tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79922725847551137762024-03-18T23:48:39.175-05:00Adam's WI Sports BlogAlso: Bart Torvik blogs here.Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.comBlogger534125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-25162817547425722292024-03-11T20:35:00.000-05:002024-03-11T20:35:03.529-05:002024 Big Ten Tournament Picks<p> Adam</p><p>Wed winners- Maryland and PSU</p><p>Thur winners- MSU, UW, OSU, PSU</p><p>Fri winners- Purdue, UW, ILL, Neb</p><p>Sat winners- Purdue, ILL</p><p>Champion- ILL</p>Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-28498781360015839012023-03-07T20:19:00.000-06:002023-03-07T20:19:31.567-06:00Big Ten Tourney Picks<p> Here they are Torvik:</p><p><br /></p><p>Wed- Neb over Minn, UW over OSU</p><p>Thur- Mich over Rutgers, Iowa over UW, Illinois over PSU, Neb over Maryland</p><p>Fri- Purdue over Mich, Iowa over MSU, Illinois over NW, Indiana over Neb</p><p>Sat- Purdue over Iowa, Indiana over Illinois</p><p>Sun- Purdue over Indiana</p>Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-20323330715518762432022-11-28T21:16:00.001-06:002022-11-28T21:16:52.649-06:00Fickell and Chryst<p>I don’t remember the last time I blogged about football, but
with the Fickell hire it seemed like a good idea to post some thoughts. If for
no other reason than so that Torvik can throw it back in my face in 10 years
when I’m wrong. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, I didn’t like how Chryst went out. I don’t know (and
I don’t think anyone else does either) what went down between Chryst and McIntosh,
but it doesn’t sit well. He averaged 9 wins a year and should have had a chance
to turn the season around. Good guy, good coach, got a raw deal at the end. It’s
entirely possible the criticism of Chryst is valid, and the program was going
downhill. The recruiting department took some hits, the offense was bad again, Chryst
seemed to struggle with diving into NIL and the dirty business this will entail
for college programs here on out. Still, he had a formula that worked at UW and
I think he would have continued rolling out 9 wins a year for the next decade
given the chance. We’ll never know what that universe would have looked like, nor
the one where Jimmy Leonard took over the program, nor the one where Chryst was
fired last year and replaced with Leonard like many wanted. So what are we looking
at. I’ll draw up 3 possibilities and what I think of each. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> 1) </o:p><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Fickell takes WI to the next level and makes
them a perineal power, B1G title and National Championship contender. This
seems like the most unlikely scenario, but also the expectation that McIntosh
and the majority of the fan base are putting on him. He caught lightning in a
bottle with mostly 3 star guys at Cincy and went to the playoff, so why not
here? Just rinse and repeat in Cardinal and White, right? So with this we are
basically banking on the fact Fickell is another Barry or Bo. A genius who can
take middling players (athletically) and turn them into champions through
training, scheme, etc. I guess it’s possible, but I’m not hopeful. Chance of
this scenario- less than 5%.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">2) </span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Fickell takes WI straight into the tank. This is
the horror scenario, and I think we narrowly avoided this already when Gary
Anderson left us (thank God). If you think this can’t happen just look at what
happened to MI between Carr and Harbaugh, or look at Nebraska today (one of the
most storied programs in college football with rabid fans, great facilities,
and solid recruiting). That could be us. Fickell could be our RichRod changing
the scheme, changing the recruiting, and losing an already fickle and quick to bail
fan base. If it goes this way it may never come back. Barry was a great but
also lucky hire. Other than Fickell, no other hot coach in demand has wanted this
job despite 2 recent openings when Anderson and Chryst were hired. If the program
tanks, it will take another Barry to resurrect it, and those guys are hard to
come by. Chance of this scenario less than 20%. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">3)</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Fickell spends the next 6-9 years at UW and wins
about 9 games a year. He has a couple years where we overperform and make it
into an expanded playoff with 11-12 wins, and a few years we underperform and
barely make a bowl game. Sound familiar? It should because this is what we are.
We won’t get to the next level because of recruiting. Fickell said in his press
conference we will recruit “within the 300 mile radius”. That’s because almost
all kids stay within that range of home when picking a school. We just don’t
have enough 4 and 5 star kids within 300 miles to compete with schools in Ohio,
Florida, Texas, etc. that have 10 times what we have right next to home. We
will bring in 3 star kids, we will develop them, we will get some special kids
here and there that take us to double digit wins. That won’t sustain a
championship level program though year in and year out, you just need more 4 and 5
star kids that live nearby, and we just don’t have that. Chance of this
scenario- greater than 75%. </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><o:p></o:p></p>Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-87097687366015802562022-10-30T15:11:00.000-05:002022-10-30T15:11:13.274-05:00Random thoughts on the Eau Claire exhibition gameIn no special order, here are some things I thought about during the Badgers Exhibition game against Eau Claire today.<div><br /></div><div>No huge red flags. Barring injuries this team should be fine. There were not constant defensive lapses like in Davison's first year where the team was clearly lost. Outside of Essegian, the shooting was bad. Probably not bad enough to tank the season, but bad enough to hold them back. </div><div><br /></div><div>Essegian's first three point shot attempt was a nervous miss, but his last attempt was a thing of beauty. Clearly he had some nerves being on the floor at first, but was working hard and hustling. There was not a ton of confidence in the first shot. On his last 3 point attempt he caught, set, and shot in one super quick motion that showed why he will be in the rotation this year. </div><div><br /></div><div>It was super quiet when the badgers were on defense. After 5 years of Davison constantly yelling out screens and defensive calls very loudly, the silence on the defensive side of the court was very noticeable. There were still screen calls and the defense didn't seem to have any major problems with communication, it was just very different after so many years of hearing Davison call out everything. </div><div><br /></div><div>Backup point guard- McGee got first crack at it, and if needed he could give Chucky a rest for 4 minutes a half. He got yanked early in the second half when he made a terrible full court pass into traffic that got intercepted. The other option they used was Klesmit at point with Wahl and Gilmore for support. Klesmit is not natural there so I'm not sure this was a better option, but Wahl has run point as a forward before and could do this again if McGee isn't doing enough to earn minutes. </div><div><br /></div><div>Wahl was the best player on the court. He was aggressive offensively both getting his own shot and getting others theirs including pushing the ball to get into transition (although not often, it is the badgers). I expect Wahl to lead this team in scoring. He has developed an almost Happ like touch around the basket, and if he can get anything on the perimeter he will be a a very tough cover. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Badgers continued switching most screens but went over on some too. Once they play a better opponent it will be interesting to see if this changes, but seems like mostly switching is the defense going forward. On a few occasions they did bring help down or toward the top of the key from the weak side of the floor perimeter defender. This gave help but left that player open from three. I don't remember the badgers doing this much before, and maybe it was just because that player did not need to be guarded from 3. It's a different way to help, but we'll see if they do it at all going forward. </div><div><br /></div><div>The starting 5 looked fine outside of Chucky's shooting woes. This could be the starting 5 all year or not, but I think it's safe to say these 5 will be part of the 7-8 guys getting significant minutes this year. The other 2-3 guys are not as clear. Below is what I saw from others trying to get into that group. </div><div><br /></div><div>Essegian seems likely to be in that group. His shooting is just too valuable on a team where that is a weakness. He'll get yanked a lot and have stretches where he struggles but we just don't have anyone else like him. </div><div><br /></div><div>I was a Carter Gilmore hater last year. Hopefully I will not be one at the end of this year, as he looks to be in that group of significant contributors. He was fine today but still is very hesitant to shoot on offense, and he needs to be willing to do that. With no other big man depth, he will probably be asked to do more than you want to put on him. </div><div><br /></div><div>Will there be an 8th guy or just a bunch of people rotating in? Neath seems like the most likely option to get a bunch of minutes of what is left. He was not good today and picked up a couple fouls being way too aggressive. He also jacked up a long mid range 2 off the dribble, that looked like a selfish "I haven't got any shots up today so I'm jacking this no matter what" type of play. Still, his size and defensive versatility give him the ability to guard 4 spots, so he is probably the 8th guy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Mcgee- See above about PG. I think his ceiling is he plays 4 minutes a half to get Chucky a rest, but it's also possible they let others play point and he only gets spot duty. </div><div><br /></div><div>Hodges- I had hoped (based on nothing) that he would be able to play since there is no frontcourt depth. I think he was the 11th guy off the bench in the first half, and was still on the court with the walkons to close out the game, so that is not promising. When he was in, he did some good things, but it seems likely he does not play much unless fouls/injuries require it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Ilver- He does have some smoothness to him but I can't help but think Van Vliet. Totally unfair to him, but it keeps popping in my head. He also did some nice things when on the floor, but was also out there with the walkons at the end of the game. </div><div><br /></div><div>Lindsey- Never know, but I doubt he gets of the bench except garbage time. </div><div><br /></div>Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-46504578718745306182022-03-10T10:01:00.005-06:002022-03-10T10:01:52.721-06:00Big Ten Tourney picks<p> Chorlton, it's that time again. Time for me to embarrass you by picking the rest of the Big Ten tournament.</p><p>Yes, we forgot about Wednesday. But Wednesday is the play-in day. Those games don't count.</p><p>Here we go - get your picks in or lose by default. I've spent no time thinking about this, so I'm about to intuit the future.</p><p>THURSDAY</p><p>Indiana over Michigan</p><p>MSU over Maryland</p><p>Iowa over Northwestern</p><p>Ohio St. over Penn St.</p><p>FRIDAY</p><p>Indiana over Illinois</p><p>MSU over Wisconsin</p><p>Purdue over Ohio St.</p><p>Iowa over Rutgers</p><p>SATURDAY</p><p>Iowa over Indiana</p><p>Purdue over MSU</p><p>SUNDAY</p><p>Purdue over Iowa</p><p><br /></p>Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-40423779472856615192022-02-09T17:33:00.003-06:002022-10-31T10:57:35.284-05:00Carolina and the Quarrel with Quadrants<p>It's February, so bracketologizing and bubble watching are getting into high gear. (If you're keeping track, it's the fourth-most wonderful time of the year according to my seasonal analytics.)</p><p>One of the more interesting résumés at the moment is North Carolina's. For the most part, UNC looks like a team that is directly on the bubble: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgMpKiaB0-xaxifF6BlTTIr4O-RHkvMSdqo8-bIiLb-a6xs0FimbOiAuwarK9R6k5-LbgPSHPHqj6g-gxDIORJloH2c5Et9kI3zrxYWHYc5A6REk7ZnSjX6Fq_bHzFJN2SRobjfQkYJu1lXhdrnzfUPEG9xaT6K9eFPvXwpxIWeMO5dGKTbJhyY-eIW=s920" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="92" data-original-width="920" height="64" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgMpKiaB0-xaxifF6BlTTIr4O-RHkvMSdqo8-bIiLb-a6xs0FimbOiAuwarK9R6k5-LbgPSHPHqj6g-gxDIORJloH2c5Et9kI3zrxYWHYc5A6REk7ZnSjX6Fq_bHzFJN2SRobjfQkYJu1lXhdrnzfUPEG9xaT6K9eFPvXwpxIWeMO5dGKTbJhyY-eIW=w640-h64" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But there's a glaring goose egg sitting there: 0–7 in the almighty "Quadrant 1" games. Sure, they're 4–0 in the semi-mighty "Quadrant 2" games, but the punditry is unanimous: Carolina just can't dance without at least one Quad 1 win. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I've got some quibbles with this Quad 1 absolutism.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">First, it's really not unprecedented for a team with this type of résumé to make the tournament. It's true that no sQuad Zero has made the tourney since the invention of explicit quadrants in the 2017-18 season. But that's just three tournament selections, and for the record there were three teams invited with just one Quad 1 win in even this short period:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh1YS5cTROVn9RelC5EFYwPbHvqyx9rqjuid6iE79wjBYEBScTxn0WTW2hYWsaS9mM0DNUqYaQccEZ4uojOkEOsFO97nanfnMKLc5G0ac1c-ylyEmReTwBF30MwMqvzFbuVcIcPA1vbpwSNTjtyxlaxh-m2Qbwk4Yk0nf8GQCkTG4FcLOGej6p72-9C=s1224" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="1224" height="92" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh1YS5cTROVn9RelC5EFYwPbHvqyx9rqjuid6iE79wjBYEBScTxn0WTW2hYWsaS9mM0DNUqYaQccEZ4uojOkEOsFO97nanfnMKLc5G0ac1c-ylyEmReTwBF30MwMqvzFbuVcIcPA1vbpwSNTjtyxlaxh-m2Qbwk4Yk0nf8GQCkTG4FcLOGej6p72-9C=w640-h92" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Nevada even got a 7-seed with just one Q1!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Yet just as three is greater than two, one is greater than zero. Perhaps infinitely so. This gets me to the real meat of my Quibble 1: the quadrants existed in spirit looooong before 2018. If you were alive back then, you will remember that the selection committee focused on something different but really the same: top 50 wins and top 100 wins. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the committee used top 50 RPI wins the same way they use Quadrant 1 wins now. The only difference was that our beloved quadrants flex for home and road, as they should. The quadrants were a big improvement, but were just a tweak of the familiar paradigm. For example, here's the 2015 Selection Sunday "Nitty Gritty" sheet showing the proto-quads (with a spoiler alert):</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhjdV6iSJNbkjm4cCEAlOVjISJ2y4E89RICRO2FcwBYxkuSI_Nt2EWSBgNddTmCWvX9pNNpMZLGU6g997a0aapDOuUuMD1t-GWR93_RSxTPWZD_x9euAW5l1BT0ws3kkQXlPIVnhVtcSTQceAe6azmjyVLZ4d6_jgsyQaN2sa_ENEXTCQc_T155Z2h7=s1998" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="638" data-original-width="1998" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhjdV6iSJNbkjm4cCEAlOVjISJ2y4E89RICRO2FcwBYxkuSI_Nt2EWSBgNddTmCWvX9pNNpMZLGU6g997a0aapDOuUuMD1t-GWR93_RSxTPWZD_x9euAW5l1BT0ws3kkQXlPIVnhVtcSTQceAe6azmjyVLZ4d6_jgsyQaN2sa_ENEXTCQc_T155Z2h7=w640-h204" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This means we can safely look back before 2018 to get actionable intelligence about the plausibility of a 0Q1 team making the tournament. What we find is that there is indeed precedent for teams making the tournament with zero top line wins:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEinjnWxEOtbwr5mH6TUu1cVSsCu8VaGySIo34G72L2zXR9dj7nuU8Gtl4H-h5kla9OrwKxqObvIiQ8NqluMq8oudZMouqXIjPZ_dTjZge2AjJRoD3ZBL0P4cnK7Yvpaai6TEZPLvhI6bfE2Nfnku6G60soQ1B8MDXstfdvoDnRyjHoJgnlexdzliirL=s1244" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="318" data-original-width="1244" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEinjnWxEOtbwr5mH6TUu1cVSsCu8VaGySIo34G72L2zXR9dj7nuU8Gtl4H-h5kla9OrwKxqObvIiQ8NqluMq8oudZMouqXIjPZ_dTjZge2AjJRoD3ZBL0P4cnK7Yvpaai6TEZPLvhI6bfE2Nfnku6G60soQ1B8MDXstfdvoDnRyjHoJgnlexdzliirL=w640-h164" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">One other thing you might notice about each of these teams is that they all had <i>multiple</i> bad losses (outside the RPI top 100 in those days) and <i>still</i> got in. Anyhow, unsurprisingly, three of these four teams show up in the default list of ten most similar résumés for North Carolina 2022 on my site:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjkxq62hgdtfmhPa835-ipgFLfNP3MneQTBtsWD5q-SipwTL2eoiVdRiEAO8IScif1eNQzEAofUxiYhIZ54Ez3FdNbcx1KijJSadKuEgXxZP-qiBbNh_LGzUbCTpb2kVJ8OI48djDRVTvcHggIEmZ3Q7CrgpuPjwPxV5g_x33QUndDIMjrlII8gy3KY=s870" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="518" data-original-width="870" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjkxq62hgdtfmhPa835-ipgFLfNP3MneQTBtsWD5q-SipwTL2eoiVdRiEAO8IScif1eNQzEAofUxiYhIZ54Ez3FdNbcx1KijJSadKuEgXxZP-qiBbNh_LGzUbCTpb2kVJ8OI48djDRVTvcHggIEmZ3Q7CrgpuPjwPxV5g_x33QUndDIMjrlII8gy3KY=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Georgia in 2015 is almost an exact match, particularly in the categories that matter most. There you have it. It's been done. <i>It could happen again.</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On to my second, more fundamental, quarrel with Quad 1 absolutism: Quadrants are kind of dumb! Which would be okay if we needed them, but we don't!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Long, long ago, in a time before the NET, I wrote on this very blog that:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 30px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;"><a href="http://adamcwisports.blogspot.com/2017/01/if-ncaa-really-wants-to-replace-rpi-it.html">If the NCAA really wants to replace RPI, it should go with something like WAB</a></h3></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Alas, the NCAA did not do this. First, they invented the home-road affected quadrants, and then they replaced RPI with NET. Both of these changes made the selection process better. I'm a fan of NET, relatively speaking. For judging the quality of a team's wins and losses, which is what they are <i>basically</i> using NET and the Quadrants to do it works pretty well. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But what they <i>really</i> should do is use the NET to calculate an official NCAA version of WAB or Strength of Record. I think they shouldn't even publish the NET at all—just use it behind the scenes as the backbone for the simple calculations required to turn it into a strength of record ranking.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">They should do this because there are more than four levels of opponents in NCAA Division 1 basketball. In fact, there's probably at least 100 levels. Pretending like there are only four different kinds of wins and losses might make sense if we didn't have good ways to rate teams and didn't have computers to do calculations for us. But thankfully we have those things, and lots of them. We can do this. We should do this. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">To bring this back to UNC, we know that the Tar Heels would be in much better shape under any system that more rationally quantified the impressiveness of their record. We can see that they're a lofty 26th in ESPN's Strength of Record, which is one attempt at the kind of system I'm arguing for. They're a solid 35th in my own superior <a href="https://barttorvik.com/trank.php?sort=34&begin=20211101&end=20220501&conlimit=All&year=2022&top=0&hteam=&quad=5&rpi=#">T-Rank-based WAB rankings</a>. They'd still face scrutiny because of their particularly heinous performances against the best teams they've faced, but at least they wouldn't have to face the (false, actually) argument that inviting them would be totally unprecedented.</div>Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-35620180685313534192021-02-08T21:00:00.000-06:002021-02-08T21:00:13.485-06:002 foul auto-bench<p>The 2 foul auto-bench</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have frequently seen criticism of the 2 foul auto-bench strategy
recently. I’m not a complete believer in the auto-bench in 100% of
circumstances, but I certainly understand why a coach would do it. It feels to
me like the argument against the 2 foul auto-bench has become like the argument
for fouling when up 3 at the end of the game, in that people argue that it is clearly
they best strategy when it’s not clear that it is. They also seem to ignore all
the good reasons to bench the guy, and assume nothing bad will happen. They seem
to think the player will get their normal minutes and be their normal
productive selves with the 2 fouls, and even if they get a 3<sup>rd</sup>, they
are still unlikely to foul out. If this were true, it would be a no brainer to
leave the player in with 2 fouls, but here are some considerations as to why
this is not always the case. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->If a player has 2 fouls, they can’t really play
defense well, because they have to protect themselves. Most often the auto-bench
criticism comes when a good offensive player is sat down because the team needs
his scoring. This ignores the fact that the gains in offense by keeping him on
the court are offset by worse defense because they can’t play the defensive
scheme correctly in order to not risk the 3<sup>rd</sup> foul. This is compounded
in the team defense because the other players on the court can’t count on the 2
foul player to do what the system dictates they should do, and can put every
other defender on the court in bad positions. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Auto-benching is a tool to teach the player and
the team not to foul. Coaches don’t coach to win 4 minute segments, they coach
to win games and championships. If you have a defensive system that is based on
not fouling, you can’t tolerate players racking up 2 fouls each half. Fouling puts
other team in the bonus and makes your other fouls hurt more. Many teams
defensive scheme is based on minimizing fouls at the expense of ball pressure,
creating turnovers, etc. If this is your philosophy, then you can’t tolerate
players fouling 2 times in a half. A great coach once said, “Coaching is more
about what you accept than what you say”. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Sometimes a player committing fouls too frequently
just isn’t playing all that well. If they’re not moving their feet in the first
10 minutes, why would a coach think that is going to change in the next 10. If
a player is shooting poorly, is 0-5, and coach sits him to think for a bit, you
don’t hear the same criticism as a coach benching with 2 fouls because a player
is playing defense with his hands instead of his feet. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here are some other short considerations that play heavy
into the decision to bench the 2 foul player:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Can you protect him? Can you stick him in the
corner in a zone, or put him on a non-offensive threat in man to man? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Does your team play pressure on the ball? If so,
can you do so with this player on the court?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Who are you coaching against? Are they a coach
that will recognize the matchup and can use iso on the wing or on the block
against them, or put the player in a pick and roll defense?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Is it a player that commits a lot of fouls, or
someone that is not a fouler? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Are you playing a team that draws a lot of fouls?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Are you up or down a significant number of
points, and who is your opponent? Are they way better than you or way worse? Do
you need the player on the floor to compete? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Who are the refs, and are they calling tons of
ticky tack fouls, or are the letting everyone play?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Players that just got called for a foul are often
frustrated. Frustrated players seem to be more likely to commit another foul. (just
seems that way to me anyway)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m not an auto-bench lover myself, but I would like to hear
some of these considerations talked about when the auto-bench comes up. Seems
like the issue is over simplified. Too many assume that the low risk of a 3<sup>rd</sup>
foul is the only possible problem when leaving them on the court, when in fact there
are many other factors to consider. <o:p></o:p></p>Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-85835500503005701192020-12-12T17:27:00.003-06:002020-12-15T00:51:36.969-06:00Early look at Home Court Advantage in Covid Season<p>With some frankly disturbing exceptions, most college basketball games this year are being played in empty or near-empty arenas. This raises an obvious question: how much does this affect home court advantage (HCA)?</p><p>It's a reasonable assumption that lack of fans will reduce home court advantage, and I lowered the HCA factor in my ratings from 1.3% to 1.0% coming into the year. But I am tracking it (or at least attempting to)to see whether it needs to be further adjusted. Here's what I'm looking at so far.</p><p>I calculate and apply HCA by looking at how many more net points home teams score than my ratings project they should. For example, if two perfectly evenly matched teams play, and the home team ends up winning by 3 points in a 50 possession game, that's an HCA of 6 points per 100 possessions. Here are the actual results of that method over the last three years, plus this year so far:</p><p></p><table>
<tbody><tr>
<td>Year</td>
<td>Games</td>
