Offense wins regular season titles.

[w00t]

At the end of the day, how many points you scored per possession and how many points you gave up per possession is the most reliable measure of how well your offense and defense performed.

What if the other team played terrible defense and you still couldn't make shots?

Then said defense would look "artificially" good. But for every instance of that happening it's just as likely that a team played great defense and got torched anyway and look "artificially" poor. That's why looking at small sample sizes doesn't help much.

[zippy5]

..... 1 - You're employing the DiG strategy of picking one game as evidence to whatever point you're trying to make. .....

Really? That's "the DiG strategy" now? I'm the best example you can cite for doing that on ZN.O?

Amazing.

Haha, I'm sure it's not exclusive to you (I'm sure I've done it myself in fact)... just the most recent example of someone arguing the same point.

My point is that the three teams with the least points scored upon them are in the final four. Maybe because they play slow, maybe because they're the three best defenses. Whatever that style is, it seems to be working.

My points are that you're using borderline useless data (I assume you're using averages from tournament games only?) and that this year's Final Four is not representative of the norm anyway.

Averages from tournament games, to show success in the tournament? useless? their regular season stats have nothing to do with this tournament. Maybe there's a reason this year's final four isn't representative of the norm? Things change. This isn't 2009 anymore

The data isn't even right anyway. Duke has given up 56.25 ppg in this tournament. You claim that they are one of the three teams giving up the least points in the tournament. However you do not realize that Notre Dame had a ppg against of 51 in the tournament. Guess how many games they won? Texas A&M gave up 56 ppg (adjusted for the OT game they played). I just did a quick glance at the bracket so there could be more. Might want to get your stats right next time.

ESPNews showed the table, I didn't look anything up...maybe it was a minimum of 2 games played. Watch the channel today, all they do is show the same 15 minute segments repeatedly anyway, I'm sure it will be up there.

[w00t]

..... 1 - You're employing the DiG strategy of picking one game as evidence to whatever point you're trying to make. .....

Really? That's "the DiG strategy" now? I'm the best example you can cite for doing that on ZN.O?

Amazing.

Haha, I'm sure it's not exclusive to you (I'm sure I've done it myself in fact)... just the most recent example of someone arguing the same point.

My point is that the three teams with the least points scored upon them are in the final four. Maybe because they play slow, maybe because they're the three best defenses. Whatever that style is, it seems to be working.

My points are that you're using borderline useless data (I assume you're using averages from tournament games only?) and that this year's Final Four is not representative of the norm anyway.

Averages from tournament games, to show success in the tournament? useless? their regular season stats have nothing to do with this tournament. Maybe there's a reason this year's final four isn't representative of the norm? Things change. This isn't 2009 anymore

The data isn't even right anyway. Duke has given up 56.25 ppg in this tournament. You claim that they are one of the three teams giving up the least points in the tournament. However you do not realize that Notre Dame had a ppg against of 51 in the tournament. Guess how many games they won? Texas A&M gave up 56 ppg (adjusted for the OT game they played). I just did a quick glance at the bracket so there could be more. Might want to get your stats right next time.

This.

Next thing you know he'll be telling me that the teams with the most wins in the tournament are the ones still playing. LOL

[zippy5]

minimum of 2 games. not adjusted for OT. sorry for not clarifying.

if that is wrong, blame ESPNews, didn't think I'd have to check their stats.

[Dave in Green]

..... 1 - You're employing the DiG strategy of picking one game as evidence to whatever point you're trying to make. .....

Really? That's "the DiG strategy" now? I'm the best example you can cite for doing that on ZN.O?

Amazing.

Haha, I'm sure it's not exclusive to you (I'm sure I've done it myself in fact)... just the most recent example of someone arguing the same point.

Thanks for the reprieve. Most of my posts on ZN.O have been in agreement with what most of your posts support -- that the larger the statistical sample, the more reliable the assumptions that can be drawn from a body of data.

For every single game cited to "prove" one thing, there are always other games that can be cited to "prove" exactly the opposite.

