I for one don’t fret about successful slow-paced teams like Wisconsin or Virginia causing other teams to go slow. If other coaches do indeed choose to decelerate, my happiness in watching their games will be a function primarily not of pace but of quality. Basically I like good hoops at any speed.
The contours of this discussion are durable across the years. There’s always room for a perceptive and through first-person disavowal of a particular team’s style. If a team really does displease your eyeballs, your senses are sovereign in the matter. A problem arises only when this distaste is elevated — as it always is — into somehow being a matter of civic hoops concern.
Good luck with that, but my tastes are incorrigibly catholic. Good hoops arrives in many styles.
—
Welcome to Tuesday Truths, where I look at how well 131 teams in the nation’s top 11 conferences are doing against their league opponents on a per-possession basis.
Life without Anderson
Those were the days. (washingtontimes.com)
Through games of February 23, conference games only
Pace: possessions per 40 minutes
PPP: points per possession Opp. PPP: opponent PPP
EM: efficiency margin (PPP – Opp. PPP)
ACC W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Virginia 13-1 57.3 1.06 0.90 +0.16 2. Duke 11-3 66.6 1.14 1.04 +0.10 3. North Carolina 9-5 67.9 1.13 1.05 +0.08 4. Notre Dame 12-3 62.2 1.16 1.09 +0.07 5. Louisville 10-5 63.4 1.04 0.98 +0.06 6. NC State 7-7 63.8 1.08 1.04 +0.04 7. Miami 7-7 61.4 1.05 1.03 +0.02 8. Syracuse 8-6 65.3 1.04 1.03 +0.01 9. Clemson 7-8 60.8 0.96 0.99 -0.03 10. Florida State 7-8 63.1 1.01 1.04 -0.03 11. Pitt 7-7 60.5 1.08 1.13 -0.05 12. Georgia Tech 3-13 62.8 0.96 1.01 -0.05 13. Wake Forest 4-10 67.9 1.02 1.09 -0.07 14. Boston College 1-13 61.6 0.99 1.14 -0.15 15. Virginia Tech 2-12 63.3 0.97 1.12 -0.15 AVG. 63.2 1.05
It’s not just your eyes: Virginia’s offense has been severely, shall we say, curtailed ever since Justin Anderson went down with an injury to his finger.
Over the last four Anderson-less games the Cavaliers have scored a mere 224 points in 232 possessions. The Hoos have shot just 21 percent on their threes over that span, and while that’s an extreme swing a dip in that category could at least be reasonably expected without this particular star in the lineup.
What couldn’t be expected, however, is that offensive boards would dry up so completely just because Anderson — perfectly invisible on the offensive glass in his own right — isn’t around anymore. Whether it’s because of a retrenchment by Tony Bennett or a general funk shared by the players, UVA is no longer getting to its misses. Eliminate offensive rebounds, threes and Justin Anderson, and you have one severely unthreatening offense on your hands.
—
My streak of consecutive posts without parroting William Allen White continues!
He needs his teammates to make some more twos. (kansascity.com)
Big 12 W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Kansas 11-4 66.8 1.08 0.97 +0.11 2. Oklahoma 10-5 66.4 1.06 0.96 +0.10 3. Baylor 8-6 62.3 1.07 0.99 +0.08 4. Iowa State 10-4 69.2 1.11 1.03 +0.08 5. Texas 6-8 63.2 1.03 1.02 +0.01 6. West Virginia 9-5 70.1 1.00 1.00 0.00 7. Oklahoma State 7-8 62.6 0.99 1.00 -0.01 8. Kansas State 6-9 61.7 0.95 1.02 -0.07 9. TCU 3-11 65.3 0.94 1.02 -0.08 10. Texas Tech 2-13 61.8 0.87 1.10 -0.23 AVG. 65.0 1.01
Kansas seems bound and determined to make this Big 12 race suspenseful after all. Very well, what’s different with this bunch of Jayhawks as opposed to, say, the last 10 bunches of Jayhawks that walked off with league titles?
