[Cracked Sidewalks] Top 50 College Basketball Teams in 2014 (Way, way too early, but objective)

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

Top 50 College Basketball Teams in 2014 (Way, way too early, but objective)

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (bamamarquettefan1)

In an overly enthusiastic moment during a back-and-forth on a blog a while back, I gave Marquette a 15% chance of winning a national title in 2014 if their roster held firm.  Today I punched up the www.valueaddbasketball.com database for a more scientific look at how the teams stack up for the 2013-14 college basketball season.  Let's start by looking at Marquette's roster - and keep in mind that while Value Add is a very precise measure, Projected Value for future seasons is of course just an estimate that can be dramatically changed by who works out harder in the offseason.
[size="12pt"]  Marquette 2014 Roster With Projected Value Adds


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;}

 



2014 RosterHtClass2014 VA[/tr]

Blue, Vander	6-f-4	4 Sr	4.01
Gardner, Davante	6-f-8	4 Sr	5.54
Otule, Chris	6-f-11	4 Sr	2.42
Thomas, Jake	6-f-3	4 Sr	1.73
Wilson, Jamil	6-f-7	4 Sr	4.07
Anderson, Juan	6-f-6	3 Jr	3.19
Mayo, Todd	6-f-3	3 Jr	3.99
Taylor, TJ	6-f-3	3 Jr	2.31
Wilson, Derrick	6-f-0	3 Jr	1.20
Ferguson, Jamal	6-f-3	2 So	2.95
Taylor, Steve	6-f-7	2 So	3.46
Burton, Deonte	6-f-5	1 Fr	2.88
Wilson, Duane	6-f-3	1 Fr	1.89
2014 Total Projection			39.64
Average Freshman Class			3.40
Total Projected 2014 Value			43.04

This really might be the most balanced roster in the country, because while no player approaches the 9% level of a typical All-American, all 13 players are easily above the 1% that indicates a strong 6th, 7th or 8th player in a rotation.  (3% or better is typically a good BCS starter)
[size="14pt"]  The Top 50 teams of 2014In a vacuum that looks great, but this is the first time I've been able to see how Marquette stacks up against the other 340 teams out there.  While obviously this is a moving target, the following are the things you need to track to have a measure of how good each team should be:
1. The projected Value Add of each player on a team based on the standard percent increase from a freshman becoming a sophomore, etc.  For incoming freshmen, the average Value Add of past freshman since 2006 (e.g. the average freshman ranked as high as Deonte Burton is now has produced 2.88% Value Add, so that is his estimate).  The fact that so much of MUs roster has two years to improve, gives it one of the best projected Value Adds in the country, though the young Texas team has the best at 45.25.

2. The Value of Transfers.  TJ McConnell has quietly been one of the 15 most valuable players in the country the past two years at Duquesne, and after his transfer year he adds to Arizona's incredible roster to give them the highest projected Value Add.  Obviously there will be many more transfers between now and then, but since Value Add gives each player a specific value, if Rodney Hood signs with Louisville we simply add his 5.63 and Louisville moves up from 35th place (25.42) to 16th place (31.05).

3. Who will leave for the NBA after the 2013 season?  I have NOT added the value of any player projected to go in the 2013 draft to a team's total, but I have listed them in case they stay.  So if James McAdoo and PJ Hairston decide they want to stay at UNC they move into 2nd in the country, and if Nerlens Noel and Archie Goodwin decide they want to stay at Kentucky then the Wilcats become the favorite.  But normally players go once they are good enough to make it. Marquette and UConn are the only two teams in the country to put five SENIORS in the NBA in this database (2006-2011), which does not count Travis Diener (2005).  Hopefully DJO and Jae Crowder will make it 7 seniors in 7 years, and 8 in 8 with Diener.  Usually a player leaves when they are good enough to make the NBA - and no team in the country has been able to watch as many future NBA players play through their senior year as Marquette.

4. Finally, since most of the 2013 freshman class is not yet signed, I have credited each team with the average freshman value it has put together each season.  During the seven years in the database, John Calipari has averaged recruiting a freshman class that has put 12.1 Value Add in a season, way more than any other team.  Marquette just averages 3.40 in freshman Value Add each class, the 40th best total in the country.  Therefore I gave each team their "average" freshman class of the last seven years in a second column, then added two together in the next column.

The following is the resulting top 50 for the 2014 season.  My "15% chance of a title" was definitely high, but objectively Marquette does look like the 7th best team in the country two years from now.  Providence and Iowa project as the other potential huge jumps.  Odds are not all three really contend with the national powers, but this far out we are just looking at potential, and the potential is there for another Final Four.

