Jump to content

What The Numbers Say


5fouls

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, BGleas said:

Still a long way to go, but geez this team has dug itself a hole. 

I may be misremembering, but I thought the selection committee used NET to determine quality of wins, not as a ranking system.

If that’s right, we really haven’t dug a hole, mainly just missed a couple of opportunities while looking bad. Both losses are going to be Q1, the win at Michigan is at least a Q2 if not Q1, and Harvard, Wright State, and Maryland could all end up Q3. That’s not a resume of a top seed, but there’s some meaningful wins and nothing bad on it.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

How is the Big Ten going to move up collectively in the NET... by beating each other? 

I'm not a smart enough in math to lay it all out, but when Indiana State, Evansville, etc. get a quad 3 loss or two they will drop and Power Conference teams will fill the void just because of who they play.  

60% of wins in some of these mid-major leagues will be Quad 3 or below by the end of the season. Meanwhile 80% of wins in the Big Ten will ultimately be Quad 2 and above.

It may be a slower process this season, but it will eventually happen.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I'm not a smart enough in math to lay it all out, but when Indiana State, Evansville, etc. get a quad 3 loss or two they will drop and Power Conference teams will fill the void just because of who they play.  

60% of wins in some of these mid-major leagues will be Quad 3 or below by the end of the season. Meanwhile 80% of wins in the Big Ten will ultimately be Quad 2 and above.

It may be a slower process this season, but it will eventually happen.

 

 

Yep. These rankings this early are as concrete as college football rankings in early October. No clue why so many on here and elsewhere put much in them. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I'm not a smart enough in math to lay it all out, but when Indiana State, Evansville, etc. get a quad 3 loss or two they will drop and Power Conference teams will fill the void just because of who they play.  

60% of wins in some of these mid-major leagues will be Quad 3 or below by the end of the season. Meanwhile 80% of wins in the Big Ten will ultimately be Quad 2 and above.

It may be a slower process this season, but it will eventually happen.

 

 

Tell that to the ACC last season.

It is not a given that just because we are in the Big Ten we will get in if we rack up enough wins. The chances for quality wins for this team is unfortunately minimal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Tell that to the ACC last season.

It is not a given that just because we are in the Big Ten we will get in if we rack up enough wins. The chances for quality wins for this team is unfortunately minimal. 

I'll concede the team will need a couple more conference wins than usual.  But, that works both ways.  The opportunity for more wins is higher than normal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

I'll concede the team will need a couple more conference wins than usual.  But, that works both ways.  The opportunity for more wins is higher than normal 

Yes, and we will have to beat some good teams one way or another. I don’t think we will get in without 3-5 wins against other tournament teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kdug said:

I may be misremembering, but I thought the selection committee used NET to determine quality of wins, not as a ranking system.

If that’s right, we really haven’t dug a hole, mainly just missed a couple of opportunities while looking bad. Both losses are going to be Q1, the win at Michigan is at least a Q2 if not Q1, and Harvard, Wright State, and Maryland could all end up Q3. That’s not a resume of a top seed, but there’s some meaningful wins and nothing bad on it.

Largely agree, and the good thing is that our low NET is not because of any bad losses. Bad losses can really come back to haunt, and as of now we don't have any of those. 

But, we have still dug a hole. The Big Ten will bounce back in the NET over time, but this isn't a strong conference. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Largely agree, and the good thing is that our low NET is not because of any bad losses. Bad losses can really come back to haunt, and as of now we don't have any of those. 

But, we have still dug a hole. The Big Ten will bounce back in the NET over time, but this isn't a strong conference. 

Maybe it’s just semantics, but I don’t see how the big ten being down (which I definitely agree with) means IU is in a hole. It does mean that every win won’t necessarily be a good win, and there are chances for bad losses unlike last year. So there’s definitely more work to do in terms of winning games than last year in conference, but IU isn’t having to make up for a bad loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kdug said:

Maybe it’s just semantics, but I don’t see how the big ten being down (which I definitely agree with) means IU is in a hole. It does mean that every win won’t necessarily be a good win, and there are chances for bad losses unlike last year. So there’s definitely more work to do in terms of winning games than last year in conference, but IU isn’t having to make up for a bad loss.

Yeah, like I said we don't have any bad losses, which is a good thing. Bad losses are really bad come selection Sunday. 

But we do have to dig out of a big efficiency hole and unlike past years the Big Ten isn't just an instant fix. 

We could finish 4th in the Big Ten and miss the tourney. That would be less likely, not completely unlikely probably, but less likely if our metrics were better. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

Yeah, like I said we don't have any bad losses, which is a good thing. Bad losses are really bad come selection Sunday. 

But we do have to dig out of a big efficiency hole and unlike past years the Big Ten isn't just an instant fix. 

We could finish 4th in the Big Ten and miss the tourney. That would be less likely, not completely unlikely probably, but less likely if our metrics were better. 

I guess the bold is the part I don’t agree with. To my knowledge, NET/efficiency margin is used to evaluate quality of wins and losses, but is not a major part of an individual team’s resume. So we don’t really even need to dig out of the efficiency margin hole to build a quality resume.

I don’t think Jerry Palm is a very good bracketologist with his predictions, but he gets into how NET is used in this article: https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-explaining-the-team-sheets-the-selection-committee-uses-to-compare-ncaa-tournament-resumes/amp/. Unless he’s flat out wrong (which is certainly possible), or that’s changed since this article, I don’t think IU having a low NET is a major concern for resume purposes.

Now I think it’s fair to say that if IU doesn’t improve their general efficiency margin, we likely won’t win enough to make the tourney. But that’s a different argument than saying there’s a hole to dig out of. And for that argument kenpom, trank, or evanmiya are all better to look at than NET.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kdug said:

I guess the bold is the part I don’t agree with. To my knowledge, NET/efficiency margin is used to evaluate quality of wins and losses, but is not a major part of an individual team’s resume. So we don’t really even need to dig out of the efficiency margin hole to build a quality resume.

I don’t think Jerry Palm is a very good bracketologist with his predictions, but he gets into how NET is used in this article: https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-explaining-the-team-sheets-the-selection-committee-uses-to-compare-ncaa-tournament-resumes/amp/. Unless he’s flat out wrong (which is certainly possible), or that’s changed since this article, I don’t think IU having a low NET is a major concern for resume purposes.

Now I think it’s fair to say that if IU doesn’t improve their general efficiency margin, we likely won’t win enough to make the tourney. But that’s a different argument than saying there’s a hole to dig out of. And for that argument kenpom, trank, or evanmiya are all better to look at than NET.

That's the hole we need to dig out of. Feels like we're really parsing words here. 

We're 7-2 which is good. Our efficiency numbers aren't great and are dragging things down. 

We need to win games and be more efficient. We don't have a great margin of error the rest of the way given our current efficiency, lack of a good OOC neutral/road wins, and playing in a conference that will be weaker than normal and potentially not provide as big of a boost that it normally does. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kdug said:

I guess the bold is the part I don’t agree with. To my knowledge, NET/efficiency margin is used to evaluate quality of wins and losses, but is not a major part of an individual team’s resume. So we don’t really even need to dig out of the efficiency margin hole to build a quality resume.

I don’t think Jerry Palm is a very good bracketologist with his predictions, but he gets into how NET is used in this article: https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-explaining-the-team-sheets-the-selection-committee-uses-to-compare-ncaa-tournament-resumes/amp/. Unless he’s flat out wrong (which is certainly possible), or that’s changed since this article, I don’t think IU having a low NET is a major concern for resume purposes.

Now I think it’s fair to say that if IU doesn’t improve their general efficiency margin, we likely won’t win enough to make the tourney. But that’s a different argument than saying there’s a hole to dig out of. And for that argument kenpom, trank, or evanmiya are all better to look at than NET.

According to Kenpom we are currently #76 and are the #1 luckiest team....

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BGleas said:

That's the hole we need to dig out of. Feels like we're really parsing words here. 

We're 7-2 which is good. Our efficiency numbers aren't great and are dragging things down. 

We need to win games and be more efficient. We don't have a great margin of error the rest of the way given our current efficiency, lack of a good OOC neutral/road wins, and playing in a conference that will be weaker than normal and potentially not provide as big of a boost that it normally does. 

 

I think I’m following you now, and agree we need to improve efficiency in order to win enough games going forward. I was looking at it from a resume perspective, which I was viewing as we’re luckily that we’re not in a hole with how we’ve played in most games this year.

Edited by Kdug
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

According to Kenpom we are currently #76 and are the #1 luckiest team....

Yup, and that’s what’s concerning to me more than our NET.

On the bright side, it did feel like we were improving before the Auburn game. Even against Auburn we managed to score more than 1 point per possession against the #16 defense, which I’m sure improved our offensive efficiency. We just need to find consistency on defense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kdug said:

Yup, and that’s what’s concerning to me more than our NET.

On the bright side, it did feel like we were improving before the Auburn game. Even against Auburn we managed to score more than 1 point per possession against the #16 defense, which I’m sure improved our offensive efficiency. We just need to find consistency on defense.

 

I think that is a tall task. Last year, with a more experienced tea, we could barely crack the top 50 on defense.

Our system gives up a lot of open threes - guys could execute better of course, but giving up threes is a feature not a bug. 

We also, despite playing a big lineup basically at all times, are a bad rebounding team. I hate to harp on Malik because he is probably our most consistent scorer, but he is not a good rebounder. He has to get MUCH better at rebounding out of area - he needs to attack the ball. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I think that is a tall task. Last year, with a more experienced tea, we could barely crack the top 50 on defense.

Our system gives up a lot of open threes - guys could execute better of course, but giving up threes is a feature not a bug. 

We also, despite playing a big lineup basically at all times, are a bad rebounding team. I hate to harp on Malik because he is probably our most consistent scorer, but he is not a good rebounder. He has to get MUCH better at rebounding out of area - he needs to attack the ball. 

Maybe Reneau is too focused on scoring? I felt last year we rebounded better when he came in for Race Thompson. 

Looking at his stats, his minutes have gone from 15mpg to 28mpg, yet his rebounds have only gone from 3.7rpg to 4.9rpg. 

His rebounds per 40 minutes and TRB% are both down significantly. The 40 minutes stat is probably not surprising. But, it's clear rebounding is not nearly as much of a focus for him this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

Maybe Reneau is too focused on scoring? I felt last year we rebounded better when he came in for Race Thompson. 

Looking at his stats, his minutes have gone from 15mpg to 28mpg, yet his rebounds have only gone from 3.7rpg to 4.9rpg. 

His rebounds per 40 minutes and TRB% are both down significantly. The 40 minutes stat is probably not surprising. But, it's clear rebounding is not nearly as much of a focus for him this year. 

Yeah I'm struggling what to make of Malik right now. He's clearly a very, very talented scorer but his defense is still suspect, his rebounding has regressed, and as talented of a passer as he is, his decision making is bad.

On the passing point, he seems to only want to pass the ball if it is going to lead to an immediate layup. That shows up in the lack of kickouts to open shooters, but also when we are getting pressured. He's had some really bad turnovers against full-court defense where he turned down an easy pass to try to make a more challenging pass for what seemed like no reason. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I think that is a tall task. Last year, with a more experienced tea, we could barely crack the top 50 on defense.

Our system gives up a lot of open threes - guys could execute better of course, but giving up threes is a feature not a bug. 

We also, despite playing a big lineup basically at all times, are a bad rebounding team. I hate to harp on Malik because he is probably our most consistent scorer, but he is not a good rebounder. He has to get MUCH better at rebounding out of area - he needs to attack the ball. 

You know who isn't rebounding?  Our Guards.

Last season our top 5 guards (X, Gallo, JHS, Bates, and Gunn) averaged a combined 20.8 rebounds per 40 minutes.

This year our top 5 guards (X, Gallo, Gunn, Cupps, and Leal) are averaging only 15.9 rebounds per 40.  

Both X and Gallo are way down.  Cupps is doing OK for his size, but he's not JHS.  Gunn/Leal this year is fairly equal to Gunn/Bates last year.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

You know who isn't rebounding?  Our Guards.

Last season our top 5 guards (X, Gallo, JHS, Bates, and Gunn) averaged a combined 20.8 rebounds per 40 minutes.

This year our top 5 guards (X, Gallo, Gunn, Cupps, and Leal) are averaging only 15.9 rebounds per 40.  

Both X and Gallo are way down.  Cupps is doing OK for his size, but he's not JHS.  Gunn/Leal this year is fairly equal to Gunn/Bates last year.  

 

 

I'm actually fine with where Cupps is on that, but yeah, Trey and X have to get a lot better, both are way down from last year. 

Would have been awesome to use that last scholarship on a guard. Caleb Love would be the third best rebounder on this team behind Ware and Sparks, based on how he is playing this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

Yeah I'm struggling what to make of Malik right now. He's clearly a very, very talented scorer but his defense is still suspect, his rebounding has regressed, and as talented of a passer as he is, his decision making is bad.

On the passing point, he seems to only want to pass the ball if it is going to lead to an immediate layup. That shows up in the lack of kickouts to open shooters, but also when we are getting pressured. He's had some really bad turnovers against full-court defense where he turned down an easy pass to try to make a more challenging pass for what seemed like no reason. 

MR5 = TW50 🍟 ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...