Pac 10 Statistical Variation Snapsot

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

Pac-10 games through 2/18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Rutgers 63     West Virginia 81

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

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

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

Thursday Night Beast Action

UCLA 67     Washington St. 59

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

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

Numbers

Fixed. 2/6/08

2008 ACC Tempo-Free Stats

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

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats

Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Duke	76.1
2. North Carolina	75.6
3. Georgia Tech	72.7
4. Maryland	72.3
5. Wake Forest	72.2
6. Virginia Tech	72.1
7. Miami	69.8
8. Virginia	69.6
9. Boston College	69.6
10. Clemson	68.8
11. Florida State	68.3
12. NC State	67.9

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Duke	1.13
2. North Carolina	1.12
3. Clemson	1.08
4. Maryland	1.05
5. Georgia Tech	1.05
6. Miami	1.05
7. Boston College	1.03
8. Wake Forest	1.03
9. Virginia	0.99
10. NC State	0.99
11. Virginia Tech	0.97
12. Florida State	0.97

Effective FG %

1. Duke	54%
2. Georgia Tech	53.1%
3. Maryland	52.5%
4. Boston College	51.2%
5. Clemson	51.2%
6. NC State	51.1%
7. Wake Forest	50.9%
8. North Carolina	50.7%
9. Miami	48.2%
10. Florida State	48%
11. Virginia	46.6%
12. Virginia Tech	45.6%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Georgia Tech	53.4%
2. Duke	52.7%
3. Maryland	51.4%
4. Wake Forest	50.1%
5. North Carolina	49.6%
6. Clemson	48.6%
7. Boston College	48.1%
8. NC State	48%
9. Virginia Tech	47%
10. Florida State	46.9%
11. Miami	46.6%
12. Virginia	45.1%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Boston College	39%
2. NC State	38.4%
3. Clemson	37.7%
4. Duke	37.2%
5. Maryland	37.1%
6. North Carolina	36.4%
7. Georgia Tech	35%
8. Wake Forest	35%
9. Miami	34.6%
10. Florida State	33.2%
11. Virginia	32.8%
12. Virginia Tech	27.9%

Turnover %

1. Virginia	17.7%
2. Duke	18.1%
3. Clemson	18.8%
4. North Carolina	20%
5. Wake Forest	20%
6. Miami	20.3%
7. Boston College	20.6%
8. Maryland	21.3%
9. Virginia Tech	21.6%
10. Georgia Tech	21.9%
11. Florida State	22.3%
12. NC State	24%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. North Carolina	39.7%
2. Clemson	36.7%
3. Miami	34.2%
4. Virginia Tech	31%
5. Wake Forest	30.6%
6. Georgia Tech	30.5%
7. Duke	30.4%
8. Florida State	29.2%
9. Maryland	29.2%
10. Boston College	28.4%
11. Virginia	28.3%
12. NC State	27.8%

Efficiency Margin

1. North Carolina	0.15
2. Duke	0.14
3. Clemson	0.08
4. Maryland	0.01
5. Georgia Tech	-0.01
6. Virginia Tech	-0.02
7. Miami	-0.02
8. Wake Forest	-0.02
9. Boston College	-0.05
10. Virginia	-0.07
11. Florida State	-0.07
12. NC State	-0.14

Defensive Stats



Points per possession Allowed

1. North Carolina	0.97
2. Virginia Tech	0.99
3. Duke	0.99
4. Clemson	1
5. Florida State	1.04
6. Maryland	1.04
7. Wake Forest	1.04
8. Virginia	1.06
9. Georgia Tech	1.07
10. Miami	1.07
11. Boston College	1.08
12. NC State	1.12

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland	47.5%
2. Clemson	48.2%
3. North Carolina	48.4%
4. Boston College	49.1%
5. Virginia Tech	49.4%
6. Duke	50.6%
7. Miami	50.6%
8. Florida State	51.1%
9. Georgia Tech	51.1%
10. Wake Forest	51.6%
11. NC State	52.9%
12. Virginia	53%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Maryland	45.1%
2. Miami	46.2%
3. Virginia Tech	46.8%
4. Florida State	47.9%
5. North Carolina	48.1%
6. Clemson	49%
7. Boston College	49.7%
8. NC State	50.3%
9. Wake Forest	50.4%
10. Virginia	51%
11. Duke	51.2%
12. Georgia Tech	52.1%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Clemson	30.7%
2. Boston College	31.9%
3. Duke	32.2%
4. North Carolina	32.6%
5. Georgia Tech	32.7%
6. Maryland	35.3%
7. Wake Forest	36.1%
8. Virginia Tech	36.5%
9. Virginia	37.4%
10. Florida State	37.9%
11. Miami	39.1%
12. NC State	40.6%

