Kansas at Nebraska (Lincoln, NE) | | Kansas | Nebraska
| | Performance Indicators
| | | Record (conference)
| 14-1 (0-0) | 12-4 (0-1) | | AP Rank | 3
| NR
| Pomeroy Rating (Updated daily) | 1
| 78
| Consensus Ranking (Updated periodically - avg several computer ratings and polls) | 2
| 84
| Best opponents defeated this season (Ranking from Pomeroy) | vs California (#14) W 84-69 @ Temple (#25) W 84-52 | vs Tulsa (#43) W 74-70 @ Southern Cal (#51) W 51-48 | RPI (Used for schedule strength, not team strength. Current and forecast RPI from RPIForecast .) | Current: 8 Forecast: 2 | Current: 98 Forecast: 92 | Projected NCAA Tournament Seed (Latest consensus from The Bracket Matrix) | #1 Seed
| Out
| | Prediction Models | | | | Vegas Oddsmakers | Win by 12.0 Est. Projection: 73-61 | | Prediction Tracker (Average of several power ratings) | Win by 12.42 | | | Sagarin Power Ratings (Predictor) | Win by 11.25 | | Pomeroy (Efficiency and Tempo-Adjusted) | Win 74-61 90% 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 11.8 | | 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: 72-55 80.5% 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: 77-57
89.8% 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 13.3 Est. Projection: 73-60
| |
PSAN-Related Player Ratings - Cumulative This Season(PSAN-O = Offensive impact, PSAN-D = Defensive impact. For PSAN-D, lower ratings are better. PSAN70 ratings are just PSAN expressed as "per 70 possessions" to reflect efficiency. The difference between ePSAN and PSAN is that "e" is enhanced and weighs recent games more - used for Kansas only.) Kansas Impact Ratings
| PLAYER | ePSAN-O | ePSAN-D | ePSAN-Comp | | Cole Aldrich | 32.38 | -57.41 | 89.79 | | Sherron Collins | 39.14 | -18.99 | 58.13 | | Xavier Henry | 25.29 | -30.49 | 55.77 | | Marcus Morris | 26.70 | -21.38 | 48.08 | | Markieff Morris | 21.72 | -19.77 | 41.49 | | Tyshawn Taylor | 13.05 | -16.61 | 29.66 | | Tyrel Reed | 13.06 | -13.98 | 27.04 | | Brady Morningstar | 11.01 | -5.82 | 16.83 | | C.J. Henry* | 14.68 | -1.32 | 16.00 | | Elijah Johnson | 10.79 | -4.23 | 15.01 | | Thomas Robinson | -1.09 | -9.83 | 8.74 | | Conner Teahan* | 1.31 | -4.22 | 5.52 | | Jeff Withey* | -0.52 | -0.69 | 0.17 | | Jordan Juenemann* | 0.16 | 0.46 | -0.30 | | Chase Buford* | -0.46 | 0.50 | -0.96 | Efficiency Ratings
| PLAYER | ePSAN70-O | ePSAN70-D | ePSAN70-Comp | | C.J. Henry* | 8.86 | -0.80 | 9.65 | | Cole Aldrich | 3.25 | -5.76 | 9.01 | | Markieff Morris | 3.71 | -3.38 | 7.09 | | Marcus Morris | 2.92 | -2.34 | 5.25 | | Xavier Henry | 2.33 | -2.80 | 5.13 | | Elijah Johnson | 3.62 | -1.42 | 5.03 | | Brady Morningstar | 3.19 | -1.69 | 4.88 | | Tyrel Reed | 2.35 | -2.51 | 4.87 | | Sherron Collins | 3.25 | -1.58 | 4.82 | | Conner Teahan* | 0.93 | -3.01 | 3.94 | | Tyshawn Taylor | 1.42 | -1.80 | 3.22 | | Thomas Robinson | -0.29 | -2.63 | 2.34 | | Jeff Withey* | -2.10 | -2.77 | 0.67 | | Jordan Juenemann* | 0.43 | 1.25 | -0.82 | | Chase Buford* | -0.88 | 0.97 | -1.85 | * Rating not based on enough data. | Nebraska Impact Ratings | PLAYER | PSAN-O | PSAN-D | PSAN-Comp | | Ryan Anderson | 15.26 | -23.53 | 38.79 | | Brian Diaz | 10.47 | -14.91 | 25.39 | | Eshaunte Jones | 16.68 | -2.60 | 19.28 | | Brandon Richardson | 10.57 | -6.91 | 17.48 | | Myles Holley* | 2.88 | -7.65 | 10.53 | | Sek Henry | 2.53 | -6.15 | 8.69 | | Ray Gallegos | -0.83 | -4.79 | 3.96 | | Matt Karn* | 3.30 | -0.55 | 3.85 | | Mike Fox* | 2.26 | -0.77 | 3.03 | | Christian Standhardinger | 2.62 | -0.19 | 2.81 | | Toney McCray | 1.09 | -1.71 | 2.80 | | Lance Jeter | 1.71 | 0.15 | 1.56 | | Adrien Coleman* | -2.24 | -2.36 | 0.12 | | Quincy Hankins-Cole | -1.82 | -1.57 | -0.24 | | Ben Nelson* | -3.05 | -2.02 | -1.04 | | Brandon Ubel | -6.89 | 3.51 | -10.41 | Efficiency Ratings | PLAYER | PSAN70-O | PSAN70-D | PSAN70-Comp | | Christian