I would think winning the B12 tournament would be worth a boost up to the 6 line.
FWIW I think we are a 7 with a loss today or tomorrow.
FWIW I think we are a 7 with a loss today or tomorrow.
2018-2019 computer projections thread
- Thread starter Sigmapolis
- Start date
I think we end of winning the whole thing and end up a 6. Maybe a 5 depending on what other teams around us do and as long as we play Kansas for the championship.
I think the #7 seed here is the floor for us. I would predict a #6 or even #5 with a win.
Revenge on Baylor, won the rubber match with K-State, time to do the same with KU.
I still think the #7 is low -- but it is a reasonable floor, just not a good average.
We are a lock for a 5 seed. You could even argue a 4 seed as we have the big wins to support that, but probably 1 or 2 of the losses over the past few weeks will prevent that.
Would you take 7 seed in DSM? I wonder if the team would take that as a trade off?
Against Ohio State...
73-68 prediction on Barttorvik
-4.4 for Iowa State
67% win expectation
73-68 prediction on Barttorvik
-4.4 for Iowa State
67% win expectation
FiveThirtyEight has us with the following-
Round of 32- 67%
Sweet 16- 32%
Elite 8- 14%
Final 4- 6%
Champ game- 2%
National Champs- .9%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-march-madness-predictions/
Round of 32- 67%
Sweet 16- 32%
Elite 8- 14%
Final 4- 6%
Champ game- 2%
National Champs- .9%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-march-madness-predictions/
Thanks for doing updates throughout the season. Provides a unique way to track progress.
It seems for the most part conference tournaments didn't make much difference. It did probably take us off the 7 line but only to the lowest 6 seed. Around the country it looks like most every team ended up where they would have been anyway.
Some "end of season" rankings for Iowa State*
*technically there are 15 NCAA tournament games to be played, plus some NIT games and minor tournament games, all of which will slightly change things for Iowa State, but we are done for the year, so I do not imagine these will change much
18 = Bart Torvik
17 = Basketball Reference SRS
15 = Basketball Reference Adjusted Net Rating per 100
15 = ESPN BPI
16 = Haslametrics
16 = KenPom
12 = Matchup Zone
16 = Sagarin
21 = NCAA NET
Seems the consensus was we were somewhere between 15 and 20 this season.
Yes, I know computer rankings and net ratings are not memorable wins or banners in the rafters (even if we are going to add 2019 to the Big 12 Tournament Champions banner and the NCAA Tournament Appearances banner), but they do indicate something about the health of the program. This team was good. It was competitive, not a pretender.
If anything, the argument was that it underachieved related to the quality of the team, which ended up roughly #15 in the computer rankings despite that really bad stretch there for a couple of weeks. Teams like that might underachieve one year yet overachieve the next simply because so many of the W-L binary outcomes are random. I know we like to pretend that certain coaches and teams are "clutch" and others are not, but I tend to ascribe to the statistical argument such things really are 50-50 in the long-run. It eventually comes to even out.
You know -- one of these decades for Iowa State.
The computers say this was one of the better teams in school history. We might want to think long and hard before we think it is a good idea to blow it up and start over...
I still miss the team from Monté's senior year. They were a lot of fun.
This was still one of the ten, if not five, best teams in school history. People think that we have routinely done better in our other previous "good" eras... Johnny, Floyd, Larry, Fred Hoiberg... are flat wrong. We are doing as well right now as we have ever done.
*technically there are 15 NCAA tournament games to be played, plus some NIT games and minor tournament games, all of which will slightly change things for Iowa State, but we are done for the year, so I do not imagine these will change much
18 = Bart Torvik
17 = Basketball Reference SRS
15 = Basketball Reference Adjusted Net Rating per 100
15 = ESPN BPI
16 = Haslametrics
16 = KenPom
12 = Matchup Zone
16 = Sagarin
21 = NCAA NET
Seems the consensus was we were somewhere between 15 and 20 this season.
Yes, I know computer rankings and net ratings are not memorable wins or banners in the rafters (even if we are going to add 2019 to the Big 12 Tournament Champions banner and the NCAA Tournament Appearances banner), but they do indicate something about the health of the program. This team was good. It was competitive, not a pretender.
If anything, the argument was that it underachieved related to the quality of the team, which ended up roughly #15 in the computer rankings despite that really bad stretch there for a couple of weeks. Teams like that might underachieve one year yet overachieve the next simply because so many of the W-L binary outcomes are random. I know we like to pretend that certain coaches and teams are "clutch" and others are not, but I tend to ascribe to the statistical argument such things really are 50-50 in the long-run. It eventually comes to even out.
You know -- one of these decades for Iowa State.
The computers say this was one of the better teams in school history. We might want to think long and hard before we think it is a good idea to blow it up and start over...
I still miss the team from Monté's senior year. They were a lot of fun.
This was still one of the ten, if not five, best teams in school history. People think that we have routinely done better in our other previous "good" eras... Johnny, Floyd, Larry, Fred Hoiberg... are flat wrong. We are doing as well right now as we have ever done.
Last edited:
My basic thinking on it is that you need to get to the tournament regularly with a team capable of making some noise (even though they may not). This team that Coach Prohm built was that, without question. If he continues to recruit the way he has, I think we'll have a lot of good shots at it in the future.
http://www.barttorvik.com/team-history.php?team=Iowa+St.
-- I think they are trying to load/build/model their "way too early 2020" projections into the system... which have us at #12 nationally going into next year (!!!) with the #11 offense and #46 defense... but trying to click on that link goes nowhere, so I think that is more of a work in progress than a serious prognosis, and we all know how much our roster (and the roster of about every team in the country) is going to change... more later once that feature unlocks
-- The computer rankings have consistently put the Prohm teams (save the 2018 squad, we all know what happened there) as slightly better than the Hoiberg squads. It is fine if you want to dismiss the 2016 and 2017 teams as "Fred's players," and there is merit to that argument, but (1.) at least Prohm did not screw it up entirely and (2.) I think we have all, for the most part, collectively forgiven 2018 as a rebuilding year because of the recruiting situation
-- That leaves you with a sample size of one and only the results from 2019 to compare to the Hoiberg/Hoiberg's players years before that... and the 2019 team comes out pretty well... it ties for second in ranking (#18, tied with the team from Monté's senior year and one behind the team from Georges' senior year at #17), as opposed to the "pure" Hoiberg teams, which usually ranked somewhere in the low-20s nationally in overall rankings
-- The main reason for this is defense... Prohm has maintained the schedule-adjusted offensive ratings of the program... Yes, despite our frustrations with the team's offense this year (e.g., Wigginton and THT going "hold my beer!" on bad shots, turnovers in the post, a lack of pace with a small lineup, not much for a fast break attack, scoring droughts, etc.), this team ranked #10 nationally in the Barttovik rankings for offense, which is basically just as good as the best Hoiball offenses that we saw in Ames with Georges, amazingly enough.
-- I know we liked to whine about the offense this year, but it really was good... Nick was a very good college PG... not Monté, but few are... Tyrese made his shots and kept the ball moving... Wigginton and Horton-Tucker were streaky, but could fill it up when on, and Marial had the quietest 20 point games, night after night, that I can remember in my life... We really should appreciate Shayok as much as we can, and I thank him again for coming to Ames
-- At the same time, while Fred teams tended to have defensive rankings in the 50+ range (or the hilariously fun yet imbalanced Clyburn team of #5 on offense and #130 on defense, sounds like JorBo's wet dream of no defense really), Prohm has started to ratchet that down... not much of an effect the first year with the "set" roster and limited time to coach them up, but he got it down to #48 during Monté's senior year with virtually no post presence
-- While the 2019 team regressed (mostly due to some awful performances in February that one could argue are outliers we can discount once the program regained discipline after the debacle in Morgantown) slightly compared to that team, it still ended up with a defense better than all of the Fred teams save the... first tournament team somehow (a tie at #58 for each)... no idea how a team with Royce White was that okay at defense, but I will take it
-- This is why I maintain the Morris-NML-Thomas-Burton-Young team was the best of the era... it was an elite offensively as any before it, with an all-world PG, two of the best shooters in school history to space the floor, a unicorn "power guard" now playing in the NBA, and a series of team-first guys after that who knew their roles and played them well after the stars and starters (Solo anchoring the block, Nick doing everything, DJ hitting threes, etc.)... I really wish that team had gotten past Purdue... it is hard to imagine the best team of the era might not have had Georges, Kane, or Ejim, but I really think there is a case to be made there
Summing it up...
tl;dr Prohm teams are as good on offense as Fred teams yet increasingly better on defense, which means the computers like them more than Fred teams... give it time and more bites at the apple... we have more ping pong balls now than we did during the Fred era, actually, when it comes to making the lottery and making a deep run. Prohm has just not had some of the luck you need in the NCAA tournament the same way he has had in Kansas City.
