The 2021-2022 Season Thread

[Beachcat97]

Getting to the FF really is like catching lightning in a bottle. You need more than stellar performance metrics and star players. You need luck, and your team needs to remain hot (or at least hottish) for two weeks.

I disagree a bit. See the article I posted. 6 of the last 9 champs were top 20 in both AdjO and AdjD.

Of the 3 that weren't, two, Nova and Louisville, were #2 in AdjO and #1 in AdjD respectively. They were both a hair outside the top 20 on the other end, #25 in AdjD and #21 on AdjO, again respectively.

So the takeaway is there's a consistent trend of national champs fitting a statistical profile. Top 20 in both AdjO and D or top 2 in one category in just outside top 20 in the other. Or...UConn.

I appreciate your adherence to data, Spiff, as the most reliable predictor of tourney success. But I'm sure you can appreciate that there are elements of a magical tourney run not necessarily reflected by these data. I'm thinking in particular of tourney upsets, where one team wins in spite of data strongly predicting otherwise. I suppose it's interesting to consider this question: are there any performance metrics that make team A more "upset proof" than team B? It's not even that AZ has been upset in the tourney too many times recently. Wichita St. and Buffalo - that's it. Otherwise, Sean's teams consistently reached the S16.

What did the Wichita St and Buffalo losses have in common? Anything? Why were those particular teams more vulnerable?

[UAEebs86]

What did the Wichita St and Buffalo losses have in common? Anything? Why were those particular teams more vulnerable?

WSU was grossly underseeded that year.

[RondaeShimmy]

Agreed on high floor. I sort of disagree in that I think if you're top ten, elite is a fair characterization.

Kinda splitting hairs here about word usage but to me instead of using super duper elite for top 3 teams, I just use elite. Rest of the top 10-12 are great, and so on. But going even further it's not necessarily top 3 to be elite imo, it's more fluid year to year and sometimes it's top 5 sometimes it's just 1 team - for example the gulf in between this year's kenpom's top tier offense/defense...

Offense
N°1: Purdue -- 126.7
N°2: Gonzaga -- 123.8
N°3: Kansas -- 120.4
N°4: Kentucky -- 118.5
N°5: Ohio St -- 118.1

Here there's a clear #1 team, with Gonzaga being distant but closer than the rest of the pack, from Kentucky and below for a dozen sports where the only difference is a decimals or a point or two. With Kansas sitting in between, here I consider Purdue and Gonzaga elite, Kansas is close.

Defense
N°1: San Diego St -- 85.0
N°2: Texas Tech -- 85.1
N°3: LSU -- 85.5
N°4: VCU -- 86.9
N°5: Tennessee -- 88.2
N°5: Arizona -- 88.2
N°6 Boie St -- 88.3

Here there isn't as a biggest of a gap as offense but here I consider the top 3 to be in elite territory with Vcu being close to it. Once you get past 5 and lower the difference is decimal points or a point or two.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncaa.c ... cent%3famp

The point that stands out to me:

"The last nine men's basketball national champions had an average AP poll ranking of 6.7 on Jan. 1, compared to an average kenpom.com ranking of 7.0."

This is with the bias of UConn and Nova dragging the averages down:

"The only two champions among the last nine that had a difference greater than two spots were UConn in 2014, which was ranked No. 17 in the AP poll on Jan. 1 but No. 40 on kenpom.com, and Villanova two years later, when it was No. 16 in the AP poll but No. 2 on kenpom.com."

The article lists the offensive and defensive breakdowns later, the trend I'd derive is 7 of 9 title teams were top 10 in AdjO, 6 of 9 were top 10 in AdjD. Expand to top 20 and you have 7 of 9 teams in both categories.

So, if you're pushing top ten in both AdjO and AdjD, you're good enough to win a title. If you are outside top 20 in one metric, the other had better be top 5 or you need to be UConn and have cut a deal with Satan to win nattys against all statistical probability.

For Arizona, which we care about most, if we keep our current metrics, they're natty level.

I mean i don't know how this disproves or disagrees with what I posted about top 10 offense/defense teams.

