Marquette vs. Georgetown - 2 Worst Turnover Differential Teams in Big 6 Conferences

Another great day shooting for Marquette led to a great start, but lopsided loss to Villanova. The one problem once again was turnovers. Yes, 7 of 16 free throws was a bad night, but on average a team hits 11 of 16 free throws so that only costs Marquette 4 points - less if they grab just one of the rebounds of those missed shots and score on the possession.

But turning the ball over 17 times while forcing only four turnovers is tough to overcome. Looking at national stats at www.kenpom.com a huge difference in turnovers (though not that big a discrepancy) was not completely unexpected. Villanova forces turnovers on 19.0 percent of opponents' possessions while only turning the ball over 11.6% of their trips - a +7.4 that ranks 15th in the nation in Turnover Advantage.

Unfortunately Marquette's 21.2 percent turnover ratio compared to turning opponents' over 14.8 percent of the time is a -6.4, the second worst difference of any team in the top six conferences. As you can see from the bottom of this table, only Georgetown is worst. The good news is that with one area being such a weak spot - and potentially somewhat explained by all the missed practice time, there is really only one problem that really needs to be fixed for this to be a very exciting team with a high ceiling. Here are the top 25 teams in Turnover Advantage, followed by the worst 10 teams among the top six conferences.

Georgetown and Marquette should both improve Saturday - when they play each other.

Rnk	Turnovers Forced - TO	Conf	TO advantage	Off TO%	Def TO%
1	Wake Forest	ACC	14.8	18.2	33
2	N.C. State	ACC	13.2	15.9	29.1
3	Utah	P12	13	13.5	26.5
4	Texas Tech	B12	12.3	16.5	28.8
5	Baylor	B12	11.5	15.7	27.2
6	Eastern Kentucky	OVC	11.2	17	28.2
7	Tennessee	SEC	11	14.9	25.9
8	Fordham	A10	10.9	10.9	21.8
9	Florida Atlantic	CUSA	9.4	15.5	24.9
10	UAB	CUSA	9.2	15.4	24.6
11	Sacramento St.	BSky	8.3	17.4	25.7
12	Clemson	ACC	7.7	19.9	27.6
13	Arizona St.	P12	7.6	15.4	23
14	Iowa	B10	7.5	12.6	20.1
15	Villanova	BE	7.4	11.6	19
16	Houston	Amer	7.4	18.1	25.5
17	Pacific	WCC	7.3	12	19.3
18	Mississippi	SEC	7	20.5	27.5
19	Abilene Christian	Slnd	7	21.8	28.8
20	Massachusetts	A10	6.8	15.3	22.1
21	Navy	Pat	6.8	14.7	21.5
22	LIU	NEC	6.6	16	22.6
23	UT Rio Grande Valley	WAC	6.6	18.3	24.9
24	Wisconsin	B10	6.4	12.2	18.6
25	St. John's	BE	6.3	17.2	23.5
	Worst 10 Major Conf	Conf	TO advantage	Off TO%	Def TO%
1	Georgetown	BE	-8	21.7	13.7
2	Marquette	BE	-6.4	21.2	14.8
3	Kentucky	SEC	-4.9	22.8	17.9
4	Notre Dame	ACC	-4.7	16.7	12
5	DePaul	BE	-4.7	21.8	17.1
6	South Carolina	SEC	-4.3	26.5	22.2
7	Illinois	B10	-4	18.9	14.9
8	Michigan	B10	-3.6	18.3	14.7
9	Michigan St.	B10	-3	18	15
10	Iowa St.	B12	-2.8	23.5	20.7

Rumors of good defense for MU are greatly exaggerated

It's been a whirlwind week for #mubb and we're back to talk about it. We talk about the three games since last we posted. We spend time talking about what is going on with the defense and if the concern is overblown or not. We then talk about the new faces on the team and how we are starting to see them blossom. We then turn to future Top 10 victim, Villanova and whether we think #mubb can win. This will be the last pod for 2020, so we wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Happy New Year! Enjoy! https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/zvmyi5/scrambledeggs_edit_12222020.mp3

Defenseless Again

Adam Kunkel sinks Marquette with a late three | Photo Courtesy of CBS Sports

 

It wasn't long ago that Brian Hamilton at The Athletic was writing about the improvement of Marquette's defense. With veteran players like Theo John and Jamal Cain that had years in the system, guards with lockdown defensive ability like Koby McEwen and D.J. Carton, and freshmen with length in the rotation like Dawson Garcia and Justin Lewis, it finally seemed that Marquette had all the elements to turn Steve Wojciechowski's defensive reputation into a reality that had yet to be realized in Milwaukee.

