PDA

View Full Version : Dork Ratings, Before, During and After



camion
04-06-2010, 09:45 AM
I am including below snapshots of the Kenpom ratings at the end of the regular season and at several points along the ACC/NCAA tournament trail. I discovered while creating this post that a single post is limited to 20,000 characters so I couldn't include all of the checkpoints. It's interesting to see how the Kenpom ratings evolved from the end of the regular season to the championship.

We start number one and stay there. Butler starts 30 and ends 12. There really wasn't much movement at the very top except that Wisconsin and BYU drop some. Oh, and our thrashing of W. Va took them down from #5 to #8.

On our easy road to the championship every team except Ark-PB was ranked in the top 20. We beat Cal(15), Purdue(16), Baylor(6), W. Va(8) and Butler(12).

After the regular season, before the ACC tournament.

STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE NON-CONF SOS
Rnk Team Conf W-L Pyth AdjO/Rnk AdjD/Rnk Cons/Rnk Luck/Rnk Pyth/Rnk OppO/Rnk OppD/Rnk Pyth/Rnk
1 Duke ACC 26-5 .9839 122.7/1 85.8/3 22.8/282 -.025/237 .7947/4 106.5/22 94.7/1 .6178/78
2 Kansas B12 29-2 .9816 121.7/2 86.1/5 21.5/232 +.047/58 .7431/33 106.5/23 97.1/42 .5383/144
3 Wisconsin B10 23-7 .9686 117.6/9 87.3/8 25.6/329 -.012/200 .7584/22 107.2/12 97.1/39 .5622/120
4 Syracuse BE 28-3 .9637 117.4/10 88.3/16 17.6/64 +.017/113 .7275/42 107.2/11 98.4/83 .4393/244
5 Brigham Young MWC 28-4 .9627 117.0/11 88.2/15 24.3/315 +.019/112 .5789/124 102.7/131 99.9/123 .4897/188
6 Ohio St. B10 24-7 .9583 116.9/12 89.0/21 26.1/335 -.002/167 .7111/50 105.4/45 97.5/50 .4504/233
7 West Virginia BE 24-6 .9581 118.4/7 90.2/29 18.5/97 +.003/152 .8105/1 108.8/1 95.9/14 .6804/38
8 Maryland ACC 23-7 .9561 119.6/5 91.5/38 23.8/306 +.002/154 .7541/26 105.7/41 95.8/12 .4290/255
9 Kentucky SEC 29-2 .9549 114.9/20 88.1/14 18.2/82 +.070/27 .6869/62 105.1/56 98.2/72 .4851/190
10 Purdue B10 26-4 .9536 111.9/38 86.1/4 16.8/46 +.020/111 .7440/32 106.4/26 97.0/33 .5010/176

11 Kansas St. B12 24-6 .9495 114.9/21 89.0/20 17.5/62 -.009/189 .7870/6 107.3/10 95.8/11 .5933/94
12 Baylor B12 24-6 .9455 118.8/6 92.7/47 17.7/65 -.014/208 .7375/37 105.9/35 96.8/27 .4530/228
13 Missouri B12 22-9 .9419 110.0/53 86.3/6 25.4/328 -.038/267 .6989/55 105.2/52 97.8/60 .3774/301
14 Texas B12 23-8 .9418 113.6/25 89.2/23 25.0/323 -.009/194 .7348/39 105.7/39 96.8/28 .4826/197
15 Villanova BE 24-6 .9396 118.4/8 93.2/56 19.8/154 +.039/71 .7740/9 107.6/6 96.7/24 .5136/166
16 California P10 21-9 .9389 120.0/4 94.6/70 22.8/283 -.046/280 .7611/19 105.1/57 95.0/3 .7577/10
17 Clemson ACC 21-9 .9382 110.7/47 87.4/10 23.5/301 -.018/217 .7620/17 105.7/40 95.5/6 .4344/246
18 Florida St. ACC 22-8 .9366 105.9/102 83.8/1 24.0/310 +.031/88 .7576/24 106.3/27 96.3/19 .4629/220
19 Xavier A10 23-7 .9327 115.6/13 91.9/42 24.1/312 +.016/117 .6903/61 104.2/73 97.2/45 .7244/21
20 Georgetown BE 20-9 .9326 114.9/19 91.5/37 20.0/165 -.028/246 .8023/2 108.1/3 95.7/8 .6356/63

