The Auburn Victory - The Four Factors Perspective

by Stephen Expat on Feb 8, 2010 12:12 PM CST in Basketball Comment 6 comments

If you are unfamiliar with the Four Factors, you can read our oh-so-authoritative post on the concept by clicking here. For those familiar with the factors, it's interesting to see that Arkansas won Saturday's game while winning ~~only one of them~~ (CORRECTION: As Whit E. Knight notes in the comments thread below, the Razorbacks won two of the factors). The Hogs really have done a remarkable job of getting to the line lately (and shooting well when they get there). That has arguably been the backbone of their success during the past four games.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not surprising

This backs up my general impression that the Hogs have been playing terribly and still winning. Our defense continues to be abysmal, except in spurts. We are horrible at rebounding, and fail to take care of the ball. We are getting bailed out at the line in large part because Fortson drives in and initiates contact. So . . . with all that we are still leading the West. But Pelphrey certainly knows we have to get some stuff fixed or we are going nowhere. I remain a skeptic.

Arkansas Expats: Acting like the Lost Generation since at least 2007.

by J. Hawg 3 on Feb 8, 2010 5:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

In the interest of full context ...

If you look at these graphs from the three wins that preceded the Auburn victory, the Hogs fared much better in these stats, usually winning most the factors except for the rebounding one, where they routinely get whipped.

Arkansas Expats: Calling the Hogs from points way yonder.

by Stephen Expat on Feb 8, 2010 5:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It does?

I’m not sure any of those stats above imply that we’ve been “playing terribly”. Maybe the rebounding one does, but the rest don’t, at least in comparison.

by dxf04 on Feb 8, 2010 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't we win two of the four?

Unless I am understanding the chart wrong, the Hogs’ turnover percentage was lower. And field goal efficiency was close to a tie.

by Whit E. Knight on Feb 9, 2010 10:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The turnovers are a bit misleading...

The graph doesn’t go down to zero, so that little sliver represents 16%. I didn’t realize that at first. That’s atrocious, but still better than Auburn. Our “pure shooting” percentage was actually better, but that system rewards 3-pointers, and we all know ’Barn was draining them. So, I guess in a way, you could say we were playing bad… but not worse than Auburn.

by dxf04 on Feb 9, 2010 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs