Marquette and Priorities - Part One
Source: Marquette and Priorities - Part One (http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2014/03/marquette-and-priorities-part-one.html)
Added the full post for readability on the site.
====
UPDATEDThis all sort of started with the following.
QuoteThere - that's four posts and about 4000 words on #mubb in the past four tweets. Pretend there are a bunch of charts and crap.
— CrackedSidewalks (@CrackedSidewlks) March 10, 2014
Of course, not smart enough to leave well enough alone, we actually started providing the charts via twitter for each section. After about 150 tweets and maybe half that number of charts, I realized that this should have begun as a series of blog posts after all...
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/439/825/7f8.gif)
This is the first of five parts looking into a deeper analysis of Marquette and the priorities for the basketball team on the court. Much of this information has already been presented in the Cracked Sidewalks twitter feed if you want to look ahead. The analysis covers five different sections.
- Part One - What does it take to make the Final Four?
- Part Two - Which of the Four Factors is more important than the other three combined? (spoiler: it's eFG%)
- Part Three - Marquette is not good enough on eFG% to have a top 20 offense/defense
- Part Four - What goes into eFG% for Top 20 teams?
- Part Five - Are Paint Touches the root cause?
Part One - To make the Final Four, a team should have roughly a top 20 offense and a top 20 defenseHere is the stats profile of every team over the past seven years to make the Elite Eight.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/d6a73b67-56b7-4742-9ca7-88dc2c6b8554.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/d6a73b67-56b7-4742-9ca7-88dc2c6b8554.png.html)
Almost every team that made the Elite Eight over this time period had either a top 20 offense (left of the vertical line) or a top 20 defense (below the horizontal line). Most of the teams had both a top 20 offense and a top 20 defense.
Yes, there are exceptions. For example, Marquette (in the red circle) made the Elite Eight last year. Other notable exceptions include Butler (x2), VCU, and Michigan last year. However, those are exceptions.
Here is the same profile of every team to make the Final Four.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/98ae3150-ed92-486e-ba27-6cf6d16d6bdf.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/98ae3150-ed92-486e-ba27-6cf6d16d6bdf.png.html)
Good luck making the Final Four if you don't have a top 20 defense. However, even then, you really should have both a top 20 offense AND a top 20 defense.
Again, there are exceptions. Not on this chart, but a certain team made the Final Four in 2003 with the #2 overall offense in the country and the #119 overall defense.
Does having a top 20 offense and defense guarantee anything? Certainly not, but it's better to have the odds be in your favor than the other way around.
How Has Marquette Stacked Up?(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/MURankings-1.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/MURankings-1.png.html)
Marquette has had the offensive profile once, and was arguably close to that three other times. As for the defensive profile, the #mubb defense has only been good enough one year.
SummaryThe profile of teams that have successfully made the Final Four shows a strong preference for having both a top 20 offense and a top 20 defense. Unfortunately, Marquette has not been strong enough at the rankings, particularly defensively, to get to the next level. In the next post, we'll look at eFG% and how it is by far the most important factor for efficiency.
So teams that make the Elite 8 and Final 4 are really good?
You guys do great stuff, but sometimes things are self-explanatory and don't require to be overanalyzed. Again, not a rip, just weary of "sabremetrics" on everything that is sports.
Three comments
1. This is the first of five parts that all build on each other. There is more coming (phrasing - boom!)
2. I think the data is more interesting than just "teams that make the final four are really good". Teams that make the Final Four fit a particular profile.
3. I added a chart and section that compared MU to the profile of these teams. That was missing, and it's helpful to see how Marquette has stacked up.
So do I have this break down right?
28 teams in the 7 years of final four:
4 had neither a top 20 O or D
5 had a top 20 D but not O
2 had a top 20 O but not D
17 had both a top 20 O and D
Given the sample size it's probably statistically irrelevant, but one might think if you can't have both it is best to start with D
Also, may in no way be correlated but does pace matter for this group of 28 teams?
Quote from: mu03eng on March 14, 2014, 01:07:04 PM
So do I have this break down right?
28 teams in the 7 years of final four:
4 had neither a top 20 O or D
5 had a top 20 D but not O
2 had a top 20 O but not D
17 had both a top 20 O and D
Given the sample size it's probably statistically irrelevant, but one might think if you can't have both it is best to start with D
Also, may in no way be correlated but does pace matter for this group of 28 teams?
You have the breakdown right. Every tourney I add a few more years worth of data, but it's always been consistent. I have not looked into pace, although the theory is that slower paced teams are more likely to lose.
Also, check your email.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 14, 2014, 03:03:03 PM
You have the breakdown right. Every tourney I add a few more years worth of data, but it's always been consistent. I have not looked into pace, although the theory is that slower paced teams are more likely to lose.
Also, check your email.
How many teams normally rank in the top 20 in both O and D each year? Which teams do this year and what are their respective rankings? Thanks in advance.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 14, 2014, 03:03:03 PM
You have the breakdown right. Every tourney I add a few more years worth of data, but it's always been consistent. I have not looked into pace, although the theory is that slower paced teams are more likely to lose.
Also, check your email.
Got it, I'll look at it.
I'll have to think about how to prove it, but I think if you can only do one thing elite, it should be defense. I hate that, as a huge fan of offense(as is John Q Public) but it seems likely defense is what you can most
consistently at an elite level. Does this get reflected in eFG%? (novice question I'm sure)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 14, 2014, 03:12:45 PM
How many teams normally rank in the top 20 in both O and D each year? Which teams do this year and what are their respective rankings? Thanks in advance.
I don't know how many normally rank in both.
Here are the top candidates this year (offensive ranking / defensive ranking)
Louisville (13 / 5)
Florida (10 / 9)
Wichita State (8 / 11)
Villanova (14 / 14)
Here are teams that are close and would improve their ranking with a Final Four run
Arizona (34 / 1)
Virginia (23 / 4)
Kansas (5 / 29)
Syracuse (27 / 16)
Tennessee (17 / 28)
Oklahoma State (24 / 33)
Here are top seeds I think are vulnerable
Duke (defensive ranking of 75)
Creighton (def rank of 104)
Michigan (def rank of 100)
VCU (offensive rank of 119)
Ohio State (off rank of 128)
San Diego State (Off rank of 98)
Wisconsin, Pitt, Gonzaga
Of course, covering my butt, MU made the FF with a profile of the #2 offense and #119 defense.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 14, 2014, 03:16:55 PM
Got it, I'll look at it.
I'll have to think about how to prove it, but I think if you can only do one thing elite, it should be defense. I hate that, as a huge fan of offense(as is John Q Public) but it seems likely defense is what you can most consistently at an elite level. Does this get reflected in eFG%? (novice question I'm sure)
You are jumping ahead to Part Two, but eFG% is a huge part of efficiency.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 14, 2014, 03:42:46 PM
You are jumping ahead to Part Two, but eFG% is a huge part of efficiency.
Here is your segue, you are welcome