| Home |
| Kansas Basketball |
| NCAA Basketball |
| Basketball Conference Simulations |
| Basketball Player Ratings Explanation |
| Radio Appearances |
| Newsletter |
| Links |
| Contact |
Preview: Pittsburgh at Wisconsin
December 14, 2006
Pittsburgh at Wisconsin (Madison, WI)
| Pittsburgh | Wisconsin | |
|
Talent Indicators |
||
| Div I Records | 10-0 | 10-1 |
| AP Rank | 2 | 7 |
| Consensus Ranking (average of several computer ratings and AP/Coaches polls) |
6 | 13 |
| RPI (not a good judge of strength, only used for rough estimate of strength of opponent) |
9 | 25 |
| Best wins this season (Ranking from Pomeroy) | vs Florida State (# 42) W 88-66 | vs Winthrop (# 34) W 82-79 OT |
|
Predictions |
||
| Vegas Oddsmakers | ||
| Sagarin Power Ratings (Predictor) | Win by 3 | |
| Analysis of Variance (uses team performance and consistency over last 10 games) |
73.3% chance of victory | |
| Pomeroy Prediction (uses adjusted efficiency and tempo) |
Win 68-64 70% chance of victory |
PSAN-Related Player Ratings - Cumulative This Season
PittsburghcPSAN70 ("Efficiency" - per 70
possessions)
|
| PLAYER | cPSAN70 | cPSAN |
| Aaron Gray | 8.76 | 53.74 |
| Levon Kendall | 4.29 | 27.32 |
| Tyrell Biggs | 3.91 | 16.01 |
| Antonio Graves | 2.08 | 11.99 |
| Mike Cook | 1.86 | 9.23 |
| Levance Fields | 1.79 | 11.08 |
| Sam Young | 1.62 | 4.72 |
| Doyle Hudson* | 1.12 | 0.74 |
| Ronald Ramon | 1.11 | 5.66 |
| Gilbert Brown* | -0.13 | -0.03 |
| Maurice Polen* | -0.28 | -0.03 |
| Keith Benjamin | -0.71 | -2.05 |
| Geoff Rizk* | -24.06 | -2.19 |
* Rating not based on enough data.
Wisconsin
cPSAN70 ("Efficiency" - per 70
possessions)
cPSAN ("Total Impact")
| PLAYER | cPSAN70 | cPSAN |
| Tanner Bronson* | 11.52 | 4.32 |
| Joe Krabbenhoft | 4.73 | 25.35 |
| Alando Tucker | 3.99 | 31.24 |
| Michael Flowers | 3.29 | 24.00 |
| Brian Butch | 3.18 | 14.99 |
| Kammron Taylor | 2.77 | 21.70 |
| Jason Chappell | 2.68 | 10.97 |
| Kevin Gullikson* | 2.36 | 3.60 |
| Morris Cain* | 2.29 | 0.48 |
| Jason Bohannon | 1.38 | 5.80 |
| Marcus Landry | 0.16 | 0.63 |
| Greg Stiemsma | -0.19 | -0.44 |
| Trevon Hughes | -1.40 | -2.81 |
| Mickey Perry* | -2.47 | -1.33 |
* Rating not based on enough data.
Player Analysis:
(largely based on ratings above)
The Badgers appear to have the more balanced team with respect to player contributions. Krabbenhoft, Tucker, Flowers, and Butch all sport solid efficiency ratings above +3.00, while the "Total Impact" scores for four players (substitute Taylor for Butch in last group) are reasonably similar. Thus, five players make up the bulk of efficiency and total contributions for Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Pitt has one dominant player (Gray), two very solid players (Kendall, Biggs) and then a bit of a drop in efficiency and total impact. The talent level on these teams is roughly equal, as evidenced by their records and power ratings, but Pitt may be more easily prone to a bad game, given its dependence on two or three players.
Neither team has a player that has really hurt the team, at least not using this ratings system. Keith Benjamin (Pitt) and Trevon Hughes (Wisconsin) have the lowest total impact ratings on each team, but those aren't really bad numbers 10 or 11 games into the season.
Highlighted Efficiency Statistics |
|
|
Pittsburgh |
Wisconsin |
|
|
Other Efficiency Notes:
|
|
Statistical Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis
NOTE: From top to bottom, the statistics are sorted
such that, at the top are the greatest advantages to the team on the left,
and at the bottom are the greatest advantages for the team on the right.
| Clear Advantage for Pittsburgh | No Clear Advantage | Clear Advantage for Wisconsin |
| Pittsburgh Strength - Pittsburgh % Poss STL by Opp | ||
| Pittsburgh 3pt FG% | ||
| Pittsburgh FT% | ||
| Wisconsin 3pt FG% | ||
| Pittsburgh % Poss Blocked by Opp | ||
| Pittsburgh eFG% | ||
| Wisconsin OREB | ||
| Pittsburgh 2pt FG% | ||
| Pittsburgh Points Per Possession | ||
| Pittsburgh TO rate | ||
| Wisconsin FT% | ||
| Wisconsin eFG% | ||
| Wisconsin FT Rate | ||
| Pittsburgh OREB | ||
| Wisconsin 2pt FG% | ||
| Wisconsin % Poss Blocked by Opp | ||
| Wisconsin Strength - Wisconsin Points Per Possession | ||
| Wisconsin % Poss STL by Opp | ||
| Wisconsin Strength - Pittsburgh FT Rate | ||
| Wisconsin Strength - Wisconsin TO rate |
| Pittsburgh will take below avg % of 3FG's |
| Expect slow-paced game |
Game Outlook
A few things we can expect from the efficiency analysis above:
- Pitt will not take many 3FG's, but chances are they will make a good percentage of them.
- Neither team will get too many STL opportunities.
- Wisconsin will be able to hold onto the ball well, which will be a contributing factor to a high efficiency (pts/possession).
- Pitt will not likely get many chances at the freethrow line.
- Tempo will be slow.
It's really too close to call with any conviction. The reason Wisconsin is favored by most predictive models above is the home-court advantage. In a slow game, every possession will count, meaning that careless turnovers could be the most costly action. In the case of Pittsburgh, reliance on their top three players means that foul trouble could leave them vulnerable. Again, it's anybody's game, but because it's in Madison, the odds favor the Badgers.
Sports and Numbers Prediction: Wisconsin wins 66-61.
Pre-Game Keys to Watch For |
|||
|
Keys to Watch For |
Metric |
Result |
Edge (Comments) |
| If either team has a significant TO advantage, in a slow game, it could be the difference. | Either team to have 6 more TO's than the other | ||
| Pitt must keep its top 3 players (Gray, Kendall, Biggs) in the game | Gray, Kendall, and Biggs to combine for at least 82 minutes | ||
|
Sports and Numbers Newsletter - sign
up here Get notified of updates to the site. Some features written exclusively for newsletter. |
|
Email this page to your friend
Copyright © 2006 Sports and
Numbers. All Rights
Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy
Policy