Tournament Seeding Superlatives

Based on curiosity alone, I wanted to know what schools were typically over/under-seeded in the NCAA Tournament during the Kenpom era. Below are some tables that show which schools are typically under-seeded or over-seeded.

To arrive at these numbers, I looked at all of the 1-seeds, 2-seeds, etc. going back to 2003. Within each seed, the teams were sorted and ranked by their Pythagorean rating (1-44). So, the team ranked “1″ was the strongest of its seed (1′s, 2′s…16′s) since 2003.

Then I removed the schools who had fewer than four tournament appearances.  Of the teams remaining, I looked at the average rank within a team’s given seed to determine how often they are under/over-seeded.

For example, Georgia Tech was – on average – the 7th best team since 2003 within their seed, thus making them relatively under-seeded as a basketball program.

Also included is the average seed in tournament appearances for each team. For the “Over-seeded” table, the schools who have a 13+ average seed are likely schools who have unexpectedly won their conference tournament a few times.

Under-Seeded Schools

Over-Seeded Schools

The Most Under/Over-Seeded X Seeds

Disclaimer: You cannot be an under-seeded 1-seed; you’re just a good team.

Sweet Sixteen Tempo-Free Stats

Friday Night:

Thursday Night:

Sweet 16 Preview: Pace and Efficiency

The tempo of the games has been a major factor in the number of upsets during the 2013 NCAA tournament . In the Round of 64, the extra-slow vegas favorites tended to lose. In the Round of 32, many of the favored teams had to adjust to the tempo of their foes, with mixed results.

Indiana’s struggles in low-possession games are well publicized. The Hoosiers played one of their slowest games of the season against Temple in the third round on Sunday. This was dictated by the Owls’ half-court offense and their ability to negate Indiana’s transition offense. It produced a tight game that was ultimately decided by a Victor Oladipo three-pointer.

The charts below show performance at slow, medium and fast pace for each matchup in the Sweet Sixteen. This data is from box scores of every game each team played this season. In order to determine performance, the opponents’ points per possession is subtracted from offensive points per possession at each tempo level. The result is the PPP +/-.

The data show that Indiana’s struggles at a slow pace are eerily similar to their Sweet Sixteen foe in Syracuse. This one should stay close no matter the pace.

In most of these games, the difference in performance between the teams is minimal at each level. However, in the cases of Michigan/Kansas and Michigan State/Duke, the tempos could be a major factor in deciding who wins and loses.

Vertical lines = projected tempo of the game. (Team 1′s 2013 adjusted tempo * Team 2′s 2013 adjusted tempo)/2013 Div. I tempo.

Slow Teams in the 2013 NCAA Tournament

Today has been a nightmare for the favored teams who play at a slow pace. The chart below contains the 32 teams who were favored in their second (first) round games in the 2013 NCAA tournament, sorted by slowest to fastest, with results:

Favorites	Tempo Rank (Slowest to Fastest)	Result
Pittsburgh	337	Loss
Notre Dame	319	Loss
Georgetown	315	Loss
Wisconsin	309	Loss
Florida	298	Win
Kansas State	295	Loss
Minnesota	288	Win
Miami	281	Win
Michigan State	252	Win
Ohio State	246	Win
Gonzaga	233	Win
Butler	232	Win
Syracuse	228	Win
Marquette	226	Win
New Mexico	220	Loss
Michigan	219	Win
Creighton	214	Win
St. Louis	211	Win
Colorado State	206	Win
Illinois	172	Win
Arizona	130	Win
San Diego State	125	Win
Louisville	112	Win
Oklahoma State	97	Loss
Kansas	91	Win
Indiana	86	Win
Duke	83	Win
NC State	75	Loss
VCU	70	Win
UNLV	50	Loss
Memphis	30	Win
North Carolina	17	Win

A Look at Colorado State

As the NCAA tournament slowly approaches, there are always a few teams with high seeds that haven’t been covered adequately. Casual fans will see a team like Colorado State as one of the higher seeds in the tournament and not know much about them, given their conference and their lack of a basketball reputation.

CBS “bracketologist” Jerry Palm currently has Larry Eustachy’s Rams as a #5 seed. They are in 2nd place in the Mountain West Conference behind New Mexico, who they play at home on Saturday. The rankings on this site have Colorado State ranked #4 overall. Below are their ranks from other notable systems. Due to the high rankings, Colorado State deserves further evaluation here.

Four Factors

The chart below contains the offensive and defensive four factors data along with overall efficiency numbers. Colorado State is one of the most well-rounded teams across each the four factors categories, and are playing well in a very good conference (the Mountain West is #3 in Ken Pomeroy’s conference rankings).

It becomes very obvious from this chart that Colorado State is the best rebounding team in the nation. Earlier this season, Pomeroy explained that the Rams’ high rebounding percentages are historic because they are proficient on both the offensive and defensive glass. Usually a team that is good on one end of the floor can’t meet those levels of production on the other end, but Eustachy’s club is doing just that.

The Rams also get to the free throw line at a high rate while not allowing their opponents the same luxury. Both Colton Iverson and Greg Smith draw more than five fouls per 40 minutes for CSU.

The only category in which Colorado State is below average is in forcing turnovers. However, Jordan Sperber wrote a really good piece that explains why a low Defensive Turnover Percentage is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you handle the ball effectively on offense (which CSU does).

Opponent Shot Selection

The chart below shows that the Rams are forcing their opponents to shoot a large percentage of their shots from 3-point range, and it’s going up (ranked in the top 30 in this category). This makes their prowess on the defensive glass even more impressive, since the rebounding location of 3-point shots is fairly unpredictable. To be fair, their rebounding percentages have actually dropped slightly as the percent of threes by their opponents has gone up.

The large number of opponent three pointers attempted should be viewed as a positive thing because the three-point shot, while lethal, is still a low-percentage shot that shouldn’t be relied upon at this level.

How CSU Loses

In Colorado State’s four losses this season, some of the glaring statistical categories where they fell short were offensive eFG% and offensive turnover percentage. In each of their losses, they had some of their worst nights in each of these categories.

The types of teams that are strong defensively in these categories would be tough matchups for CSU. Below are some potential tournament teams (here’s hoping for SFA) that are strong in defensive eFG% and turnover %.

Of those teams, Florida, Middle Tennessee and Memphis are also ranked in the top 100 in 3-pointer percentage.

Conference Seasons Since 2009

There have been rumblings on the web about the Big Ten being the best it has ever been this year. However, a quick look at each conference’s average Kenpom Pythagorean rating over the last five years shows that the Big Ten was “stronger” in 2011.

While the league has been fantastic in 2013 (six teams in the top 15), we can assign the blame to Nebraska (147) and Penn State (199) for bringing down the average ranking. Ken projects one win between the two of them the rest of the season, and that’s today when they play each other.

NOTES:

2010 ACC – Every team ranked in the Kenpom top 80

2011 Big Ten – Every team ranked in the Kenpom top 80

2010 Big 12 – Six teams ranked in the Kenpom top 20

With the large number of bottom-dwellers in the Big East each year, it’s surprising to see them so many times in the chart above

Shot Blocking in 2013

Last season, the player of the year was known for his defense and shot-blocking. But 2013 has been a better year for shot blockers.

First, for those who are unfamiliar with the stat, block % is: Blocked Shots / Opponent 2-pointers Attempted

Before diving into the numbers, I’d like to recommend another article from a couple of years ago about blocked shots. According to Jeff Haley’s math at Burnt Orange Nation, a blocked shot is worth approximately 0.7 points.

The block statistics for this year will be slightly inflated due to the weaker competition of the non-conference schedules, but we’ll re-visit these numbers at the end of the season to see what unfolded.

The data from Kenpom.com shows that there are 36 players this year with a block rate at 10% or higher. The previous mark (in the years with data available) was 26 in 2011.

The chart below looks at the top 20 players in block rates going back to 2005. The average of these shows that the top shot blockers this season have a slightly higher block rate and that it has increased each year since 2009.

Typically good shot blockers also draw more fouls, since they are contesting more shots. The point value of a block can be quickly negated by a foul that sends the other team to the free throw line.

The chart below shows that there are fewer fouls this year, which would indicate that players are blocking with less fouls. However, we would need to look at individual players’ fouls to make that claim.

In the preseason, Jeff Withey was expected to be one of the best shot blockers in the nation. But Withey seems to have also improved in his timing and spacing. Last season, his block-to-foul ratio was 1.87 and he has more than doubled that figure this year. It would take some digging, but he may be on a record-setting pace in this category.

The blocked shot is one my favorite plays in basketball. But it can also be infuriating when a player has an easy block but decides to swat it into the bleachers instead of towards a teammate. In those instances, I’m sure the point value of the block would be much lower than 0.7. Someone should tell Dwight Howard.

2013 seems to be the year of the blocked shot. The infusion of athletic shot blockers has altered the game and has changed the way that teams value recruits.