SoonerJK12
New member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 362
- Reaction score
- 0
Some of you on here don't like KenPom (Boca), but he does have some interesting information if you pay $20, which is a bargain in my opinion.
He does a pace of play calculation for each game, and here is what I found. I don't know how he calculates it, but I am mainly using comparative analysis so the actual numbers don't matter as much as the differences between them.
Pace of Play (PoP):
Just for background purposes. The game in Norman against Iowa St was rated at 73 PoP. Our game against Albany was 59 (our slowest of the season).
- Michigan St's average PoP is 63 while Oklahoma's is 67.
- Michigan St's highest PoP game was a non-conference game against Ark Pine Bluff (PoP 71). In contrast, Oklahoma has played 9 games higher than 71 PoP with a max PoP of 80 against NW St. 6 of those 9 games were against NCAA tournament competition.
- They have played 3 games against NCAA Tournament competition that were played at or above our avg PoP of 67. Georgia, Indiana, Ohio State (they won all 3).
- In games played ABOVE their avg PoP of 63, their offensive efficiency did not change, and their defensive efficiency was actually improved.
- Interestingly, in games played BELOW their avg PoP, their defensive efficiency (104) was MUCH worse compared to their season avg (95). A kenpom 104 defensive efficiency rating would rank around 200 nationally. Their offensive efficiency did not change hardly at all compared to their avg.
- In games played ABOVE or BELOW their average PoP, Oklahoma's offensive and defensive efficiencies hardly changed compared to their season avg.
My Analysis:
BIAS - I made the following assumption: A higher PoP number corresponds to a more "transition" style game. A slower PoP number corresponds to a game played more in the half court. Seemed reasonable to me.
- It would appear like we would want to push the tempo in order to gain an advantage; however, they have played well in their games this year with a fast pace. Their defensive efficiency has actually improved in those faster paced game as well. That being said, Oklahoma has played many more "up-tempo" games than Mich St, and those games have been against better competition (many of their high-temo games were weak non-con opponents). I was surprise by this information, but I still feel that if this game does turn into a track meet, Oklahoma has the advantage because what Mich St considers "fast pace" is still slower than what Oklahoma has played against all year.
- Michigan St defensive performance in games played below their average PoP greatly surprised me. Does this mean that their half-court defense can be exploited? That's what these numbers might suggest, but I don't know. The numbers could be playing tricks.
- Oklahoma's efficiencies did not change depending on PoP. I wouldn't have guessed that, but it affirms what I have thought all year, we can win playing in the half-court or in transition.
Full Disclosure: I know I am not a mathematician nor a statistician. When I use the terms "did not change" or "improved", I do so realizing that I have not done the math to determine actual statistical significance.
He does a pace of play calculation for each game, and here is what I found. I don't know how he calculates it, but I am mainly using comparative analysis so the actual numbers don't matter as much as the differences between them.
Pace of Play (PoP):
Just for background purposes. The game in Norman against Iowa St was rated at 73 PoP. Our game against Albany was 59 (our slowest of the season).
- Michigan St's average PoP is 63 while Oklahoma's is 67.
- Michigan St's highest PoP game was a non-conference game against Ark Pine Bluff (PoP 71). In contrast, Oklahoma has played 9 games higher than 71 PoP with a max PoP of 80 against NW St. 6 of those 9 games were against NCAA tournament competition.
- They have played 3 games against NCAA Tournament competition that were played at or above our avg PoP of 67. Georgia, Indiana, Ohio State (they won all 3).
- In games played ABOVE their avg PoP of 63, their offensive efficiency did not change, and their defensive efficiency was actually improved.
- Interestingly, in games played BELOW their avg PoP, their defensive efficiency (104) was MUCH worse compared to their season avg (95). A kenpom 104 defensive efficiency rating would rank around 200 nationally. Their offensive efficiency did not change hardly at all compared to their avg.
- In games played ABOVE or BELOW their average PoP, Oklahoma's offensive and defensive efficiencies hardly changed compared to their season avg.
My Analysis:
BIAS - I made the following assumption: A higher PoP number corresponds to a more "transition" style game. A slower PoP number corresponds to a game played more in the half court. Seemed reasonable to me.
- It would appear like we would want to push the tempo in order to gain an advantage; however, they have played well in their games this year with a fast pace. Their defensive efficiency has actually improved in those faster paced game as well. That being said, Oklahoma has played many more "up-tempo" games than Mich St, and those games have been against better competition (many of their high-temo games were weak non-con opponents). I was surprise by this information, but I still feel that if this game does turn into a track meet, Oklahoma has the advantage because what Mich St considers "fast pace" is still slower than what Oklahoma has played against all year.
- Michigan St defensive performance in games played below their average PoP greatly surprised me. Does this mean that their half-court defense can be exploited? That's what these numbers might suggest, but I don't know. The numbers could be playing tricks.
- Oklahoma's efficiencies did not change depending on PoP. I wouldn't have guessed that, but it affirms what I have thought all year, we can win playing in the half-court or in transition.
Full Disclosure: I know I am not a mathematician nor a statistician. When I use the terms "did not change" or "improved", I do so realizing that I have not done the math to determine actual statistical significance.