Arizona has had top 20 in both recently (supposed championship territory) and not won a championship let alone made a F4. There's always multiple teams every year that reach the metrics minimum who don't win, just one does.

Top 20 in offense/defense doesn't guarantee it, and neither does top 10. Like I said, I'd rather be top 3 and elite in one category and top 12-15 in the other.

The Villanova or North Carolina model (if I can't be top 3-5 in both which is the best possible scenario)

[Spaceman Spiff]

Getting to the FF really is like catching lightning in a bottle. You need more than stellar performance metrics and star players. You need luck, and your team needs to remain hot (or at least hottish) for two weeks.

I disagree a bit. See the article I posted. 6 of the last 9 champs were top 20 in both AdjO and AdjD.

Of the 3 that weren't, two, Nova and Louisville, were #2 in AdjO and #1 in AdjD respectively. They were both a hair outside the top 20 on the other end, #25 in AdjD and #21 on AdjO, again respectively.

So the takeaway is there's a consistent trend of national champs fitting a statistical profile. Top 20 in both AdjO and D or top 2 in one category in just outside top 20 in the other. Or...UConn.

I appreciate your adherence to data, Spiff, as the most reliable predictor of tourney success. But I'm sure you can appreciate that there are elements of a magical tourney run not necessarily reflected by these data. I'm thinking in particular of tourney upsets, where one team wins in spite of data strongly predicting otherwise. I suppose it's interesting to consider this question: are there any performance metrics that make team A more "upset proof" than team B? It's not even that AZ has been upset in the tourney too many times recently. Wichita St. and Buffalo - that's it. Otherwise, Sean's teams consistently reached the S16.

What did the Wichita St and Buffalo losses have in common? Anything? Why were those particular teams more vulnerable?

There is definitely a certain element of luck. My point is more that luck is somewhat uncontrollable, and that it generally tends to be a small difference among really good teams. I always hedge because UConn is an outlier, but they still bucked my stats with luck.

Part of it is I generally also think luck can't be planned for, so you have to control the other metrics you can control to get the consistent results you want.

I'd peg those two upsets in these ways. The 17-18 Arizona team was not good (#83 in AdjD) on defense. We particularly struggled with small, quick teams because Ayton and Ristic were not a natural fit together. We got a small, quick team that took advantage of our subpar D in Buffalo.

We were more consistent in 15-16, with #20 AdjO and #29 AdjD. Wichita was more about them being very underseeded. They were an 11 seed to our 6, but Kenpom had Wichita as #13 to our #19. Wichita also had the #1 AdjD in the nation for Kenpom. They showed up and paid those rankings off by just choking us out on D. PJC was not ready for Van Vleet.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Agreed on high floor. I sort of disagree in that I think if you're top ten, elite is a fair characterization.

Kinda splitting hairs here about word usage but to me instead of using super duper elite for top 3 teams, I just use elite. Rest of the top 10-12 are great, and so on. But going even further it's not necessarily top 3 to be elite imo, it's more fluid year to year and sometimes it's top 5 sometimes it's just 1 team - for example the gulf in between this year's kenpom's top tier offense/defense...

Offense
N°1: Purdue -- 126.7
N°2: Gonzaga -- 123.8
N°3: Kansas -- 120.4
N°4: Kentucky -- 118.5
N°5: Ohio St -- 118.1

Here there's a clear #1 team, with Gonzaga being distant but closer than the rest of the pack, from Kentucky and below for a dozen sports where the only difference is a decimals or a point or two. With Kansas sitting in between, here I consider Purdue and Gonzaga elite, Kansas is close.

Defense
N°1: San Diego St -- 85.0
N°2: Texas Tech -- 85.1
N°3: LSU -- 85.5
N°4: VCU -- 86.9
N°5: Tennessee -- 88.2
N°5: Arizona -- 88.2
N°6 Boie St -- 88.3

Here there isn't as a biggest of a gap as offense but here I consider the top 3 to be in elite territory with Vcu being close to it. Once you get past 5 and lower the difference is decimal points or a point or two.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncaa.c ... cent%3famp

The point that stands out to me:

"The last nine men's basketball national champions had an average AP poll ranking of 6.7 on Jan. 1, compared to an average kenpom.com ranking of 7.0."

