jgisland
Club Member
They aren’t Arizona…..but they kind of are…..
What started out as a preview turned into more of a scouting report – this focuses heavily on Pittsburgh and what they do, at this point in the year I’ve discussed CU tirelessly, I figured my time was best spent on the unknown.
Colorado received their highest seed in the Tad Boyle era this year; they received an “8” earning the right to play Pittsburgh in the first round. While this may be a bit high for CU, however it is a testament to Tad Boyle and CU with how they were able to pull together after losing Spencer (Peter) Dinwiddie. But how high is 8, is it way too high? Pitt is 25-9, are they too low? Looking at several rating methods the only way these seeds make a lot of sense is if you use RPI. Currently Vegas has Pittsburgh power rated about 5 points ahead of CU. Pittsburgh is power rated an 81, in line with: VCU, UCLA, New Mexico, Ohio State, Memphis, Iowa State, Oklahoma, San Diego State and Tennessee. CU is a 76, in line with Providence, Nebraska and NC State. The Vegas line opened at Pittsburgh -6.5 and it’s now -5.5 with the over under at 128.5.
Pittsburgh played a lot of close games this year, 15 of their 34 games were decided by 6 points or less. Jamie Dixon’s team went 7-8 in those games. Without going through every team, I’d have to say comparatively that’s a lot. Dixon is 50-48 in close games overall, 26% of his games have been decided by 6 or less. So while 15 close games in a season seems high, Dixon has averaged 9 games a year that are deemed “close” in his 11 year career, so this isn’t exactly new territory. But why is this? Why do Jamie Dixon’s teams play a lot of close games? They play SLOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW! Only once in his eleven years have they been in the top 200 in terms of tempo, couple that with the fact that they don’t take a lot of three’s and you take a lot of the variance out of the game, resulting in close games.
There is some hope with it comes to the coaching front, Jamie Dixon’s teams do regress in terms of efficiency margin during the month of March.
[FONT=&]AEMFY = Average Efficiency Margin November to February[/FONT]
[FONT=&]AEMM = Average Efficiency Margin March
[/FONT]
This year’s Pittsburgh team is pretty much the same as the last 11 years of Dixon teams. They’re efficient on offense, they limit teams defensively, they don’t turn the ball over and they win a lot of games. In a nutshell, they’re a solid basketball team that isn’t going to beat themselves. CU has seen some good teams this year but some of the narratives of this Pittsburgh team look surprisingly like…..Arizona. Both play really solid half-court defense and limit transition opportunities, which is not a great sign for CU, CU needs to get out and run. What is even more impressive is that Pittsburgh, like Arizona, is able to grab offensive rebounds while still limiting opponents’ transition opportunities. We’ve seen teams like Wyoming, UCSB and Harvard completely ignore the offensive glass in an attempt to keep CU out of transition; Pittsburgh does not appear to be one of those teams that needs to do that. They grab 37.8% (19[SUP]th[/SUP] best) of their offensive rebounds while limiting opponents to taking only 18.8% (50[SUP]th[/SUP] best) of their initial field goal attempts in transition. CU takes 25.5% (54[SUP]th[/SUP]) of their initial field goal attempts in transition, keeping Pittsburgh off of the offensive glass and getting out into transition is going to be key in this game.
#TadBall is predicated around defense and rebounding, but it also means limiting shots at the rim and making teams take inefficient two point jumpers. While CU hasn’t done as well at that this year as they have in previous years (they’re average this year, 165[SUP]th[/SUP]) it may not matter. Pittsburgh takes 38% of their shots on two point jumpers, 9% more than average. But this isn’t the dribble, dribble, one on one, huck up a mid-range jumper shot, it’s an orchestrated within the offense two point jumper, 53.4% of the jumpers that Pittsburgh shoots are assisted, this is 9[SUP]th[/SUP] best overall. This is similar to another team that CU is familiar with ….Arizona, they take 41% of their shots as two point jumpers, but not nearly as many of theirs are assisted (34.4%).
Pittsburgh defense in the half court is similar to the premise of #TadBall, they only allow 27.2% of shots to come at the rim where teams shoot at a decent clip, 57.8%. They force teams to shoot a majority of their shots from mid-range (39.2%) where teams are grossly inefficient against them shooting 34.1%. From 3 it’s similar; teams shoot 33.7% of their non-transition shots from 3, shooting a paltry 32.6%. CU must get the ball into the post and penetrate and attack the rim, if they settle for mid-range jumpers and 3’s it’s going to be a long day for CU.
Lamar Patterson deserves his own section; he’s 8[SUP]th[/SUP] in KenPom’s Player of the Year Standings, behind Doug, McDermott, Russ Smith, Jabari Parker, Nick Johnson, Sean Kilpatrick, Shabazz Napier and Cleanthony Early, so he’s firmly in the “good” category. He does just about everything for Pittsburgh, and as I discussed earlier, Pittsburgh doesn’t shoot many 3’s, but every time one went up for Pitt this year odds are it came from him, he shot 39.5% of Pitt’s overall 3’s attempted (194 of 491), where he shot just shy of 40%. He’s also incredibly efficient given the number of shots he takes and possessions he uses. When he’s not shooting he’s involving his teammates, he accounts for 30% of the teams assists when he is on the floor. He’s also averaging the most amount of minutes on the team (80.1%) while only committing 2.6 fouls per 40 minutes.
