|
|
|
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
Numbers filter out early frauds from favorites
By Joe Lunardi
Special to ESPN.com
|
|
Stat of the Week
|
|
Remember our friends at Arkansas-Pine Bluff? The Golden Lions (1-10) finally have a win, but have still lapped the field with the most lopsided scoring margin per game in the country. Three other "contenders" have some serious catching up to do:
|
|
Arkansas-P.B.
|
-37.0
|
|
Prairie View A&M
|
-23.2
|
|
Md.-E. Shore
|
-22.7
|
|
Grambling
|
-22.0
|
Reading this week's "Sweet 16" selections on ESPN.com got me to thinking. Even though we won't project the full 64-team NCAA field until Jan. 22, it is never too early to suggest who can (or cannot) win the national
championship on April 2.
Let's assume for a moment the actual champion will come from ESPN.com's group of teams. And, just to be safe, let's add to these 16 another four teams who have been highly ranked at some point this year, or who have
played themselves into the national picture.
So, going way out on a limb here, we are saying the 2001 national champion will come from the following list of 20 teams (in alphabetical order):
Arizona, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Florida, Georgetown, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan State, Mississippi, North Carolina, Syracuse, Stanford, Tennessee, USC, Wake Forest, Wisconsin.
How can we best keep an eye on these teams heading toward March? What statistical comparisons can be made to guide us on which ones are peaking and, or which are declining? Who are the elite? Who are the
frauds?
What follows is an in-depth breakdown of what we'll call "The January 20," using statistics charted especially for these teams. It's an adjusted winning percentage, which considers who teams have beaten. Wins over RPI top 50 teams count twice as much, while victories over teams in the top 25 RPI rankings are tripled. Wins over all sub-150 teams (through Jan. 10) don't count.
This stat also punishes teams for losses to sub-100 teams. These losses count double, while a loss to a sub-150 team really hurts -- quadrupling a team's loss total.
We'll re-visit these same 20 teams in the first column of February and the first column of
March, comparing now to then (and back again).
|
Winning D-I Record |
Adjusted Percentage |
Adjusted D-I Record |
Adjusted Percentage |
Stanford
|
11-0
|
1.000
|
16-0
|
1.000
|
Georgetown
|
14-0
|
1.000
|
9-0
|
1.000
|
Tennessee
|
15-1
|
.938
|
19-1
|
.950
|
Duke
|
14-1
|
.933
|
17-1
|
.944
|
Wake Forest
|
13-1
|
.929
|
15-1
|
.938
|
Michigan State
|
13-1
|
.929
|
12-1
|
.923
|
Mississippi
|
13-1
|
.929
|
12-1
|
.923
|
Syracuse
|
14-1
|
.933
|
11-1
|
.917
|
Kansas
|
10-1
|
.909
|
8-1
|
.889
|
Iowa
|
12-2
|
.857
|
13-2
|
.867
|
North Carolina
|
12-2
|
.857
|
12-2
|
.857
|
Illinois
|
12-3
|
.800
|
16-3
|
.842
|
Iowa State
|
12-2
|
.857
|
10-2
|
.833
|
Wisconsin
|
10-3
|
.769
|
14-3
|
.824
|
Florida
|
11-2
|
.846
|
8-2
|
.800
|
UConn
|
12-2
|
.846
|
7-2
|
.700
|
USC
|
11-2
|
.846
|
7-3
|
.700
|
Arizona
|
7-5
|
.583
|
10-5
|
.667
|
Seton Hall
|
10-3
|
.769
|
5-3
|
.625
|
Maryland
|
11-4
|
.733
|
5-4
|
.556
|
This is a crude measurement, to be sure, but quite effective in confirming the apparent national elite. No one would argue with
Stanford, Tennessee, Duke, Wake Forest and Michigan State appearing at or near the top of these rankings.
Only Georgetown, aided by its presumably temporary undefeated status, is a real anomaly with regard to Adjusted Winning Percentage. And, due to nine sub-150 wins, the Hoyas will drop considerably if and when they suffer their first loss.
