|
|
|
Monday, February 12, 2001
Revising 'The January 20'
By Joe Lunardi
Special to ESPN.com
|
Regular readers will recall that, in mid-January, as conference play kicked into high gear, we here at Box Scores and More decided to undertake a little experiment. We took that week's ESPN.com Sweet 16, added four wildcard teams of our own, and labeled these 20 schools the most likely to win the national championship in April.
Here are the original 20 teams (in alphabetical order):
Arizona, Connecticut, Duke, Florida, Georgetown, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan State, Mississippi, North Carolina, Seton Hall, Syracuse, Stanford, Tennessee, USC, Wake Forest, Wisconsin.
(For the record, the "wild card" choices were Arizona, Iowa, Iowa State and USC. I was stuck with Connecticut, among others, who have since faded fast).
Inevitable duds notwithstanding, it still seems quite likely that the 2001 national champion will come from this group. We called them "The January 20" and promised to re-visit all of their significant metrics again in February and also just prior to the start of the NCAA Tournament in March.
We started by introducing a new statistic last month called Adjusted Winning Percentage. This stat gives double weight to wins over RPI Top 50 teams and triple weight to wins over RPI Top 25 teams. It also gives double weight to sub-100 losses and quadruple weight to sub-150 losses, as well as subtracting all sub-150 wins.
(Records through games of Feb. 10. Each team's adjusted winning percentage from January is in parenthesis.)
|
Winning D-I Record |
Adjusted Percentage |
Adjusted D-I Record |
Adjusted Percentage |
Stanford
|
20-1
|
.952
|
27-1
|
.964 (1.000)
|
Duke
|
21-2
|
.913
|
29-2
|
.935 (.944)
|
North Carolina
|
21-2
|
.913
|
28-2
|
.933 (.857)
|
Michigan State
|
18-3
|
.857
|
24-3
|
.889 (.923)
|
Kansas
|
17-3
|
.850
|
22-3
|
.880 (.889)
|
Iowa State
|
20-3
|
.870
|
21-3
|
.875 (.833)
|
Mississippi
|
18-4
|
.818
|
22-4
|
.846 (.923)
|
Illinois
|
19-5
|
.792
|
26-5
|
.839 (.842)
|
Syracuse
|
19-4
|
.828
|
19-4
|
.828 (.917)
|
Tennessee
|
18-6
|
.750
|
24-6
|
.800 (.950)
|
Wisconsin
|
15-6
|
.714
|
24-6
|
.800 (.824)
|
Arizona
|
16-6
|
.727
|
23-6
|
.793 (.667)
|
Iowa
|
17-6
|
.739
|
27-8
|
.771 (.867)
|
Georgetown
|
19-4
|
.826
|
12-4
|
.750 (1.000)
|
Florida
|
16-5
|
.762
|
14-5
|
.737 (.800)
|
Wake Forest
|
16-7
|
.696
|
15-7
|
.682 (.938)
|
USC
|
15-6
|
.714
|
12-6
|
.667 (.700)
|
Maryland
|
14-8
|
.636
|
9-8
|
.529 (.556)
|
Seton Hall
|
12-8
|
.600
|
9-8
|
.529 (.625)
|
Connecticut
|
13-9
|
.591
|
8-9
|
.471 (.778)
|
RISING: Arizona, North Carolina.
FALLING: Connecticut, Georgetown, Iowa, Seton Hall, Tennessee, Wake Forest.
HINDSIGHT: We picked the wrong Big East teams for this list!
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.
We call that Offensive Quotient. Let's take a look at how "The January 20" stack up, one month later (January figure in parenthesis):
|
Average Ppg |
Opponents Ppg Allowed |
Offensive Quotient |
Duke
|
93.4
|
70.4
|
+23.0 ppg (+24.7)
|
Maryland
|
89.6
|
72.4
|
+17.2 ppg (+18.8)
|
Kansas
|
84.2
|
69.7
|
+14.5 ppg (+15.1)
|
Tennessee
|
88.4
|
69.4
|
+14.0 ppg (+19.7)
|
Iowa State
|
82.2
|
69.4
|
+12.8 ppg (+16.2)
|
Stanford
|
83.7
|
71.1
|
+12.6 ppg (+13.4)
|
Florida
|
84.5
|
72.2
|
+12.3 ppg (+19.9)
|
Arizona
|
80.3
|
68.6
|
+11.7 ppg (+14.6)
|
USC
|
79.4
|
67.9
|
+11.5 ppg (+15.1)
|
Michigan State
|
80.8
|
69.4
|
+11.4 ppg (+11.3)
|
Georgetown
|
83.0
|
72.8
|
+10.2 ppg (+7.8)
|
North Carolina
|
80.3
|
70.5
|
+9.8 ppg (+10.4)
|
Seton Hall
|
80.7
|
71.0
|
+9.7 ppg (9.9)
|
Illinois
|
79.0
|
70.7
|
+8.3 ppg (8.6)
|
Wake Forest
|
78.5
|
70.2
|
+8.3 ppg (+12.4)
|
Iowa
|
75.5
|
69.0
|
+6.5 ppg (+8.2)
|
Syracuse
|
75.5
|
70.1
|
+5.4 ppg (+18.4)
|
Connecticut
|
76.0
|
71.8
|
+4.2 ppg (+5.7)
|
Mississippi
|
73.2
|
70.5
|
+2.7 ppg (+3.6)
|
Wisconsin
|
60.0
|
67.7
|
-7.7 ppg (-6.0)
|
FALLING: Florida, Iowa State, Syracuse, Tennessee, USC, Wake Forest.