-- I think they are trying to load/build/model their "way too early 2020" projections into the system... which have us at #12 nationally going into next year (!!!) with the #11 offense and #46 defense... but trying to click on that link goes nowhere, so I think that is more of a work in progress than a serious prognosis, and we all know how much our roster (and the roster of about every team in the country) is going to change... more later once that feature unlocks
-- The computer rankings have consistently put the Prohm teams (save the 2018 squad, we all know what happened there) as slightly better than the Hoiberg squads. It is fine if you want to dismiss the 2016 and 2017 teams as "Fred's players," and there is merit to that argument, but (1.) at least Prohm did not screw it up entirely and (2.) I think we have all, for the most part, collectively forgiven 2018 as a rebuilding year because of the recruiting situation
-- That leaves you with a sample size of one and only the results from 2019 to compare to the Hoiberg/Hoiberg's players years before that... and the 2019 team comes out pretty well... it ties for second in ranking (#18, tied with the team from Monté's senior year and one behind the team from Georges' senior year at #17), as opposed to the "pure" Hoiberg teams, which usually ranked somewhere in the low-20s nationally in overall rankings
-- The main reason for this is defense... Prohm has maintained the schedule-adjusted offensive ratings of the program... Yes, despite our frustrations with the team's offense this year (e.g., Wigginton and THT going "hold my beer!" on bad shots, turnovers in the post, a lack of pace with a small lineup, not much for a fast break attack, scoring droughts, etc.), this team ranked #10 nationally in the Barttovik rankings for offense, which is basically just as good as the best Hoiball offenses that we saw in Ames with Georges, amazingly enough.
-- I know we liked to whine about the offense this year, but it really was good... Nick was a very good college PG... not Monté, but few are... Tyrese made his shots and kept the ball moving... Wigginton and Horton-Tucker were streaky, but could fill it up when on, and Marial had the quietest 20 point games, night after night, that I can remember in my life... We really should appreciate Shayok as much as we can, and I thank him again for coming to Ames
-- At the same time, while Fred teams tended to have defensive rankings in the 50+ range (or the hilariously fun yet imbalanced Clyburn team of #5 on offense and #130 on defense, sounds like JorBo's wet dream of no defense really), Prohm has started to ratchet that down... not much of an effect the first year with the "set" roster and limited time to coach them up, but he got it down to #48 during Monté's senior year with virtually no post presence
-- While the 2019 team regressed (mostly due to some awful performances in February that one could argue are outliers we can discount once the program regained discipline after the debacle in Morgantown) slightly compared to that team, it still ended up with a defense better than all of the Fred teams save the... first tournament team somehow (a tie at #58 for each)... no idea how a team with Royce White was that okay at defense, but I will take it
-- This is why I maintain the Morris-NML-Thomas-Burton-Young team was the best of the era... it was an elite offensively as any before it, with an all-world PG, two of the best shooters in school history to space the floor, a unicorn "power guard" now playing in the NBA, and a series of team-first guys after that who knew their roles and played them well after the stars and starters (Solo anchoring the block, Nick doing everything, DJ hitting threes, etc.)... I really wish that team had gotten past Purdue... it is hard to imagine the best team of the era might not have had Georges, Kane, or Ejim, but I really think there is a case to be made there
Summing it up...
tl;dr Prohm teams are as good on offense as Fred teams yet increasingly better on defense, which means the computers like them more than Fred teams... give it time and more bites at the apple... we have more ping pong balls now than we did during the Fred era, actually, when it comes to making the lottery and making a deep run. Prohm has just not had some of the luck you need in the NCAA tournament the same way he has had in Kansas City.
It's back...
It's bigger...
It's better...
Computer projections thread for the 2019-2020 season!
Mods feel free to change the year on the thread. Otherwise, I am going to keep plowing on through. I am going to post our first Team Rankings email...
And the Bart Torvik projections for the year...
It's bigger...
It's better...
Computer projections thread for the 2019-2020 season!
Mods feel free to change the year on the thread. Otherwise, I am going to keep plowing on through. I am going to post our first Team Rankings email...
And the Bart Torvik projections for the year...
The grouping breakdown is:
Non-con
1A - 0
1 - 3
2 - 2
3 - 0
4 - 6
Conference
1A - 6
1 - 5
2 - 4
3 - 1
4 - 0
In addition to the games listed, in the Thanksgiving tourney ISU will face:
One of:
UNC - #5
Alabama - #35
And one of:
Gonzaga - #6
Southern Miss - #225
Oregon St - #75
Seton Hall - #27
Note that in Bart Torvik ratings he doesn't have Miss Valley St. as the worst team. He has them as second worst above Hartford.
Non-con
1A - 0
1 - 3
2 - 2
3 - 0
4 - 6
Conference
1A - 6
1 - 5
2 - 4
3 - 1
4 - 0
In addition to the games listed, in the Thanksgiving tourney ISU will face:
One of:
UNC - #5
Alabama - #35
And one of:
Gonzaga - #6
Southern Miss - #225
Oregon St - #75
Seton Hall - #27
Note that in Bart Torvik ratings he doesn't have Miss Valley St. as the worst team. He has them as second worst above Hartford.
Why not start a new thread for this year rather than tagging this on the end of last year's thread?
If you like. I just do not like starting new threads without a completely new topic. I know this is a new year, but we are really talking about the same nerdy projections.