb</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Manhattan</td><td>67</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.15</td><td>49%</td><td>18%</td><td>33%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>24%</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Florida</td><td>67.5</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.23</td><td>56%</td><td>21%</td><td>29%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>19%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>UAB</td><td>72.1</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.18</td><td>51%</td><td>19%</td><td>32%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>27%</td><td>36%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Washington</td><td>75.2</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.16</td><td>52%</td><td>19%</td><td>32%</td><td>52%</td><td>52%</td><td>22%</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Pacific</td><td>65.6</td><td>1.08</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.11</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>29%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>19%</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Providence</td><td>67.2</td><td>1.13</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.22</td><td>52%</td><td>22%</td><td>36%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>22%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Nevada</td><td>70.4</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.24</td><td>49%</td><td>18%</td><td>36%</td><td>46%</td><td>46%</td><td>20%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Gonzaga</td><td>68.2</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.27</td><td>57%</td><td>19%</td><td>37%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>18%</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Xavier</td><td>65.6</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.26</td><td>51%</td><td>19%</td><td>33%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>21%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Mississippi St.</td><td>70.5</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.27</td><td>52%</td><td>21%</td><td>40%</td><td>47%</td><td>47%</td><td>23%</td><td>30%</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Alabama</td><td>66</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.22</td><td>51%</td><td>19%</td><td>32%</td><td>48%</td><td>48%</td><td>20%</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Stanford</td><td>66.4</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.26</td><td>53%</td><td>21%</td><td>37%</td><td>44%</td><td>44%</td><td>21%</td><td>27%</td></tr><br /></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0