Many of these drops are the result of a significant difference in conference vs. non-conference competition. Thanks to research assistant Jamie Yannacone for compiling the Opponents PPG information above (and below).
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. (January figure in parenthesis)
|
Average Ppg Allowed |
Opponents Average Ppg |
Defensive Quotient |
Wisconsin
|
55.7
|
73.5
|
+17.8 ppg (+17.7)
|
Stanford
|
62.3
|
74.2
|
+11.9 ppg (+14.0)
|
Michigan State
|
61.4
|
72.2
|
+10.8 ppg (+13.8)
|
Mississippi
|
64.4
|
74.2
|
+9.8 ppg (+12.8)
|
Wake Forest
|
64.9
|
74.5
|
+9.6 ppg (13.1)
|
Arizona
|
66.5
|
74.5
|
+8.0 ppg (+6.8)
|
Illinois
|
67.1
|
74.4
|
+7.3 ppg (+8.1)
|
Syracuse
|
65.7
|
72.6
|
+6.9 ppg (+6.3)
|
North Carolina
|
68.9
|
75.6
|
+6.7 ppg (+2.8)
|
Florida
|
66.0
|
72.5
|
+6.5 ppg (+6.5)
|
Kansas
|
68.4
|
73.4
|
+5.0 ppg (+9.8)
|
Duke
|
70.5
|
75.2
|
+4.7 ppg (+4.8)
|
Georgetown
|
67.1
|
71.6
|
+4.5 ppg (+7.2)
|
Iowa State
|
68.3
|
72.6
|
+4.3 ppg (+5.9)
|
Iowa
|
68.6
|
72.5
|
+3.9 ppg (+6.0)
|
Connecticut
|
68.9
|
72.5
|
+2.7 ppg (+2.4)
|
USC
|
70.3
|
73.7
|
+2.4 ppg (-0.3)
|
Tennessee
|
73.5
|
75.2
|
+1.7 (+3.9)
|
Maryland
|
73.4
|
74.9
|
-1.5 ppg (+3.2)
|
Seton Hall
|
77.2
|
75.0
|
-2.2 ppg (0.0)
|
RISING: Arizona, North Carolina, USC.
The final "major" category is Adjusted Scoring Margin, which 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, 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? Once again, the comparative January figure is in parenthesis:
|
Scoring Margin |
Offensive Quotient |
Defensive Quotient |
Adjusted Scoring Margin |
Duke
|
22.9 ppg
|
+23.0
|
+4.7
|
27.7 ppg (29.5)
|
Stanford
|
21.3 ppg
|
+12.6
|
+11.9
|
24.5 ppg (27.4)
|
Michigan State
|
19.4 ppg
|
+11.4
|
+10.8
|
22.2 ppg (25.1)
|
Kansas
|
15.8 ppg
|
+14.5
|
+5.0
|
19.9 ppg (24.9)
|
Arizona
|
13.8 ppg
|
+11.7
|
+8.0
|
19.7 ppg (21.4)
|
Iowa State
|
14.0 ppg
|
+12.8
|
+4.3
|
19.1 ppg (22.1)
|
Florida
|
28.5 ppg
|
+12.3
|
+6.5
|
18.8 ppg (26.4)
|
Maryland
|
16.2 ppg
|
+17.2
|
+1.5
|
18.7 ppg (22.0)
|
Wake Forest
|
13.7 ppg
|
+8.3
|
+9.6
|
17.9 ppg (25.2)
|
North Carolina
|
11.4 ppg
|
+9.8
|
+6.7
|
16.5 ppg (13.2)
|
Tennessee
|
9.8 ppg
|
+14.0
|
+1.7
|
15.7 ppg (23.6)
|
Illinois
|
11.9 ppg
|
+8.3
|
+7.3
|
15.6 ppg (16.7)
|
Georgetown
|
15.8 ppg
|
+10.2
|
+4.5
|
14.7 ppg (15.0)
|
USC
|
9.0 ppg
|
+11.5
|
+2.4
|
13.9 ppg (14.8)
|
Mississippi
|
8.9 ppg
|
+2.7
|
+9.8
|
12.5 ppg (16.4)
|
Syracuse
|
9.8 ppg
|
+5.4
|
+6.9
|
12.3 ppg (24.7)
|
Iowa
|
7.0 ppg
|
+6.5
|
+3.9
|
10.4 ppg (14.2)
|
Wisconsin
|
4.3 ppg
|
-7.7
|
+17.8
|
10.1 ppg (10.7)
|
Seton Hall
|
3.5 ppg
|
+9.7
|
-2.2
|
7.5 ppg (9.9)
|
Connecticut
|
6.2 ppg
|
+4.2
|
+2.7
|
6.9 ppg (8.1)
|
So, what have we learned from all these numbers? Well, re-visiting "The January 20" in these new categories suggests the
following (in no particular order):
Stanford and Michigan State remain the most balanced teams in the land.
North Carolina has done its best work against the toughest competition.
Duke is still terrific.
UConn is not (and never was).
We need to recheck the data for Syracuse (from January).
Arizona has returned and Iowa State has risen to the list of legitimate Final Four contenders.
Florida, Maryland, Wake Forest and Tennessee are not on that list.
We should have included Boston College and Virginia last month.
Joe Lunardi is a regular in-season contributor for ESPN.com. Write to Joe at jlunardi@home.com.
|
|
ALSO SEE
Bracketology Banter
Box Score Banter archive
|
|