That one is straight forward - yet to wrap my head around whether it's a direct correlation to "best" offense. These are interesting figures.
Illini Basketball 2026-2027
In the span of 9 games, we lost 4 games in OT. It seems like if 1-2 of those games fall the other way, we would've been squarely in the 2-seed range. I believe bracketmatrix had us at a 2 up until we lost in OT to Wisconsin on 3/13 (for the second time).
Indeed, even though we lost to MSU it seemed like we were pretty firmly the best of the 3's, especially when we were fully healthy.
Trying to determine "best" will be a timeless debate just because it's abstract, requires historical nuance, and there's so many stats you can rely on to argue one way or another. There's many arguments you could make for MJ being the best NBA player of all time, for Bill Russell being the best of all time, and for Lebron being the best of all time. No matter what, there will never be a majority consensus.
To your point with 24 UConn v. 26 Purdue, Purdue was the best at maximizing offensive efficiency. UConn was the best at winning basketball games in the NCAA tournament by total combined margin of victory. UConn also needed a great defense to do this, so hard to say which is "best".
Easily. Team was 100% 2 seed caliber, if not upper 2, which is how it played out getting to the F4.
I generally saw us, UConn and Florida as the next 3. Then Iowa St, Purdue and Houston in the next three.
Not to mention all of the muddiness of not only NIL, fluctuation of median AdjO/AdjD, and even rule changes (thinking "freedom of movement" officiating epidemic: no hand-checking, block/charge arc, bumping of cutters gets whistled now, etcetera, but also the 3 point line moved back 1.5 feet in 2019)
Hear yeah - best not right word as much as effective, better yet tourney effective. Serve me up any stat that leads to smashing teams in the tournament.
Last edited:
Even just compared to 2024, there are fewer mid-range shots (~26% of shots nationally in 2024, ~22% in 2026), and more of everything else:
You bring up a good point about the decline of the middle of the pack, but that just makes it surprising that recent top offenses don't stand out more when they are compared to the yearly mean while top (overall) teams' net efficiency has. So where has that boost in net efficiency for top overall teams come from?
Here's the AdjO+ (AdjO / NCAA average) for Torvik's #1 overall team since 2018:
And here's the AdjD- (AdjD / NCAA avg)for Torvik's #1 overall team since 2018 (lower is better):
Over this time range, the top overall team on Torvik hasn't been getting better on offense (compared to the national average), but they have on defense.
From 2018-2023, teams that were stronger on offense were weaker on defense (and vice versa) by enough to keep them all in a certain range for net efficiency. But in 2024, UConn broke that trend with the #1 offense and #4 defense- neither was historic on its own, but the combination was unique going back to at least 2018. Houston and Michigan had a similar net efficiency by pairing offenses that were typical of #1-overall teams (or slightly below) with defenses that were uniquely good.
He tweaked his back during a workout. Nothing major but spent some time on the sidelines.
Problem was it was in the thick of the practices teaching scheme and different sets.
I wouldn't be surprised if mid season everything clicks and he's a top 5 player. (Behind dre, mirc, colemen, vaaks) His talent level is that high.
Use Torvik for your data, because your stats are wrong.
This was Illinois points per possession in 2026:
…..
This was Purdue’s points per possession in 2026:
….
This was Duke’s points per possession in 2025:
…..
1. Duke at 1.251 (2025)
2. Illinois at 1.250 (2026)
3. Purdue at 1.248 (2026)
Last edited:
Purdue points per possession last year: 1.248
UConn points per possession in 2024: 1.233
Remember, we’re talking about quality of offense (not quality of the entire team).
Aw man, I was sure I was looking at PPP... wonder what I was looking at
the numbers look similar enough maybe it was another site measuring possessions differently? Weird.Edit: Quick research uncovers that different sources do measure # of possessions differently.
So on your website (Torvik) instead of 1st by .001 we're 2nd by .001?
