B1G/NCAA basketball

[iam416]

I like Silva and Smith much more than Rozier and no one. IMO, veteran, good guard play goes a ways in the savvy department.

That said, they were so close to winning it at the end of regulation. Not necessarily on the FT, but the put back was oh so close to going in. And in OT, they forced a tough shot down by 2, but the ball found Dawson (or vice versa) and Sparty had its two possession lead with 35 seconds left and it was game over.

The possession after the Dawson bucket was horrendous. But, on the whole, I thought water found its level -- it was a toss up game between the 2 worst teams left in the Elite 8 -- by far. IMO, the clearly had the wrong Wildcats as a #1 seed. If Arizona had been in that region we're looking at a the ultra-rare 4 one-seed FF.

[entropy]

Rick P also stated that chemistry was very difficult this year.. at least earlier this season he said that

[iam416]

Also, re the Champion Louisville team, that team was #4 in offensive efficiency at almost 117.4. M was #1 that year at 120. That was a pretty good offensive team. Good guards. A good shooter. Good interior play.

[hack]

Agree that water found its level. A great example of how cohesion beats talent. And about the bad seeing. Ideally you should have four teams with both of those attributes.

that Louisville team of 2 years ago was efficient because they were good at pressure and Smith on the break. I'm surprised to see their efficiency was that high, but it wasn't a half-court thing, that's for sure. And not that there's anything wrong with that. Effective pressure D combined with great break finishers is a pretty damn efficient way to skin the cat.

[iam416]

It's interesting. Defensively, this year's team and that team are almost identical in terms of efficiency. Offensive efficiency is where there is a huge gap.

[hack]

How comparable do you thing the numbers are? In the last five years Louisville's played in six different conferences, or something like that.

No matter what though a Pitino team has no business jacking an off-balance 20-footer with 20 second left. That was ridiculous.

[iam416]

Another interesting stat (at least to me). Since Kenpom has records (2002-current), the two highest offensive efficiency ratings prior to this season were Chris Paul's Wake Forest team (124.0) and last year's M team (124.1). This year's "boring" and "unwatchable" and "awful" Wisconsin team has an offensive efficiency of 127.5. That is a staggering number. Staggering.

If you enjoy watching a team work the halfcourt offense, share the ball and create high value scoring opportunities then this year's Wisconsin team is for you. If you enjoy high tempo, poor shot selection and generally awful efficiency, well, VMI will be playing again in November.

[iam416]

I think the Big East two years ago was comparable to the ACC this season. I think this year's ACC was probably a bit better, but given the size of the leagues a lot depends on the conference schedule draw -- and I'm not going to break that down.

I'd guess the Big East was a slightly better defensive league and the ACC better offensively. That would suggest the championship team was even better on offense (and this year's squad on defense). And the 2013 Cards did score at least 72 in every tournament game.

[hack]

Another interesting stat (at least to me). Since Kenpom has records (2002-current), the two highest offensive efficiency ratings prior to this season were Chris Paul's Wake Forest team (124.0) and last year's M team (124.1). This year's "boring" and "unwatchable" and "awful" Wisconsin team has an offensive efficiency of 127.5. That is a staggering number. Staggering.

If you enjoy watching a team work the halfcourt offense, share the ball and create high value scoring opportunities then this year's Wisconsin team is for you. If you enjoy high tempo, poor shot selection and generally awful efficiency, well, VMI will be playing again in November.

I thought that in 2014 Michigan narrowly broke it's own record from 2013. I agree with the point you are making, and that there's more right with Wisconsin than wrong. But I'm skeptical of the value of those numbers. Michigan's '14 offense was so different than '13 and so much better. In '13 teams figured out how to bully Michigan and really it was all about whether Hardaway could be a reliable second scorer, because Stauskas and Robinson weren't ready yet. '13's dirty little secret is how reliant it was on jumpers from 25 or more. We don't beat OSU at home or Syracuse in the final four without 4 of those. The first half against Louisville had either 9 or 12 points off NBA 3s or deeper. And, of course, Burke's Kansas shot. I don't know that it's fair to call something ``efficient'' when you're basically reliant on shots the defense is content to give you. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't, including a few key games.

Last year's offense was miles and miles better. Beilein broke the laws of basketball physics last year. He had the alpha but he also had a diverse attack. I'm sure, looking back, he thinks that '14 was a much better representation of his ideal form than '13 was.

[iam416]

Michigan was 120.3 in 2013. Given the parameters of the number, a 3.8 difference is absolutely significant. So, kenpom would agree that the 2014 team was significantly more efficient than the 2013 team. The 2013 team was very good on offense, but a number of teams have been above 120. Only 3 have been at 124 or higher. And only one has been above 127.

And, of course, good shooters increase efficiency.

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU...for the love of Christ...

[hack]

Michigan was 120.3 in 2013. Given the parameters of the number, a 3.8 difference is absolutely significant. So, kenpom would agree that the 2014 team was significantly more efficient than the 2013 team. The 2013 team was very good on offense, but a number of teams have been above 120. Only 3 have been at 124 or higher. And only one has been above 127.

And, of course, good shooters increase efficiency.

OK. You moved me part of the way there. Still -- making a shot you'd rather not take is not efficient. But some of my skepticism is gone. I'd thought '14 was considered only marginally better, and I appreciate there's only so much you can do to turn numbers into non-statistical conclusions. Fair enough.

[entropy]

another thing to consider... UK is willing to pay more..

[THE_WIZARD_]

$EC

[WM Wolverine]

Lots of boosters and bag man in the SEC.