On Second Thought -- Plotting Trendlines for Big East Teams (pt 2)

Through the Middle Section of the Conference
While there is something appealing about taking the conference by quartiles -- Big East observers have only another year or two for that approach -- I decided to look at the teams in three parts, taking about five teams with each look. The decision was not random, as the trendlines for teams grouped in this way, highlights a number of common elements...similar records & progressions. As in "Second Thoughts: Part 1" I have highlighted those (six this time...) teams discussed in this post in the year-end conference standings:

	W	L	Pct.
Pittsburgh	15	3	0.833
Notre Dame	14	4	0.776
Syracuse	12	6	0.667
Louisville	12	6	0.667
St. John's	12	6	0.667
Cincinnati	11	7	0.611
West Virginia	11	7	0.611
Georgetown	10	8	0.556
Connecticut	9	9	0.500
Villanova	9	9	0.500
Marquette	9	9	0.500
Seton Hall	7	11	0.389
Rutgers	5	13	0.278
Providence	4	14	0.222
South Florida	3	15	0.167
Cincinnati	1	17	0.056

(T6 #6) Cincinnati

Multiple intersecting trendlines suggest...

Third order polynomial trendlines tend to resist wild gyrations, which makes them a good tool for identifying "long term" trends. Cincinnati's season, per the trendline, suggests a mild slump around games 5 through 12, and indeed the Bearcats' record through that seven game stretch was 3-4 (they finished 11-7 and secured the #6 seed in the BET). Coach Mick Cronin, possibly the conference's strongest hot seat candidate going into the season, secured his tenure (at least in the near term) with a team performance that exceeded preseason expectations. An especially strong 5-1 finish of the conference regular season featured wins over Louisville, Marquette and twice over Georgetown, NCAA invitees all. The lone loss through that run was Connecticut, the team which also eliminated Cincinnati in the second round of the NCAA Tournament (and went on to win the National Championship).

(T9 #9) Connecticut

Ahhh, A double helix, perhaps?

The Huskies offer one of the more interesting trendlines from the conference season. Like many teams that finished in this middle third of the conference. Connecticut's trendlines suggest a team that was "evolving" as the season progressed. What sets Connecticut's trendlines apart from the usual in season slump is the suggestion the source of the "pause" was defense. Note the adjusted offensive trendline shows no signs of regressing through the season. The Huskies were one of two squads whose offense (adjusted for the competition) appeared to improve (no regression) over the course of the season.

(8 #8) Georgetown

A curved double intersection like Cincinnati's, but...

The adjusted chart suggests Coach John Thompson's squad peaked around the time of the Villanova game (game 9 on the chart), and then declined through the end of the season. The Hoyas finishd the 2011 season on a four game losing streak that began with the last two games of the conference season and continued through the Wednesday round in the Big East Tournament, culminating with their second consecutive first round of the NCAA Tournament. Junior guard Chris Wright missed three of the games through that stretch, but the chart suggests the offense was in full decline well before Wright missed games. Note the second intersection in the chart, around game 14, was an eight point loss (70-78) to Connecticut. The Huskies also eliminated the Hoyas in New York City exactly three weeks later.

(T9 #11) Marquette

Slump & recovery...

The adjusted chart suggests a decline/slump through much of the season, as Coach Buzz Williams' program bottomed out around the Georgetown game (game #12), then began a slow rebound through the end of the regular season. The Golden Eagles did finish the regular season on a two game losing streak, one that may well have put their NCAA bid on a bubble going into New York City. Marquette rebounded nicely however, running to the Sweet Sixteen where they fell, 81-63, to North Carolina.

(T9 #10) Villanova

The season-long slump?

The season-long decline of the Wildcats' offensive efficiency is clearer in the adjusted efficiency chart. Many of my post game analysis pointed to defensive lapses (also indicated in the trendlines), but the chart hints strongly the offensive decline was persistent and steady throughout the conference season. Stepping back a bit, the decline, from just under 120 (118?) down to about 101, was dramatic for an 18 game stretch. Unlike other teams in this group, there was no rebound...

