Here is how the teams rank simply by the difference between their points per possession and their opponents’ points per possession.
| Team | PPP | Opp PPP | Diff |
| UT | 1.18 | 0.88 | +0.30 |
| KU | 1.11 | 0.90 | +0.21 |
| OU | 1.07 | 0.94 | +0.13 |
| CU | 1.09 | 1.02 | +0.07 |
| KSU | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.00 |
| ISU | 1.09 | 1.09 | 0.00 |
| TAMU | 1.02 | 1.03 | -0.01 |
| NU | 0.94 | 1.01 | -0.07 |
| OSU | 0.99 | 1.07 | -0.08 |
| MU | 0.98 | 1.10 | -0.12 |
| TT | 0.95 | 1.08 | -0.13 |
| BU | 0.87 | 1.15 | -0.28 |
No surprises.
Below is a look at the difference between each team’s eFG% and the eFG% they allow.
| Team | eFG% | Opp eFG% | Diff |
| UT | 56.3 | 44.2 | +12.1 |
| KU | 55.0 | 43.7 | +11.3 |
| OU | 52.5 | 46.4 | +6.1 |
| KSU | 48.8 | 43.7 | +5.1 |
| CU | 48.9 | 46.5 | +2.4 |
| OSU | 51.6 | 52.1 | -0.5 |
| MU | 49.0 | 51.9 | -2.9 |
| TAMU | 50.6 | 54.6 | -4.0 |
| TT | 47.2 | 51.4 | -4.2 |
| ISU | 50.6 | 58.0 | -7.4 |
| NU | 44.7 | 52.4 | -7.7 |
| BU | 42.3 | 54.2 | -11.9 |
In this table, one can start to see how teams score and allow points differently. Colorado and Kansas State are only the eight and ninth best shooting teams in the conference, respectively, but they’re still more efficient than the opposition whenever a field goal is attempted.
Iowa State’s eFG% allowed is quite the outlier.
The following table might require a little more explanation. A team’s free throw rate (FT Rate) equals the number of made free throws per 100 shot attempts. A team’s free throw rate allowed (Opp FT Rate) equals the number of free throw attempts they allow their opponents per 100 field goal attempts.
I’ve ranked the teams by multiplying the free throw rate allowed (Opp FT Rate) by the opponents’ free throw percentage (Opp FT%), then subtracting that number from the free throw rate (FT Rate). The resulting number represents the number of points each team gains on or loses to their opponents per 100 field goal attempts.
| Team | FT Rate | Opp FT Rate | FT% | Opp FT% | Diff |
| TT | 31.5 | 24.2 | 70.4 | 73.8 | +13.6 |
| NU | 32.1 | 31.1 | 71.1 | 65.3 | +11.8 |
| KU | 34.0 | 36.0 | 70.8 | 65.6 | +10.4 |
| UT | 20.6 | 23.6 | 68.9 | 65.6 | +5.1 |
| MU | 28.0 | 33.9 | 68.4 | 74.5 | +2.8 |
| OSU | 22.0 | 34.3 | 73.0 | 67.6 | -1.2 |
| KSU | 25.2 | 41.6 | 63.3 | 69.8 | -3.8 |
| OU | 20.1 | 34.4 | 62.5 | 70.8 | -4.2 |
| TAMU | 24.9 | 45.5 | 66.5 | 66.1 | -4.9 |
| CU | 19.0 | 39.7 | 60.3 | 69.3 | -8.5 |
| BU | 17.4 | 40.9 | 59.6 | 66.0 | -9.6 |
| ISU | 25.9 | 56.3 | 81.5 | 65.7 | -11.1 |
Again, Iowa State is a huge outlier. Despite shooting 81.5% from the line and having their opponents make only 65.7% of their free throw attempts, the Cyclones give up more than a point per 10 field goal attempts to their opponents because they let them shoot so many free throws.
Both Colorado and Oklahoma could increase their offensive efficiency just by approaching mediocrity at the free throw line.
Texas Tech and Nebraska’s rankings underscore how little production they get from their field goal attempts.
Kansas demonstrates a fairly thorough shooting efficiency, leading the league in field goal defense and free throw rate, ranking second in field goal offense, and third in free throw differential. Their worst shooting ranking is seventh in free throw rate allowed.
Teams are ranked below by offensive rebound percentage + defensive rebound percentage. I have no idea of the relative value of an offensive and defensive rebound, so this seemed the simplest solution.
| Team | OR% | DR% | RebRate |
| OU | 43.2 | 70.4 | 113.6 |
| UT | 39.3 | 69.7 | 109.0 |
| KU | 37.1 | 71.5 | 108.6 |
| KSU | 33.2 | 68.0 | 101.2 |
| OSU | 37.8 | 63.1 | 100.9 |
| CU | 40.3 | 59.9 | 100.2 |
| NU | 32.7 | 65.5 | 98.2 |
| TAMU | 31.2 | 66.9 | 98.1 |
| TT | 33.0 | 60.3 | 93.3 |
| MU | 32.7 | 60.2 | 92.9 |
| ISU | 33.1 | 59.1 | 92.2 |
| BU | 29.5 | 62.2 | 91.7 |
Should offensive rebounds be more valuable (as they occur more rarely, that would make intuitive sense to me), Oklahoma State and Colorado would both rank as better rebounding teams than Kansas State. I’m fairly comfortable that Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas are the three best rebounding teams in the conference and that Texas Tech, Missouri, Iowa State, and Baylor are the worst.
I did not expect to see Kansas leading the conference in defensive rebounding percentage. I will be quite impressed if they hold on to that rank through Sunday's game.
The rankings below are based upon opponents’ turnover percentage minus the team’s turnover percentage.
| Team | TO% | Opp TO% | Diff |
| ISU | 17.8 | 27.5 | +9.7 |
| TAMU | 20.0 | 24.3 | +4.3 |
| UT | 19.0 | 23.2 | +4.2 |
| CU | 17.5 | 21.0 | +3.5 |
| OU | 23.3 | 22.5 | -0.8 |
| NU | 24.6 | 23.2 | -1.4 |
| KU | 22.6 | 21.0 | -1.6 |
| MU | 23.2 | 20.3 | -2.9 |
| BU | 21.3 | 18.2 | -3.1 |
| KSU | 22.5 | 18.8 | -3.7 |
| TT | 24.4 | 20.7 | -3.7 |
| OSU | 26.1 | 21.2 | -4.9 |
We see how Iowa State maintains their mediocrity despite rebounding so poorly, allowing so many free throw attempts, and allowing so many attempted shots to go in the basket. They (by a wide margin) create the most turnovers while rarely turning the ball over themselves.
We also see where Texas separates themselves (statistically) from Kansas. The Longhorns and Jayhawks rank first and second in eFG% differential, fourth and third in free throw differential, second and third in rebound rate, but third and seventh in turnover differential. That accounts for the extra bit of efficiency the Longhorns possess.
No comments:
Post a Comment