Defense Does NOT Win Championships

Being able to defend is important, but BALANCE is what differentiates good NCAA Tournament teams from championship ones.

(REMEMBER TO LOG IN AND RECOMMEND THIS STORY)

“Defense wins championships …”

Much like an old, broken record (or a Pitbull song), this age-old affirmative basketball adage simply refuses to go away. And come each and every March, college hoops’ talking heads ensure that the tired cliché maintains a higher usage rate than 2003 Carmelo Anthony and 2008 Steph Curry combined.

In reality, the “truism” is more unfounded myth than anything else, mostly because it is a warm, comfortable security blanket for those who are unwilling or unable to dig deeper and prove that their knowledge is something more than illusion or red herring.

With “Defense Wins Championships,” all the experts’ bases are covered. If the defensive-minded team comes out on top, the myth is again validated. If the offensive-minded team prevails, it’s chalked up to “lights-out shooting,” “the bounce of the ball,” or a “once in a lifetime performance.” Essentially, it’s either abberation or confirmation of the obvious; there is no middle ground.

To the contrary, you almost never hear anyone say, “Offense Wins Championships.” That would be crazy talk. Anarchy! Such a position would be too dependent, too unpredictable, and far too bold. But doesn’t “luck favor the bold?” In fact, I would argue that in March, luck is as essential to a team’s success as knowing how to find TruTv on the cable guide is to the college basketball fan. (I’m still searching, by the way.)

A recent post on Shane Ryan’s Tobacco Road Blues identified “imbalanced” teams over the past 13 years, and how they’ve fared in tournaments past. Imbalanced, in this case, is defined as being ranked in the top-10 in defensive or offensive efficiency, while also being ranked 70th or worse in the other category.

Inspired by Shane’s research, I wanted to explore this inquiry even further to understand if an imbalanced team would have a better chance at NCAA Tournament success with a top-10 offense or a top-10 defense in its imbalanced quest for the national championship.

I analyzed data back to 2002, the first year in which Ken Pomeroy began tracking the relevant statistics in college basketball. Over the 12 years period that included last season, I found a total of 101 imbalanced teams.

The data makes plainly obvious what we would expect: imbalanced teams generally don’t possess great shelf lives in the Big Dance. Ryan, of course, posited this conclusion in his MoneyBrackets piece for Grantland, wisely advising prospective bracketologists to avoid such squads.

But, after combing through years of KenPom ratings, I wanted to find out (definitively?) what type of imbalanced team has a better chance of surviving the tourney: offensive juggernauts or defensive fortresses?

First, let’s look at the 19 (of 101) teams since 2002 whose imbalance kept them from even earning a tournament bid. 13 of those were top-10 in defense; just six were notable for their offensive prowess. By this metric, anyway, it would seem that if you are going to be imbalanced, it’s better to lean offense — if you want to qualify for the postseason.

Similarly, of the imbalanced teams that did garner a bid (and made it to the Sweet 16), 11 were stronger offensively versus six that were superior on the defensive end of the floor. Furthermore, of the only three imbalanced teams that made it to the Elite 8, all of their imbalances skewed toward offense.

The lone aberration is the 2012 Louisville team. That Rick Pitino-led squad rode its top-ranked defense all the way to the Final Four despite its 116th-ranked offense. That’s what we call an exception to the rule. On a whole, the data suggests that better offense is more vital to a longer tournament run than better defense. (Assuming the team is unbalanced, of course.)

Once again, a closer look suggests that better offense tends to garner better results. Since 2002, the average offensive efficiency ranking for championship teams is seventh, and their average defensive efficiency ranking is ninth. (Removing outliers like last year’s UConn team, the offensive rank actually jumps to fourth.)

Note the yellow “average difference” measure mentioned earlier. Since 2002, no imbalanced team has made it to the Championship Game, as the average difference between offensive and defensive efficiency rankings is 17.77 points (runner-ups) and 8.23 points (winners).

Essentially, more balance = more Tournament wins = more Championships.

This year, there are seven imbalanced teams in the mix: Notre Dame, Iowa St., San Diego St., Louisville, Davidson, Indiana and Butler. (Spoiler Alert: Iowa St. was eliminated already, while Butler and Notre Dame advanced.)

So, if you filled out your bracket and felt an affinity for one of these squads, you’d have been better off trusting the offensive teams. Teams like Louisville and San Diego St are defensive juggernauts, but their offenses are ranked 95th and 162nd respectively. No, thank you.

Hopefully, you leaned toward the most balanced teams in this year’s field. Safe bets included Kentucky (5th on offense, 2nd on defense), Villanova (4th, 13th), Arizona (11th, 3rd,), and Utah (18th, 8th). A few of the less trendy options that were better selections than you’d think were Northern Iowa (15th, 16th) and Wichita St. (#20, #15).

Clearly, imbalance does not a champion make, but neither does defense (alone). Let’s see how things shake out over the next two weeks, but no matter how many times we hear that silly three-word phrase repeated over the next two weeks, it will be a balanced team that is the one left standing.

(Note: All efficiency rankings courtesy of Kenpom.com and are post-tournaments.)