Hopefully none of the rumors of changing internal academic policies chasing players out of the program are true, because Buzz has this team lined up to give us a shot.  Here is how the Top 50 stacks up:




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;}

 



Rnk2014 TeamProj VAAve. FrTotalAssume gone to NBA[/tr]

1	Texas	45.25	9.30	54.55	Kabongo, Myck 6.43
2	Arizona	46.31	5.00	51.31	No projected 2013 draftees
3	Kentucky	36.74	12.10	48.84	Noel, Nerlens 10/Goodwin, Archie 7.34
4	UCLA	40.19	5.20	45.39	Muhammad, Shabazz 10.5
5	Maryland	40.55	3.40	43.95	Len, Alex 2.11
6	Providence	39.77	3.70	43.47	No projected 2013 draftees
7	Marquette	39.64	3.40	43.04	No projected 2013 draftees
8	Iowa	39.18	3.60	42.78	No projected 2013 draftees
9	Connecticut	36.39	6.30	42.69	No projected 2013 draftees
10	North Carolina	34.62	7.40	42.02	McAdoo, James 6.44/Hairston, PJ 5.86
11	Michigan St.	37.37	3.80	41.17	Dawson, Branden 8.48
12	Memphis	35.73	5.30	41.03	Thomas, Adonis 5.37
13	Ohio St.	32.05	8.40	40.45	Thomas, Deshaun 9.56
14	Indiana	34.90	5.40	40.30	Zeller, Cody 14.5/Oladipo, Victor 6.65
15	California	34.80	3.50	38.30	No projected 2013 draftees
16	Kansas	31.24	5.10	36.34	No projected 2013 draftees
17	Georgetown	30.50	5.00	35.50	Porter, Otto 12.08
18	Michigan	30.71	4.40	35.11	Burke, Trey 10.72/Hardaway, Tim 5.1
19	Stanford	34.71	0.00	34.71	No projected 2013 draftees
20	Notre Dame	33.90	0.00	33.90	No projected 2013 draftees
21	Duke	25.24	7.40	32.64	No projected 2013 draftees
22	Virginia	32.09	0.00	32.09	No projected 2013 draftees
23	Houston	31.71	0.00	31.71	No projected 2013 draftees
24	Alabama	27.45	4.10	31.55	No projected 2013 draftees
25	Baylor	27.25	3.90	31.15	Austin, Isaiah 9.08
26	Florida	25.99	5.00	30.99	Young, Patric 6.53
27	Arkansas	27.08	3.90	30.98	Young, BJ 11.67
28	Texas Tech	30.64	0.00	30.64	No projected 2013 draftees
29	Louisville	25.42	5.10	30.52	Dieng, Gorgui 9/Blackshear, Wayne 4.1
30	Mississippi	27.41	3.10	30.51	No projected 2013 draftees
31	Pittsburgh	26.53	3.50	30.03	Adams, Steven 9.28
32	Colorado	26.71	3.10	29.81	Roberson, Andre 9.77
33	Nevada Las Vegas	29.20	0.00	29.20	Moser, Mike 7.39
34	Villanova	25.36	3.70	29.06	No projected 2013 draftees
35	North Carolina St.	25.16	3.80	28.96	Brown, Lorenzo 7.48/Leslie CJ 5.33
36	St. John's	28.96	0.00	28.96	No projected 2013 draftees
37	Syracuse	23.59	5.20	28.79	Carter-Williams, Michael 4.31
38	Tennessee	28.45	0.00	28.45	No projected 2013 draftees
39	Oklahoma St.	27.95	0.00	27.95	Nash, Le'Bryan 6.93
40	New Mexico	27.10	0.00	27.10	No projected 2013 draftees
41	Texas A&M	26.91	0.00	26.91	No projected 2013 draftees
42	Rutgers	22.26	4.30	26.56	No projected 2013 draftees
43	West Virginia	26.52	0.00	26.52	No projected 2013 draftees
44	Xavier	26.44	0.00	26.44	No projected 2013 draftees
45	Oregon State	25.52	0.00	25.52	No projected 2013 draftees
46	Iowa State	21.66	3.80	25.46	No projected 2013 draftees
47	South Florida	25.26	0.00	25.26	No projected 2013 draftees
48	Seton Hall	24.60	0.00	24.60	No projected 2013 draftees
49	Harvard	24.59	0.00	24.59	No projected 2013 draftees
50	Virginia Tech	24.42	0.00	24.42	No projected 2013 draftees

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/05/top-50-college-basketball-teams-in-2014.html

[UticaBusBarn]

Well, 'bama, it may be too early, and goodness knows what might happen in two years, but, more importantly it is very, very interesting to see and read your analysis!

