SportsHoopla Top 25 (12/15 - 12/21)

[ericd7633]

1. Kentucky
2. Duke
3. Arizona
4. Louisville
5. UVA
6. Gonzaga
7. Kansas
8. Texas
9. Villanova
10. Wisconsin
11. Washington
12. Wichita State
13. Ohio State
14. Maryland
15. Oklahoma
16. Iowa State
17. San Diego State
18. Utah
19. Notre Dame
20. Miami
21. Colorado State
22. St. John's
23. Michigan State
24. Old Dominion
25. VCU

 

[dcZONAfan]

1. Kentucky
2. Duke
3. Arizona
4. Louisville
5. UVA
6. Gonzaga
7. Kansas
8. Texas
9. Villanova
10. Wisconsin
11. Washington
12. Wichita State
13. Ohio State
14. Maryland
15. Oklahoma
16. Iowa State
17. San Diego State
18. Utah
19. Notre Dame
20. Miami
21. Colorado State
22. St. John's
23. Michigan State
24. Old Dominion
25. VCU

You have Wisconsin behind Villanova???

Yikes.

 

[Smart]

1. Kentucky
2. Duke
3. Virginia
4. Louisville
5. Wisconsin
6. Arizona
7. Villanova
8. Gonzaga
9. Wichita State
10. Texas
11. Kansas
12. Baylor
13. Iowa State
14. Ohio State
15. Michigan State
16. Oklahoma
17. North Carolina
18. Miami
19. St. Johns
20. Oklahoma State
21. Harvard
22. Georgetown
23. Maryland
24. Utah
25. San Diego State

(I used KenPom as the base and only made adjustments where I felt it was clear that KenPom was wrong.)

 

[MI Nightmare]

1. Kentucky
2. Duke
3. Arizona
4. Gonzaga
5. Louisville
6. Wisconsin
7. Texas
8. Kansas
9. Virginia
10. Villanova
11. Utah
12. Ohio State
13. Wichita State
14. Iowa State
15. St. John's
16. Oklahoma
17. San Diego State
18. Notre Dame
19. Michigan State
20. Washington
21. Maryland
22. Colorado State
23. Miami
24. West Virginia
25. Seton Hall

TCU, Old Dominion, Baylor, Arkansas, Harvard, VCU....

 

[dcZONAfan]

1. Kentucky
2. Duke
3. Virginia
4. Louisville
5. Wisconsin
6. Arizona
7. Villanova
8. Gonzaga
9. Wichita State
10. Texas
11. Kansas
12. Baylor
13. Iowa State
14. Ohio State
15. Michigan State
16. Oklahoma
17. North Carolina
18. Miami
19. St. Johns
20. Oklahoma State
21. Harvard
22. Georgetown
23. Maryland
24. Utah
25. San Diego State

(I used KenPom as the base and only made adjustments where I felt it was clear that KenPom was wrong.)

You don't think KenPom is wrong when he puts Harvard ahead of Utah? And Michigan State ahead of them as well? And Utah at 24? And BAYLOR AT 12????

 

[ericd7633]

You have Wisconsin behind Villanova???

Yikes.

You're going to make a big deal out of one spot? Looking at pretty much every metric Nova and Wisconsin are about as close as it gets.

Where would you have them? I see you critiquing others without doing your own.

 

[dcZONAfan]

You're going to make a big deal out of one spot? Looking at pretty much every metric Nova and Wisconsin are about as close as it gets.

Where would you have them? I see you critiquing others without doing your own.

Look, Villanova is undefeated. So they can't do more than that. But if you watch both teams there's a big difference.

I would describe Villanova as a cute team this year, just like last year. It's not any different. They still have no size and won't beat any of the great teams that are balanced.

That being said, they will not lose many games this year. But if you placed them in Big 12, Big 10, ACC they would. But if you drank the Kool-Aid for them last year, you'll drink it again this year and there's nothing I can do about that.

 

[dcZONAfan]

You're going to make a big deal out of one spot? Looking at pretty much every metric Nova and Wisconsin are about as close as it gets.

Where would you have them? I see you critiquing others without doing your own.

Also, I probably should have been more specific because you think my argument was about 1 spot. I think in the end it's more about you being crazy for not having Wisconsin higher. They have been (again, if you've WATCHED these two teams) far more impressive than Louisville this year. But one team is undefeated and one isn't so I guess if you only want to base if off of that you can.

 

[ericd7633]

Look, Villanova is undefeated. So they can't do more than that. But if you watch both teams there's a big difference.

I would describe Villanova as a cute team this year, just like last year. It's not any different. They still have no size and won't beat any of the great teams that are balanced.

That being said, they will not lose many games this year. But if you placed them in Big 12, Big 10, ACC they would. But if you drank the Kool-Aid for them last year, you'll drink it again this year and there's nothing I can do about that.