Last edited:
The graph below shows overall average efficiency from 1997-2026 from KenPom. I believe the jump from 2013 to 2014 was from the 2013 rules expansion, while a number of factors have contributed to the recent rise in efficiency, including block/charge rules change, along with freedom of movement, shot selection, etc.
1) # possessions is not a straight-forward stat. Handling of technical fouls, free throws awarded on loose rebounds when no player is credited with a rebound, etc. Different stat databases have their own methods.
2) Someone (perhaps NarrowJ) brought this up a while ago, and I recently saw Brad on video mention: our analytical approach to recruiting values 3-point shot creation in late shot-clock scenarios. The outcomes are better than if you drive the ball. In the tournament, # fouls/game is slightly higher than in the regular season, but there are actually fewer free throws - driving is less likely to be rewarded. The guards who tormented the Illini in the regular season (Dent, Fears, Smith, Wisconsin duo) were far less successful in the tournament. I think that group collectively shot under 30% in like 11 total games.
2) Someone (perhaps NarrowJ) brought this up a while ago, and I recently saw Brad on video mention: our analytical approach to recruiting values 3-point shot creation in late shot-clock scenarios. The outcomes are better than if you drive the ball. In the tournament, # fouls/game is slightly higher than in the regular season, but there are actually fewer free throws - driving is less likely to be rewarded. The guards who tormented the Illini in the regular season (Dent, Fears, Smith, Wisconsin duo) were far less successful in the tournament. I think that group collectively shot under 30% in like 11 total games.
Last year and the TSJ year firmly lead me to believe the difference between a two seed and a three is minimal.
Torvik and KenPom are the most community trusted.
And Torvik’s points per possession scored (raw offense), points per possession given up (raw defense), possessions per 40 min (raw tempo) are the same as KenPom’s for every team. I’ve checked.
Illinois ppp on Torvik: 125.0
Illinois ppp on Kenpom: 125.0
Illinois raw tempo on Torvik: 65.7
Illinois raw tempo on Kenpom: 65.7
Illinois ppp defense on Torvik: 103.2
Illinois ppp defense on Kenpom: 103.2
You can do it for every team. It’s the same for those two sources.
Last edited:
Seems its all in the FT rate multiplier.. some sites use .44 some use .40 some use .475
Looks like KP & Torvik both use .475 which explains why the output is 1:1
Yes.
More examples:
Michigan PPP on Torvik: 121.7
Michigan PPP on KenPom: 121.7
Michigan PPP defense on Torvik: 97.5
Michigan PPP defense on Kenpom: 97.5
Michigan raw tempo on Torvik: 71.4
Michigan raw tempo on Kenpom: 71.4
…..
Purdue PPP on Torvik: 124.8
Purdue PPP on Kenpom: 124.8
Purdue PPP defense on Torvik: 108.1
Purdue PPP defense on Kenpom: 108.1
Purdue raw tempo on Torvik: 65.2
Purdue raw tempo on Kenpom: 65.2
…..
Duke PPP on Torvik: 122.0
Duke PPP on Kenpom: 122.0
Duke PPP defense on Torvik: 95.4
Duke PPP defense on Kenpom: 95.4
Duke raw tempo on Torvik: 66.8
Duke raw tempo on Kenpom: 66.8
…..
One takeaway after all this baloney: playing in a bad conference boosts your points per possession (shocker).
Gonzaga had the best points per possession defense in the country at 94.2.
But, their adjusted defensive rating on Kenpom is 12th.
P.S. ran out of time to edit: seeing the raw ratings on Torvik is completely free. But seeing them on Kenpom requires a subscription.
I do not have a subscription to Kenpom, but Kenpom posted this screenshot on his blog (the one that RollCheif has been posting; its a free article), and from there I can compare the raw ratings he has to the raw ratings Torvik has:
His raw ratings are the same as the raw ratings listed on Torvik for each of these teams.