<td>HCA/100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2018</td>
<td>4873</td>
<td>5.14</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2019</td>
<td>4934</td>
<td>4.93</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2020</td>
<td>4877</td>
<td>5.22</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2021</td>
<td>438</td>
<td>5.53</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><br />Looking at this, you might conclude that HCA is as strong as ever so far this year. But that would be wrong. Things look quite a bit different if you look at just the first 17 days of each season:<div><br /><table>
<tbody><tr>
<td>Year</td>
<td>Games</td>
<td>HCA/100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2018</td>
<td>662</td>
<td>6.24</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2019</td>
<td>555</td>
<td>6.33</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2020</td>
<td>666</td>
<td>6.42</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2021</td>
<td>438</td>
<td>5.53</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table></div><div><div><br /></div><div>On this view, HCA is about 13% reduced from the average of the last three years. Basically, HCA is usually higher at the beginning of the year, probably because it is generally higher in mismatches, and mismatches are common early in the year.</div><div><br /></div><div>In fact, if we break this down and look at only games in the first 17 days involving teams who are ranked within 100 spots of each other, there is a huuuuge drop-off this year:</div><div><br /><table>
<tbody><tr>
<td>Year</td>
<td>Games</td>
<td>HCA/100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2018</td>
<td>293</td>
<td>5.59</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2019</td>
<td>236</td>
<td>5.69</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2020</td>
<td>300</td>
<td>5.89</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2021</td>
<td>215</td>
<td>2.18</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table></div><div><br /></div>Here, in a fairly similar number of games as previous years, HCA is down by more than half! Given that the overall number is only down about 12%, that means that HCA in uneven matchups (where the difference in team ranks is more than 100) is actually UP quite a bit:</div><div><br /><table>
<tbody><tr>
<td>Year</td>
<td>Games</td>
<td>HCA/100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2018</td>
<td>369</td>
<td>6.75</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2019</td>
<td>319</td>
<td>6.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2020</td>
<td>366</td>
<td>6.86</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2021</td>
<td>224</td>
<td>8.78</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><p></p><p></p></div><div>What is the difference in these games? Well, one possibility is officiating. In the evenly matched games, home free throw rate is just a 1.18% advantage for the home team (versus an average advantage of 3.4% in the previous years. Meanwhile, in mismatches the home team is mostly retaining its usual advantage in getting to the line: 3.2% versus 4.3% in those kinds of games in previous years.</div><div><br /></div><div>Where does that leave us? It's too early to make any firm conclusions. Another couple caveats I want to add: (1) this analysis is kind of down of dirty because I'm not fully backing out the effect of HCA in the first place when considering team quality (which could especially be skewing the results this year of teams that have not played road games), and (2) the results for this year are obviously hard to disentangle from errors in the preseason projections.</div><div><br /></div><div>But a couple things I'm confident in saying: HCA still exists, even with few fans in the arena, but it is attenuated to at least some degree. Maybe a lot in real games.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now for some speculation. Perhaps the difference that shows up between more evenly matched games and mismatches reflects that Covid-related travel and other restrictions are particularly rough on low major teams. And perhaps the vast majority of HCA that remains is more related to this kind of travel fatigue, and has largely replaced implicit officiating bias as the main driver of HCA for now.</div><div><br /></div><div>Update:</div><div><br /></div><div>I did some more work on this to back out HCA for team quality. The raw numbers are different (slightly less HCA overall), and make this year even closer to a normal year so far, but the basic ratios / conclusions noted above still hold. In particular, the marked split between closely matched and mismatch games still holds, although the "through day 17" split is now close enough to be reasonably considered possibly just noise.</div><div><br /></div>Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-49849524843650547432020-05-25T11:44:00.005-05:002020-11-30T21:03:11.058-06:00What to make of Rick Pitino to Iona?After a couple years in Greece, Rick Pitino is coming back to coach college basketball next year at Iona College, a member of the MAAC. This is a pretty unusual situation, obviously. Pitino is already a Hall of Fame coach, with six* Final Fours and two* NCAA championships. And when he left Louisville prior to the 2018 season, he was still putting together great teams—it wasn't like the game had passed him by and he was put out to pasture. So it's intriguing to think about what such an established coaching legend might be able to accomplish in a one-bid league.<br />
<br />
I <a href="https://twitter.com/totally_t_bomb/status/1262150540835934213">asked the hive-mind on Twitter</a> for some historical analogues, and here's what we came up with, listed in approximate order of similarity (in my opinion):<br />
<br />
<b>Larry Brown to SMU</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
This is probably the closest analogue in terms of coaching ability and situation. Brown made a Final Four at UCLA and won a title at Kansas before heading off for a successful couple of decades in the NBA (where he won a title with the Pistons).<br />
<br />
SMU was a decidedly moribund program when Brown arrived, having missed the tournament for about 20 years in a row. They struggled through one more year of mediocrity under Brown before his methods, such as they were, resulted in Madness. Brown ended up lasting only four seasons, and he left under a cloud of impropriety, but he had tournament-quality squads his last three years.<br />
<br />
Could Pitino build a (clean) Brown-at-SMU type program? I think that's optimistic. SMU was in a multi-bid league by Brown's second year, and had considerably more resources than Iona. But I think something just a step below that is achievable. The main lesson is that even in this relatively best case scenario (basketball-wise), there was a transition year before the superior coaching (etc.) turned into more wins.<br />
<br />
<b>Jerry Tarkanian to Fresno State</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Tarkanian built an indisputable mid-major powerhouse at UNLV, where he went to three Final Fours and won a title. Like Larry Brown, he is legendary for his run-ins with the NCAA, which led to his departure from UNLV just a year after winning that title. After a brief stint in the NBA and a few years in the wilderness (litigating against the NCAA), he returned to coach his alma mater, Fresno State.<br />
<br />
He was immediately successful, going 22-11 in his first year—the most wins for Fresno in over ten years. He continued to win 20+ games every year and built the program into an at-large quality team, eventually earning back-to-back 9-seeds in 2000 and 2001. The 2000 team lost, of course, to the Final Four bound Wisconsin Badgers. Unfortunately, these later teams were subsequently the subject of NCAA sanctions.<br />
<br />
This is certainly a favorable comparison for Pitino (other than the sanctions stuff). Tark immediately built a contender in the WAC—and this is back when New Mexico, UNLV, and Utah were in the WAC, and the conference regularly sent 3 or 4 teams to the tournament. Like Iona, it was a program with <i>some</i> pedigree (Tiny Grant took them to the Elite Eight in 1982) but nothing like the powerhouse that Tarkanian was coming from. Ultimately, I'd say this is an example in favor of expecting bigger things out of Iona this year.<br />
<br />
<b>Rollie Massimino to Cleveland State</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
It seems fitting to follow Tarkanian with Massimino, who replaced him at UNLV. Massimino had a legendary 19-year run at Villanova, capped by a miraculous run to the 1985 title as an 8-seed.<br />
<br />
The UNLV interlude is problematic for our purposes. First, he left Villanova for UNLV after four straight years with at least 15 losses (though he did go to the tourney in two of those years). So his career was already on a downward arc. Second, he had an undistinguished two-year tenure at UNLV that, according to Wikipedia, ended with him being "forced out when it was revealed that he and UNLV president Robert Maxson had cut a side deal to lift Massimino's salary above the figure being reported to the state of Nevada and the state commission ruled that this had violated both state ethics laws, as well as UNLV rules." <br />
<br />
So when he took the job at Cleveland State a few years later, it was less of a giant stooping down than a natural step in a parabolic career arc.<br />
<br />
He did okay at Cleveland State. They were coming off a 5-win season, and Massimino won 9 games his first year. Then 12, then 14, then 15, then 19 ... But he never took them over the hump or got to the tournament. Inconclusive at best.<br />
<br />
<b>Bobby Knight to Texas Tech</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Knight was proposed to me somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the more I think about it the more analogous it seems.<br />
<br />
Bobby Knight's bona fides as a coaching legend are beyond dispute and need no recounting. Sure, he was not at his apex when Indiana fired him for finally going too far with the "I'm a total psycho" stuff off the court, but he had still taken IU to fifteen fucking tournaments in a row.<br />
<br />
The tongue-in-cheek part is really about Texas Tech, in that it was not and is not a mid-major in any real sense. But it was a team that had <i>missed</i> 13 out of those 15 NCAA tourney that Bobby Knight had just taken Indiana to. As far as major-conference programs go, that's bottom of the barrel. (And, by contrast, Iona has been to 6 of the last 8 NCAA tournaments under Tim Cluess, so ...)<br />
<br />
Knight was immediately successful at Texas Tech, winning 23 games his first year and going to the NCAA tourney. The next three seasons were also successful (by Texas Tech standards of the time) culminating in a run to the Sweet 16 in his fourth year. Then things turned toward mediocrity, especially by Knight's standards.<br />
<br />
Knight certainly turned Tech around in a hurry, showing how important the head coach is in college basketball. Although the program comparison between 2000-ish Texas Tech and current Iona is not really on point, it was certainly a big step down for Knight. So this is an encouraging example for Pitino.<br />
<br />
<b>Lefty Driesell to James Madison</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I had to be talked into this one, because although Driesell did eventually make it to the college basketball Hall of Fame, I don't think he had that status when he left Maryland. It was really what he did afterwards, at James Madison and Georgia State, that cemented his legacy as "the greatest program builder in the history of college basketball."<br />
<br />
This is not to imply that he was unsuccessful at Maryland, where he coached from 1969 to 1986 and went to three Sweet 16s and two Elite Eights. But he never got to the Final Four (much less won a title), which certainly puts him on a different level from Rick Pitino and the coaches already mentioned.<br />
<br />
That said, his coaching tenure at Maryland did end "unnaturally" in that he was forced out for non-basketball reasons. And he certainly had some success at James Madison and then Georgia State. At JMU he went through the typical transition year and then won at least a share of the CAA regular season title for the next five seasons. After a few down years at JMU, he had immediate success at Georgia State, culminating in a heartbreaking (to me) victory over Mark Vershaw and the Badgers in the first round of the 2001 tourney.<br />
<br />
Driesell was not as old as Pitino, and not as great a coach, but his mid-major success is an example for Pitino to follow.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Bobby Cremins to College of Charleston</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Bobby Cremins is no Rick Pitino, but he had a long and distinguished run at Georgia Tech, including a trip to the Final Four in 1990. He retired in 2000, but was lured out of retirement by Charleston for the 2007 season.<br />
<br />
