So....What are we ranked on Monday - 2/24/2020

[Its DJOver]

"Normal development" is most certainly a real thing. Freshman to sophomore jumps being the most notable on average (good news for MU as well as uw-madison). I think Reuvers will surprise people either this year or next. Alex Ill is better than he has shown thus far.. if he gets a chance, will he provide it? Dunno, but he's got lots of room to improve.

I'm not crownin their a$$, but the idea of them being a team that gets into the tourney this year isn't a crazy thought.

Sophomore Traci? Sophomore Haani? Sophomore Sandy?  Player development is real, but there is no barometer for "normal".

[brewcity77]

And yet another source expecting a truly dramatic turnaround for UW, who apparently has a better incoming class than Nebraska, but literally no one else in the B12 (according to 247). I mean, not like they generally play a ton of freshmen anyway but they could have definitely used them this year. I just don't see where the secret sauce is coming from... Is it as simple as "Wisconsin is always good"?

I have to think so, and really like your mention of Nebraska. Last year, Wisconsin played a tougher than usual conference schedule, but still lost to some bad teams (Rutgers, Iowa, Northwestern). Meanwhile, Nebraska played a weak schedule but went 13-5 in league and 4/5 losses were to top-20 kenpom teams. Both teams bring back a lot, yet everyone seems to be tabbing Wisconsin ahead of Nebraska. Personally, I would slot the Huskers ahead of Wisconsin without a second thought. One is a senior laden team coming off a successful year, the other has one admittedly really good senior surrounded by role-players.

[Jay Bee]

^^^ Nebraska has tons of Jrs to Seniors & tough def 3fg% comps. I do not like them.

[TAMU Eagle]

I don't think this is a real thing, players either exceed development, or underachieve.  How much do you think that extra year will help Charlie Thomas, or Alex Illikainen?  I would bet they're still glued to the pine.  They likely won't have Aleem Ford when we play them, and I have yet to see anything that would prove that Trice is a high major player (MSU would have been all over him if he was),  Anderson got plenty of time to impress coaches in high school when they were there to see Sam and Joey and he had no high major offers.  King could be decent, but he should be a big question mark coming off major knee surgery, and their Freshman class aint anything to get excited about.  Should they be better than last year?  Yes, but until they prove that they are, they shouldn't be a top 40 team.  This is why preseason rankings are so difficult and pointless.

You don't think what is a real a thing? Player improvement? Most players improve from year to year. Rising sophomores tend to show the most improvement while 5th year seniors tend to show the least (but they still show improvement). In fact, outside of monster freshman classes that the blue bloods get, returning production is a much better indicator of improvement than incoming freshmen. Most freshmen don't bring a ton of value.

[Its DJOver]

You don't think what is a real a thing? Player improvement? Most players improve from year to year. Rising sophomores tend to show the most improvement while 5th year seniors tend to show the least (but they still show improvement). In fact, outside of monster freshman classes that the blue bloods get, returning production is a much better indicator of improvement than incoming freshmen. Most freshmen don't bring a ton of value.

I don't think there is such a thing as "normal" player development.  We see way too many outliers, both overachieving, and underachieving/regressing for there to be a "normal" range.  JB mentioned the Freshman to Sophomore gap.  Just looking at MU and UW in the recent years you have Sandy, Haani, Traci, Duane to some extent (although the biggest drop-off was in between his Sophomore and Junior year), Illikainen, Charlie Thomas, and Jordan Hill underachieving, and Markus, Sam, and that whole crop of Badgers involved in their FF runs overachieving.  The range of successes and failures is far too wide for there to be a "normal" range.  Normal implies that there is a predictability to the model, and I don't think anyone could accurately predict the lines that our true Sophomores will put up this year (without a large amount of luck).

Just look at Jamal.  Last year he averaged 4.6 ppg.  Just based on our depth, I could see a scenario where that number drops, but, I could also see a scenario where he works himself into an everyday starter, and it jumps to about 12 ppg.  Too much unpredictability for "normal".

[TAMU Eagle]

I don't think there is such a thing as "normal" player development.  We see way too many outliers, both overachieving, and underachieving/regressing for there to be a "normal" range.  JB mentioned the Freshman to Sophomore gap.  Just looking at MU and UW in the recent years you have Sandy, Haani, Traci, Duane to some extent (although the biggest drop-off was in between his Sophomore and Junior year), Illikainen, Charlie Thomas, and Jordan Hill underachieving, and Markus, Sam, and that whole crop of Badgers involved in their FF runs overachieving.  The range of successes and failures is far too wide for there to be a "normal" range.  Normal implies that there is a predictability to the model, and I don't think anyone could accurately predict the lines that our true Sophomores will put up this year (without a large amount of luck).