Also note the adjustments made at the bottom of the list to Arizona and Maryland. The Wildcats, despite a marginal won-loss record, gain a seemingly sensible 84 points in Adjusted Winning Percentage. The Terps, without a single RPI top 50 win, lose a whopping 177 points -- the largest adjustment in either direction for any of "The January 20".
Now lets move on to the "offensive quotient" of these 20 teams.
It's one thing to score a bunch of points. But how much is a team scoring above or below what its opponents typically allow? This isn't scoring margin, but the incremental offensive advantage (or disadvantage) for any team against a given set of opponents.
For example, if Duke scores 12 points more than North Carolina A&T typically allows, that represents a significant incremental offensive advantage. The opposite would be true if Duke scored 12 fewer points than North Carolina A&T allows.
|
Average Ppg |
Opponents Ppg Allowed |
Offensive Quotient |
Duke
|
93.8
|
61.9
|
+24.7 ppg
|
Florida
|
91.3
|
71.4
|
+19.9 ppg
|
Tennessee
|
86.5
|
68.8
|
+19.7 ppg
|
Maryland
|
93.1
|
74.3
|
+18.8 ppg
|
Florida
|
91.3
|
71.4
|
+19.7 ppg
|
Syracuse
|
79.9
|
61.5
|
+18.4 ppg
|
Iowa State
|
83.8
|
67.6
|
+16.2 ppg
|
Kansas
|
85.0
|
69.9
|
+15.1 ppg
|
USC
|
82.5
|
67.4
|
+15.1 ppg
|
Arizona
|
81.0
|
66.4
|
+14.6 ppg
|
Wake Forest
|
81.8
|
69.4
|
+12.4 ppg
|
Michigan State
|
84.0
|
72.7
|
+11.3 ppg
|
Stanford
|
85.3
|
71.9
|
+13.4 ppg
|
North Carolina
|
79.2
|
68.8
|
+10.4 ppg
|
Seton Hall
|
82.9
|
73.0
|
+9.9 ppg
|
Illinois
|
80.5
|
71.9
|
+8.6 ppg
|
Iowa
|
77.1
|
68.1
|
+8.2 ppg
|
Georgetown
|
83.7
|
75.9
|
+7.8 ppg
|
UConn
|
80.4
|
74.7
|
+5.7 ppg
|
Mississippi
|
76.0
|
72.4
|
+3.6 ppg
|
Wisconsin
|
60.3
|
66.3
|
-6.0 ppg
|
Now, to be fair to Wisconsin in particular ... let's look at the "defensive quotient," which is simply the reverse of "offensive quotient." We'll measure the incremental defensive advantage of one team versus a given set of opponents.
|
Average Ppg Allowed |
Opponents Average Ppg |
Offensive Quotient |
Wisconsin
|
55.3
|
73.0
|
+17.7 ppg
|
Stanford
|
62.2
|
76.2
|
+14.0 ppg
|
Michigan State
|
62.5
|
76.3
|
+13.8 ppg
|
Wake Forest
|
58.2
|
71.3
|
+13.1 ppg
|
Mississippi
|
62.5
|
75.3
|
+12.8 ppg
|
Kansas
|
68.6
|
78.4
|
+9.8 ppg
|
Illinois
|
68.7
|
76.8
|
+8.1 ppg
|
Georgetown
|
63.5
|
70.7
|
+7.2 ppg
|
Arizona
|
70.3
|
77.1
|
+6.8 ppg
|
Florida
|
64.8
|
71.3
|
+6.5 ppg
|
Syracuse
|
65.4
|
71.7
|
+6.3 ppg
|
Iowa
|
69.5
|
75.5
|
+6.0 ppg
|
Iowa State
|
68.0
|
73.9
|
+5.9 ppg
|
Duke
|
67.6
|
72.4
|
+4.8 ppg
|
Tennessee
|
73.8
|
77.7
|
+3.9 ppg
|
Maryland
|
71.3
|
74.5
|
+3.2 ppg
|
North Carolina
|
68.4
|
71.2
|
+2.8 ppg
|
UConn
|
70.9
|
73.3
|
+2.4 ppg
|
Seton Hall
|
76.6
|
76.6
|
+/-0.0
|
USC
|
71.7
|
71.4
|
-0.3 ppg
|
And finally, we come to the "adjusted scoring margin." This category combines the offensive and defensive
quotients for that team. It is a much more accurate representation of a team's relative strength (or weakness) vs. its own schedule.
