- As Dave Heller points out, the Badgers gave up over 50 points in the second half. The last time the Badgers gave up 50 in a half was 2005, against Wake Forest. Upon seeing that tweet, my brain immediately fed me the following information: "91-88"—the final score of that game. This is why I cannot remember people's names or learn anything new: my brain is filled with basketball scores from ten years ago.
- Have the Badgers ever given up 50 points in a half and won? Not in the Bo Ryan era, at least.
- St. John's blocked just 5 shots against the Badgers.
- Ben Brust sort of pushed a ref at one point, after he got hammered trying to dunk after the whistle. It looked like Brust was trying to cool off and the ref got in his face while he was still steamed. But: wow.
- Two true freshmen (Hayes and Koenig) got in the game in the first half. Hayes's playing time was limited by fouls and by the great play of Dukan. Koenig looked a little clueless on defense and played just one minute. Still, I'm wondering when the last time two freshmen played in the first half of a Badgers' opener? It appears Kaminsky and Jackson got in during the first half of the 2011-12 opener—but that was an 85-31 win over Kennesaw St. Even so, both those players were solid contributors as sophomores, which bodes well for Hayes and Koenig.
Saturday, November 9, 2013
St John's tidbits
Friday, November 8, 2013
St John's
Some quick thoughts on the St John's game. I'll see if I can post something more after taking a 2nd look at the game. There may too much football for that to happen.
There was not much in the way of surprises when it came to the rotation. In the first half the top 6 returning players got the bulk of the playing time and the 3 guard lineup they featured in Canada started. Marshall is the 6th man in the guard heavy lineup. Hayes came in every time that Kaminsky came out in a center rotation like what Bo used last year with Berggren and Kaminsky. Koenig played just one first half minute. He will be the 5th guard but like most freshman his minutes will come and go. In a tough first game it's no surprise that Bo tightened the rotation. The question going into the year was who will be the 4th front court player, as Dekker can't play every single minute.
To those who followed the Canada trip the minutes earned by Dukan tonight won't come as a complete surprise. He played a great deal in Canada, but those games had a lot of players rotating in so it was hard to tell if his minutes would translate into the regular season. He got 6 minutes in the first half and was productive after a shaky start. He jacked up an ill advised 3 on his first possession, and missed a challenged layup on his next attempt. In years past that would have sent him to the bench, but he stayed in. He then made consecutive plays on defense tipping a pass and creating a turnover, then drawing an offensive foul. Dukan shined in the 2nd half when foul trouble sent Hayes to the bench early and Kaminsky was ineffective. The other front court options of Vitto Brown, Evan Anderson, Zach Bohannon aren't exactly overwhelming, so Dukan could be in for many more regular minutes this season.
I didn't check the numbers but it was obvious that the Badgers are playing at a faster pace. They will never be VCU, but with the small lineup heavy with shooters and ball handlers it makes sense. I expect this trend to continue all season and not just be a one game wonder.
Why is it that if there is an NBA or international 3 point line on the court in addition to the college line, the players can't help themselves from shooting from it? Brust did this to open the game, and the Badgers didn't do it so it much afterwards, but I see this all the time and it's weird.
My obsession with ball screen defense continues. In the first half UW started mostly fighting over the top of screens, as opposed to the switching they have done most of the past couple years. Given St. John's lack of perimeter shooting I thought they may even go under screens, but the change makes sense. With 3 guards you can fight over screens easier, and there is a bigger downside to switching when they don't have a bunch of players of similar size. UW just had better individual defenders last year too, which made more sense for switching. In the 2nd half they did much more switching so we'll have to see what happens against Florida.
St. John's preview
Wisconsin basketball opens its season in just a few hours, with a neutral-court game against St. John's.
Despite returning nearly everyone from last year's team, St. John's is a bit of a mystery, and it will be very interesting to see how they do this year. I've got them ranked 71st in my preseason rating, but they come in at 47th (Kenpom), 44th (Hanner), and 54th (TeamRankings) in other projections. Steve Lavin has been there a few years now, and has landed a lot of decent recruits, but the team has not come together. In fact, it's been all downhill since Lavin lost ten seniors (!) after his first year.
Last year, St. John's started three sophomores and two freshmen, and all the key reserves were underclassmen as well. They barely made the NIT despite a pretty good defense because they were a terrible offensive team. They were particularly bad at shooting. Their effective field-goal percentage was 44.5%, good for 314th in the country, and they were nearly dead last in 3-point shooting at 27.7%. To top it off, they were a bad free-throw shooting team (64%, 317th). Since their guards were all sophomores who played big minutes as freshmen, it's hard to see those numbers improving much. (But that doesn't mean they won't get hot against the Badgers!) Their one strength on offense was ball security, as they turned it over on just 16.7% of possessions, good for 17th in the country. So don't expect many turnovers in this game.
On defense, St. John's was a solid squad last year, finishing 32nd in Kenpom's adjusted defensive efficiency ratings. With everyone coming back, they should be as good or better this year. The strength of their defense is on the interior, where they block a shot on 18.4% of their opponents' possessions. In that department they were led by freshman Chris Obekpa, the nation's leading shot blocker with a 15.8% block percentage.
Despite size and athleticism across the board, St. John's was a poor rebounding team on both ends last year (212th in OR% and 300th in DR%). The poor defensive rebounding is likely related to the high block percentage, as going for blocks can lead to poor rebounding positioning.
St. John's played at a relatively fast pace, with an adjusted tempo of 67.7 possessions per game, good for 93rd fastest in the country. (That would have led the Big Ten.) Presumably their fast tempo is also catalyzed by the blocks, which create transition offense. They don't create a lot of turnovers.
