clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Indiana and Gonzaga, toe to toe.

The numbers are courtesy Ken Pomeroy and Big Ten Wonk. You should know that, because you should be reading those guys anyway. The number in the parentheses is the national rank, with the Pomeroy weighted ranking as the second parenthetical number in the efficiency rankings:
Pace: Indiana 64 possessions per game (267/215); Gonzaga 69.4 possessions per game (82/108)
Offensive efficiency: Indiana 1.105 points per possession (37/9); Gonzaga 1.124 points per possession (22/31)
Defensive efficiency: Indiana .967 points per possession (59/42) ;Gonzaga .992 points per possession (97/79)

Pomeroy also uses some sort of method that I don't fully understand for adjusting the above statistics based upon the quality of opposition. In all of those measures, Indiana does better than its raw score and Gonzaga does worse.
Effective field goal percentage (extra credit for made three pointers): Indiana 52.4 (78); Gonzaga 54.5 (22)
Turnover percentage: Indiana 19.0 (61); Gonzaga 18.8 (51)
Offensive rebound percentage: Indiana 35.6 (91); Gonzaga 33.6 (163)
Effective field goal percentage: Indiana 46.7 (45); Gonzaga 46.6 (44)
Turnover percentage: Indiana 22.2 (101); Gonzaga 18.7 (295)
Offensive rebounding percentage: Indiana 32.5 (126); Gonzaga 29.9 (39)
So what does this tell us? Gonzaga plays faster, but Indiana is in the Big Ten, so that is understood. Both teams are efficient on offense, while IU is a bit tougher on defense. The two teams' offensive numbers are strikingly similar across the board. The main distinctions come on defense, where IU forces more turnovers and Gonzaga is a much better defensive rebounding team. Mitigating Gonzaga's advantages are IU's stronger schedule (hence IU's more favorable rating in Pomeroy's weighted stats) and the fact that Gonzaga lost its best big man because of a drug possession charge. IU is justifiably favored in this game.
More on the individuals later.