College Bball Thread

[IUc2016 7,121]

The big ten was projected to be down this year but started off the first three weeks of the season strong and people changed their minds. 
 

I think the projections were right. It is pretty stinky 

[lillurk 4,531]

8 minutes ago, IUc2016 said:

The big ten was projected to be down this year but started off the first three weeks of the season strong and people changed their minds. 
 

I think the projections were right. It is pretty stinky 

Yeah, I think I underrated PU but think they can fall back somewhat as their guard play ebbs. Currently feel pretty good about my take that Illinois was a little overrated — clearly talented but things are going the wrong way.

Think it’s fair to have concerns about IU’s losses but also believe the combo of talent is there to have a memorable season.

[RaceToTheTop 29,005]

11 hours ago, IUc2016 said:

The big ten was projected to be down this year but started off the first three weeks of the season strong and people changed their minds. 
 

I think the projections were right. It is pretty stinky 

I think the Big Ten is still ranked second on Pom and on Sagarin.

[Hoosier987 1,770]

I was watching SC vs WKU last night. I didn’t see much of Lander so it prompted me to look up his stats. I can confidently say that IU was not the problem. Hindsight is always 20/20 but  what is also clear is he shouldn’t have jumped early to college. He only plays 12.9 min/game…avg 4.2 points/ game and 0.6 assists/ game in a mid-major conference (C-USA). It made me wonder…as Lander was regarded as the #1 PG in his class…has there ever been a bigger discrepancy in high school rankings and actual play in college? Not sure if he was a top 500 player at his position. I can’t recall.

I wish Lander well but wondered where we would be if Lander was actually the the player everyone anticipated him to be? I think we’d be sitting very nicely. Big miss on prior coaching staff and the high school scouts/experts that rank players.

[Stuhoo 86,184]

15 minutes ago, Hoosier987 said:

I was watching SC vs WKU last night. I didn’t see much of Lander so it prompted me to look up his stats. I can confidently say that IU was not the problem. Hindsight is always 20/20 but  what is also clear is he shouldn’t have jumped early to college. He only plays 12.9 min/game…avg 4.2 points/ game and 0.6 assists/ game in a mid-major conference (C-USA). It made me wonder…as Lander was regarded as the #1 PG in his class…has there ever been a bigger discrepancy in high school rankings and actual play in college? Not sure if he was a top 500 player at his position. I can’t recall.

I wish Lander well but wondered where we would be if Lander was actually the the player everyone anticipated him to be? I think we’d be sitting very nicely. Big miss on prior coaching staff and the high school scouts/experts that rank players.

 

Skal Labissiere comes to mind. #2 ranked player in his class. One terrible, terrible year at Kentucky where he averaged 6 pts, 3 rbs in 15 mpg and 7.6 fouls per 40 minutes, and now is 26 years old and in a Puerto Rican pro league.

 

[IUc2016 7,121]

1 hour ago, RaceToTheTop said:

I think the Big Ten is still ranked second on Pom and on Sagarin.

It’s been a pretty poor December for the conference objectively 

[RaceToTheTop 29,005]

39 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

Skal Labissiere comes to mind. #2 ranked player in his class. One terrible, terrible year at Kentucky where he averaged 6 pts, 3 rbs in 15 mpg and 7.6 fouls per 40 minutes, and now is 26 years old and in a Puerto Rican pro league.

 

Ater Mayok is a huge one.  Ranked #17.  Went to UConn.  Ruled ineligible for his freshman season.  Played 26 games at UConn, averaging 2.3 points and 3 rebounds in 15 minutes per game.  Was basically told to hit the road by Jim Calhoun.  Declared for the NBA draft, obviously wasn't selected.  Since 2010 has bounced around in foreign leagues, never able to hang on anywhere.  Has played in leagues in Poland, Australia, G-League, Germany, Russia, and Basketball Africa.   Only averaged double figures once and he's now 35 -- strangely the double figure year is this year in the Basketball Africa league.

[RaceToTheTop 29,005]

9 minutes ago, IUc2016 said:

It’s been a pretty poor December for the conference objectively 

It definitely has.  December games against SEC/ACC/PAC 12/BIG 12/BIG EAST/BIG 12 has seen the Big Ten go 5-11:

Wisconsin win over Marquette at Marquette

Ohio State loss at North Carolina

Michigan neutral court loss to Kentucky

Michigan loss at North Carolina

Indiana loss at Kansas

Indiana neutral court loss to Arizona

Maryland neutral court loss to Tennessee

Maryland home loss to UCLA

Rutgers home loss to Seton Hall

Rutgers home win over Wake Forest

Iowa home win over Iowa State

Iowa neutral court loss to Duke

Illinois neutral court win over Texas

Illinois neutral court loss to Missouri

Nebraska home win over Creighton

Nebraska road loss to Kansas State

Minnesota home loss to Mississippi State

 

November (I'm going to include Gonzaga and San Diego State as quality games):

MInnesota home loss to DePaul, road loss to Virginia Tech

Purdue home win over Marquette, neutral court wins over West Virginia, Gonzaga, and Duke, road win over Florida State

Wisconsin home win over Stanford, neutral court loss to Kansas, neutral court win over USC, home loss to Wake Forest

Ohio State neutral court loss to San Diego State, neutral court win over Cincinnati and Texas Tech, road loss to Duke

Northwestern neutral court loss to Auburn, home loss to PIttsburgh

Michigan neutral court win over Pittsburgh, home loss to Virginia

Indiana road win over Xavier, home win over North Caroilna

Maryland neutral court win over Miami, road win at Louisville

Rutgers road loss at Miami

Penn State home win over Butler, neutral court loss t Virginia Tech, road loss at Clemson

Michigan State neutral court loss to Gonzaga, neutral court win over Kentucky, home win over Villanova, neutral loss to Alabama, neutral win over Oregon, road loss to Notre Dame

Iowa road win over Seton Hall, neutral win over Clemson, neutral loss against TCU, home win over Georgia Tech

Illinois neutral win over UCLA, neutral loss to Virginia, home win over Syracuse

Nebraska road loss at St John's, neutral loss to Oklahoma, neutral win over Florida State, home win over Boston College, 

Minnesota home loss to DePaul, road loss to Virginia Tech

November had the Big Ten at 27-17 against powers, so yes it definitely carried the conference.  Overall after a bad december still has the Big Ten at 32-28 which is why they are second (FWIW, the Big 12 has a big lead on the other conferences rating wise and then the next five are pretty close).

[rcbowla 7,775]

Stuck in the house and bored so I have a question. Do you think that since advanced analytics have become prominent that they are a better indicator of team/player performance or do you think that the ol' eye test is better? I get both sides but to me there are so many things a team/player can or cannot do that cannot be tracked by analytics so I give the nod to eye test. I also admittedly get nauseous when people try to defend obviously bad play by reciting stats. Just curious where some of you stand with this.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[str8baller 6,614]

4 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

Stuck in the house and bored so I have a question. Do you think that since advanced analytics have become prominent that they are a better indicator of team/player performance or do you think that the ol' eye test is better? I get both sides but to me there are so many things a team/player can or cannot do that cannot be tracked by analytics so I give the nod to eye test. I also admittedly get nauseous when people try to defend obviously bad play by reciting stats. Just curious where some of you stand with this.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 

Depends on what analytic and whose eye.

[IU Scott 2,375]

2 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

Stuck in the house and bored so I have a question. Do you think that since advanced analytics have become prominent that they are a better indicator of team/player performance or do you think that the ol' eye test is better? I get both sides but to me there are so many things a team/player can or cannot do that cannot be tracked by analytics so I give the nod to eye test. I also admittedly get nauseous when people try to defend obviously bad play by reciting stats. Just curious where some of you stand with this.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 

I hate analytics and think it's is ruing sports in general. In basketball it is taking away the third of the court and it makes it easier to defend. To me any open shot that goes in is a good shot but these computer geeks say that mid range game is bad. They say today's way of playing is more efficient but why is scoring and shooting down today compared to the past.

[rcbowla 7,775]

Depends on what analytic and whose eye.

So what analytics do you think are good indicators?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[str8baller 6,614]

4 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

So what analytics do you think are good indicators?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 

When fed enough data, I think something like Sagarin or Kenpom are superior to the AP top 25.  The latter’s pace data is good, too. The “pro’s” in Vegas don’t deviate a whole lot for those basic metrics when setting lines. 
 

In the NBA where you get enough data for line-up efficiency ratings, I think those are pretty useful.  
 

Of course, the worse eye you have for basketball the more broadly statistics becomes helpful. For example, a traditional box score isn’t really great from an analytical standpoint, but if you didn’t even watch the game the box score will give you a lot of information you would not have otherwise.  

[WayneFleekHoosier 50,055]

Depends on what analytic and whose eye.

Did somebody say WayneFleek eye test? ;)


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

[go iu bb 7,928]

17 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

Skyy Clark is the least athletic borderline five star player I’ve ever seen

Not sad we missed on him.

[RaceToTheTop 29,005]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I hate analytics and think it's is ruing sports in general. In basketball it is taking away the third of the court and it makes it easier to defend. To me any open shot that goes in is a good shot but these computer geeks say that mid range game is bad. They say today's way of playing is more efficient but why is scoring and shooting down today compared to the past.

By that assumption, teams taking a lot of mid range jumpers would be succeeding since it should open things up.  But that hasn't been happening.  

Open mid range shots are better than contested threes and contested shots at the rim.  The goal isn't to get the ball into a position that is easily defended.  But open shots close at the rim and open threes are better than open mid range shots in general.

[RaceToTheTop 29,005]

54 minutes ago, str8baller said:

When fed enough data, I think something like Sagarin or Kenpom are superior to the AP top 25.  The latter’s pace data is good, too. The “pro’s” in Vegas don’t deviate a whole lot for those basic metrics when setting lines. 
 

In the NBA where you get enough data for line-up efficiency ratings, I think those are pretty useful.  
 

Of course, the worse eye you have for basketball the more broadly statistics becomes helpful. For example, a traditional box score isn’t really great from an analytical standpoint, but if you didn’t even watch the game the box score will give you a lot of information you would not have otherwise.  

It's important to remember that Sagarin and Kenpom are meant to be predictive and not reflectivve.  Typically good for predicting future success but not necessarily meant to measure what a team has done in terms of wins and losses to that point.

I like to look at Pom and Sagarin to see what they feel a team will do the rest of the regular season.  But when it comes to picking and seeding teams for the tournament, the only thing that would matter to me are wins, losses, and strength of schedule.  In essence, give me Pom and Sagarin to predict but eye test to reward teams at the end of the season.  I don't think it's the committee's job to predict what teams are going to do going forward -- I think it is to place teams based on the win/loss results of their games.

[IU Scott 2,375]

21 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

By that assumption, teams taking a lot of mid range jumpers would be succeeding since it should open things up.  But that hasn't been happening.  

Open mid range shots are better than contested threes and contested shots at the rim.  The goal isn't to get the ball into a position that is easily defended.  But open shots close at the rim and open threes are better than open mid range shots in general.

Problem is that nobody takes a lot of mid range shots

[str8baller 6,614]

2 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

It's important to remember that Sagarin and Kenpom are meant to be predictive and not reflectivve.  Typically good for predicting future success but not necessarily meant to measure what a team has done in terms of wins and losses to that point.

Sagrin has several ratings, and one used to take wins and losses into account.  It was a chess based system. I liked it because it factored in actual winning, but I guess nobody else did and he’s since taken it off. FWIW, we’re 15 and Kennesaw is 240 in Sagarin. 

Kenpom is nice and people ultimately gravitated there because he keeps pace stats. His “luck” metric is useful too. 

But you generally want the predictive metrics. They’re actual analytics. I don’t care what the tournament committee does outside of IU’s bid. They’re about as relevant to the actual basketball played on the floor as a human poll when talking about how do we interpret what we see on the floor. 

[RaceToTheTop 29,005]

6 hours ago, IU Scott said:

Problem is that nobody takes a lot of mid range shots

They take less of them than they used to, but that doesn't many that there aren't teams taking more of them than others.  And the ones that are taking more of them are struggling offensively.