Friday Facts: Tourney edition

Here's the efficiency data for every team in the tournament. So far, the Badgers are outscoring their opponents at a clip of .35 points per possession, best in the tournament. They also lead in my "adjusted" efficiency margins, which accounts for the quality of opponents. Of course, this is a small sample of just three games, so the 40-point destruction of American takes on an out-sized influence no matter what. Still, no team has been more impressive than the Badgers so far.

Another notable fact is that Michigan and Tennessee are tied for second in efficiency margin. They play each other tonight, so something has to give.

Team	AdjEM	O.E.	D.E.	Raw EM
Wisconsin	0.15	123.8	88.6	0.35
Michigan	0.07	120.4	92.9	0.27
Tennessee	0.12	128.6	101.6	0.27
Virginia	0.05	118.4	95.2	0.23
Florida	0.10	110.7	89.8	0.21
Wichita St.	0.06	114.8	94.3	0.20
Arizona	0.09	118.1	97.9	0.20
Syracuse	0.05	106.6	88.5	0.18
Louisville	0.05	99.3	83.3	0.16
Michigan St.	0.05	121.8	106.3	0.15
Baylor	0.10	111.1	96.8	0.14
Iowa St.	0.06	126.2	112.1	0.14
Connecticut	0.06	116.1	102.1	0.14
UCLA	0.08	111.1	99.5	0.12
Pittsburgh	0.05	105.2	94.0	0.11
San Diego St.	0.08	108.7	99.5	0.09
North Carolina St.	0.04	108.5	100.0	0.08
Oregon	0.05	119.7	111.7	0.08
Kentucky	0.05	108.9	101.6	0.07
Dayton	0.07	101.0	94.4	0.07
Kansas	0.03	104.6	98.5	0.06
Villanova	0.03	98.6	92.9	0.06
North Carolina	0.03	113.3	113.3	0.00
Stanford	0.05	95.0	96.0	-0.01
Ohio St.	0.01	89.4	90.9	-0.02
Harvard	0.03	103.9	106.2	-0.02
VCU	0.01	107.1	110.0	-0.03
Arizona St.	0.01	121.4	124.3	-0.03
Providence	0.01	118.5	121.5	-0.03
Albany	0.02	100.0	104.0	-0.04
New Mexico St.	0.01	94.5	100.0	-0.05
Cincinnati	0.01	95.0	101.7	-0.07
Oklahoma	0.00	104.2	111.1	-0.07
New Mexico	0.01	85.5	93.5	-0.08
Saint Louis	0.02	90.5	98.6	-0.08
George Washington	0.00	110.0	118.3	-0.08
Texas	0.01	119.7	129.1	-0.09
Gonzaga	0.02	98.0	108.1	-0.10
Oklahoma St.	0.01	98.7	109.0	-0.10
Manhattan	0.02	94.1	104.4	-0.10
Memphis	0.02	104.0	114.3	-0.10
Mercer	0.02	117.5	128.3	-0.11
Mount St. Mary's	-0.01	100.0	110.9	-0.11
Duke	0.00	110.9	121.9	-0.11
North Dakota St.	0.01	98.4	109.5	-0.11
Saint Joseph's	0.01	112.5	123.6	-0.11
Stephen F. Austin	0.01	103.8	115.2	-0.11
Kansas St.	0.01	80.3	91.8	-0.11
Cal Poly	-0.01	96.7	109.0	-0.12
Weber St.	0.01	98.3	113.3	-0.15
Louisiana Lafayette	0.00	101.5	116.9	-0.15
Creighton	-0.01	104.8	120.8	-0.16
Eastern Kentucky	0.00	107.8	125.0	-0.17
Coastal Carolina	0.01	100.0	118.6	-0.19
Texas Southern	-0.02	111.3	130.6	-0.19
Iowa	0.00	100.0	120.0	-0.20
Delaware	0.00	106.8	127.4	-0.21
Nebraska	0.00	88.2	108.8	-0.21
Xavier	-0.01	92.2	115.6	-0.23
Tulsa	-0.01	88.1	113.4	-0.25
BYU	-0.01	94.4	120.8	-0.26
Massachusetts	0.00	94.4	121.1	-0.27
North Carolina Central	-0.01	119.0	147.6	-0.29
Milwaukee	-0.01	76.8	105.8	-0.29
Wofford	-0.01	71.4	101.8	-0.30
Western Michigan	-0.02	82.8	120.3	-0.38
Colorado	-0.03	78.7	126.2	-0.48
American	-0.05	60.3	129.3	-0.69

NCAA tournament coaches ranked by ability to squat

Since I'm seeing a lot of "rankings" of the NCAA tourney coaches, I thought I'd do my own ranking. My chosen subject is "ability to squat for long periods of time." Here it is:

1 - Bo Ryan
2-68 - Everyone else (tie)

I've also produced a ranking that adjusts this quality for age, on the theory that old men really shouldn't be able to squat for long periods of time. Here are the results:

1 - Bo Ryan
2-68 - Everyone else, ever (tie)

Defensive system changes are coming

I read a bunch of quotes from UW defensive coordinator Dave Aranda in this WSJ article today entitled Badgers football: Goal of defense is to be smaller, faster

http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/badgers-football-goal-of-defense-is-to-be-smaller-faster/article_7f4d9286-eba5-5701-af29-47d794dff667.html

I have shared my concerns about the changes in the UW coaching staff and their plans for the team, and this article did little to alleviate those concerns. According to the article Anderson and Aranda played to the teams talent last year (big and strong guys), but plan to play smaller and faster this year. I had hoped after having success on offense and defense last season the coaches would refrain from the drastic changes they hinted at when they took over at UW. This does not appear to be the case, at least on defense.