While this fan believes the "numbers are the numbers" and that probability can be accurately charted, the 2012-13 Warriors should be more than just a little bit interesting.

Not to be redundant, but it appears that coming season team has a huge up-side. This because Coach Williams has his type of team from top to bottom. That is, speed, speed, speed, young legs, hunger and depth. One would speculate that this team can/should/will run their opponents in the ground, on both offense and defense, by having a 9 to 10 deep rotation.

The keys, are Mayo, Gardner and Blue. Mayo appears to have that star/killer gleam in his eye. Just look at his play and the air about him during the NCAA games.

When Gardner goes on the floor, the Warrior offense changes so radically, that the opposing team has to significantly re-caliber everything. The Georgetown game at home is an example.

Blue, should make the same sort of development step forward going into his junior season, as he did last season. Thus, he becomes basically becomes the key on defense and on transition offense.

Anyway, with full kudos to Coach Williams, this coming team, and the more talented 2014 team will again be entertaining and great fun to watch.

As a footnote, in two years all of us will look back and no doubt conclude your numbers were way too low as the Warriors become a high first seed team

[bamamarquettefan]

Thanks for reading, and I agree completely.  None of this is to look past 2013 either, as I have us just a few spots lower this coming year, AND this could be a more wide open year in college basketball because UNC and Kentucky should be down a little.  Not NIT down like UNC a couple of years ago, but there just isn't enough talent out there to replace what they lost, so I can't see either of them being the team we simply could not beat if we drew them.

I agree on Vander and Mayo being potential breakouts, BUT usually the freshman to sophomore jump is much bigger than the sophomore to junior jump, so Mayo could come up even more.  However, since Mayo is actually older than Blue it is certainly possible Blue could jump more - i would just think Mayo because I believe the first year in the Big East is such a shock and adjustment from high school that I believe the bigger jump will be freshmen to sophomore.

The future looks fun - looking forward to both years ...

[bilsu]

Gardner 5.54 and O'tule 2.42 seems odd, since most people would expect O'tule to be the starter.

[tower912]

Not really.   From the measurable statistics perspective, DG is better.   Points, points per minute, offensive rebounds, etc.   Chris is a better one on one defender, better help defender, etc.   Chris will start but DG will play at least equal minutes. 

[Jay Bee]

I think a key here is the number of capable players projected to be on the 2013-14 roster.  We've been fortunate to withstand injuries as well as we have in recent years and should be able to do so two season from now with the number of talented players available.

Bama... if there's a different way to think about this, please let me know your thoughts.. but, when I think of Value Add, I look at historical/actual value add as a very good measurement of what happened. 

Projected value add provides great insight to the future, but requires quite a bit of additional analysis to begin to get a great feel for the future (especially with regard to team vs. team rankings).  Even from a numbers perspective -- implied in the value add projections are certain possessions used and minutes played assumptions, yes?  Such that you could have one team who has a value add projection that assumes a team is going to play 120% of available minutes and use 135% of their possessions.. yet something completely different for another team.

[bilsu]

Not really.   From the measurable statistics perspective, DG is better.   Points, points per minute, offensive rebounds, etc.   Chris is a better one on one defender, better help defender, etc.   Chris will start but DG will play at least equal minutes. 

There is a hugh disparity in the value added numbers. This clearly indicates that the statistical approach does not reflect the value of making your teammates better. O'tule allows us to play team defense differently. Gardner needs help on defense.

[brewcity77]

There is a hugh disparity in the value added numbers. This clearly indicates that the statistical approach does not reflect the value of making your teammates better. O'tule allows us to play team defense differently. Gardner needs help on defense.

Quantifying defensive numbers is incredibly difficult. If anyone is ever able to come up with a reliable way to put accurate reliable defensive statistics to players, I think that would be something they'd stand to make a lot of money off.

[bamamarquettefan]

I think a key here is the number of capable players projected to be on the 2013-14 roster.  We've been fortunate to withstand injuries as well as we have in recent years and should be able to do so two season from now with the number of talented players available.

Bama... if there's a different way to think about this, please let me know your thoughts.. but, when I think of Value Add, I look at historical/actual value add as a very good measurement of what happened. 

Projected value add provides great insight to the future, but requires quite a bit of additional analysis to begin to get a great feel for the future (especially with regard to team vs. team rankings).  Even from a numbers perspective -- implied in the value add projections are certain possessions used and minutes played assumptions, yes?  Such that you could have one team who has a value add projection that assumes a team is going to play 120% of available minutes and use 135% of their possessions.. yet something completely different for another team.

Thanks all for reading and all good points, but let me focus on this one.

The Projected Value Add does not go to the extent of recreating how many minutes and possessions would be used by each player depending on who has left - though certainly your instinct is correct and maybe it will get there at some point.