This is with the bias of UConn and Nova dragging the averages down:

"The only two champions among the last nine that had a difference greater than two spots were UConn in 2014, which was ranked No. 17 in the AP poll on Jan. 1 but No. 40 on kenpom.com, and Villanova two years later, when it was No. 16 in the AP poll but No. 2 on kenpom.com."

The article lists the offensive and defensive breakdowns later, the trend I'd derive is 7 of 9 title teams were top 10 in AdjO, 6 of 9 were top 10 in AdjD. Expand to top 20 and you have 7 of 9 teams in both categories.

So, if you're pushing top ten in both AdjO and AdjD, you're good enough to win a title. If you are outside top 20 in one metric, the other had better be top 5 or you need to be UConn and have cut a deal with Satan to win nattys against all statistical probability.

For Arizona, which we care about most, if we keep our current metrics, they're natty level.

I mean i don't know how this disproves or disagrees with what I posted about top 10 offense/defense teams.

Arizona has had top 20 in both recently (supposed championship territory) and not won a championship let alone made a F4. There's always multiple teams every year that reach the metrics minimum who don't win, just one does.

Top 20 in offense/defense doesn't guarantee it, and neither does top 10. Like I said, I'd rather be top 3 and elite in one category and top 12-15 in the other.

The Villanova or North Carolina model (if I can't be top 3-5 in both which is the best possible scenario)

For clarity, I don't think we really functionally disagree, at most we're sort of talking semantics.

That super elite status (the 1%?) is verbiage, but never a bad thing. I mean, if you ask me in my heart of hearts, I'd want #1 in AdjO and D...consistent with what you say.

There's a significant luck element in a one and done tourney. In fact, the NCAA tourney is probably the least predictable tournament from a stat perspective. I agree with your high floor analysis in saying that most champs fit a certain profile and that same profile generally also creates that high floor you speak of.

So don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to disprove or disagree in a really significant way. I just like these discussions and try to build a little depth in. When I said disagree, I tried to hedge it because it's really just the semantic about the word elite, not really much functional disagreement.

Functionally, I think the rules are simple. If you're top 10 in both AdjO and D, you set up well to win a natty. If you're top 3 on one side of the floor, the other side can drop closer to 20 or below and still be rescued by being in the 1% on one end.

Then, you inject luck and that's why I mention UConn in every analysis of natty teams, because there's a consistent profile and luck gives you statistical outliers now and again.

[SabinoDrifter]

For reference, Baylor was 44 in adjusted defensive efficiency prior to the tournament last year, but they were 3rd in adjusted offensive efficiency. It's not a perfect model to predict future success, but you know the eventual national champion is either a damn good offensive team or damn good defensive team.

[Spaceman Spiff]

For reference, Baylor was 44 in adjusted defensive efficiency prior to the tournament last year, but they were 3rd in adjusted offensive efficiency. It's not a perfect model to predict future success, but you know the eventual national champion is either a damn good offensive team or damn good defensive team.

Last year was sort of a rough one for stats too because Covid cancellations skewed schedules and stats. I know adjustments are sort of designed for that, but last year was probably peak for intangible effects...and we still wound up with:

Baylor, finishing #2 in AdjO and #22 in AdjD in Kenpom, beating out Gonzaga, who was #1 in AdjO and #11 in AdjD. It sort of proves RondaeShimmy's point about how tightly packed teams get, because the actual AdjD difference was 89.9 for Zaga and 91.1 for Baylor and the actual AdjO difference was 126.4 to 125.0.

It's an example of how tight variables can get.

[Chicat]

You guys are doing a great job of breaking down the metrics on who can and can’t win a Natty while I’m over here secretly fearing that Booby Bobbins has decided that Lloyd has been too successful his first year so therefore he needs to ban us from postseason play again to keep Tommy’s contract in check…

[EastCoastCat]

This thread has turned nerdy once again.

