The 2010 Big Ten Basketball Season in Groovy Chart Form
We had some fun with this a couple years ago, so I thought I'd take another crack at it. Bulleted explanation/caveats:
- The charts below show game-by-game offensive and defensive efficiency numbers for each Big Ten team in conference play this year. (Efficiency is points scored/allowed per 100 possessions.)
- The thinner lines in the graphs are polynomial trendlines of the third order. They show trends for the teams' performances on each end of the court, allowing for two peaks/valleys (i.e., trend reversals) over the 18 games.
- The graphs have to be interpreted very carefully due to the nature of contemporary Big Ten scheduling--bunching up of home/away games or two games vs. a good/bad opponent in a short span. I've included 2-letter opponent abbreviations for reference.
- Finally, 18 games is not a reliable sample for the trendlines to have statistical significance.
Still, I think the charts help tell the story of each team's conference season. Plus they're just cool for gazing at. Right?
Here's MSU's chart:
Outside of spikes for the two Northwestern games and the Indiana game and the slugfest in West Lafayette, the offense was actually fairly consistent (but not highly efficient) over the course of the season. The defense improved after the midseason open-shot-fest, although it would have been hard not to. Funny how Kalin Lucas' injury appears to have impacted the defense more than the offense.
After the jump, we'll run through the other 10 teams in the league, in ascending order of Big Ten Tournament seeding.

I call this one "Evan Turner makes a difference--a really big difference." The Buckeyes are scoring very efficiently and playing consistent defense right now, but that's basically been true over the last 14 games.

Outside of the basement-level offensive output against MSU, the Robbie Hummel injury doesn't really show up here. But that's a function of playing two of the three worst teams in the league in the final two games.

Exhibit B as to why the fourth-place Badgers may, in fact, be the favorites to win the conference tournament. Offense steadily improved over the course of the season; Jon Leuer's return from his wrist injury for the final five games helped. Defense is surprisingly inconsistent (but mostly good).

Decidedly average team most of the season--up until the end, when they tanked on both sides of the ball. Backloaded schedule is a major factor there.

Slightly below average team for the first half of the season. Showed some life with blowout wins vs. Wisconsin and Indiana (the latter more impressive than the former, obviously). Back-to-back blowouts of inverse directions to end the regular season make for an inelegant-looking graph.

Defensive numbers form what looks like the output from a heart rate monitor--nearly perfect up-and-down pattern between a well-defined range of 100 and 120 (i.e., not good). Doesn't correlate with home/away games, either. Offense improved some over the course of the year; Wildcats posted eFG% of at least 50% in all of their final 9 games.

On average, this was an average team. But the averageness was the net result of very inconsistent play on both ends of the court. Offense looks pretty dismal if you take the two Minnesota games out--not that Minnesota is a complete defensive pushover; they just apparently have no idea how to guard Manny Harris (42 points) or DeShawn Sims (50 points).

Defense went from average to very, very bad as season progressed. Offense looked decent for a bit there, but two games against Northwestern in a four-game stretch tends to do that.

If not for that closing win against Northwestern, the simplest interpretation of this graph would be that the team completely quit on its coach. On the other hand, you have to give the Hoosiers for playing like a semi-competitive team for the six-game stretch to start the conference season on the heels of losing Maurice Creek.

I told you the Nittany Lions were the most dangerous conference tournament #11 seed in the country. The trendlines say this is a (slightly) above average Big Ten team at the moment. Offense has improved markedly since the beginning of the year, as Talor Battle's supporting cast has stepped up. Defense is still below average, but not to a last-in-the-conference degree.
0 recs |
4 comments
|
Comments
That is a freakishly huge gap at the end of Wisconsin's graph
Then again, getting Iowa and Indiana back-to-back will help that.
OSU with Turner looks like the most consistent high performer
You’ve got to hand it to Wisconsin, as much as I hate to say it. They lost their only true post presence for a long stretch and just kept chugging. Their improvement over the course of the season is impressive.
We definitely lacked consistency on D. The schedule played a part but we just were not good (even against less than stellar teams) for a while there during the heart of the season. The improvement toward the end of the season is encouraging – hopefully that will carry over for the rest of the year.
I think you can see Purdue missing Hummel in the trend line – their efficiencies merge toward the end of the season, and I don’t think PSU looks that good on offense if Hummel is in the game.
Rearranging the x axis may be interesting
If I had the data, time and motivation, it would be interesting to rearrange the x axis for conference play and group it by final conference standing. Maybe that would help adjust for the varying quality/order of bigten opponents faced throughout the season? Either that or divide the efficiency by the rating of the team to correct for it.
Nonetheless, this is always a fun way to see which teams seem to be peaking near tourney time
by driveonparkways on Mar 11, 2010 11:25 AM CST reply actions
I tried doing the latter for MSU (dividing by in-conference efficiency of opponent)
Ours looks remarkably similar, at least in the trendlines. Defense starts out a little flatter, and the later crossover point occurs further back (around PSU1 instead of PUR1). Remarkable that our offense (both in raw and adjusted terms) zig-zagged so much – only twice out of 16 chances did it move in the same direction two consecutive games.
Would be an interesting exercise to see how much it affects the others.

by 















