MUScoop

Could Marquette have most balanced team in 2012-13; and another 3-seed?

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (bamamarquettefan1)

Since I ran the initial projections for next year's rankings hours after the national championship, a good number of things have settled out with high school players choosing colleges and college players deciding to go pro or stay.  After Brew's excellent piece on the good job MU is doing to schedule (http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/04/early-look-at-2012-13-schedule.html) to get a better shot at a high seed, I was thrilled to rerun the numbers and see Marquette shoot up to a 3-seed.

In addition, several fans pointed out in the projections that the big problem was that a top recruit that was saddled on the bench for a year someplace like Kentucky should still project out to be a strong player was given his chance â€" rather than to repeat his ZERO.  So I ran a simply “Kentucky conversion,” making every player who was in the Rivals 150 either of the last two years project out to at least the Value Add we would have expected from them as a freshman.

While Kentucky predictably jumped way up to No. 10 in the country pending four big recruits they are still pursing, the fund surprise when I ran the numbers as that Marquette jumped from the mid-30s to No. 11 as one of only two teams (besides Baylor) with 12 top 1000 players.  In fact, if Trent Lockett is truly signing with MU, it would actually nudge us slightly ahead of Kentucky for No. 10:

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;}

RankPlayerHtYrOffDefPG/PerTot[/tr]

153	Davante Gardner	6'8"	Jr	3.74	-1.13	0.00	4.87
319	Jamil Wilson	6'7"	Jr	1.92	-1.64	0.00	3.56
326	Vander Blue	6'4"	Jr	2.43	-1.09		3.52
457	Todd Mayo	6'3"	So	2.25	-0.61	0.00	2.86
524	Junior Cadougan	6'1"	Sr	0.16	-0.95	1.50	2.61
528	Jamail Jones	6'6"	Jr	1.77	-0.80		2.57
607	Juan Anderson	6'6"	So	1.61	-0.72		2.33
676	Chris Otule	6'11"	Jr	0.01	-2.08		2.09
831	T.J. Taylor	6'3"	So	1.17	-0.52		1.69
844	Steve Taylor	6'7"	Fr	1.16	-0.52		1.68
938	Jake Thomas	6'3"	Sr	1.49	0.00		1.49
967	Jamal Ferguson	6'3"	Fr	0.99	-0.44		1.43
1043	Trent Lockett	6'4"	Sr	1.29	0.00	0.00	1.29
1314	Derrick Wilson	6'0	So	0.26	-0.71	0.00	0.97
1501	Aaron Durley	6'9"	Fr	0.43	-0.19		0.63
	Total with Lockett						32.97
	Total with Durley						32.31

Not only is Baylor the only team to team to match Marquette’s 12 in the top 1000 (Baylor also has 4 top 100 players), but Michigan State is the only other team with 11 and Indiana is the only other team with 10.  So while Marquette will not be the best team in the country next year, we could go from having the second best duo in the country to potentially having the most balanced team in the country.  In fact, before being stuck with one of the worst BCS teams in the country the last couple of years, Lockett was a top 1000 player as a freshman at Arizona State in a season that Pomeroy says most closely mirrors Wesley Matthews freshman campaign.

Of course, the one problem with this much balance is that it will likely filter down to an 8-man rotation.  So what we are really saying is not that Marquette will end the season with 12 or 13 players in the top 1000, but that with 13 players capable of doing it we have a lot of chances for a few players to step up and be top 200 players, and  a few more to step up and be top 500 players, etc.  A team with only five top 500 players and no others in the top 1000 can fall apart much quicker if two of their players have off years.

We are close to setting up a separate database so you can pull up all these players, but for now I’ll give you the rest of the run of which teams would be seeded where in the NCAA tournament, or make the NIT based on the total projected Value Add they have right now.  Since Kentucky is the one team still in the mix for four of the top freshmen, I split the difference with them and assumed they would get two of their final targets.

