MBB: Dork Polls 2018-19 Edition (starting w/ the NCAA's first release of NET)

[Troublemaker]

I complained last week that the NCAA hadn't released NET (the replacement for RPI) yet. And apparently they listened to me ;-)

Here are the first NET rankings (which apparently will be updated daily):

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings

Early season results are going to be wonky, of course.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ds8ejgRWoAIhxX7.jpg

[JasonEvans]

I'd love to know what metrics they are using. Kansas has beaten good teams and yet cannot even crack the top 10. Virginia has played one of the worst schedules in all of D1, embarrassingly weak, and yet they are the #2 team. Loyola Marymount is the #122 KenPom team with the #314th weakest schedule... on what planet does any metric make them the #10 team in the country?

I'm hoping this is just early season wonk and not some indication of a really fundamentally flawed formula.

[UrinalCake]

Google claims that AI algorithms are used in the formula. Maybe our robot overlords have seen the future and this is what it holds. Could someone call John Connor? Seriously, this poll is nonsensical. If there’s insufficient data to apply the formula then they should wait another month before releasing it.

[English]

I'd love to know what metrics they are using. Kansas has beaten good teams and yet cannot even crack the top 10. Virginia has played one of the worst schedules in all of D1, embarrassingly weak, and yet they are the #2 team. Loyola Marymount is the #122 KenPom team with the #314th weakest schedule... on what planet does any metric make them the #10 team in the country?

I'm hoping this is just early season wonk and not some indication of a really fundamentally flawed formula.

A computer ranking system that overvalues UVA and Wisconsin?! Get right outta town!!! /s

Funny little aside--KenPom also has a POY calculator/predictor, and when Zion was boasting a PER of 50+, the algorithm still had Ethan Happ as the favorite for POY based on early season metrics. Grant Williams (Tenn) was second. I imagine that's changed in one or many ways since I last looked, but thought it was funny. Maybe not 'haha' funny, but 'Zach Galifianakis doing math in his head' funny. It's pretty useless to look at the analytics-based rankings this early in the season, but useless =/= without some entertainment value.

[PackMan97]

NC State is 31st with the easiest schedule in the world...what's not to like about these new metrics ;)

[scottdude8]

Thanks for starting this thread Trouble, I was about to do it myself ;)

My initial reaction to this metric is that, while still (obviously) imperfect, it's a huge step forward over RPI, which was archaic at best. SI has an article I found explaining the NET rankings in a bit of detail: https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2018/11/03/college-basketball-rankings-net-system-explain
To me the biggest issue/unknown is how that "Team Value Index" is calculated... it definitely takes into account a variety of factors that I think are good, it just doesn't explicitly say what formula is used to get the final index. I'm also curious as to how the five factors are weighted, which is another detail that wasn't presented there. Perhaps there's a more detailed explanation somewhere else on the interwebs.

But again, this is a big improvement over RPI. The fact that the home/road factor is taken into account in two of the five factors makes me happy (I ranted and raved about the importance of that in evaluating teams for seeding a lot last year, haha). If it were me I might have eliminated scoring margin as it's own individual factor and instead made it a part of the "Team Value Index", because without context the margin of victory can be misleading (consider an 8 point margin that came about because the opposition fouled for the last minute and couldn't score, turning a close game into a larger margin, versus an 8 point margin that came about due to some late buckets with backups in the game). It also seems a bit silly to me to have both a pure and adjusted win percentage included. But maybe how the five factors are differentially weighted takes that into account.

A spork from my end to the first person who can find either A) the direct formula used for the "Team Value Index" or B) any clear explanation as to how each of the five factors are weighted, haha.

[English]

Thanks for starting this thread Trouble, I was about to do it myself ;)

SNIP...

A spork from my end to the first person who can find either A) the direct formula used for the "Team Value Index" or B) any clear explanation as to how each of the five factors are weighted, haha.

It seems you're not the only one chagrined at the missing formula(s)--here's an article from earlier today by Jerry Palm of CBSSports (and stoic champ of the RPI): https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/release-of-first-net-rankings-creates-more-questions-than-answers-when-ncaa-keeps-formula-a-secret/. He specifically cites the very complaints that you mention (ambiguity of TVI, unclear weighting of factors, and seeming redundancy of some factors with others).


However, the thing that is missing from the what the NCAA revealed with the release of the NET ratings is any of the supporting data that goes into the rankings. All we are being given for now is each team's overall record and breakdown by home/road/neutral/non-Division I. That's it. There is not one piece of useful information on the rankings page except the ranking itself...

The NCAA has been working very hard in recent years to make the selection process as transparent as possible. Not releasing the formula for this is a significant step backwards in that process. And, while it may be so complicated that nobody on the actual committee can understand it, let alone explain it, surely there is one geek at every school that would. The geek writing this column is confident he would ultimately understand it also.

Also, KenPom wrote something for The Atlantic in August breaking down NET, but I'm not a subscriber, so I can't speak to whether he was privy to the innards of the tool.

Here's what the NCAA itself had to say, when describing "everything you need to know about NET" (spoiler alert: it doesn't answer the questions posed): https://twitter.com/marchmadness/status/1067063960753573889/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwte rm%5E1067063960753573889&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncaa.com%2Fnews%2Fbasket ball-men%2Farticle%2F2018-11-26%2Fnet-explained-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Apparently a game @Wofford is weightier than a neutral tilt with UK, the Zags, Auburn, etc. Who knew? (dare I say garbage in, garbage out?)

[UrinalCake]

Apparently a game @Wofford is weightier than a neutral tilt with UK, the Zags, Auburn, etc. Who knew? (dare I say garbage in, garbage out?)

The CHeats are ranked #21 in the NET, which is significantly lower than the human polls. Are you looking at some sort of SOS component?

[MChambers]

It may be an improvement over RPI, but almost anything would be. Pitt at #23? You gotta be kidding. tOSU at #1?

[uh_no]

It may be an improvement over RPI, but almost anything would be. Pitt at #23? You gotta be kidding. tOSU at #1?

give it a break. any ranking system is going to be highly biased by preseason rankings at this point in the year. Even kenpom says his own numbers are a bit of a crapshoot until the end of january or so....and I can guarantee the NCAA puts less thought into the veracity of their preseason rankings than does he.

We'll see what it looks like in a couple of months.

[nmduke2001]

Nate Silver is not impressed

Twitter
"These are the worst rankings I've ever seen in any sport, ever. NCAA needs to go completely back to the drawing board....I guess I'm not sympathetic because a lot of smart people have worked on this problem (power rankings) for a LONG time and the NCAA ignored all that and came up with something that doesn't reflect methodological best practices and which doesn't make sense, basketball-wise"

[MChambers]

give it a break. any ranking system is going to be highly biased by preseason rankings at this point in the year. Even kenpom says his own numbers are a bit of a crapshoot until the end of january or so...and I can guarantee the NCAA puts less thought into the veracity of their preseason rankings than does he.

We'll see what it looks like in a couple of months.

Yes, I get the point, at least about small sample size. I assume NET doesn't have preseason rankings, though. Still, Pitt's schedule has been very weak.

My guess is that NET, like RPI, overvalues wins and undervalues scoring margin.

[subzero02]

Google claims that AI algorithms are used in the formula. Maybe our robot overlords have seen the future and this is what it holds. Could someone call John Connor? Seriously, this poll is nonsensical. If there’s insufficient data to apply the formula then they should wait another month before releasing it.

I stopped reading the thread after your post. This poll is beyond ridiculous right now... I'll take another look at it in a few weeks but right now it is pure crop.

[rasputin]

give it a break. any ranking system is going to be highly biased by preseason rankings at this point in the year. Even kenpom says his own numbers are a bit of a crapshoot until the end of january or so...and I can guarantee the NCAA puts less thought into the veracity of their preseason rankings than does he.

We'll see what it looks like in a couple of months.

Highly biased by preseason rankings? Ohio State was unranked in the AP in the preseason. They are now 6-0, with wins over Cincinnati, Creighton, and 4 cupcakes. And that team is ranked number one?

There must be a reason why the NCAA isn't releasing the details of this metric. Its performance looks even worse than RPI at this point.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Nate Silver is not impressed

Twitter
"These are the worst rankings I've ever seen in any sport, ever. NCAA needs to go completely back to the drawing board...I guess I'm not sympathetic because a lot of smart people have worked on this problem (power rankings) for a LONG time and the NCAA ignored all that and came up with something that doesn't reflect methodological best practices and which doesn't make sense, basketball-wise"

This is a pretty harsh damnation by Silver, who is in a position to have his opinion taken seriously. Clearly these rankings are absurd. If Duke is only 6th after being 5-1 and beating Kentucky, Auburn and San Diego and barely losing to Gonzaga, then that's a system that will never ever have Duke a top seed. I thought these rankings were foolish before reading Silver's commentary - and afterwards, I'm even more convinced. Sounds like Silver kind of saw this coming.

[fuse]

Nate Silver is not impressed

Twitter
"These are the worst rankings I've ever seen in any sport, ever. NCAA needs to go completely back to the drawing board...I guess I'm not sympathetic because a lot of smart people have worked on this problem (power rankings) for a LONG time and the NCAA ignored all that and came up with something that doesn't reflect methodological best practices and which doesn't make sense, basketball-wise"

Nate Silver, if he were wise, would be lauding why human analysis of data analytics is important and justifying his expertise as better than ML/“AI”.

[Turk]

Highly biased by preseason rankings? Ohio State was unranked in the AP in the preseason. They are now 6-0, with wins over Cincinnati, Creighton, and 4 cupcakes. And that team is ranked number one?

There must be a reason why the NCAA isn't releasing the details of this metric. Its performance looks even worse than RPI at this point.

Highly biased by preseason rankings? Not only were they unranked, Pitt was (is?) considered a laughingstock and at least a 3 year rebuild by Coach Capel. They are now 6-0, with wins over pre-season A-10 favorite St. Louis in Brooklyn (2X bonus points!), plus 5 cupcakes. And that team is ranked number 23?

There is a reason why the NCAA isn't releasing the details of this metric: student privacy rights, corporate partner contractual obligations, or the price of bagels in Oklahoma, take your pick. Those clowns wouldn't release their Chinese takeout order for lunch without a subpoena.

This silliness is the same thing as April statistics in baseball. "If Francisco Cervelli continues at his current pace, he would hit .444 with 80 home runs and 200 RBI." Have fun with it, and enjoy it while it lasts!

[ncexnyc]

I'll leave the poll watching to the many stats geeks on this forum. I'll stick with actually watching the games.

[Nugget]

Highly biased by preseason rankings? Not only were they unranked, Pitt was (is?) considered a laughingstock and at least a 3 year rebuild by Coach Capel. They are now 6-0, with wins over pre-season A-10 favorite St. Louis in Brooklyn (2X bonus points!), plus 5 cupcakes. And that team is ranked number 23?

There is a reason why the NCAA isn't releasing the details of this metric: student privacy rights, corporate partner contractual obligations, or the price of bagels in Oklahoma, take your pick. Those clowns wouldn't release their Chinese takeout order for lunch without a subpoena.

This silliness is the same thing as April statistics in baseball. "If Francisco Cervelli continues at his current pace, he would hit .444 with 80 home runs and 200 RBI." Have fun with it, and enjoy it while it lasts!

