Just something to ponder....

[bonefish1]

I haven't looked at the stats, but just as an unscientific observation, I think our 3pt % offense has dropped quite a bit over the last 5 games?
However, it also seems like our overall D has improved at the same time?
Correlation?
Usually our 3 pt shooting drops in the 2nd half but vs PSU, it improved in the 2nd half.
Again, anything there or just random chance?

 

[Boiler Buck]

Well since they were asleep in the first half against PSU.......they got plenty of rest and were ready to go in half 2....shooting like their normal half 1.

 

[boilernuke]

I haven't looked at the stats, but just as an unscientific observation, I think our 3pt % offense has dropped quite a bit over the last 5 games?
However, it also seems like our overall D has improved at the same time?
Correlation?
Usually our 3 pt shooting drops in the 2nd half but vs PSU, it improved in the 2nd half.
Again, anything there or just random chance?

Just checked pomeroy's ratings. I was surprised to find out Purdue's adjusted O is ranked 18 and adj D is ranked 12.

 

[TC4THREE]

There was a guy on the premium board that used to point out how success in the NCAA tournament was nearly always closely tied to offensive efficiency. I think it was Tony79. Wish I remembered exactly what it was but it was hard to argue against. If you're not one of the top offensive teams in the country, you're not winning it all.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

There was a guy on the premium board that used to point out how success in the NCAA tournament was nearly always closely tied to offensive efficiency. I think it was Tony79. Wish I remembered exactly what it was but it was hard to argue against. If you're not one of the top offensive teams in the country, you're not winning it all.

Didn't Tony post on this board a while back, from time to time? Or, maybe it was the football board. I remember the handle.

 

[bonefish1]

Unlike in baseball, I've always believe that in hoops, good O will beat good D. That's how upsets occur in the tourney. A mid-major usually is not going to have the athletes to shut down a top team on D, but a mid-major can get hot offensively and hit shots/make crucial plays on offense when needed to pull an upset (see the last 2 years for PU as a prime example).
I'm not of the belief that 'Defense wins Championships' and actually think that Purdue's reputation for D has hurt in recruiting. HOWEVER, a lot of that may have changed this year.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Other than outliers like the Uconn team that won with Walker, most National champs have been top 4 in offensive efficiency. D can be sloppier/lower ranked....if they pick up their D in the tourney.

 

[TC4THREE]

Didn't Tony post on this board a while back, from time to time? Or, maybe it was the football board. I remember the handle.

I think I've seen him out on this board before too but not regularly.

 

[Tony79]

There was a guy on the premium board that used to point out how success in the NCAA tournament was nearly always closely tied to offensive efficiency. I think it was Tony79. Wish I remembered exactly what it was but it was hard to argue against. If you're not one of the top offensive teams in the country, you're not winning it all.

That was me. I think only twice since the stats have been kept has the NCAA champ not been in the top 15-20 in adjusted O efficiency. I think both times it was Uconn. Maybe Louisville once. We've been really bad at this generally with a couple of exceptions. By bad I mean not even in the top 100.I loved Gene but he flat out did not get this. It appears MP has finally figured this out. I think this is THE MAIN reason we are 0fer since 1980 with FF's. I would also argue the "point guard as facilitator/I don't want my point guard to score" has been in general a disaster for us during that time.

Bottom line is you have to be really good on O and pretty good on D to win the whole thing. I believe the metrics back that up.

 

[Dakota Girl]

I haven't looked at the stats, but just as an unscientific observation, I think our 3pt % offense has dropped quite a bit over the last 5 games?
However, it also seems like our overall D has improved at the same time?
Correlation?
Usually our 3 pt shooting drops in the 2nd half but vs PSU, it improved in the 2nd half.
Again, anything there or just random chance?

I think we just played like crap in the first half so there was naturally an uptick in the second half in this game. This group rarely plays an entire game poorly.

 

[proudopete]

Actually, we are top 5 in the nation in 3 point efficiency I believe.

 

[BoiledSteel]

Actually, we are top 5 in the nation in 3 point efficiency I believe.

Yes. Exactly 5th.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/152

 

[bonefish1]

That was me. I think only twice since the stats have been kept has the NCAA champ not been in the top 15-20 in adjusted O efficiency. I think both times it was Uconn. Maybe Louisville once. We've been really bad at this generally with a couple of exceptions. By bad I mean not even in the top 100.I loved Gene but he flat out did not get this. It appears MP has finally figured this out. I think this is THE MAIN reason we are 0fer since 1980 with FF's. I would also argue the "point guard as facilitator/I don't want my point guard to score" has been in general a disaster for us during that time.

Bottom line is you have to be really good on O and pretty good on D to win the whole thing. I believe the metrics back that up.

I've been saying for years that Purdue's lack of NBA caliber or scoring PGs has been their downfall in the tourney. PG is often the most important position on the floor and too often, the PU PG has been very one dimensional and not a threat on the offensive end.

