| |
| Preview: Kansas at Temple |
|
|
| Jan 1, 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kansas at Temple (Philadelphia, PA)
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 | 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% |
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.)
| 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% |
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.)
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
| Temple
|
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. |
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
| Temple
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 | |
Kansas | Temple |
Offense #3 - Defense #2 - Tempo #73
Other Factors: Team is #13 in Effective Height
| Offense #100 - Defense #7 - Tempo #324 Size (Tall = Position is Top 50 in minutes-weighted height, Short = #250 or worse)
Other Factors: Team is #326 in Bench Minutes
|
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. | |
Statistical Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis(Note: These are based on raw statistics that are unadjusted for strength of opposition.)
*************************************************************
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Not a prediction. Read more details in "FAQ & Terms" section.)
Manual adjustments: None.
| 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 | 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 ProjectionKansas wins 63-58(all prediction models included/complete) |
| |