| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| North Carolina | 76 | 55.7 | 46.6 | 39.8 | 69.3 | 22 | 25.1 | 1.17 | 0.93 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 74.2 | 51.2 | 49.5 | 39.3 | 69.2 | 19.6 | 22 | 1.15 | 1.03 |
North Carolina played 35.5% of their games against tournament teams (Iowa, Kentucky, Vermont, Georgia Tech (2), Wake Forest, NC State (2), Duke (2), UConn). Though those teams managed to shave a couple of possessions off the game, they didn't really slow down North Carolina's offense. As is common, the Tar Heels struggled (relatively) to guard better teams, creating fewer turnovers and sending tournament-bound opponents to the line more often.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| UConn | 70.2 | 50.3 | 42.7 | 42.7 | 69 | 21.5 | 17.5 | 1.11 | 0.94 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 69.1 | 47.2 | 43.2 | 41.2 | 64 | 24 | 15.5 | 1.04 | 1.02 |
UConn played 34.2% of their games against tournament teams (Boston College, Oklahoma, Pittsburgh (2), W. Virginia, Villanova, Syracuse (3), North Carolina). UConn shot the ball worse and turned it over more often against better opposition. Furthermore, they undermined their fine field goal defense by sending those opponents to the free throw line 25% more frequently than they did non-tournament teams.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Kansas | 67 | 53.7 | 44.2 | 35.6 | 66.6 | 21.2 | 20.9 | 1.11 | 0.97 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 67.4 | 52.7 | 45 | 34.7 | 66.7 | 21.2 | 19.9 | 1.07 | 0.98 |
Kansas played 52.5% of their games against tournament teams (Nevada, Vermont, Pacific, UL-Lafayette, UW-Milwaukee, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Iowa St (2), Villanova, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St (2)). As befits the only team to play more than half of their games against tournament teams, there's not much difference manifest in the above breakdown. The Jayhawks are what they are: decent offensively and defensively, mediocre rebounders and ball-handlers.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Florida | 65.8 | 55.8 | 46.1 | 35.8 | 71.6 | 20.5 | 22.1 | 1.16 | 0.94 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 65.1 | 52.1 | 45.9 | 34.8 | 73.4 | 19.7 | 21.2 | 1.11 | 0.94 |
Florida played 33.1% of their games against tournament teams (Louisville, E. Kentucky, Mississippi St (2), Alabama (2), Kentucky (3), LSU). I've made fun of Billy Donovan for a long time but this is a good, dangerous team. They play good defense, they rebound well, and they don't turn it over too much.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Villanova | 64.5 | 50.5 | 45 | 41.5 | 64.1 | 19.5 | 25 | 1.14 | 0.95 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 66 | 50.3 | 51.3 | 33.9 | 60.3 | 18.7 | 23.8 | 1.10 | 1.08 |
Villanova played 37.8% of their games against tournament teams (Penn, W. Virginia (2), Boston College (2), Kansas, UConn, Syracuse, Bucknell, Pittsburgh (2)). The Wildcats gave up a lot of ground in both their field goal defense and rebounding against tournament-bound teams on average. However, they are not an especially consistent team.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Wisconsin | 62.3 | 49.9 | 46.7 | 31.2 | 74.5 | 18.2 | 19 | 1.07 | 0.95 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 61.2 | 48.8 | 47.3 | 27.2 | 74.9 | 17.4 | 18 | 1.03 | 0.98 |
The Badgers played 35.5% of their games against tournament teams (Penn, UW-Milwaukee, Alabama, Michigan St (2), Illinois (3), Minnesota, Iowa (2)). Wisconsin grabbed fewer offensive rebounds, shot a hair more threes, and fewer free throws against tournament teams. Their defense remained exemplary. If the committee had seen fit to mix a few of the teams from the Syracuse region that play defense with the teams from the Albuquerque region that play offense, we'd have some intriguing, high-contrast matchups to ponder.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Charlotte | 69.1 | 49.9 | 49.4 | 37 | 66 | 18.7 | 22.6 | 1.11 | 1.01 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 71.1 | 50.5 | 54.2 | 37.5 | 64.1 | 20.5 | 21.1 | 1.12 | 1.12 |
Charlotte played 22.4% of their games against tournament teams (UL-Lafayette, Alabama, UAB, Cincinnati (2), Louisville). Looking at the Charlotte, UAB, and Cincinnati statistical breakdowns demonstrates why Louisville ended up with a four seed. Conference USA was not very strong at all this year. I'm not sure that Charlotte's any better than lower seeds Pacific, Nevada, Creighton, Northern Iowa, UTEP, or George Washington. The 49ers make up for poor field goal shooting by attempting a ton of free throws. They don't make up for their poor defense.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Minnesota | 66.3 | 50.6 | 47.6 | 35.7 | 67.8 | 24.2 | 25.8 | 1.03 | 0.94 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 67.1 | 42.5 | 50.2 | 31.3 | 62.5 | 21.9 | 26.4 | 0.91 | 1.02 |