21 Texas A&M B12 22-8 .9290 111.5/39 89.2/22 19.3/133 +.004/147 .7684/12 107.8/4 97.1/41 .5396/143
22 Marquette BE 20-10 .9279 114.5/23 91.7/40 21.8/244 -.094/335 .7100/51 106.2/30 98.3/78 .3867/293
23 Michigan St. B10 24-7 .9271 112.3/34 90.0/28 20.2/174 +.021/106 .7413/35 106.3/28 97.0/37 .5045/172
24 Utah St. WAC 25-6 .9251 115.5/14 92.8/49 23.5/300 -.018/220 .5318/153 103.2/111 102.1/214 .5068/168
25 Temple A10 26-5 .9201 106.8/91 86.3/7 19.9/160 +.075/23 .6825/63 104.7/66 98.0/64 .7000/28
26 Pittsburgh BE 24-7 .9197 112.7/30 91.1/33 20.7/192 +.069/31 .7429/34 106.8/21 97.3/47 .4650/218
27 Tennessee SEC 23-7 .9194 107.9/77 87.3/9 24.4/316 +.062/39 .7274/43 106.0/32 97.3/46 .5513/132
28 Virginia Tech ACC 23-7 .9134 107.7/80 87.7/11 21.3/221 +.050/50 .6772/67 104.8/65 98.2/76 .3229/326
29 Georgia Tech ACC 19-11 .9128 110.3/52 89.9/26 20.1/168 -.061/303 .7668/13 105.3/48 94.9/2 .4284/260
30 Butler Horz 27-4 .9094 109.4/57 89.5/24 15.2/10 +.026/98 .6322/91 104.1/75 99.4/106 .7886/4


After the ACC tournament.


STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE NON-CONF SOS
Rnk Team Conf W-L Pyth AdjO/Rnk AdjD/Rnk Cons/Rnk Luck/Rnk Pyth/Rnk OppO/Rnk OppD/Rnk Pyth/Rnk
1 Duke ACC 29-5 .9818 121.5/1 85.9/4 22.3/271 -.005/171 .8027/4 106.7/26 94.5/2 .6737/39
2 Kansas B12 32-2 .9813 121.4/2 86.1/5 20.7/190 +.051/50 .7603/24 107.0/20 96.8/33 .6171/80
3 Wisconsin B10 23-8 .9650 116.5/13 87.3/7 25.6/331 -.029/235 .7616/23 107.3/16 97.0/40 .5912/111
4 Ohio St. B10 27-7 .9620 119.0/7 89.8/22 25.5/330 +.012/116 .7271/49 105.7/49 97.1/44 .5509/146
5 Syracuse BE 28-4 .9616 117.9/9 89.1/20 18.2/85 +.005/136 .7410/43 107.6/9 98.2/81 .4980/197
6 Kentucky SEC 32-2 .9597 115.5/18 87.7/10 18.2/87 +.077/20 .7039/61 105.1/62 97.5/54 .5653/130
7 Brigham Young MWC 29-5 .9573 117.4/12 89.6/21 24.3/319 +.007/128 .5990/115 103.2/121 99.6/115 .5340/165
8 West Virginia BE 27-6 .9551 117.5/11 90.0/24 17.9/70 +.026/90 .8177/2 109.3/1 95.9/16 .7352/13
9 Kansas St. B12 26-7 .9546 115.8/16 88.9/19 17.4/59 -.013/192 .8090/3 108.4/4 95.6/9 .7004/25
10 Maryland ACC 23-8 .9527 119.1/6 91.7/40 23.7/307 -.015/196 .7601/25 105.6/51 95.5/8 .4713/225

