Ranking the Champions | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Ranking the Champions

Like I said, good luck with the Duke 2010 being good takes here.

I dunno though, #1 in Ken Pom, #1 in offense, #5 in defense. Seems pretty good to me.

That's my problem with KenPom. Just like in baseball, where advanced stats were kind of born, the computers don't always get it right and they're not always particularly close. KenPom is getting better and has the best advanced stats out right now, but the deviation between his rankings and real-world results is still significant. The deviations between human projections and real-world results are larger, but both are significant to the point that you can't reasonably rely on one or the other. With 350 teams playing vastly different schedules, assessing the relative strength of each team is an insane undertaking. I applaud and appreciate KenPom's efforts, but I'm still skeptical that his stats/rankings should be relied upon to the degree they usually are. They're part of a bigger picture that should include a decent dose of the human 'eye-test'.

That Duke team was mediocre by Duke standards. Duke fans I engage with on a popular national message board tend to agree it wasn't, or shouldn't have been, a championship caliber team.
 
2008 KU should have lost that game .

I mean if you want to make that argument because they needed missed free throws and a great, clutch play at the end of the game you can. But I think you'd be on shaky ground.
 
That's my problem with KenPom. Just like in baseball, where advanced stats were kind of born, the computers don't always get it right and they're not always particularly close. KenPom is getting better and has the best advanced stats out right now, but the deviation between his rankings and real-world results is still significant. The deviations between human projections and real-world results are larger, but both are significant to the point that you can't reasonably rely on one or the other. With 350 teams playing vastly different schedules, assessing the relative strength of each team is an insane undertaking. I applaud and appreciate KenPom's efforts, but I'm still skeptical that his stats/rankings should be relied upon to the degree they usually are. They're part of a bigger picture that should include a decent dose of the human 'eye-test'.

That Duke team was mediocre by Duke standards. Duke fans I engage with on a popular national message board tend to agree it wasn't, or shouldn't have been, a championship caliber team.

Mediocre by Duke standards.

Yeah. Dukes standards are pretty high. Really high, actually.
 
Mediocre by Duke standards.

Yeah. Dukes standards are pretty high. Really high, actually.

Yeah but 'great' by Cuse standards is still a lot better than 'mediocre' by Duke standards.

If KenPom isn't accurate why are the point spreads in Vegas nearly identical to KenPom lines?

Did I not say KenPom's deviation was better than the deviation of human projections? Doesn't that directly relate to Vegas spreads?

My point was that both kind of suck, so relying on one over the other is a goofy thing to do.
 
I <3 Kenpom but reserve the right to disagree when it's convenient for me ;)
Seriously it was incredible how unanimous it was that in 2010 Dook was the weakest of the #1s and how they drew such a weak region. They lost to every single tournament team they played on the road except Clemson. Including G'town who I think was beating them by 20 but K unlike JT III left his starters in for some garbage baskets to make the final look competitive (that helps with KP rating a bit). Kansas & SU had sick road W's that year.

'04 Uconn & '00 Mich St def. underrated on that list.
I don't think there's recency bias with this yr's Nova. They were a great team.
 
That's my problem with KenPom. Just like in baseball, where advanced stats were kind of born, the computers don't always get it right and they're not always particularly close. KenPom is getting better and has the best advanced stats out right now, but the deviation between his rankings and real-world results is still significant. The deviations between human projections and real-world results are larger, but both are significant to the point that you can't reasonably rely on one or the other. With 350 teams playing vastly different schedules, assessing the relative strength of each team is an insane undertaking. I applaud and appreciate KenPom's efforts, but I'm still skeptical that his stats/rankings should be relied upon to the degree they usually are. They're part of a bigger picture that should include a decent dose of the human 'eye-test'.

That Duke team was mediocre by Duke standards. Duke fans I engage with on a popular national message board tend to agree it wasn't, or shouldn't have been, a championship caliber team.

I hear what you're saying to an extent, but you talk about the deviation between his rankings and the real world results; well, Duke was #1 in 2010 in his rankings, and they won the tournament. So I don't see a lot of deviation there.

The ranking are for sure not perfect; but when the #1 ranked team in them also ends up winning the national championship, I think the onus is on the side saying "actually, they weren't that good" to prove their case.
 
I hear what you're saying to an extent, but you talk about the deviation between his rankings and the real world results; well, Duke was #1 in 2010 in his rankings, and they won the tournament. So I don't see a lot of deviation there.

The ranking are for sure not perfect; but when the #1 ranked team in them also ends up winning the national championship, I think the onus is on the side saying "actually, they weren't that good" to prove their case.

There's some confirmation bias there. I don't have full access to all of his stuff. Where was Duke ranked at the end of the regular season according to KenPom? They might've been first, in which case, great, but they might not have been. More importantly, how do the other tournament winners in the last 10 years (or whatever cutoff you feel like looking up) compare to their KenPom rankings at the end of the regular season?
 
There's some confirmation bias there. I don't have full access to all of his stuff. Where was Duke ranked at the end of the regular season according to KenPom? They might've been first, in which case, great, but they might not have been. More importantly, how do the other tournament winners in the last 10 years (or whatever cutoff you feel like looking up) compare to their KenPom rankings at the end of the regular season?

They were #2 in the final regular season KP rankings. Kansas #1, Cuse #3.

I'm a little bored, here are the rankings going back, final reg season ranking

2018: Nova #2
2017: UNC #3
2016: Nova #5
2015: Duke #6
2014: UConn #25
2013: Louisville #2
2012: Kentucky #1
2011: UConn #15
2010: Duke #2
2009: UNC #3
2008: Kansas #1
2007: Florida #3
2006: Florida #6
2005: UNC #2
2004: Uconn #5
2003: Syracuse #20
2002: Maryland #4

Not sure what any of this means. Except I didn't like typing UConn 3 times
 
That Duke team won the ACCT, was co Reg Season champion with Maryland, and finished the season AP #3.
 
For those too young to understand how good Kentucky was in 1996 when they beat us, check out 13 all time.
The Untouchables.
 
Last edited:
As the years go by the Onaku injury almost gets more tough to swallow. That was our year. Very pedestrian Duke team in the Champ Game.

Agree with the above that even with Fab we lose to Anthony Davis and Kentucky in 2012.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
169,674
Messages
4,844,713
Members
5,981
Latest member
SYRtoBOS

Online statistics

Members online
45
Guests online
1,080
Total visitors
1,125


...
Top Bottom