Normally I think a team that relies on shot-blocking to create transition offense is a good matchup for Wisconsin, because Wisconsin just does not get its shots blocked—they are perimeter-oriented and Badger players have been known to pump fake in their sleep. On offense, I hope to see the Badgers working the post with Dekker and Kaminsky drawing double-teams and kicking out to wide-open shooters. Same old story: if the guards hit their shots, the Badgers will win.
Some things to watch:
Prediction: Wisconsin 69, St. John's 61.
Despite returning nearly everyone from last year's team, St. John's is a bit of a mystery, and it will be very interesting to see how they do this year. I've got them ranked 71st in my preseason rating, but they come in at 47th (Kenpom), 44th (Hanner), and 54th (TeamRankings) in other projections. Steve Lavin has been there a few years now, and has landed a lot of decent recruits, but the team has not come together. In fact, it's been all downhill since Lavin lost ten seniors (!) after his first year.
Last year, St. John's started three sophomores and two freshmen, and all the key reserves were underclassmen as well. They barely made the NIT despite a pretty good defense because they were a terrible offensive team. They were particularly bad at shooting. Their effective field-goal percentage was 44.5%, good for 314th in the country, and they were nearly dead last in 3-point shooting at 27.7%. To top it off, they were a bad free-throw shooting team (64%, 317th). Since their guards were all sophomores who played big minutes as freshmen, it's hard to see those numbers improving much. (But that doesn't mean they won't get hot against the Badgers!) Their one strength on offense was ball security, as they turned it over on just 16.7% of possessions, good for 17th in the country. So don't expect many turnovers in this game.
On defense, St. John's was a solid squad last year, finishing 32nd in Kenpom's adjusted defensive efficiency ratings. With everyone coming back, they should be as good or better this year. The strength of their defense is on the interior, where they block a shot on 18.4% of their opponents' possessions. In that department they were led by freshman Chris Obekpa, the nation's leading shot blocker with a 15.8% block percentage.
Despite size and athleticism across the board, St. John's was a poor rebounding team on both ends last year (212th in OR% and 300th in DR%). The poor defensive rebounding is likely related to the high block percentage, as going for blocks can lead to poor rebounding positioning.
St. John's played at a relatively fast pace, with an adjusted tempo of 67.7 possessions per game, good for 93rd fastest in the country. (That would have led the Big Ten.) Presumably their fast tempo is also catalyzed by the blocks, which create transition offense. They don't create a lot of turnovers.
Normally I think a team that relies on shot-blocking to create transition offense is a good matchup for Wisconsin, because Wisconsin just does not get its shots blocked—they are perimeter-oriented and Badger players have been known to pump fake in their sleep. On offense, I hope to see the Badgers working the post with Dekker and Kaminsky drawing double-teams and kicking out to wide-open shooters. Same old story: if the guards hit their shots, the Badgers will win.
Some things to watch:
- The new rules. St. John's may be affected by the new rules on the perimeter, and Wisconsin may be affected by the new block/charge rule. This could go either way. Maybe St. John's is able to compensate for soft perimeter defense with their shot blockers waiting down low. And maybe Wisconsin comes out ahead because Bo has always taught players not to use their hands on defense. Either way, foul trouble could be a big factor.
- Three-pointers. The Badgers project to be a three-point shooting team again, with a lot of three guard lineups and two forwards who can shoot. On defense, will Bo go against type and dare St. John's to take threes? He may have to if Wisconsin can't keep St. John's' athletic guards in front of them.
- Sam Dekker. I like Sam and look forward to watching him play a lot this year.
Prediction: Wisconsin 69, St. John's 61.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
UW BYU
After last week I'm 7-3 (3-2 on picks and 4-1 o/u).
BYU got off to a weird start this season losing to a bad Virginia team on the road in a rain soaked, and weather delayed game. Then they followed it up with a win over a #15 Texas team that got of to a similarly horrible start but then righted the ship. Against Virginia, BYU ran 93 plays but scored just 16 points (13-40 passing 175 yards 4.4 yards per pass, 53 rushes for 187 3.5 yards per rush). Against Texas they were unstoppable running the ball and ran 99 plays for 697 yards and 40 points (9-27 passing 129 yards 4.8 yards per pass, 72 rushes 550 yards 7.6 yards per rush). BYU then failed to cease the momentum of the big Texas win and laid an egg against Utah running 95 plays but scoring just 13 points (18-48 passing 260 yards 5.4 yards per pass, 47 rushes 183 yards 3.9 yards per rush). Hard to ignore the completion percentage of under 35% (40-115) and no games over 5.4 yards per pass.
BYU has since run off 5 straight wins against perhaps lesser competition, and their sophomore QB Taysom Hill has performed better in those wins going 106-161 65.8%. Hill is also the teams leading rusher on the season at 142 rushes for 841 yards, 5.9 yards per carry and 8 touchdowns. BYU has a decent defense, but their offense lives and dies with Hill.
It's possible that at the end of the year we look back and realize BYU was the 3rd best team UW played this year. That's more a result of lucky scheduling in the Big Ten (no MI, Nebraska, MSU) than an endorsement of BYU. UW is an 8 point favorite, and the o/u is 55.5.
UW has been covering spreads all year, so I'm riding them like a hot craps roller and taking UW minus the 8 points. I'm torn on the o/u. BYU has only given up more than 21 points in one game all season, a 47-46 shootout at Houston. I don't think they can hold down Bucky in a tough road environment, so I'm going to go with the over in a 45-13 blowout.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Bo Ryan Stat of the Day
With Aaron Rodgers's injury, I think it's safe to say that we can now turn our full attention to Wisconsin Basketball. The season starts Friday, with an odd neutral court opener against St. John's in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. I'll try to get some exciting content up before then, but I can't make any promises.
