Bear Down Wildcats

Think we've always had a thread for UAs region to discuss the possible road.

The draw....

Very favorable draw on paper.

The advanced metrics, Predictive rankings seem to love Saint Mary's. Wvu seems like the toughest probable matchup.

Anyone a believer in BPI here?

Jesus the stats guys absolutely love St Mary's

Not stats guys. Just stats.

I'm trying to see it and I just don't. Landale is certainly a very respectable 7 footer that would provide any one a challenge, but outside of him I just don't see it. Can somebody help me here?

They are only 4.5 point favorites in their first round game, will have to play the PAC-12 champ in the second round, and a team previously ranked as high as #6 in the third round (FSU), and they have a 35.9% chance of winning all three?

Don't we scrimmage them a ton as well?

SMC is #12 in BPI, Arizona is #24.

Kenpom is similar and I'd imagine when his comes out it'll will be similar to 538s ELO & BPI.

SMC is #14 in Kenpom, Arizona is now #20.

RPI is the only ranking that likes​ Arizona, every other non-human rankings has Arizona in the 20s. The computers don't like Arizona at all. That's been true throughout the year, including UCLA/Oregon.

UCLA/Oregon were ahead of Arizona in these rankings and they just beat them back to back. Going to guess the same will be true with SMC.

Side note, SMC is ranked #350 in Kenpom tempo, that could potentially be dangerous if they control the tempo.

Fuck computers.

#SavageLife

https://gamepredict.us/kenpom?team_a=Sa ... utral=true" target="_blank

Maybe Arizona can upset Saint Mary's.

Machina must be really worried since we lost that secret scrimmage to them.

I'm sure sos has nothing to do with those numbers. I like it though. Rather have motivation to win

NYCat wrote:SMC is #12 in BPI, Arizona is #24.

Kenpom is similar and I'd imagine when his comes out it'll will be similar to 538s ELO & BPI.

SMC is #14 in Kenpom, Arizona is now #20.

RPI is the only ranking that likes​ Arizona, every other non-human rankings has Arizona in the 20s. The computers don't like Arizona at all. That's been true throughout the year, including UCLA/Oregon.

UCLA/Oregon were ahead of Arizona in these rankings and they just beat them back to back. Going to guess the same will be true with SMC.

Side note, SMC is ranked #350 in Kenpom tempo, that could potentially be dangerous if they control the tempo.

I don't mind the tempo. We have shown we can win the grind it out games. Against a team with lesser talent and plays slow I just takes a mini run to go up 6-8 which feels like 12-14 against a teamlike UCLA. I just don't see SMC weathering a run and coming back from even a minor deficit. I'm more worried about ourselves slowing down against a zone, not the other teams offense slowing down.

I'll even add that CSM mentioned that we have scrimmage SMC privately for the past few seasons. I'm sure that helps us, even if it's just a little.

I think we beat the shit out of them tbh

When I went the SMC stats the one thing that stood out to me was they have only won one game where they did not win on the boards...in ALL of their 4 losses they lost the rebound battle, or tied it (once with Gonzaga) every other one of their wins they beat the opponant on the boards with the exception of one win over BYU where BYU won the boards but shot like shit...

These guys do not worry me, with Alkins and Markennen and Comanche and maybe even Ristic they will not win the battle on the boards ESPECIALLY since that lesson was driven home AT home by UCLA...

I doubt we lose on the boards again unless we are playing to lose...

My point is the out-rebounded EVERYONE but the teams they lost to (Zags 3 times, UT Arlington 1) they even beat Stanford but tied them on the boards...(they shot 55% and 40% on threes that game)...it's not like they do well against strong defensive teams, Stanford is not what I would call strong in any category...the reason the stats love them is because of Gonzaga and the conference they play in...they did beat Dayton @ Dayton and Stanford @ Stanford...

If we contain their big it's not gonna be close...

Brains that don't consider metrics, that go purely on feel and 'eye test', are limited.

Advanced metric, number crunching formulas that fail to eliminate or mitigate the flaws inherent in uneven playing field controls of 350 unique profiles are also worthless by themselves.

Together, we can use advanced metrics and common sense together. When that is done, St Mary's does not shake out as a 1 point favorite v Arizona.

Computers are dum

Even though they're an 8 seed, was anyone relieved Wisconsin is not in our bracket?

That's the first team I looked for when our West Bracket appeared.

It's hard to know what to make of St. Mary's. They beat Dayton on the road, then Nevada and Stanford. Beyond that, owning BYU is pretty much all they did in conference.

