2018-2019 computer projections thread
- Thread starter Sigmapolis
- Start date
How does our chances to make the tourney dip after a win by the margin you were suppose too?
Just looked and found this interesting:
8 remaining games against the bottom half of the conference, 4 remaining games against the upper half.
Probably doesn’t mean as much as it would in a conference that isn’t this deep, but I’d rather have it this way for sure.
8 remaining games against the bottom half of the conference, 4 remaining games against the upper half.
Probably doesn’t mean as much as it would in a conference that isn’t this deep, but I’d rather have it this way for sure.
Probably just some shuffling of the deck across the whole of college basketball, and particularly in our non-conference slate. Could have been lots of things.
Beating OSU was such a "should" thing for us that the win was not worth much in the computer's projections. The computers had already given us a very high chance to win, something like 90%+, so rolling that last bit into the win column does not do much for you.
Up to 12 in Barttorvik, 15 in Sagarin, and 14 in BPI. Will be interested where we are in NET when that comes out. Things are shaping up well for us to have at least a shot at getting a top 4 seed in DSM.
NET might not change too much, I think KU was 18 and ISU 19 after Sunday. Other results Monday may affect it a little.
So close yet so far. This obviously hurt our chances to win the Big 12, but our prospects for March are relatively unchanged. There is a nice chance at a "seeding" game in Oxford, Mississippi, if we can rally and win against the Rebels on Saturday.
One percent chance to win the NCAA tournament?
Obligatory:
Obligatory:
I would have guessed lower, but we've been very good on the road in the Big 12 (wins by 6 and 4, losses by 3 and 4).
Barttovik gives us a 48% chance of winning -- final score of 73-74.
We should view the game as a toss-up. I know the interruption from the Big 12 slate is awkward, but this would be a nice boost to the CV come March.
We should view the game as a toss-up. I know the interruption from the Big 12 slate is awkward, but this would be a nice boost to the CV come March.
Thanks for these computer projections after every game @Sigmapolis Really interesting to look at the long term and see all of the advanced metrics that project the rest of the year!
One thing I've noticed is that throughout the whole year, all of the rankings have been extremely consistent with each other on us. (Either exact same, like 18, or off by one)
That makes me think by any measurement, we're a good team.
That makes me think by any measurement, we're a good team.
Math doesn’t lie: this is a great team. Possibly the best since 00-01.
@jereseib
You disagreed with @ChickenNuggetMan about the "best team since '00-'01." Which would you say was better? The Kane-Ejim-Niang team, perhaps?
I am actually starting to agree with that assessment -- this team is excellent.
None of the Morgan, McDermott, or Hoiberg teams was ever Top 10 in the computer rankings. This team is roughly tenth or slightly below in all of them now.
We got a 98 on Barttovik against Mississippi. Beating up on a good team like that on the road was not nearly as easy as we were making it look against them.
Our first seven men are really good, and we have serviceable ones behind that.
Barttovik has us ending up as a #3 seed right now.
You disagreed with @ChickenNuggetMan about the "best team since '00-'01." Which would you say was better? The Kane-Ejim-Niang team, perhaps?
I am actually starting to agree with that assessment -- this team is excellent.
None of the Morgan, McDermott, or Hoiberg teams was ever Top 10 in the computer rankings. This team is roughly tenth or slightly below in all of them now.
We got a 98 on Barttovik against Mississippi. Beating up on a good team like that on the road was not nearly as easy as we were making it look against them.
Our first seven men are really good, and we have serviceable ones behind that.
Barttovik has us ending up as a #3 seed right now.
Last edited:
Building on my previous post, here is the Barttovik page for "school history," rankings, and adjusted efficiency ratings on offense and defense since 2008.
This is the best team in that era -- #9 overall, with the next best team being Georges' senior year, which was still kind of back of this team at #17 overall in the ratings.
The Hoiberg teams were good, especially on offense, but I think we can see the column for defensive ratings and see where the problems were with them. The analogy that CW made about Fred wanting to be the Texas Tech football of CBB is apropos.
Those Fred teams could score, but they ranked below fiftieth in defensive efficiency. This team can score just as well AND it is in the top thirty in defense nationally.
I know the computer rankings above are missing the good Morgan teams from 2003 through 2005 with Stinson, Blalock, Homan, Clark, Vroman, Sullivan, and the rest of that era, and while those teams had their moments, I do not think anybody would say they were as good as the four Fred teams to make the tournament, much less this season's squad.
We are not a hyper-elite team, dominant on both ends of the floor, like these four...
...but we are excellent on offense and very good on defense.
Fred's teams were always the former but never really the latter.
This is the best team in that era -- #9 overall, with the next best team being Georges' senior year, which was still kind of back of this team at #17 overall in the ratings.
The Hoiberg teams were good, especially on offense, but I think we can see the column for defensive ratings and see where the problems were with them. The analogy that CW made about Fred wanting to be the Texas Tech football of CBB is apropos.
Those Fred teams could score, but they ranked below fiftieth in defensive efficiency. This team can score just as well AND it is in the top thirty in defense nationally.
I know the computer rankings above are missing the good Morgan teams from 2003 through 2005 with Stinson, Blalock, Homan, Clark, Vroman, Sullivan, and the rest of that era, and while those teams had their moments, I do not think anybody would say they were as good as the four Fred teams to make the tournament, much less this season's squad.
We are not a hyper-elite team, dominant on both ends of the floor, like these four...
...but we are excellent on offense and very good on defense.
Fred's teams were always the former but never really the latter.
Great stuff. People that are Prohm haters and Hoiberg lovers need to check the D efficiency of every NCAA champion since forever. Then check that chart you posted and the direction our D efficiency is trending under Prohm. You want to bring a title to Ames? You better know how to play defense.