Agreed that, to the limited extent they have identified the factors that compromise the NET (Net Efficiency -- which is just the raw points per possession on O less raw PPP on D; Winning Percentage, Winning Percentage adjusted by the factors in the RPI - i.e. giving a little bonus for neutral wins and a bigger bonus for road wins; Scoring Margin, capped at 10 points per game; and the mysterious Team Value Index -- which is described as having as components Wins and losses, game location and an "opponents" factor of unstated derivation, determination or weighting) it does not appear that any of them -- with the possible exception of the undefined "opponents" factor of Team Value Index -- is in any way affected by preseason rankings or pre-season expectations based on past performance (as for example KenPom's ratings are). So, this would all seem to be based solely on the limited sample size of the 5-7 games teams have played to date.

And, clearly, it is heavily skewed towards simply winning games and winning road games -- so, for example, while Ohio St. probably isn't #1 they do have two very good wins in true road games at Cincy and at Creighton that would help them with the small sample size to date.

Also, it isn't quite right that the NCAA would never release the details behind their metrics -- they did release the formula for how the RPI was determined, which was one reason it was so easy to ridicule.

While I agree with those who've cautioned it doesn't make sense to get too worked up over the wonkiness of these initial ratings in light of the small sample, I absolutely agree with Palm and others who've urged the NCAA to release the forumulas/weightings so that the dorks who could do the necessary checks and balances to highlight errors/inefficiences can have enough to work with to suggest improvements.

[uh_no]

Highly biased by preseason rankings? Ohio State was unranked in the AP in the preseason. They are now 6-0, with wins over Cincinnati, Creighton, and 4 cupcakes. And that team is ranked number one?

There must be a reason why the NCAA isn't releasing the details of this metric. Its performance looks even worse than RPI at this point.

my thesis being that poor preseason rankings (or likely lack thereof) make most dork polls a bit of a crapshoot at this time of year.

[MChambers]

Apparently margin of victory is capped at 10 points, which is ridiculous. And efficiency isn’t adjusted for the quality of the opponent.

OTOH, Kentucky is ranked 61, so I can get behind that. The SeaofBlue folks are not happy.

[brevity]

I'll leave the poll watching to the many stats geeks on this forum. I'll stick with actually watching the games.

"Better you than us." -- NCAA Tournament Selection Committee

A lot of consternation on this board for a metric that does something awesome: leave UNC out of the top 20. Once they learn how to count, and run out of fingers and toes, the folks at Inside Carolina are going to be really upset.

As I understand it, all metrics are meaningless this early in the season, which makes me wonder why the NCAA bothered to release numbers right now when they were under no obligation to do so. They should have waited until the new year, when most of the college football bowls are over, and most college basketball teams start conference play. That said, I appreciate all transparency, especially the kind that shows this level of organizational stupidity.

Enjoy the process, everyone. I can't believe no one in his thread has mentioned the one team in America worth following: Houston Baptist. They beat Fordham and Wake Forest, and lost to Virginia and Wisconsin. This puts them at #147, which is in the top half of today's list of all 353 teams (https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings), just ahead of Final Four team Loyola Chicago (#148) and the following power conference teams: Washington State (#155), South Carolina (#162), Utah (#169), Boston College (#170), Baylor (#185), Wake Forest (#205), and California (#246).

[JasonEvans]

As I understand it, all metrics are meaningless this early in the season, which makes me wonder why the NCAA bothered to release numbers right now when they were under no obligation to do so. They should have waited until the new year, when most of the college football bowls are over, and most college basketball teams start conference play. That said, I appreciate all transparency, especially the kind that shows this level of organizational stupidity.

Brevity is, as usual, right on the mark with the above line. Folks are getting worked up about the NET but it is too early to know if it works or is an abject failure. The NCAA smartly is not including any preseason bias/ranking in the NET. Once we hit 10-15 games played by all the teams, then I bet the NET will start to look a little more ordinary. But, at this point, it is actually kinda difficult to tell the difference between Kentucky, Liberty, Radford, Kent St, and Stoney Brook... I mean, they are all 5-1.

That said, as I noted months ago when this sucker was first announced, capping the margin of victory at 10 points is a silly idea that will eliminate a lot of your analytical ability. I suspect that even once we have more data, there will be some head scratching results in the NET. I am hoping the NCAA Selection Committee will be able to see beyond some of the flaws, as they did when they were using RPI as a key measurement.

-Jason "this is better than RPI... but it still isn't close to many other measuring sticks commonly used" Evans

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Brevity is, as usual, right on the mark with the above line. Folks are getting worked up about the NET but it is too early to know if it works or is an abject failure. The NCAA smartly is not including any preseason bias/ranking in the NET. Once we hit 10-15 games played by all the teams, then I bet the NET will start to look a little more ordinary. But, at this point, it is actually kinda difficult to tell the difference between Kentucky, Liberty, Radford, Kent St, and Stoney Brook... I mean, they are all 5-1.

That said, as I noted months ago when this sucker was first announced, capping the margin of victory at 10 points is a silly idea that will eliminate a lot of your analytical ability. I suspect that even once we have more data, there will be some head scratching results in the NET. I am hoping the NCAA Selection Committee will be able to see beyond some of the flaws, as they did when they were using RPI as a key measurement.

-Jason "this is better than RPI... but it still isn't close to many other measuring sticks commonly used" Evans

I agree with the above analysis in theory, but there are a few outliers that I'm not sure will be cured by time. I"m not really sure time is going to correctly sort Kentucky versus Radford, Liberty, etc, under this system....As others have mentioned, the cap at ten for margin is indeed silly....a case can be made for 20 or so, but a ten point game can be a close game with late free throws....which is not what Duke UK was.

And while I have my differences with Nate Silver, his statistical work is very precise and elegant....and he's trashed this system since he found out how they're doing it. Time will tell....

[jhmoss1812]

"Better you than us." -- NCAA Tournament Selection Committee

A lot of consternation on this board for a metric that does something awesome: leave UNC out of the top 20. Once they learn how to count, and run out of fingers and toes, the folks at Inside Carolina are going to be really upset.

As I understand it, all metrics are meaningless this early in the season, which makes me wonder why the NCAA bothered to release numbers right now when they were under no obligation to do so. They should have waited until the new year, when most of the college football bowls are over, and most college basketball teams start conference play. That said, I appreciate all transparency, especially the kind that shows this level of organizational stupidity.

Enjoy the process, everyone. I can't believe no one in his thread has mentioned the one team in America worth following: Houston Baptist. They beat Fordham and Wake Forest, and lost to Virginia and Wisconsin. This puts them at #147, which is in the top half of today's list of all 353 teams (https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings), just ahead of Final Four team Loyola Chicago (#148) and the following power conference teams: Washington State (#155), South Carolina (#162), Utah (#169), Boston College (#170), Baylor (#185), Wake Forest (#205), and California (#246).

I don't remember UVA playing Houston Baptist. Did we win or are they a 16-seed?

[CameronBornAndBred]

In this poll, Kansas gets leapfrogged by EVERYBODY.
Getting jumped over is getting to be habitual in Lawrence.

[rasputin]

In this poll, Kansas gets leapfrogged by EVERYBODY.
Getting jumped over is getting to be habitual in Lawrence.

Well, Lawrence is in the flyover zone.

[JetpackJesus]

"Better you than us." -- NCAA Tournament Selection Committee

A lot of consternation on this board for a metric that does something awesome: leave UNC out of the top 20. Once they learn how to count, and run out of fingers and toes, the folks at Inside Carolina are going to be really upset.

As I understand it, all metrics are meaningless this early in the season, which makes me wonder why the NCAA bothered to release numbers right now when they were under no obligation to do so. They should have waited until the new year, when most of the college football bowls are over, and most college basketball teams start conference play. That said, I appreciate all transparency, especially the kind that shows this level of organizational stupidity.

Enjoy the process, everyone. I can't believe no one in his thread has mentioned the one team in America worth following: Houston Baptist. They beat Fordham and Wake Forest, and lost to Virginia and Wisconsin. This puts them at #147, which is in the top half of today's list of all 353 teams (https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings), just ahead of Final Four team Loyola Chicago (#148) and the following power conference teams: Washington State (#155), South Carolina (#162), Utah (#169), Boston College (#170), Baylor (#185), Wake Forest (#205), and California (#246). This is the part that baffles me. They did not need to do this now. You would think that the NCAA would have looked at the results and said, "Nope. Not this week."

I assume they tested NET by running data from prior seasons, and I assume it reflected something close to reality in those tests. These results clearly do not, so why not wait until NET normalizes before releasing it, especially in its first year? I know some already were asking for results before this week, but I think most would understand the simple explanation that the data are not sufficient this early in the season for NET to produce meaningful results.

[fuse]

Nate Silver, if he were wise, would be lauding why human analysis of data analytics is important and justifying his expertise as better than ML/“AI”.

I was asked via DM to expand what I meant by my comments above.

Here goes:

I’m a big believer in data and fact, and have a lot of respect for Nate Silver.

My main point was really more about flaws in the formula, and that a sharp statistician like Mr. Silver could have used NET as a foil to discuss the differences between data (raw analytics) and information (transforming data into a story).

It was a bit of a stretch to compare machine learning and artificial intelligence to the blunt tool that is NET (although I would contend NET may make a good case study in inherent bias).

NET, at best, is just data (or as others have pointed out, it may just be too early for the output of the formula to have any tangible meaning). I’m not sure it will ever produce information.

A brief aside on data and information.
An example of data might be, an ostrich lays the biggest bird egg.
If you’ve never seen an ostrich egg, that data isn’t super meaningful.
If I know you’ve seen a chicken egg, or assume it is a common enough reference point and add an additional data point, an ostrich egg is equivalent to 24 chicken eggs, now you have information.

(I resisted temptation to create an example using basketball players and everyone’s favorite unit of measurement.) :rolleyes:

Disclaimer: I’m not a statistician or mathematician, and one of my favorite mantras is “often wrong, never in doubt”.

With a little luck, maybe someone found this useful or mildly entertaining.

Let’s Go Duke!

[Nugget]

The NET rankings are starting to look more reasonable/representative (and playing Texas Tech and St John' looks like it will be much better for our SOS than expected pre-season):

1 Michigan
2 Virginia
3 Duke
4 Texas Tech
5 Tennessee
6 Kansas
7 Gonzaga
8 Nevada
9 Michigan St.
10 Auburn
11 Wisconsin
12 Buffalo
13 Ohio St.
14 Houston
15 North Carolina
16 Nebraska
17 Oklahoma
18 NC State-seems a bit high
19 Louisville-seems a bit high
20 Indiana Big Ten
21 San Francisco-high
22 Marquette
23 Villanova
24 Virginia Tech-a little low
25 Cincinnati
26 Arizona St.
27 Mississippi St.-a little low
28 Furman
29 Florida St.-a little low
30 St. John's (NY)
31 Purdue Big Ten
32 Syracuse
33 Kentucky
34 UCLA
35 Iowa St.
36 Utah St.-high
37 Arizona-high
38 Liberty-high
39 LSU
40 Colorado
41 Butler
42 Maryland-probably a little low
43 Washington
44 Iowa
45 Lipscomb
46 Kansas St.
47 Northwestern-high
48 Florida
49 San Diego-high
50 North Texas-high

51-60 include TCU, Minnesota and Creighton, all of whom it's hard to see as behind Northwestern, San Diego and North Texas. But, that's really nit-picking at this point

[PackMan97]

Pfftt...State will prove doubters wrong. The NET is just very forward thinking.