Nevada and Dayton are good wins over tourney teams. The difficulty with either an eye test or metrics is what they measure, and SMC doesn't have a ton to measure. They really only have four games vs tourney level teams.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if VCU beats St Mary's. The two conferences are pretty even but there are more tournament teams in the A10 than there are in the WCC.

I also wouldn't be surprised to be playing Notre Dame in the elite 8 and not Gonzaga. Notre Dame is one of the better teams from the best conference and they know how to win tournament games which is a big difference maker for me.

https://theringer.com/ncaa-tournament-m ... .knxwnijod" target="_blank

West
Team that got screwed: The real answer in this region is nobody, but the gun-to-my-head answer is Arizona. Assuming it downs no. 15 seed North Dakota, it would likely encounter a second-round matchup with Saint Mary’s, the best no. 7 seed in the tournament and a team that could frustrate the hell out of a young Arizona squad by slowing down the pace to a crawl and picking the Wildcats apart.

Why it’s the most intriguing region: the coaches. Other than the fact that this is the weakest region, the first thing that jumped out to me about the West was that West Virginia’s Bob Huggins is the only coach to have a Final Four under his belt. The good news, then, is that we’re likely to see someone come off the best-coaches-to-have-never-made-a–Final Four list. (And if we don’t, well, we get to see Huggy Bear back in the Final Four, which might be even better.) The bad news, though, is that since emerging from this region seems like it should be relatively simple, the coaches of the top seeds that lose early are going to get crucified by the public.
....
Then again, having been to four of the last nine Elite Eights only to lose every time he’s gotten there, Arizona’s Sean Miller has no choice but to break through. The Wildcats are loaded with talent and peaking at the right time, and the Final Four is in Arizona. If Miller can’t get there in this tournament, will it ever happen?

http://kenpom.com/blog/2017-ncaa-tournament-forecast/" target="_blank

EVCat wrote:Brains that don't consider metrics, that go purely on feel and 'eye test', are limited.

Advanced metric, number crunching formulas that fail to eliminate or mitigate the flaws inherent in uneven playing field controls of 350 unique profiles are also worthless by themselves.

Together, we can use advanced metrics and common sense together. When that is done, St Mary's does not shake out as a 1 point favorite v Arizona.

^^^^ is an awesome post. Couldn't agree more.

1) The data is the data
2) You have to consider the validity and source of data
3) I have a hard time believing the "data" regarding St. Mary's since it is culled from their experience in a trash conference.

RaisingArizona wrote:

EVCat wrote:Brains that don't consider metrics, that go purely on feel and 'eye test', are limited.

Advanced metric, number crunching formulas that fail to eliminate or mitigate the flaws inherent in uneven playing field controls of 350 unique profiles are also worthless by themselves.

Together, we can use advanced metrics and common sense together. When that is done, St Mary's does not shake out as a 1 point favorite v Arizona.

^^^^ is an awesome post. Couldn't agree more.

I agree, too. Advanced metrics don't capture a lot of things, and the problems go way beyond the human element. Estimates for adjusting efficiency ratings are based on the average. SOS is a problematic variable in the math, and so is the small set of wins and losses against top-level opponents. Injuries and momentum are unaccountable, and those things loom large.

I dare anyone to fill their brackets based on BMI, Kenpom, Sagarin, etc. I've lost twice to random fill-in brackets by doing that. When it comes to March Madness, the computers have only undermined the search for reason. You have to go deep with teams that are trending upward, win against top competition, have limited losses against good teams, do well at covering spreads, and have some kind of recognizable path on the bracket. Do that and, with a lot of luck, you might win your pool. But mostly it's just luck. Anybody who picked Arizona in 1997 is an idiot.

I do think St. Mary's would be a tough game if they are on from the outside. They have to get by VCU first, and I'm not sure that they have the athleticism to be able to do so.

NYCat wrote:http://kenpom.com/blog/2017-ncaa-tournament-forecast/

Talking heads yakking up a Duke v No Carolina NC game. Don't see it that way, but hey
it's March Madness..

Are there any Kenpom style metrics that add in an element of decay for older results. Seems to me that this is the main flaw in his system. A great deal has changed since December and I feel as though his system does not take that into consideration.

Crazy that according to that Kenpom forecast, we are basically by far the most overseeded team in the tourney.

HiCat wrote:

NYCat wrote:http://kenpom.com/blog/2017-ncaa-tournament-forecast/

Talking heads yakking up a Duke v No Carolina NC game. Don't see it that way, but hey
it's March Madness..