While the defense started well, it's starting to look like those early numbers might not have been indicative of what we will actually see this season. After the Oklahoma State game, Marquette's defense was ranked #24 on kenpom.com, having held their first three opponents below 0.900 points per possession. The eFG% was a suffocating 35.6%. Since then, the defense has gone in the opposite direction. Every opponent has managed over 1.000 points per possession, including more than 1.250 for both Creighton and Xavier. The eFG% is down to 46.3 for the season, but that's because they have allowed 52.2 defensive eFG% in the past 6 games, which is 213th in the country over that span.

Opponent	PPP	eFG%
Arkansas-Pine Bluff	0.750	29.5
Eastern Illinois	0.694	32.0
Oklahoma State	0.897	45.8
UW-Madison	1.032	43.8
UW-Green Bay	1.015	46.0
UCLA	1.062	46.4
Creighton	1.254	60.3
Seton Hall	1.045	51.9
Xavier	1.319	65.2

Obviously no segment of the season is played in isolation, but looking at T-Rank from December 2 until now, Marquette's adjusted defensive efficiency is ranked #195 in the country. That's worse than any complete season in the Steve Wojciechowski era. It's worse than the 2017 team that was his first NCAA bid and it's worse than the 2018 team with Andrew Rowsey and Markus Howard limiting Marquette's perimeter size. To Marquette's credit, the first three games of the season still count, which puts the overall ranking at #71 nationally, but it's starting to look like those performances were more the outliers than an actual indicator of defensive improvement.

Further, while the season is young, the idea that this team will automatically improve because they are young may be unfounded. Marquette starts three seniors who have 13 years of D1 experience between them. They have another fourth-year junior on the bench and two sophomores in what appears to be an 8-man rotation. While there are also two freshmen in the rotation, Pomeroy rates Marquette #181 in experience and #161 in minutes continuity (the returning minutes that are continuing to play this year). Even with only 328 teams playing so far this season, that is still about middle of the pack in terms of experience. Not an old team, but not a young team either. At this point, the UAPB and EIU games are doing a lot of work in terms of this defense looking marginally respectable, though that marginal respectability is sliding backwards on a game by game basis.

The question is, if this team isn't as offensively gifted as the teams we've had in recent years and the defense isn't the calling card it looked to be a couple weeks ago, what is this team's path to success this year? The coaching staff will need to come up with an answer fast, because with Marquette already in the thick of Big East play, the schedule won't be easing up any time soon.

MU 1 of Only 5 Teams with No AP Top 25 Votes Despite Top 50 Offense and Defense

During Marquette's spirited come-from-behind win at Creighton, announcers commented on Marquette relying on defense rather than offense this season. While www.kenpom.com actually ranks MU's offense (21st best) as still better than the defense (48th), the potential for true lockdown defense is apparent and this is certainly more balances than last year (14th best offense, 73rd best defense). 

This leaves Marquette as one of only 5 teams to rank in the top 50 in both offense and defense at www.kenpom.com, and yet still not receive any AP writers Top 25 votes. Of course, this poll was released prior to the big win at Creighton - combined with the top 10 win over Wisconsin after MU only beat one Top 10 team in the last three seasons combined. The other teams are Purdue, USC, NC State and Alabama. 

Here are the teams with both a Top 50 offense and defense, as well as the overall www.kenpom.com ratign and their current AP rating (listed 26th place as the other team receiving the most vote points, etc.).