 

[threeeputtt]

I love the debate on offense and defense. They are BOTH important. When your offense sucks ya gotta play D. On the other hand, if you score every time you have the ball you are hard to beat.

 

[FirstDownB]

Semi stat geek here.. I would love to see the efficiency numbers against Top 50 or Top 100 teams only. I realize the efficiency numbers are adjusted but suspect there is some error in that adjustment. The gap in performance against top teams vs. bottom teams is not the same for every team. Some teams play to the level of competition while others feast on weaklings and skew their numbers. Neither case has much bearing on winning the NCAAT because you are playing mostly Top 50 teams.

 

[Boiler Buck]

That was me. I think only twice since the stats have been kept has the NCAA champ not been in the top 15-20 in adjusted O efficiency. I think both times it was Uconn. Maybe Louisville once. We've been really bad at this generally with a couple of exceptions. By bad I mean not even in the top 100.I loved Gene but he flat out did not get this. It appears MP has finally figured this out. I think this is THE MAIN reason we are 0fer since 1980 with FF's. I would also argue the "point guard as facilitator/I don't want my point guard to score" has been in general a disaster for us during that time.

Bottom line is you have to be really good on O and pretty good on D to win the whole thing. I believe the metrics back that up.

ChampsTeam/YR Offensive Efficiency Rank
Villanova 15-16 7
Duke 14-15 3
UConn 13-14 39
Louisville 12-13 4
Kentucky 11-12 2
UConn 10-11 18
Duke 09-10 1
UNC 08-09 1
Kansas 07-08 2
Florida 06-07 1
Florida 05-06 3

 

[nagemj02]

"I would also argue the "point guard as facilitator/I don't want my point guard to score" has been in general a disaster for us during that time."

Exactly

It's not the formula for going deep in the NCAA Tournament, although Glenn Robinson and company almost single-handedly allowed Purdue to get away with it in '94 (Porter Roberts and Todd Foster as the primary 1's: Matt Waddell could fill in that spot as well; team didn't have much in the way of quality 5's, either).

Carson Cunningham was more of a scoring PG in '00, but I also know wasn't the speedster or athlete that a guard like Carsen Edwards is right now. I remember he got outplayed by Mickey Hosier in a 20 point loss at Ball State that season. I can't even remember who Cunningham's backup was in '99-'00: Maynard Lewis?

Anyway, I'm totally on board with this statement.

 

[proudopete]

"I would also argue the "point guard as facilitator/I don't want my point guard to score" has been in general a disaster for us during that time."

Exactly

It's not the formula for going deep in the NCAA Tournament, although Glenn Robinson and company almost single-handedly allowed Purdue to get away with it in '94 (Porter Roberts and Todd Foster as the primary 1's: Matt Waddell could fill in that spot as well; team didn't have much in the way of quality 5's, either).

Carson Cunningham was more of a scoring PG in '00, but I also know wasn't the speedster or athlete that a guard like Carsen Edwards is right now. I remember he got outplayed by Mickey Hosier in a 20 point loss at Ball State that season. I can't even remember who Cunningham's backup was in '99-'00: Maynard Lewis?

Anyway, I'm totally on board with this statement.

Kerkoff

 

[Tony79]

That was me. I think only twice since the stats have been kept has the NCAA champ not been in the top 15-20 in adjusted O efficiency. I think both times it was Uconn. Maybe Louisville once. We've been really bad at this generally with a couple of exceptions. By bad I mean not even in the top 100.I loved Gene but he flat out did not get this. It appears MP has finally figured this out. I think this is THE MAIN reason we are 0fer since 1980 with FF's. I would also argue the "point guard as facilitator/I don't want my point guard to score" has been in general a disaster for us during that time.

Bottom line is you have to be really good on O and pretty good on D to win the whole thing. I believe the metrics back that up.

ChampsTeam/YR Offensive Efficiency Rank
Villanova 15-16 7
Duke 14-15 3
UConn 13-14 39
Louisville 12-13 4
Kentucky 11-12 2
UConn 10-11 18
Duke 09-10 1
UNC 08-09 1
Kansas 07-08 2
Florida 06-07 1
Florida 05-06 3

This is exactly what I was saying. I was stunned with how many on KHC pushed back on this. The metrics don't lie!!!

 

[Tony79]

That was me. I think only twice since the stats have been kept has the NCAA champ not been in the top 15-20 in adjusted O efficiency. I think both times it was Uconn. Maybe Louisville once. We've been really bad at this generally with a couple of exceptions. By bad I mean not even in the top 100.I loved Gene but he flat out did not get this. It appears MP has finally figured this out. I think this is THE MAIN reason we are 0fer since 1980 with FF's. I would also argue the "point guard as facilitator/I don't want my point guard to score" has been in general a disaster for us during that time.

