[Cracked Sidewalks] New Year's Resolution: Expect Less from Marquette

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

New Year's Resolution: Expect Less from Marquette

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Rob Lowe (aka Henry Sugar))

I love New Year's Eve. Even if it's a "one-second holiday", it's one of my favorite calendar events of the year. After all, each New Year is an opportunity for renewal and fresh optimism. Didn't like the last year? Make some resolutions and work to make the next year even better. Weird as it may seem, this post falls in line with making 2009 better. Frankly, I have come to believe that people are expecting too much from Marquette this year. Yet if you look at the projected Pomeroy schedule predictions, we presently see a projection of Marquette finishing 9-9 in conference. The numbers are telling us something different than expectations.

Going 9-9 in conference may be a shocking scenario to some, even inspiring an interesting thread on MarquetteHoops.com. I wanted to take my own look at things because of a few concerns with the way that Pomeroy does his predictions. First, I don't think that his numbers take into consideration such factors as home versus road. It's no surprise that teams play better at home, but the statistics back it up. For example, Marquette averaged 1.06 points per possession of offense last year at home and on the road. However, the defense at home (0.91 ppp allowed) was much better than on the road (1.07 ppp allowed). In fact, only three teams in the Big East last year had winning road efficiency margins (UL, UConn, and Georgetown), and their statistics were still worse on the road.

In addition, I'm pretty sure that Pomeroy also doesn't account for matchup-specific situations. In other words, what if two winning teams match up, but one is good at forcing turnovers and one is lousy at protecting the ball? What if a team is great at getting to the Free Throw line, but it doesn't matter for the other team's defensive efficiency?

Therefore, I ran a model that looked at these two issues in particular with the following results.






Unfortunately, using this model, the end result is pretty much the same as Pomeroy's. The model that was run also comes up with a prediction of 9-9. With a deeper look, the expected win percentages seem about right to me. Look at the percentages in the following categories:

Home wins (high confidence) - Cincy, DePaul, St. Johns
Home wins (tougher games) - Villanova, WVU, Georgetown, Seton Hall, UConn
Home loss - Syracuse

Road wins (high confidence) - NONE. It's the Big East, dummy!
Toss-up games - USF, DePaul
Winnable road games - Rutgers, Providence
Unlikely wins - Notre Dame, Villanova, Georgetown, Louisville, Pittsburgh

Seems about right. Probably the only quibbles I have right now are the likely win against UConn and how low the percentages are for ND, @GU, @UL, and @Pitt. With more data, those percentages should get better, but does anyone really expect us to win those games, except maybe in South Bend?

However, the second area where Pomeroy's prediction is missing is a confidence interval. In other words, a prediction of 9-9 is useless without some sort of range. Therefore, I ran a monte carlo simulation with the predictions that are above.



This story is more doom and gloom. According to the monte carlo simulation:

• There is almost a 2/3 chance that the team ends up with nine wins or less
• Eighty percent likely that the team only gets ten wins
• That means only a 20% confidence that the team even matches last year's win total of eleven wins
• Hoping that the team ends up with thirteen wins and a shot at the Big East Championship? 2.8% chances are the odds.
• Or, if you really want to get freaked out... there's a one in four chance the team finishes with seven wins or less.

Better said, as the team is playing now, the most likely scenario is that Marquette finishes 9-9 in conference, with a final record of 20-11 and hoping they get an NIT berth. Or worse.

Personally, this is a tough pill to swallow. With four 1000-point scorers plus Lazar Hayward on the roster, I had high expectations as well in October, calling for

22-24 regular season wins (we were 22-8 in regular season last year), finish somewhere between 2nd and 5th (11-13 wins) in the BIG EAST, and win their first game in the NCAA tournament.

However, once I began looking at the numbers and prediction model with last year's data, my expectations were reduced to a record of 22-9 (11-7). This was still far less than the MUSCoop community.

Why is Marquette on a trajectory towards a worse finish this year, despite all that experience? I don't have the answer to that question. Our defense is clearly worse, but it's unclear if it's coaching, the transition of systems, the lack of height, or any combination. It's also clear that Marquette (#47 Pomeroy ranking) has not kept pace with the rest of the Big East. There are five teams in Pomeroy's top 10 ranking, and seven teams in his top 30. The rest of the Big East has gotten better, while Marquette is playing worse. It should be no surprise, then, that the predictions are for MU to finish worse.

Sure, maybe there's a chance that the team will start playing better. The team is adjusting to the new system, and we'll get 13 min per game from Otule and Fulce (combined). I haven't given up hope on the 20%, but for now, my New Year's Resolution is to expect less.

