2015 NBA Draft Model

Will link this many times during the draft – there is a ton of stuff in the spreadsheet (including similarity scores comparing age 26 projections with the 1032 past college to pro players from the last 17 drafts who were drafted or played at least 1 NBA minute):

2015DayOfDraftModelUpload

In case you somehow missed it the last week (& the last two blog posts) – the 17 seasons of draft model retrodictions:

1998-2014NBAdraftRetrodictionResultsVersion2

2015DraftGraph

Dan

The Retrodictions & Draft Model Success, Part 2

Part 1 was long and rambly, which I am prone to – especially when lacking sleep. I’m going to be uploading a speadsheet with updated 2015 draft model rankings soon (couple hours) – with some tweaks & a whole bunch of stuff included (projecting the player careers season by season, similarity scores, skillset breakdowns at peak age compared to past draftees, etc.)

Anyway, for now, here’s the updated spreadsheet with the last 17 seasons of draft model retrodictions compared to the actual drafts:

1998-2014NBAdraftRetrodictionResultsVersion2

I will go over (like before) the most important thing I want someone to take from this work – my draft model finds better players on average, and ALSO finds them MUCH later in the draft that NBA teams have done the past 17 seasons. I put the data in the last sheet to make it easier to understand.

The work – I split every past player into the NBA GM group (if the player was drafted higher than my model ranked them), the HoopsNerd group (my model had the player ranked higher than their actual draft position), and the Draws – they were ranked the same by both. I ignore the draws.

491 players in the GM group. 500 in the HoopsNerd group. I created a factor for each player, how much that player’s info was factored in by the ratio of how much better one model had a player ranked than another. Olowokandi was a 25.0 for the gms in 1998, #1 by gms, #25 that season by HoopsNerd (25/1). Brad Miller was a 25.5 for HoopsNerd model – he was #2 by HoopsNerd, #51 (undrafted, but I ranked undrafted for gms by career minutes played – giving him 51 since the last guy drafted was 50), 51/2=25.5.

This methodology should kill my model – since ANY player’s career it ranks extremely high but yet he goes undrafted or late second will count much more toward the model score. Any player drafted extremely high (players teams guarantee money to & are very vested in) that my model doesn’t like gets bigger weight for the gms.

Yet – when it’s all said and done – the players my draft model favored ended up on average with a career WAR of 15.1, while the players that were drafted higher than my model thought they should be ended up with an average career WAR of 13.3.

While that might not seem like much – but overall that’s almost 1000 more Wins Above Replacement for the HoopsNerd side. But, the most important point – the average draft position of the gms was 22.7, while the average draft position for the draft model was 42.4. The HoopsNerd draft model found BETTER players than the actual NBA teams – on average almost 20 draft picks later PER PLAYER.

All this was done without ANY other info outside of projected production based on college performance (adjusted for pace/SoS/team quality, etc.). No scouting rankings (mocks), no Rivals high school rankings, no player height/weight info, no combine results, no pre draft workouts, no interviews – nothing.

OK, I think I hammered that point again – a little more concisely than my last article, so hopefully the message doesn’t get lost.  On to finishing up (tweaking) the 2015 Draft Model spreadsheet.

Dan

Why should my draft model be taken seriously? The last 17 seasons of draft retrodictions explains why.

Here it is, like I promised to some – about 3 days later than I wanted/expected. I will explain parts of the spreadsheet later here, and go on a (hopefully) fun romp down memory lane with my new found knowledge in hand:

 1998-2014NBAdraftRetrodictionResults

But to get there, I compiled all the college ratings (two years weighted when applicable) for the 1031 D1 players who have been drafted &/or played at least 1 minute in the NBA since the 1999 NBA draft. So, compiled all the stats (making needed corrections), calculated team ratings on 1244 past teams (most players & had to calculate their last 2 seasons), and calculated all the player ratings for every guy on those teams. Oh, yeah – had to make sure I had the exact birth date for every guy in my database – since I’ve changed in my age progressions from rounded to exact to improve my results (even if ever so slightly) for my peeps.

This was work I needed to get done – since I know there are those who want to see my work in action – whether it has real value in finding the sleepers and those that are just overrated. I wanted to do all 17 seasons since I had complete college player stats back to 1997 – and I want to get to my next project which involves similarity scores. I needed to calculate the projections of those 1031 guys to make it happen.

My similarity scores (when done) will not be your conventional ones. I won’t be comparing basic college stats between players with same rounded ages. I will be projecting every player based on their college ratings (which adjust for pace, SoS, team quality, etc) to the exact same age (I’m thinking 26 – I’ll have to project backwards for Bernard James since he was older than that as a rookie). From there – I can run the scores with EVERY player in my database based on the ratings broken down into every statistical subset. I am about certain no one has ever run similarity scores nearly as complex as these will be (adjusting for everything, including age) – at least not publicly. I think it’ll be pretty awesome when I get it fully flushed out (at the very least in terms of fun information, if not possibly practical enough to be incorporated into my next draft model) – hopefully before the draft next week.

Now, to the retrodiction – there’s something I need to say up front….

Don’t get too caught up in the misses – look at the whole picture:

There is absolutely no way ANY projection system will get anywhere close to everything right. My model has misses – the most blatant one (to get this out of the way right up front) is that Michael Beasley (drafted #2 behind Derrick Rose in the 2008 draft) projected better than any other player over the last 17 drafts. He was so utterly dominant as a very young man in college – if any draft model didn’t have him projected at or very damn close to the very top – they are lying. I won’t lie – I try to learn from my misses.

In a similar realm – Mike Sweetney (drafted 7th in the 2003 draft from Georgetown) had the 7th highest projected career WAR of the 1031 player list. He was a killer in college – not so much in the NBA.

OK – got that off my chest – the other 8 guys in my overall top 10 in projected career WAR all became NBA stars: Irving, Love, Anthony Davis, Durant, Blake Griffin, Bogut (OK, maybe not “star”, but very good/vital to a great team), Brand, and Steph Curry. So, at least there’s that.

But, what we are looking for here is the entire scope of the rankings. We want the guys that rank very high by the draft model but slip to the 2nd round or later to be the best sleepers – & they generally are. The top 9 career WAR of 2nd round or undrafted, 6 of them were tabbed top 10 prospects (lottery quality) by the model - Boozer, Millsap, Arenas, Brad Miller, Michael Redd, & Korver.

We also want to know what players to avoid. We want to avoid that horrible “bust” if we have the top pick. #1 pick Olowokandi – the model hated him, ranked 25th in his draft – the model liked Mike Bibby infinitely better (heck, it even liked undrafted Brad Miller much, much more). #1 pick Anthony Bennett, ranked 7th. #1 Oden – while ranked #2 by the model in ’07, Durant’s projected career WAR dwarfed Oden’s. #2 Thabeet, ranked 11th by the model in his relatively weak class (best player available, some guy with a crazy huge projection named Steph Curry). #2 Evan Turner – #5 by the model (Cousins, Favors, Hayward, & Monroe all projected a bit better). #3 Adam Morrison – #10 by the model.

But, generally, we are looking at the guys that both the model and NBA scouts love. This is usually a very strong recipe for success – with only small handfuls of misses.

Here are the overall facts about this draft model:

Without any of the millions invested in scouting, combine results, draft mocks, high school rankings, individual workouts, interviews, college coaches’ input, etc. – this draft model in a general sense very strongly outperforms actual NBA team drafts. Any players drafted high by a team (but not rated highly by the draft model) SHOULD on average greatly out perform any/all late or undrafted players that the model really likes. There is an inherent bias – the team has paid guaranteed $$ over a number of seasons for the player – they will do whatever they can to help him become successful. But, more often than not, the opposite is true, the later drafted players the model likes often have better careers – without the early guaranteed contracts and team coddling/focus.

To best show this, I split EVERY player of the 1031 into 3 categories:

1. Rated higher by Hoopsnerd model than the actual draft position (“HoopsNerd Favored” in the “FactorWork” sheet of the spreadsheet).

2. Rated higher by NBA teams than the model (draft position higher than draft model rank – the “NBA GMs Favored” group

3. The ties – when the draft position & draft model rankings exactly agree, we put them in the “Rankings tied” group & ignore them.

Now, I created a weight column called “Factor” – for the HoopsNerd model section it is actual Draft rank (draft position  of the D1 players drafted) divided by draft model rank (vice versa for the NBA GMs section). So, Boozer was the 26th D1 player drafted in his draft – but the HoopsNerd draft model had him ranked #1. 26/1=26 – his factor is 26, his career WAR will be given greater weight by a factor of 26 in the calculations. Brad Miller’s factor is 25.5, Paul Millsap 19.0. It’s not all complete sleeper finds – Todd MacCulloch, Mike Harris, Ryan Bowen, & Jae Crowder have factors over 10 also.

Unfortunately for the GMs, their highest factor is Olowokandi at 25.0. They do have Aldridge at 15.0, so that helps them.

So, I take the actual career WAR of every guy in each group (as well as draft rank and model rank) – multiply it by their respective factor – and compile the totals and average the results.

I did this method because it gives more weight to each side’s outliers, while less weight to the players which barely ended up in one side or another (say, 5th in draft model, 6th in draft position). There’s more subjective wiggle room there for the middling guys – the outliers are where we want to focus more.

What we get (which can be seen at the bottom of the “FactorWork” sheet):

The average career WAR (weighted by factor) of the guys drafted higher by the GMs than the draft model rank was 13.3.

The average career WAR (weighted by factor) of the guys the draft model liked more than the NBA GMs (as evidenced by draft position) was 15.1.

Now, that doesn’t seem like that much – but with a database this size that does amount to about 1000 more wins for teams the draft model liked more than the NBA teams.

But – there is one HUGE factor that needs to be mentioned – the better average career WAR of the HoopsNerd model favored guys (15.1 to 13.3 each guy) was achieved with an AVERAGE draft position of over 17 picks LATER.  The average draft position (relative to all D1 players, ignoring high school & internationals) for the HoopsNerd guys who compiled that average career 15.1 NBA WAR was 35.6 (nearing mid 2nd round). The average draft position for the NBA GM guys who compiled that average career 13.3 NBA WAR was 18.2 (mid to later 1st round).

Of course, the players the model liked more than NBA GMs often had to work their way onto teams compared to their counterparts – they often didn’t have the luxury of a guaranteed roster spot. Yet, on average, they STILL had the better careers, despite each having been picked over a half a round later.

How valuable would it be to any franchise if they routinely drafted BETTER future NBA players much later in the draft than other teams (as well as have a much smaller chance of busts on the higher picks)? How much would that extended approach help fill deeper roster spots with players possibly more capable of producing when given a chance – D League draft, summer league free agent rookie signings, etc?

OK, more to come – I want to look at each draft for fun – but for now I have to run…… I’ll get to that soon.

I’m back, let’s have a little fun

Well, to me it’d be fun. It’ll probably be fun for readers delusional like myself.

I decided to go draft to draft – me & my model versus the NBA teams. I will be armed with a vague knowledge of how teams value prospects – just like any team would be going into any draft.  That allows me to “draft” certain players my model loves who are projected by mocks to be 2nd round or later picks later in my fantasy draft – no one in their right mind in 1998 would draft Brad Miller #2 overall in the 1998 draft when it was common knowledge he would be available late 2nd round.