My concern is not that a scheme with small fast guys can't beat a team with bigger and stronger guys. There are many ways to play good defense. With the emergence of spread offenses the need for more mobile players has become wide spread. The days of the badgers playing 250lbs inside linebackers who can barely run hash to hash, let alone sideline to sideline is long gone. Every year Alvarez and Beilema teams seemed to get faster at linebacker, but stayed big in the defensive line.

There is a good reason UW has had a system that plays 4 big linemen, rarely blitzes, and plays a lot of bend don't break zone over the last 2 coaching regimes. That reason is recruiting. While UW has improved it's recruiting vastly, home state recruiting in WI is still the base. Of the players on the spring roster, 45 of the 86 are from WI. In order to play man to man and blitz you need fast corners who can cover. WI doesn't produce many of those guys. Of the 17 DBs on the spring roster only 6 are from WI. WI is good at producing big strong physical linemen on both sides of the ball, not so great at producing athletes.

This change only works if UW can recruit enough athletes to run the system. If it fails we will have to watch several years of teams doing to UW what UW has done to others for years, stuffing the ball up the middle and knowing it can't be stopped. Winning football starts with running the ball and stopping the run.

While I am not a fan of the Anderson system, I am a fan of Anderson, so I hope this change works out. I just have an eerie feeling I will be able to gloat about being right 4 years from now, but won't enjoy it because I've had to watch UW get run over yet again.

Evaluating predictions

Here are my predictions from November for the Big Ten:

MSU 14-4

UW 14-4

OSU 13-5

MI 12-6

Ind 10-8

Iowa 10-8

IL- 8-10

Pur- 8-10

Minn- 7-11

PSU- 5-13

NW- 4-14

Neb- 3-15

Actual results:

MI 15-3

UW 12-6

MSU 12-6

Nebraska 11-7

OSU 10-8

Iowa 9-9

Minn 8-10

Indiana 7-11

Illinois 7-11

PSU 6-12

Northwestern 6-12

Purdue 5-13

There are more than a few glaring mistakes this year, so let's start with where I didn't completely screw up.

MSU and UW tied for 2nd, not for 1st. This was what I wrote about how MSU doesn't win the title:

Last season MSU struggled a bit when early injuries limited Trice and Harris. While no one wants to see college kids get hurt, MSU is no more immune to injuries than any other team and it would only take one for this team to look more ordinary.

Not too far off.

Still both UW and MSU were 2 games off my prediction. I was also 2 games off on Northwestern. I was only 1 game off for Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and PSU.

I was 3 games off for MI, OSU, Indiana, and Purdue—not good.

MI- My concern with MI was over the loss of Burke as a playmaker and early in the season I didn't see point guard who could fill that role. Then Stauskus turned into Evan Turner and became the point forward who made plays for everyone and became player of the year. Didn't see that coming.

OSU- they sure look a lot like last years Badgers. Some great defensive parts, but they struggle to score and lost 2 overtime games.

Indiana- This was my preseason IU quote:

Does Indiana miss the Tourney? Probably not. That would take a pretty epic collapse. Not beyond Tom Crean, but not likely.

I don't know how Tom Crean can't win with all that talent. Vonleh was a top 10 talent coming in and didn't disappoint. Yogi played like an all Big Ten performer and still not even an NCAA birth. Sad. If Vonleh goes to the NBA as he should, this team may stay down.

Purdue- I was right that Purdue would be bad, but I didn't think they would be this bad. From the preseason:

Purdue has probably the easiest conference schedule of any team as they only face Indiana and MSU once at home, and IL and Iowa once on the road. The record may be about the same, but I think this team takes a step back and not forward this year.

Hammons was severely disappointing after a very disappointing start. He was erratic, foul and turnover prone. Painter never really figured out how to use the other 10 guys, so he just used them all. I don't think this team will be this bad next year, but Hammons looks like a head case so who knows.

I was a full 8 games off on Nebraska, but so was most every other person on earth.

Overall this was a bad year for my predictions. I didn't get a single one right, and I was clearly wrong in general about the competitiveness of the bottom of the league. I got 5-6 right for my top and bottom, but I think a monkey, or even Seth Davis could have done that.  

Big Ten tourney predictions

As we did last year, it is time to make picks for the Big Ten tourney. (Unfortunately, the results of last year's pool have been lost to history.) Here are mine:

OSU over Purdue
Iowa over Northwestern
PSU over Minnesota
Indiana over Illinois

Indiana over Michigan
Wisconsin over PSU
Iowa over Michigan St.
OSU over Nebraska

OSU over Indiana
Iowa over Wisconsin

Iowa over OSU

Obviously, I'm going with the full nutty.

Friday Facts

Posted.

I've also posted my B1G awards and all-conference teams. Here's the all-conference teams:

First Team: Stauskas, Harris, Petteway, Kaminsky, Marble

Second Team: White, Dekker, LeVert, Craft, Ferrell

Third Team: Brust, Gasser, Ross, Valentine, Shields

15-game stretches under Bo Ryan

In January last year—when the Badgers briefly appeared to be on the bubble (right before they won at No. 2 Indiana)—I took a look at the worst 15-game stretches in Badgers history. The point was that the Badgers would probably have to lose 10 of their next 15 games to miss the tournament, and there had been only one similar stretch under Bo Ryan (in 2006, after Landry and Stiemsma were suspended).

But the most amazing thing was this: looking at all the in-season 15-game stretches under Bo Ryan, the Badgers had won at least 10 games in all but six of them. The Badgers ended up having two 9-6 stretches at the end of last year, so it is now just eight 15-game stretches with fewer than 10 wins:

• 2001-02—went 8-7 to start the season, then went 1-1 for technically another 8-7 stretch. Eventually they finished 1st in the Big Ten conference for the first time in 54 years.

