Similarity Scores: Big 12

I introduced team similarity scores yesterday (summary at UFR, complete description here), and today I’ll be applying them to the Big 12.  If you’re here via UFR, you’ve already seen the lists for Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri, so you can skip down to Texas.  Everybody else, dig in.

2010 KANSAS

2010 Kansas - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
94	2007	Kansas	3
94	2005	Louisville	4
93	2008	Kansas	6
93	2004	Cincinnati	1
93	2004	Connecticut	6
92	2008	Memphis	5
92	2007	Texas A&M	2
92	2004	Gonzaga	1
92	2009	Gonzaga	2
92	2006	Florida	6

The 2004/9 Gonzaga teams are on this list partly because they have great raw stats from beating up on the WCC.  Ditto for 2004 Cincy, as they were in Conference USA back then.

As you'd expect, there are a couple Kansas teams on here, as Bill Self has a distinct style that he's installed in Lawrence: great interior defense with lots of steals and blocks (see 2004 UConn, 2008 Memphis) and great shooting and good rebounding on offense (see 2006 Florida, 2005 Louisville).  What may be surprising to some is that last year's 2009 Kansas not in the top 10.  That's because this year's team has improved almost literally across the board.

Also, it's nice to see 3 champions and 2 other Final Four teams on there (and 2005 North Carolina was close, at 91).  You might think any team rated this highly will automatically have a bunch of great comps, but that's not quite true.  One of the closest teams in that dataset to 2010 KU, by Pythag rating, is 2005 Duke:



2005 Duke - Historical Comps

Score	Year	Team	tourney W's
91	2004	Duke	4
90	2006	Duke	2
90	2008	Duke	1
90	2009	Duke	2
89	2007	Memphis	3
89	2008	St. Mary's	0
88	2009	Memphis	2
88	2008	Memphis	5
88	2007	Duke	0
88	2008	Clemson	0

Fewer Final Four teams, and a bunch of early exits.  The difference between this list and the 2010 KU list means these are not just driven by the Pythag rating.  So take heart that not only is KU highly rated by Pomeroy, they're also playing in a style that has resulted in NCAA success.

2010 Kansas - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
90	2010	Kentucky
90	2010	Maryland
90	2010	Baylor
89	2010	Minnesota
89	2010	Georgetown
89	2010	Brigham Young
88	2010	Florida St.
88	2010	Texas
87	2010	Duke
87	2010	Villanova

We’ve been hearing all year that Kansas and Kentucky are the teams to beat, that they’ll be meeting in the final.  Some of the computer ratings disagree, including Pomeroy, where all my stats are taken from.  He has Kentucky rated only 10^th, which is good, but not OMG Fantastic. Kansas is #2, and as you saw above, their style puts them in good company historically.  Well, guess what 2010 team is most similar to 2010 Kansas.  And I can’t say I disagree.  I watched Kentucky take out Vanderbilt last weekend, and what I saw was a hardnosed defensive team that used their height and length to shut down the interior, but who struggled a bit on offense, sometimes standing around and waiting for one player to drive to the basket.  But in crunch time they stayed calm and walked away the winner.  It was KU@A&M, Vol. II.  And then this weekend, we saw both teams walk into a sea of orange and start out flat, with the home teams riding superior hustle and shooting to 19 point leads and eventual winning margins of high single digits. These teams have followed parallel lines this year, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see those lines meet in April.

2010 KANSAS STATE

2010 Kansas State - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
94	2006	Memphis	3
92	2007	Memphis	3
91	2004	Mississippi St.	1
91	2008	Kansas St.	1
91	2008	Marquette	1
91	2006	North Carolina	1
91	2007	Marquette	0
91	2007	Massachusets	N/A
91	2009	Kansas St.	N/A
90	2008	Clemson	0

I'm a bit surprised to find not quite such a pretty picture for the Wildcats.  You can probably ignore 2007 UMass and 2009 KSU, since their Pythag ratings are so much lower than this year’s KSU team, but this list still has several postseason disappointments on it.

