I’m a big fan of Ken Pomeroy, and the work he does. The numbers and statistical analysis he provides can be quite illuminating. They are, however, just numbers. Here’s an important link to explaining what his numbers are and the formulas used and this one. I’ve noticed some complaints about the Pomerory Ratings because Pitt is listed 43 (hey, Omar).

The ratings are based on an order using a pythagorean winning percentage. It is not some secret formula that only Pomeroy knows. It combines the adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency into an expected winning percentage. Pitt suffers in part because a lot of the teams it has faced so far are down in the RPI, bringing down the SOS at the moment. 7 opponents have RPIs in the 100s, plus Duquesne is near the very bottom, in the 300s. It will change as the season goes on. It is not a planned attack on Pitt.

Right now, the best numbers to look at are not in some ratings, but in the scouting reports for teams. Like say to compare Pitt and Wisconsin for tomorrow.

Both teams try to keep the tempo slowed to their liking. Pitt’s adjusted pace is about 3 possessions slower (63.0 to 66.1). As to their efficiencies on offense and defense, Pitt has been a bit better on offense (118.5 to 113.9) while Wisconsin has been a little better on defense (90.5 to 96.0). The edge in defense can be attributed to two areas where Wisconsin holds a noticeable edge. Forcing turnovers and 3-point defense.

Pitt, admits to not being a team that stresses the turnovers on defense.

“We’re a very solid defensive team, we don’t gamble much,” said Antonio Graves laughing when he was asked about the Panthers relative lack of steals. “We are willing to be patient and let the offense run down the shot clock and take a bad shot. We are a very structured defense. We have rules in our defense and if we stick to those we can get a lot of things done.”

That in part is also why Pitt has great rebounding numbers, as well. Letting teams get bad shots and cleaning them up. As for 3-point defense, well Mr. Pomeroy had a great piece on ESPN.com this week talking about how overrated 3-point defense can be (subs. only).

This can be taken one step further by invoking the constant battle between offense and defense. It seems like a hot 3-point shooting team can be immune to a good defense, to some extent. Likewise, a poor 3-point shooting is not helped so much by playing a poor perimeter defense.

Fortunately, long-term data tends to confirm this notion when looking at the variance of team 3-point percentages. Year in and year out, offensive 3-point shooting has more variation than defensive 3-point shooting. For example, last season, 14 offenses finished with a 3-point accuracy less than 30 percent, while only three defenses did. That effect doesn’t exist in 2-point accuracy, where the variance among teams is almost exactly the same on offense and defense.

This tells me that the defense has as much control over the opponents shooting inside the arc as the opposing offense does. But outside the arc, the offense has slightly more influence than the defense. When we only look at a few games, that effect can be exaggerated. How can we use this information to our advantage in mid-December? I’ve got a couple of examples.

The examples he cites are Oregon and Michigan State. Thinking about Pitt, I think we can agree that a poor shooting night by the offense — how about 2-17 on 3s versus Robert Morris — can be a bigger impact than the perimeter defense.