KenPom: UT vs Southern Miss 2014

#1
V

volholio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
333
Likes
174
#1
UT Victory % 76.7%
Possessions 60

Score on a neutral floor:
UT (7) 70
SM (56) 63

--------
Here's the data:

Final season rating:

UT: .9124 surrounded by UWisc/UConn
SM: .7596 surrounded by UMass, NC State, St. F Austin

---

AdjO =

UT: 116.3 points per 100 possessions (17th best).
SM: 110.4 points per 100 possessions ((65th best).

-----

AdjD:

UT: 94.8 points per 100 (19th best)
SM: 99.9 points per 100 (73rd best)

-----
AdjTempo (possessions per game)

UT: 62.9 (323rd)
SM: 64.7 (258th)

-----
Luck: (why Tennessee lost a few games)

SM: +.103 9 (9th luckiest in the nation)
UT: -.098 (341st luckiest in the nation)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2
#2
So couple of things of note:

1) Tennessee scored more often when they had the ball and defended better, too. Since they were more efficient on both sides of the ball, for Southern Miss to make up for that, they would need to play much faster, but they don't really. In fact, they play pretty slowly.

For an example of a fast team, see Arkansas, who averaged 72.8 possessions a game, which was the 5th most in the country.

In short, look for an offense tempo similar to UT's team last year. Just sub a match up zone type defense.

Those are the numbers.
 
#5
#5
A good measure of pace and efficiency imo. Also a bit of an indictment on our last season as talented as we were.

It'll be interesting to see how the scheme adjusts to the personnel going forward.
 
#6
#6
FalcoVol said:
A good measure of pace and efficiency imo. Also a bit of an indictment on our last season as talented as we were.

It'll be interesting to see how the scheme adjusts to the personnel going forward.
Click to expand...


What do you mean a "Good indictment of the talent"? I mean those number are why Ken Pom ranked us as the 7th best team in the country.
 
#8
#8
volholio said:
UT Victory % 76.7%
Possessions 60

Score on a neutral floor:
UT (7) 70
SM (56) 63

--------
Here's the data:

Final season rating:

UT: .9124 surrounded by UWisc/UConn
SM: .7596 surrounded by UMass, NC State, St. F Austin

---

AdjO =

UT: 116.3 points per 100 possessions (17th best).
SM: 110.4 points per 100 possessions ((65th best).

-----

AdjD:

UT: 94.8 points per 100 (19th best)
SM: 99.9 points per 100 (73rd best)

-----
AdjTempo (possessions per game)

UT: 62.9 (323rd)
SM: 64.7 (258th)

-----
Luck: (why Tennessee lost a few games)

SM: +.103 9 (9th luckiest in the nation)
UT: -.098 (341st luckiest in the nation)
Click to expand...
How do you quantify luck?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
FalcoVol said:
Please read my post again and look at yours.
Click to expand...

I did. I'm not not understanding the premise. You said those numbers were a good indictment (a negative connotation) of the talent. However, UT was ranked 7th in the country. Did you mean "indication"?

I'm sorry I'm confused. I'm trying!:crazy:
 
#12
#12
volholio said:
I did. I'm not not understanding the premise. You said those numbers were a good indictment (a negative connotation) of the talent. However, UT was ranked 7th in the country. Did you mean "indication"?

I'm sorry I'm confused. I'm trying!:crazy:
Click to expand...

I suspect he means apparent talent vs wins/losses.
 
#13
#13
volholio said:
I did. I'm not not understanding the premise. You said those numbers were a good indictment (a negative connotation) of the talent. However, UT was ranked 7th in the country. Did you mean "indication"?

I'm sorry I'm confused. I'm trying!:crazy:
Click to expand...

this post is an indictment on your patience imo
 
#14
#14
volholio said:
I did. I'm not not understanding the premise. You said those numbers were a good indictment (a negative connotation) of the talent. However, UT was ranked 7th in the country. Did you mean "indication"?

I'm sorry I'm confused. I'm trying!:crazy:
Click to expand...
You misquoted me. No big deal.

My point was that our team was pretty talented and that it was an indictment on our performance that we didn't do better considering some of those stats.

The luck stat speaks volumes, if that is something that can actually be quantified lol.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion, kind sir. :hi:
 
#15
#15
FalcoVol said:
You misquoted me. No big deal.

My point was that our team was pretty talented and that it was an indictment on our performance that we didn't do better considering some of those stats.

The luck stat speaks volumes, if that is something that can actually be quantified lol.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion, kind sir. :hi:
Click to expand...

I'm glad we go it sorted:

Actually the poster above referencing the two T&AM games as unlucky is not far from the point.

If you lose a bunch of close games, that goes into your luck factor. Those should even out over time, but in a short season, like college basketball, sometimes it doesn't.

Take UK / DUKE on the Laettner last second shot: Smart money is one UK, and they'll win that game vastly more times than they'll lose it. However, they lost that one instance. Costs as a loss, but is UK any worse because of that loss? What if they lost that game by 35? Is that different? Kenpom would argue yes. You don't lose by 35 and be unlucky. You just got your ass beat.

So UT beat UVA--a great team--by about 35. That means a lot. They lost to T&AM--a poor team--on a last second shot. That doesn't count against you nearly as much. So if you win big but lose close, you're unlucky. The numbers bare that out.

So the conclusion of this? Don't be emotional. Look at the numbers. Don't fire a coach or hate on a coach because you think his team "under performed" solely based on the won/loss category, particularly in a single season. The data will be skewed. It's like if you moved to LA for a week and it rained a bunch and you said "screw LA, it rains too much."

Anyone play Hold 'em? Is a poker player any good if she hits a bunch of inside straights on the river when she called? Hell no. She just got lucky as hell. On the whole, she's gonna go broke.



Here's Kenpom's explanation on luck: the kenpom.com blog
 
#17
#17
To add to your conclusion - I'd say as long as you win, style of play shouldn't matter. But maybe that's just my opinion.
 
#18
#18
FalcoVol said:
To add to your conclusion - I'd say as long as you win, style of play shouldn't matter. But maybe that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Many ways to skin a cat, they say. I think the big thing with the data is not to look to closely (or solely) on win / loss records. It's more than that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top