• 2005-06—the aforementioned 5-10 swoon. (Note: this was surrounded by some other sub-10 win stretches, obviously, that I didn't bother to count.)

• 2008-09—went 7-8 in the middle of the season, culminating with 6 game losing streak in the Big Ten. That team also lost 7 of its last 15. They still won an NCAA tournament game.

• 2011-12—they had a 9-6 stretch that started with the loss at home to Iowa and ended with the loss at Iowa. (Sweet 16.)

• 2012-13—two 9-6 stretches, including one to end the season after losses to Ohio State in the Big Ten championship game and to Mississippi in the tourney.

I thought of this history earlier this year when the Badgers had their mid-season slump and lost 5 of 6. After the loss to Ohio State, it looked all but certain that this year's Badgers would have another sub-10-win stretch, if not much worse.

But here we are. The Badgers have won seven in a row. If they win their last two regular season games, they'll be fifteen games from the beginning of the slump and find themselves at 10-5 over that span.

Friday Facts

And more!

B1G Race

After tonight's results:

Congrats to Nebraska for making it onto the summary.

Big Ten Tournament projections

This is going to be a wiiiiiiide open tournament.

Big Ten title race

Here's an up-to-the-second chart on the state of the Big Ten race, with each team's chance of getting to various win-totals and chance of getting a title:

Kaminsky

1st-team all-conference at this point?

Friday Facts 2.21

More here.

Backdoor Badgers?

With their 4-game winning streak, the Badger's have put themselves in position to make a miracle run for the Big Ten title.

More here.

I'm not always wrong

After the horrible prediction I made about the bottom of the Big Ten, I had to pump myself up by finding something I was right about. Then today came Bill Simmons list of the 30 worst NBA contracts which included 3 Bucks deals.
http://grantland.com/features/bill-simmons-breaks-down-the-2014-worst-nba-contracts/
The first post ever on this blog was my prediction that the Bucks had signed Ilyasova to a contract that was to long and for too much money.
http://adamcwisports.blogspot.com/2012/07/1st-postilyasova-just-isnt-that-good.html
Bill had the Ersan deal ranked as the 18th worst contract in the entire NBA.
Good job Adam. Now back to making mostly wrong predictions.

All Big Ten

All Big Ten team is interesting this season with the depth of talent and lack of clear cut stars at the top. The best players on the best teams usually dominate this list, but even that is tricky this year. It doesn't matter whether you break it down by position or team, there are a lot of good players.
By the top teams:

MSU has 3 contenders in Appling, Harris and Payne, but all 3 have missed time due to injury. Even Valentine is a contender for 3rd team or honorable mention.

MU has Stauskus. Lavert and Robinson are contenders, but don't make 1st team.

Iowa has Marble and White and if Iowa wins a share of the title it's hard to see a Hawkeye not making 1st team, but no Iowa player gets more than 29 minutes per game.

UW-I will do a post about this later, but UW is so balanced no one may even make 2nd team, but UW may have six 3rd-teamers.

OSU is similar, although maybe not quite as deep.

By position

Center- Payne has to be the favorite, despite the missed time. McGary was the rival at the season's start, but injury derailed his year. Hammonds was the dark horse to win this, but he is a head case. Kaminsky and Vonleh have a claim here, but Payne is probably the winner. Amir Williams is probably honorable mention, but largely because there just aren't that many centers anymore.

Forward- Center and forward merge together on a lot of teams, and so do 2 guard and 3, so this is just my grouping for a forward that could be 1st team. I think White gets the first team nod, but there will likely be a split between coaches and media. Really 4 forwards have a claim on 1st team-Dekker, White, Ross and Robinson. They all score well and rebound but none differentiate from the others by a large margin. I think White will make 1st team on one poll, but the other's probably get skunked too, as I think Petteway gets the nod on one as a G-F. Nebraska has had a remarkable season, and Petteway's numbers are very good-2nd in Big Ten at 17.4 PPG, 37% from 3, 45% from the floor taking 1/3 of his shots from 3, gets to the line 5.4 times per game and shoots 82.4%. If he ends up on 3rd team it will be because Nebraska is a 2nd division team, and he turns the ball over 3.0 times per game.

Wings/Guards- There will be 2 or 3 first teamers in this category if Petteway finds his way to first team. Gary Harris seems like the Big Ten player of the year, and Nick Stauskus is right behind him, but there are a ton of great players right behind them with a claim as well. In addition to Petteway there is Marble, Newbill, Rice, Crawford and Dre Hollins all in the top 10 in scoring. Brust and Lavert are probably only in the conversation for 3rd team despite being very good.

Point Guard- With Appling's injury this probably goes to Yogi. Aaron Craft has not had a good year scoring the ball, but it's hard to quantify all the other things he does. Tim Frazier is also on the list somewhere and with PSU playing well he could get a nod, but he more likely ends up 3rd team.

Here is Adam's late-season All-B1G favorites. We'll see how the last few weeks play out and if anyone makes a move up.

1st team: Payne, White, Stauskus, Harris, Yogi

2nd team: Dekker, Ross, Petteway, Marble, Appling

3rd team: Vonleh, Robinson, Crawford, Dre Hollins, Frazier

Honorable Mention: Lavert, Rice, Newbill, and every other significant Badger and Buckeye.

Wow was I wrong

I was planning to go into my failure more in depth in a season ending wrap up, but this just couldn't wait. Northwestern is leading Minn at home currently and I am pulling for a NU win. If Northwestern wins they will improve their record to 13-13.