I've been thinking about recruiting a little, though. The other day, 2014 five-star prospect Kevon Looney picked UCLA over Wisconsin, MSU, Tennessee, Florida, and Duke. While the recruitment was active, it was fun to daydream a little about what Bo Ryan could do with two five-star recruits on his roster at the same time, but that dream is dashed. We'll just have to make do with our rag-tag assortment of all-conference and all-america players, as usual.
Speaking of which, here is the titular stat of the day:
In his 12 seasons as coach, Bo Ryan has coached three consensus first- or second-team All-Americans (Tucker,* Taylor,* and Harris) and seven first-team all-conference players (add Penney,* Wilkinson, Butch, and Leuer). To put that in perspective, between 1953 and 2001, Wisconsin produced just four first-team all-conference players (Joe Franklin ('68), Patrick Thompkins (91), Finley ('93 & '95), Rashard ('95)*) and zero All-Americans. Prior to Bo, the last All-American to play at Wisconsin was Don Rehfeldt in 1950.
Bo has failed to place a player on the all-Big-Ten first-team just three times: 2009, 2010, and 2013. In each of those years, however, there was a Badger on second team (Landry, Hughes, and Berggren, respectively).
*Two-time all-conference players
**That's right: Stan Van Gundy coached two first-team all-conference players to a losing record.
I've been thinking about recruiting a little, though. The other day, 2014 five-star prospect Kevon Looney picked UCLA over Wisconsin, MSU, Tennessee, Florida, and Duke. While the recruitment was active, it was fun to daydream a little about what Bo Ryan could do with two five-star recruits on his roster at the same time, but that dream is dashed. We'll just have to make do with our rag-tag assortment of all-conference and all-america players, as usual.
Speaking of which, here is the titular stat of the day:
In his 12 seasons as coach, Bo Ryan has coached three consensus first- or second-team All-Americans (Tucker,* Taylor,* and Harris) and seven first-team all-conference players (add Penney,* Wilkinson, Butch, and Leuer). To put that in perspective, between 1953 and 2001, Wisconsin produced just four first-team all-conference players (Joe Franklin ('68), Patrick Thompkins (91), Finley ('93 & '95), Rashard ('95)*) and zero All-Americans. Prior to Bo, the last All-American to play at Wisconsin was Don Rehfeldt in 1950.
Bo has failed to place a player on the all-Big-Ten first-team just three times: 2009, 2010, and 2013. In each of those years, however, there was a Badger on second team (Landry, Hughes, and Berggren, respectively).
*Two-time all-conference players
**That's right: Stan Van Gundy coached two first-team all-conference players to a losing record.
Friday, November 1, 2013
UW vs Iowa
This is a tough one. First of all the point spread is all over the place. When I looked earlier in the week UW was a 10 or 9.5 point favorite everywhere, but by today the spreads vary from 9.5 down to 8 depending on where you look. The o/u has stayed pretty much the same at 48.5. Who knows where the spread will be by tomorrow. My guess is that the injury to Borland has something to do with the variance. If he plays then UW's defense is vastly improved. For the purpose of this exercise I will use 8.5 as the spread, as that is the most common, by a little.
I'm now 5-3 overall (2-2 on picks, 3-1 on o/u). I like UWs chances to shut down Iowa, even on the road. If Borland doesn't play then that goes out the window though. Iowa's defense will be one of the better UW has faced. They rank 12th in the country in scoring defense at 18.1 per game. I think at home they will do enough to slow down UW's offense. If I were putting money on this game I would pass, or at least wait until I knew if Borland was playing. For the purposes of this exercise I'm taking UW minus the points, and the under. I'm going to bank on Borland playing which allows the UW defense to dominate, and UW wins 24-10.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Why do I do this to myself
I had other plans last night, but I still DVRed the Bucks opener so I could watch it when I got home. The only thing worse than watching a mediocre Knicks team that did not play very well was watching the Bucks. I'm not sure why I keep torturing myself by watching this terrible team.
The Bucks problem this year will be scoring, and that was evident last night as the Bucks scored just 83 points for the game. The first half was especially disastrous, as the Bucks scored just 31 points, had 16 turnovers, and lost Brandon Knight to a hamstring pull. The new face of the franchise Larry Sanders got 3 early fouls in the first half, then he collected his 4th and 5th a few minutes into the 3rd quarter and didn't see the court again. Sanders played all of 12 minutes and Knight played just 2. The Greek Freak played just 5 minutes and scored just one point on 1-2 FT with 0 Reb, 0 assists, 0 blocks or steals, and had a turnover and 2 fouls.
The game was about as ugly as they come with the Bucks committing 23 tunrovers and the Knicks committing 22. With Ridnour also out with a back injury I was treated to 30 minutes of play from 2nd round pick Nate Wolters. The overall talent level on the floor for the Bucks was sad. Of the 240 player minutes, 135 were played by players who were drafted in the 2nd round or not at all.
It's going to be a long season.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Finally
College basketball is finally here. I got to watch a bit of Indiana's exhibition game tonight. Indiana was pretty sloppy as you may expect from a team with so many youngsters, especially on the defensive end. The game was tied with 6 minutes to go in the first half, but Indiana pulled ahead by 9 at the half. IU probably won't be quite as good as last year, but they flashed some pretty impressive athleticism.
The 2 freshman Noah Vonleh, and Troy Williams stood out. Williams may jump out of the gym at some point this year. Vonleh generally dominated inside on the glass with his length, but had 2 plays that stood out in my mind. The first was when IU went to a 1-3-1 zone and had Vonleh at the top of the zone. Pretty intimidating to have a 6'10" guy with a wingspan like a condor at the top of a zone.
On the other play Vonleh picked a up loose ball in the lane on defense and dribbled coast to coast driving the lane and getting fouled on the shot. This was not against any pressure, but still, pretty impressive for a freshman big man.
