IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 MSU-lost Jackson, Bridges, plus you could technically add Langford Michigan- lost Wagner, Abdul R???, Robinson Purdue- lost 4 starters Ohio State- Bates-Diop, Tate, Dakich Penn State- Carr and Garner Iowa- Nobody IU- Johnson, Newkirk, Hartman, priller Rutgers- does it really matter?? Nebraska- Gill, Taylor, Okeke Illinois- nobody Minnesota- Mason Maryland- Huerter, Tremble I may have missed some names but that’s a lot of experience and talent lost from last years big ten and replaced with freshman. Not real sure the conference is much better if any as a whole. It would make for a good argument either way though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 Are these teams better than last year: Michigan- would say it’s a wash MSU- probably another wash Purdue-not as good as last year Iowa-better than last year Wisky-another wash IU-worse Illinois- slightly better Northwestern-worse Penn State- unsure Rutgers- Better than last year Ohio state- worse than last year Nebraska- better Minnesota- not sure honestly coin toss Maryland- wash Its pretty tough to say that it’s a lot better than last year. Maybe compared to other conferences from last year it is, but from last to this year I’d say it’s pretty equal. That’s just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CauseThatsMyDJ Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 So your synopsis is that all of those players left and were replaced by freshmen? You know that their minutes were actually mostly replaced by returning players moving up in the rotation, right? Pretty misleading slant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 1 minute ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said: So your synopsis is that all of those players left and were replaced by freshmen? You know that their minutes were actually mostly replaced by returning players moving up in the rotation, right? Pretty misleading slant. It’s not a slant at all. I agree a lot of the minutes were taking up by returning players. However that’s a lot of experienced talent that left. Can you say that any of those teams are definitely better? If so name them. It’s just good debate material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FW_Hoosier Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 13 minutes ago, IUwins0708 said: It’s not a slant at all. I agree a lot of the minutes were taking up by returning players. However that’s a lot of experienced talent that left. Can you say that any of those teams are definitely better? If so name them. It’s just good debate material. I would say Wisconsin is for sure better this year than last year now that they have Trice and King back from injury. Maryland is probably a little better too even if they lost Huerter (Trimble wasn’t there last season)... Cowan, Fernando, and Smith have made for a pretty good Big 3. And since Copeland went down, Nebraska has definitely been worse than they were last year. Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything you said, even though there’s obviously no reason IU should be worse this year than they were last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 25 minutes ago, IUwins0708 said: It’s not a slant at all. I agree a lot of the minutes were taking up by returning players. However that’s a lot of experienced talent that left. Can you say that any of those teams are definitely better? If so name them. It’s just good debate material. I would say Wisconsin for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 Just now, FW_Hoosier said: I would say Wisconsin is for sure better this year than last year now that they have Trice and King back from injury. Maryland is probably a little better too even if they lost Huerter (Trimble wasn’t there last season)... Cowan, Fernando, and Smith have made for a pretty good Big 3. And since Copeland went down, Nebraska has definitely been worse than they were last year. Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything you said, even though there’s obviously no reason IU should be worse this year than they were last year. Yeah, personally I don’t see the conference being as much better as people think it is. It’s deep for sure, be it lost a lot of experienced talent. Plus the fact that Purdue, Michigan, And Michigan State list what they did and are still out in front of the league shows how healthy those programs are right now. (That hurts to say that!