I said at the beginning of the season that I did not believe the bottom of the big ten (Nebraska, Northwestern, PSU) was as good as some other's seemed to think. I may be an arrogant dick, but when it comes to basketball I am willing and sometimes able to admit when I was wrong (as long as I am not too drunk). The numbers don't lie, I was horribly wrong.

If Northwestern wins today every team in the Big Ten will be at .500 or better at least 24 games into the season. I haven't done the research on this, but I would guess that this might be the first time in the modern era (since early 1980s) that any conference has had every team over .500 this late into the season.

quick stats update

Time to update a few stats we were watching.

Nigel Hayes FT rate- Since I last checked when Nigel was at 91-FGA, and 85-FTA, he has gotten better FGA-117  FTA-121. My guess is he will finish the season #1 in the country for players with similar minutes/attempts.

Brust 3s- He has 63 3s made this season. Brust is chasing his single season UW record of 79, and needs 228 to beat Locum's career record. Brust has 199 and needs another 29 in what will be at least 8 more games and hopefully 12 or more. This will be close.

Dekker leading in points and rebounds- close. Dekker is still leading in scoring but not by much. 335 points for Dekker, 331 for Brust, 313 for Kaminsky. Dekker has now fallen behind Kaminsky for rebounds- 150 for Dekker, 151 for Kaminsky. This one will go down to the wire. Dekker is also 2 back in steals with 20, 22 for Brust and Hayes.

Hayes leading the team in steals is especially impressive in limited minutes and since he is a post defender. I meant to do a post about this a while back but haven't got around to it. I saw a podcast about the NBA draft that said there is a weird and largely unexplained correlation between college post players having high steals percentages and having NBA success. The best they could come up with was that post players with high steals rates are more aware, high basketball IQ guys and that's why they are more successful.

Jackson's assists- He has predictably fallen off since the preseason and has 98 assists for the year, 3.9 per game. He will fall well short of Tracy Webster's single season record of  179.

Friday Facts

Posted over at Bucky's 5th Quarter because Chorlton refuses to pay me.

Backup Packers QB

For the second day in a row I have read a WI sports writer blog about the strength of Scott Tolzien's arm as a reason to keep him in GB.

Demovsky: Matt Flynn's price is sure to be reasonable. That is probably not in question. What is uncertain is whether they viewed him as just someone who could keep a season alive or a possible long-term backup? Scott Tolzien probably has more upside because he’s got a better arm, but Flynn is comfortable in the Packers' offense and has proven time and again he can function well in it. It will be interesting to see what kind of strides Tolzien makes in coach Mike McCarthy’s quarterback school this offseason.

Jason Wilde: Thus, it would make sense for the Packers to bring back Flynn, who’s now proven in two separate stints that he can handle the job if Rodgers goes down, and continue to develop Tolzien, who has the smarts as well as the strong arm to someday be that reliable backup.

This from Wilde's blog at ESPNmilwaukee.com was what coach Clements said:

“We like Scott,” offensive coordinator Tom Clements replied when asked if he could see the team developing Tolzien long-term. “He is a hard worker, he’s always here, he’s intelligent, he works at it. So he certainly has that capability.”

I don't know what else Clements said that wasn't printed, but I'd be surprised if he was glowing about Tolzien's arm strength.

I don't know that I have ever heard anyone else talk about Tolzien and his strong arm. Granted, this was in the context of being a backup quarterback, and in comparison to Matt Flynn who does not have a strong arm. Still, anyone who watches Tolzien loop balls anytime he cannot take a big step into his throw knows a strong arm is not his selling point.

I like Tolzien. He is smart, he makes good decisions, and he can get into good plays. Given a chance I think he could be a decent backup in GB or elsewhere. I loved watching him at UW, but I remember a drastic difference when Russell Wilson took over and all of a sudden the Badgers could run an out pattern where the ball wasn't in the air forever. Comparing him to Wilson isn't fair either. 

I just found it odd that with all his good qualities, arm strength is the selling point both these writers chose to mention.

Friday Facts

Here are the facts, folks:

The big news this week is that Northwestern is out of the cellar, ahead of Illinois. It doesn't look good for Illinois going forward, either. The last two columns show each team's remaining strength of schedule (big red numbers are bad) and rank. Illinois has by far the toughest remaining schedule.

Nebraska and Ohio State have the easiest remaining schedules. Ohio State's easy schedule is bad news for Wisconsin's hopes of getting the 4-seed in the Big Ten tournament. At this point, I think there's a better chance of passing Iowa, considering that Ohio State will have the tiebreaker over Wisconsin. Wisconsin will have a chance to take matters into its own hands: if it can win at Iowa, that would be huge. (This is unlikely, but a guy can dream.)

Overall, the gap between number 1 and number 12 in adjusted efficiency this year is remarkably small. I've done these calculations now for 2012 and 2013, and the final spreads were much larger:

This is a reflection of how much more balanced the league is this year. This year's Illinois, in last place at 2-8, still has a much better adjusted EM than any of the bottom three teams last year—and they aren't far behind 8th place Purdue. This year's Illinois has also performed better so far than the bottom three teams from 2012.

So the bottom of the league is much better than it has been recently. But the top of the league also isn't as good. In last year's final Kenpom ratings, the Big Ten had four teams in the top nine: Indiana (3), Michigan (4), Ohio State (7), and Michigan State (9), and Wisconsin wasn't far behind at 13th. This year, the Big Ten's big five (same teams, except replace Indiana with Iowa) are all currently rated between 11th and 17th—solid, for sure, but no one spectacular.

No dominant teams plus no cupcakes equals craziness. That's Big Ten basketball this year.

