Untitled Document
Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Harvard Penn Princeton Yale



 Page 7 of 8 « First<5678
Username Post: next year, the deepest of deep dives        (Topic#21367)
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-20-18 02:00 PM - Post#253962    
    In response to mrjames

Pulled down the actual, end-of-year win shares, so these should be up-to-date now...

Team Year Predict WS WSAdj Rank
1 Harvard 2016 54.7 25.1 55.8 1
2 Harvard 2011 41.7 44.4 44.4 2
3 Harvard 2009 34.8 36.5 36.5 3
4 Princeton 2003 34.4 9.6 9.6 4
5 Penn 2005 32.4 16.4 16.4 5
6 Brown 2004 30.2 28.5 28.5 6
7 Brown 2007 27.1 16.8 16.8 7
8 Columbia 2002 27.1 9.0 9.0 8
9 Harvard 2018 26.9 0.0 NA 9
10 Cornell 2015 25.7 18.1 25.9 10
11 Dartmouth 2005 25.7 16.2 16.2 11
12 Penn 2011 24.3 5.1 5.1 12
13 Columbia 2004 23.5 29.8 29.8 13
14 Columbia 2017 23.5 2.4 12.0 14
15 Yale 2005 23.5 18.3 18.3 15
16 Brown 2011 22.7 7.6 7.6 16
17 Brown 2013 22.7 27.5 27.5 17
18 Columbia 2008 22.7 10.5 10.5 18
19 Cornell 2011 22.7 18.2 18.2 19
20 Dartmouth 2004 22.7 8.5 8.5 20
21 Dartmouth 2012 22.7 26.4 26.4 21
22 Penn 2010 22.7 17.3 17.3 22
23 Columbia 2009 21.3 24.7 24.7 23
24 Harvard 2002 21.3 19.4 19.4 24
25 Harvard 2012 20.7 25.9 25.9 25
26 Yale 2016 20.4 9.0 20.0 26
27 Cornell 2004 19.9 4.9 4.9 27
28 Harvard 2015 19.9 8.4 12.0 28
29 Penn 2003 19.9 44.9 44.9 29
30 Penn 2008 19.9 21.8 21.8 30
31 Columbia 2006 19.1 14.2 14.2 31
32 Harvard 2005 19.1 17.1 17.1 32
33 Harvard 2010 19.1 34.0 34.0 33
34 Penn 2013 19.1 7.6 7.6 34
35 Penn 2016 19.1 14.6 32.4 35
36 Princeton 2009 19.1 39.0 39.0 36
37 Princeton 2014 19.1 17.0 17.0 37
38 Yale 2003 19.1 7.8 7.8 38
39 Brown 2003 18.3 5.6 5.6 39
40 Columbia 2005 18.3 11.8 11.8 40
41 Princeton 2002 18.3 8.3 8.3 41
42 Princeton 2004 18.3 16.8 16.8 42
43 Princeton 2006 18.3 19.5 19.5 43
44 Princeton 2010 18.3 19.0 19.0 44
45 Princeton 2017 18.3 2.8 14.0 45
46 Yale 2010 18.3 6.9 6.9 46
47 Yale 2011 18.3 31.4 31.4 47
48 Yale 2017 18.3 5.4 27.0 48
49 Columbia 2011 16.9 27.0 27.0 49
50 Columbia 2015 16.9 9.0 12.9 50
51 Cornell 2003 16.9 11.0 11.0 51
52 Cornell 2005 16.9 19.3 19.3 52
53 Cornell 2006 16.9 51.1 51.1 53
54 Cornell 2009 16.9 14.0 14.0 54
55 Dartmouth 2010 16.9 5.4 5.4 55
56 Dartmouth 2011 16.9 18.3 18.3 56
57 Harvard 2006 16.9 18.4 18.4 57
58 Penn 2014 16.9 16.1 16.1 58
59 Penn 2015 16.9 9.0 12.9 59
60 Princeton 2007 16.9 24.2 24.2 60
61 Princeton 2013 16.9 38.9 38.9 61
62 Harvard 2013 16.0 6.9 6.9 62
63 Princeton 2018 16.0 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 4.5 66
67 Princeton 2008 14.7 22.0 22.0 67
68 Brown 2005 13.9 9.4 9.4 68
69 Brown 2009 13.9 16.9 16.9 69
70 Brown 2010 13.9 16.6 16.6 70
71 Cornell 2010 13.9 1.7 1.7 71
72 Dartmouth 2006 13.9 3.6 3.6 72
73 Dartmouth 2007 13.9 4.8 4.8 73
74 Harvard 2008 13.9 25.3 25.3 74
75 Penn 2007 13.9 22.9 22.9 75
76 Princeton 2011 13.9 8.4 8.4 76
77 Princeton 2015 13.9 20.5 29.3 77
78 Yale 2004 13.9 20.1 20.1 78
79 Yale 2006 13.9 14.8 14.8 79
80 Yale 2007 13.9 11.1 11.1 80
81 Yale 2012 13.9 26.6 26.6 81
82 Yale 2013 13.9 12.5 12.5 82
83 Brown 2002 12.5 6.3 6.3 83
84 Brown 2014 12.5 1.9 1.9 84
85 Brown 2017 12.5 5.0 25.0 85
86 Columbia 2013 12.5 17.4 17.4 86
87 Cornell 2002 12.5 9.5 9.5 87
88 Cornell 2013 12.5 12.4 12.4 88
89 Cornell 2017 12.5 0.9 4.5 89
90 Dartmouth 2003 12.5 3.1 3.1 90
91 Dartmouth 2008 12.5 6.6 6.6 91
92 Dartmouth 2013 12.5 2.7 2.7 92
93 Dartmouth 2014 12.5 11.3 11.3 93
94 Princeton 2005 12.5 2.5 2.5 94
95 Yale 2015 12.5 15.9 22.7 95
96 Harvard 2014 11.0 2.0 2.0 96
97 Dartmouth 2015 10.3 8.2 11.7 97
98 Harvard 2017 10.3 1.7 8.5 98
99 Penn 2006 10.3 1.5 1.5 99
100 Brown 2006 9.5 11.0 11.0 100
101 Columbia 2010 9.5 11.4 11.4 101
102 Columbia 2014 9.5 10.1 10.1 102
103 Columbia 2016 9.5 2.5 5.6 103
104 Cornell 2008 9.5 13.0 13.0 104
105 Dartmouth 2009 9.5 5.4 5.4 105
106 Harvard 2003 9.5 3.3 3.3 106
107 Harvard 2007 9.5 0.3 0.3 107
108 Penn 2002 9.5 1.9 1.9 108
109 Princeton 2012 9.5 8.6 8.6 109
110 Princeton 2016 9.5 1.5 3.3 110
111 Yale 2009 9.5 13.9 13.9 111
112 Brown 2015 8.0 7.2 10.3 112
113 Columbia 2003 8.0 0.3 0.3 113
114 Columbia 2012 8.0 17.6 17.6 114
115 Cornell 2012 8.0 3.7 3.7 115
116 Cornell 2014 8.0 2.0 2.0 116
117 Dartmouth 2002 8.0 7.4 7.4 117
118 Dartmouth 2016 8.0 1.0 2.2 118
119 Dartmouth 2017 8.0 2.7 13.5 119
120 Penn 2009 8.0 0.8 0.8 120
121 Yale 2008 8.0 19.1 19.1 121
122 Yale 2014 8.0 7.1 7.1 122
123 Columbia 2007 5.8 3.0 3.0 123
124 Brown 2008 5.0 0.1 0.1 124
125 Brown 2012 5.0 8.8 8.8 125
126 Brown 2016 5.0 3.6 8.0 126
127 Cornell 2016 5.0 1.0 2.2 127
128 Yale 2002 5.0 1.1 1.1 128
129 Cornell 2007 3.6 6.1 6.1 129
130 Harvard 2004 3.6 2.5 2.5 130

 
Penndemonium 
PhD Student
Posts: 1878

Reg: 11-29-04
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 05:24 PM - Post#253969    
    In response to Jeff2sf

  • Jeff2sf Said:
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.



I was one of the people who said early on (after watching one of Simmons' HS games) that he wasn't ready. Even though he had a great stat line in that game, he didn't show the always-on intensity that he would need in Div. 1. His mind and motor are the key issues. He needs to be playing better off the ball, hustling for body position, keeping his hands up, and learning how to use his core. His body still needs work, but that will come. His skills are better than expected.

He still reminds me of a young Koko Archibong, who also wasn't ready on arrival at Penn. Koko really turned himself into a premier player through hard work (and a growth spurt).



 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 08:37 PM - Post#253971    
    In response to Jeff2sf

Agreed that PF10 has better info, but on the other hand I think you and I turned out to be right about this. We both said Penn would play small quite a bit, and that’s what ended up happening. You may have expected/wanted more Jarrod and less Max, but in the end you got a lot of the spacing you wanted. Not sure why the fact you turned out to be right about that would now get turned into PF10 being right, and Jarrod screwing it up.

Admittedly, my guess for next year is that Simmons continues to sit in roughly the same set up you saw this year.

 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-20-18 09:48 PM - Post#253976    
    In response to SomeGuy

  • SomeGuy Said:
Agreed that PF10 has better info, but on the other hand I think you and I turned out to be right about this. We both said Penn would play small quite a bit, and that’s what ended up happening. You may have expected/wanted more Jarrod and less Max, but in the end you got a lot of the spacing you wanted. Not sure why the fact you turned out to be right about that would now get turned into PF10 being right, and Jarrod screwing it up.

Admittedly, my guess for next year is that Simmons continues to sit in roughly the same set up you saw this year.



Maybe this is just semantics? I dunno. When you say matchups and mean 1 big, 4 out, I think of that as playing a different style. Further, if you essentially are, every game, playing 1/4, that doesn't feel like a matchup. I mean, my coach tended to MATCH me up with the terrible teams. I played a ton then. The good teams not so much.

I think of playing matchups as when Donahue throws Sam Jones into a game.


 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-21-18 12:07 AM - Post#253977    
    In response to mrjames

So the Win Shares data is interesting to me. I admittedly don't know that much about the conclusions that can be drawn from it but I think what I read a couple pages back is that for 2 or 3 of the last 4 years Harvard's predicted WS have lagged Penn, which is a potential explanation of why Penn has had more success recently?

As I look at the data, it seems to me that the collective numbers are parts of the whole. So Harvard's 2014 class (with Egi, et al) produced just 2 WS as opposed to Penn's (with Darnell and Caleb) at 16 WS. But Harvard's 2016 class has and Adjusted WS pace of 55.8 (which is a combination of actual data for 2 years and projected data for next 2 years) and Penn's 2016 ( AJ, Ryan, Dev) is 32.4.

The 2014-2017 data, which comprises the teams as they were constituted this year. Produced actual WS (which is final data for 2014 class and career to date for the other classes) of:

Princeton 44.6
Penn 40.6
Yale 37.4
Harvard 37.2

And adjusted WS (which is final 2014 data and combination of career to date and projected for the other classes) of:

Harvard 78.3
Yale 76.8
Princeton 76.6
Penn 65.9

How to interepret all this seems subjective and I think it means Penn outperformed this year, Princeton underperformned, and Harvard has the highest ceiling going forward.

If you take out the data from 2014 class and add the predicted data for the 2018 class to these numbers, it skews even further in favor of Harvard and Princeton (Penn and Yale's 2018 predicted WS aren't even listed among the top 130 classes MJ displayed so I assume they aren't that additive).

Am I missing something?

 
SomeGuy 
Professor
Posts: 6391

Reg: 11-22-04
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-21-18 09:14 AM - Post#253979    
    In response to Jeff2sf

Well, I think playing 1 big or 2 is often driven by whether the other team is doing it. That’s what I mean by matchups. Out of conference we see more teams with 2 bigs, so you see more Max (and Jarrod) and more games where we seldom if ever play 4 guards.

In conference, a lot of teams either play 4 guards or at least play stretch 4s or undersized 4s. So we played our small lineup more. Kansas did the same, so again we played small.

This dynamic wasn’t just Penn’s big freshman. Yess and DeWolf seemed to get less time as well as the Ivy season went on and their teams went to smaller lineups.

 
Quakers03 
Professor
Posts: 12480

Reg: 12-07-04
Re: next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-21-18 10:06 AM - Post#253984    
    In response to palestra38

  • palestra38 Said:
The question is "how good is Jelani Williams?" At 6'5", he may be our answer to how to cover tough shooting guards/swing forwards.


What struck me the most being on the floor after the Harvard win was how big Jelani was. He really is the x factor. Having him watch and learn for a year certainly couldn't have hurt the development process. Physically, we'll see.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-21-18 10:07 AM - Post#253985    
    In response to SomeGuy

I am not sure why I am supposedly wrong and you guys were "right". 2 bigs wasn't a trend or a non conference strategy, it was the way Donahue set out to play the season. It was a change in his philosophy. He didn't have some master plan to go back to a small lineup in the IL or in the NCAA tournament. The reality is Jarrod lost confidence and AJ wasn't hitting outside shots the way he thought. And Max got hurt and became a bit more tentative on the offensive side. Combine that with the defensive improvement from Caleb and Dev (for Dev I am convinced riding the pine motivated him to play defense--which was the issue) and SD, as he always has, went with his 5 best guys. That could just have easily developed into a set 2 big strategy (with Jarrod and Eddie providing the other minutes) as it did with a small lineup (where Caleb and Dev provided better defense than in the past and more offense).

I expect next year SD will go with his 5 best again, and focus on defense. That could look vastly different than this years team because, similar to a year ago when we couldn't (and never really did) replace Matt Howard, we can't replace Darnell. Maybe a multi headed PG combo of Dev/Jelani/Jake gets us there the way a combo of Max/Antonio/Caleb covered up the contributions of Matt. Regardless, next year's team will look very different, despite the returning talent.

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-21-18 10:48 AM - Post#253987    
    In response to PennFan10

That all seems pretty spot on. I finally did my full sweep of classes (I usually wait until they're essentially final). Here are the 2018 projected class WS totals. Any "final" rankings changes, which is what I use, could change these projections:

Team Year Predict WS WSAdj Rank
1 Harvard 2018 26.9 0 NA 9
2 Princeton 2018 24.8 0 NA 12
3 Yale 2018 19.9 0 NA 32
4 Columbia 2018 11.5 0 NA 97
5 Dartmouth 2018 10.3 0 NA 100
6 Brown 2018 8.0 0 NA 116
7 Penn 2018 5.8 0 NA 128
8 Cornell 2018 5.0 0 NA 133

You'll notice that not a lot is expected from the 2018 classes except at the top (Yale is horribly overrated, but we'll see if some of the legacy ratings for some of their guys keep coming down as we get to the final 2018 rankings). Some of that is because the 2018 classes are small (Columbia and Dartmouth at low double-digit win shares with just 2- and 3-man classes is actually pretty impressive on a per-person basis). And some of it is that some of the smaller classes include one or more unrated players.

Overall, I'd expect the 2018 class to be more about individuals than the collective - multiple 2+ win share players as frosh, but not a lot in that middle zone.

Harvard's 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2017 classes were all projected to be pretty average Ivy classes, while the 2016 one was historic. So, it's not surprising that the outcomes including combinations of those classes have been well above the league average (22-6 over the past two years), but not dominant. It will be interesting to see what two Top 10 classes stacked on each other can do. That has only happened twice in my records (Harvard 2011 (2) and Harvard 2009 (3) finished 41 and 32 in Pomeroy when together and won a tournament game; Brown 2004 (6) and Brown 2007 (7) combined to give the Bears their highest finish ever in KenPom (134th) including Brown's only Top 100 offensive team and went to the postseason).

One issue with the win shares is that they are fitted to your number of D1 wins, irrespective of your schedule. So, Penn will have more win shares to divide amongst its players than Harvard would for this season, even though if Harvard had played Penn's schedule, it probably would have come away with a similar number of wins. That can make it a little noisy to compare win shares across players on different teams, especially if scheduling differences remain consistent over time. At some point, I may try to do this on league wins, which would be more of an apples-to-apples comparison.

 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
03-21-18 11:07 AM - Post#253988    
    In response to mrjames

Mike, though it never works that way, should we view these ws predictions across classes as additive such that if Penn 17 was predicted 10 ws and Penn 18 15 ws, you'd get 25?

Is there a point where one class' strength cannibalizes another? I think you alluded a little to that in Harvard's case.

Finally the 5.8 WS includes both Penn recruits?

 
mrjames 
Professor
Posts: 6062

Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
03-21-18 11:23 AM - Post#253990    
    In response to Jeff2sf

They are four year numbers so you'd want to divide through your totals across the four classes by four at the very least (and there's weighting by class - seniors tend to produce most of their win shares (30%) in their senior year, frosh about 15% in their frosh year).

But, indeed, a very good class can cannibalize weaker classes around it.

The 5.8 is both recruits, yes. Really, really hard to get a high number with a two recruit class. Columbia's is about as close as you can get.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-21-18 11:43 AM - Post#253992    
    In response to mrjames

Another big part of this, as I alluded to previously, is the delta (or change) from predicted WS (set prior to matriculation) and actual WS (what they actually produced). For actual WS you have to take what the most recent classes produced as well as what they are predicted to produce over their remaining years.

I think that gives us a little better sense of how recruits are actually preforming, with the caveat that about half of this number is based on prediction and things like injuries happen that affect those numbers. Here are those numbers for the top 4 teams:

Predicted WS vs. Ajd WS 2014-2017 classes:

Harvard 95.9 vs 78.3
Penn 67.6 vs 65.9
Yale 59.2 vs 76.8
Princeton 60.8 vs 76.6

Harvard's numbers are way different. Penn's are about the same and both Yale and Princeton's have improved significantly.

 
palestra38 
Professor
Posts: 32687

Reg: 11-21-04
03-21-18 11:48 AM - Post#253993    
    In response to PennFan10

"That could look vastly different than this years team because, similar to a year ago when we couldn't (and never really did) replace Matt Howard, we can't replace Darnell. Maybe a multi headed PG combo of Dev/Jelani/Jake gets us there the way a combo of Max/Antonio/Caleb covered up the contributions of Matt."

Pretty much covers both sides there---we clearly DID more than adequately replace Matt Howard and were a better team because of it. Antonio Woods was a better defensive player than Howard and Caleb Wood was a better offensive player than Howard. Together, and with other new contributions (Rothschild took care of lost rebounding), we were a better team. And we will do the same with Darnell, because as much as I loved his game, he lacked quickness and size. If Jelani Williams is what we hope and expect and Woods steps up to the senior experience that Darnell brought, we again should be better. Actually, Caleb Wood is the guy who will be tough to replace, although recent recruiting news makes it clear we are making a late run at a replacement.

 
PennFan10 
Postdoc
Posts: 3580

Reg: 02-15-15
03-21-18 11:54 AM - Post#253997    
    In response to palestra38

we are mostly saying the same thing. I don't equate "replaced" with "better". We didn't replace Matt Howard, in fact by your description we used 2 guys to replace 1, so we replaced his output. We were in fact better as a result of that change. we won't replace Darnell, yet we could end up better than the output he provided. That is my point, namely that we will look different next year while potentially being better.

 
Silver Maple 
Postdoc
Posts: 3765

Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
03-21-18 12:01 PM - Post#253999    
    In response to PennFan10

I really think we should temper our expectations WRT Jelani Williams. It's entirely possible that he'll be the world-beater we're all hoping for. It's also quite possible that he'll never fully recover from his injury.

 
Jeff2sf 
Postdoc
Posts: 4466

Reg: 11-22-04
next year, the deepest of deep dives
03-21-18 12:22 PM - Post#254000    
    In response to Silver Maple

Caleb didn't replace Matt Howard. Caleb replaced Caleb. Darnell replaced Darnell. AJ replaced AJ. Our returning players improved or were replaced.

Matt Howard was our best player last year, a true warrior who is a much better Antonio Woods. Better on offense and, at least, on defense as good as Antonio though in different roles.

If you must, if you just can't help yourself, you could say Antonio replaced Jackson and Matt Mac.

But keep Matt Howard's name out yo mouth


also 2 guys replacing 1 guy's contribution but using double his minutes does not mean he's been replaced. It means they are replacing two people.



 
Silver Maple 
Postdoc
Posts: 3765

Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
03-21-18 12:43 PM - Post#254004    
    In response to Jeff2sf

Altogether now:

Nobody ever replaces anybody. Each year is an entirely new team. Every team is unique. Like a snowflake.

 
TheLine 
Professor
Posts: 5597

Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
03-21-18 12:59 PM - Post#254006    
    In response to Silver Maple

I think it's OK to say that some combination of Max + Antonio "replaced" Matt. I don't feel like debating this but Matt >> Max + Antonio.

Penn's biggest improvement was at SG, where some combination of Antonio + Caleb replaced Jackson Donahue + others. Next biggest improvements were better versions of AJ and Darnell replacing themselves.


 
penn nation 
Professor
Posts: 21086

Reg: 12-02-04
03-21-18 01:08 PM - Post#254007    
    In response to TheLine

For the relatively brief amount of time that he was able to play, Scott also took on a Howard-like role, at times quite impressively.

 
Silver Maple 
Postdoc
Posts: 3765

Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
03-21-18 01:10 PM - Post#254008    
    In response to TheLine

Sort of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Darnell was replaced pod-Darnell? This explains a lot.

Kind of makes you wonder what the hell is going on in the basement of Hutch Gym. Maybe the pod-room is where the old rifle range used to be.

 
 Page 7 of 8 « First<5678
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

12101 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: 0.269 seconds.   Total Queries: 16   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0500) Eastern. Current time is 11:48 AM
Top