Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sdsuphilip4

San Diego State surpassing kenpom expectations the most, all teams ranked

Recommended Posts

On 12/9/2019 at 5:19 PM, Pelado said:

A few distinctions between Nevada's win against BYU last year and SDSU's win this year:

Nevada won at home against a BYU team that finished #86 in kenpom's ratings.

SDSU won on the road against a BYU team that is currently #54 in kenpom and played its first nine games without its best player (Yoeli Childs).  Since returning for the past two games, Yoeli is averaging 21 points and 10.5 rebounds per game (despite leaving the Utah game early with cramping).  BYU's rating is more likely to increase now that Yoeli's back as opposed to decrease.

BYU up to 21 in kenpom - their highest rating since 2012.  NET rating of 28.  Sagarin rating of 33.  ESPN BPI of 27.

Since Yoeli's original return, he's played in 7 full games.  BYU is 7-0 in those games (he got hurt in the second half against Utah, the only loss he's played in this season).  In addition to the first nine games of the season, he missed four more (including St Mary's and Gonzaga) with a compound dislocation of his finger - the bone pierced through the skin.  Three of their total 6 losses were to teams currently in the NET top 5 and (obviously) without Yoeli:

San Diego State by 5 (home game)

Kansas by 15 (neutral court)

Gonzaga by 23 (road game)

The other three losses (Boise State, Utah, St. Mary's) were in overtime.  Of those three, Yoeli played in only one of them.

As of now, Iowa (21) and Creighton (27) are the only teams on SDSU's schedule with a higher NET rating than BYU.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2019 at 12:27 PM, SDSUfan said:

Still zero margin for error though.  Even one loss to a team not named Utah St and the whole thing comes crashing down.  BUT still a great season so far. Sunday @ noon against SJSU is a sellout.  The Bandwagon is picking up some steam.  It will be interesting to see how may Aztecs show up @ Staples in a couple weeks. I'll be there.  Price of entry for me is a day trip to the Garment District with Wifey.

San Diego State can lose to San Jose State and still get an at-large bid.  Oh wait, they almost did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2020 at 4:19 PM, Pelado said:

BYU up to 21 in kenpom - their highest rating since 2012.  NET rating of 28.  Sagarin rating of 33.  ESPN BPI of 27.

Since Yoeli's original return, he's played in 7 full games.  BYU is 7-0 in those games (he got hurt in the second half against Utah, the only loss he's played in this season).  In addition to the first nine games of the season, he missed four more (including St Mary's and Gonzaga) with a compound dislocation of his finger - the bone pierced through the skin.  Three of their total 6 losses were to teams currently in the NET top 5 and (obviously) without Yoeli:

San Diego State by 5 (home game)

Kansas by 15 (neutral court)

Gonzaga by 23 (road game)

The other three losses (Boise State, Utah, St. Mary's) were in overtime.  Of those three, Yoeli played in only one of them.

As of now, Iowa (21) and Creighton (27) are the only teams on SDSU's schedule with a higher NET rating than BYU.

 

 

I tempted the bad juju, causing the loss at San Francisco on Saturday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find this year's NET rankings to be quite interesting - mostly because of what SDSU has been able to accomplish as an undefeated team thus far. Obviously having a "0" in the L column goes a long way toward any ranking and should not be easily overlooked but it is interesting to speculate and think about what-ifs.

One thing that immediately sticks out about SDSU's resume is the lack of Q1 games played (4 total right now - with zero left to play). By comparison there are only two other teams in the top 50 NET rankings that are slated to play equal or less Q1 games. Those two are #42 E.Tenn St. (3 Q1 games with zero left) & #49 N. Iowa (2 Q1 games with zero left). The really interesting part is that given the lack of quality opponents on their schedule, E. Tenn St. is currently listed as #118 SOS, N. Iowa as #92 SOS, while SDSU is #174 SOS. This would lead me to believe that N.Iowa must play a ton of Q2 games to have a top 100 SOS right? Nope, 3 played with 2 possible left. This means they have the possibility of playing 7 total teams on the season that are either Q1 or Q2. The bulk of their schedule is made up of Q3 and Q4 teams yet they are projected to make the tournament and somehow currently have a top 100 SOS. It's hard to believe that going 1-1 in their Q1 games against West Virginia and Colorado would prove to be enough to carry them into the tourney or make them worthy to have a #49 NET ranking.

The other thing that I have found interesting is the lack of travel associated with SDSU this season. The furthest they have traveled to play any game this season has been to Laramie to play a conference game. That is crazy to think about. Normally it is the teams like Duke that never leave NC during OOC play that get ripped for that tactic but even they went to NYC a couple of times and to East Lansing during OOC this season. I think about where USU has been this season - to Jamaica to play LSU & N. Texas, then to Moraga, CA to play St. Mary's, then to Houston to play S. Florida. Then to San Jose to play SJSU, then to Florida to play Florida....the air miles logged is crazy! Does the travel make you a more prepared team in March? Does it give you an advantage later in the season or does it wear on your team? Is it a disadvantage early in the season?

So how much is really riding on those two games played early in the season in Las Vegas for SDSU? I would say nearly everything to anyone that looks beyond the numbers. The BYU game looks good on paper but are the committee members that are looking for reasons to discount the Aztecs going to look further and note that the game was before the return of Childs? If the Aztecs end with 2 or less losses on the season I don't think anyone will bother looking past the numbers so it will likely be a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TrueAg said:

I do find this year's NET rankings to be quite interesting - mostly because of what SDSU has been able to accomplish as an undefeated team thus far. Obviously having a "0" in the L column goes a long way toward any ranking and should not be easily overlooked but it is interesting to speculate and think about what-ifs.

One thing that immediately sticks out about SDSU's resume is the lack of Q1 games played (4 total right now - with zero left to play). By comparison there are only two other teams in the top 50 NET rankings that are slated to play equal or less Q1 games. Those two are #42 E.Tenn St. (3 Q1 games with zero left) & #49 N. Iowa (2 Q1 games with zero left). The really interesting part is that given the lack of quality opponents on their schedule, E. Tenn St. is currently listed as #118 SOS, N. Iowa as #92 SOS, while SDSU is #174 SOS. This would lead me to believe that N.Iowa must play a ton of Q2 games to have a top 100 SOS right? Nope, 3 played with 2 possible left. This means they have the possibility of playing 7 total teams on the season that are either Q1 or Q2. The bulk of their schedule is made up of Q3 and Q4 teams yet they are projected to make the tournament and somehow currently have a top 100 SOS. It's hard to believe that going 1-1 in their Q1 games against West Virginia and Colorado would prove to be enough to carry them into the tourney or make them worthy to have a #49 NET ranking.

The other thing that I have found interesting is the lack of travel associated with SDSU this season. The furthest they have traveled to play any game this season has been to Laramie to play a conference game. That is crazy to think about. Normally it is the teams like Duke that never leave NC during OOC play that get ripped for that tactic but even they went to NYC a couple of times and to East Lansing during OOC this season. I think about where USU has been this season - to Jamaica to play LSU & N. Texas, then to Moraga, CA to play St. Mary's, then to Houston to play S. Florida. Then to San Jose to play SJSU, then to Florida to play Florida....the air miles logged is crazy! Does the travel make you a more prepared team in March? Does it give you an advantage later in the season or does it wear on your team? Is it a disadvantage early in the season?

So how much is really riding on those two games played early in the season in Las Vegas for SDSU? I would say nearly everything to anyone that looks beyond the numbers. The BYU game looks good on paper but are the committee members that are looking for reasons to discount the Aztecs going to look further and note that the game was before the return of Childs? If the Aztecs end with 2 or less losses on the season I don't think anyone will bother looking past the numbers so it will likely be a moot point.

You realize that the back story of your criticism of SDSU’s schedule is that the MWC really stinks, correct? 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TrueAg said:

I do find this year's NET rankings to be quite interesting - mostly because of what SDSU has been able to accomplish as an undefeated team thus far. Obviously having a "0" in the L column goes a long way toward any ranking and should not be easily overlooked but it is interesting to speculate and think about what-ifs.

One thing that immediately sticks out about SDSU's resume is the lack of Q1 games played (4 total right now - with zero left to play). By comparison there are only two other teams in the top 50 NET rankings that are slated to play equal or less Q1 games. Those two are #42 E.Tenn St. (3 Q1 games with zero left) & #49 N. Iowa (2 Q1 games with zero left). The really interesting part is that given the lack of quality opponents on their schedule, E. Tenn St. is currently listed as #118 SOS, N. Iowa as #92 SOS, while SDSU is #174 SOS. This would lead me to believe that N.Iowa must play a ton of Q2 games to have a top 100 SOS right? Nope, 3 played with 2 possible left. This means they have the possibility of playing 7 total teams on the season that are either Q1 or Q2. The bulk of their schedule is made up of Q3 and Q4 teams yet they are projected to make the tournament and somehow currently have a top 100 SOS. It's hard to believe that going 1-1 in their Q1 games against West Virginia and Colorado would prove to be enough to carry them into the tourney or make them worthy to have a #49 NET ranking.

The other thing that I have found interesting is the lack of travel associated with SDSU this season. The furthest they have traveled to play any game this season has been to Laramie to play a conference game. That is crazy to think about. Normally it is the teams like Duke that never leave NC during OOC play that get ripped for that tactic but even they went to NYC a couple of times and to East Lansing during OOC this season. I think about where USU has been this season - to Jamaica to play LSU & N. Texas, then to Moraga, CA to play St. Mary's, then to Houston to play S. Florida. Then to San Jose to play SJSU, then to Florida to play Florida....the air miles logged is crazy! Does the travel make you a more prepared team in March? Does it give you an advantage later in the season or does it wear on your team? Is it a disadvantage early in the season?

So how much is really riding on those two games played early in the season in Las Vegas for SDSU? I would say nearly everything to anyone that looks beyond the numbers. The BYU game looks good on paper but are the committee members that are looking for reasons to discount the Aztecs going to look further and note that the game was before the return of Childs? If the Aztecs end with 2 or less losses on the season I don't think anyone will bother looking past the numbers so it will likely be a moot point.

@AztecBill provided a wonderful explanation on AMesa as to why the Aztecs are #2 in NET. It's fairly simple... In short, the less likely the outcome of a team's games against quality opponents, the higher they are ranked in NET. 

If we were to simplify things and assume every game had an equal probability for a given outcome (a 50/50 chance of winning or losing (which is obviously not the case, but helps illustrate this), then given our four Q1 games, there is a 6.25% chance of winning all four (one of sixteen possible outcomes). By comparison, Baylor right now is ranked first in NET, as the probability of winning 7 of their 8 Q1 gams is only half as high (3.125%), so they're ranked above us at #1in NET. 

Now, the above assumes a 50/50 probability of an outcome for a given game, which is admittedly rarely the case, and as I understand it, NET factors in venue (home, road, or away), in-game performance (OE and DE), as well as margin of victory in its calculus. 

To apply this to your question re: UNI, the odds of going 1-1 in Q1 games (assuming an equal chance of winning or losing) would be 50%. So how does a team that has a 50% chance of that 1-1 record rank so high in NET?

Two reasons.

First and foremost, this is where the venue, opponent, and the resultant projected win probability factor in. UNI's Q1 W was at #24 Colorado, so the win probability was much lower than 50%. If we were to adjust for the win probability, it would impact the probability of their realized outcome. Conversely, the actual projected probability of their loss to WVU was likely greater than 50%, but I would hazard a guess that combined - given the (significantly) lower probability of winning @ Col -  it still would (significantly) lower the overall probability (well) under 50%.

The second reason is Q1 records do not exist in a vacuum; one must also take into account a team's Q2-Q4 wins and losses compared to the rest of the field by similar processes. 

 

 

 

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

You realize that the back story of your criticism of SDSU’s schedule is that the MWC really stinks, correct? 

Pretty much applies to most G5 conference teams. Once they start playing conference games their chance at playing a Tier 1 or 2 team goes way down. It’s also why conferences like the Big Ten get more than half their teams in the Dance. 

SDSU will get their chance to justify their NET in the Dance although even great teams can lose in the first or second round. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically, SDSU Basketball under both Fisher an Dutcher  try not to travel far in the non-conference as they prefer to play on the West Coast if possible.  Travel in the MW is brutal compared to other conferences which are more regional.  This is why the preseason tournaments they chose from are usually in Anaheim, Vegas or Hawaii for either the Diamond Head or Maui Invitational.    The feeling is it helps recruiting local talent to commit to SDSU, as it not far for family to travel whether it is high school or a transfer.   Most of our transfers over the years have been SOCAL kids coming back. (e.g Tony Bland, Max Montana, KJ Feagin to name a few.  The exception has been when it is a grad transfer like Yanni Wetzell and Josh Davis. 

The hard part has been high profile teams wanting to come to Viejas lately,  but I will hope that changes and we can get some home and home with a couple of blue blood programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Pretty much applies to most G5 conference teams. Once they start playing conference games their chance at playing a Tier 1 or 2 team goes way down. It’s also why conferences like the Big Ten get more than half their teams in the Dance. 

SDSU will get their chance to justify their NET in the Dance although even great teams can lose in the first or second round. 

Not really. At least not when compared to the three G5 conferences ranked above us in RPI. By most if not all metric-based measures, the three G5 conferences ranked above the MWC are all measurably better this year. Here's how we stack up (as a conference) in NET (for simplicity, I'm treating a NET ranking above 50 as a "Q1 team"):

1x Q1 team (#2 in NET), 2x NET 50-100, 4x NET 101-150, 2x NET 151-200, 2x NET ≥200

Comparing us to the G5 conferences above us:

WCC: 3x Q1 teams (#3, #29, #34 in NET), 2x NET 50-100, 2x NET 101-150, 3x NET ≥200

A10: 3x Q1 teams (#5, #39, #47 in NET), 4x NET 50-100, 1x NET 101-150, 4x NET 151-200, 1x NET ≥200

'Murcan: 2x Q1 team (#30, #33 in NET), 6x NET 50-100, 2x NET 101-150, 2x NET 151-200, 1x NET ≥200

Please note, that of the four G5 conferences above:

- The MWC is the only one with only 1 team with a NET ranking above 50.

- The MWC is the only conference with fewer than five teams (3) ranked in the top 100 of NET. The others have 5, 7, and 8 teams ranked in the top100.

- While the WCC has more half again (50%) teams ranked below 200, they have three times as many (300%) Q1 teams

- While the A10 has 25% more teams ranked 151 or worse, they have 300% more Q1 teams and 133% more teams with a NET of 100 or higher

 

In short, each of the three G5 conferences ranked better than us provides significantly more opportunities for "good" wins in conference and fewer risks of "bad" losses.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2020 at 11:03 AM, TheSanDiegan said:

@AztecBill provided a wonderful explanation on AMesa as to why the Aztecs are #2 in NET. It's fairly simple... In short, the less likely the outcome of a team's games against quality opponents, the higher they are ranked in NET. 

If we were to simplify things and assume every game had an equal probability for a given outcome (a 50/50 chance of winning or losing (which is obviously not the case, but helps illustrate this), then given our four Q1 games, there is a 6.25% chance of winning all four (one of sixteen possible outcomes). By comparison, Baylor right now is ranked first in NET, as the probability of winning 7 of their 8 Q1 gams is only half as high (3.125%), so they're ranked above us at #1in NET. 

Now, the above assumes a 50/50 probability of an outcome for a given game, which is admittedly rarely the case, and as I understand it, NET factors in venue (home, road, or away), in-game performance (OE and DE), as well as margin of victory in its calculus. 

To apply this to your question re: UNI, the odds of going 1-1 in Q1 games (assuming an equal chance of winning or losing) would be 50%. So how does a team that has a 50% chance of that 1-1 record rank so high in NET?

Two reasons.

First and foremost, this is where the venue, opponent, and the resultant projected win probability factor in. UNI's Q1 W was at #24 Colorado, so the win probability was much lower than 50%. If we were to adjust for the win probability, it would impact the probability of their realized outcome. Conversely, the actual projected probability of their loss to WVU was likely greater than 50%, but I would hazard a guess that combined - given the (significantly) lower probability of winning @ Col -  it still would (significantly) lower the overall probability (well) under 50%.

The second reason is Q1 records do not exist in a vacuum; one must also take into account a team's Q2-Q4 wins and losses compared to the rest of the field by similar processes. 

 

 

 

http://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/61210/little-math

SDSU has had 5 upper half NCAA berths in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AztecBill said:

Nice thread. :thumbsup: I thought about adding my thoughts above to it, but didn't think it would necessarily add value to the discussion, or at the very least would have come off as a little too "Hey! I'm a mathematician too!"

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...