Happy New Year

edit: evidently I can't add

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/12/new-years-resolution-expect-less-from.html

[77ncaachamps]

Why is Marquette on a trajectory towards a worse finish this year, despite all that experience?  I don't have the answer to that question.  Our defense is clearly worse, but it's unclear if it's coaching, the transition of systems, the lack of height, or any combination.  It's also clear that Marquette (#47 Pomeroy ranking) has not kept pace with the rest of the Big East.  There are five teams in Pomeroy's top 10 ranking, and seven teams in his top 30.  The rest of the Big East has gotten better, while Marquette is playing worse.  It should be no surprise, then, that the predictions are for MU to finish worse.

Very good statistical analysis! This must be the work of Suga'!

BTW, what are the current offensive efficiency ratings for the top 10 BE teams?

[Pardner]

Henry--I still have hope on defense--even though we are height disadvantaged.   Match-ups determine who wins in college hoops.  Pomeroy is a highly validated model, but at this time of year suffers biases (i.e., cupcakes, no consistent competitors, teams fuse at different times, etc.).  As another basis point, I compared total points allowed by game indexed to the season average of our opponent to look at trends.  For a relative comparison, I created an index so we can compare across teams of various skills...so an index of 100=average.

In our first seven games, we gave up 71.1 PPG vs. our opponents' season average of 67.5--or an index of 105--meaning MU gave up 5% more points than what the opposing teams average--not good.  This includes the UNI game where we had a great defensive game with an index of 66--otherwise this index would have been a 112.  Dayton was our worst game of the year with a 130 index--clearly both were an anomaly.  

In our last six games, some of our toughest, we gave up 62.5 PPG vs. an opponent season average of 70.8--or an index of 88--meaning our defense held opponents to 12% less than their season average (note: these teams average more PPG for the season to start with).  Or a 17% improvement swing from our first seven games--or 24% if UNI is excluded.  Our worst game during this span was UT at a 95 index--even despite all those FT's and Chism going off--which was still 5% below their average.    

Net, we appear to be gelling more on defense--winning the match-up war on D--even two on the road.  It is only six games, stats can be interpreted in many ways, but there are signs of a significant recent improvement on defense.  Let's hope this carries through to the BE--and we continue to score more on O to cover up some match-up issues.  Cunningham stands out for me against Nova....but the New Year also brings hope.  I am staying with 11-7....and 22-9.

[mu_hilltopper]

In our first seven games, we gave up 71.1 PPG vs. our opponents' season average of 67.5--or an index of 105--meaning MU gave up 5% more points than what the opposing teams average--not good.  This includes the UNI game where we had a great defensive game with an index of 66--otherwise this index would have been a 112.  Dayton was our worst game of the year with a 130 index--clearly both were an anomaly.  

Another comment about those first 7 games .. we were racking up 90-105 points with those cupcakes .. our pace was very high, meaning the opposition got a TON more possessions than they were used to, and thus, scored more.   No surprise those teams scored above their average.

Agreed with the rest, of course.

[MUfan12]

While the Monte Carlo simulation may show gloom and doom, my Honda Accord simulation shows MU finishing 12-6 in conference. 

I don't think we can stress enough the importance of having battle tested guys in Big East play. Especially when those guys have the ball in their hands most of the time.

I love Big East Basketball. Can't wait for tomorrow!

[Pardner]

Another comment about those first 7 games .. we were racking up 90-105 points with those cupcakes .. our pace was very high, meaning the opposition got a TON more possessions than they were used to, and thus, scored more.   No surprise those teams scored above their average.

Agreed with the rest, of course.

Pomeroy's stats are tempo neutral of course--so points per possession.  One problem early on is that a "possession isn't a possession" in cupcake season.  A UT, with all its high talent, should score more than a Texas Southern on PPP.   So by using an index based on each team's own scoring average for the first half of the season, we may have a better feel how MU is doing on match-ups on D vs. that particular team--based upon their talent and tendencies.  So, while UT scored 80 on us, they have been scoring 84 (and they try to create more possessions).  TS scored 68 but they average 58 (try to limit possessions).  Which game did we play better match-up D?  I'll say UT even though we lost on the road.  Maybe our plan should have been to limit UT's possessions and fouls more inthat game?

Of course, once the BE begins, with similar high talent, history on tendencies, two games per some match-ups, the tempo free stats are much more relevant.    Nova?  They have been holding opponents to 58 PPG and a FG% of 38%.  We'll need to be on our game on D to limit them below our recent 62 PPG.

[Dry White Toast]

Dude...   Monte Carlo Simulation????  Now you are just showing off.