Edit: It occurs to me that comparing the final numbers from 2012 & 2013 to this year's mid-season numbers might not be a good idea. Although these numbers are "per possession" they are also "per possession compared to average" so it's safe to assume they'll widen as the season goes on. I did a quick check on the 2013 numbers, and after 59 games that year the gap between 1 and 12 was .40 (the final gap was .58). Still, that's significantly larger than the .26 gap this year.

New Rules

Here is a chart showing the offensive efficiency during Big Ten play since 2003 (courtesy of Kenpom.com):

The average from 2003 to 2013 was 102.9; this year it is 102.8.

In other words, the new rules seem to have stopped working. Probably because they're no longer enforced. 

What's a mid major?

In earlier days there was a clear distinction between the big 6 and the rest of college basketball. There were years when a conference would be in a down cycle and it would be insultingly compared to an up-cycle A10 or Conference USA, but this never lasted. The big 6 just had too many advantages to stay down very long. Then the big 6 decided to get bigger and the Big East died, or at least only exists in a zombie-like form.

There are still 5 major conferences, but with all the shuffling, is there now a middle class of college basketball? While perusing the changes in at AP poll this week I noticed that 7 of the top 14 teams are from outside the big 5. The new American conference has 2 of those teams, and the zombie Big East has 2 more. There is also the always competitive A10, and recently competitive Mountain West. These conferences are more than just Gonzaga and the rest conferences, as they have multiple quality teams. They don't have the depth of talent that the Big 5 do, but they are not really mid Majors anymore either.

Much was made of the Mega conferences destroying the competitive balance as they sucked up every quality team in a major market, but so far the new middle class seems to be thriving in college basketball.

Overachievers & Underachievers

There've been some rather unlikely goings on in the Big Ten so far.

Both Ohio State and Wisconsin got through the non-conference season undefeated, but both have badly underachieved in the conference season so far.

Northwestern suffered home losses to Depaul and Illinois State, among many others, but is now 5-5 in the Big Ten after notching road wins at Indiana, at Wisconsin, and at Minnesota.

Here's a chart showing how each Big Ten team has performed compared to expectations (as calculated using their current Kenpom ratings):

Northwestern's performance, in particular, has been remarkable. Based on the Kenpom profile, they had only a 6 percent chance of winning 5 or more of their first 10 games. Will they regress to the mean? Probably, but who knows. 

By contrast, there was a 20% chance that OSU would have 4 or fewer wins, and a 15% chance that Wisconsin would. They already have regressed to the mean after their lucky non-con runs: OSU's overall expected record is 17-5 (which is their actual record) and Wisconsin's is 16-6 (compared to 17-5 actual). Both teams spent three-quarters of the season playing like 1-seeds and the last quarter playing like NIT teams.

Big Ten Home teams

Went 0-3 today. Big Ten teams are now just 29-23 at home.

Bucky free throws

The Badgers have been much better at getting to the line this season, and a big part of that has been the play of Nigel Hayes. He reminds me a lot of  Jared Sullinger when he was a freshman with the way he gets into defenders and gets his shot into their arms to force the officials call. Sullinger obviously was a bigger part of the offense as a freshman than Hayes, and he finished his freshman season with 267 FTA and 410 FGA.

According to this site Nigel is currently 48th in the nation, and 3rd in the Big Ten in free throw rate (free throw attempts/field goal attempts). The two Big Ten players ahead of him are lower usage players, Iowa's Anthony Clemmons and PSU's Geno Thorpe. Neither has more than 36FGA. Nigel is at 91 FGA, and 85 FTA. I couldn't find a way to compare Nigel to other players with similar usage, but perhaps when I have more time I'll investigate. I would guess he is near the top in the country for free throw rate for similar usage.

Friday Facts: Where's the home cookin'?

Time for another installment of Friday Facts, my weekly look at the Big Ten's per-possession stats, adjusted for opponent and venue. This week I break it down by home (HEM) and road (VEM), as well:

Not a whole lot different than last week. MSU, Iowa, and Michigan are clearly a cut above the rest of the league, and this shows in their records, their raw efficiency margins, and their adjusted efficiency margins. Wisconsin, OSU, and Minnesota are fighting for the coveted fourth seed. Everyone else is not so good, but good enough to pull some upsets (apparently). Northwestern is creeping up on Illinois, but is still dogged by those blowout home losses to Iowa and Wisconsin. 

I posted the other day about how Michigan State has been just an average Big Ten team at home, noting that they'd played the same teams at home as Nebraska had, except for Indiana, who came to visit Lincoln last night. Since MSU beat Indiana by five at home, I went ahead and predicted a five-point victory for Nebraska. BOOM!

Speaking of Nebraska, you might be surprised to see Nebraska actually dropped from -.04 to -.05 this week, despite beating both Minnesota and Indiana at home. The reason for this is that an average Big Ten team would have been expected to win those games by slightly larger margins. That said, Nebraska appears to be the team that the Friday Facts thought they were.

Anyhow, Michigan State is not alone in its home woes. Nearly every team—all but Minnesota—has performed better (compared to average) on the road. This shows up in a number of surprising home losses: Indiana and Wisconsin to Northwestern; Michigan State to Michigan; Ohio State to Iowa, etc. Simply put, home-court advantage hasn't been as big a deal this year in the Big Ten as it usually is. But maybe things will even out... 

Introducing the Torvik Big Ten Thrill Quotient

One of the side-benefits of my awesome spreadsheet that lets me produce adjusted efficiency margins for Big Ten teams is that it sort of automatically creates something akin to a "game quality score." The adjusted EM figure starts with a calculation of how each team in a particular game would do against an average Big Ten opponent in that venue. If there's a game with a good road team playing a good home team, it is sometimes the case that the average home team would be expected to lose, and the average road team would be expected to lose. So, the lower the expected EM of the average team is, the better the matchup.

