This is my 100th post, so since my mizz tigers breakdown http://bearcattalk.com/showthread.php?t=4135 before the tourney game got such a good response, i figured I'd offer this up to the community as a gift [or maybe its a punishment
] Feel free to comment, rip it, disagree, point and laugh etc. If you like it, id love for you to link/pass it on to friends or twitter or whatever.
You cant lose if the other team doesn’t score right? We’re all familiar with this reasoning, but is it really that sound of logic? I mean technically you cant win if your team doesn’t score either, so does a cliche like this even mean anything?
Lets take a look at which teams made Final Fours since the 2003 season and just how big a role defense, and offense played in that, as well as which teams won championships, because, we all know “defense wins championships.” Please note, this is a pop culture esque look at data and statistics. This is nowhere near a causal relationship and is merely a correlation based study. I understand this is a very limited look at how teams have performed in recent years in the tournament. Also, I am the first person to acknowledge an inherent element of luck built into basketball games, especially in a single game elimination win/go home situation that is March Madness. This is not a best of seven series.
The first problem we run into when determining how good the teams are in the Final 4 is many on ESPN, CBS, and random joe at the bar are still using an antiquated method of determining great defense. How can I make such a claim? Listen to the announcers in any high tempo fast paced game with tons of possessions. Rarely, if ever is it acknowledged a team is playing a great defense if it gives up 68-73 points in a game. Similarly in a slow paced game we will hear how suffocating a team like butler has been this year on defense. Both of these claims are false. Some try to use a form of an objective statistical measure, but this also falls short because the claim will reference points allowed per game and FG%.
Well, frankly this is beyond dumb. It doesn't mean FG% in and of itself is a useless stat, but it has a lot of flaws and there are better measures out there. First, holding a team to 39 fg% would normally be considered a success. However what if the offense that night shot a disproportionate number of 3’s. This 39% from 3 pt range is >50% from 2pt range. 50% from a 2 pt attempt is good for 1 point per possession, where as 39% from 3 is good for 1.17 points per possession. That jump may not seem significant at first, but that's a 17% increase in scoring for EVERY trip down the floor. That is MASSIVE.
Second, it doesn’t consider if this was a game with a high # or low # of possessions. Simply because a team plays a slower pace, takes up a lot of time on offense and has fewer possessions they will inherently allow fewer total points scored per game. This does NOT = defense.
Defense means the other team has the ball and you prevented them from scoring. Defense is not shortening the game, lowering the # of possessions, and thus increasing the luck factor for the game by reducing the number of trials to prove who is better. Think about it with regards to getting to the long run for Phil Ivey in poker. If he plays one session (maybe 100 hands) with a huge fish, there's a distinct possibility he might end up a loser that night. But the more and more sessions Phil Ivey plays, the more and more trials he has to get to the “long run” and show his skill edge.
Similarly, the lower the # of possessions in a basketball game, the better the chance of a long shot team getting lucky and beating a powerhouse. Thankfully, there's a man that runs a wonderful website that consider all of these factors. Guess what else it does though? It even includes adjustments for opponent strength. It also tracks effective FG % where 3pters made are rewarded by the appropriate boost to the shooting % it should receive. Who is this man and what is this site? Yes its Ken Pomeroy, owner of www.kenpom.com
So enough of the rambling and what do the Final Four numbers actually say.
First teams listed for each year with *** by name won the National Title
Average Final 4 Offense Efficiency ranking 13.53
Average Final 4 Defense Efficiency ranking 17.27
Average National Champion Offense Efficiency ranking 2.88
Average National Champion Defense Efficiency ranking 8.375
So what do all these numbers mean? Well that’s up for debate, but of the 36 Final Four teams 32 were ranked in the top 15 in at least one of the two categories of offense or defensive efficiency. Whats intriguing is 3 of those 4 teams ranked outside of the top 15 in both categories both happened in the past 2 years. Mich St 2010, Butler 2011, and VCU 2011. Yep, that's right, 2010 Butler was in the top 5 for defensive efficiency, so i dont think we should be calling that 2010 run such a fluke. 2011, on the other hand is another story. Is change the last two years parity? Is it just an example of a one and done tournament situation thats inevitable to happen some percentage of the time? I wish I knew for sure, but it definitely is intriguing to me that since 2003, 3 of the 4 "worst" teams statistically to make the Final Four were in the past 2 years.
I do think you can basically reason that if your team is a top Defensive Efficiency team you have a much better than average chance of making the final 4 and winning a title. Not surprisingly, having a strong defense has a high correlation with making a final 4 and winning a national title. However, most telling is that this 2011 season will be the first year since 2003 that a team not ranked in the top 5 for offensive efficiency will win a national championship. In fact between 2005 and 2010, the National Champion was #1 or #2 in offensive efficiency every single season.
This would lead some to the conclusion that while most great defensive teams make deep runs, they need an elite efficient offense in order to win a national championship. Is this just variance? Were the best offensive teams slightly luckier than the best defensive teams over the recent years in the one game winner take all samples? Did they get the right match-ups and have the bounces go there way? Whatever the reason or reasons, its definitely an interesting fact.
Is the 2011 Final Four an aberration? Unfortunately we’ll never know for sure because there's a multitude of factors that go into this discussion. Also these statistics have not been tracked beyond the 2003 season. However for now I am convinced that having an elite offense gives a team a better chance of winning a national title than having an elite defense. So while defenses win games, and make runs in the tournament, I'll take the the elite offense every single time.
