[Cracked Sidewalks] Georgetown's two All-Big East Players Next Up; MU one of Few Teams with 4 in Top 10%

[CrackedSidewalks]

Georgetown's two All-Big East Players Next Up; MU one of Few Teams with 4 in Top 10%

The Georgetown Hoyas will be the first to visit after Christmas, and they bring two of the top six Big East players in Rodney Pryor and LJ Peak.

Marquette counters with balance. Markus Howard might be be in the top 10% of all Value Add players (top 400) if not for the concussion, and even without him Marquette is one of only 22 teams with four players in the top 10 percent at www.valueaddbasketball.com. MU joins fellow Big East teams Butler, Seton Hall and Villanova as well as the ACC's Clemson, Duke and North Carolina; the American's Cincinnati and SMU; the Big Ten's Indiana, Michigan, Purdue and Wisconsin; the Big 12s Baylor and Texas Tech; the MVC's Wichita St.; the Pac 12s Oregon, UCLA and USC; the SEC's Kentucky and South Carolina; and finally the WCC's Gonzaga.

While we will need to clean up the headers, Value Add also now indicates when an injured player will return (Gone if left team, Sea if out for season, or the month they will return) and how many games they have played. Remember that any time a player misses a game his Value Add ranking for that game is 0.0, so Bradley Hayes for Georgetown has a Value Add ranking of 1.50, but when you notice he has played only 8 games while his teammates have played 12, you realize he would be worth about 50% more (2.25 Value Add) if he has not had to sit out the first four games.

Rnk	Player	VA4D	Team	Pos/Inj	Ht	Class
1	Josh Hart, No.3	16.2	Villanova	SG*1.1*12Gms	6' 5"	Sr
17	JP Macura, No.55	10.9	Xavier	PG*1.2*12Gms	6' 5"	Jr
28	Rodney Pryor, No.23	10.3	Georgetown	C*1*12Gms	6' 5"	Sr
31	Mikal Bridges, No.25	10.2	Villanova	SF*1*12Gms	6' 7"	So
43	Trevon Bluiett, No.5	9.7	Xavier	SF*1*12Gms	6' 6"	Jr
44	LJ Peak, No.0	9.7	Georgetown	SG*1.1*12Gms	6' 5"	Jr
65	Khyri Thomas, No.2	8.9	Creighton	SG*1.1*12Gms	6' 3"	So
69	Shamorie Ponds, No.2	8.8	St. John's	SG*1.1*13Gms	6' 1"	Fr
73	Andrew Chrabascz, No.45	8.8	Butler	SG*1.1*12Gms	6' 7"	Sr
92	Jalen Brunson, No.1	8.3	Villanova	PG*1.2*12Gms	6' 2"	So
95	Emmitt Holt, No.15	8.2	Providence	SG*1.1*11Gms	6' 7"	Jr
101	Edmond Sumner, No.4	8.1	Xavier	SG*1.1*12Gms	6' 6"	So
115	Tyler Lewis, No.1	7.9	Butler	PG*1.2*12Gms	5' 11"	Sr
124	Justin Patton, No.23	7.7	Creighton	C*1*12Gms	7' 0	Fr
152	Jalen Lindsey, No.21	7.3	Providence	C*1*12Gms	6' 7"	Jr
171	Khadeen Carrington, No.0	7.1	Seton Hall	SG*1.1*11Gms	6' 4"	Jr
191	Rodney Bullock, No.5	6.8	Providence	SF*1*12Gms	6' 8"	Jr
223	Kris Jenkins, No.2	6.6	Villanova	PF*1*12Gms	6' 6"	Sr
237	Luke Fischer, No.40	6.4	Marquette	C*1*12Gms	6' 11"	Sr
263	Angel Delgado, No.31	6.2	Seton Hall	C*1*11Gms	6' 10"	Jr
274	Kelan Martin, No.30	6.2	Butler	PF*1*12Gms	6' 7"	Jr
287	Haanif Cheatham, No.25	6.1	Marquette	SG*1.1*12Gms	6' 5"	So
298	Jessie Govan, No.15	6	Georgetown	PF*1*12Gms	6' 10"	So
302	JaJuan Johnson, No.23	6	Marquette	SF*1*12Gms	6' 5"	Sr
354	Myles Powell, No.13	5.7	Seton Hall	SG*1.1*11Gms	6' 2"	Fr
359	Desi Rodriguez, No.20	5.6	Seton Hall	SF*1*11Gms	6' 6"	Jr
381	Tyler Wideman, No.4	5.5	Butler	C*1*12Gms	6' 8"	Jr
382	Maurice Watson, No.10	5.5	Creighton	PG*1.2*12Gms	5' 10"	Sr
392	Sam Hauser, No.10	5.4	Marquette	PF*1*12Gms	6' 6"	Fr
415	Marcus Foster, No.0	5.3	Creighton	SG*1.1*12Gms	6' 3"	Jr
479	Eli Cain, No.11	4.9	DePaul	SF*1*12Gms	6' 6"	So
482	Kamar Baldwin, No.3	4.9	Butler	SG*1.1*12Gms	6' 0	Fr
527	Darryl Reynolds, No.45	4.6	Villanova	C*1*12Gms	6' 9"	Sr
528	RaShid Gaston, No.35	4.6	Xavier	C*1*12Gms	6' 9"	Sr
609	Markus Howard, No.0	4.2	Marquette	PG*1.2*11Gms	5' 11"	Fr
616	Avery Woodson, No.0	4.2	Butler	PG*1.2*12Gms	6' 2"	Sr
621	Donte DiVincenzo, No.10	4.2	Villanova	SF*1*12Gms	6' 5"	So
672	Kyron Cartwright, No.24	4	Providence	PG*1.2*12Gms	5' 11"	Jr
733	Marcus LoVett, No.15	3.7	St. John's	PG*1.2*10Gms	6' 0	Fr
742	Tre'Darius McCallum, No.10	3.7	DePaul	PF*1*12Gms	6' 7"	Jr
780	Toby Hegner, No.32	3.5	Creighton	C*1*12Gms	6' 10"	Jr
817	Nate Fowler, No.51	3.4	Butler	PF*1*12Gms	6' 10"	So
846	Tariq Owens, No.11	3.3	St. John's	C*1*13Gms	6' 11"	So
847	Madison Jones, No.30	3.3	Seton Hall	PG*1.2*11Gms	6' 2"	Sr
894	Cole Huff, No.13	3.1	Creighton	SF*1*12Gms	6' 8"	Sr
946	Andrew Rowsey, No.30	3	Marquette	PG*1.2*12Gms	5' 10"	Jr
969	Eric Paschall, No.4	2.9	Villanova	C*1*12Gms	6' 7"	So
1034	Michael Nzei, No.1	2.7	Seton Hall	C*1*11Gms	6' 8"	So
1037	Ryan Fazekas, No.35	2.7	Providence	PF*1*12Gms	6' 8"	So
1132	Sean O'Mara, No.54	2.5	Xavier	C*1*12Gms	6' 10"	Jr
1183	Duane Wilson, No.1	2.3	Marquette	SG*1.1*12Gms	6' 2"	Jr