I won't be able to watch UW's exhibition game live Wednesday, so at least I got a little basketball fix today. Can't wait for St John's.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Preseason Ratings Bowl
Okay, here it is: the final preseason ratings I will offer. Unless I change my mind.
I've expanded this from a top 40 rating to a top 50. Because I care. I also confirmed that I rated every team that received votes in the preseason coaches' pool, and every team that appears in Ken Pomeroy's preseason top 75, and Dan Hanner's top 70 teams.
There are some significant differences from the previous top 40 I posted. First, I fixed a lot of mistakes and added a bunch of new information. For example, Vanderbilt was previously rated highly, but I've since learned that two players who I expected to play major roles have left the program. I'm sure there are still mistakes, but whatever.
Second, I've changed how I account for freshmen. Previously, I'd given extra credit only for top-10 recruits. This led, in particular, to my model rating Kentucky and Kansas significantly lower than the conventional wisdom. So I decided to rejigger this to add extra credit for top-20 recruits. Now Kentucky is number 1 and Kansas moves up to 8th from 18th or so. Kentucky's recruiting class is absolutely ridiculous.
Of course, I also changed the source data from Kenpom 1.0 to Kenpom 2.0
So, below are the Torvik Top 50. I've also included comparisons to Pomeroy's top 50 and Hanner's top 50. As Chorlton mentioned before, it is interesting to look for outliers and variance. In my ratings, the outliers of are:
Saint Louis at 13 (high)
Missouri at 27 (high)
Syracuse at 31 (low)
Marquette at 36 (low)
Utah State at 34 (high)
Syracuse and Marquette are rated low mainly because they will be relying heavily on freshman (and, in Syracuse's case, a transfer) who don't get any credit in my system. Time will tell if they deserved any credit.
Utah State is an interesting one because I didn't include them in my original ratings. But I added them after seeing that they rated 58th in the Hanner ratings. They return virtually all their minutes, and have a number of young, efficient players. It will be interesting to see how they do.
Overall, there is a lot of agreement in the ratings. Of my top 50 teams, 43 appear in Hanner's top 50, and 40 appear in Pomeroy's. Of my top 20 teams, 16 appear in both Hanner and Pomeroy. Overall, there are 38 consensus teams in the top 50 and 14 in the top 20.
Anyhow, at the end of the season I'll compare these ratings to the tournament S-Curve and we'll see who gets the best of it.
I've expanded this from a top 40 rating to a top 50. Because I care. I also confirmed that I rated every team that received votes in the preseason coaches' pool, and every team that appears in Ken Pomeroy's preseason top 75, and Dan Hanner's top 70 teams.
There are some significant differences from the previous top 40 I posted. First, I fixed a lot of mistakes and added a bunch of new information. For example, Vanderbilt was previously rated highly, but I've since learned that two players who I expected to play major roles have left the program. I'm sure there are still mistakes, but whatever.
Second, I've changed how I account for freshmen. Previously, I'd given extra credit only for top-10 recruits. This led, in particular, to my model rating Kentucky and Kansas significantly lower than the conventional wisdom. So I decided to rejigger this to add extra credit for top-20 recruits. Now Kentucky is number 1 and Kansas moves up to 8th from 18th or so. Kentucky's recruiting class is absolutely ridiculous.
Of course, I also changed the source data from Kenpom 1.0 to Kenpom 2.0
So, below are the Torvik Top 50. I've also included comparisons to Pomeroy's top 50 and Hanner's top 50. As Chorlton mentioned before, it is interesting to look for outliers and variance. In my ratings, the outliers of are:
Saint Louis at 13 (high)
Missouri at 27 (high)
Syracuse at 31 (low)
Marquette at 36 (low)
Utah State at 34 (high)
Syracuse and Marquette are rated low mainly because they will be relying heavily on freshman (and, in Syracuse's case, a transfer) who don't get any credit in my system. Time will tell if they deserved any credit.
Utah State is an interesting one because I didn't include them in my original ratings. But I added them after seeing that they rated 58th in the Hanner ratings. They return virtually all their minutes, and have a number of young, efficient players. It will be interesting to see how they do.
Overall, there is a lot of agreement in the ratings. Of my top 50 teams, 43 appear in Hanner's top 50, and 40 appear in Pomeroy's. Of my top 20 teams, 16 appear in both Hanner and Pomeroy. Overall, there are 38 consensus teams in the top 50 and 14 in the top 20.
Anyhow, at the end of the season I'll compare these ratings to the tournament S-Curve and we'll see who gets the best of it.
