[Cracked Sidewalks] NCAA Profiles (Offense and Defense)

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

NCAA Profiles (Offense and Defense)

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Rob Lowe)

As of today, Marquette's Pomeroy offensive and defensive rank are #14 and #60, respectively. I wanted to dust off the blogging keyboard to ask a question... what are the offensive and defensive profiles of teams that advance in the NCAA tourney?



I've been collecting this information for a few years and have NCAA data from 2007-2012.

First, here are the averages.






The numbers are consistent for both offense and defense. On average, the requirements for a first round win start at a top 35 ranking, move to a top 25 ranking for the Sweet Sixteen, and then become top 20/top 15 for Elite Eight and Final Four.

Marquette is below the average requirement defensively but has an elite offense. How does the breakdown look at the different levels when considering both offense and defense?





This chart is not very helpful. Just note that the x axis is the offensive ranking, the y axis is the defensive ranking, and that it's a logarithmic chart (base 2). Marquette 2013 is the yellow box in the upper left quadrant (top 20 offense / below average defense). Just note that there are lots of teams that win their first round game at all levels of offensive and defensive efficiency. It's almost a kind of madness.





The important point on the Sweet Sixteen chart is that the number of teams with sub-top 20 offense and sub-top 20 defense has dwindled dramatically. Marquette still fits comfortably in the quadrant.





The Elite Eight Chart is where the differences really stand out. Half the Elite Eight teams have both a top 20 offense and a top 20 defense. There's a slight advantage for offensive-minded teams here, but it's pretty small. It is worth noting that half the teams making it to the Elite Eight do so with a very strong offense OR defense.




There's the Final Four profile going back to 2007. It's much more unlikely to make it without a top 20 offense and top 20 defense. Note that the only three teams with sub-par offense and defensive profiles are Michigan State, Butler, and VCU. Or, the greatest tournament coach in history and two goofy Final Four runs.

In summary, Marquette would fit in comfortably with either a Sweet Sixteen profile or an Elite Eight profile, but it's pretty unlikely that the team has a Final Four run in them. Of course, everything really depends on matchups anyway. Finally, note that if we look back to 2003, there was a team with the #1 offense and #101 defense that ended up with a run to the Final Four...

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2013/03/ncaa-profiles-offense-and-defense.html

[Bricky]

Just for curiosity's sake, what were the profiles of the winners of the last few years?

[Henry Sugar]

Just for curiosity's sake, what were the profiles of the winners of the last few years?

Year - Team (offense / defense)

2012 - Kentucky (2 / 9)
2011 - Connecticut (16 / 14)
2010 - Duke (1 / 4)
2009 - North Carolina (1 / 16)
2008 - Kansas (2 / 1)
2007 - Florida (1 / 12)
2006 - Florida (2 / 5)
2005 - North Carolina (1 / 5)
2004 - Connecticut (4 / 5)
2003 - Syracuse (11 / 19)

By the way, teams that fit these profiles this year include:
Florida, Indiana, Pitt, Syracuse, Ohio State*

*Although a six game tourney run will obviously impact the final profile

[RJax55]

Great work, thanks!!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Really well done.

The follow-up question is "why isn't MU better at defense?"

Individually, the players seem athletic enough and work hard enough to be good defensively.

This isn't a team of slow-footed shooters, or Tim Thomas softies. They play hard, they are physical, they are athletic.

So, why aren't they better?

Honestly, I really don't know. Is it some sort of statistical aberration due to MU's style of play? (I have no idea if that is even possible).

[RJax55]

Year - Team (offense / defense)

2012 - Kentucky (2 / 9)
2011 - Connecticut (16 / 14)
2010 - Duke (1 / 4)
2009 - North Carolina (1 / 16)
2008 - Kansas (2 / 1)
2007 - Florida (1 / 12)
2006 - Florida (2 / 5)
2005 - North Carolina (1 / 5)
2004 - Connecticut (4 / 5)
2003 - Syracuse (11 / 19)

By the way, teams that fit these profiles this year include:
Florida, Indiana, Pitt, Syracuse, Ohio State*

*Although a six game tourney run will obviously impact the final profile

Interesting stuff... No doubt, IU and Florida are legit NC contenders, the others I just don't see it. I know this has been a crazy year, so it would make sense to have a team come from outside the profile.

[Henry Sugar]

Interesting stuff... No doubt, IU and Florida are legit NC contenders, the others I just don't see it. I know this has been a crazy year, so it would make sense to have a team come from outside the profile.

Yeah, I totally agree.

[MUfan12]

Really well done.

The follow-up question is "why isn't MU better at defense?"