[meatwad]

minimum of 2 games. not adjusted for OT. sorry for not clarifying.

if that is wrong, blame ESPNews, didn't think I'd have to check their stats.

So it eliminated half the field right away? This is getting worse.

[zippy5]

minimum of 2 games. not adjusted for OT. sorry for not clarifying.

if that is wrong, blame ESPNews, didn't think I'd have to check their stats.

So it eliminated half the field right away? This is getting worse.

so what exactly is your point? ND is a better defensive team? Or are you saying these teams are there because of their offense? No one has really presented any other points, beside arguing against mine...enlighten me.

[Dave in Green]

How many of the following coaches are not well known for advocating "defense first?"

1. Bob Huggins

2. Tom Izzo

3. Mike Krzyzewski

4. Brad Stevens

[meatwad]

minimum of 2 games. not adjusted for OT. sorry for not clarifying.

if that is wrong, blame ESPNews, didn't think I'd have to check their stats.

So it eliminated half the field right away? This is getting worse.

so what exactly is your point? ND is a better defensive team? Or are you saying these teams are there because of their offense? No one has really presented any other points, beside arguing against mine...enlighten me.

My point:

A ) Your sample size is ridiculously small, because it only includes 4 games and in such games there are many factors that can affect the number of points you give up.

B ) All of these teams are good at defense; no one is arguing that. But they are also pretty good (even better!) at scoring than they are at playing defense.

C ) You were trying to call someone out based on faulty logic and statistics. My overall point is you are wrong.

[zippy5]

minimum of 2 games. not adjusted for OT. sorry for not clarifying.

if that is wrong, blame ESPNews, didn't think I'd have to check their stats.

So it eliminated half the field right away? This is getting worse.

so what exactly is your point? ND is a better defensive team? Or are you saying these teams are there because of their offense? No one has really presented any other points, beside arguing against mine...enlighten me.

My point:

A ) Your sample size is ridiculously small, because it only includes 4 games and in such games there are many factors that can affect the number of points you give up.

B ) All of these teams are good at defense; no one is arguing that. But they are also pretty good (even better!) at scoring than they are at playing defense.

C ) You were trying to call someone out based on faulty logic and statistics. My overall point is you are wrong.

Exactly, you have no actual point, you're kind of just arguing to argue. Thanks, come again.

[meatwad]

minimum of 2 games. not adjusted for OT. sorry for not clarifying.

if that is wrong, blame ESPNews, didn't think I'd have to check their stats.

So it eliminated half the field right away? This is getting worse.

so what exactly is your point? ND is a better defensive team? Or are you saying these teams are there because of their offense? No one has really presented any other points, beside arguing against mine...enlighten me.

My point:

A ) Your sample size is ridiculously small, because it only includes 4 games and in such games there are many factors that can affect the number of points you give up.

B ) All of these teams are good at defense; no one is arguing that. But they are also pretty good (even better!) at scoring than they are at playing defense.

C ) You were trying to call someone out based on faulty logic and statistics. My overall point is you are wrong.

Exactly, you have no actual point, you're kind of just arguing to argue. Thanks, come again.

See point B above. Offense is important, too.

Happy now?

Also, it still does not change the fact that you are wrong.

[zippy5]

minimum of 2 games. not adjusted for OT. sorry for not clarifying.

if that is wrong, blame ESPNews, didn't think I'd have to check their stats.

So it eliminated half the field right away? This is getting worse.

so what exactly is your point? ND is a better defensive team? Or are you saying these teams are there because of their offense? No one has really presented any other points, beside arguing against mine...enlighten me.

My point:

A ) Your sample size is ridiculously small, because it only includes 4 games and in such games there are many factors that can affect the number of points you give up.

B ) All of these teams are good at defense; no one is arguing that. But they are also pretty good (even better!) at scoring than they are at playing defense.

C ) You were trying to call someone out based on faulty logic and statistics. My overall point is you are wrong.

Exactly, you have no actual point, you're kind of just arguing to argue. Thanks, come again.

