Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-07-10 11:37 AM - Post#78087
In response to T71
My poorly worded sentence. They're 2nd in the league but when I checked the RPIs and Pomeroys they were 3rd there. Neither have updated yet. Sorry.
|
pchrystie
Masters Student
Posts: 673
Reg: 03-14-06
|
03-07-10 02:08 PM - Post#78113
In response to Howard Gensler
The Pomeroy site goes back to 2004 so that's what I did. Feel free to go back further.
Ivy League rank:
2010: 23
2009: 26
2008: 27
2007: 21
2006: 28
2005: 20
2004: 23
A little bit of apples and oranges, as I only have RPI, but going back further:
2003: 23
2002: 14
2001: 28
So in the last decade there have been 3 better years, 4 worse years, and 2 comparable years.
Make of that what you will, but it strikes me that this year is a middle-of-the-pack year.
When making a more direct comparison to the last time the league had three good teams, the league was 14th in RPI (compared to 21 now) and all three teams were in the RPI top 100, with one in the top 50 (as opposed to RPI 49, 97 and 144 now). And all 3 teams made real post-season tournaments and played well, with Penn losing to Cal by 7 (I'm trying not to relive the last 5 seconds of the first half), Princeton losing to Louisville by 1, and Yale defeating Rutgers before losing to Tennessee Tech. This year is nowhere close to that year.
|
IvyBballFan
Masters Student
Posts: 479
Age: 77
Loc: Central Florida
Reg: 11-19-09
|
Re: 10-3
03-07-10 04:27 PM - Post#78129
In response to Brian Martin
This [Princeton] is only an average team offensively. That is why their record is remarkable...
The defense has been outstanding enough to make up for offensive struggles.
Brian is correct. This is pretty much the type of data I was alluding to. Princeton’s FG team percentages were just slightly above D-1 average, and their points/possession was just slightly below D-1 average. OTOH, they shot FT’s well. However, both their offensive rebounding efficiency (0.297) and their turnovers per possession (0.231) were below the 20th percentile of D-1 teams. These are important team performance deficits that reduced the team’s opportunities to score. Still, the Tigers could end up as a 20W team with a winning percentage over .700. I find this remarkable.
I appreciate the comments about the implication that we are discussing the possibility that players may individually be over- or underachieving. I’m not about to go there. This is about what teams do as a unit. Sometimes one hears it phrased as “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.†The whole is winning, and the parts are the various facets of the game. In fact, this may indeed be about coaching. Teams with the Tigers’ level of team offensive performance do not generally win this much, even with solid defense. Considering the Tigers’ noted deficits in team offensive performance, their ~.700 winning percentage looks great to me!
As for relative strength of the league this year, multiple posters have done a very good job of addressing that. Below are the last decade’s combined non-conference winning percentages for the eight Ivy teams. It’s not as good as using league RPI, but it supports others' data. The average without this year is .420. The improvement in 2009-2010 over the last two years was ~0.065; 16% better! Other than 2006-07, the only year that exceeded 2009-2010 was the three-way tie year. I didn’t detect any meaningful fall-off in quality of opposition from 2007-09 and 08-09, but I didn’t study it in super-detail.
(Year) non-Con Win%
(1999-00) 0.394
(2000-01) 0.362
(2001-02) 0.539
(2002-03) 0.411
(2003-04) 0.330
(2004-05) 0.463
(2005-06) 0.404
(2006-07) 0.482
(2007-08) 0.408
(2008-09) 0.404
(2009-10) 0.471
Certainly, the ‘90’s were better than these past ten years, and 2001-02 stood out. If I may summarize what I have read above, many would agree that, as a league, we did climb back from the depths of the past couple seasons for one year, not too new heights, but too a more customary altitude.
Man, we may get three 20W teams. That’s never happened before. The three top teams will have 67-68 W's. That’s never happened before. The league winner set a new record for total regular season wins by an Ivy team. Three Ivy teams not only duked it out for the top spot (four three-point games and one more sub-double-digit game), but also may see post-season action. That is a pretty rare occurrence for us. Does anyone see an era returning like the ‘80’s when there were seven straight years in which 10 or 11 wins took home the autobid?
Moreover, this year, teams played reasonable non-con games with respectable D-1 opponents, such as Alabama, Boston College, Siena, Colorado, UConn, Depaul, Georgetown, Kansas, St. John’s, Syracuse, VaTech, and William&Mary.
There has already been a lot to like in the Ivy League’s 2009-10 season, and we’ve got at least two games left.
|
puband09
Masters Student
Posts: 782
Reg: 12-19-09
|
03-08-10 03:22 PM - Post#78216
In response to IvyBballFan
For being a second-place team, Princeton sure has been shafted in the weekly Ivy League awards all season.
|
mmp629
Junior
Posts: 259
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-08-10 05:00 PM - Post#78225
In response to puband09
Nobody likes Princeton. 
There are lots of *good* reasons for the exclusions: team is greater than individual parts, system vs talent, Cornell and Harvard best ivy teams in 30 years, yada yada yada
Choice between Ivy awards and a winning season-I'll take the winning sesaon.
Keeping my fingers crossed for 20-8!!
|
Kit
Senior
Posts: 380
Loc: Central Massachusetts
Reg: 11-29-04
|
03-08-10 08:20 PM - Post#78251
In response to mmp629
Agreed. I'd rather have 20 Ivy titles than 30 Ivy POYs.
|
|