| Team | T-Rank | Kenpom | Hanner |
| Kentucky | 1 | 5 | 1 |
| Florida | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Louisville | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Duke | 4 | 6 | 6 |
| Michigan St. | 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Ohio St. | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| North Carolina | 7 | 10 | 13 |
| Kansas | 8 | 8 | 4 |
| Gonzaga | 9 | 18 | 18 |
| Connecticut | 10 | 11 | 25 |
| Virginia | 11 | 19 | 11 |
| Michigan | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| Saint Louis | 13 | 31 | 24 |
| Wichita St. | 14 | 40 | 23 |
| Georgetown | 15 | 14 | 31 |
| Wisconsin | 16 | 22 | 10 |
| Arizona | 17 | 23 | 8 |
| Memphis | 18 | 16 | 15 |
| Oklahoma St. | 19 | 4 | 9 |
| Creighton | 20 | 13 | 19 |
| Villanova | 21 | 26 | 36 |
| Oregon | 22 | 56 | 33 |
| Iowa | 23 | 15 | 16 |
| Stanford | 24 | 29 | 38 |
| Baylor | 25 | 28 | 35 |
| Indiana | 26 | 25 | 29 |
| Missouri | 27 | 49 | 52 |
| Saint Mary's | 28 | 52 | 42 |
| Purdue | 29 | 30 | 46 |
| Notre Dame | 30 | 32 | 26 |
| Syracuse | 31 | 9 | 14 |
| VCU | 32 | 21 | 22 |
| New Mexico | 33 | 17 | 21 |
| Utah St. | 34 | 78 | 58 |
| Harvard | 35 | 51 | 27 |
| Marquette | 36 | 24 | 17 |
| UCLA | 37 | 27 | 20 |
| Pittsburgh | 38 | 20 | 28 |
| Boise St. | 39 | 42 | 41 |
| Kansas St. | 40 | 43 | 54 |
| San Diego St. | 41 | 64 | 49 |
| Texas | 42 | 80 | 67 |
| Dayton | 43 | 68 | 66 |
| La Salle | 44 | 55 | 43 |
| Providence | 45 | 41 | 50 |
| Tennessee | 46 | 34 | 34 |
| Alabama | 47 | 33 | 40 |
| Maryland | 48 | 44 | 45 |
| Iowa St. | 49 | 38 | 62 |
| Vanderbilt | 50 | 70 | 79 |
*Update: Made two small adjustments: (1) Akron, formerly #45, drops out after I learned last year's starting point guard was kicked off the team; and (2) Arkansas, formerly #47, drops out after I learned that Hunter Mickelson transferred to Kansas. Vanderbilt sneaks back in at #50.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Solving the Wisconsin Problem
The big news among college hoops nerds today is that Ken Pomeroy has changed his formula to deemphasize the effect of blowouts over bad teams:
An interesting aspect of Kenpom 2.0 is that he's gone back and retroactively changed all the ratings to from 2003 to present to reflect his new formula. Since my recent project of producing a model-based preseason top-40 relied heavily on historical Kenpom data, I decided to go ahead and rerun the numbers with the new data.
No surprise, Wisconsin drops. In my most recent update to the Top 40, Wisconsin had been projected 9th. Using the new Kenpom data, they drop six spots to 15th. (I will do another post with the "final" top 40 right before the season—I'm still tweaking it with more info about injuries, transfers, fixing mistakes, etc.)
I also put the new data into my model for predicting the final Big Ten standings, and they are now projected to win 0.5 fewer games. (My previous post on the Big Ten projections is actually obsolete because my Wisconsin data originally double-counted Gasser's return. After fixing that, Wisconsin was projected to win 12.1 games; now they're projected to win 11.6 games and tie with Michigan for third place.)
Wisconsin is by no means the only team affected. Here are the upper-level teams whose projected ranking changed the most:
Losers
Belmont: -10
Indiana: -9
Syracuse: -8
Marquette: -8
Iowa State: -8
Kansas: -7
Alabama: -7
Winners
Akron: +10
Harvard: +6
Oklahoma St.: +6
No. Dak. St.: +6
Boise St.: +6
As you can see, most of the "winners" are mid-majors and most of the "losers" (with the notable exception of Belmont) are major conference teams who probably had their previous kenpom ratings juiced by non-con romps over really bad teams.
The result is that games perceived by the system as big upsets get the most weight, while the influence of expected lopsided wins is minimized. For instance, last season’s non-conference games involving Grambling would be largely ignored. Whether a team beat the Tigers by 30 or 60 would make little difference in its rating.This issue of how to treat non-conference blowouts is sometimes called "the Wisconsin problem," because it is one of the explanations for why the Pomeroy system always seems to overrate the Badgers. (Other explanations for this phenomenon include: the Badgers are usually actually better than people are willing to believe.)
An interesting aspect of Kenpom 2.0 is that he's gone back and retroactively changed all the ratings to from 2003 to present to reflect his new formula. Since my recent project of producing a model-based preseason top-40 relied heavily on historical Kenpom data, I decided to go ahead and rerun the numbers with the new data.
No surprise, Wisconsin drops. In my most recent update to the Top 40, Wisconsin had been projected 9th. Using the new Kenpom data, they drop six spots to 15th. (I will do another post with the "final" top 40 right before the season—I'm still tweaking it with more info about injuries, transfers, fixing mistakes, etc.)
I also put the new data into my model for predicting the final Big Ten standings, and they are now projected to win 0.5 fewer games. (My previous post on the Big Ten projections is actually obsolete because my Wisconsin data originally double-counted Gasser's return. After fixing that, Wisconsin was projected to win 12.1 games; now they're projected to win 11.6 games and tie with Michigan for third place.)
Wisconsin is by no means the only team affected. Here are the upper-level teams whose projected ranking changed the most:
Losers
Belmont: -10
Indiana: -9
Syracuse: -8
Marquette: -8
Iowa State: -8
Kansas: -7
Alabama: -7
Winners
Akron: +10
Harvard: +6
Oklahoma St.: +6
No. Dak. St.: +6
Boise St.: +6
As you can see, most of the "winners" are mid-majors and most of the "losers" (with the notable exception of Belmont) are major conference teams who probably had their previous kenpom ratings juiced by non-con romps over really bad teams.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
My poor Bucks
NBA season will soon be upon us, and this year looks to be a dismal one for the Bucks. NBA talking heads seem to think that Hammonds has signed enough competent veterans that this team will end up where most Bucks teams have recently, picking in the late lottery. I'm not so sure the talent they added will get them there, which isn't all bad. A high draft pick in what could be a very good draft could give this team a young building block for the future.