That is all implicit in the numbers, but the actual equation is a historic measurement of how much Value Add a player typically adds based on what he has achieved the year before and what class he is in.  The control effect for the player who is stuck out of the rotation behind 6 NBA-bound players for KEntucky or UNC is that if he doesn't have any Value Add the previous year due to a lack of minutes, we give him a "minimum" of what he would have projected to do his freshman year if he had not been saddled on the bench.

On Otule, his offense is obviously very poor and his defense very good.  Typically offensive Value Add improves a lot more than Defensive Value Add every year, so Gardner's truly incredible offense is likely to continue to improve even before you consider his numbers being held down by playing on one leg.

His offensive efficiency was 117.9 and 118.4 his first two years, and he is one of only 10 BCS players to be that high for both 2011 and 2012.  Here are the rest to give you a sense of just how strong an offensive player he is:

Only 10 BCS players with Offensive ratings of 117.9 or higher in 2011 and 2012:
Ryan Kelly   Duke
Doron Lamb   Kentucky
Davante Gardner   Marquette
Jae Crowder   Marquette
Marcus Denmon   Missouri
Ricardo Ratliffe   Missouri
Tyler Zeller   North Carolina
Scott Wood   North Carolina St.
Ryne Smith   Purdue
John Jenkins   Vanderbilt

Chris defense is awesome, as I've written, but I don't believe he will take as many points off the board as Davante adds on the board, so he could be a starter but play fewer minutes next year.  If Davante is healthy and was able to continue to drop weight, he is simply such a dominant scorer whenever in the game that I believe it will be very hard to leave him on the bench.

Remember, last year for all the defense you got when you put Otule in the game - and I love him to death, you were dropping from a 118.4 Offensive Rating to a 90.5 for Chris, so a well below an average offensive player.

But to bilsu's basic point that you can't measure how much it helped the rest of the players to have Chris boxing out opponents and altering shots, i agree, he was awesome in the things that don't show up in the stats.  I just believe it's hard to see him being more valuable than Davante next year since players rarely get much better after they are juniors while players make tremendous jumps between the sophomore and junior year where Davante is right now.

[brewcity77]

On Otule, his offense is obviously very poor and his defense very good.  Typically offensive Value Add improves a lot more than Defensive Value Add every year, so Gardner's truly incredible offense is likely to continue to improve even before you consider his numbers being held down by playing on one leg.

I'm not convinced Otule is a "very poor" offensive player. Certainly he's limited, but I think he can develop into an average offensive player over the next two years. Right now he may be below average, but very poor might be pushing it a bit. He added a pivot move with a left-handed finish that he didn't really get the chance to display in his limited games last year that could actually give him some limited moves in the post. Granted, I don't see him as ever being on DG's level offensively, or even close, but I do think him becoming an average offensive center and excellent defensive center is very possible.

And that 90.5 is a deceiving number to use. He accumulated that rating in incredibly limited minutes. It'd probably be more accurate to look at the previous season where he played a full year and put up a 101.3 O-Rating (per Kenpom). Still a drop-off, but not nearly the precipitous drop that 90.5 rating indicates.

[Jay Bee]

I'm not convinced Otule is a "very poor" offensive player. Certainly he's limited, but I think he can develop into an average offensive player over the next two years. Right now he may be below average, but very poor might be pushing it a bit. He added a pivot move with a left-handed finish that he didn't really get the chance to display in his limited games last year that could actually give him some limited moves in the post. Granted, I don't see him as ever being on DG's level offensively, or even close, but I do think him becoming an average offensive center and excellent defensive center is very possible.

And that 90.5 is a deceiving number to use. He accumulated that rating in incredibly limited minutes. It'd probably be more accurate to look at the previous season where he played a full year and put up a 101.3 O-Rating (per Kenpom). Still a drop-off, but not nearly the precipitous drop that 90.5 rating indicates.

I think you may be getting a little tangled up in describing his value add and his ability.  The 90.5 is not a deceiving number - it's a very good number to consider when discussing his value and performance in 2011-12. 

However, it's fair to say that he played very few minutes last season and the numbers he put up are reflected of the player he is / can be / should reasonably be expected to be going forward.

I think it'll be interesting to look at some teams and really try to project (not so scientifically) the value add of a team... Otule is an example where his projected value add may be too low for 2012-13 and an adjustment can reasonably be argued for in a projection exercise.

   

[MU82]

I'll just be psyched to have two big bodies and 10 fouls available. If both stay healthy, it will be so nice to not have to have others play out of position due to foul trouble, injuries, etc. The way Gardner affects the offense and Otule affects the defense are givens if they get the minutes we think they'll get.