Subscribe!

Most recent entries

  • Your 2016 kPOY: Brice Johnson
  • Spiking the football on the 30-second shot clock
  • Sweet 16 probabilities
  • Need scheduling help?
  • 2016 NCAA tournament log5
  • 2016 Big West tournament preview
  • 2016 WAC tournament preview
  • 2016 Sun Belt tournament preview
  • 2016 American tournament preview
  • 2016 Big Ten tournament preview
  • The good stuff


    At other venues...
  • ESPN.com ($)
  • Deadspin
  • Slate

  • Strategy
  • Whether to foul up 3 late
  • The value of 2-for-1’s
  • Whether to foul when tied (1, 2, 3)
  • Who's the best in-game coach?

  • Philosophy
  • All points are not created equal
  • Brady Heslip’s non-slump
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • A treatise on plus-minus
  • The preseason AP poll is great
  • The lack of information in close-game performance
  • Why I don’t believe in clutchness*

  • Fun stuff
  • The missing 1-point games
  • Which two teams last lost longest ago?
  • How many first-round picks will Kentucky have?
  • Prepare for the Kobe invasion
  • Predicting John Henson's free throw percentage
  • Can Derrick Williams set the three-point accuracy record?
  • Play-by-play Theater: earliest disqualification
  • Monthly Archives

  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003

  • RSS feed

    Preseason ratings 2015

    by Ken Pomeroy on Tuesday, October 28, 2014


    By now, you’ve noticed the preseason ratings have been posted. Thanks to all that have stopped by the past 24 hours. My server thought it was March on Sunday night. (h/t to Matt Norlander for the tweet that generated the traffic. I usually enjoy flipping the switch and watching twitter spread the word organically over the course of a few hours, but since Norlander spilled the beans approximately five minutes after the site turned over, I got an immediate firehose of traffic.)

    I’ve discussed the formula in some detail in previous seasons and it hasn’t changed much in the five years I’ve been doing this. Here are some semi-random thoughts on them.

    People always want to know why a team is ranked in an unexpected spot. Think of the ratings formula as [team baseline + personnel]. The personnel portion is looking at who is returning from last season’s roster, how much the returnees played, what kind of role each returnee had, and what class they are in. Actually, there’s a two-year window for this, so Butler gets some credit for getting Roosevelt Jones back, for instance.

    The system does not give any special consideration to new players entering the program. There is some credit given for high-profile recruits, but the poor performances in 2012-13 of UCLA and Kentucky, among others, in recent years have tended to mute the impact of recruits in the model. Recruiting rankings are useful, but the impact of high-level prospects on their respective teams as freshman can vary wildly.

    There is no allowance for impact transfers or redshirt freshmen. So if your program has a high-profile transfer joining the team, the system may be underrating it. But this is where the program baseline can pick up some of the slack. The system is looking at the performance of a team over the past five seasons and its men’s basketball budget over the two most recent seasons for which data is available to figure out what should be expected of a team in the absence of any other information. A lot more weight is given to the past two seasons in terms of team performance. So the system is going to be forgiving about personnel losses on teams like Louisville and Syracuse and Creighton that spend a bunch of money on men’s hoops and have had recent success.

    Let’s face it, while people like to talk about how much parity there is in the sport, the reality is that if I wanted to predict the Pac-12 race in 2025, I’d do pretty well forecasting Arizona and UCLA at the top and, well, I won’t call out the teams at the bottom, but despite not knowing who will be coaching or playing for these teams that far in the future, we could make a reasonably good forecast of either end of the conference standings. And that’s true of most leagues. The purpose of the team baseline is to handle this bit of knowledge which is more program-dependent than roster-dependent.

    Conference gravity is also thrown into the mix, so that teams that have had outlier performances relative to their conference tend to get pulled back towards the conference mean. Coaching changes are also considered, and teams with a coaching change get punished, though this effect is stronger for teams with a better baseline.

    There’s a slight distinction that needs to be made regarding what is being projected. Technically, the system is forecasting a team’s final pythagorean rating and not its final ranking. For instance, take Oklahoma State’s forecasted rating of .8546, which is the 21st-best projection. Last season that rating would have ranked 29th, and two seasons ago it would have been 33rd.

    Which is to say that a highly-ranked team is more likely to be overrated than underrated in terms of its ranking. That’s an obvious statement once you get to the top-ranked team, but I expect it’s underappreciated for teams elsewhere in the top 20. By the way, this the fifth season I’ve done preseason ratings and the top-ranked team in preseason has finished first on two occasions - 2012 Kentucky and 2014 Louisville. But both of those teams had to improve on their preseason rating to earn the ratings title at the end of the season.

    As far as ratings’ eyesores, Oklahoma State probably topped my personal list, although there are always plenty to go around. Mississippi State was Norlander’s favorite. Indeed, a team going from 208 to 83 may not be the best look for the ratings. Note, too, that TCU is listed at 130 after finishing 234th last season. If you’re in a decent conference and players are staying with the program and the coach isn’t getting fired, you can’t suck forever. That is the theory here.

    But in the case of the Bulldogs and the Cowboys, the system likes high-usage guys that have been in the program for multiple seasons. Sure, Oklahoma State loses Marcus Smart and Markel Brown, but at least they know Le’Bryan Nash is capable of being a go-to guy. For Mississippi State, the ratings will turn to Craig Sword for credibility. Unfortunately, the high-usage shooting guard is battling back problems and may miss some games to start the season. Get well soon, buddy! I’ll be waiting to break out the #RickRayBandwagon hashtag until you’re back.

    And that brings us to the injury/suspension portion of the show. Basically, if a player is not ruled out for the entire season, they are included as a returnee. So guys like Sword are in as are more extreme cases of guys who are expected to miss multiple weeks.

    At any rate, these are the ratings and I’m sticking to them. Unless there is major personnel news in the next week, that is. They’re just a starting point to generate reasonable score and record predictions early in the season. Never let a number define your team, kiddos.

    Next up, I’ll take a look at how various projection systems, including my own, did last season.