All caps indicates the automatic NCAA bid for being the top team in their conference:


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;}


RankTeamConfProj TotSeed[/tr]

1	INDIANA	B10	47.30	1
2	BAYLOR	B12	41.69	1
3	NOTRE DAME	BE	37.51	1
4	UCLA	P12	35.93	1
5	Louisville	BE	35.58	2
6	NORTH CAROLINA ST.	ACC	34.80	2
7	Michigan St.	B10	34.01	2
8	Ohio St.	B10	33.81	2
9	Texas	B12	33.70	3
10	KENTUCKY	SEC	32.67	3
11	Marquette	BE	32.31	3
12	Florida	SEC	32.15	3
13	MEMPHIS	CUSA	31.78	4
14	Providence	BE	31.74	4
15	Pittsburgh	BE	31.40	4
16	Missouri	SEC	31.29	4
17	Minnesota	B10	30.22	5
18	CREIGHTON	MVC	29.74	5
19	Syracuse	BE	29.51	5
20	Duke	ACC	29.39	5
21	Georgetown	BE	29.05	6
22	Wisconsin	B10	28.86	6
23	California	P12	28.70	6
24	NEVADA LAS VEGAS	MWC	28.68	6
25	Iowa St.	B12	28.37	7
26	North Carolina	ACC	28.12	7
27	Michigan	B10	28.01	7
28	Oklahoma St.	B12	27.95	7
29	GONZAGA	WCC	27.48	8
30	Tennessee	SEC	27.41	8
31	Maryland	ACC	27.27	8
32	Arizona	P12	27.22	8
33	Kansas	B12	26.93	9
34	Arkansas	SEC	26.69	9
35	Kansas St.	B12	26.62	9
36	Connecticut	BE	26.42	9
37	Iowa	B10	26.24	10
38	SAINT JOSEPH'S	A10	26.10	10
39	Stanford	P12	25.97	10
40	Temple	A10	25.49	10
41	New Mexico	MWC	25.32	11
42	Illinois St.	MVC	24.54	11
43	Villanova	BE	24.29	11
44	Mississippi	SEC	24.20	11
48	VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH	CAA	23.72	12
51	DAVIDSON	SC	23.40	12
45	Colorado	P12	24.11	12-PI
46	Virginia Tech	ACC	24.07	12-PI
47	La Salle	A10	23.84	12-PI
49	Richmond	A10	23.70	12-PI
59	HARVARD	Ivy	22.71	13
60	SOUTH DAKOTA ST.	Sum	22.37	13
61	OHIO	MAC	21.40	13
68	SOUTH CAROLINA UPSTATE	ASun	19.90	13
72	BUCKNELL	Pat	19.04	14
74	BELMONT	OVC	18.90	14
80	BUTLER	Horz	18.25	14
83	UTAH ST.	WAC	17.76	14
87	VERMONT	AE	17.33	15
88	DENVER	SB	17.28	15
95	LOYOLA MD	MAAC	16.65	15
96	ROBERT MORRIS	NEC	16.29	15
136	MONTANA	BSky	12.18	16
149	SAVANNAH ST.	MEAC	10.44	16
150	LONG BEACH ST.	BW	10.43	16-PI
183	STEPHEN F. AUSTIN	Slnd	6.91	16-PI
187	NC ASHEVILLE	BSth	6.69	16-PI
194	TEXAS SOUTHERN	SWAC	6.31	16-PI
50	Oregon St.	P12	23.54	NIT
52	Alabama	SEC	23.27	NIT
53	San Diego St.	MWC	23.26	NIT
54	Northwestern	B10	23.10	NIT
55	Rutgers	BE	23.08	NIT
56	Oklahoma	B12	22.93	NIT
57	West Virginia	B12	22.80	NIT
58	St. Louis	A10	22.80	NIT
62	Colorado St.	MWC	21.35	NIT
63	Miami FL	ACC	21.28	NIT
64	Houston	CUSA	21.23	NIT
65	Virginia	ACC	20.85	NIT
66	St. Mary's	WCC	20.83	NIT
67	Texas Tech	B12	20.10	NIT
69	Northern Iowa	MVC	19.60	NIT
70	Drexel	CAA	19.27	NIT
71	Akron	MAC	19.04	NIT
73	Xavier	A10	18.97	NIT
75	South Carolina	SEC	18.77	NIT
76	St. John's	BE	18.73	NIT
77	Massachusetts	A10	18.72	NIT
78	Lehigh	Pat	18.66	NIT
79	Georgia Tech	ACC	18.33	NIT
81	Seton Hall	BE	18.03	NIT
82	Washington St.	P12	17.98	NIT
84	Murray St.	OVC	17.65	NIT
85	South Florida	BE	17.55	NIT
86	Valparaiso	Horz	17.40	NIT
89	Central Florida	CUSA	17.24	NIT
90	North Texas	SB	17.12	NIT
91	Purdue	B10	17.04	NIT
92	Middle Tennessee	SB	16.89	NIT