So, in essence, it’ll be like a blind auction. Whichever side (GMs or HNboard) had a guy ranked higher gets the guy. Same rank (“Draws”) go to neither. Each side will get the same number of picks – I’ll have an “Undrafted” section which will equal the number of undrafted guys in the data set for that year – there’s no sense in either side getting a guy neither liked.

It’ll make sense as we go…..

1998 Draft

NBA GM Guys CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard   HoopsNerd Guys CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard
Antawn Jamison 96.4 4 11 9 Paul Pierce 194.3 9 8 6
Cuttino Mobley 50.5 33 50 50 Vince Carter 164.1 5 5 3
Jason Williams 46.4 7 13 11 Mike Bibby 81.7 2 1 1
Rafer Alston 35.2 32 47 47 Brad Miller 69.4 51 2 18
Raef LaFrentz 34.6 3 6 4 Bonzi Wells 38.4 10 3 2
Ruben Patterson 34.1 26 37 37 Nazr Mohammed 27.8 24 9 7
Ricky Davis 32.5 18 28 28 Earl Boykins 24.0 53 32 32
Keon Clark 16.3 12 20 20 Anthony Carter 11.2 54 40 40
Tyronn Lue 12.5 20 30 30 Greg Buckner 9.2 45 19 19
Robert Traylor 11.6 6 14 12 Brian Skinner 8.4 19 18 16
Michael Dickerson 9.3 13 52 52 Michael Doleac 6.2 11 12 10
Pat Garrity 9.2 16 21 21 Jelani McCoy 3.2 27 15 13
Michael Olowokandi 8.0 1 25 25 Ryan Bowen 2.3 47 4 17
Jahidi White 7.7 35 36 36 Ansu Sesay 0.6 25 24 24
Shammond Williams 6.3 28 35 35 Derrick Dial 0.5 44 29 29
Jerome James 1.9 29 63 63 Charles Jones 0.1 58 22 23
Felipe Lopez 1.7 21 59 59 Sean Colson 0.1 65 39 39
Bryce Drew 1.1 15 27 27 Corey Benjamin 0.0 23 7 5
Sean Marks 0.8 36 65 65 DeMarco Johnson 0.0 31 17 15
Andrae Patterson 0.8 38 64 64 Billy Thomas 0.0 59 31 31
Roshown McLeod 0.4 17 23 22 Miles Simon 0.0 34 33 33
Sam Jacobson 0.1 22 58 58 Steve Goodrich 0.0 63 34 34
Toby Bailey 0.0 37 42 42 J.R. Henderson 0.0 48 38 38
Casey Shaw 0.0 30 51 51 Andrew Betts 0 42 26 26
417.2 20.8 641.6 35.4
17.4           26.7  
Draws CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard   Undrafted CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard
Larry Hughes 43.4 8 10 8 Mike James 20.4 52 57 57
Matt Harpring 35.9 14 16 14 Tyrone Nesby 5.9 55 46 46
Sarunas Jasikevicius 3.2 56 43 43
Zendon Hamilton 1.7 57 60 60
Maceo Baston 1.1 50 66 66
Tremaine Fowlkes 0.3 46 48 48
Tyson Wheeler 0.0 39 41 41
Kelly McCarty 0.0 67 55 55
Torraye Braggs 0.0 49 45 45
Cory Carr 0.0 41 44 44
Ryan Stack 0.0 40 61 61
Jeffrey Sheppard 0.0 62 49 49
Gerald Brown 0.0 61 56 56
Mark Jones 0.0 64 54 54
Randell Jackson 0.0 60 62 62
Makhtar N’Diaye 0.0 66 67 67
Corey Brewer 0 43 53 53

I moved two guys down on my draft board (Miller & Bowen) into the latish first round that I would have known then were projected at best late 2nd round picks. There were two draws (Hughes & Harpring) in which my board & gms had ranked the same – I set them aside. There were actually 50 college guys drafted in 1998, so subtracting the two draws we’ll have a cap of 24 players to each side, the rest were “undrafted”.

I won’t say much on these – I have 16 more drafts to go. The HoopsNerd group totaled 224 more career WAR.  The average player in that group had over 9 more career WAR than the average GM group player – while being drafted over 14 college players later (35.4 average draft rank to 20.8).

1999 Draft

NBA GM Guys CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard   HoopsNerd Guys CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard
Jason Terry 107.2 9 18 18 Shawn Marion 145.2 8 5 4
Baron Davis 95.5 3 7 6 Lamar Odom 86.4 4 4 3
Steve Francis 71.3 2 13 13 Richard Hamilton 71.1 6 6 5
James Posey 33.1 15 16 16 Metta World Peace 70.2 13 12 11
Jeff Foster 30.4 18 21 21 Corey Maggette 53.1 11 11 10
Lee Nailon 6.7 35 54 54 Wally Szczerbiak 40.3 5 2 2
Dion Glover 5.1 17 32 32 Kenny Thomas 27.9 19 14 14
Francisco Elson 3.6 33 59 59 Todd MacCulloch 9.4 39 3 12
Calvin Booth 3.3 29 52 52 Jumaine Jones 9.1 22 15 15
Vonteego Cummings 1.7 21 44 44 Milt Palacio 2.2 50 34 34
Trajan Langdon 1.1 10 33 33 Evan Eschmeyer 0.7 28 10 9
Michael Ruffin 0.5 26 30 30 Rodney Buford 0.6 44 20 20
Cal Bowdler 0.5 14 42 42 Mike Batiste 0.4 52 35 35
Laron Profit 0.3 31 36 36 Jermaine Jackson 0.3 51 27 27
Obinna Ekezie 0.2 30 55 55 Harold Jamison 0.2 53 22 24
Quincy Lewis 0.0 16 19 19 William Avery 0.0 12 9 8
Tim James 0.0 20 25 25 Derek Hood 0.0 58 28 28
John Celestand 0.0 24 38 38 Tim Young 0.0 47 31 31
Chris Herren 0.0 27 60 60 Rico Hill 0 25 17 17
A.J. Bramlett 0.0 32 47 47 Venson Hamilton 0 42 23 22
Tyrone Washington 0 36 49 49 Louis Bullock 0 34 26 26
J.R. Koch 0 38 53 53 Roberto Bergersen 0 43 29 29
360.5 22.1 517.1 30.3
16.4 23.5
Draws CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard   Undrafted CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard
Elton Brand 129.9 1 1 1 Raja Bell 25.4 49 40 40
Andre Miller 115.2 7 8 7 Jamel Thomas 0.0 55 58 58
Scott Padgett 8.0 23 24 23 Geno Carlisle 0.0 57 41 41
Ryan Robertson 0.0 37 37 37 Lari Ketner 0.0 41 50 50
Wayne Turner 0.0 56 43 43
Maurice Carter 0.0 54 45 45
Guy Rucker 0.0 59 46 46
Jason Miskiri 0.0 60 51 51
Kris Clack 0 46 39 39
Melvin Levett 0 45 48 48
Galen Young 0 40 57 57
Eddie Lucas 0 48 56 56

 

Moved Todd MacCulloch back some on my board to mid 1st area – since it would have been common knowledge he was going somewhere mid 2nd round. Moved lightly regarded (eventually undrafted in ’99) Harold Jamison back a couple spots to help get a better chance at landing Venson Hamilton – who never played in the NBA. Wouldn’t have known that at the time, sure didn’t help me here. Also just missed having Raja Bell and his 25.4 career WAR on my side, but he was ranked just a little too low on my board and went undrafted.

Still, the HoopsNerd guys had over 156 more total career WAR than the GM guys. That comes out to an average of 23.5 career WAR per player to the GMs 16.4 career WAR player average. That was done despite the HoopsNerd guys being drafted over 8 college players later (30.3 draft rank to 22.1) on average than the NBA GM group.

2000 Draft

NBA GM Guys CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard   HoopsNerd Guys CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard
Jamal Crawford 60.8 7 27 27 Michael Redd 61.6 34 10 10
Mike Miller 48.8 4 5 5 Quentin Richardson 26.7 16 4 4
Jamaal Magloire 23.3 17 43 43 Morris Peterson 23.2 19 8 8
Desmond Mason 21.4 15 42 42 Eddie House 18.1 29 22 22
Joel Przybilla 13.9 8 16 16 Speedy Claxton 15.1 18 3 3
Etan Thomas 10.5 11 17 17 Eduardo Najera 11.4 30 28 28
Keyon Dooling 9.8 9 23 23 Brian Cardinal 7.8 35 15 15
Chris Mihm 9.3 6 7 7 Jason Hart 4.8 38 31 31
Marcus Fizer 5.4 3 6 6 Donnell Harvey 2.6 20 9 9
DerMarr Johnson 4.1 5 11 11 Mark Madsen 0.5 23 18 18
Jake Voskuhl 3.2 26 51 51 Khalid El-Amin 0.4 27 12 12
Courtney Alexander 2.5 12 46 46 Eddie Gill 0.3 47 20 20
Jerome Moiso 1.8 10 40 40 Jabari Smith 0.3 36 30 30
Jason Collier 0.8 14 45 45 Pepe Sanchez 0.3 50 19 19
Mamadou N’Diaye 0.8 21 53 53 Paul McPherson 0.3 49 34 34
A.J. Guyton 0.2 25 35 35 Dan McClintock 0.0 40 13 13
Mateen Cleaves 0.0 13 25 25 Chris Porter 0.0 41 14 14
Dan Langhi 0.0 24 26 26 Pete Mickeal 0 44 21 21
Erick Barkley 0.0 22 33 33 Scoonie Penn 0 43 24 24
Lavor Postell 0.0 31 39 39 Jaquay Walls 0 42 29 29
Mike Smith 0.0 28 50 50 Mark Karcher 0 37 32 32
216.5 14.8 173.5 34.2
10.3 8.3
Draws CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard   Undrafted CareerWAR DraftRk HNrank HNboard
Kenyon Martin 53.9 1 1 1 Ime Udoka 4.0 46 48 48
Stromile Swift 18.2 2 2 2 Malik Allen 2.6 45 37 37
Richie Frahm 1.1 48 41 41
Kaniel Dickens 0.0 39 44 44
Hanno Mottola 0.0 32 52 52
Alex Scales 0.0 53 38 38
Desmond Ferguson 0.0 51 47 47
Terrance Roberson 0.0 52 49 49
Chris Carrawell 0 33 36 36

Well, it was probably going to happen. While the draft model didn’t “win” this draft – much of that is because of how it played out – after the two top player “draws” were taken out, the next 13 drafted players ended up on the GM side. In a draft with very little talent  in general (only 7 players projected above 30 career WAR, which is horrible – boy did that play out in reality), only ending up with 3 players who were drafted in the first round was too much to overcome.

With so little depth of talent – I didn’t even have the flexibility of changing my board because of moving some super late “sleeper” (late 2nd round or undrafted) my model liked way more than the GMs.

Although, then there’s Mike Miller. One of the few players the model liked, if he had just projected 6.5 more career WAR (from 63.6 to 70.1), he would have leapfrogged Speedy Claxton & Quintin Richardson on my board – and he & his 48.8 career WAR (in a WAR depleted draft) would have switched sides – giving HoopsNerd an easy win.

But it didn’t happen. It was a perfect storm of circumstance going against the model – the NBA GMs ended up with 43 more career WAR, averaging 2 more career WAR per player. But, the GMs landed all the top draft picks in a draft with little overall talent – the GMs on average picked almost 20 spots earlier (14.8 to 34.2) per player to get that extra 2 WAR per player. In terms of cost-benefit analysis – that isn’t good, having to draft almost 20 spots earlier to get a slightly better player.

2001 NBA Draft coming soon…

Dan

Final 2015 Regular Season NBA Player Rankings by WAR

Here it is, so no need for any emails asking where it is…..

2015NBARegularSeasonUpload

It’s all fully sortable for your pleasure.

Now for the historical perspective of all the rating breakdowns (since the ’79-80 season):

LeBron moved up two spots to #5 in career regular season WAR (since ’80), passing Garnett & Olajuwan.

Harden had a great regular season – but in terms of WAR, there were 35 better player seasons the last 36 years. The list of players making up those 35 better player seasons:

MJ 7 better WAR seasons.

LeBron 5

David Robinson 5

Shaq 3

Olajuwan, Duncan, Garnett, Karl Malone, & Chris Paul 2 each

Bird, Durant, Wade, Moses Malone, & McGrady 1 each.

In terms of rating based on scoring proficiency & efficiency relative the league – Kevin Durant in his limited games this last season had the 5th highest rating since ’80. McGrady was 4th in ’03, MJ 3rd in ’88, Bernard King 2nd in ’85, & Durant #1 in 2014.

Curry & Korver had the two highest ratings based on three point proficiency & efficiency of any full time players (played over 40% of their team minutes) ever.

Harden & Westbrook were historic in scoring proficiency & efficiency from the line – Harden had the 2nd best season since ’80 (Durant in ’10 #1), Westbrook had the 7th best season (’87 MJ #3, ’05 Maggette #4, ’09 Kevin Martin #5, & ’07 Yao Ming #6).

Only three Rodman seasons & one Jayson Williams‘ season had a higher rebound rating than Drummond this last season. Throw in 2 Reggie Evans’ seasons,  three more Rodman seasons, and 1 more Jayson Williams season – & then we get to ’15 Hassan Whiteside at #12.

Drummond just had the highest offensive rebound rating of any player the last 36 seasons.

Only one player the last 36 seasons had a better overall scoring & defensive stops ratings than 2015 Anthony Davis, 1991 David Robinson. Add in ball handling ratings (assists & turnovers) – no one had been better across the board the last 36 seasons.

No player has ever had as low a turnover rating (turned the ball over less relative to league, team pace, etc) who also had as good a scoring rating as Anthony Davis in 2015. The only player in his league in that respect would be Kiki Vandeweghe from the mid to late 80s.

Dan

Final 2015 College Basketball Ratings & Rankings

Better late than never I always say.  I apologize to those who look forward to seeing these rankings, taking so long to post the results.

I’ve had a ton of behind the scenes stuff going on relating to the NBA draft, so I have not updated anything here for a couple months.  Later today though I will be posting the final regular season NBA player ratings and rankings.

Now, don’t confuse these ratings with my NBA draft model.  For now my model is available to be seen at the top of this page (under the apt named “NBA Draft Model” page) – there is a chance I end up being paid by an NBA team at some point and will have to take it down.  Until then, I will leave it available to everyone.  I won’t be tweeting out the results and such until much closer to the draft.

So, without further delay – the final complete D1 college basketball rankings of 3052 players who played at least 20% of their available team minutes:

2015NCAARatingsFINAL
Dan

The NCAA Championship – all the player ratings

This is a great match up – much better than we usually see in the NCAA Finals. It’s rare to get two of the three best teams in the nation in the final game – and these two teams are better than the majority of past 2nd & 3rd best teams the last 20 years by about any team ranking you’ll find. In fact, by the team ratings I use, you’d have to go back to 2008 and Kansas to find a team with a better final rating than either of these two teams have right now. To be fair, 2009 UNC, ’13 Louisville, ’12 Kentucky, & ’10 Duke are close.  The last 20 years of team ratings, Kentucky currently ranks 5th (behind ’98, ’99, ’01 Duke & ’96 Kentucky), this Duke team ranks 10th, Wisconsin 13th, and even Arizona comes in at 30th. That’s pretty salty in my book.

On to this game.

Let’s start with the players who are projected to play possible meaningful minutes with their common seasonal stats, ranked by HnI (ignores missed games on the season, better for game predictions than HnR).

Overall player rank:
Player Team GP Mn/g Pt/g Rb/g A/g S/g B/g T/g TS% HnI
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 38 33.5 18.7 8.1 2.7 0.8 1.5 1.6 0.625 202
Jahlil Okafor Duke 37 30.3 17.5 8.6 1.3 0.8 1.5 2.5 0.637 181
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 39 30.9 13.9 5.4 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.608 152
Justise Winslow Duke 38 29.0 12.7 6.4 2.1 1.3 0.8 1.8 0.571 150
Tyus Jones Duke 38 33.8 11.5 3.5 5.7 1.6 0.1 2.0 0.564 147
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 39 32.9 12.4 6.3 2.0 0.9 0.4 1.3 0.595 146
Quinn Cook Duke 38 35.8 15.6 3.3 2.7 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.609 141
Amile Jefferson Duke 38 21.3 6.2 5.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.611 135
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 39 32.9 6.8 3.4 1.7 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.629 133
Marshall Plumlee Duke 38 9.6 2.3 2.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.784 131
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 39 28.7 8.7 1.8 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.559 129
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 20 24.7 8.5 1.6 2.6 0.9 0.2 1.6 0.543 128
Zak Showalter Wisconsin 35 7.6 2.1 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.541 123
Grayson Allen Duke 34 8.9 4.0 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.561 122
Matt Jones Duke 38 21.7 6.2 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.528 122
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 37 16.1 4.7 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.500 108

The average Duke player has a rating of 144 (143.9), the average Wisconsin player 143 (143.3). Going into the tourney 118 was the HnI for the average NCAA Tourney player, 99 average for a D1 player.  Frank Kaminsky became and stayed as the best player in the nation shortly after the out of conference schedule ended – when he passed Delon Wright of Utah for the top spot. Okafor has been battling Kentucky’s Towns all season for the top rated frosh spot.

Justise Winslow has seen his rating going up and up pretty much every week starting about half way through this season. His play in the last half of the season (and especially the tourney) has been exceptional.

NCAA Tourney Stats

Sorted by the seasonal HnI, same as above:

Player Team G Mn/g Pt/g Rb/g A/g S/g B/g To/g TS% HnIchg
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 5 37.4 22.2 8.8 2.2 0.4 0.8 2.2 0.638 2.1
Jahlil Okafor Duke 5 29.0 16.0 6.2 0.8 1.0 2.0 2.2 0.630 5.4
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 5 34.2 20.6 5.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.730 7.8
Justise Winslow Duke 5 31.2 15.0 9.4 3.0 1.6 1.4 1.8 0.658 12.3
Tyus Jones Duke 5 36.6 11.0 2.8 5.2 2.0 0.2 1.4 0.505 3.8
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 5 32.8 12.2 5.4 2.2 0.8 0.2 1.4 0.526 0.1
Quinn Cook Duke 5 36.6 15.0 4.0 2.4 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.615 5.2
Amile Jefferson Duke 5 17.8 3.0 4.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.600 3.2
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 5 35.4 6.4 3.2 2.0 1.4 0.2 0.8 0.727 2.8
Marshall Plumlee Duke 5 9.8 2.2 3.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.733 4.5
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 5 29.6 9.4 2.2 2.6 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.511 1.9
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 3 9.3 3.3 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.500 0.3
Zak Showalter Wisconsin 5 8.0 2.6 1.2 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.929 8.6
Grayson Allen Duke 5 10.0 3.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.429 -5.6
Matt Jones Duke 5 28.0 6.8 2.0 1.4 1.6 0.0 1.2 0.531 5.1
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 5 15.2 3.2 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.444 -2.4

HnIchg is the player’s change in HnI from the start of the NCAA Tourney to now. Obviously, Justise Winslow and Sam Dekker have seen the biggest gains in their seasonal ratings.  Kaminsky has been the best player in the nation – yet has been so good in the tourney he has found a way to still improve his rating.

Scoring rating:
Player Team RAT Mn/g Pts/40 TS%
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 145 33.5 22.4 0.625
Jahlil Okafor Duke 135 30.3 23.1 0.637
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 114 30.9 18.1 0.608
Quinn Cook Duke 97 35.8 17.4 0.609
Grayson Allen Duke 93 8.9 18.2 0.561
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 93 32.9 15.1 0.595
Justise Winslow Duke 91 29.0 17.4 0.571
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 76 24.7 13.7 0.543
Tyus Jones Duke 70 33.8 13.6 0.564
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 69 28.7 12.1 0.559
Amile Jefferson Duke 66 21.3 11.7 0.611
Marshall Plumlee Duke 65 9.6 9.5 0.784
Zak Showalter Wisconsin 60 7.6 10.9 0.541
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 57 16.1 11.8 0.500
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 54 32.9 8.3 0.629
Matt Jones Duke 53 21.7 11.4 0.528

The average NCAA Tourney Scoring rating is 69, while the D1 average is 59.  Please note that all the following player stats in each skill set will be per 40 minutes (above is Pts/40) to offer better perspective.  Kaminsky and Okafor obviously stand out, although the next five players are obviously capable of making an scoring impact for stretches that can really change a game.

Rating from 2 point range:

 

Player Team RAT Mn/g 2p/40 2pA/40 2pt%
Jahlil Okafor Duke 119 30.3 9.8 14.7 0.667
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 84 33.5 6.9 11.8 0.587
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 69 30.9 5.2 8.2 0.638
Amile Jefferson Duke 53 21.3 4.6 7.3 0.628
Marshall Plumlee Duke 47 9.6 3.4 4.3 0.795
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 43 32.9 3.9 7.1 0.546
Justise Winslow Duke 42 29.0 4.5 8.7 0.523
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 39 24.7 3.9 7.7 0.505
Zak Showalter Wisconsin 35 7.6 3.2 5.9 0.538
Quinn Cook Duke 26 35.8 2.8 5.2 0.534
Grayson Allen Duke 25 8.9 3.1 6.4 0.479
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 18 16.1 2.0 4.2 0.476
Tyus Jones Duke 17 33.8 2.6 5.9 0.437
Matt Jones Duke 15 21.7 2.1 4.7 0.448
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 12 28.7 1.8 4.2 0.420
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 11 32.9 0.9 1.5 0.596

Average NCAA Tourney 2pt rating is 31, average D1 is 26. Okafor is the best in the nation in this specific rating break down.

Rating from the free throw line:
Player Team RAT Mn/g FT/40 FTA/40 FT%
Grayson Allen Duke 38 8.9 5.3 6.4 0.833
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 37 33.5 4.7 6.1 0.778
Tyus Jones Duke 32 33.8 4.3 4.8 0.884
Zak Showalter Wisconsin 30 7.6 3.6 4.1 0.889
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 29 32.9 3.9 5.2 0.753
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 27 24.7 3.2 3.8 0.851
Quinn Cook Duke 21 35.8 2.9 3.2 0.891
Justise Winslow Duke 21 29.0 3.5 5.4 0.644
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 19 30.9 2.7 3.8 0.708
Jahlil Okafor Duke 16 30.3 3.5 6.9 0.513
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 16 28.7 2.0 2.4 0.821
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 16 32.9 1.9 2.3 0.827
Marshall Plumlee Duke 15 9.6 2.4 3.4 0.710
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 14 16.1 2.1 3.1 0.674
Amile Jefferson Duke 13 21.3 2.5 4.5 0.554
Matt Jones Duke 8 21.7 1.2 1.7 0.714

The FT rating for an average NCAA tourney team is 19. D1 average is 16. Grayson Allen doesn’t play much, but when he does he gets to the line and makes his free throws. Okafor gets to the line more than anyone, but his poor FT% hurts his rating quite a bit.

Rating from three point range:
Player Team RAT Mn/g 3p/40 3pA/40 3pt%
Quinn Cook Duke 50 35.8 3.0 7.5 0.400
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 41 28.7 2.2 5.4 0.407
Matt Jones Duke 31 21.7 2.0 5.2 0.380
Grayson Allen Duke 30 8.9 2.3 6.6 0.340
Justise Winslow Duke 28 29.0 1.6 3.9 0.417
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 28 32.9 1.5 3.9 0.389
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 26 30.9 1.7 4.8 0.345
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 25 16.1 1.9 6.0 0.315
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 24 33.5 1.3 3.1 0.412
Tyus Jones Duke 21 33.8 1.4 3.8 0.372
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 20 32.9 1.2 3.0 0.381
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 10 24.7 0.9 3.0 0.297
Marshall Plumlee Duke 3 9.6 0.1 0.1 1.000
Jahlil Okafor Duke 0 30.3 0.0 0.0 -
Amile Jefferson Duke 0 21.3 0.0 0.0 -
Zak Showalter Wisconsin -5 7.6 0.3 2.1 0.143

NCAA tourney average here is 19, D1 average is 16. 11 guys here can change the game with a run of threes. Dekker went from pretty much D1 average here at the start of the tourney to over 60% “better” than D1 average after his tourney three point run.  That’s tough to do in just 5 games. He’s feeling “it”.

Rebound rating:
Player Team RAT Mn/g Orb/40 Drb/40 Rb/40
Jahlil Okafor Duke 59 30.3 4.7 6.7 11.4
Amile Jefferson Duke 56 21.3 4.4 6.4 10.8
Marshall Plumlee Duke 53 9.6 4.3 5.8 10.1
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 49 33.5 1.8 7.9 9.7
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 43 32.9 2.7 5.0 7.7
Justise Winslow Duke 40 29.0 1.8 7.0 8.8
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 40 30.9 2.5 4.6 7.0
Zak Showalter Wisconsin 40 7.6 2.7 4.1 6.8
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 35 16.1 1.8 4.6 6.4
Matt Jones Duke 22 21.7 1.6 2.7 4.3
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 21 32.9 0.8 3.3 4.1
Grayson Allen Duke 21 8.9 1.2 3.2 4.4
Tyus Jones Duke 18 33.8 0.6 3.5 4.1
Quinn Cook Duke 16 35.8 0.4 3.3 3.7
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 13 28.7 0.7 1.8 2.5
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 12 24.7 0.2 2.4 2.6

NCAA tourney team average is 31, D1 average is 28.

Ball handling & passing rating:
Player Team RAT Mn/g Ast/40 TO/40
Tyus Jones Duke 47 33.8 6.7 2.3
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 26 28.7 3.4 1.2
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 22 24.7 4.2 2.5
Zak Showalter Wisconsin 20 7.6 2.4 0.8
Quinn Cook Duke 17 35.8 3.0 1.4
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 17 32.9 2.1 0.7
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 16 33.5 3.2 1.9
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 12 32.9 2.5 1.6
Justise Winslow Duke 6 29.0 2.9 2.5
Matt Jones Duke 6 21.7 1.9 1.4
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 5 30.9 1.6 1.2
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 1 16.1 1.6 1.6
Grayson Allen Duke 0 8.9 1.9 2.0
Marshall Plumlee Duke -2 9.6 1.2 1.5
Amile Jefferson Duke -3 21.3 1.5 2.0
Jahlil Okafor Duke -13 30.3 1.7 3.3

NCAA Tourney team average here is 6, D1 average is 2. While Tyus Jones tends to facilitate Duke’s offense – everyone facilitates in Wisconsin’s offense.

Defensive stops rating:
Player Team RAT Mn/g Stl/40 Blk/40 PF/40
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 23 33.5 1.0 1.8 2.0
Justise Winslow Duke 20 29.0 1.8 1.1 3.8
Jahlil Okafor Duke 20 30.3 1.0 1.9 2.7
Tyus Jones Duke 18 33.8 1.8 0.1 1.4
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 15 24.7 1.5 0.2 2.1
Marshall Plumlee Duke 14 9.6 0.9 2.4 6.2
Matt Jones Duke 13 21.7 1.7 0.1 3.2
Amile Jefferson Duke 12 21.3 1.0 1.1 3.6
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 11 32.9 1.1 0.5 2.3
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 10 30.9 0.7 0.6 1.4
Zak Showalter Wisconsin 9 7.6 1.5 0.6 5.7
Quinn Cook Duke 8 35.8 1.1 0.0 2.2
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 7 32.9 0.9 0.2 2.7
Grayson Allen Duke 5 8.9 1.2 0.7 5.6
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 1 28.7 0.3 0.3 2.2
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 1 16.1 0.5 0.2 3.0

NCAA Tourney average rating is 13, D1 average is 10. Justise has been much better here the last half of the season – he currently is making the most all around defensive impact of anyone in this game.

The Prediction:

Now, as I mentioned earlier, the overall team ratings give Duke a slight advantage 143.9 to 143.3.  But, player rotations tighten come tourney time, and stars (like Kaminsky) tend to stay on the court more, changing the team rating.

Using the the predicted minutes (M?) for the players in this game – here’s how the team ratings look:

Player Team HnI M? HnI*Mn
Jahlil Okafor Duke 181 32 5780
Justise Winslow Duke 150 34 5097
Tyus Jones Duke 147 38 5602
Quinn Cook Duke 141 38 5369
Amile Jefferson Duke 135 14 1897
Marshall Plumlee Duke 131 7 915
Grayson Allen Duke 122 9 1100
Matt Jones Duke 122 28 3403
200 29163
Average (HnI*Mn/200) 145.8
Player Team HnI M? HnI*Mn
Frank Kaminsky Wisconsin 202 38 7658
Sam Dekker Wisconsin 152 35 5309
Nigel Hayes Wisconsin 146 37 5412
Josh Gasser Wisconsin 133 36 4806
Bronson Koenig Wisconsin 129 29 3743
Traevon Jackson Wisconsin 128 7 898
Zak Showalter Wisconsin 123 5 614
Duje Dukan Wisconsin 108 13 1407
200 29847
Average (HnI*Mn/200) 149.2

I always get asked how to project games – so I included the work here to help people visualize.

Anyway, Ken Pomeroy has Wisconsin winning 70-69. Using the same projected overall game points and the projected team ratings we computed from predicted optimized player minutes, we get:

Wisconsin 149.2/(149.2+145.8)*139= 70.3

Duke 145.8/(145.8+149.2)*139= 68.7

Wisconsin wins what should be a GREAT game, 70.3 to 68.7.

Dan

Claiming Joy in the midst of Sorrow

This afternoon, my two boys (Ryan & Luke, 10 & 7) decided for the first time to sit and and actively watch an entire Arizona basketball game with me. They are usually so preoccupied with so many other things that they don’t last more than 10 minutes – but they sat and asked questions of me, cheered with me, and cared about Arizona winning for the ENTIRE game. I paused a ton to answer all their questions, it was my first time having my two boys care so much about something that really matters to their dad – and to be able to sit with me for well over two hours and take it all in. It was completely unexpected (I never asked them to do this), and it was glorious.

With every inconceivable Badger three made – we’d all yell “what?”. We wanted Kaminsky in foul trouble so bad – that with every whistle in which he was on the screen they’d ask “is that on Kaminsky?”. Both called every Arizona player by name as well as a few Badgers not even named Kaminsky 12 minutes into the game – reveling in the roller coaster ride of Elite 8 basketball. They both knew immediately Kaminsky “faked” a foul to get Zeus in foul trouble – even if the ref wasn’t smart enough to see it. We all cheered SO hard. Again, it was glorious.

Yet, we lost.

I ended that game with such a mixed bag of internalized emotion – the extent of which I have never felt before. Luke, my 7 year old, seeing TJ with 9 seconds left, hugged his mom hard while the tears streamed. Ryan, my 10 year old, didn’t say a word for 5 minutes – I could tell he was just trying to hold it together like I was. I BARELY held it together.

After a little time passed, after the UK & Notre Dame talk started on tv, my boys began to ask me why the Arizona players cried – why was it SO important to them even though Arizona will play again in November (I had told them early in the game whatever team lost would have their season and and wouldn’t start a new one until November). I had to explain how THAT group of guys would never get to play together again for their school for THAT coach. I had to explain how TJ McConnell had played his last game for a school and coach he loved, and that he would have to move on to play for someone else in the pros. I had to explain that most of the names they now somehow knew so well (so quickly) wouldn’t be back for Arizona – they would be moving on to play basketball for a living and for money. We ended the talk with me showing Allonzo Trier highlights to them, explaining that Arizona will have some new players to root for next season to root for along with some of the returnees (PJC is an early fav – they think it’s awesome he’s so short).

Today was so difficult for me – yet I know I experienced something on a personal level with my sons that we ALL will always remember and share. You always remember the first time you watched a whole game with your dad, you rooted hard, and you cried when the result didn’t go the way you had hoped. My first time was Georgetown/UNC championship in ’82 – I just decided I so badly wanted this small school to upset the big time program. I felt SO bad for Fred Brown when he made that unexplained pass right to Worthy that out of the blue the tears came. I remember vividly.

Today, my boys FELT it ALL with me. This was much bigger than Georgetown/UNC – my dad really didn’t care who won then, I just decided I cared. Today, my boys cared about this game more than anything because they knew it was important to their dad. I hugged and thanked my boys for caring so much and so hard with me. I am sad, but I’m going to claim MY joy from this shared experience with my sons. Now, when my sons and I celebrate that 2nd Arizona championship in the unforeseen future – it’ll be THAT much sweeter because of what we experienced today, together.

Beardown.

Dan

Sweet 16: Michigan State vs. Oklahoma

Let’s start with the players who are projected to play possible meaningful minutes with their common stats, ranked by HnI (ignores missed games on the season, better for game predictions than HnR).  The Rank is the player’s national rank out of 3053 “qualified” players (more than 20% of available team minutes). If there is no rank, the player played less than 20% of the available team minutes during the season. M? is the predicted minutes played for each player to best optimize team rating while still adhering to previous 2015 NCAA Tourney precedence and seasonal playing time.

