Post Mortem

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Ah, so how do you suggest we create expectations for a season?  Should there be none?  Kenpom's starting value for Marquette was 87.. which placed it 9th in the Big East.

    Villanova — #9
    Connecticut — #21
    Xavier — #26
    Seton Hall — #50
    St. John's — #51
    Creighton — #53
    Butler — #55
    Georgetown — #76
    Providence — #85
    Marquette — #87
    DePaul — #140

https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2021/10/17/22731118/marquette-golden-eagles-mens-basketball-preseason-kenpom-ranking-rating-shaka-smart

Actually that's 10th.

[Viper]

IT WAS A CURB-STOMPING, MU GOTTA WEAR IT ALL OFF-SEASON

yup.(RED won't let us forget)

[Hards Alumni]

Actually that's 10th.

Sorry I'm dumb.  I just want to know what way is the best to evaluate a team at the beginning of a season so I can correctly judge them when they over perform or under perform.

[panda]

I think it's ok to say the team as a whole overachieved through the whole season while still saying the last couple weeks of the season were a let down.

Both can be true.

[Pakuni]

Ah, so how do you suggest we create expectations for a season?  Should there be none?  Kenpom's starting value for Marquette was 87.. which placed it 9th in the Big East.

If you want to obsess or make a big deal about preseason rankings, by all means have it. Just do so knowing that they're not particularly accurate or valuable.
I mean, Kenpom's preseason top 25 included:
#2 Michigan
#5 Illinois
#8 Ohio State
#14 Texas
#18 Maryland
#24 Florida State
#25 Florida

And knowing KenPom's preseason rankings are based largely on projections from prior seasons' results, how seriously should we take them in regards to a team that has:
- 9 new players who've never played together
- A new staff implementing a new scheme with which none of the players are familiar
- A first option who was a bench player the previous season
- A starting point guard who played off the ball in a lower conference the previous season
- A second option who was used primarily as a defensive stopper the previous season
- Almost an entire roster - arguably Greg excepted- playing in a significantly different role and environment than they had the year before.

So, what's the value of a preseason projection based on results that came under very different circumstances?
I think the answer we saw is not much value at all.

[Scoop Snoop]

I think it's ok to say the team as a whole overachieved through the whole season while still saying the last couple weeks of the season were a let down.

Both can be true.

Yep.

[Hards Alumni]

If you want to obsess or make a big deal about preseason rankings, by all means have it. Just do so knowing that they're not particularly accurate or valuable.
I mean, Kenpom's preseason top 25 included:
#2 Michigan
#5 Illinois
#8 Ohio State
#14 Texas
#18 Maryland
#24 Florida State
#25 Florida

And knowing KenPom's preseason rankings are based largely on projections from prior seasons' results, how seriously should we take them in regards to a team that has:
- 9 new players who've never played together
- A new staff implementing a new scheme with which none of the players are familiar
- A first option who was a bench player the previous season
- A starting point guard who played off the ball in a lower conference the previous season
- A second option who was used primarily as a defensive stopper the previous season
- Almost an entire roster - arguably Greg excepted- playing in a significantly different role and environment than they had the year before.

So, what's the value of a preseason projection based on results that came under very different circumstances?
I think the answer we saw is not much value at all.

Okay, so no evaluation, got it.

[Elonsmusk]

If you want to obsess or make a big deal about preseason rankings, by all means have it. Just do so knowing that they're not particularly accurate or valuable.
I mean, Kenpom's preseason top 25 included:
#2 Michigan
#5 Illinois
#8 Ohio State
#14 Texas
#18 Maryland
#24 Florida State
#25 Florida

And knowing KenPom's preseason rankings are based largely on projections from prior seasons' results, how seriously should we take them in regards to a team that has:
- 9 new players who've never played together
- A new staff implementing a new scheme with which none of the players are familiar
- A first option who was a bench player the previous season
- A starting point guard who played off the ball in a lower conference the previous season
- A second option who was used primarily as a defensive stopper the previous season
- Almost an entire roster - arguably Greg excepted- playing in a significantly different role and environment than they had the year before.

So, what's the value of a preseason projection based on results that came under very different circumstances?
I think the answer we saw is not much value at all.

I think you just made the point about why MU fans are being idiots if they are b*tching about this season.  And, all of the bolded factors are ones that KenPom's model can't really project/forecast and all of the listed factors would point toward challenge.

[Pakuni]

Okay, so no evaluation, got it.

Yes, that's exactly what I wrote.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes, that's exactly what I wrote.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.

You didn't answer his original question though. What do you think is the best way to set preseason expectations?

I think you are correct that no preseason expectations are ever going to be pinpoint accurate and there will always be ones that projections get massively wrong, but that doesn't mean that they are completely useless.

[Pakuni]

You didn't answer his original question though. What do you think is the best way to set preseason expectations?

I think you are correct that no preseason expectations are ever going to be pinpoint accurate and there will always be ones that projections get massively wrong, but that doesn't mean that they are completely useless.

1. I don't know if there's a "best" way, nor do I think it's terribly important. But obviously it would be based primarily on an evaluation of the talent on the roster, combined with how it's expected to be used, combined with expected progress from the previous season. 

2. No one said KenPom is completely useless. For a team with a bunch returning players, the same staff, same scheme, etc., it's great. But for a team like MU - new staff, new scheme, nine new players, nearly every player taking on a new role - a projection based on past results cannot possibly be accurate. There are simply too many unknowns. Kolek's season as an off guard in the A-10 can't predict how he'd run the point in the Big East. Justin's performance as a 6th/7th mam can't accurately tell us how he'll fare as the first offensive option in a different scheme. Kam's play at a small Memphis high school can't predict with any certainty how he'd fare playing 20 minutes a night in the Big East.

So, maybe you can take a crack at my question.  What's the value of a KenPom-type preseason prediction for a team that went wholesale changes like MU? I mean, other than something to argue about on the internet.

[The Equalizer]

An interesting observation whenever someone says something like "Marquette was picked to finish 9th so we overachieved":

Nobody ever mentions the other teams. 

We were picked 9th ahead of DePaul and Georgetown.  We finished in a tie for 5th, unexpectedly ahead of Xavier, St. John's and Butler. 

It is entirely possible that we moved up only because Xavier, Butler & St. Johns dropped like stones. 

Xavier was picked 3rd, finished 7th--four places below their predicted finish
St. Johns was picked 4th, finished 8th--four places below their predicted finish
Butler was picked 6th, finished in a tie for 9th--three places below their predicted finish.

[wadesworld]

We clearly overachieved.  We were coming off a 13-14 season, we lost our all 5 starters/our top 5 scorers, we fired our coach, and we brought in like 9 new players, only one of which had ever started at the high major level before.  And 0 of which were 5 star freshman/one and done talent.  Even the most optimistic expectations were to be a bubble team that might find itself on the right side of the cut line, and that's if everything went right.  I don't know what KenPom projected our record to be, but I'm guessing it wasn't over .500 in the Big East.  We ended up being 11-8 in conference and a 9 seed in the Tournament, having locked up a spot about a month ahead of the Tournament.

I don't know how anyone could debate whether we overachieved or exceeded any rational expectations.

That's not to say this is a great Marquette basketball season.  But given that it probably should've been a very rough season, we overachieved.  Now it's time to add talent and get to the point where the expectation is to be competing to play in the second weekend in the Tournament.  That's the challenge.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

1. I don't know if there's a "best" way, nor do I think it's terribly important. But obviously it would be based primarily on an evaluation of the talent on the roster, combined with how it's expected to be used, combined with expected progress from the previous season. 

2. No one said KenPom is completely useless. For a team with a bunch returning players, the same staff, same scheme, etc., it's great. But for a team like MU - new staff, new scheme, nine new players, nearly every player taking on a new role - a projection based on past results cannot possibly be accurate. There are simply too many unknowns. Kolek's season as an off guard in the A-10 can't predict how he'd run the point in the Big East. Justin's performance as a 6th/7th mam can't accurately tell us how he'll fare as the first offensive option in a different scheme. Kam's play at a small Memphis high school can't predict with any certainty how he'd fare playing 20 minutes a night in the Big East.

So, maybe you can take a crack at my question.  What's the value of a KenPom-type preseason prediction for a team that went wholesale changes like MU? I mean, other than something to argue about on the internet.

I think the value is that it provides an objective baseline on which to judge the results of the season.  It's not a perfect one obviously and it also has nothing to do with whether or not this was a "good" season or not. But for me it helps separate out what % of our success is based on the talent recruited, and what % is based on the coaches. And some may say that doesn't work because maybe the projections just overrate or underrate the talent, but I would say that speaks to a coach's ability to properly identify talent.

[Elonsmusk]

An interesting observation whenever someone says something like "Marquette was picked to finish 9th so we overachieved":

Nobody ever mentions the other teams. 

We were picked 9th ahead of DePaul and Georgetown.  We finished in a tie for 5th, unexpectedly ahead of Xavier, St. John's and Butler. 

It is entirely possible that we moved up only because Xavier, Butler & St. Johns dropped like stones. 

Xavier was picked 3rd, finished 7th--four places below their predicted finish
St. Johns was picked 4th, finished 8th--four places below their predicted finish
Butler was picked 6th, finished in a tie for 9th--three places below their predicted finish.

Considering you are the poster who was all over Tom Crean's jock, while consistently being critical of Buzz Williams, care to share with us what you think of Georgia's season?

It is entirely possible that we moved up because Shaka Smart did a great job in Year 1.  Period.

[Uncle Rico]

Yes!

[dgies9156]

An interesting observation whenever someone says something like "Marquette was picked to finish 9th so we overachieved":

Nobody ever mentions the other teams. 

We were picked 9th ahead of DePaul and Georgetown.  We finished in a tie for 5th, unexpectedly ahead of Xavier, St. John's and Butler. 

It is entirely possible that we moved up only because Xavier, Butler & St. Johns dropped like stones. 

Xavier was picked 3rd, finished 7th--four places below their predicted finish
St. Johns was picked 4th, finished 8th--four places below their predicted finish
Butler was picked 6th, finished in a tie for 9th--three places below their predicted finish.

What I had read over and over again was that there was a bunch-up in the middle of the Big East this year. Everyone thought Villanova and UConn would be good. Everyone thought Butler, DePaul and Georgetown would be bad. The rest -- Creighton, us, Xavier, St. John's, Seton Hall and Providence -- were a crap shoot.

Nobody should be arguing we we didn't achieve this year. Most folks who evaluated us in September us didn't think much of what Coach Shaka had assembled and we surely outperformed expectations.

When you get a taste of what might be, it's awful hard to go back to what was expected or, frankly, to what we saw at season's end. The drubbing by North Carolina made no sense in light of what we did twice to Villanova -- a Sweet 16 team -- and once to Providence -- also a Sweet 16 team. How can a team be so good and then so bad?

Shame.

[Hards Alumni]

You didn't answer his original question though. What do you think is the best way to set preseason expectations?

I think you are correct that no preseason expectations are ever going to be pinpoint accurate and there will always be ones that projections get massively wrong, but that doesn't mean that they are completely useless.

Correct.  I was just showing Pak that I'm learning from him every day.   

[PointWarrior]

You didn't answer his original question though. What do you think is the best way to set preseason expectations?

I think you are correct that no preseason expectations are ever going to be pinpoint accurate and there will always be ones that projections get massively wrong, but that doesn't mean that they are completely useless.

Not true - every year I am told exactly what to expect by the Value Add ratings glorified here. 

Then comes Kenpom pre-season ratings and it's 100% accuracy. 

And let's not mention the certainty the basketball experts on this board informed us this past year's team would routinely score in the 50's. 

[Uncle Rico]

Not true - every year I am told exactly what to expect by the Value Add ratings glorified here. 

Then comes Kenpom pre-season ratings and it's 100% accuracy. 

And let's not mention the certainty the basketball experts on this board informed us this past year's team would routinely score in the 50's.

Who has ever said KenPom is 100% accurate?

[PointWarrior]

Once Kenpom ratings come out, I am not sure why they even bother to play the actual games...

Who has ever said KenPom is 100% accurate?

[Uncle Rico]

Once Kenpom ratings come out, I am not sure why they even bother to play the actual games...

Whoever said that?

[PointWarrior]

I count 17 posters...

Whoever said that?

[Uncle Rico]

I count 17 posters...

Who said they shouldn't play the games?  KenPom is one tool used to assess a team heading into a season, during a season and after a season.

Marquette began the season 87th which isn't very good.  The high point of the season was 23 after they defeated Villanova for the 2nd time.  They are currently 57th which is about right given the finish of the season.

They improved 30 spots which is pretty good and achieved a high not many expected, also pretty good.  I'd say the metrics have been pretty spot on for this team

[The Sultan]

If they didn't play the games, it sure would save on travel costs.