Iona and Charleston are pretty good analogues in that they were both consistent contenders in their conferences before landing their late-career coaching legend. Tim Herrion, Cremins's immediate successor, averaged over 20 wins in his four seasons but never went to the tourney. But Herrion's predecessor, John Kresse, had fantastic success and dominated the TAAC/Southern in the 90s.<br />
<br />
Cremins kept alive this record of decent mid-major success, but never really broke through or returned Charleston to the tournament.<br />
<br />
<b>Honorable Mentions with brief summary:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Jim Harrick to Rhode Island</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Won a title at UCLA, and had instant success at Rhode Island. Dogged by scandal everywhere, though. Overall, Harrick not on Pitino's level, and Rhode Island clearly above Iona on the pecking order.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Steve Fischer to San Diego State</b><br />
<br />
Steve Fischer was only 52 when he was fired by Michigan as part of the Ed Martin scandal. So even though he had tremendous success at Michigan (including an out-of-nowhere run to the 1989 NCAA title when he replaced Bill Frieder right before the tournament, and two Final Four runs with the Fab Five), his status as a coaching great was not really established until he built San Diego State into a west coast powerhouse.<br />
<br />
Also, San Diego State is a clear step or two above above Iona on its own terms and in terms of conference affiliation.<br />
<br />
<b>Tubby Smith to High Point</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Another coach with an NCAA title on his resumé, but by the time Tubby went to High Point, the shine on his star was long gone.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Mike Dunleavy to Tulane</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Dunleavy never had any success in college, but he did have a long and sort of decent career in the NBA. So you might have thought he would do well at Tulane. He did not.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Jim Calhoun to St. Joseph (D-III)</b><br />
<br />
Calhoun certainly is on Pitino's level as a coaching legend. But it's hard to really compare starting up a D-III program to taking over at Iona. For what it's worth, Calhoun is <a href="http://www.espn.com/espnw/feature/26247419/the-return-jim-calhoun-leaves-st-joe-identity-crisis">off to a good start</a>.Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-58893988900079606512020-03-09T13:12:00.003-05:002022-02-18T11:53:06.517-06:00A Coach of the Year PolemicWhat is the Coach of the Year award for?<br />
<br />
If you answer this question by looking at results, the answer is pretty clear: the Coach of the Year award typically goes to the coach of the team that most exceeded expectations. Another way of putting it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
"Coach of the Year" analysis: Imagine you are showing these standings to yourself before the season ... which positive result would make you say "damn!" the loudest?</div>
— Bart T🏀rvik (@totally_t_bomb) <a href="https://twitter.com/totally_t_bomb/status/1236836688867049473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
I'm here to say that's the way it should be.<br />
<br />
Just like the preseason AP poll tends to give a fairly pure view of how good knowledgeable people think a team will be—before dirty game results sully the analysis with overreactions and the like—preseason expectations for a team give us a pretty pure view of how talented people think the roster is.<br />
<br />
There are many reason a team could outperform its presumed talent. Obviously the presumptions of talent could be quite wrong. That happens all that time. It could be just luck. That no doubt happens all the time. But generally speaking when a team outperforms its presumed talent level, I think it's fair to attribute at least some of that variance to coaching—superior training, development, and game strategy.<br />
<br />
That's a sound theoretical justification for giving the Coach of the Year award to the coach of the team that most outperforms its preseason expectations. It's not at all dumb. Let's just accept it.<br />
<br />
There are two main objections to this regime:<br />
<br />
1) Why shouldn't preseason favorites be eligible for coach of the year?<br />
<br />
and, relatedly,<br />
<br />
2) Recruiting is coaching, too, and this doesn't account for that.<br />
<br />
Both of these objections are wrong.<br />
<br />
First, under this regime, coaches of preseason favorites <i>are</i> eligible to win Coach of the Year, and they do. Even favorites can wow us with their overachievement. For example, John Calipari was national Coach of the Year in 2015 despite having probably the most talented roster in the one-and-done era. Bo Ryan won B1G COY in 2015 leading a preseason top-5 juggernaut. There are many examples.<br />
<br />
Second, and I cannot emphasize this enough, recruiting is <i>not</i> coaching. Coaching has a general meaning that applies to all sports: training players, developing players, and directing game strategy. Recruiting, program-building, fundraising, glad-handing, press conferences, etc.—these are all things college basketball coaches have to do, but none of those things are <i>coaching</i>. The Coach of the Year award need not (and should not) consider them.<br />
<br />
Most sports have a Coach of the Year award. In professional sports, coaches don't get credit for having great players (even if they happen to also be the GM that drafted them) because it's understood that coaching and roster construction are different things, and the Coach of the Year award is for the coaching part. Just because the person called "Coach" happens to both coach and recruit doesn't mean recruiting is coaching. It isn't. It just isn't.<br />
<br />
The existing regime for deciding Coach of the Year focuses, appropriately, on coaching: instruction, development, game strategy. That's reasonable and appropriate. There's no need to muddy the waters trying to evaluate the non-coaching duties.<br />
<br />Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-47773700207903265222019-11-02T17:18:00.000-05:002019-11-02T17:18:17.523-05:00First impression- Badgers are 5 deep<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
Always a bad idea to jump to conclusions after one exhibition game, so here it is. </div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
The starting 5 looked solid. Ford and King looked healthy and more aggressive. Reuvers should be the centerpiece of this offense, but that is a bit of a misnomer as the strength of the offense is the balance. While this group doesn't have an individual defender as good as Iverson, they should be a solid team defense. There is hope that there will be some dribble penetration from this team, but I feel like I always have hope for that at this time of year, and then once they have to play against Big Ten defenses, it goes away. Even so, if this team is relegated to a mostly jump shooting team they should be OK, as they have enough shooters. The trouble is the team after these 5.</div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
With Potter likely out until late December, there is no depth on this team, especially with the bigs. This was already going to be a small team, but without Potter, this team is one injury away from major trouble. Kind of reminds me of the team 2 years ago that I think would have been a "last in" NCAA type team if Trice and King don't get hurt and Davison doesn't play out of position with one arm. That team was weak at guard and lost their guards, while this team is small, and a Reuvers injury (God forbid) would leave them with nothing down low and probably another losing record. </div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
Pritzl looks like he is satisfied being the strong team player and occasional lights out shooter he was last year. That is fine, but I still can't shake my hope from his freshman year that he would be a bigger Ben Brust. Turns out he just isn't. He won't hurt UW when he comes off the bench, and he at the least allows them to maintain the same style of offense because his shooting still spaces the floor. I imagine he will have some games where he hits 4-6 threes that will tease those old hopes, but he just won't ever be a volume shooter, so his overall contributions will come in other ways. </div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
Then we have the 2 freshman. Hedstrom does not look ready to play Big Ten basketball yet. He got pushed around a bit by UW Lacrosse players and he looks like he just needs more time to gain confidence and strength. Unfortunately the lack of depth in the front court may force him to play before he is ready, and I fear it may be ugly when he is. If I had written this post after the first half I would have said much the same about Wahl. When he was in the game Lacrosse got the ball to his man and went at him. He looked like an 18 year old kid that needs weight and strength. Ideally he would get limited minutes at the 3 spot this year, get in the weight room, and then play the 4 down the road. He will most likely be forced to play major minutes at the 4 this year and he will struggle to hold up against a more developed 4. I cringe when thinking about him having to guard Xavier Tillman. The second half was much better, minus a horrible fast break turnover pass that belonged in high school. His stat line looked good at the end of the day, so hopefully he develops quickly because there aren't really any other options after him. </div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
Anderson is the only other guy who will play, and I thought he looked slow last year before the knee injury. He still has a big sleeve on that knee, and I'm not sure what was underneath. If he is playing major minutes it is probably not a good sign, but with all the small lineups and no one else who can play, he may end up playing a role. </div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
So, with only one game that doesn't even count under their belt, what almost certainly wrong conclusion should we draw about these badgers. If they stay healthy and everyone progresses, this team should be fun and have a ceiling around a top 3-4 Big Ten Finish, and a 4-6 seed in the tournament. The floor looks low however. As I said earlier, they look to be a couple big man injuries from a 14 win team. If I'm making early predictions (and I am), I think they end up as a safely in the tournament team that is dangerous since they get Potter back and play their best basketball in 2020. </div>
<div data-setdir="false" dir="ltr">
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /></div>
</div>
</div>
Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-28783905996300562532019-09-01T14:57:00.001-05:002019-09-01T14:57:49.602-05:00A look at some outliersI've been keeping track of a bunch of offseason top 25s and such, and I have a fairly good handle on what the preseason conventional wisdom. Let's take a look at a some teams where the T-Rank projections diverge from the conventional wisdom, starting with teams that the T-Rank projections are much higher on than the humans.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Illinois</span></b><br />
T-Rank: 15<br />
Humans: 40-ish<br />
<br />
The conventional wisdom on the Illini seems to be "intriguing, but not in the top 25." Andy Katz is more bullish, putting them at 19th in his latest "Power 36," but T-Rank's No. 15 is well above the median opinion.<br />
<br />
I think this is driven by a few things.<br />
<br />
First, Illinois returns some sophomores who were promising as freshmen, including a borderline one-and-done in Ayo Dosunmu. The model expects improvements out of those kinds of guys, and big improvement out of Ayo.<br />
<br />
Second, the model still likes Brad Underwood based on his well-above-par performances at Stephen F. Austin and Oklahoma St. Humans are not so sold on Underwood, and there's quite a bit of skepticism that his particular system, especially on defense, can work at the high major level.<br />
<br />
Third, T-Rank thought Illinois was better last year than most people (and other systems like Kenpom) did. This can have an effect on the defensive projection, which uses prior performance as a baseline.<br />
<br />
<b>My take.</b> This is definitely a best-case scenario projection for Illinois, and I'd be much more comfortable with them in the lower 20s even as an optimistic case. There are things to like about this team, and plausible bases to expect a significant leap, but still many question marks and things that could easily go wrong. So I'd go with the conventional wisdom on this one.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Missouri</span></b><br />
T-Rank: 13<br />
Humans: Bubble team at best<br />
<br />
This is definitely the biggest outlier in the projected top 40. As far as I can tell, no human is expecting <i>anything</i> out of this Missouri squad. Only mention I've seen is they come up 64th in Kevin Sweeney's <a href="https://cbbcentral.com/2019/08/20/preseason-top-100-80-61/">top 100</a>.<br />
<br />