I hope whatever higher power there may be, intervenes to save us from that misery.

RaisingArizona wrote:Are there any Kenpom style metrics that add in an element of decay for older results. Seems to me that this is the main flaw in his system. A great deal has changed since December and I feel as though his system does not take that into consideration.

As you probably know, the early season ratings incorporate data that goes away in December. But as far as I can tell, there's no data cleaning that treats earlier input different in the formula for current rating results. I can imagine how putting that into the formula would do more harm than good.

RaisingArizona wrote:Are there any Kenpom style metrics that add in an element of decay for older results. Seems to me that this is the main flaw in his system. A great deal has changed since December and I feel as though his system does not take that into consideration.

You'd think they'd be able to add some weighing the the calculations so that recent results have a higher impact on the statistical outcome.

Longhorned wrote:

RaisingArizona wrote:Are there any Kenpom style metrics that add in an element of decay for older results. Seems to me that this is the main flaw in his system. A great deal has changed since December and I feel as though his system does not take that into consideration.

As you probably know, the early season ratings incorporate data that goes away in December. But as far as I can tell, there's no data cleaning that treats earlier input different in the formula for current rating results. I can imagine how putting that into the formula would do more harm than good.

Why do you think that would do more harm then good? Seems that recency should be relevant.

RaisingArizona wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

RaisingArizona wrote:Are there any Kenpom style metrics that add in an element of decay for older results. Seems to me that this is the main flaw in his system. A great deal has changed since December and I feel as though his system does not take that into consideration.

As you probably know, the early season ratings incorporate data that goes away in December. But as far as I can tell, there's no data cleaning that treats earlier input different in the formula for current rating results. I can imagine how putting that into the formula would do more harm than good.

Why do you think that would do more harm then good? Seems that recency should be relevant.

Because you can't control that variable for circumstance. On a smaller data impact, for example, Kansas sat out Jackson against TCU, which works against Kansas and goes either way for the other Big 12 teams in the conference tourney. A larger data impact would be the return of Trier for Arizona midway through the conference season, which works against Arizona during the reintegration and in favor of Arizona's opponents.

I wouldn't omit data, I would create and operater to add weight to the most recent data.

Ah I see what you're saying. I wasn't talking about roster changes, just simply suggesting that some greater relevancy be applied to more recent results.

This would of course punish mid majors, although personally I think the current metrics overrate mid majors that perform well in December.

threenumberones wrote:Crazy that according to that Kenpom forecast, we are basically by far the most overseeded team in the tourney.

One of our overriding issues is that two big games that would have raised our profile were Butler and Zaga and we were shorthanded for both. Could/should we have won both if we were at full strength? Probably. There really isn't a metric for that, though.

Then you look at how Zo has played lately and the dimension it gives us that we didn't have in December. Long and short, I understand why the metrics would say we're overseeded, but when you factor in real world absences, you can easily feel good about where we're at.

Since Zo returned, we're 3-2 vs top ten teams and haven't lost to anyone else. That says #2 seed to me.

threenumberones wrote:Crazy that according to that Kenpom forecast, we are basically by far the most overseeded team in the tourney.

It would be interesting to see Kenpom remove the outlier from the data. In AZ case its the game at Oregon. You would have to do the same for all teams, but I bet you removing our outlier makes a MASSIVE difference.

Love analytics and kenpom, but his rankings cant make up for the fact that we are playing out best ball of the year, plus have Trier and Lauri going off together for the first time all season.

The BPI was invented by ESPN because they couldn't claim exclusive rights to RPI. It's about as accurate as going to the dog track and betting on the dog that takes a shit just before the race starts.

Before the Pac-12 tourney started KenPom gave Oregon a 34% chance to win the championship and UCLA a 30% chance. UA was third with a 21% chance.

The metrics also gave UCLA and Oregon the better odds to beat us in the semis and finals.

So analytics are great. But you still have to win the games on the court.

The shockers of Wichita St is also loved by the metrics. at 30-4 that might be well deserved but they are definitely underseeded at a 10. Feel bad for Archie on that tough draw

Analytics aside, they're the #2 scoring defense behind UVA, and one of the slowest tempo teams like UVA as well. They're 16th in fewest turnovers. They're #1 ahead of UVA in opponent offensive rebounds per game, SMC is also #2 in opponents defensive rebounds per game.

