[Cracked Sidewalks]Value Add projects MU 93rd; Burton 36% chance at NBA

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

Value Add projects MU 93rd; Burton 36% chance at NBA

I have put the entire database of Value Add projections into a Google Doc that you can open and even edit by clicking here. The database includes 4250 players listed alphabetically by team and then last name, and you can enter edits for missed players, etc.

Focusing purely on the Value Add's in the Big East, the picture would appear pretty bleak. Marquette had the 101st best Value Add in the country last year and 7th best in the conference. The projections give Marquette the 93rd best Value Add this season (ahead of only DePaul) and Creighton) and then 94th next season (ahead of St. John's, DePaul and Creighton). One note is that Creighton always ends up being projected too low for some reason.

Before I throw up a white flag I should note that the Value Add projections are just an estimate based on the average improvement each player has between seasons, and in fact individual improvement varies wildly when you are talking about college kids. From a purely statistical perspective, things looked every bit as bad heading into 2010, and suddenly Marquette was in the tournament.

The other good news is the players considering Marquette - for example, a signing of Diamond Stone alone would propel Marquette to 5th in the Big East and 60th in the country for 2016.

The other nice news is that the database now includes a percent chance of each player making the NBA, and Deonte Burton is now up to a 36% chance, so hopefully MU can keep the pipeline going. Here is the team table for Big East members:
<div>
</div><div><style type="text/css"> table.tableizer-table {  border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif  font-size: 12px; }  .tableizer-table td {  padding: 4px;  margin: 3px;  border: 1px solid #ccc; } .tableizer-table th {  background-color: #104E8B;   color: #FFF;  font-weight: bold; } </style>
<table class="tableizer-table"><tbody><tr class="tableizer-firstrow"><th>Team</th><th>Conf</th><th>2014</th><th>Rnk</th><th>2015</th><th>Rnk</th><th>2016</th><th>Rnk</th></tr><tr><td>Villanova</td><td>BE</td><td>25.98</td><td>22</td><td>31.27</td><td>16</td><td>24.17</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Georgetown</td><td>BE</td><td>15.82</td><td>69</td><td>25.82</td><td>28</td><td>25.66</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Providence</td><td>BE</td><td>17.50</td><td>54</td><td>22.68</td><td>40</td><td>11.48</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Xavier</td><td>BE</td><td>14.63</td><td>81</td><td>21.78</td><td>44</td><td>24.83</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>St. John's</td><td>BE</td><td>15.15</td><td>76</td><td>19.14</td><td>51</td><td>4.39</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Butler</td><td>BE</td><td>9.28</td><td>147</td><td>18.68</td><td>55</td><td>9.12</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Seton Hall</td><td>BE</td><td>11.40</td><td>110</td><td>14.74</td><td>78</td><td>19.80</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Marquette</td><td>BE</td><td>12.36</td><td>101</td><td>12.66</td><td>93</td><td>8.54</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Creighton</td><td>BE</td><td>24.47</td><td>27</td><td>11.18</td><td>108</td><td>5.31</td><td>143</td></tr><tr><td>DePaul</td><td>BE</td><td>5.59</td><td></td><td>6.08</td><td></td><td>5.82</td><td>133</td></tr></tbody></table>
</div><div>

</div>

Source: Value Add projects MU 93rd; Burton 36% chance at NBA

[MU82]

Before I throw up a white flag I should note that the Value Add projections are just an estimate based on the average improvement each player has between seasons, and in fact individual improvement varies wildly when you are talking about college kids. ... The other good news is the players considering Marquette ...

The best news is that games aren't played in a computer program but on a basketball court!

[murara1994]

The other good news is the players considering Marquette - for example, a signing of Diamond Stone alone would propel Marquette to 5th in the Big East and 60th in the country for 2016

^^Except we all know that ain't happening.

[Silkk the Shaka]

The other good news is the players considering Marquette - for example, a signing of Diamond Stone alone would propel Marquette to 5th in the Big East and 60th in the country for 2016

^^Except we all know that ain't happening.

Replace the name Stone with Ellenson and the same probably holds.

[GGGG]

Wow for last year, this was remarkably consistent with how the standings ended up.

Team (VA Projection) (Place)

Villanova (1) (1)
Creighton (2) (2)
Providence (3) (3)
Georgetown (4) (7)
St. Johns (5) (5)
Xavier (6) (4)
Marquette (7) (6)
Seton Hall (8) (8)
Butler (9) (9)
DePaul (10) (10)

So really the only team that did vastly different than your VA prediction was Georgetown, whose poor performance kicked some teams up a spot.  Xavier, SJU and Providence tied for third so the differences there are not terribly significant.

So yeah, this doesn't portend very well for Marquette this year does it.  

[tower912]

The Value Add projected MU to finish 6th last year?    Huh.   

[mu03eng]

The Value Add projected MU to finish 6th last year?    Huh.   

Wait it did?  That is very perplexing.

[GGGG]

The Value Add projected MU to finish 6th last year?    Huh.   

Actually they were predicted to finish 7th.  Georgetown's underperformance is what pushed MU up to 6th.

So *if I understand the data correctly,* Marquette performed about as expected relative to the other BE schools last year.

[Lennys Tap]

Actually they were predicted to finish 7th.  Georgetown's underperformance is what pushed MU up to 6th.

So *if I understand the data correctly,* Marquette performed about as expected relative to the other BE schools last year.

You've said it, I've said it, others have said it. Marquette's "expectations" last year (as set by the conference coaches, AP, USA Today and some of our flat earth posters) were ridiculous - especially without Blue, Du Wilson and McKay. All the hand wringing over the coach "changing", not trying to win, etc., was nonsense. Buzz the coach was who he always was, Buzz the GM was the guy caught short on talent. Can't wait to see Ners and his posse weigh in and attack Pudner's accurate and prescient analysis of last year's team - had John published them earlier here maybe it could have prevented some of the silliness of the past 8 months.

[GGGG]

Yeah, well I am not sure I am understanding the data correctly.  But I think last year's predictions were based on people "stepping up" to levels they couldn't quite reach.  It most certainly is a cautionary tale for this year given what some people's expectations might be.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the NIT would be a satisfactory outcome for this year.

[mu03eng]

You've said it, I've said it, others have said it. Marquette's "expectations" last year (as set by the conference coaches, AP, USA Today and some of our flat earth posters) were ridiculous - especially without Blue, Du Wilson and McKay. All the hand wringing over the coach "changing", not trying to win, etc., was nonsense. Buzz the coach was who he always was, Buzz the GM was the guy caught short on talent. Can't wait to see Ners and his posse weigh in and attack Pudner's accurate and prescient analysis of last year's team - had John published them earlier here maybe it could have prevented some of the silliness of the past 8 months.

I think you overestimate the willingness of some to accept a somewhat complex statistical premise.

I can't seem to find the link to the older data, but it would be interesting to see what the forecast for the individuals were last season and then what they turned out to be.  Especially given that MU performed to the value add "expectations".

My sense is that Derrick and Jamil vastly underperformed what was anticipated(previous performance plus growth), Davante and Chris were close to forecast and the only overachiever was Burton.  But from a math standpoint, if Jamil and Derrick were as bad as we think, multiple players had to overperform expectations for the team to just meet expectations.  I'd like to know who those folks are.

Also, something that is interesting in the analysis, or should be....you could point to Burton outperforming his expectations so he should have gotten more minutes.  That could have been true but there is nothing to suggest increasing his usage would have increased the team performance.  Increased usage could lead to decreased efficiency.

[GGGG]

I think you overestimate the willingness of some to accept a somewhat complex statistical premise.

"NNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Listen up nerds,

There is no stat to account for Buzz's insane substitution pattern with Dawson. Anybody who has played the sport at a high level knows that Buzz ruined JJJ and Dawson with his crazy substitution patterns.

Apparently you guys have never played high level ball, and can't recognize these facts. Yes, these are FACTS that I have presented.

Have fun on your computers.

[Lennys Tap]

Eye testers vs science - "Screw those meteorologists, I'm staying on the beach. I've been around a bit, and it doesn't even look like rain to me".

[mu03eng]

"NNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I resemble that remark

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Listen up nerds,

There is no stat to account for Buzz's insane substitution pattern with Dawson. Anybody who has played the sport at a high level knows that Buzz ruined JJJ and Dawson with his crazy substitution patterns.

Apparently you guys have never played high level ball, and can't recognize these facts. Yes, these are FACTS that I have presented.

Have fun on your computers.

It's still early but I think you win scoop for the day.

[Dr. Blackheart]

And Georgetown underperformed because Buzz "discovered" Todd Mayo and Steve Taylor in MU's two victories

[GGGG]

And Georgetown underperformed because Buzz "discovered" Todd Mayo and Steve Taylor in MU's two victories

And you raise a good point here.  I don't have the time (nor the desire) to do this, but how did Marquette's players perform to their Value Add statistics last year?  Hypothetically, some could have performed less than the model anticipated, and some more.  Could they have had better results playing more of the latter?  I don't know enough about the model.

I really don't want to this to become another debate about who should have played more.  Really my only point was that the expectations for last year's team were inflated when compared to the level at which they reasonably could perform.   And that we should use that as a cautionary tale for this year as well.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And you raise a good point here.  I don't have the time (nor the desire) to do this, but how did Marquette's players perform to their Value Add statistics last year?  Hypothetically, some could have performed less than the model anticipated, and some more.  Could they have had better results playing more of the latter?  I don't know enough about the model.

I really don't want to this to become another debate about who should have played more.  Really my only point was that the expectations for last year's team were inflated when compared to the level at which they reasonably could perform.   And that we should use that as a cautionary tale for this every year as well.

FIFY

[tower912]

Second question.   Is there a way to factor  the VA statistics with Blue, McKay and DuWilson added in?    In other words, according to value added, how much better would MU have been with those 3?

[Lennys Tap]

And Georgetown underperformed because Buzz "discovered" Todd Mayo and Steve Taylor in MU's two victories

And Magic Dawesome in one.

[mu03eng]

And you raise a good point here.  I don't have the time (nor the desire) to do this, but how did Marquette's players perform to their Value Add statistics last year?  Hypothetically, some could have performed less than the model anticipated, and some more.  Could they have had better results playing more of the latter?  I don't know enough about the model.

I really don't want to this to become another debate about who should have played more.  Really my only point was that the expectations for last year's team were inflated when compared to the level at which they reasonably could perform.   And that we should use that as a cautionary tale for this year as well.

I like this even more than when I said it 

It would add credibility if John compared beginning of the year prediction to end of the year actuals for each year.  Like I said before, if Derrick and Jamil vastly underperformed like we all think, than several players had to wildly overperform for the team to finish at the predicted level.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I like this even more than when I said it 

It would add credibility if John compared beginning of the year prediction to end of the year actuals for each year.  Like I said before, if Derrick and Jamil vastly underperformed like we all think, than several players had to wildly overperform for the team to finish at the predicted level.

Also, because basketball is a team sport, if Jamil had a great year, arguably, the PG & SG spots might not have been as painful as they were.

You can have a defensive/pass first/no shoot PG, but you better have weapons at the other 4 spots. On the flip side, having a non-scoring PG can put a lot of pressure on the other 4 to produce, especially to keep the floor spread.

Jake was a nice role player, but MU was asking him to do a lot last year, and I think it led to some inefficiency and over-exposure.

[The Equalizer]

I like this even more than when I said it 

It would add credibility if John compared beginning of the year prediction to end of the year actuals for each year.  Like I said before, if Derrick and Jamil vastly underperformed like we all think, than several players had to wildly overperform for the team to finish at the predicted level.

Its easy enough to calculate.

He includes a historical database, so we have access to 2013 actuals. 
He's identified the average year-over-year improvement (102% for rising frosh, 31% for sophs, 18% for juniors).