Last edited:
I get it. Isolating offenses alone, I don't see a close comparison. I watched a lot of both of those teams, I can't even identify where Purdue could be better. That Uconn team was lauded for having one of the most inventive and high executing offenses of the current era. The actions were constantly finding open shots, backdoor cuts, lob dunks, easy buckets and their entire starting lineup was lottery picks and drafted players.Purdue points per possession last year: 1.248
UConn points per possession in 2024: 1.233
Remember, we’re talking about quality of offense (not quality of the entire team).
Last year Purdue's core was TKR, Smith and Loyer, same three guys were on the team with all-world efficient Zach Edey in 2024.
This is where a data point really distorts reality. Edey opened up so much for the perimeter on that 2024 team, and he was the only NBA player on the either roster.
I wonder if there is a way to isolate these efficiencies against the top % of a schedule. Like Gonzaga often does, gaming efficiencies against a lot of mediocre opponents is something I often wonder about. Gonzaga was close to top 10 in KP most of last year and they weren't very good.
The two best offenses I've witnessed in the last 15-20 years, based on the eye test, were 2018 Nova and 2024 UConn. Both of their rosters chock full of NBA players.
It would be interesting to isolate our PPP against top 20% of schedule to see what it looks like: UConn 2x, Michigan, MSU, Purdue, Houston, Bama, Texas Tech.
Totally agree. You're facing each other in the S16, get a general buy game in the first round these days. So the only major difference is playing a 7 seed vs a 6 to get to that S16 game.
Seems like you're stating your opinion and how it feels to you, rather than any data or fact to back it up.
Also, a team's offense is entirely different from a team's overall stature. A team's overall stature is about defense and offense. A team's offense is exclusively about the offense.
I have the Torvik ADJ offense ratings for both: each team AND the D1 average.
Here’s every top 2 offense each season; their ratings divided by the national average.
….
2026:
National average was 109.3. Purdue and Illinois were the #1 and #2 offenses.
Purdue: 133.3 / 109.3 = 1.220
Illinois: 131.8 / 109.3 = 1.209
….
2025:
National average was 106.7. Duke and Florida were the #1 and #2 offenses.
Duke: 130.6 / 106.7 = 1.224
Florida: 127.8 / 106.7 = 1.198
….
2024:
National average was 105.5. UCONN and Alabama were the #1 and #2 offenses.
UCONN: 128.0 / 105.5 = 1.213
Alabama: 126.1 / 105.5 = 1.195
(note: even with this logic, Purdue's offense in 2026 is supreme to UCONN's in 2024)
….
2023:
National average was 104.1. Gonzaga and Baylor were the #1 and #2 offenses.
Gonzaga: 123.2 / 104.1 = 1.183
Baylor: 121.7 / 104.1 = 1.169
….
2022:
National average was 102.3. Duke and Purdue were the #1 and #2 offenses.
Duke: 122.7 / 102.3 = 1.199
Purdue: 121.6 / 102.3 = 1.189
….
2021:
National average was 102.2. Gonzaga and Baylor were the #1 and #2 offenses.
Gonzaga: 125.9 / 102.2 = 1.232
Baylor: 124.9 / 102.2 = 1.222
….
If you want the team that was the furthest ahead of their time, I’m pretty sure it’s going to be 2015 Wisconsin.
2015 national average was 104.3.
Wisconsin’s rating was 130.5 / 104.3 = 1.251 (I don’t think anyone has come close to touching that ratio; at least since offenses have been tracked)
Last edited:
Yes, you can see adjusted ratings against exclusively Quad 1 teams.
Illinois had the 3rd best offense in the country against Quad 1 opponents:
And the 4th best against Quad 1A opponents:
Last edited:
I think 2021 Gonzaga is the only modern team to come close, with a delta of 24.2 (on kenpom, but similar idea and data).
The far and away best offense based on delta from average was 99 Duke, their KP delta was 27.4