Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    I am a big fan of KenPom and his ratings. Things have seemed a bit odd this year with his ratings though. The big Ten teams seemed to be ranked way too high, starting with Wisconsin, who was ranked #1 for much of the preseason, I believe. They are still ranked #6, though I doubt there are many who believe they are the #6 team in the country. I also have my doubts that Memphis should be #9, Wichita State #10, and St. Louis #15 all ahead of Duke, who has a much better resume. Maybe KenPom's rankings are a more accurate look at the stronger teams and Duke is not as strong as their record and resume, but I believe (perhaps through dark blue glasses) Duke is a legitimate #2 seed and a few points from a potential #1 seed.
    “Those two kids, they’re champions,” Krzyzewski said of his senior leaders. “They’re trying to teach the other kids how to become that, and it’s a long road to become that.”

  2. #22
    To be concerned or not just depends on whether Duke's "Luck" rating in Pomeroy is just that -- luck -- or whether it is a reflection of being some parts lucky and some parts clutch.

    As others may have noted, Duke's Luck rating has been very high all season long. Meaning theoretically, Duke's record is better than Duke's true worth as a team.

    However, imo, Duke does in fact have some considerable clutchness in them. That doesn't mean that Duke hits big shots all the time and never, ever fails. But, certain players on this team have always struck me as "big shot" makers -- namely Dawkins, Curry, Thornton, Kelly, and somewhat Rivers (obviously he hit the biggest clutch shot of them all this season, though). It's a guttural thing but I'm very comfortable with those guys taking a shot in high-leverage situations.

    If I'm right and Duke is legitimately clutch and can be expected to win more than our fair share of close games, then Duke's Pomeroy rating will undervalue Duke.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by forbiddendonut View Post
    The similarity in score margins was most striking to me. I should not have used the word trend. I thought it was interesting.

    I don't have the pre-NCAAT numbers (as referenced above) but other #2 seeds in the 0.88-0.91 range pre-NCAAT may include: 2006 Ohio St, 2009 Oklahoma, 2009 Michigan St, 2011 UNC and 2011 Florida.

    If anyone has the pre-NCAAT rankings saved, that would eliminate the guessing.

    It's worth noting that this year's Pomeroy pythagorean numbers are much lower in general. I don't know why. I mean, 2009 Michigan State would be #6 in this year's Pomeroy, and 2009 Oklahoma would be #9. Could he have changed his formula, or is there more parity, or what?

    Anyway, here are the pre-tournament numbers for teams mentioned here in the 2009-2011 date range:

    2009 Oklahoma, #17 (.9340)
    2009 Michigan State, #13 (.9425)
    2010 Villanova, #15 (.9369)
    2011 UNC, #14 (.9379)
    2011 Florida, #19 (.9221)

    2012 Duke, #17 (.8971)


    When my computer died I lost all my Pomeroy data earlier than 2009, so I only have the past three years at this point.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    To be concerned or not just depends on whether Duke's "Luck" rating in Pomeroy is just that -- luck -- or whether it is a reflection of being some parts lucky and some parts clutch.
    Not that I necessarily disagree (although I am always suspicious of "clutch-ness" as a skill), but the luck rating could also reflect any quality/skill that is not included in Pomeroy's rating.

    Possibly worth noting again that Pomeroy himself calls Wisconsin's rating an anomaly - may apply to others as well (SLU?).

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by forbiddendonut View Post
    Based on kenpom numbers, Duke is an incredibly weak #2 seed. In the kenpom era (2003-), these are the three #2 seeds whose kenpom numbers were in the same ballpark as the 2012 Duke Blue Devils: 2003 Wake Forest, 2006 Tennessee and 2010 Villanova. Let's look at how they did in the tournament (or just look away now if you are a Duke fan and have a weak stomach) -

    2003 Wake: Beat #15 East Tenn. St. by 3 and lost to #10 Auburn by 6
    2006 Tennessee: Beat #15 Winthrop by 2 and lost to #7 Wichita St by 7
    2010 Villanova: Beat #15 Robert Morris by 3 and lost to #10 St Mary's by 7

    I swear I did not pick these three teams knowing that they performed similarly in the tournament. I just looked back to find teams that were similar in ranking to Duke and also placed on the #2 line and then found their results which are strikingly consistent (and deeply troubling if you are a Duke fan).

