FanPost

Once More to the Bayes, Dear Friends - Breaking Down Villanova's NCAA Chances, Stats-Style

On the eve of Villanova's 2014 tournament debut, these stats-centric FanPosts are BACK - to stack 2013-2014's Villanova against teams of tourney's past, and try to gauge just how good these guys are, and how their chances of advancing deep into this year's tournament are.

And let's emphasize that word - CHANCE. In a series of single elimination, 40-minute contests, it's damn near impossible for the best team - the team that SHOULD win - to do so every time. Florida Gulf Coast's level of play was so far beneath Georgetown last year, they hardly belonged on the same court - except for the game they actually played. Upsets are what make March fun, brackets impossible, and the NCAA tournament the most compelling event in sports - but it's tough to pretend, at least for me, it decides who the best/better teams were in a given year. No team's season should be measured, even in large part, by how far they go in this 3-4 week hoops maelstrom. Consistent excellence over a 30-odd game season is much more difficult and impressive than winning 3 straight games against quality teams, but that's all it takes for an Elite 8 appearance and a season in the pantheon for 80-90% of the programs out there. Should be remembered whenever you look back at any season.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I'm definitely breaking down in tears if they don't make the Sweet 16. Probably the Elite 8, too. DON'T DISAPPOINT ME

For this particular post, I compiled data available from KenPom from 2003 through 2013, to compile a historical reference for the statistics of tournament teams, and sifted through to isolate some predictive factors for tournament success/failure. I tried to normalize the data for each year to account for variations in the average of stats - the range of 3 point percentage, offensive/defensive efficiency, etc. and so on isn't exactly the same every year - to compare teams across years as closely as possible. Ken Pomeroy already does the majority of this work for me, and all other college basketball fans, but there was certainly plenty to sort out. To keep it simple, all teams that 'played out' in one of those First Four, first round, call-it-what-the-fuq-ever-just-get-me-to-the-actual tournament games were excluded from the compilation.

We're gonna move through the good, the bad, and the overall look of Villanova's statistical profile as it compares to historical tournament teams from 2003 to 2013. There will be a few tables, some larger than others, and minimal math. Enjoy, or don't.

Also, if you enjoy an overall statistical bent to your NCAA predictions, or don't feel like looking at an 'expert' bracket where Villanova somehow loses to either a team it slaughtered in the regular season/another team it's just better than, period (seriously, what's up with all that), check out Luke Winn and John Ezekowitz's Survival Power Rankings, or Nate Silver's Five Thirty Eight site. Projecting Villanova's chances using stats while those guys are out there is akin to playing checkers next to a grandmaster, but at least this one's more Nova-centric than you'll get elsewhere.

The Good

The defining characteristic of this year's Villanova team has been its propensity for launching 3s, as they've taken dangerously close to half their shots from deep - a trend that ruffles plenty of predictive feathers, both here and throughout the internet/sports prognosticator community. Living and dying by the 3, as a phrase and all-knowing NCAA tournament predictor, becomes more visible around this time of year. Even today, an article posted on Grantland, written by an advanced stats blogger, posits that relying on the 3 as near automatic disqualification from making it to the Final Four. It's a relatively damning visual of Villanova's chances to make the Final Four - though it's pretty clearly not impossible to make the Final Four while taking an above-average number of 3s, more make it who DON'T shoot that many 3s.

All these doomsayers tend to ignore the top 60 free throw rate Villanova sports, its excellent ability to score at the rim in the half court (they make 61.35% of their shots at the rim in the half court, top 70 in the country - though, to be fair, they're bottom 120 in % of shots taken at the rim in the halfcourt), that the 19 3's taken in the Seton Hall game, as a percentage of 58 shots, was one of the lowest of the season (I SAID DEAD BY THE THREE), excellent defense, and just general incredible consistency during a 28-4 campaign. This team is better in a lot of areas than it's given credit for. Digression over.

I have several problems with the execution of the stats / general content of the Grantland article, but the main one is this - highly seeded teams, by far the most likely to advance to the Final Four, just haven't generally taken a ton of 3s over the past 10 to 11 years.

If I organize the historical tournament teams by 3PA% (percentage of shots taken as 3s), among the top 70 (10% of the approximately 700 tournament teams logged in 11 years) in treys launched, there are only 6 top 2 seeds - contrasted with 11 among the 70 teams who take the least amount of 3s. If I expand the seeds out to include the top 4, the 70 Wright Brothers-emulators would claim 13, while the 70 stuck to the ground would have 25. Expanding these groups to include the top and bottom quarter (175) in the same stat would yield 33 and 52 top-4 seeds, respectively. So, essentially, teams that take a below-average amount of 3s are disproportionately represented, when compared to those who take a ton, in the higher seeds.