[uh_no]

The NET rankings are starting to look more reasonable/representative (and playing Texas Tech and St John' looks like it will be much better for our SOS than expected pre-season):

1 Michigan
2 Virginia
3 Duke
4 Texas Tech
5 Tennessee
6 Kansas
7 Gonzaga
8 Nevada
9 Michigan St.
10 Auburn
11 Wisconsin
12 Buffalo
13 Ohio St.
14 Houston
15 North Carolina
16 Nebraska
17 Oklahoma
18 NC State-seems a bit high
19 Louisville-seems a bit high
20 Indiana Big Ten
21 San Francisco-high
22 Marquette
23 Villanova
24 Virginia Tech-a little low
25 Cincinnati
26 Arizona St.
27 Mississippi St.-a little low
28 Furman
29 Florida St.-a little low
30 St. John's (NY)
31 Purdue Big Ten
32 Syracuse
33 Kentucky
34 UCLA
35 Iowa St.
36 Utah St.-high
37 Arizona-high
38 Liberty-high
39 LSU
40 Colorado
41 Butler
42 Maryland-probably a little low
43 Washington
44 Iowa
45 Lipscomb
46 Kansas St.
47 Northwestern-high
48 Florida
49 San Diego-high
50 North Texas-high

51-60 include TCU, Minnesota and Creighton, all of whom it's hard to see as behind Northwestern, San Diego and North Texas. But, that's really nit-picking at this point

it makes sense. I still wouldn't be concerned about outliers until the end of january or so....and was kind of dissapointed that Nate Silver railed on it when to a large degree, the naivete of the rankings were due to a lack of preseason rankings...something that makes rankings look like crap early, but is likely a good thing down the road.

Now, I'd argue that the NCAA shouldn't have bothered to release them....but such is life.

[JayZee]

I was asked via DM to expand what I meant by my comments above.

Here goes:

I’m a big believer in data and fact, and have a lot of respect for Nate Silver.

My main point was really more about flaws in the formula, and that a sharp statistician like Mr. Silver could have used NET as a foil to discuss the differences between data (raw analytics) and information (transforming data into a story).

It was a bit of a stretch to compare machine learning and artificial intelligence to the blunt tool that is NET (although I would contend NET may make a good case study in inherent bias).

NET, at best, is just data (or as others have pointed out, it may just be too early for the output of the formula to have any tangible meaning). I’m not sure it will ever produce information.

A brief aside on data and information.
An example of data might be, an ostrich lays the biggest bird egg.
If you’ve never seen an ostrich egg, that data isn’t super meaningful.
If I know you’ve seen a chicken egg, or assume it is a common enough reference point and add an additional data point, an ostrich egg is equivalent to 24 chicken eggs, now you have information.

(I resisted temptation to create an example using basketball players and everyone’s favorite unit of measurement.) :rolleyes:

Disclaimer: I’m not a statistician or mathematician, and one of my favorite mantras is “often wrong, never in doubt”.

With a little luck, maybe someone found this useful or mildly entertaining.

Let’s Go Duke!

I believe Mr Silver would agree with me here in that humans still play an important (the most important?) role in most ML/AI models, namely in designing/creating the features of the model. AI/ML is not just chucking a ton of data into some black box that figures it all out. Thus the importance of human decisions to, as Jason Evans relayed, cap the win margin at 10. That's a major decision made by a human. I'm not sure what goes into NET vs Nate Silver's models versus Ken Pomeroy's models, but I bet Nate's and Ken's are better...

[uh_no]

I'm not sure what goes into NET vs Nate Silver's models versus Ken Pomeroy's models, but I bet Nate's and Ken's are better...

I don't think you'll find disagreement among dorks that the latter 2's models will be better...but they're trying to accomplish different things. Two of them are predictors, one of them is attempting to seed teams both on absolute strength as well as reward for doing certain things that the NCAA likes to see...like winning games. So far as the results aren't as far out of whack as some of the RPI ones were, I'm fine with bumping a team up a seed line or two if they won a bunch of big games, even if they were close, over a team that lost the close games and beat everyone else a bit more.

So saying "we won't reward you for winning by more than 10" does two things:

1) it never encourages you to pour it on (though 10 is likely low)
2) you get more value by playing teams that are closer to you in ranking

Say I'm being compared to some other team. We both play Cupcake state. Team light blue wins by 15, and we win by 20. The system considers that the same even though there is some amount of predictive value in comparing those results. Now, instead we both play a slightly heavier weight team...like pound cake polytechnic...they win by 7 and we win by 10. Now we look better than they do...and that distinction would have been lost if we had played cupcake.

So even if it discards some predictive value, it encourages teams to play teams more equal in strength. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem rewarding more than 2 "points" worth of distinction between a 1 point win and a 1 point loss. You want to reward teams for actually winning the game, even if it has less predictive value.

I'm fine with these things. You should be rewarded for them. This system is getting far more flac than it should.

[Ian]

I agree, let's let the NET get same data before we just kill it. It's already not looking nearly as terrible as some have made it out to be an we're still in December.

[BandAlum83]

I don't think you'll find disagreement among dorks that the latter 2's models will be better...but they're trying to accomplish different things. Two of them are predictors, one of them is attempting to seed teams both on absolute strength as well as reward for doing certain things that the NCAA likes to see...like winning games. So far as the results aren't as far out of whack as some of the RPI ones were, I'm fine with bumping a team up a seed line or two if they won a bunch of big games, even if they were close, over a team that lost the close games and beat everyone else a bit more.

So saying "we won't reward you for winning by more than 10" does two things:

1) it never encourages you to pour it on (though 10 is likely low)
2) you get more value by playing teams that are closer to you in ranking

Say I'm being compared to some other team. We both play Cupcake state. Team light blue wins by 15, and we win by 20. The system considers that the same even though there is some amount of predictive value in comparing those results. Now, instead we both play a slightly heavier weight team...like pound cake polytechnic...they win by 7 and we win by 10. Now we look better than they do...and that distinction would have been lost if we had played cupcake.

So even if it discards some predictive value, it encourages teams to play teams more equal in strength. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem rewarding more than 2 "points" worth of distinction between a 1 point win and a 1 point loss. You want to reward teams for actually winning the game, even if it has less predictive value.

I'm fine with these things. You should be rewarded for them. This system is getting far more flac than it should.

I'm of the opinion that a 10pt cap is too low. A tight game with lots of fouls down the stretch can end at 8-10 points; that is a far cry different from a game ending 15+ points. I'm thinking 15 might be the magic number for capping.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I'm of the opinion that a 10pt cap is too low. A tight game with lots of fouls down the stretch can end at 8-10 points; that is a far cry different from a game ending 15+ points. I'm thinking 15 might be the magic number for capping.

I'd have a stratified scale....no reason for just two margin categories. If you only have two, I'd move the line to 18 or 20 maybe.

[uh_no]

I'm of the opinion that a 10pt cap is too low. A tight game with lots of fouls down the stretch can end at 8-10 points; that is a far cry different from a game ending 15+ points. I'm thinking 15 might be the magic number for capping.

That's fair, though I'm skeptical it will make substantial differences though. How many games will a team play between 10 and 15 points? I wager it's <5 on average. You'll definitely get a change in ranking of 1 or 2, but given the committee has the final say anyway, and it's still within the margin of error for regional balance and other bracketing rules, I'm not sure it will make that much of a difference in the end. At 10 or 15 points, the system SHOULD eliminate the huge outliers that plagued RPI.

[Troublemaker]

Google claims that AI algorithms are used in the formula. Maybe our robot overlords have seen the future and this is what it holds. Could someone call John Connor? Seriously, this poll is nonsensical. If there’s insufficient data to apply the formula then they should wait another month before releasing it.


it makes sense. I still wouldn't be concerned about outliers until the end of january or so...and was kind of dissapointed that Nate Silver railed on it when to a large degree, the naivete of the rankings were due to a lack of preseason rankings...something that makes rankings look like crap early, but is likely a good thing down the road.

Now, I'd argue that the NCAA shouldn't have bothered to release them...but such is life.

I'd agree if PR for the NCAA were high on my list of concerns, but I like watching rankings "take shape" as more data is accrued and wouldn't have minded if the NCAA had released NET in early November after *1* game had been played by each team. Even releasing it in late November as they did probably has been instructive about the power of sample size.

Anyway, I hope the NCAA releases the formula behind NET at some point but am not very hopeful on that count.

[Troublemaker]

I should probably start a "human polls" thread but this AP voter is such a huge "dork" that maybe he belongs in this thread, at least temporarily.

Graham Couch, 1 of 65 AP voters, does not include Duke, Kansas, and Tennessee in his Top 25. Why? No true road games played by those schools yet.

Here's his column explaining his logic:

https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/columnists/graham-couch/2018/12/10/graham-couch-ap-top-25-college-basketball-ballot-why-duke-kansas-tennessee-didnt-make/2264942002/

[BLPOG]

I should probably start a "human polls" thread but this AP voter is such a huge "dork" that maybe he belongs in this thread, at least temporarily.

Graham Couch, 1 of 65 AP voters, does not include Duke, Kansas, and Tennessee in his Top 25. Why? No true road games played by those schools yet.

Here's his column explaining his logic:

https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/columnists/graham-couch/2018/12/10/graham-couch-ap-top-25-college-basketball-ballot-why-duke-kansas-tennessee-didnt-make/2264942002/

You know, there's a way he could try to support his "logic." He could do a comparison of match-ups with comparable team rankings between neutral site and home/away games, and describe the statistical edge - if any exists - to home teams. He could compare the size of the effect to the edge implied by ranking differences, and the availability of relatively stronger opponents for neutral site versus home/away match-ups.

Funny that there wasn't such an analysis in that article.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I should probably start a "human polls" thread but this AP voter is such a huge "dork" that maybe he belongs in this thread, at least temporarily.

Graham Couch, 1 of 65 AP voters, does not include Duke, Kansas, and Tennessee in his Top 25. Why? No true road games played by those schools yet.

Here's his column explaining his logic:

https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/columnists/graham-couch/2018/12/10/graham-couch-ap-top-25-college-basketball-ballot-why-duke-kansas-tennessee-didnt-make/2264942002/

Clearly a bitter Michigan State homer with an axe to grind........what an absurd column, and ballot.

[BandAlum83]

I should probably start a "human polls" thread but this AP voter is such a huge "dork" that maybe he belongs in this thread, at least temporarily.

Graham Couch, 1 of 65 AP voters, does not include Duke, Kansas, and Tennessee in his Top 25. Why? No true road games played by those schools yet.

Here's his column explaining his logic:

https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/columnists/graham-couch/2018/12/10/graham-couch-ap-top-25-college-basketball-ballot-why-duke-kansas-tennessee-didnt-make/2264942002/

So neutral court games have no value unless they are played in Ireland, apparently.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

So neutral court games have no value unless they are played in Ireland, apparently.

AND...besides that....Duke is given no credit for the fact that in every single ACC game on the road...they will be the Super Bowl for that team...it will be that teams' biggest crowd of the year, in some cases the biggest crowd ever....Duke plays an ACC road schedule that no one has ever played....and has (for the most part) since 1991-92.

Even in the Dean's Myth days when the Cheats were the dominant program, they faced nothing like the road environment Duke routinely does now.