(T6 #7) West Virginia

No double intersection here either

The trendlines suggest that West Virginia's offensive slump was well timed. The Mountaineers' record from games three through nine was 6-1, with an eye popping 89.9 adjusted defensive efficiency that masked a 10% decline in offensive efficiency during that time period. Coach Bob Huggins' squad finished the conference regular season with an 11-7 conference record (tied for #6 with Cincinnati, earning the 'Eers a #7 seed for the Big East Tournament). West Virginia earned a #5 seed to the NCAA Tournament and lost in the second round to Final Four-bound Kentucky.

On Second Thought -- Plotting Trendlines for Big East Teams (pt 1)

What Funny Shapes Can Teach Us...
I liked tj's original post on mapping Michigan State's efficiency trends during the 2008 season when I read read it years ago, mapping the trend over time could be useful. The graph itself however was visually busy; the trendlines got lost as MSU's offensive and defensive efficiencies (points per possession scored and allowed) gyrated, game-by-game. Which leads us to the real problem of measuring team efficiency over a series of games (in conference out of conference, through a tournament, etc.) -- adjusting the performance to account for the competition. The conference regular season, which offered a more balanced schedule than a composite out of conference slate of opponents, should be a better context for judging performance over time. The bloggers over at Maize-Colored Glasses Blog put together an outstanding set of alphabetically correct posts that mapped each Big Ten team's trends over the course of conference play. I was so impressed with the methodologies described in the "Polynomial-centric Recap: Part 1" that I decided to apply the method (unadjusted and adjusted) for a similar look at the Big East. I describe the techniques later in this post. From the bottom up, (alphabetically correct of course) the conference's last five teams shared some features. The conference standings/seeds for the Big East Tournament:

	W	L	Pct.
Pittsburgh	15	3	0.833
Notre Dame	14	4	0.776
Syracuse	12	6	0.667
Louisville	12	6	0.667
St. John's	12	6	0.667
Cincinnati	11	7	0.611
West Virginia	11	7	0.611
Georgetown	10	8	0.556
Connecticut	9	9	0.500
Villanova	9	9	0.500
Marquette	9	9	0.500
Seton Hall	7	11	0.389
Rutgers	5	13	0.278
Providence	4	14	0.222
South Florida	3	15	0.167
DePaul	1	17	0.056

(16 #16) DePaul

Not an ironic commentary on DePaul's season...honest

I rechecked the numbers and calculations when the fish appeared. The unadjusted trendlines look much the same. Coach Oliver Purnell will bring the program along next season, but seeing offense and defense move in such a symmetrical way throughout the entire season suggests (perhaps) that some nights his young Blue Demon squad got it and other nights not at all. The late season "fish tail" was probably a morale-induced slump. More experienced players should make a difference.

(14 #14) Providence

It was the defense...again

Throughout the Tim Welsh and Keno Davis Eras the Friars have been a Notre Dame Lite -- good offense but little defense. This season was no exception, and Marshon Brooks alone could not carry the team night-in and night-out. Lack of progress no doubt the catalyst that led to Davis' departure, Ed Cooley has been charged to turn things around. One common trait of the teams in the fourth quartile is that the defensive efficiency trendline never falls below the team's offensive efficiency trendline. Though everyone of the four team that finished #13 through #16 won at least one game, winning was neither prevalent (all had winning percentages <0.400) nor sustained for any period of the conference season.

(13 #13) Rutgers

An end of season rally...

The unadjusted trendline suggests the Rutgers players were "getting it" -- Coach Mike Rice's system as the season progressed. Though the Scarlet Knights went 1-3 through the last four games, the defense appears to have stabilized even as their offensive efficiency improved. Note that by the 18th game (a season-ending, 74-75 loss to Providence), trendlines for offensive and defensive efficiency seem poised to cross. And the Knights went on to win their next game, 76-70 in overtime over Seton Hall in the Tuesday night round of the Big East Tournament. The trendline chart adjusted for the competition however suggests something a bit different...

...or a modest slump?

