- This topic has 27 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In Part I we discussed what it takes to be a National Champion and what they all have in common. If you missed the article then I highly suggest going
[See the full post at: Are you ready to win a title? (Part II)]It always has seemed to me that there are frequent visitors to the Sweet Sixteen that qualify as true Cinderellas. Then, the clock strikes midnight, and the blade comes down mercilessly.
I sit up and take notice when they make the Elite Eight. Sounds like the data back that gut feeling/observation up.
State’s current ratings this season:
Offensive rating: 113.84
Defensive rating: 92.05
Spread: 21.79If we are using data like this to judge our team’s performance and potential, looks like we are very capable of a S16/E8 run.
Tau,
The numbers used are adjusted efficiencies so these are the actual current numbers:
Adj OE: 111.6
Adj DE: 97.9
ODS: 13.7So the numbers show we are a clear “First Weekend Team” unless they overachieve.
Brilliant Work. Please forgive the edit, but I just absolutely had to highlight the overall conclusions for those whose eyes may have glazed over earlier. I turned the opening sentence in your concluding section to a Section Heading:
What Are The Key Differences Between Rounds?
I needed to see the last table as a chart. For anyone else that’s interested, here it is:
http://www.statefansnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Key-Stats.jpg
Just absolutely unbelievable work!! How do we get this series in front of some national media and get it the kind of kudos and attention it deserves?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, how can we leverage the work and put it to use ‘Vegas style’ this year!!
PPF, yes Part 3 will be the last one and it will evaluate and compare coaches and depending on if I have enough time will incorporate the pre-tournament ODS to possibly help be a predictive tool. No guarantees on that.
VaWolf,
Please edit away. I’ve been working on this for so long, putting it away and coming back again and again with so many rewrites that it can become just a tad bit confusing with all the edits. A fresh pair of eyes is always welcome. The hardest part isn’t the data, that’s just time-consuming, it’s finding the best way to present the information that makes the most sense to those who aren’t as familiar with statistics. I appreciate the assistance.
SFN – Parts 1/2 should help when evaluating teams prior to the tournament but it’ll take the pre-tourney data I have for Part 3 to bring that all together since 1/2 have the final numbers and most teams have to play 2-3 ODS points better through 6 games to win it all. Still it’s a useful tool to try and eliminate the obvious ones. Here’s something to help with this year’s picks…Don’t get caught up in the Gonzaga hype. Since 2002 they have reached the S16 a grand total of 2x. They have ended their season in the R32 the last 5 years and 8 out of the last 13. You’d probably be better off not having them past the S16 but I’ll likely have them out at R32.
Fantastic work Jigsy. I’ve really enjoyed these.
How do we get this series in front of some national media and get it the kind of kudos and attention it deserves?
You’re presuming they have an attention span long enough to digest it?
updated graph of last table with State/2014 added
http://www.statefansnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Key-Stats2.jpg
Shocking Conclusion:
Neither the offense nor the defense is good enough to go very far.Va, If I have the time I’ll get the R64 numbers done to have a complete historical look at the tournament but it’ll likely be awhile since Part 3 will take priority. Anyone who has watched this team knows putting together more than 1 good game is a stretch for this squad.
Impressive work. Very thorough. Fantastic analysis and fun to read – truly well done.
StateFans – if you’re interested in media exposure, I’d suggest contacting the respective ‘Bubble Watch’ folks at various media sites. For example, Eammon Brennan at Espn – etc. They’re nerds like us when it comes to this kind of stuff.
Since last season’s UConn team was one of the exceptions to the rule, I wonder if there’s a way to differentiate their ODS from the regular season and AAC tournament and the delta in the NCAA tournament alone? I wonder if there’s a specific spike in the NCAA tourney games?
Eh, no matter … they were a 7-seed and Napier went off for them.
I love what you are doing here Jig. Have you thought about analyzing all the underachieving teams and seeing if there is a common denominator? For instance, you mentioned Gonzaga as typically being an early out. I just looked at kenpom and their ODS is currently 26, which is 6th best in the country. However, their SOS is 85th which is significantly lower than all other teams around them. Is this something that we could consistently look at to say that their ODS might be higher because of a lack of quality opponents?
Absolutely amazing stuff, Jiggs. Fun to read, fun to digest – first read was a couple of hours ago, and I’m still digesting this. Kinda like listening to Robin Williams do standup – every time you repeat it, you learn something new…seriously, thanks.
I believe in the every 32 years formula.