Source: Georgetown's two All-Big East Players Next Up; MU one of Few Teams with 4 in Top 10%

[Windyplayer]

To be fair, GU has two in the top 50. Our first listed is #237.

[MerrittsMustache]

Perfect illustration of why MU has not been a tourney team the last few seasons. Since Vander left, MU just hasn't had a legit, consistent go-to guy. MU is a team of very good second fiddles but has no one to bring it all together.

[Windyplayer]

Perfect illustration of why MU has not been a tourney team the last few seasons. Since Vander left, MU just hasn't had a legit, consistent go-to guy. MU is a team of very good second fiddles but has no one to bring it all together.

Cheatham needs to be that guy.

[auburnmarquette]

I agree - with the incredible 3-point shooting we have, if Cheatham can go to the hoop like he does, but also keep in mind the option of kicking back out for a 3, I believe he could be like Dominic James that freshman year when he had Novak.

[brewcity77]

I was unimpressed with Pryor their first few games, but he's definitely proving me wrong. What worries me is that in some ways, GT reminds me of Pitt. Hope we've learned since then.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I was unimpressed with Pryor their first few games, but he's definitely proving me wrong. What worries me is that in some ways, GT reminds me of Pitt. Hope we've learned since then.

Both have two dominant players and a bunch of supporting actors. But GTWNs two are guards while Pitt's was a very large wing and a center.

[auburnmarquette]

True, it does seem we should handle guards better than anyone with the ability to go backdoor and dunk. A big, physical point guard seems more difficult for us.

[forgetful]

To be fair, GU has two in the top 50. Our first listed is #237.

This, we may have 4 in the top 10%, but we have 0 in the top 5%.