Individually, the players seem athletic enough and work hard enough to be good defensively.

This isn't a team of slow-footed shooters, or Tim Thomas softies. They play hard, they are physical, they are athletic.

So, why aren't they better?

Honestly, I really don't know. Is it some sort of statistical aberration due to MU's style of play? (I have no idea if that is even possible).

They're as good as anyone at first shot defense. I think it has more to do with rebounding. They have given up a ton of offensive rebounds, which I'm sure has pushed the opposing shooting numbers up.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

They're as good as anyone at first shot defense. I think it has more to do with rebounding. They have given up a ton of offensive rebounds, which I'm sure has pushed the opposing shooting numbers up.

That might be the case (I'm not the stat guy), but even still, MU has good size and athleticism (and depth!). They shouldn't get beaten up on the boards, should they?

[keefe]

They're as good as anyone at first shot defense. I think it has more to do with rebounding. They have given up a ton of offensive rebounds, which I'm sure has pushed the opposing shooting numbers up.

Well said. The number of opponent O Ribs has been maddening.

[RJax55]

That might be the case (I'm not the stat guy), but even still, MU has good size and athleticism (and depth!). They shouldn't get beaten up on the boards, should they?

One theory on why the defensive numbers aren't that great, compared to last year.

Turnover rate. Too many turnovers, especially live ball turnovers that usually end up being lay-ups on the other end. That will kill your eFG% pretty quickly.

[RJax55]

Well said. The number of opponent O Ribs has been maddening.

MU has been really bad at securing long rebounds. How many opportunities did Sutherland and Grant/Atkins have at hosting 3s in the last minute of the ND and 'Cuse games because MU couldn't secure the initial miss.

[Henry Sugar]

I am not and probably never will be qualified to answer why the defense is poor. However, here is the defensive breakdown.

All numbers are defensive (conference rank in parentheses)
eFG% #79 (#9)
TO% #179 (#10)
OR% #226 (#6)
FTR #89 (#5)

2 pt% #85 (#5)
3 pt% #88 (#11)
====
eFG% is way more important than anything else. We have been better in conference at two point% defense than three pt% defense. And, the team has been better at defensive rebounding in conference than you think. Those are probably both signs that we may be a little bit better defensively than the aggregate season numbers suggest.

Personally, I've long had a beef with Buzz's defense and how it shows on eFG% defense, but I'm not nearly smart enough to know how to fix it. For example, last year was the first year the team didn't have sub-200 ranking on eFG% defense. This year we are better than that, but still not great.
====
Last year's numbers, when #mubb was #14 defensively
eFG% #30 (#8)
TO% #28 (#2)
OR% #296 (#11)
FTR #48 (#6)

2 pt% #48 (#7)
3 pt% #53 (#9)
====

[GGGG]

It's a high-risk / high-reward defense.  Tries to create turnovers leading to easy baskets.  But a lot of teams can move the ball well against it.  It is fundamentally very different than UW's for instance, which just packs into the lane.

[LloydMooresLegs]

Thanks so much for this analysis, Rob.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It's a high-risk / high-reward defense.  Tries to create turnovers leading to easy baskets.  But a lot of teams can move the ball well against it.  It is fundamentally very different than UW's for instance, which just packs into the lane.

I want to agree with you,  but they don't press or trap THAT often, and lately we have seen a healthy dose of 2-3 zone. Buzz isn't "deflection crazy" like the last guy. He tries to keep the ball away from the paint, and rotations are key. When they are late, they give up an open jumper.

A few seasons ago, I thought MU's defense was suspect because they lacked some size and elite athleticism. Now they have size, depth and it seems like they have enough athleticism. I'm a little surprised they aren't better.

From the eye test, I would tell you that 3pt shooting is this team's biggest weakness, but after looking at Sugar's numbers, maybe it's defense that's the problem.

[ChicosBailBonds]

By the way, teams that fit these profiles this year include:
Florida, Indiana, Pitt, Syracuse, Ohio State*

*Although a six game tourney run will obviously impact the final profile

Gonzaga doesn't fit that profile?

[Henry Sugar]

Gonzaga doesn't fit that profile?

I know you're joking, but Gonzaga isn't that far outside the profile. They are 3 / 23, respectively, for offense and defense.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I know you're joking, but Gonzaga isn't that far outside the profile. They are 3 / 23, respectively, for offense and defense.

That actually sounds about right.  They are good, they just aren't #1 good.

[77ncaachamps]

MU's defense isn't matador; it's more like try to force a difficult and contested shot but AVOID the foul, unless necessary. So they'll give up their fair share of shots but limit the opponent FT opportunities.