• 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!

Wake Forest Basketball: Statistical Deep Dive...

I'm wondering where the three wins are coming from myself.
 
I wrote this piece in December and I appreciate you sharing it. Currently we're projected to win 2.73 more games according to KenPom, with .31 of those wins coming against State. If we do not win against State, then the projection will change from 17 wins to 16 wins as it will become more likely we win 2 more than 3 more.
 
CumberlandDeac said:
I wrote this piece in December and I appreciate you sharing it. Currently we're projected to win 2.73 more games according to KenPom, with .31 of those wins coming against State. If we do not win against State, then the projection will change from 17 wins to 16 wins as it will become more likely we win 2 more than 3 more.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. You seem to be spot on with your prediction.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I'd almost be surprised if we get 3 more conference wins. There's a decent chance we'd need another road win to get there and asking Bzzz to win more than 1 road ACC game a year is just too much.
Click to expand...

Clemson, Miami and BC suck. State, FSU and Maryland aren't much better. I'm not saying we will win 3 more games, but we have at least as much talent as all those teams (and more than the 1st 3 teams). So when you step back from looking at how much we suck and see that most of the conference sucks just as badly, it's certainly conceivable we can win another 2, 3 or even 4 games. We're in danger of having only 4 of 15 teams dancing, and UNC is the only other team remotely on the bubble at this point.
 
cville deac said:
Clemson, Miami and BC suck. State, FSU and Maryland aren't much better. I'm not saying we will win 3 more games, but we have at least as much talent as all those teams (and more than the 1st 3 teams). So when you step back from looking at how much we suck and see that most of the conference sucks just as badly, it's certainly conceivable we can win another 2, 3 or even 4 games. We're in danger of having only 4 of 15 teams dancing, and UNC is the only other team remotely on the bubble at this point.
Click to expand...

Do those teams have Buzz?
 
cville deac said:
Clemson, Miami and BC suck. State, FSU and Maryland aren't much better. I'm not saying we will win 3 more games, but we have at least as much talent as all those teams (and more than the 1st 3 teams). So when you step back from looking at how much we suck and see that most of the conference sucks just as badly, it's certainly conceivable we can win another 2, 3 or even 4 games. We're in danger of having only 4 of 15 teams dancing, and UNC is the only other team remotely on the bubble at this point.
Click to expand...

FSU is in the tournament in 65 of the 70 brackets used in the Bracket Matrix, and averages out as a 10-seed. How exactly is that not "remotely on the bubble?" For that matter, Clemson, while only included in 6 brackets, is third in the First Four Out. For someone who constantly harps on the importance of defense, you sure don't seem to be willing to give any credit for teams like Clemson (6th nationally in defensive efficiency) or FSU (16th) that excel at it.
 
The few times I've seen FSU they've looked bad. They just lost to State and Clemson at home. And barely beat a bad ND team at home. They ain't gonna finish > .500 in conference play, and that should put them on the underside of the bubble.

Look, the reason Clemson and FSU have decent records is both Hamilton and Brownell coach good defense. And in this shitetastic ACC, that's enough to get you maybe to .500. But you put those teams in the Big-10 or Big-12, and they'd be pounded on a regular basis. Just like MD will get pounded next year in the Big-10 if Turgeon doesn't get them a whole lot better quickly.
 
cville deac said:
The few times I've seen FSU they've looked bad. They just lost to State and Clemson at home. And barely beat a bad ND team at home. They ain't gonna finish > .500 in conference play, and that should put them on the underside of the bubble.

Look, the reason Clemson and FSU have decent records is both Hamilton and Brownell coach good defense. And in this shitetastic ACC, that's enough to get you maybe to .500. But you put those teams in the Big-10 or Big-12, and they'd be pounded on a regular basis. Just like MD will get pounded next year in the Big-10 if Turgeon doesn't get them a whole lot better quickly.
Click to expand...

FSU is projected to go 10-8 in the conference. Also the ACC isn't bad this year at all.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
FSU is projected to go 10-8 in the conference. Also the ACC isn't bad this year at all.
Click to expand...

How old are you? No offense, but if you experienced ACC hoops of the 80s and 90s, what you're watching outside of Syracuse, Durham, Pittsburgh and Cville is unwatchable.

And FWIW, when I looked at FSU's schedule, I don't think they'll do better than 9-9.

Let's approach this another way. Let's look at the old ACC schools and see where they are vis-a-vis what their history has been over the last 30 years. UVA is a little better than their average team (though not as good as they were much of the 80s). Dick is on par. UNC is down. MD has been pretty far down. Wake and GT are WAY down from what we were from the 80s to early 00s. State is down. FSU par to slightly down. Clemson a little down (not in terms of record but in talent this isn't 1 of their better teams). BC and VT down, even by their usual low standards. So maybe the ACC is slightly improved from where it was the last 3 years because the bottom isn't quite so dreadful, and the addition of Syracuse and Pitt helps tremendously. But you missed the days where 75% of your conference games were wars. Now the only wars are when Syracuse, Pitt, Dick and UVA play each other. No other ACC team is worth watching.
 
We've already had this conversation before. I was talking relative to the rest of the teams in the country this year, the ACC is pretty good.

The conference has six of the top 30 teams on KenPom. No conference with 15 teams is going to have every game worth watching. The Big 12 is close this year though...no breaks there...eight of ten teams are having pretty good years.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
We've already had this conversation before. I was talking relative to the rest of the teams in the country this year, the ACC is pretty good.

The conference has six of the top 30 teams on KenPom. No conference with 15 teams is going to have every game worth watching. The Big 12 is close this year though...no breaks there...eight of ten teams are having pretty good years.
Click to expand...

Conference realignment is so stupid.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
We've already had this conversation before. I was talking relative to the rest of the teams in the country this year, the ACC is pretty good.

The conference has six of the top 30 teams on KenPom. No conference with 15 teams is going to have every game worth watching. The Big 12 is close this year though...no breaks there...eight of ten teams are having pretty good years.
Click to expand...

And we used to have 6 or 7 out of 9 making the Dance every year. 5 out of 15 isn't good by my standards, of course based on our historical competitiveness.
 
Stats don't lie, and they tell the story of the decline in play

From 1985 through 1994 - the ACC had 5 teams in the Dance five times, and 6 teams five times.

Of the 28 teams in the tourney in 1985-1989, 22 were #5 or higher seeds.

Of the 27 teams in the tourney in 1990-1994, 17 were #5 or higher seeds.

From 1995 to 1999 - twice only 4 teams were invited, but all 4 were seeded. In 1996, six teams made the tourney, but only two seeded marking the first time less than 3 ACC teams were seeded.

2000 through 2003 represented a bad stretch for the ACC with 2000 being the low level mark when only 3 teams were selected and two seeded. League representation was 3,6,4, and 4 in those years respectively, and 2,4,2, and 2 teams being seeded.

2004 through 2010 has seen 7 teams dancing (twice in 2007 and 2009), 6 teams (twice last being 2010), 5 teams (once), and 4 teams (twice). The ACC had 5 seeded teams in 2004, 4 seeded teams in three years, 3 seeded teams in two years and for the first time since 2000, only 2 seeded in 2010.

The real decline is evident in the past three years:
2011: 4 teams, two seeded, one seeded 10th, the other had to play the play-in game to get into the tourney
2012: 5 teams, three seeded, the others 10th and 11th seeds
2013: 4 teams, two seeded, two #8 seeds.

The only seeded teams in 2014 will be two Big East teams and Duke most likely, meaning only one traditional team when historically there were multiple traditional teams seeded.

The reason for the general decline in the level of college play has been debated elsewhere (one and done for example), but for the ACC it is clearly evident in the decline of teams in the tourney (unless you want to have a theory that Wellman, being on the committee, did not want to show an ACC bias).
 
Major conference teams across the board have been down in tournament appearances because of the increase in mid major appearances.
 
Ah & now back to the original theme of thread: S'deac is correct. In addition, and accepting the range evaluative opinions of talent level(s), MSD will get MANhandled by at least 3 named teams (Clemson, FSU & Md), definitely out-coached by Miami (possibly all) and may hold off BC at home should Eagles' shooters all have poor game (given general lack of ability to defend mid-range to 3's); considering 'Pack results in game here, don't see much chance in Raleigh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top