There are many possible reasons for this apparent disparity, so I'll throw out my own theory - the 3-pointer is an equalizer when your talent's not enough, at least in college. The consistently highly ranked and seeded teams - the Michigan States, Kentuckys, Dukes, Floridas, Louisvilles, Kansas's, etc. and et. al. - of the world have the talent, draw the bigs, and get the elite athletes others can't. Playing straight, out-talenting and (if necessary, or possible) out-coaching the opposition is the best path to success for them - who needs that many 3s when you have talent like that? And who can blame them? I would legitimately consider murder (if I didn't like the victim in the first place, and maybe they were a Georgetown fan. Yeah, that helps) to have Joel Embiid and Wiggins on Villanova...in the same year. And really only if they had to stay for two. On the murder thing.

GETTING UNSIDETRACKED, the 3 ball is a more heavily-relied on tool for the non blue-bloods in the Dance. It's a great equalizer for teams that can't trot out 5 1st round draft picks, or get bailed out by the refs every time they drive to the hoop, or just jump over everyone and dunk every time down. All teams use the trey, obviously, but the heavy users are generally clustered lower on the totem pole.

A cynic's observation might be that teams who launch too many 3s aren't seeded highly because they didn't perform well enough to earn that seed during the regular season, that 3s make you less consistent and more prone to losing. Well, f*ck you.

That's all I have to say about that.

My main problem with that article boils down to this - the author's essential argument is that there are more teams taking below average amounts of 3s in the Final Four than there than there are teams taking a high percentage of them. This is true, but there's also a SIGNIFICANTLY larger pool of high seeds in the group of teams taking a below average amount of 3s. What it boils down to is arguing that more teams with higher seeds make Final Fours than teams with lower seeds. You don't say, Sherlock?

Shit.

So I ran my own numbers on the top 10% and bottom 10% of the 3 point brigade, accounting for the EXPECTED number of wins based on the team's seed, and measuring that against the games actually won in the tournament.

Let's throw in a few tables to put some space between your eyes and my murder confession.

First, I calculated the expected wins for each seed in my sample size. These guys did it for a much larger sample size of years than I did, if you're interested, so their numbers are slightly more historically accurate. Remember, my numbers extend only as far back as the 2002-2003 season.

Seed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Average Games Won

3.30

2.39

2.18

1.45

1.14

0.93

0.89

0.66

0.59

0.52

0.57

0.59

0.30

0.09

0.09

0.00

Then applied this calculation to the giant compilation table of NCAA tournament teams, organized by 3PA% (don't worry, won't be throwing a 700+ row chart on this thing), taking the top and bottom 10% in 3PA and measuring their expected wins (by seed) vs. their actual wins.

Turns out that the most extreme of the extreme chuckers (about 40% and higher) actually outperform their tournament seeds - it's a minor difference (61 total wins vs. 59 and change expected), but it also shows that the 70 tournament teams who attempted the highest percentage of 3s in the last 11 years have outperformed their expectation, on the whole.

It does turn out that taking less 3s leads to a higher actual vs. expected win total (the bottom 10% had 93 wins vs. 80 and change expected), but it is worth noting the average seed of the bottom 10% was about a 7, while the top 10% hovered around a 9. Higher seeds generally get easier paths than low ones, and there were fifteen 14-16 seeds (teams that barely win) in the top group vs. 8 of the same in the bottom 10%, indicating another gap in quality between the two. Basically, taking a ton of 3s is hardly a death knell for a team's chances, based on actual results from the tournament, rather than someone's memory, a group-think mentality, or the ‘eye test'. There just aren't many top seeds that rely as heavily on the 3 as Villanova has this year.

The luck Villanova's had in closing out the nail-biters also looks to be a good, or at the least positively neutral, thing for the ‘Cats. KenPom has a ‘Luck' rating next to every team on the front page, and what it boils down to is a rating of the team's luck in close games - if you win more than you should (not sure if 50% holds in basketball as well, but football statisticians hold that records in close games are more a product of luck than anything else, and generally average out to 50-50 over a large enough sample), your luck rating goes up. Would you expect teams who were ‘lucky' in the regular season, and possibly earned a seed higher than their actual ability level with the few extra wins that come with being lucky, to lose this luck in the postseason? Or does the experience in close games carry over, and let them close out in the tourney with ice water in the veins, having done it so many times?

Who knows what the actual answer is (I was just making up a narrative), but teams that tend to be lucky in the regular season seem to have it carry over into the postseason. Going through the same exercise (ranking teams by luck scores, and analyzing the top and bottom 10% by their expected win total - based on seed - vs. their actual wins) with the luck rating, teams with the highest luck ratings tend to outperform their expected win totals, while the unlucky just can't seem to buy a break, and continue to underperform in the postseason.

There are plenty more factors well-correlated with outperforming your expected win total in the NCAA tournament, including (especially) adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies, eFG%, and more, but there's not much deep analysis to be done there.

Interestingly, a weighted ‘net' 4 factors rating (your team's eFG% - the eFG% your defense allows, and so on for the other 3), does not point towards teams outperforming their seed - it's possible these stats are less useful than people like me tend to think, or I just did something horribly wrong when calculating it. In any case, not what I expected.

The Bad

Hey, remember when I mentioned there weren't many top seeds who took a ton of 3s? Well, the results of those who have aren't pretty. May want to avert your eyes, here. I tried to, but found it difficult to type.

The top 70 numbers aren't awful at first glance; for the 15 4-and-greater seeds, they've underperformed their expected win total of 28 and change by about 6 (landing at 22). The scary thing to look at is the 2 seeds who have taken over 40% of their shots from 3. All of them managed but 1 win in the tournament, bowing out before the Sweet 16. Yeesh.

It doesn't get much better (actually, it looks worse) when you expand it out to the top quarter of 3 bombers. The 33 top-4 seeds who bomb from 3 won 17 less games than they ‘should' have (56 wins vs. 73 expected), and that whole decline may have come from the 2-seeds (gulp); only one of the nine (2008 Tennessee) who took more than 36.5% of its shots from 3 made it to the Sweet 16. Two of them lost in the first round. 0 wins.

For those of you astute enough to notice this seems to contradict everything I said in the good section, you're not wrong. While, as a whole, 3 bombers tend to do relatively well in the tournament, 2-seeds (as I was writing this sentence, I went back and checked it out without the 2-seeds: the expected wins basically equal the actual wins - IT'S ONLY THE TWO SEEDS - FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNC) with a propensity for it are just awful. Yikes. Maybe praying for the 2 seed in the East was the wrong way to go.

Year

Team

3PA %

Seed

Total Wins

Expected

2004

Saint Joseph's

42.54%

1

3

3.295

2005

Duke

39.84%

1

2

3.295

2006

Villanova

39.60%

1

3

3.295

2008

Georgetown

40.24%

2

1

2.386

2006

Ohio St.

40.09%

2

1

2.386

2003

Florida

39.60%

2

1

2.386

2004

North Carolina St.

44.61%

3

1

2.182

2007

Oregon

42.09%

3

3

2.182

2012

Michigan

44.16%

4

0

1.455

2005

Louisville

42.10%

4

3

1.455

2012

Wisconsin

41.33%

4

2

1.455

2011

Wisconsin

41.15%

4

2

1.455

2011

Louisville

40.76%

4

0

1.455

Year

Team

3PA %

Total Wins

Seed

Expected

2004

Saint Joseph's

42.54%

3

1

3.295

2005

Duke

39.84%

2

1

3.295

2006

Villanova

39.60%

3

1

3.295

2005

Illinois

38.84%

5

1

3.295

2009

Louisville

37.78%

3

1

3.295

2007

Ohio St.

36.45%

5

1

3.295

2008

Georgetown

40.24%

1

2

2.386

2006

Ohio St.

40.09%

1

2

2.386

2003

Florida

39.60%

1

2

2.386

2008

Duke

39.14%

1

2

2.386

2008

Tennessee

38.85%

2

2

2.386

2011

Notre Dame

38.65%

1

2

2.386

2012

Duke

38.59%

0

2

2.386

2012

Missouri

37.89%

0

2

2.386

2006

Tennessee

37.58%

1

2

2.386

2004

North Carolina St.

44.61%

1

3

2.182

2007

Oregon

42.09%

3

3

2.182

2013

Florida

39.47%

3

3

2.182

2008

Louisville

38.69%

3

3

2.182

2011

BYU

37.83%

2

3

2.182

2008

Xavier

36.59%

3

3

2.182

2010

New Mexico

36.53%

1

3

2.182

2012

Michigan

44.16%

0

4

1.455

2005

Louisville

42.10%

3

4

1.455

2012

Wisconsin

41.33%

2

4

1.455

2011

Wisconsin

41.15%

2

4

1.455

2011

Louisville

40.76%

0

4

1.455

2010

Wisconsin

39.37%

1

4

1.455

2003

Dayton

38.57%

0

4

1.455

2003

Louisville

38.56%

1

4

1.455

2007

Virginia

38.10%

1

4

1.455

2008

Vanderbilt

38.10%

0

4

1.455

2007

Texas

36.58%

1

4

1.455

The one saving grace from these tables is that these are all incredibly small sample sizes, and probably unreliable for drawing sweeping conclusions. There were nine 2-seeds, out of a possible 44 total 2 seeds, in the bottom quarter of that table, and those are pulled out of an even larger 700+ team tournament pool. Poor performance from literally only 2-seeds who take a ton of 3s in the last 11 years, and only 9 of them at that, doesn't write the book on Villanova's postseason, but it doesn't fill you up with the warm and cuddlies either.

And, one of the only extremely negative indicators Villanova tests positive for - 3 point differential. Essentially, it's subtracting the percentage of shots your defense allows from the percentage you take. While this negative correlation doesn't make a ton of sense - I could understand a negative correlation between taking a lot of 3s, but as we saw above, it's really not there, and preventing teams from taking 3s seems like it'd be a good thing... but once you add it in, the negative correlation is there.

Teams in the top 70 (highest) for 3 point differential underperform their expected win total by 13..while the bottom 70 outperforms it by 16. Villanova's 3 point different this year is around 12%, mostly driven by the staggeringly high number of 3s they take (they still give up about an average amount). Villanova will be in the top 35, of the last 12 years, in this category.