Providence and DePaul, teams that finished #14 and #16 respectively, were Rutgers' last two regular season opponents. The Knights' performance (a 1-1 record on games with margins of +3 and -1 points), coupled with the "fish tail" curve of the trendlines suggest that the team was slumping more than rallying, as the season drew to a close. The win over Seton Hall, an instate rival with whom the Scarlet Knights drew 1-1 on the season, does not refute the trend. It will be interesting to see what Coach Rice does with a squad made up largely of players he recruited.

(12 #12) Seton Hall

The trendlines are consistent with a losing record...

The trendlines converge and cross just before the end of the season (for the curious, game #14 for the Pirates was Villanova). The wave motion is similar to South Florida's (see below), but unlike the teams that finished #13 - #16, the trendline for the Pirates' offensive efficiency crossed to the north of their defensive efficiency trendline, an element the Hall held in common with the other 11 members who finished in the upper three quartiles.

Coach Willard's system was beginning to work

The Hall's last two regular season games, both wins, over St. John's and Marquette, were a huge boost for the adjusted numbers. The Johnnies were seeded #5 in the Big East Tournament and managed to draw a #6 seed in the NCAA Tournament, while Marquette finished the Big East regular season with a 9-9 record, drew a #11 seed in the NCAA Tournament and ran to the Sweet Sixteen.

(15 #15) South Florida

The wave pattern?

Having finished #9, drawing an NIT bid and losing Dominique Jones all in 2010, the Bulls were poised for a rebuilding year, and 2011 lived down to those expectations. The wave pattern (the adjusted version above is consistent with the unadjusted trendlines), which features the trendline for defensive efficiency always above the offensive efficiency trendline, by (more or less) a consistent margin, throughout the conference season. With a 3-15 conference record (10-23 overall) and a cumulative conference record of 51-77 in 4 seasons, I wonder, lacking a clear sign of improvement next season, how much longer Coach Stan Heath will pace the sidelines in Tampa.

Methods & Sources
I used Ken Pomeroy's website, specifically each Big East team's gameplan pages, as the data source for each team's offensive and defensive efficiencies for each conference game played (many thanks to Ken Pomeroy for providing this invaluable resource for the past eight seasons). I plotted the data points for offense and defense and then applied a third order polynomial to map the trend line. Those charts are captioned as "Unadjusted" in this and subsequent posts. The conference average for points per possession in 2011 (conference games only) was 1.037. I adjusted each team's offensive and defensive points per possession for each game using the formulas documented by the Maize-Colored Glasses Blog...
offensive adjustment -- (100 x points per possession)/(1-(opponents average points per possession allowed - conference-wide average points per game allowed)). Given the Big East average points per possession was 1.037, that simplified the adjustment to (100 x points per possession)/(opponents average points per possession allowed - 0.037)
defensive adjustment -- (100 x points per possession allowed)/(opponents average points per possession - 0.037)
A strong defensive effort against Notre Dame would be properly weighted versus a strong defensive effort against DePaul.

Offensive points per possession for each team (ordered by PPP Scored):

		PPP
	Team	Scored
1	Notre Dame	1.130
2	Pittsburgh	1.105
3	Marquette	1.103
4	Syracuse	1.078
5	Villanova	1.077
6	West Virginia	1.049
7	Louisville	1.034
8	Cincinnati	1.030
9	Georgetown	1.026
10T	St. John's	1.022
10T	Connecticut	1.022
12	Providence	1.010
13	Rutgers	1.009
14	South Florida	0.972
15T	Seton Hall	0.958
15T	DePaul	0.958

Defensive points per possession for each team (ordered by fewest points per possession allowed):

		PPP
	Team	Allowed
1	Pittsburgh	0.960
2	Louisville	0.967
3	Cincinnati	0.981
4	Seton Hall	0.987
5	Syracuse	0.989
6	St. John's	1.001
7T	West Virginia	1.004
7T	Connecticut	1.004
9	Georgetown	1.037
10	Notre Dame	1.055
11	Villanova	1.062
12	Marquette	1.070
13	Rutgers	1.082
14	South Florida	1.094
15	Providence	1.111
16	DePaul	1.172