For example, in the Iowa at Ohio State game, the average road team against Ohio State is expected to lose by .14 points per possession and the average home team is expected to lose to Iowa by about .02 points per possession. So you get a "game quality score" of 16. This score is basically just a straight function of the quality of the teams involved. So the highest quality score of the season so far was Iowa at Michigan, because those are the two best teams right now according to Kenpom. The lowest quality game so far was Purdue at Northwestern, at -22.

This number was more or less an organic creation of my adjusted EM spreadsheet, but it gave me an idea to create something similar to Kenpom's Thrill Score. So I did, and the result is Torvik's Thrill Quotient (which is a completely different thing, and not to be confused with, Kenpom's Thrill Score). The inputs to the Thrill Quotient are: (1) game quality score; (2) expected competitiveness (closer the better); and (3) pace (cuz people love the pace).

So, in case you were wondering, here are the most fan-tasitc games remaining in Big Ten play:

I would produce a chart of the least fan-tastic games remaining, but it's more efficient to just refer you to Northwestern's schedule. Northwestern is by far the worst team in the Big Ten (on a per-possession basis) and they play slower than anyone else in the conference. So there is nothing fan-tastic about watching their games, especially given that they have likely road blowout losses awaiting them at Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan State, and Minnesota. All those games have TQs in the 20s. 

What's up with Michigan State at home?

Michigan State is 18-2 overall, and 7-1 in conference, and they've put that record together despite significant injuries to pretty much every one of their important players. Pretty impressive.

But when you look at their performance so far, one thing jumps out: this team has not played well at home. Both their losses are at home: a disturbing blowout loss to North Carolina, and this weekend's loss to Michigan. By themselves, those losses probably wouldn't be cause for concern, given that MSU has won every other game. But they haven't exactly set the world on fire in their home wins, at least in conference play:

OSU, 72-68 (OT)
Minn, 87-75 (OT)
Ind., 71-66

Last week I debuted "Friday Facts" to show the "adjusted" efficiency margins in Big Ten play. At that point, Michigan State was number one in that metric. But even then, this was largely based on their impressive road performances (blowouts of lower-division teams Penn State, Indiana, Northwestern, and Illinois). One cool aspect of the adjusted EM is that I can break it down to home and road performances. Here are the splits, ordered by the home margin ("HEM"):

So Michigan State has just been treading water—an average Big Ten team—at home, on par with Nebraska. In fact, Nebraska's performance at home has been eerily similar against an almost identical schedule:

L, 71-70 to Michigan
W, 68-62 over OSU
W, 82-78 over Minnesota

A close loss to Michigan (check), and close wins over OSU and Minnesota (check, check). As luck would have it, Nebraska plays Indiana at home on Thursday, so after that game Nebraska and Michigan State will have played the same four teams at home. (Might I be so bold as to predict a 5-point win for the Huskers?)

So what's going on? There are at least two possibilities. First, it could be that this is just randomness, and Michigan State has just happened to have its poorer performances at home. Second, it could be Michigan State isn't quite as good as we might think they are. On the other hand, this could bode well for Michigan State's chances in the post-season, when there are no home games.

Michigan State has built up its impressive road margin against the bottom half of the league. Its remaining road games are against Iowa (tomorrow), Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan, and Ohio State. It will be interesting to see how well their numbers hold up against that slate.

Going Pro

Sam Dekker started out this season projected as a possible mid to late first round pick in this year's NBA draft. He dropped a bit in the early season, but has been showing back up in the 20s again. This is all very premature as there is a lot of season left, and much of the player's draft status will be determined at the tryouts and camps after the season.

I would love to see Dekker play another season or 2 at UW, but I am of the opinion that any UW player who could be a first-round pick should go pro. With the new collective bargaining agreement, NBA first round picks are guaranteed 2 year contracts and will make over a million dollars even if they get cut and don't make their NBA roster. Even the 30th pick in the draft will get a minimum salary of about $750,000 each year. That is a lot of money. Too much money for a 20 year old kid to turn down. It's enough money to give you the opportunity to do whatever you want to do for the rest of your life, as long as that isn't buying drugs, cars, and other crap.

It's great for fans if players stick around, but there is just too much risk in not taking that money if they can be a first round pick. One blown out knee and there goes your million dollars.

The 2 foul question

First of all it's good to be back after a nice long hiatus overseas, but unfortunately my Badgers don't seem to be able to win when I am not around. They must have been hung over from the lack of my presence against Minnesota, but they returned to their winning ways yesterday. I promise I will not take anymore overseas trips this season. I also expect they will not lose another game until the dreaded back to back road games against Iowa and MI. Even I don't have the power to help them overcome a back to back road affair vs. ranked Big Ten opponents. On to the post.

Just one game after benching Kaminsky for the rest of the 2nd half against Minnesota due to picking up his 2nd foul in the first half, Ryan put him back in the game in the first half multiple times after doing the same against Purdue. There are pros and cons to either strategy, and I don't really feel either one is right or wrong. This is one of those issues much like fouling at the end of a game when up by 3, that some people seem to have strangely strong feelings about, when in reality it is about a 50-50 type of situation.

Matt Painter also put Hammonds back into the game after he collected his 2nd foul. Hammonds only played about a minute and a half into the 1st half before he got his 2 fouls, and then when put back in the game he gave Painter all of 30 more seconds before collecting his 3rd. Hammonds has been a hacker this season, so it is not that surprising that he picked up his 3rd right away. Kaminsky is not as foul prone, but on his first series on the floor after picking up his 2nd foul he almost climbed the back of a Purdue player going for an offensive board and got his 3rd. You could see him pulling back his arms as he realized the folly of what he was doing trying to get a rebound over an opposing player when he already had 2 fouls.