The case against Missouri is straightforward. They were mediocre last year (68th in Kenpom), they lose their most impactful player (Jordan Geist), and they don't have a highly touted freshman class coming in.<br />
<br />
As with Illinois, my model's baseline for Missouri is a bit higher on Missouri's past performance; T-Rank had them 54th last year, which is higher than anyone else had them. Most importantly, it had them No. 36 in adjusted defensive efficiency, and 37th the year before. Add in the fact that Cuonzo Martin has a history as a solid defensive coach and that Missouri returns a solid core of defensive players, and I don't have a big problem with the projection for Missouri to be the 25th best defensive team next year.<br />
<br />
Where things get a bit wacky is the projection for Missouri to have the No. 15 offense. The offensive projection is mainly player-based, and the short story here is that the model just likes these players together. Mark Smith and Jeremiah Tilmon are juniors who were highly rated recruits, which bodes well for their chance to continue improving into key, reliable offensive players. Torrence Watson, Xavier Pinson, and Javon Pickett are returning sophomores who got good experience as freshmen. And Dru Smith is a transfer from Evansville (a decent mid-major) who was very efficient there as a sophomore.<br />
<br />
<b>My take.</b> As with Illinois, I'd find this more defensible if they were in the low 20s or so, because I can sort of get where the model is coming from in liking these players. But I'm not placing or taking any bets premised on Missouri as a top-20 team that contends for an SEC title.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Penn St.</span></b><br />
T-Rank: 19<br />
Humans: 50-ish<br />
<b><br /></b>
Penn St. has been a pretty decent team, efficiency-wise, the last two years. Two years ago, they won the NIT and finished 19th in the Kenpom ratings. Last year they finished 43rd at Kenpom. (T-Rank had them 16th and 32nd the past two years, so even a little higher.)<br />
<br />
But the perception of this team does not quite track those efficiency numbers. They were never seriously in consideration for an at-large berth either year, mainly because of their 6-20 record in "Quadrant 1" games. Starting 0-10 in the Big Ten last year also didn't help. There's a feeling, I think, that PSU's efficiency numbers are goosed by mopping up against lesser competition, and that Pat Chambers just doesn't have the chops to really compete at the top of the Big Ten.<br />
<br />
So the popular opinion on Penn State, I think, is they they were mediocre with a low ceiling last year, and they'll be similar this year after losing Josh Reeves and the unexpected transfer of Rasir Bolton. Yes, they return Lamar Stevens, who puts up big counting stats but does so inefficiently. So it's easy to imagine this being the classic PSU team that features one guy who takes all the shots and that plays pretty hard enough on defense.<br />
<br />
<b>My take.</b> 19 is too high, but it's worth noting that Penn State was 24th in a <a href="https://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/2019/07/a-breakdown-of-syracuses-non-conference-schedule-for-2019-20-season.html">sneak peak</a> of Kenpom's preseason ratings, so at least T-Rank isn't out on an island with this one. Maybe this will be the year that PSU's results more closely align with their efficiency numbers.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Notre Dame</span></b><br />
T-Rank: 22<br />
Humans: 50-ish<br />
<br />
I've seen surprisingly little love for Notre Dame this offseason. The Irish struggled last year, especially after Rex Pflueger got hurt after ten games. Three top-100 freshmen (Nate Laszewski, Dane Goodwin, and Prentice Hubb) were forced into more action than they were probably ready for.<br />
<br />
But Pflueger is back for a fifth year, along with fellow seniors TJ Gibbs and John Mooney. And those three top-100 freshmen are back, poised to make the sophomore leap.<br />
<br />
<b>My take.</b> Notre Dame has been a bit snakebitten since Bonzie Colson's injury in 2018. If they stay healthy this year, I think there's a good chance that they are a top 25 team again.<br />
<br />
<br />Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-55892960018539441312019-03-13T11:21:00.000-05:002019-03-13T11:24:31.337-05:00BrackAnalysis: GonzagaYou may wondering: BrackAnalysis? Yet another branding change? NO! BubbAnalysis focuses on bubble teams. BrackAnalysis takes a wider view. Thus, today's focus: Gonzaga's case for a one seed.<br />
<br />
As of yesterday, the Zags were widely considered a lock, maybe THE lock, for a one seed. I wasn't sure if the lock consensus was really based on "they're a one seed even if they lose" or if it was "they're a one seed because there's no way they're losing to Saint Mary's, who they've beaten by like ten thousand points in two games this year." In any case, my algorithm did not agree with the consensus. It was projecting that a loss to Saint Mary's would knock Gonzaga down to the two line. And that's where they are <a href="http://barttorvik.com/tranketology.php">today</a>.<br />
<br />
Yesterday's consensus may well turn out to have been correct but I think it's worth looking into the sources for my algorithm's dissent. One preliminary note: none of this is intended as a subjective opinion on whether Gonzaga is good, or whether it <i>deserves</i> a one seed—only an attempt to analyze Gonzaga's profile the way the Committee might.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Case Against Gonzaga as a One Seed</h4>
<br />
Gonzaga's problem is that it has only four Q1 wins and only six Q2 wins, so it is projected at 27th in the resumé metric. In my database (since 2008), the only team to get a one seed with four or fewer Q1** wins was undefeated Wichita St. in 2014. They had three Q1 (top 50) wins and eight Q2 (top 100) wins. But they were also <i>undefeated</i>—33 games over .500 on Selection Sunday—and had those two more Q2s. <b>No team (since 2008) has been awarded a one-seed with ten or fewer Q1+Q2 (top 100) wins. </b>Here are all the one seeds since 2008 with fewer than 15 Q1+Q2 wins:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWoUGH0YEmZO_vzsIH_CWNGUK1lGVhDS1NE9mveEMDQEHIqQN3psNz6BXYOp91ZX8DapKrSwdLF-sPtfdFLFLwLjPDkw5ugSD7lqbc4gui-8ViFPWpe8bSMDNCAhYbrVrWkVVy0_p7GJo/s1600/Screenshot+2019-03-13+11.12.18.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="334" data-original-width="1016" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWoUGH0YEmZO_vzsIH_CWNGUK1lGVhDS1NE9mveEMDQEHIqQN3psNz6BXYOp91ZX8DapKrSwdLF-sPtfdFLFLwLjPDkw5ugSD7lqbc4gui-8ViFPWpe8bSMDNCAhYbrVrWkVVy0_p7GJo/s640/Screenshot+2019-03-13+11.12.18.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
So here's the case against Gonzaga in a nutshell: their volume of Q1+ Q2 wins has never before been good enough for a one seed, and their volume of Q1 wins was only good enough for an undefeated team. Given the primacy of this kind of analysis in the Committee's work, I think this is a very reasonable argument that Gonzaga may not be awarded a one seed.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Case For Gonzaga as a One Seed</h4>
<div>
<br />
Nonetheless, there are still good reasons to think that the Committee will bestow a one seed on Gonzaga:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><b>The eye test.</b> Gonzaga passes it. Mainly because ...</li>
<li><b>They beat Duke.</b> Full strength Duke. In Maui, in a game everybody watched. And for much of the game, they <i>dominated.</i> </li>
<li><b>They are really, really good.</b> Gonzaga is second in Kenpom and most other similar ratings. They are certainly worthy of a top seed.</li>
<li><b>Lock in effect.</b> The Committee was already in session, as of Monday (I believe). I think one of the first things they do is consider one seeds. So it's possible, even likely, that there was a provisional one line, and Gonzaga was sitting on top of it. Once things like that get started, the analysis become less about looking at the whole resumé, and more about "how much should this one result affect what we already thought?" Cognitive biases being what they are, new results tend not to affect what people think as much as results that went into the original opinion.</li>
<li><b>No one else fits in the West. </b>All of the other potential one seeds are well east of the Rockies, most east of the Mississippi. If there's a close call between Gonzaga and an eastern team, Gonzaga may get a logistical bonus. This is especially true if the 4/5 on the s-curve comes down to Zags versus Duke because ...</li>
<li><b>They beat Duke. </b>Did I mention that?</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
These are all good reasons, so it will be interesting to see how this shakes out.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
**Prior to last year, Q1 = top 50 and Q2 = top 100, with no adjustment for venue (because that's how the Committee used to do it).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-79871776724818663642019-03-12T14:14:00.000-05:002019-03-12T14:34:24.049-05:00BubbAnalysis: NC StateWelcome to the latest edition of BubbAnalysis, formerly known as Bubble Breakdown, formerly known as Bubble Banter.<br />
<br />
Right now I want focus on <b>NC State</b>. In the latest bracketmatrix, NC State is an 11. Yet my algorithm currently projects them on the 9-line, and unlikely to fall out even with a loss. What gives?<br />
<br />
It inescapably comes down to non-conference strength of schedule. Because they played so many of the worst teams in DI, their "NCSOS" is dead last—at least based on the primary measure of NCSOS highlighted on the NCAA's Nitty Gritty report and Team Sheets, which is simply opponent's winning percentage (i.e. RPI Factor 2). This primitive measure is not an input to the T-Ranketology algorithm. In fact, my algorithm gives no separate weight to strength of schedule as a standalone input (though it is certainly incorporated into the algorithms inputs).<br />
<br />
Most bracket projectors, I gather, do separately consider SOS and especially the NCSOS, and I understand why they do. First, it's a number on the official documents. Second, there have been a few high profile cases where a bad NCSOS was specifically mentioned as a reason that a team was excluded. A couple of Seth Greenberg's Virginia Tech teams come to mind here.<br />
<br />
I did not include SOS or NCSOS in the algorithm for a few reasons:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>In prior years, the committee used RPI, which was highly correlated to SOS because it was 75% composed of schedule metrics. Indeed, the current "SOS" numbers on the official NCAA documents are just what used to be called RPI Factor 2, which was 50% of the RPI formula. So it was possible to simply use RPI and get good enough results with the algorithm. For example, the 2010 Virginia Tech team that was snubbed supposedly because of its terrible NCSOS also had an RPI rank of 59—not a disqualifying rank, but definitely in the area where a team is not likely to be selected. (My current algorithm would have had them <a href="http://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?team=Virginia+Tech&year=2010">the last team in the field</a>—close enough!)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>It's a very very noisy signal. There are many examples of teams with terrible schedules getting in, and getting good seeds. Just as an example, last year Michigan had a bad NCSOS and got a three-seed. And there are many examples of teams with very <i>good</i> schedule metrics who nonetheless were left out or down-seeded. So it's hard to figure out how to put this into an algorithm because in the vast majority of cases it clearly has no impact whatsoever (at least independent of its effect on RPI).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Strength of schedule <i>is</i> accounted for in Kenpom, BPI, Sagarin, KPI, and SOR — the other metrics on the official docs. People seem to resist this, but it's clear that Kenpom has long had some effect on selection decisions, and that was formalized last year with its inclusion, along with those other metrics, on the team sheets, etc. Teams that play terrible schedules will typically be punished in those systems <i>unless they actually perform very well against those opponents</i>.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Now, with the NET this year things are up in the air. If we were still using RPI, there is zero doubt that NC State would be disqualified from consideration for an at-large. (Their RPI rank would be 100+, far beyond the realm of consideration, <a href="http://barttorvik.com/teamcastrpi.php?team=North+Carolina+St.&year=2019">certainly in my algorithm</a>.) And the <i>reason</i> their RPI would be so bad is <i>because</i> their NCSOS kills it. But their NET is in the low 30s, their power ratings are in the 30s, and they have 8 Q1+Q2 wins. Only one team with that profile has been left out since 2008: last year's USC team, which was widely considered an at-large shoo-in. (By the way, their NCSOS rank was a perfectly respectable 62.)<br />
<br />
