KenPom Numbers of Beilein Teams

Submitted by Hail-Storm on January 17th, 2018 at 2:06 PM


Beilein team Kenpom results
Year AdjO Rank O AdjD Rank D AdjOvAdjD Rank NCAA Tournament
2018 114.1 6 93.8 1 20.3 4  
2017 122.3 2 99.2 7 23.1 3 Sweet 16
2016 114.6 4 100.5 8 (Tie) 14.1 8 First round
2015 110 9 100.5 8 (Tie) 9.5 10 NA
2014 123.9 1 100.5 8 (Tie) 23.4 2 Elite 8
2013 121.9 3 94 2 27.9 1 Finals
2012 114.3 5 96.8 5 17.5 6 First Round
2011 112.8 7 95.1 3 17.7 5 Second Round
2010 107.4 10 95.9 4 11.5 9 NA
2009 112.2 8 97.5 6 14.7 7 Second Round
2008 104.4 11 101.7 11 2.7 11 NA
Average 114.4   97.8   16.6    
Std Dev 6.2   2.9   7.2    

Above is a quick look at Beilein's teams Kenpom AdjO, AdjD, AdjO vs AdjD, and the NCAA tournament result. 

A few things that stick out to me:

- This year's defense is the statistically (to Kenpom) the best of the Beilein era and similar to the 2013 team's D

- The offense is having a very average year so far with similar offensive results to 2016 and 2012

- The current unscientific expected results with this O and D would be to lose in second round or in sweet 16

- Since we would expect the team to not get better on their already best defensive year, the way for this team to improve is to be more efficient on offense.  They need to be at an offensive AdjO of around 117 to increase expectations of a Sweet 16 or Elite 8.  

- If they somehow were to get to offensive efficiency numbers of 2013, 2014, or 2017, the team could have a run to the finals and championship when paired with this defense.

This really isn't saying a whole lot, but I am avoiding doing my work after lunch, and found it interesting how good this defense is statistically and how average it is offensively. I know that Beilein offenses tend to pick up in second half of schedule, but I guess we will see. 



January 17th, 2018 at 2:18 PM ^

Do we know what the offensive numbers were in 2013 at this time (halfway through the year)? Because this team is still super young and learning to gel on offense so I’m wondering if the 2013 team, which was also super young, was better? Either way, the fact that that we have an amazing class coming in next year combined with our returning players (which should be most of the team) is enough reason to be very excited about the next couple years

gpsimms not to…

January 17th, 2018 at 2:28 PM ^

Didn't look anything up, but I'm fairly confident the 2013 team did not improve a ton offensively from their early season ratings. IIRC, that team started the year 15-0 or something like that and was briefly #1 in the polls.

This is not to say there is no case for this team to improve offensively, it is just to point out that the 2013 team does not likely bolster that argument.


January 17th, 2018 at 4:37 PM ^

Also not looking anything up, but:

2013 (Burke) was just a damn juggernaut except a weird stretch where Big Ten style and the grind of the conference season got to them in late February.  But still, just demolished most people most of the year.

2014 (Stauskas) took off in late December and destroyed everyone the whole year in Big Ten play.  Just a comically efficient offensive team that was last in two point FG% against and still won the conference easily.

2017 took longer to come together but once they got things working with the five out system started scoring a ton.  But really the swing last year was defensive effort.  You could maybe squint and see something like that coming together happening this year, but there's no one you expect to go all Walton on everybody.  Maybe Wagner starts hitting half of his threes and does usual Wagner things to poor centers that have to guard him or something.


January 17th, 2018 at 5:42 PM ^

for interim points of the season other than overall rank.  They started the season 12th (based on preseason projections) and climbed to #2 by the end of January after all the preseason weighing was out of the formula. So they had a great first half of the season.

They then scuffled to finish the regular season at 11th, which means they weren't even playing at a top 15 level in the second half of the season.  This stretch included a 23-point loss to MSU, a loss to 161st (!!) ranked PSU and a 5-5 finish to the conference slate.  Then they lost to Wisconsin in the first round of the BTT.

It was a weird Beilein year, for sure, and you're correct that we came out of the gates elite, stumbled, then returned to form (although we were like that last year, except we stumbled a bit earlier and a bit worse but recovered earlier as well). Thank goodness for that incredible comeback against Kansas or that year would have been a huge disappointment.  With that comeback, subsequent throttling of Florida and win over Syracuse, they did climb back up to fourth overall for the course of the season.


January 17th, 2018 at 2:50 PM ^

I would bet that the offensive efficiency numbers were lower during the first third of the season. Many of the players have improved offensively since the beginning of the year including Z, Duncan Robinson, Livers, and Poole. These numbers will rise by the end of the regular season. I do not believe that the offensive numbers will be near 2013 level, but it may be hovering around the 117 range instead of 114. Beilein just recently inserted Livers into the starting lineup and continues to give Poole more minutes, for example. There's no way this team could have beaten MSU a month ago.


January 17th, 2018 at 3:00 PM ^

had anything close to their AdjO number at this time of the year.

Another nice point, is that after both 2012 and 2013 years of AdjO ratings of ~114, there was a jump to ~122 AdjO. If we extrapolate these two points to this year, we definitely be booking our seats to the championship game next year.  I mean, stats never lie to tell us only the story we want to hear, right?

