MBB: Dork Polls 2019-20 Edition

[jv001]

https://www.masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cb

Look who's number one in the composite.

Look who's number 26. I like both of those rankings but it's a long season. Duke can get better and I hope the cheats get worse.
GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

I was perusing Pomeroy this afternoon, and I noticed the #1, #2, and #3 defenses in the country are all from the ACC (also, #9).

[JasonEvans]

Much has been made of the fact that teams this year are much weaker than in past years. I have mentioned on the podcast a couple times that the top Kenpom team in 2019-20 would barely be a top 10 team in most other years. In each of the past 14 years, there has been at least 1 team that managed to have a Kenpom efficiency margin of +30 or greater. For a very long time it looked like no team would achieve that this year.

And then along came the post-SFA Duke team.

Following the walloping of Miami, Duke's EM has moved to 30.19. By comparison, last year's Duke team finished the season as the #4 team in Kenpom with a +30.62.

Obviously there is a lot of basketball yet to be played and if there is one dead-certain sure thing about the rankings it is that they will change, but at the moment Duke is quite clearly the best team in the land. Kansas (who we beat) is the #2 team in KenPom with a +27.41 and the #3 team is Michigan State (who we also beat) with a +25.98.

-Jason "in case you have not been paying attention, Duke has been really, really, really good the past few weeks" Evans

[DoubleBlue]

Following the walloping of Miami, Duke's EM has moved to 30.19. By comparison, last year's Duke team finished the season as the #4 team in Kenpom with a +30.62.

I believe KenPom and the other rating systems are all relative to the field in that year. You could argue that for a large field of 350+ teams the average does not move much from year to year. However the current gap of nearly three numbers vs #2 Kansas at 27.33 is significant and does indicate a weak overall field, at least near the top. I find it hard to believe that this year's Duke team is as good as last year's.

[uh_no]

I believe KenPom and the other rating systems are all relative to the field in that year. You could argue that for a large field of 350+ teams the average does not move much from year to year. However the current gap of nearly three numbers vs #2 Kansas at 27.33 is significant and does indicate a weak overall field, at least near the top. I find it hard to believe that this year's Duke team is as good as last year's.

this is correct. absolute KP numbers are hard to compare year to year.

That said, given the weaknesses of last years team, I think this team could give them a shot. Obvoiusly Tre is a YoY upgrade, and Carey is quiet, but he's the #1 player in the country (KP). Stanley and Cam is a stronger offensive weapon, though Cam was longer and more valuable on defense. Then add Hurt and depth? Clearly this team can shoot the 3 more consistently.

I'd give this team 4/10 over last years team, and that's comparing this team right now to our team at the end of last year. The depth is a HUGE benefit.

It definitely shows that we are more dominant than any other team in the country right now, and I can't see how that's arguable right now, and likely more dominant than last years team was at any point...though I think that says more about the other teams.

The undoing this year, though, might be the weakness in the ACC.

[Billy Dat]

Duke's ascension up the Dork polls, combined with its road thumping of Miami, combined with Gonzaga's lackluster last two conference wins, has resulted in a slew of "Duke is the clear #1 team as of today" takes. Hopefully we can keep it going on Wednesday.

NBC College Basketball (Rob Dauster) power rankings
https://collegebasketball.nbcsports...-gonzaga-duke/

CBS Eye on College Basketball Podcast - Matt Norlander has come around on Duke
https://www.cbssports.com/podcasts/e...ge-basketball/
Go to 23:30 of the 1/5/20 episode

Bilas Rankings
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...-20-version-20

ESPN's John Gasaway
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...ot-takes-prove

[jv001]

this is correct. absolute KP numbers are hard to compare year to year.

That said, given the weaknesses of last years team, I think this team could give them a shot. Obvoiusly Tre is a YoY upgrade, and Carey is quiet, but he's the #1 player in the country (KP). Stanley and Cam is a stronger offensive weapon, though Cam was longer and more valuable on defense. Then add Hurt and depth? Clearly this team can shoot the 3 more consistently.

I'd give this team 4/10 over last years team, and that's comparing this team right now to our team at the end of last year. The depth is a HUGE benefit.