[House P]

I don't think you'll find disagreement among dorks that the latter 2's models will be better...but they're trying to accomplish different things. Two of them are predictors, one of them is attempting to seed teams both on absolute strength as well as reward for doing certain things that the NCAA likes to see...like winning games. So far as the results aren't as far out of whack as some of the RPI ones were, I'm fine with bumping a team up a seed line or two if they won a bunch of big games, even if they were close, over a team that lost the close games and beat everyone else a bit more.

So saying "we won't reward you for winning by more than 10" does two things:

1) it never encourages you to pour it on (though 10 is likely low)
2) you get more value by playing teams that are closer to you in ranking



I completely get what you are saying regarding capping the margin of victory in order to not reward running up the score. What I find really puzzling is why the NET caps the margin of victory, but (apparently) doesn't cap the net efficiency calculation, or adjust it by opponents strength.

In the end, unadjusted net efficiency is highly correlated with margin of victory. Take a look at the chart below which plots Duke's unadjusted net efficiency and margin of victory (or defeat) for all games between 2002 and 2018. You don't have to be a stats major to notice the strong correlation. If you are a stats major, you can comment what an R^2 value of 0.9867 means to you.

So the NCAA might say that they are capping margin of victory, but they aren't really doing so.

8881

So, if the NCAA is really using unadjusted net efficiency without a cap, they are essentially using an uncapped margin of victory. I really hope that the NCAA is doing something in the "black box" portion of the NET calculation (the "Team Vaule Index") to counterbalances the inclusion of unadjusted net efficiency (and win percentage adjusted for home/neutral/away). Otherwise, Duke might as well stop scheduling neutral court games vs top teams in favor of running up the score in road games vs bottom dwellers from the Southland, SWAC, and MEAC.

[duke2x]

You know, there's a way he could try to support his "logic." He could do a comparison of match-ups with comparable team rankings between neutral site and home/away games, and describe the statistical edge - if any exists - to home teams. He could compare the size of the effect to the edge implied by ranking differences, and the availability of relatively stronger opponents for neutral site versus home/away match-ups.

Funny that there wasn't such an analysis in that article.

This would be a good project for some MIDS students at Duke. Sagarin usually quantifies home advantage at 2-3.5 points in his model without getting into specifics for teams. How much is the home-away differential really for Duke? You've got the extra Superbowl/Maryland effect on the road to consider, and I've heard people casually speculate that Cameron + Coach K is worth 6-8 points. (I don't want to know the number for Wallace Wade.)

If only we had played Stetson in DeLand, we could be adequately prepared. :(

[BLPOG]

This would be a good project for some MIDS students at Duke. Sagarin usually quantifies home advantage at 2-3.5 points in his model without getting into specifics for teams. How much is the home-away differential really for Duke? You've got the extra Superbowl/Maryland effect on the road to consider, and I've heard people casually speculate that Cameron + Coach K is worth 6-8 points. (I don't want to know the number for Wallace Wade.)

If only we had played Stetson in DeLand, we could be adequately prepared. :(

Your mention of Cameron made me consider another point: since a lot of true road games involve a home-and-home scheduling over multiple seasons, if there an asymmetry there - such as Cameron being a proportionately tougher road game than most venues - then scheduling neutral-site games by the tough-venue team is going to make the schedule harder for them, on average, even before taking into account correlation between neutral sites and opponent rankings.

[jhmoss1812]

I should probably start a "human polls" thread but this AP voter is such a huge "dork" that maybe he belongs in this thread, at least temporarily.

Graham Couch, 1 of 65 AP voters, does not include Duke, Kansas, and Tennessee in his Top 25. Why? No true road games played by those schools yet.

Here's his column explaining his logic:

https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/columnists/graham-couch/2018/12/10/graham-couch-ap-top-25-college-basketball-ballot-why-duke-kansas-tennessee-didnt-make/2264942002/

Graham Couch is really dumb. Does he realize that UVA's only away game so far was at Maryland? This was scheduled as part of the ACC/B1G challenge. So he lambastes Duke who got scheduled a home game in the challenge but has no issue with UVA who got scheduled an away game? It's not like UVA scheduled the away game themselves.

[Ian]

Graham Couch is really dumb. Does he realize that UVA's only away game so far was at Maryland? This was scheduled as part of the ACC/B1G challenge. So he lambastes Duke who got scheduled a home game in the challenge but has no issue with UVA who got scheduled an away game? It's not like UVA scheduled the away game themselves.

He also put ASU in his top 25, despite the fact ASU hasn't played a "true road game" yet.

Which means he didn't start out with a criteria and eliminated teams based on it, he set out to exclude certain teams and came up with a fake justification that sounded good to him, and didn't bother to go back and verify that all the other teams he voted for would actually qualify.

[AGDukesky]

He also put ASU in his top 25, despite the fact ASU hasn't played a "true road game" yet.

Which means he didn't start out with a criteria and eliminated teams based on it, he set out to exclude certain teams and came up with a fake justification that sounded good to him, and didn't bother to go back and verify that all the other teams he voted for would actually qualify.

“Journalism” gets more and more lazy...

[HereBeforeCoachK]

“Journalism” gets more and more lazy...

more agenda'd than lazy, but that too

[AGDukesky]

Well, looking a little closer it does appear ASU scheduled a game at San Francisco that was postponed. Technically, his gripe was not scheduling road games...

[jhmoss1812]

Well, looking a little closer it does appear ASU scheduled a game at San Francisco that was postponed. Technically, his gripe was not scheduling road games...

Technically, his gripe was not playing road games. Many of the teams he has ranked played road games but did not schedule them. UVA and VT have only played one true road game each but both were part of the ACC/B1G challenge. That is not scheduling a road game.

[JasonEvans]

Of the top 10 teams in Pomeroy's rankings, UVA has played far and away the easiest schedule (295th toughest according to Pom, Michigan at #145 is the next easiest). But, Mr. Arbitrary Couch has no problem with that. All he cares about is road games.

Silly, self-important, and meaningless... those are the three descriptors that come to mind first when talking about this dude. No reason to waste another microsecond of thought on him.

[jhmoss1812]

Of the top 10 teams in Pomeroy's rankings, UVA has played far and away the easiest schedule (295th toughest according to Pom, Michigan at #145 is the next easiest). But, Mr. Arbitrary Couch has no problem with that. All he cares about is road games.

Silly, self-important, and meaningless... those are the three descriptors that come to mind first when talking about this dude. No reason to waste another microsecond of thought on him.

Bennett should honestly be ashamed with this year's NCSOS. It's been downright pathetic so far. Granted, the Battle 4 Atlantis turned out to be weaker than expected when originally scheduled. Secondly, we should have played Michigan in the ACC/B1G challenge but got stuck with Maryland instead. On the other hand, no one gives a crap about UVA's regular season performance. We could go undefeated against the #1 schedule in the country and everyone would be saying/thinking "Who cares? Wait until the NCAA tourney!"

[JetpackJesus]

I should probably start a "human polls" thread but this AP voter is such a huge "dork" that maybe he belongs in this thread, at least temporarily.

Graham Couch, 1 of 65 AP voters, does not include Duke, Kansas, and Tennessee in his Top 25. Why? No true road games played by those schools yet.

Here's his column explaining his logic:

https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/columnists/graham-couch/2018/12/10/graham-couch-ap-top-25-college-basketball-ballot-why-duke-kansas-tennessee-didnt-make/2264942002/

I read this drivel yesterday. too. I guess the only good thing I can say is that he's allegedly drawing a bright line in that he will put each of the teams he left off his bracket back in their proper spot the moment they play a true road game. It's a stupid hill to die on, but at least it's a clear position (assuming he's truthful about returning teams to the polls).

Also, I'm glad to see someone has since thoroughly corrected the idiot commenter on that story who said that Duke has played only three road games in the history of the ACC/B1G Challenge. I would have done it, but I don't have the Facebook to do so.

[MChambers]

Some more criticism of NET, by the Washington Post's stats guy. I'm not a big fan of Greenberg's analysis and I don't see much new in this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/12/18/ncaas-lousy-new-metric-is-going-make-march-madness-even-crazier/?utm_term=.17bba19ec01a

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Some more criticism of NET, by the Washington Post's stats guy. I'm not a big fan of Greenberg's analysis and I don't see much new in this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/12/18/ncaas-lousy-new-metric-is-going-make-march-madness-even-crazier/?utm_term=.17bba19ec01a

There's not much new....except that another four weeks in, the NET is still screwed up compared to just about every other system. Is the NCAA NET right and everyone else wrong? Methinks not.

[DukieTiger]

KenPom alert: The difference between #1 Duke and #2 Virginia in the rankings (31.36 vs 26.24 adjusted efficiency margin*) is greater than the difference between #2 Virginia and #13 Wisconsin (26.24 vs 21.73). Still some noise from preseason ratings but still- wow...


*Essentially, the expected margin of victory over an average D1 team if the game had 100 possessions: https://kenpom.com/blog/ratings-methodology-update/

[MChambers]

KenPom alert: The difference between #1 Duke and #2 Virginia in the rankings (31.36 vs 26.24 adjusted efficiency margin*) is greater than the difference between #2 Virginia and #13 Wisconsin (26.24 vs 21.73). Still some noise from preseason ratings but still- wow...


*Essentially, the expected margin of victory over an average D1 team if the game had 100 possessions: https://kenpom.com/blog/ratings-methodology-update/

Interestingly, T-Rank doesn't have such a large gap between Duke and #2, also Virginia. It's essentially the same difference as between Virginia and #4 MSU. Sagarin isn't updated yet, but even before yesterday's game it showed a similar gap as shown by Pomeroy.

[Troublemaker]

Some more criticism of NET, by the Washington Post's stats guy. I'm not a big fan of Greenberg's analysis and I don't see much new in this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/12/18/ncaas-lousy-new-metric-is-going-make-march-madness-even-crazier/?utm_term=.17bba19ec01a

Neither am I. The author is either dumb or intellectually dishonest. All one has to do is click on the very links he provides to destroy his column.


There's not much new...except that another four weeks in, the NET is still screwed up compared to just about every other system. Is the NCAA NET right and everyone else wrong? Methinks not.

You need to read analysis like this more critically. Sometimes columnists have an agenda, an axe to grind, what-have-you. It's sad, but sometimes the media do not advance the truth.

I'm just so lazy, and I haven't had my coffee yet this morning. Can someone else pick apart Greenberg's column/analysis. I promise it's very easy to do. Once again, just click on his links.

[Troublemaker]

I will spork anyone who thoroughly picks apart that WaPo column.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

You need to read analysis like this more critically. Sometimes columnists have an agenda, an axe to grind, what-have-you. It's sad, but sometimes the media do not advance the truth.

I'm just so lazy, and I haven't had my coffee yet this morning. Can someone else pick apart Greenberg's column/analysis. I promise it's very easy to do. Once again, just click on his links.

You missed my point. I was not basing my opinion on the article.....I even agreed that there was nothing new in the article.....and links aside, simply taking the NET rankings now, there is some reason to be skeptical of the NET system.

FWIW, I'm a political media operative at a pretty high level......I'm fully aware of agenda driven reporting and columns. FULLY.

[JasonEvans]

Can we just table any conversation about the NET until January? It is abundantly clear that we need more data to judge it as it does not include any pre-season bias. In a few weeks we can start to look critically at it versus the ranking put forth by folks like BPI, Saragin, and Pom.

