How important is defense to a deep run in March Madness?
Seemingly every year, teams with high-octane offenses and superb shooting enter March Madness with high expectations, and seemingly every year the three-point well dries up and the chaos of the single-elimination tournament claims victims.
This article was originally published Feb. 18, 2019, and does not include the 2019 Men’s NCAA Tournament.
Shooters Shoot
In 2018, No. 3 seed Michigan State met No. 11 seed Syracuse in the second round. Michigan State averaged 41.3 percent from deep for the season, fifth-best in the country, and posted 81 point per contest. The Spartans shot 8-of-37 (21.6 percent) from behind the arc in that game and lost 55-53.
In 2014, No. 3 seed Creighton entered the tournament as the best three-point shooting team in the country at 42.1 percent and averaged 79.5 points per game. In the second round against No. 6 seed Baylor, the Bluejays proceeded to shoot 5-of-24 (20.8 percent) from outside and were shellacked 85-55.
In 2010, No. 1 seed Kansas was fifth-best nationwide from three at 40.9 percent and scored 81.8 points per game. In the second round against No. 9 seed Northern Iowa, though, the Jayhawks were 6-of-23 (26.1 percent) from deep and fell 69-67.
These are only three examples, and plenty of teams known for shooting have done well in the tournament. But teams that rely on it heavily often hear and experience the old adage, “live and die by the three.”
It begs the question: if a lid on the basket can send a prolific offensive team packing, is defense more reliable? How well do teams that “live and die by defense” perform?
KenPom has made his advanced data on college basketball available since 2002. With those questions in mind, I compiled information on every team that finished in the top 10 in defensive efficiency from 2002-2018, looking into seeding, performance, the quality of non-champions’ conquerors, offensive efficiency and overall KenPom ranking.
Of the 170 teams through the 17 years, only 19 did not play in the NCAA Tournament, which includes two teams banned from the postseason (2010 USC and 2016 Louisville). Of the 151 to participate in March Madness, 90 made it to the second weekend, meaning 33.09 percent of teams to reach the Sweet 16 in that time frame were top 10 in defense efficiency.
What happened to the teams that lost in the first two rounds or didn’t make The Big Dance at all?
Let’s take it step by step: 16 of the 17 teams that were eligible but didn’t earn a spot in the tournament had an offensive efficiency ranking above 100, with 2010 Dayton the only one to finish in the top 100 at 86 (and would go on to win the NIT that year).
Twenty-seven teams lost in the first round. The average offensive efficiency ranking among those teams is 98.04. Now let’s add some context.
Two of those teams, 2004 Richmond and 2005 Minnesota, lost to other top 10 defensive teams. If you remove them from the average, it becomes 95.8. Now consider that six of the original 27 were 10 seeds or worse, meaning a first-round win would have required an upset.
Looking at the teams seeded 9 or better in March Madness and excluding No. 8 seed 2005 Minnesota, which limits the scope to the top-10 defensive teams that were either in a toss-up game or the favored seed to win only in games against non-top 10 defensive teams, the average rises to 80.9. Only five of those teams (2002 Florida, 2016 West Virginia, 2018 Virginia, 2007 Duke and 2006 Kansas) were ranked in the top 50 offensively for their respective seasons, and no team was better than 19.
Now focusing on the teams that lost in the second round, we see a significant increase in offensive ranking, with those 34 teams averaging at 52.68. Six of those teams lost to other top 10 defensive teams and two more lost to the eventual national champions. Of the remaining 26, only eight were outside of the top 50 offensively, and most of those eight lost to much higher or similarly seeded squads. In addition, 12 of the 34 were ranked in the top 25 offensively, including second-ranked 2010 Kansas and seventh-ranked 2002 Cincinnati, both No. 1 seeds.
Does Defense Equal Championships?
Looking at it from the opposite direction of the most successful teams, 10 national champions since 2002 finished in the top 10 in defense. Nine finished in the top 10 in offensive efficiency, too, except 2014 Connecticut, which managed to win the program’s fifth national title with the 39th-most efficient offense.
There’s an offensive drop off in top 10 defensive teams that lost in the National Championship Game, with only two of those 11 teams finishing in the top 10 offensively (2005 Illinois and 2008 Memphis). In fact, six of those teams managed to come within one game of winning the whole thing without a top 25 offense, with 2010 Butler and its 49th-ranked offense bringing up the rear.
Of the 151 top 10 defensive teams to qualify for the tournament, 35 made the Final Four. Only three of them finished outside the top 50 in offensive efficiency: 2006 LSU at 62, 2017 South Carolina at 91 and 2012 Louisville at 112. Push it back to the Elite Eight, coming to a total of 58 top 10 defensive teams, and only one extra team made it that far without a top 50 offense: 2015 Louisville at 66.
Go back another round to include the Sweet 16 (jumping up to 90 teams) and all but 10 were top 50 in offensive efficiency.
From the data provided since 2002, it seems that in most cases, top 10 defensive teams need some amount of offense in order to make a deep run. If your team is too imbalanced toward defense, you have a great chance of not making the Sweet 16, or worse, not even making the field of 68. There are outliers, and in a tournament known for mayhem and unpredictability, there’s no question it will happen again. But for every 2012 Louisville and 2014 Connecticut, there are more like 2018 Virginia, 2013 Georgetown, 2016 West Virginia, 2002 Florida and 2004 Stanford.
While teams heavily reliant on defense can make deep runs in March, teams with some firepower on offense as a supplement have fared better since 2002.
This isn’t to say that having great defense doesn’t help. Every year since 2002 except 2010, more than half of the top 10 defense teams that made the tournament advanced to at least the Sweet 16, and in that lone year exactly half of the top 10 made it. But that doesn’t change the overall data.
This season (as of Sunday, Feb. 17), Texas Tech (64), VCU (201), Kansas State (105) and Florida (99) are currently top 10 defensively in KenPom with offensive rankings outside of the top 50, some much further from the mark than others. While we learned that no team can truly be counted out for a run in March, I have some advice for those heavily defensive-reliant teams: practice offense.
For a full chart of all the information used in this article, hit the button below!
Because it’s too massive to include in any article, if you want to scan through my research, you can download the Excel file below. It covers All Teams, Sweet 16 vs Worse, Breakdown by Round, and All Final Four.
Sweet 16 or Better
2018 (5/9)
3. Michigan – NCG (3-seed, 7 OVA, 35 OFF, 1C)
4. Texas Tech – Elite Eight (3-seed, 11 OVA, 50 OFF, 1C)
5. Syracuse – Sweet 16 (11-seed, 41 OVA, 135 OFF, 2*)
7. Clemson – Sweet 16 (5-seed, 14 OVA, 44 OFF, 1)
9. Duke – Elite Eight (2-seed, 3 OVA, 3 OFF, 1)
2017 (6/8)
1. Gonzaga – NCG (1-seed, 1 OVA, 16 OFF, 1C)
3. South Carolina – Final Four (7-seed, 24 OVA, 91 OFF, 1*)
4. West Virginia – Sweet 16 (4-seed, 7 OVA, 26 OFF, 1*)
5. Florida – Elite Eight (4-seed, 5 OVA, 25 OFF, 7*)
7. Kentucky – Elite Eight (2-seed, 4 OVA, 12 OFF, 1C)
9. Wisconsin – Sweet 16 (8-seed, 21 OVA, 33 OFF, 4*)
2016 (4/7)
3. Kansas – Elite Eight (1-seed, 3 OVA, 10 OFF, 2*)
5. Villanova – National Champs (2-seed, 1 OVA, 3 OFF)
7. Virginia – Elite Eight (1-seed, 4 OVA, 8 OFF, 10)
9. Texas A&M – Sweet 16 (3-seed, 18 OVA, 37 OFF, 2)
2015 (5/9)
1. Kentucky – Final Four (1-seed, 1 OVA, 6 OFF, 1)
3. Arizona – Elite Eight (2-seed, 4 OVA, 7 OFF, 1)
4. Louisville – Elite Eight (4-seed, 17 OVA, 66 OFF, 7)
6. Utah – Sweet 16 (5-seed, 8 OVA, 17 OFF, 1C)
7. Oklahoma – Sweet 16 (3-seed, 11 OVA, 46 OFF, 7)
2014 (6/10)
1. Arizona – Elite Eight (1-seed, 2 OVA, 20 OFF, 2)
3. Florida – Final Four (1-seed, 3 OVA, 19 OFF, 7C)
4. Virginia – Sweet 16 (1-seed, 4 OVA, 27 OFF, 4)
5. Louisville – Sweet 16 (4-seed, 1 OVA, 7 OFF, 8)
7. San Diego State – Sweet 16 (4-seed, 23 OVA, 86 OFF, 1*)
10. Connecticut – National Champs (7-seed, 15 OVA, 39 OFF)
2013 (6/9)
1. Louisville – National Champs (1-seed, 1 OVA, 7 OFF)
3. Florida – Elite Eight (3-seed, 2 OVA, 9 OFF, 4)
5. Kansas – Sweet 16 (1-seed, 8 OVA, 27 OFF, 4)