11 Georgetown BE 23-10 .9508 117.6/10 90.9/33 19.8/157 -.041/261 .8218/1 108.7/2 95.1/3 .7509/11
12 Baylor B12 25-7 .9488 119.6/5 92.7/52 17.8/66 -.027/229 .7564/29 106.4/29 96.4/23 .5508/147
13 Purdue B10 27-5 .9401 109.8/49 86.4/6 19.1/127 +.054/42 .7514/33 106.8/25 97.0/41 .5588/140
14 California P10 23-10 .9377 121.0/3 95.6/81 22.1/262 -.055/297 .7657/17 105.5/52 95.2/4 .7653/8
15 Villanova BE 24-7 .9369 118.7/8 93.9/62 19.8/159 +.020/100 .7814/11 107.9/7 96.6/24 .5607/138
16 Clemson ACC 21-10 .9342 110.4/47 87.7/9 23.3/299 -.036/251 .7645/19 105.6/50 95.3/6 .4702/228
17 Texas B12 24-9 .9326 113.4/26 90.2/26 25.3/329 -.003/160 .7478/40 106.2/35 96.6/27 .5458/155
18 Temple A10 29-5 .9312 107.5/77 85.7/3 19.4/143 +.071/25 .6933/65 105.3/60 98.1/78 .7183/20
19 Florida St. ACC 22-9 .9308 105.2/119 83.9/1 23.9/312 +.016/110 .7616/22 106.4/30 96.2/22 .4926/205
20 Utah St. WAC 27-7 .9301 116.4/14 93.0/54 23.7/306 -.034/246 .5381/154 103.3/118 101.9/200 .5260/172

21 Missouri B12 22-10 .9285 109.8/50 87.8/12 26.1/337 -.040/258 .7040/60 105.4/55 97.8/64 .4033/297
22 Xavier A10 24-8 .9284 115.8/15 92.7/50 23.6/303 +.006/132 .7041/59 104.5/72 96.9/37 .7479/12
23 Texas A&M B12 23-9 .9253 111.9/39 89.9/23 19.4/141 +.005/133 .7834/9 108.3/5 96.8/34 .6176/78
24 Michigan St. B10 24-8 .9231 112.0/38 90.3/27 20.2/172 +.005/137 .7482/39 106.5/28 96.9/35 .5461/153
25 Minnesota B10 21-13 .9218 114.1/23 92.1/43 29.0/346 -.054/294 .7484/38 106.8/24 97.2/48 .6054/89
26 Butler Horz 28-4 .9218 109.6/55 88.4/15 15.5/16 +.022/97 .6370/91 104.3/78 99.3/108 .7894/4
27 Georgia Tech ACC 22-12 .9187 109.5/57 88.7/17 19.0/120 -.043/267 .7924/6 106.1/36 94.4/1 .5957/102
28 Marquette BE 22-11 .9185 114.3/22 92.6/48 22.7/286 -.056/299 .7421/42 107.0/21 97.6/59 .5444/158
29 Washington P10 24-9 .9157 112.6/32 91.5/38 23.8/310 +.019/104 .7106/55 105.4/54 97.5/56 .6231/74
30 Pittsburgh BE 24-8 .9147 111.7/41 90.9/34 20.7/194 +.054/43 .7487/37 107.1/18 97.4/52 .5070/190


After the Sweet 16.


STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE NON-CONF SOS
Rnk Team Conf W-L Pyth AdjO/Rnk AdjD/Rnk Cons/Rnk Luck/Rnk Pyth/Rnk OppO/Rnk OppD/Rnk Pyth/Rnk
1 Duke ACC 33-5 .9834 122.0/1 85.6/3 21.5/236 -.003/149 .8029/4 107.0/24 94.7/2 .7130/27
2 Kansas B12 33-3 .9788 121.5/2 87.1/8 20.6/191 +.032/76 .7678/20 107.4/14 96.8/34 .6385/82
3 Kentucky SEC 35-3 .9682 116.2/15 86.3/5 18.6/97 +.053/42 .7286/50 105.9/44 97.1/45 .6350/86
4 Syracuse BE 30-5 .9631 118.1/8 88.9/18 18.3/87 -.014/181 .7454/41 107.6/10 98.0/71 .5769/139
5 West Virginia BE 31-6 .9624 116.8/12 88.1/10 17.4/57 +.025/85 .8190/2 109.2/1 95.8/10 .7725/10
6 Ohio St. B10 29-8 .9592 118.7/7 90.2/24 24.8/325 +.000/138 .7293/49 105.4/63 96.7/33 .6081/110
7 Baylor B12 28-8 .9580 120.5/3 91.8/36 17.8/70 -.030/229 .7869/9 107.4/13 95.9/14 .6629/57
8 Kansas St. B12 29-8 .9574 116.6/13 88.9/19 17.2/54 -.017/188 .8274/1 109.1/2 95.2/5 .7610/11
9 Wisconsin B10 24-9 .9524 115.6/17 89.1/20 26.2/338 -.019/197 .7597/28 107.3/17 97.1/43 .6306/91
10 Brigham Young MWC 30-6 .9496 117.1/10 90.7/28 24.6/322 +.005/118 .6119/108 103.5/108 99.5/112 .5864/133