[Ian]

I will spork anyone who thoroughly picks apart that WaPo column.

How about I'll go with even with the small data it's already proven to be a huge improvement over the RPI.

Using his data and comparing the consensus 31 ranking to the NET ranking versus the RPI rankings:



Consensus
NET
RPI
Winner


1
3
10
NET


2
2
6
NET


3
5
1
TIE


4
1
20
NET


5
8
9
NET


7
6
3
NET


9
7
4
NET


10
4
25
NET



So just using the data he provided in his article, the NET beat RPI 7-0 with 1 tie in terms of which one is closers to the consensus rankings of the other 31 power ratings. Even with a small sample size, I can say with confidence that the NET is a huge improvement over the RPI, and I give the NCAA credit for taking a big step in the right direction.

[Troublemaker]

Some more criticism of NET, by the Washington Post's stats guy. I'm not a big fan of Greenberg's analysis and I don't see much new in this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/12/18/ncaas-lousy-new-metric-is-going-make-march-madness-even-crazier/?utm_term=.17bba19ec01a

So, the problem with the WaPo stats guy and his column is the intellectual dishonesty. His central criticism of NET is that it strays far from the consensus Massey Ratings (https://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm), which averages a bunch of computer rankings. But if you click on that link to Massey (last updated Dec 16th as of the time of this post), you'll see that almost all the individual computer rankings stray far from the consensus rankings. See the picture below that show the consensus rankings surrounded by individual computer rankings:

https://i.imgur.com/ZH293vm.png


On the far right is NET, and just by the eyeball test, you can tell that it varies from the consensus about as much as any other rating system. By that measure, it's actually much better than the "SGR" (Singer) ranking system, which has UVA at #37.

This early in the season, you can always pick out one or two outliers from every computer ranking. On the far left is the well-respected Sagarin Predictor, which has Michigan St as the #2 team in the country. Even Sparty fans don't think they're the second-best team in the country. "TRK" (2/3rds of the way on the right) is the respected Pomeroy emulator T-Rank, and he has Kansas at #11.

Pomeroy himself is the 2nd column from the left ("POM"), and yes indeed his rankings align well with the consensus. BUT, as discussed previously, KenPom uses preseason expectations to anchor his rankings, which is why his look so reasonable. In another thread, DBR poster House P has attempted to estimate KenPom's rankings without the preseason anchor, and when he posted those, KenPom also starts to deviate from the consensus.

So, the WaPo stats guy basically slammed NET for something that is true of virtually all other computer ranking systems. All he had to do was click on his own link to Massey to see that.

Many people who read the WaPo column without doing so then reach the following conclusion...


There's not much new...except that another four weeks in, the NET is still screwed up compared to just about every other system. Is the NCAA NET right and everyone else wrong? Methinks not.

... which is just wrong, wrong, wrong. HBCK, my friend, I'm not ragging on you. I hope you understand that. It's a reasonable conclusion for you to reach if you don't follow the links out and just trust that WaPo's stats guy is being intellectually honest.

[-jk]

Wow: current Kenpom looks like a Duke-UVa final! (I wish!)

We're +4 on UVa, they're about +2 on Kansas - then things bunch up.

Gonna be a fun 1/19...

(Yeah, and it's still preloaded.)

-jk

[duke2x]

I'd agree if PR for the NCAA were high on my list of concerns, but I like watching rankings "take shape" as more data is accrued and wouldn't have minded if the NCAA had released NET in early November after *1* game had been played by each team. Even releasing it in late November as they did probably has been instructive about the power of sample size. Anyway, I hope the NCAA releases the formula behind NET at some point but am not very hopeful on that count.

NET is getting better but still has a mind of its own.

NET top 4 teams: Duke, UVA, MI, WI. NCSU is #6 and UNC is #20.
KenPom top 4 teams: Duke, UVA, Gonzaga, MI.
Torvik top 4 teams: Duke, UVA, MI, Gonzaga.

[BandAlum83]

KenPom alert: The difference between #1 Duke and #2 Virginia in the rankings (31.36 vs 26.24 adjusted efficiency margin*) is greater than the difference between #2 Virginia and #13 Wisconsin (26.24 vs 21.73). Still some noise from preseason ratings but still- wow...


*Essentially, the expected margin of victory over an average D1 team if the game had 100 possessions: https://kenpom.com/blog/ratings-methodology-update/

The AdjEm differential between KenPom #1 Duke and #2 UVA has closed significantly. It is down to a mere .73 (33.61/32.68)

Note how much higher the numbers are now versus when DukieTiger posted this original post on 12/19

[BandAlum83]

The AdjEm differential between KenPom #1 Duke and #2 UVA has closed significantly. It is down to a mere .73 (33.61/32.68)

Note how much higher the numbers are now versus when DukieTiger posted this original post on 12/19

Typo. .83 is the differential now.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Typo. .83 is the differential now.

My math gives it a difference of 0.93 if those numbers are as stated.

[MChambers]

UVa has moved ahead of Duke at T-Rank.

[uh_no]

Note that the tightening of KP is mostly due to holding clemson to an absurd adjusted 66, moving their defensive efficiency from 86.4->84.7 after 1 game. Duke's numbers largely remained unchanged.

[jv001]

Note that the tightening of KP is mostly due to holding clemson to an absurd adjusted 66, moving their defensive efficiency from 86.4->84.7 after 1 game. Duke's numbers largely remained unchanged.

Thanks for that information. I guess things balance out over the season. In one of Virginia's recent games, they had something like a 30 point lead and Bennett took out his starters with about 3 or 4 minutes left. The really bad scrubs promptly let that lead dwindle down into the tens. So I guess that's pay back. :cool:GoDuke!

[BandAlum83]

My math gives it a difference of 0.93 if those numbers are as stated.

Late night/early morning math...I am better with numbers than this. Believe me! I have a very big brain and all the best words AND numbers!

[House G]

Wasn’t sure where to post this:

[House G]

Oops:
https://twitter.com/golfodds/status/1084838666059411457?s=20

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Wasn’t sure where to post this:

Your indecisiveness was clear!

[MChambers]

I just discovered that on the team page for each team, T-Rank now has links titled "Similar Profiles" and "Similar Resumes". If you click on them, you'll get a list of past teams that had similar statistical profiles or similar resumes and how those teams did in the NCAAs. Bad news is that Duke's current closest match on Resume is UVa 2018!

Fun stuff! I could waste quite a bit of time on these comparisons. In fact, I just did.

[Nugget]

Have to say I'm a bit surprised to see Michigan St. (now up to #3 in Ken Pom and Torvik and #4 in the Massey aggregator) do as well as it is this year, especially getting almost nothing from Josh Langford.

Having lost Bridges and Jaren Jackson, and minimal contributions from Langford, but still being in the top 5 of the computers indicates that Izzo is doing a great job this year.

I'm particularly shocked to see MSU, which isn't normally thought of as having a great offense, at #5 in offensive efficiency (per Ken Pom; #6 at Torvik) It appears that Winston's cutting down just a bit on their turnovers (my Ken Pom subscription lapsed, so I'm using the splits from Torvik), getting them from around #230 to #130, enables them to have a top 5 offense, when combined with a #8 EFG% (and surprisingly good 3 Pt shooting - rated #25) and their typically strong offensive rebounding (#19).

[MChambers]

Have to say I'm a bit surprised to see Michigan St. (now up to #3 in Ken Pom and Torvik and #4 in the Massey aggregator) do as well as it is this year, especially getting almost nothing from Josh Langford.

Having lost Bridges and Jaren Jackson, and minimal contributions from Langford, but still being in the top 5 of the computers indicates that Izzo is doing a great job this year.

I'm particularly shocked to see MSU, which isn't normally thought of as having a great offense, at #5 in offensive efficiency (per Ken Pom; #6 at Torvik) It appears that Winston's cutting down just a bit on their turnovers (my Ken Pom subscription lapsed, so I'm using the splits from Torvik), getting them from around #230 to #130, enables them to have a top 5 offense, when combined with a #8 EFG% (and surprisingly good 3 Pt shooting - rated #25) and their typically strong offensive rebounding (#19).

When you look at MSU's talent level, it's not that impressive. None of them figure to have much of an NBA career. But they do have experienced players and they're playing well together.

[Nugget]

When you look at MSU's talent level, it's not that impressive. None of them figure to have much of an NBA career. But they do have experienced players and they're playing well together.

Yep. Especially impressive is Kenny Goins' story. Unlike Luke Maye (whose mythology of being a "walk-on" is just that), Goins was an actual "preferred walk-on" who came to MSU without a scholarship (turning down offers from the likes of Oakland and Central Michigan), before earning one after his redshirt freshman season. Now, as a 5th year senior, he's averaged just about 9 points and 11 rebounds a game in the eight Big 10 games this season.

[Nugget]

Interesting John Gasaway piece on the "analytic perils of [Ken Pom] dual-efficiency fetishism" that looks at the issues Kedsy et. al. have been kicking around here and comes to many of the same conclusions, e.g.: (i) there's lots of ways to be good; (ii) #1 seeds tend to do very well (either because they are the best teams or they get easier paths or both); so (iii) "dual-efficiency" champs don't do much better than #1 seeds generally; (iv) the small sample sizes and randomness in a single elimination tournament really preclude drawing any firm conclusions about the predictive value of this; and (v) use KenPom's pre-tournament rankings for your arguments!

https://johngasaway.com/2019/01/25/the-analytic-perils-of-dual-efficiency-fetishism/#more-39637

[uh_no]

Interesting John Gasaway piece on the "analytic perils of [Ken Pom] dual-efficiency fetishism" that looks at the issues Kedsy et. al. have been kicking around here and comes to many of the same conclusions, e.g.: (i) there's lots of ways to be good; (ii) #1 seeds tend to do very well (either because they are the best teams or they get easier paths or both); so (iii) "dual-efficiency" champs don't do much better than #1 seeds generally; (iv) the small sample sizes and randomness in a single elimination tournament really preclude drawing any firm conclusions about the predictive value of this; and (v) use KenPom's pre-tournament rankings for your arguments!

https://johngasaway.com/2019/01/25/the-analytic-perils-of-dual-efficiency-fetishism/#more-39637

be still my beating heart.

[Kedsy]

Interesting John Gasaway piece on the "analytic perils of [Ken Pom] dual-efficiency fetishism" that looks at the issues Kedsy et. al. have been kicking around here and comes to many of the same conclusions, e.g.: (i) there's lots of ways to be good; (ii) #1 seeds tend to do very well (either because they are the best teams or they get easier paths or both); so (iii) "dual-efficiency" champs don't do much better than #1 seeds generally; (iv) the small sample sizes and randomness in a single elimination tournament really preclude drawing any firm conclusions about the predictive value of this; and (v) use KenPom's pre-tournament rankings for your arguments!

https://johngasaway.com/2019/01/25/the-analytic-perils-of-dual-efficiency-fetishism/#more-39637

My name is Kedsy and I approve this message.

Interestingly, there are currently three dual-efficiency darlings in the KenPom rankings, but Gasaway only mentions two (guess which team he didn't mention?). He also didn't mention that Duke did it last year as well. I wonder why? (Actually, I don't really wonder; I assume it's because Duke did well in the tournament last year and mentioning that would have undercut what he was trying to say.)