Therefore, we can calculate what each player would have been expected to be for 2014 if they were average.  I thought it would be interesting to include the 2014 actual value-add, per the database.

Player	2013 Value Add	Expected Improvement	Expected 14 VA	Actual 2014 VA
Juan Anderson	1.12	31%	1.47	1.1
Davante Gardner	6.13	18%	7.23	4.75
Todd Mayo	0.66	18%	0.78	1.82
Chris Otule	2.06	18%	2.43	0.41
Steve Taylor	1.47	102%	2.97	0.08
Jake Thomas	0.44	18%	0.51	0.77
Derrick Wilson	0.9	31%	1.17	0
Jamil Wilson	4.2	18%	4.96	1.47
TOTALS	16.98		21.52	10.40

Even accounting for the likely error in data (I don't think for all the criticism directed at Derrick Wilson that he truly is a zero Value Add), there was a bigger problem last year than merely playing to expectations.

[mu03eng]

Its easy enough to calculate.

He includes a historical database, so we have access to 2013 actuals. 
He's identified the average year-over-year improvement (102% for rising frosh, 31% for sophs, 18% for juniors).

Therefore, we can calculate what each player would have been expected to be for 2014 if they were average.  I thought it would be interesting to include the 2014 actual value-add, per the database.

Player	2013 Value Add	Expected Improvement	Expected 14 VA	Actual 2014 VA
Juan Anderson	1.12	31%	1.47	1.1
Davante Gardner	6.13	18%	7.23	4.75
Todd Mayo	0.66	18%	0.78	1.82
Chris Otule	2.06	18%	2.43	0.41
Steve Taylor	1.47	102%	2.97	0.08
Jake Thomas	0.44	18%	0.51	0.77
Derrick Wilson	0.9	31%	1.17	0
Jamil Wilson	4.2	18%	4.96	1.47
TOTALS	16.98		21.52	10.40

Even accounting for the likely error in data (I don't think for all the criticism directed at Derrick Wilson that he truly is a zero Value Add), there was a bigger problem last year than merely playing to expectations.

What are the actual value adds for the freshman and what is the "average" value add that John assumes for his model?

[MU82]

Eye testers vs science - "Screw those meteorologists, I'm staying on the beach. I've been around a bit, and it doesn't even look like rain to me".

Given how often meteorologists predict rain (here in Charlotte, anyway) and given how often it actually rains, this might not have been the best comparison if one is trying to make a point favoring advanced stats over the eye test.

Personally, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Even the most advanced stats aren't always "right," and the eye test certainly isn't always "wrong." And vice versa.

[tower912]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats. 

[MU82]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats. 

Take it back, or the sabermetricians will have your head. Bill James personally will come to your door wielding the machete. Or he would, if he weren't a nerdy stat-freak!

[NersEllenson]

Wow - so much to comment on here:

First if the eye test doesn't matter and its all about stats - why does every freaking pro team have scouts that go to games?  Why do coaches spend hours analyzing game tape?  They can just use Synergy and other sports statistic technologies and game plan from those alone, right?

We can talk all we want about WHAT IF Duane and McKay were on the team...but hell...what's to say Buzz would have played them??  It's Buzz's fault McKay left.  McKay didn't want to play for the guy, based on what Buzz was trying to do with him.

Highly doubt if Value Add rates Burton as having a 36% chance at NBA, and he could only get 12 minutes last seaon, that Duane Wilson would have been given more than scrap minutes, any different than Dawson or JJJ.

Why in looking at the projected data...did Mayo...who took a HUGE jump in Value Add over his projected...not get more PT?  Anybody...that had a lick of basketball smarts...and looking at the eye test knew Todd was very talented....not surprising he greatly exceeded what the statistical model said...given that he was given much more playing time in 2013-2014 than the 2012-2013 (albeit still WAY underutilized last season).

And basketball is a team game??  NIce Ammo.  Brilliant.  If only Jamil and Davante our leading scorers could have had HUGE years while playing with 2 guys in Derrick and Jake who were so incredibly limited.

Answer the question Sultan, Lenny, Guns and all you other smart A$$ clowns:  If you are an opposing coach and you face a lineup of Derrick, Juan, Jake, Jamil, Otule - who are you taking away?  When your "shooting" guard can't make a 2 point basket or score off the bounce to save his life...and your PG can't make a 3, won't take a FG outside of 2' from the basket, and is the reason you are playing 4 on 5 - how are you going to win...and how can Jamil or Gardner have a big year that could hide the warts that were Derrick and Jake PAIRED TOGETHER?  Those two guys got more minutes than any two players...and they were the two most one-dimensional limited players on the roster.  AWFUL coaching.  Sorry.

[NersEllenson]

You've said it, I've said it, others have said it. Marquette's "expectations" last year (as set by the conference coaches, AP, USA Today and some of our flat earth posters) were ridiculous - especially without Blue, Du Wilson and McKay. All the hand wringing over the coach "changing", not trying to win, etc., was nonsense. Buzz the coach was who he always was, Buzz the GM was the guy caught short on talent. Can't wait to see Ners and his posse weigh in and attack Pudner's accurate and prescient analysis of last year's team - had John published them earlier here maybe it could have prevented some of the silliness of the past 8 months.

I'll be happy to wager anything you or Sultan want regarding Pudner's statistical predictions for this upcoming year putting MU as a 7th place finisher in the Big East.  Just let me know what.  MU will finish better than 7th.  I know you buy into his analysis as THe Bible and foolproof - but I'm happy to go with my eye test analysis.  Don't care that we have a rookie coach. Don't care that we lost 4 starters...and our THREE leading scorers off of last year's team.  What I do know is Buzz was god awful last year.  I know Derrick Wilson won't play 31 minutes a game.  And I know Burton won't play 12 minutes, and Dawson and JJJ won't have any DNPs as they did last season.  And...I know JJJ and Dawson are far more talented than what they were ABLE to show last season due to Buzz's awful coaching.