That’s easy. KU isn’t scoring as many points as it did last year (1.17 in Big 12 play) in large part because Bill Self’s guys aren’t nearly as good at making twos as they used to be. Last season an offense powered by Perry Ellis and Andrew Wiggins made (a Dayton-like — scroll down) 56 percent of its twos in conference play. This year an offense led by Ellis and various combinations of Kelly Oubre, Frank Mason, and Wayne Selden is connecting just 49 percent of the time inside the arc.
Ellis is doing his part (shooting 51 percent inside the arc against league opponents), and 49 percent isn’t terrible. But once you factor in Self clutching his “30 percent of this excellent perimeter shooting team’s shots will be threes” autopilot like a drenched marmoset in a flood and the Jayhawks’ strangely average performance on the offensive glass (getting just one out of three of their misses in Big 12 play), you’ve officially run out of ways for this KU offense to look typically KU-like.
—
A good defense no one talks about
He is a calm fan of good defense. (nj.com)
Big East W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Villanova 12-2 64.0 1.14 0.98 +0.16 2. Georgetown 10-5 64.3 1.06 0.98 +0.08 3. Butler 9-5 64.3 1.06 1.02 +0.04 4. Xavier 8-8 65.8 1.06 1.02 +0.04 5. Providence 9-5 65.1 1.06 1.02 +0.04 6. St. John's 8-7 66.7 1.07 1.08 -0.01 7. DePaul 6-9 65.4 1.03 1.11 -0.08 8. Seton Hall 5-10 65.4 1.01 1.09 -0.08 9. Marquette 3-11 64.6 0.96 1.05 -0.09 10. Creighton 3-11 62.0 0.99 1.10 -0.11 AVG. 64.5 1.05
This season Georgetown has stubbornly resisted putting together enough wins consecutively to become a topic of conversation. Furthermore it’s also true that the Hoyas’ offense has been nothing special — throw a stick at this league and you’ll hit no fewer than five units just as good on that side of the ball.
But John Thompson III’s guys have been really good on defense, and somehow that word hasn’t quite seeped out. The Big East has made just 41 percent of its twos against the Hoyas, a number that can rest comfortably alongside what the Kentucky defense has done in the SEC (43 percent) or what we’ve seen from the Arizona D in the Pac-12 (44).
Maybe if this had been the handiwork of one dominant shot-blocker it would make for more interesting copy, but as it happens Mikael Hopkins, Joshua Smith, Paul White, and Isaac Copeland all deserve part of the credit here. Georgetown’s is a defense with just one specialty, it’s true, but if you’re going to pick a category in which to excel “interior D” will carry you farther than “forcing turnovers” or even a curtain of distraction during opponents’ free throws. Make a mental note for the tournament — it’s tough to score in the paint against the Hoyas.
—
Meet the league of incredible one-game statistical swings
Don’t hurt ’em, Aaron. (sunherald.com)
Big Ten W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Wisconsin 13-1 57.3 1.23 1.01 +0.22 2. Michigan State 10-4 61.8 1.08 0.97 +0.11 3. Ohio State 8-6 63.6 1.09 0.99 +0.10 4. Iowa 8-6 60.2 1.12 1.05 +0.07 5. Purdue 10-4 62.8 1.04 0.98 +0.06 6. Indiana 9-6 64.8 1.13 1.10 +0.03 7. Maryland 10-4 65.7 1.00 1.01 -0.01 8. Minnesota 5-10 64.0 1.01 1.04 -0.03 9. Illinois 7-7 61.4 0.99 1.02 -0.03 10. Michigan 7-8 58.6 1.01 1.05 -0.04 11. Penn State 3-12 64.1 0.95 1.01 -0.06 12. Northwestern 4-10 59.0 1.01 1.09 -0.08 13. Nebraska 5-10 61.5 0.93 1.02 -0.09 14. Rutgers 2-13 64.6 0.87 1.07 -0.20 AVG. 62.1 1.03
Congratulations to Iowa, which either demolished Nebraska in Lincoln, had the good fortune to be in the vicinity when Tim Miles’ team came completely unglued, or a little of both. Whatever the underlying factors may have been, the result was a 74-46 victory on the road. Those are rare.