See point B above. Offense is important, too.

Happy now?

I never said it wasn't important. Just not as important. Butler won with defense, WVU won with defense (and terrible FT shooting). I didn't see any games this weekend won by an inspired offensive effort. MSU won by Tennessee out-stupiding them, I'm not sure what I want to call that game. Am I wrong in saying these games were won by great defense?

anyway, I'll agree to disagree. I think defense is more important, you don't. this argument isn't getting anywhere. Enjoy the games, and the defense, this weekend

[Dr Z]

BTW, why isn't anyone talking about what a great coach former UofA coach Huggins is? Forget that he dresses like a Sopranos character, the guy can flat out coach.

I loved Huggy. Entertaining basketball. Plus I understand his offensive and defensive philosophy. I'm not smart enough to understand KD's offense and defense. I think that's why I get bored and frustrated watching Akron sometimes. If he ever taught a class on it, I would take it so I could enjoy the games more.

[w00t]

Last Six National Champions offensive EFFICIENCY...

2004 - Connecticut #4 (#5 defense)

2005 - UNC #1 (#5 defense)

2006 - Florida #2 (#5 defense)

2007 - Florida #1 (#12 defense)

2008 - Kansas #2 (#1 defense)

2009 - UNC #1 (#16 defense)

Re-post from another thread. You go right ahead and agree to disagree, I'll do the same, difference is I'll have a good reason to.

[akzips10]

If you wanna watch games won with offense watch the NBA, for the most part college games are won and lost on the defensive end and the free throw line. Although I can see how one can easily say it wasnt good defense but bad offense. With a sample size so small as teams with at least two games in the tournament the stats are too easily skewed. After reading all these posts it just seems to be differing philosophies being pushed back and forth with "facts". Im just not sure how to prove your point to someone who disagrees on such a basic level as.... your wrong.... It seems like a tough battle, I enjoy the fire of ZN.O... +1 for defensive minded college bball being successful.

[zippy5]

Last Six National Champions offensive EFFICIENCY...

2004 - Connecticut #4 (#5 defense)

2005 - UNC #1 (#5 defense)

2006 - Florida #2 (#5 defense)

2007 - Florida #1 (#12 defense)

2008 - Kansas #2 (#1 defense)

2009 - UNC #1 (#16 defense)

Re-post from another thread. You go right ahead and agree to disagree, I'll do the same, difference is I'll have a good reason to.

I fail to see what that has to do with the 2010 Final Four. But like I said, I'll agree to disagree. If you don't think this weekend's games were won on the defensive end, you need to watch some of the actual games instead of spending time looking up stats.

[meatwad]

Im just not sure how to prove your point to someone who disagrees on such a basic level as.... your wrong....

After he said I was "arguing just to argue" it became a moot point to me. Facts were not going to change his mind.

[akzips10]

After he said I was "arguing just to argue" it became a moot point to me. Facts were not going to change his mind.

Sometimes issues are just at an impass, which I may have entered into this topic at a point of no return. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in... I think both sides have enough merit behind them that its hard to sway from either.

[w00t]

Last Six National Champions offensive EFFICIENCY...

2004 - Connecticut #4 (#5 defense)

2005 - UNC #1 (#5 defense)

2006 - Florida #2 (#5 defense)

2007 - Florida #1 (#12 defense)

2008 - Kansas #2 (#1 defense)

2009 - UNC #1 (#16 defense)

Re-post from another thread. You go right ahead and agree to disagree, I'll do the same, difference is I'll have a good reason to.

I fail to see what that has to do with the 2010 Final Four. But like I said, I'll agree to disagree. If you don't think this weekend's games were won on the defensive end, you need to watch some of the actual games instead of spending time looking up stats.

I'm just dumbfounded at this point. I post the last six national champions, representing the results of 378 tournament games and god knows how many regular season matchups. You post the results of two individual games from this weekend and all of a sudden it's "offense wins regular season titles, defense is where it's at". My head hurts.