Bottom line is you have to be really good on O and pretty good on D to win the whole thing. I believe the metrics back that up.

I've been saying for years that Purdue's lack of NBA caliber or scoring PGs has been their downfall in the tourney. PG is often the most important position on the floor and too often, the PU PG has been very one dimensional and not a threat on the offensive end.

Gene never figured it out unfortunately.

 

[TC4THREE]

That was me. I think only twice since the stats have been kept has the NCAA champ not been in the top 15-20 in adjusted O efficiency. I think both times it was Uconn. Maybe Louisville once. We've been really bad at this generally with a couple of exceptions. By bad I mean not even in the top 100.I loved Gene but he flat out did not get this. It appears MP has finally figured this out. I think this is THE MAIN reason we are 0fer since 1980 with FF's. I would also argue the "point guard as facilitator/I don't want my point guard to score" has been in general a disaster for us during that time.

Bottom line is you have to be really good on O and pretty good on D to win the whole thing. I believe the metrics back that up.

Thanks. FWIW this was one of the most insightful things I think I ever read from anyone on these boards when you originally showed the stats. Has stuck with me for years.

 

[Tony79]

Very kind of you to say. I know we have argued in the past but we both want PU to excel.

 

[Pharmer98]

I am not disagreeing with stats, but I think this is incomplete without the associated defensive efficiency for each team. If Off E is nearly always in the top 15-20 but Def E can consistently fall out of the top 50 let's say, then i think you could make a reasonable argument that a "good" offense is relatively more important than "good" defense. On the other hand, if most of the teams that you are referring to also have a Def E in the 15-20, then I think you are really only proving that you need a good overall team to win a championship. That isn't particularly profound.

 

[boilernuke]

ChampsTeam/YR Offensive Efficiency Rank
Villanova 15-16 7
Duke 14-15 3
UConn 13-14 39
Louisville 12-13 4
Kentucky 11-12 2
UConn 10-11 18
Duke 09-10 1
UNC 08-09 1
Kansas 07-08 2
Florida 06-07 1
Florida 05-06 3

Would be interesting to see the D efficiency rank with each one too.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Would be interesting to see the D efficiency rank with each one too.

Defensive rank:
Vill 15-16 14
Duke 14-15 12
UConn 13-14 10
Louisville 12-13 3
Kentucky 11-12 8
UConn 10-11 13
Duke 09-10 8
UNC 08-09 21
Kansas 07-08 1
Florida 06-07 17
Florida 05-06 6

 

[Boilerup60]

Defensive rank:
Vill 15-16 14
Duke 14-15 12
UConn 13-14 10
Louisville 12-13 3
Kentucky 11-12 8
UConn 10-11 13
Duke 09-10 8
UNC 08-09 21
Kansas 07-08 1
Florida 06-07 17
Florida 05-06 6

So what this says is..... It takes 2 to tango?

 

[Pharmer98]

Here are both datasets combined:

Team Year Off E Def E
Villanova 15-16 7 14
Duke 14-15 3 12
UConn 13-14 39 10
Louisville 12-13 4 3
Kentucky 11-12 2 8
UConn 10-11 18 13
Duke 09-10 1 8
UNC 08-09 1 21
Kansas 07-08 2 1
Florida 06-07 1 17
Florida 05-06 3 6

I think it's pretty clear that all of these teams were good both offensively and defensively. It does look like you could make a case that offense was relatively more important than defense for the majority of the group. Not sure exactly how it relates to the Boilers past and present but current Boilers ratings referenced above of "O is ranked 18 and adj D is ranked 12" don't seem to bode well for a title. Only the 2 UConn teams had a combination of ratings in that vicinity.

 

[Tony79]

Here are both datasets combined:

Team Year Off E Def E
Villanova 15-16 7 14
Duke 14-15 3 12
UConn 13-14 39 10
Louisville 12-13 4 3
Kentucky 11-12 2 8
UConn 10-11 18 13
Duke 09-10 1 8
UNC 08-09 1 21
Kansas 07-08 2 1
Florida 06-07 1 17
Florida 05-06 3 6

I think it's pretty clear that all of these teams were good both offensively and defensively. It does look like you could make a case that offense was relatively more important than defense for the majority of the group. Not sure exactly how it relates to the Boilers past and present but current Boilers ratings referenced above of "O is ranked 18 and adj D is ranked 12" don't seem to bode well for a title. Only the 2 UConn teams had a combination of ratings in that vicinity.

Excellent points. My overarching point was we'll never win if 0 is > than 50 which it has been much of the time. It's actually been > 100 some!