[MChambers]

In KenPom, Duke has leaped over UVa, which is impressive, given how highly UVa was rated. UVa is #2 and Gonzaga is #3. Tennessee is a distant #5. MSU is #4, surprisingly.

Besides the win over UVa, Duke may be benefiting from strong play by Kentucky and Texas Tech.

[uh_no]

In KenPom, Duke has leaped over UVa, which is impressive, given how highly UVa was rated. UVa is #2 and Gonzaga is #3. Tennessee is a distant #5. MSU is #4, surprisingly.

Besides the win over UVa, Duke may be benefiting from strong play by Kentucky and Texas Tech.

UVa defense: 84.8->86.4

An absolute demolishing of their defense.

Edit: I initially had their resultant defense wrong, since I was looking at the top line.....but that's duke now..... :)

[robed deity]

Still no. 2 on Torvik somehow. But wow, that offensive showing was incredible.

[BandAlum83]

In KenPom, Duke has leaped over UVa, which is impressive, given how highly UVa was rated. UVa is #2 and Gonzaga is #3. Tennessee is a distant #5. MSU is #4, surprisingly.

Besides the win over UVa, Duke may be benefiting from strong play by Kentucky and Texas Tech.

More games have been added now. UVA has dropped to number 3, or Gonzaga has moved up to #2 (it's really a virtual tie for 2nd)

Big gap between #3 and #4:

9039

[CDu]

Still no. 2 on Torvik somehow. But wow, that offensive showing was incredible.

Actually dropped to #3 after the Gonzaga late game. But it is essentially a 3-way tie at the top.

[camion]

More games have been added now. UVA has dropped to number 3, or Gonzaga has moved up to #2 (it's really a virtual tie for 2nd)

Big gap between #3 and #4:

9039

Just taking note, we've had zero luck this year. ;)

[Bluedog]

Just taking note, we've had zero luck this year. ;)

Hahaha I know you're kidding but our luck has been been steadily increasing. I think it's basically saying based on efficiency ratings, you'd expect a team to have a certain number of wins based on their competition. So if you lose a lot of close games, you get a negative number for luck. Now that we've also been on the plus side of some squeakers, our luck is more balanced.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Hahaha I know you're kidding but our luck has been been steadily increasing. I think it's basically saying based on efficiency ratings, you'd expect a team to have a certain number of wins based on their competition. So if you lose a lot of close games, you get a negative number for luck. Now that we've also been on the plus side of some squeakers, our luck is more balanced.

And speaking of luck, I was chatting just a couple days ago about how we never seem to bank in any three point shots, but teams seem to bank in quite a few against us.....then Cam goes and does that fugly thing yesterday.......BACK TO THE MEAN.....then he shot lights out after that.

[COYS]

It’s worth noting that we currently have the second-highest KenPom adj. efficiency margin in the KenPom era (beginning in 2002). Obviously, there’s still a lot of season to go, but considering we’ve played half a game without Zion, almost an entire game without Tre and Cam, and a couple more without Tre, that is insanely impressive.

Of course, the sobering fact is that the team with a higher adj eff margin was 2015 Kentucky. Let’s not be like 2015 UK.

[uh_no]

It’s worth noting that we currently have the second-highest KenPom adj. efficiency margin in the KenPom era (beginning in 2002). Obviously, there’s still a lot of season to go, but considering we’ve played half a game without Zion, almost an entire game without Tre and Cam, and a couple more without Tre, that is insanely impressive.

Of course, the sobering fact is that the team with a higher adj eff margin was 2015 Kentucky. Let’s not be like 2015 UK.

i'm not worried. KP's adjustment doesn't account for actually having a competent coach. we should be fine.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Of course, the sobering fact is that the team with a higher adj eff margin was 2015 Kentucky. Let’s not be like 2015 UK.

We already aren't like 2015 UK......they were probably doomed by staying undefeated, and the pressure of that clearly caught up with them....almost did versus ND......did versus Wisconsin.

I'm very happy not to have that pressure....(altho of course I was not happy at the time of the losses....)

[ice-9]

Didn't UK 2015 have three point shooting problems? Hmm....

[ns7]

Didn't UK 2015 have three point shooting problems? Hmm...

UK 2015 shot 35% from 3. However, they didn't take a lot of 3s, only 27%. They actually went 3-5 from 3 against Wisconsin in the FF. Also, their defense fell apart in their last two games against ND and Wisconsin.

I think you are remembering UK 2010 who shot 33%. They lost to WVU in the EE after shooting 4-32 from 3.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

UK 2015 shot 35% from 3. However, they didn't take a lot of 3s, only 27%. They actually went 3-5 from 3 against Wisconsin in the FF. Also, their defense fell apart in their last two games against ND and Wisconsin.

I think you are remembering UK 2010 who shot 33%. They lost to WVU in the EE after shooting 4-32 from 3.

And in both cases....2010 and 2015...UK went down right before a match up with Duke.....and of course Duke won both titles. Good omen...

[JasonEvans]

I just wanted to show how out of whack the quality of the top teams are this year compared with past seasons.

Here are the top KenPom teams going back to 2002 and their efficiency margins. It is worth noting that these numbers are post-NCAA tourney, meaning in most cases the top team in the land just had a great run of whupping up on a bunch of high quality teams in a row, which tends to boost your KenPom rating.


2018 - Vil +33.76
2017 - Gonz +32.05 (UNC wins with +28.22)
2016 - Vil +32.01
2015 - Kent + 36.91 (Duke wins with +32.48)
2014 - Lou +30.41
2013 - Lou +32.92
2012 - Kent +32.59
2011 - tOSU +33.47
2010 - Duke+33.29
2009 - UNC +31.14
2008 - Kansas +35.21
2007 - UNC + 31.37
2006 - Fla + 28.28
2005 - UNC +32.77
2004 - Duke +32.33
2003 - Kent +29.18
2002 - Duke +34.19

Right now, the top 3 teams for 2019 are: Duke +36.37, Virg +34.99, Gonz +34.96

To put that in perspective, the third best team in the land right now, would be the best team in college basketball in 15 of the past 17 years (only 2015 Kentucky and 2008 Kansas are better than this year's Gonzaga team). The the vast majority of those years, the gap between this year's third best and that season's best team would be more than 2 points of adjeff margin.

We are watching an historic season. The closest approximation to it is 2015 when there were 4 teams with adjeff margins above +32 (Kentucky, Wisconsin, Duke, and Arizona) though even that really does not compare to us having 3 teams essentially at +35 or better in one season. It is unprecedented in a pretty big way.

-Jason "the reality is that some very, very deserving teams are going to come up short this season... it really sucks" Evans

[Kedsy]

I just wanted to show how out of whack the quality of the top teams are this year compared with past seasons.

Here are the top KenPom teams going back to 2002 and their efficiency margins. It is worth noting that these numbers are post-NCAA tourney, meaning in most cases the top team in the land just had a great run of whupping up on a bunch of high quality teams in a row, which tends to boost your KenPom rating.


2018 - Vil +33.76
2017 - Gonz +32.05 (UNC wins with +28.22)
2016 - Vil +32.01
2015 - Kent + 36.91 (Duke wins with +32.48)
2014 - Lou +30.41
2013 - Lou +32.92
2012 - Kent +32.59
2011 - tOSU +33.47
2010 - Duke+33.29
2009 - UNC +31.14
2008 - Kansas +35.21
2007 - UNC + 31.37
2006 - Fla + 28.28
2005 - UNC +32.77
2004 - Duke +32.33
2003 - Kent +29.18
2002 - Duke +34.19

Right now, the top 3 teams for 2019 are: Duke +36.37, Virg +34.99, Gonz +34.96

To put that in perspective, the third best team in the land right now, would be the best team in college basketball in 15 of the past 17 years (only 2015 Kentucky and 2008 Kansas are better than this year's Gonzaga team). The the vast majority of those years, the gap between this year's third best and that season's best team would be more than 2 points of adjeff margin.

We are watching an historic season. The closest approximation to it is 2015 when there were 4 teams with adjeff margins above +32 (Kentucky, Wisconsin, Duke, and Arizona) though even that really does not compare to us having 3 teams essentially at +35 or better in one season. It is unprecedented in a pretty big way.

-Jason "the reality is that some very, very deserving teams are going to come up short this season... it really sucks" Evans

Here are the top three in each KenPom season, PRE-tournament:

2018: Virginia (32.15), Villanova* (31.41), Duke (29.13)
2017: Gonzaga* (33.05), Villanova (30.77), UNC* (28.01)
2016: Kansas (29.80), Michigan State (29.68), Virginia (29.10)
2015: Kentucky* (37.43), Wisconsin* (33.53), Arizona (32.31)
2014: Louisville (30.57), Arizona (30.40), Florida* (27.81)
2013: Florida (31.98), Louisville* (31.14), Indiana (29.92)
2012: Kentucky* (31.73), Ohio State* (29.90), Michigan State (28.82)
2011: Ohio State (32.23), Duke (29.55), Kansas (28.70)
2010: Kansas (32.51), Duke* (31.55), Syracuse (27.59)
2009: Pitt (29.48), Memphis (29.44), UNC* (28.56)
2008: Kansas* (33.96), UCLA* (30.58), Memphis* (29.38)
2007: UNC (31.74), Ohio State* (28.87), Florida* (28.86)
2006: Duke (28.57), Texas (26.34), UConn (25.91)
2005: Illinois* (33.31), UNC* (32.00), Duke (28.70)
2004: Duke* (31.72), St Joseph's (27.81), Gonzaga (26.73)
2003: Kentucky (29.77), Pitt (27.18), Kansas* (27.10)
2002: Duke (34.02), Cincinnati (30.84), Kansas* (27.79)

* - made Final Four

Now, this season's third best team would be the top team in the land every year except 2015. Nine of 17 champions were in KenPom's top 3 (53%). But KenPom's #1 team only won the natty twice in 17 years.

It may be worth noting that really big numbers in KenPom tend to make the Final Four at a pretty good clip, but are by no means a lock. Of the teams above, 18 teams had an Efficiency Margin bigger than 31 (an arbitrary cutoff, I know**). Of those, 11 made the Final Four (61.1%). The remaining teams above (33 teams) were top three but had an EM lower than 31, and only 10 of those (30.3%) made the Final Four. Oddly, four of the ten who made the Final Four with top three EM under 31 were coached by Roy Williams.


** I admit that choosing 31 was a bit of data fitting. Of the teams from 2002 to 2018 that were between 30 and 31, only 1 of 7 made the Final Four (including the 4th and 5th best teams in 2015; Duke in 2015 entered the tourney 6th in KenPom, and under 30). So with 30+, there were 25 teams and 12 made the Final Four (48%). Of top three teams below 30, 9 of 28 made the Final Four (32.1%). Four of the nine were courtesy of Roy.

[curtis325]

We are watching an historic season. The closest approximation to it is 2015 when there were 4 teams with adjeff margins above +32 (Kentucky, Wisconsin, Duke, and Arizona) though even that really does not compare to us having 3 teams essentially at +35 or better in one season. It is unprecedented in a pretty big way.

-Jason "the reality is that some very, very deserving teams are going to come up short this season... it really sucks" Evans


It doesn't suck yet--maybe it never will suck

[MChambers]

Presumably Duke 2002 and Kansas 2010 had even bigger numbers before their pre-Final Four losses. Sobering to see how good those teams were, yet didn't make the Final Four.

