Sports and Numbers

Home arrow NCAA Basketball arrow Kansas Basketball arrow Game Previews arrow 2009-10 Season arrow Preview: Kansas at Colorado
 
Preview: Kansas at Colorado Print E-mail
Feb 3, 2010

Kansas at Colorado (Boulder, CO)

  Kansas Colorado

Performance Indicators

   
Record (conference)
20-1 (6-0) 11-10 (2-5)
AP Rank 1
NR
Pomeroy Rating
(Updated daily)
1
91
Consensus Ranking
(Updated periodically - avg several computer ratings and polls)
1
109
Best opponents defeated this season
(Ranking from Pomeroy)

@ Kansas State (#9) W 81-79 OT
vs Missouri (#15) W 84-65

vs Baylor (#16) W 78-71
vs Nebraska (90) W 72-60
RPI
(Used for schedule strength, not team strength. Current and forecast RPI from RPIForecast .)

Current: 1

Forecast: 1

Current: 142

Forecast: 129

Projected NCAA Tournament Seed
(Latest consensus from The Bracket Matrix)
 #1 Seed
 Out

Prediction Models

   
Vegas Oddsmakers Win by 14.5
Est. Projection: 83-69
 
Prediction Tracker
(Average of several power ratings)
 Win by 15.6  
Sagarin Power Ratings (Predictor)  Win by 13.56  
Pomeroy
(Efficiency and Tempo-Adjusted)

 Win 86-69
92% chance of victory

 
 TeamRankings.com

(Use home rating for home team, road for road.  If fewer than 3 games played at corresponding locations, use "predictive" ratings for both teams but use specific home advantage rather than standard average homecourt advantage for all NCAA teams.)

Win by 11.4  
Last 7 Games (Venue Adjusted)
(Uses team performance and consistency over last 5 home/non-home games, whichever pertains to this game + 2 other most recent games regardless of location.  This takes offense and defense into account separately to reflect how consistent teams have played on each end of the court)
 Est. Projection: 88-68
86.9% chance of victory
 
Similar Opponent
(Examines offensive performance against similar defensive teams and defensive performance against similar offensive teams.  Threshold for similarity set at efficiencies of 5 pts/100 possessions above or below that of opponent in this game.  If necessary, threshold adjusted to find a minimum of three games to analyze for offense and defense.)
 Est. Projection: 89-72
84.2% chance of victory
 
Weighted Average of All Models Above
(40% Vegas + 10% Pred Trckr + 10% SagP + 10% Pom + 10% TmRnk + 10% SimOpp + 10% Last 7)
 Win by 15.0
Est. Projection: 84-69
 

 

Last 7 Game Projection

 

  Kansas Colorado
Expected Score 87.6 68.3
Win 86.9% 13.1%
Win by 3 or less 3.7% 3.1%
Win by 10 or more 70.5% 4.8%

 

Down to the Wire?

 Margin of game was less than 1 point in 2.5% of simulated games from "Last 7 Game Analysis."  Many of these would be "overtime" games.

 

(Methodology of Last 7 Game Analysis: Here, we look at the last seven venue-appropriate games to see how the teams are performing.  If the game takes place on the road for Kansas, for example, the analysis looks at the five most recent non-home games for Kansas.  In addition, the two most recent games, regardless of venue, are added.  That way, we get a picture of the how the team is performing of late.  This season, the analysis also splits offense and defense.  Teams often are more or less consistent on one side of the court than the other.  This analysis will reflect that.  Based on the strength of the opposing offense and defense they've played over the last seven games, each team's offense and defense is evaluated based on strength and consistency.  Those numbers are then plugged into a simulation of 8,000 games.  The results are what you see in the table.)

 

Similar Opponent Projection

 

  Kansas Colorado
Expected Score 89.3 71.9
Win 84.2% 15.8%
Win by 3 or less 4.5% 3.9%
Win by 10 or more 66.2% 5.4%

 

Down to the Wire?

 Margin of game was less than 1 point in 2.9% of simulated games from "Last 7 Game Analysis."  Many of these would be "overtime" games.

 

(Methodology of Similar Opponent Analysis: Here, we look at games against opponents with similar offensive and defensive profiles to the opponent of interest to see how the teams are performing.  For Kansas, we would look at its offensive performances against teams that have a defense that is within 5 pts/100 possessions efficiency above or below that of the opponent in this game.  If this does not result in at least three appropriate comparisons, the threshold will be adjusted until it finds three.  If there are more than three that are within the original threshold, all of those will be used.  The same is done for defense but using offensive profiles of opponents.  The analysis splits offense and defense.  Teams often are more or less consistent on one side of the court than the other.  This analysis will reflect that.  Those numbers are then plugged into a simulation of 8,000 games.  The results are what you see in the table.)