Turnover % Forced

1. NC State	24%
2. Florida State	22.3%
3. Georgia Tech	21.9%
4. Virginia Tech	21.6%
5. Maryland	21.3%
6. Boston College	20.6%
7. Miami	20.3%
8. North Carolina	20%
9. Wake Forest	20%
10. Clemson	18.8%
11. Duke	18.1%
12. Virginia	17.7%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Virginia Tech	78%
2. Virginia	77.7%
3. North Carolina	76.8%
4. Duke	73.7%
5. Maryland	73.4%
6. Wake Forest	72.8%
7. Miami	70.7%
8. Florida State	70.2%
9. Georgia Tech	69.2%
10. NC State	68.4%
11. Boston College	68%
12. Clemson	66.2%

2008 SEC Tempo-Free Stats

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats


Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Tennessee	72.2
2. Ole Miss	69.4
3. Alabama	69.3
4. Arkansas	69.1
5. Florida	69
6. Vanderbilt	68.5
7. Auburn	68.3
8. Georgia	67.7
9. Mississippi State	66.7
10. LSU	66
11. South Carolina	64
12. Kentucky	63.1

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Florida	1.11
2. Tennessee	1.11
3. Auburn	1.08
4. Mississippi State	1.05
5. Vanderbilt	1.05
6. South Carolina	1.04
7. Ole Miss	1.03
8. Arkansas	1.02
9. Kentucky	1.01
10. Alabama	1.01
11. LSU	0.98
12. Georgia	0.96

Effective FG %

1. Mississippi State	54.1%
2. Florida	53.3%
3. Auburn	51.7%
4. Vanderbilt	51.5%
5. Tennessee	51.2%
6. Arkansas	50.3%
7. Kentucky	50.2%
8. South Carolina	49.6%
9. Alabama	48.9%
10. Ole Miss	47.2%
11. LSU	45.7%
12. Georgia	45.3%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Florida	55.6%
2. Mississippi State	54.6%
3. Auburn	50.5%
4. Vanderbilt	50.2%
5. Alabama	49.5%
6. South Carolina	49%
7. Arkansas	48.9%
8. Kentucky	48.8%
9. Tennessee	48.5%
10. LSU	46.2%
11. Georgia	45.4%
12. Ole Miss	45.3%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Tennessee	37.1%
2. Kentucky	35.7%
3. Vanderbilt	35.6%
4. Auburn	35.6%
5. Mississippi State	35.5%
6. Arkansas	35.3%
7. Ole Miss	34.1%
8. South Carolina	33.6%
9. Florida	33%
10. Alabama	31.8%
11. Georgia	30%
12. LSU	29.8%

Turnover %

1. South Carolina	15.5%
2. Auburn	17.9%
3. Ole Miss	18.3%
4. Vanderbilt	18.4%
5. Tennessee	18.5%
6. Florida	18.8%
7. Alabama	19.1%
8. LSU	19.2%
9. Georgia	20.6%
10. Arkansas	20.7%
11. Kentucky	22.9%
12. Mississippi State	23.3%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Ole Miss	36.7%
2. Tennessee	35.2%
3. Mississippi State	33.1%
4. Georgia	32.5%
5. Arkansas	32%
6. Florida	31.8%
7. LSU	31.7%
8. Alabama	30.9%
9. Kentucky	30.5%
10. Auburn	29.1%
11. South Carolina	28.3%
12. Vanderbilt	26.3%

Efficiency Margin

1. Tennessee	0.14
2. Mississippi State	0.09
3. Arkansas	0.05
4. Vanderbilt	0.04
5. Florida	0.03
6. Kentucky	0
7. Alabama	-0.03
8. Ole Miss	-0.05
9. Georgia	-0.06
10. South Carolina	-0.07
11. Auburn	-0.08
12. LSU	-0.08

Defensive Stats

Points per possession Allowed

1. Mississippi State	0.96
2. Tennessee	0.97
3. Arkansas	0.98
4. Kentucky	1.01
5. Vanderbilt	1.01
6. Georgia	1.02
7. Alabama	1.04
8. LSU	1.06
9. Florida	1.08
10. Ole Miss	1.09
11. South Carolina	1.11
12. Auburn	1.16

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Mississippi State	41.3%
2. Arkansas	45.5%
3. Kentucky	46.3%
4. Tennessee	47.8%
5. Vanderbilt	47.9%
6. LSU	50.6%
7. Alabama	50.7%
8. Ole Miss	51.7%
9. Georgia	52.3%
10. Florida	53.2%
11. South Carolina	53.3%
12. Auburn	58.6%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Mississippi State	39.6%
2. Kentucky	44.5%
3. Arkansas	44.8%
4. Vanderbilt	47.3%
5. LSU	47.9%
6. Alabama	48.2%
7. Ole Miss	50.2%
8. Tennessee	50.4%
9. South Carolina	52.8%
10. Florida	53%
11. Georgia	55.1%
12. Auburn	59%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Tennessee	28.7%
2. Mississippi State	29.8%
3. Arkansas	31.2%
4. Georgia	31.7%
5. Vanderbilt	32.7%
6. Kentucky	33.1%
7. Florida	35.7%
8. South Carolina	36%
9. Ole Miss	36.1%
10. Alabama	36.2%
11. LSU	37.3%
12. Auburn	38.6%