However, the fact that the two postseason successes here are also the two most similar teams is a good sign.  I'm especially intrigued by the fact that the two Memphis teams grade out as more similar than the last two KSU squads.  This is largely because those Memphis teams shot nearly identically from the field, crashed the offensive boards, and were examples of that rare team that defends both the interior and 3-point range well, and forces turnovers.  Here's the complete list of all teams from the last 7 years that forced opponents to shoot under 45% from 2 and under 33% from 3, blocked at least 13% of opponents shots, forced TO's on at least 23% of opponent possessions, and recovered at least 39% of offensive rebounds:

2004 Duke
2005 Villanova
2006 Memphis
2007 Memphis
2010 Kansas State

That’s it.

Pretty decent company, but the overall comp list still should send a warning to K-State.  Teams that shoot only an average percentage, and rely on rebounding and drawing fouls to get by, do not have a big margin for error.

2010 Kansas State - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
91	2010	Texas
90	2010	Kentucky
90	2010	Clemson
89	2010	Murray St.
89	2010	Villanova
89	2010	Georgia Tech
89	2010	Washington
88	2010	West Virginia
88	2010	Louisville
88	2010	Duke

I’m not too surprised to see Texas and Kentucky on here, given the good defense of all 3 clubs.  And Villanova makes sense, as their guards get to the free throw line often, and the team as a whole commits too many fouls.  Overall, this list is full of teams who are loaded with talent, though a few may have had more rough patches (Texas, West Virginia, Villanova) than others (Kentucky, Duke).

2010 MISSOURI

2010 Missouri - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
93	2004	UAB	2
91	2009	Missouri	3
91	2008	Clemson	0
91	2005	Kentucky	3
91	2004	Duke	4
91	2008	Marquette	1
90	2004	Georgia Tech	5
90	2006	Duke	2
90	2005	UAB	1
90	2004	St. Joseph’s	4

Gee, those mid-decade UAB teams sure are similar to this year's Tigers.  I wonder why?  This is the kind of list I'm talking about when I say that the weights pass the sniff test, with 3 Mike Anderson teams from 2 different schools (and 2006 UAB just off the list at 89).  There are also Bruce-Pearl-led Tennessee and UW Milwaukee squads just out of the top 10, which seems like a good fit to me.  Too bad the data doesn't go back to the mid-90's, so we could see an appearance or two by Nolan Richardson's Razorbacks.

This list has to look pretty good to Tigers fans, despite the presence of 2008 Clemson (#5 upset by #12 Villanova).  There are some solid above-seed performances by the Anderson-coached teams, despite a lot of these teams having significantly lower Pythagorean ratings than 2010 Missouri.  If we kick out the low-rated UAB squads, and replace them with the next-most-similar teams in the same rating range as MU, we add:

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
89	2004	St. Joseph's	3
88	2006	Memphis	3

Two more Elite 8 appearances, making 7 out of 10 (again ignoring the low-Pythag UAB teams). Missouri's best trait, and the one that I imagine supports these good tourney runs by their comps, is that they simply get more effective possessions than their opponent.  They take care of the ball, and make the opponent turn it over.  No major conference team in the last 7 years has had such a low TO% on offense combined with such a high TO% on defense.

2010 Missouri - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
90	2010	Clemson
88	2010	Maryland
88	2010	Tennessee
88	2010	Texas El Paso
87	2010	Kansas St.
87	2010	Richmond
87	2010	Memphis
87	2010	Virginia Commonwealth
87	2010	Murray St.
86	2010	Syracuse

The first thing that jumps out at me is that these scores are lower overall than the other lists in this post.  The lesson here is that Missouri is quite unique.  Apparently they and Clemson are the only bastions of “basketball socialism." Clemson forces as many turnovers as Missouri, and has similar defensive numbers across the board.  They also shoot about the same on offense, but their presence here is definitely due more to defense.  Kansas fans may be worried to see Tennessee show up here, as it may be a bad omen for March 6th.