Overall player rank:
HnI Rank Player Team Mn/g Pt/g Rb/g A/g S/g B/g T/g TS% M?
155 33 Buddy Hield Oklahoma 32.3 17.3 5.4 1.9 1.4 0.2 2.0 0.541 35
155 36 Branden Dawson Michigan State 29.9 12.1 9.0 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.8 0.543 34
152 56 Denzel Valentine Michigan State 33.1 14.2 6.1 4.4 0.9 0.2 2.4 0.579 37
147 80 Travis Trice Michigan State 33.2 15.0 3.1 5.1 1.1 0.2 1.8 0.515 39
142 123 Ryan Spangler Oklahoma 31.2 9.9 8.2 1.4 0.7 1.1 1.4 0.619 33
138 157 TaShawn Thomas Oklahoma 29.5 11.4 6.5 1.5 0.6 1.5 1.9 0.549 36
135 191 Matt Costello Michigan State 20.7 7.2 5.4 0.8 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.601 29
128 297 Isaiah Cousins Oklahoma 31.0 11.9 4.6 2.2 1.3 0.4 2.1 0.531 33
127 319 Jordan Woodard Oklahoma 31.9 9.3 3.6 3.9 1.6 0.1 2.3 0.503 35
125 351 Marvin Clark Michigan State 11.2 4.7 2.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.612 11
117 546 Bryn Forbes Michigan State 26.1 8.8 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.620 23
112 724 Gavin Schilling Michigan State 16.9 5.1 4.0 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.552 4
109 852 Khadeem Lattin Oklahoma 11.8 1.9 3.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.435 8
106 981 Frank Booker Oklahoma 14.1 5.2 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.503 15
105 D.J. Bennett Oklahoma 8.0 2.0 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.509 3
91 1813 Lourawls ‘Tum Tum` Nairn Michigan State 19.7 2.2 1.6 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.388 17
79 2502 Dinjiyl Walker Oklahoma 10.6 3.3 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.447 2
69 Alvin Ellis Michigan State 8.7 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.419 6

131 is the average HnI for a Sweet 16 player, while going into the tourney 118 was the HnI for the average NCAA Tourney player, 99 average for a D1 player. No superstars in this game – but we do have four top 80 players nationally (three of them Spartans), and 7 top 200 players featured in this match up.

Scoring rating:
Player Team Sco Mn/g Pts/40 TS%
Buddy Hield Oklahoma 112 32.3 21.5 0.541
Marvin Clark Michigan State 97 11.2 16.8 0.612
Denzel Valentine Michigan State 93 33.1 17.2 0.579
Travis Trice Michigan State 84 33.2 18.1 0.515
TaShawn Thomas Oklahoma 82 29.5 15.5 0.549
Branden Dawson Michigan State 81 29.9 16.2 0.543
Matt Costello Michigan State 79 20.7 13.9 0.601
Bryn Forbes Michigan State 78 26.1 13.4 0.620
Isaiah Cousins Oklahoma 78 31.0 15.3 0.531
Ryan Spangler Oklahoma 77 31.2 12.6 0.619
Frank Booker Oklahoma 68 14.1 14.6 0.503
Gavin Schilling Michigan State 62 16.9 12.2 0.552
Jordan Woodard Oklahoma 55 31.9 11.7 0.503
D.J. Bennett Oklahoma 47 8.0 9.8 0.509
Dinjiyl Walker Oklahoma 47 10.6 12.6 0.447
Alvin Ellis Michigan State 26 8.7 8.6 0.419
Khadeem Lattin Oklahoma 23 11.8 6.6 0.435
Lourawls ‘Tum Tum` Nairn Michigan State 11 19.7 4.5 0.388

An average Sweet 16 Scoring rating is 75, average NCAA Tourney Scoring rating is 69, while the D1 average is 59. Buddy Hield ain’t shy – if he starts feeling it he can put up some points in a hurry.

Rating from 2 point range:
Player Team 2pt Mn/g 2p/40 2pA/40 2p%
Branden Dawson Michigan State 72 29.9 7.1 12.9 0.548
Matt Costello Michigan State 63 20.7 5.6 9.4 0.598
TaShawn Thomas Oklahoma 63 29.5 6.2 11.7 0.529
Ryan Spangler Oklahoma 58 31.2 4.7 7.5 0.628
Gavin Schilling Michigan State 54 16.9 5.1 8.8 0.575
Marvin Clark Michigan State 53 11.2 4.2 6.2 0.677
D.J. Bennett Oklahoma 35 8.0 3.8 7.5 0.500
Buddy Hield Oklahoma 32 32.3 3.9 8.5 0.466
Dinjiyl Walker Oklahoma 23 10.6 3.0 6.7 0.450
Denzel Valentine Michigan State 22 33.1 2.9 6.1 0.467
Isaiah Cousins Oklahoma 19 31.0 3.2 7.9 0.411
Travis Trice Michigan State 19 33.2 3.2 7.7 0.416
Khadeem Lattin Oklahoma 19 11.8 2.8 6.5 0.429
Bryn Forbes Michigan State 16 26.1 1.7 3.3 0.513
Jordan Woodard Oklahoma 15 31.9 2.6 6.4 0.405
Alvin Ellis Michigan State 10 8.7 1.8 4.3 0.407
Frank Booker Oklahoma 8 14.1 1.1 2.5 0.444
Lourawls ‘Tum Tum` Nairn Michigan State 3 19.7 1.4 4.0 0.338

Average Sweet 16 2pt rating is 36, average NCAA Tourney 2pt rating is 31, average D1 is 26.

Rating from the free throw line:
Player Team FT Mn/g FT/40 FTA/40 FT%
Jordan Woodard Oklahoma 37 31.9 4.8 5.7 0.838
Buddy Hield Oklahoma 28 32.3 3.8 4.6 0.817
Travis Trice Michigan State 23 33.2 3.6 5.1 0.697
TaShawn Thomas Oklahoma 21 29.5 3.2 4.7 0.675
Frank Booker Oklahoma 19 14.1 2.6 3.1 0.824
Matt Costello Michigan State 17 20.7 2.7 4.0 0.680
Marvin Clark Michigan State 17 11.2 2.5 3.4 0.735
Denzel Valentine Michigan State 16 33.1 2.2 2.7 0.825
Ryan Spangler Oklahoma 14 31.2 2.1 2.9 0.714
Bryn Forbes Michigan State 12 26.1 1.7 2.1 0.800
D.J. Bennett Oklahoma 12 8.0 2.3 4.3 0.542
Dinjiyl Walker Oklahoma 12 10.6 1.9 3.0 0.630
Isaiah Cousins Oklahoma 11 31.0 1.7 2.6 0.652
Branden Dawson Michigan State 9 29.9 2.0 4.0 0.505
Alvin Ellis Michigan State 8 8.7 2.2 4.9 0.452
Gavin Schilling Michigan State 8 16.9 2.0 4.4 0.463
Lourawls ‘Tum Tum` Nairn Michigan State 6 19.7 1.3 2.5 0.523
Khadeem Lattin Oklahoma 5 11.8 1.0 2.0 0.526

The average FT rating for both the Sweet 16 and the NCAA tourney is 19. D1 average is 16.

Rating from three point range:
Player Team 3pt Mn/g 3p/40 3pA/40 3p%
Denzel Valentine Michigan State 55 33.1 3.1 7.4 0.418
Buddy Hield Oklahoma 51 32.3 3.3 9.1 0.361
Bryn Forbes Michigan State 50 26.1 2.8 6.4 0.430
Isaiah Cousins Oklahoma 48 31.0 2.4 5.3 0.453
Travis Trice Michigan State 42 33.2 2.7 7.3 0.372
Frank Booker Oklahoma 41 14.1 3.3 10.5 0.313
Marvin Clark Michigan State 27 11.2 2.0 5.9 0.339
Dinjiyl Walker Oklahoma 12 10.6 1.6 5.9 0.264
Alvin Ellis Michigan State 8 8.7 1.0 3.5 0.273
Ryan Spangler Oklahoma 4 31.2 0.4 1.2 0.303
Jordan Woodard Oklahoma 3 31.9 0.6 2.4 0.246
Lourawls ‘Tum Tum` Nairn Michigan State 2 19.7 0.2 0.6 0.300
D.J. Bennett Oklahoma 0 8.0 0.0 0.0 -
Branden Dawson Michigan State 0 29.9 0.0 0.0 -
Gavin Schilling Michigan State 0 16.9 0.0 0.0 -
Khadeem Lattin Oklahoma -1 11.8 0.0 0.1 0.000
TaShawn Thomas Oklahoma -1 29.5 0.0 0.1 0.000
Matt Costello Michigan State -2 20.7 0.0 0.2 0.000

Sweet 16 average 3pt rating is 20, NCAA tourney average is 19, D1 average is 16.

Rebound rating:
Player Team Reb Mn/g Orb/40 Drb/40 Rb/40
Branden Dawson Michigan State 61 29.9 3.8 8.2 12.1
Khadeem Lattin Oklahoma 58 11.8 3.7 7.1 10.8
Matt Costello Michigan State 55 20.7 4.0 6.3 10.4
Ryan Spangler Oklahoma 55 31.2 3.1 7.4 10.5
Gavin Schilling Michigan State 51 16.9 3.9 5.5 9.4
TaShawn Thomas Oklahoma 47 29.5 2.9 5.9 8.8
D.J. Bennett Oklahoma 47 8.0 2.7 6.3 8.9
Marvin Clark Michigan State 42 11.2 2.9 5.2 8.1
Buddy Hield Oklahoma 35 32.3 2.0 4.7 6.7
Denzel Valentine Michigan State 34 33.1 1.4 6.0 7.4
Isaiah Cousins Oklahoma 30 31.0 1.3 4.7 6.0
Jordan Woodard Oklahoma 21 31.9 0.6 3.9 4.5
Frank Booker Oklahoma 19 14.1 0.9 2.8 3.7
Dinjiyl Walker Oklahoma 18 10.6 0.9 2.7 3.6
Travis Trice Michigan State 17 33.2 0.6 3.2 3.8
Lourawls ‘Tum Tum` Nairn Michigan State 14 19.7 0.3 2.9 3.3
Alvin Ellis Michigan State 13 8.7 0.3 2.5 2.9
Bryn Forbes Michigan State 10 26.1 0.3 1.9 2.2

The average Sweet 16 rebound rating is 34, NCAA tourney team average is 31, D1 average is 28.

Ball handling & passing rating:
Player Team BH Mn/g Ast/40 TO/40
Travis Trice Michigan State 45 33.2 6.2 2.1
Lourawls ‘Tum Tum` Nairn Michigan State 33 19.7 4.9 1.9
Denzel Valentine Michigan State 28 33.1 5.3 2.9
Jordan Woodard Oklahoma 24 31.9 4.9 2.9
Isaiah Cousins Oklahoma 4 31.0 2.8 2.7
Bryn Forbes Michigan State 3 26.1 1.5 1.3
Ryan Spangler Oklahoma 1 31.2 1.7 1.7
Branden Dawson Michigan State 1 29.9 2.4 2.5
Buddy Hield Oklahoma 1 32.3 2.4 2.5
Alvin Ellis Michigan State 1 8.7 2.5 2.7
Matt Costello Michigan State 0 20.7 1.5 1.6
Frank Booker Oklahoma -3 14.1 1.6 2.0
Khadeem Lattin Oklahoma -3 11.8 0.9 1.3
TaShawn Thomas Oklahoma -5 29.5 2.0 2.6
Dinjiyl Walker Oklahoma -8 10.6 2.0 3.0
Gavin Schilling Michigan State -11 16.9 0.9 2.1
D.J. Bennett Oklahoma -12 8.0 0.5 1.8
Marvin Clark Michigan State -16 11.2 0.9 2.6

Sweet 16 average rating here is 9, NCAA Tourney team average is 6, D1 average is 2. Michigan State has three players who are very good passers in which to run offensive sets through – Oklahoma has one.

Defensive stops rating:
Player Team Df Mn/g Stl/40 Blk/40 PF/40
Branden Dawson Michigan State 29 29.9 1.6 2.1 2.7
Khadeem Lattin Oklahoma 23 11.8 1.2 3.1 6.8
TaShawn Thomas Oklahoma 20 29.5 0.8 2.0 2.8
Jordan Woodard Oklahoma 19 31.9 2.0 0.1 2.1
D.J. Bennett Oklahoma 18 8.0 0.7 3.4 7.5
Isaiah Cousins Oklahoma 17 31.0 1.6 0.5 2.4
Buddy Hield Oklahoma 17 32.3 1.7 0.3 2.2
Matt Costello Michigan State 17 20.7 0.8 2.5 5.1
Alvin Ellis Michigan State 16 8.7 1.9 0.8 5.1
Ryan Spangler Oklahoma 15 31.2 0.9 1.4 3.2
Travis Trice Michigan State 11 33.2 1.3 0.2 2.2
Frank Booker Oklahoma 10 14.1 1.5 0.4 4.0
Denzel Valentine Michigan State 8 33.1 1.1 0.3 2.7
Bryn Forbes Michigan State 7 26.1 1.0 0.2 2.3
Marvin Clark Michigan State 5 11.2 0.8 1.2 5.7
Dinjiyl Walker Oklahoma 4 10.6 1.3 0.3 5.8
Gavin Schilling Michigan State 2 16.9 0.5 1.6 6.7
Lourawls ‘Tum Tum` Nairn Michigan State -3 19.7 0.6 0.1 4.4

Sweet 16 and NCAA Tourney average rating is 13, D1 average is 10. While Branden Dawson is extremely adept at creating real havoc on the defensive end – the Sooners have a number of athletes  blocking shots, getting steals, and taking names.

The Prediction:

Using the the predicted minutes (M?) for the players in this game – here’s how the team ratings look:

Sco 2pt FT 3pt Reb BH Def HnI
Michigan State 76.2 35.5 14.8 25.8 34.1 16.0 12.4 135.0
Oklahoma 76.9 34.4 21.3 21.2 36.7 3.8 17.3 133.4
Sweet 16 Average 75.1 36.1 19.4 19.7 33.6 9.1 13.3 131.2
NCAA Tourney Average 68.6 31.1 18.6 18.8 30.9 6.1 12.6 118.1
D1 Average 58.8 26.1 16.5 16.3 28.4 2.2 10.0 99.5

Finally, there’s a difference (albeit slight) in the prediction for this game between Ken Pomeroy and my compiled player ratings. Pomeroy has Oklahoma winning 68 to 67, while my ratings pretty much switch the scores – Michigan State winning by 0.8, 67.9 to 67.1.

Dan

Sweet 16: Duke vs. Utah

Let’s start with the players who are projected to play possible meaningful minutes with their common stats, ranked by HnI (ignores missed games on the season, better for game predictions than HnR).  The Rank is the player’s national rank out of 3053 “qualified” players (more than 20% of available team minutes). If there is no rank, the player played less than 20% of the available team minutes during the season. M? is the predicted minutes played for each player to best optimize team rating while still adhering to previous 2015 NCAA Tourney precedence and seasonal playing time.

Overall player rank:
HnI Rank Player Team Mn/g Pt/g Rb/g A/g S/g B/g T/g TS% M?
191 2 Delon Wright Utah 33.3 14.7 4.9 5.2 2.1 1.0 1.9 0.621 37
180 4 Jahlil Okafor Duke 30.3 18.1 8.7 1.4 0.8 1.4 2.5 0.646 33
147 79 Jakob Poeltl Utah 23.2 9.1 6.7 0.7 0.4 1.8 1.6 0.630 33
144 101 Tyus Jones Duke 33.4 11.4 3.5 5.8 1.5 0.1 2.0 0.570 34
142 117 Justise Winslow Duke 28.7 12.1 6.3 2.2 1.3 0.8 1.8 0.560 34
138 162 Quinn Cook Duke 35.7 15.8 3.3 2.7 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.616 38
135 195 Brandon Taylor Utah 30.0 10.5 2.5 3.4 1.2 0.0 1.6 0.620 37
133 213 Amile Jefferson Duke 21.7 6.6 5.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.614 23
131 248 Marshall Plumlee Duke 9.8 2.5 2.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.789 7
127 311 Jordan Loveridge Utah 26.0 10.2 4.0 1.0 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.599 35
123 Grayson Allen Duke 8.8 4.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.584 9
122 Kyle Kuzma Utah 8.3 3.4 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.531 9
120 462 Dakarai Tucker Utah 20.5 7.4 2.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.587 29
118 504 Brekkott Chapman Utah 14.9 5.7 2.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.579 3
117 566 Matt Jones Duke 21.3 5.9 2.4 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.521 22
115 637 Chris Reyes Utah 15.7 4.4 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.495 10
112 736 Dallin Bachynski Utah 12.5 3.9 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.581 0
93 1737 Isaiah Wright Utah 12.6 2.0 0.8 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.571 7

131 is the average HnI for a Sweet 16 player, while going into the tourney 118 was the HnI for the average NCAA Tourney player, 99 average for a D1 player.

The 2nd best player in the nation against the 4th. For the most part 10 players in this game ranked in the top 10% of all D1 players. We have probably at least 6 future NBA players in this game. Not too shabby for a match up of teams that doesn’t include Kentucky or Arizona.

Scoring rating:
Player Team Sco Mn/g Pts/40 TS%
Jahlil Okafor Duke 136 30.3 23.8 0.646
Delon Wright Utah 104 33.3 17.6 0.621
Quinn Cook Duke 96 35.7 17.8 0.616
Jakob Poeltl Utah 94 23.2 15.7 0.630
Grayson Allen Duke 94 8.8 18.4 0.584
Jordan Loveridge Utah 89 26.0 15.7 0.599
Brekkott Chapman Utah 84 14.9 15.4 0.579
Brandon Taylor Utah 83 30.0 14.0 0.620
Justise Winslow Duke 82 28.7 16.9 0.560
Kyle Kuzma Utah 81 8.3 16.5 0.531
Dakarai Tucker Utah 81 20.5 14.4 0.587
Dallin Bachynski Utah 69 12.5 12.5 0.581
Tyus Jones Duke 68 33.4 13.7 0.570
Marshall Plumlee Duke 67 9.8 10.0 0.789
Amile Jefferson Duke 66 21.7 12.2 0.614
Chris Reyes Utah 50 15.7 11.2 0.495
Matt Jones Duke 49 21.3 11.1 0.521
Isaiah Wright Utah 34 12.6 6.4 0.571

An average Sweet 16 Scoring rating is 75, average NCAA Tourney Scoring rating is 69, while the D1 average is 59. That means 11 of the players listed above, all things considered, are a better combination of scoring proficiency and efficiency than the average Sweet 16 player. Albeit three of them are low minute guys – but still.

Okafor is a scoring machine from the post – which leads us to….

Rating from 2 point range:
Player Team 2pt Mn/g 2p/40 2pA/40 2p%
Jahlil Okafor Duke 120 30.3 10.1 14.9 0.677
Jakob Poeltl Utah 84 23.2 6.4 9.3 0.695
Amile Jefferson Duke 53 21.7 4.8 7.6 0.632
Delon Wright Utah 51 33.3 4.8 8.4 0.565
Marshall Plumlee Duke 48 9.8 3.6 4.5 0.795
Kyle Kuzma Utah 42 8.3 4.0 7.2 0.556
Dallin Bachynski Utah 42 12.5 4.2 7.7 0.538
Justise Winslow Duke 40 28.7 4.5 8.6 0.526
Chris Reyes Utah 34 15.7 4.2 8.9 0.471
Brekkott Chapman Utah 32 14.9 3.8 7.8 0.485
Quinn Cook Duke 26 35.7 2.8 5.1 0.544
Grayson Allen Duke 25 8.8 2.9 5.7 0.513
Dakarai Tucker Utah 24 20.5 2.1 3.6 0.589
Tyus Jones Duke 16 33.4 2.5 5.7 0.440
Matt Jones Duke 12 21.3 2.0 4.7 0.425
Brandon Taylor Utah 12 30.0 1.5 3.2 0.463
Jordan Loveridge Utah 11 26.0 1.9 4.8 0.405
Isaiah Wright Utah 0 12.6 0.4 1.3 0.308

Average Sweet 16 2pt rating is 36, average NCAA Tourney 2pt rating is 31, average D1 is 26. Okafor has been the best in the nation here all season, he’s just so skilled at scoring around the basket. That being said, Poeltl is no slouch himself and may make Okafor work more than normal on the defensive end.

Rating from the free throw line:
Player Team FT Mn/g FT/40 FTA/40 FT%
Delon Wright Utah 40 33.3 5.3 6.4 0.834
Grayson Allen Duke 35 8.8 5.0 5.9 0.850
Tyus Jones Duke 30 33.4 4.2 4.7 0.884
Dallin Bachynski Utah 25 12.5 3.9 5.6 0.690
Brekkott Chapman Utah 23 14.9 3.3 4.3 0.764
Jordan Loveridge Utah 21 26.0 2.7 3.1 0.873
Quinn Cook Duke 19 35.7 2.6 2.9 0.891
Dakarai Tucker Utah 17 20.5 2.3 2.9 0.818
Justise Winslow Duke 17 28.7 3.1 5.1 0.612
Kyle Kuzma Utah 17 8.3 3.2 5.8 0.556
Jahlil Okafor Duke 16 30.3 3.7 7.1 0.516
Marshall Plumlee Duke 15 9.8 2.4 3.4 0.724
Brandon Taylor Utah 13 30.0 1.7 2.0 0.846
Amile Jefferson Duke 13 21.7 2.6 4.7 0.556
Chris Reyes Utah 12 15.7 2.4 4.4 0.542
Isaiah Wright Utah 12 12.6 1.7 2.2 0.773
Jakob Poeltl Utah 11 23.2 2.9 6.4 0.451
Matt Jones Duke 8 21.3 1.2 1.7 0.742

The average FT rating for both the Sweet 16 and the NCAA tourney is 19. D1 average is 16. I’m guessing Utah’s Coach K will be wanting Wright to take it to the hole at Okafor at every possible opportunity and get himself to the line at the big man’s expense – while Duke’s Coach K will be hoping his kids will slide in there and get a cheap offensive foul or two called on poor Delon and protect their guy.

Rating from three point range:
Player Team 3pt Mn/g 3p/40 3pA/40 3p%
Brandon Taylor Utah 58 30.0 3.1 7.1 0.439
Jordan Loveridge Utah 58 26.0 3.0 6.7 0.449
Quinn Cook Duke 52 35.7 3.2 7.9 0.407
Dakarai Tucker Utah 39 20.5 2.6 7.2 0.360
Grayson Allen Duke 34 8.8 2.5 7.1 0.354
Matt Jones Duke 30 21.3 2.0 5.2 0.381
Brekkott Chapman Utah 29 14.9 1.5 3.3 0.452
Justise Winslow Duke 25 28.7 1.6 4.0 0.400
Kyle Kuzma Utah 23 8.3 1.8 5.4 0.324
Isaiah Wright Utah 22 12.6 1.3 3.2 0.406
Tyus Jones Duke 22 33.4 1.5 3.9 0.381
Delon Wright Utah 14 33.3 0.9 2.5 0.361
Chris Reyes Utah 4 15.7 0.1 0.2 0.667
Marshall Plumlee Duke 3 9.8 0.1 0.1 1.000
Dallin Bachynski Utah 2 12.5 0.1 0.2 0.500
Jahlil Okafor Duke 0 30.3 0.0 0.0 -
Amile Jefferson Duke 0 21.7 0.0 0.0 -
Jakob Poeltl Utah 0 23.2 0.0 0.1 0.000

Sweet 16 average 3pt rating is 20, NCAA tourney average is 19, D1 average is 16. This game could easily hinge on how well Utah’s three deadly sharp shooters – Taylor, Loveridge, and Tucker – fair from range.

Rebound rating:
Player Team Reb Mn/g Orb/40 Drb/40 Rb/40
Jakob Poeltl Utah 62 23.2 4.5 7.1 11.6
Jahlil Okafor Duke 58 30.3 4.9 6.6 11.5
Amile Jefferson Duke 54 21.7 4.3 6.4 10.8
Marshall Plumlee Duke 52 9.8 4.5 5.6 10.1
Chris Reyes Utah 47 15.7 2.8 6.4 9.3
Kyle Kuzma Utah 41 8.3 1.6 7.2 8.8
Dallin Bachynski Utah 39 12.5 2.2 5.5 7.7
Justise Winslow Duke 38 28.7 1.8 7.0 8.7
Brekkott Chapman Utah 33 14.9 2.4 3.8 6.2
Delon Wright Utah 28 33.3 1.1 4.8 5.9
Jordan Loveridge Utah 27 26.0 0.7 5.5 6.2
Matt Jones Duke 22 21.3 1.8 2.7 4.4
Dakarai Tucker Utah 21 20.5 0.8 3.7 4.6
Grayson Allen Duke 19 8.8 1.2 2.9 4.1
Tyus Jones Duke 18 33.4 0.6 3.6 4.2
Quinn Cook Duke 15 35.7 0.4 3.3 3.7
Brandon Taylor Utah 14 30.0 0.2 3.1 3.3
Isaiah Wright Utah 11 12.6 0.3 2.2 2.5

The average Sweet 16 rebound rating is 34, NCAA tourney team average is 31, D1 average is 28. If Poeltl stays out of foul trouble, Utah has a chance to hang with Duke on the boards.

Ball handling & passing rating:
Player Team BH Mn/g Ast/40 TO/40
Tyus Jones Duke 46 33.4 6.9 2.4
Delon Wright Utah 43 33.3 6.2 2.3
Isaiah Wright Utah 33 12.6 5.6 2.7
Brandon Taylor Utah 27 30.0 4.5 2.1
Quinn Cook Duke 17 35.7 3.1 1.4
Justise Winslow Duke 7 28.7 3.1 2.5
Matt Jones Duke 6 21.3 1.9 1.4
Kyle Kuzma Utah 4 8.3 3.0 2.9
Grayson Allen Duke 2 8.8 2.1 2.1
Marshall Plumlee Duke -1 9.8 1.3 1.5
Dakarai Tucker Utah -2 20.5 1.2 1.5
Amile Jefferson Duke -3 21.7 1.6 2.1
Chris Reyes Utah -4 15.7 1.2 1.7
Jordan Loveridge Utah -4 26.0 1.5 2.1
Dallin Bachynski Utah -8 12.5 0.6 1.4
Jahlil Okafor Duke -12 30.3 1.9 3.3
Jakob Poeltl Utah -15 23.2 1.2 2.8
Brekkott Chapman Utah -15 14.9 1.0 2.7

Sweet 16 average rating here is 9, NCAA Tourney team average is 6, D1 average is 2. The Delon Wright and Tyus Jones match up should be fun. Unrelated note – Okafor and Poeltl turn the ball over too much, expect double teams.

Defensive stops rating:
Player Team Df Mn/g Stl/40 Blk/40 PF/40
Delon Wright Utah 34 33.3 2.5 1.2 1.6
Jakob Poeltl Utah 22 23.2 0.6 3.1 4.2
Justise Winslow Duke 20 28.7 1.9 1.1 3.8
Jahlil Okafor Duke 19 30.3 1.0 1.9 2.7
Tyus Jones Duke 17 33.4 1.8 0.1 1.3
Brandon Taylor Utah 14 30.0 1.6 0.0 1.9
Marshall Plumlee Duke 14 9.8 0.9 2.4 6.3
Amile Jefferson Duke 12 21.7 1.1 1.2 3.6
Chris Reyes Utah 12 15.7 0.6 1.6 3.5
Matt Jones Duke 10 21.3 1.6 0.2 3.2
Brekkott Chapman Utah 10 14.9 1.3 1.1 5.9
Dakarai Tucker Utah 8 20.5 0.8 0.6 2.3
Quinn Cook Duke 8 35.7 1.2 0.0 2.2
Jordan Loveridge Utah 7 26.0 0.9 0.3 2.6
Grayson Allen Duke 7 8.8 1.3 0.7 5.7
Dallin Bachynski Utah 5 12.5 1.0 1.1 6.1
Isaiah Wright Utah -3 12.6 0.3 0.3 3.8
Kyle Kuzma Utah -4 8.3 0.2 0.8 5.1

Sweet 16 and NCAA Tourney average rating is 13, D1 average is 10.

Delon Wright gets tons of steals, he blocks shots, and yet he somehow almost never fouls. He has elite point guard skills. He’s long, and extremely efficient at everything. He makes it all look so easy. This MIGHT be his coming out party to the entire nation  – IF he can muster up some of the “alpha male” that he sometimes seems to lack and take over.

Or, he might go 14/4/4 on 10 shots as Utah loses by three.

The Prediction:

Using the the predicted minutes (M?) for the players in this game – here’s how the team ratings look:

Sco 2pt FT 3pt Reb BH Def HnI
Duke 85.9 44.6 18.5 22.8 33.3 10.7 14.1 142.8
Utah 86.1 34.9 19.7 31.5 31.0 10.4 15.4 140.3
Sweet 16 Average 75.1 36.1 19.4 19.7 33.6 9.1 13.3 131.2
NCAA Tourney Average 68.6 31.1 18.6 18.8 30.9 6.1 12.6 118.1
D1 Average 58.8 26.1 16.5 16.3 28.4 2.2 10.0 99.5

The two highest team ratings of all of today’s teams – and they happen to be playing against each other. Go figure. Duke will get in done offensively in the post with Okafor, Utah more from three. Duke should have the rebounding advantage.

Ken Pomeroy Has Duke winning 67-66. True to form with the other games today – my compiled ratings come up with pretty much the same spread – Duke by 1.2, 67.1 to 65.9.

Dan

Sweet 16: Louisville vs. NC State

Let’s start with the players who are projected to play possible meaningful minutes with their common stats, ranked by HnI (ignores missed games on the season, better for game predictions than HnR).  The Rank is the player’s national rank out of 3053 “qualified” players (more than 20% of available team minutes). If there is no rank, the player played less than 20% of the available team minutes during the season. M? is the predicted minutes played for each player to best optimize team rating while still adhering to previous 2015 NCAA Tourney precedence and seasonal playing time.

Overall player rank:
HnI Rank Player Team Mn/g Pt/g Rb/g A/g S/g B/g T/g TS% M?
163 19 Montrezl Harrell Louisville 34.8 15.4 9.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 2.0 0.579 38
157 30 Terry Rozier Louisville 34.6 17.2 5.2 3.0 2.0 0.1 2.2 0.515 39
144 98 Trevor Lacey North Carolina State 35.8 15.7 4.6 3.5 0.9 0.2 1.9 0.552 38
129 275 Anthony ‘Cat` Barber North Carolina State 31.6 12.3 3.3 3.7 0.8 0.0 2.1 0.536 36
125 352 Wayne Blackshear Louisville 31.1 11.1 4.4 1.2 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.522 40
120 453 Kyle Washington North Carolina State 18.0 6.7 4.2 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.9 0.494 19
119 478 BeeJay Anya North Carolina State 19.3 4.5 4.3 0.2 0.1 2.6 1.1 0.596 20
119 490 Chinanu Onuaku Louisville 18.4 3.1 4.7 0.6 0.8 1.3 1.3 0.586 19
119 494 Ralston Turner North Carolina State 31.4 12.8 3.3 1.0 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.546 35
117 563 Abdul-Malik Abu North Carolina State 18.8 6.4 4.7 0.6 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.498 20
110 783 Mangok Mathiang Louisville 17.8 2.5 4.6 0.4 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.405 23
107 916 Caleb Martin North Carolina State 16.9 4.9 2.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.484 7
107 938 Lennard Freeman North Carolina State 19.5 3.6 5.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.459 20
103 Jaylen Johnson Louisville 4.7 1.2 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.474 6
100 Anas Mahmoud Louisville 8.1 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.565 9
99 Desmond Lee North Carolina State 7.9 2.9 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.484 5
93 1685 Quentin Snider Louisville 15.0 3.8 1.5 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.441 26

131 is the average HnI for a Sweet 16 player, while going into the tourney 118 was the HnI for the average NCAA Tourney player, 99 average for a D1 player. Harrell and Rozier are top 30 players nationally, Lacey is top 100. If Chris Jones were still with Louisville, he’d be just above Lacey here with a 145 HnI, 95th nationally.

Scoring rating:
Player Team Sco Mn/g Pts/40 TS%
Montrezl Harrell Louisville 104 34.8 17.8 0.579
Terry Rozier Louisville 100 34.6 19.9 0.515
Trevor Lacey North Carolina State 96 35.8 17.5 0.552
Ralston Turner North Carolina State 89 31.4 16.4 0.546
Anthony ‘Cat` Barber North Carolina State 82 31.6 15.5 0.536
Wayne Blackshear Louisville 73 31.1 14.3 0.522
Kyle Washington North Carolina State 69 18.0 14.8 0.494
Desmond Lee North Carolina State 65 7.9 14.4 0.484
Abdul-Malik Abu North Carolina State 64 18.8 13.6 0.498
BeeJay Anya North Carolina State 56 19.3 9.4 0.596
Caleb Martin North Carolina State 52 16.9 11.5 0.484
Jaylen Johnson Louisville 46 4.7 10.5 0.474
Chinanu Onuaku Louisville 40 18.4 6.7 0.586
Quentin Snider Louisville 38 15.0 10.0 0.441
Anas Mahmoud Louisville 34 8.1 5.9 0.565
Lennard Freeman North Carolina State 30 19.5 7.5 0.459
Mangok Mathiang Louisville 17 17.8 5.7 0.405

An average Sweet 16 Scoring rating is 75, average NCAA Tourney Scoring rating is 69, while the D1 average is 59. NC State, honestly, has three Louisville players to stop. That’s it. Try to score some points, stop 3 guys.

Rating from 2 point range:
Player Team 2pt Mn/g 2p/40 2pA/40 2p%
Montrezl Harrell Louisville 80 34.8 6.6 11.0 0.600
Abdul-Malik Abu North Carolina State 48 18.8 5.2 10.5 0.491
Kyle Washington North Carolina State 46 18.0 5.8 12.9 0.453
BeeJay Anya North Carolina State 45 19.3 3.7 6.0 0.608
Terry Rozier Louisville 45 34.6 5.3 11.3 0.468
Anthony ‘Cat` Barber North Carolina State 36 31.6 4.3 9.3 0.466
Chinanu Onuaku Louisville 36 18.4 2.9 4.8 0.611
Jaylen Johnson Louisville 32 4.7 4.3 9.7 0.440
Trevor Lacey North Carolina State 31 35.8 3.6 7.5 0.476
Lennard Freeman North Carolina State 24 19.5 3.0 6.7 0.450
Wayne Blackshear Louisville 23 31.1 2.5 5.3 0.482
Anas Mahmoud Louisville 22 8.1 2.2 4.2 0.520
Desmond Lee North Carolina State 19 7.9 3.4 8.4 0.400
Ralston Turner North Carolina State 16 31.4 2.0 4.5 0.455
Quentin Snider Louisville 12 15.0 2.2 5.6 0.394
Caleb Martin North Carolina State 12 16.9 1.8 4.4 0.415
Mangok Mathiang Louisville 9 17.8 2.0 5.4 0.377

Average Sweet 16 2pt rating is 36, average NCAA Tourney 2pt rating is 31, average D1 is 26. It’s Harrell, then everybody else.

Rating from the free throw line:
Player Team FT Mn/g FT/40 FTA/40 FT%
Desmond Lee North Carolina State 55 7.9 7.1 8.8 0.809
Terry Rozier Louisville 35 34.6 4.6 5.8 0.784
Anthony ‘Cat` Barber North Carolina State 30 31.6 4.1 5.6 0.733
Montrezl Harrell Louisville 22 34.8 3.6 6.1 0.594
Trevor Lacey North Carolina State 22 35.8 3.0 4.0 0.738
Wayne Blackshear Louisville 21 31.1 2.9 3.8 0.760
Caleb Martin North Carolina State 20 16.9 2.8 3.9 0.719
Ralston Turner North Carolina State 19 31.4 2.4 2.9 0.838
Abdul-Malik Abu North Carolina State 16 18.8 3.0 5.6 0.543
Kyle Washington North Carolina State 12 18.0 1.7 2.4 0.714
Anas Mahmoud Louisville 11 8.1 1.5 2.0 0.750
BeeJay Anya North Carolina State 11 19.3 2.0 3.6 0.557
Quentin Snider Louisville 9 15.0 1.4 2.4 0.600
Mangok Mathiang Louisville 8 17.8 1.6 3.2 0.500
Lennard Freeman North Carolina State 7 19.5 1.4 2.9 0.500
Chinanu Onuaku Louisville 4 18.4 0.9 2.0 0.467
Jaylen Johnson Louisville 2 4.7 0.8 1.9 0.400

The average FT rating for both the Sweet 16 and the NCAA tourney is 19. D1 average is 16. Desmond Lee plays very little, can’t score from the field or from three point range – but MAN he can draw fouls, get to the line, and convert. But, ignoring the 5 minutes or so Lee might play – Rozier and Barber are the guys here. Harrell would be if he made his free throws at a better than 59% clip.

Rating from three point range:
Player Team 3pt Mn/g 3p/40 3pA/40 3p%
Ralston Turner North Carolina State 53 31.4 3.3 9.0 0.363
Trevor Lacey North Carolina State 43 35.8 2.5 6.3 0.389
Wayne Blackshear Louisville 29 31.1 2.1 6.5 0.324
Caleb Martin North Carolina State 20 16.9 1.7 5.5 0.305
Terry Rozier Louisville 20 34.6 1.6 5.2 0.309
Quentin Snider Louisville 17 15.0 1.4 4.6 0.305
Anthony ‘Cat` Barber North Carolina State 16 31.6 0.9 2.4 0.385
Jaylen Johnson Louisville 12 4.7 0.4 0.4 1.000
Kyle Washington North Carolina State 11 18.0 0.5 0.9 0.538
Montrezl Harrell Louisville 2 34.8 0.3 1.3 0.243
Anas Mahmoud Louisville 0 8.1 0.0 0.0 -
BeeJay Anya North Carolina State 0 19.3 0.0 0.0 -
Mangok Mathiang Louisville 0 17.8 0.0 0.0 -
Lennard Freeman North Carolina State 0 19.5 0.0 0.0 -
Chinanu Onuaku Louisville 0 18.4 0.0 0.0 -
Abdul-Malik Abu North Carolina State 0 18.8 0.1 0.3 0.200
Desmond Lee North Carolina State -9 7.9 0.2 2.1 0.091

Sweet 16 average 3pt rating is 20, NCAA tourney average is 19, D1 average is 16. Louisville is very three point challenged. If Turner and/or Lacey start lighting it up from the three point line – NC State could easily snatch a victory.

Rebound rating:
Player Team Reb Mn/g Orb/40 Drb/40 Rb/40
Lennard Freeman North Carolina State 65 19.5 4.1 7.6 11.7
Jaylen Johnson Louisville 64 4.7 4.7 6.2 10.9
Mangok Mathiang Louisville 63 17.8 5.1 5.1 10.3
Chinanu Onuaku Louisville 60 18.4 4.5 5.7 10.2
Montrezl Harrell Louisville 59 34.8 3.7 6.9 10.6
Abdul-Malik Abu North Carolina State 58 18.8 4.1 6.0 10.1
BeeJay Anya North Carolina State 50 19.3 3.3 5.6 8.9
Kyle Washington North Carolina State 49 18.0 2.7 6.6 9.3
Anas Mahmoud Louisville 40 8.1 2.9 4.1 6.9
Caleb Martin North Carolina State 35 16.9 1.8 4.9 6.7
Terry Rozier Louisville 31 34.6 1.4 4.7 6.1
Desmond Lee North Carolina State 30 7.9 2.1 3.2 5.2
Wayne Blackshear Louisville 29 31.1 1.3 4.4 5.7
Trevor Lacey North Carolina State 25 35.8 0.8 4.3 5.1
Anthony ‘Cat` Barber North Carolina State 22 31.6 1.1 3.1 4.2
Ralston Turner North Carolina State 21 31.4 0.8 3.4 4.2
Quentin Snider Louisville 19 15.0 0.5 3.4 3.9

The average Sweet 16 rebound rating is 34, NCAA tourney team average is 31, D1 average is 28.

Ball handling & passing rating:
Player Team BH Mn/g Ast/40 TO/40
Anthony ‘Cat` Barber North Carolina State 25 31.6 4.7 2.7
Trevor Lacey North Carolina State 21 35.8 3.9 2.2
Quentin Snider Louisville 14 15.0 3.3 2.2
Terry Rozier Louisville 12 34.6 3.4 2.6
Wayne Blackshear Louisville 3 31.1 1.5 1.4
Caleb Martin North Carolina State 3 16.9 1.7 1.6
Ralston Turner North Carolina State 0 31.4 1.2 1.3
Lennard Freeman North Carolina State -2 19.5 1.1 1.3
Anas Mahmoud Louisville -4 8.1 1.9 2.4
Desmond Lee North Carolina State -6 7.9 2.2 3.0
Abdul-Malik Abu North Carolina State -6 18.8 1.3 2.1
Mangok Mathiang Louisville -6 17.8 1.0 1.7
Montrezl Harrell Louisville -8 34.8 1.4 2.3
Kyle Washington North Carolina State -10 18.0 1.0 2.1
Jaylen Johnson Louisville -16 4.7 0.8 2.3
Chinanu Onuaku Louisville -16 18.4 1.3 2.9
BeeJay Anya North Carolina State -19 19.3 0.5 2.3

Sweet 16 average rating here is 9, NCAA Tourney team average is 6, D1 average is 2. There isn’t a “true” point guard in this game – which may not bode well for NC State against the Louisville pressure.

Defensive stops rating:
Player Team Df Mn/g Stl/40 Blk/40 PF/40
BeeJay Anya North Carolina State 34 19.3 0.2 5.3 5.7
Chinanu Onuaku Louisville 31 18.4 1.7 2.8 5.1
Mangok Mathiang Louisville 26 17.8 1.2 2.9 5.4
Anas Mahmoud Louisville 24 8.1 0.7 3.4 5.1
Terry Rozier Louisville 24 34.6 2.3 0.2 2.0
Montrezl Harrell Louisville 19 34.8 1.1 1.4 2.5
Kyle Washington North Carolina State 15 18.0 0.5 2.5 4.6
Wayne Blackshear Louisville 15 31.1 1.4 0.8 3.2
Caleb Martin North Carolina State 9 16.9 0.7 0.8 2.6
Trevor Lacey North Carolina State 9 35.8 1.0 0.2 1.7
Jaylen Johnson Louisville 9 4.7 1.6 1.2 7.8
Desmond Lee North Carolina State 6 7.9 1.7 0.0 5.4
Anthony ‘Cat` Barber North Carolina State 6 31.6 1.0 0.0 2.5
Ralston Turner North Carolina State 4 31.4 0.8 0.2 3.0
Quentin Snider Louisville 2 15.0 0.9 0.0 3.1
Abdul-Malik Abu North Carolina State 1 18.8 0.3 1.1 4.8
Lennard Freeman North Carolina State 0 19.5 0.5 0.4 3.6

Sweet 16 and NCAA Tourney average rating is 13, D1 average is 10. Now, the question is, what will happen first – Anya will get two blocks on Harrell, or Harrell will get two fouls called on Anya. Either could happen two minutes into the game.

The Prediction:

Using the the predicted minutes (M?) for the players in this game – here’s how the team ratings look:

Sco 2pt FT 3pt Reb BH Def HnI
Louisville 67.4 36.5 18.2 12.6 42.3 0.4 18.9 130.4
NC State 73.7 32.3 19.5 22.0 36.2 4.9 8.9 123.4
Sweet 16 Average 75.1 36.1 19.4 19.7 33.6 9.1 13.3 131.2
NCAA Tourney Average 68.6 31.1 18.6 18.8 30.9 6.1 12.6 118.1
D1 Average 58.8 26.1 16.5 16.3 28.4 2.2 10.0 99.5

Louisville is a limited team offensively, period. But, they defend and create havoc. NC State isn’t particularly elite offensively, so this game will probably be very ugly. Don’t mind the ultra high rebound and defensive stops rating here for Louisville – with Chris Jones out of the picture, the lineup optimization is giving more minutes to Louisville bigs than they probably will actually play. Louisville should win the battle of the boards, but probably not as much as that higher rating would signify.

Speaking of Chris Jones, I didn’t include his ratings so it wouldn’t confuse people – he is top 100 nationally with a 145 HnI. When he was kicked off the team, it weakened them. While Louisville should win this game, I can’t imagine them going much further.

As for this game, Ken Pomeroy has Louisville winning 66-63. Compiling the player ratings, I get a very similar result using the same game points total: Louisville by 3.5, 66.3 to 62.7.

Dan