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/04/could-marquette-have-most-balanced-team.html

If I may, let me pose a question ... actually two.

First, in all the analysis offered to date, how is the coaching, or "X" factor considered? Is it, or is it just players?

That is, can analysis be based solely of the quality of players? The coach, along with the coaching staff, conditioning, nutrition, etc., would appear to this uneducated Warrior fan to require some "weight" in a probability analysis. (An example would be Coach Rick Pitino at Louisville.)

Second, as a variation of the above point, Coach Williams has a very definitive set of parameters/beliefs when it comes to his team. Obviously, he believes above all in transition. He also has said, in a very telling phrase, "fast beats big, if fast is fast." How does a Coach recruiting players that fit his/her very specific style, get weighed into an analysis? (One might also ask the relative value of character/work ethic/coach ability to develop players as other factors.)

With a new head coach, the above questions, obviously, cannot be addressed. But, with a Coach who has five years of head coaching experience, and hence a record/"sample", it seems that a value can be given to these points.

As always, thank you for your great analysis and for sharing it with the Warrior World. 

Thanks, and the short answer is that yes it should be factored in, but it is not here just because I am not qualified.  Also, style of matchup is key, and I'm not qualified to do that.

I believe value add is a great tool to measure exactly how valuable a player has been over the course of a season. From there it gives a good starting point for looking at the next season based on how much remaining players normally improve, however looking into the future with stats is never precise. You need a jay bilas to say, yeah that team has top 50 talent but it's all on the frontline so teams will press them and kill them, or "this is the kind of mix of players that pitino makes runs with," or "this team really is good but in this tourney matchup they have bad matchup problems that will make it hard to beat a lesser team."

For this reason I'm usually very good at playing out how a team will do over 35 games, but very bad at picking individual bracket matchups in the tourney.

Quote from: CrackedSidewalksSays on April 16, 2012, 01:00:06 AM
Could Marquette have most balanced team in 2012-13; and another 3-seed?

Of course, the one problem with this much balance is that it will likely filter down to an 8-man rotation.  So what we are really saying is not that Marquette will end the season with 12 or 13 players in the top 1000, but that with 13 players capable of doing it we have a lot of chances for a few players to step up and be top 200 players, and  a few more to step up and be top 500 players, etc.  A team with only five top 500 players and no others in the top 1000 can fall apart much quicker if two of their players have off years.

So, you're assuming that Buzz Williams will always play an eight man rotation regardless of amount of depth he has on the team?  Even given the lack of as strong of a top two duo as Marquette had this past year?

Quote from: UticaBusBarn on April 16, 2012, 09:05:28 AM
If I may, let me pose a question ... actually two.

First, in all the analysis offered to date, how is the coaching, or "X" factor considered? Is it, or is it just players?