After injuries to Bogut destroyed this teams strategy to build around him, and Jennings didn't develop into the All-Star player he showed glimpses of becoming, the Bucks have gone into rebuild mode. Hammonds contract was extended to give him this opportunity, and he responded by drafting Giannis Antetokounmpo who has been dubbed the "Greek Freak". Giannis has all the physical tools to be a very good NBA player, but that does not mean he will be one. Even if he does become one, he is not ready now and will probably not be a major contributor for a couple seasons. That leaves this year's Bucks playing a bunch of journeyman veterans, and developing a few young assets. Hammond did not sign anyone to a long term deal (more than 3 seasons) except Larry Sanders who is now the most marketable player on the Bucks. This preserves salary cap flexibility for the next couple years if Hammonds hits on a star in one of these drafts, or wants to make a deal.
So what does this all add up to? What can I hope to see from the Bucks this year?
Friday, October 18, 2013
UW vs IL
I'm starting out this year reverse of last season, poor on the picks, but good on the o/u. After 3 weeks I'm 3-3, 1-2 on picks and 2-1 on o/u. This week UW is favored by 14 and the over under is 56.5.
IL has a horrible run defense so UW should rack up big yards and points again. I think IL will score at home, but not enough to keep up with UW so I'm taking UW -14 and the over.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Toughest Big Ten Basketball Schedule: Iowa
As I mentioned in my "projections" post, the unbalanced Big Ten schedule creates winners and losers. This year the biggest loser is Iowa.
Iowa's single games are home against Nebraska and Purdue, and at Indiana and Penn State. On the face of it this might not seem so bad, since they've got a decent shot of going 3-1 in those four games. The problem is that this means they face OSU, MSU, Wisconsin, and Michigan twice each, and these are the top four teams in the conference in my model. Their only break is that they have to face Indiana (ranked fifth) just once, but that's on the road, and almost certainly a loss. They also are robbed of an easy road game at Nebraska.
As a result, my Model projects them to win just 9.3 games, which rounds to a 9-9 record and 7th place in Big Ten play. That puts them behind Purdue (which happens to have the easiest Big Ten schedule), even though the Model says Iowa is going to be a superior team. In a true round robin, the Model would have them winning 11.9 games, which rounds to 12-10, and puts them in a tie with Indiana and Purdue for fifth place. That's an extra win against par—potentially the difference between making and missing the tournament.
For what it's worth, the Badgers have the most statistically fair schedule. Compared to the true round robin, they have a projected winning percentage of just .18% higher. By contrast, Iowa's is 2.49% worse and Purdue's is 1.7% better.
As you can tell, I am very excited for college basketball season to begin.
Iowa's single games are home against Nebraska and Purdue, and at Indiana and Penn State. On the face of it this might not seem so bad, since they've got a decent shot of going 3-1 in those four games. The problem is that this means they face OSU, MSU, Wisconsin, and Michigan twice each, and these are the top four teams in the conference in my model. Their only break is that they have to face Indiana (ranked fifth) just once, but that's on the road, and almost certainly a loss. They also are robbed of an easy road game at Nebraska.
As a result, my Model projects them to win just 9.3 games, which rounds to a 9-9 record and 7th place in Big Ten play. That puts them behind Purdue (which happens to have the easiest Big Ten schedule), even though the Model says Iowa is going to be a superior team. In a true round robin, the Model would have them winning 11.9 games, which rounds to 12-10, and puts them in a tie with Indiana and Purdue for fifth place. That's an extra win against par—potentially the difference between making and missing the tournament.
For what it's worth, the Badgers have the most statistically fair schedule. Compared to the true round robin, they have a projected winning percentage of just .18% higher. By contrast, Iowa's is 2.49% worse and Purdue's is 1.7% better.
As you can tell, I am very excited for college basketball season to begin.
Northwestern Prediction -- Torvik
Looks like the Badgers are 10 point favorites with an over/under of 57.
I'm taking Northwestern to cover, probably backdoor. Final score: 35-27, Badgers. That's the over, if you don't have a calculator handy.
--Bart Torvik
I'm taking Northwestern to cover, probably backdoor. Final score: 35-27, Badgers. That's the over, if you don't have a calculator handy.
--Bart Torvik
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Big Ten Projections
For what it's worth, here are the projected final Big Ten standings based on the Torvik Model:
Michigan State, 14-4
Ohio State, 14-4
Wisconsin, 14-4
Michigan, 11-7
Indiana, 10-8
Purdue, 10-8
Iowa, 9-9
Illinois, 7-11
Minnesota, 7-11
Penn St., 4-14
Northwestern, 4-14
Nebraska, 4-14
As always, the unbalanced Big Ten schedule plays a role here. For example, Wisconsin benefits greatly by not having to play road games against Michigan St. or Ohio State (the best teams in the conference, according to the Model), and getting relatively easy road games at Penn State and Nebraska instead. As a result, the Model actually has Wisconsin favored to win 17 out of their 18 games (all except at Michigan).
Just to reiterate, this does not reflect my subjective opinions (although I must say I don't have a lot of argument with it).
Michigan State, 14-4
Ohio State, 14-4
Wisconsin, 14-4
Michigan, 11-7
Indiana, 10-8
Purdue, 10-8
Iowa, 9-9
Illinois, 7-11
Minnesota, 7-11
Penn St., 4-14
Northwestern, 4-14
Nebraska, 4-14
As always, the unbalanced Big Ten schedule plays a role here. For example, Wisconsin benefits greatly by not having to play road games against Michigan St. or Ohio State (the best teams in the conference, according to the Model), and getting relatively easy road games at Penn State and Nebraska instead. As a result, the Model actually has Wisconsin favored to win 17 out of their 18 games (all except at Michigan).
Just to reiterate, this does not reflect my subjective opinions (although I must say I don't have a lot of argument with it).
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Torvik's Pre-Season Top 40
Here it is, my first annual (and likely last annual) preseason top 40 college basketball ranking extravaganza.
