PDA

View Full Version : John Gasaway on "Category 5" College Hoops Rosters



Billy Dat
10-19-2015, 11:13 AM
John Gasaway is an ESPN College Basketball writer who usually approaches his subjects from an analytics standpoint.

He keeps a blog where he often publishes extra material.

He just posted an interesting one on what he calls "Category 5" college basketball rosters and cites Duke quite a bit, especially last year's team. For the stat heads on DBR (not to exclude anyone else who is interested), it's an intriguing read.

"The Category 5 Roster"
http://johngasaway.com/2015/10/19/the-category-5-roster/

"I wonder whether there might be rare instances where we can remove college performance from the equation more or less entirely and just look at the roster of players. Forget efficiency or shooting accuracy. Tell me how many minutes the returning players recorded, how many possessions they used, and how highly the freshman class is rated, and in these very rare instances this may be all we need to know.

In such cases I think we may be able to just look at a college basketball roster before the season even starts and say that if precedent’s any guide this team has virtually a 100 percent likelihood of earning an NCAA tournament No. 1 seed, an 80 percent probability of reaching the Final Four, and a two-in-five shot at winning a national title. I’m going to call such instances category 5 rosters, and, though I (and others) didn’t know it ahead of time, it turns out that Duke’s in 2015 was one such roster. "

Indoor66
10-19-2015, 11:32 AM
John Gasaway is an ESPN College Basketball writer who usually approaches his subjects from an analytics standpoint.

He keeps a blog where he often publishes extra material.

He just posted an interesting one on what he calls "Category 5" college basketball rosters and cites Duke quite a bit, especially last year's team. For the stat heads on DBR (not to exclude anyone else who is interested), it's an intriguing read.

"The Category 5 Roster"
http://johngasaway.com/2015/10/19/the-category-5-roster/

"I wonder whether there might be rare instances where we can remove college performance from the equation more or less entirely and just look at the roster of players. Forget efficiency or shooting accuracy. Tell me how many minutes the returning players recorded, how many possessions they used, and how highly the freshman class is rated, and in these very rare instances this may be all we need to know.

In such cases I think we may be able to just look at a college basketball roster before the season even starts and say that if precedent’s any guide this team has virtually a 100 percent likelihood of earning an NCAA tournament No. 1 seed, an 80 percent probability of reaching the Final Four, and a two-in-five shot at winning a national title. I’m going to call such instances category 5 rosters, and, though I (and others) didn’t know it ahead of time, it turns out that Duke’s in 2015 was one such roster. "

It is interesting to me that the analysis of 2016 does not mention the crowd down the road which has declared itself the odds on favorite to win it all!

Delusional sheep.

Kedsy
10-19-2015, 11:40 AM
It is interesting to me that the analysis of 2016 does not mention the crowd down the road which has declared itself the odds on favorite to win it all!

Delusional sheep.

They don't really have a recruiting class, and thus wouldn't meet his criteria. That said, since there are no "category 5" rosters in 2015-16, the window would seem to be wide open for lesser teams like UNC. I don't actually believe that UNC will prove to be one of the better NCAA teams this season, but I suppose it's theoretically possible.

Kedsy
10-19-2015, 11:43 AM
John Gasaway is an ESPN College Basketball writer who usually approaches his subjects from an analytics standpoint.

He keeps a blog where he often publishes extra material.

He just posted an interesting one on what he calls "Category 5" college basketball rosters and cites Duke quite a bit, especially last year's team. For the stat heads on DBR (not to exclude anyone else who is interested), it's an intriguing read.

"The Category 5 Roster"
http://johngasaway.com/2015/10/19/the-category-5-roster/

"I wonder whether there might be rare instances where we can remove college performance from the equation more or less entirely and just look at the roster of players. Forget efficiency or shooting accuracy. Tell me how many minutes the returning players recorded, how many possessions they used, and how highly the freshman class is rated, and in these very rare instances this may be all we need to know.

In such cases I think we may be able to just look at a college basketball roster before the season even starts and say that if precedent’s any guide this team has virtually a 100 percent likelihood of earning an NCAA tournament No. 1 seed, an 80 percent probability of reaching the Final Four, and a two-in-five shot at winning a national title. I’m going to call such instances category 5 rosters, and, though I (and others) didn’t know it ahead of time, it turns out that Duke’s in 2015 was one such roster. "

Yes, this is an interesting article. I wonder if it would be possible to combine his two factors (returning possessions and incoming recruit ranking) to highlight the best teams even in seasons when nobody meets his limiting criteria. Might have to add a third factor that evaluates how good the returning possessions really are.

Indoor66
10-19-2015, 11:43 AM
They don't really have a recruiting class, and thus wouldn't meet his criteria. That said, since there are no "category 5" rosters in 2015-16, the window would seem to be wide open for lesser teams like UNC. I don't actually believe that UNC will prove to be one of the better NCAA teams this season, but I suppose it's theoretically possible.

I was particularly referencing the last couple of paragraphs discussing 2016....

flyingdutchdevil
10-19-2015, 11:47 AM
...there are no Category 5 teams. The field is open and ripe for upsets, great match-ups, insane brackets, and a chance for Duke to go back-to-back (before we go back-to-back-to-back. ;)).

If UNC, Maryland, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, and whoever else is at the top in the beginning of the season and no one thinks any of those teams are good enough to win it all right now (I personally don't), then this will be a helluva season. I enjoy these "down" years in college ball because anyone has a chance.

COYS
10-19-2015, 11:48 AM
John Gasaway is an ESPN College Basketball writer who usually approaches his subjects from an analytics standpoint.