That leaves the question: will the Committee rely on RPI Factor 2 to downgrade NC State, despite having a profile that otherwise matches dozens of at-larges and just one snub? It might! And if it does, I'll probably tweak my algorithm to incorporate some kind of special punishment for having an extremely bad RPI Factor 2 in non-conference games. The easiest way to do this would be simply to put RPI itself back into the mix somehow.<br />
<br />Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-62420614512155839842019-03-10T19:31:00.000-05:002019-03-10T19:31:13.014-05:00Happ down the stretchIt has seemed to me that Happ has not been shooting all that well recently. He looks like he is rushing shots and his accuracy just isn't there. It's not as though he is awful, just not as good as he has been for the past 3 1/2 years. Numbers bear it out. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Over the first 16 games vs major conference opponents (I know that not all are equal, but it's an easy way to filter out the crap opponents) he shot 142/251=56.6%. This is in line with his career FG average 54.6%. Over the last 10 games he is shooting 66/141=46.8. Over those first 16 he shot better than 50% in 9 games, but in the last 10 he has only been better than 50% in 1 game. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Guys that play on the perimeter are especially prone to ups and downs, but Happ never shoots anything but hooks and layups. I don't think this is just a random shooting slump. For a while I thought he was altering his shot so he could get it up and not get fouled, because he was so terrible at the line. I'm not sure that is the case, but it could be something in the back of his mind. He definitely seems to be shooting faster though. The moves where he fakes in 3 different directions, gets his opponent off balance, then lays it in don't seem to come very often. Maybe that is because teams have figured out not to go for them, but then why didn't they figure that out in the past 3 years. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not sure I have any sort of good explanation for this. Just thought I would throw it out there since I have neglected this blog so much and felt it needed some love. </div>
Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-86965084766441926212019-03-10T18:35:00.001-05:002019-03-10T18:35:48.882-05:00B1G Tourney picksHere they are, I'm getting wacky this year. Let's see your picks Torvik!<br />
<br />
Wednesday Winners:<br />
Illinois<br />
Rutgers<br />
<br />
Thursday Winners:<br />
Indiana<br />
Maryland<br />
Penn State<br />
Iowa<br />
<br />
Friday Winners:<br />
Indiana<br />
Wisconsin<br />
Penn State<br />
Michigan<br />
<br />
Saturday Winners:<br />
Wisconsin<br />
Michigan<br />
<br />
Sunday Winner:<br />
WisconsinAdamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-86647925233671267332019-03-02T11:16:00.002-06:002019-03-11T20:46:22.710-05:00Bubble Breakdown March 02Note: After consultation with marketing and legal, I'm rebranding Bubble Banter as Bubble Breakdown™.<br />
<br />
Here's a look at the bubble through the robotic yet strangely beautiful eyes of TourneyCast:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3-AyChI0MNqLyR6lPXACrgODgG7O_l8bSAMlMsZTsfPQR9D7xqPX5xugYH8okfcSMNlWA0D0vpDhEHHEpyw_gOxj14ZFy2FCRzZkSA0ihfklapQcqMXT3uHmLhfgehUXCnwy-ExtUNYk/s1600/bub0302.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1226" data-original-width="804" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3-AyChI0MNqLyR6lPXACrgODgG7O_l8bSAMlMsZTsfPQR9D7xqPX5xugYH8okfcSMNlWA0D0vpDhEHHEpyw_gOxj14ZFy2FCRzZkSA0ihfklapQcqMXT3uHmLhfgehUXCnwy-ExtUNYk/s640/bub0302.png" width="418" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The nice thing about this view, as opposed to the current T-Ranketology bracket, is that this includes simulations of conference tournaments. So a team like UNC Greensboro, which might reasonably considered on the bubble as of today, fades to extreme long-shot as an at-large when you factor in a loss in the conference tournament. It also is the best way to look at bubble teams who are projected auto-bids in the same view as bubble teams who are not.<br />
<br />
Let's do this.<br />
<br />
<b>Probably safe: Ohio State, Oklahoma, Syracuse, Washington, TCU</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
These teams generally just need about one more win, at least according to my algorithm. The big mark against several of these teams is poor conference record. <b>Oklahoma</b> and <b>TCU</b> are both currently projected to go 7-11 in Big 12 play, and Oklahoma would be projected to be fine even at 6-12. It's certainly possible that the committee will balk at those figures, as it's pretty much unprecedented for teams with those kinds of records to have tourney credentials otherwise.<br />
<br />
<b>Getting sketchy: St. John's, UCF, Clemson, VCU, Belmont, Texas</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>St. John's</b> has 6 Q1 wins (though FWIW I'm projecting Georgetown will fall below the Q1 cutline eventually) but also has home losses to the likes of DePaul, Providence, and Xavier. Now they have two road games left: at Xavier and at DePaul that T-Rank sees as tossups. If they win at least one of those, they'll probably be okay heading into the Big East tourney in their backyard (note that home-court gives them a 1 in 5 chances of getting the auto-bid). But losing both those games is a real possibility, in which case they'd be squarely on the bubble.<br />
<br />
<b>UCF</b> isn't worth discussing too much because their resumé remains largely to be written: three Q1 games still left in the regular season. Sweep those, and they might be wearing home jerseys in their first game of the tourney. Get swept and say sayonara. Anything in between and they'll be on the bubble.<br />
<br />
<b>Clemson</b> is a team my algorithm likes more than most bracketographers. They lack the top-line wins (just projected to have one Quad 1) but have a good NET, good power ratings, no bad losses, SOS is fine. Their profile comps are all in, though never by much:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfZe_sc2IMeoNZFJSwmQ86HlZ7AV3mon20KO2k-zRJV1pJo-jW_PpOh5FjRqrSsW4rNzGZjHzU67tcoAey9pXw-UUYY0_9ptoxCxpBUvJS0rO_rCYnJkU01xV-vyxYVBB8DbG_KVHE9QE/s1600/Screenshot+2019-03-02+10.40.20.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="548" data-original-width="820" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfZe_sc2IMeoNZFJSwmQ86HlZ7AV3mon20KO2k-zRJV1pJo-jW_PpOh5FjRqrSsW4rNzGZjHzU67tcoAey9pXw-UUYY0_9ptoxCxpBUvJS0rO_rCYnJkU01xV-vyxYVBB8DbG_KVHE9QE/s640/Screenshot+2019-03-02+10.40.20.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Obviously a win today over UNC will seal the deal. But if they just win the games they're supposed to, my algorithm will likely continue to favor them. I'd generally trust the conventional wisdom over my algorithm, but this could end up being an interesting test.<br />
<br />
<b>VCU and Belmont</b> are both mids with a decent enough shot to get in even if they're knocked out in their conference tourney, as at least one of them likely will be (both projected at about 50% to win). All bubble teams should be rooting for them.<br />
<br />
<b>Texas</b> is here, as I mentioned last week, because it is projected to be 16-15 at the end of the regular season. My algorithm starts punishing a team once its projected record is less than five games above .500. The punishment is pretty severe at a one game over .500, so it's pretty remarkable that Texas is still being projected on the right side of the cutline. If Texas gets two more wins, they will vault out of the bubble zone, but this is another sort of unprecedented case brewing, so it's hard to really say what would happen if Texas finishes at, say, 16-16 with five Quad 1 wins.<br />
<br />
<b>The Genuine Bubble: </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Minnesota </b>needed two wins last week to feel safe, but they got one. They remain on the bubble with two Quad 1-A games remaining. One upset would likely do it for them. If not, they'll need two Big Ten tourney wins to be safe, I think.<br />
<br />
<b>Utah St.</b> I still think Utah State needs to beat Nevada once, and that's basically where this 50% chance of an at-large comes from: they've got a tossup against the Wolfpack tonight. Win it, and they're in. (By the way, my algorithm's early projection of Utah State as an at-large contender, when no one else was even considering them, is why it is a cool thing.)<br />
<br />
<b>Alabama</b>, like UCF, has three big Q1 games left in the regular season, so their profile is incomplete. All three are projected by T-Rank as tossups. Tune in next week, but in all likelihood they'll be on the bubble heading into their conference tournament.<br />
<br />
Why does everyone hate <b>Saint Mary's?</b> This has vexed me for a while, and Ken Pomeroy mentioned it on a recent podcast. Even people who tend to root for mid majors root against Saint Mary's for some reason. I don't get it at all. People hate Saint Mary's resumé because they ain't beat nobody. I like Saint Mary's because they are, objectively, a good basketball team. They also have a great player in Jordan Ford. If they beat Gonzaga tonight, their profile will look good enough. If they don't, it won't.<br />
<br />
<b>Seton Hall </b>is a team that projects in the field as of today, but they have three tough games upcoming (at Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova), and could very easily lose their first game in the conference tourney. They can definitely win their way into the field, but T-Rank foresees losses.<br />
<br />
<b>Furman</b> and <b>Lipscomb</b> are alive. Technically. Better not to chance it though.<br />
<br />
<b>Temple</b> is a team that I think many have been overrating, in terms of tourney chances. They have just one Q1 win, and only one more regular season opportunity: a Bracket Buster game against UCF on the last day of the regular season. The loser of that game could be in trouble, especially if it's Temple. That said, Temple's profile comps are 9/10 in the tourney:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie7VzO6pv50YVTYUn9r276Jswhma-EINjmAiO-UNNnyEZSjPw1MzuQsodNu1pUwn9ivZJoAmbzkvISMgEm5H12vWXELql_q4DeIOZh2yq0u4MTNNgQNaKizyhLpVnNLAbavLhCKvU8Ho0/s1600/Screenshot+2019-03-02+11.07.43.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="544" data-original-width="872" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie7VzO6pv50YVTYUn9r276Jswhma-EINjmAiO-UNNnyEZSjPw1MzuQsodNu1pUwn9ivZJoAmbzkvISMgEm5H12vWXELql_q4DeIOZh2yq0u4MTNNgQNaKizyhLpVnNLAbavLhCKvU8Ho0/s640/Screenshot+2019-03-02+11.07.43.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Lastly, <b>Arizona State.</b> Bracket Matrix contributors refuse to budge on this team, despite their 28-point loss to Oregon the other night. Yes, they have a few Q1 wins (though many are giving them credit for a win over Washington that doesn't currently qualify as Q1). But they have, in the Committee's parlance, a fuckton of bad losses. And they are bad (67th at Kenpom). And their NET sucks 68th. And they'll be underdogs in their last two games, Oregon State and Arizona, both on the road. Only one team in my database has made the tourney with a sub-60 NET/RPI and a sub-60 Kenpom/Power ranking: Boston College in 2009. (That team had wins over Duke and at (eventual champ) North Carolina. Put it all together, and the profile comps are not pretty:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1ZDb7kmU1bC2a70ggHrNRaLXarqPgb1SI-3_-6KXI_qE1c-nDe7L-KFPpHsdzju7F6YJWy1fWDwxOT1JYxn05X1LmG9Qo2yR8I5IWR32r8KDE-7-XQpc1GbMTHRLzsItpP-wh17g-4ZU/s1600/Screenshot+2019-03-02+11.14.58.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="546" data-original-width="904" height="386" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1ZDb7kmU1bC2a70ggHrNRaLXarqPgb1SI-3_-6KXI_qE1c-nDe7L-KFPpHsdzju7F6YJWy1fWDwxOT1JYxn05X1LmG9Qo2yR8I5IWR32r8KDE-7-XQpc1GbMTHRLzsItpP-wh17g-4ZU/s640/Screenshot+2019-03-02+11.14.58.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Now, to be fair, the comps for last year's teams were just as bleak, and the Committee decided to let that team in. As far as I can tell, that selection was based exclusively on the win at Kansas. Will a win over Kansas at home be enough this year? Maybe, but it shouldn't be—unless ASU wins a couple more games.<br />
<br />
Bye for now!Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-64781709149040556602019-02-24T15:30:00.000-06:002019-02-25T15:28:10.889-06:00Bubble Banter Feb 24Introducing a new feature: Bubble Banter.™*<br />
<br />
Here's a look at the ever-shifting projected pre-conference-tourney bubble, courtesy of the all-seeing but somewhat vision-impaired T-Ranketology Algorithm:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidVS28-itV7vrTsr1NAGHrGcA9Rz6J6WZ5hUMrUtx7ULE2i93khkVH8pxCJrAHS2x6rYPaSxu7I2lCDsJTC8yRnfCtIpv8Zea7EpYcfElJSbFcObH5s0j6lvNhCACbXJrLZJuzhSRCjTc/s1600/Screenshot+2019-02-24+13.58.37.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="918" data-original-width="886" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidVS28-itV7vrTsr1NAGHrGcA9Rz6J6WZ5hUMrUtx7ULE2i93khkVH8pxCJrAHS2x6rYPaSxu7I2lCDsJTC8yRnfCtIpv8Zea7EpYcfElJSbFcObH5s0j6lvNhCACbXJrLZJuzhSRCjTc/s640/Screenshot+2019-02-24+13.58.37.png" width="616" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
