Tournament performance of top teams with great offenses and bad defenses

[ukcatz12]

After the Vandy game we're ranked 5th in offensive efficiency and 104th in defensive efficiency per Kenpom. How have similarly ranked teams fared in the NCAA tournament over the last decade?

Note that these are post-tournament rankings.

Year	Team	Tournament Seed	Offensive Ranking	Defensive Ranking	End Result
2014	Michigan	2	3	89	Elite 8
2014	Duke	3	1	86	Round of 64
2015	Notre Dame	3	2	99	Elite 8
2016	Duke	4	4	86	Sweet 16
2017	UCLA	3	2	85	Sweet 16
2018	Wichita St.	4	4	111	Round of 64
2021	Ohio St.	2	4	82	Round of 64
2022	Purdue	3	2	93	Sweet 16
2023	Baylor	3	2	107	Round of 32

 

[MdWIldcat55]

So, you are saying like Michigan 2014 and Notre Dame 2015, Kentucky might fall one possession short of the Final Four if they have to play.... Kentucky?

 

[know1]

Yep - that's kind of what I've seen.

I think I saw that essentially nobody has made the Final Four with a defense ranked below 40 or so. No matter what happens, our defense isn't going to finish anywhere near that. I think it's 155 now.

And the teams listed in this post all had much better seeds than we will.

I'm not counting us out completely, but it's difficult to get your hopes up for this year's team doing anything in the tournament at this point.

 

[FiveStarCat]

Nice research and fits about what I’d expect. We could be looking at first round exit or an Elite 8 ceiling. Need a lot of match up breaks to crack the FF at this rate, but who doesn’t outside of maybe the top 2-3?

 

[WeWant9]

So, you are saying like Michigan 2014 and Notre Dame 2015, Kentucky might fall one possession short of the Final Four if they have to play.... Kentucky?

UK also knocked out 17 UCLA. Kind of funny UK sent three of those teams home in March.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

That 2015 game was all rock fight calipari with it being played in 60s.

 

[Mike-D]

So, you are saying like Michigan 2014 and Notre Dame 2015, Kentucky might fall one possession short of the Final Four if they have to play.... Kentucky?

That Notre Dame team won the ACC tournament and beat Duke (2015 national champs) twice. They were really fun to watch.

 

[St.PatterSoN-54-]

Looks like a great tool to assist in predicting your march madness brackets

 

[Lempface]

And no 16 seed had ever beaten a 1 seed, until they did, twice.

Why you guys constantly look for negative shit to parade around is, frankly, quite interesting. The team is fun, and when they play like they did last night, I don't see a team who would beat them.

Maybe quit trying to prognosticate and let the season play out, and heaven forbid, enjoy a game along the way.

 

[fatguy87]

In 2012, 2 seed Missouri, number 1 in O and 111th in D, and 2 seed Duke, number 8 in O and 79th in D, both lost in the first round to 15 seeds.

 

[ukjenning44]

I think we can win the whole thing if Cal steps down.

We have the most talented roster in college.
Size, speed, athleticism, great guards, shooting.

Just a below average head coach.

 

[BC_Wader]

Yep - that's kind of what I've seen.

I think I saw that essentially nobody has made the Final Four with a defense ranked below 40 or so. No matter what happens, our defense isn't going to finish anywhere near that. I think it's 155 now.

And the teams listed in this post all had much better seeds than we will.

I'm not counting us out completely, but it's difficult to get your hopes up for this year's team doing anything in the tournament at this point.

Still time to turn the defense around. Last night was a start but was against a bad team. As long as we tighten up and start playing much better on that end then the D ranking won't matter much when the tournaments start.

 

[Smashcat]

That Notre Dame team won the ACC tournament and beat Duke (2015 national champs) twice. They were really fun to watch.

Yep. Excellent ND team. Dook didn't win the regular season or ACCT that year.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Yep. Two things here that I get from this

1) One sided teams tend to get bounced earlier than their seed would suggest
2) Teams can still get very good seeds being one sided to begin with.

 

[Aike]

Something to keep in mind is that those metrics adjust throughout the tournament.

It’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because as you advance deeper into the tournament by beating better and better teams, your metrics almost definitely improve.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Another note if you do this the opposite way (great defenses, bad offenses) you'll find similar results.

Bottom line is you want to be balanced.

Furthermore I haven't looked at it but I would also think within the offense and defense it's better to be balanced as well between the four factors. But that's just my theory.

 

[Smashcat]

It's tough but you only have to go back one year.
Those looking for potential paths for Kentucky to get to the Final Four in anything close to its current state will point to last season’s Miami team — sixth in offense, 99th in defense — as evidence that it’s possible. But remember just how big of an outlier those Hurricanes were — the only team outside the top 50 in defensive efficiency in the past decade to make it that far.

Read more at: https://www.kentucky.com/sports/col...tball-men/article285082892.html#storylink=cpy

 

[The_Answer1313]

Something to keep in mind is that those metrics adjust throughout the tournament.

It’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because as you advance deeper into the tournament by beating better and better teams, your metrics almost definitely improve.

Yeah exactly.
The OP should re-run this exercise using Pre tournament figures.

Tho with this I venture to guess not much changes. Like those teams on the list if they do win games in the tournament, I'd venture to guess their defensive number gets better, not worse.

 

[The_Answer1313]

It's tough but you only have to go back one year.
Those looking for potential paths for Kentucky to get to the Final Four in anything close to its current state will point to last season’s Miami team — sixth in offense, 99th in defense — as evidence that it’s possible. But remember just how big of an outlier those Hurricanes were — the only team outside the top 50 in defensive efficiency in the past decade to make it that far.

Read more at: https://www.kentucky.com/sports/col...tball-men/article285082892.html#storylink=cpy

I feel like that was an outlier with this tho.

Not surprisingly that Miami team this season is 74th in Kenpom and currently not projected to even make the tournament.

 

[IL Wildcat]

Yep, there is no question about it. Our defense will get us beat against a good team. It MUST improve or I'm guessing Sweet 16 is the ceiling of this group, which is a shame. These guys have offensive talent like we haven't seen in a long time. Purely from a shooting/scoring standpoint, this is likely as good an offensive team as the '96 UK team. That team wasn't a great defensive team, either, but they were better than the one we currently have, at least thus far this season.

Truth be told, these guys don't have to be a great defensive team. They just need to be decent. They can score enough, against most teams, that they just need to be rated in the 30-40 range regarding defensive efficiency and their offense would take care of the rest. After back to back losses at Rupp, I'm not holding my breath. But I sure am hoping for improvement.

 

[fastpaste101]

I don't pretend to know how to fix the defense. It does seem like we have the physical ability to do whatever is needed. It is just a matter of each person being focused and disciplined on that end. Like we keep saying stop biting on ball fakes, put your hands up, don't gamble so much, rotate and help. With our length we should be able to funnel shooters off the line into the lane where our bigs can block shots, right? I feel like that is a relatively easy thing to do, that we have done in the past to good effect.

 

[catsfanbgky]

Just get everyone healthy, win games, get better every game, get whatever seed we end up with, go out and give it 100% for the whole game, and let the chips fall where they may. It is about all you can ask for. If the kids give max effort for the whole game on both sides of the court, and lose, I will be fine.

 

[megablue]

Another note if you do this the opposite way (great defenses, bad offenses) you'll find similar results.

Bottom line is you want to be balanced.

Furthermore I haven't looked at it but I would also think within the offense and defense it's better to be balanced as well between the four factors. But that's just my theory.

Make sense ... as in football, where you need both offense and defense to be successful at a high level.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Yep, there is no question about it. Our defense will get us beat against a good team. It MUST improve or I'm guessing Sweet 16 is the ceiling of this group, which is a shame. These guys have offensive talent like we haven't seen in a long time. Purely from a shooting/scoring standpoint, this is likely as good an offensive team as the '96 UK team. That team wasn't a great defensive team, either, but they were better than the one we currently have, at least thus far this season.

Truth be told, these guys don't have to be a great defensive team. They just need to be decent. They can score enough, against most teams, that they just need to be rated in the 30-40 range regarding defensive efficiency and their offense would take care of the rest. After back to back losses at Rupp, I'm not holding my breath. But I sure am hoping for improvement.

Yep I think during the post game Cal even mentioned if we are just 10% better on defense, that could make all the difference in the world here

 

[The_Answer1313]

I feel like as far as defense goes, Cal might have to switch it up a bit. No........not zone.
If you look at our four factors on defense, we don't really do anything particularly well but we only force turnovers on 16.5% of our opponents possessions. 236th in NCAA.

I know Cal is generally against gambling but I see guys on this team like Reed and Rob that could force a ton of turnovers on defense.

If teams are going to continue to get good looks and high % shots, you have to limit possessions somehow. I really wish we'd turn up the pressure. Not necessarily go full court but at least put an emphasis on creating turnovers.

 

[blue cincy]

Try to go into the tourney with the thought that we are by far an NBA team compared to all of these high schools teams. That way when we fail, the fall will be almost as bad as our reactions. We will no matter if we are prepared or not will hate the loss be it round of 64 for final four, actually we might be in the play in 11 seed game. If so we could be out right there. Again. Expect the biggest and let the fall be there no matter what it will hurt just as much.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Another thing about this I wonder if anyone has looked at..........consistent teams are probably better in the tournament than non consistent teams.