This ranking was created with a spreadsheet, and I did not exercise any discretion or judgment in coming up with the rankings. Of course, I did exercise a lot of discretion in coming up with my "model." The model was the result of a lot of research I did on the Badgers last spring, using the KenPom data as a starting point. This is the result of taking that "research" and universalizing it to college basketball as a whole. I also added in some adjustments for big recruits (top 10 RSCI) and transfers. I'm sure I missed some transfers, but I did my best.
One caveat: I did not rank every team. I took last year's final top 75 teams from the Pomeroy ratings, adding in major conference teams ranked 75-100 and then, just for fun, added Harvard. It may be that there are teams outside last year's top 100 that my model would have in the top 40. I doubt it, but it's possible.
Well, here it is:
UPDATE: I found a few errors and a couple other significant transfers, which effect the list somewhat. Most notably, Louisville moves up to #2 after accounting for a JUCO transfer. (Note: as other mistakes or transfers are discovered, I'll just update this version below.)
*Update: another significant error I discovered that affects Wisconsin, because I had essentially double-counter Josh Gasser's return. Oops. Drops them from 7th to 10th.
Original rankings:
This ranking was created with a spreadsheet, and I did not exercise any discretion or judgment in coming up with the rankings. Of course, I did exercise a lot of discretion in coming up with my "model." The model was the result of a lot of research I did on the Badgers last spring, using the KenPom data as a starting point. This is the result of taking that "research" and universalizing it to college basketball as a whole. I also added in some adjustments for big recruits (top 10 RSCI) and transfers. I'm sure I missed some transfers, but I did my best.
One caveat: I did not rank every team. I took last year's final top 75 teams from the Pomeroy ratings, adding in major conference teams ranked 75-100 and then, just for fun, added Harvard. It may be that there are teams outside last year's top 100 that my model would have in the top 40. I doubt it, but it's possible.
Well, here it is:
UPDATE: I found a few errors and a couple other significant transfers, which effect the list somewhat. Most notably, Louisville moves up to #2 after accounting for a JUCO transfer. (Note: as other mistakes or transfers are discovered, I'll just update this version below.)
|
Original rankings:
| Rank | Team |
| 1 | Florida |
| 2 | Duke |
| 3 | Michigan St. |
| 4 | Ohio St. |
| 5 | Kentucky |
| 6 | Louisville |
| 7 | Wisconsin |
| 8 | Gonzaga |
| 9 | Connecticut |
| 10 | Georgetown |
| 11 | North Carolina |
| 12 | Michigan |
| 13 | Virginia |
| 14 | St. Louis |
| 15 | Vanderbilt |
| 16 | Kansas |
| 17 | Wichita St. |
| 18 | Indiana |
| 19 | Villanova |
| 20 | Memphis |
| 21 | Syracuse |
| 22 | Arizona |
| 23 | Missouri |
| 24 | Oklahoma St. |
| 25 | Baylor |
| 26 | Iowa |
| 27 | Stanford |
| 28 | St. Mary's |
| 29 | Notre Dame |
| 30 | VCU |
| 31 | Creighton |
| 32 | New Mexico |
| 33 | Marquette |
| 34 | Purdue |
| 35 | Pittsburgh |
| 36 | UCLA |
| 37 | Texas |
| 38 | San Diego St. |
| 39 | Harvard |
| 40 | Alabama |
Monday, September 30, 2013
Teaser
College basketball season has begun -- well, practice has begun, anyhow -- and I am working on a pre-season top 40. This ranking will be 100% model-driven, with no subjective input from me. There will, however, be numerous data-input errors, and innumerable conceptual mistakes, which should keep things entertaining.
Watch this space in the coming days for the unstoppable excitement.
Watch this space in the coming days for the unstoppable excitement.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Torvik's Prediction: 28-27, Badgers
Excellent work this week, Chorlton, explaining all the reasons that the Badgers could beat Ohio State on Saturday night. Too bad you lost your nerve when it came to prediction time.
I actually agree with you that this came is a tough "nut" to crack. I could certainly see OSU winning by two or three touchdowns. I can also think of a lot of ways the Badgers can win, although not by two or three touchdowns. To me, when you've got so many options, this is like trying to read a putt and you can't even tell which way it will break, much less how much. I learned long ago what to do in that situation: aim at the hole. Translation: I think this will be a close game.
Like you, I went 2-0 on last week's predictions, although I won the mini-battle by almost nailing the final score (I predicted 38-10; actual score 41-10.)
This week I'm taking the Badgers with the points and the over, while you're taking the Buckeyes to cover and the under. (I'm curious if you have a final score prediction?) So we might get some separation. (More likely is that we'll both go 1-1, one way or the other.) Given that the Badgers haven't lost by more than 7 points since ... well, I can't remember ... I think the 7.5 spread is an absolute gift.
Other than my golf analogy, I have a few other equally squishy reasons for picking the Badgers in this one:
--Bart Torvik
I actually agree with you that this came is a tough "nut" to crack. I could certainly see OSU winning by two or three touchdowns. I can also think of a lot of ways the Badgers can win, although not by two or three touchdowns. To me, when you've got so many options, this is like trying to read a putt and you can't even tell which way it will break, much less how much. I learned long ago what to do in that situation: aim at the hole. Translation: I think this will be a close game.
Like you, I went 2-0 on last week's predictions, although I won the mini-battle by almost nailing the final score (I predicted 38-10; actual score 41-10.)
This week I'm taking the Badgers with the points and the over, while you're taking the Buckeyes to cover and the under. (I'm curious if you have a final score prediction?) So we might get some separation. (More likely is that we'll both go 1-1, one way or the other.) Given that the Badgers haven't lost by more than 7 points since ... well, I can't remember ... I think the 7.5 spread is an absolute gift.