The Hawkeyes entered that contest outscoring the Big Ten by a mere 0.03 points per trip, but look at Iowa through the Tuesday Truths lens now. These guys are practically Wisconsin, Jr. Or are Aaron White and his mates actually closer in strength to a team like Indiana?…
Glad you asked. The Hoosiers just received their own statistical enhancement courtesy of a visit to Rutgers. IU emerged from that tense struggle an 84-54 winner. Prior to the game in Piscataway, Tom Crean’s men had been outscored by the rest of the conference, a la Maryland. No longer: Indiana now looks down and laughs at those negative-efficiency-margin Terrapins.
If need be I’ll post a Mountain West-style Tuesday Truths look at the Big Ten in an imaginary world where Rutgers was never born. Then again in such a world Wisconsin’s numbers would actually look slightly better (+0.25). Go figure.
—
Will Sean Miller’s outstanding defense remain outstanding at high altitudes?
He is an intense fan of good defense. (USA Today)
Pac-12 W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Arizona 12-2 65.8 1.14 0.87 +0.27 2. Utah 11-3 61.2 1.14 0.91 +0.23 3. Stanford 8-6 66.2 1.09 1.04 +0.05 4. Oregon 10-5 66.8 1.09 1.07 +0.02 5. UCLA 8-7 63.2 1.02 1.01 +0.01 6. Arizona State 7-7 65.5 1.02 1.01 +0.01 7. Oregon State 8-7 60.8 0.91 0.95 -0.04 8. Colorado 5-9 65.8 0.97 1.02 -0.05 9. Washington 4-10 65.4 1.04 1.13 -0.09 10. Cal 6-8 67.1 0.96 1.07 -0.11 11. USC 2-13 68.8 0.92 1.05 -0.13 12. Washington State 5-9 67.2 1.03 1.17 -0.14 AVG. 65.3 1.03
Arizona’s about to embark on the Pac-12’s altitude swing. On Thursday night the Wildcats will play at Colorado (elevation 5,340 feet), and then Saturday evening will bring a collision with Utah in Salt Lake City (4,226). To be sure, CU has already dropped three home games in conference play so it’s not like Tad Boyle’s team is an immovable object in Boulder. But you may have noticed the Utes have fared pretty well in the Huntsman Center this season. In fact Larry Krystkowiak’s guys are outscoring the Pac-12 by 0.35 points per possession at home.
If any team can put a dent in that number it’s the Wildcats, who have been playing borderline-absurd defense of late. Over the last eight games Sean Miller’s team has held opponents to just 0.83 points per trip. And, again, this is eight games and 537 possessions we’re talking about, so the “0.83” is no mere flash in the pan. Instead it’s a fair representation of what you get when you run into Arizona in February of 2015.
During that eight-game run the Cats have forced opponents to give the ball away on 22 percent of their possessions. That’s not only impressive, it’s also highly unusual coming from a group that may well be the best rebounding team in the country at the moment. Over that same span, Arizona has pulled down 40 percent of the available rebounds on its offensive glass while securing 78 percent of the misses at the other end of the floor.
February’s not my favorite month weather-wise, but it does on occasion put a team as strong as Arizona on a collision course with an extreme home-court advantage like Utah’s. You have to love conference play.
—
Kentucky is impervious to small matters like this sport’s so-called “three”-point “shot”
“Tyler, start shooting better. At that basket. Got that?” (kentuckysportsradio.com)
SEC W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Kentucky 14-0 62.2 1.16 0.89 +0.27 2. Arkansas 11-3 69.5 1.07 0.99 +0.08 3. Ole Miss 10-4 65.3 1.10 1.04 +0.06 4. LSU 8-6 68.8 1.01 0.96 +0.05 5. Texas A&M 10-4 62.3 1.02 0.98 +0.04 6. Vanderbilt 5-9 63.1 1.01 1.00 +0.01 7. Alabama 6-8 60.1 1.01 1.00 +0.01 8. Georgia 8-6 63.3 1.02 1.02 0.00 9. Florida 6-8 63.7 0.98 0.98 0.00 10. Tennessee 6-8 61.4 0.98 1.02 -0.04 11. Mississippi State 5-9 65.2 0.96 1.03 -0.07 12. South Carolina 4-10 63.1 0.92 1.03 -0.11 13. Auburn 4-10 68.5 1.01 1.13 -0.12 14. Missouri 1-13 62.4 0.94 1.14 -0.20 AVG. 64.3 1.01
One thing that Kentucky’s domination of the SEC is teaching us this season is that, in addition to being important performance metrics, bad stats are also the discursive playthings we toss around for fun only when a team loses. And, yes, even the Wildcats have an occasional bad stat.
UK started SEC play by making 43 percent of its threes over the first eight SEC games. Since that time, however, John Calipari’s guys have converted just 28 percent of their attempts from beyond the arc. Tyler Ulis is on a personal 5-of-19 streak from outside, and as a team Kentucky hasn’t shot better than 36 percent on its threes in a game for over three weeks now.
Meantime this same bunch of UK players has been incredibly fortunate that opponents have missed so many threes — except, that is, when those opponents have not missed threes. For the season the SEC’s shooting just 28 percent on its threes against the Wildcats, which ordinarily would compel me to tut-tut sternly and warn that this can’t possibly last. The only problem there is it hasn’t lasted. Auburn just blitzed this defense for 11 threes (on just 19 attempts), and all it got Bruce Pearl was a 35-point loss.
True, maybe the dynamics of so-called normal basketball will indeed reassert themselves when Kentucky faces some stiff(er) competition next month. But for now you should know that the sport’s normal laws of gravity don’t seem to concern these guys. Enjoy accordingly.
—
This league’s largely undifferentiated upper division is about to be differentiated
American W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. SMU 13-2 61.6 1.12 0.92 +0.20 2. Tulsa 12-2 63.1 1.00 0.90 +0.10 3. Cincinnati 9-5 59.7 1.02 0.93 +0.09 4. Memphis 9-5 65.1 1.02 0.95 +0.07 5. Temple 10-5 64.6 0.97 0.90 +0.07 6. Connecticut 8-6 61.2 1.02 0.97 +0.05 7. Tulane 5-9 61.4 0.94 1.01 -0.07 8. East Carolina 5-9 59.3 0.98 1.05 -0.07 9. UCF 5-10 63.3 1.00 1.10 -0.10 10. Houston 1-13 62.9 0.93 1.08 -0.15 11. South Florida 2-13 61.6 0.88 1.08 -0.20 AVG. 62.1 0.99
The American is where the good-win/bad-loss school of team evaluation really plays havoc with what we think we know, which is: 1) SMU is head and shoulders better than everyone else; and 2) Tulsa, Cincinnati, Memphis, Temple, and Connecticut are all very similar in terms of how well they play basketball.
That first data point will be well represented by the brackets, granted. (The Mustangs will receive a much better seed– likely on the 6 line or thereabouts — than any of their league rivals.) After that, however, things get a bit more chaotic. The Bearcats and the Owls look like they’re in pretty good shape for bids, Tulsa is squarely on the bubble, and Memphis and Connecticut need something big to happen. (Again, the American tournament will be held in Hartford, so the Huskies do have that in their back pocket.)
Is the disparate treatment that’s about to be handed out by the committee to very similar American teams a great injustice? Not necessarily. The coaches knew going in the way this game is played, and moreover this game is consistently played this way year after year. Go out and get those good wins.
—
The interior scoring prowess of a really short team
A-10 W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Davidson 10-4 64.9 1.16 1.03 +0.13 2. Dayton 10-4 64.2 1.08 0.96 +0.12 3. VCU 11-3 67.4 1.05 0.93 +0.12 4. Richmond 8-6 62.7 1.08 1.00 +0.10 5. Rhode Island 11-3 65.9 0.99 0.91 +0.08 6. La Salle 7-7 64.2 0.96 0.95 +0.01 7. UMass 9-5 65.8 0.99 0.99 0.00 8. St. Bonaventure 7-7 63.3 0.99 1.02 -0.03 9. George Washington 7-7 60.8 1.01 1.04 -0.03 10. Saint Joseph's 5-9 63.5 0.97 1.02 -0.05 11. Fordham 3-11 67.6 0.97 1.06 -0.09 12. Duquesne 4-10 66.8 1.03 1.13 -0.10 13. George Mason 3-11 64.0 0.96 1.08 -0.12 14. Saint Louis 3-11 63.8 0.93 1.06 -0.13 AVG. 64.6 1.01
We shouldn’t get too caught up in a “+0.13” as opposed to a “+0.12” in a league that won’t give us a round-robin schedule, but I do think Davidson, VCU and Dayton have all performed to more or less similar levels in the A-10 this season. Nevertheless the Rams and the Flyers are your tournament locks, while the Wildcats will need a great deal to go right if they’re going to hear their name called on Selection Sunday.
