Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Pomeroy



I stray to the more conservative end on this - I like benching for foul trouble early to make sure a player is on the court for the highest leverage points in the game later. NBA Jam-like CPU assistance is real for human reasons (players coast with big leads), so a big lead early isn't really worth the full margin. Rather have the higher efficiency margin in later possessions. Hopefully Pomeroy gets into that aspect of foul trouble decision making.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


K at #33 is at a very high percentile for playing guys with foul trouble, but I figure that says more about his tendency to use a shorter rotation than average than it does about his approach to foul trouble.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given that Boeheim and Brey are the highest among major coaches, and given that they both tend to favor short rotations, I would say that that correlation is worth looking at. Boeheim also might be more liberal in his approach due to the presence of a zone (which generally minimizes foul trouble).
 


Waiting on this and Kenpom preseason numbers instead of paying any more attention to Duke football.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pomeroy has messed around with some of his numbers, and 2016 Duke jumped from #20 to #17. 2006 Duke is up to #2!! Unfortunately 2005 UNC jumped back over 2005 Illinois again.
 
It looks like Pyth has been replaced by "Adjusted efficiency margin", which, using 2015 as an example, goes from +37 or so at the very top of the country to -38 at the very bottom.
 
StopThePumpFakesShav said:
It looks like Pyth has been replaced by "Adjusted efficiency margin", which, using 2015 as an example, goes from +37 or so at the very top of the country to -38 at the very bottom.
Click to expand...

I wonder why he did that. Probably because Pyth rewarded good defense more than good offense.
 


In the new system, the effects of the two competing teams are considered to be additive rather than multiplicative. If Team A’s offensive efficiency is 10% higher than the national average and Team B’s defensive efficiency is 10% higher than the national average, then Team A’s offense when playing Team B would be expected to be 20% higher than the national average.

I’m not sure how basketball really works, but my hunch is that it’s probably closer to additive than multiplicative. For fairly normal teams, the distinction is nearly irrelevant. But at the extremes, it can matter. If Team A has an offense than is 120% of the national average and Team B has a defense 80% of the national average, it makes intuitive sense that Team A’s offense should be exactly average when it plays Team B. In the multiplicative framework Team A’s offense would be expected to be 96% of the national average, implying that a great defense is better than a great offense, which seems to conflict with reality.

Another benefit of the additive model is that it allows us to more easily separate the influence of offense and defense in making predictions so one could weight offensive rating more heavily. Preliminary research into this is promising, but for this season, offense and defense will be weighted equally until a more extensive investigation can be conducted.
Click to expand...

Finally, there is the issue of home court advantage. For this iteration of the ratings I am using a flat 3.75 points for every game. It’s probably a little higher than reality since that value is what best calibrates predictions of the past 15 seasons, and we know that home court advantage has been on a subtle decline in recent years. It’s a high priority of mine to implement site-specific home-court advantage values by next season. It isn’t something that matters much in the long run, but it’s kind of a neat thing to have and hopefully I can discuss this more during the season.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's stealing all of my Z-Rating ideas.
 


This is fantastic, and it saves all of us the time from delving into the numbers only to come out with some rough, amateurish analysis due to no one else in the world having incentive to care about college basketball.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those of you anxiously awaiting the preseason Pomeroy ratings like sad losers, note that they came out on Sunday, October 25 last year. I think they'll launch on Sunday, October 23 this year.
 
2017 preseason ratings for posterity:

TEWMmeg.png
 
Historical tidbit:

The last national champion to have a defense as bad as 18th was our beloved 2009 North Carolina Tar Heels, the team that so often gives Duke fans hope when we see yet another terrible defensive Duke team and try to rationalize how they can nonetheless pull off a national title.

However, in 2009, there were no elite teams that were great on both offense and defense. The best offensive team that finished in the top 18 on defense was UConn, with the 17th ranked offense and 3rd ranked defense. Bottom line: UNC 2009 wasn't up against any team that had the elite balance of Villanova, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon or Wisconsin this season, if Kenpom has this right. Duke should learn how to play defense this season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Chat users

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Chat rooms

  • General chit-chat 0

Forum statistics

Threads
1,065
Messages
423,987
Members
624
Latest member
Bluegrass Blue Devil
Back
Top Bottom