Via KenPom's statistical model, MU is 7th in the BE and 21st in the nation. Still, WVU, Gtown and Nova are ahead of us. Our SOS is weighing us down--which will only improve as the BE unfolds. btw, we are the 6th most efficient offense in the USA.
http://kenpom.com/rate.php
My intent is not to debate the statistical model, but to ask if this is why MU has been slow to get any national love (and has sent Buzz's tension level off)? While not perfect, many college bball watchers (fans, coaches, reporters) track with KenPom's stats...but with our OOC SOS so bad...is this why all the doubt? And, we have two more BE cupcakes coming up. Don't expect any love until we beat Nova away.
Pomeroy can kiss our butts. All we can do is keep winning. Behind three teams that we've already beaten? Is he kidding? Does he have us ahead of Presbyterian?
At least the possiblility of going undefeated in conference sky rocketed to 0.08%.
The strength of schedule does not bother me as much as our Adj defensive rank which is currently at 55. Luke Winn from si.com wrote an article earlier in the season stating no final four team in the last 5 years has been ranked outside the top 25 in def efficiency at the end of the season. It is a double edge sword for mu, due to our high paced offense we tend to give up more possessions to the opponents which leads to higher point totals. which in turn brings down our def efficiency, nevetheless im concerned.
Quote from: normandy on February 01, 2009, 09:24:10 AM
The strength of schedule does not bother me as much as our Adj defensive rank which is currently at 55. Luke Winn from si.com wrote an article earlier in the season stating no final four team in the last 5 years has been ranked outside the top 25 in def efficiency at the end of the season. It is a double edge sword for mu, due to our high paced offense we tend to give up more possessions to the opponents which leads to higher point totals. which in turn brings down our def efficiency, nevetheless im concerned.
Thanks Normandy. Here is the Winn article link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/luke_winn/01/07/midseason/index.html?bcnn=yes
My understanding of Ken Pomeroy's site is that he just crunches a bunch of numbers and publishes the results. Isn't criticizing Ken Pomeroy for not respecting Marquette a lot like criticizing your accountant for not respecting you when you review your tax returns? "My income was what? You can kiss my butt!" Data in, data out.
Kenpom's numbers are simply numbers calculated on the statistics from the game. However, it doesn't necessarily translate into wins and losses or on-court success. I think there was a case a couple of years ago when Notre Dame was ranked higher than us by Kenpom. ND had a record of 16-14 and we had a 20+ game season. We made the NCAAs and they failed to make it in. I remember they lost a lot of close games that year.
Quote from: normandy on February 01, 2009, 09:24:10 AM
It is a double edge sword for mu, due to our high paced offense we tend to give up more possessions to the opponents which leads to higher point totals. which in turn brings down our def efficiency, nevetheless im concerned.
This is a common misconception about Ken Pom's site that I should correct. His defensive efficiency rankings are "tempo neutral." What this means is that the statistic takes into account the number of possessions in one game (the speed of the game). The defensive efficiency rankings gives the number of points expected to be allowed by that team in 100 possessions. So they take into account a faster game, and a team is not penalized for playing at a faster pace.
For example, if a team gives up 50 points in a 50 possession game, they would have a defensive efficiency rating of 100, because you would expect the team to give up 100 points if they were to play the opposing team for 100 possessions. So, if a team gives up 75 points in a 75 possession game, they receive the same defensive efficiency rating of 100. So, as long as a team is giving up the same number of points per possession, they receive the same defensive efficiency rating.
So, let's apply this to MU. MU's defensive efficiency rating is 93.5. This means over 100 possessions, you would expect them to give up 93.5 points. If they were to play in a 50 possession game, they would be expected to give up 46.75 points (93.5 x .5).