2010 TEXAS

2010 Texas - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
93	2007	Memphis	3
92	2004	Nevada	2
92	2009	Washington	1
92	2004	Maryland	1
92	2006	Memphis	3
92	2008	Stanford	2
91	2009	Wake Forest	0
91	2007	Maryland	1
91	2006	Connecticut	3
91	2009	Texas	1

There’s Memphis again.  I'm starting to wonder why they're showing up everywhere, but maybe it makes sense - all these Big 12 teams have very good interior defense, which has been one of Memphis's strengths recently.

As for the tourney performance, there's nothing here that is too extreme in either direction.  One team that exceeded expectations (2004 Nevada), a couple teams that were knocked out in big upsets (2009 Wake, 2006 UConn), and a bunch of teams that made it exactly as far as expected, or fell just sort in a close seed match up.  The message here seems to be that a great defense and an OK offense can only get you so far.  Your defense should be able to beat down Cindarella, but your offense can’t rise up and spring an upset of your own.

2010 Texas - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
92	2010	Kentucky
92	2010	Wake Forest
92	2010	Washington
91	2010	Kansas St.
91	2010	Georgia Tech
90	2010	Clemson
89	2010	Virginia Tech
89	2010	Marshall
89	2010	Maryland
89	2010	Tulsa

And here we see Kentucky and Kansas State again.  It’s interesting that Kentucky, Texas, and KSU all seem to be similar to each other, yet only Kentucky shows up in Kansas’s 2010 comps.  Maryland is showing up everywhere as well, and I regret to say that I have not made time to see them once this year, so I have no idea if that’s an apt comparison or not.

2010 TEXAS A&M

2010 Texas A&M - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
93	2009	Texas	1
93	2009	Southern California	1
93	2004	Xavier	3
93	2008	Oklahoma	1
92	2004	Seton Hall	1
92	2004	Alabama	3
92	2004	Nevada	2
92	2009	Oklahoma	3
92	2009	Texas A&M	1
92	2009	Miami FL	N/A

The spreadsheet that I’m copying all these charts from actually has the NCAA W’s column color coded, and they is the first team I’ve looked at with absolutely no red (lost in significant upset, like #12 over #5) or yellow (lost in very slight upset, like #2 losing to #3).  This agrees very well with the voice in my head that’s telling me the Aggies are a solid team that will at least win a game in the NCAA tourney, but aren’t a threat to do too much more than that.

2010 Texas A&M - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
94	2010	Gonzaga
93	2010	UAB
92	2010	Vanderbilt
92	2010	St. John's
92	2010	Butler
91	2010	Florida
91	2010	Washington
91	2010	San Diego St.
91	2010	Virginia Tech
91	2010	South Florida

In the latest Bracket Project, UAB is an 11 seed, while A&M is a 6.  As a Big 12 homer, I hope that first round matchup comes to fruition, as I’ve got to believe that the safest first round opponents are those that play the same style, but are of inferior quality.  San Diego State is on the 12 line, so there’s a possibility there, as well.

2010 BAYLOR

2010 Baylor - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
93	2008	Connecticut	0
93	2005	Texas	0
92	2004	Nebraska	N/A
91	2009	Kansas	2
91	2004	Gonzaga	1
91	2009	Xavier	2
91	2008	Mississippi St.	1
91	2009	Oklahoma	3
91	2006	Connecticut	3
91	2008	Texas	3

Some potential here, especially considering you’ve gotta give 2008 UConn a pass because of the AJ Price injury.  Good shooting and good interior defense is always a potent combo.  The main worry is that they just do not force teams to turn the ball over.  I looked at the games each of these teams lost in the tourney, to see if lack of opponent TO’s is really what killed them.  I compared the opponents’ average TO% against their TO% in that game, and multiplied the difference by the number of possessions to find out how many “bonus” possessions the opponent got, compared to what they are used to.  The average amount of “bonus” possessions was 3.1, and in 4 of 9 games, the number of bonus possessions was actually larger than the margin of victory.  So, Bears fans, pay close attention to opponent turnovers in the postseason, as I have a feeling a lack of them may be your team’s undoing.