I sung the praises of Bob McKillop’s league-leading offense last week, but it’s Dayton that has made a rather incredible 56 percent of its twos in conference play. Archie Miller hasn’t let the fact that he doesn’t have a player taller than 6-6 stop him from converting looks inside the arc. Interestingly, Dayton doesn’t excel at getting to the rim — instead it’s robust success inside the three-point line has been in part a function of (gulp) very good shooting on two-point jumpers.
That’s a fair characterization of Dayton as a team, but once you get down to the level of individuals the news for shocked and affronted fans of analytics is somewhat better. At the unprepossessing height of 6-4 Jordan Sibert’s hitting 61 percent of his twos largely by staying away from those jumpers his team favors so heretically. Well done, Jordan. Don’t let those other guys pressure into “developing” your “mid-range game.” Such development is best left undeveloped.
—
Game of the year this weekend in Wichita
Missouri Valley W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Wichita State 15-1 60.0 1.13 0.87 +0.26 2. Northern Iowa 15-1 56.0 1.12 0.90 +0.22 3. Illinois State 9-7 62.2 1.04 0.96 +0.08 4. Indiana State 10-6 63.7 1.05 1.01 +0.04 5. Evansville 9-7 63.3 0.99 1.00 -0.01 6. Loyola 6-10 57.9 0.97 1.05 -0.08 7. Southern Illinois 3-13 61.1 0.93 1.04 -0.11 8. Bradley 3-13 60.2 0.91 1.03 -0.12 9. Drake 6-10 57.2 0.99 1.12 -0.13 10. Missouri State 4-12 59.1 0.91 1.06 -0.15 AVG. 60.1 1.00
For the first time since Creighton and junior-year-variety Doug McDermott still roamed the hardwood and challenged Wichita State, the Missouri Valley has a team at least theoretically capable of going into Wichita and winning. This Saturday Northern Iowa will visit Charles Koch Arena for the Shockers’ senior day. The Valley’s regular-season title will be up for grabs.
Maybe it was the fact that Gregg Marshall’s team ran the table in the regular season last year and grabbed a No. 1 seed only to lose to Kentucky in the round of 32, but I can’t help feeling that the emergence of two teams as good as the Shockers and the Panthers in the MVC is being underreported.
Conf
Year EM KenPom rating Result
Wichita State 2015 +0.26 .5769 ?
Xavier 2011 +0.22 .5813 R64
N. Iowa 2015 +0.22 .5769 ?
Butler 2010 +0.20 .5580 NC game
Wichita State 2014 +0.24 .5480 R32
Sure, the Shockers and/or the Panthers might wash out in the first tournament game the way Xavier did against Marquette in 2011. But as seen here there’s another precedent from the previous year that’s somewhat more encouraging, and it’s fairly unusual to see a mid-major conference churn out two teams side by side that meet this particular standard. MVC, I salute you.
—
Never mind those Tuesday Truths standings
Mountain West W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Boise State 10-4 62.1 1.11 0.95 +0.16 2. San Diego State 12-3 59.7 1.04 0.88 +0.16 3. Colorado State 10-5 66.0 1.10 0.98 +0.12 4. Utah State 9-5 61.2 1.06 0.97 +0.09 5. UNLV 6-8 64.1 1.07 1.03 +0.04 6. Wyoming 10-4 59.2 0.99 0.98 +0.01 7. New Mexico 6-9 60.1 1.00 1.00 0.00 8. Fresno State 7-7 64.0 1.01 1.03 -0.02 9. Air Force 5-10 60.0 1.03 1.11 -0.08 10. Nevada 4-10 62.6 0.95 1.08 -0.13 11. San Jose State 0-14 63.5 0.80 1.13 -0.33 AVG. 62.0 1.01
This week we have a new No. 1 in the Mountain West, as Boise State is outscoring conference opponents by 0.1609 points on each possession while San Diego State has been a mere 0.1607 points better than the other MWC teams on each trip. Congratulations, Broncos!