I predict Kriisa will do his big ball dance on top of every metric and get us to the FF.

[97cats]

This thread has turned nerdy once again.

I predict Kriisa will do his big ball dance on top of every metric and get us to the FF.

if Wisconsin and Arizona played each other, who would be hated more?

Johnny Davis by Arizona or Kerr Kriisa by Wisconsin?

i know Kriisa is a handful, but Davis is a real f*cking turd burglar

[Beachcat97]

If we play Illinois or Wisconsin in the tourney, it’s going to be a white knuckled, anxiety-ridden spectacle. Probably not as bad to play Wichita or Purdue.

[EastCoastCat]

If we play Illinois or Wisconsin then...

[azgreg]

[Beachcat97]

One of these years, we're gonna play a Pac team in the tourney. Can't remember that ever happening.

[TheCat]

I think our first objective is WSU tomorrow. LOL

[Beachcat97]

I think our first objective is WSU tomorrow. LOL

Line is AZ -5.5

That's an awfully small spread considering we're #3 and they're...well...Washington State.

[RondaeShimmy]

I think our first objective is WSU tomorrow. LOL

Line is AZ -5.5

That's an awfully small spread considering we're #3 and they're...well...Washington State.

Arizona is only a 1.5 favorite with only 55% chance of a win on Bart Torvik, the free Kenpom alternative so I'd imagine it's similar there as well.

Could be a very tight game.

[Spaceman Spiff]

You guys are doing a great job of breaking down the metrics on who can and can’t win a Natty while I’m over here secretly fearing that Booby Bobbins has decided that Lloyd has been too successful his first year so therefore he needs to ban us from postseason play again to keep Tommy’s contract in check…

Well, you just triggered my anger I was expressing that Robbins intentionally fired Miller last year because he knew if he let Miller take over this roster, Miller would win too much to get fired.

Bobby's all about kneecapping people to stay in control.

[Merkin]

Well, you just triggered my anger I was expressing that Robbins intentionally fired Miller last year because he knew if he let Miller take over this roster, Miller would win too much to get fired.

I think we can all agree Ricky Bobby pulled the UA out of the NCAA tournament just so Miller could not make a deep run.

What a way to fuck over the student athletes just to get back at Miller.

[Postmaster]

One of these years, we're gonna play a Pac team in the tourney. Can't remember that ever happening.

I think we played UCLA back in the 70s.


Did UCLA play O last year? I’m pretty sure there was at least one p12 v p12 game.

[Postmaster]

One of these years, we're gonna play a Pac team in the tourney. Can't remember that ever happening.

I think we played UCLA back in the 70s.


Did UCLA play O last year? I’m pretty sure there was at least one p12 v p12 game.

Edit: they did play in 1976 tournament

But I don’t think AZ was in Pac yet.

[azgreg]

One of these years, we're gonna play a Pac team in the tourney. Can't remember that ever happening.

I think we played UCLA back in the 70s.


Did UCLA play O last year? I’m pretty sure there was at least one p12 v p12 game.

Edit: they did play in 1976 tournament

But we weren't in the conference yet. We also played Utah twice but they weren't in the conference yet either.

[Merkin]

One of these years, we're gonna play a Pac team in the tourney. Can't remember that ever happening.

I think we played UCLA back in the 70s.


Did UCLA play O last year? I’m pretty sure there was at least one p12 v p12 game.

Edit: they did play in 1976 tournament

But I don’t think AZ was in Pac yet.

1978.

I recall reading about some UA/UCLA game when the UA was in the WAC. Wooden didn't even scout the Cats. He just brought his players and played their game. You can do that when you have Marques Johnson and David Greenwood.

In 1976 Kiki Vandeweghe was just a scrub for UCLA.

[RondaeShimmy]

Did UCLA play O last year? I’m pretty sure there was at least one p12 v p12 game.

Close enough

USC and Oregon played each other in the S16 after upsetting the #2 and #3 seeds

[Beachcat97]

Did UCLA play O last year? I’m pretty sure there was at least one p12 v p12 game.