If you go to Duke's page at www.barttorvik.com, you can click on Similar Resumes to see how teams with records similar to Duke's have done in the tourney. It's a little disconcerting to see that only 5 of the 10 teams made the Final Four and only two (Kentucky 2012 and Villanova 2018) won it all.

http://www.barttorvik.com/resume-compare.php?team=Duke&year=2019

You also can compare past teams with similar efficiency profiles. By default, the program compares based on (I think) Offensive Efficiency, Defensive Efficiency, and Tempo). Only 3 of the 10 made the Final Four and only two won (UNCheat 2009 (big cheat) and Kentucky 2012).

http://www.barttorvik.com/profile-compare.php?team=Duke&year=2019

You can play with the parameters.

Interestingly, none of UVa's 10 similar efficiency profile teams made the Final Four. So maybe there is a penalty for playing a slow tempo? Of course, five of the similar teams are recent UVa teams and three are Wisconsin teams.

http://www.barttorvik.com/profile-compare.php?team=Virginia&year=2019

[uh_no]

I pointed it out earlier but comparing kenpom teams against years on an objective scale is invalid.

This is why in chess, for instance, you can't compare ELO across populations which don't regularly play eachother...which is why computer ELO != lichess ELO != chess.com ELO != FIDE ELO.

Kenpom is a strong analytic tool, but it's not good enough to compare teams from populations which don't play each-other. A team's adjusted efficiency is based on their expected performance against an average team. There is no guarantee the average team across years is the same. We can say with pretty high confidence that they're close, but there's no way to definitively know. Further, how far the outliers move from the mean depends a lot on the overall distribution of strength of the teams. If a lot of teams are clustered tightly around the mean, then it might artificially inflate outliers, whereas in a flatter distribution, it might suppress them.

So the best we can say is these teams would be among the best in the kenpom era. What we can't say is these would be the best KP teams were they to play in any season since 2002.

It's fun to think about how these teams would rank among other great teams in this century, and maybe they are the top 3...but KP EM is not the right tool to make that case.

[Troublemaker]

Presumably Duke 2002 and Kansas 2010 had even bigger numbers before their pre-Final Four losses. Sobering to see how good those teams were, yet didn't make the Final Four.

If you go to Duke's page at www.barttorvik.com (http://www.barttorvik.com), you can click on Similar Resumes to see how teams with records similar to Duke's have done in the tourney. It's a little disconcerting to see that only 5 of the 10 teams made the Final Four and only two (Kentucky 2012 and Villanova 2018) won it all.

Is it disconcerting or pretty much just expected? I suppose it can be both :-)

I mean, we talk all the time about how hard it is to have success in a 6-game single-elimination tournament, and it's not just cliche.

[MChambers]

Is it disconcerting or pretty much just expected? I suppose it can be both :-)

I mean, we talk all the time about how hard it is to have success in a 6-game single-elimination tournament, and it's not just cliche.

It's definitely both. My heart says Duke, with good health, is a lock to make the Final Four, but my head knows better. Or maybe it is Daniel Kahneman's System 1 that says they are a lock and System 2 that is more circumspect.

[Kedsy]

I pointed it out earlier but comparing kenpom teams against years on an objective scale is invalid.

This is why in chess, for instance, you can't compare ELO across populations which don't regularly play eachother...which is why computer ELO != lichess ELO != chess.com ELO != FIDE ELO.

Kenpom is a strong analytic tool, but it's not good enough to compare teams from populations which don't play each-other. A team's adjusted efficiency is based on their expected performance against an average team. There is no guarantee the average team across years is the same. We can say with pretty high confidence that they're close, but there's no way to definitively know. Further, how far the outliers move from the mean depends a lot on the overall distribution of strength of the teams. If a lot of teams are clustered tightly around the mean, then it might artificially inflate outliers, whereas in a flatter distribution, it might suppress them.

So the best we can say is these teams would be among the best in the kenpom era. What we can't say is these would be the best KP teams were they to play in any season since 2002.

It's fun to think about how these teams would rank among other great teams in this century, and maybe they are the top 3...but KP EM is not the right tool to make that case.

While I agree you shouldn't say, e.g., a team with a 36 EM in 2019 is better than a team with a 32 EM in 2010, the fact that a team is that much better than the average team does say something, right? Because you can say that a team with 36 EM is much better compared to the average team in that season than a team with a 32 EM was in its season.

[dukelifer]

It's definitely both. My heart says Duke, with good health, is a lock to make the Final Four, but my head knows better. Or maybe it is Daniel Kahneman's System 1 that says they are a lock and System 2 that is more circumspect.

Or maybe the opposite. The data shows they are better than our gut will let us see.

[uh_no]

While I agree you shouldn't say, e.g., a team with a 36 EM in 2019 is better than a team with a 32 EM in 2010, the fact that a team is that much better than the average team does say something, right? Because you can say that a team with 36 EM is much better compared to the average team in that season than a team with a 32 EM was in its season.


Right. I think you can say that teams are dominant in a given year without saying they're better than teams from another year.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

While I agree you shouldn't say, e.g., a team with a 36 EM in 2019 is better than a team with a 32 EM in 2010, the fact that a team is that much better than the average team does say something, right? Because you can say that a team with 36 EM is much better compared to the average team in that season than a team with a 32 EM was in its season.

Right. Uh no overshot (IMHO) when he said comparing them across seasons was "invalid." It's not a fully valid - one to one ratio, but it is still very useful for comparative purposes, because we are dealing with very large sample numbers here, one complete season to another. It would be counter intuitive to think there are vast differences in the totality of the competition from one season to the next.

[Truth&Justise]

Right. I think you can say that teams are dominant in a given year without saying they're better than teams from another year.

To lend an example to this point, I think 2015 was a particular high-water mark for top teams. Kentucky had one of the best teams of all time, while Wisconsin, Arizona, and UVA all played at a caliber equal to that of a national champion in any other year. Notre Dame also had a fantastic, Final Four type team. And of course, Duke came along and won the whole darned thing.

Just based on eye test, that crop of six seems to me stronger than in any season since, but I can't back it up numerically because we don't have great tools for measuring such a comparison across different seasons.

[uh_no]

To lend an example to this point, I think 2015 was a particular high-water mark for top teams. Kentucky had one of the best teams of all time, while Wisconsin, Arizona, and UVA all played at a caliber equal to that of a national champion in any other year. Notre Dame also had a fantastic, Final Four type team. And of course, Duke came along and won the whole darned thing.

Just based on eye test, that crop of six seems to me stronger than in any season since, but I can't back it up numerically because we don't have great tools for measuring such a comparison across different seasons.

That's probably true....I think villanova, especially last year was exceptional when they were on, but they were also inconsistent. For instance, I think even if we beat kansas, they would have shredded us in the final four.

It's been a common cliche the past few years that "there are no dominant teams"....and I think that's largely true. I can't help but think what we could have been last year with a tre jones on the floor :( :(

[Truth&Justise]

Good points uh_no, but I must spread comments around...


I can't help but think what we could have been last year with a tre jones on the floor :( :(

My personal "what-if": what if Frank Jackson stayed for a sophomore year (and was healthy). His shooting would have forced defenders out of the paint, opening things up for Bagley and Carter. He would have been a more seasoned player, less prone to freshman mistakes. IMO it's a tantalizing what-if because it so nearly came true. But I digress...

[HereBeforeCoachK]

My personal "what-if": what if Frank Jackson stayed for a sophomore year (and was healthy). His shooting would have forced defenders out of the paint, opening things up for Bagley and Carter. He would have been a more seasoned player, less prone to freshman mistakes. IMO it's a tantalizing what-if because it so nearly came true. But I digress...

Agreed on Jackson....and while we're at it, Gary Trent staying for a second year as well...I think both of those guys should have.

[JasonEvans]

Agreed on Jackson...and while we're at it, Gary Trent staying for a second year as well...I think both of those guys should have.

Hey, Gary Trent has played 34 minutes so far this year in the NBA**. That's got to be making him more game-ready and battle tested than averaging 35 minutes a game for Duke would have.

-Jason "I know, I know, there's unlimited practice time and amazing facilities in the NBA, but I still think nothing simulates actually being in a game" Evans

**- He's also played in 6 G-League games, getting 34 minutes per game there, but it is still nothing compared to the time and role he would be playing at Duke

[uh_no]

Hey, Gary Trent has played 34 minutes so far this year in the NBA**. That's got to be making him more game-ready and battle tested than averaging 35 minutes a game for Duke would have.

-Jason "I know, I know, there's unlimited practice time and amazing facilities in the NBA, but I still think nothing simulates actually being in a game" Evans

**- He's also played in 6 G-League games, getting 34 minutes per game there, but it is still nothing compared to the time and role he would be playing at Duke

the question is would 1 or 2 more years under K have set them up better for long term success in the NBA? For these guys that aren't set up for a mega second contract....I think often times the answer is yes.

The thing about NBA....they don't give a crap about you. They'd love to see gary succeed, but they have a whole team of G-leaguers they can sub in if he doesn't. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but there's no doubt in my mind K is more invested in these guys succeeding long term than your average NBA franchise.

I don't fault gary for taking a million a year, but I also think he could have set himself on a much higher trajectory with another year under K.

[pfrduke]

Hey, Gary Trent has played 34 minutes so far this year in the NBA**. That's got to be making him more game-ready and battle tested than averaging 35 minutes a game for Duke would have.

-Jason "I know, I know, there's unlimited practice time and amazing facilities in the NBA, but I still think nothing simulates actually being in a game" Evans

**- He's also played in 6 G-League games, getting 34 minutes per game there, but it is still nothing compared to the time and role he would be playing at Duke

Who does Trent push to the bench on this team? Does he turn Reddish into an instant offense 6th man? Or Bolden into a pure matchup guy where we play 4 wings plus Tre as our main lineup (requiring Zion to do all the dirty work all the time)?

[CDu]

Who does Trent push to the bench on this team? Does he turn Reddish into an instant offense 6th man? Or Bolden into a pure matchup guy where we play 4 wings plus Tre as our main lineup (requiring Zion to do all the dirty work all the time)?

Well, he probably just pushes White and O’Connell out of the rotation, and limits some of DeLaurier’s minutes too. One of him or Reddish wouldn’t start, but they would both play starter’s minutes.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

the question is would 1 or 2 more years under K have set them up better for long term success in the NBA? For these guys that aren't set up for a mega second contract...I think often times the answer is yes.

The thing about NBA...they don't give a crap about you. They'd love to see gary succeed, but they have a whole team of G-leaguers they can sub in if he doesn't. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but there's no doubt in my mind K is more invested in these guys succeeding long term than your average NBA franchise.

I don't fault gary for taking a million a year, but I also think he could have set himself on a much higher trajectory with another year under K.

sporks for excellent breakdown on the Gary Trent decision. I concur with all ^^^

[dukelion]

With their beat down over Syracuse tonight Virginia has eclipsed the 37 adjEM mark. That is the highest ever margin in the Kenpom era (Kentucky at 36.91 in 2015).

[jv001]

Good points uh_no, but I must spread comments around...



My personal "what-if": what if Frank Jackson stayed for a sophomore year (and was healthy). His shooting would have forced defenders out of the paint, opening things up for Bagley and Carter. He would have been a more seasoned player, less prone to freshman mistakes. IMO it's a tantalizing what-if because it so nearly came true. But I digress...