Top 50 off & def	Conf	Off	Def	kenpom	AP
Alabama	SEC	49	46	52	NR
Arkansas	SEC	45	30	34	39
Baylor	B12	3	9	2	2
Duke	ACC	17	17	11	21
Florida	SEC	27	24	24	33
Florida St.	ACC	24	15	12	15
Gonzaga	WCC	2	16	1	1
Houston	Amer	12	21	10	6
Illinois	B10	11	31	17	13
Indiana	B10	39	11	14	32
Kansas	B12	25	7	9	5
Louisville	ACC	22	25	23	23
Marquette	BE	21	48	33	NR
Michigan	B10	7	34	13	25
Michigan St.	B10	9	41	22	4
Minnesota	B10	40	42	42	40
Missouri	SEC	32	44	38	16
N.C. State	ACC	28	47	36	NR
North Carolina	ACC	36	20	28	22
Ohio St.	B10	10	37	21	20
Oregon	P12	15	40	25	31
Purdue	B10	31	38	32	NR
Rutgers	B10	46	12	20	19
Saint Louis	A10	37	35	37	26
San Diego St.	MWC	47	19	29	18
Syracuse	ACC	30	28	27	38
Texas	B12	19	3	5	11
Texas Tech	B12	50	1	8	14
UCLA	P12	14	43	26	35
USC	P12	41	33	39	NR
Villanova	BE	4	27	3	7
Virginia Tech	ACC	43	45	47	27
West Virginia	B12	13	10	6	8
Wisconsin	B10	18	6	7	12

Depending on where you stand we are either overreacting or underreacting.

Weirdly, the non-conference season is over and we are reacting to it. We largely ignore the UW-Green Bay game (we own the state) and focus on the result out in LA. We talk about the result, what Wojo did or did not do right, and what we take away from the game. We then talk about the start of conference season and how good(more likely bad) the game against Creighton goes and how MU will do against the Fighting Kevin Willards. We then close out the pod with some discussion of what the future holds from a schedule standpoint and Shakespeare (To bubble or not to bubble). As always, enjoy! https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/84nf3q/scrambledeggs_edit_12122020.mp3

All Hail Justin Lewis and his slaying of the Badgers

Well it was a roller coaster week for #mubb and we're here to talk about it. The week started off with a bad loss to Oklahoma State but that's not where we start because we gotta start with the Justin Lewis game. We discuss the game, the rotation, the result, and most importantly, Justin Lewis. We then turn to the week ahead and discuss the upcoming games against Green Bay and UCLA(maybe?). We also discuss the habit Wojo has to get a big win and then crap the bed. It's a lot and we hope you enjoy! https://scrambledeggs.podbean.com/e/all-hail-justin-lewis-and-his-slaying-of-the-badgers/

The Weekend That (Maybe) Saved the Big East

 Marquette piles on Justin Lewis after his tip-in upset #4 Wisconsin

Photo courtesy of JSOnline.com

On Wednesday night, the Big East was reeling. After Providence fell to Alabama, the league had a 3-5 record against other high-major leagues, while losses by St. John's (BYU) and Seton Hall (Rhode Island) gave the league 3 losses to teams outside the Top-6. To make matters even more daunting, the league faced a brutal weekend slate in which Connecticut, Marquette, Seton Hall, Villanova, Seton Hall (again), DePaul, and Georgetown were all underdogs. If those games went according to the bookies, the Big East would have been staring at a 3-12 record against their fellow high-majors, which in a usual year would be disastrous, but in a COVID-shortened season with fewer opportunities to get such wins due to the truncated non-conference schedule, could've been...well, whatever is worse than disastrous.

Remember that last year, the Big East and college basketball on the whole lost massive shares of NCAA Tournament revenue. With units valued at over $280,000 each, the Big East, which Cracked Sidewalks projected to earn 7 NCAA bids last year, lost nearly two million dollars just on the basis of first round appearances, and with Creighton, Villanova, and Seton Hall all favored to at least reach a second weekend, likely lost out on millions more. To make up for that, the league needs a big season like never before.

In the six years since the Big East was reformed, the league has never had a losing record against the other high-majors. The following table shows not just the Big East's record against the other high-major leagues (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC) but also their winning percentage in those games, the average number of losses per Big East member to teams Outside the Top-6 (O6 L/Team), the number of NCAA bids earned, and the percentage of league members earning a NCAA bid.

BIG EAST	W/L v P6	Win %	O6 L/Team	NCAA Bids	Bid %
2014	20-18	0.526	1.20	4	40.0%
2015	23-16	0.590	1.40	6	60.0%
2016	26-18	0.591	1.20	5	50.0%
2017	27-18	0.600	1.10	7	70.0%
2018	19-17	0.528	0.60	6	60.0%
2019	21-20	0.512	1.00	4	40.0%

For a league like the Big East, that has never had a season below .500 against the other high-majors, the idea of having a win percentage in the 0.200-0.300 range could be incredibly bad. Only twice since the Big East split off have high-major leagues had winning percentages against the other high-majors below 0.340; the 2016 SEC (0.306 W%) and the 2019 Pac-12 (0.212 W%) each earned 3 bids. However due to having fewer members, a Big East with such an abysmal record could've easily been looking at just 2 bids.