[MR.HAYWARD]

what a bunch of pathetically pessimistic posts.  I think we will continue to be tougher than hell to beat even when we do not play at our best ala Wisonsin and will continue to battle on the road and get our share of tough victories ala Tennessee and NCSU.  Stats are for losers, W's and L's are the only one that count

[mviale]

How does pomeroy adjust their model for 3 nba bound seniors closing out their career?

[RedWebster]

How does pomeroy adjust their model for 3 nba bound seniors closing out their career?

If you really think we have three NBA-bound seniors, it explains a lot.

Reality check...we don't have any NBA-bound seniors. We have two guys who tested the waters before and were barely even invited to draft camps and a third guy who's been averaging about 11 points a game over his career. Get serious.

[Pardner]

"Stats are for losers?"  Ok...tell that to every major professional and college team who studies these, not to mention Vegas, business, government, education--or and also points on a scoreboard at the end of the game.  What is your body temperature, Haywire?  Oh yeah, stats are for losers or dead people. 

Anyway, back to reality.  I looked a little more into Nova's tendencies.  They hold their opponents to an index of 83 on D--or 17% below their season average.  Applying MU and Nova's indices to season averages, you get a prediction of MU 67 and Nova 65.  For Haywire, that = a W.

[Ready2Fly]

Nice analysis Sugar.

Reasons why we will finish with a worse record than last year:

Our bench production is significantly worse.  We went from Barro, Fitzgerald, and a healthy Cubillionaire last year to an injured freshman Otule, and injured JUCO transfer Fulce, and and injured Cubillionaire/JUCO transfer Butler.  When any of the big 4 aren't able to play 35 minutes due to foul trouble or are having an off night, our chances of winning decrease astronomically (SEE: McNeal vs Tennessee, Hayward vs. Dayton).

Secondly,
UConn: Thabeet
Louisville: Samuels & Clarke
G'Town: Monroe
Syracuse: Onuaku
ND: Harangody
Pitt: Young & Blair

MU: Burke

The margin between our guards and the rest of the league's guards isn't great enough to overcome the margin between our frontcourt and the top BE frontcourts.  

Basically, the Big Four have to play flawless basketball for MU to even have a chance against the top 6 teams, and if they get in foul trouble MU can be beat by anyone.

[Big Papi]

If you really think we have three NBA-bound seniors, it explains a lot.

Reality check...we don't have any NBA-bound seniors. We have two guys who tested the waters before and were barely even invited to draft camps and a third guy who's been averaging about 11 points a game over his career. Get serious.

I think the point is we have 3 very good players who now have over 3 years of starting experience together that few if any in the Big East can match.  That seems to be missing in all of this statistical analysis break down.  Experience is a huge factor that is often overlooked.  Heck, all you have to do is look at the NCAA tourny to see that the recipe for cinderella success has a lot to do with experience.  But in addition to experience, there are so many other variables involved that predicting season end records off of statistical analysis is for those that have too much time on there hands.  

I personally like to go by the arms length thumb approach when predicting records and that usually is a very good indicator.  I have watched at least one game of every team in the Big East except for South Florida and we will win at least 10 games and probably 11 games in this conference.  Unfortunately our lack of size will not allow us to compete for the Big East title but that will really only hurt us in a few games.

Our conference schedule probably works to our advantage.  Easier early games should allow us to jump to the top of the standings while assimilating Fulce and Otule which hopefully will allow us to steal a win or two during our brutal stretch run.  

So I say if the statistical analysis says expect 9-9 with a better chance of 8 or 7 wins, then definitely expect more from Marquette in the New Year.

[Big Papi]

Nice analysis Sugar.

Reasons why we will finish with a worse record than last year:

Our bench production is significantly worse.  We went from Barro, Fitzgerald, and a healthy Cubillionaire last year to an injured freshman Otule, and injured JUCO transfer Fulce, and and injured Cubillionaire/JUCO transfer Butler.  When any of the big 4 aren't able to play 35 minutes due to foul trouble or are having an off night, our chances of winning decrease astronomically (SEE: McNeal vs Tennessee, Hayward vs. Dayton).

Our bench just got a lot stronger with the return of Fulce and Otule.  If we would have had both, McNeal doesn't play the last few minutes of the first half and doesn't pick up his third foul against Tennessee which hinder him greatly in the second half.  I don't know if that means we beat Tennessee but we were only down 2 late in that game.  Against Dayton, we now don't have a lineup of Acker, Cube and DJ in the game at the same time. 

Getting both of them back also gives us a lot more flexibility as now we can go bigger or way more athletic.  I believe you are not taking into account how much of a benefit it is to be able to plug in 2 additional players if only for 4 or 5 minutes during a 40 minute game. 