Just look at Jamal.  Last year he averaged 4.6 ppg.  Just based on our depth, I could see a scenario where that number drops, but, I could also see a scenario where he works himself into an everyday starter, and it jumps to about 12 ppg.  Too much unpredictability for "normal".

Well I don't know what to tell you. Smarter people than you or I have done the research and found a normal range. Of course there are outliers, that's why there is the caveat of assuming normal development.

Also, points per game doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. All about efficiency.

[Its DJOver]

Well I don't know what to tell you. Smarter people than you or I have done the research and found a normal range. Of course there are outliers, that's why there is the caveat of assuming normal development.

Also, points per game doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. All about efficiency.

Fine, ignore ppg.  How do they factor that Greg will miss most if not all of the non conference?   How do they factor that Davison was playing injured all last year?  How do they factor the fact that King is coming off knee surgery?  How do they factor that Anderson transferred from a mid major?

There are just too many variables for any normalcy.  We spent a good part of the summer speculating how JC would make the jump from mid to high major and even with a lot more data on him, there's conflicting opinions of how he'll be able to adjust.  No one saw Kaminsky blowing up the way he did, no one saw Haani dropping off the way he did. If there are just as many "outliers" than there is no "normal".

[TAMU Eagle]

They have math for all of that though it does require that they have accurate information. For example I doubt they included Elliotts injury because if how recent it is.

While nobody saw Kaminsky becoming an all American,  these services actually did peg him as a breakout player. Kaminsky had fantastic efficiency stats just low opportunities. The clues are usual there if you know where to look.

You can have outliers without normal. There is a range that most players will fall into.  Yes there will be outliers but usually for every one that overachieves there is another that underachieves.

No one is saying that services like KenPom are perfect preseason. But there are reasons why they are generally accurate.  They miss big on a few teams every season but most teams are put generally in the correct area.

[Its DJOver]

High efficiency, low usage, sounds a lot like Matt, and I don't think anyone is expecting him to become an All American.

There's a reason that there are so many different ranking services out there.  They are all flawed.  As (I believe it was you) pointed out, Sagarin hates Nevada.  KenPom always has UW higher than they actually are.  BPI loves us.  RPI (among its many flaws) always seemed to find a way to make sure Syracuse was the last team in.  I'm sure we'll find that NET is flawed as well.  I am fully aware that there are a lot of people out there that know a lot more about college basketball and advance stats than I do, but just because these people make a ranking system, doesn't mean that we should all buy into it immediately and unequivocally.

Again, if there are more outliers than "normal", I don't think normal would exist.  Just look at the Wojo era of Freshman to Sophomore development (no Henry).  I'd argue that the only one that has followed a "normal" progression has been Matt.  Traci, Haani, and Sandy all underachieved/regressed.  Markus and Sam both overachieved, and I would argue that in Sacar's true Sophomore year, the fact that he felt he hadn't developed enough to get minutes means he underachieved as well.  Now from his TRSoph to his RSSoph he overachieved, but that just further's the point that there's no normalcy in player development.

[#UnleashJayce]

High efficiency, low usage, sounds a lot like Matt, and I don't think anyone is expecting him to become an All American.

There's a reason that there are so many different ranking services out there.  They are all flawed.  As (I believe it was you) pointed out, Sagarin hates Nevada.  KenPom always has UW higher than they actually are.  BPI loves us.  RPI (among its many flaws) always seemed to find a way to make sure Syracuse was the last team in.  I'm sure we'll find that NET is flawed as well.  I am fully aware that there are a lot of people out there that know a lot more about college basketball and advance stats than I do, but just because these people make a ranking system, doesn't mean that we should all buy into it immediately and unequivocally.

Again, if there are more outliers than "normal", I don't think normal would exist.  Just look at the Wojo era of Freshman to Sophomore development (no Henry).  I'd argue that the only one that has followed a "normal" progression has been Matt.  Traci, Haani, and Sandy all underachieved/regressed.  Markus and Sam both overachieved, and I would argue that in Sacar's true Sophomore year, the fact that he felt he hadn't developed enough to get minutes means he underachieved as well.  Now from his TRSoph to his RSSoph he overachieved, but that just further's the point that there's no normalcy in player development.