Turnover % Forced

1. Tennessee	23.1%
2. South Carolina	22.2%
3. Alabama	21.1%
4. Auburn	21%
5. Arkansas	19.6%
6. Florida	19.3%
7. Vanderbilt	18.7%
8. LSU	18.5%
9. Kentucky	18.4%
10. Georgia	17.7%
11. Ole Miss	17.2%
12. Mississippi State	16%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Georgia	79.7%
2. Tennessee	76.4%
3. Alabama	74%
4. Ole Miss	73.5%
5. Florida	72.1%
6. Kentucky	72.1%
7. Arkansas	71.5%
8. Vanderbilt	70.6%
9. LSU	70.4%
10. Auburn	69.7%
11. Mississippi State	68.4%
12. South Carolina	62.2%

2008 Big 12 Tempo-Free Stats

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats

Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Baylor	71.9
2. Kansas State	70.5
3. Missouri	70.3
4. Texas Tech	69.3
5. Kansas	69.1
6. Iowa State	67.7
7. Oklahoma State	64.9
8. Texas	64.6
9. Nebraska	64.3
10. Oklahoma	63.5
11. Texas A&M	63.4
12. Colorado	60.7

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Kansas	1.13
2. Kansas State	1.11
3. Texas	1.1
4. Baylor	1.08
5. Texas A&M	1.05
6. Missouri	1.02
7. Oklahoma State	1.02
8. Oklahoma	1
9. Texas Tech	0.99
10. Colorado	0.97
11. Nebraska	0.97
12. Iowa State	0.91

Effective FG %

1. Kansas	53.1%
2. Colorado	50.7%
3. Missouri	50.6%
4. Kansas State	50.5%
5. Oklahoma State	50.4%
6. Baylor	49.9%
7. Texas A&M	49.4%
8. Texas Tech	48.2%
9. Texas	47.8%
10. Nebraska	47.3%
11. Oklahoma	46.5%
12. Iowa State	45%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Kansas	52.1%
2. Missouri	50.7%
3. Colorado	49.6%
4. Kansas State	49%
5. Texas A&M	48.9%
6. Oklahoma State	47.8%
7. Nebraska	47.1%
8. Baylor	46.5%
9. Texas Tech	45.9%
10. Texas	45.1%
11. Oklahoma	44.9%
12. Iowa State	43.9%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Baylor	37.4%
2. Kansas	37.4%
3. Texas Tech	37%
4. Oklahoma State	36.1%
5. Kansas State	35.7%
6. Texas	35.3%
7. Colorado	35.1%
8. Texas A&M	33.8%
9. Missouri	33.5%
10. Oklahoma	33.1%
11. Nebraska	31.8%
12. Iowa State	31.3%

Turnover %

1. Texas	14%
2. Baylor	17.5%
3. Missouri	18%
4. Texas A&M	18.3%
5. Kansas	18.8%
6. Oklahoma	19.1%
7. Kansas State	19.2%
8. Texas Tech	19.3%
9. Iowa State	19.6%
10. Nebraska	19.7%
11. Colorado	21.3%
12. Oklahoma State	21.6%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Kansas State	38.9%
2. Texas	36.2%
3. Kansas	33.3%
4. Texas A&M	31.8%
5. Oklahoma	31.1%
6. Oklahoma State	27.4%
7. Baylor	27.2%
8. Missouri	26.4%
9. Nebraska	26.1%
10. Texas Tech	23.1%
11. Colorado	22.1%
12. Iowa State	21.8%

Efficiency Margin

1. Kansas	0.2
2. Kansas State	0.12
3. Texas	0.1
4. Texas A&M	0.04
5. Baylor	0.01
6. Oklahoma State	-0.02
7. Nebraska	-0.05
8. Texas Tech	-0.05
9. Missouri	-0.06
10. Oklahoma	-0.09
11. Iowa State	-0.1
12. Colorado	-0.14

Defensive Stats

Points per possession Allowed

1. Kansas	0.93
2. Kansas State	0.99
3. Texas	1
4. Iowa State	1.01
5. Texas A&M	1.01
6. Nebraska	1.02
7. Texas Tech	1.03
8. Oklahoma State	1.04
9. Baylor	1.07
10. Missouri	1.08
11. Oklahoma	1.08
12. Colorado	1.11

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas	44.5%
2. Texas	44.9%
3. Iowa State	48%
4. Texas A&M	49%
5. Oklahoma State	49.2%
6. Baylor	49.4%
7. Kansas State	50.7%
8. Nebraska	50.7%
9. Oklahoma	50.7%
10. Missouri	50.9%
11. Texas Tech	50.9%
12. Colorado	51.3%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Kansas	42.4%
2. Iowa State	45%
3. Texas	45.2%
4. Texas A&M	46%
5. Oklahoma State	46.8%
6. Kansas State	47.4%
7. Oklahoma	48.1%
8. Baylor	48.7%
9. Missouri	49.6%
10. Nebraska	50.5%
11. Colorado	50.7%
12. Texas Tech	52.2%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Texas	29.5%
2. Kansas	32.2%
3. Texas Tech	32.3%
4. Baylor	34.1%
5. Nebraska	34.1%
6. Colorado	35%
7. Missouri	35.9%
8. Oklahoma State	36.5%
9. Texas A&M	36.7%
10. Iowa State	36.8%
11. Oklahoma	37.6%
12. Kansas State	38.5%

