Sports and Numbers

 
Preview: Kansas at Temple Print E-mail
Jan 1, 2010

Kansas at Temple (Philadelphia, PA)

  Kansas Temple

Performance Indicators

   
Record (conference)
12-0 11-2
AP Rank 1
18
Pomeroy Rating
(Updated daily)
3
18
Consensus Ranking
(Updated periodically - avg several computer ratings and polls)
5
11
Best opponents defeated this season
(Ranking from Pomeroy)

vs California (#9) W 84-69
vs Memphis (#23) W 57-55

vs Villanova (#35) W 75-65
vs Virginia Tech (#42) W 61-50
RPI
(Used for schedule strength, not team strength. Current and forecast RPI from RPIForecast .)

Current: 11

Forecast: 2

Current: 3

Forecast: 14

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

Prediction Models

   
Vegas Oddsmakers Win by 6.5
Est. Projection: 68-62
 
Prediction Tracker
(Average of several power ratings)
 Win by 4.31
 
Sagarin Power Ratings (Predictor)  Win by 3.69  
Pomeroy
(Efficiency and Tempo-Adjusted)

 Win 64-59
72% 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 8.8  
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: 61-56
64.6% 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: 57-56
53.2% 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 5.2
Est. Projection: 65-59
 

 

 

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 22.65 -47.09 69.74
Xavier Henry 25.71 -24.96 50.67
Marcus Morris 29.87 -16.94 46.80
Markieff Morris 22.68 -15.62 38.29
Sherron Collins 18.51 -14.62 33.12
Tyrel Reed 11.56 -13.33 24.88
Tyshawn Taylor 7.84 -14.43 22.28
Elijah Johnson 11.62 -4.63 16.25
C.J. Henry 11.29 -2.63 13.92
Thomas Robinson -0.68 -11.52 10.84
Brady Morningstar 4.24 -4.00 8.25
Conner Teahan* 2.75 -4.09 6.85
Jeff Withey* -0.55 -0.41 -0.14
Jordan Juenemann* 0.16 0.50 -0.34
Chase Buford* -0.24 0.28 -0.52

 

 Efficiency Ratings

 

PLAYER ePSAN70-O ePSAN70-D ePSAN70-Comp
C.J. Henry 8.17 -1.90 10.07
Cole Aldrich 2.82 -5.86 8.68
Markieff Morris 4.84 -3.34 8.18
Marcus Morris 4.03 -2.29 6.32
Xavier Henry 2.97 -2.88 5.84
Elijah Johnson 3.80 -1.51 5.31
Tyrel Reed 2.46 -2.84 5.31
Conner Teahan* 2.00 -2.98 4.98
Brady Morningstar 2.30 -2.17 4.47
Sherron Collins 1.94 -1.53 3.48
Tyshawn Taylor 1.08 -1.99 3.07
Thomas Robinson -0.19 -3.25 3.06
Jeff Withey* -2.73 -2.03 -0.70
Jordan Juenemann* 0.43 1.36 -0.93
Chase Buford* -0.48 0.58 -1.06

 

* Rating not based on enough data.

Temple

  

Impact Ratings

 

PLAYER PSAN-O PSAN-D PSAN-Comp
Lavoy Allen 28.01 -39.73 67.74
Juan Fernandez 33.10 -10.37 43.47
Ryan Brooks 13.08 -27.25 40.34
Rahlir Jefferson -4.57 -15.02 10.45
Luis Guzman -6.94 -15.56 8.63
Craig Williams 2.21 -5.13 7.34
Ramone Moore -5.92 -11.28 5.37
Scootie Randall* 5.19 -0.09 5.28
Carmel Bouchman* 0.21 -0.49 0.71
Jake Godino* -0.69 -0.69 0.00
Micheal Eric -7.10 -6.99 -0.11
Rafael DeLeon* 0.00 0.32 -0.32
Khalif Wyatt* -2.69 0.03 -2.72
T.J. DiLeo* -4.98 -1.45 -3.54

 

 

Efficiency Ratings

 

PLAYER PSAN70-O PSAN70-D PSAN70-Comp
Carmel Bouchman* 2.37 -5.50 7.87
Lavoy Allen 2.79 -3.96 6.75
Scootie Randall* 5.15 -0.09 5.24
Juan Fernandez 3.53 -1.11 4.64
Ryan Brooks 1.23 -2.57 3.80
Rahlir Jefferson -0.89 -2.92 2.03
Craig Williams 0.49 -1.13 1.61
Ramone Moore -1.38 -2.64 1.25
Luis Guzman -0.79 -1.76 0.98
Jake Godino* -15.43 -15.44 0.01
Micheal Eric -2.60 -2.56 -0.04
T.J. DiLeo* -3.84 -1.12 -2.72
Rafael DeLeon* 0.00 7.15 -7.15
Khalif Wyatt* -13.33 0.14 -13.47

 

* Rating not based on enough data.