2010 Baylor - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
91	2010	Kansas
91	2010	Kentucky
90	2010	Villanova
89	2010	Georgetown
89	2010	Xavier
89	2010	Marshall
89	2010	Miami FL
89	2010	San Diego St.
89	2010	Georgia Tech
89	2010	Connecticut

Ha, not exactly the best time to get compared to the top 4 teams here, after they collectively faltered on Saturday.  But they play a style that apparently wins ballgames most other weekends, so good for them.

2010 OKLAHOMA STATE

2010 Oklahoma State - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
94	2009	UAB	N/A
93	2009	Oklahoma St.	1
92	2006	Northern Iowa	0
91	2009	Illinois St.	N/A
91	2009	Baylor	N/A
91	2008	UAB	N/A
92	2008	George Mason	0
91	2004	Alabama	3
91	2008	Oklahoma	1
91	2008	Indiana	0

I don’t think this should push our opinion of OSU one way or the other.  Their comps are a bunch of borderline NCAA teams, and only one managed to win more than 1 game.  Sounds about right.

2010 Oklahoma State - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
93	2010	Weber St.
93	2010	Northern Iowa
92	2010	Butler
92	2010	Gonzaga
91	2010	Montana
91	2010	Mississippi St.
91	2010	Missouri St.
91	2010	Wisconsin
90	2010	Northern Colorado
90	2010	Oklahoma

There are some bad teams on here.  OK, not Alcorn State bad, or even below national average bad.  But bad if you’re a major conference team.  I think a large part of the reason is that there just aren’t many decent teams who are below average on the offensive glass, yet dominate the defensive boards.  It’s a weird combo, which means the method has to reach lower into the depths to find comps for OSU.

2010 TEXAS TECH

2010 Texas Tech - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
93	2008	Texas Tech	N/A
92	2006	Iona	0
92	2009	Vermont	N/A
92	2009	Texas El Paso	N/A
91	2009	Texas Tech	N/A
91	2005	Oregon St.	N/A
91	2005	Oral Roberts	N/A
91	2004	Nevada	2
91	2007	Tulane	N/A
91	2006	Loyola Marymount	N/A

At this point we’re getting into the teams that aren’t too likely to make the NCAA’s anyway, so looking at the tourney performance isn’t too interesting.  What is interesting to note is that Texas Tech apparently plays like a mid major team.  And I’m not Kyle Whelliston, so that’s not a compliment.

2010 Texas Tech - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
92	2010	Arkansas
91	2010	Marshall
91	2010	Loyola Marymount
91	2010	Morgan St.
91	2010	Iowa St.
91	2010	Washington
91	2010	Arizona
91	2010	Vanderbilt
90	2010	North Carolina St.
90	2010	Maryland

So, if Texas Tech were good at what they try to do (safety first, according to the stats – take care of the ball and only take the 3 when it’s wide open on offense, and clog the passing lanes on defense), their upside is a team like Vandy or Maryland.  And their downside is Morgan State, who, by the way, may make the tourney as a #15 seed or so.

2010 OKLAHOMA

2010 Oklahoma - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
92	2008	Virginia	N/A
92	2004	IUPUI	N/A
92	2007	South Carolina	N/A
92	2007	New Mexico	N/A
92	2004	New Mexico	N/A
91	2009	Western Kentucky	1
91	2009	Northern Iowa	0
91	2007	California	N/A
91	2007	Cal Poly	N/A
91	2006	Niagara	N/A

Notice there are no past Oklahoma teams on here.  If this were Savannah State, I’d say that’s a positive, but in this case I think it’s negative. The only team (and by extension, coach) that shows up twice is New Mexico, and the head coach of the 2007 version was fired midway through that season, a little over 3 years ago.  Does that mean Jeff Capel needs to be careful?

2010 Oklahoma - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
92	2010	Weber St.
92	2010	Creighton
92	2010	New Mexico St.
91	2010	Missouri St.
91	2010	Oklahoma St.
91	2010	Penn St.
90	2010	Bucknell
90	2010	Wisconsin Milwaukee
90	2010	South Dakota St.
90	2010	Pacific

I’m sorry, but I can’t for the life of me figure out anything to say about this one.  Moving on.