That is, can analysis be based solely of the quality of players? The coach, along with the coaching staff, conditioning, nutrition, etc., would appear to this uneducated Warrior fan to require some "weight" in a probability analysis. (An example would be Coach Rick Pitino at Louisville.)

Second, as a variation of the above point, Coach Williams has a very definitive set of parameters/beliefs when it comes to his team. Obviously, he believes above all in transition. He also has said, in a very telling phrase, "fast beats big, if fast is fast." How does a Coach recruiting players that fit his/her very specific style, get weighed into an analysis? (One might also ask the relative value of character/work ethic/coach ability to develop players as other factors.)

With a new head coach, the above questions, obviously, cannot be addressed. But, with a Coach who has five years of head coaching experience, and hence a record/"sample", it seems that a value can be given to these points.

As always, thank you for your great analysis and for sharing it with the Warrior World.  

Can we quantify the advantage that Marquette receives from having Real Chili near campus?  How about the effect on the team's performance from the closing of Angelos?  Would the providing of cream cheese to go with post practice bagels provide enough of a nutritional edge to justify the risk of potential NCAA "extra benefit" sanctions?

Quote from: LittleMurs on April 16, 2012, 12:23:44 PM
So, you're assuming that Buzz Williams will always play an eight man rotation regardless of amount of depth he has on the team?  Even given the lack of as strong of a top two duo as Marquette had this past year?

I think he was commenting in general that teams will gravitate to playing 8 players. Some will be more or some will be less.

The three biggest things you cannot quantify are:
Injuries (MU was had more than their share in recent years)
Luck Who makes or misses game ending winning shot, etc.
Disgruntled freshmen who hurt team chemistry

Quote from: bamamarquettefan on April 16, 2012, 10:22:10 AM
Thanks, and the short answer is that yes it should be factored in, but it is not here just because I am not qualified.  Also, style of matchup is key, and I'm not qualified to do that.

I believe value add is a great tool to measure exactly how valuable a player has been over the course of a season. From there it gives a good starting point for looking at the next season based on how much remaining players normally improve, however looking into the future with stats is never precise. You need a jay bilas to say, yeah that team has top 50 talent but it's all on the frontline so teams will press them and kill them, or "this is the kind of mix of players that pitino makes runs with," or "this team really is good but in this tourney matchup they have bad matchup problems that will make it hard to beat a lesser team."

For this reason I'm usually very good at playing out how a team will do over 35 games, but very bad at picking individual bracket matchups in the tourney.

Let us take the discussion a step farther ... or, at least try.

If one (you  :) ) took the top 1,000 players, broke them into five groups of 200, worked out an average annual value increase in performance for each group, and then applied the total increase/decrease individual number to each team member's value change compared to the average of their "class", and then added up that total plus/minus number for each team would that not give an indication of coaching ability/player development?

That is, the more a team (the total amount above the individual class average) improves, as compared to other teams' total increased team valued added, the stronger the value added of the coach.

Since you already have the individual caculation numbers (Jae Crowder, for instance) that predict the value added based on last season, games during the season, etc., setting up a statistical medium and the difference between the medium increase and the team's increase should then provide an indication of the coach/support staff/culture value added.

Just a thought ... sort of like figuring out the value of point guard, or it could just be causing confusion. :)

Thx for the comments - I was flying all day so just saw them.

Wow, that last one hit close to home. one reason for the database I'll be putting out soon is the really pinpoint standard improvement and I would certainly seem MU has improved players a lot more than other teams.

On the earlier question, I was just an observation on the tendency coaches seem to have to settle around 8.  However, ever since we blitzed Michigan, Xavier and Flo state for 27 minutes, I've dreamed of MU running a 40 minutes of hell 10 man rotation. Bit may be that crowder was so crucial that we could risk the foul out this year, but next year I we are this balanced maybe this is the year - of course with davante scoring a poin per minute in half court for stretches as well.