[NersEllenson]

nm

[NersEllenson]

Player	2013 Value Add	Expected Improvement	Expected 14 VA	Actual 2014 VA
Juan Anderson	1.12	31%	1.47	1.1
Davante Gardner	6.13	18%	7.23	4.75
Todd Mayo	0.66	18%	0.78	1.82
Chris Otule	2.06	18%	2.43	0.41
Steve Taylor	1.47	102%	2.97	0.08
Jake Thomas	0.44	18%	0.51	0.77
Derrick Wilson	0.9	31%	1.17	0
Jamil Wilson	4.2	18%	4.96	1.47
TOTALS	16.98		21.52	10.40

Am I reading this right?  One guy that played more minutes than any other player on the team was a 0 Value Add last year.  LOL.  This is so rich and comical.

I wonder what happened to Gardner?  a 6.13 value add as a Junior, but one more year of strength and conditioning under Todd Smith and another year of Buzz's coaching and he regressed to a 4.75??  Weird.

Wonder why Todd Mayo is a 1.82 Value Add last season, yet Jake Thomas played 200+ more minutes than Todd was a .77 Value Add.

But come on Lenny and Sultan - Pudner's stats are right on, correct?!!  I do agree.  They pegged Derrick right on.  He added NOTHING toward winning.  While detracting from a guy like Gardner, due to the total lack of respect shown (and rightfully so) to Derrick's lack of a perimeter game.

[GGGG]

I'll be happy to wager anything you or Sultan want regarding Pudner's statistical predictions for this upcoming year putting MU as a 7th place finisher in the Big East.  Just let me know what.  MU will finish better than 7th.  I know you buy into his analysis as THe Bible and foolproof - but I'm happy to go with my eye test analysis.  Don't care that we have a rookie coach. Don't care that we lost 4 starters...and our THREE leading scorers off of last year's team. 

You think they will be better then seventh...and you very well might be right!  I hardly view his statistics as the Bible.  John even said that MU exceeded expectations in Buzz's 2nd year as an example of how no model can be perfect.  You don't know how individuals will improve - they aren't robots.

The only reason I posted the standings in the first place is because I was astounded as to how accurately his model predicted the actual order of finish.  And to use it as a guide for how we might want to predict this year's finish.

As for the rest of your usual talking points...

I am not going to put you on ignore like TAMU, but I am simply not going to engage in debate with you about this stuff any longer.  It just wears people out. 

[NersEllenson]

You think they will be better then seventh...and you very well might be right!  I hardly view his statistics as the Bible.  John even said that MU exceeded expectations in Buzz's 2nd year as an example of how no model can be perfect.  You don't know how individuals will improve - they aren't robots.

The only reason I posted the standings in the first place is because I was astounded as to how accurately his model predicted the actual order of finish.  And to use it as a guide for how we might want to predict this year's finish.

As for the rest of your usual talking points...

No worries - what is  better question - given that based on usual projection and growth our projected Value Add should have put us at 21.52, good for a solid 3rd in the conference, and clearly an NCAA caliber team - what happened?  Only 1 answer: Awful coaching, and poor skill development by the coaching staff.  The charade that Lenny wants to hang on that the talent wasn't there etc., is just that...a charade.

[MU82]

Not sure what our Value Add was, but we had a few guys who certainly contributed to our Value Subtract!

[MUDPT]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats. 

I was hoping this was in teal.  Derek Jeter is great, and in terms of career current players, he's in between Adrian Beltre and Manny Ramirez.  As for the hits, he's accumulated a bunch, by playing a bunch.  There is a reason Nolan Ryan leads MLB all time in strikeouts and also in walks (by almost 1000).  Rings?  Have to be on a pretty good team.  Here is how his WAR ranks on each WS championship team 1996- 5th, 1998- 1st, 1999- 1st, 2000- 3rd, 2009- 1st.  That's actually pretty remarkable to be the best player on your championship team 10 years apart.  Clutch? There are ratings for that too.  For his career, he has a net clutch rating of 0.29.  His postseason rating since 2002 (first year Clutch was tracked) is -1.45.  Just to put into context, Jonathan Lucroy leads the NL this year in clutch with a rating of 1.74.  So he has basically been the opposite of Lucroy's season this year in clutch, since 2002 (I realize he hit a lot of post season home runs before 2002).  I'm curious which "advanced matrices" think Jeter isn't that great.  I think most advanced metric people believe he should be in the Hall of Fame, but also believe he rates like Barry Larkin or Alan Trammell (not in the Hall of Fame). 

As for the MU projections, most stats people will tell you sample size makes a big difference.  Most of the MU players coming back did not have a lot of sample size to work with and I think most of us believe that they are better players than their small sample showed. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

Right on MUDPT.  This article uses advanced stats to prove Jeter is one of the best of all time. 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/derek-jeters-stats-are-the-stuff-of-legend?ymd=20140212&content_id=67706294

To all you Luddites, a scout is also a type of researcher, just like a scientist is who observes experiments in a lab: Their purpose is confirm the statistics. Math is used in everything we do....including and especially journalism (keeping score)  A scout, brewmaster, coffee cupper, taste tester, life guard are all trained expertly on the results of statistics...as are judges, doctors, astronauts, farmers. Your DNA and brain waves have been digitalized.  It is not an either or argument.  Geeks Rule!

[brandx]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats. 

What if he had been drafted by Houston? He would probably still be a HOFer and Houston would still be a losing team all these years. He would just be Craig Biggio.

It's a lot easier to be a "winner" when you are surrounded by the best players money can buy.

[NersEllenson]

As for the MU projections, most stats people will tell you sample size makes a big difference.  Most of the MU players coming back did not have a lot of sample size to work with and I think most of us believe that they are better players than their small sample showed. 

Wait.  Sample size matters? 

[NersEllenson]

You think they will be better then seventh...and you very well might be right!  I hardly view his statistics as the Bible.  John even said that MU exceeded expectations in Buzz's 2nd year as an example of how no model can be perfect.  You don't know how individuals will improve - they aren't robots.