2010 COLORADO

2010 Colorado - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
89	2004	Portland	N/A
89	2009	Richmond	N/A
89	2007	Temple	N/A
89	2006	Butler	N/A
89	2009	Texas Tech	N/A
89	2009	Centenary	N/A
88	2004	Toledo	N/A
88	2005	Toledo	N/A
88	2009	Creighton	N/A
88	2007	Texas Tech	0

Interesting that their most similar comp scores so low (89), while their least similar scores so high (67 – 2005 Savannah St.).  I’m left wondering how that can be uniquely bad, yet not be way different from anybody.  I’m also wondering why there are no previous Colorado teams on here.  2009 Colorado is all the way down in 17^th place, at 87.

2010 Colorado - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
89	2010	Cleveland St.
88	2010	Valparaiso
87	2010	Southern Illinois
87	2010	Montana St.
87	2010	Lafayette
87	2010	Centenary
87	2010	College of Charleston
86	2010	Arizona
86	2010	Eastern Kentucky
86	2010	Saint Joseph's

Colorado lost to Arizona in OT back in November.  Must have been a really even game, with both teams having identical numbers, right?  Well, no, not really.  Colorado dominates the boards and held onto the ball better, but the Wildcats shot lights out. Trash the system!

2010 IOWA STATE

2010 Iowa State - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
94	2004	Colorado	N/A
93	2004	Louisiana St.	N/A
93	2008	Iowa St.	N/A
93	2006	Wisconsin	0
93	2009	Texas A&M	1
93	2008	UAB	N/A
93	2008	Nevada	N/A
92	2009	Vanderbilt	N/A
92	2008	Oral Roberts	0
92	2006	Nevada	0

There are more NCAA tourney teams here than I expected, considering how bad Iowa State has been in the Big 12.  I’ll be curious to see who has to face them in first round of the Big 12 tournament, as they may be a tougher out than Colorado or Nebraska.  They shoot well from 3 and have good interior defense; if they get hot from deep, they may be able to pair it with enough D to win.

2010 Iowa State - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
92	2010	Louisiana Tech
92	2010	Arizona
92	2010	Idaho
91	2010	Georgia
91	2010	Boston College
91	2010	North Carolina
91	2010	North Carolina St.
91	2010	Stanford
91	2010	Gonzaga
91	2010	Vanderbilt

Congratulations, Hawkeyes!  You are quite similar to North Carolina, what a season you must have had!  What?  You don’t say.  Oh, too bad.

I’m not sure it’s good for Vandy that they keep showing up as a comp for these bad teams.

2010 NEBRASKA

2010 Nebraska - Historical Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM	NCAA W's
94	2007	Utah Valley St.	N/A
92	2004	Drexel	N/A
92	2004	St. Louis	N/A
92	2004	Mississippi	N/A
92	2007	Wichita St.	N/A
92	2006	Arizona St.	N/A
92	2004	Creighton	N/A
92	2005	Dayton	N/A
92	2009	UNLV	N/A
92	2006	Pacific	0

Maybe I should stop being surprised when these bottom-of-the-barrel teams don’t have any past years as comps.  Perhaps part of what makes them bad programs is the lack of year to year consistency.

2010 Nebraska - 2010 Comps

SCORE	YR	TEAM
92	2010	Wright St.
92	2010	Iona
91	2010	Cornell
91	2010	Portland
91	2010	Montana
91	2010	Stanford
90	2010	Lehigh
90	2010	Southern Illinois
90	2010	Wofford
90	2010	Arizona St.

My bad; there IS some consistency there.  Nebraska is similar to 2006 AND 2010 Arizona State.  Of course, I just looked on Wikipedia and confirmed my suspicion that, yes, the Wildcats switched coaches after the 2006 season.  So we’re back to square zero.

POSTSCRIPT

Compiling this post taught me something important about these similarity scores – that I don’t care about them for the crappy teams. So this will be the last full conference post I do. Next on the agenda is a look at historical comps for some of the top teams this year, and perhaps a post on the top 2010 comps for some past champs.