However, for the purposes of casual conversation, bubble talk and possibly eventual bracket completion, I suggest you stick with the conventional wisdom. It turns out that once you delete the Broncos’ 86-36 win in January over historically hapless San Jose State, the standings look much more conventional.
The “San Jose State was never born” standings
Mountain West W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. San Diego State 11-3 59.5 1.04 0.88 +0.16 2. Boise State 9-4 61.7 1.10 0.99 +0.11 3. Colorado State 9-5 66.2 1.10 1.00 +0.10 4. UNLV 5-8 64.0 1.07 1.06 +0.01 5. Utah State 7-5 60.7 1.05 1.03 +0.02 6. New Mexico 5-9 59.8 0.99 1.02 -0.03 7. Wyoming 8-4 59.2 0.95 0.98 -0.03 8. Fresno State 5-7 63.9 0.98 1.04 -0.06 9. Nevada 3-10 62.2 0.96 1.11 -0.15 10. Air Force 3-10 59.8 1.00 1.15 -0.15 AVG. 61.7 1.02
San Jose State is on course to be the worst team, relative to its conference, that Tuesday Truths has ever seen. Once we remove all games involving the Spartans from the mix, the Aztecs not only retake No. 1 but, as seen here, do so by a healthy margin. For my money this is a tidy sum-up of the Mountain West season: Steve Fisher’s guys have been the top performers, followed by Boise State and Colorado State (who are neck and neck).
Then there’s a sizable gap between the Broncos and Rams on the one hand and everyone else on the other. Right now SDSU appears to be a tournament lock, and CSU looks to be relatively safe but by no means a shoo-in. Conversely Boise State still has work to do.
—
Is a one-bid WCC the exception or the rule?
West Coast W-L Pace PPP Opp. PPP EM 1. Gonzaga 16-0 63.6 1.20 0.95 +0.25 2. BYU 11-5 68.5 1.19 1.03 +0.16 3. Saint Mary's 12-4 60.5 1.09 1.01 +0.08 4. Pepperdine 9-8 62.0 0.99 1.00 -0.01 5. San Diego 7-9 62.4 0.97 0.98 -0.01 6. Portland 7-9 64.4 1.06 1.08 -0.02 7. San Francisco 6-10 64.1 1.04 1.09 -0.05 8. Santa Clara 6-10 60.1 0.99 1.12 -0.13 9. Loyola Marymount 4-13 60.8 1.02 1.16 -0.14 10. Pacific 3-13 60.8 1.01 1.16 -0.15 AVG. 62.7 1.06
The laudably task-oriented West Coast is almost done with its conference season, so these numbers are pretty firm. And barring a very strong showing and possibly even a championship in the WCC tournament from BYU, this league appears locked into one and only one NCAA tournament bid.
How unusual would that be? Fairly unusual but it wouldn’t be Mercer-over-Duke or anything….
Tournament teams 2014 Gonzaga (8), BYU (10) 2013 Gonzaga (1), Saint Mary's (11) 2012 Gonzaga (7), Saint Mary's (7), BYU (14) 2011 Gonzaga (11) 2010 Gonzaga (8), Saint Mary's (10) 2009 Gonzaga (4) 2008 Gonzaga (7), Saint Mary's (10), San Diego (13) 2007 Gonzaga (10) 2006 Gonzaga (3) 2005 Gonzaga (3), Saint Mary's (10)
Usually a team as good as BYU is this season is going to win at home against Pepperdine instead of losing the way the Cougars did. On the flip side of the track record the proverbial “best win” recorded by Dave Rose’s men was a 79-77 win in Provo over Stanford. That body of work — swept by the Waves (har!), a win over the Cardinal — isn’t wowing the mock brackets.
Is it any consolation to BYU fans that “normally” a team that outscores the nation’s No. 7 league by something less than 0.16 points a trip (the Cougars close the season with a road game at Gonzaga) usually finds its way into the tournament? Probably not.
John Gasaway 