What The Numbers Say

[MoyeCowbell]

25 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

You guys can discount this if you wish, but the fact is IU has dug a hole in the KenPom and NET ratings that will be hard to totally wash away. 

Let's assume for a minute that a Top 40 KenPom and Top 50 NET are needed to feel comfortable going into Selection Sunday with a 20-12 record.  With where IU is at now, are both of those, or even one, achievable? 

IU is in a position were a 12-8 conference record, even if it ties for 2nd, may not be enough.  13 and a game or two in the BTT, or 14 by itself should be enough, but even then, a lot depends on the strength of the bubble,

Does a 20 win IU team get in over a 24 win Indiana State team if ISU has the higher NET?

  

Yes, if only because of the brand. Fair or not, in sports $$ matters and more people would be/are interested in the Hoosiers than Sycamores.

In CBB this works in our favor. We might not have to be ahead of other teams/programs in our NET range to be picked ahead of them.

[IU Scott]

59 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

You guys can discount this if you wish, but the fact is IU has dug a hole in the KenPom and NET ratings that will be hard to totally wash away. 

Let's assume for a minute that a Top 40 KenPom and Top 50 NET are needed to feel comfortable going into Selection Sunday with a 20-12 record.  With where IU is at now, are both of those, or even one, achievable? 

IU is in a position were a 12-8 conference record, even if it ties for 2nd, may not be enough.  13 and a game or two in the BTT, or 14 by itself should be enough, but even then, a lot depends on the strength of the bubble,

Does a 20 win IU team get in over a 24 win Indiana State team if ISU has the higher NET?

  

I just don't trust numbers where IU went down 3 slots after winning a game by double digits.

[Seeking6]

3 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Difference of course is one of them impacts making the postseason and seeding, one doesn’t.

Maybe. I think it was 2019 when I stopped putting so much weight into KenPom. That year IIRC Clemson, NC State and I think Texas were all KenPom 20's and 30's. All missed the tourney while Temple, Arizona St, and St Johns were 70-80 range and made the tourney.

Now I'm sure there is some logical answer to that but do I discount some of the rankings? Yes. Do I avoid them totally...no. I also don't use them as some holy grail though.

[BGleas]

11 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Maybe. I think it was 2019 when I stopped putting so much weight into KenPom. That year IIRC Clemson, NC State and I think Texas were all KenPom 20's and 30's. All missed the tourney while Temple, Arizona St, and St Johns were 70-80 range and made the tourney.

Now I'm sure there is some logical answer to that but do I discount some of the rankings? Yes. Do I avoid them totally...no. I also don't use them as some holy grail though.

The difference is most of the metrics don't like Indiana this year. It's not like the KenPom rating is an outlier and we're strong in the NET and other efficiency metrics. 

Our numbers are mediocre to bad almost across the board. 

[Seeking6]

2 minutes ago, BGleas said:

The difference is most of the metrics don't like Indiana this year. It's not like the KenPom rating is an outlier and we're strong in the NET and other efficiency metrics. 

Our numbers are mediocre to bad almost across the board. 

Fair enough. Will be nice to  see how they improve or don't. Lots of hoops to play.

[Seeking6]

@BGleas One question I have before getting on with the day. How is Sparty #21? The one win vs Baylor carried them that much? I mean is it because they have close losses to other really good teams that overcome their bad losses?

[BGleas]

6 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

@BGleas One question I have before getting on with the day. How is Sparty #21? The one win vs Baylor carried them that much? I mean is it because they have close losses to other really good teams that overcome their bad losses?

I'm not an expert on how it's all figured out, but other than the JMU game which is a bad loss, they've taken care of business in their other mid/low major games. 

The 20-point win over Butler looks good. The Baylor win is good. Their other losses, other than maybe Wisconsin, are largely competitive losses to good teams.

[IU Scott]

Just now, BGleas said:

I'm not an expert on how it's all figured out, but other than the JMU game which is a bad loss, they've taken care of business in their other mid/low major games. 

The 20-point win over Butler looks good. The Baylor win is good. Their other losses, other than maybe Wisconsin, are largely competitive losses to good teams.

The JMU wouldn't be a bad loss since they are ranked. I know I am to old school but I hate that metrics are used so much when selecting the tournament. I am watching ISU vs MSU and with my eye test that ISU could be a tournament team. The problem is if they don't win their conference they won't get in

 

[BGleas]

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

The JMU wouldn't be a bad loss since they are ranked. I know I am to old school but I hate that metrics are used so much when selecting the tournament. I am watching ISU vs MSU and with my eye test that ISU could be a tournament team. The problem is if they don't win their conference they won't get in

 

Good point on JMU. You should probably win that at home and it might get worse as the season goes on in terms of metrics, it's not a bad loss. They're a good team. 

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

I just don't trust numbers where IU went down 3 slots after winning a game by double digits.

It’s a measure of offensive and defensive efficiency. Do you think last night was good for our defensive efficiency?

[IU Scott]

18 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

It’s a measure of offensive and defensive efficiency. Do you think last night was good for our defensive efficiency?

To me that kind of stuff shouldn't be considered in rankings. Yes we gave up to many points but the pace of play has something to do with it. Also why would our bad defense mean more than our great offense

Edited December 30, 2023 by IU Scott

[Kdug]

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

The difference is most of the metrics don't like Indiana this year. It's not like the KenPom rating is an outlier and we're strong in the NET and other efficiency metrics. 