Why are these games so important? It's simple. The majority of the at-large bids go to teams from the Top-6 leagues, so those competitions are the primary determiner of league quality. Beat up on the other Top-6 leagues and you will be rewarded with more bids. Get beat up on, get fewer bids. The wild card is the number of losses to teams outside those top leagues.

UConn started the turnaround with their win over USC. Marquette followed up on that with the league's then best win to date over #4 Wisconsin. Seton Hall dropped a game to Oregon, which was followed by Georgetown losing Sunday to West Virginia. The league had a successful Sunday overall, however, as Villanova got what might be the best win by any team of the season to date, beating Texas on the road while Seton Hall made up for their Friday loss, rallying from 19 down to beat Penn State in overtime. DePaul managed to remain undefeated, though that's only because their game at Iowa State was cancelled due to COVID protocols.

The league now sits at 7-7 against fellow high-major opponents with just 7 games left on the schedule. While there may be additional games added to make up for past cancellations, the simple reality is that there will be far fewer opportunities to get wins. Had the Big East gone 0-7 over the past weekend as expected, they would've been guaranteed a losing record in these games. Here's the current remaining high-major schedule:

Tuesday, December 8th: Creighton @ Kansas, 

Wednesday, December 9th: Oklahoma @ Xavier, Providence @ TCU

Friday, December 11th: Nebraska @ Creighton, Marquette @ UCLA

Saturday, December 19th: Butler vs Indiana

Saturday, January 9th: Georgetown @ Syracuse

At this point, I think the league could probably hope for somewhere between three and seven bids, depending on remaining results. If they win 0-1 of the above games, expect 3 bids. If they win 2-3, expect 4 bids. If they win 4 games, expect 5 bids. If they win 6 games, expect 6 bids. And if they win all 7, they have a shot at 7 bids. This will depend on the number of losses outside the top-6, obviously. Beat the teams you're supposed to beat and the Selection Committee will likely be lenient, lose too many of those (Georgetown, DePaul, I'm looking at you) and it can impact the entire league.

The following table shows historical expectations based on results of all of the Top-6 leagues. I will include the data for all 6 of those leagues at the end of this in case anyone wants to check the math or look at historical performances, such as how the Big East and Big 12 have never had losing records against the rest of the Top-6, how the SEC has never had a winning such record, or which league has the worst single season since realignment settled. Here are those aforementioned Big East targets:

Bids	Bid %	Low Win %	High Win %	Low Win O6 L	High Win O6 L	Mean Win%
3	0.273	0.212	0.469	2.17	2.17	0.341
4	0.364	0.345	0.529	1.29	1.27	0.437
5	0.455	0.451	0.536*	1.21	1.00	0.494
6	0.545	0.453	0.569	1.00	1.13	0.511
7	0.636	0.528	0.638	0.60	1.30	0.583

What does all this mean? Primarily that the Big East can still have a respectable showing come Selection Sunday. When I first started looking at this last week, I was really nervous. The performances of Marquette, Villanova, and Seton Hall's comeback in particular stand out as moments that could be the difference between 3 bids that would've been financially ruinous and more likely 5-6 bids that will give the league ample opportunities to help recoup some of the revenue lost in the non-existent 2020 NCAA Tournament.

It also highlights that in this season particularly, non-conference games are of significantly more importance. The reason the NCAA was so adamant they play non-conference games is because systems like kenpom, T-Rank, and the NET do not work without non-conference games. It isn't that they are less useful, it's that it is literally impossible for them to have accurate data if the leagues don't play each other. kenpom and T-Rank make projections based on what they think will happen and what happened last year. As the season goes on, that old data drops out and is replaced by current season data. In order for the systems to compare all 300+ NCAA teams, the only way to have a full basis for comparison is if the leagues play each other. If we only had league play, there would be no way to determine the difference between a 15-3 Winthrop from the Big South or 15-3 Baylor from the Big 12. While those divisions might seem obvious, what about comparing that same 15-3 Baylor team to 15-3 Kentucky? Both teams had identical conference records in high-major conferences, but we projected Baylor as a 1-seed and Kentucky as a 4-seed, and the only thing that makes that possible is the cross-pollenation of data between conferences.