Close enough

USC and Oregon played each other in the S16 after upsetting the #2 and #3 seeds

That was one of the first all Pac matchups in the tourney for quite some time, I think. And I'm not counting some of those earlier matchups involving teams not yet part of the Pac, like Utah.

[UAEebs86]

I believe they have to set up the brackets so that conference foes don't meet until the regional semis or something like that, so it takes two teams doing well before two teams from the same conference ever meet up.

[dmjcat]

You guys are doing a great job of breaking down the metrics on who can and can’t win a Natty while I’m over here secretly fearing that Booby Bobbins has decided that Lloyd has been too successful his first year so therefore he needs to ban us from postseason play again to keep Tommy’s contract in check…

I have ZERO fear of that happening (and I'm sure you don't either) but deep in the back my mind I have an irrational fear that the NCAA IARP might drop the hammer on us just before the P12 tournament and ban us from post season play.

[azcat49]

AZ and UCLA played in the elite 8 at Pauley Pavillon in 76. We had beat UNLV and Sudden Sam Smith in OT 114-109.

We were tiedwith about 6 minutes to go but we just faded as our legs wore out. Jim Rappis played hurt in both games. Fleming had 16 boards against their NBA Front line

[pc in NM]

AZ and UCLA played in the elite 8 at Pauley Pavillon in 76. We had beat UNLV and Sudden Sam Smith in OT 114-109.

We were tiedwith about 6 minutes to go but we just faded as our legs wore out. Jim Rappis played hurt in both games. Fleming had 16 boards against their NBA Front line

Arizona was WAC, ucla was Pac-8

That was the year that Indiana (28-0) won the championship over Michigan (25-7), speaking of playing conference opponents in NCAA’s

[Spaceman Spiff]

Well, you just triggered my anger I was expressing that Robbins intentionally fired Miller last year because he knew if he let Miller take over this roster, Miller would win too much to get fired.

I think we can all agree Ricky Bobby pulled the UA out of the NCAA tournament just so Miller could not make a deep run.

What a way to fuck over the student athletes just to get back at Miller.

100%. Sad to think Bobby potentially took Ira Lee's last chance at basketball and flushed it over his beef with Miller.

I don't want to push hard, because it isn't fair to Lloyd. Lloyd's done very well and deserves better than speculative comparisons on how Miller would have done.

I do think Miller would have done well enough with this year's team where the narrative would be that Arizona is back, similar to what it is now. He would be doing well enough not to be fired. It's sort of nuts to think someone got fired because he was on the brink of too much success.

[prh]

And ultimately, it may fuck us again because we've got a top-3 team with zero NCAA Tournament experience

[Spaceman Spiff]

And ultimately, it may fuck us again because we've got a top-3 team with zero NCAA Tournament experience

But look at the bright side, it got rid of Sean Miller so he wasn't the one to lead Arizona back to prominence, allowing Bobby Robbins to claim credit.

Again, FWIW, I obviously have beef with Robbins, but want to try and be super clear I don't extend it to Lloyd. Just because I think Miller would have led Arizona back to prominence, so far, Lloyd actually has and deserves credit for that.

Robbins aggressively kneecapped a program, players and coach heading in the right direction because he wanted to create an excuse for getting a guy he could call his own in charge by the time the success on the horizon arrived, thus allowing him to claim credit for the resurgence that was coming well before he made the change.

[RondaeShimmy]

We moved up to #2 in both NET (over Houston) and kenpom (over Kentucky) without playing

Kinda interesting that T-Rank has us as #5 and can't really climb higher than that the whole season.

[EastCoastCat]

We all know what happened. We all know CSM was fucked over and we feel bad for him. We all know Heeke and Robbins are egotistical pricks who orchestrated CSM's firing and CTL's hiring.

But, I have turned the page on a new chapter of Arizona basketball and am excited (as opposed to nervous at the start of the year) as to what heights CTL will take us.