11 Maryland ACC 24-9 .9471 119.2/5 92.8/50 23.2/297 -.030/230 .7551/33 105.8/47 95.9/17 .5170/192
12 Butler Horz 32-4 .9416 110.6/46 86.9/6 15.0/8 +.031/78 .6972/64 105.4/62 98.1/73 .8315/2
13 Georgetown BE 23-11 .9396 117.6/9 92.6/46 20.2/171 -.045/263 .8162/3 108.4/4 95.2/6 .7531/12
14 Xavier A10 26-9 .9367 116.3/14 92.0/39 22.9/287 +.001/133 .7440/43 105.6/59 96.2/18 .7978/6
15 California P10 24-11 .9358 120.2/4 95.2/73 22.6/281 -.051/277 .7792/13 106.1/40 95.1/4 .8055/5
16 Purdue B10 29-6 .9357 108.4/69 85.9/4 19.3/140 +.061/30 .7699/17 107.4/15 96.6/32 .6678/55
17 Texas A&M B12 24-10 .9351 112.0/38 88.8/14 19.1/125 -.016/184 .8003/6 108.7/3 96.3/20 .6708/51
18 Texas B12 24-10 .9331 113.4/26 90.2/25 25.1/329 -.023/207 .7601/27 106.5/34 96.4/23 .5712/146
19 Missouri B12 23-11 .9311 111.4/43 88.8/15 25.8/336 -.042/257 .7336/47 106.1/41 97.1/44 .4972/209
20 Clemson ACC 21-11 .9272 110.9/44 88.9/16 23.4/302 -.049/275 .7680/19 105.7/50 95.3/7 .5172/191

21 Villanova BE 25-8 .9241 116.8/11 94.0/62 19.7/152 +.015/100 .7745/15 107.8/7 96.8/36 .5880/129
22 Temple A10 29-6 .9224 107.8/75 86.9/7 20.1/164 +.068/23 .7013/63 105.6/55 98.1/74 .7206/24
23 Michigan St. B10 28-8 .9224 113.6/25 91.6/33 19.2/134 +.032/74 .7601/26 106.8/28 96.6/30 .6509/69
24 Florida St. ACC 22-10 .9205 104.6/129 84.5/1 23.9/313 +.001/135 .7589/29 106.5/35 96.4/24 .5222/187
25 Utah St. WAC 27-8 .9181 115.6/18 93.7/58 24.8/324 -.033/240 .5465/150 103.3/113 101.7/198 .5503/164
26 Tennessee SEC 28-9 .9167 108.9/65 88.4/11 24.0/315 +.073/18 .7624/24 106.9/25 96.6/28 .6799/43
27 Pittsburgh BE 25-9 .9162 111.6/40 90.7/27 20.5/187 +.032/77 .7487/39 107.2/19 97.5/55 .5576/157
28 Georgia Tech ACC 23-13 .9159 109.1/62 88.6/13 18.8/107 -.045/265 .8017/5 106.7/30 94.5/1 .6586/64
29 Washington P10 26-10 .9155 112.3/37 91.3/30 23.5/307 +.019/92 .7272/51 106.0/43 97.4/51 .6928/39
30 Northern Iowa MVC 30-5 .9141 109.2/61 88.9/17 15.2/10 +.024/87 .6453/90 104.8/71 99.4/109 .6406/79


After the Final Four.


STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE NON-CONF SOS
Rnk Team Conf W-L Pyth AdjO/Rnk AdjD/Rnk Cons/Rnk Luck/Rnk Pyth/Rnk OppO/Rnk OppD/Rnk Pyth/Rnk
1 Duke ACC 35-5 .9848 123.5/1 85.9/4 21.3/232 +.003/124 .8150/3 107.2/19 94.3/1 .7465/13
2 Kansas B12 33-3 .9788 121.5/2 87.1/8 20.6/191 +.032/74 .7678/21 107.4/15 96.8/34 .6387/83
3 Kentucky SEC 35-3 .9679 116.1/15 86.3/6 18.6/96 +.053/41 .7271/50 105.8/46 97.2/45 .6328/90
4 Syracuse BE 30-5 .9626 118.0/8 89.0/18 18.3/86 -.015/181 .7427/44 107.5/11 98.0/74 .5762/139
5 Ohio St. B10 29-8 .9591 118.6/7 90.2/24 24.8/325 +.000/137 .7286/49 105.4/64 96.7/33 .6067/111
6 Baylor B12 28-8 .9582 120.4/3 91.7/34 17.8/69 -.030/230 .7874/10 107.5/12 95.9/15 .6643/58
7 Kansas St. B12 29-8 .9575 116.6/13 88.9/17 17.2/54 -.017/188 .8278/1 109.1/2 95.2/5 .7620/11
8 West Virginia BE 31-7 .9566 117.0/11 89.4/22 19.2/133 +.048/44 .8274/2 109.5/1 95.5/9 .7965/7
9 Wisconsin B10 24-9 .9525 115.6/17 89.1/19 26.2/338 -.019/195 .7602/26 107.3/17 97.1/43 .6324/91
10 Brigham Young MWC 30-6 .9496 117.1/10 90.7/27 24.6/322 +.005/118 .6118/109 103.5/109 99.5/114 .5863/132

11 Maryland ACC 24-9 .9475 119.3/5 92.7/50 23.2/298 -.030/231 .7566/33 105.8/45 95.9/17 .5166/193
12 Butler Horz 33-5 .9444 110.2/50 86.2/5 15.0/8 +.023/87 .7253/53 106.2/40 97.6/57 .8548/1
13 Georgetown BE 23-11 .9384 117.4/9 92.6/47 20.2/170 -.046/263 .8142/4 108.4/4 95.3/7 .7529/12
14 Xavier A10 26-9 .9369 116.3/14 92.0/39 22.9/287 +.001/133 .7447/41 105.6/58 96.2/18 .7985/6
15 California P10 24-11 .9358 120.1/4 95.1/73 22.6/281 -.052/277 .7790/13 106.1/41 95.1/4 .8055/5
16 Purdue B10 29-6 .9356 108.3/70 85.8/3 19.3/141 +.061/30 .7697/17 107.4/14 96.7/32 .6677/57
17 Texas A&M B12 24-10 .9349 111.9/38 88.8/14 19.1/124 -.016/184 .7997/6 108.7/3 96.4/24 .6692/56
18 Texas B12 24-10 .9329 113.5/25 90.2/25 25.1/329 -.023/207 .7595/28 106.5/35 96.3/22 .5696/146
19 Missouri B12 23-11 .9307 111.3/43 88.8/13 25.8/336 -.043/255 .7330/47 106.1/42 97.1/44 .4958/211
20 Clemson ACC 21-11 .9278 110.9/44 88.9/15 23.4/303 -.050/275 .7698/16 105.8/49 95.3/6 .5177/191