None if those players got worse. Better players came in and took their minutes. Sacar improved but was not redshirtted is freshman year out of necessity, Marquette could afford the rs is sophomore.

[Lazar's Headband]

Kaminsky had a higher usage rate as a sophomore than Hauser.  Kaminsky's volume of opportunities were low due to only playing 10 mpg.

[Its DJOver]

None if those players got worse. Better players came in and took their minutes. Sacar improved but was not redshirtted is freshman year out of necessity, Marquette could afford the rs is sophomore.

Haanif's eFG% dropped from his Freshman to Sophomore year despite a usage decrease.  It is not "normal" for a player to take a non-medical redshirt if they followed a "normal" improvement curve.  Did Sacar get better from his trFs to his trSoph year?  Probably, but not to a "normal" degree.

[Its DJOver]

I'm not trying to say that older players aren't better than younger players.  A lot of the time that is true (most of the time actually), but you can't accurately predict how much or how little a player will improve.  If you want to cast a really wide net and give a super broad range that's fine, but to declare that an accurate "predictive model" is tooting your own horn a bit too much.

[JakeBarnes]

Did we get more votes this week? The Carroll Game should help seeding.

[Bocephys]

Did we get more votes this week? The Carroll Game should help seeding.

We actually dropped a seed line because the ladies lost their exhibition.

[brewcity77]

Kaminsky had a higher usage rate as a sophomore than Hauser.  Kaminsky's volume of opportunities were low due to only playing 10 mpg.

Yup. Kaminsky was an incredible jump from role player to NPOY, but the signs were definitely there. His efficiency barely improved from sophomore to junior to senior years, he just managed to maintain it with increased minutes and usage.

[Newsdreams]

Did we get more votes this week? The Carroll Game should help seeding.

Remember they only take into account 10 pt margin of victory the other 33 pts no matta, hey, plus at home  and they would be a 6 quadrant win, actually a bad win 

[JakeBarnes]

Remember they only take into account 10 pt margin of victory the other 33 pts no matta, hey, plus at home  and they would be a 6 quadrant win, actually a bad win 

Season's over. We've already got a bad win. Maybe the new metric will be kinder to us for scheduling so poorly.

[TAMU Eagle]

High efficiency, low usage, sounds a lot like Matt, and I don't think anyone is expecting him to become an All American.

I didn't say low usage. I said low opportunity. There is a difference.

There's a reason that there are so many different ranking services out there.  They are all flawed.  As (I believe it was you) pointed out, Sagarin hates Nevada.  KenPom always has UW higher than they actually are.  BPI loves us.  RPI (among its many flaws) always seemed to find a way to make sure Syracuse was the last team in.  I'm sure we'll find that NET is flawed as well.  I am fully aware that there are a lot of people out there that know a lot more about college basketball and advance stats than I do, but just because these people make a ranking system, doesn't mean that we should all buy into it immediately and unequivocally.

First you are comparing a lot of different things. Predictive models like KenPom measure very different things than ranking models like RPI. And while they all have their flaws, there's a reason why the predictive models tend to have teams in similar ranges and are fairly accurate even by the end of the year.

Again, if there are more outliers than "normal", I don't think normal would exist.

If there were more outliers you would be right. But as you admit in this post, people much smarter than either of us have done the research and determined that there are way less outliers than "normal" developers.

ust look at the Wojo era of Freshman to Sophomore development (no Henry).  I'd argue that the only one that has followed a "normal" progression has been Matt.  Traci, Haani, and Sandy all underachieved/regressed.  Markus and Sam both overachieved, and I would argue that in Sacar's true Sophomore year, the fact that he felt he hadn't developed enough to get minutes means he underachieved as well.  Now from his TRSoph to his RSSoph he overachieved, but that just further's the point that there's no normalcy in player development.

I don't agree with most of your assessments here. Traci, Sandy, and Haani both got better from freshman to sophomore year. The talent around Traci got better and he got passed on the depth chart. Sandy was much better as a sophomore than as a freshman. Haani was way overvalued his freshman year by fans and undervalued by fans his sophomore year. Based on their freshman years, Markus and Sam developed normally as sophomores. They both had monster freshman years and then built on that as sophomores. Sacar redshirtting doesn't mean he didn't improve from freshman to sophomore year, it just means he redshirtted. His third year I would argue was in the range of normal for a third year player who put up the numbers he did as a freshman.

