Are we a mediocre team?

[Kat burglar]

Some people have claimed that we are a mediocre team at best.

Mike Webb posted the following Kenpom rankings a week ago:

2001-2: #90
2002-3: #167
2003-4: #100
2004-5: #124
2005-6: #123
2006-7: #136
2007-8: #191
2008-9: #65
2009-10: #84
2010-11: #50
2011-12: #72
2012-13: #132
2013-14: #134
2014-15: #122
2015-16: #68
2016-17: #38
2017-18: #85
2018-19: #60 (current: season not yet complete)

We are currently ranked #56 in Kenpom

That rates us as the 3rd best NU team over the past 18 years. So I guess it depends on how you define mediocre. 56 puts you near the top 15% in the country. That says "good" to me. Not great yet, but still a good team in a great league.

This team is even better if judged on the past 18 NU teams ( and probably a lot better the further back you go). We may even rank as the 2d best team of the past 18 years if a few things go our way.

I am impressed that our expectations are high and that we expect greatness. That in itself shows how far we have come.

Go Cats!

 

[NJCat]

Some people have claimed that we are a mediocre team at best.

We are currently ranked #56 in Kenpom

That rates us as the 3rd best NU team over the past 18 years. So I guess it depends on how you define mediocre. 56 puts you near the top 15% in the country. That says "good" to me. Not great yet, but still a good team in a great league.
Go Cats!

I think you have to throw out the really weak conferences. I'd use the Power 5, Big East, AAC, A-10 and maybe 8-10 teams from other non-power conferences (like Gonzaga). This means that there are probably 100 teams who play at the top level. NU is smack in the middle. So it depends whether you mean "Good" in the context of 343 teams, or "Mediocre" in the context of teams that compete with coach salaries in the millions of dollars and facilities in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which is the neighborhood NU lives.

 

[JournCat]

I think you have to throw out the really weak conferences. I'd use the Power 5, Big East, AAC, A-10 and maybe 8-10 teams from other non-power conferences (like Gonzaga). This means that there are probably 100 teams who play at the top level. NU is smack in the middle. So it depends whether you mean "Good" in the context of 343 teams, or "Mediocre" in the context of teams that compete with coach salaries in the millions of dollars and facilities in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which is the neighborhood NU lives.

Google defines "mediocre" as "of only moderate quality; not very good." We haven't beaten anyone I'd call "very good," though we had close calls against Michigan and Oklahoma. Those two last-second games probably keep us from jumping past mediocre.

 

[freewillie07]

Some people have claimed that we are a mediocre team at best.

Mike Webb posted the following Kenpom rankings a week ago:

2001-2: #90
2002-3: #167
2003-4: #100
2004-5: #124
2005-6: #123
2006-7: #136
2007-8: #191
2008-9: #65
2009-10: #84
2010-11: #50
2011-12: #72
2012-13: #132
2013-14: #134
2014-15: #122
2015-16: #68
2016-17: #38
2017-18: #85
2018-19: #60 (current: season not yet complete)

We are currently ranked #56 in Kenpom

That rates us as the 3rd best NU team over the past 18 years. So I guess it depends on how you define mediocre. 56 puts you near the top 15% in the country. That says "good" to me. Not great yet, but still a good team in a great league.

This team is even better if judged on the past 18 NU teams ( and probably a lot better the further back you go). We may even rank as the 2d best team of the past 18 years if a few things go our way.

I am impressed that our expectations are high and that we expect greatness. That in itself shows how far we have come.

Go Cats!

Fair question. It raises a lot of the same questions as far as recruiting.

Collins undoubtedly has recruited at a higher level than NU was used to, purely leaving aside those players who didn't pan out/were derailed by injuries. And yet, when you look at recruiting rankings, NU is in the middle of the Big Ten, at best. This is the difficult position Collins finds himself in. He can incrementally improve upon the level of recruit that comes to NU (see Kopp, Nance, Beran), but that is just keeping up with the rest of the league. To take that next step, he either has to have a much higher percentage of recruits pan out/get lucky and avoid injury, or bring in a game-changer like Christie or Baldwin Jr. in 2021.

For now, NU will continue to be in the scrum that is the middle of the Big Ten standings.

 

[torque-cat]

Fair question. It raises a lot of the same questions as far as recruiting.

Collins undoubtedly has recruited at a higher level than NU was used to, purely leaving aside those players who didn't pan out/were derailed by injuries. And yet, when you look at recruiting rankings, NU is in the middle of the Big Ten, at best. This is the difficult position Collins finds himself in. He can incrementally improve upon the level of recruit that comes to NU (see Kopp, Nance, Beran), but that is just keeping up with the rest of the league. To take that next step, he either has to have a much higher percentage of recruits pan out/get lucky and avoid injury, or bring in a game-changer like Christie or Baldwin Jr. in 2021.

For now, NU will continue to be in the scrum that is the middle of the Big Ten standings.

Fitz does the same thing but the difference has been the football team has been incredible in close games whereas basketball has been just ok. The crazy football results on turnovers and close games will regress to the mean but they are as well coached as any team in the country.

 

[freewillie07]

Fitz does the same thing but the difference has been the football team has been incredible in close games whereas basketball has been just ok. The crazy football results on turnovers and close games will regress to the mean but they are as well coached as any team in the country.

That's not how mean reversion works. And besides, Akron was an incredibly fluky game -- arguably the exact opposite of the Holiday Bowl. To say nothing of all the close losses I'd rather not revisit from 2013.

As for this current basketball team, perhaps they'd do better down the stretch if the Turner-Taylor-Gaines-Law-Pardon lineup weren't playing for almost the entire second half? Oklahoma is a perfect example of fatigue just being the obvious difference.

 

[torque-cat]

That's not how mean reversion works. And besides, Akron was an incredibly fluky game -- arguably the exact opposite of the Holiday Bowl. To say nothing of all the close losses I'd rather not revisit from 2013.

As for this current basketball team, perhaps they'd do better down the stretch if the Turner-Taylor-Gaines-Law-Pardon lineup weren't playing for almost the entire second half? Oklahoma is a perfect example of fatigue just being the obvious difference.

How does regression to the mean work? We have had an incredible run of timely turnovers and close wins. Some of that is due to random variation in our favor and some is good coaching/play. The variation should regress to mean. But I’m not a statistician so do tell.

 

[mikewebb68]

How does regression to the mean work? We have had an incredible run of timely turnovers and close wins. Some of that is due to random variation in our favor and some is good coaching/play. The variation should regress to mean. But I’m not a statistician so do tell.

But turnovers are not luck. We have some linebacker and lineman who are quite adept at forcing fumbles and and incredible knack for not fumbling the ball ourselves, That, plus being among the least penalized teams in the nation, tell the story. We just don't make a lot of mistakes, and force our opponents into a lot of mistakes. Solid recipe for football success.

 

[torque-cat]

But turnovers are not luck. We have some linebacker and lineman who are quite adept at forcing fumbles and and incredible knack for not fumbling the ball ourselves, That, plus being among the least penalized teams in the nation, tell the story. We just don't make a lot of mistakes, and force our opponents into a lot of mistakes. Solid recipe for football success.

Turnovers are not all luck but they are at least in part and particularly the timing of them. Phil Steele, probably the most respected and informed football prognosticator specifically looks at skewed turnover differential in a season to project which teams will revert back to baseline performance the followIng year. His analysis of actual data showed that turnovers have a lot of luck involved and they do tend to regress to mean which results in wins and losses reverting as well.

 

[mikewebb68]

Turnovers are not all luck but they are at least in part and particularly the timing of them. Phil Steele, probably the most respected and informed football prognosticator specifically looks at skewed turnover differential in a season to project which teams will revert back to baseline performance the followIng year. His analysis of actual data showed that turnovers have a lot of luck involved and they do tend to regress to mean which results in wins and losses reverting as well.

How is our rurnover margin skewed if we are consistently good at that stat?

 

[haywood jahblowme]

this is the first year of not complaining on this board on how physically bad our team is. and people or the media don't view northwestern that way anymore. if anything that is huge for CCC and staff.

 

[torque-cat]

How is our rurnover margin skewed if we are consistently good at that stat?

Both can be true. We are generally good with turnover margin and also both the number and timing of them will have an element of random chance. As will the outcomes of close games, even if there is skill and coaching involved. Most fans, IMO, underestimate the role of chance in sports and then become infuriated when they see variations in outcome game to game and year to year. Health is a major example as well, where teams can be pretty good at controlling some factors (technique, conditioning) but there is a huge element of chance. But at the of the day fans quickly forget and reward or blame teams for the end result. Nearly all of our best team (big ten titles, 10 win seasons) were remarkably healthy. Any of them could have faltered with a couple of key injuries. Similarly some of our mediocre teams may have been excellent with better health (see Persa injury, even Baz or Siemian being fully healthy when they had less obvious but still debilitating injuries). Just my opinion of human behavior and fan emotions.

 

[torque-cat]

Both can be true. We are generally good with turnover margin and also both the number and timing of them will have an element of random chance. As will the outcomes of close games, even if there is skill and coaching involved. Most fans, IMO, underestimate the role of chance in sports and then become infuriated when they see variations in outcome game to game and year to year. Health is a major example as well, where teams can be pretty good at controlling some factors (technique, conditioning) but there is a huge element of chance. But at the of the day fans quickly forget and reward or blame teams for the end result. Nearly all of our best team (big ten titles, 10 win seasons) were remarkably healthy. Any of them could have faltered with a couple of key injuries. Similarly some of our mediocre teams may have been excellent with better health (see Persa injury, even Baz or Siemian being fully healthy when they had less obvious but still debilitating injuries). Just my opinion of human behavior and fan emotions.

Media narratives reflect this too. A shot can rim in and out and lose the game or barely roll in and win the game. The teams played exactly the same and the only difference was a half inch on the final shot. But the narrative of media and fans will quickly parallel the outcome—this team is figuring it out, learning to win, great leadership, coaching etc... or this team doesn’t have what it takes and maybe the coach needs to go....

 

[Gladeskat]

A half inch off on a final shot is not necessarily chance.

 

[ricko6543211]

That's not how mean reversion works. And besides, Akron was an incredibly fluky game -- arguably the exact opposite of the Holiday Bowl. To say nothing of all the close losses I'd rather not revisit from 2013.

As for this current basketball team, perhaps they'd do better down the stretch if the Turner-Taylor-Gaines-Law-Pardon lineup weren't playing for almost the entire second half? Oklahoma is a perfect example of fatigue just being the obvious difference.

To his credit, Collins has improved on this the last couple games. Pardon still played 36 against both Rutgers and Indiana, but aside from that we had Gaines 35 in Rutgers (partly bc Vic Turner Taylor all foul issues), Vic Turner Gaines each 34 vs Indy, no one aside from Pardon Gaines more than 31 vs Rutgers (granted, fouls, so maybe not all CC’s choice but it worked).

Earlier in the year Pardon played as much as 38-39 when not in foul trouble, Vic had 37-38 a handful or more times, and Turner was in the 36-37 range an assortment of times. Vic and Turner were 42 and 41 against Okla in an OT game. I know 2-4 minutes more rest doesn’t sound like that much, but I think it makes a difference down the stretch. Maybe Dererk is okay at 36 but let’s cap him there, and the key wings shouldn’t be more than 34-35. We don’t have great depth but on any given day we need to be able to find someone who is playing well enough to get those guys 5-6 mins or more of rest so they have legs at the finish.

 

[Mr Wickerpark]

Some people have claimed that we are a mediocre team at best.