The Overall

And, I placed Villanova in its ‘historical' context among tournament teams. The first table lists a shot of all the teams ranked by KenPom's Pythagorean win expectation - look it up if you don't know it, it's related to points scored / allowed and calculates how many games your team SHOULD have won.

Year

TeamName

Pythag

AdjOE

AdjDE

Seed

Games Won

2008

Kansas

0.975

120.000

87.100

1

6

2013

Louisville

0.971

117.400

86.400

1

6

2012

Kentucky

0.969

121.300

89.900

1

6

2005

Illinois

0.969

120.900

89.800

1

5

2010

Duke

0.967

120.000

89.500

1

6

2011

Ohio St.

0.966

123.300

92.100

1

2

2008

Memphis

0.966

117.600

87.900

1

5

2004

Duke

0.964

118.500

89.000

1

4

2010

Kansas

0.964

119.200

89.700

1

1

2005

North Carolina

0.963

121.900

91.700

1

6

2009

North Carolina

0.960

122.400

92.900

1

6

2007

Florida

0.958

121.500

92.600

1

6

2009

Memphis

0.957

111.500

85.100

2

2

2006

Florida

0.956

116.800

89.400

3

6

2007

Ohio St.

0.955

119.600

91.600

1

5

2007

North Carolina

0.955

119.400

91.500

1

3

2003

Pittsburgh

0.955

114.000

87.400

2

2

2012

Ohio St.

0.955

116.900

89.700

2

4

2014

Arizona

0.954

113.1

86.9

1

?

2008

North Carolina

0.954

120.400

92.500

1

4

2004

Connecticut

0.953

115.900

89.200

2

6

2003

Kentucky

0.952

113.900

87.900

1

3

2009

Connecticut

0.952

113.800

87.800

1

4

2014

Louisville

0.9515

117.4

90.6

4

?

2013

Florida

0.952

112.700

87.000

3

3

2008

UCLA

0.950

115.600

89.400

1

4

2004

Oklahoma St.

0.950

117.500

91.000

2

4

2004

Pittsburgh

0.949

111.900

86.800

3

2

2003

Kansas

0.948

113.200

88.000

2

5

2012

Michigan St.

0.948

112.100

87.100

1

2

2007

Georgetown

0.948

120.200

93.400

2

4

2014

Florida

0.9476

115.7

90

1

?

2009

Pittsburgh

0.946

119.500

93.200

1

3

2013

Indiana

0.944

117.900

92.300

1

2

2013

Michigan

0.943

120.300

94.300

4

5

2004

Saint Joseph's

0.943

115.500

90.500

1

3

2008

Wisconsin

0.942

112.400

88.100

3

2

2012

Kansas

0.942

111.100

87.100

2

5

2014

Virginia

0.9419

114

89.5

1

?

2007

Kansas

0.942

112.700

88.400

1

3

2003

Arizona

0.941

115.000

90.400

1

3

2011

Kansas

0.941

116.200

91.300

1

3

2013

Gonzaga

0.941

118.400

93.100

1

1

2014

Wichita St.

0.9399

117.7

92.7

1

?

2010

Kentucky

0.940

111.700

88.000

1

3

2005

Duke

0.939

113.300

89.300

1

2

2007

UCLA

0.939

112.400

88.600

2

4

2011

Pittsburgh

0.938

117.900

93.000

1

1

2011

Duke

0.938

117.700

93.000

1

2

2008

Louisville

0.937

111.600

88.200

3

3

2004

Wisconsin

0.936

114.300

90.400

6

1

2012

Syracuse

0.936

116.000

91.800

1

3

2008

Davidson

0.936

117.600

93.100

10

3

2009

Louisville

0.935

109.600

86.900

1

3

2013

Duke

0.935

116.700

92.600

2

3

2007

Texas A&M

0.934

117.200

93.100

3

2

2006

Duke

0.934

116.600

92.600

1

2

2013

Ohio St.

0.933

113.100

89.900

2

3

2010

Syracuse

0.933

115.500

91.900

1

2

2008

Georgetown

0.933

113.200

90.100

2

1

2011

Kentucky

0.933

115.600

92.000

4

4

2006

Connecticut

0.933

117.500

93.600

1

3

2011

Texas

0.932

113.900

90.700

4

1

2005

Michigan St.

0.931

118.600

94.600

5

4

2010

Kansas St.

0.931

114.600

91.300

2

3

2008

Texas

0.931

119.900

95.600

2

3

2010

Baylor

0.931

118.500

94.600

3

3

2005

Villanova

0.930

113.200

90.400

5

2

2013

Kansas

0.930

110.000

87.800

1

2

2011

San Diego St.

0.930

111.500

89.100

2

2

2013

Michigan St.

0.930

110.700

88.400

3

2

2007

Wisconsin

0.930

112.500

89.800

2

1

2009

Michigan St.

0.930

116.000

94.500

2

5

2004

Georgia Tech

0.930

111.700

89.300

3

5

2012

North Carolina

0.929

114.000

91.100

1

3

2004

North Carolina St.

