**UPDATE 1/9:**

So I’m already on version 1.1 of these ratings, with two major changes.

- Upon further review, removing stats for opponents against Non-Division I opponents wasn’t as challenging as I expected. So, that’s now been done.
- Instead of using the OVC to determine the “best” and “worst” stats in each of the four-factors, I’m using what I call the “5% rule.”
- For season-long “raw” ratings, teams at the 5th percentile in any four factor (17th nationally) would get a score of 100. Teams above that would score above 100. Teams at the 95th percentile (331st nationally) would get a score of 60, with teams below that getting a worse score.
- For conference-only “raw” ratings, we use the past 10-years of Ohio Valley Conference teams to determine the 5th percentile (5th overall) and 95th percentile (5th worst) for a score of 100 and 60.
- Final ratings are capped at 100, in rare instances where a team could score above that — especially early in conference play.

With the new formulas, and more stats added, here are the new ratings, with the change since version 1.0 in ():

Shooting | Rebounding | Ball Control | Defense | |
---|---|---|---|---|

Austin Peay | 84 | 88 (-7) | 64 (-6) | 75 (-1) |

Belmont | 97 (+4) | 71 (-2) | 78 (+4) | 76 (-4) |

Eastern Illinois | 75 (+3) | 66 (+1) | 73 (+1) | 77 (-2) |

Eastern Kentucky | 96 (-1) | 69 (-2) | 75 (+4) | 74 |

Jacksonville State | 69 (-2) | 68 (-4) | 89 (-11) | 76 (-4) |

Morehead State | 74 (-1) | 92 (-5) | 73 (+12) | 82 (-5) |

Murray State | 70 (-8) | 79 (-5) | 83 (+7) | 79 (-5) |

SIUE | 67 (-4) | 85 (-2) | 86 (+2) | 69 (-2) |

Southeast Missouri | 65 (-3) | 77 (-2) | 72 | 75 (-1) |

Tennessee State | 82 (+1) | 84 (-5) | 73 (+13) | 84 (-8) |

Tennessee Tech | 85 (-4) | 77 (-7) | 80 (-4) | 81 |

UT Martin | 75 (+4) | 81 (-7) | 71 (+1) | 81 (-3) |

It’s unsurprising that defense and rebounding almost universally dropped — the combination of taking out non-Division I games and using national numbers for comparison was bound to have that kind of impact.

It’s still a bit too early for conference-only numbers. (Given how UT Martin has only played one game heading into Saturday)

**ORIGINAL POST:**

For those of you new to the site, numbers are a thing of mine. I grew up loving baseball, converted to basketball, (which was essentially required having been born in the Bluegrass State) and as a result have become a huge fan of advanced stats.

But, I also realize they can be quite annoying and hard to understand. So I set out with a mission: find a way to incorporate these numbers in a better way through this site, because while I understand that Jacksonville State’s 29% OREB is woeful, and EKU’s 57.7 eFG% is spectacular, even better than Belmont’s…

I’ve already lost you, haven’t I.

Instead of simply listing the numbers, as I’ve done in the past, most notably in game previews, I’ve used those numbers to create what I’m calling the “Four Factor Ratings,” or FFR for short. Basically — I’ve taken the four “pillars” of advanced statistics: Turnover percentage, Offensive Rebounding percentage, Effective Field Goal Shooting percentage, and Free-throw rate, and broken them down into ratings, similar to that which you might see in a video game.

The ratings are on a 60-100 scale: the worst OVC team in each factor receives a 60, the best a 100. The other teams fall somewhere on that scale, depending on their statistics. This isn’t me assigning random numbers — it’s all based on a simple mathematical formula using the four factors.

To simplify things a bit more, I then broke the eight numbers into four easily recognizable categories: Shooting, Rebounding, Ball Control, and Defense. Each factor is weighted (using the weights given to each by the creator of the four-factors) and put into one of the four categories, giving me the final scores.

With conference play just starting — these scores will be reset to only include conference games, (once every team has played at least a few games) but here are the ratings for the season so far:

Shooting | Rebounding | Ball Control | Defense | |
---|---|---|---|---|

Austin Peay | 84 | 95 | 70 | 76 |

Belmont | 93 | 73 | 74 | 80 |

Eastern Illinois | 72 | 65 | 72 | 79 |

Eastern Kentucky | 97 | 71 | 71 | 74 |

Jacksonville State | 71 | 72 | 100 | 80 |

Morehead State | 75 | 97 | 61 | 87 |

Murray State | 78 | 84 | 76 | 84 |

SIUE | 71 | 87 | 84 | 71 |

Southeast Missouri | 68 | 79 | 72 | 76 |

Tennessee State | 81 | 89 | 60 | 92 |

Tennessee Tech | 89 | 84 | 84 | 81 |

UT Martin | 71 | 88 | 70 | 84 |

A couple of notes:

- For simplicity sake: statistics against non-Division I opponents are included. I’d rather remove them: but that would take a significant amount of time. So, numbers for teams like Belmont, who didn’t play a non-DI opponent, or UT Martin, who hasn’t played their second non-DI school yet, may be a bit lower then they should be otherwise.
- How did Belmont only get a 93 in shooting? Shooting is comprised of two factors: eFG% (Where Belmont got a 99, just behind EKU’s 100) and free-throw rate, which is, simply, how often a team gets to the free-throw line — because that’s something good shooters can do. In that category, Belmont got just a 77, ranking in the bottom-half of the league. EKU got a 90 in that same category.
- Ball Control has just a single factor: offensive turnover percentage. TSU turns the ball over more than any team in the league, hence the 60 rating.

These numbers will be quite fluid throughout the season: especially when I erase non-conference figures and only use OVC numbers. In other words: where a team is now, isn’t where they’ll likely be in a few weeks.

Want to know more about the new ratings? I’ve posted this guide to the math behind the ratings. (It explains why these aren’t just numbers I made up)

Don’t like the ratings? That’s fine. Regular statistics like field goal percentage aren’t going anywhere. This is just a new way (and one you’ll only see here) to help compare teams in the OVC.