|
Recap: Kansas vs North Carolina (NCAA Tournament) |
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2008 |
Kansas 84 - North Carolina 66 cPSAN
"Total Impact" RatingsPSAN ratings adjusted for quality of opponent | cPSAN70
"Efficiency" RatingscPSAN ratings expressed as "per 70 possessions" | Ratings on the CourtHighest: Brandon Rush
Lowest: Marcus Ginyard | PLAYER | cPSAN | | Brandon Rush | 10.88 | | Darnell Jackson | 8.17 | | Cole Aldrich | 7.61 | | Russell Robinson | 6.71 | | Mario Chalmers | 4.77 | | Darrell Arthur | 3.01 | | Sherron Collins | 1.50 | | Conner Teahan | 0.00 | | Matt Kleinmann | 0.00 | | Tyrel Reed | 0.00 | | Jeremy Case* | -0.36 | | Sasha Kaun | -0.67 | | PLAYER | cPSAN | | T. Hansbrough | 5.94 | | D. Green | 3.61 | | W. Ellington | 3.19 | | D. Thompson | 0.79 | | T. Lawson | 0.17 | | M. Copeland* | 0.00 | | A. Stepheson* | -0.56 | | W. Graves* | -1.14 | | Q. Thomas | -1.40 | | M. Ginyard | -3.41 | *Rating not based on enough data. | Ratings on the CourtHighest: Darnell Jackson
Lowest: Marcus Ginyard | PLAYER | cPSAN70 | | Darnell Jackson | 16.85 | | Cole Aldrich | 15.69 | | Brandon Rush | 11.92 | | Russell Robinson | 7.84 | | Mario Chalmers | 5.39 | | Darrell Arthur | 3.30 | | Sherron Collins | 1.75 | | Sasha Kaun | -2.34 | | Jeremy Case* | -12.60 | | PLAYER | cPSAN70 | | D. Green | 6.03 | | T. Hansbrough | 5.79 | | W. Ellington | 3.38 | | D. Thompson | 1.11 | | T. Lawson | 0.21 | | M. Copeland* | 0.00 | | A. Stepheson* | -2.80 | | Q. Thomas | -3.51 | | M. Ginyard | -3.74 | | W. Graves* | -13.38 | *Rating not based on enough data. |
|
Offensive and Defensive Performance
Using the outcome of the game and the adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies for each team, performance indicates (in PTS per 100 Possessions) how each team would have fared against an average team. That is, KU's offensive performance is how many points per 100 possessions KU would have scored against an average defense. This provides a standard performance we can compare across teams. | (pts per 100 poss) | Kansas | UNC
| Offensive Performance
| 119.9 | 101.7 | | Defensive Performance | 66.8 | 85.5
| Comments In a track meet style game, it was ultimately one team's defense that prevailed. Most notably, KU's incredible defense against the nation's #1-rated offense was spectacular. When KU had the ball, both teams did well, but KU's offense was somewhat better than UNC's defense. | Four Factor Analysis(Actual statistics moved to Game Projections table below) What did the difference in this
statistic mean to each team? | Scoring Margin Advantage Gained
(not necessarily supposed to add up to final margin) | | Statistic Measured | Kansas | UNC
| | eFG% | 22.9
| | | TO Rate | | 0.9
| | O-Reb% | 0.8
| | | Freethrows | FT Pct | | 1.2
| | FT Attempts | | 0.8
|
FOUR FACTORS ADVANTAGES
| | eFG% | KU 57-40% | | TO Rate (lo better) | UNC 24-23% | | O-Reb% | KU 31-29%
| | FT Rate | UNC 19-17% | Bottom Line
| It has become routine to see KU's eFG% advantage to result in 20+ margin, but to see it against the #1 overall seed in the Tournament is shocking. That was basically the ball game. Although the OREB% were even, it doesn't mean it wasn't a big factor. UNC was considered to be possibly the best rebounding team in the country and needed that category to be in its favor. | | |