 

[proudopete]

Here are both datasets combined:

Team Year Off E Def E
Villanova 15-16 7 14
Duke 14-15 3 12
UConn 13-14 39 10
Louisville 12-13 4 3
Kentucky 11-12 2 8
UConn 10-11 18 13
Duke 09-10 1 8
UNC 08-09 1 21
Kansas 07-08 2 1
Florida 06-07 1 17
Florida 05-06 3 6

I think it's pretty clear that all of these teams were good both offensively and defensively. It does look like you could make a case that offense was relatively more important than defense for the majority of the group. Not sure exactly how it relates to the Boilers past and present but current Boilers ratings referenced above of "O is ranked 18 and adj D is ranked 12" don't seem to bode well for a title. Only the 2 UConn teams had a combination of ratings in that vicinity.

I have to ask, are these the final ratings after winning several games against tough opponents or are these percentages takens pre-tourney? I would assume just the act of winning all six games in the tourney would elevate these numbers considerably.

 

[reswat]

Good topic.
On a related note, I've always been baffled by the description of a "pass-first" point guard. I know what they mean, but you don't get any points for passing. If your point guard isn't a threat to score, I'm just sagging off and clogging up the lane.

To be a really good point guard, you must be a threat to score. I liked Johnny Hill a lot, but because he was no threat to score, teams just backed off of him and clogged the lane. I love the fact that PJ is shooting 40% from 3-point range. No clogging the lane by PJ's man.

 

[JohnHoosierr]

What are the top offenses this year? Sounds like which ever are in the top ten with a good d are the only ones with a chance to win it all.

 

[NVBoilerFan]

If we just played zone, our D efficiency numbers would jump well into the top ten.

 

[Dryfly88]

What are the top offenses this year? Sounds like which ever are in the top ten with a good d are the only ones with a chance to win it all.

Here is current KenPom numbers.
http://kenpom.com/

Of the top ten offenses, looks like Gonzaga, Villanova and Kentucky have the best defenses. Some of the offenses have terrible defenses (OK ST, UCLA and Marquette). PU at #18 and #12 really stacks up pretty well this year. WVU also has a strong combination.

 

[*4purdue*]

I love the debate on offense and defense. They are BOTH important. When your offense sucks ya gotta play D. On the other hand, if you score every time you have the ball you are hard to beat.

Well... That defense thingy hasn't worked out for us yet. Hopefully having an offense this year will be the difference.

 

[Boiler Wolf]

My take on the play hard and play defense 1st with Keady is that he had them doing that all season and won games against more talented teams. But, once the tourney started, those other teams started playing harder too. They had the ability to ratchet up a notch or 2. Purdue was at its highest level already and couldn't do that.

 

[delish1]

Here are both datasets combined:

Team Year Off E Def E
Villanova 15-16 7 14
Duke 14-15 3 12
UConn 13-14 39 10
Louisville 12-13 4 3
Kentucky 11-12 2 8
UConn 10-11 18 13
Duke 09-10 1 8
UNC 08-09 1 21
Kansas 07-08 2 1
Florida 06-07 1 17
Florida 05-06 3 6

I think it's pretty clear that all of these teams were good both offensively and defensively. It does look like you could make a case that offense was relatively more important than defense for the majority of the group. Not sure exactly how it relates to the Boilers past and present but current Boilers ratings referenced above of "O is ranked 18 and adj D is ranked 12" don't seem to bode well for a title. Only the 2 UConn teams had a combination of ratings in that vicinity.

Looks like purdue needs Carsen edwards to turn into kemba to win it all.

 

[tjreese]

That was me. I think only twice since the stats have been kept has the NCAA champ not been in the top 15-20 in adjusted O efficiency. I think both times it was Uconn. Maybe Louisville once. We've been really bad at this generally with a couple of exceptions. By bad I mean not even in the top 100.I loved Gene but he flat out did not get this. It appears MP has finally figured this out. I think this is THE MAIN reason we are 0fer since 1980 with FF's. I would also argue the "point guard as facilitator/I don't want my point guard to score" has been in general a disaster for us during that time.

Bottom line is you have to be really good on O and pretty good on D to win the whole thing. I believe the metrics back that up.

That is the bottom line and in fairness the game is more offensive than years ago. That said, do you have any idea of the tourney champs realtive to their place in D...depending on what criteria they use? I guess, I think you better be solid in all aspects and sometimes the O is off and the D is needed to get through that game and sometimes a few breaks on O are needed to help the D. The reason coaches stress D and boards are because they are much more controllable than offense and offense may not require the same effort as D...with tourney successful teams having better personnel. Balance is key

 

[Dakota Girl]

Do O and D efficiency ratings take quality of opponents into account?

 

[boilerzz]

Do O and D efficiency ratings take quality of opponents into account?

Yes. It is adjusted for SOS.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Yes. It is adjusted for SOS.

Thanks Boilerz. I'm not a big believer in stats analysis without seeing the game in which it is collected so I don't pay much attention to these and wasn't sure how it worked.