As the great Satchel Paige once said:

[dovecanyoncat]

I want the rest of our conference season to be the solidification/maturation phase we see in a typical Oregon season. Hopefully as a team we fill in the gaps and grind through the tactical adjustments our opponents have made against us. On the road to WA and Mtns we needn't be brilliant, just tough and competent. Play sound D and don't TO as much and we'll reap the bennies.

[Alieberman]

Big game tonight.

Our maturity will be tested

[Jefe]

Tommy back at home

[azcat49]

Pullman is 75 miles from Spokane. They are close but not that close

[azgreg]

[Jefe]

Pullman is 75 miles from Spokane. They are close but not that close

Woops, thats Wash State Spokane campus just next to Gonzaga

[Alieberman]

Wash St game thread up.

Big game

[U.P. Zona Fan]

This game tonight is one of our 3 toughest games remaining on the schedule! Really hope we have a good showing.

I'm sure CTL will embed it in their heads that this game is huge and coming off a big week, we can't let down or put up a stinker and expect to win, the cougs need this win. We need to be on!!!

[RichardCranium]

AZ and UCLA played in the elite 8 at Pauley Pavillon in 76. We had beat UNLV and Sudden Sam Smith in OT 114-109.

We were tiedwith about 6 minutes to go but we just faded as our legs wore out. Jim Rappis played hurt in both games. Fleming had 16 boards against their NBA Front line

For most of the second half of the season, Rappis was on crutches around campus, then he would get his ankles strapped up for practice and games.

If he hadn't killed his ankles, he would have had a superstar NBA career.

[Chicat]

I’m starting to think this team is pretty good.

[Postmaster]

It’s kinda funny because as a team they do pretty well.
But then I look at individuals and I can pick apart everybody’s game.



I still want to see Bal and Nowell get some meaningful minutes.

[EastCoastCat]

I have one big nitpik...the fucking TO's.

It still worries me against really good teams we will be facing down the road. I get that we love the great assist but some of the post feeds tonight were atrocious.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I have one big nitpik...the fucking TO's.

It still worries me against really good teams we will be facing down the road. I get that we love the great assist but some of the post feeds tonight were atrocious.

I don't think it's a nitpick. We outrebounded them by 15, shot 49% to their 34% and 42% from 3 to their 25%. We also shot 11 free throws to 3 for them.

Those above stats, I'd figured we'd have won by 30+, not 12. We pretty much crushed them in every department except turnovers, and turnovers made for a comfortable win instead of a massive blowout.

I mean, it's still a comfortable win, but you worry about what happens when you're playing a better team in the tournament. Turnovers are very much our achilles heel.

[Alieberman]

I kind of feel like we have a high enough sample size to come to the conclusion that a high turnover team is just something that we are.

I would think this could be fixed.... but it never seems to really get much better...

[Olsondogg]

I have one big nitpik...the fucking TO's.

It still worries me against really good teams we will be facing down the road. I get that we love the great assist but some of the post feeds tonight were atrocious.

I don't think it's a nitpick. We outrebounded them by 15, shot 49% to their 34% and 42% from 3 to their 25%. We also shot 11 free throws to 3 for them.

Those above stats, I'd figured we'd have won by 30+, not 12. We pretty much crushed them in every department except turnovers, and turnovers made for a comfortable win instead of a massive blowout.

I mean, it's still a comfortable win, but you worry about what happens when you're playing a better team in the tournament. Turnovers are very much our achilles heel.

First, I don’t disagree with this per se. However, not all turnovers are created equal. Those that lead to dead ball, out of bounds plays aren’t nearly as harmful as our defense has the ability to recover and set up. I don’t have the stats on how many of the turnovers are those kind (like missed alley oops, or attempting to establish the post) but I feel as if many of them are. I am way less annoyed/worried about these kinds of turnovers as they happen when attempting to run great offense.

Just my 2 cents.

[azcat49]

Yea we definitely need to get that lower. Seems like we have been in the high terms or at 20 for the last several games. We seem to really turn it over early and often.

Need to tighten up because Jon Wilner said Utah was going to beat us and to mark it down LOL