I'm not drinking anything this year. I have them ranked 9th behind numerous one loss teams. Obviously being undefeated doesn't mean the entire world to me. I have watched both teams. Right now they are both similar IMO. Its not like Wisconsin has an impressive set of wins on its resume. And right now they'd both be 3 seeds, and have a favorable geographical location as well. If you're that upset flip them, it won't change anything in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ericd7633]

Also, I probably should have been more specific because you think my argument was about 1 spot. I think in the end it's more about you being crazy for not having Wisconsin higher. They have been (again, if you've WATCHED these two teams) far more impressive than Louisville this year. But one team is undefeated and one isn't so I guess if you only want to base if off of that you can.

I don't think they deserve to be higher. Out of those one loss teams, Texas, Gonzaga and Kansas IMO all deserve to be ranked higher IMO. I think both Louisville and UVA have looked impressive this year. I've seen them multiple times.

 

[Smart]

You don't think KenPom is wrong when he puts Harvard ahead of Utah? And Michigan State ahead of them as well? And Utah at 24? And BAYLOR AT 12????

Harvard committed 24 turnovers in their only loss and is one of the best defensive teams in America. Their turnovers have been going down the entire season, which is to be expected as the year goes along. I don't see them committing 24 turnovers anytime soon, so yes, I feel comfortable ranking them where they are.

Look at Michigan State's three losses and explain to me how they are worse than Utah. Their losses are pretty equal to Utah's. And both on offense and defense, they have been more efficient than Utah.

Baylor at 12 might be a stretch. They are playing a deliberate pace, which efficiency-stats tend to favor. That said, they just blew out a solid TAMU team and outrebounded them by a 2:1 margin. They made the Sweet 16 last year with a recipe of solid rebounding and good shooting. They went cold in their only loss, but the rest of their game actually seems to have improved from last year. If they can hit their open threes, they may be underranked at 12.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Baylor wont be able to score enough to be more than around .500 when Big 12 play starts. They defend and hustle their butts off, but that can only get you so far. This is by far one of the least talented Baylor teams in the last 5 years. They will come back down to earth when the competition picks up. Unless Scott Drew suddenly learned how to coach as good as he recruits.

 

[dcZONAfan]

Harvard committed 24 turnovers in their only loss and is one of the best defensive teams in America. Their turnovers have been going down the entire season, which is to be expected as the year goes along. I don't see them committing 24 turnovers anytime soon, so yes, I feel comfortable ranking them where they are.

Look at Michigan State's three losses and explain to me how they are worse than Utah. Their losses are pretty equal to Utah's. And both on offense and defense, they have been more efficient than Utah.

Baylor at 12 might be a stretch. They are playing a deliberate pace, which efficiency-stats tend to favor. That said, they just blew out a solid TAMU team and outrebounded them by a 2:1 margin. They made the Sweet 16 last year with a recipe of solid rebounding and good shooting. They went cold in their only loss, but the rest of their game actually seems to have improved from last year. If they can hit their open threes, they may be underranked at 12.

Michigan State has played 2 good teams. They have lost to both. Notre Dame isn't good, but they are when playing at home so I'll give you that they have played 3 good teams. They don't have a good win yet, so I think those losses should be weighed pretty heavily. Utah beat Wichita State without one of their best players (and lost @ Kansas under the same circumstances). Won a rivalry road game @ BYU and only other loss is to SDSU. Their wins are better than MSU. Their loss to Kansas was @ Kansas unless you consider Kansas City a neutral site.

I think that's plenty to warrant Utah being ranked higher. Also using efficiency this early in the season when most teams are trying to gel together just makes no sense.

 

[MI Nightmare]

Look at Michigan State's three losses and explain to me how they are worse than Utah. Their losses are pretty equal to Utah's. And both on offense and defense, they have been more efficient than Utah.

MSU has one more loss than Utah. The common opponent comparison in Kansas shows us MSU lost by 5 at home, while Utah lost to Kansas by 3, on the road (debatable if you want to consider that a home game for KU or a neutral site) if you're just basing an argument off numbers. I think the committee will put more weight into the Utah loss as an away game vs. neutral. Utah has the better loss here.

Now you have to compare two MSU losses to one Utah loss. A 10 point away loss to the #2 team and 1 point OT away loss to the #21 team vs a 4 point away loss to the #19 team. One could really flip a coin because Duke is just that good and a 10 point loss at Cameron isn't a bad showing, necessarily. Pair that with MSU just getting edged out by a good ND team and call it a toss up. But, you can't leave out that MSU still has one more loss than Utah.

The eyeball test tells me that MSU vs Utah would be a good physical game. But I like the Utes over Sparty on a neutral court.