The only reason I posted the standings in the first place is because I was astounded as to how accurately his model predicted the actual order of finish.  And to use it as a guide for how we might want to predict this year's finish.

As for the rest of your usual talking points...

And by the way....the model you are referring to...actually didn't predict things correctly....going into the season the model projected MU would finish with a 21.65 Value Add (without factoring any freshman contribution..and I'd project this projection would have put MU near the top of the Big East pre-season).  The issue was that based on the WAY we performed last season, we were only a Value Add of 12.36  - - Think you may want to re-think your understanding of this data.  It should predict close to how the standings would rank when based on end of year data turned in, no?

[dgies9156]

Good grief. Am I reading about Sheldon, Leonard, Raj and Howard? Does Penny live across the hall?????

This is incredibly ridiculous. The whole schematic suggests a group of people with more time than sense on their hands. Statistically, we stank last year. No ifs ands or buts. We'll stink again this year if we don't improve.

If you are going to get THIS technical, then solve for the "Red X" that led to last year's miserable season. Was the performance correlated to talent, coaching or some other factor we need to identify. Remember, only three mistakes in a million tries.

[MUDPT]

Good grief. Am I reading about Sheldon, Leonard, Raj and Howard? Does Penny live across the hall?????

This is incredibly ridiculous. The whole schematic suggests a group of people with more time than sense on their hands. Statistically, we stank last year. No ifs ands or buts. We'll stink again this year if we don't improve.

If you are going to get THIS technical, then solve for the "Red X" that led to last year's miserable season. Was the performance correlated to talent, coaching or some other factor we need to identify. Remember, only three mistakes in a million tries.

Is this about the Big Bang Theory?  I've never seen an episode, too busy reading FanGraphs or Ken Pomeroy.

[GGGG]

And by the way....the model you are referring to...actually didn't predict things correctly....going into the season the model projected MU would finish with a 21.65 Value Add (without factoring any freshman contribution..and I'd project this projection would have put MU near the top of the Big East pre-season).  The issue was that based on the WAY we performed last season, we were only a Value Add of 12.36  - - Think you may want to re-think your understanding of this data.  It should predict close to how the standings would rank when based on end of year data turned in, no?

Oh.  See I was afraid I didn't understand the data correctly.

LOL...nevermind.  Thanks for pointing out my error.

[NersEllenson]

Oh.  See I was afraid I didn't understand the data correctly.

LOL...nevermind.  Thanks for pointing out my error.

No worries.  Was just funny to see the others latch on to your original post and start calling me out...while the actual Value Add for Derrick was a 0 last season...and Jake Thomas a whopping .77 - and those two guys played more minutes than any others on the team.  Sure doesn't seem to be intelligent coaching.

Will be interesting to see how things go this year - model isn't projecting very well - yet I suspect it will be wrong again this year, just as it was going into last season (as were all of us as fans, the other Big East coaches, and media - who all felt MU would win Big East or be a top 2 or 3 finisher at worst.)

[Newsdreams]

In before the lock. Big Bang Theory is funny, this thread is just going in circles again with the same arguments in the past 6-7 months?

[Henry Sugar]

I'm curious which "advanced matrices" think Jeter isn't that great. 

Defensive ones. He's been crap defensively for years.

But agree with everything else you wrote.

[mu03eng]

And by the way....the model you are referring to...actually didn't predict things correctly....going into the season the model projected MU would finish with a 21.65 Value Add (without factoring any freshman contribution..and I'd project this projection would have put MU near the top of the Big East pre-season).  The issue was that based on the WAY we performed last season, we were only a Value Add of 12.36  - - Think you may want to re-think your understanding of this data.  It should predict close to how the standings would rank when based on end of year data turned in, no?

Time out, I think we all need to reevaluate the data.  The 12.36 value add doesn't include the freshmen like Burton, who presumably added value.  But even if we ignore that, if our Value Add was suppose to be 21.something and ended up 12.36....we still finished ranked right around where we were predicted to within the Big East.  Does this mean the Big East as a whole was down.  I think we've got to look at this at a conference level as well.  What conferences were predicted to be at preseason per value add and what they ended up being.

It's a closed system, if we did worse than predicted but ended up finishing at the predicted ranking, those we are relative to must also have done worse.  If they did worse, someone had to do better as a whole.

[CTWarrior]

Exactly.   The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great.   All of those hits and all of those rings say differently.   Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats.  

Of course, this isn't true.  Advanced metrics say Derek Jeter was a great hitter.  Just not a very good shortstop.  And frankly, the eye test (if you're not wearing pin-striped glasses) would agree with that assessment.

[NersEllenson]

Time out, I think we all need to reevaluate the data.  The 12.36 value add doesn't include the freshmen like Burton, who presumably added value.  But even if we ignore that, if our Value Add was suppose to be 21.something and ended up 12.36....we still finished ranked right around where we were predicted to within the Big East.  Does this mean the Big East as a whole was down.  I think we've got to look at this at a conference level as well.  What conferences were predicted to be at preseason per value add and what they ended up being.

It's a closed system, if we did worse than predicted but ended up finishing at the predicted ranking, those we are relative to must also have done worse.  If they did worse, someone had to do better as a whole.

Sorry...you aren't understanding how this works.  The 12.36 DOES include the data from the Freshman (Burton).  YOu'll note in Equalizer's analysis that the actual Value Add for all returning players last season was a paltry 10.40 - but we finished the season at 12.36  (which illustrates the impact of the freshman...Burton I'm sure accounted for close to the 1.96 disparity between the output of all returning players and then the end of season results for 2014 with the freshman factored in.)

The point is, is that if the returning players performed as expected per the model, and plus the freshman's contribution of 1.96 Value Add for last season our projected pre-season value add of 21.65 plus the freshman's contribution would have put us at 23.61....which would have put us neck and neck with Nova and Creighton.