21 Villanova BE 25-8 .9226 116.6/12 94.0/62 19.7/153 +.015/100 .7718/15 107.7/8 96.9/38 .5890/130
22 Temple A10 29-6 .9224 107.8/75 87.0/7 20.1/164 +.067/23 .7009/64 105.5/60 98.0/73 .7201/25
23 Michigan St. B10 28-9 .9221 112.9/28 91.1/30 19.1/126 +.017/95 .7679/20 106.9/25 96.3/23 .6755/47
24 Florida St. ACC 22-10 .9208 104.6/130 84.5/1 23.9/313 +.000/134 .7598/27 106.5/34 96.4/25 .5220/187
25 Utah St. WAC 27-8 .9180 115.6/18 93.7/58 24.8/324 -.033/240 .5459/151 103.3/116 101.7/199 .5497/166
26 Dayton A10 25-12 .9170 107.4/84 87.2/9 15.9/23 -.108/340 .7060/62 105.1/67 97.4/51 .7035/31
27 Georgia Tech ACC 23-13 .9166 109.1/62 88.6/12 18.8/106 -.046/264 .8035/5 106.8/26 94.5/2 .6606/62
28 Tennessee SEC 28-9 .9164 108.9/64 88.5/11 24.0/315 +.073/18 .7616/25 106.8/27 96.6/28 .6792/43
29 Northern Iowa MVC 30-5 .9151 109.3/61 88.9/16 15.2/10 +.024/84 .6479/90 104.8/70 99.4/109 .6413/80
30 Washington P10 26-10 .9149 112.3/36 91.3/31 23.5/307 +.019/91 .7259/52 106.0/43 97.4/52 .6903/40

Jderf
04-06-2010, 09:50 AM
These computer ratings are clearly flawed. I think that it is unequivocally clear that we should never have been a #1 seed. WVU had a better resumé and frankly, is far and away a better team. Duke, if they ever played, would get crushed by WVU this year. Except that won't happen because Duke, which is such a weak #1 seed, will probably lose even before the elite 8, most likely to Louisville. This Duke team just doesn't have a chance.

...

National champs.

GoingFor#5
04-06-2010, 10:23 AM
Well they got Duke right, but not Butler.

JStuart
04-06-2010, 11:11 AM
Methinks we'll be watching KenPom's work closely next year!
How did we do according to RPI and Sagarin?
Thanks, Camion.
K>Roy; K>Dean!

camion
04-06-2010, 02:05 PM
I didn't capture Sagarin or RPI over time. I did Kenpom because of discussions about how accurately it predicted final four and champions, and the contention that Kenpom after the tournaments was skewed because it included the tournament games in its rankings and was thus a look backas much as it was a predictor.

The other thing noted about Kenpom is that the champion is almost invariably in the top 20 of both the offensive and defensive ratings. from that it was obvious that we were destined to win because we were the only team in the final four that fit that profile. :)

hurleyfor3
04-06-2010, 02:37 PM
We passed Kansas in Pomeroy some time in late February.

Some times, the dorks get it right.

MChambers
04-06-2010, 03:08 PM
2004, UConn, .9799
2005, UNC, .9872
2006, FL, .9737
2007, FL, .9845
2008, Kansas, .9916
2009, UNC, .9770
2010, Duke, .9848

I thought it was interesting that this year's Duke team had the third highest rating in the seven years, notwithstanding all the talk about the lack of great teams this year. I also should point that in some of these years the highest ranked team didn't win the championship.

I think I remember that Pomeroy tweaked his system at one point. Don't know if that affects the numbers.

It would be interesting for someone to go back and retroactively compute the Pomeroy numbers for earlier years. Not that I'm volunteering, mind you.

sammy3469
04-06-2010, 03:16 PM
2004, UConn, .9799
2005, UNC, .9872
2006, FL, .9737
2007, FL, .9845
2008, Kansas, .9916
2009, UNC, .9770
2010, Duke, .9848

I thought it was interesting that this year's Duke team had the third highest rating in the seven years, notwithstanding all the talk about the lack of great teams this year. I also should point that in some of these years the highest ranked team didn't win the championship.

I think I remember that Pomeroy tweaked his system at one point. Don't know if that affects the numbers.

It would be interesting for someone to go back and retroactively compute the Pomeroy numbers for earlier years. Not that I'm volunteering, mind you.

FWIW. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Pythagorian winning percentages are only for ranking the relative strength of teams within each year. Basically they don't tell you how strong each #1 ranked team is, but how strong that #1 ranked team is relative the the average team.

MChambers
04-06-2010, 04:01 PM
FWIW. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Pythagorian winning percentages are only for ranking the relative strength of teams within each year. Basically they don't tell you how strong each #1 ranked team is, but how strong that #1 ranked team is relative the the average team.

I agree with that. Sorry I didn't make that clear. But are the critics saying the average team is worse in 2010? And if they are, how do they explain that?