6. Syracuse – Final Four (4-seed, 9 OVA, 26 OFF, 4)
7. Michigan State – Sweet 16 (3-seed, 10 OVA, 29 OFF, 2)
9. Ohio State – Elite Eight (2-seed, 7 OVA, 14 OFF, 9)
2012 (6/10)
1. Louisville – Final Four (4-seed, 7 OVA, 112 OFF, 1C*)
2. Michigan State – Sweet 16 (1-seed, 3 OVA, 17 OFF, 4*)
3. Kansas – NCG (2-seed, 4 OVA, 23 OFF, 1C*)
4. Ohio State – Final Four (2-seed, 2 OVA, 6 OFF, 2*)
7. Kentucky – National Champs (1-seed, 1 OVA, 2 OFF)
8. Wisconsin – Sweet 16 (4-seed, 8 OVA, 25 OFF, 1)
2011 (5/8)
1. Florida State – Sweet 16 (10-seed, 35 OVA, 147 OFF, 11)
2. San Diego State – Sweet 16 (2-seed, 8 OVA, 28 OFF, 3C)
5. North Carolina – Elite Eight (2-seed, 15 OVA, 49 OFF, 4)
6. Kansas – Elite Eight (1-seed, 3 OVA, 6 OFF, 11)
9. Duke – Sweet 16 (1-seed, 2 OVA, 5 OFF, 5)
2010 (4/8)
4. Purdue – Sweet 16 (4-seed, 15 OVA, 65 OFF, 1C*)
5. Duke – National Champs (1-seed, 1 OVA, 1 OFF)
6. Kentucky – Elite Eight (1-seed, 4 OVA, 22 OFF, 2)
7. Butler – NCG (5-seed, 12 OVA, 49 OFF, 1C*)
2009 (6/9)
1. Memphis – Sweet 16 (2-seed, 4 OVA, 37 OFF, 3)
2. Louisville – Elite Eight (1-seed, 5 OVA, 49 OFF, 2*)
3. Connecticut – Final Four (1-seed, 2 OVA, 17 OFF, 2*)
5. Purdue – Sweet 16 (5-seed, 18 OVA, 60 OFF, 1*)
6. Michigan State – NCG (2-seed, 9 OVA, 26 OFF, 1C)
10. Villanova – Final Four (3-seed, 13 OVA, 24 OFF, 1C)
2008 (7/9)
1. Kansas – National Champs (1-seed, 1 OVA, 2 OFF)
2. Memphis – NCG (1-seed, 2 OVA, 6 OFF, 1C*)
3. Wisconsin – Sweet 16 (3-seed, 5 OVA, 37 OFF, 10)
4. Louisville – Elite Eight (3-seed, 8 OVA, 40 OFF, 1)
5. UCLA – Final Four (1-seed, 4 OVA, 7 OFF, 1*)
9. Washington State – Sweet 16 (4-seed, 10 OVA, 23 OFF, 1)
10. Stanford – Sweet 16 (3-seed, 12 OVA, 36 OFF, 2)
2007 (5/9)
1. Kansas – Elite Eight (1-seed, 5 OVA, 29 OFF, 2*)
2. UCLA – Final Four (2-seed, 6 OVA, 27 OFF, 1C)
3. Southern Illinois – Sweet 16 (4-seed, 16 OVA, 84 OFF, 1*)
4. North Carolina – Elite Eight (1-seed, 1 OVA, 3 OFF, 2)
10. Memphis – Elite Eight (2-seed, 9 OVA, 28 OFF, 1)
BREAKDOWN OF TOP 10 DEFENSIVE TEAMS SINCE 2002
Overview
Total Teams – 170 over 17 years
National Champs – 10 (58.82% of 17)
NCG – 11 (21) (61.76% of 34)
Final Four – 14 (35) (51.47% of 68)
Elite Eight – 23 (58) (42.65% of 136)
Sweet 16 – 32 (90) (33.09% of 272)
Second Round – 34 (124) (22.79% of 544)
First Round – 27 (151) (13.88% of 1088)
Missed Tournament – 19 teams in total (10 NIT (2 champs, 2 RUs), 2 banned, 7 no postseason) (11.18% of 170 teams)
Deeper Look
Average offensive efficiency ranking for each round:
National Champs – 7.2
NCG – 23.18
Final Four – 30.29
Final Four or Better – 21.46
Elite Eight – 22.43
Elite Eight or Better – 21.84
Sweet 16 – 37.63
Sweet 16 or Better – 27.46
Second Round – 52.62
First Round – 98.04
Second or First Round – 72.72
Highs and Lows
Lowest offensive efficiency of national champion: 2014 Connecticut (113.6, 39th-ranked)
All other national champs finished ranked in the top 10 on offense
Only three teams have made the Final Four with offenses ranked outside of the top 50 (2006 LSU at 62, 2017 South Carolina at 91 and 2012 Louisville at 112)
Only four teams have made the Elite Eight with offenses ranked outside of the top 50 (2006 LSU at 62, 2015 Louisville at 66, 2017 South Carolina at 91 and 2012 Louisville at 112)
Only 10 teams have made the Sweet 16 with offenses ranked outside of the top 50 (2009 Purdue at 60, 2006 LSU at 62, 2010 Purdue at 65, 2015 Louisville at 66, 2007 Southern Illinois at 84, 2014 San Diego State at 86, 2017 South Carolina at 91, 2012 Louisville at 112, 2018 Syracuse at 135 and 2011 Florida State at 147)