This data further shows how God awful Buzz was last year.  He either failed miserably as a coach, or in his player development.  My argument of course all year long was that playing a guy - who we now know statistically speaking -  brought ZERO value add more minutes than any other player, and another guy the 2nd most minutes who brought a paltry .77 Value Add - was and would lead to a disaster. 

[MUDPT]

Defensive ones. He's been crap defensively for years.

But agree with everything else you wrote.

When they picked up Stephen Drew, someone posted on twitter Jeter's negative defensive rating for the last 11 years straight.  Agree.

[jesmu84]

Sorry...you aren't understanding how this works.  The 12.36 DOES include the data from the Freshman (Burton).  YOu'll note in Equalizer's analysis that the actual Value Add for all returning players last season was a paltry 10.40 - but we finished the season at 12.36  (which illustrates the impact of the freshman...Burton I'm sure accounted for close to the 1.96 disparity between the output of all returning players and then the end of season results for 2014 with the freshman factored in.)

The point is, is that if the returning players performed as expected per the model, and plus the freshman's contribution of 1.96 Value Add for last season our projected pre-season value add of 21.65 plus the freshman's contribution would have put us at 23.61....which would have put us neck and neck with Nova and Creighton.

This data further shows how God awful Buzz was last year.  He either failed miserably as a coach, or in his player development.  My argument of course all year long was that playing a guy - who we now know statistically speaking -  brought ZERO value add more minutes than any other player, and another guy the 2nd most minutes who brought a paltry .77 Value Add - was and would lead to a disaster. 

The only people who went up were Todd (who should have played more minutes) and Jake. Everyone else went down. The situation was certainly abysmal on multiple levels and for multiple reasons.

[mu03eng]

Sorry...you aren't understanding how this works.  The 12.36 DOES include the data from the Freshman (Burton).  YOu'll note in Equalizer's analysis that the actual Value Add for all returning players last season was a paltry 10.40 - but we finished the season at 12.36  (which illustrates the impact of the freshman...Burton I'm sure accounted for close to the 1.96 disparity between the output of all returning players and then the end of season results for 2014 with the freshman factored in.)

The point is, is that if the returning players performed as expected per the model, and plus the freshman's contribution of 1.96 Value Add for last season our projected pre-season value add of 21.65 plus the freshman's contribution would have put us at 23.61....which would have put us neck and neck with Nova and Creighton.

This data further shows how God awful Buzz was last year.  He either failed miserably as a coach, or in his player development.  My argument of course all year long was that playing a guy - who we now know statistically speaking -  brought ZERO value add more minutes than any other player, and another guy the 2nd most minutes who brought a paltry .77 Value Add - was and would lead to a disaster. 

Oh I get how it works, I just missed that the part where 12.36 included the freshmen.  However as always being condescending is totally helpful in engendering conversation.

My point is also valid, with the freshman while our team value add was significantly lower than projected but we finished a spot ahead of our projected ranking.  So that means the Big East as a whole in general and the bottom specifically underperformed.  Correct?

By all means ignore my point in favor of going over the untread "Buzz is a terrible coach and you people who have nuance clearly don't know what you are talking about" territory

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

[tower912]

Banhammer.   Isn't that the guy who did the Miami Vice theme?

[NersEllenson]

Oh I get how it works, I just missed that the part where 12.36 included the freshmen.  However as always being condescending is totally helpful in engendering conversation.

My point is also valid, with the freshman while our team value add was significantly lower than projected but we finished a spot ahead of our projected ranking.  So that means the Big East as a whole in general and the bottom specifically underperformed.  Correct?

By all means ignore my point in favor of going over the untread "Buzz is a terrible coach and you people who have nuance clearly don't know what you are talking about" territory

I wasn't being condescending Eng - was pointing out that you are interpreting the data wrong...and it seems you still are.  What the model projected going into the season was that we'd be a 21.65 Value Add.  What we finished was 12.36..even with the benefit of the freshman's contributions.  Of course taking END OF SEASON DATA from a season where we performed like crap....that should lead to the team finishing in the appropriate slot in the standings...or perhaps 1 slot higher than anticipated. 

The fallacy here was some were trying to suggest the model predicted this outcome BEFORE the season started.  It didn't.  As far as the strength of the Big East?? That has nothing to do with this.  Ironically, you are missing the nuance here.

"We finished a spot ahead of our projected ranking?"  Is your point that we finished 6th in Big East ahead of Seton Hall...yet their Value Add was slightly better than ours?  If so...fine...but that isn't really relevant to anything.  Going into the season Value Add thought we'd be A LOT BETTER...as did every one of our fans who was honest with themselves and not trying to make excuses to save face for their inaccurate takes on Buzz's coaching last season.

[The Equalizer]

I wasn't being condescending Eng - was pointing out that you are interpreting the data wrong...and it seems you still are.  What the model projected going into the season was that we'd be a 21.65 Value Add.  What we finished was 12.36..even with the benefit of the freshman's contributions.  Of course taking END OF SEASON DATA from a season where we performed like crap....that should lead to the team finishing in the appropriate slot in the standings...or perhaps 1 slot higher than anticipated.  

The fallacy here was some were trying to suggest the model predicted this outcome BEFORE the season started.  It didn't.  As far as the strength of the Big East?? That has nothing to do with this.  Ironically, you are missing the nuance here.

"We finished a spot ahead of our projected ranking?"  Is your point that we finished 6th in Big East ahead of Seton Hall...yet their Value Add was slightly better than ours?  If so...fine...but that isn't really relevant to anything.  Going into the season Value Add thought we'd be A LOT BETTER...as did every one of our fans who was honest with themselves and not trying to make excuses to save face for their inaccurate takes on Buzz's coaching last season.

I'm beginning to wonder if Sultan used John's 2013 returning player + expected improvement, or simply looked at the 2014 (which is season-end numbers) to come up with his "projected" standings.  It would be no surprise that end-of-season value add reflects end-of-season standings.