Turnover % Forced

1. Nebraska	21.8%
2. Kansas State	21.6%
3. Oklahoma State	21.1%
4. Texas Tech	20.1%
5. Missouri	19.8%
6. Iowa State	18%
7. Kansas	17.9%
8. Texas	17.7%
9. Colorado	17.4%
10. Baylor	17.2%
11. Oklahoma	16.7%
12. Texas A&M	16.6%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Kansas	80.2%
2. Texas A&M	78.8%
3. Baylor	78.6%
4. Nebraska	78%
5. Kansas State	77.3%
6. Oklahoma	76.8%
7. Iowa State	76.1%
8. Oklahoma State	73.6%
9. Texas Tech	73.1%
10. Colorado	71.2%
11. Texas	70.3%
12. Missouri	70%

Big East 2008 Tempo-free Stats

Through 2/27/08
2007 Stats

Offensive Stats


Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. Notre Dame	72.7
2. Syracuse	69.7
3. Seton Hall	69.6
4. Marquette	69.3
5. Villanova	69.1
6. Connecticut	67.3
7. DePaul	67.2
8. Louisville	67.1
9. Rutgers	66.9
10. Providence	66.8
11. St. John's	65.4
12. West Virginia	64.6
13. Cincinnati	64.3
14. USF	63.8
15. Pittsburgh	63.5
16. Georgetown	62.8

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. Notre Dame	1.1
2. Connecticut	1.09
3. Pittsburgh	1.08
4. Marquette	1.07
5. Louisville	1.06
6. West Virginia	1.06
7. Georgetown	1.05
8. Seton Hall	1.04
9. Providence	1.03
10. Syracuse	1.02
11. DePaul	1.02
12. Villanova	1.01
13. USF	1.01
14. Cincinnati	0.99
15. St. John's	0.88
16. Rutgers	0.88

Effective FG %

1. Louisville	52.3%
2. Georgetown	52.2%
3. Providence	50.6%
4. Notre Dame	50.3%
5. Connecticut	50.1%
6. Marquette	49.7%
7. Pittsburgh	49.3%
8. Cincinnati	48.6%
9. Seton Hall	48.3%
10. USF	48%
11. Syracuse	47.7%
12. DePaul	47.7%
13. West Virginia	47.6%
14. Villanova	46.7%
15. Rutgers	45.4%
16. St. John's	42.4%

2-pt Shooting %

1. Louisville	53.5%
2. Georgetown	52.7%
3. Syracuse	49.7%
4. Connecticut	49.7%
5. Pittsburgh	48.9%
6. USF	48.3%
7. Providence	47.1%
8. Marquette	47.1%
9. Cincinnati	47.1%
10. West Virginia	46.8%
11. DePaul	46%
12. Villanova	45.8%
13. Notre Dame	45.7%
14. Seton Hall	45%
15. Rutgers	42.4%
16. St. John's	41.3%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Notre Dame	40.1%
2. Providence	37.8%
3. Marquette	36.4%
4. Seton Hall	36.4%
5. Georgetown	34.3%
6. Connecticut	34.3%
7. Cincinnati	34.3%
8. DePaul	34.1%
9. Rutgers	34.1%
10. Louisville	33.5%
11. Pittsburgh	33.5%
12. West Virginia	32.7%
13. Villanova	32.2%
14. USF	31.3%
15. St. John's	30.2%
16. Syracuse	28.2%

Turnover %

1. West Virginia	15.1%
2. Seton Hall	16.2%
3. Pittsburgh	17.5%
4. Marquette	17.7%
5. DePaul	17.7%
6. Louisville	18.5%
7. Connecticut	18.7%
8. Notre Dame	19.2%
9. USF	20.2%
10. Villanova	20.6%
11. Syracuse	21%
12. Georgetown	21.1%
13. Providence	21.2%
14. Cincinnati	21.4%
15. Rutgers	22.3%
16. St. John's	23.4%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Pittsburgh	36.1%
2. Notre Dame	34.1%
3. Connecticut	34.1%
4. Syracuse	33.7%
5. Marquette	32.1%
6. Providence	32%
7. DePaul	32%
8. USF	31.5%
9. Villanova	31.3%
10. Cincinnati	30.2%
11. St. John's	29.7%
12. West Virginia	29.4%
13. Georgetown	29%
14. Louisville	28.4%
15. Seton Hall	26.9%
16. Rutgers	24.6%

Efficiency Margin

1. Louisville	0.16
2. Georgetown	0.13
3. Marquette	0.1
4. West Virginia	0.08
5. Notre Dame	0.06
6. Connecticut	0.06
7. Pittsburgh	0.04
8. Syracuse	0
9. Villanova	-0.01
10. Cincinnati	-0.01
11. Seton Hall	-0.06
12. Providence	-0.07
13. DePaul	-0.07
14. USF	-0.1
15. St. John's	-0.13
16. Rutgers	-0.19