Standhardinger | 5.19 | -0.37 | 5.55 | | Matt Karn* | 4.49 | -0.74 | 5.23 | | Mike Fox* | 3.64 | -1.24 | 4.88 | | Myles Holley* | 1.26 | -3.36 | 4.63 | | Ryan Anderson | 1.76 | -2.71 | 4.47 | | Brian Diaz | 1.28 | -1.82 | 3.10 | | Eshaunte Jones | 2.44 | -0.38 | 2.82 | | Brandon Richardson | 1.55 | -1.01 | 2.56 | | Toney McCray | 0.85 | -1.33 | 2.18 | | Sek Henry | 0.28 | -0.68 | 0.96 | | Ray Gallegos | -0.16 | -0.91 | 0.76 | | Lance Jeter | 0.16 | 0.01 | 0.14 | | Adrien Coleman* | -1.68 | -1.77 | 0.09 | | Quincy Hankins-Cole | -0.51 | -0.44 | -0.07 | | Ben Nelson* | -3.24 | -2.14 | -1.10 | | Brandon Ubel | -1.05 | 0.54 | -1.59 | * Rating not based on enough data. |
Last 7 Game Projection | | Kansas | Nebraska | | Expected Score | 72.3 | 55.1 | | Win | 80.5% | 19.5% | | Win by 3 or less | 4.6% | 4.2% | | Win by 10 or more | 63.5% | 8.4% | Down to the Wire?
Margin of game was less than 1 point in 3.0% 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 | Nebraska | | Expected Score | 77.2 | 56.8 | | Win | 89.8% | 10.2% | | Win by 3 or less | 3.7% | 2.9% | | Win by 10 or more | 74.0% | 2.9% | Down to the Wire?
Margin of game was less than 1 point in 2.2% 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: Kansas | | Team 1 | Team 2 | Advantage | | | eFG% | 57.05% | 39.88% | 307.8 | | | TO Rate | 17.61% | 20.94% | 36.2 | | | OREB% | 37.04% | 27.74% | 48.3 | | | FTA/FGA | 28.64% | 20.02% | 11.5 | FT Pct | | | | | 64.5 | FT Attempts | | Nebraska | | Team 1 | Team 2 | Advantage | | | eFG% | 52.83% | 46.35% | 106.5 | | | TO Rate | 18.26% | 25.36% | 72.3 | | | OREB% | 30.10% | 29.12% | 5.0 | | | FTA/FGA | 24.26% | 25.31% | -5.5 | FT Pct | | | | | 10.5 | FT Attempts | |
FOUR FACTORS ANALYSIS: The largest mismatch is at the eFG% level, where KU has blown people away, but still it's Nebraska's biggest advantage also. But looking at it from a strength vs weakness matchup, the standout category is OREB%, where Nebraska has been even but KU has posted a healthy edge. KU also has a sizably better edge in the FT attempts category. The only Nebraska advantage is in turnovers where the Huskers have done an amazing job of forcing TO's on a whopping one-in-four possessions. |
Four Factors Regression AnalysisKenPom.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 | Offense | Statistical Significance | Four Factors Rank | | Overall Regression | Yes
| | | eFG% | | 3
| | TO% | Yes
| 1
| | OREB% | | 4
| | FTA/FGA | | 2
| | | | | | Defense | | | | Overall Regression | Yes | | | eFG% | Yes
| 1
| | TO% | | 3
| | OREB% | Yes
| 2
| | FTA/FGA | | 4
| | Nebraska | Offense | Statistical Significance | Four Factors Rank | | Overall Regression | Yes
| | | eFG% | Yes | 2
| | TO% | Yes | 1
| | OREB% | | 3
| | FTA/FGA | | 4
| | | | | | Defense | | | | Overall Regression | Yes | | | eFG% | Yes
| 1
| | TO% | | 2
| | OREB% | | 3
| FTA/FGA | | 4 | | Key Factors This Game Using the p-values from the regression analyses above, we can calculate the probabability that a factor will be statistically significant in this game. At least 75% likely to be important: - Nebraska eFG%
- Nebraska TO%
- Nebraska OREB%
- Kansas TO%
Between 50-75% likely to be important: Between 25-50% likely to be important: | |
Season Performance TrendsThe charts below show the trend for each team's performance this season. For each game, a team's offensive, defensive and overall performance is standardized. Thus, performance indicates how many points per 100 possessions a team would score (offense), yield (defense) or net (average of offense and inverse defense) for a game. It is based purely on its opponent's adjusted efficiencies and the resulting efficiency of the game played. The dotted lines represent the best-fit line (linear regression), indicating which way a team may be trending for the season overall.