In a tournament where you have to win six games in a row it's better to score 1.20 points per possession twice than say 1.40 in game 1 and 1.00 in game 2. Both equal output but that 1.00 in game 2 will get your bounced.

I think people should look at recent champions or does that do well in the tournament and look at their game logs and see if they were consistent on a game by game basis compared to other teams.

 

[Bluegrass79]

If they fire Cal and hire me for $1.09 ..... We will win the championship trophy. I promise

 

[KYExtemper]

Yep. Excellent ND team. Dook didn't win the regular season or ACCT that year.

And I remember it being ridiculous they were the #3 seed and placed in our bracket to begin with.

 

[ukfan1622]

And no 16 seed had ever beaten a 1 seed, until they did, twice.

As I've said before and probably will again, basketball is a fairly young sport and it's been changing fast. Historical data just doesn't mean as much as some people think it does.

That doesn't mean we don't need to get a lot better on defense to have much of a chance. It's unlikely for a team that is really bad on offense or defense to win a championship. Now that I think about it, it's hard for a team that is really good on offense and defense to win a championship.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Elite Eight ceiling. First round floor.

Pretty much goes along with what most of us expect.

 

[DreadLox]

That stat reflects season long performance, but we've never had the entire roster present and available. So, among other things, that number represents a guess across a variety of players.

Defense is harder. Both to play and quantify. I bet team's that have consistent personnel on the floor rank higher than ad hoc groups due to illness, injury, or a sluggard NCAA. Just a guess.

 

[FinancialPlannerZac]

I know our defense isn't good at all. But do we think the numbers might be skewed a little worse than what they could have been if we have had our full compliment of players along the way (and we still haven't)? Not an excuse per se, we are who we are. But I'm hopeful DJ and Tre can come back soon and potentially our metrics improve. If we can see our defensive metrics move from 104 (now) to somewhere in the 60s or 70s... all things considered not having a healthy roster for half the season, maybe that actually equates into a 40s or 50s defensive ranking? Again, we have a long way to go to even get back down in 60s or 70s, but I think it's doable.

 

[DreadLox]

As I've said before and probably will again, basketball is a fairly young sport and it's been changing fast. Historical data just doesn't mean as much as some people think it does.

I haven't looked at the current report, but in similar ones in the past, there can be almost no distinction between two teams 20-30 positions apart. So, X is 50 and Y is 80 doesn't really tell you anything useful.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I know our defense isn't good at all. But do we think the numbers might be skewed a little worse than what they could have been if we have had our full compliment of players along the way (and we still haven't)? Not an excuse per se, we are who we are. But I'm hopeful DJ and Tre can come back soon and potentially our metrics improve. If we can see our defensive metrics move from 104 (now) to somewhere in the 60s or 70s... all things considered not having a healthy roster for half the season, maybe that actually equates into a 40s or 50s defensive ranking? Again, we have a long way to go to even get back down in 60s or 70s, but I think it's doable.

Currently our adjusted defensive efficiency number is 103.0 (104th). The 60th ranked team is at 100.0. So 3 points difference.

Our efficiency margin is 18.78 (24rh overall). Adding those 3 points would be 21.78. But that would only move us from 24th to 16th.

Now we could also improve on offense (tho that's a bit less likely given we are close to IMO the ceiling).

I'm just not sure 24th to 16th is going to be enough here.

I really think we need to be shooting towards top 10. The 10th ranked team is sitting at 23.16 (4.38 away from us).
That's where I believe we need to get. So maintain the top 10 offense and get to the 45-50 range on defense.

 

[Aike]

The OP is using whole year stats leading into the tourney. You're talking about a couple games metrics. Not the same thing.

He said they were post tournament.

 

[Aike]

Duke’s defense was 57 heading into the 2015 tournament and 12 at the end.

Just one example of how much it can move.

 

[Aike]

Bottom line…we need to play better defense. But if we could move into the 50-60 range I’d feel much better and that we were still in the ballgame.

 

[Aike]

I feel like as far as defense goes, Cal might have to switch it up a bit. No........not zone.
If you look at our four factors on defense, we don't really do anything particularly well but we only force turnovers on 16.5% of our opponents possessions. 236th in NCAA.

I know Cal is generally against gambling but I see guys on this team like Reed and Rob that could force a ton of turnovers on defense.

If teams are going to continue to get good looks and high % shots, you have to limit possessions somehow. I really wish we'd turn up the pressure. Not necessarily go full court but at least put an emphasis on creating turnovers.

Been saying this basically forever.

 

[Mike-D]

Been saying this basically forever.

That, and have them watch a rebounding documentary.