And Grayson could have played PG his senior season. That team would have been FF material and maybe better than Villanova. GoDuke!

[kAzE]

This Ken Pomeroy dude is pretty good.

9222

His top 14 are all in the sweet 16, along with #18 LSU, and #29 Oregon.

[subzero02]

This Ken Pomeroy dude is pretty good.

9222

His top 14 are all in the sweet 16, along with #18 LSU, and #29 Oregon.

he's not bad... we've already faced 8 of the remaining 15 teams( noles, war eagle, Zags, the cheats, hokies, cavs, cats and the red raiders)

[BandAlum83]

This Ken Pomeroy dude is pretty good.

9222

His top 14 are all in the sweet 16, along with #18 LSU, and #29 Oregon.

And even Oregon makes sense. After a losing their star player Bol Bol, and reinventing themselves multiple times throughout the year, ultimately becoming an elite defensive unit. They are now a team which has won 8 straight games, coming in to March as hot as a team can be.

The image is hard to read, but it looks like the screen capture you caught was after all games through the round of 32.

Perhaps more relevant and impressive, if we look at the pre-tournament KenPom rankings, 14 of the top 16 are now in the sweet 16. The two missing teams are #12 Wisconsin, and #16 Iowa State.

The two teams that weren't in the top 16 are Oregon and LSU. LSU was #18 before the tournament started. Oregon is the outlier, and outside the top 40. I only took a picture of the top 40.

BTW, Duke has dropped from number 3 to number 4.

What is even more interesting it that the committee seemed to get he seeding correct. None of the teams were misseeded in a way that they would have knocked each other out. the 4/5 line would be the most likely pace for that to happen, and the closest we came was Kansas/LSU. LSU was seeded lower, but they were in the KenPom top 16 at the end of conference tournaments, KAnsas was #19.

[proelitedota]

KenPom now has stats in history going back to 1997

Duke 1999:
Offense: 127.2
Defense: 84.5
EM: 42.7 :eek:

44.3% OR. :eek:

[House P]

KenPom now has stats in history going back to 1997

Duke 1999:
Offense: 127.2
Defense: 84.5
EM: 42.7 :eek:

44.3% OR. :eek:

As far as I can tell, Duke’s adjusted EM from 1999 is the highest of any team on KenPom’s site.

UConn’s adjusted EM in 1999 was 31.6. This means that KenPom would have favored Duke over UConn by approximately 7.75 points on a neutral court. Teams favored by 8 points win about 80% of the time in college basketball.


By the way, the second highest adjusted EM in the KenPom era belongs to the 2001 Duke team (Adj EM of 37.3).

[Kedsy]

KenPom now has stats in history going back to 1997

Duke 1999:
Offense: 127.2
Defense: 84.5
EM: 42.7 :eek:

44.3% OR. :eek:

Is that behind the paywall? I still only see back to 2002.

[Bluedog]

Is that behind the paywall? I still only see back to 2002.

I have a subscription and can also only see back to 2002 too...

How do you see 1999? I even put that in the URL and it redirects it to 2019.

[proelitedota]

I have a subscription and can also only see back to 2002 too...

How do you see 1999? I even put that in the URL and it redirects it to 2019.

Go to team page and click on history.

[JasonEvans]

KenPom now has stats in history going back to 1997

Duke 1999:
Offense: 127.2
Defense: 84.5
EM: 42.7 :eek:

44.3% OR. :eek:

For you youngsters who did not get to see this juggernaut in action, I weep for you. It was truly a sight to behold. I kid you not when I say that the vast majority of games were quite literally a done deal at halftime. There were only 5 games all year that were decided by less than 10 points. We would routinely crush power conference opponents by 30 or 40 points.

I remain convinced they are the greatest team ever to not win a title and had they won, I believe they would be in the conversation for greatest teams of all time (alongside clubs like 1972 and 73 UCLA, 1974 NC State, 1976 Indiana, 1996 and 2012 Kentucky, and the 1992 Blue Devils).

[rsvman]

Not to be an idiot, but what does EM mean?

[English]

Not to be an idiot, but what does EM mean?

EM = Efficiency Margin

[NSDukeFan]

For you youngsters who did not get to see this juggernaut in action, I weep for you. It was truly a sight to behold. I kid you not when I say that the vast majority of games were quite literally a done deal at halftime. There were only 5 games all year that were decided by less than 10 points. We would routinely crush power conference opponents by 30 or 40 points.

I remain convinced they are the greatest team ever to not win a title and had they won, I believe they would be in the conversation for greatest teams of all time (alongside clubs like 1972 and 73 UCLA, 1974 NC State, 1976 Indiana, 1996 and 2012 Kentucky, and the 1992 Blue Devils).

Wouldn’t the Lew Alcindor UCLA teams have to be mentioned in any greatest ever list? 88-2, won title games by 15+ points, maybe greatest ever college player?

[Spanarkel]

Not to be an idiot, but what does EM mean?


Not to be an idiot either, but didn't Hubie Brown cogently explain "the game within the game" during ESPN's NCAA-NBA Crossover(BC at Duke, 2/5/19)without referencing analytics/advanced metrics?

[English]

Not to be an idiot either, but didn't Hubie Brown cogently explain "the game within the game" during ESPN's NCAA-NBA Crossover(BC at Duke, 2/5/19)without referencing analytics/advanced metrics?

Perhaps I am being an idiot, but what is your point? You know this is a thread about analytics, right? Whether you and Hubie like it or not, efficiency stats (and analytics as a field in sports) are here to stay. Hell, the NET has efficiency stats embedded directly in the selection criteria. But by all means, you should actively go to a discussion of analytics and comment about its irrelevance.

[House P]

Wouldn’t the Lew Alcindor UCLA teams have to be mentioned in any greatest ever list? 88-2, won title games by 15+ points, maybe greatest ever college player?

The Alcindor teams also rate very highly in terms of advanced metrics. We don't have KenPom ratings before 1997, but SRS is an advanced metric which is sort of a "simplified" version of KenPom's Adjusted EM (https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37).

The top 10 teams all-time in terms of SRS are

1. 1999 Duke
2. 1972 UCLA
3. 1968 UCLA (w/ Alcindor)
4. 2001 Duke
5. 1996 Kentucky
6. 1991 UNLV
7. 1998 Duke
8. 1992 Indiana
9. 1988 Oklahoma
10. 1967 UCLA (w/ Alcindor)


Why is the 1968 UCLA team ranked so highly? They played 11 games against teams which finished the year ranked in the top 30 according to SRS. UCLA went 10-1 in those games with an average margin of +22.5. If you are 22.5 points better than the average top 30 team, you are going to do well in terms of SRS.

[Spanarkel]

Perhaps I am being an idiot, but what is your point? You know this is a thread about analytics, right? Whether you and Hubie like it or not, efficiency stats (and analytics as a field in sports) are here to stay. Hell, the NET has efficiency stats embedded directly in the selection criteria. But by all means, you should actively go to a discussion of analytics and comment about its irrelevance.


I thought the preferred m.o. of posting on DBR is to attack the post, not the poster.

Please show me where in my post I stated that analytics is irrelevant.

[Kedsy]

I thought the preferred m.o. of posting on DBR is to attack the post, not the poster.

Please show me where in my post I stated that analytics is irrelevant.

If that's not what you meant, what did you mean, then?

[Spanarkel]

If that's not what you meant, what did you mean, then?


I meant that a basketball game can be analyzed without the use of analytics/advanced metrics. In my mind, and I certainly could be mistaken, that is not equivalent to stating that analytics are irrelevant in assessing basketball teams/games/players.

[Kedsy]

I meant that a basketball game can be analyzed without the use of analytics/advanced metrics. In my mind, and I certainly could be mistaken, that is not equivalent to stating that analytics are irrelevant in assessing basketball teams/games/players.

I agree that "unnecessary" and "irrelevant" are not exactly the same (though in this context they might be close). But English's question still seems cogent. What's the purpose of bringing up that particular point in a thread specifically dedicated to analytics?

[Billy Dat]

KenPom did program rankings based on his data going back to 1997

https://kenpom.com/programs.php

They hate us cause they aint us...yo. ;^)

[Bluedog]

KenPom did program rankings based on his data going back to 1997

https://kenpom.com/programs.php

They hate us cause they aint us...yo. ;^)

The thing that is most amazing there is that our WORST kenpom rating in the last 20+ years was 19 in 2012. Kansas has the next best "worst year" at 25. The team behind them? Michigan State at FIFTY. In fact there are only six teams in the entire nation, that didn't have a 90+ rating at least one year. And our worst is top TWENTY. Wow....that is consistency.

[NSDukeFan]

The thing that is most amazing there is that our WORST kenpom rating in the last 20+ years was 19 in 2012. Kansas has the next best "worst year" at 25. The team behind them? Michigan State at FIFTY. In fact there are only six teams in the entire nation, that didn't have a 90+ rating at least one year. And our worst is top TWENTY. Wow...that is consistency.

It’s also not bad that the typical Duke team of the last 20+ years is 4th best in the country, which, according to my calculations, means there are a lot of Duke teams that are Final Four contenders. It’s been fun to watch.

[flyingdutchdevil]

The thing that is most amazing there is that our WORST kenpom rating in the last 20+ years was 19 in 2012. Kansas has the next best "worst year" at 25. The team behind them? Michigan State at FIFTY. In fact there are only six teams in the entire nation, that didn't have a 90+ rating at least one year. And our worst is top TWENTY. Wow...that is consistency.

That really is absurd. Duke's reg season consistency is incredible. The sad thing? UNC has the same number of natties in that time period. Gross

Other observations:
-Cuse is very consistent. They are rarely elite, but they are rarely bad.
-Very surprised that Texas and FL made it in the top 10, especially over programs like Gonzaga, UCLA, Maryland, Syracuse, Wisconsin, and Connecticut

[Indoor66]

Maybe Syracuse demonstrates that defense doesn't necessarily make you elite but does keep you from being real bad.

[Truth&Justise]

The thing that is most amazing there is that our WORST kenpom rating in the last 20+ years was 19 in 2012. Kansas has the next best "worst year" at 25. The team behind them? Michigan State at FIFTY. In fact there are only six teams in the entire nation, that didn't have a 90+ rating at least one year. And our worst is top TWENTY. Wow...that is consistency.

Really impressive for Duke and Kansas to never have down years. Both are the only teams to make the tournament in all 23 years measured.

Duke has also made the most sweet 16s in that stretch (17), ahead of Kentucky (15), Kansas (14), Michigan St (14), UNC (13) and Airzona (12).

We are only second most for championships with 3, behind UConn's 4. UConn has by far the weirdest, most inconsistent resume of any team: four championships, but only six times having a team in the top 10. Never finished number 1 in KenPom, and finished as low as 179th. Only nine sweet sixteens in 23 years.

[jv001]

Really impressive for Duke and Kansas to never have down years. Both are the only teams to make the tournament in all 23 years measured.

Duke has also made the most sweet 16s in that stretch (17), ahead of Kentucky (15), Kansas (14), Michigan St (14), UNC (13) and Airzona (12).

We are only second most for championships with 3, behind UConn's 4. UConn has by far the weirdest, most inconsistent resume of any team: four championships, but only six times having a team in the top 10. Never finished number 1 in KenPom, and finished as low as 179th. Only nine sweet sixteens in 23 years.

Shows what refs can do. GoDuke!