Our defense has been pretty bad the past couple weeks and has definitely regressed since last year. (though we are not fouling as much) It will eventually catch up with us. Buzz knows this but unfortunately I don't think he knows how to correct the problem. As impressive as our offensive changes have been our defensive regression is just as worrisome.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 01, 2009, 09:37:32 AM
My understanding of Ken Pomeroy's site is that he just crunches a bunch of numbers and publishes the results. Isn't criticizing Ken Pomeroy for not respecting Marquette a lot like criticizing your accountant for not respecting you when you review your tax returns? "My income was what? You can kiss my butt!" Data in, data out.
Not to digress into the equation talk--the games are decided on the court, but to answer the question about his ratings, directly from KenPom himself:
"The first thing you should know about this system is that it is designed to be purely predictive. If you're looking for a system that rates teams on how "good" their season has been, you've come to the wrong place....The purpose of this system is to show how strong a team would be if it played tonight, independent of injuries or emotional factors. Since nobody can see every team play all (or even most) of their games, this system is designed to give you a snapshot of a team's current level of play."http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/ratings_explanation/
His analysis did move us from a prediction of 13-5 to 14-4 in conference play. Sagarin's model moved us from 17 to 14 after yesterday. Our SOS still hurts us in these computer models, and the next two games aren't going to help that stat much.
Quote from: normandy on February 01, 2009, 09:24:10 AM
The strength of schedule does not bother me as much as our Adj defensive rank which is currently at 55. Luke Winn from si.com wrote an article earlier in the season stating no final four team in the last 5 years has been ranked outside the top 25 in def efficiency at the end of the season. It is a double edge sword for mu, due to our high paced offense we tend to give up more possessions to the opponents which leads to higher point totals. which in turn brings down our def efficiency, nevetheless im concerned.
This has been a great season so far and to be 8-0 in the Big East this year is a huge accomplishment but we are not a top 5 team and thats ok. So having said that, now back to the def efficiency. Luke Winn stated that no final four team in the last 5 years has been ranked outside the top 25. Interesting. I have two points to bring up. First, thats just the last 5 years, so it must have been before that and 6 years ago is really not that long ago. Second, maybe our offensive efficiency is just really really good and to fail to take that into account is just wrong. I don't know where to look but maybe we have one of the best offensive efficiency in the game so when you look at both efficiencies we very well could be one of the top teams in the nation.
One thing to remember is that due to our lack of depth sometimes we have to play a bit conervative on the defensive end or give up an easy bucket instead of going hard after a player and possibly giving up a foul. The reason I bring this up is that, we do clamp down on defense when we desparately need stops. We did it against West Virginia, we did it against Providence, we did it against Notre Dame and we now did against Georgetown.
It's interesting to view, but using strictly quantitative research will never cut it with basketball. If it did, the guy would be living large in Vegas. Trying to draw correlations similar to Luke Winn's can also be amusing. Proving they are valid and reliable is not. SOS makes the task impossible.
Quote from: Stone Cold on February 01, 2009, 10:01:21 AM
Our defense has been pretty bad the past couple weeks and has definitely regressed since last year. (though we are not fouling as much) It will eventually catch up with us. Buzz knows this but unfortunately I don't think he knows how to correct the problem. As impressive as our offensive changes have been our defensive regression is just as worrisome.
are you kidding? what makes you think that our defense was much better last year. The off-the-ball defense this year has been incredible. The number of steals in a game does no equal better defense, sometimes means we play sloppier..like last game. I have never seen MU play such amazing defense in the backcourt that they are right now. Just because the other team scored 82 one game doesn't mean are defense has regressed. Haven't you seen our lineup for most of the game? No one over 6'6, and we will still shut down teams in the lane,force poor shots (i.e. ND), draw fouls, and get them to run down their shot clock. Our defense has been its best when we need it most. I dont know what you are watching, but this MU team plays great defense.
Contrary to your "hunches" and gut feelings we have regressed a lot according to the objective facts. Last year our opponents averaged 46% FG rate this year it's jumped to 48% or from 30th to 160th in the country. Using Ken Pom formula our defense, considering all factors, has gone from 10th in the country last year to 55th this year. That is why we are being punished in his formula.
I love statistical analysis. Weren't KenPom and our own Henry Sugar predicting 9-9 or worse just prior to the start of conference play?
Statistics. Lame. Rough season for Henry too. First the "Buzz=bad hire" stance and then the doom and gloom predictions. Whoops.
(Kidding, Henry....although I did think the early doom and gloom statistical predictions were outrageous. My prediction of 13-5 will likely end up being more accurate. It was based on a twelve'r of beer, some unscientific comparisons to Villanova 2005-2006, a little hunch and a whole lot of luck.)
Quote from: Stone Cold on February 01, 2009, 04:16:32 PM
Contrary to your "hunches" and gut feelings we have regressed a lot according to the objective facts. Last year our opponents averaged 46% FG rate this year it's jumped to 48% or from 30th to 160th in the country. Using Ken Pom formula our defense, considering all factors, has gone from 10th in the country last year to 55th this year. That is why we are being punished in his formula.
WOW! it has "jumped" 2 percentage points and we drop so much in the ranking? If anything that just shows that all you are looking at are stats.....thats it. When you can stop the other team when you need to, that proves the defense's true ability- have you not listened to every analyst rave about the D?. Your stats an all the computer analysis can only do so much, this isn't BASEBALL so stop using stats like it is. You cannot convince me with numbers that this team's defense has regressed...I completely disagree in every facet and believe we have never been better defensively since the big 3 have been at Marq. I simply do not know what you are watching, this is the best coached Marquette team Ive seen and BUZZ knows what he is doing defensively.... and honestly, we have pretty much the same team from last year and how are you going to say that the 3 seniors and Lazar are worse defensively?....you think Barro that important? Stats are stats, formulas are formulas but when you watch the game and you see the absolute intensity we put on every player on every play, the great rotations and more importantly Lazar and Wesley's performance against the big men down low I do not know what you are looking at. Maybe not improved defensively..but regressed? HA!
I'm a fan so I don't have to get bogged down in stats.
We are 8-0 in the toughest conference in the country.
We have four seniors who are tremendous ambassadors for our university.
We have a top 10 ranking.
So sit back, pop a Red, White and Blue, relax and enjoy the ride.
Go Warriors. Crush Blue Demons.
PS - And Bucky is reeling. Life doesn't get any better.
So I feel compelled to chip in here a bit since MUCam called me out. I'd just like to note that he didn't tell the whole story about either of those positions (the Buzz hire, or the 9-9 prediction).
By my calculations, I rank MU as the #4 team in the BE right now. Unlike Pomeroy, I pull out all the teams that are sub 150 ranking so that the numbers show more of a view against strong opponents.
UConn - Efficiency Margin of 21.3
Pitt - 20.8
UL - 16.2
MU - 15.5
WVU - 12.6
Villanova - 12.2
Syracuse - 6.9
GU - 5.3
PC - (1.2)
ND - (1.3)
Dregs - who cares?
Stone Cold is absolutely right. Last year our defense was outstanding. This year it's /okay/.
#10 for overall defensive efficiency (#56 this year)
#30 for eFG% defense (#160 this year)
#49 for TO% defense (#102 this year)
#9 for 3-point defense (#95 this year)
#11 for steals (#51 this year)
However, we've improved on defensive rebounding (was #197 and is now #107) and definitely on defensive FTR (was #262 and is now #65).
It's not the coaches fault, though. Without getting into all the analysis, there is a clear correlation between height and defense. Even though we were short last year, our Center height was pretty good.
Marquette is winning games because of offense. Our offense is sickly efficient. It's just really hard to trade baskets with Marquette, especially as long as the Big Four stay out of foul trouble. I think the biggest change is that the different defensive style keeps the offensive players on the floor longer. Also, even though the overall defense isn't as good, Dominic James' defense has been phenomenal.