It definitely shows that we are more dominant than any other team in the country right now, and I can't see how that's arguable right now, and likely more dominant than last years team was at any point...though I think that says more about the other teams.

The undoing this year, though, might be the weakness in the ACC.

Let Coach K coach this years team and let ole roy coach last years team and this team wins 8 of 10 and Zion and RJ wouldn't make the pros.
GoDuke!

[uh_no]

Duke's ascension up the Dork polls, combined with its road thumping of Miami, combined with Gonzaga's lackluster last two conference wins, has resulted in a slew of "Duke is the clear #1 team as of today" takes. Hopefully we can keep it going on Wednesday.

NBC College Basketball (Rob Dauster) power rankings
https://collegebasketball.nbcsports...-gonzaga-duke/

CBS Eye on College Basketball Podcast - Matt Norlander has come around on Duke
https://www.cbssports.com/podcasts/e...ge-basketball/
Go to 23:30 of the 1/5/20 episode

Bilas Rankings
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...-20-version-20

ESPN's John Gasaway
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...ot-takes-prove

yet ESPN power rankings still has duke at 2...which is odd given their own descriptions slam gonzaga while pumping duke. what's the point of having a power ranking if you completely ignore what you write in the description?

[jv001]

yet ESPN power rankings still has duke at 2...which is odd given their own descriptions slam gonzaga while pumping duke. what's the point of having a power ranking if you completely ignore what you write in the description?

Could mean they don't really mean what they say while pumping Duke. I will never have any confidence or have much positive to say about ESPN. They showed their true colors(ugly blue) during the academic fraud case against the cheats. Their silence on the issue let me know they are the uncheat network with Jay Bilas as chief spokesman. GoDuke!

[ice-9]

I love the enthusiasm for our Duke team right now, but don't forget this is a team that lost to SF Austin in Cameron! That's like a 1 seed losing to a 16 seed most years.

Maybe that was just one bad game and we've improved in a fundamental way since then, but still...elite teams simply don't lose those kinds of games.

[Troublemaker]

I love the enthusiasm for our Duke team right now, but don't forget this is a team that lost to SF Austin in Cameron! That's like a 1 seed losing to a 16 seed most years.

Maybe that was just one bad game and we've improved in a fundamental way since then, but still...elite teams simply don't lose those kinds of games.

They very rarely lose them, but it does happen.

No game is ever a 100% lock. Duke probably had something like a 99.5% chance at winning, but that 0.5% chance of losing still existed. And, unfortunately, we "won the lottery" that day in a sense in that the 0.5% chance happened to happen that day.

[Hingeknocker]

They very rarely lose them, but it does happen.

No game is ever a 100% lock. Duke probably had something like a 99.5% chance at winning, but that 0.5% chance of losing still existed. And, unfortunately, we "won the lottery" that day in a sense in that the 0.5% chance happened to happen that day.

Not to mention, if that game were replayed today, the projections would give SFA a much, much higher chance of beating Duke than 0.5%. Obviously, the teams' performance in the original head-to-head matchup factor into each's ranking, but the fact is that SFA is a much better team than everyone thought back on 11/26.

And further to the point, SFA is much better than a 16 seed. Assuming they win their conference, they'll be a ~13 seed, and a dangerous one at that. Unfortunately for them, they won't sneak up on anybody with the Duke win on their resume.

[uh_no]

Not to mention, if that game were replayed today, the projections would give SFA a much, much higher chance of beating Duke than 0.5%. Obviously, the teams' performance in the original head-to-head matchup factor into each's ranking, but the fact is that SFA is a much better team than everyone thought back on 11/26.

And further to the point, SFA is much better than a 16 seed. Assuming they win their conference, they'll be a ~13 seed, and a dangerous one at that. Unfortunately for them, they won't sneak up on anybody with the Duke win on their resume.

we have 96% over #90 wake at home, so probably 2-3%, which is the difference between 1 in 200 and 1 in 35.

[ratamero]

I'm kinda amazed at how much the BPI loves Duke. Currently it predicts us going 18-2 in the ACC, with a 95.9% (!!!!) chance of at least a share of the regular season title. We also lead their field for the NCAA tournament with a 25.6% chance of winning the whole thing.

