Is Xavier Overrated?

[Floorslapper]

This year's Duke team isn't consistent enough to win 6 in a row. Heck, coach K has to play a zone so much because the OADs can't learn M2M. Duke teams used to be exciting to watch because of their ability to play intense M2M.

Duke hasn't lost since it switched EXCLUSIVELY to a zone 7 games ago. It's made a huge difference. Coach K gets it: Do what you do and do it exclusively. Whether that be M2M or zone. Switching back and forth between defenses breeds ineffectiveness.  Duke has played zone on over 90 percent of its possessions since switching 7 games ago.

I suspect Duke will be an Elite 8/Final Four team.

As for Xavier- good team for sure but I trust Pomeroy numbers above all.

[MU82]

Duke hasn't lost since it switched EXCLUSIVELY to a zone 7 games ago. Duke has played zone on over 90 percent of its possessions since switching 7 games ago.

You and I (and every dictionary on the planet) has a different way of defining EXCLUSIVELY.

Still, your point is well taken.

[Floorslapper]

You and I (and every dictionary on the planet) has a different way of defining EXCLUSIVELY.

Still, your point is well taken.

Haha.  Yea.  Thought about making that edit, but overriding point was Duke has played it almost exclusively.  Per the broadcast last night, it was said over 90% of possessions - and some possessions of course are transition to where you really don't establish a formal defense.

Just think it is a fools errand to think that if you play an occasional possession of an alternate defense from your base D, that if opposition scores against it, it is proof positive that that alternate defense is worse.  (Especially when your base has proven to be an absolute sieve and fouling machine in virtually every Top 100 opposition game.)

[MU82]

Don't have stats in front of me, but from what I recall thinking while watching yesterday's game, MTM did somewhat better than 2-3. But everything's relative when it comes to our defense. The only BE team we defended really well IIRC was Seton Hall; in our wins against DeP and StJ, I think they just sucked.

I'd say we also defended F%cky well, but I really think that one came down to us simply having a lot more heart than they do. 

[Lennys Tap]

Kenpom is based on projections. How good can a team be. There's not much more need for projections at this point. We've seen the season play out. And Xavier's season has played our incredibly well. 4th roughest schedule in the country, losses to 3 total teams all season.

You misunderstand Pomeroy (and also Sagerin). Their metrics have nothing to do with measuring how good a team COULD be. Rather, after subtracting the "luck" factor (good or bad) they measure how good a team IS. On a neutral court, today, right now, Pomeroy thinks 13 teams should be favored to beat Xavier. Doesn't mean they would, of course - but he thinks they should. If Xavier loses their first game in the tourney Pomeroy's numbers likely will be relatively unchanged - the same will be true if they make the FF. So I not suggesting that the tournament will mean "vindication" for those on either side of the argument - just think it's an interesting topic for discussion.

[WarriorDad]

This is a guy who tried to make a bet that Xavier was overrated when they were ranked 5th or 6th in the country and tried to tell people that if they finished the year ranked 1 spot below where they were ranked at the time of the bet he deserved money.  So I think Lenny thinks there is actually a big difference between a 1 and a 2 seed, even the worst 1 seed and the top 2 seed.

I do believe in luck, but feel it can be manufactured or produced through emotion or circumstances.  He's not wrong that Xavier has holes, but all teams do. Maybe Xavier is luckier than others, but I'm not sure you can just throw luck out the door if it happens with enough frequency to a team it may be because they are doing something to cause to a degree.

In my view, there is disparity at times even between 1 seeds, but there can also be very little separation between any seeds.  Only using a seeding number to determine how much better one team is than another is too simplistic. 

[wadesworld]

You misunderstand Pomeroy (and also Sagerin). Their metrics have nothing to do with measuring how good a team COULD be. Rather, after subtracting the "luck" factor (good or bad) they measure how good a team IS. On a neutral court, today, right now, Pomeroy thinks 13 teams should be favored to beat Xavier. Doesn't mean they would, of course - but he thinks they should. If Xavier loses their first game in the tourney Pomeroy's numbers likely will be relatively unchanged - the same will be true if they make the FF. So I not suggesting that the tournament will mean "vindication" for those on either side of the argument - just think it's an interesting topic for discussion.