Which brings us back to the importance of these games. When leagues are playing half as many non-conference games, and many of those are being cancelled due to a global pandemic, the ones that are played are far more important. In the past 6 years, the Big East has played an average of 40.8 high-major non-con games. This year that numbers is currently projected to be 22, meaning every one you are able to play has roughly twice as much importance for your league and a bad stretch, such as had the league begun those games 3-12 as was predicted on Thursday morning, could be catastrophic when Selection Sunday rolls around because instead of having 26 more games to make up the difference, you only have 7.

With that in mind, the entire league owes a collective debt of gratitude to their members for overcoming the odds and getting wins this past weekend. The league could really use 3-4 wins this week just to solidify their position as a top league and insure they are well-rewarded come Selection Sunday.

Below I am including league-by-league data charts matching the one from the Big East above. I'm doing this primarily because I think it's valuable data that others may be interested in. Also, before anyone complains, I am adamant on only including the Top-6 leagues as the high-majors. Sorry, but there are no accommodations for Gonzaga, or half the AAC, or anyone else. Quite simply, this data is here because the Top-6 leagues are competing with each other for NCAA bids. In an average year, the WCC expects between 1-3 bids. The AAC expects 2-4. No other league can reliably expect more than 2 bids. Even in their worst years, the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC expect 3-9 bids, depending on the number of members. They simply play in a different league, and despite other leagues having accomplished programs, they do not have the depth of quality that allows them to compete with the big boys. With that in mind, here's the additional data:

ACC	W/L v P6	Win %	O6 L/Team	NCAA Bids	Bid %
2014	25-27	0.481	1.67	6	40.0%
2015	27-24	0.529	1.27	6	40.0%
2016	31-28	0.525	0.93	7**	46.7%
2017	34-26	0.567	0.67	9	60.0%
2018	29-22	0.569	1.13	8	53.3%
2019	30-26	0.536	1.00	7	46.7%

BIG EAST	W/L v P6	Win %	O6 L/Team	NCAA Bids	Bid %
2014	20-18	0.526	1.20	4	40.0%
2015	23-16	0.590	1.40	6	60.0%
2016	26-18	0.591	1.20	5	50.0%
2017	27-18	0.600	1.10	7	70.0%
2018	19-17	0.528	0.60	6	60.0%
2019	21-20	0.512	1.00	4	40.0%

BIG 10	W/L v P6	Win %	O6 L/Team	NCAA Bids	Bid %
2014	25-24	0.510	0.67	6	50.0%
2015	23-28	0.451	1.21	7	50.0%
2016	26-26	0.500	1.64	7	50.0%
2017	29-32	0.475	0.71	7	50.0%
2018	21-31	0.404	1.00	4	28.6%
2019	32-26	0.552	0.43	8	57.1%

BIG 12	W/L v P6	Win %	O6 L/Team	NCAA Bids	Bid %
2014	21-17	0.553	1.00	7	70.0%
2015	23-16	0.590	0.50	7	70.0%
2016	28-15	0.651	0.80	7	70.0%
2017	23-17	0.575	0.90	6	60.0%
2018	25-17	0.595	0.50	7	70.0%
2019	30-17	0.638	1.30	6	60.0%

PAC 12	W/L v P6	Win %	O6 L/Team	NCAA Bids	Bid %
2014	19-17	0.528	1.25	6	50.0%
2015	12-20	0.375	1.75	4	33.3%
2016	15-15	0.500	1.50	7	58.3%
2017	14-17	0.452	1.75	4	33.3%
2018	15-17	0.469	2.17	3	25.0%
2019	7-26	0.212	2.17	3	25.0%

SEC	W/L v P6	Win %	O6 L/Team	NCAA Bids	Bid %
2014	20-27	0.426	1.79	3	21.4%
2015	29-33	0.468	1.21	5	35.7%
2016	19-43	0.306	1.07	3	21.4%
2017	19-36	0.345	1.29	5	35.7%
2018	24-29	0.453	1.00	8	57.1%
2019	28-33	0.459	1.07	7	50.0%

* The 2015-16 Big East also came close to matching this, but was considered a major outlier. That season had a close bid percentage, but the league had 3 teams with losing records and 2 teams that played virtually no one in non-conference and were thus left out. Because it was an extreme outlier due to those rare circumstances it was not included in this part of the data.

** The ACC would've likely had an eighth bid in 2015-16 had Louisville been eligible for the NCAA Tournament, but they self-sanctioned, resulting in 7 bids for the league.