Defensive Stats


Points per possession Allowed

1. Louisville	0.9
2. Georgetown	0.92
3. Marquette	0.97
4. West Virginia	0.98
5. Cincinnati	1.01
6. St. John's	1.01
7. Syracuse	1.02
8. Villanova	1.02
9. Connecticut	1.03
10. Notre Dame	1.04
11. Pittsburgh	1.04
12. Rutgers	1.07
13. DePaul	1.09
14. Providence	1.1
15. Seton Hall	1.1
16. USF	1.11

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Georgetown	42%
2. Louisville	43%
3. Connecticut	46.1%
4. Cincinnati	46.7%
5. Marquette	46.9%
6. Notre Dame	47.3%
7. Syracuse	48.6%
8. Pittsburgh	49.2%
9. West Virginia	49.5%
10. Villanova	50.1%
11. Providence	50.2%
12. USF	50.9%
13. Rutgers	51.3%
14. Seton Hall	51.4%
15. St. John's	51.7%
16. DePaul	52.6%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Connecticut	40.7%
2. Georgetown	41.1%
3. Louisville	42%
4. Notre Dame	46%
5. West Virginia	47.2%
6. Seton Hall	47.6%
7. Rutgers	48.2%
8. Marquette	48.4%
9. Cincinnati	48.4%
10. USF	48.4%
11. Syracuse	48.6%
12. Pittsburgh	48.8%
13. Villanova	48.9%
14. Providence	49.5%
15. St. John's	51%
16. DePaul	52.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Marquette	29.1%
2. Georgetown	29.2%
3. Cincinnati	29.2%
4. Louisville	30%
5. Syracuse	32.4%
6. Notre Dame	33.1%
7. Pittsburgh	33.2%
8. Providence	34.6%
9. Villanova	34.9%
10. DePaul	35.3%
11. St. John's	35.6%
12. West Virginia	36%
13. Connecticut	37.9%
14. USF	38.1%
15. Seton Hall	39.2%
16. Rutgers	39.3%

Turnover % Forced

1. Marquette	24%
2. Villanova	22.6%
3. West Virginia	22.4%
4. St. John's	20.7%
5. Georgetown	20.6%
6. Louisville	20.2%
7. DePaul	20.1%
8. Providence	19.5%
9. Pittsburgh	19.4%
10. Syracuse	19%
11. Seton Hall	19%
12. Cincinnati	18.1%
13. Rutgers	17.6%
14. Notre Dame	16.3%
15. USF	16.2%
16. Connecticut	15.9%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. Cincinnati	81.3%
2. St. John's	81.1%
3. West Virginia	77.9%
4. Louisville	76.9%
5. Villanova	75.9%
6. Syracuse	75.5%
7. Rutgers	74.1%
8. Georgetown	73.1%
9. USF	72%
10. Notre Dame	71.8%
11. Marquette	70.1%
12. Pittsburgh	69.7%
13. Connecticut	68.5%
14. Seton Hall	68.4%
15. Providence	68.1%
16. DePaul	67.9%

2008 Pac 10 Tempo-Free Stats

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

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

Pac 10 2008 Stats
Through 2/27/2008

2007 Stats

Offensive Stats

Tempo (possession per 40 minutes)

1. California	67.8
2. Washington	67.6
3. Oregon State	65.9
4. USC	65.4
5. UCLA	64.9
6. Arizona	63.6
7. Oregon	63.6
8. Stanford	63.1
9. Arizona State	62.8
10. Washington State	58.6

Offensive Efficiency (points per possession)

1. UCLA	1.13
2. Oregon	1.11
3. Arizona	1.08
4. California	1.08
5. Washington State	1.08
6. USC	1.06
7. Stanford	1.05
8. Washington	1.01
9. Arizona State	1
10. Oregon State	0.87

Effective FG %

1. Oregon	55.3%
2. USC	54.7%
3. Arizona	53.1%
4. Washington State	52.8%
5. UCLA	52%
6. Arizona State	51.1%
7. California	50.7%
8. Washington	47.4%
9. Stanford	46.5%
10. Oregon State	40.2%

2-pt Shooting %

1. USC	54%
2. UCLA	52.6%
3. Arizona State	52.1%
4. Oregon	51.9%
5. Arizona	50.7%
6. Washington State	49.8%
7. California	49.2%
8. Washington	47.5%
9. Stanford	45%
10. Oregon State	39%

3-pt Shooting %

1. Oregon	39.9%
2. Washington State	38.9%
3. Arizona	38.3%
4. USC	37.6%
5. California	36.1%
6. Stanford	34%
7. UCLA	33.5%
8. Arizona State	33.2%
9. Washington	31.6%
10. Oregon State	28.5%

Turnover %

1. Washington State	16.2%
2. Arizona	17.5%
3. Oregon State	18%
4. California	18.1%
5. Oregon	18.5%
6. Stanford	18.5%
7. UCLA	18.9%
8. Washington	19.4%
9. Arizona State	20.6%
10. USC	21.2%