[StillWarriors]

I think this analysis is right on, and that we are a borderline NCAA team. The big wild card in the whole thing is the production we get from Fulce and Otule. If they are serviceable, I think we're an NCAA team for sure. Without production from them, it could get ugly and that 7 or 8 win scenario is probably pretty realistic.

[muarmy81]

We will be worse than last year because we no longer have Crean

[MU Chi_IL]

Way to be the turd in the punchbowl sug... I was just getting fired up crush Nova 

Thanks for the analysis and Happy New Year Roberto and all the CS crew!

[sigep80]

Nice work Sugar, as always.  It's nice to have facts rather than the usual blubber we get from some posters here.

The other variable though, is the schedule.  Those last five games.....   I think we will probably have 8 or 9 wins going into that stretch, and than anything can happen in those 14 days.

[Ready2Fly]

Our bench just got a lot stronger with the return of Fulce and Otule.  If we would have had both, McNeal doesn't play the last few minutes of the first half and doesn't pick up his third foul against Tennessee which hinder him greatly in the second half.  I don't know if that means we beat Tennessee but we were only down 2 late in that game.  Against Dayton, we now don't have a lineup of Acker, Cube and DJ in the game at the same time. 

Getting both of them back also gives us a lot more flexibility as now we can go bigger or way more athletic.  I believe you are not taking into account how much of a benefit it is to be able to plug in 2 additional players if only for 4 or 5 minutes during a 40 minute game. 

I get what you're saying.  I thought at the beginning of the season that

Fulce > Fitzgerald
Otule ~ Barro
'09 Cubillan = '08 Cubillan

However, after all three missed significant time due to injury, the equation is now

Fitzgerald > Fulce
Barro >>>> Otule
'08 Cuby > '09 Cuby

I'm not speaking in terms of talent, but in terms of production on the court THIS SEASON vs. what their predecessor produced on the court last season. 

Expecting two newcomers with no high-major college experience to come off injury and acclimate seamlessly in the middle of Big East conference play is wishful thinking.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm sticking to my original 9-9 prediction.....now some damn computer says the same thing.  Damn computers.   

[MuMark]

Zero chance of winning at Pitt?

Not sure if I've ever seen a college matchup where a pretty good team had no chance to win a game.

Its not like we are Houston Baptist playing at UNC.

I don't expect us to win but we certainly have a chance.

These numbers tend to balance out. What we know mostly right now is how these teams have played against cupcakes. Thats where the majority of data comes from.

Now the real games start. Throw it up and see what happens.

I'll be there tomorrow rooting MU on.

[MR.HAYWARD]

I think the point is we have 3 very good players who now have over 3 years of starting experience together that few if any in the Big East can match.  That seems to be missing in all of this statistical analysis break down.  Experience is a huge factor that is often overlooked.  Heck, all you have to do is look at the NCAA tourny to see that the recipe for cinderella success has a lot to do with experience.  But in addition to experience, there are so many other variables involved that predicting season end records off of statistical analysis is for those that have too much time on there hands.  

I personally like to go by the arms length thumb approach when predicting records and that usually is a very good indicator.  I have watched at least one game of every team in the Big East except for South Florida and we will win at least 10 games and probably 11 games in this conference.  Unfortunately our lack of size will not allow us to compete for the Big East title but that will really only hurt us in a few games.

Our conference schedule probably works to our advantage.  Easier early games should allow us to jump to the top of the standings while assimilating Fulce and Otule which hopefully will allow us to steal a win or two during our brutal stretch run.  

So I say if the statistical analysis says expect 9-9 with a better chance of 8 or 7 wins, then definitely expect more from Marquette in the New Year.

well said it sure sounds like the other math geeks never played a competitive sport or competed in their lives!!!!!!!!

[ChicosBailBonds]

well said it sure sounds like the other math geeks never played a competitive sport or competed in their lives!!!!!!!!

Almost all of the boys that make the spreads in Vegas never played a competitive sport in their life.....how inaccurate are they when it comes to simply picking the winner (not the line, but the winner).   


For the record, most of us played competitive sports.  I played competitive football, baseball and soccer.  Congratulations to the Seraphs, first California team in history to win back to back CIF Division state bowl titles....and 8 CIF sectional titles in the last 10 years. 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition/la-sp-preps21-2008dec21,0,3241333.story

(Yes, I put that tidbit in there because I know how some of you love it so.....   )


Happy New Year

[RedWebster]

The name Seraphs is offensive.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The name Seraphs is offensive.

That's why I love it....Warriors and Seraphs.....the more pissed off people the better.  And Caribou make good eating.