0.929

119.200

95.400

3

1

2010

Ohio St.

0.928

116.200

93.000

2

2

2009

Missouri

0.928

115.900

92.800

3

3

2011

Wisconsin

0.927

119.800

96.000

4

2

2006

UCLA

0.927

110.400

88.500

2

5

2007

Memphis

0.927

113.500

91.000

2

3

2008

Duke

0.927

113.400

91.000

2

1

2011

Connecticut

0.926

114.200

91.700

3

6

2010

West Virginia

0.925

115.200

92.600

2

4

2003

Syracuse

0.925

113.500

91.300

3

6

2013

Syracuse

0.925

110.400

88.800

4

4

2004

Gonzaga

0.924

117.600

94.600

2

1

2009

Oklahoma

0.924

117.000

94.100

2

3

2009

Villanova

0.924

112.800

90.800

3

4

2003

Illinois

0.924

111.600

89.800

4

1

2006

Memphis

0.923

110.500

89.000

1

3

2005

Louisville

0.923

117.500

94.700

4

3

2010

Butler

0.922

108.200

87.300

5

5

2006

Villanova

0.921

114.400

92.400

1

3

2012

Wisconsin

0.921

112.100

90.600

4

2

2003

Duke

0.920

113.900

92.100

3

2

2014

Villanova

0.9196

115.8

93.7

2

?

The second table places Villanova, as close as possible (based on a similarity score taking into account the four factors, offensive and defensive efficiency, and 3 pointers taken and allowed) to other teams in the historical, statistical context. Draw your own conclusions – it’s past time for bed. BIG DAY TOMORROW.

Offense

Defense

Year

TeamName

AdjOE

eFG%

TO%

OR%

FTRate

AdjDE

eFG%2

TO%3

OR%4

FTRate5

F3GRate

OppF3GRate

Seed

Games Won

Similarity Score

2012

Kentucky

121.30

53.80%

17.00%

37.50%

41.70%

89.90

42.00%

17.60%

30.80%

25.80%

26.47%

28.96%

1

6

2.057

2008

Kansas

120.00

56.60%

19.10%

37.80%

36.40%

87.10

44.30%

21.90%

28.80%

31.00%

29.29%

38.30%

1

6

2.049

2007

Florida

121.50

59.60%

20.70%

37.60%

43.70%

92.60

45.20%

18.80%

28.10%

27.70%

34.02%

31.35%

1

6

2.038

2004

Connecticut

115.90

53.20%

19.40%

41.60%

34.50%

89.20

41.50%

16.70%

31.50%

24.80%

25.76%

28.10%

2

6

1.929

2008

Memphis

117.60

52.80%

16.50%

38.30%

40.40%

87.90

43.40%

21.90%

29.20%

31.70%

35.26%

28.72%

1

5

1.917

2010

Kansas

119.20

55.10%

18.80%

37.70%

41.30%

89.70

43.20%

20.00%

31.30%

31.40%

30.70%

32.26%

1

1

1.892

2005

North Carolina

121.90

56.00%

21.00%

39.70%

44.20%

91.70

46.40%

23.10%

31.50%

30.30%

30.40%

36.68%

1

6

1.891

2003

Pittsburgh

114.00

56.50%

22.50%

37.00%

42.40%

87.40

44.00%

23.60%

28.50%

34.40%

32.39%

32.74%

2

2

1.878

2005

Illinois

120.90

56.00%

16.60%

34.70%

28.80%

89.80

47.10%

22.30%

31.20%

30.40%

38.84%

31.09%

1

5

1.863

2006

Florida

116.80

56.90%

20.70%

35.50%

40.70%

89.40

45.00%

22.40%

33.10%

29.40%

34.78%

32.46%

3

6

1.859

2004

Duke

118.50

53.20%

19.40%

39.00%

41.20%

89.00

44.70%

24.30%

36.80%

32.00%

33.43%

25.24%

1

4

1.848

2009

Connecticut

113.80

51.30%

18.10%

39.90%

46.40%

87.80

42.40%

16.20%

30.10%

19.50%

23.03%

30.30%

1

4

1.846

2011

Ohio St.

123.30

56.30%

15.80%

35.70%

37.10%

92.10

48.30%

23.40%

28.30%

20.60%

32.73%

34.56%

1

2

1.840

2010

Duke

120.00

50.50%

16.40%

40.30%

37.90%

89.50

43.60%

21.30%

32.10%

34.00%

32.97%

25.35%

1

6

1.816

2007

Georgetown

120.20

57.00%

22.00%

40.20%

36.60%

93.40

44.10%

19.30%

33.90%

32.10%

34.78%

37.67%

2

4

1.788

2011

Kansas

116.20

57.00%

19.10%

36.90%

39.30%

91.30

44.50%

20.40%

27.60%

31.90%

32.38%

34.55%

1

3

1.759

2014

Arizona

113.10

51.60%

16.00%

37.20%

41.70%

86.90

42.20%

19.00%

26.00%

34.50%

26.52%

26.22%

1

?