Offensive Rebounding %

1. Washington	37%
2. Stanford	36.5%
3. UCLA	36.5%
4. California	29.6%
5. USC	28.4%
6. Oregon State	28.2%
7. Oregon	27.7%
8. Washington State	24.7%
9. Arizona	24.3%
10. Arizona State	22.7%

Efficiency Margin

1. UCLA	0.17
2. Stanford	0.08
3. Washington State	0.08
4. USC	0.05
5. Arizona	0.03
6. Oregon	0.01
7. Washington	-0.02
8. Arizona State	-0.02
9. California	-0.06
10. Oregon State	-0.3

Defensive Stats

Points per possession Allowed

1. UCLA	0.96
2. Stanford	0.97
3. USC	1.01
4. Washington State	1.01
5. Arizona State	1.02
6. Washington	1.03
7. Arizona	1.05
8. Oregon	1.1
9. California	1.14
10. Oregon State	1.17

Effective Shooting % Allowed

1. Stanford	43.9%
2. USC	45.5%
3. Arizona State	49.4%
4. UCLA	49.6%
5. Washington	50.3%
6. Washington State	50.7%
7. Arizona	51.5%
8. Oregon	51.7%
9. California	53.9%
10. Oregon State	55.6%

2-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Stanford	42.4%
2. USC	43.7%
3. Arizona State	47.5%
4. UCLA	47.6%
5. Washington	47.9%
6. Washington State	50.3%
7. Arizona	50.9%
8. Oregon	52%
9. California	53.6%
10. Oregon State	54.4%

3-pt Shooting % Allowed

1. Stanford	32.3%
2. USC	32.8%
3. Oregon	34.1%
4. Washington State	34.5%
5. Arizona State	35%
6. Arizona	35.3%
7. California	36.2%
8. Washington	36.7%
9. UCLA	37%
10. Oregon State	38.9%

Turnover % Forced

1. Washington State	22%
2. UCLA	21.2%
3. Arizona State	20.2%
4. Washington	20%
5. Arizona	19.7%
6. Oregon State	19%
7. USC	18.2%
8. Stanford	16.9%
9. Oregon	15.6%
10. California	14.8%

Defensive Rebounding %

1. UCLA	79.3%
2. Washington	77%
3. California	76.7%
4. Washington State	74.1%
5. Stanford	74%
6. Arizona State	73%
7. Oregon	72.8%
8. Oregon State	72%
9. Arizona	71.3%
10. USC	65.9%

Tuesday Night Action

Let's take a look at the close BigTen/ACC challenge games (as there were some duds as well)

Georgia Tech 79 at Indiana 83
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.


Purdue 58 at Clemson 61
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.
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.


Bonus-game highlight:

Maryland-Eastern Shore 44 at West Virginia 110
I just couldn't resist taking a look at this one. Here's the stats:
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:
In 24 minutes of play, he posted 22 points, 8 boards, 4 assists, 2 blocks and 1 turnover.

Butler at it Again

A 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.

In taking down Michigan, Virginia Tech and Texas Tech, in that order, the Bulldogs of Butler put on quite an offensive efficientizling show:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

Starting Fresh for 2007

Time to jump right into the pool. There's no better way.

UCLA - 68 MSU - 63
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 %.
***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.


Duke - 79 Illinois - 66
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.
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.



Marquette - 91 Oklahoma St - 61
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.
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.
The victory sets up a tasty rematch of last year's duel in which Dominic James showcased the tall glass of talent that he possesses.

Let's see what happens with a much-improved Blue Devils squad.




Good to be back in this thing. I'll be out of town, but posts will regain strength next Monday.

Things to look forward to after the 1st month in:

Who's tempo is shifting?
Boards, what are they?
A wish list for stats

Rumblings...

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.

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.

Thanks for stopping back, it should be yet another good year.

2007 Tempo Free Stats

2007 All put together in one easy to catch fish barrel:


ACC 2007

Big East 2007

Big South 2007

Big 12 2007

Big 10 2007 (Big 10 Wonk Site)

CAA 2007

Conference USA 2007

MVC 2007

Mountain West 2007

Pac 10 2007

SEC 2007

Apologies....

Had a little situation come up. Sorry for lack of posting.
Enjoy the weekend. Great games ahead.

I'll be posting about once a month after the tourney.

Ahhh, March

What 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.
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.


Here's a brief recap of the picks:

Pitt - Wright St. - 120 o/u
79 - 58 over

Wazzu - Oral Roberts - 120 o/u
70 -54 over

Butler - Old Dominion - 123 o/u
57-46 under
Nevada - Creighton - 133 o/u
77-71 over (ot game) was at 118 at the end of reg.

Boston College - Texas Tech - 136 o/u
84-75 over

Arizona - Purdue - 136 o/u
63 -72 under

So, overall for the first round, ended up at 4-2, with a 1 point loss, and an OT saver.
By the way, in case you were wondering, yes, the Tennessee-Long Beach St. game covered the over of 170 points.
Salukis barely covered the over with their Holy Cross game. Yes, the over was at 109.
For the first round, here's the Vegas numbers (based on lines from Thursday) for games featuring teams seeded 3 through 14
16 teams covered their spreads(yes, lots of blow outs) vs. 7 underdogs staying close and 1 push.
11 games covered the over vs. 13 games under.