If you take the other teams returning 2013 players, add John's expected improvement (102% for frosh, 31% for sophs, 18% for juniors), lets just say you don't have to run 8 more teams to see that MU is NOT projected as the seventh place team--in fact based on applying the average improvement (102% for rising frosh, 31% for sophs, and 18% for juniors) as applied to the returning players, we would have been projected to finish ahead of eventual league champion Villanova.

Villanova

Player	2013	Improvement	2014 Expected	2914 Actual
Pinkston, JayVaughn	3.67	0.31	4.81	5.02
Hilliard, Darrun	3	0.31	3.93	4.28
Arcidiacono, Ryan	2.03	1.02	4.1	2.55
Bell, James	2.02	0.18	2.38	5.21
Ochefu, Daniel	1.09	1.02	2.2	2.38
Yacoubou, Achraf	1.07	0.31	1.4	x
Chennault, Tony	0.89	0.18	1.05	1.21
TOTAL	-	-	19.87	20.65

Recall our "projected" Value add was 21.52, while we finished far below that.  Villanova's returning players delivered an above average improvement.

If our returning players showed the same improvement as Villanova's, we would have been neck and neck for the league title--they got more from their frosh (an addtional 4.86 while we got 1.96).

[GGGG]

I'm beginning to wonder if Sultan used John's 2013 returning player + expected improvement, or simply looked at the 2014 (which is season-end numbers)

If you would read the entire thread, you would note that I already admitted that error.

[The Equalizer]

If you would read the entire thread, you would note that I already admitted that error.

To be fair, you never actually responded to my post directly. Plus you generically admitted to not understanding the data--I don't think you ever specifically said what the mistake was.

Now if we could only get Lenny to admit he was wrong.  

You've said it, I've said it, others have said it. Marquette's "expectations" last year (as set by the conference coaches, AP, USA Today and some of our flat earth posters) were ridiculous - especially without Blue, Du Wilson and McKay. All the hand wringing over the coach "changing", not trying to win, etc., was nonsense. Buzz the coach was who he always was, Buzz the GM was the guy caught short on talent. Can't wait to see Ners and his posse weigh in and attack Pudner's accurate and prescient analysis of last year's team - had John published them earlier here maybe it could have prevented some of the silliness of the past 8 months.

Can't wait to see Lenny's humble, contrite admission that the pre-season expectations were actually in line with nothing more than average improvement from our returning talent.  Maybe this now ends the silliness of those flat earth posters who continue to defend Buzz's piss-poor coaching performance.

[GGGG]

To be fair, you never actually responded to my post directly. Plus you generically admitted to not understanding the data--I don't think you ever specifically said what the mistake was.

When Ners pointed out what the data meant, I realized my mistake and said as much.

I didn't realize that I had to respond to every single person who posted in the thread.

[MU82]

To be fair, you never actually responded to my post directly. Plus you generically admitted to not understanding the data--I don't think you ever specifically said what the mistake was.

Now if we could only get Lenny to admit he was wrong.  

Can't wait to see Lenny's humble, contrite admission that the pre-season expectations were actually in line with nothing more than average improvement from our returning talent.  Maybe this now ends the silliness of those flat earth posters who continue to defend Buzz's piss-poor coaching performance.

I didn't need Value Add or any other advanced metrics to see that Buzz had a very bad season.

And I was a big Buzz guy. Hell, I might have been the very first accused of being a "slurper" by a certain poster I now happily have on ignore!

[Lennys Tap]

I'll be happy to wager anything you or Sultan want regarding Pudner's statistical predictions for this upcoming year putting MU as a 7th place finisher in the Big East.  Just let me know what.  MU will finish better than 7th.  I know you buy into his analysis as THe Bible and foolproof - but I'm happy to go with my eye test analysis.  Don't care that we have a rookie coach. Don't care that we lost 4 starters...and our THREE leading scorers off of last year's team.  What I do know is Buzz was god awful last year.  I know Derrick Wilson won't play 31 minutes a game.  And I know Burton won't play 12 minutes, and Dawson and JJJ won't have any DNPs as they did last season.  And...I know JJJ and Dawson are far more talented than what they were ABLE to show last season due to Buzz's awful coaching.

Ners -first, an apology. When Sultan published his "Pudner Projections" for the 2013-14 I assumed they were correct. Evidently they were not. So, my mistake - mea culpa. I'm still unclear as to where John had us projected last year - maybe he can clear that up for all of us.

Second, a warning. You have acquired a new ally, one who used to be Chico's Distorter in Chief. Be careful.

[GGGG]

Ners -first, an apology. When Sultan published his "Pudner Projections" for the 2013-14 I assumed they were correct. Evidently they were not. So, my mistake - mea culpa. I'm still unclear as to where John had us projected last year - maybe he can clear that up for all of us.

I apologize to you too Lenny.

[Lennys Tap]

I apologize to you too Lenny.

No need - numbers were published in good faith. Ironic that a guy whose "facts" are routinely skewed to reach his preferred conclusions would jump down your throat for an innocent mistake, but that's our very own Equalizer.

[The Equalizer]

No need - numbers were published in good faith. Ironic that a guy whose "facts" are routinely skewed to reach his preferred conclusions would jump down your throat for an innocent mistake, but that's our very own Equalizer.

1.  You are the one who has the preferred conclusion. I prefer those based on real facts.

For some strange reason, you routinely get mad at me because I often need to correct your mistakes by pointing out the facts that you ignored or skewed in attempting to reach your preferred conclusion.

Need I remind you of your habit of using post junior-year HS rankings from guys like Butler or Crowder instead of recognizing they had attained JUCO AA or JUCO POY status before arriving at MU?  Or your habit of continually suggesting that Mbakwe, Christopherson and Hazel all left Marquette before Buzz became coach, even after the facts have been presented to you otherwise? 

2.  In this case, nothing was skewed by me. In fact, YOU are the one who used incorrect facts to reach YOUR preferred conclusion. I merely presented the REAL facts that lead to the correct conclusion.

3.  One who tosses around terms like "flat earth posters" while making his preferred (but obviously incorrect) conclusion using incorrect data is hardly making an innocent mistake.