Player Analysis:

(largely in context of ratings above)

 

The bulk of the impact for Temple has been from three guys - Allen, Fernandez and Brooks.  And those are really the only guys with efficiency numbers to write home about.  Allen has been the most impressive of the bunch on paper, with strong rebounding and a little of bit everything else to make him dangerous on offense while blocking enough shots and pulling enough DREB to have the best defensive impact on the team.  None of the Owls has been just awful, but the one with the least impressive numbers has to be Moore who uses the most possessions (25%) but has a very poor efficiency (negative on offense, in fact).

 

On paper, KU has the horses to pull away from Temple, as the worst efficiency (Robinson) is good enough for 4th best on Temple's team.

 

 

Last 7 Game Projection

 

  Kansas Temple
Expected Score 61.2 55.6
Win 64.6% 35.4%
Win by 3 or less 7.7% 7.1%
Win by 10 or more 38.5% 14.6%

 

Down to the Wire?

 Margin of game was less than 1 point in 4.7% 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 Temple
Expected Score 56.6 57.3
Win 46.8% 53.2%
Win by 3 or less 8.2% 9.9%
Win by 10 or more 20.2% 23.6%

 

Down to the Wire?

 Margin of game was less than 1 point in 6.0% 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% 58.78% 38.71% 292.1  
TO Rate 17.63% 22.55% 43.2  
OREB% 39.25% 28.81% 43.2  
FTA/FGA 26.89% 19.42% -0.2 FT Pct
      55.2 FT Attempts

Temple

 

  Team 1 Team 2 Advantage  
eFG% 47.78% 40.24% 108.5  
TO Rate 16.68% 19.50% 21.7  
OREB% 32.33% 27.64% 20.8  
FTA/FGA 16.55% 20.66% -9.1 FT Pct
      -11.9 FT Attempts

 

FOUR FACTORS ANALYSIS:  Blowout victories for KU account for the discrepancy in overall numbers, but Temple has the edge in three of the four major factors.  The Owls struggle to win the battle at the FT line, in nearly equal parts due to their poor FT% and getting to the line less frequently than their opponents.  In particular, KU has an opportunity to exploit that FTA, as it has been the Jayhawks' second-largest single advantage so far this season.  Both teams hold their opponents eFG% down to paltry levels, but the favored Jayhawks are shooting much, much better on the season, albeit against a much weaker schedule.

 

 

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

 

Offense Statistical Significance Four Factors Rank
Overall Regression Yes  
eFG%   4
TO% Yes 1
OREB%   2
FTA/FGA   3
     
Defense    
Overall Regression Yes  
eFG%   4
TO% Yes
1
OREB% Yes
2
FTA/FGA   3
Temple

 

Offense Statistical Significance Four Factors Rank
Overall Regression Yes  
eFG% Yes
1
TO%   3
OREB%   2
FTA/FGA   4
     
Defense    
Overall Regression Yes  
eFG% Yes 2
TO% Yes 3
OREB% Yes 1

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:

  • Kansas TO%
  • Temple OREB%

 

Between 50-75% likely to be important:

  • Temple TO%
  • Temple eFG%

 

Between 25-50% likely to be important:

  • Kansas OREB%

 

 

Season Performance Trends

The 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:  Overall performance trend for both teams is nearly perfectly flat.  The difference is that Temple has a largely stable trend on both sides of the ball, with a slight improvement in offense, while KU is trending moderately lower in offense but compensating but trending better (lower) on defense as well.  Thus, trends don't look they favor one team over the other in this matchup.

 

 

 

Highlighted Efficiency Rankings
Note: There are 347 Div-I teams
(Source: KenPom.com)

Kansas

Temple

Offense #3 - Defense #2 - Tempo #73
Incredible job in the all-important eFG% battle (#4 eFG%, #2 opp eFG%)
Controlling 2FG% (#5 own, #5 opp)
Pretty strong on 3FG% too (#13 own, #17 opp)
Excellent ball control (#41 limit own TO%)
Limit opp from utilizing FT line (#45 opp FTA/FGA)
Great offensive rebounding (#30)
Great job on defense of BLK (#10)
STL often on defense (#21)
Very high % of FG's are assisted (#12)

Size (Tall = Position is Top 50 in minutes-weighted height, Short = #250 or worse)
Tall: C, PF
Short: None

 

Other Factors:

Team is #13 in Effective Height
Team is #294 in Experience
Unusually high/low % of points scored by positions:  Hi - SF ... Lo - SG


Individual Player Highlights: (thru Dec 27)

Sherron Collins - #169 PF commited/40 min (good)
Xavier Henry - #40 eFG%
Cole Aldrich - #79 OREB%, #48 DREB%, #10 BLK%, #126 FT Rate
Marcus Morris - #132 eFG%, #184 OREB%, #92 FT Rate
Tyshawn Taylor - #192 AST Rate, #173 STL%

Offense #100 - Defense #7 - Tempo #324
Strong eFG% defense (#5)
Particularly strong 2FG% defense (#2) but also 3FG% defense (#35)
Rarely TO (#14) but rarely STL on defense either (#310)
Excellent defensive rebounding (#24)
Terrible utilization of FT line (#338 FTA/FGA)
Poor FT% (#294)
Very high % of FG's are assisted (#36) and limit opp % (#18)

Size (Tall = Position is Top 50 in minutes-weighted height, Short = #250 or worse)
Tall: PG, SG
Short: PF

 

Other Factors:

Team is #326 in Bench Minutes
Unusually high/low % of points scored by positions:  Hi - SF, SG ... Lo - PG


Individual Player Highlights: (thru Dec 27)

Ryan Brooks - #37 TO Rate (good), #47 PF/40 min (good)
Lavoy Allen - #174 OREB%, #174 DREB%
Luis Guzman - #175 PF/40 min (good)

Scoring Distribution:

On offense, KU relies less than average on FT's, while its opponents rely a little more on 2FG's at the expense of 3FG's.
On offense, TU relies unusually low amount on FT's, while its opponents rely much more heavily on 2FG's at the expense of 3FG's.

 

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 Temple
Temple FT Rate**    
Kansas % Poss STL by Opp    
Kansas TO rate**    
Temple eFG%**    
Temple 2pt FG%**    
Temple FT%    
Temple 3pt FG%**    
Temple % own 2FGA's blocked**    
  Temple PTS/Poss  
  Temple OREB  
  Kansas % own 2FGA's blocked  
  Temple % Poss STL by Opp  
  Kansas 2pt FG%  
  Kansas PTS/Poss  
  Kansas eFG%  
  Kansas OREB  
  Kansas 3pt FG%  
  Kansas FT Rate  
  Temple TO rate  
  Kansas FT%  

 

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

Temple will have above avg % of FG's assisted
Kansas plays faster tempo than Temple

 

 

 

Game Projections

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

Manual adjustments: None.

 


Projected Boxscore

 

Kansas 63                            
Temple 58                            
                               
Kansas                              
PLAYER MIN 2FGM 2FGA 3FGM 3FGA FTM FTA PTS OREB DREB TREB AST TO STL BLK
Brady Morningstar 20 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 0 1 1 2 1 1 0
Cole Aldrich 26 3 6 0 0 3 4 9 2 5 7 1 2 0 2
Elijah Johnson 8 1 2 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 0
Marcus Morris 24 3 5 0 1 3 4 9 1 2 3 1 1 1 0
Markieff Morris 15 2 2 0 0 1 2 5 1 3 4 1 1 0 1
Sherron Collins 31 2 5 1 4 2 2 9 0 1 1 2 2 1 0
Thomas Robinson 8 1 2 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 3 0 1 0 1
Tyrel Reed 16 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
Tyshawn Taylor 24 2 4 0 2 1 2 5 0 2 2 2 2 1 0
Xavier Henry 28 2 5 2 4 2 3 12 1 3 4 1 2 1 0
TOTALS 200 17 33 5 16 14 21 63 7 21 28 12 14 6 4
                               
Temple                              
PLAYER MIN 2FGM 2FGA 3FGM 3FGA FTM FTA PTS OREB DREB TREB AST TO STL BLK
Craig Williams 17 1 1 2 4 0 0 8 1 2 3 0 1 0 0
Juan Fernandez 35 2 5 2 5 2 2 12 0 2 2 3 2 1 0
Lavoy Allen 37 4 9 0 1 1 2 9 4 5 9 2 2 0 1
Luis Guzman 33 1 3 1 2 0 1 5 1 2 3 3 2 0 0
Micheal Eric 9 1 4 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 3 0 1 0 1
Rahlir Jefferson 19 1 4 0 0 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 0
Ramone Moore 10 2 4 0 1 1 2 5 1 2 3 1 2 1 0
Ryan Brooks 40 4 9 1 5 2 3 13 1 3 4 3 2 1 0
TOTALS 200 16 39 6 18 8 13 58 10 19 29 13 13 4 2

 

 

Projection Summary

 

 
Projection
Comments

 OVERALL RESULTS

 Final Score  KU 63-58  
 Tempo (# poss)
 65 

 FOUR FACTORS ADVANTAGES

 eFG%  KU 50-44%  
 TO Rate (lo better)  TU 21-20%  
 O-Reb% TU 32-27%
 Get ready for Self to call his team "soft" again.
 FT Rate KU 43-23%
 Considering the thin eFG% projected difference, this category may become a big deal for KU for once.
 Four Factors Overall
 No dominance in any factor, but slightly better shooting and FT line use is projected to compensate for poor rebounding and keep the Jayhawks undefeated.  
 

PLAYER PROJECTIONS (10+ min played)

 Leading Scorers

 KU - X. Henry, Aldrich/Collins/Marcus Morris

 Opp - Brooks, Fernandez

 
 Highest PSAN-Comp
(game impact)

 KU - Aldrich

 Opp - Williams

 
 Highest PSAN70-Comp
(efficiency)

 KU - Markieff Morris

 Opp - Moore

 
 Highest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Morningstar, Markieff Morris

 Opp - Williams, Moore

 
 Lowest efficiency vs season-to-date

 KU - Reed, Taylor

 Opp - Allen, Jefferson

 

 

Sports and Numbers Projection

Kansas wins 63-58

(all prediction models included/complete)

 

 

Add comment

Security code
Refresh