Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-19-18 11:48 AM - Post#253795
In response to PennFan10
I think all of our predictions can be considered "accurate" as well as "way off" based on the data. If we are honest, there isn't a single one of us who would have said we would be KP 120 without any meaningful production from our freshmen, led by defense, and with Darnell as our best guard. I certainly didn't think so.
This is fair enough.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-19-18 11:54 AM - Post#253797
In response to mrjames
Here are the win share predictions for those Harvard and Penn classes:
Harvard 2013 16.5 Win Shares
Penn 2013 18.6 Win Shares (Best that year was Brown at 21.5 Win Shares)
Harvard 2014 11.7 Win Shares
Penn 2014 16.5 Win Shares (Best that year was Princeton at 18.6 Win Shares)
Harvard 2015 19.5 Win Shares
Penn 2015 16.5 Win Shares (Best that year was Cornell at 24.3 Win Shares)
Harvard 2016 54.3 Win Shares
Penn 2016 18.6 Win Shares (Best that year was Harvard)
Harvard 2017 10.8 Win Shares
Penn 2017 14.7 Win Shares (Best that year was Columbia at 22.5 Win Shares)
Now, Harvard's 2013-2015 classes happened to also underperform those targets (to some extent because they got bowled over by the 2016 class), but expectations-wise over those years they were a step behind Penn to begin with.
Preliminary, Harvard's 2018 class is in the 30 Win Share range, though this gets run off the final, so that could change.
One point of clarification, are these predictions or actual results? It says predictions in the title but then lists who the best was in terms of actual results.
You list 2018 Harvard, which is obviously a prediction. I would be interested in the delta between predictions and actual results.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-19-18 11:57 AM - Post#253798
In response to PennFan10
1-We had worse KP over 3 years, and still beat them (split 2 years won this year). This year they came in as KP 110 and went to KP 190 (finished at 141) while at full strength. Isn't that under performance?
2-Their classes weren't any good, ours were worse, we still beat them, why?
3-Not sure your point on the freshman not coached by Donahue? Can you rephrase?
Another way to look at this is that no one has won on the road over those three years. Harvard has pasted Penn at home and Penn has, three of four times, won by a possession at the end. Also, the Crimson has five more Ivy wins over the past three years through three of its worst seasons this decade.
Also, another way to look at all of this is that if Yale had a healthy Makai and Jordan Bruner, we probably would be talking about the Harvard-Penn 2/3 semifinal game and Yale's under/overperformance as a 12 or 13 in the big dance.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-19-18 11:59 AM - Post#253799
In response to PennFan10
i just went down a jule brown rabbit hole (now at NYU after two years at dickinson). man, the internet's a great and terrible thing
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-19-18 12:01 PM - Post#253800
In response to Jeff2sf
3. Rephrasing: Steve and his staff certainly deserve credit in helping many of our players improve (though please note a few did not improve). But I think the default expectation at any school is that coaches are going to help players improve. Because players generally improve between freshmen and senior year. I think we are giving Steve more credit than is supported because we saw a coach like Jerome not improve the players he recruited. My position is that Jerome was especially bad at that and a true outlier.
You bring up a good point that Steve's improvement as a developer of players may just be a mean reversion from Jerome being bad at it.
I should also note that Steve, by his own admission, tried to replace Darnell every year (and we all hoped he would) and Darnell kept getting better. I know Darnell was a religious worker on his game by himself. His workouts were relentless and self driven. I am pretty sure very little of his improvement (skill wise) was due to the coaches. I also know that Darnell's work ethic was contagious to some of the other players who showed improvement. So the culture change with this set of players had something to do with the improvement.
Steve and his staff get some credit though for fitting this team together in the right roles and getting players to eliminate their mistakes while highlighting their strengths.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-19-18 01:15 PM - Post#253812
In response to PennFan10
Those are the predictions.
Here's the full table with Team, Year, the Predicted win shares ("Predict"), the actual WS ("WS"), the adjusted WS for pacing for classes that still had time to go ("WSAdj") and the overall rank of that prediction of all classes back to 2002 ("Rank"). The first number is just the row number.
