NEM looks at the first round
Now that everyone is familiar with net efficiency margin (NEM) as a tempo-free and opponent-strength-independent team performance metric, I'll jump right into reviewing the first round performances using NEM. Some of the results will be obvious, but removing the strength of the opponent from the comparison can unearth some hidden gems from Thursday's and Friday's games.
All raw efficiency data is from the sublime kenpom.com. I used the ratings through last Sunday's games to make the comparisons. (For my second round reviews, I'll update the ratings through the end of the first round, and so on.)
Best games (by combined total NEM)
| Result | Total NEM | |||||
| 1. | Texas A&M | 69 | Utah St. | 53 | 45.8 | Everything's bigger in Texas. With Utah State's -4.3, the NEM margin (54.4) was larger than the combined NEM. |
| 2. | Xavier | 65 | Minnesota | 54 | 45.2 | |
| 3. | Missouri | 86 | Clemson | 78 | 45.0 | |
| 4. | BYU | 99 | Florida | 92 | 44.9 | |
| 5. | Cal | 77 | Louisville | 62 | 44.3 | The Bears could give Duke a good run on Sunday. Like Butler, Cal put up good results on both sides of the ball against a very inconsistent Louisville team. |
Top overall performances
| Team | Opponent | NEM | ||
| 1. | Texas A&M | Utah St. | 50.1 | |
| 2. | Butler | UTEP | 46.3 | Very balanced performance by Butler. Both their offensive (27.5) and defensive (-18.8) NEM ranked in the top 15 in the first round. |
| 3. | Ohio | Georgetown | 45.5 | |
| 4. | Cornell | Temple | 43.5 | |
| 5. | Cal | Louisville | 41.7 |
Top offensive performances
| Team | Opponent | NEM | ||
| 1. | Cornell | Temple | 44.5 | The Big Red shot a ridiculous 65.6 eFG% against a Temple team that was #1 in defensive eFG% and only allowing 42.4 eFG%. |
| 2. | Ohio | Georgetown | 41.5 | |
| 3. | St. Mary's | Richmond | 35.3 | |
| 4. | Missouri | Clemson | 34.8 | |
| 5. | UNLV | Northern Iowa | 30.2 | Despite outperforming Northern Iowa on both ends of the NEM, the Rebels lost where it counts. |
Top defensive performances (lower scores are better)
| Team | Opponent | NEM | ||
| 1. | West Virginia | Morgan St. | -32.3 | |
| 2. | Baylor | Sam Houston St. | -30.9 | See #4. |
| 3. | Xavier | Minnesota | -30.5 | |
| 4. | Sam Houston St. | Baylor | -28.9 | Whether you want to call it good defense or bad offense, this game had it. |
| 5. | Texas A&M | Utah St. | -28.6 |
Worst overall performances
| Team | Opponent | NEM | ||
| 1. | Morgan St. | West Virginia | -11.7 | While nowhere near as bad as last year's worst first round performance, this one was not close. |
| 2. | Georgetown | Ohio | -11.1 | |
| 3. | Ark. Pine Bluff | Duke | -10.7 | |
| 4. | Oakland | Pitt | -8.6 | |
| 5. | E. Tenn. St. | Kentucky | -8.5 |
Worst offensive performances
| Team | Opponent | NEM | ||
| 1. | Morgan St. | West Virginia | -18.4 | |
| 2. | Ark. Pine Bluff | Duke | -15.9 | |
| 3. | Sam Houston St. | Baylor | -13.8 | See top defensive performances. |
| 4. | Baylor | Sam Houston St. | -10.7 | Ditto. |
| 5. | Minnesota | Xavier | -9.2 |
Worst defensive performances (higher scores are worse)
| Team | Opponent | NEM | ||
| 1. | Georgetown | Ohio | 26.7 | When the other team shoots 70 eFG%, it's just not your day. |
| 2. | Temple | Cornell | 17.0 | |
| 3. | Clemson | Missouri | 12.6 | |
| 4. | Richmond | St. Mary's | 11.9 | The Spiders, like Georgetown, had a very good but not elite defense (ranked in the top 35 in adjusted efficiency) coming in. |
| 5. | E. Tenn. St. | Kentucky | 9.4 |