    Only 2003 Wake (0.8928) and 2006 Tennessee (0.8897) are behind Duke (0.8971) in kenpom ranking but their numbers include their putrid performance in the NCAA tournament [2010 Nova ended up at 0.9011]. I would guess that at the time of seeding, Duke is the lowest rated #2 seed of the kenpom era.
    But you're missing the remaining #s. Let's look at the opponents these teams lost to:
    2010 Nova - St. Mary's - .8591 Pythag Rating (Admittedly including win over Nova)
    2006 Tenn - Wichita State - .8491 Pythag (Including win over Tennessee).

    Both of these teams faced opponents who were within 20 kenpom ranks of them. Or less in Tenn's case.

    Now let's look at Duke's potential 2nd round matchups:
    .8184 Notre Dame
    .7812 Xavier.

    These opponents are a good deal worse than SMC and WSU.

    So yeah, it's true we're a pretty weak 2 seed. But we got the easiest draw to the S16.
    <devildeac> anyone playing drinking games by now?
    7:49:36<Wander> drink every qb run?
    7:49:38<loran16> umm, drink every time asack rushes?
    7:49:38<wolfybeard> @devildeac: drink when Asack runs a keeper
    7:49:39 PM<CB&B> any time zack runs, drink

    Carolina Delenda Est

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    It's worth noting that this year's Pomeroy pythagorean numbers are much lower in general. I don't know why. I mean, 2009 Michigan State would be #6 in this year's Pomeroy, and 2009 Oklahoma would be #9. Could he have changed his formula, or is there more parity, or what?

    Anyway, here are the pre-tournament numbers for teams mentioned here in the 2009-2011 date range:

    2009 Oklahoma, #17 (.9340)
    2009 Michigan State, #13 (.9425)
    2010 Villanova, #15 (.9369)
    2011 UNC, #14 (.9379)
    2011 Florida, #19 (.9221)

    2012 Duke, #17 (.8971)


    When my computer died I lost all my Pomeroy data earlier than 2009, so I only have the past three years at this point.


    I know that these are post-tournament numbers, but bear with me here...

    2012 Duke is currently #17 and at .8971 as Kedsy said.

    2007 Duke, after losing to VCU in the tournament was ranked #11 at .9491. That's way higher than this year's Duke team, who has actually had a better season by far. That's higher than this year's UNC team as well. That's higher than every single final four team from last year. Additionally, there were 6 teams in 2007 that ranked higher than Kentucky is right now. You had to go all the way to the low 40s before you found a team ranked similarly to Duke this year.

    That's all to say that something isn't consistent from year to year in KenPom's rankings. I don't know if he's changed his formula or whether this is just the relative difference in the teams from each year. But how can a team that went 22-11 rank better than a team that has beaten 2 of the top 3 in KenPom's rankings? How can that team rank higher (based on Pyth%) than this year's UNC team? How can that team rank higher in its respective year than EVERY SINGLE final four team from last year?

    Pomeroy's rankings are simply an indicator of how likely that team is to win a game against an average team in that given year. It's tough to use it to say anything conclusive across seasons. Especially when you have teams like Butler and VCU making the tournament last year.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    To be concerned or not just depends on whether Duke's "Luck" rating in Pomeroy is just that -- luck -- or whether it is a reflection of being some parts lucky and some parts clutch.

    As others may have noted, Duke's Luck rating has been very high all season long. Meaning theoretically, Duke's record is better than Duke's true worth as a team.

    However, imo, Duke does in fact have some considerable clutchness in them. That doesn't mean that Duke hits big shots all the time and never, ever fails. But, certain players on this team have always struck me as "big shot" makers -- namely Dawkins, Curry, Thornton, Kelly, and somewhat Rivers (obviously he hit the biggest clutch shot of them all this season, though). It's a guttural thing but I'm very comfortable with those guys taking a shot in high-leverage situations.

    If I'm right and Duke is legitimately clutch and can be expected to win more than our fair share of close games, then Duke's Pomeroy rating will undervalue Duke.

    If you are consistently lucky it over an extended time then it probably isn't luck. Maybe it's preparation meeting opportunity.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by camion View Post
    If you are consistently lucky it over an extended time then it probably isn't luck. Maybe it's preparation meeting opportunity.
    Or it's luck. A single season is not a long period of time statistically (30 games) - there are bound to be outliers in those seasons, whose results are better than they should be simply due to random variation.
    <devildeac> anyone playing drinking games by now?
    7:49:36<Wander> drink every qb run?
    7:49:38<loran16> umm, drink every time asack rushes?
    7:49:38<wolfybeard> @devildeac: drink when Asack runs a keeper
    7:49:39 PM<CB&B> any time zack runs, drink

    Carolina Delenda Est

Similar Threads

  1. Hope It Is Not a trend
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 12:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •