What The Numbers Say

[13th&Jackson]

16 minutes ago, Indykev said:

 

[IU Scott]

1 hour ago, Indykev said:

 

That is really bad but they play a lot more games today than they did 30 years ago

[NCHoosier32]

On 2/22/2024 at 8:18 PM, IU Scott said:

That is really bad but they play a lot more games today than they did 30 years ago

CJ's shot was big yesterday!  we didn't add to this number!

[BGleas]

 

 

[Hoosier987]

9 minutes ago, BGleas said:

 

 

Yup…you can throw all the recruiting rankings away…when you play an awful system and have bad guard play and do nothing to change or fix this is what you get. This is one of the worst teams we’ve seen the past 50 years outside of sanction years. 

[BGleas]

Just now, Hoosier987 said:

Yup…you can throw all the recruiting rankings away…when you play an awful system and have bad guard play and do nothing to change or fix this is what you get. This is one of the worst teams we’ve seen the past 50 years outside of sanction years. 

Yeah, this is a historically bad season for IU. Hard to digest and see where the program goes from here without changes. 

[Maedhros]

One of the complaints of the NET, especially this season, is that it's too reliant on efficiency metrics. Rankings and ratings found at KenPom and Torvik are predictive, giving you expected outcomes for the future.

Your resume should be based on what you've accomplished. To that end, other metrics like Wins Above Bubble or Strength of Record. Indiana actually comes out better here, not a Tournament team, but not a disaster like the early Crean teams. By WAB we're 64, and by SOR we're 54. Our performances against lowly teams in the non-con, FGCU and Army especially, are dragging down our metrics but perhaps aren't the best indicator of this team today.

Filter Torvik for just conference play and we jump from 85 to 62. Agreed, not great, but that's in line with where we ranked for conference play the last two years of Archie.

[IowaHoosierFan]

44 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

One of the complaints of the NET, especially this season, is that it's too reliant on efficiency metrics. Rankings and ratings found at KenPom and Torvik are predictive, giving you expected outcomes for the future.

Your resume should be based on what you've accomplished. To that end, other metrics like Wins Above Bubble or Strength of Record. Indiana actually comes out better here, not a Tournament team, but not a disaster like the early Crean teams. By WAB we're 64, and by SOR we're 54. Our performances against lowly teams in the non-con, FGCU and Army especially, are dragging down our metrics but perhaps aren't the best indicator of this team today.

Filter Torvik for just conference play and we jump from 85 to 62. Agreed, not great, but that's in line with where we ranked for conference play the last two years of Archie.

If we could pick and choose our own metrics we can make it look better, but so could every team which mean it would also affect where we stand.  It really boils down to the fact we don't have enough 15+ point wins against bad teams and to many 15+ losses to good teams.  We are just bad all around.  Just have to accept it and move on.

[BGleas]

1 hour ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

If we could pick and choose our own metrics we can make it look better, but so could every team which mean it would also affect where we stand.  It really boils down to the fact we don't have enough 15+ point wins against bad teams and to many 15+ losses to good teams.  We are just bad all around.  Just have to accept it and move on.

Yeah, and that's the point. Good teams largely blow out the really bad teams. IU didn't and early in the season it was a clear indicator that we were a mediocre at best team. 

Good teams largely don't get blown out numerous times by other good teams. This was another indicator that IU was a mediocre at best team. 

We can say it's silly that efficiency and point differential are dumb or whatever and the record is all that matters, but the above were clear indicators early on that IU wasn't a good team this year. 

[Drroogh]

In this thread and others I have been pretty down on the numbers and analytics, not because I don’t believe in them but because I do. The problem I’ve had is most are simpleton based on record (think RPI & NET) others are better but still only based on box score databases. In a tool box, it’s like using a worn out adjustable wrench, Instead of using the entire MAC Tools toolbox. Elsewhere I posted that until you have a team evaluating all of the detail utilizing advanced methodologies… well let’s just say I can get around this. Meet the 'secret weapon' in Alabama's Final Four run

I remember after getting through several Calculus classes the first day of Differential Equations the professor said welcome to mathematics, everything else up to this point was arithmetic!

Edited April 4 by Drroogh

[Zlinedavid]

1 hour ago, Drroogh said:

I remember after getting through several Calculus classes the first day of Differential Equations the professor said welcome to mathematics, everything else up to this point was arithmetic!

This is exactly why I got into programming.  I'm great at math, but I suck at arithmetic.  I could set up some intricate multi-step equation perfection and subtract something wrong.  So I've spent the last 10 years getting a computer to do it for me. 

[Zlinedavid]

1 hour ago, Drroogh said:

In this thread and others I have been pretty down on the numbers and analytics, not because I don’t believe in them but because I do. The problem I’ve had is most are simpleton based on record (think RPI & NET) others are better but still only based on box score databases. In a tool box, it’s like using a worn out adjustable wrench, Instead of using the entire MAC Tools toolbox. Elsewhere I posted that until you have a team evaluating all of the detail utilizing advanced methodologies… well let’s just say I can get around this. Meet the 'secret weapon' in Alabama's Final Four run

A) Now that is impressive....a predictive model that can calculate if a player's 3PT% will improve in college vs AAU.  I'd love getting under the hood of that one to see what's involved. 

B) I'm going to guess that Woody isn't exactly high on a lot of analytics, which isn't just a shame, but almost a slap in the face given that Bloomington is almost "Ground Zero" in the birth of sports analytics. 

[Drroogh]

10 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

A) Now that is impressive....a predictive model that can calculate if a player's 3PT% will improve in college vs AAU.  I'd love getting under the hood of that one to see what's involved. ABSOLUTELY!

B) I'm going to guess that Woody isn't exactly high on a lot of analytics, which isn't just a shame, but almost a slap in the face given that Bloomington is almost "Ground Zero" in the birth of sports analytics. Could be like me and doesn’t think much of what’s typically available. Someone from that GROUND ZERO needs to step up and show him what real analytics can do!

 

[Euroclydon]

End of the day you are what your record says you are. This season IU was mediocre at best. A few flashes of possibility but not even close when playing the best teams and only marginally close to most tournament teams they played. 

A team with no depth that can't shoot the three, doesn't really rebound at a high level, and isn't sure what they are doing on defense. A team that could not afford injuries but often ended up with key injuries. 

If it wasn't for K Ware it would have been much uglier. His play, when not hurt, raised them to slighlty above mediocre in a down season for the conference overall.