1.756

2013

Indiana

117.90

54.80%

19.20%

39.00%

45.90%

92.30

44.00%

20.90%

31.30%

27.00%

32.32%

32.74%

1

2

1.748

2005

Duke

113.30

52.10%

18.90%

37.30%

42.90%

89.30

42.20%

21.80%

36.80%

32.00%

39.84%

20.84%

1

2

1.727

2009

Memphis

111.50

50.10%

18.10%

37.70%

39.90%

85.10

41.40%

21.80%

30.10%

35.50%

31.30%

28.26%

2

2

1.722

2011

Pittsburgh

117.90

52.90%

18.50%

42.70%

43.10%

93.00

45.10%

17.70%

28.40%

32.30%

27.44%

32.97%

1

1

1.713

2004

Pittsburgh

111.90

51.20%

19.40%

40.60%

38.60%

86.80

42.90%

19.80%

34.40%

23.40%

24.93%

30.53%

3

2

1.712

2013

Florida

112.70

55.30%

17.80%

34.20%

31.10%

87.00

43.30%

22.40%

28.40%

29.90%

39.47%

32.84%

3

3

1.699

2008

Georgetown

113.20

56.80%

21.20%

33.80%

34.20%

90.10

42.00%

18.90%

32.80%

36.00%

40.24%

35.33%

2

1

1.695

2009

North Carolina

122.40

52.80%

16.50%

38.90%

39.80%

92.90

46.60%

20.40%

31.70%

25.40%

27.16%

32.85%

1

6

1.689

2008

UCLA

115.60

52.20%

18.60%

39.30%

37.30%

89.40

46.50%

21.70%

27.80%

25.60%

27.63%

27.48%

1

4

1.685

2013

Louisville

117.40

50.50%

18.30%

38.20%

40.00%

86.40

44.80%

27.00%

33.30%

34.90%

30.03%

33.32%

1

6

1.683

2010

Kentucky

111.70

53.10%

20.30%

40.50%

43.60%

88.00

43.10%

19.70%

31.20%

29.70%

31.30%

33.84%

1

3

1.680

2006

Connecticut

117.50

51.80%

19.70%

42.50%

41.90%

93.60

43.00%

18.30%

32.20%

24.80%

24.62%

31.00%

1

3

1.679

2007

North Carolina

119.40

54.40%

18.50%

39.70%

39.50%

91.50

47.00%

21.40%

29.60%

27.90%

25.24%

32.51%

1

3

1.673

2007

Ohio St.

119.60

53.80%

17.20%

34.70%

36.50%

91.60

46.70%

20.20%

31.20%

21.60%

36.45%

37.30%

1

5

1.668

2008

North Carolina

120.40

53.00%

18.70%

42.40%

38.00%

92.50

48.20%

20.70%

28.70%

25.70%

22.62%

34.22%

1

4

1.663

2012

Michigan St.

112.10

52.70%

19.80%

36.40%

37.80%

87.10

43.30%

19.40%

26.90%

34.30%

27.50%

36.09%

1

2

1.654

2014

Wichita St.

117.70

52.00%

16.20%

35.40%

47.30%

92.70

44.80%

18.50%

25.90%

35.60%

36.47%

35.41%

1

?

1.650

2014

Florida

115.70

52.70%

17.80%

35.80%

43.30%

90.00

45.10%

22.00%

29.20%

32.60%

35.28%

31.41%

1

?

1.650

2003

Kansas

113.20

52.70%

20.10%

39.50%

37.70%

88.00

46.00%

22.70%

30.50%

25.30%

22.88%

30.21%

2

5

1.639

2004

Oklahoma St.

117.50

55.50%

19.80%

37.60%

39.30%

91.00

46.10%

21.90%

31.90%

35.30%

22.84%

30.15%

2

4

1.634

2011

Duke

117.70

53.70%

17.30%

34.80%

37.40%

93.00

44.50%

20.90%

32.60%

29.60%

35.27%

24.55%

1

2

1.634

2003

Kentucky

113.90

53.80%

20.10%

39.70%

35.30%

87.90

46.80%

23.80%

31.50%

32.50%

28.28%

31.83%

1

3

1.626

2008

Wisconsin

112.40

50.60%

19.10%

36.10%

39.90%

88.10

43.40%

21.40%

28.70%

25.40%

31.85%

32.68%

3

2

1.620

2006

Duke

116.60

55.50%

19.10%

30.80%

45.00%

92.60

46.20%

22.40%

37.60%

27.60%

35.26%

21.31%

1

2

1.609

2004

Gonzaga

117.60

56.50%

19.20%

38.20%

41.00%

94.60

44.40%

18.10%

30.30%

28.40%

27.83%

34.66%

2

1

1.605

2009

Pittsburgh

119.50

52.90%

18.00%

42.00%

33.00%

93.20

46.50%

18.80%

29.70%

30.20%

29.33%

33.82%

1

3

1.605

2014

Creighton

125.70

59.30%

15.20%

28.10%

34.30%

102.50

48.00%

15.10%

27.80%

32.90%

44.63%

34.85%

3

?