 

 

Four Factors Breakdown

 

Based on the cumulative season boxscore for each team, we can look at the Four Factors to see where each team has derived the bulk of its (dis)advantage in terms of scoring margin versus its opponents to date.  For each team, Team 1 is the team itself and Team 2 is its opponents.  Here is the breakdown:

 

Colorado

 

  Team 1 Team 2 Advantage  
eFG% 54.03% 50.49% 78.8  
TO Rate 17.82% 23.20% 83.5  
OREB% 24.53% 36.51% -86.7  
FTA/FGA 36.14% 33.72% 26.2 FT Pct
      -5.2 FT Attempts

Kansas

 

  Team 1 Team 2 Advantage  
eFG% 56.17% 41.25% 374.1  
TO Rate 18.26% 20.25% 30.8  
OREB% 38.82% 28.45% 76.3  
FTA/FGA 29.30% 22.28% 10.7 FT Pct
      78.3 FT Attempts
ANALYSIS:  Rebounding is the factor that stands out most because the two teams have opposite signs there, with significant amplitude in either direction.  KU should dominate the second-chance game.  The single biggest discrepancy though is still eFG%, where the opp eFG% is particularly key.  KU shuts down opposition shooting, but CU can't even manage to keep opponents below 50 eFG%.  CU games have more free throws on both sides in general, but KU has the clear edge in FT attempts.

 

 

Four Factors Regression Analysis

KenPom.com's "Game Plan" feature shows the Four Factors results for every game a team has played.  Below the results, there is a table with correlation coefficients that show how closely related each of the Four Factors is to a team's offensive and defensive efficiency (both for itself and its opponent).  Unfortunately, the correlations are based on raw efficiencies, which of course has much less value because a team's true efficiency is significantly affected by the strength of the opponent.  Below, I have taken each team's Four Factors results and run a multiple regression analysis with the Four Factors as the variables of interest and the adjusted efficiencies as the outcome of interest to see whether a team's eFG%, for example, is related to its true offensive efficiency.

 

Statistical Significance = There is less than a 10% chance that the relationship between this statistic and the team's adjusted offensive or defensive efficiency is due merely to chance.

Four Factors Rank = In ascending order, which of the Four Factors has the lowest chance of being related to efficiency due merely to chance (i.e., best significance).

 

Kansas

 

This team's offensive efficiency (points per 100 poss.) can be estimated by the following equation:

 

1.22*eFG% - 1.47*TO% + 0.77*OREB% + 48.00

Standard Error: 3.75

 

This team's defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 poss.) can be estimated by the following equation:

 

1.36*OppeFG% - 1.10*OppTO% + 0.64*OppOREB% + 35.00

Standard Error: 2.60

 

 

When this team has the ball, the average coefficients of interest (avg of team's own offensive coefficients and opponent's corresponding defensive coefficients) are:

 

eFG%: 1.27

TO%: -1.29

OREB%: 0.67

FTA/FGA: 0.13

Constant: 54.33

Colorado

 

This team's offensive efficiency (points per 100 poss.) can be estimated by the following equation:

 

1.30*eFG% - 0.71*TO% + 0.70*OREB% + 34.28

Standard Error: 3.60

 

This team's defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 poss.) can be estimated by the following equation:

 

1.31*OppeFG% - 1.10*OppTO% + 0.57*OppOREB% + 0.13*OppFTA/FGA + 60.65

Standard Error: 2.44

 

When this team has the ball, the average coefficients of interest (avg of team's own offensive coefficients and opponent's corresponding defensive coefficients) are:

 

eFG%: 1.33

TO%: -0.91

OREB%: 0.67

FTA/FGA: 0

Constant: 34.64

 
Factor Significance Comparison

 

The value of the average coefficients above represent how much a team's efficiency is expected to go up or down for each 1% change in that factor.

 

eFG%: Similar impact for both teams, but this is far away the most important single factor for CU

TO%: Much more critical for KU than CU, in fact #1 for KU.  But still critical for CU.

OREB%: Equal for both teams and about half as important as shooting.

FTA/FGA: May only matter for KU, and very little at that.