That's really the only way they can beat Arizona, slow the game by controlling the game tempo, taking care of the ball and getting rebounds. Thats how UCLA beat Arizona at McKale. So it isn't out of realm of possibility they can win but I still think Arizona wins in a pseudo home game.

azcat49 wrote:The shockers of Wichita St is also loved by the metrics. at 30-4 that might be well deserved but they are definitely underseeded at a 10. Feel bad for Archie on that tough draw

Bad enough to mail him an extra shirt?

St Mary's lost to Gonzaga like this: 23 points on the road, 10 points at home, 18 points on a neutral court.

That's the team that's going to give us fits?

Strengths: They score a lot around the rim. They're a very good three point shooting team.

Breakdown: Their players are very one dimensional. Their bigs sit in the paint (70% of the points from their starting bigs come at the rim... that's absurd). Their SGs and SFs spot up for three. They pass the ball around until either their bigs are standing alone in the paint or towering over a mismatch, or until the D collapses and leaves their three point shooters alone. They shoot nearly zero FTs and they're not good at hitting the ones they get. They rely almost entirely on their C and PFs for rebounds. They play man to man defense. They'd like to slow it down but in their only competitive games they've been forced to play a much higher pace than their average.

Their most "all around" players are Joe Rahon and Emmet Naar, their starting PG and SG who score by either attacking the rim for an open lay-up or taking a kick out three from the post. They both pass very well. Neither likes to take contact. Both players are smaller than Kadeem in terms of height and weight.

The team relies on mismatches in the post leading to open threes or open looks at the rim - mostly Landale (6'11" 255lbs) sitting in the post and Hermanson (6'6" 200lbs) sitting on the three line. We're fucking huge. 6'11"? We've got three of those. They're not going to get many mismatches in the post. We're also bigger than them on the perimeter and we've got excellent perimeter defense.

I haven't been impressed with St. Mary's all year. They're 2-4 against the top 50. We're 6-4. They outsize their opponents with a 6'11" C and a 6'9" PF. We're not getting outsized. They take advantage of perimeter defenders doubling the post for open threes. We don't double the post and we've got the best three point defense in the Pac-12. They won't find success in the post - they will try to shoot from three.

Our man to man > their man to man. Our scorers > their scorers.

YoDeFoe wrote:St Mary's lost to Gonzaga like this: 23 points on the road, 10 points at home, 18 points on a neutral court.

That's the team that's going to give us fits?

Strengths: They score a lot around the rim. They're a very good three point shooting team.

Breakdown: Their players are very one dimensional. Their bigs sit in the paint (70% of the points from their starting bigs come at the rim... that's absurd). Their SGs and SFs spot up for three. They pass the ball around until either their bigs are standing alone in the paint or towering over a mismatch, or until the D collapses and leaves their three point shooters alone. They shoot nearly zero FTs and they're not good at hitting the ones they get. They rely almost entirely on their C and PFs for rebounds. They play man to man defense. They'd like to slow it down but in their only competitive games they've been forced to play a much higher pace than their average.

Their most "all around" players are Joe Rahon and Emmet Naar, their starting PG and SG who score by either attacking the rim for an open lay-up or taking a kick out three from the post. They both pass very well. Neither likes to take contact. Both players are smaller than Kadeem in terms of height and weight.

The team relies on mismatches in the post leading to open threes or open looks at the rim - mostly Landale (6'11" 255lbs) sitting in the post and Hermanson (6'6" 200lbs) sitting on the three line. We're fucking huge. 6'11"? We've got three of those. They're not going to get many mismatches in the post. We're also bigger than them on the perimeter and we've got excellent perimeter defense.

I haven't been impressed with St. Mary's all year. They're 2-4 against the top 50. We're 6-4. They outsize their opponents with a 6'11" C and a 6'9" PF. We're not getting outsized. They take advantage of perimeter defenders doubling the post for open threes. We don't double the post and we've got the best three point defense in the Pac-12. They won't find success in the post - they will try to shoot from three.

Our man to man > their man to man. Our scorers > their scorers.

Thank you! Great analysis. I watched them at home against Gonzaga, and my only analysis was that they looked anemic.

Thanks Longhorned.

I'll tell you: I did a breakdown of how their team scored in excel based on Hoops-Math.com numbers and the Gaels are strikingly one dimensional.

Our most one dimensional scorer is Dusan, who gets 60% of his points via 2pt jumpers (probably all those hooks and flips shots).

SIX of their eight core players are more one dimensional than that (i.e. they score more than 60% of their points in a single way).

There's a reason they get rocked when playing real opponents. It's just too easy to gameplan for their attack.

I'm gonna go on record now and say we will have to go through West Virginia to get out of the West...no one else bothers me.