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

[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.

KenPom.jpg

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

[subzero02]

This Ken Pomeroy dude is pretty good.

KenPom.jpg

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.

KenPom.jpg

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

44.3% OR.

[House P]

KenPom now has stats in history going back to 1997

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

44.3% OR.

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

44.3% OR.

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

44.3% OR.

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.

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.