Obviously the Kansas and Florida games covered their overs.

Preview and other oddities coming today or tomorrow.

And it begins....

Well, I think we've all beaten the brackets to death. Time to play out the damn thing.
Good luck.

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.


Just for the hell of it, out of my 20+ brackets, my true "money" Final Four has:

Florida
Kansas
Gtown
Tex A&M

With Kansas beating A&M in the final.

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....

These Pretzels are Making Me Thirsty

Just 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.

In today's age, we've got the Blue Ribbon giving every conceivable tempo-free stat on each team's sheet.

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)

Hell, even the Sports Guy Simmons has gotten into it, referencing the Wonk in continuing his week-long berating of the Big Ten's pace. (I had to agree on the Big Ten's variance of pace vs. other conferences. Quality of play? We'll see)

But, then the USA Today decides to take us back a few decades, with
this piece of analysis.

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.

Using this "perspective", which player is the better overall shooter?

Player A
70% 3pt shooting
30% 2pt shooting
60% FT shooting

Player B
30% 3pt shooting
40% 2pt shooting
90% FT shooting

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.
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.

A better picture of quality shooters is this piece over at Ken Pom, as effective Field Goal % blends in the frequency of each shot with it's given point total.

Obviously that one stat doesn't tell the whole picture, but at least it's closer to being *accurate.





*still trying to figure out what that means

Tale of an Upset

Well, we took care of solidifying 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.


Averages for 2004, 2005 and 2006

	2004-2006	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
	Underdog	67.2	1.1	0.93	0.17	51%	20%	33%	47%	47%	22%	31%
	Favorite	68.4	1.14	0.92	0.22	52%	20%	36%	47%	47%	21%	30%

2006

Seed	2006	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
12	Texas A&M	65.2	1.07	0.87	0.2	51%	20%	30%	47%	47%	27%	32%
5	Syracuse	70	1.09	0.93	0.16	50%	21%	37%	46%	46%	22%	34%
.
14	Northwestern St.	69.7	1.04	0.99	0.05	52%	22%	37%	48%	48%	24%	35%
3	Iowa	66.5	1.04	0.83	0.2	48%	22%	31%	44%	44%	21%	28%
.
13	Bradley	71.3	1.07	0.89	0.18	49%	21%	34%	45%	45%	23%	30%
4	Kansas	69.9	1.11	0.84	0.28	52%	22%	37%	43%	43%	24%	31%
.
13	Bradley	71.3	1.07	0.89	0.18	49%	21%	34%	45%	45%	23%	30%
5	Pittsburgh	66.3	1.13	0.89	0.25	51%	20%	38%	46%	46%	19%	26%
.
12	Montana	68.2	1.09	1.01	0.08	55%	19%	32%	50%	50%	20%	31%
5	Nevada	67.8	1.08	0.92	0.16	50%	19%	35%	45%	45%	20%	30%
.
11	Wisconsin Milwaukee	70.3	1.06	0.94	0.12	49%	20%	37%	49%	49%	22%	28%
6	Oklahoma	64.9	1.12	0.96	0.16	51%	22%	43%	50%	50%	21%	27%
.
7	Georgetown	59.4	1.16	0.92	0.24	53%	19%	35%	48%	48%	20%	29%
2	Ohio St.	67.5	1.11	0.9	0.22	54%	18%	29%	47%	47%	20%	30%
.
11	George Mason	64.3	1.09	0.9	0.19	54%	20%	30%	44%	44%	20%	30%
6	Michigan St.	66.8	1.14	0.96	0.18	53%	21%	34%	50%	50%	19%	29%
.
11	George Mason	64.3	1.09	0.9	0.19	54%	20%	30%	44%	44%	20%	30%
3	North Carolina	72.6	1.16	0.9	0.26	54%	23%	40%	46%	46%	20%	29%
.
10	Wichita St.	64.9	1.11	0.94	0.17	50%	20%	34%	47%	47%	19%	27%
2	Tennessee	72.8	1.17	0.95	0.22	54%	18%	30%	53%	53%	24%	33%

2005

Seed	2005	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
12	Wisconsin Milwaukee	70.3	1.11	0.94	0.17	51%	20%	36%	47%	47%	24%	33%
5	Alabama	64.2	1.19	0.95	0.25	56%	19%	34%	47%	47%	17%	28%
.
12	Wisconsin Milwaukee	70.3	1.11	0.94	0.17	51%	20%	36%	47%	47%	24%	33%
4	Boston College	65.8	1.15	0.93	0.21	49%	20%	40%	47%	47%	21%	33%
.
11	UAB	71.8	1.08	0.94	0.14	51%	18%	30%	50%	50%	27%	37%
6	LSU	67.5	1.14	0.97	0.17	52%	19%	34%	51%	51%	18%	27%
.
7	West Virginia	64.3	1.16	0.97	0.19	53%	18%	28%	51%	51%	23%	34%
2	Wake Forest	70	1.25	0.96	0.29	56%	20%	40%	50%	50%	20%	30%
.
14	Bucknell	64.1	1.01	0.93	0.08	51%	24%	30%	45%	45%	24%	31%
3	Kansas	67.1	1.17	0.91	0.26	53%	21%	35%	44%	44%	20%	31%
.
10	North Carolina St.	64	1.16	0.93	0.23	53%	19%	31%	49%	49%	23%	35%
2	Connecticut	71.7	1.13	0.88	0.25	50%	21%	42%	43%	43%	17%	28%
.
13	Vermont	65.5	1.11	0.97	0.14	51%	18%	34%	47%	47%	19%	26%
4	Syracuse	66.9	1.15	0.95	0.21	52%	20%	40%	45%	45%	21%	35%