^I like the way you think…
Incredible stuff. Is there any point in cross-referencing the ODS info with a team’s tourney seeding? In other words, would there be a telling difference if two teams with similar ODS’s were ranked as a 5 seed vs. a 6 seed? Could this tell you if you’re a 5 seed with an ODS of 19, you have a much better chance of E8 appearance than a 6 seed with an ODS of 19?
Just curious.
Is there any point in cross-referencing the ODS info with a team’s tourney seeding? In other words, would there be a telling difference if two teams with similar ODS’s were ranked as a 5 seed vs. a 6 seed? Could this tell you if you’re a 5 seed with an ODS of 19, you have a much better chance of E8 appearance than a 6 seed with an ODS of 19?
^I think this would be an interesting contrast and compare. Someone brought up Gonzaga’s SOS vs. ODS as a possible correlation to them flaming out in the first or second weekend with high seeds (or low seeds – your perspective). I wonder if there’s an objective measure to SOS that would correlate (directly) to a team’s overall ODS.
Since last season’s UConn team was one of the exceptions to the rule, I wonder if there’s a way to differentiate their ODS from the regular season and AAC tournament and the delta in the NCAA tournament alone? I wonder if there’s a specific spike in the NCAA tourney games?
Eh, no matter … they were a 7-seed and Napier went off for them.
KP now has pre-tournament data and I hope to get it included in part 3. If not I’ll work on it for next year when I revisit it before the NCAAT. I have looked at the champions and most increase by 2 points through the 6 wins but I think last year UConn increased by 4. Surprisingly that wasn’t the biggest, is was one of the Florida years that increased the most by around 7 points.
I love what you are doing here Jig. Have you thought about analyzing all the underachieving teams and seeing if there is a common denominator? For instance, you mentioned Gonzaga as typically being an early out. I just looked at kenpom and their ODS is currently 26, which is 6th best in the country. However, their SOS is 85th which is significantly lower than all other teams around them. Is this something that we could consistently look at to say that their ODS might be higher because of a lack of quality opponents?
Incredible stuff. Is there any point in cross-referencing the ODS info with a team’s tourney seeding? In other words, would there be a telling difference if two teams with similar ODS’s were ranked as a 5 seed vs. a 6 seed? Could this tell you if you’re a 5 seed with an ODS of 19, you have a much better chance of E8 appearance than a 6 seed with an ODS of 19?
Just curious.
I’ve thought about a lot of things over the last year of working this series, its just a matter of time to be able to invest. I needed to complete what I had or another year would have passed. Using KP’s adjusted efficiencies helps eliminate any SOS bias but that doesn’t help said team when they haven’t competed at a much higher level for most of the season. Remember VaWolf’s talk about mid-majors gaming the system to have higher SOS but never really playing those top teams? That works well to get you in the NCAAT but you can’t hide forever.
Exactly how fluid is the adjODS, compared to the “raw” ODS?
Like tempo, I average each team’s efficiency by game. The other way to do this would be to take a team’s total points on the season and divide it by total possesions. But this gives some games more weight than others depending on the number of possessions in a particular contest, and I don’t like that. Also, I only use games involving two D-I teams.
The raw numbers are computed from the data contained in a box score. But then there’s the matter of adjusting for competition. The “adjusted” numbers (AdjO, AdjD as AdjT) are the results of these calculations.
AdjO – Adjusted offensive efficiency – An estimate of the offensive efficiency (points scored per 100 possessions) a team would have against the average D-I defense.
Basically he’s compensating for SOS by adjusting to the average team. Its his secret sauce formula so I don’t know his equations but it eliminates racking up great efficiencies against weak competition and not being penalized when playing top teams.
Great work. I assume a teams rating is based on its full season. What about trends and standard deviations. That is, a Jeckle and Hyde team could have a bimodal rating and perhaps play at the second mode.
Pls send to Gott. It is the difference between O and D that determines success. Our D can be pitiful, mainly because it is a lot of hard work and G can’t seem to get it from our guys on a consistent basis.
Jigs just good stuff.
I think it reinforces what a lot of us believe and common sense. You can’t suck or even be mediocre on one end of the floor and win it all. But awesome stuff. Interested in seeing how coaches stack up – of course, you won’t have #s for v.
I believed in the every 9 year formula in 92, I even felt maybe in 2001 it would pop up again and 92 was just a miss. I had abandoned all hop by 2010. Maybe in 2019. I’m hopeful.
But great work Jigs. I think it will help me appreciate any success we have in the tourney and know that with each round beyond our predicted mean it’s just a matter of time – so enjoy. But I was on campus in 83 so I will always believe in the impossible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
