NET and KenPom Tracker 23-24 (SU = 84 3/9/24)

[Cusefan0307]

They beat USC already too. Both wins were with the same players they had against us. It’s too bad we didn’t see UCLA in Hawaii.

 

[jncuse]

I think we will be one of those anomalies.

It's possible. KP closely replicates the line for most games (within a point or two), so if we keep consistently beating that spread like we have recently, we will keep moving up in KP.

If we keep doing well we will reach an equilibrium point as more competitive games are played.

 

[721Comstock]

They beat USC already too. Both wins were with the same players they had against us. It’s too bad we didn’t see UCLA in Hawaii.

Yeah, that's a good look for us, for sure.

And, nobody's gonna remember that half of Oregon team had died of dysentery for their game against us.

Just that we won. Bigly.

Keep stacking those Dubs.

 

[walsh2012]

I know this will be a TLDR post for many who prefer to creative narratives or bash numbers, rather than try to understand what something is doing and its strengths and weaknesses.

I respect the system and what it does (but I understand its limitations) and I have no agenda except understanding numbers.. but at the same time, myself like KP, will also say KP should not be anywhere close to a primary basis to select NCAA teams, and at best a very low secondary basis for selecting item. And it's not a primary factor or even really a secondary factor for choosing NCAA teams. Which I agree with!

And the W by Syracuse today is much more important than whatever our KP movement is from one isolated game in a sample.

Its a margin based system done to rank 362 teams in order to help people predict outcomes. Good luck trying to rank 362 teams on straight wins and losses or "Eye Test", when there are such large variances in schedule strength. You have to use margin to try to rank such a large amount of teams. You can try do those types of things (Who beat Who) when ranking the top 25, but you can't do that effectively when its a larger group

The change by Syracuse was totally as expected. I'll explain the math.
It was basically a pick em game, since Syracuse has the 3.5 point advantage being at home.
We won by 8 points, so 8 points above expected margin (before considering pace)
8 points / 13 games / .724 (our tempo of 72.4 possesions) = .84 improvement in EM
Our current Adjusted Efficiency Margin of 9.58 is #81
Before the game it would have been around 9.58 - 0.84 = 8.74, which would be #87 as of now.

Margin matters, not just straight W and L, for KP.
For example if we lose to Duke by 1 point, I ran the calculations and our EM would improve by about 1.4 and move our ranking up to about #71 or #72 And if we win by 1 point, it would be 69 or 70. Not much difference in either ranking because its only 2 points. But of course the difference between Winning and Losing by 1 point would be massive for our tournament lives -- as it should be when choosing teams.

So what do I like about KP - its a good way to get a general understanding of how good a team is, by looking at its "range" a 60-80 type team for example, which is quite helpful for mid-majors that we never see -- to me that is the best part of the system. It also predicts teams ultimate outcome better than the current AP Top 25 as a whole for example. Again KP is being using to rank 362 teams, and help us predict outcomes for 362 teams.

But I would never use the simple KP ranking to pick a P6 team for the tournament, and what P6 teams should get in. That should be based on the straight quality of your W's and L's.

Nor would I use it to prepare my current top 25, "AP Style".

That being said the top 25 in KP as of today, will very likely end up doing better in conference and end of year and the tournament, then the current AP top 25 who will have more teams tank a bit. That is because KP is a good predictive system and will predict where teams end up better than the current AP Top 25. Of course there will always be exceptions and anomalies,

I admittedly like the bit of banging on "nerds" but I'm just kidding and respect the methodology - even if it's not always right to me.

I'd love to know more about why you think Oregon and Pittsburgh are so far ahead of us. I can definitely accept them being ranked above us still - but 45/46 to 81 is a huge gap.

Not to argue that they should go down - but we could be much higher.

I don't know much about this, just confused by this and would love to know more

 

[OrlandoCuse]

I’m struggling to reconcile some of the computer models this year. NET and KP don’t seem to like SU much. We’re being weighed down a bit in KP because of his use of “Luck” which he rates us high. My guess is his luck factor is because we’ve outperformed his predictions, so he’s attributing it to some form of luck (I don’t think he should be factoring luck at a significant level. It may matter over a game or two but won’t matter over a long stretch of games).

NET is a bit weird. I think a whole bunch of teams are bunched together between 25 and 90, and were skewing lower because we don’t have a Q1 win. I think it we start stringing some Q1 and Q2 wins together, which we will have the opportunity to do so based on ACC team rankings, I think we could rapidly rise up the NET rankings. Best thing about this year is we’ve avoided any bad losses and really shouldn’t have any Q3/4 losses this year which will go a long way.

 

[jncuse]

I admittedly like the bit of banging on "nerds" but I'm just kidding and respect the methodology - even if it's not always right to me.

I'd love to know more about why you think Oregon and Pittsburgh are so far ahead of us. I can definitely accept them being ranked above us still - but 45/46 to 81 is a huge gap.

Not to argue that they should go down - but we could be much higher.

I don't know much about this, just confused by this and would love to know more

It's a fair question. The reason those teams are likely ahead is because they did better margin wise against their less stellar opponents. But I'll look further tomorrow to validate.

Certainly not a reason for them to be ahead of us tournament wise, nor would it put them ahead of us, but it is one of the limitations / potential weaknesses of a margin system especially earlier in the year when those games are 10% of your sample, rather than 3% of your sample by year end.

 

[jncuse]

I’m struggling to reconcile some of the computer models this year. NET and KP don’t seem to like SU much. We’re being weighed down a bit in KP because of his use of “Luck” which he rates us high. My guess is his luck factor is because we’ve outperformed his predictions, so he’s attributing it to some form of luck (I don’t think he should be factoring luck at a significant level. It may matter over a game or two but won’t matter over a long stretch of games).

NET is a bit weird. I think a whole bunch of teams are bunched together between 25 and 90, and were skewing lower because we don’t have a Q1 win. I think it we start stringing some Q1 and Q2 wins together, which we will have the opportunity to do so based on ACC team rankings, I think we could rapidly rise up the NET rankings. Best thing about this year is we’ve avoided any bad losses and really shouldn’t have any Q3/4 losses this year which will go a long way.

"luck" is not an input into the formula or his ranking, it is only an output. It won't impact your adjusted EM which is what he ranks teams on. "Luck" is an output of the formula, comparing your EM to your actual record.

That being said our predicted ranking may still have some "input" factor into our current ranking. But not too much. Our predicted record may still hurt us a tad... I had seen earlier from an article in 2011 that around Christmas that year KP's predicted ranking still weighed around 20% of your ranking, but kept on dropping down to zero over the next little while. Since we started at 107, it probably hurts us around 5 or 6 spots right now by deduction (assuming it is a 20/80 split) but not more than that.

As others have mentioned "luck" is similar to the "pyth wins" concept in major sports like baseball and basketball. I "Pyth" variance is easier to comprehend -- typically teams with high pyth variances from pyth wins to actual wins (good or bad) tend to be very good or very bad in close games, or have an abnormal amount of large blowouts (good or bad). Its similar for the "luck" factor in the NCAA, but it doesn't work out very well early in the NCAA season because there are so many cupcake games that are not competitive -- its becomes more relavant to look at later in the season. Typically if you are losing a bunch of close conference games, your "luck" will be deemed bad. As I said I don't like the word luck because with certain teams in can be more of a skill arguably. But analytics guys always view performance in close games as diverging back to the mean.

 

[Ragman2000]

What an absolute joke. Pitt stays at 41 in net and we only move up from 83 to 78. Makes zero sense, the NET might be the dumbest computer metric in all the land.

 

[Giants1973]

Both these rankings are a joke. Just keep winning. They will have improve there rankings

 

[upperdeck]

not net related.. but the B-12 with 12 teams 9-3 or better is nuts.. they will have quad 1 wins all over the place.

 

[Ragman2000]

not net related.. but the B-12 with 12 teams 9-3 or better is nuts.. they will have quad 1 wins all over the place.

Not for nothing, but the ACC is in a similar boat. It's just absurd we are where we are with our current resume.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Our blowout losses are killing our analytics.

 

[OptimusOtto]

Our blowout losses are killing our analytics.

I’m sure it doesn’t help that Gonzaga is in the mid-50s and Virginia has been all over the place too.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

I’m sure it doesn’t help that Gonzaga is in the mid-50s and Virginia has been all over the place too.

It’s a bit weird that there’s no “time” aspect in the models. We all know that younger, newer teams go through adjustment factors during the season. We had a tall task in Maui with such a young team. We’ve definitely improved since then, more than most teams. I guess we just need to keep winning, but it does seem like we’ll have some “drag” on our analytics due to those early season losses against good teams.

 

[Ragman2000]

It's just funny that we're a 4 seed based on RPI. It's all arbitrary nonsense.

 

[AngryOtto]

It’s a bit weird that there’s no “time” aspect in the models. We all know that younger, newer teams go through adjustment factors during the season. We had a tall task in Maui with such a young team. We’ve definitely improved since then, more than most teams. I guess we just need to keep winning, but it does seem like we’ll have some “drag” on our analytics due to those early season losses against good teams.

Agree. If you are talking about tournament play the only thing that should really matter is how the team is playing the last six weeks before the tournament. Games in November and early December should not have any real weight but unfortunately they do.

 

[Sherman20]

It's possible. KP closely replicates the line for most games (within a point or two), so if we keep consistently beating that spread like we have recently, we will keep moving up in KP.

If we keep doing well we will reach an equilibrium point as more competitive games are played.

We're a young team. Often young teams have a chance to improve quite a bit over the course of a season.

I don't have access to the full season KP data, but I know there are lots of examples of those teams.

 

[upperdeck]

Agree. If you are talking about tournament play the only thing that should really matter is how the team is playing the last six weeks before the tournament. Games in November and early December should not have any real weight but unfortunately they do.

and thats been an argument all along.. is it best teams playing at the end or best teams who played all year,

You could beat 3-4 teams early who are good and be pretty avg by the end and get in. or lose to 3-4 bad teams early and play pretty well late and not get in.

But the last 10 thing is gone. they want the teams with the best record over the yr not the teams with the best chance to win.

Except if its FSU.

 

[Sbucketball]

What an absolute joke. Pitt stays at 41 in net and we only move up from 83 to 78. Makes zero sense, the NET might be the dumbest computer metric in all the land.

We're 10-3 having played a tougher schedule than 9-4 Pitt, and we beat them head-to-head; however, the difference is they lost close games, while we lost by 17, 19, and 22. The teams that beat us are better than the teams that beat Pitt, though. It's hard to climb the NET, especially when the ACC as a league isn't as strong as some other conferences and we're only playing each other from here forward. Grabbing a good win early in Maui would have really helped.

 

[SWC75]

and thats been an argument all along.. is it best teams playing at the end or best teams who played all year,

You could beat 3-4 teams early who are good and be pretty avg by the end and get in. or lose to 3-4 bad teams early and play pretty well late and not get in.

But the last 10 thing is gone. they want the teams with the best record over the yr not the teams with the best chance to win.

Except if its FSU.

They should be able to balance those considerations.

 

[SWC75]

We're 10-3 having played a tougher schedule than 9-4 Pitt, and we beat them head-to-head; however, the difference is they lost close games, while we lost by 17, 19, and 22. The teams that beat us are better than the teams that beat Pitt, though. It's hard to climb the NET, especially when the ACC as a league isn't as strong as some other conferences and we're only playing each other from here forward. Grabbing a good win early in Maui would have really helped.

Wasn't this supposed to be a super conference with the best of the old ACC and the best of the old Big East. Maybe we need to look at why that didn't happen.

 

[Sbucketball]

Wasn't this supposed to be a super conference with the best of the old ACC and the best of the old Big East. Maybe we need to look at why that didn't happen.

Syracuse becoming mediocre is definitely part of the problem when it comes to conference prestige. Cuse regularly battling Duke, UNC and Virginia for conference championships over the past decade would have gone a long way.

 

[Sbucketball]

Gonzaga is currently a Q2 loss - it was Q1 when it was played. That slows our rise. Also Virginia is still a Q1, but notably Virginia dropped from 31 to 54 after getting blown out by Notre Dame, which went from 237 to 187 yesterday.

 

[NKR1978]

Wasn't this supposed to be a super conference with the best of the old ACC and the best of the old Big East. Maybe we need to look at why that didn't happen.

If us and Louisville maintained our programs the way we should have, the ACC would be a lot better.

 

[Giants1973]

Syracuse becoming mediocre is definitely part of the problem when it comes to conference prestige. Cuse regularly battling Duke, UNC and Virginia for conference championships over the past decade would have gone a long way.

Beat Duke and NC they will think different about Cuse!!!!