2004

Seed	2004	Pos	Oeff	Deff	Margin	EFG	TO	Oreb	Defg	Defg	Dto	Doreb
12	Manhattan	67	1.09	0.94	0.15	49%	18%	33%	46%	46%	24%	32%
5	Florida	67.5	1.18	0.95	0.23	56%	21%	29%	48%	48%	19%	31%
.
9	UAB	72.1	1.09	0.91	0.18	51%	19%	32%	48%	48%	27%	36%
1	Washington	75.2	1.13	0.97	0.16	52%	19%	32%	52%	52%	22%	34%
.
12	Pacific	65.6	1.08	0.96	0.11	53%	21%	29%	46%	46%	19%	32%
5	Providence	67.2	1.13	0.91	0.22	52%	22%	36%	48%	48%	22%	35%
.
10	Nevada	70.4	1.12	0.88	0.24	49%	18%	36%	46%	46%	20%	28%
2	Gonzaga	68.2	1.19	0.92	0.27	57%	19%	37%	44%	44%	18%	28%
.
7	Xavier	65.6	1.16	0.9	0.26	51%	19%	33%	47%	47%	21%	30%
2	Mississippi St.	70.5	1.19	0.92	0.27	52%	21%	40%	47%	47%	23%	30%
.
8	Alabama	66	1.16	0.94	0.22	51%	19%	32%	48%	48%	20%	31%
1	Stanford	66.4	1.11	0.86	0.26	53%	21%	37%	44%	44%	21%	27%

How Does Vegas Know So Much?

They're up by a dozen. There's 15 seconds left. The score is sitting nicely at 75-63. The over/under was at 139.5. You like your spot on that $20 under bet. The rest of the sportsbook like's their spot too. The leaders are slowly just bringing the ball up, the game is sealed. There's no way they're taking a shot, and there's no way that you're losing your bet. You start walking towards the counter to claim your reward, when you hear the groans. The screams. The "what the $%#@ are they doing?". You turn and look as the leading team is just finishing a wide open lay-up, for no reason, except to give you the betting equivalent of a kick in your balls for the next 24 hours.

Ahhh, Vegas and March Madness. A marriage that hopefully has many years ahead of it. Like all relationships, it has its quarrels, it's money issues, it's offspring (see: the 100+ betting insight websites).

Well, let's just throw a few picks out there, utilizing some handy tempo-free stats and some second-guessing from myself.
I look at pace, shooting %, offensive and defensive efficiency and the spread between the "strength" of each team to determine the most likely pace of the game if there's a large spread.

Some games that jump out to cover the over:

Pitt - Wright St. - 120 o/u
Wazzu - Oral Roberts - 120 o/u
Butler - Old Dominion - 123 o/u
Nevada - Creighton - 133 o/u
Boston College - Texas Tech - 136 o/u
Arizona - Purdue - 136 o/u

Games that I would watch just to see if they could touch the over.

Tennessee - Long Beach St.
Both teams run in the 72 possession a game range, and averaging 1.15 and 1.10 ppp respectively with a bad defense on the part of LBS (1.05 ppp allowed). Vegas is calling 170 as the over. Let's see it.

Maryland - Davidson
Almost the exact same pace and stat discrepancy as the Tennessee game. Over under is at 156 however because Davidson also carries some weight on D.


Some other interesting Vegas line notes:

- No confidence in Wazzu. Only 6 point favorites in their 3-14 game as opposed to Texas A&M being a 13.5 point favorite. I don't have historical spreads, but I would venture to guess that that's pretty damn low for a 3 seed. And you know what, it's not even that far off. Two 2000 point scorers for Oral Roberts? Yikes
- Arkansas is actually the favorite at a few books. I've got them listed here as 1 point underdogs. I believe Montana was a 12 seed favorite last year, correct?
- Staying true to form, 3 of the 4 8-9 games are favored by the 9 seed.
- Southern Illinois - Holy Cross game over/under is at 109, and I still don't think they'll hit it. They both run in the low 60's, and aren't all that great on offense, but have solid defensi. 40-38, here we come!



Good luck to all you Vegas venturers this week.


I'm sure I'll go 0 for 6 on the first round.

By the way, great story here from ESPN writer Gene Wojciechowski from the offices of the Las Vegas oddsmakers.