[zippy5]

Last Six National Champions offensive EFFICIENCY...

2004 - Connecticut #4 (#5 defense)

2005 - UNC #1 (#5 defense)

2006 - Florida #2 (#5 defense)

2007 - Florida #1 (#12 defense)

2008 - Kansas #2 (#1 defense)

2009 - UNC #1 (#16 defense)

Re-post from another thread. You go right ahead and agree to disagree, I'll do the same, difference is I'll have a good reason to.

I fail to see what that has to do with the 2010 Final Four. But like I said, I'll agree to disagree. If you don't think this weekend's games were won on the defensive end, you need to watch some of the actual games instead of spending time looking up stats.

I'm just dumbfounded at this point. I post the last six national champions, representing the results of 378 tournament games and god knows how many regular season matchups. You post the results of two individual games from this weekend and all of a sudden it's "offense wins regular season titles, defense is where it's at". My head hurts.

Not to sound like a jerk, but I'm not going to waste my time researching stat after stat to prove you wrong. I guarantee I could find them. I just know that I saw some damn good defense being played throughout this tournament so I came on here to see if anyone else has. Apparently they were all looking at statsheet.com and kenpom the whole weekend instead of watching, and enjoying actual basketball. my bad!

my point wasn't really to come on here to prove everyone wrong and start a (pointless) pissing contest. I just thought it was an odd stat they showed, and one that would surprise a lot of people on here. silly me.

[meatwad]

my point wasn't really to come on here to prove everyone wrong and start a (pointless) pissing contest.

Dear GP1,

The three teams with the lowest PPG allowed this tournament are all in the final four.

Sincerely,

Duke, WVU, and Butler.

Really?

[w00t]

Last Six National Champions offensive EFFICIENCY...

2004 - Connecticut #4 (#5 defense)

2005 - UNC #1 (#5 defense)

2006 - Florida #2 (#5 defense)

2007 - Florida #1 (#12 defense)

2008 - Kansas #2 (#1 defense)

2009 - UNC #1 (#16 defense)

Re-post from another thread. You go right ahead and agree to disagree, I'll do the same, difference is I'll have a good reason to.

I fail to see what that has to do with the 2010 Final Four. But like I said, I'll agree to disagree. If you don't think this weekend's games were won on the defensive end, you need to watch some of the actual games instead of spending time looking up stats.

I'm just dumbfounded at this point. I post the last six national champions, representing the results of 378 tournament games and god knows how many regular season matchups. You post the results of two individual games from this weekend and all of a sudden it's "offense wins regular season titles, defense is where it's at". My head hurts.

Not to sound like a jerk, but I'm not going to waste my time researching stat after stat to prove you wrong. I guarantee I could find them. I just know that I saw some damn good defense being played throughout this tournament so I came on here to see if anyone else has. Apparently they were all looking at statsheet.com and kenpom the whole weekend instead of watching, and enjoying actual basketball. my bad!

my point wasn't really to come on here to prove everyone wrong and start a (pointless) pissing contest. I just thought it was an odd stat they showed, and one that would surprise a lot of people on here. silly me.

Your point judging by the thread title was to try and show up GP1 (something I'm sure all of us have wanted to do at one point or another LOL). As to your point, it does in fact surprise me, because that's not usually the way it is... but one year doesn't make a trend. Navigating KenPom and StatSheet doesn't require a metamorphic nuclear physics degree. Take 15 minutes, if you don't find it, it probably ain't there.

KenPom's #1 offense is still alive and well in the tournament by the way.

[zippy5]

that was me trying to be creative and bring it up, because we all know GP1 is all about the "new age" offense. whatever man, thanks for all the insightfulness you brought to the topic.

[zippy5]

KenPom's #1 offense is still alive and well in the tournament by the way.

the only top 10 offense still alive. the #3, 6 and 10 defenses are playing this weekend also

[zip37]

I've read the above [wasting my time]and have concluded that some people have their mind made up that offense wins games and no fact is going to change their mind.