## Thursday, February 09, 2006

### Big 12 Team Efficiency Stats (through February 8)

Here are the teams ranked 1-12 by the difference between their points per possession and their opponents’ points per possession.

 Team PPP Opp PPP Diff UT 1.19 0.89 +0.30 KU 1.09 0.89 +0.20 OU 1.07 0.95 +0.12 CU 1.07 1.04 +0.03 ISU 1.10 1.08 +0.02 KSU 0.98 0.98 0.00 TAMU 1.02 1.05 -0.03 NU 0.94 1.00 -0.06 OSU 1.00 1.07 -0.07 TT 0.94 1.05 -0.11 MU 0.97 1.11 -0.14 BU 0.91 1.13 -0.22

Below is a look at the difference between each team’s eFG% and the eFG% they allow.

 Team eFG% Opp eFG% Diff UT 55.5 44.2 +11.3 KU 52.9 42.6 +10.3 OU 51.0 46.3 +5.3 KSU 47.7 45.0 +2.7 CU 49.6 47.6 +2.0 OSU 51.1 51.6 -0.5 TT 47.0 49.3 -2.3 ISU 50.7 55.2 -4.5 TAMU 50.6 55.3 -4.7 BU 45.4 51.3 -5.9 MU 47.6 54.0 -6.4 NU 42.7 50.9 -8.2

It’s in the above table that one can start to see how teams score and allow points..

The following table might need a little more explanation. A team’s free throw rate (FT Rate) equals the number of made free throws per 100 shot attempts. A team’s free throw rate allowed (Opp FT Rate) equals the number of free throw attempts they allow their opponents per 100 field goal attempts.

I’ve ranked the teams by their point differential on free throws per 100 field goal attempts. (By multiplying the free throw rate allowed (Opp FT Rate) by the opponents’ free throw percentage (Opp FT%), then subtracting that number from the free throw rate (FT Rate).

I don’t know if this is the best way to rank the teams. Obviously, teams have little control over how their opponents shoot from the free throw line. These rankings do show the points gained or lost per 100 possessions. I’ve included all relevant free throw percentages as well, so that readers might make their own adjustments.

 Team FT Rate Opp FT Rate FT% Opp FT% Diff TT 29.8 23.7 70.1 74.4 +12.2 NU 30.8 28.1 72.4 67.2 +11.9 KU 29.4 32.2 71.2 65.9 +8.2 UT 24.8 26.6 73.4 65.6 +4.4 KSU 27.8 38.4 66.8 69.1 +1.3 MU 24.7 36.5 67.9 67.8 +0.0 OSU 25.3 39.0 72.7 69.6 -1.8 OU 21.2 33.9 65.2 71.0 -2.9 TAMU 27.3 48.4 67.8 68.7 -5.9 BU 18.2 37.7 61.4 68.1 -7.5 ISU 23.7 51.7 78.6 65.3 -10.0 CU 18.6 41.0 58.8 70.7 -10.3

Teams are ranked below by offensive rebound percentage plus defensive rebound percentage. I have no idea of the relative value of an offensive and defensive rebound, so this seemed the simplest solution.

 Team OR% DR% RebRate UT 41.5 72.5 114 OU 43.1 70.0 113.1 KU 38.4 67.7 106.1 KSU 36.2 67.6 103.8 NU 34.8 65.9 100.7 CU 38.8 61.6 100.4 OSU 36.5 62.5 99.0 MU 35.5 60.6 96.1 TAMU 28.7 66.6 95.3 ISU 34.1 59.0 93.1 BU 29.8 60.4 90.2 TT 30.0 58.5 88.5

Should offensive rebounds be more valuable (they occur more rarely, so that would make intuitive sense to me), Oklahoma State and Colorado would both rank as better rebounding teams than Nebraska.

The rankings here are simply opponents’ turnover percentage minus the team’s turnover percentage.

 Team TO% Opp TO% Diff ISU 18.0 27.1 +9.1 TAMU 19.9 25.7 +5.8 UT 20.2 21.7 +1.5 CU 20.3 20.9 +0.6 KU 22.5 22.5 +0.0 NU 24.6 23.9 -0.7 OU 23.7 22.4 -1.3 TT 23.8 22.4 -1.4 MU 24.7 21.2 -3.5 OSU 25.8 22.2 -3.6 BU 22.9 19.2 -3.7 KSU 23.8 19.8 -4.0

Here we see how Iowa State maintains their mediocrity despite rebounding so poorly, and allowing their opponents to outscore them both from the floor and the line. They create the most turnovers while rarely turning the ball over themselves.

Tempo-free stats for individuals coming tomorrow...