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 Just now, rico said: I would say Wisconsin for sure. They and Iowa didn’t lose anyone so yes they should be better than last year. I guess I put wash because I couldn’t remember where they finsished in the league last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotIThatLives Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 40 minutes ago, IUwins0708 said: Illinois had 4 wins in conference last year and 2 of them were against Rutgers. They have now won 4 of 5 and are playing defense like scolded dogs. Quite honestly, I like how they are playing lately. Passion, heart, desire. Hustle beats talent when talent doesn't hustle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 7 minutes ago, IUwins0708 said: Yeah, personally I don’t see the conference being as much better as people think it is. It’s deep for sure, be it lost a lot of experienced talent. Plus the fact that Purdue, Michigan, And Michigan State list what they did and are still out in front of the league shows how healthy those programs are right now. (That hurts to say that!) I think when it comes to Purdue they had experienced players ready to step in even though they lost 4 starters. Haarms, Cline, Eastern and Eifert were cogs in their wheel last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 1 minute ago, NotIThatLives said: Illinois had 4 wins in conference last year and 2 of them were against Rutgers. They have now won 4 of 5 and are playing defense like scolded dogs. Quite honestly, I like how they are playing lately. Passion, heart, desire. Hustle beats talent when talent doesn't hustle. I agree with that as well. So the 3 teams that didn’t lose anyone, Iowa, Illinois, And Wisconsin are all better than last year, fairly common I’d say. They are all getting better at the right time too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 Just now, rico said: I think when it comes to Purdue they had experienced players ready to step in even though they lost 4 starters. Haarms, Cline, and Eifert were cogs in their wheel last year. Agree, they weren’t starters but were experienced. Throw in Nojel to that mix as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 1 minute ago, IUwins0708 said: Agree, they weren’t starters but were experienced. Throw in Nojel to that mix as well. Yeah I edited my post after I made it, I left him out. But they had 4 guys ready to step right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FKIM01 Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 If the conference isn't significantly better than last year, the rest of D-1 universe must have gotten weaker based on the polls and power rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, FKIM01 said: If the conference isn't significantly better than last year, the rest of D-1 universe must have gotten weaker based on the polls and power rankings. I think if you look at it....the Pac 12 is having a down year(again) and the Big East is as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FKIM01 Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, rico said: I think if you look at it....the Pac 12 is having a down year(again) and the Big East is as well. I'd agree with both of those assessments. The Big Ten ranks stronger as a conference this year, but is it more because of team improvement or the decline of other conferences. I think you could make an argument that it's both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zlinedavid Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 You can't just list players lost in a team evaluation. If a starter graduated, but they had a capable reserve ready to step in, the net effect is closer to 0 than it is - 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking6 Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 8 hours ago, FKIM01 said: If the conference isn't significantly better than last year, the rest of D-1 universe must have gotten weaker based on the polls and power rankings. I think this is more accurate than people will believe. Maybe it's my view but not just locally...I see plenty of bad hoops out there right now. I see 3-4 teams who I believe are elite who don't need to prove themselves (Duke, Kentucky, Carolina and probably Michigan). I see another few teams (Tennessee, Virginia, Gonzaga) who are very good/elite but until they prove things in tourney I just won't be sold. After that I see 3-4 teams (Houston, Nevada, Kansas...maybe Sparty) who I wouldn't want to see in my bracket. After that you have teams with some nice pieces but deep tourney runs? Doubtful. Seeding will be huge once again this year for tourney. To your point though...I think Big 10 is up because the bottom 5-6 teams are stronger than most conferences. You don't get an easy night ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 8 hours ago, FKIM01 said: I'd agree with both of those assessments. The Big Ten ranks stronger as a conference this year, but is it more because of team improvement or the decline of other conferences. I think you could make an argument that it's both. That’s the same debate I was having with myself. I lost.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Zlinedavid said: You can't just list players lost in a team evaluation. If a starter graduated, but they had a capable reserve ready to step in, the net effect is closer to 0 than it is - 1. Don’t disagree but that’s what I’m asking. Its Just a good debate I think. Personally don’t think the conference is that much better but I think it’s the best conference in college basketball this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maedhros Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 It's not too difficult to check some numbers in answering this question. Here's a comparison of KenPom's adjusted efficiency margin then versus now: 2018 2019 Diff Illinois 6.67 9.81 3.14 Indiana 10.44 14.40 3.96 Iowa 8.14 18.62 10.48 Maryland 15.03 21.02 5.99 Michigan 24.20 28.01 3.81 Michigan St 25.41 29.82 4.41 Minnesota 5.08 12.18 7.10 Nebraska 13.54 16.67 3.13 Northwestern 8.57 11.06 2.49 Ohio St 21.16 17.41 (3.75) Penn St 19.18 10.91 (8.27) Purdue 26.27 26.25 (0.02) Rutgers 3.07 7.40 4.33 Wisconsin 10.68 24.54 13.86 That's improvement almost across the board, especially from Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. Only two teams show much of a drop off and Penn St's 2018 sure looks to be overvalued in the first place. Of course, this is end-of-year numbers for 2018 compared to today's 2019, so it's not apples and oranges. I don't have a subscription to KenPom and can't get daily values. Bart Torvik does provide ranges for free, so here are the Feb 12, 2018 values compared to the Feb 12, 2019 values: 2018 2019 Diff Illinois 0.7215 0.8056 0.08 Indiana 0.7553 0.7846 0.03 Iowa 0.6855 0.8840 0.20 Maryland 0.8802 0.9094 0.03 Michigan 0.8716 0.9575 0.09 Michigan St 0.9459 0.9575 0.01 Minnesota 0.7312 0.7917 0.06 Nebraska 0.8205 0.8808 0.06 Northwestern 0.7744 0.7503 (0.02) Ohio St 0.9340 0.8689 (0.07) Penn St 0.8882 0.7555 (0.13) Purdue 0.9676 0.9437 (0.02) Rutgers 0.5831 0.6800 0.10 Wisconsin 0.7073 0.9195 0.21 Obviously we're working with a different scale, but there's still big improvement from Wisconsin and Iowa, not as much from Minnesota. I've been told Torvik weights recent performance so that may be why, and also why Illinois shows significant improvement here. Ohio St and Penn St are again the only teams to show any significant decline. I think it's safe to say the conference is indeed better than last season. That shows up most clearly in the bottom third from a year ago all getting better from what they were. Unfortunately, that's also where we achieved most of last season's conference wins. The truth is that we weren't as a good a team as our 6th place finish and .500 record indicated, nor are we as improved over that year's team as we thought we'd be, which explains why this conference season has been tough sledding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosiertildeath Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 YES ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUwins0708 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 35 minutes ago, Maedhros said: It's not too difficult to check some numbers in answering this question. Here's a comparison of KenPom's adjusted efficiency margin then versus now: 2018 2019 Diff Illinois 6.67 9.81 3.14 Indiana 10.44 14.40 3.96 Iowa 8.14 18.62 10.48 Maryland 15.03 21.02 5.99 Michigan 24.20 28.01 3.81 Michigan St 25.41 29.82 4.41 Minnesota 5.08 12.18 7.10 Nebraska 13.54 16.67 3.13 Northwestern 8.57 11.06 2.49 Ohio St 21.16 17.41 (3.75) Penn St 19.18 10.91 (8.27) Purdue 26.27 26.25 (0.02) Rutgers 3.07 7.40 4.33 Wisconsin 10.68 24.54 13.86 That's improvement almost across the board, especially from Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. Only two teams show much of a drop off and Penn St's 2018 sure looks to be overvalued in the first place. Of course, this is end-of-year numbers for 2018 compared to today's 2019, so it's not apples and oranges. I don't have a subscription to KenPom and can't get daily values. Bart Torvik does provide ranges for free, so here are the Feb 12, 2018 values compared to the Feb 12, 2019 values: 2018 2019 Diff Illinois 0.7215 0.8056 0.08 Indiana 0.7553 0.7846 0.03 Iowa 0.6855 0.8840 0.20 Maryland 0.8802 0.9094 0.03 Michigan 0.8716 0.9575 0.09 Michigan St 0.9459 0.9575 0.01 Minnesota 0.7312 0.7917 0.06 Nebraska 0.8205 0.8808 0.06 Northwestern 0.7744 0.7503 (0.02) Ohio St 0.9340 0.8689 (0.07) Penn St 0.8882 0.7555 (0.13) Purdue 0.9676 0.9437 (0.02) Rutgers 0.5831 0.6800 0.10 Wisconsin 0.7073 0.9195 0.21 Obviously we're working with a different scale, but there's still big improvement from Wisconsin and Iowa, not as much from Minnesota. I've been told Torvik weights recent performance so that may be why, and also why Illinois shows significant improvement here. Ohio St and Penn St are again the only teams to show any significant decline. I think it's safe to say the conference is indeed better than last season. That shows up most clearly in the bottom third from a year ago all getting better from what they were. Unfortunately, that's also where we achieved most of last season's conference wins. The truth is that we weren't as a good a team as our 6th place finish and .500 record indicated, nor are we as improved over that year's team as we thought we'd be, which explains why this conference season has been tough sledding. You dissected it pretty well. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybergates Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Maedhros said: It's not too difficult to check some numbers in answering this question. Here's a comparison of KenPom's adjusted efficiency margin then versus now: 2018 2019 Diff Illinois 6.67 9.81 3.14 Indiana 10.44 14.40 3.96 Iowa 8.14 18.62 10.48 Maryland 15.03 21.02 5.99 Michigan 24.20 28.01 3.81 Michigan St 25.41 29.82 4.41 Minnesota 5.08 12.18 7.10 Nebraska 13.54 16.67 3.13 Northwestern 8.57 11.06 2.49 Ohio St 21.16 17.41 (3.75) Penn St 19.18 10.91 (8.27) Purdue 26.27 26.25 (0.02) Rutgers 3.07 7.40 4.33 Wisconsin 10.68 24.54 13.86 That's improvement almost across the board, especially from Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. Only two teams show much of a drop off and Penn St's 2018 sure looks to be overvalued in the first place. Of course, this is end-of-year numbers for 2018 compared to today's 2019, so it's not apples and oranges. I don't have a subscription to KenPom and can't get daily values. Bart Torvik does provide ranges for free, so here are the Feb 12, 2018 values compared to the Feb 12, 2019 values: 2018 2019 Diff Illinois 0.7215 0.8056 0.08 Indiana 0.7553 0.7846 0.03 Iowa 0.6855 0.8840 0.20 Maryland 0.8802 0.9094 0.03 Michigan 0.8716 0.9575 0.09 Michigan St 0.9459 0.9575 0.01 Minnesota 0.7312 0.7917 0.06 Nebraska 0.8205 0.8808 0.06 Northwestern 0.7744 0.7503 (0.02) Ohio St 0.9340 0.8689 (0.07) Penn St 0.8882 0.7555 (0.13) Purdue 0.9676 0.9437 (0.02) Rutgers 0.5831 0.6800 0.10 Wisconsin 0.7073 0.9195 0.21 Obviously we're working with a different scale, but there's still big improvement from Wisconsin and Iowa, not as much from Minnesota. I've been told Torvik weights recent performance so that may be why, and also why Illinois shows significant improvement here. Ohio St and Penn St are again the only teams to show any significant decline. I think it's safe to say the conference is indeed better than last season. That shows up most clearly in the bottom third from a year ago all getting better from what they were. Unfortunately, that's also where we achieved most of last season's conference wins. The truth is that we weren't as a good a team as our 6th place finish and .500 record indicated, nor are we as improved over that year's team as we thought we'd be, which explains why this conference season has been tough sledding. To expand on this Kenpom's confernce rankings have Big Ten at #1 this year with a +17.45 vs. last years +13.76. Last year the Big 12 was highest rated at +16.75. So not only is the Big Ten +3.69 better than last year, it is also +.7 better than the best conference last year. So while the list of players that left from last year is significant, the players that replaced them are playing better/more efficient based on Kenpom's metrics. Both better than their Big Ten and Big 12 counterparts from last year. To give a bit more info/explanation of Kenpom's rankings, it uses the AdjEM of a team expected to go .500 in conference play. I think this is a good choice on his part so that the teams at the top and bottom don't overweight a conference's rating as much. Here is a run-down of the top ranked conference by year and their rating from 2002 to current: Year Conference Rating Rank 2002 SEC 15.77 15 2003 SEC 14.86 17 2004 ACC 20.32 1 2005 ACC 15.85 14 2006 Big East 14.27 18 2007 ACC 17.06 8 2008 Pac 10 16.86 10 2009 Pac 10 16.15 12 2010 Big 12 17.1 7 2011 Big 10 17.22 6 2012 Big 10 15.02 16 2013 Big 10 17.54 3 2014 Big 12 15.88 13 2015 Big 12 16.87 9 2016 Big 12 17.51 4 2017 Big 12 19.81 2 2018 Big 12 16.75 11 2019 Big 10 17.45 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted February 12, 2019 Report Share Posted February 12, 2019 33 minutes ago, cybergates said: To expand on this Kenpom's confernce rankings have Big Ten at #1 this year with a +17.45 vs. last years +13.76. Last year the Big 12 was highest rated at +16.75. So not only is the Big Ten +3.69 better than last year, it is also +.7 better than the best conference last year. So while the list of players that left from last year is significant, the players that replaced them are playing better/more efficient based on Kenpom's metrics. Both better than their Big Ten and Big 12 counterparts from last year. I think anybody that follows CBB closely would say that the B1G is the best conference this year and they don't need metrics to do it. Nothing against metrics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.