How do you determine "best team" then?  Or, more importantly, since your argument the entire time is that Xavier is overrated, how do you define "overrated?"  To me, a team being "overrated" means that they are not deserving of the ranking that they have.  You yourself admitted that they deserve to be ranked 3rd in the country based on the results that have played out on the court this season.  To me, that means they are not overrated and are, in fact, accurately rated, which I believe to be the truth.  Based on what has occurred on the court throughout the 2017-2018 season, Xavier deserves to be ranked 3rd in the country.  They are "rated" accurately.  I would argue you can't even argue for any other ranking for Xavier and we're at the end of the regular season.  Virginia clearly deserves the top ranking that they have, and the only two teams that really have a case to be ranked 2nd are Xavier and Villanova.  Given that they played each other twice and Nova smoked them both times, I don't think there's any way you could have Nova ranked 3rd to Xavier's 2nd, so I think the top 3 are unquestionably 1 Virginia, 2 Nova, 3 Xavier.  To me, Xavier is ranked exactly where they deserve to be, which makes the answer to your question a resounding, "No.  They are not overrated."

You can argue that a team like Duke or Arizona are more talented than a team like Xavier, but I don't see how there's any possible way you could argue that Duke or Arizona deserve to be ranked higher than Xavier does.  In no way whatsoever have Duke or Arizona had a better season than Xavier.  Xavier deserves to be ranked (or "rated") higher than those two teams, and there's no debating it.

[MUDPT]

How do you determine "best team" then?  Or, more importantly, since your argument the entire time is that Xavier is overrated, how do you define "overrated?"  To me, a team being "overrated" means that they are not deserving of the ranking that they have.  You yourself admitted that they deserve to be ranked 3rd in the country based on the results that have played out on the court this season.  To me, that means they are not overrated and are, in fact, accurately rated, which I believe to be the truth.  Based on what has occurred on the court throughout the 2017-2018 season, Xavier deserves to be ranked 3rd in the country.  They are "rated" accurately.  I would argue you can't even argue for any other ranking for Xavier and we're at the end of the regular season.  Virginia clearly deserves the top ranking that they have, and the only two teams that really have a case to be ranked 2nd are Xavier and Villanova.  Given that they played each other twice and Nova smoked them both times, I don't think there's any way you could have Nova ranked 3rd to Xavier's 2nd, so I think the top 3 are unquestionably 1 Virginia, 2 Nova, 3 Xavier.  To me, Xavier is ranked exactly where they deserve to be, which makes the answer to your question a resounding, "No.  They are not overrated."

You can argue that a team like Duke or Arizona are more talented than a team like Xavier, but I don't see how there's any possible way you could argue that Duke or Arizona deserve to be ranked higher than Xavier does.  In no way whatsoever have Duke or Arizona had a better season than Xavier.  Xavier deserves to be ranked (or "rated") higher than those two teams, and there's no debating it.

I determine "best team" as team who outscores their opponents the most, per possession, adjusted for schedule.  X is now 9-0 in games decided by 5 points or less, including 2 OT games. These are games where a missed free throw can be the difference. 9 times those games have flipped for Xavier.  They were losing to East Tennessee State 59-44 with 6:57 left and won that game. They were losing at home to DePaul 51-35 with 17:14 left and won that game. They were down 42-32 to Seton Hall with 17:56 left and won that game. Historically speaking, teams regress to the mean and lose these games at some point. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Duke hasn't lost since it switched EXCLUSIVELY to a zone 7 games ago. It's made a huge difference. Coach K gets it: Do what you do and do it exclusively. Whether that be M2M or zone. Switching back and forth between defenses breeds ineffectiveness.  Duke has played zone on over 90 percent of its possessions since switching 7 games ago.

I suspect Duke will be an Elite 8/Final Four team.

In a thread about X being overrated here we see John Dawson again.