[auburnmarquette]

True. We were a little spoiled with two in the top 1% in 2003 and 2010. Davante was the last one we had in the top 5%. The first call I received from an NBA team after Sports Illustrated ran the first piece on SI was a call from the Chicago Bulls who wanted to understand why I had Jimmy Butler ranked ahead of Lazar back in Butler's junior year.

Marquette players in top 5%, with rank
2003   3   Wade, Dwyane (top 1%)
2003   39   Diener, Travis (top 1%)
2003   115   Jackson, Robert
2003   199   Merritt, Scott
2004   7   Diener, Travis (top 1%)
2005   11   Diener, Travis 91%)
2005   153   Novak, Steve
2006   17   Novak, Steve (top 1%)
2006   76   James, Dominic
2007   195   James, Dominic
2008   90   McNeal, Jerel
2008   96   James, Dominic
2008   147   Hayward, Lazar
2009   50   Matthews, Wesley
2009   80   McNeal, Jerel
2009   89   Hayward, Lazar
2010   5   Butler, Jimmy (1%)
2010   34   Hayward, Lazar (top 1%)
2010   112   Acker, Maurice
2011   48   Butler, Jimmy
2011   69   Crowder, Jae
2012   2   Crowder, Jae (top 1%)
2012   91   Johnson-Odom, Darius
2013   55   Gardner, Davante
2014   148   Gardner, Davante

[vogue65]

Why bother to play the games?
Unless basketball is a team sport, with impact from coaching and game plans, luck, experience and philosophy of refs., fan base, and weather.
I'm really into algorithms and spreadsheets, did actuarial analysis for many years, can't get my head around the data you guys keep crunching.   
How do you account for matchups, personal intimidation factors, fatigue, etc., etc.?
I think the whole pseudo science of basketball rating is rather weak.
Let the kids have fun, let the games proceed and lets enjoy the ride.

[real chili 83]

On any given night....

However, with the right sample size....

What makes the game so much fun is on any given night....

[vogue65]

On any given night....

However, with the right sample size....

What makes the game so much fun is on any given night....

The sample size is not critical, on any given night is, I'm  with you, on any given night.....
These "stat" guys need at add learning curve technology to their analysis, then they might have something.
We have a couple of guys who are way up on that curve.

[forgetful]

True. We were a little spoiled with two in the top 1% in 2003 and 2010. Davante was the last one we had in the top 5%. The first call I received from an NBA team after Sports Illustrated ran the first piece on SI was a call from the Chicago Bulls who wanted to understand why I had Jimmy Butler ranked ahead of Lazar back in Butler's junior year.

Marquette players in top 5%, with rank
2003   3   Wade, Dwyane (top 1%)
2003   39   Diener, Travis (top 1%)
2003   115   Jackson, Robert
2003   199   Merritt, Scott
2004   7   Diener, Travis (top 1%)
2005   11   Diener, Travis 91%)
2005   153   Novak, Steve
2006   17   Novak, Steve (top 1%)
2006   76   James, Dominic
2007   195   James, Dominic
2008   90   McNeal, Jerel
2008   96   James, Dominic
2008   147   Hayward, Lazar
2009   50   Matthews, Wesley
2009   80   McNeal, Jerel
2009   89   Hayward, Lazar
2010   5   Butler, Jimmy (1%)
2010   34   Hayward, Lazar (top 1%)
2010   112   Acker, Maurice
2011   48   Butler, Jimmy
2011   69   Crowder, Jae
2012   2   Crowder, Jae (top 1%)
2012   91   Johnson-Odom, Darius
2013   55   Gardner, Davante
2014   148   Gardner, Davante

Holy crap have we had a lot better walk-ons than I remember.  How did we have at least 135 walk-ons in the top 5% in 2014 and do so poorly?  Just giving you a hard time.  I think you listed the rank and name of the highest person instead of who/how many players were in the top 5%.

[auburnmarquette]

I should have clarified - the top 200 ranked players each year are the top 5% (roughly, given around 4000 players). So for each player who has finished in the top 200 I listed the year they did it and then their rank that year.

[auburnmarquette]

Why bother to play the games?
Unless basketball is a team sport, with impact from coaching and game plans, luck, experience and philosophy of refs., fan base, and weather.
I'm really into algorithms and spreadsheets, did actuarial...

The analytics revolution simply lets you peg the middle of the bell curve - all the things you mentioned can move the actual final score either way, but an outcome 10 points off the projection happens much less than a projection 2 points off the projection.