In general I like the idea of sitting a guy after he gets 2 fouls in the first half. The primary reason is that there is no better teacher to a young college player than spending some time on the pine. While some fouls are the result of bad calls or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the vast majority are the player's fault. Spending a little time watching your teammates play and possibly struggle without you is the best medicine to remind players that they need to mind their hands and move their feet. There is also the rather large risk that the player will keep picking up fouls and take the choice out of the coaches hands, as Hammonds did.

I don't like keeping a player on the floor with 2 early fouls because it messes up your defense. The player must play cautiously knowing they have 2 fouls, so they can't challenge shots, work over screens, or even box out as they would normally. It also effects the entire team defense because the player can't rotate as aggressively and the player can't help as they normally would. When you are defending a screen and roll and the other guy is basically useless because he can't close out on the shooter, hedge or really anything that might risk getting a cheap 3rd foul it screws up your whole defensive plan. It's not like you can hide the fact a guy has 2 fouls, there is that giant scoreboard glaring at you from center court with that big 2. Every good coach will make sure all his players know that, and whoever is matched up on that player should be attacking them at every opportunity.

Then there is the human element of the game. We have all played in games when your head is just not on quite right. Often these are the games when we get into foul trouble because we are making mistakes. Getting called for fouls is frustrating, especially when you think they were bad calls. Getting tossed back into the game after getting 2 fouls when you are already frustrated is a recipe for making another mistake.

All that being said, I don't really have a problem if a coach plays a guy after getting his second foul in the first half. There are players that just don't foul much, and if a coach played that guy in the 2 foul situation I wouldn't criticize him for it. I also think there are definitely circumstances that merit a change in coaching philosophy. For example, if you are playing in a win or go home game in the NCAA and your star player gets his 2nd early in the half. Your team starts to struggle and the game appears to be getting away from you, then put your star player back in and take your chances. If you are a bad mid major team and you are playing against a ranked team and are hanging with them and a star player gets his 2nd foul, take a chance and leave him in. You only get so many of these opportunities. Much like an NFL coach is more likely to go for it on 4th down in the playoffs, the risk-reward equation in any single game may be different than what you usually do on a normal basis.

Friday Facts

John Gasaway has come out with this season's first full-fledged "Tuesday Truths"—his indispensable weekly breakdown of the conference-only efficiency margins for every team in every conference worth caring about.

But the Tuesday Truths can be deceptive. The efficiency margin is calculated like so: points scored minus points allowed, divided by number of possessions. There is no accounting for strength of opponent. By the end of the season, this matters little, as we can expect things to more or less even out. But early in the season, differing schedules can make a big difference.

So I took a stab at producing an adjusted efficiency margin for the Big Ten. For each game, I calculate the difference between a team's actual efficiency margin and the expected efficiency margin of an "average" Big Ten team against that particular opponent at that particular venue. That difference is adjusted efficiency margin. Add up each game for each team, and you get their total adjusted efficiency margin.

To illustrate, let's look at Iowa versus Wisconsin, at Wisconsin. The average Big Ten team—that is, a team with adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies at the average of all Big Ten teams—would be expected to lose to Wisconsin at Wisconsin by 17 points per 100 possessions. In fact, Iowa lost by four points in a 70 possession game, which comes out to 6 points per 100 possessions. Thus, Iowa's adjusted efficiency margin for that game was +11 per 100 possessions, or 0.11 per possession.

On the flip side, the average Big Ten team playing Iowa at home would be expected to lose by 1.3 points per 100 possessions, and Wisconsin won by 6 per 100. So Wisconsin was above average too—+0.07 per possession.

When you add up each team's performances from all their games you get their total adjusted efficiency margins:

There's no real surprise at the top or very bottom of this chart. Michigan State, Michigan, and Iowa have clearly performed the best in conference play so far, and that shows up in the raw efficiency margins. But the adjusted margins give Iowa credit for its close losses at Wisconsin and at Michigan, and so Iowa just barely trails Michigan in the adjusted ranking.

Minnesota also gets credit for its tougher schedule and better wins. Although its raw efficiency margin is negative overall—placing it behind Purdue—the adjusted margin gets Minnesota ahead of Purdue and into the conference's upper division, where it clearly belongs based on its play so far.

The other notable outlier is Nebraska, which jumps ahead of three teams (Indiana, Illinois, and Penn State) at the bottom of the standings. Nebraska's raw efficiency margin gets killed by its big blowout loss to Ohio State, and doesn't reflect any credit for its respectably close losses to Michigan and at Iowa, or for the impressiveness of its win over Ohio State. These results are why Nebraska has actually moved ahead of Illinois in the Kenpom ratings, and the Adjusted EM accounts for them. 

Title hopes dashed?

After two upset losses this week, the Badgers' chances of getting a share of the Big Ten title have taken a big hit. According to my spreadsheet, they now have only about a 10% chance of getting a share. Here are a couple looks at how the race has changed since Wednesday.

First, the contenders' chances of getting to various Big Ten win totals:

Second, in line graph form!

Okay, I'll stop now.

Update on the Big Ten race

Here's a chart showing each of the contenders' current chances of getting to various win totals:

Two things:

1) Last night's loss has devastated Ohio State's chances of winning a share of the title, which are now down to about 4%.

2) Michigan State has opened up a small but significant lead on UW. Prior to the Spartans' win over Northwestern, it was more or less a dead heat. But a combination of that win and some resulting improvement in the Kenpom ratings has lifted MSU's status to minor favorite.

Big Ten Record

Kenpom now projects the Badgers to go 15-3 in the Big Ten—a full two games better than Iowa and Michigan State.