 


Statistical Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis

(Note: These are based on raw statistics that are unadjusted for strength of opposition.) 

 

** Denotes that team with advantage also ranks in Top 50 in that category
Clear Advantage for Kansas No Clear Advantage Clear Advantage for Colorado
Kansas OREB**    
Kansas 2pt FG%**    
Colorado OREB    
Kansas eFG%**    
Kansas FT Rate    
Kansas FT%    
Kansas PTS/Poss**    
Colorado % own 2FGA's blocked**    
Kansas % own 2FGA's blocked    
  Kansas 3pt FG%  
  Colorado PTS/Poss  
  Colorado % Poss STL by Opp  
  Colorado eFG%  
  Colorado 2pt FG%  
  Colorado 3pt FG%  
  Kansas TO rate  
  Kansas % Poss STL by Opp  
  Colorado FT Rate  
    Colorado TO rate**
    Colorado FT%**

 

************************************************************* 

Colorado will have above avg % of FG's assisted
Expect uptempo game

 

 

 

Game Projections

(Not a prediction.  Read more details in "FAQ & Terms" section.)

Manual adjustments: Trent Beckley (CU) out due to injury.

 


Projected Boxscore

 

Kansas 85                            
Colorado 68                            
                               
Kansas                              
PLAYER MIN 2FGM 2FGA 3FGM 3FGA FTM FTA PTS OREB DREB TREB AST TO STL BLK
Brady Morningstar 24 1 2 1 2 1 2 6 1 2 3 3 1 1 0
Cole Aldrich 27 4 7 0 0 4 6 12 3 7 10 1 2 0 3
Elijah Johnson 7 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
Marcus Morris 24 4 6 0 1 4 5 12 3 3 6 1 1 1 0
Markieff Morris 16 2 3 0 0 2 3 6 2 4 6 1 1 0 1
Sherron Collins 32 3 6 2 5 4 4 16 0 2 2 3 2 1 0
Thomas Robinson 7 1 2 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 3 0 1 0 1
Tyrel Reed 12 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
Tyshawn Taylor 23 2 4 1 1 2 3 9 1 2 3 3 2 1 0
Xavier Henry 28 3 5 2 4 3 4 15 1 3 4 2 3 2 1
TOTALS 200 21 37 7 17 22 31 85 12 27 39 16 15 7 6
                               
Colorado                              
PLAYER MIN 2FGM 2FGA 3FGM 3FGA FTM FTA PTS OREB DREB TREB AST TO STL BLK
Alec Burks 33 4 9 1 2 5 7 16 3 2 5 2 2 1 1
Austin Dufault 27 1 4 1 2 2 2 7 1 2 3 1 1 1 0
Cory Higgins 38 5 10 1 3 6 7 19 1 3 4 2 3 2 0
Dwight Thorne II 25 1 3 1 3 2 3 7 0 2 2 2 1 1 0
Keegan Hornbuckle 8 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
Marcus Relphorde 30 2 5 1 4 2 2 9 1 2 3 2 2 1 0
Nate Tomlinson 31 1 2 1 3 1 2 6 0 2 2 4 2 1 0
Shane Harris-Tunks 8 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1
TOTALS 200 16 37 6 18 18 24 68 8 15 23 13 13 8 2

 

 

Projection Summary

 

 
Projection
Comments

 OVERALL RESULTS

 Final Score  KU 85-68  
 Tempo (# poss)
 71 

 FOUR FACTORS ADVANTAGES

 eFG%  KU 58-45%  
 TO Rate (lo better)  CU 21-18%  
 O-Reb% KU 44-23%
 
 FT Rate KU 57-44%
 
 Four Factors Overall
 Better shot making, more second-chances and more freebies for KU make for a comfortable margin.
 
 

PLAYER PROJECTIONS (10+ min played)

 Leading Scorers

 KU - Collins, X. Henry

 Opp - Higgins, Burks

 
 Highest PSAN-Comp
(game impact)

 KU - Aldrich

 Opp - Burks

 
 Highest PSAN70-Comp
(efficiency)

 KU - Markieff Morris

 Opp - Burks

 
 Highest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Taylor, X. Henry

 Opp - Higgins, Relphorde

 
 Lowest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Reed, Morningstar

 Opp - Thorne II, Tomlinson

 

 

Sports and Numbers Projection

Kansas wins 85-68

(all prediction models included/complete)

 

 

Add comment

Security code
Refresh