It will be cool to have both a National Championship in basketball and football in the same year too. Even crazier when Michigan is the first school to go back to back in both sports in same years. 

snarling wolverine

January 17th, 2018 at 3:35 PM ^

College basketball is a guard-dominated game and we had the best player in the country (Trey Burke) at point guard that year, so it's not surprising our offensive rating was super-high.  This year we've taken some time to figure out the PG spot.  With Simpson having taken control (as well as Livers taking over the 4) I think we'll see our rating gradually rise.


January 17th, 2018 at 3:48 PM ^

they mostly have around 30-34 rating in AdjO vs AdjD. Like many have said though, Michigan teams tend to rise and peak at the end of the season rather than the beginning.  I expect a nice rise in AdjO, that will actually be better than showing, becuase the beginning half of the year will be bringing the overall efficiency of the offense down.  The new lineup is only 3 games old with the switch of Livers for Duncan.  The free throws are definitely going to keep this offense down if they can't getup into the 70% as a team. 


January 17th, 2018 at 2:32 PM ^

I don't feel like looking up how kenpom works or what any of these abbreviations, nomenclature or numbers mean. Can someone Cliffs Notes it for me and others of my ilk?

Wallaby Court

January 17th, 2018 at 2:43 PM ^

KenPom produces tempo-free, opponent-adjusted statistics. Tempo-free means the statistics are calculated on a possession basis to correct for the differences in counting statistics caused by teams that play faster or slower. Opponent-adjusted means exactly what it sounds like. The raw numbers get tweaked to account for the strength of a team's opponents.

As applied to the OP's table, AdjO is the number of points the team is expected to score against an average D1 opponent over 100 possessions. AdjD is the number of points the team is expected to surrender to an average D1 opponent over 100 possessions. The final column is the difference between AdjO and AdjD and roughly represents the scoring margin over 100 possessions against an average D1 opponent.


January 17th, 2018 at 2:38 PM ^

into his stuff. But what I used is

AdjO – Adjusted offensive efficiency – An estimate of the offensive efficiency (points scored per 100 possessions) a team would have against the average D-I defense.

AdjD – Adjusted defensive efficiency – An estimate of the defensive efficiency (points allowed per 100 possessions) a team would have against the average D-I offense.

The 3rd column is just me subtracting the AdjD from the AdjO. 


January 17th, 2018 at 2:42 PM ^

Great post but factors in only half this year but the entire season for previous years. JB teams usually improve, and this year is no exception. Would be curious to see these same stats in previous years but through 20 games.


January 17th, 2018 at 4:16 PM ^

We're dominating on the defensvie glass, thanks to Mo being awesome at it this year (and Teske being a lot better than Donnal was) which means we give up very few second chances.

Also, our block rate is up 2 percent.  Block rate and opponent 2 pt percentage are significantly inversely correlated and our 2 pt percent against is down 3.6 percent with that increased block rate. This is mostly a result of Teske being as good as DJ was last year at blocking shots, Mo being better this year, and Matthews being a significant upgrade over Irvin at blocking shots.


January 17th, 2018 at 4:30 PM ^

I admit to being very down on him last year, but after seeing about three games this year (his double-double was instrumental in putting things away against So Miss), I was fully on and being a vocal member of the #FreeTeske bandwagon.  He's been really solid.


January 17th, 2018 at 4:27 PM ^

continued to get better, considering that we were in the 30s or so just a few games ago when Duncan had played the majority of our minutes.  With Livers playing 20+, that number has dropped all the way to 15th. That can only happen if we've essentially been playing top 10 defense the past few games (which we have).  If that continues, and we have reason to believe it's sustainable because we weren't even getting good 3 pt luck in that stretch, the overall number should keep going down.

We're playing at an incredibly high level right now on the defensive end and I never thought I'd see a Beilein team do that.  Incredible what a change in philosophy (guard the threes!), hiring D coordinators, and emphasizing defense a bit more in recruiting (Teske, Z, Livers) will do for you.

As for offense, I'm not sure our FT shooting gets much better.  Matthews probably is what he is on that end, at least for this year without some serious work.  Simpson might improve because I think it's mental.  Hopefully he does improve, but he still shoots a small share of FTs compared to Matthews (who is the primary player bringing it down).  Still we don't shoot many FTs so this isn't a huge negative right now and won't be a huge impact if we get a little better.

I do think we'll continue to see our 3 pt percentage increase because Z is really going full Darius Morris with his drives and kicks for open shots, Poole is getting more minutes, and Livers and Wagner seem to have their strokes.  That is the path to being a top 25 offense.

Exciting stuff overall!


January 17th, 2018 at 5:16 PM ^

I had focused on the offense, but forgot about that critical switch on the defensive side and what that has done for the team.  Looking at the 1 seeds, most have much better defensive rankings than what Michigan teams have. If the offense can get a few points better and defense can get a few points better, this should be a great tournament team. 


January 17th, 2018 at 5:34 PM ^

Livers, Poole and Simpson are getting better as the year goes on (ignoring all the missed layups by Simpson on Monday).  I think Robinson will improve by coming off the bench as a gunner rather than being a starter.  He shot 42% from 3-pt last year and 45% 2 years ago.  He's at 37% this year.  He's due to get better. 

Obviously we need Wagner to keep being a star, and Matthews has to keep delivering his 15 every game  Hard to know if that will happen.