And you have it backwards again. In all but one of those seven games, the zone was significantly better than the man (and the one where it was a blowout). Also, Duke has been better at zone all season long.

Duke's zone isn't good because they play it "exclusively", the play it "exclusively" because it is better than their man. Something that is not true for Marquette. Just like John Dawson didn't play well against Georgetown because he got 25 minutes, he got 25 minutes because he played well.

As for X being overrated? I guess if you think a 9 spot difference is overrated. I don't think there's that much difference between #5 and #14 this season.

[Lennys Tap]

I determine "best team" as team who outscores their opponents the most, per possession, adjusted for schedule.  X is now 9-0 in games decided by 5 points or less, including 2 OT games. These are games where a missed free throw can be the difference. 9 times those games have flipped for Xavier.  They were losing to East Tennessee State 59-44 with 6:57 left and won that game. They were losing at home to DePaul 51-35 with 17:14 left and won that game. They were down 42-32 to Seton Hall with 17:56 left and won that game. Historically speaking, teams regress to the mean and lose these games at some point.

This was my point - there's more than one way to look at it.

[wadesworld]

1 seed.  Evidently they were underrated.

[MUDPT]

1 seed.  Evidently they were underrated.

By whom?  Multiple people believe they will be an underdog if they meet Gonzaga in the Sweet 16.

[MU82]

1 seed.  Evidently they were underrated.

Or it could mean they were overrated again. We'll know in a couple weeks!

[wadesworld]

By whom?  Multiple people believe they will be an underdog if they meet Gonzaga in the Sweet 16.

Based on what?  They could certainly lose that game, they could lose any game in a one and done, 40 minute situation.  But Gonzaga went 30-4 and their best wins were over...Ohio State?  St. Mary's?  Texas?  Washington?  Congrats on winning a bunch of mid-major games in the WCC Gonzaga.

Xavier went 28-5 and was the outright BE champions.  Pretty deserving of a 1 seed if you ask me.

[tower912]

The problem now is that Xavier could lose in the elite 8 and Lenny can still say 'see?  Told ya.'

[wadesworld]

Or it could mean they were overrated again. We'll know in a couple weeks!

Not really. One game doesn't change my view on how good a team is compared to a 33 game full season.

[MU82]

Not really. One game doesn't change my view on how good a team is compared to a 33 game full season.

Okey dokey.

[wadesworld]

Okey dokey.

Unless you think George Mason was one of the top 4 teams in the country in 2006? Or maybe VCU a top 4 team in the country in 2011? Was Syracuse one of the 4 best teams in college basketball in 2016? Or South Carolina one of the 4 best teams in the country last season? Maybe you consider Florida Gulf Coast to have been one of the 16 best college basketball teams in 2013?

I thought Villanova was better than the 17th (or lower?) best team in the country last season, but maybe that was just me.

I personally wouldn't say that about any of those teams. But different strokes for different folks I suppose.

[MU82]

Unless you think George Mason was one of the top 4 teams in the country in 2006? Or maybe VCU a top 4 team in the country in 2011? Was Syracuse one of the 4 best teams in college basketball in 2016? Or South Carolina one of the 4 best teams in the country last season? Maybe you consider Florida Gulf Coast to have been one of the 16 best college basketball teams in 2013?

I thought Villanova was better than the 17th (or lower?) best team in the country last season, but maybe that was just me.

I personally wouldn't say that about any of those teams. But different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Wow, wades, you read an awful lot into "okey dokey"!

[Lennys Tap]

Who thinks Xavier is overrated? Pomeroy, Sagarin, Nate Silver, Las Vegas, Jay Bilas and anyone else who uses advanced statistics (aka science) to rate teams. Maybe they'll go all the way (wouldn't be the first time the 14th best team won it all - especially given a #1 seed's path), maybe they'll lose early (like in the Big east tournament), maybe they'll lose late. Doesn't matter to me. I trust science over the "It was cold last winter, the earth can't be warming" crowd. # Big East goggle eye test no matta.

