Basketball@RichardCheeks.com

January 12th

SEC Basketball: Offensive to Defensive Efficiency

The most powerful Kentucky teams since 1972 are 1983 (119.4%), 1984 (120.0%), 1993 (120.9%), 1995 (122.8%), 1996 (128.1%), 1999 (119.4%), and about 1/3 of the way, 2005 (125.4%).  The least powerful Kentucky teams during that same period, are 1974 (98%), 1976 (101.5%), 1985 (99.9%), 1987 (101.9%), and 1989 (97.2%).

To estimate your team’s power rating, divide the points scored by the points allowed, and express it as a percentage.

Strength of Schedule

The strength of schedule appears to provide a significant factor to a team's power rating.  To compare power ratings, team to team, one must factor the schedule strength.  The above power ratings are raw data that do not reflect strength of schedule variations.  I am currently evaluating alternative SOS relationships, and I am applying a SOS factor in my game handicapping.  At the end of this season, I will write more completely about the SOS factor because these analyses appear sensitive to this factor. 

The Kentucky-Kansas game played on January 9, 2005 illustrates how Strength of Schedule affects this analysis.  Prior to the game, Kentucky has a 10-1 record, and has achieved a pre-game power rating for the season of 126%.  Kansas was 10-0 with an average power rating of 127%.  Kansas had not left their home court all season, and Kentucky’s only loss was to UNC in Chapel Hill.  On the basis of these factors, many folks concluded that Kentucky should defeat Kansas, especially since Kansas would play without their All-America front court player, Simion, and the game was at Rupp.  The pre-game line reflected this thinking, Kentucky by 6 points.

However, Kansas had played a significantly tougher schedule in establishing its power.  The RPI SOS factors prior to the game were 0.5240 and 0.6819 for Kentucky and Kansas respectively.  Based on this SOS difference, I predicted an eight point Kansas victory.  The final margin was 6 points. 

Epilogue On SEC Predictions

Last week on these pages, you read my predictions for the 2005 SEC Basketball season, which is now underway.  Many of you wrote to share your thoughts about this analysis.  I read them all, and I appreciate your thoughts, your alternative views, and your constructive criticism.  As I explained in that article, I understand that my prediction with respect to certain teams, particularly Mississippi State is at odds with conventional wisdom.  However, just as the SOS factor affected the analysis of the Kentucky-Kansas match-up, the SOS factor affected my analysis of the SEC match-ups.   Yes, Mississippi State has posted an impressive 13-1 record.  However, as with Kentucky, Mississippi State’s schedule strength is lower than the average for SEC teams.  Furthermove, Mississippi State’s Net Game Efficiency against the weak Pre-SEC Schedule is below average. 

I appreciate that each person has opinions about these matters.  I don’t expect to correctly predict the winner in all 96 of the SEC games this season.  However, after one week of SEC play this year, I have correctly predicted the winner in all 10 contests.  This analysis is completely objective, driven by each team’s offensive and defensive efficiencies to date, and its strength of schedule.  I encourage you to visit the following URL to examine all 96 predictions and the game results to date:

http://RichardCheeks.com/UK Sports/Explanations/22 SEC Predictions-x.htm

Keep those emails coming!

Footnotes

FN1. Cazzie Russell led the University of Michigan to college basketball's promised land in 1965 and 1966. In 1966, Michigan lost to UCLA in the championship game. In 1966, Michigan lost in the Mid-East Regional final to Kentucky 's Rupp's Runts team. Many times during those two seasons, Michigan either trailed or held a slim lead with 10 miinutes remaining in the game. For the first 30 minutes, Cazzie shared theball with his teammates; however, the last 10 minutes are for Cazzie, and he would simply step up, take over the game on offense, and lead Michigan to one of their frequent victories.

FN2. In 2003, Kentucky started its season with a loss in one of its pre-season exhibition games, and after nine regular season games, Kentucky stood at 6 – 3 after its 18 point defeat to Louisville . Subsequent to the Louisville game, Kentucky began a winning streak that stood at 23 when the NCAA tournament began, including undefeated in the SEC regular season and tournament, a first in 51 years, and not even the great 1996 National Championship Kentucky team can boast this accomplishment to its long list of credits. Since the Louisville loss, Kentucky 's power rating has been 1.25. Kentucky found its defensive commitment at half time of its game against Vanderbilt in Nashville . After trailing by as much as 14 points in the first half, and by 8 points [28 – 36] at half time, Kentucky held Vanderbilt to only 16 points in the second half and won easily by 22 points. Since this Vanderbilt game, Kentucky has posted a power rating of 1.26. Through five post season games in 2003, Kentucky has an average power rating of 1.35.

FN3. Kentucky was able to win two games with game power ratings below 1.00 on the strength of superior ofensive rebounding which provided bonus possessions, 3 in the Florida game and 7 in the AIA game.