I talked about “bench minutes” on pachoops.com a couple of weeks back, that teams that have fared well in the tourney tended to be teams that have short benches of go to guys. Pittsburgh plays their bench an average of 28% of the time (231[SUP]st[/SUP]) while CU has played their bench 32.6% of the time (125[SUP]th[/SUP]). With all of the injuries this year Tad and CU have had to experiment with lineups and go to guys, but there is an interesting trend the last 5 games. CU has most frequent lineup the last 5 games (Booker, Talton, XJ, Gordon and Scott) has played 39.5% of the minutes, the next closest lineup (Booker, Talton, Thomas, XJ and Scott) has only played 6.6% of the minutes. Meanwhile Pittsburgh’s most frequently used line-up is only playing 26.9% of the time, but their 2[SUP]nd[/SUP], 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and 4[SUP]th[/SUP] most frequently used lineups all have been on the court for more than 10% of the time. Both teams go roughly 8 guys deep right now, but it’s interesting to see how those 8 guys time is allocated differently.
This game is likely to be ugly, likely to be close and likely going to come down to the wire. CU can’t waste a single possession, they can’t take quick low percentage shots and they can’t turn the ball over. There simply aren’t going to be enough possessions in this game for that to occur and even come close to a victory. Pittsburgh has only scored less than 1 point per possession 5 times this year, where CU has done that 14 times, including their last 8 (12 of the 14 times come post Dinwiddie).
Fun Facts:
BUT LASTLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
[video=youtube;WjJFZEhbsc8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjJFZEhbsc8[/video]
What started out as a preview turned into more of a scouting report – this focuses heavily on Pittsburgh and what they do, at this point in the year I’ve discussed CU tirelessly, I figured my time was best spent on the unknown.
Colorado received their highest seed in the Tad Boyle era this year; they received an “8” earning the right to play Pittsburgh in the first round. While this may be a bit high for CU, however it is a testament to Tad Boyle and CU with how they were able to pull together after losing Spencer (Peter) Dinwiddie. But how high is 8, is it way too high? Pitt is 25-9, are they too low? Looking at several rating methods the only way these seeds make a lot of sense is if you use RPI. Currently Vegas has Pittsburgh power rated about 5 points ahead of CU. Pittsburgh is power rated an 81, in line with: VCU, UCLA, New Mexico, Ohio State, Memphis, Iowa State, Oklahoma, San Diego State and Tennessee. CU is a 76, in line with Providence, Nebraska and NC State. The Vegas line opened at Pittsburgh -6.5 and it’s now -5.5 with the over under at 128.5.
| Rating | Colorado | Pittsburgh |
| RPI | 35 | 39 |
| Sagarin | 55 | 20 |
| KenPom | 64 | 18 |
| LRMC | 55 | 20 |
| BPI | 51 | 13 |
| Sonny Moore | 73 | 18 |
Pittsburgh played a lot of close games this year, 15 of their 34 games were decided by 6 points or less. Jamie Dixon’s team went 7-8 in those games. Without going through every team, I’d have to say comparatively that’s a lot. Dixon is 50-48 in close games overall, 26% of his games have been decided by 6 or less. So while 15 close games in a season seems high, Dixon has averaged 9 games a year that are deemed “close” in his 11 year career, so this isn’t exactly new territory. But why is this? Why do Jamie Dixon’s teams play a lot of close games? They play SLOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW! Only once in his eleven years have they been in the top 200 in terms of tempo, couple that with the fact that they don’t take a lot of three’s and you take a lot of the variance out of the game, resulting in close games.
| Year | Tempo | Rank | 3PA/FGA | Rank |
| 2014 | 64 | 291 | 26.8 | 316 |
| 2013 | 60.7 | 337 | 26.3 | 214 |
| 2012 | 63.1 | 297 | 32.7 | 173 |
| 2011 | 62.9 | 318 | 27.4 | 292 |
| 2010 | 62.6 | 322 | 29.1 | 262 |
| 2009 | 66 | 186 | 29.3 | 264 |
| 2008 | 65.4 | 223 | 30.4 | 263 |
| 2007 | 63.4 | 293 | 29.4 | 270 |
| 2006 | 65.6 | 228 | 31.8 | 197 |
| 2005 | 65.1 | 250 | 29.5 | 250 |
| 2004 | 61.4 | 314 | 24.9 | 306 |
| Average | 63.65 | 278.09 | 28.87 | 255.18 |
There is some hope with it comes to the coaching front, Jamie Dixon’s teams do regress in terms of efficiency margin during the month of March.
[FONT=&]AEMFY = Average Efficiency Margin November to February[/FONT]
[FONT=&]AEMM = Average Efficiency Margin March
[/FONT]
| Seed | Team | Coach | AEMNF | AEMM | DIFF |
| 9 | Pittsburgh | Jamie Dixon | 22.5 | 20.9 | -1.7 |
This year’s Pittsburgh team is pretty much the same as the last 11 years of Dixon teams. They’re efficient on offense, they limit teams defensively, they don’t turn the ball over and they win a lot of games. In a nutshell, they’re a solid basketball team that isn’t going to beat themselves. CU has seen some good teams this year but some of the narratives of this Pittsburgh team look surprisingly like…..Arizona. Both play really solid half-court defense and limit transition opportunities, which is not a great sign for CU, CU needs to get out and run. What is even more impressive is that Pittsburgh, like Arizona, is able to grab offensive rebounds while still limiting opponents’ transition opportunities. We’ve seen teams like Wyoming, UCSB and Harvard completely ignore the offensive glass in an attempt to keep CU out of transition; Pittsburgh does not appear to be one of those teams that needs to do that. They grab 37.8% (19[SUP]th[/SUP] best) of their offensive rebounds while limiting opponents to taking only 18.8% (50[SUP]th[/SUP] best) of their initial field goal attempts in transition. CU takes 25.5% (54[SUP]th[/SUP]) of their initial field goal attempts in transition, keeping Pittsburgh off of the offensive glass and getting out into transition is going to be key in this game.
Lamar Patterson deserves his own section; he’s 8[SUP]th[/SUP] in KenPom’s Player of the Year Standings, behind Doug, McDermott, Russ Smith, Jabari Parker, Nick Johnson, Sean Kilpatrick, Shabazz Napier and Cleanthony Early, so he’s firmly in the “good” category. He does just about everything for Pittsburgh, and as I discussed earlier, Pittsburgh doesn’t shoot many 3’s, but every time one went up for Pitt this year odds are it came from him, he shot 39.5% of Pitt’s overall 3’s attempted (194 of 491), where he shot just shy of 40%. He’s also incredibly efficient given the number of shots he takes and possessions he uses. When he’s not shooting he’s involving his teammates, he accounts for 30% of the teams assists when he is on the floor. He’s also averaging the most amount of minutes on the team (80.1%) while only committing 2.6 fouls per 40 minutes.
I talked about “bench minutes” on pachoops.com a couple of weeks back, that teams that have fared well in the tourney tended to be teams that have short benches of go to guys. Pittsburgh plays their bench an average of 28% of the time (231[SUP]st[/SUP]) while CU has played their bench 32.6% of the time (125[SUP]th[/SUP]). With all of the injuries this year Tad and CU have had to experiment with lineups and go to guys, but there is an interesting trend the last 5 games. CU has most frequent lineup the last 5 games (Booker, Talton, XJ, Gordon and Scott) has played 39.5% of the minutes, the next closest lineup (Booker, Talton, Thomas, XJ and Scott) has only played 6.6% of the minutes. Meanwhile Pittsburgh’s most frequently used line-up is only playing 26.9% of the time, but their 2[SUP]nd[/SUP], 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] and 4[SUP]th[/SUP] most frequently used lineups all have been on the court for more than 10% of the time. Both teams go roughly 8 guys deep right now, but it’s interesting to see how those 8 guys time is allocated differently.
This game is likely to be ugly, likely to be close and likely going to come down to the wire. CU can’t waste a single possession, they can’t take quick low percentage shots and they can’t turn the ball over. There simply aren’t going to be enough possessions in this game for that to occur and even come close to a victory. Pittsburgh has only scored less than 1 point per possession 5 times this year, where CU has done that 14 times, including their last 8 (12 of the 14 times come post Dinwiddie).
Fun Facts:
- Colorado is 2-6 against NCAA tournament teams since the injury of its best player, Spencer Dinwiddie. It was 3-2 before the injury.
- Kentucky, Kansas, Colorado, and Texas are all in the top 10 for least experienced teams, per kenpom.
- Kenpom.com measures luck as “a team’s record compared to what they deserved based on their game by game efficiency.” By their rankings, Colorado, Saint Joe’s, Texas, NC State, Western Michigan, San Diego State, and Villanova were the luckiest teams in the field this year.
| Seed | Team | Off Eff | Def Eff | EM | W | L |
| 9 | Pittsburgh | 112.7 | 96.6 | 16.2 | 3 | 8 |
| 8 | Colorado | 105.1 | 98.7 | 6.3 | 5 | 8 |
[FONT=&]Last 10 Games – Who’s Hot?[/FONT]
| Seed | Team | Off Eff | Def Eff | EM | W | L |
| 9 | Pittsburgh | 116.9 | 99.7 | 17.2 | 5 | 5 |
| 8 | Colorado | 102.7 | 97.1 | 5.7 | 5 | 5 |
BUT LASTLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY
[video=youtube;WjJFZEhbsc8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjJFZEhbsc8[/video]
Last edited:
