Offensive Efficiency and Title Contenders. | Syracusefan.com

Offensive Efficiency and Title Contenders.

jncuse

I brought the Cocaine to the White House
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
19,173
Like
32,743
I made this post in an Arizona thread. Arizona does not have a great offence. They are 35th in offensive efficiency. They are #1 in defensive ranking, and this overall gives them the #1 team. The defence is that good. But this split of 35/1 does not the profile of a title team.

I have seen the theory that you must have a top 10 offensive efficiency to win the title - the theory goes that come tourney time, many top teams ramp up their defensive effort, driving an increase in defensive efficiency. On the offensive end, not the same effort increase exists.. Hence good teams that rely on defence to get it done during the regular season, lose some of their advantage. A team with an offensive efficiency of #35, would not be a top contender for the title.

This is not to say all teams with top 10 offences are contenders, because some have such poor defence that they are not a top 10 overall. But amongst the top 10 teams, the teams that lean more towards offensive efficiency have an advantage, over the top teams that lean towards defensive efficiency.

Here are the splits of the past national champions from KP

Year (Offence/Defence)
2013 : Louisville (4/3)
2o12 : Kentucky (2/8)
2011 : UConn (18/13)
2010 : Duke (1/8)
2009: UNC (1/21)
2008: Kansas (2/1)
2007: Florida (1/17)
2006: Florida (3/6)
2005: UNC (2/12)
2004: UConn (9/5)

One outlier of course, that lucky 2011 UConn team. But the results definitely support the theory.

FYI, in terms of top 10 KP teams, the teams that have a top 10 offence so far:
Duke #1
Creighton #2
Syracuse #4 (#16 defensce)
Iowa #7
Villanova #8

The top 10 KP teams that lean towards defence
Arizona #35
Florida #34
Wichita St #27
Virginia #87

I am going to do a little further research on KP teams going back to 2003
 
I used KP going back to 2003, and looked at top 10 teams with a variance of 15 between offensive and defensive rankings. I looked to see if they played over or under their seed. I want to see if this effect goes beyond the national title.

EDIT - I just took a quick view instead of going into detail. Since 2003, 9 offence leaning teams (defined as offence being 15 spots higher than defence) in the KP top 10 made the final four. 8 defence leaning teams made the final four. But only 2 of those teams won the national title.

One of those defence leaning teams was the 2013 Syracuse Orangeman.

So nothing to conclusive beyond the champion. But that is what we are aiming for this year - not the final four, but the whole damn thing.
 
Last edited:
jn, just curious, are you from Great Britain/Australia? If not, what's with the offence and defence ?
 
I'm from Canada - we you use the same spelling form as the English/Brits

Labour instead of Labor
Defence instead of Defense.
Centre instead of Center

All that crap.
 
Still 10 or 11 games left for most teams. So sample is only 67% complete.
 
Still 10 or 11 games left for most teams. So sample is only 67% complete.

Yes, something to re-consider as we enter tourney time.

Although, I expect teams that are defence leaning right now, or offence leaning right now will generally stay that way.
 
I'm from Canada - we you use the same spelling form as the English/Brits

Labour instead of Labor
Defence instead of Defense.
Centre instead of Center

All that crap.
ah yes, forgot that you crazy canucks do it that way too :D
 
One outlier of course, that lucky 2011 UConn team. But the results definitely support the theory.
actually, both UConn champs - the only two in the sample who were not Top 4 OE (although, to be fair, I don't think 2003 SU was top 10, either)
 
actually, both UConn champs - the only two in the sample who were not Top 4 OE (although, to be fair, I don't think 2003 SU was top 10, either)

You are correct the 2003 Syracuse team had splits of 14/13.

We could consider Syracuse/UConn as more balanced team, not necessarily defensive leaning team.
 
I did find this interesting stat about teams that fit the profile of the current Arizona team. It certainly supports the theory of needing to be a good offence to succeed in the tourney.

Since the 2003 tourney, 9 teams with sub 20 offensive efficiency have been #1 seeds. Not one of the 9 teams made the final 4.
 
You are correct the 2003 Syracuse team had splits of 14/13.

We could consider Syracuse/UConn as more balanced team, not necessarily defensive leaning team.
or maybe what SU 2003 and UConn 2011 teach us is how a singular player can elevate a team beyond its projected finish
 
I also looked at teams with a top 5 offensive efficiency that were a #1 seed. 12 out of 23 (or 52%) ended up in the final 4.

So, 0-9 (0%) for sub 20 offences.
And, 12-23 (52%) for top 5 offences.

That's a big difference. Certainly bodes well for a team like Syracuse (#4) vs Arizona (#35)
 
Good post, interesting stuff.
It should be pointed out that all championship teams are going to look better in kenpom after the tournament is over. Most of those rankings would look worse if you took a snapshot of what they were on selection Sunday.
Also Duke & Missouri were overwhelmingly offensively oriented 2yrs ago & got bounced by 15seeds. Granted that's a tiny sample size.
 
Good post, interesting stuff.
It should be pointed out that all championship teams are going to look better in kenpom after the tournament is over. Most of those rankings would look worse if you took a snapshot of what they were on selection Sunday.
Also Duke & Missouri were overwhelmingly offensively oriented 2yrs ago & got bounced by 15seeds. Granted that's a tiny sample size.

Agreed - that is a bit of a limitation. Although I suspect all those teams that were top 4, were probably within top 8 before tourney.

I don't think it would push many or teams out of the top 20 - I suspect of those 9 teams that did not make the final four, most were in that range before the tourney.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,901
Messages
4,735,977
Members
5,932
Latest member
CuseEagle8

Online statistics

Members online
201
Guests online
1,446
Total visitors
1,647


Top Bottom