If you want an advantage that your colleagues won't have in their NCAA pools, try Ken Pomeroy's offensive efficiency ratings in the site linked above. Pomeroy has run these offensive efficiency tables for the past two seasons, and of the last eight Final Four teams, seven (all four last year, all but Georgia Tech in '04) were in the top ten in all of Division I in offensive efficiency in the respective seasons. A minute sample, admittedly, but an interesting one.
Basketball, at its core, is an offensive game. No matter what you try as a defense, you won't pitch a shutout and you will always be subject to a great play on offense that will create points, or a great player who can create something from nothing (two words and a number: Carmelo Anthony 2003). Coaches know this, that's why Rick Pitino preaches deflections to stall offensive flow, why Pat Riley preaches getting in the face of the shooters, why Dean Smith charted points per possession, why Boeheim charts "open" jumpers that opponents have, etc.
Pomeroy's offensive efficiency ratings are more accurate than points per game because they quantify the number of points a team scores per possession (rendered as points per 100 possessions), thereby taking tempo out of the equation such that slow tempo teams (Princeton, NC State, Air Force) are not comparatively shortchanged by their pace and fast tempo teams (Duke, UConn) are not overrated by the swiftness of their play. His top ten offensive efficiency teams heading into the 2006 Tourney, adjusted for strength of schedule, are: Duke, Texas, Villanova, Notre Dame, BC, UConn, UNC, Gonzaga, Tennessee, Washington.
Don't discount defense too much, however. Of the last eight teams to make the Final Four, none had an adjusted defensive efficiency rank worse than #25 (Michigan State, 2005). That factor points against BC (#100), Gonzaga (#162), Tennessee (#85) and Washington (#37), but favors Duke (#19), Texas (#8), Villanova (#18), UNC (#14) and UConn (#5). It also favors The Monk's sleeper pick for the Final Four -- Kansas (#1).
No comments:
Post a Comment