Our numbers are mediocre to bad almost across the board. 

That’s not true. Our efficiency metrics are bad, but our resume metrics are still ok. BPI and kenpom have us at 89th and 87th. KPI and SOR have us at 54th and 43rd. Historically speaking, the committee is more likely to include teams with resume metrics that are higher than efficiency metrics than the other way around.

Imo if we get our resume metrics into the top 40 or so, we’ll make the tourney. Granted, I don’t think we’ll do that without improving our efficiency metrics into the top 60 or 70.

[FKIM01]

2 hours ago, 5fouls said:

Does a 20 win IU team get in over a 24 win Indiana State team if ISU has the higher NET?  

With what I see today?

Nope.  Nor should they.

[KoB2011]

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

To me that kind of stuff shouldn't be considered in rankings. Yes we gave up to many points but the pace of play has something to do with it.

Efficiency metrics aren’t impacted by pace of play. 

[IU Scott]

Just now, KoB2011 said:

Efficiency metrics aren’t impacted by pace of play. 

Well it should, like I said it stupid to even have these things in the rankings

[KoB2011]

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

Well it should, like I said it stupid to even have these things in the rankings

I don’t think you understand what the word efficiency means. 

[Kdug]

6 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Well it should, like I said it stupid to even have these things in the rankings

Efficiency metrics take into account pace of play by always being per possession or per 100 possessions. So giving up 80 points in 85 possessions would be considered better than giving up 64 points on 60 possessions.

[IUJoe]

4 minutes ago, Kdug said:

Efficiency metrics take into account pace of play by always being per possession or per 100 possessions. So giving up 80 points in 85 possessions would be considered better than giving up 64 points on 60 possessions.

That is correct.

[IU Scott]

11 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I don’t think you understand what the word efficiency means. 

Yes I do but to me it is about winning and nothing else. I don't care how you win the game. It just upsets me that  a bunch of computer geeks  tells everyone what's important and what isn't. These guys probably never played a sport in their life and they are determining who is better. I think they should just have a committee of former players and coaches watching games all year long. There sole job is to watch games and determine who is the best teams and not a computer.

[SawatchHoosier]

30 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Efficiency metrics aren’t impacted by pace of play. 

Apologies for inserting myself into the conversation but couldn’t you actually have a KenPom ranking in the 90s while being undefeated for the entire season regardless of who you  beat?
Imagine a team who barely beat a bunch of ranked teams playing average offense and defense. This is extremely unlikely but could happen based on how kenpom ranks teams. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by SawatchHoosier

[5fouls]

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

I just don't trust numbers where IU went down 3 slots after winning a game by double digits.

But, they aren't based totally by what IU does.  They factor in who we play and have played, who they have played, etc.  So, on the same night if IU wins by 13 against Kennesaw, if one of our opponents earlier in the year loses by 30 to an opponent with poor metrics, that hurts IU more than it helps.  Not saying that's what happened last night, but it's just to point out it's not all about what we do in one game.  It's the totality of every outcome in the country over the course of the season.    

[5fouls]

23 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Yes I do but to me it is about winning and nothing else. I don't care how you win the game. It just upsets me that  a bunch of computer geeks  tells everyone what's important and what isn't. These guys probably never played a sport in their life and they are determining who is better. I think they should just have a committee of former players and coaches watching games all year long. There sole job is to watch games and determine who is the best teams and not a computer.

Scott.  I hate to tell you, but if IU has to rely on the 'eye test' this season, that might even be worse than our computer rankings.  

[BGleas]

25 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Yes I do but to me it is about winning and nothing else. I don't care how you win the game. It just upsets me that  a bunch of computer geeks  tells everyone what's important and what isn't. These guys probably never played a sport in their life and they are determining who is better. I think they should just have a committee of former players and coaches watching games all year long. There sole job is to watch games and determine who is the best teams and not a computer.

Former coaches and players are incredibly biased when it comes to selecting teams, award winners, etc. 

The reason we use analytics is because theoretically they take those biases out of the equation. 

Former players and coaches picking the teams would not be a good scenario. 

[BGleas]

46 minutes ago, Kdug said:

That’s not true. Our efficiency metrics are bad, but our resume metrics are still ok. BPI and kenpom have us at 89th and 87th. KPI and SOR have us at 54th and 43rd. Historically speaking, the committee is more likely to include teams with resume metrics that are higher than efficiency metrics than the other way around.

Imo if we get our resume metrics into the top 40 or so, we’ll make the tourney. Granted, I don’t think we’ll do that without improving our efficiency metrics into the top 60 or 70.

It's kind of semantics. I said "mediocre to bad", you said "our efficiency metrics are bad but our resume metrics are ok."

We're kind of saying the same thing. We're not in a horrible spot right now and the real important part of the season is ahead of us, but we're not in a very good spot either. 

IU has a lot of work to do. 

[Kdug]

2 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Scott.  I hate to tell you, but if IU has to rely on the 'eye test' this season, that might even be worse than our computer rankings.  

The eye test has also been proven to be just about the worst way to rank teams in just about every sport. That’s a great way to have a committee that justifies screwing good mid-majors over for mediocre P5 teams.