For anyone who thinks our defense is the same or better than last year, I point you to the most recent game against Georgetown, where they shot an eFG% of 65% and scored 1.17 points per possession. Marquette, however, scored 1.34 points per possession...
If you look at many of MU's conference games, there is an 8 minute stretch or so where MU on D just shuts down the opponent....they force some steals, force bad shots, draw a charge and get key rebounds. They take the other team out of their flow. It is very difficult for an undersized team to do it at this high level for a whole game without running themselves into the ground or getting into foul trouble. MU seems to have the ability to pick its spots...a collective "Lets play some defense now" and it then happens. With a highly efficient offense this has been enough thus far to gain separation from MU's opponents. What also helps with D and isn't belied in the numbers is that MUs opponents have to play at a pace that is more comfortable for MU. The team that sets the pace and style of the game usually wins it. Good teams when allowed to play their pace and style usually win. Very good teams can dictate pace and style on others. And great teams can win when playing their opponents style. When MU is forced to play the other teams style and still finds a way to win....then we can start calling them a great team.
I also really enjoy the fact that MU late in the game with the lead continues to try to score -- staying in its offensive rhythm -- instead of playing stall ball and allowing the other team to use its size advantage to pound away at both ends of the floor. I got rather sick of the past few years where MU seemed to quit scoring in the last 3 minutes of a game when it had a 6-10 point lead. Would have beat GU and Stanford last year if they didn't play stall ball once they got the lead.
Those 8 minute stretches are usually keyed around some sort of change by the coaches...either we go small or we pull out the 1-3-1 trap...forces quick shots or turnovers.
These posts are terrible. I never read them I scroll thru this one in about 5 seconds cannot bear to read the boring statistical drivel. Bottom line is Mu has not played Louisville, Uconn, pitt etc yet therefore it hurts our numbers and therefore predicts we lose to them. What ajoke. A bunch of computer nerds with graphs and charts trying to predict who will win. take your ssytem to vegas and put your money where your mouth is. this % efficiancy crap is a joke.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on February 02, 2009, 11:44:18 AM
These posts are terrible. I never read them I scroll thru this one in about 5 seconds cannot bear to read the boring statistical drivel. Bottom line is Mu has not played Louisville, Uconn, pitt etc yet therefore it hurts our numbers and therefore predicts we lose to them. What ajoke. A bunch of computer nerds with graphs and charts trying to predict who will win. take your ssytem to vegas and put your money where your mouth is. this % efficiancy crap is a joke.
Yep. Statistics are as big as a joke as proper spelling.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on February 02, 2009, 11:44:18 AM
These posts are terrible. I never read them I scroll thru this one in about 5 seconds cannot bear to read the boring statistical drivel. Bottom line is Mu has not played Louisville, Uconn, pitt etc yet therefore it hurts our numbers and therefore predicts we lose to them. What ajoke. A bunch of computer nerds with graphs and charts trying to predict who will win. take your ssytem to vegas and put your money where your mouth is. this % efficiancy crap is a joke.
the insight is mind-boggling.
Quote from: marqptm on February 02, 2009, 11:48:42 AM
Yep. Statistics are as big of a joke as proper spelling.
Grammar is important, too. ;)
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on February 02, 2009, 11:44:18 AM
These posts are terrible. I never read them I scroll thru this one in about 5 seconds cannot bear to read the boring statistical drivel. Bottom line is Mu has not played Louisville, Uconn, pitt etc yet therefore it hurts our numbers and therefore predicts we lose to them. What ajoke. A bunch of computer nerds with graphs and charts trying to predict who will win. take your ssytem to vegas and put your money where your mouth is. this % efficiancy crap is a joke.
You must hate your life.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on February 02, 2009, 11:44:18 AM
These posts are terrible. I never read them I scroll thru this one in about 5 seconds cannot bear to read
I think most people have the same reaction to many or your posts.