TRENDS ANALYSIS: Both teams have slightly downward pointing overall trends. Not much can be made from this analysis other than the clear superiority of KU's results thus far. |
Highlighted Efficiency Rankings Note: There are 347 Div-I teams (Source: KenPom.com) | Kansas | Nebraska | Offense #2 - Defense #2 - Tempo #73 Incredible job in the all-important eFG% battle (#5 eFG%, #1 opp eFG%) Controlling 2FG% (#10 own, #18 opp) Pretty strong on 3FG% too (#14 own, #4 opp) Excellent ball control (#36 limit own TO%) Strong offensive rebounding (#48) Great job on defense of BLK (#11) and avoiding own shot blocked (#48) STL often on defense (#30) Very high % of FG's are assisted (#30) but also allow a high % (#283) Size (Tall = Position is Top 50 in minutes-weighted height, Short = #250 or worse) Tall: C, PF Short: SF Other Factors: Team is #26 in Effective Height Team is #292 in Experience Unusually high/low % of points scored by positions: Hi - None ... Lo - SG Individual Player Highlights: (thru Jan 10)
Sherron Collins - #166 PF commited/40 min (good) Xavier Henry - #100 eFG%, #187 STL% Cole Aldrich - #49 OREB%, #17 DREB%, #6 BLK%, #126 FT Rate Tyshawn Taylor - #200 AST Rate
| Offense #103 - Defense #63 - Tempo #279 Force a ton of TO's (#18) Strong 3FG% (#18) Very poor FT% (#287) Avoid having ball stolen (#18) Very high % of FG's are assisted (#39) Size (Tall = Position is Top 50 in minutes-weighted height, Short = #250 or worse) Tall: C, PG Short: PF Other Factors: Team is #283 in Experience Unusually high/low % of points scored by positions: Hi - None ... Lo - SG Individual Player Highlights: (thru Jan 10)
Ryan Anderson - #10 STL% Brian Diaz - #70 BLK% Lance Jeter - #182 AST Rate Brandon Richardson - #123 STL% Eshaunte Jones - #39 TO% (good)
| Scoring Distribution: On offense, KU is fairly balanced, while its opponents are as well. On offense, NU relies less than usual on FT's, while its opponents are fairly balanced. |
Game Projections(Not a prediction. Read more details in "FAQ & Terms" section.) Manual adjustments: None.
Projected Boxscore | Kansas | 73 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Nebraska | 57 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Kansas | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | PLAYER | MIN | 2FGM | 2FGA | 3FGM | 3FGA | FTM | FTA | PTS | OREB | DREB | TREB | AST | TO | STL | BLK | | Brady Morningstar | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Cole Aldrich | 26 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | | Elijah Johnson | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | Marcus Morris | 25 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Markieff Morris | 16 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | Sherron Collins | 31 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | | Thomas Robinson | 8 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | 25 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | | Xavier Henry | 29 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | | TOTALS | 200 | 19 | 32 | 7 | 16 | 14 | 20 | 73 | 5 | 26 | 31 | 15 | 16 | 7 | 6 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Nebraska | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | PLAYER | MIN | 2FGM | 2FGA | 3FGM | 3FGA | FTM | FTA | PTS | OREB | DREB | TREB | AST | TO | STL | BLK | | Brandon Richardson | 20 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Brandon Ubel | 17 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | | Brian Diaz | 21 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | Christian Standhardinger | 20 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | | Eshaunte Jones | 17 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | Lance Jeter | 27 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | | Ray Gallegos | 15 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Ryan Anderson | 23 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | | Sek Henry | 23 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | | Toney McCray | 17 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | TOTALS | 200 | 14 | 37 | 6 | 17 | 11 | 17 | 57 | 8 | 13 | 21 | 12 | 15 | 5 | 2 | Projection Summary | | Projection | Comments | OVERALL RESULTS | | Final Score | KU 73-57 | | Tempo (# poss)
| 68 | | PLAYER PROJECTIONS (10+ min played) | | Leading Scorers | KU - X. Henry, Collins Opp - Standhardinger, Anderson | | Highest PSAN-Comp (game impact)
| KU - Collins Opp - Anderson | | Highest PSAN70-Comp (efficiency)
| KU - Markieff Morris Opp - Anderson | | | Highest efficiency vs season-to-date | KU - Collins, Taylor Opp - Jeter, Anderson | | | Lowest efficiency vs season-to-date | KU - Reed, Aldrich Opp - McCray, Gallegos | |
Sports and Numbers ProjectionKansas wins 73-57(all prediction models included/complete) |
|