Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 2 of 7 <2345>» Last
Username Post: Yale 3        (Topic#21273)
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
03-05-18 07:43 AM - Post#250868    
    In response to 10Q

I assume the league will be much tougher next year, regardless of OOC schedule. Among the teams in Ivy Madness, Foreman is the only graduating starter. Wood and Yates are the only rotation players graduating.

The injured guys all (presumably) return, and Harvard and Princeton appear to have impact recruits. Seems like everyone should get better.

 
LyleGold 
PhD Student
Posts: 1712

Reg: 11-22-04
Yale 3
03-05-18 07:44 AM - Post#250869    
    In response to 10Q

No, I'm suggesting a much tougher Ivy League next year. As much as I think Steve D did a fantastic job this year (Yale 2 included), it coincided with a down year in the league. Yale and Harvard were decimated by injuries and will be much better next year. Even Brown scares me with its young talent. An ILT berth is no guarantee, let alone a shared regular season title.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-05-18 09:26 AM - Post#250872    
    In response to Silver Maple

It's an interesting question and one that I've been pondering a lot as Steve inched closer to the Ivy title.

I don't know that anyone is necessarily wrong yet on the central question of Steve's ceiling. Where I was wrong was in assuming that we'd see a Top 100 champ until something major changed. Due to a combination of injuries and grads, we're about to have only our third, non-Top 100 "highest rated team" of the Pomeroy era (and potentially our lowest ever rated "best team").

I want to be perfectly clear - I'm not saying ANY of this to discredit the co-champs or the team that ultimately receives the bid. This year's edition of the Ivy remained amongst the middle pack of conferences and, despite looking like an outlier to recent history, would have been one of the strongest leagues, top-to-bottom, of the aughts.

But this is very likely to be a relative low. In 2015, the Ivies were the 13th-most experienced league in the nation (which for a league that doesn't accept grad transfers and generally eschews redshirt years, is tough to climb all that much higher than that). That year, we were the 15th rated league, but our KenPom All-Ivy team was three seniors and two juniors. In 2016, our experience slipped to 23rd. Our league slid a little bit to 17th best, and we still had three seniors, a junior and a soph on the KP All-Ivy team. By 2017, Princeton was really the lone, senior-laden team at the top, and our experience rank slipped to 29th. Our league, buoyed by Princeton, remained Top 20, but barely (18th, but from the raw numbers behind it, barely indistinguishable from 20th). Finally, this year, we hit rock bottom. We were the youngest league in the nation - a feat generally reserved for unfortunate mids and one-and-done-hungry power leagues. Our KP All-Ivy team is all sophs and one junior. We've felt the full impact of that lack of experience with a dip to 22nd as a league.

Now, there's no guarantee that talent won't get injured moving forward (in fact, past history seems to indicate there's a guarantee that a lot of our best players will) or decide to transfer (more precedent there too). But assuming the bulk of that talent stays with our league and grows that experience number back up, we're pointed toward something really special over the next couple years.

It's that presumed rise that I'll be watching to see if Steve can keep up. I'm not at all surprised he got Penn to the 125-150 range (very surprised he got there by defense, obviously). When it takes Top 50 to Top 75 teams to be competitive, though, at a certain point, strategy alone isn't enough. You need Jims and Joes.

Maybe Steve can recruit off of this success. Maybe he won't be able to. Either way, I believe he'll have to in order to keep up with the wave that's coming.

So, for now, the jury is still out for me. If he wins a league with a Top 100 (or really Top 50, Top 75 team), then the jury will definitely be back with a resounding verdict.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
Re: Yale 3
03-05-18 02:04 PM - Post#250913    
    In response to Chip Bayers

  • Chip Bayers Said:
I’d like to see some actual data backing up the belief that the twin towers lineup has declined over recent games. Correlated with respective foul issues for Rothschild & Brodeur.

Also #s on how dramatic the material effect of said decline has been on the offensive and defensive advanced stats.




My observation started with the Harvard game in Cambridge where Max played only 19 minutes. I don't have access to advanced analytics but at a high level I know the following:

AJ has pretty much averaged 31 minutes a game all season unless he has been in foul trouble, then he is around 25-26 min in those games.

For Max, since that Harvard game he is averaging 17 minutes a game. Prior to that he was averaging close to 27 minutes a game (in games with no foul trouble).

We had 2 bigs in the game together between 55-72% of the time prior to Harvard @Cambridge. Since that game it has been less than 10% of the minutes in any game, usually the start of each half when the starters are in.

As an example, in the princeton opener we had 2 bigs on the floor for 31 of 40 minutes. The next game vs Cornell 28 of 40 minutes (Max had some 2nd half foul trouble). Most recently, against Harvard at the Palestra we played 2 bigs for 4.5 out of 40 minutes (AJ had 2 first half fouls) followed by 10.5 out 40 @Yale (max and AJ had 2 fouls in first half) and 2.5 out of 40 min @Brown

As far as advanced defensive and offensive metrics, I don't know. I do know that prior to the Harvard game we were ranked around 52 in defense by KP and now we are 76. Offensively, we have improved. Right now we are #214 KP Offensively. At that time I believe we were about KP #250 but not completely sure.

There is no question SD has shifted from 2 Bigs a lot to 2 Bigs very little since the Harvard game at Cambridge. Why I don't know and what the impact is on advanced stats, I also don't know.





 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-05-18 02:15 PM - Post#250917    
    In response to mrjames

  • mrjames Said:
It's an interesting question and one that I've been pondering a lot as Steve inched closer to the Ivy title.

I don't know that anyone is necessarily wrong yet on the central question of Steve's ceiling. Where I was wrong was in assuming that we'd see a Top 100 champ until something major changed. Due to a combination of injuries and grads, we're about to have only our third, non-Top 100 "highest rated team" of the Pomeroy era (and potentially our lowest ever rated "best team").

I want to be perfectly clear - I'm not saying ANY of this to discredit the co-champs or the team that ultimately receives the bid. This year's edition of the Ivy remained amongst the middle pack of conferences and, despite looking like an outlier to recent history, would have been one of the strongest leagues, top-to-bottom, of the aughts.

But this is very likely to be a relative low. In 2015, the Ivies were the 13th-most experienced league in the nation (which for a league that doesn't accept grad transfers and generally eschews redshirt years, is tough to climb all that much higher than that). That year, we were the 15th rated league, but our KenPom All-Ivy team was three seniors and two juniors. In 2016, our experience slipped to 23rd. Our league slid a little bit to 17th best, and we still had three seniors, a junior and a soph on the KP All-Ivy team. By 2017, Princeton was really the lone, senior-laden team at the top, and our experience rank slipped to 29th. Our league, buoyed by Princeton, remained Top 20, but barely (18th, but from the raw numbers behind it, barely indistinguishable from 20th). Finally, this year, we hit rock bottom. We were the youngest league in the nation - a feat generally reserved for unfortunate mids and one-and-done-hungry power leagues. Our KP All-Ivy team is all sophs and one junior. We've felt the full impact of that lack of experience with a dip to 22nd as a league.

Now, there's no guarantee that talent won't get injured moving forward (in fact, past history seems to indicate there's a guarantee that a lot of our best players will) or decide to transfer (more precedent there too). But assuming the bulk of that talent stays with our league and grows that experience number back up, we're pointed toward something really special over the next couple years.

It's that presumed rise that I'll be watching to see if Steve can keep up. I'm not at all surprised he got Penn to the 125-150 range (very surprised he got there by defense, obviously). When it takes Top 50 to Top 75 teams to be competitive, though, at a certain point, strategy alone isn't enough. You need Jims and Joes.

Maybe Steve can recruit off of this success. Maybe he won't be able to. Either way, I believe he'll have to in order to keep up with the wave that's coming.

So, for now, the jury is still out for me. If he wins a league with a Top 100 (or really Top 50, Top 75 team), then the jury will definitely be back with a resounding verdict.



Obviously there have been injuries and departures that have lowered the league's standings this year, combined with the youth in our league. That said, Penn beat Harvard who by your own account would be a top 100 team if they shot the ball close to their previous season average. Against Penn they shot it at a 47% from 3 with Penn shooting it 28% and we still won. That's a top 100 win in my book against a team with more talent on their roster. I think Penn and Harvard are playing close to top 100 level right now, and Yale has come around probably not too far behind.

SD needs to get some recruiting wins but to do that, you have to give your program relevance and this year he has done that. Regardless, he has won a league and beaten teams with a lot more talent than his team, which is an indicator of a great coach.


 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
Re: Yale 3
03-05-18 02:30 PM - Post#250918    
    In response to PennFan10

Since the Harvard game in Boston:

Penn - 110 ORAT (110th nat'l), 103 DRAT (135th nat'l), Pyth .6732 (115th nat'l)

Harvard - 107 ORAT (161st nat'l), 100 DRAT (86th nat'l), Pyth .6672 (119th nat'l)

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-05-18 03:22 PM - Post#250923    
    In response to mrjames

That's interesting. What about prior to that game? Do you have the relative rankings up to that point?

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-05-18 03:43 PM - Post#250928    
    In response to PennFan10

Don't know how far you want to go back, but I'll give you from the start of the Ivy campaign until then and from start of season until then:

Penn Start of Season thru 2/10: 99.5 ORAT, 97.1 DRAT, .5622 (142nd)
Penn Start of Ivies thru 2/10: 97.8 ORAT, 95.7 DRAT, .5554 (142nd)

I might be able to pull the lineup splits if I have time to really zero in on whether the on/off Max theories were driving those differences...

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
03-05-18 04:14 PM - Post#250937    
    In response to mrjames

The unique part of the post-2/10 matchups of course is that they’re all League returns, which makes the scouting and prep for each coaching staff different from every game prior to that date, save Princeton II. Also the fact that 4/6 were on the road, since Penn’s Palestra schedule was so heavily front loaded this season.


 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
Re: Yale 3
03-05-18 04:16 PM - Post#250938    
    In response to mrjames

So, putting Mr James data all together (Thank you MJ!!)

Here is current:
Penn - 110 ORAT (110th nat'l), 103 DRAT (135th nat'l), Pyth .6732 (115th nat'l)

Compared to pre Harvard game at Cambridge:

Penn Start of Season thru 2/10: 99.5 ORAT, 97.1 DRAT, .5622 (142nd)

Penn Start of Ivies thru 2/10: 97.8 ORAT, 95.7 DRAT, .5554 (142nd)



Edited by PennFan10 on 03-05-18 04:17 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-05-18 04:21 PM - Post#250941    
    In response to PennFan10

I should also note that Antonio's minutes pre 2/10 were right about 31 minutes a game and post 2/10 are 23 minutes. Darnell's and Caleb's have inched up a small amount, Ryan's are down a small amount and Dev Goodman is averaging 26m a game since 2/10.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-05-18 04:24 PM - Post#250943    
    In response to PennFan10

So the data says we have seen a significant decrease in minutes to AW/Max and the 2 Big presence since 2/10 with other changes in minutes to starters mostly just noise. Dev Goodman is the biggest benefactor to the decreased minutes.

Hopefully Mike can pull some lineup metrics to show what, if any impact it has had but preliminary it looks like we have indeed sacrificed defense for more offense.

 
Chip Bayers 
Professor
Posts: 6997
Chip Bayers
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
Yale 3
03-05-18 04:36 PM - Post#250950    
    In response to PennFan10

Apart from minutes, it’s notable that Antonio’s possession usage when he was on the floor declined significantly over these latter games. He’s basically stopped being a threat to shoot, and the few times he does shoot, he misses: a horrendous 41% on 2s in Ivy play, and only 3-12 over the 2/10-3/3 stretch.

He put up an 8% usage in those 29 minutes at Lavietes. 3% in 24 minutes at Yale this weekend - one shot (a made 3) and 3 assists. Those are David Klatsky or injured Rob Belcore level rates. Maybe he’s hiding an injury, or playing through something chronic?


Edited by Chip Bayers on 03-05-18 04:40 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
03-05-18 04:42 PM - Post#250954    
    In response to PennFan10

Yes, but looking simply at the RATs we do seem to have increased the delta, which I assume is a good thing.

 
Charlie Fog 
Masters Student
Posts: 586

Age: 55
Loc: Philly
Reg: 11-12-13
03-05-18 06:22 PM - Post#250980    
    In response to SomeGuy

I forgot that Antonio is only a junior. That is great.

 
UPIA1968 
PhD Student
Posts: 1117
UPIA1968
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
03-05-18 11:30 PM - Post#251017    
    In response to 10Q

While the defense and defensive rebounded have suffered since the 'change' in strategy the results haven't. Penn would have been undefeated but for the freak ending at Yale, despite a reversal in the home away numbers. Looks like Steve, if it was intentional did the right thing again this year.

 
Streamers 
Professor
Posts: 8141
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
03-06-18 09:38 AM - Post#251033    
    In response to UPIA1968

I think what the last few weeks have shown is that SD has a team that can successfully execute a big defense AND a small offense scheme; between and within games. Having both those levers (even if he does not always pull the right one at any given time) is both a tribute to the coaching staff and a significant advantage over most of the teams Penn plays. It will also make life difficult for any team Penn might play after next weekend.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-07-18 11:04 AM - Post#251183    
    In response to Streamers

What I have not appropriately acknowledged, in response to my own questions, is that Steve D has said many times publicly he is using analytics in a big way. He also, based on public evidence, employs the Penn math/statistics department.

I would be shocked if he is not keenly aware of the +/- of his lineup's and each individual players contribution to the whole. He has been deliberate about substitutions, and while we don't always agree, I am sure there is a mathematical method to his madness.

All this to say, the shift from defense to offense is noticeable, and I am sure it is deliberate, with known affects, by SD. I don't know if his advance metrics are the same as what MJ or others would find, but I know he is using analytics to inform his decisions.

In many ways I think this is one of the big advantages Steve has as a coach and to his credit I believe he is using all available resources to make his decisions.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-07-18 11:06 AM - Post#251184    
    In response to PennFan10

KenPom's lines for this weekend:

Penn -8
Harvard -6

 
Streamers 
Professor
Posts: 8141
Streamers
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
03-07-18 11:11 AM - Post#251185    
    In response to PennFan10

That won't hold. I think the reverse is more likely: Penn -6; Harvard -8.

 
 Page 2 of 7 <2345>» Last
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

5981 Views





Copyright © 2004-2012 Basketball U. Terms of Use for our Site and Privacy Policy are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
Basketball U. and its subsidiaries are not affiliated in any way with any NCAA athletic conference or member institution.
FusionBB™ Version 2.1 | ©2003-2007 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.39 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 05:26 AM
Top