I do agree on Matt being normal development.

[Its DJOver]

So you're operating on the assumption that  the "normal" range is extremely wide if Haani, Sam and Markus all fit into that category.  I am not.

No one here has even attempted to explain how it works or is calculated,  you yourself admit that you don't know. I am just using the same train of thought that people are when judging the NET right now, unless it can be explained with a formula I'm extremely hesitant to base anything off it.  Just because the people behind the model know more than me or you does not mean that they're always right, based on the fact that all models weight different aspects differently.

[Galway Eagle]

So you're operating on the assumption that  the "normal" range is extremely wide if Haani, Sam and Markus all fit into that category.  I am not.

No one here has even attempted to explain how it works or is calculated,  you yourself admit that you don't know. I am just using the same train of thought that people are when judging the NET right now, unless it can be explained with a formula I'm extremely hesitant to base anything off it.  Just because the people behind the model know more than me or you does not mean that they're always right, based on the fact that all models weight different aspects differently.

Generally isn't the term normal coined for being within a certain frame of standard deviations away from the mean? So I'd guess calling them normal is saying that they're within those parameters

[Its DJOver]

Generally isn't the term normal coined for being within a certain frame of standard deviations away from the mean? So I'd guess calling them normal is saying that they're within those parameters

Haani's eFG%, usage and scoring all dropped from freshman to sophomore year. Sam's all went up. Any model that has both of them in the "normal" range in terms of improvement has an extremely wide range.

[TAMU Eagle]

So you're operating on the assumption that  the "normal" range is extremely wide if Haani, Sam and Markus all fit into that category.  I am not.

No one here has even attempted to explain how it works or is calculated,  you yourself admit that you don't know. I am just using the same train of thought that people are when judging the NET right now, unless it can be explained with a formula I'm extremely hesitant to base anything off it.  Just because the people behind the model know more than me or you does not mean that they're always right, based on the fact that all models weight different aspects differently.

I understand how it works but couldn't give you the exact formulas different systems use off the top of my head. You are welcome to do the research and find out.

And while it is a range, the difference between Haani and Markus is not as different as you might think. Haani had a terrible freshman year with a statline that was buoyed by playing an atrocious non-conference schedule with subpar teammates. So when he became a sophomore his numbers got worse because he played a tougher schedule and had better teammates around him taking opportunities away from him to bolster his stats. Markus had an elite freshman year with a statline that was limited by a deep team and strong schedule. So when he became a sophomore and had worse talent around him and played an easier schedule his stat line grew. Also keep in mind that we're talking development, meaning what % a player gets better by. Markus improved a lot more than Haanie, but the % he got better between freshman and sophomore year was closer to what Haanie was (but still better IMHO).

[MUDPT]

Torvik's UW write up is a good summary of their chances this year.

https://www.bigtengeeks.com/wisconsin/

[TAMU Eagle]

Haani's eFG%, usage and scoring all dropped from freshman to sophomore year. Sam's all went up. Any model that has both of them in the "normal" range in terms of improvement has an extremely wide range.

You are correct that Haanie's scoring did drop. There might have been regression in this area but it was also a product of the schedule that Marquette played. There are a lot more things that go into basketball than scoring. Haanie's rebounding, defense, distribution, and ball control all improved significantly. Sam on the other hand did improve greatly in the areas that you noted but also saw dips in his rebounding and defensive numbers. Still, it is a range and I would Haanie towards the bottom of normal and Sam towards the top of it.

We're getting away from the original argument here. Even if you want to dispute Haanie as being inside a normal range of development, that's one example. This, like most statistics are on a bell curve. Most are going to fall into that middle "normal" category.

As for your previous point of all the different predictive models using different criteria, that doesn't make any of them "wrong." You just have to understand what each model is measuring so you properly understand the results. There are always going to be outliers on both ends but that doesn't mean that most don't fall in the center of the bell curve.

When a lot of different predictive models are putting a team in a similar range, that is usually a hint that they are in about the right place. Wisconsin is one of those teams this season. There's a reason why most (all?) of the major predictive models have them as a top 50 team this season. They could end up being an outlier because basketball is played on the court not paper, but the reasoning for putting them there is sound.