[Lennys Tap]

1.  You are the one who has the preferred conclusion. I prefer those based on real facts.

Funniest post ever. How's that audit you and your boy promised years ago coming?

[The Equalizer]

When Ners pointed out what the data meant, I realized my mistake and said as much.

I didn't realize that I had to respond to every single person who posted in the thread.

You don't.  But at the same time, don't get chippy when at the same time I didn't analyze every single message to see if you put a response to me in one of those.

Sorry I didn't see your response to Ners. I wouldn't have said anything if I had.

[The Equalizer]

Funniest post ever. How's that audit you and your boy promised years ago coming?

You don't give yourself enough credit.

Now, THIS is funny:

You've said it, I've said it, others have said it. Marquette's "expectations" last year (as set by the conference coaches, AP, USA Today and some of our flat earth posters) were ridiculous - especially without Blue, Du Wilson and McKay. All the hand wringing over the coach "changing", not trying to win, etc., was nonsense. Buzz the coach was who he always was, Buzz the GM was the guy caught short on talent. Can't wait to see Ners and his posse weigh in and attack Pudner's accurate and prescient analysis of last year's team - had John published them earlier here maybe it could have prevented some of the silliness of the past 8 months.

We just needed this:

[hoyasincebirth]

Where can I find the 2013 Value Add numbers the Google doc only has 2016-2014. I would be interested in seeing what the preseason 2013 numbers were.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You've said it, I've said it, others have said it. Marquette's "expectations" last year (as set by the conference coaches, AP, USA Today and some of our flat earth posters) were ridiculous - especially without Blue, Du Wilson and McKay. All the hand wringing over the coach "changing", not trying to win, etc., was nonsense. Buzz the coach was who he always was, Buzz the GM was the guy caught short on talent. Can't wait to see Ners and his posse weigh in and attack Pudner's accurate and prescient analysis of last year's team - had John published them earlier here maybe it could have prevented some of the silliness of the past 8 months.

Wait....what?  The guy who over the years has told us how wonderful the preseason polls are is now saying how ridiculous they were?    No, you are wrong Lenny....this is clearly the FUNNIEST post in the bunch.

Who drove Mckay off?  Who didn't want to play for Buzz any longer?  Who redshirted Wilson?  Who had Jamil actually go backwards in progress last year?  For all the ripping you have given me and others over the years about a certain coach, your defense of Bert is off the charts on this one.

Buzz, the coach, was a moron last year.  The talent was there, several guys got WORSE or stagnated playing for him last year, one left the program after barely any time with him (smart kid), and Buzz the COACH is the one that decided what talent to put on the floor.   Seriously, this post of yours is an all-timer.

[Skatastrophy]

Where can I find the 2013 Value Add numbers the Google doc only has 2016-2014. I would be interested in seeing what the preseason 2013 numbers were.

It had been here: http://www.valueaddbasketball.com/

But that doesn't have historical values.

Here are the 2013-2014 projections for teams: http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/04/projecting-2012-13-part-4-of-4.html

[Silkk the Shaka]

It had been here: http://www.valueaddbasketball.com/

But that doesn't have historical values.

Here are the 2013-2014 projections for teams: http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/04/projecting-2012-13-part-4-of-4.html

That link was written in April 2012, I think that means it projects our BEast champion/E8 year, not last year.

[Lennys Tap]

Where can I find the 2013 Value Add numbers the Google doc only has 2016-2014. I would be interested in seeing what the preseason 2013 numbers were.

As would I.

[The Equalizer]

It had been here: http://www.valueaddbasketball.com/

But that doesn't have historical values.

It does.  You just have to click the link in the lower right corner that says "See all 2003-2014 Stats"

Where can I find the 2013 Value Add numbers the Google doc only has 2016-2014. I would be interested in seeing what the preseason 2013 numbers were.

You have to calculate your own preseason numbers.

Find the season end for the players from the year before, then apply the average improvement for all players in the database.

So the Value Add for a presason incoming Junior will be his sophomore Value add plus 31%. 
Frosh improve an average of 102%
Sophs improve an average of 31%
Juniors improve an average of 18%

[hoyasincebirth]

It does.  You just have to click the link in the lower right corner that says "See all 2003-2014 Stats"


You have to calculate your own preseason numbers.

Find the season end for the players from the year before, then apply the average improvement for all players in the database.

So the Value Add for a presason incoming Junior will be his sophomore Value add plus 31%. 
Frosh improve an average of 102%
Sophs improve an average of 31%
Juniors improve an average of 18%

Do it for me Cracked Sidewalks and then write an article about it  please and thanks.

[mu03eng]

Do it for me Cracked Sidewalks and then write an article about it  please and thanks.

I have a spreadsheet put together to do this, can't post it here though.

I suppose I could post something on Cracked Sidewalks on it, but not the blogger type.  Spoken word is more my bag(and barely that).

[NersEllenson]

Ners -first, an apology. When Sultan published his "Pudner Projections" for the 2013-14 I assumed they were correct. Evidently they were not. So, my mistake - mea culpa. I'm still unclear as to where John had us projected last year - maybe he can clear that up for all of us.

Second, a warning. You have acquired a new ally, one who used to be Chico's Distorter in Chief. Be careful.

No worries Lenny - Not sure where you are confused on where John's preseason data had us projected - a Value Add of 21.52 - on normal growth/progression of players.  Eventual league champion Villanova only came in with a pre-season value add of 19.87...though they exceeded that by finishing year at 20.65.  Additionally, Nova kicked our a$$ in the contribution of their freshman 4.86 to 1.96 - pretty amazing that their freshman were able to contribute that much value add when even their vets were performing at expected/high level - whereas our vets were performing incredibly below their expectation.

This in and of itself was my whole frustration with Buzz - the vets weren't getting it done in any way, shape or form (outside of perhaps Davante, Mayo, Jamil) so why not play your highly touted/talented freshman more?  Especially when the losses were racking up in the nonconference?