Non-adjusted scoring margin is certainly of value -- if your team wins by 25 points per game, it's probably pretty good. But adjusted scoring margin puts that team in the truer context of its opposition. In other words, did your team overachieve, or underachieve, against the hand it was dealt?
|
Scoring Margin |
Offensive Quotient |
Defensive Quotient |
Adjusted Scoring Margin |
Duke
|
26.2 ppg
|
+24.7
|
+4.8
|
29.5 ppg
|
Stanford
|
23.1 ppg
|
+13.4
|
+14.0
|
27.4 ppg
|
Florida
|
26.5 ppg
|
+19.9
|
+6.5
|
26.4 ppg
|
Wake Forest
|
23.6 ppg
|
+12.4
|
+13.1
|
25.2 ppg
|
Michigan State
|
21.5 ppg
|
+11.3
|
+13.8
|
25.1 ppg
|
Kansas
|
16.4 ppg
|
+15.1
|
+9.8
|
24.9 ppg
|
Syracuse
|
14.5 ppg
|
+18.4
|
+6.3
|
24.7 ppg
|
Tennessee
|
12.7 ppg
|
+19.7
|
+3.9
|
23.6 ppg
|
Iowa State
|
15.8 ppg
|
+16.2
|
+5.9
|
22.1 ppg
|
Maryland
|
21.8 ppg
|
+18.8
|
+3.2
|
22.0 ppg
|
Arizona
|
10.7 ppg
|
+14.6
|
+6.8
|
21.4 ppg
|
Illinois
|
11.8 ppg
|
+8.6
|
+8.1
|
16.7 ppg
|
Mississippi
|
13.5 ppg
|
+3.6
|
+12.8
|
16.4 ppg
|
Georgetown
|
20.2 ppg
|
+7.8
|
+7.2
|
15.0 ppg
|
USC
|
10.8 ppg
|
+15.1
|
-0.3
|
14.8 ppg
|
Iowa
|
7.6 ppg
|
+8.2
|
+6.0
|
14.2 ppg
|
North Carolina
|
10.8 ppg
|
+10.4
|
+2.8
|
13.2 ppg
|
Wisconsin
|
5.0 ppg
|
-6.0
|
+17.7
|
11.7 ppg
|
Seton Hall
|
6.3 ppg
|
+9.9
|
+/-0.0
|
9.9 ppg
|
UConn
|
9.5 ppg
|
+5.7
|
+2.4
|
8.1 ppg
|
So, what have we learned from all these numbers? Well, measuring "The January 20" in these new categories suggests the
following (in no particular order):
Don't give up the ship at Arizona.
Syracuse and Kansas may be even better than we think.
I've been dead-on (so far) in calling Connecticut the most overrated
team among true national contenders.
UConn may not even belong on these lists, along with Seton Hall and maybe Maryland. In retrospect, perhaps Virginia, Cincinnati and/or Alabama should have been included. We'll know for sure in a month or so.
Duke, Florida and Tennessee -- especially Duke -- are every bit as good offensively as they appear on television. And Wisconsin is that much worse.
Does it surprise anyone that Wisconsin, Stanford and Michigan State rank 1-2-3 in "defensive quotient"? It's a good thing for the Badgers, too, whose "offensive quotient" is the only significant negative on any of
these lists.
Stanford and Michigan State are the most balanced teams (offensively and defensively) in the land.
Duke, Stanford, Wake Forest and Michigan State are the true national elite. Florida, which ranks with them in "adjusted scoring margin," has overindulged on patsies.
Kansas, Syracuse and Tennessee are "the next wave."
USC (not enough defense) and Wisconsin (not enough offense) cannot win the national championship.
The Big East (Georgetown, Seton Hall, Connecticut) is probably a paper tiger.
Maryland is a fraud.
Joe Lunardi is a regular in-season contributor for ESPN.com. He is also
contributing editor of the Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook,
www.collegebaskets.com. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.
|
|
ALSO SEE
Chat with Joe Lunardi, Friday at 2 p.m. ET
Box Score Banter
Box Score Banter archive
|
|