Once we peg the impact of a player in an average game for him, it just lets us determine that a team might be a 2-point favorite vs a 6-point favorite for example, making an upset much closer to a 50-50 for a game.

Las Vegas makes a ton of money setting point spreads, and they start with projections like the fanmatch page of www.kenpom.com for all the games and then make small adjustments for those factors and personnel changes. However, I wrote a piece in Breitbart last night on how the owner of the Mirage said they were only adjusting point spreads up to 2 points when a key college star is out, and when we do the math we know that having Josh Hart sit out would hurt Villanova by substantially more than two points.

I don't gamble, but the gamblers make billions by setting the point spreads based on analytics to give both sides a 50-50 chance in each game. Of course you are right that the game must be played starting with a 0-0 score - but for me it makes it more fun to see the occasional big upset when the bell curve is 10 points off. However, try watching the daily analytics spreads for all the games at www.kenpom.com for a few days and you will see what a great barometer they are - he even picks the number of games that will likely be upsets each day and that is very accurate.

[vogue65]

Interesting, BUT I think the book wants to balance the action and they live on the vig.

When I  was at MU, in the dark ages, it was all about the spread based on the betting at various locations.  We had an advantage being in a small market, Milwaukee.  Now with globalization of everything I  suppose that thinking no longer applies.  However, there might still be an advantage betting against the likes of New Jersey/Seton Hall.

I  don't bet anymore either, almost went to jail back when gambling was considered a vice and was illegal.

Your point is well taken that the book wants it close, 2 points, that leaves them an opportunity to make money on the action.

The guys at the race track and Wall Streeters selling tip sheets use the same kind of analtitics, it all looks very scientific and the users of the tip sheets come out losers.  Winners own the casinos.

My point, I  think, is that the player rating does not include change.  What happens if one of our guys decides to stop fouling, chucking, or whatever?  That throws the whole model off, no?

For example, that is why the injury report is probably the most important bit of information out there or not out there, or are we saying that history trumps the other variables?

Anyway, its fun to watch all the number crunching, amazing what computers have made possible.

On a related subject, I  think the greatest risk to big time basketball schools remains fixing games.  It is not the sexual behavior of players, their smoking pot,  or NCAA rules, it is gambling.  Therefore, I  would like to see us stop all this gambling based "analitics" discussion.

I know, not as much fun, but probably wise nonetheless. Bono Natale

[auburnmarquette]

A very good point on players improving (or declining ) during the year. I do try to point that out in what I write. For example, Duke's Justice was good most of the year and then started shooting up hundreds of spots at value add in February. His overall rating was top 5% at the end because the early season was not as strong even though he might have been the best player in the country at the time March Madness started.

This was the same problem the daily beast had when they gave Clinton a 98% chance of winning g election day - they were weighting polls from 6 months ago as much as recent polls.

Value Add is stuck in the same way - if a 2nd semester transfer gets a 0 during November and December when he is sitting out, then a 2 for January as he gets up to speed, then a 10 for February when he takes over, then his value add would calculate as a 3.00 ((0+0+2+10)÷4 months) even though he would actually be worth 10 points a game. That is an extreme case, but it does make your case on needing to just treat the numbers as a starting point.

[vogue65]

I remember when the Pentagon was trying to use the betting behavior in the markets to forecast and help them stratagise.  It might have even been working, but when it made the news it did not look good.

Is it that kenpom is using so much data that the numbers come out looking good, theory of large numbers?  Could it be as simple as that?  So on any given projection it is possible that the outlier shows up, but their overall track record always impresses?

Is there so much curve fitting/smoothing going on that at the tip of the curve nothing matters?
It is mostly averages of averages?

I suppose a point or two points is really a big deal.  They must be using lots of decimal points.

We are really back to, on any given night,  any top team can beat any other top team, but usually the favorite wins?  Because the bias is toward the favorite?  Does kenpom use a learning curve in their model, does the model learn or just adjust, again based on history, no matter how current that history might be?

On the subject of political polling, I notice recently that the media has been using averages of legit polls.  Is that useful and is that what kenpom does with all their data?  Do they run seperate senarios and then average the results?


Bottom line, kenpom looks like they are successful
when in actuality they aren't?..