[CTWarrior]

Who thinks Xavier is overrated? Pomeroy, Sagarin, Nate Silver, Las Vegas, Jay Bilas and anyone else who uses advanced statistics (aka science) to rate teams. Maybe they'll go all the way (wouldn't be the first time the 14th best team won it all - especially given a #1 seed's path), maybe they'll lose early (like in the Big east tournament), maybe they'll lose late. Doesn't matter to me. I trust science over the "It was cold last winter, the earth can't be warming" crowd. # Big East goggle eye test no matta.

I agree with Lenny in that I think they are overrated because I do not believe they are one of the four best teams in the country.  They have earned the number 1 seed, however, by winning consistently whether that be by luck or toughness.   In today's game where the most talented teams are young and inconsistent they could go very far in the NCAAs, too.  I'll have them exit in the round of 16 in my pool, but they are certainly good enough to get to the Final Four if the breaks go their way.

One other caveat.  The only full games of theirs I have watched are their two against us, their last game against DePaul and the BET loss to Providence, so I may have caught them for the most part on days that weren't their best.

[Lennys Tap]

I agree with Lenny in that I think they are overrated because I do not believe they are one of the four best teams in the country.  They have earned the number 1 seed, however, by winning consistently whether that be by luck or toughness.   In today's game where the most talented teams are young and inconsistent they could go very far in the NCAAs, too.  I'll have them exit in the round of 16 in my pool, but they are certainly good enough to get to the Final Four if the breaks go their way.

Agree with all of this, Warrior. I admire what the coach and players at X have accomplished. They're really good and really, really tough but also really lucky. Nothing wrong with that.

[wadesworld]

Who thinks Xavier is overrated? Pomeroy, Sagarin, Nate Silver, Las Vegas, Jay Bilas and anyone else who uses advanced statistics (aka science) to rate teams. Maybe they'll go all the way (wouldn't be the first time the 14th best team won it all - especially given a #1 seed's path), maybe they'll lose early (like in the Big east tournament), maybe they'll lose late. Doesn't matter to me. I trust science over the "It was cold last winter, the earth can't be warming" crowd. # Big East goggle eye test no matta.

So, after entire season is complete, what you're saying is you don't care about the actual results on the court that played out but rather some computer generated numbers? Lol. Okay then.

Why even play the games? We can just have a computer tell us who's best, the results don't matter at all. Heck, it's better for a team to get smoked by bad teams (Duke against BC, UNC against Wofford, etc.) than it is for a team to win close games (Xavier).

I'm glad you trust "science" when it comes to basketball. I trust results. The results suggest Xavier is rated right where they deserve to be. 1 seed. Outright Big East champion.

[tower912]

Lenny, having watched Xavier a lot this season, I can understand why you say they aren't a top 5 team.    They don't LOOK like a top 5 team.    They have won far more close games than they should have.     I get it.    But they have lost to one team not in the Big East all year.    They lost three regular season games in the Big East ( 2 to whom?).    They lost to a hot Providence team in the Big East tourney.    They could flame out.       But it is hard to argue with the voters that they shouldn't have had a 4 loss team that won a regular season championship in a tough league so highly ranked.       Kind of like when Cabrera won the MVP for a triple crown whereas the advanced metrics showed Trout had a better year.      Sometimes, big, gaudy, simple, primary numbers have more influence than advance metrics.   I understand your argument.   I understand the counter argument, too.     

[lawdog77]

So, after entire season is complete, what you're saying is you don't care about the actual results on the court that played out but rather some computer generated numbers? Lol. Okay then.

Why even play the games? We can just have a computer tell us who's best, the results don't matter at all. Heck, it's better for a team to get smoked by bad teams (Duke against BC, UNC against Wofford, etc.) than it is for a team to win close games (Xavier).

I'm glad you trust "science" when it comes to basketball. I trust results. The results suggest Xavier is rated right where they deserve to be. 1 seed. Outright Big East champion.

+1...Just own it Lenny. You were wrong in your original post. I can only assume that you thought they would come crashing back to earth. They did not. They earned a #1 seed, so they are rated properly. The torney is a crapshoot as we all know