1.598

2012

Ohio St.

116.90

52.10%

17.50%

35.90%

38.10%

89.70

46.40%

22.50%

25.10%

29.10%

26.89%

34.93%

2

4

1.593

2012

Kansas

111.10

52.30%

19.20%

34.60%

39.80%

87.10

43.40%

20.30%

28.90%

33.10%

29.65%

31.89%

2

5

1.592

2009

Oklahoma

117.00

55.20%

19.70%

36.90%

46.50%

94.10

45.80%

18.10%

31.80%

28.80%

34.57%

35.26%

2

3

1.587

2011

Texas

113.90

50.20%

17.20%

37.10%

43.10%

90.70

42.50%

18.70%

29.80%

30.70%

25.49%

26.08%

4

1

1.585

2013

Gonzaga

118.40

54.90%

17.20%

37.80%

40.80%

93.10

44.90%

20.80%

29.80%

29.90%

31.55%

38.76%

1

1

1.582

2008

Louisville

111.60

53.10%

20.20%

33.50%

36.50%

88.20

44.00%

21.20%

30.60%

33.40%

38.69%

34.68%

3

3

1.580

2014

Louisville

117.40

54.00%

14.90%

37.30%

40.40%

90.60

43.80%

25.20%

32.90%

38.20%

35.57%

30.70%

4

?

1.578

2006

UCLA

110.40

53.20%

22.30%

37.40%

38.50%

88.50

45.90%

22.10%

31.10%

31.70%

34.34%

26.66%

2

5

1.573

2014

Virginia

114.00

50.60%

16.80%

34.80%

42.40%

89.50

43.90%

18.80%

26.40%

32.30%

29.60%

33.92%

1

?

1.569

2013

Kansas

110.00

53.30%

20.30%

33.80%

39.50%

87.80

41.50%

18.40%

29.30%

32.00%

28.99%

35.64%

1

2

1.562

2003

Arizona

115.00

51.50%

19.00%

39.30%

36.80%

90.40

45.80%

21.70%

32.20%

26.90%

31.25%

30.84%

1

3

1.561

2010

Baylor

118.50

54.40%

20.20%

38.20%

36.10%

94.60

44.40%

17.70%

32.50%

34.20%

32.39%

34.40%

3

3

1.559

2006

Texas

115.80

52.50%

20.00%

41.90%

35.30%

93.80

44.30%

20.60%

28.10%

25.10%

33.91%

36.58%

2

3

1.558

2004

Saint Joseph's

115.50

56.10%

16.90%

29.60%

33.70%

90.50

44.40%

24.00%

36.10%

33.40%

42.54%

29.08%

1

3

1.556

2011

Kentucky

115.60

52.30%

16.10%

33.60%

36.10%

92.00

44.20%

17.90%

29.50%

30.10%

32.39%

29.66%

4

4

1.554

2005

Utah

111.60

55.30%

23.90%

40.70%

47.00%

92.60

47.90%

19.50%

25.80%

24.90%

25.90%

31.44%

6

2

1.538

2011

Notre Dame

119.90

53.50%

16.70%

33.30%

45.10%

97.90

46.70%

15.80%

28.70%

25.60%

38.65%

33.17%

2

1

1.525

2005

Louisville

117.50

55.10%

19.90%

37.20%

43.30%

94.70

44.80%

23.00%

31.30%

37.00%

42.10%

36.90%

4

3

1.521

2005

Connecticut

110.50

50.20%

21.00%

42.50%

41.30%

90.60

42.90%

16.80%

30.70%

25.60%

23.72%

33.03%

2

1

1.516

2010

Syracuse

115.50

57.60%

21.50%

37.60%

36.90%

91.90

45.90%

22.00%

34.60%

25.60%

30.88%

40.19%

1

2

1.515

2009

Kansas

111.80

53.40%

21.50%

36.70%

39.50%

90.50

44.00%

18.90%

29.00%

35.00%

30.67%

34.11%

3

2

1.515

2013

Michigan

120.30

54.60%

14.60%

32.50%

28.40%

94.30

48.00%

18.70%

29.40%

22.70%

34.18%

33.58%

4

5

1.513

2007

Kansas

112.70

54.50%

20.00%

37.80%

36.20%

88.40

43.50%

23.70%

30.30%

34.00%

26.06%

36.66%

1

3

1.509

2014

Kansas

118.60

54.50%

19.00%

37.10%

48.90%

96.90

47.10%

16.30%

29.10%

45.70%

29.12%

31.07%

2

?

1.501

2009

Louisville

109.60

52.70%

19.70%

34.60%

31.40%

86.90

44.30%

23.00%

31.70%

30.20%

37.78%

30.52%

1

3

1.500

2014

Villanova

115.80

54.00%

17.20%

33.10%

45.00%

93.70

46.60%

20.20%

28.90%

38.70%

44.65%

32.69%

2

?

1.488

2011

San Diego St.