Minnesota played 28.9% of their games against tournament teams (Alabama, Oklahoma, Iowa (2), Michigan St (2), Illinois (2), Wisconsin). They won at home against Wisconsin and Iowa. The Gophers , as you can see above, are in the tournament on the basis of who they played, not how they played. I don't mean to diminsh their unexpectedly decent year, but I see no reason to believe they would have finished in the top four of the Missouri Valley Conference.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| IowaSt | 66.2 | 47.3 | 47.6 | 33.1 | 66.4 | 19.3 | 25.5 | 1.02 | 0.94 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 67.8 | 46 | 50.8 | 35.9 | 66.6 | 21 | 22 | 1.01 | 1.05 |
Iowa State played 34.9% of the games against tournament teams (Bucknell, Northern Iowa, Iowa, Kansas (2), Oklahoma St, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech (2)). Iowa State was mediocre offensively against all comers. Tournament-bound teams found more good shots and threw the ball away less often against the Cyclones' undersized defenders.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| NCState | 65.1 | 53.6 | 48.6 | 33.3 | 63.9 | 18.9 | 23.1 | 1.13 | 1.02 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 65.5 | 50.8 | 54.2 | 31.8 | 61.6 | 20.7 | 21.9 | 1.06 | 1.13 |
NC State played 37.5% of their games against tournament teams (UL-Lafayette, Washington, W. Virginia, Duke (2), Georgia Tech (2), North Carolina (2), Wake Forest (3)). One could excuse some the Wolfpack's defensive lapses against that collection of opponents were their overall defensive and rebounding numbers not so poor.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Northern Iowa | 65 | 54.7 | 49.1 | 28 | 71.9 | 18 | 19.9 | 1.11 | 1.01 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 64.8 | 55.7 | 49.4 | 31.3 | 70.7 | 19.6 | 14.9 | 1.12 | 1.09 |
Northern Iowa played 23.2% of their games against tournament teams (Cincinnati, Iowa St, Iowa, S. Illinois (2), Creighton (2). The Missouri Valley Conference is a really good league. Both Creighton and Northern Iowa shot better against tournament opposition than they did on the year as a whole. Though dangerous offensively, Northern Iowa struggles defensively.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| New Mexico | 66 | 57.9 | 47.8 | 32.3 | 68.8 | 20.7 | 21.7 | 1.16 | 0.97 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 60 | 46.7 | 51.7 | 28.7 | 61.6 | 15.8 | 19.9 | 1.03 | 1.10 |
New Mexico played 12.5% of their games against tournament teams (Wake Forest, Utah (3)). The Lobos beat up on most of their schedule, but their poor rebounding will likely limit their success against better competition even with Danny Granger back in the lineup.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Ohio | 64.6 | 51.7 | 50.5 | 33.6 | 64.9 | 20 | 23.5 | 1.10 | 1.03 |
Ohio didn't play any tournament teams this year. They'll struggle to get the line at the their seasonal rate (1 FTA for every 2.1 FGA) against Florida which should impact their offensice efficiency.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Bucknell | 62.6 | 51.5 | 44.9 | 31.6 | 67.2 | 25.1 | 25.1 | 1.01 | 0.92 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 65.2 | 49.8 | 53.8 | 25.7 | 56.5 | 26.1 | 26.3 | 0.93 | 1.09 |
Bucknell played 16.1% of their games against tournament teams (Iowa St, Penn, Niagara, Pittsburgh, Villanova). Only Villanova blew out Bucknell and their modestly impressive win over Pittsburgh has been well-publicized but those defensive numbers inspire little confidence. Penn, Niagara, and Iowa State all killed the Bison on the glass as well.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| UCF | 62 | 54.8 | 44.5 | 40 | 67.7 | 24.3 | 19.2 | 1.12 | 1.04 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 55.1 | 52 | 42.9 | 29.6 | 74.1 | 21.8 | 21.7 | 1.00 | 0.94 |
Central Florida beat Utah State earlier this year in their one contest against a tournament team; a result which should give pause to those who think the Aggies will give Arizona fits. UCF will struggle to maintain those rebounding numbers against UConn, but if they keep the pace slow enough, the score might remain respectable.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Oakland | 65 | 50.4 | 54.2 | 34.2 | 65.1 | 18.5 | 21.4 | 1.08 | 1.11 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 71.1 | 46.6 | 62 | 30.3 | 61.7 | 22.5 | 21.2 | 0.91 | 1.25 |
Oakland played at Illinois and at Michigan State this year with predictable results.
| TEAM | Poss/40 | eFG% | opp eFG% | OR% | DR% | TO% | opp TO% | PPP | opp PPP | ||
| Ala A&M | 71.7 | 45.3 | 46.1 | 32 | 63.4 | 21.2 | 27.3 | 0.96 | 0.91 | ||
| vs.Tourney | 77.1 | 41.6 | 59.2 | 40.8 | 59.5 | 23.3 | 14.5 | 0.88 | 1.32 |
Alabama A&M got blown out at UAB in their lone matchup with a tournament team. Whomever survives the play-in game, North Carolina's starters should be well rested for Sunday's game.
No comments:
Post a Comment