I haven't done an end of year sweep, so these are win shares as of a certain point this year (I think I last looked at this in December). That's why they won't jive with where teams ended up this year.
Team Year Predict WS WSAdj Rank
1 Harvard 2016 54.3 16.0 53.3 1
2 Harvard 2011 40.8 44.4 44.4 2
3 Harvard 2009 33.2 36.5 36.5 3
4 Princeton 2003 33.1 9.6 9.6 4
5 Penn 2005 30.3 16.4 16.4 5
6 Brown 2004 28.2 28.5 28.5 6
7 Harvard 2018 27.2 0.0 NA 7
8 Brown 2007 25.4 16.8 16.8 8
9 Columbia 2002 25.4 9.0 9.0 9
10 Cornell 2015 24.3 13.6 24.7 10
11 Dartmouth 2005 24.3 16.2 16.2 11
12 Penn 2011 23.4 5.1 5.1 12
13 Columbia 2004 22.5 29.8 29.8 13
14 Columbia 2017 22.5 1.5 15.0 14
15 Yale 2005 22.5 18.3 18.3 15
16 Brown 2011 21.5 7.6 7.6 16
17 Brown 2013 21.5 24.1 24.1 17
18 Columbia 2008 21.5 10.5 10.5 18
19 Cornell 2011 21.5 18.2 18.2 19
20 Dartmouth 2004 21.5 8.5 8.5 20
21 Dartmouth 2012 21.5 26.4 26.4 21
22 Penn 2010 21.5 9.1 9.1 22
23 Harvard 2012 20.5 25.9 25.9 23
24 Columbia 2009 20.4 24.7 24.7 24
25 Harvard 2002 20.4 19.4 19.4 25
26 Yale 2016 20.4 8.0 26.7 26
27 Cornell 2004 19.5 4.9 4.9 27
28 Harvard 2015 19.5 7.2 13.1 28
29 Penn 2003 19.5 44.9 44.9 29
30 Penn 2008 19.5 21.8 21.8 30
31 Columbia 2006 18.6 14.2 14.2 31
32 Harvard 2005 18.6 17.1 17.1 32
33 Harvard 2010 18.6 34.0 34.0 33
34 Penn 2013 18.6 7.6 7.6 34
35 Penn 2016 18.6 5.4 18.0 35
36 Princeton 2009 18.6 39.0 39.0 36
37 Princeton 2014 18.6 14.6 17.2 37
38 Yale 2003 18.6 7.8 7.8 38
39 Brown 2003 17.6 5.6 5.6 39
40 Columbia 2005 17.6 11.8 11.8 40
41 Princeton 2002 17.6 8.3 8.3 41
42 Princeton 2004 17.6 16.8 16.8 42
43 Princeton 2006 17.6 19.5 19.5 43
44 Princeton 2010 17.6 19.0 19.0 44
45 Princeton 2017 17.6 2.1 21.0 45
46 Yale 2010 17.6 6.9 6.9 46
47 Yale 2011 17.6 31.4 31.4 47
48 Yale 2017 17.6 3.3 33.0 48
49 Columbia 2011 16.5 27.0 27.0 49
50 Columbia 2015 16.5 7.5 13.6 50
51 Cornell 2003 16.5 11.0 11.0 51
52 Cornell 2005 16.5 19.3 19.3 52
53 Cornell 2006 16.5 51.1 51.1 53
54 Cornell 2009 16.5 14.0 14.0 54
55 Dartmouth 2010 16.5 5.4 5.4 55
56 Dartmouth 2011 16.5 18.3 18.3 56
57 Harvard 2006 16.5 18.4 18.4 57
58 Harvard 2013 16.5 6.9 6.9 58
59 Penn 2014 16.5 12.6 14.8 59
60 Penn 2015 16.5 7.3 13.3 60
61 Princeton 2007 16.5 24.2 24.2 61
62 Princeton 2013 16.5 38.9 38.9 62
63 Princeton 2018 16.5 0.0 NA 63
64 Penn 2004 14.7 3.5 3.5 64
65 Penn 2012 14.7 9.9 9.9 65
66 Penn 2017 14.7 0.9 9.0 66
67 Princeton 2008 14.7 22.0 22.0 67
68 Brown 2005 13.7 9.4 9.4 68
69 Brown 2009 13.7 16.9 16.9 69
70 Brown 2010 13.7 16.6 16.6 70
71 Cornell 2010 13.7 1.7 1.7 71
72 Dartmouth 2006 13.7 3.6 3.6 72
73 Dartmouth 2007 13.7 4.8 4.8 73
74 Harvard 2008 13.7 25.3 25.3 74
75 Penn 2007 13.7 22.9 22.9 75
76 Princeton 2011 13.7 8.4 8.4 76
77 Princeton 2015 13.7 17.8 32.4 77
78 Yale 2004 13.7 20.1 20.1 78
79 Yale 2006 13.7 14.8 14.8 79
80 Yale 2007 13.7 11.1 11.1 80
81 Yale 2012 13.7 26.6 26.6 81
82 Yale 2013 13.7 12.5 12.5 82
83 Brown 2002 12.6 6.3 6.3 83
84 Brown 2014 12.6 1.7 2.0 84
85 Brown 2017 12.6 2.7 27.0 85
86 Columbia 2013 12.6 17.4 17.4 86
87 Cornell 2002 12.6 9.5 9.5 87
88 Cornell 2013 12.6 12.4 12.4 88
89 Cornell 2017 12.6 -0.1 -1.0 89
90 Dartmouth 2003 12.6 3.1 3.1 90
91 Dartmouth 2008 12.6 6.6 6.6 91
92 Dartmouth 2013 12.6 2.7 2.7 92
93 Dartmouth 2014 12.6 9.6 11.3 93
94 Princeton 2005 12.6 2.5 2.5 94
95 Yale 2015 12.6 12.6 22.9 95
96 Harvard 2014 11.7 1.8 2.1 96
97 Dartmouth 2015 10.8 8.2 14.9 97
98 Harvard 2017 10.8 0.3 3.0 98
99 Penn 2006 10.8 1.5 1.5 99
100 Brown 2006 9.8 11.0 11.0 100
101 Columbia 2010 9.8 11.4 11.4 101
102 Columbia 2014 9.8 8.5 10.0 102
103 Columbia 2016 9.8 2.1 7.0 103
104 Cornell 2008 9.8 13.0 13.0 104
105 Dartmouth 2009 9.8 5.4 5.4 105
106 Harvard 2003 9.8 3.3 3.3 106
107 Harvard 2007 9.8 0.3 0.3 107
108 Penn 2002 9.8 1.9 1.9 108
109 Princeton 2012 9.8 8.6 8.6 109
110 Princeton 2016 9.8 1.1 3.7 110
111 Yale 2009 9.8 13.9 13.9 111
112 Brown 2015 8.7 6.0 10.9 112
113 Columbia 2003 8.7 0.3 0.3 113
114 Columbia 2012 8.7 17.6 17.6 114
115 Cornell 2012 8.7 3.7 3.7 115
116 Cornell 2014 8.7 2.0 2.4 116
117 Dartmouth 2002 8.7 7.4 7.4 117
118 Dartmouth 2016 8.7 0.4 1.3 118
119 Dartmouth 2017 8.7 1.5 15.0 119
120 Penn 2009 8.7 0.8 0.8 120
121 Yale 2008 8.7 19.1 19.1 121
122 Yale 2014 8.7 7.1 8.4 122
123 Columbia 2007 6.9 3.0 3.0 123
124 Brown 2008 5.9 0.1 0.1 124
125 Brown 2012 5.9 8.8 8.8 125
126 Brown 2016 5.9 3.0 10.0 126
127 Cornell 2016 5.9 0.8 2.7 127
128 Yale 2002 5.9 1.1 1.1 128
129 Cornell 2007 4.8 6.1 6.1 129
130 Harvard 2004 4.8 2.5 2.5 130
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-19-18 02:03 PM - Post#253819
In response to mrjames
Awesome data. Digging in. thanks
|
OldBig5
Masters Student
Posts: 639
Age: 66
Reg: 02-18-18
|
03-19-18 08:13 PM - Post#253863
In response to PennFan10
You guys are such data nerds. I love it. Nothing wrong with data.
I will just enjoy the games. The top talent teams don't always win the league. Maybe this is a bad example but UVA is not close to the talent level of UNC or Duke. Yet they won the league regular season and tournament.
I don't think that the prospect rankings of top high school players really reflect their defensive skills or even more so their tenacity which is key to defense and rebounding. These guys are almost always the top players on their teams and not always asked or expected to play defense, The recruiters who can see which guys have the potential on defense are the ones that thrive.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: For Mike James--algorithm changes?
03-19-18 09:58 PM - Post#253895
In response to mrjames
Yes, interesting that our posts crossed there. I seem to have different numbers. College basketball reference had him at 24.1 this year, up from 22.1 the year before. That’s an improvement, but largely offset by his turnover percentage going from 16 to 17. So i was comparing 5hose two rates, and to me that looks like very little movement.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-19-18 10:09 PM - Post#253896
In response to SomeGuy
First time in my life, literally, I have been called a data nerd. Now I know why Mike prefers “empiricistâ€.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
03-20-18 06:48 AM - Post#253910
In response to PennFan10
I’m not liking the narrative that suggests Jarrod “failed†to develop (PF10) and/or regressed after being touted (Jeff). If I remember correctly, Mike James said repeatedly that Simmons wasn’t ready to be a big contributor as a freshman. Some of us argued with him, saying he’s a 3 star guy, etc. Not sure it’s fair to the kid to say he failed or regressed when his season may have been fairly predictable. I also think the lack of playing time in the Ivy season was driven largely by matchups. When Towns/Okolie/Oni/Stephens (and for us Betley) are playing big minutes at what amounts to the 4 spot across the league, there isn’t much opportunity for Simmons to be anything but a 5.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 08:42 AM - Post#253914
In response to SomeGuy
Hey man, let's put the narrative aside about where Jarrod was. I love Jarrod and I love that he has a 3 point stroke and I hope he is All Ivy his senior year. I can see the path if he can be a stretch 4 who is playable on defense freeing up the paint for AJ and slashers (nb. Mike Wang's path as well).
The lack of playing time was NOT solely about matchups. He stopped playing in non blowouts after the first Yale/Brown game with the exception of the first Dartmouth game. So every single other Ivy team he was deemed not ready to play after being given every chance to play in the previous 15 to 20 games. If it IS matchups, doesn't that just reinforce my point that two bigs can't play at the same time making Jarrod's quest for playing time that much harder? But it's not totally matchups because in the C's away weekend, they clearly wanted to play two bigs but Max was hurt and they decided to go to players not previously in the rotation. That's damning stuff.
Do sophomores who didn't enjoy success as freshmen sometimes get better? Absolutely. Is it a good thing our freshman big couldn't play in a 3 man big rotation such that our coach made it a two man big rotation? Definitely not.
Edited by Jeff2sf on 03-20-18 08:43 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 09:01 AM - Post#253915
In response to Jeff2sf
He was making freshman mistakes. And we have a coach who sits you if you make mistakes. The result was a 24 win season. I can't argue with success. Nor can I argue with his record of turning around players. I do not believe the fact that Simmons sitting the second half of the season when we had to win is any indication that he will not return to the rotation in the future.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6404
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 09:29 AM - Post#253920
In response to Jeff2sf
Why do you think we wanted to play two bigs during the C’s away weekend? I think it was the opposite—at Penn AJ had gone off against Columbia because Tape and Faulds were trying to cover him. Basically when we went to 4 guards, they couldn’t match up with him. So I think we went to Columbia with the plan to do that more or less the whole game. Which is what we did.
On the 1 in 4 out offense, i’m Not the one arguing with you on that side of the ball. I don’t think there is any question that the offense and AJ in particular work better that way. There are trade offs on defense and the boards though.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 09:38 AM - Post#253922
In response to SomeGuy
True, but that didn't have anything to do with the reason Simmons wasn't playing. His play was the reason, not the game plan. There were situations where he would have played had Donahue not believed he was a liability.
But all of that is correctable--he has all the tools.
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2137
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 10:44 AM - Post#253941
In response to palestra38
Hopefully, Simmons and the coaching staff will be working to get him to the point where he will be a valuable contributor next season.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-20-18 10:49 AM - Post#253944
In response to weinhauers_ghost
I'm not worried about Jarrod. It's a mental thing. He just needs to develop the confidence in his abilities and start to play without thinking. That will happen. I think he lost confidence in himself as many young guys are not used to going in and being pulled in about 2 minutes. Once you lose your own confidence, you play tentative (picking up fouls, turnovers, passing up shots, etc) and the coach has no time to let you get your confidence back in the game.
Jarrod will be back and he will be fine.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32803
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 10:49 AM - Post#253945
In response to weinhauers_ghost
He needs to learn to see the entire court and move the ball out of his hands quickly. Watching Rothschild play should have been educational in that regard.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 12:06 PM - Post#253951
In response to SomeGuy
Why do you think we wanted to play two bigs during the C’s away weekend? I think it was the opposite—at Penn AJ had gone off against Columbia because Tape and Faulds were trying to cover him. Basically when we went to 4 guards, they couldn’t match up with him. So I think we went to Columbia with the plan to do that more or less the whole game. Which is what we did.
Because PF10 is much closer to the team than you and I and basically confirmed it. I'm really not sure where you're coming from here, 'guy. He didn't play in the last ~10 Ivy games. How could they all be matchups. PF10 has stated above it wasn't all matchups. If it was matchups, doesn't that just prove my other point that we're going away from 2 bigs and that he's 3rd, maybe 4th in rotation that may be 1.5 bigs?
If you're thinking I'm declaring Jarrod's future as written, I'm not. But generally speaking, good Ivy players play their freshmen years. Not always, for sure. What's also a mitigating factor is that Jarrod was fairly efficient on offense. Which must mean his defense was suboptimal.
Another way I like to think of it: Jarrod was deemed not good enough by Coach Godahue to play for a KenPom 125 team. It's possible he's "normal frosh to soph improvement" away from doing that. But not only does he have to improve to be able to play for that team, he has to improve to be able to play for the Top 100 team we want to be. Because presumably AJ and Max are gonna improve too. That's not as assured as people are saying.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3584
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-20-18 12:25 PM - Post#253956
In response to Jeff2sf
Donahue has said from day one this year that his best 5 defenders were going to be on the court. He led with defense and this season was one of the better defensive teams we have had and top 100 nationally. 2 bigs was a huge part of that but Darnell's ability to guard the point and AW's versatility on defense were massive as well. And Betley is a very good rebounder and plays adequate defense without fouling. Those 5 started because they were our best defenders. Any discussion of what someone brings on offense was and is secondary. Who did SD go to when we got into foul trouble? Matt Mcdonald, Jake Silpe, and eventually Devon Goodman. Those guys played because they provided something on defense. Goodman played @Columbia because he was deemed a good defensive matchup for Mike Smith. The fact he went off on offense is what kept him in the game, and ultimately in the rotation the rest of the season.
Once we established our defense, SD began inserting role players for offensive output. Caleb played adequate defense and alongside the right guards, didnt' compromise the defense too much while giving us big offensive capabilities.
Guys who came into the rotation at any point this year were first assessed based on their defensive capabilities and if acceptable, they would play to give us more offense.
Down the stretch SD decided we had enough acceptable defensive players that gave us great offense that kept him from playing 2 bigs. That may be because Jarrod didn't improve during the season to give him enough minutes to safely commit to 2 bigs. It may be because AJ wasn't consistent enough at 3pt shots to give us the spacing we need for two bigs, I don't know. He went with Caleb and Dev G predominantly as big minute subs and Max's minutes, and to a lesser degree Antonio's, declined.
Next year SD has some decisions to make. He has at least 4 bigs with experience or big potential so playing AJ for 30 minutes and Max for 15 along with 4 guards has implications.
Personnel decisions on this team for 2017-18 were always driven first by defensive capabilities. I suspect that won't change next year so if any of the new guys (current frosh included) get into the rotation, it will be because of defense first.
|