[auburnmarquette]

The reason I'd say it's successful is the results do "cluster" into a bell curve when you take tons of results. So if you take all the times a team is ever favored by 5, the most common result will be a 5 poi t win, the next most common are a 4 or 6 point win, the next common is 3 or 7 etc. Not exactly in every run, but you always see the curve. More important 61% of the teams he makes 3-point favorites win, 70% he makes 6-point favorites win, almost 80% he makes 9-point favorites in etc, so you see the accuracy as a predictor with the bell curve falling off steeply as you get into double digits.

Agree JFK's wizz Kidd analytics guys in Vietnam were way off, and my friend riki Ellison was told by Tom Landry's boys - the first to use spreadsheet and formulas to rate players to rate players that he would never make the NFL - and he beat them en route to 3 super bowls. So the exceptions are great, but even if it misses on a riki Ellison the team that gets analytics in place ahead of competition have an edge - which is one reason Landry won a lot of games with the cowboys - a lot more hits than misses.

[vogue65]

The reason I'd say it's successful is the results do "cluster" into a bell curve when you take tons of results. So if you take all the times a team is ever favored by 5, the most common result will be a 5 poi t win, the next most common are a 4 or 6 point win, the next common is 3 or 7 etc. Not exactly in every run, but you always see the curve. More important 61% of the teams he makes 3-point favorites win, 70% he makes 6-point favorites win, almost 80% he makes 9-point favorites in etc, so you see the accuracy as a predictor with the bell curve falling off steeply as you get into double digits.

Agree JFK's wizz Kidd analytics guys in Vietnam were way off, and my friend riki Ellison was told by Tom Landry's boys - the first to use spreadsheet and formulas to rate players to rate players that he would never make the NFL - and he beat them en route to 3 super bowls. So the exceptions are great, but even if it misses on a riki Ellison the team that gets analytics in place ahead of competition have an edge - which is one reason Landry won a lot of games with the cowboys - a lot more hits than misses.

Thank you for your very informed, professional and polite discussion.

You probably know that MU has a half dozen guys/gals doing sports analitics for all the teams on campus.  Another advantage we have is the fact that the Bradley is wired for the NBA and we are/were getting data regarding shot selection, floor spacing, etc..  Yes, it is a data driven world.

Thank you for explaining how the data points cluster, most of the gamblers out there will never understand that nor will they understand who pays for the palaces in Vegas..

My training by the USAF in learning curve technology was very enlightening because they can actually predict the future.  When my wife started her dental practice she was frustrated by how long it took her to do a procedure.  I did a learning curve graph and showed how long it would take to do procedure 50 or 100 or 200, amazing stuff.

With end of season basketball tournaments we have a similar situation,  an opportunity to let the season long learning kick in.  That is where the high IQ player possibly pays off and where the kenpom analysis might miss the mark.   Is the handicaping more or less predictive at the end or middle of the season?

There is always more to analyze, ha.

[auburnmarquette]

Thank you! I could tell from your questions that you knew your stuff and were just trying to ask the questions to see how what you knew applied to basketball.

Living in Auburn, Alabama I actually did not know of all that action on campus.

On the NBA wiring, I've always said value add would not be important if the college courts all get wired like the NBA. Once you can use those cameras to measure the value of a pick at the top of the key you don't need value add. Another reason I don't calculate NBA players.

[vogue65]

Auburn,

Did some AF work on KC 135 tanker overhauls at Birmingham airport and ran into Auburn vs Alabama zealots.  I had no idea what rabid fandom could be like until I  experinced those people.

I was not accepted until I  told them that I  was conceived in Anniston, AL at Ft. McClellan during WWII.  I was then officially, a son of the south, ha.

Had dinner at UAB with a married couple on oposite sides of the Auburn Bama divide  and it was really fun, they could recite nearly every play of every game played between the schools going back decades.  Now that is a rivelry, I  get it.

I  would guess that "all bets" are off when those games are played.  Must be hard to factor in the high emotions of rivelry games.  Will the Big Esst ever recreate the rivalry games of old?

[auburnmarquette]

That is great. On the old rivalries I do think we need UConn back, and the combination of their football coach being fired today and  their offer to the big 12 to join in football only I hold out hope. Nova's championship was huge, but Georgetown has to get good again as well as st John's.

In the iron. Bowl down here I am one of the few traders. I lived and died alabama starting as parochial school kid in Virginia who was heart broken against notre dame. However, my wife - a Wisconsinite - was hired by auburn to teach philosophy  - and she laid down the law. My brother called from Birmingham to tell me he was scanning the crowd for a guy in an orange dress.

Brutal! Feel free to take a further conversation offline at johnp@takeback.org anytime!