35 of 61 (57.34%) teams eliminated in first or second rounds were outside of offense top 50
Percentages
170 total teams finished in the top 10 defensively between the 2001-02 and 2017-18 seasons
2 top 10 defensive teams were banned from postseason play
10 of 168 top 10 defensive teams won the national championship (5.95%)
21 of 168 top 10 defensive teams made the national championship game (12.5%)
35 of 168 top 10 defensive teams made the Final Four (20.83%)
58 of 168 top 10 defensive teams made the Elite Eight (34.52%)
90 of 168 top 10 defensive teams made the Sweet 16 (53.57%)
61 of 168 top 10 defensive teams lost in the first or second rounds (36.31%)
16 top-10 defensive teams eliminated in the Sweet 16 or Elite Eight lost to another top 10 defensive team
8 top-10 defensive teams eliminated in the first or second rounds lost to another top 10 defensive team
Upsets
Upsets occur when the winning team is seeded at least three seeds worse than the losing team
37 of 61 first and second round losers were upset (60.66%)
13 of 55 Elite Eight and Sweet 16 losers were upset (23.64%)
Seeds
1 seeds – 38 (6 National Champion (15.79%), 3 National Runner Up (7.89%), 6 Final Four (15.79%), 11 Elite Eight (28.95%), 7 Sweet 16 (18.42%), 4 Second Round (10.53%), 1 First Round (2.63%))
(15 Final Four or Better (39.47%), 18 Elite Eight or Sweet 16 (47.37%), 26 Elite Eight or Better (68.42%), 33 Sweet 16 or Better (86.84%), 5 Second Round or Worse (13.16%))
2 seeds – 28 (2 National Champion (7.14%), 4 National Runner Up (14.29%), 3 Final Four (10.71%), 7 Elite Eight (25%), 3 Sweet 16 (10.71%), 8 Second Round (28.57%), 1 First Round (3.57%))
(9 Final Four or Better (32.14%), 10 Elite Eight or Sweet 16 (35.71%), 16 Elite Eight or Better (57.14%), 19 Sweet 16 or Better (67.86%), 9 Second Round or Worse (32.14%))
3 seeds – 20 (1 National Champion (5%), 2 National Runner Up (10%), 1 Final Four (5%), 3 Elite Eight (15%), 6 Sweet 16 (30%), 5 Second Round (25%), 2 First Round (10%))
(4 Final Four or Better (20%), 9 Elite Eight or Sweet 16 (45%), 7 Elite Eight or Better (35%), 13 Sweet 16 or Better (65%), 7 Second Round or Worse (35%))
4 seeds – 19 (3 Final Four (15.79%), 2 Elite Eight (10.53%), 8 Sweet 16 (42.11%), 5 Second Round (26.32%), 2 First Round (10.53%))
(3 Final Four or Better (15.79%), 10 Elite Eight or Sweet 16 (52.63%), 5 Elite Eight or Better (26.32%), 13 Sweet 16 or Better (68.42%), 7 Second Round or Worse (36.84%))
5 seeds – 18 (2 National Runner Up (11.11%), 4 Sweet 16 (22.22%), 4 Second Round (22.22%), 8 First Round (44.44%))
(2 Final Four or Better (11.11%), 4 Elite Eight or Sweet 16 (22.22%), 2 Elite Eight or Better (11.11%), 6 Sweet 16 or Better (27.78%), 12 Second Round or Worse (66.67%))
6 seeds – 7 (1 Sweet 16 (14.29%), 3 Second Round (42.86%), 3 First Round (42.86%))
7 seeds – 3 (1 National Champion (33.33%), 1 Final Four (33.33%), 1 First Round (33.33%))
8 seeds – 3 (1 Sweet 16 (33.33%), 1 Second Round (33.33%), 1 First Round (33.33%))
9 seeds – 3 (1 Second Round (33.33%), 2 First Round (66.67%))
10 seeds – 3 (1 Sweet 16 (33.33%), 2 First Round (66.67%))
11 seeds – 5 (1 Sweet 16 (20%), 2 Second Round (40%), 2 First Round (40%))
12 seeds – 2 (1 Second Round (50%), 1 First Round (50%))
14 seeds – 1 (1 First Round (100%))