• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

KenPom 2015-2016: Back on Top: #1 in Luck (1/11)

demondeacfreak said:
I'm very curious how far we move up once we start getting production out of CMM. I imagine KP's preseason ranking for us took into account a normal progression for CMM, and we're getting moved downward because we aren't getting that so far. And because we lost at home to Richmond (77).

For the more knowledgeable folks on here, does KP's predictions take into account injuries? If so, how?
Click to expand...

Injuries are unlucky.
 
When I think of Wake Forest sports, the first thing that comes to mind is certainly not "Boy are we lucky!"
 
Demonwolverine said:
When I think of Wake Forest sports, the first thing that comes to mind is certainly not "Boy are we lucky!"
Click to expand...

Exactly, I have the sense that our luck rating the last hundred years has hovered in the 300+ range.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Once again, here is the breakdown on the 2016 ratings from KP:

Preseason ratings were posted over the weekend. Here’s a reminder as to what goes into them…

The components and weighting is based on a regression of the past nine seasons. The system is, by 2015 standards, pretty simple. It doesn’t try to project playing time for individual players. It doesn’t know about transfers, and all but 5-star recruits are virtually ignored. If you think your favorite team is ranked too low, the reason is probably that there are really good transfers or recruits arriving.

In the most general sense, the main ingredient in the system is inertia. If a team has been good in the recent past, it’s likely to be rated well in the preseason. As much as we like to think of college basketball as this crazy sport where anything can happen, there’s just not much class mobility in the game. I think we all understand that the Big Ten will always be better than the SWAC, but even within conferences there’s a clear power structure that might vary from year to year but is very predictable over the long term.

Over the next decade, it’s a near certainty that Arizona will win more Pac-12 games than Washington State, Kansas will win more Big 12 games than TCU, and Duke will win more ACC games than Boston College. So in the absence of looking at specific players, the projection first relies on recent team performance. Projected offense is largely determined by the quality of a team’s offense over the previous three seasons and its defense from last season. Projected defense uses similar variables.

Returning personnel is considered as well. Generally, the more players returning, the better. However, the quality of the player is also a factor. Losing a high-usage/high-efficiency player hurts a team’s offense a lot more than losing a role player. In fact, a low-usage inefficient role player that returns can actually hurt a team’s rating. So while chasing off a player is not the most ethical practice, it is apparently a good sign for the program when a struggling player seeks a new school.

A new addition this year is accounting for injured players from the previous season. If a returning player played a partial season, then his future impact is considered to be more than it was in previous versions of the system. Note that his doesn’t account for cases where a player completely missed the previous season. Michigan is the team that benefits most from this, with both Caris LeVert and Derrick Walton returning after having missed large portions of last season.

There is also a penalty for a coaching change, with a greater hit for teams ranked higher. Basically, teams that change coaches tend to underperform their counterparts that have not changed coaches, all other things being equal.

The predictions are calibrated on end-of-season ratings. However, in a departure from previous practices, the national averages I’ve subjectively imposed are designed to capture conditions at the beginning of the season. Currently, I’ve got an efficiency of 100 as the national average. The end-of-season number will undoubtedly be higher than that. Likewise, the average tempo of 68.5 should be an overestimate of the season-long average. Although, that is less certain.

While the projections for offense and defense are no longer state-of-the-art, I think the tempo projections are the best around. (Mainly because I’m not aware of any competition.) It’s far more accurate to project a team’s pace using their head coach’s history than the team’s history, and that is how this season’s tempo projections work. In the case of rookie head coaches, there’s just some regression to the mean applied to the team’s tempo from its previous season. But for coaches with a history there’s a lot of weight placed on that history.

For the sake of accountability, here’s how various pre-season systems did last season, measured by average error in predicting conference wins across all 350 teams.

Hanner/SI 2.15
Hess/TeamRankings 2.16
Pomeroy 2.26
Adamson/Matchup-Zone 2.26
Torvik/T-Rank 2.35
It would be better to use overall regular-season record but the issue of in-season tournaments makes this quite a bit more difficult. At any rate, as has occurred in previous seasons, Hanner sets the standard in projections, although TeamRankings is a very, very close second. If you want your preseason ratings considered in future editions of this post, please send your conference predictions along before the season begins.
Click to expand...

fuck you doofus
 
Jason King ‏@JasonKingBR 13m13 minutes ago
Not saying its a travesty they aren't ranked, but I'm surprised Wake Forest isn't at least getting votes in the AP poll. Solid team/resume.
1:41 PM - 7 Dec 2015 · Details

Jason King = Legend.
 
Our resume is shaping up pretty nicely doe. If we can add a Duke or X win by early Jan we'll be looking quite spiffy
 
If we win our next three games we will be ranked at 9-2, and then presumably be knocked out after playing LSU and Louisville in that week.

The schedule gets hard as hell after the next two games.
 
Could Manning's totally outside the box substitution patterns have an effect on the luck index? I mean, if you are unexpectedly playing a walk-on 20-25 mins/game, seems that the margins would be closer than they have to be, or would be otherwise expected. That might be telling the index that we are worse than our results indicate.

But I have no idea. I just see a number like "#1 in the nation in luck" and wonder what it is we are doing that others are not. And it seems giving bloated minutes to walk-on talent would an outlier.

I'm sure somebody can tell me why that is not the case.
 
Also, Joe Lunardi is posting his updated bracketology tomorrow. I expect the Deacs to be in the "Next 4 Out" (aka 5th-8th best teams that miss the field).

I know it's early and meaningless, but still pretty cool to see the Deacs in the bubble conversation.
 
TwentyONE said:
But I have no idea. I just see a number like "#1 in the nation in luck" and wonder what it is we are doing that others are not. And it seems giving bloated minutes to walk-on talent would an outlier.

I'm sure somebody can tell me why that is not the case.
Click to expand...

It's probably a factor, sure. I think CMM not playing is the bigger factor. He was a pretty big reason why we were ranked where we were in the preseason.
 
It just means we have the biggest discrepancy between scoring margin and record. Any reason you can think of for why we haven't beaten teams by more is valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top