First, some overall thoughts.<br />
<br />
The bubble is thin. I don't think anyone beyond Butler here is a real threat to get an at large, and the teams below Temple (Furman, San Fran, and Butler) are pretty questionable too. If you look at the "Bid%" column, which is the ultimately score that I sort this by, historically only one team since 2008 has made the tourney with less than a score of 10 (Iona in 2012) and only four others have made with less than a 20.<br />
<br />
But the bubble will tighten up during conference tourney season. There are number of conferences that are fairly likely to produce "bid thieves" this year. Here are current auto-bids toward the bottom of at-large portion of the bracket:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaK0tVJ5oxdMllspCs7xrQG0m5XC_JdKkWM8xsSOtyqs-KpcIjDGYNvRBk_QLkyYr2UTEdLW40qT_juTe4NFmU7H-HGvMEbQ-asTXsFhLaqxlsFTXxm4Hxeh8aeIC8gPDKfGGJuscbRNQ/s1600/Screenshot+2019-02-24+14.27.09.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="394" data-original-width="922" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaK0tVJ5oxdMllspCs7xrQG0m5XC_JdKkWM8xsSOtyqs-KpcIjDGYNvRBk_QLkyYr2UTEdLW40qT_juTe4NFmU7H-HGvMEbQ-asTXsFhLaqxlsFTXxm4Hxeh8aeIC8gPDKfGGJuscbRNQ/s640/Screenshot+2019-02-24+14.27.09.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The top four (maybe five) teams there are all probably in the dance no matter what, and each has a pretty good shot of not winning their conference tournament. Belmont and Lipscomb would be long shots as an at-large, but stranger things have happened.<br />
<br />
All told, at the end of the day there's a decent chance that we get a very well defined bubble—similar to what we had in 2017, where there was near unanimous consensus on who should be in, and only one or two other teams with even a borderline case.<br />
<br />
Now for some team-by-team.<br />
<br />
<b>TEXAS. </b>This is a team that is not widely considered on the bubble—they're currently the top 9-seed at Bracket Matrix—and the consensus is probably correct. They have four Q1 wins, three of which are "Q1-A." That's why they've got that "19" in the resumé column. So why are they here? Because they are 15-12 and T-Rank is currently projecting them to finish the regular season 17-14. Teams less than 4 games over .500 do not generally make the tournament. Their remaining schedule is very difficult, so they could play well and still finish with a very ugly record. Something to keep an eye on.<br />
<br />
<b>CLEMSON.</b> Clemson has the opposite problem, in that they are 1-9 in Q1 games. They've only got one sure opportunity left, a home game versus UNC. A win there would be very helpful. But if they lose that and win the other three (at Pitt, at Notre Dame, Syracuse) they figure to be sweating it out.<br />
<br />
<b>MINNESOTA.</b> The Big 10 has six locks, one likely (Ohio St.), and Minnesota on the bubble. Minnesota has a pick em game at Rutgers today and another toss up coming up at Northwestern. I think they'll need to win both of those, or else they'll need to upset Purdue or Maryland.<br />
<br />
<b>UCF. </b>Tacko Fall's crew just throttled SMU by 47 today. It will be interesting to see how much this gooses their already respectable NET ranking. This is another team that lacks the committee's prized Q1 wins (0-3), but they've got at least three more opportunities: at Houston, Cincinnati, and at Temple. One win there keeps them in the discussion, two should be enough.<br />
<br />
<b>UTAH ST.</b> The Aggies have two huge home games coming up: San Diego St. and Nevada. They're on the bubble now because T-Rank pegs them as a slight home favorite over Nevada. If they lose that game, they'll probably need to win the MWC tourney.<br />
<br />
<b>SETON HALL. </b>A prototypical high-major bubble team. They're buoyed by three Q1 ones, including two super wins over Kentucky and at Maryland. But T-Rank projects them to finish 17-13, which means winning just one out of their last three (at Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova). Beating the Hoyas and winning one of those big home games would go a long way.<br />
<br />
<b>SAINT MARY'S. </b>This is another team that is not on the consensus radar because they lack Q1 wins. And they are below the actual realistic cut-line (accounting for a couple of bid thieves) even here. But they show up in this projection because they still have a home game against Gonzaga on the calendar. They'll have to win that game or beat Gonzaga in the WCC tourney to get in.<br />
<br />
<b>ALABAMA.</b> Another major conference team with a barely-acceptable overall record. T-Rank is projecting them at 18-13, and this is not a team that can likely get in with less than 19 overall wins. They do have home Q1 opportunities coming up against LSU and Auburn, so they can forge their own path with wins there.<br />
<br />
<b>ARIZONA STATE. </b>The algorithm is lower than the consensus here (Bracket Matrix has ASU on the 11 line, above five other at-larges). ASU has some terrible losses, and it's always hard to know how those will be factored in, if at all. But what's really driving this projection is that they finish the season with three losable road games (Oregon, Oregon St., Arizona) that won't give them any juice for winning. If they win two of those, they'll probably be in good shape.<br />
<br />
<b>TEMPLE. </b>Another team just above the consensus cutline with some tough games ahead: at Memphis, at UConn, and UCF. The Memphis game would be a Q1 win, so it is a crucial high leverage tossup.<br />
<br />
<b>FURMAN / SAN FRANCISCO</b>. I don't think these teams have a realistic case any longer as an at-large because their resumés cannot withstand a conference tourney loss and they have no opportunities to improve it. Theoretically <a href="http://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?rank=55&team=San+Francisco&year=2019&bracket=1&San_FranciscoUC_Davis11-6=A&MaineSan_Francisco11-10=A&Sonoma_StateSan_Francisco11-12=A&LIU_BrooklynSan_Francisco11-18=A&HarvardSan_Francisco11-21=A&DartmouthSan_Francisco11-24=A&Stephen_F__AustinSan_Francisco11-30=A&BuffaloSan_Francisco12-1=A&San_FranciscoCalifornia12-5=A&Eastern_WashingtonSan_Francisco12-13=A&Cal_St__FullertonSan_Francisco12-16=A&Northern_ArizonaSan_Francisco12-19=A&StanfordSan_Francisco12-22=A&San_FranciscoUC_Santa_Barbara12-29=A&Saint_Mary_sSan_Francisco1-3=A&San_FranciscoPepperdine1-5=A&GonzagaSan_Francisco1-12=A&San_FranciscoPacific1-17=A&BYUSan_Francisco1-19=A&PortlandSan_Francisco1-24=A&San_FranciscoSan_Diego1-26=A&San_FranciscoSaint_Mary_s2-2=A&San_FranciscoGonzaga2-7=A&Santa_ClaraSan_Francisco2-9=A&PepperdineSan_Francisco2-14=A&San_FranciscoPortland2-16=A&San_FranciscoBYU2-21=A&San_FranciscoSanta_Clara2-23=A&San_DiegoSan_Francisco2-28=W&Loyola_MarymountSan_Francisco3-2=W&x1_type=Post&x1_loc=N&x1_team=Pacific&x1_res=W&x2_type=Post&x2_loc=N&x2_team=Gonzaga&x2_res=W&x3_type=Post&x3_loc=N&x3_team=Saint+Mary%27s&x3_res=L&x4_type=&x4_loc=&x4_team=&x4_res=&x5_type=&x5_loc=&x5_team=&x5_res=">USF could beat Gonzaga in the WCC semis and lose to Saint Mary's in the finals</a>, but that still probably wouldn't cut it.<br />
<br />
<b>BUTLER / CREIGHTON / GEORGETOWN / NEBRASKA</b>. These are the dregs of the theoretical bubble. They're here because they have the opportunities to improve their resumés with big wins. But they probably won't.<br />
<br />
Update: On reflection, probably too harsh on Butler here. Main problem with their profile, per the algorithm, is the projected record of 17-14. That's presuming a 2-2 finish against Providence, at Villanova, Xavier, and at Providence. If they go 3-1, even losing to Villanova, they'd probably still be a live heading into MSG.<br />
<br />
<br />
*It is extremely likely this will be the only installment of Bubble Banter™ so please cherish it.Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-28111371187074502502019-02-02T12:44:00.003-06:002023-02-12T11:37:43.648-06:00The "new" quadrant: Q1-AThe NCAA <a href="https://twitter.com/brewcity77/status/1087165397093236736">recently added</a> some additional information to their "team sheets": splitting so-called "Quadrant 1" and "Quadrant "2" into two subcategories each (Q1-A, Q1-B; Q2-A, Q2-B). E.g., here's the relevant portion of Wisconsin' current team sheet from a few days ago:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhebwBCo1NC7lHXEWIKNH1heTkWX4XP6Oqf44ux9bg1NZoBEaytFNcjZx8AdsgqF7Wdwrgnm5JYwZ2EH0SR20Gk23i_OfG2qPX-5ddS187nS7qvN8JzRaWbfQX6cJFul0c4vR4FXvyxQKY/s1600/q1a.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="503" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhebwBCo1NC7lHXEWIKNH1heTkWX4XP6Oqf44ux9bg1NZoBEaytFNcjZx8AdsgqF7Wdwrgnm5JYwZ2EH0SR20Gk23i_OfG2qPX-5ddS187nS7qvN8JzRaWbfQX6cJFul0c4vR4FXvyxQKY/s320/q1a.png" width="229" /></a></div>
<br />
As you may or may not be able to make out, the "Q1" games are split up, with the top (Q1-A) games defined as top 15 at home, top 25 neutral, and top 40 on the road.<br />
<br />
In practice, the committee has always privileged these kind of extremely good wins, sometimes to a practically incalculable degree. The best recent example of this is Arizona St. making the tournament last year, almost exclusively on the strength of their road win over Kansas.<br />
<br />
For this reason, my "T-Ranketology" algorithms in their various forms have always given a lot of extra credit for these kinds of wins. Specifically, in calculating the "resume" rank that goes into the current algorithm, the Q1-A wins are worth 20 points, Q1-B wins are worth 10 points, and Q2 wins are worth just 3 points. These values were derived experimentally to get the best match I could to actual committee decision-making, and I think it does a pretty decent job.<br />
<br />
So it is definitely true, <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidWorlock/status/1087822003988586496">as David Worlock tweeted</a>, that breaking out this new category of Q1-A wins is a way to show that beating Duke at home is better than beating Furman on the road (both of which would fall into the broader Quadrant 1 bucket). But I will be interested to see how much this is used by the committee this year. In particular, this could be used as a way to delegitimize mid-major resumés.<br />
<br />
Before the quadrant system was formalized last year, the team sheets denoted top-50 wins and top-100 wins. Experimentally, it also put a lot of extra weight on top-25 wins. In each of these categories, it didn't matter where the games were played. The quadrant system attempted to fix that, by essentially redefining the top 50 category to include road games against the top 75. That was a positive development for non-power teams because it gave them more realistic opportunities to amass these top-quality wins.<br />
<br />
But there was resistance in the trenches, I believe. Specifically, people just don't *believe* that beating a team like Furman on the road should be anywhere near the same category as beating Duke at home (much less on the road). Expanding the top category to include more games against the likes of a Furman made that top category seem over-inclusive. Even a bit ridiculous.<br />
<br />
The formal delineation of a new top category is a response to this unease, I think. The very best category of wins—the ones the committee really tends to care about—shouldn't include games against the likes of Furman.<br />
<br />
We'll see how this plays out. Right now, the "Nitty Gritty" breakdown doesn't include the Q1-A as a separate column, so the impact may remain limited. But if we see the committee using Q1-A records as justification for their seedings in the top 16 dry run coming up, I think we'll know that behind the scenes they are the real wins to care about.<br />
<br />
In any event, I've broken out Q1-A wins on my site pretty much wherever the quadrants are mentioned. Enjoy.<br />
<br />Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-42069178287233747752018-11-13T13:24:00.001-06:002018-11-13T13:24:19.682-06:00Top 4 return? and other questionsAfter watching most of the Big Ten teams play one game it is way too early to start making predictions about the league. So what better time to start making some predictions. The Big Ten again looks like MSU and the rest, and even MSU is not overwhelmingly talented. The national media doesn't think much of the league, and from what I have seen there isn't much reason to argue with that. Some may say the Big Ten has a ton of depth, but I would call that mediocrity. T-Rank has 11 Big Ten teams between #20 and #50. It should make for some exciting basketball on a night to night basis which should be a lot of fun.<br />
<br />
Here are my takes on a couple questions. What do you think Torvik?<br />
<br />
1) Who emerges from the group to challenge MSU?<br />
<br />
Purdue is my guess here. They haven't finished outside the top 4 since 2013-14, and Edwards is a very good player. In a league that lacks quality big men, guards like Edwards can carry a team a long way. They have enough other talent to provide a challenge.<br />
<br />
Dark Horse: Maryland<br />
<br />
2) Who ends up on the All-Big Ten team at the end of the year.<br />
<br />
Happ<br />
Ward<br />
Cowan<br />
Edwards<br />
Winston Jr<br />
<br />
3) Does Bucky find their way back into the top 4 and avoid playing on Wednesday in March? Who ends up with them?<br />
<br />
I think so, by a nose, and it will not surprise me if there are several teams tied. I think Happ will have a much better year with some better talent around him. With the league so down, I think that probably only translates to a 6-8 seed in the tourney though.<br />
<br />
I'm throwing Maryland in as my fourth team, and dark hose to win the league. May seem foolish, as Maryland always seems to be a tease talentwise, and this year may be no different. I think they are probably the most talented team in the league with 2 quality big men, and some athletic wings. I love Cowan, and I think he could win player of the year if this team pans out. They have no meaningful senior players, Cowan is the only junior, and they have 8 underclassmen in the rotation. Defense will be a challenge with all those young kids used to playing AAU defense, and turnovers will probably be an issue as well. It's early in the season, so luckily there's plenty of time to forget this pick.<br />
<br />
Torvik?Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-38960404348220025162018-11-04T16:50:00.001-06:002018-11-04T16:50:33.539-06:00First ImpressionsAfter getting my first view of Bucky on Friday I thought I would get up some thoughts. My predictions for football this season have been complete shit, so it's time to turn to basketball.<br />
<br />
Davison looks great. He dove to the rim over and over and got layups and free throws as a result. He lead the team in fouls drawn (new stat being tracked on UWbadgers.com that I love) and had 8 free throw attempts. Throw in 3 assists, no turnovers and 2 steals and it was a solid performance. He threw up a couple ill advised jumpers that UW didn't need, but after being forced to shoot those all last year out of desperation, it is not surprising that it may take some time to get that out of his system.<br />
<br />
Happ had less than 23 minutes but looked very Happ like when he was out there. I'll talk about the 3s, since everything else was par for the course. He had 3 attempts and made one. The first miss was awful, and the second miss just rattled out. I hope he does not go the same way as Nigel and start jacking 3s at a rate of 3 per game. The shot still doesn't look good. I will be surprised if he takes them on a regular basis, and even more surprised if he makes them. Hopefully if the shooting is improved, we will see the results at the free throw line instead.<br />
<br />
Reuvers played less than 17 minutes but picked up 4 fouls. When he wasn't fouling he was pretty productive on both ends. He had a play in the first half when he got bodied in the lane, but was still able to finish through contact. He wouldn't have made that shot last year. While he will start the halves with Happ, it looks like the intent will be to give both plenty of time on the floor as the primary post player in a rotation.<br />
<br />
My buddy's dad asked me how did Iverson look, and I said "active". For the first 15 minutes of the first half he was everywhere, and I thought to myself this is the guy we have been waiting for, for the last 3 years. He finished in the post with his left hand, he was great guarding the perimeter, and I said if he can keep this up and not turn the ball over he could be great this year. Then he turned the ball over twice in 4 minutes. He finished leading the team in shot attempts (12), and had 3 assists and 3 turnovers in just 20 minutes. Active.<br />
<br />
Trice and King looked about the same as they did before they got hurt last year. Trice is fitting back into running the team after they had to figure out how to do that without him last year. King airballed his first attempt and looked shaky early, but got more comfortable as the game went on. Both just need time to get their feet under them and find their role again. King sure looks like he could be the best guy on the court at some point in his career. There are a lot of tools there.<br />
<br />
Pritzl looks like he will be the guy he was at the end of last year, which is not who I ever expected him to be, but is OK nevertheless. He was billed as the next JBo or Ben Brust, but more athletic and taller, but he is not like them at all. His shot is quick but not nearly as pure, and he doesn't hunt the 3 like those guys did. He has become a decent all around guard that doesn't eat up a ton of shots and takes what is there. He's more like Gasser on offense, just not as efficient/good. His effort on defense has gotten consistently better, but seems doubtful he'll ever be great there. <br />
<br />
The backup point guards weren't great, but at least we won't have to play McGrory in an actual game this year. Anderson looks like your old school distributing point guard. He also had an Aaron Rodgers like knee brace on. I can't believe he could even run with that thing on. Strickland is a busy guy, but out of control and will hopefully redshirt to get some seasoning. He racked up 4 fouls in less than 7 minutes played.<br />
<br />
Thomas and Illikainen were the same, which is bad. Thomas was 1-5FG in 8 minutes, and Illikainen didn't even see the court until the last 2 minutes of the game. I have to imagine if Ford was healthy those guys wouldn't play at all, but they will be there to get backup minutes as needed throughout the year.<br />
<br />
Overall this team will be better than last year which will surprise no one. If they stay healthy I think they are at worst a bubble team, at best they are a 4-5 seed and top 4 in the Big Ten. That would take some considerable growth from King, Davison, Trice, and Reuvers, but I don't think it's out of the range of this team. Those are 4 talented kids and Happ is still Happ, so they should be fun to watch, and have a shot to be good. 2 things I didn't say at all last year.Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-41738277498332129912018-10-06T09:57:00.001-05:002018-10-06T09:57:23.299-05:00NebraskaI am a woeful 1-5 this year. The UW offense has disappointed me. They are averaging 32 points per game, which sounds OK until you hear that it is ranked 58th in the country. They are averaging 266 yards/game rushing and 5.8 yards/carry. The passing game has been efficient, completing 65% of the passes with 7 touchdowns and 2 Ints, but there has been a noticeable lack of big plays.<br />
<br />
Through 4 games AJ Taylor has the longest play by a receiver and it was only 44 yards. What is more telling, is the next 2 longest pass plays were to Ingold and Groshek. Cephus and Davis were supposed to give the Badgers the ability to stretch the field, but with Cephus gone and Davis out early the passing game has not been able to make plays downfield.<br />
<br />
UW is a 17.5 point favorite, and the o/u is 60. Nebraska's defense has been horrendous allowing 39 ppg, and their offense is only averaging 21 ppg. UW has had a week of rest and is playing at home, so I'm going to take the badgers to cover, but I'm taking the under. I know UW has a history of obliterating Nebraska, but I think the UW defense holds them down enough to keep it under 60.<br />
<br />
Final score 38-17.Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-66011703043507107262018-09-17T21:05:00.000-05:002018-09-19T15:45:48.338-05:00T-Rank Methodology UpdateFor the first time <a href="http://adamcwisports.blogspot.com/2014/12/t-rank-note.html">since 2014</a>, I'm making significant changes to the T-Rank ratings. The output will be the same: adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies, used to create the "Barthag" pythagorean expectancy. But I've changed how I create the adjusted efficiencies.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Specifically, I'm going to incorporate the "<a href="https://adamcwisports.blogspot.com/2016/11/new-t-rank-stat.html">GameScript +/-</a>" stat that I derive from the play-by-play (where available), and I'm going to alter the GameScript stat so that it disregards anything that happens during "garbage time." The resulting ratings will therefore more reflect how well teams actually perform when the outcome is still in question.<br />
<br />
In my backtesting, the new ratings perform slightly better than the old ones. But frankly I just thought it would be cool to incorporate this sort of unique data I track, so I went ahead and did it. All the ratings on the site have been updated, back to 2008 (though I don't have any GameScript data for 2008 or 2009, so there are no substantive changes for those years).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Details:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For the past two seasons I have produced separate ratings, the "<a href="http://barttorvik.com/implied-trank.php">Implied T-Rank</a>," using the GameScript stat. What I do is use the GameScript stat—which represents a team's average lead or deficit during a game—to infer a final score, and then use this derived final score instead of the actual final score to create the ratings.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To explain how I get this derived final score, I'll use <a href="http://barttorvik.com/box.php?muid=MichiganWisconsin2-11&year=2018">Wisconsin's home game against Michigan last year</a>, which is a good example of a game where the actual final score (83-72, Michigan) gives a different picture than the GameScript (Michigan +14.5 when its lead became safe, which is equivalent to about a 29-point win):</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1) Calculate the GameScript using play-by-play data. Going forward I will use the GameScript at the moment the winning team's lead becomes "safe" (using Bill James's <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2008/03/the_lead_is_safe.html">famous formula</a>), unless there is a <a href="http://barttorvik.com/box.php?muid=400502348&year=2014">miraculous comeback</a>. Thus, the GameScript will not reflect any scoring during "garbage time," whether it's running up the score or the scrubs coming in to allow the final number to be more respectable. As it reflects a team's average lead/deficit over the entire game, GameScript was already resistant to late-game shenanigans (it can change only so much in the last few minutes, no matter what happens), but this will make it even more so.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2) To derive a score, add up both teams' actual scores, divide that by two, then add or subtract the GameScript. In the case of the Michigan at Wisconsin game, there were 155 points scored, so Michigan's derived score would be 77.5 + 14.5 = 92 and Wisconsin's derived score would be 77.5 - 14.5 = 63. Derived score is Michigan, 92-63. That's the 29-point margin.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The new T-Rank will use both the actual score and this GameScript-derived score (where available) from each game to calculate adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies, and then everything else will be the same.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One potentially controversial aspect of this method is that a team can win the game but have a negative GameScript, and therefore have its "derived" score be a loss. To somewhat mitigate this, I divide the GameScript in half in those situations.</div>
<div>
<br />
Wonky note: the new ratings have a narrower "spread" in the adjusted efficiencies, so I've upped the "exponent" used to calculate the Barthag from 10.25 to 11.5. I'm sure this will cause some bugs on the site, so please let me know if you notice any weirdness.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Bart Torvikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13661031240106200076noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-64774897644792542082018-09-12T20:06:00.001-05:002018-09-12T20:06:48.217-05:00BYUJust barely avoided an 0-4 start last week. 1-3 on picks now. Bucky is bound to cover the spread this week, after coming up just short 2 weeks in a row. Bucky is a 21.5 point favorite, and the o/u is 45.5.<br />
<br />
I'm taking the over even though this will be the best defense UW has faced. I think this is the week the offense puts it in gear.Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7992272584755113776.post-88881761616912490202018-09-08T09:04:00.002-05:002018-09-08T09:04:41.654-05:00New MexicoBefore the game last week I was having a beer at Buckyville with my wife and some friends. My friend Greg who played 4 years of college football mentioned that at this time of year the defense is always ahead of the offense. He was right as Bucky didn't cover the spread and the under was easily won to set me back to 0-2 to start the year.<br />
<br />
Quick hitter today before I head to the 11am game. Bucky is a 35 point favorite and the o/u is 59.5. I'm going to take Greg's advice today on the under, but I'm taking Bucky to cover.Adamcwishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17089289786921330613noreply@blogger.com0