I've been doing some simulations of the remaining Big Ten schedule, and should have a post up over at Bucky's 5th Quarter soon. As a teaser, here's a chart of the Badgers's chances of getting to various win totals in Big Ten play, using Kenpom win probabilities:

The Seth Davis "Buy" Curse

So far, things are looking pretty bad for Seth's portfolio. There were eight teams that Seth put a "buy" rating on that I told you to sell:

1) Butler, which lost to Depaul at home last night. Yikes.
2) Missouri, which lost to Georgia at home on Weds. Yikes.
3) Notre Dame, which lost to NC State at home on Tues. Yikes.
4) Oregon, which lost Cal at home last night. Yikes.
5) Colorado, which squeaked by Washington State in OT.
6) UMass, which squeaked by St. Joe's at home.
7) Oklahoma, which lost at home to Kansas. (No shocker, but nothing special either.)
8) Syracuse, which blew out Va. Tech at home.

So far, this is a brutal slaughter. Here's one way to put this in perspective: after just one game, four of these teams have fallen more than ten spots in the Kenpom ratings: Butler (-15), Missouri (-17), Notre Dame (-15), and Oregon (-10). On average, the eight teams have fallen about 7 spots. After one game.

Here's another way to put it in perspective. According to their Kenpom ratings at the time Davis rated a them a buy, the chance that Butler, Missouri, Notre Dame, and Oregon would all lose at home in their next game was 0.09%. That's not 9%, that's nine one-hundredths of a percent. In other words, one-in-a-thousand.

Chance cannot explain this. Something more sinister must be at work here. Is Davis pumping and dumping? Or does the Monkey have powers that cannot be explained by science or math?

Seth versus me

Just to put my money where my mouth is, I went ahead and made my own "buy, sell, hold" picks. Here's where I differ with Seth Davis:

Seth Davis versus a monkey

Seth Davis has his annual "Taking Stock" column out, where he advises whether to "buy, sell, or hold" imaginary stock in a bunch of college basketball teams.

Last year I made fun of his prognostication skills, and concluded that he did worse than you'd expect a monkey to do.

As promised, this year I let a monkey pick whether to buy, sell, or hold the same group of teams. Here are the teams where Seth and the Monkey disagree:

Cheer for the monkey!

(By the way, no surprise: Seth is selling his stock in the Badgers.)

StatWatch™: Hayes FTAs

Badgers' forward Nigel Hayes has been a really nice surprise this year. He's got some issues on defense, but he's shown an ability to play with his back to the basket and get to the rim that we haven't seen in a while—especially not from a freshman.

His hard work is resulting in a lot of free throws. He's got 40 free throw attempts in just the last four games, which is sensational. I took a look at the best four-game FTA stretches in the Bo Ryan era, and here is the result:

1) K. Taylor, 43: OSU, NU, Pur., IL in 2006-07 (50 over 5, 56 over 6)

2) Hughes, 41: Duke, GSU, GB, Marq. in 2009-10

3) J. Taylor, 41: MSU, Mich., Pur., Neb in 2011-12 (but had 0 against Michigan! And 42 over 5.)

4) Harris, 40: Minn, NU, Iowa, OSU in 2003-04 (0-1 against Iowa, 47 over 5, 57 over 6)

5) Harris, 40: first 4 games of 2003-04 (45 over 5)

6) Tucker, 40: Pitt, Iowa, MSU, MN 2005-06 (had 49 over 5)

Most of these performances were by point guards, probably largely inflated by late-game free throws. Alando in 05-06 is the only similar stretch by a Badger forward. And he was a starter who was getting a lot more minutes than Hayes.

Hayes's effectiveness will presumably go down a little bit as opposing coaches get more tape on him. But so far he has been an absolute beast.

Will the Badgers get to No. 1?

I did some investigating and posted it over at Bucky's 5th Quarter.

Comparing the Preseason Computer Ratings

Since we're about half-way through the college basketball regular season, I thought it'd be a good time to check in on the performance of the major preseason ratings systems: mine, Pomeroy's, Team Rankings (David Hess), and Dan Hanner's. Behold:

These are the current Top 50 in the Pomeroy ratings, and the first four columns after the team names are the where each system put them in the preseason. Cells shaded green show which teams each system predicted to be in the Top 50. The highest rated team that none of the systems predicted to be in the Top 50 is UMass.

The next four columns (labeled "off") show how much better or worse each system rated each particular team compared to the other systems. This is calculated by comparing how far off a particular system's prediction was, and then comparing it to the average of how far off the other three systems were. For example, No. 39 Florida State comes out as +46 for the T-Rank because the T-Rank was only 3 spots low in its prediction for FSU, but the other three systems averaged 49 spots low. This is by far the biggest "hit" for any system (for teams currently ranked in the top 50). 

The biggest miss was Pomeroy's projection for Arkansas.

One way to measure the relative performance of the systems against each other is to add up the "off" columns (which sum to zero when all four are put together), with higher totals being better. The result:

1.  T-Rank +54

2.  Hanner +38

3.  Hess -23

4.  Kenpom -69

There are other ways of analyzing the relative performances, but none of them are so flattering to T-Rank, so they will not be publicized at this time.

The ultimate test, of course, will be the NCAA tournament's S-Curve.

Badgers at Northwestern

I will be at tonight's game with my daughter Ivy.

The last time I went to the the UW-Northwestern game here in Evanston, Josh Gasser had a triple-double. And then the Packers beat the Bears in the NFC Championship game later that day.

That will be hard to top.

The Surprising and Impressive Badgers

I've got a post up over at Bucky's 5th Quarter that takes a look at college basketball's remaining unbeaten teams. In short, the Badgers have been both surprising and impressive.