[Troublemaker]

Not to mention, if that game were replayed today, the projections would give SFA a much, much higher chance of beating Duke than 0.5%. Obviously, the teams' performance in the original head-to-head matchup factor into each's ranking, but the fact is that SFA is a much better team than everyone thought back on 11/26.

And further to the point, SFA is much better than a 16 seed. Assuming they win their conference, they'll be a ~13 seed, and a dangerous one at that. Unfortunately for them, they won't sneak up on anybody with the Duke win on their resume.

Thanks, good points. I would just additionally add that even *if* the odds were still 0.5%, it's only in the context of sports where people would not take that number seriously.

If someone knew for a fact that tomorrow he had a 0.5% chance of getting struck by lightning if he left the house, guess who's calling in sick tomorrow? And maybe avoiding windows while at home? 0.5% is not 0%.

[uh_no]

I'm kinda amazed at how much the BPI loves Duke. Currently it predicts us going 18-2 in the ACC, with a 95.9% (!!!!) chance of at least a share of the regular season title. We also lead their field for the NCAA tournament with a 25.6% chance of winning the whole thing.

the ACC is really bad. Also it turns out BPI is significantly worse as a predictor than KP (and 538, as it were, and sagarin, if I recall). They may have made adjustments in the time since, as this was a couple years ago, but this is the organization that trots out Joey Brackets as truth, so I'm skeptical.

If I recall, and I can't find my data, they tended to over state favorites, which would explain a 25% chance.

We can do a little experiment.

Duke would face #2 kansas in the title game. If they make it that far, they would have ~50% chance (+- a couple). Given the #3 and 4 teams, they would have maybe a 4 point advantage in the semis, which is a 66% chance.

So if they make the final 4, we're looking at 33%


If we look at the next teams, they might have an 8 point advantage, good for a 78% chance.

So if they make the elite 8, 25% chance to win it all.


Maybe they have a 12 point advantage of the teams through 20, so an 87% chance.

So if they make the sweet 16, 21% chance to win it all.

The next group is pretty tightly packed, so we'll give them a slightly higher 90% chance.

down to 19%

And it ought be 99% for the first game since we'll play some outlier conference winner...so we'll be generous and leave it at 19%.

In any case, I think 19% seems far more reasonable than 25%...in short, ESPN is vastly overstating our chance at this point and I think very little of their BPI. At one point I believe I referred to it as "eating glue" relative to the other dork polls out there, and my opinion is not significantly changed.

If I had all the time in the world, I would look at the % each ranking puts on each game, and correlate it with final margin to see who better fits the distribution, but I don't, but that's effectively what I did by hand one year for the tournament, and BPI was significantly worse.

[Troublemaker]

I'm kinda amazed at how much the BPI loves Duke. Currently it predicts us going 18-2 in the ACC, with a 95.9% (!!!!) chance of at least a share of the regular season title. We also lead their field for the NCAA tournament with a 25.6% chance of winning the whole thing.

It probably helps that MSU is BPI's #2 team and Duke won easily on the road against them.

[uh_no]

It probably helps that MSU is BPI's #2 team and Duke won easily on the road against them.

the fact that the computers tend to like them just shows how mediocre the country is on the whole this year.

[ratamero]

Don't get me wrong, I trust the BPI as much as the next dork (i.e. not at all). Just brought the numbers here because I thought they were a bit absurd.

The Massey composite, on the other hand, has a very clear picture from aggregating a bunch of the dorkiest, most obscure rankings: Duke and Kansas are #1 and #2 and ranked on the top 5 in every ranking. Everyone else is in a different league - the next teams are Auburn and Mich St with an average rank over 7 and a huge variance on how they're seen.

[Kedsy]

Vernon Carey is currently leading the nation in both win shares per 40 (.355, actually better than Zion's .335 last year) and PER (39.0, a bit less than Zion's 40.8). He is 10th in the country in box plus-minus (12.9, way under Zion's unreal 20.0).

Javin DeLaurier's fouls per 40 for the season has dipped to 5.9 per 40. Jordan Goldwire's oRating is 124.6 (3rd on the team). Justin Robinson's block% (19.1%) would lead the country if he played enough to qualify.