] Feel free to comment, rip it, disagree, point and laugh etc. If you like it, id love for you to link/pass it on to friends or twitter or whatever. Defense Wins Championships!..or Does it???
You cant lose if the other team doesn’t score right? We’re all familiar with this reasoning, but is it really that sound of logic? I mean technically you cant win if your team doesn’t score either, so does a cliche like this even mean anything?
Lets take a look at which teams made Final Fours since the 2003 season and just how big a role defense, and offense played in that, as well as which teams won championships, because, we all know “defense wins championships.” Please note, this is a pop culture esque look at data and statistics. This is nowhere near a causal relationship and is merely a correlation based study. I understand this is a very limited look at how teams have performed in recent years in the tournament. Also, I am the first person to acknowledge an inherent element of luck built into basketball games, especially in a single game elimination win/go home situation that is March Madness. This is not a best of seven series.
The first problem we run into when determining how good the teams are in the Final 4 is many on ESPN, CBS, and random joe at the bar are still using an antiquated method of determining great defense. How can I make such a claim? Listen to the announcers in any high tempo fast paced game with tons of possessions. Rarely, if ever is it acknowledged a team is playing a great defense if it gives up 68-73 points in a game. Similarly in a slow paced game we will hear how suffocating a team like butler has been this year on defense. Both of these claims are false. Some try to use a form of an objective statistical measure, but this also falls short because the claim will reference points allowed per game and FG%.
Well, frankly this is beyond dumb. It doesn't mean FG% in and of itself is a useless stat, but it has a lot of flaws and there are better measures out there. First, holding a team to 39 fg% would normally be considered a success. However what if the offense that night shot a disproportionate number of 3’s. This 39% from 3 pt range is >50% from 2pt range. 50% from a 2 pt attempt is good for 1 point per possession, where as 39% from 3 is good for 1.17 points per possession. That jump may not seem significant at first, but that's a 17% increase in scoring for EVERY trip down the floor. That is MASSIVE.
Second, it doesn’t consider if this was a game with a high # or low # of possessions. Simply because a team plays a slower pace, takes up a lot of time on offense and has fewer possessions they will inherently allow fewer total points scored per game. This does NOT = defense.
Defense means the other team has the ball and you prevented them from scoring. Defense is not shortening the game, lowering the # of possessions, and thus increasing the luck factor for the game by reducing the number of trials to prove who is better. Think about it with regards to getting to the long run for Phil Ivey in poker. If he plays one session (maybe 100 hands) with a huge fish, there's a distinct possibility he might end up a loser that night. But the more and more sessions Phil Ivey plays, the more and more trials he has to get to the “long run” and show his skill edge.
Similarly, the lower the # of possessions in a basketball game, the better the chance of a long shot team getting lucky and beating a powerhouse. Thankfully, there's a man that runs a wonderful website that consider all of these factors. Guess what else it does though? It even includes adjustments for opponent strength. It also tracks effective FG % where 3pters made are rewarded by the appropriate boost to the shooting % it should receive. Who is this man and what is this site? Yes its Ken Pomeroy, owner of www.kenpom.com
So enough of the rambling and what do the Final Four numbers actually say.
First teams listed for each year with *** by name won the National Title
Average Final 4 Offense Efficiency ranking 13.53
Average Final 4 Defense Efficiency ranking 17.27
Average National Champion Offense Efficiency ranking 2.88
Average National Champion Defense Efficiency ranking 8.375
So what do all these numbers mean? Well that’s up for debate, but of the 36 Final Four teams 32 were ranked in the top 15 in at least one of the two categories of offense or defensive efficiency. Whats intriguing is 3 of those 4 teams ranked outside of the top 15 in both categories both happened in the past 2 years. Mich St 2010, Butler 2011, and VCU 2011. Yep, that's right, 2010 Butler was in the top 5 for defensive efficiency, so i dont think we should be calling that 2010 run such a fluke. 2011, on the other hand is another story. Is change the last two years parity? Is it just an example of a one and done tournament situation thats inevitable to happen some percentage of the time? I wish I knew for sure, but it definitely is intriguing to me that since 2003, 3 of the 4 "worst" teams statistically to make the Final Four were in the past 2 years.
I do think you can basically reason that if your team is a top Defensive Efficiency team you have a much better than average chance of making the final 4 and winning a title. Not surprisingly, having a strong defense has a high correlation with making a final 4 and winning a national title. However, most telling is that this 2011 season will be the first year since 2003 that a team not ranked in the top 5 for offensive efficiency will win a national championship. In fact between 2005 and 2010, the National Champion was #1 or #2 in offensive efficiency every single season.
This would lead some to the conclusion that while most great defensive teams make deep runs, they need an elite efficient offense in order to win a national championship. Is this just variance? Were the best offensive teams slightly luckier than the best defensive teams over the recent years in the one game winner take all samples? Did they get the right match-ups and have the bounces go there way? Whatever the reason or reasons, its definitely an interesting fact.
Is the 2011 Final Four an aberration? Unfortunately we’ll never know for sure because there's a multitude of factors that go into this discussion. Also these statistics have not been tracked beyond the 2003 season. However for now I am convinced that having an elite offense gives a team a better chance of winning a national title than having an elite defense. So while defenses win games, and make runs in the tournament, I'll take the the elite offense every single time.
Last edited: