Page 1 of 2

Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:44 am
by luteformayor2
18 games into the season, a team needs to play a once in a lifetime game to make the statistical jump that we made after last night's game.

Our AdjO ranking jumped 10 spots.

We went from #10 in Kenpom to #5.

When in the fuck does a team ever out offensive rebound another team by 13! Jesus. We played Nasty last night and it was beautiful.

If the AP voters are watching games, we should jump over Utah, Lville, Duke, Kansas, and Wisconsin in the polls. We should start this week back at #5 in the AP and right in place for an amazing season.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:46 am
by dcZONAfan
Agreed. But I think we end up at #7 with Wisky at 5 and Duke at 6. It's not right, but it's what will happen

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:38 am
by CBCat
luteformayor2 wrote:18 games into the season, a team needs to play a once in a lifetime game to make the statistical jump that we made after last night's game.

Our AdjO ranking jumped 10 spots.

We went from #10 in Kenpom to #5.

When in the fuck does a team ever out offensive rebound another team by 13! Jesus. We played Nasty last night and it was beautiful.

If the AP voters are watching games, we should jump over Utah, Lville, Duke, Kansas, and Wisconsin in the polls. We should start this week back at #5 in the AP and right in place for an amazing season.
That packline D was incredible by the guys last night. Miller even had me focused. :)

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:55 am
by UAEebs86
dcZONAfan wrote:Agreed. But I think we end up at #7 with Wisky at 5 and Duke at 6. It's not right, but it's what will happen
Just because Duke rebounded against the 'Ville doesn't make up for that beat down at home against the U. We should jump them.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:56 am
by CalStateTempe
UAEebs86 wrote:
dcZONAfan wrote:Agreed. But I think we end up at #7 with Wisky at 5 and Duke at 6. It's not right, but it's what will happen
Just because Duke rebounded against the 'Ville doesn't make up for that beat down at home against the U. We should jump them.
Seriously, Arizona's beat down yesterday was better than Dukes.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:57 am
by luteformayor2
dcZONAfan wrote:Agreed. But I think we end up at #7 with Wisky at 5 and Duke at 6. It's not right, but it's what will happen
You could make a case, a slight one, for Wisky above us. But duke, back-to-back losses, that would be horse shit.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:11 am
by Chicat
I honestly have no idea where to rank Duke.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:33 am
by az91
It sucks that Gonzaga is 3. They play in a joke of a conference and won't be challenged the rest of the regular season.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:47 pm
by Longhorned
Today's new top 25 rankings from CBS Sports puts Arizona at #9, behind Kansas and everyone else you can think of.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 2:21 pm
by UAEebs86
Longhorned wrote:Today's new top 25 rankings from CBS Sports puts Arizona at #9, behind Kansas and everyone else you can think of.
What a joke. Duke goes 1-1, the loss a blowout at home, and moves up 5 spots? :lol:

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:42 pm
by luteformayor2
Longhorned wrote:Today's new top 25 rankings from CBS Sports puts Arizona at #9, behind Kansas and everyone else you can think of.
That's why Kenpom, RPI, and BPI matter. Ap and coaches polls matter a bit but CBS nutting all over it's face doesn't mean anything. Move on

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:44 pm
by luteformayor2
We are:

Kenpom #5
RPI #6
BPI #6

That is what matters. Trending up while teams like Wisconsin, Duke, Louisville, and Kansas are trending down.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:32 pm
by CBCat
How do we win 2 with one being ranked ahead of us and then go down a spot? Don't get it.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:07 pm
by EOCT
Number 7 in today's AP ranking. Seems nearly right, but I'd put us at 6------ ahead of Duke who I think deserves a 9/10 after losing two straight to weak teams and then beating an over-ranked Louisville.

On to Furd. Should be an interesting matchup there as we learn to defend an almost-Triangle offense. Can't wait.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:52 am
by luteformayor2
Now we are:

Kenpom #4 (having beat #3 head-to-head)
BPI #5

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:55 am
by luteformayor2
What poster was it last year who put together the list of all the teams in past season who were top 20 in ADJO and ADJD? Wasn't there a correlation between this and winning championships?

Reason is there are only 4 teams in this group this year - we are on of them. Along with UK, UVA, and UNC.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:00 am
by Chicat
luteformayor2 wrote:What poster was it last year who put together the list of all the teams in past season who were top 20 in ADJO and ADJD? Wasn't there a correlation between this and winning championships?

Reason is there are only 4 teams in this group this year - we are on of them. Along with UK, UVA, and UNC.
That stat was true for every champion up to last year.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:18 am
by Longhorned
Chicat wrote:
luteformayor2 wrote:What poster was it last year who put together the list of all the teams in past season who were top 20 in ADJO and ADJD? Wasn't there a correlation between this and winning championships?

Reason is there are only 4 teams in this group this year - we are on of them. Along with UK, UVA, and UNC.
That stat was true for every champion up to last year.
That's Winger.

RE: Duke, if Coach K can put together a deep run with this team then he deserves all ESPN slobber he can carry on his lap. Who gives up on his team's ability to defend and throws in the towel with a newly introduced zone after mid-January? Against a top-25 offense, let alone top-50, my guess is that team is in trouble moving forward.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:50 am
by Puerco
Come back, Winger.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:58 am
by UAEebs86
Puerco wrote:Come back, Winger.
He hangs out on the Scout Premium boards now.
Doesn't seem to want to join us for some reason.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:33 am
by Longhorned
UAEebs86 wrote:
Puerco wrote:Come back, Winger.
He hangs out on the Scout Premium boards now.
Doesn't seem to want to join us for some reason.
I seriously doubt that he doesn't want to join us. As you know, what happens on Scout is that he makes a post and then posters like UACat23 research a bunch of numbers and provide a new statistical analysis in response, to which Winger counters with the relative merits of different data sets, Rey quibbles on interpretive grounds, biases are clarified, and then there's a return to hard numbers that can't be disputed but require a larger sample size. You get caught up in that back-and-forth, and you just can't jump to another board and show a raw analysis to people who haven't been privy to all the dimensions and permutations of the unfolding argument.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:27 am
by PieceOfMeat
Longhorned wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
Puerco wrote:Come back, Winger.
He hangs out on the Scout Premium boards now.
Doesn't seem to want to join us for some reason.
I seriously doubt that he doesn't want to join us. As you know, what happens on Scout is that he makes a post and then posters like UACat23 research a bunch of numbers and provide a new statistical analysis in response, to which Winger counters with the relative merits of different data sets, Rey quibbles on interpretive grounds, biases are clarified, and then there's a return to hard numbers that can't be disputed but require a larger sample size. You get caught up in that back-and-forth, and you just can't jump to another board and show a raw analysis to people who haven't been privy to all the dimensions and permutations of the unfolding argument.
So what you're saying is, he thinks we're too stupid to keep up.




;)

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:31 am
by Olsondogg
PieceOfMeat wrote:
Longhorned wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
Puerco wrote:Come back, Winger.
He hangs out on the Scout Premium boards now.
Doesn't seem to want to join us for some reason.
I seriously doubt that he doesn't want to join us. As you know, what happens on Scout is that he makes a post and then posters like UACat23 research a bunch of numbers and provide a new statistical analysis in response, to which Winger counters with the relative merits of different data sets, Rey quibbles on interpretive grounds, biases are clarified, and then there's a return to hard numbers that can't be disputed but require a larger sample size. You get caught up in that back-and-forth, and you just can't jump to another board and show a raw analysis to people who haven't been privy to all the dimensions and permutations of the unfolding argument.
So what you're saying is, he thinks we're too stupid to keep up.



;)

I've read the thread over there and I know I am too stupid.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:43 pm
by luteformayor2
A sweep this week with good numbers should jump us to #3 in KenPom regardless of whether any of the 1-4 teams lose.

It isn't an end all to be up high on kenpom, but it is the most fascinating way to see the value of your team. UVA and UK are gonna be up top all year until they lose, but being #3 come Sunday would be a testament to the strength's of the team. I myself have even been a bit down during points of this year, but our stats are really quite amazing and we do have the potential to be better than last year.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:00 am
by gumby
4-0 against Top 50.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:47 am
by Puerco
So all our losses are bad losses?

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:48 am
by luteformayor2
Moving on up...

Kenpom from #5 to #4
AdjO from #21 to #13
AdjD stagnant at #10

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:24 am
by gumby
Puerco wrote:So all our losses are bad losses?
In a world where there's only good and bad. Beaver loss trending up.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:42 am
by Alieberman
Puerco wrote:So all our losses are bad losses?
Is there such thing as a good loss?

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:51 am
by Olsondogg
Alieberman wrote:
Puerco wrote:So all our losses are bad losses?
Is there such thing as a good loss?
A crazy ex wife in an ugly divorce?

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:02 am
by Puerco
Have I mentioned that I hate Gary Parrish?

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:20 pm
by luteformayor2
Through today's games thus far, we are looking VERY GOOD

AdjO #10 (That is better than Kentucky at #13)
AdjD #7

WE ARE TRENDING UP. Let's whoop the Bears and keep moving up. A quality win poises us to jump Gonzaga to #3 overall.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:22 pm
by luteformayor2
Not to mention Michigan is playing Wisconsin toe to toe. Michigan winning now. That upset or a close game would bolster our stats more than any other and drastically improve our SOS

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:55 am
by luteformayor2
.9554 pyth - up from .9514

TRENDING UP

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:13 am
by luteformayor2
Now - .9617 pyth

Kenpom #3 (we jumped gonzaga)
AdjD up to #4

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:27 am
by CBCat
luteformayor2 wrote:Now - .9617 pyth

Kenpom #3 (we jumped gonzaga)
AdjD up to #4
:shock:

What sayeth you Winger?

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:40 am
by gumby
I'd imagine for consistency sake, he'd say better chance than last year, with the standard "depends on matchups" caveat, followed by a hair band reference.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:52 am
by WildcatStunner
Adj O dropped from 11th to 14th (shooting 10% below our average an 15 turnovers).

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:46 am
by Reydituto
gumby wrote:I'd imagine for consistency sake, he'd say better chance than last year, with the standard "depends on matchups" caveat, followed by a hair band reference.
That's about right.
WildcatStunner wrote:Adj O dropped from 11th to 14th (shooting 10% below our average an 15 turnovers).
That's about right.

Ugly game on that side of the ball. AdjT went down 0.2 to 67.3 after that game as well.

The gap in AdjD between Kentucky and the field is startling.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:01 pm
by UofACat23
The actual numbers are even more interesting than the rankings:

2015 Adj O: 115 v. 2014 Adj O:114.7
2015 Adj D: 86.9 v. 2014 Adj D: 88.5

So they've improved overall in both categories, and surprisingly, the bigger improvement is in Adj D.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:11 pm
by CalStateTempe
Where are we relative to lasts years BASH injury? Because I believe that we would've been the odds favorite to cut the nets had that unfortunate injury not occurred.

Is there a way to calculate 2014 pre and post BASH injury Adj O and D?

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:20 pm
by Chicat
CalStateTempe wrote:Where are we relative to lasts years BASH injury? Because I believe that we would've been the odds favorite to cut the nets had that unfortunate injury not occurred.

Is there a way to calculate 2014 pre and post BASH injury Adj O and D?
If you search posts at TOS around the date of Bash's injury you could probably find our metrics to that point in the season. If I remember correctly we were 1st in defense and out of the top 20 in offense, but I could be totally remembering that wrong.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:33 pm
by CalStateTempe
Chicat wrote:
CalStateTempe wrote:Where are we relative to lasts years BASH injury? Because I believe that we would've been the odds favorite to cut the nets had that unfortunate injury not occurred.

Is there a way to calculate 2014 pre and post BASH injury Adj O and D?
If you search posts at TOS around the date of Bash's injury you could probably find our metrics to that point in the season. If I remember correctly we were 1st in defense and out of the top 20 in offense, but I could be totally remembering that wrong.
Bash went down on 2/1 in the loss to Cal. (man it hurt looking that up right now. remembering where and what I was doing)

AdjO/AdjD
1/29/15: 23/2
2/2/15: 35/1
End of 2014 season 3/31/15: 20/1

1/31/15: 14/4

NICE. Glad I did that exercise, really puts this season so far in perspective. GO CATS!

Next thought question: Is our AdjO really that improved from last year or is the rest of the field weaker this year? Maybe a bit of both?

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:41 pm
by Chicat
I think our offense is markedly better. We shouldn't forget that our best offense for stretches last year was throwing the ball at the rim and getting multiple offensive rebounds off subsequent missed tip shots. Oh those dreaded bunnies...

No such issues this year. TJ has elevated his game and can get his shot off seemingly at will, and Stanley is worlds better than NJ and AG at hitting high percentage shots.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:23 pm
by luteformayor2
Stanley can score at will. He is quickly becoming Gilbert Arenas circa 2001.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:31 pm
by CalStateTempe
luteformayor2 wrote:Stanley can score at will. He is quickly becoming Gilbert Arenas circa 2001.
This I like.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:14 pm
by gumby
Nobody can score at will. Nobody can "get to the rim any time they want." Nobody is unstoppable. Stan had 8 Friday. Left his will in the locker room? No. He struggled, like all players sometimes.

P.S. Arenas was up and down, too.

How about they put together consistent season-long excellence before deification?

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:13 pm
by Longhorned
I could have got to the rim but I didn't want.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:23 pm
by luteformayor2
gumby wrote:Nobody can score at will. Nobody can "get to the rim any time they want." Nobody is unstoppable. Stan had 8 Friday. Left his will in the locker room? No. He struggled, like all players sometimes.

P.S. Arenas was up and down, too.

How about they put together consistent season-long excellence before deification?
Yeah, I would say his numbers reflect consistent season-long excellence exactly how it is defined. 15 and 8 with his fg% is pretty fucking impressive for a freshman on a top tier team.

Re: Statistical Jump

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:18 pm
by gumby
Longhorned wrote:I could have got to the rim but I didn't want.
I could score at Will if it were Will Robinson.