111.50

50.50%

17.10%

37.40%

31.10%

89.10

44.10%

19.40%

29.30%

28.00%

30.01%

29.61%

2

2

1.487

2006

North Carolina

114.50

53.60%

22.70%

41.20%

40.50%

94.50

46.40%

20.50%

30.60%

27.60%

31.73%

31.94%

3

1

1.484

2007

Texas A&M

117.20

55.70%

18.20%

33.80%

41.30%

93.10

42.80%

21.70%

29.80%

38.40%

27.98%

36.08%

3

2

1.471

2012

Wisconsin

112.10

50.10%

15.10%

30.60%

30.70%

90.60

42.50%

18.20%

27.70%

29.80%

41.33%

24.13%

4

2

1.470

2006

Memphis

110.50

51.20%

21.00%

41.10%

39.40%

89.00

42.60%

23.30%

32.30%

43.60%

34.18%

31.04%

1

3

1.466

2005

Florida

113.10

55.20%

20.30%

36.00%

40.90%

92.30

46.10%

21.70%

29.40%

35.20%

35.75%

32.44%

4

1

1.460

2013

Michigan St.

110.70

50.60%

20.80%

36.10%

36.60%

88.40

44.50%

19.20%

27.60%

32.40%

27.24%

34.31%

3

2

1.453

2005

Michigan St.

118.60

54.60%

19.90%

38.90%

37.30%

94.60

48.80%

22.10%

29.60%

37.90%

32.89%

33.56%

5

4

1.451

2013

Creighton

115.30

58.20%

18.90%

28.80%

34.20%

96.40

45.90%

16.10%

27.10%

26.10%

39.43%

33.22%

7

1

1.450

2009

Xavier

108.30

52.40%

21.50%

37.40%

46.10%

90.60

43.70%

18.50%

27.80%

33.00%

32.88%

30.88%

4

2

1.442

2007

UCLA

112.40

53.50%

18.40%

33.50%

32.80%

88.60

47.60%

23.20%

29.90%

30.20%

32.78%

27.57%

2

4

1.440

2004

North Carolina St.

119.20

52.70%

19.90%

32.80%

35.70%

95.40

47.30%

21.60%

33.40%

33.90%

44.61%

32.39%

3

1

1.440

2013

Duke

116.70

53.90%

15.60%

28.80%

39.20%

92.60

45.50%

20.40%

32.30%

32.70%

33.25%

26.88%

2

3

1.438

2003

Illinois

111.60

54.40%

19.30%

31.90%

33.60%

89.80

43.30%

21.60%

30.60%

37.60%

35.78%

35.54%

4

1

1.434

2005

Wake Forest

124.00

55.50%

20.10%

40.80%

46.10%

100.40

49.90%

20.00%

31.70%

32.40%

31.99%

34.42%

2

1

1.433

2004

Wisconsin

114.30

50.30%

16.00%

34.80%

40.50%

90.40

46.60%

22.60%

30.50%

30.20%

33.43%

27.16%

6

1

1.432

2012

North Carolina

114.00

49.80%

16.40%

39.60%

37.30%

91.10

45.00%

18.30%

27.20%

21.80%

23.45%

35.46%

1

3

1.428

2012

Vanderbilt

114.20

54.10%

20.20%

32.60%

40.10%

93.90

46.90%

19.00%

32.00%

28.60%

41.23%

32.46%

5

1

1.422

2007

Memphis

113.50

51.70%

18.50%

39.60%

42.40%

91.00

43.70%

23.60%

31.80%

42.60%

35.22%

29.01%

2

3

1.421

2011

Wisconsin

119.80

51.80%

13.40%

34.20%

29.50%

96.00

48.20%

16.90%

27.40%

32.90%

41.15%

29.39%

4

2

1.421

2007

Wisconsin

112.50

51.60%

17.30%

35.10%

44.90%

89.80

46.30%

22.20%

28.50%

28.10%

31.62%

31.15%

2

1

1.418

2014

Duke

124.40

54.00%

14.40%

35.10%

39.30%

101.40

49.00%

18.70%

31.70%

40.20%

39.02%

24.02%

3

?

1.411

2004

Georgia Tech

111.70

52.50%

20.90%

32.90%

38.30%

89.30

43.70%

22.70%

34.80%

40.80%

32.94%

32.90%

3

5

1.410

2008

Duke

113.40

53.60%

18.10%

33.80%

40.90%

91.00

47.60%

24.50%

33.80%

31.90%

39.14%

25.04%

2

1

1.409

2003

Syracuse

113.50

51.90%

19.40%

38.50%

37.60%

91.30

44.30%

20.40%

36.60%

30.00%

25.16%

34.89%

3

6

1.407

I will be publishing final lineup analyses, and an article on transition basketball, in the near future. Just need to set aside a bit of time. i'll see you guys tomorrow.

FanPosts only represent the opinions of the poster, not of VU Hoops.

SB Nation Featured Video
X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join VU Hoops

You must be a member of VU Hoops to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at VU Hoops. You should read them.

Join VU Hoops

You must be a member of VU Hoops to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at VU Hoops. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9347_tracker