Duke is currently #4 in the country at offensive rebounding percentage, at 39.3%. Here's how that raw number compares to past Duke teams:

Year	OR%	NCAA
1999	44.34%	2
1990	40.89%	2
1988	40.53%	4
2010	40.33%	1
1998	39.67%	8
1992	39.54%	1
2020	39.30%	
2004	39.20%	4
2018	38.56%	8
1996	38.27%	64
1991	37.99%	1
1994	37.96%	2
1987	37.55%	16
2000	37.39%	16
2009	37.38%	16
2005	37.22%	16
2003	37.06%	16
2001	37.03%	1
1995	36.94%	n/a
1989	36.88%	4
1993	36.74%	32
2007	36.41%	64
1997	36.21%	32
2015	35.77%	1
2019	35.30%	8
2011	35.06%	16
2012	34.70%	64
2014	34.45%	64
2002	34.43%	16
2008	33.92%	32
2016	32.97%	16
2017	31.55%	32
2006	30.86%	16
2013	28.78%	8

I point this out every year, but Duke teams that rebound well offensively tend to do well in the NCAA tournament.

This year's defensive rebounding performance is by far the best raw number in Duke history (or at least since they started tracking offensive and defensive rebounds in 1987). We're tied for the 96th best DR% in the nation, after finishing tied for 234th last season:

Year	DR%	NCAA
2020	74.60%	
2019	70.90%	8
2017	70.44%	32
2018	70.39%	8
2015	69.84%	1
2007	69.68%	64
2014	69.06%	64
1989	68.78%	4
2010	67.92%	1
2011	66.83%	16
2009	66.82%	16
2008	66.27%	32
2016	65.61%	16
2002	65.49%	16
2012	65.38%	64
2013	65.33%	8
2003	65.33%	16
1999	65.10%	2
1987	64.79%	16
1988	64.78%	4
1995	64.60%	n/a
1998	64.60%	8
2001	63.83%	1
1991	63.74%	1
2005	63.23%	16
2004	62.87%	4
1992	62.83%	1
2000	62.32%	16
2006	62.29%	16
1993	61.51%	32
1994	61.36%	2
1996	60.72%	64
1990	60.31%	2
1997	59.13%	32

We're #16 in the country in block% and #29 in the country in steals%:

Year	block%	NCAA
2019	16.40%	8
2020	15.50%	
2004	14.87%	4
2005	13.87%	16
1999	13.25%	2
2003	12.58%	16
1994	12.53%	2
2018	12.39%	8
1998	11.95%	8
2006	11.58%	16
2007	11.45%	64
2000	11.32%	16
2017	10.89%	32
2001	10.49%	1
2010	9.85%	1
2016	9.75%	16
2011	9.71%	16
1993	9.70%	32
2009	9.46%	16
1995	9.18%	n/a
1997	9.14%	32
2015	9.04%	1
2013	9.01%	8
2012	8.98%	64
2008	8.76%	32
1996	8.63%	64
1989	8.08%	4
1991	8.07%	1
1992	8.00%	1
1987	7.47%	16
2014	7.44%	64
2002	7.25%	16
1990	7.03%	2
1988	7.03%	4

Year	steals%	NCAA
2001	13.70%	1
2004	13.05%	4
2006	12.96%	16
2002	12.91%	16
2000	12.85%	16
1998	12.82%	8
2020	12.60%	
2019	12.40%	8
2005	12.35%	16
1997	12.04%	32
2009	12.03%	16
1999	11.87%	2
2003	11.79%	16
1991	11.74%	1
2008	11.68%	32
1990	11.39%	2
1988	11.27%	4
1989	11.23%	4
1993	11.16%	32
1987	11.09%	16
1992	11.01%	1
2007	10.92%	64
2015	10.77%	1
2014	10.56%	64
2018	10.45%	8
2011	10.35%	16
1994	10.17%	2
2010	9.99%	1
2013	9.44%	8
2016	9.13%	16
2012	9.00%	64
2017	8.78%	32
1996	8.63%	64
1995	8.01%	n/a