He keeps a blog where he often publishes extra material.

He just posted an interesting one on what he calls "Category 5" college basketball rosters and cites Duke quite a bit, especially last year's team. For the stat heads on DBR (not to exclude anyone else who is interested), it's an intriguing read.

"The Category 5 Roster"
http://johngasaway.com/2015/10/19/the-category-5-roster/

"I wonder whether there might be rare instances where we can remove college performance from the equation more or less entirely and just look at the roster of players. Forget efficiency or shooting accuracy. Tell me how many minutes the returning players recorded, how many possessions they used, and how highly the freshman class is rated, and in these very rare instances this may be all we need to know.

In such cases I think we may be able to just look at a college basketball roster before the season even starts and say that if precedent’s any guide this team has virtually a 100 percent likelihood of earning an NCAA tournament No. 1 seed, an 80 percent probability of reaching the Final Four, and a two-in-five shot at winning a national title. I’m going to call such instances category 5 rosters, and, though I (and others) didn’t know it ahead of time, it turns out that Duke’s in 2015 was one such roster. "

Thanks for that post. I really like the article. While the one and done era is still so new that I am skeptical that we have enough data points from season to season to filter out the noise, the article provides good, uncomplicated statistical evidence for something we've all talked about on this board before. Basically, in the one and done era, you have to get as much of the one and done talent as possible and pair it with talented veterans. Quinn, Amile, Marshall and Matt provided the veteran presence to balance out the ups and downs of our four freshmen.

For this year's team to be as successful, I think it's pretty clear that we'll need one of our freshman to out-perform their ranking and one of our returnees to take the next step. My prediction for our roster elevating itself to the next level would be for Derryck and Amile to prove to be difference makers on the defensive end while Matt and Luke provide veteran and freshman boosts on offense beyond what we might expect. To do this, Matt will have to be consistent hitting his threes (which would really open up the floor) and Luke can provide a little bit more of the do-it-all playmaking and scoring than we're expecting. If Luke plays more like a top 10 recruit on offense and Derryck plays like a top 10 recruit in defense, their combined contribution will be that of an additional top 10 recruit, which would help elevate the status of our roster.

Kedsy
10-19-2015, 11:49 AM
I was particularly referencing the last couple of paragraphs discussing 2016....

So was I. He said there are no "category 5" teams, and thus there's a higher than usual chance of a "dark horse" winning the championship. As I alluded in my earlier post, since his criteria for being a dominant team includes having a top recruiting class, and UNC doesn't have a recruiting class to speak of, there would be no reason for him to mention UNC.

I might add that in 2010, the "category 5" team was Kentucky. Duke wouldn't have been mentioned in this sort of article in October 2009, just like UNC wasn't mentioned here. The difference being, in my opinion, that the Duke team in October 2009 was significantly better than the UNC team is now.

NSDukeFan
10-19-2015, 12:09 PM
...there are no Category 5 teams. The field is open and ripe for upsets, great match-ups, insane brackets, and a chance for Duke to go back-to-back (before we go back-to-back-to-back. ;)).

If UNC, Maryland, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, and whoever else is at the top in the beginning of the season and no one thinks any of those teams are good enough to win it all right now (I personally don't), then this will be a helluva season. I enjoy these "down" years in college ball because anyone has a chance.

It's less enjoyable if good, but not great UConn teams sneak through and win titles (though more enjoyable than if UK or UNC were to win.)

Duke95
10-19-2015, 12:14 PM
Frankly, the focus on UNC is somewhat misplaced, given the uncertainty that they will even be playing in the postseason.

flyingdutchdevil
10-19-2015, 12:45 PM
It's less enjoyable if good, but not great UConn teams sneak through and win titles (though more enjoyable than if UK or UNC were to win.)

Hehehe. But it would be nice if good, but not great Duke teams did the same thing. And this year is as good as any!

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-19-2015, 01:27 PM
I’m going to call such instances category 5 rosters, and, though I (and others) didn’t know it ahead of time, it turns out that Duke’s in 2015 was one such roster. "

I am going to go out in a limb and give Duke a better than 40% chance to win the 2015 NCAA Championship.

mattman91
10-19-2015, 01:31 PM
Hehehe. But it would be nice if good, but not great Duke teams did the same thing. And this year is as good as any!

No more Bieber!

Li_Duke
10-19-2015, 02:04 PM
I am going to go out in a limb and give Duke a better than 40% chance to win the 2015 NCAA Championship.

Those are high odds. The average final four team has a 25% chance of winning a NCAA Championship. The only Duke team I felt had those kinds of odds prior to the season beginning was the '92 team.

Kedsy
10-19-2015, 02:35 PM
Those are high odds. The average final four team has a 25% chance of winning a NCAA Championship. The only Duke team I felt had those kinds of odds prior to the season beginning was the '92 team.

Well, he was giving odds on the 2015 championship, which has already happened. Personally, I thought he was a bit low.

gam7
10-20-2015, 09:45 AM
Summer RSCI is out for the 2016 class - https://sites.google.com/site/rscihoops/2016-summer

1. Giles
3. Tatum
13. Jackson
21. Bolden
36. DeLaurier

Based on these numbers - assuming (i) Giles comes to Duke (not to mention Bolden), and (ii) the rankings don't significantly change by end of the year - we would have a 25-point recruiting class. The returning possession minutes are difficult to predict - we are having a hard enough time just figuring out the minutes, not to mention usage rates and who will be returning - but there is a decent chance we'll have a Category 5 roster next season.