Other than my golf analogy, I have a few other equally squishy reasons for picking the Badgers in this one:
- The law of averages. The Buckeyes have won 16 in a row, including a lot of lucky, close wins. How long can this continue? The Badgers have lost heartbreak after ridiculous heartbreak. How long can that continue? I'm betting those streaks come to an end.
- Overconfidence. I see it in the Buckeye fan base, and I suspect it in the players. They think that Wisconsin has been lucky to go three straight Rose Bowls, and don't properly appreciate how good the program is. This very entertaining piece says it all, calling Wisconsin "the most mediocre tyrant the Big Ten has ever seen." It's fair to put a big fat asterisk next to last year's Rose Bowl. But to deny the quality of the previous two teams is nonsense. Remember: one of those teams had JJ Watt and the other had Russell Wilson, Montee Ball, and Nick Toon. In fact, here's a ridiculous stat: 9 of the 11 players who started for the Badgers on offense in the 2011 Rose Bowl made an NFL roster this year (the other two were Ike Anderson and Jacob Pederson, who will get a shot next year).
- Stave. I agree he hasn't played all that well this year. But we know he can throw the ball. He has made some terrible throws when he's had wide-open receivers. But he's also made some very good throws. Other than the dropped snaps, he's made really only one boneheaded play all year. (Last week's interception was Wozniak's fault, as was obvious and has been admitted by everyone involved.) I'm betting we see at least one more great half out of him on Saturday. Probably the first half.
- Melvin Gordon III. Stars shine when the sun goes down. Gordon really looks like something special, and I think he will continue his scintillating season with a huge performance on national television. I think we will look back at this year (and hopefully next year) and marvel about that time when Melvin Gordon and Sam Dekker were on the UW campus at the same time.
- Defense. We agree that the Badgers defense is for real. It will win this game with a goal line stand. Or two.
So there you have it: Badgers 28, Buckeyes 27.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Prediction time
I am off to a good start this year going 2-0 in the first week (1-0 vs. spread, and 1-0 vs. o/u). Nowhere to go but down from here. Both Torvik and I were wrong about this week's fantasy matchup as my general indifference to fantasy didn't prevent me from getting a win vs. him. On to this week's game.
Line is OSU by 7 1/2, and o/u is 54 1/2
My week long efforts to convince myself that UW will win this game have ended in a stalemate. I just don't know where this game is going. It will not surprise me if this game is a 38-35 shootout, a 13-10 grinder, or a 42-7 blowout. I think I have a good handle on UW, I just don't have any idea how good this OSU team is. These have been two of the highest scoring teams in the country this year against bad defenses, but the o/u of 54 1/2 follows the historical trend that defense will prevail in this matchup. OSU is averaging 52.5 points per game and UW 41 so this o/u appears low, but only twice in the past 12 matchups have these teams been over 54 1/2, (59 both times in 1999, 2011) so I'm picking the under.
When I think about UW winning this game I can see a game where UW is dominant running, OSU just can't stop Gordon and White and UW outscores OSU. I can see a game where Borland racks up 20 tackles with 10 of them on Miller who just can't bust loose and UW gets a close win by holding OSU to 10 points. When I see them losing I see a game where the running game and defense do enough to keep UW close, but special teams and Stave's turnovers cost UW the win.
I'm sure Squishy Torvik will disagree with me, but I just don't see Stave leading this team to a win. All the hope about Stave basically stems from 2 good halves of football, the first half against Nebraska and the first half against MSU last year. He was very good in those 2 halves, but hasn't been very good otherwise. In 3 of his 4 starts this season he has thrown an interception and he threw an interception in 2 of his 4 full games last season. It's not like UW is chucking the ball around, and Stave rarely throws under pressure so this is a lot of picks for a team that just needs a QB to hand off, take care of the ball, and throw a few deep balls each game.
The injuries bother me too. Anderson is holding all his cards close to the vest, but if several of UW's guys can't play then that will greatly hamper UW. So all my efforts this week have gone for naught. I am picking OSU to win and cover. I was surprised to see the spread at 7 1/2, and I am tempted to pick OSU to win, but take UW and the points against the spread. In case you haven't noticed I have very little confidence in this pick, and in that case one should probably just not bet at all. Since this is just for pride and not for dough, I'm still making picks. I can stand to lose some pride anyway.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Last try to convince myself
This is a twofer. #3 is the UW defense and #4 is UWs track record of recent success against OSU.
I believe the UW defense is very good. Others who watched ASU score 32 points against them could reasonably disagree with me, but I think over the course of the season this defense will prove me right.
The other 3 offenses UW faced this year were awful, so while UW shut out 2 and held Purdue to 10 points and 180 total yards, it's hard to judge them based on those performances. Even with Braxton Miller back I think UW will slow down the OSU offense which is currently 6th in the nation at 311 rushing yards per game, and 4th in scoring at 52.5 points per game. OSU like UW scores based on a great running game, and only ranks 76th in passing yards at 218 per game. UW's strength is stopping the run, and they should be able to keep OSU under control. UW is big, experienced and physical in the front 7 with 7 seniors likely to start this game.
The recent run of success I am referring to started in 1999 in the famous dancing on the horseshoe game when UW blew out OSU 42-17 in Columbus. Since that time UW is 5-7 vs OSU, which is still a losing record, but is as many wins as any team has had against them over that same span. Over those 12 games UW is 3-3 in Columbus, hardly an intimidating record. OSU has only averaged 21.7 points per game over the 12 game span, and the most points they have scored is 38. In 9 of the 12 games OSU has failed to reach 24 points.
The point spread in this game is OSU by 7 1/2, and the over under is 54 1/2.
We'll see tomorrow if I have come around on a road win for UW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)