Interesting kenpom.com fact(s) of the day
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 11:35 AM PST
in Cougar Basketball
41 comments
FACT: Washington State, at 16-13, is ranked No. 40 by Ken Pomeroy.
FACT: These are the teams ranked below the Cougs who are thought to either be in the tournament by Joe Lunardi and/or Jerry Palm, or on Lunardi's bubble (Palm doesn't list a bubble):
- 42: Tennessee (18-10) -- 7 seed by Lunardi, 9 seed by Palm
- 43: San Diego State (19-8) -- First four out by Lunardi
- 44: Florida State (22-7) -- 6 seed by Lunardi, 5 seed by Palm
- 45: Florida (21-8) -- First four out by Lunardi, 10 seed by Palm
- 46: Ohio State (18-9) -- 10 seed by Lunardi, 8 seed by Palm
- 47: Minnesota (20-8) -- First four out by Lunardi, 9 seed by Palm
- 48: UNLV (20-8) -- 9 seed by Lunardi, 11 seed by Palm
- 49: Texas A&M (21-8) -- Lunardi's second four out, 9 seed by Palm
- 50: Creighton (25-6) -- 11 seed by Lunardi, 12 seed by Palm as MVC auto bid (so we can assume they'd be on his bubble)
- 51: South Carolina (20-7) -- 9 seed by Lunardi, 12 seed by Palm
- 53: Utah State (26-4) -- 11 seed by Lunardi as auto bid (but in ahead of other at-larges, so we can assume he considers them "in"), 12 seed by Palm as auto bid (but again, we can assume they'd be bubble without the auto bid)
- 58: Davidson (24-6) -- 11 seed by Lunardi as auto bid (but in ahead of other at-larges, so we can assume he considers them "in"), 13 seed by Palm as auto bid (probably out in his book if they don't get the auto bid)
- 60: Maryland (18-10) -- Lunardi's second four out, 10 seed by Palm
- 61: Boston College (20-9) -- 8 seed by Lunardi, 8 seed by Palm
- 62: Michigan (18-12) -- Lunardi's first four out, 11 seed by Palm
- 67: Cincinnati (18-11) -- Lunardi's second four out
- 70: Virginia Tech (17-11) -- 10 seed by Lunardi, 11 seed by Palm
- 71: Providence (18-11) -- 12 seed by Lunardi
- 73: Siena (23-7) -- 11 seed by Lunardi (as an auto bid, but safely in by that seeding), 12 seed by Palm (as an auto bid, but we can assume on his bubble without it)
- 78: Dayton (24-5) -- 9 seed by Lunardi, 9 seed by Palm
- 79: Penn State (20-9) -- 12 seed by Lunardi
- 104: Western Kentucky (21-8) -- 13 seed by both Lunardi and Palm as auto bid (although we can assume they'd be in the bubble conversation by that seeding)
Now, a pop quiz: Guess how many of these teams are ranked below WSU in the RPI? Click below for the answer, along with final thoughts.
ZERO. Not even one. The team closest to WSU's No. 88 RPI is Davidson at No. 67, and of the teams considered "safely" in by both, Virginia Tech is closest at No. 59.
I point this out not to criticize Lunardi or Palm, who are both good at what they do (although I think Palm is much better, he just doesn't have the ESPN hype), but to point out the flaws in the selection process. The NCAA selection committee continues to rely on an outdated and flawed way to measure the quality of teams, and that's what Lunardi and Palm are doing.
I'm not saying the Cougs should be in at this point. What I am saying is this: The fact that the Cougs aren't at least in the conversation at this point is absurd, and it will become even more absurd with each win they can get between now and the end of the season.
The lesson, as always? Better not schedule more than two difficult opponents in the non-conference schedule so you can pile up wins, make sure the easier non-conference opponents aren't too easy, and make sure the rest of your conference schedules the same way so that when you do pull off a .500 record in conference, your RPI looks good.
0 recs |
41 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I was looking at those numbers today as well
It is so infuriating. I don’t understand how the RPI does not get bashed more. We’ve just beaten three “tournament” teams in a row and the RPI ratings have done little to reward us for that.
by Dancing Football on Mar 2, 2009 11:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
People can't bash what they don't understand
And most NCAAB fans don’t know how incompetent the RPI is.
by Grady. on Mar 2, 2009 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We actually have moved up 14 spots since beating UCLA
That’s actually leaps and bounds in RPI terms. Usually at this point, teams are pretty well cemented where they’re at, so we’ve moved quite a bit.
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There is something to your theory on scheduling
We could have just gone Stanford’s route, schedule light and go 9-1 easily in the non-conference. Now, we are 8-9 in the pac-10, that would make us 18-10 or so, with a good chance to get 20 wins before the selection. In that situation we would be right on the bubble.
by peaty411s on Mar 2, 2009 11:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I got it right, do I get an A?
I agree with your post, but to play Devil’s Advocate….
The problem with Ken Pomeroy’s rankings in an anecdotal sense is that they are purely empirical. Now as a scientist that actually appeals to me but as a fan that takes some of the fun out of it. The RPI calculations at least simple to understand, more or less valuing wining percentage and scheduling above all. KenPom’s rankings are just fitting the curve with obscure exponents like 8.4. In addition, the RPI rewards you more for scheduling tough opponents, win or lose, whereas KenPom’s rankings give more importance to how you play against whoever you ended up scheduling.
I would be interested to see (though not enough to do the research myself) whether RPI or KenPom is better at predicting tournament performance. For example, does a team with a great KenPom ranking but poor RPI “overachieve” due to having received a double digit seed?
Obviously KenPom’s rankings are statistically sound and are based upon that all-important tournament predictor, Adjusted Scoring Margin. It is disappointing to read many bball “experts” saying how great and informative his statistics like eFG and Offensive Efficiency are, but then ignoring his actual team rankings.
On the possibly plus side, I know many Committee members have repeatedly said “the RPI is just a tool we use” but I wonder if they also use KenPom’s statistics or something similar…?
Tony Bennett for Heisman!
by johnnycougar on Mar 2, 2009 11:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Also
RPI values the whole season as a resume much better, whereas Ken Pom predicts who is actually playing better. It’s resume vs. power poll again!
Tony Bennett for Heisman!
by johnnycougar on Mar 2, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Pomeroy rankings are vastly superior to RPI for predicting who's going to win
With that said, I don’t believe the selection committee should have any leeway whatsoever to “power rank” teams.
I’m hardline about this— I believe tournament admission and seeding should be absolutely, strictly based on resume qualifications. (Though the RPI sucks as a measure of resume, too.) Your best player was injured for 6 weeks? Suck it up. Academically ineligible for the first semester? Boo hoo. You think Team A would beat Team B if they matched up, but Team B has the better resume? Team B every single time.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 2, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is what I personally feel about the tournament as well
Resume over power poll, even if it makes for slightly less entertaining games. The “power” aspect of it is somewhat addressed by the conference tournaments, where continuing to win assures you of a place.
If the RPI fails as a measure of resume, what statistics would you then use? Would you use Ken Pom’s rankings to determine strength of schedule and “top 50” type wins, but then ignore his final rankings in terms of choosing 1-34 at larges?
Tony Bennett for Heisman!
by johnnycougar on Mar 2, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Something like that, yeah
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 2, 2009 5:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thinking a little more
KenPom.com sort of already does this, with the “green” and “red” highlights on the team pages. Teams that have a lot of “green” should get in; teams with a lot of “red” or not much “green” shouldn’t.
Compare UAB’s page (#32 in the rankings) to a team like Providence (#71) for an example. UAB probably beats Providence on a neutral court, but Providence is the more deserving Tourney team.
There’s a bit of a problem with this system for the mid-majors, who have trouble getting the “up” games so that they even have a chance to pad their resumes, but I think that needs to be solved separately by NCAA changing the way teams schedule nonconference games.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 2, 2009 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But Pomeroy *IS* a resume
It’s efficiency margin for the whole season. I think he does weight somewhat for recent performances, but it’s overall, but it’s not much. The RPI is just the dreaded results-based analysis, which is flawed on so many levels.
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Additionally, how do you determine "resume"?
I understand on some level that wins and losses have to enter the equation — the reason West Virginia is projected as a 7 seed despite Pomeroy having them ranked 8 overall.
But shouldn’t the definition of “best” at least somewhat be based on who would win when they get there? Shouldn’t the tournament be about putting in the 34 at large teams that have the best chance, 1-34, to win the tournament?
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hmmmm
Shouldn’t the tournament be about putting in the 34 at large teams that have the best chance, 1-34, to win the tournament?
I’m not sure. What about a team that excels in the non-conference portion of its schedule (against tough teams) but then slowly gets worse over the year, say maybe finishing 7th in a power conference. Do you discount the games at the beginning of the year? What about mid-majors who make some noise out of conference and then play “below their level” against inferior competition, maybe even dropping a few games? No statistic can accurately account for motivation, player injuries, and all the other random factors over the course of a season, which I think is why some subjectivity is required to look at a team’s resume.
Tony Bennett for Heisman!
by johnnycougar on Mar 2, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, you don't discount those games
Mostly the point I’m trying to make is that RPI is a really messed up way to judge how quality those wins really were. It’s saying that a truest measure of the strength of a team is record — its record, its opponents’ records, and its opponents’ opponents’ records. I’m preaching to the choir, but Pomeroy’s system does a much better job of measuring the relative quality of those wins than anything else.
I also know that the committee representative has said before that they want to put teams in that can actually win. So they’re the ones sending that message, not me.
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Also, you don’t have to believe me as I have no good way to prove it, but I emailed Joe Lunardi (bracketology@comcast.net) more or less regarding this post, and he emailed me back saying:
I’m a big fan of Ken Pomeroy (and his rankings). It’s the NCAA which is wedded to the RPI. JL.
So there you have it, at least one question answered. Lunardi tries to predict what the committee will do rather than always put who he thinks deserves it.
Tony Bennett for Heisman!
by johnnycougar on Mar 2, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I tried to intimate that but didn't really come right out and say it
I probably should have said it more clearly. They’re just trying to reflect what they think is going to happen.
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 10:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Results-based analysis is hopelessly flawed for predicting performance
but I think it’s entirely appropriate when determining rewards… MLB doesn’t put the teams with the best run differential into the playoffs…
Will this result in unlucky good teams getting bumped for luckier worse teams? Yes, all the time— but I have no problem with games having an element of luck in them (actually, it’s very difficult to design games that don’t involve some luck that are any fun to play).
I don’t WANT to see the “34 best teams” in the tournament every year. If you’re going to do that, what’s the point of playing the regular season at all? You can take a pretty good guess at who they are before the season even starts.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 2, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with determining the NCAA tournament purely on a results base. . .
. . . is that there’s no real effort create anything resembling a balanced schedule.
I don’t WANT to see the "34 best teams" in the tournament every year. If you’re going to do that, what’s the point of playing the regular season at all? You can take a pretty good guess at who they are before the season even starts.
I do want to see the 34 best teams. And the reason I want the regular season is because 1) it gives you a better idea of who’s the best than you have before the season and 2) I like watching college basketball games.
by philkid3 on Mar 2, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but it's a lot easier to minimize luck when you're dealing with 162 games
That’s why James’ pythagorean theorem almost always comes out pretty darn close to the actual results. It’s so much harder when you’re only talking 30 or so games, and I think you’ve got to account for that when trying to determine who gets in. The committee already does that to a certain extent when it takes injuries into account.
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One more thought
Why is being selected to the NCAA Tournament considered to be a “reward?” I know that’s the way people typically look at it, since most of the field has no realistic shot of actually winning, but I thought the purpose of having a tournament was to determine who is the best team in the country. If that’s the case, shouldn’t the 34th team picked for an at-large berth have the 34th best shot in the country of winning the tournament?
The tournament shouldn’t be a validation; it should be a playoff.
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Since we are looking at statistics here
How about the fact that in the last 20 years, exactly zero teams outside of a top 4 seed have even won the whole thing? If we were only looking at a playoff, nobody outside the top 16 treams would ultimately matter. Surely none of the low-major tournament winners actually consider themselves one of the top teams in the country? But they get a place in the tournament as a reward for winning their conference.
I think it could be argued that the 34th best team in the country is the team that has done the 34th best job throughout the year,. You could also say that a team that might have a perception about them of doing poorly down the stretch has just been worn down by the rigors of conference play. To me, the main argument for the resume is to prevent teams claiming that just a few games matter. I am not sure that you can argue that WSU deserves a chance to play in the tourney just on the strength of the last few games any more than you can argue USC should get in over us because they beat us twice.
Tony Bennett for Heisman!
by johnnycougar on Mar 3, 2009 7:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Every playoff system in pro sports is based exclusively on a resume ranking
It seems perverse to me to suggest that college sports— which theoretically ought to give more weight to achievement, validation, etc— ought to reward underachieving “haves” at the expense of deserving “have nots.”
I don’t really care about determining who “the best team in the country” is, nor do I think the NCAA tournament is a very good way of doing so.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 3, 2009 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
AH, now we're getting somewhere
The real issue, then, is the institutional inequities built into the NCAA’s systems — which I wholeheartedly agree with.
The RPI exacerbates this, unless you go the Gonzaga route. And the only way you can go the Gonzaga route is if you have high majors willing to schedule you. And the only way you have them willing to schedule you is if you’re not going to drag down their RPI. And the only way that happens is if other high majors will schedule you …
It’s a vicious cycle that’s awfully tough for people to get out of. Look at Gonzaga — they have to fly all over the country and basically play anyone, anytime to combat the inequities in the system.
by Nuss on Mar 3, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I remember reading a conversation that some in the committee DO use Pomeroys as a tool.
That was how I found out about them.
by philkid3 on Mar 2, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't blame Lunardi, we his just utilizing what the committee
does in making his picks. When we want to be accurate as to what someone is going to do we put ourselves in that person’s shoes. I believe that is what Lunardi is doing. If the committee starts to utilize KenPom then Lunardi will adjust as well.
by ptowncoug3012 on Mar 2, 2009 12:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The irony of that... is that the committe probably takes into account what Lunardi is saying...
whether they admit it or not.
by cfred on Mar 2, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Short answer: No, they don't.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 2, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What I also hate
Is that the selection committee will take any chance they can get to avoid putting a small market team like WSU in the tournament. The RPI gives them something to back up a decision to leave us out, if we do in fact end up on the bubble.
If this team was located in Tucson, we’d be getting a lot more bubble talk.
by Grady. on Mar 2, 2009 1:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Look at it from the committee's perspective
These are current RPI stats from BTN Sports
Team A:
16-13(8-9 Conference, 7th in #5 RPI Conference)
89 RPI, 52 SOS
Key Wins (by RPI rankings) : @27, @23, 23
Key Losses: 137, @ 113, 63
Last 10: 5-5
Team B:
20-9(9-7 Conference, 8th in #2 RPI Conference)
64 RPI, 90 SOS
Key Wins: @4, @19, 24
Key Losses: 55, @51, 44
Last 10: 6-4
Team C:
18-11(8-8 Conference, 6th in #5 RPI Conference)
47 RPI, 34 SOS
Key Wins: 7, 11, 27
Key Losses: @113, @89, @58
Last 10: 7-3
Team D:
18-11(10-7 Conference, 6th in #3 RPI Conference)
66 RPI, 45 SOS
Key Wins: 1, 21, @53
Key Losses: 82, 63, 54
Last 10: 5-5
The RPI isn’t perfect by any means, but which one doesn’t fit?
by StraightOuttaPullman on Mar 2, 2009 4:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Answer:
Team A = Washington State
(B is Penn St., C is Arizona, and D is Providence, all 3 who are in Joe Lunardi’s Last 4 in)
by StraightOuttaPullman on Mar 2, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But According to Ken Pomeroy:
WSU = #40
Penn St = #79
AZ = #35
Prov = #71
Very interesting indeed…
by StraightOuttaPullman on Mar 2, 2009 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think this year's Pac-10 teams are probably systematically overrated in Pomeroy by 5 slots or so
and one flaw in the system is that if an entire conference is overrated in the rankings after the nonconference schedule, the system can’t really correct for it during conference play because the teams in the league are only playing each other.
That being said, I definitely think the two Pac-10 teams are superior to the other two bubble teams.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 2, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you think the Pac-10 is overrated?
The efficiencies are adjusted against the national average. I’m interested in your theory.
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm guessing that it was a bunch of close nonconference losses to good teams
As a result of those, the conference acquired an unrealistically high ranking vis a vis other conferences. Once conference play starts, it’s all internal— the positive effects of those close losses get spread around to every team in the conference through the strength of schedule adjustment.
The same “echo effect” happens with the RPI sometimes— I recall one year when about 5 teams in the Valley were in the RPI top 50, which was ridiculous. Probably a couple of them scored some lucky close nonconference wins which then spread around to make the entire league overrated.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
by PaulThomas on Mar 3, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably also has to do with blowing out bad teams in nonconference, too ...
… since it’s all about margin. The Cougs helped with that one, for sure. Good thoughts — thanks.
by Nuss on Mar 3, 2009 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
I think the key losses and overall record at this point are our main opponents. We can’t get rid of the losses but we can add a few more key wins and improve our strength of schedule and Last 10 significantly. Even if we get to the PX championship game I am not sure if we’ll have a better chance than those other teams.
Tony Bennett for Heisman!
by johnnycougar on Mar 3, 2009 7:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know what the funny thing is about this post?
It started off as, “Hey, I’ll bet there are a few teams rated below the Cougs who are locks for the field.” Then, as I started really looking, the list started piling up like I could not believe. I did not expect this at all, in case anyone thinks I’ve got an RPI axe to grind …
by Nuss on Mar 2, 2009 11:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