 

[MI Nightmare]

Baylor at 12, UNC at 14 and Florida at 15 in the Kenpom are also jokes.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Baylor at 12, UNC at 14 and Florida at 15 in the Kenpom are also jokes.

KenPom is just a measure of a teams offensive and defensive efficiency. Are you saying that Baylor, UNC and Florida aren't the 12th, 14th, and 15th most efficient teams, or you don't think efficiency is a good measure of a teams performance? He didn't just arbitrarily put those teams in those spots.

I find this comment very perplexing.

 

[MI Nightmare]

KenPom is just a measure of a teams offensive and defensive efficiency. Are you saying that Baylor, UNC and Florida aren't the 12th, 14th, and 15th most efficient teams, or you don't think efficiency is a good measure of a teams performance? He didn't just arbitrarily put those teams in those spots.

I find this comment very perplexing.

I should have been more thorough... I'm fairly good with his formulas and purpose, though the data is still compiling, and these ratings should be taken more seriously a month from now, but it makes for good conversation and provides a good chart of values to evaluate. A joke, because I'm perplexed by those 3 teams being rated so high. Could you explain to me what Baylor, Florida, and UNC (for example) are so efficient in doing and against what level of talent? I've got the calculator out, the logarithms flowing, but the math is not adding up.

Maybe Ken punched in a few wrong numbers?

 

[MI Nightmare]

"The first thing you should know about this system is that it is designed to be purely predictive. If you’re looking for a system that rates teams on how “good” their season has been, you’ve come to the wrong place. There are enough systems out there that rank teams based on what is “good” by just about any definition you can think of. So I’d encourage you to google college basketball ratings or even try the opinion polls for something that is more your style.

The purpose of this system is to show how strong a team would be if it played tonight, independent of injuries or emotional factors. Since nobody can see every team play all (or even most) of their games, this system is designed to give you a snapshot of a team’s current level of play." - Ken


Yeah, not seeing that level of performance from Baylor, UNC or Florida if they played near equal ranked competition (from my rankings even) tonight, on a neutral floor.

Decent, current, measuring stick but lacks enough for me to not base my current top 25.

 

[Smart]

. Could you explain to me what Baylor, Florida, and UNC (for example) are so efficient in doing and against what level of talent? I've got the calculator out, the logarithms flowing, but the math is not adding up.

Maybe Ken punched in a few wrong numbers?

I don't get what you are saying. You got the calculator out? It's a system that takes point per possession on offense and defense and adjusts it based on competition.

North Carolina is there because, adjusted for competition, they have scored the 27th most points per possession and given up the 15th fewest. I'm not sure what you don't understand there.

Florida's only losses saw them get outscored by 2, 1 (in OT), 6, and 11 against teams ranked 22, 21, 17, and 10. They clobbered Yale (#93) by 38. When you put it all together, they have been #15. I didn't include them for two reasons: (1.) When you have a sample size of four losses, it makes you think that maybe they just aren't clutch and (2.) They play a slow tempo. Slow tempo teams tend to be favored by KenPom because teams tend to ease off when they are up by 30ish, and that's later in the game for a slow tempo team. It's the biggest (only major?) flaw in the system, and something I consider when I adjust rankings.

Baylor plays a slow tempo as well, but their efficiency has been startling. And as I said, their only loss was a game where they shot atypically poor. They are 55-141 (39%) in other games, and 5-21 (24%) against Illinois. If you saw the game, you know the threes were open. They beat down several solid teams like TAMU, Memphis, and Stephen F. Austin. On a possession per possession basis, they have played like the 12th best team after 9 games.

The purpose of this system is to show how strong a team would be if it played tonight, independent of injuries or emotional factors. Since nobody can see every team play all (or even most) of their games, this system is designed to give you a snapshot of a team’s current level of play." - Ken


Yeah, not seeing that level of performance from Baylor, UNC or Florida if they played near equal ranked competition (from my rankings even) tonight, on a neutral floor.

The bolded is what I want, based entirely on performance. That's what efficiency does. It isn't affected by hype or preseason rankings or strength of fan base. It simply asks, "adjusted for competition, who scores more points per possession and gives up fewer points per possession on defense." You can "not see it," but the numbers do not lie. They aren't biased. They are what actually happened.

And if you have followed KenPom for years, you'd see how accurate it is. UConn was 10 at the end of the year (and around 20 before the tourney), which was higher than in polls. Before that there was Louisville (1), Kentucky (1), UConn (9), Duke (1), North Carolina (1), Kansas (1), Florida (1), Florida (1), and North Carolina (2). It's consistently been the best metric fr predicting tourney success.

 

[MI Nightmare]

I don't get what you are saying. You got the calculator out? It's a system that takes point per possession on offense and defense and adjusts it based on competition.


I'm going to need to see your numbers on Baylor, UNC, and Florida for "adjustments based on competition," before we continue, Smart.