Mike Webb posted the following Kenpom rankings a week ago:

2001-2: #90
2002-3: #167
2003-4: #100
2004-5: #124
2005-6: #123
2006-7: #136
2007-8: #191
2008-9: #65
2009-10: #84
2010-11: #50
2011-12: #72
2012-13: #132
2013-14: #134
2014-15: #122
2015-16: #68
2016-17: #38
2017-18: #85
2018-19: #60 (current: season not yet complete)

We are currently ranked #56 in Kenpom

That rates us as the 3rd best NU team over the past 18 years. So I guess it depends on how you define mediocre. 56 puts you near the top 15% in the country. That says "good" to me. Not great yet, but still a good team in a great league.

This team is even better if judged on the past 18 NU teams ( and probably a lot better the further back you go). We may even rank as the 2d best team of the past 18 years if a few things go our way.

I am impressed that our expectations are high and that we expect greatness. That in itself shows how far we have come.

Go Cats!

we are mediocre. Unless we fall apart (think curse) we should be a decent NIT team. If we take care of business and win 10 BT games and maybe 2 BTT then we should go dancing, but we have to have a couple signature wins. Gotta beat wisconsin and purdue.
As far as NU history, this team is the best Ive seen, minus the dance year.

 

[EvanstonCat]

we are mediocre. Unless we fall apart (think curse) we should be a decent NIT team. If we take care of business and win 10 BT games and maybe 2 BTT then we should go dancing, but we have to have a couple signature wins. Gotta beat wisconsin and purdue.
As far as NU history, this team is the best Ive seen, minus the dance year.

Yes we are mediocre, in terms of the body of work to date. Need to start getting a few wins against ranked teams and then we'll maybe be something else. At least we don't suck.

 

[Sec_112]

A) Is this year's group a consistently good team? No way!! It's all over the place.

Is it a bad team? Not at all. It's beaten bottom feeders pretty consistently.

Soooooo...

B) Measuring ANY team to NU's history is setting the bar pretty low.

I'd love to arrive at the day when the NU comparison begins with a comparison to the 16-17 team.

In NU terms, that was a great team. However, to the rest of the world, it was an ok team - nothing mind blowing.

How does this team measure up to the 16-17 team? I'll hang up and let the season answer that.

 

[haywood jahblowme]

i college basketball on the men's side there is a fine line and a few plays between being very good and just ok (not just for NU)

the parity is so good that confidence and belief will take you far

 

[hdhntr1]

But turnovers are not luck. We have some linebacker and lineman who are quite adept at forcing fumbles and and incredible knack for not fumbling the ball ourselves, That, plus being among the least penalized teams in the nation, tell the story. We just don't make a lot of mistakes, and force our opponents into a lot of mistakes. Solid recipe for football success.

Do we force our opponents into a lot of mistakes or just allow them to be themselves and make mistakes that we are then able to take advantage of? All while not beating ourselves

 

[hdhntr1]

i college basketball on the men's side there is a fine line and a few plays between being very good and just ok (not just for NU)

the parity is so good that confidence and belief will take you far

And/or lake of injuries and illnesses.

 

[Figrating]

Yeah, mediocre, and that's better than they were, but there's reason to expect more from this team.

 

[pawildcat_rivals209725]

We'll see how the season goes. Any team that can go 10-10 in this season's B1G is a pretty good team. This year's NU squad might easily have gone in the region of 12-6 or 11-7 in last year's B1G.

 

[mikewebb68]

Do we force our opponents into a lot of mistakes or just allow them to be themselves and make mistakes that we are then able to take advantage of? All while not beating ourselves

We force a number of fumbles by pure technique, imo.

 

[IdahoAlum]

Good defense, bad offense, probably going to finish around 8-12 in league, and post-season (NIT) doubtful. Mediocre at best.

 

[mikewebb68]

Good defense, bad offense, probably going to finish around 8-12 in league, and post-season (NIT) doubtful. Mediocre at best.

So you've given up already?

 

[NJCat]

So you've given up already?

Earlier this week you pointed out that Pomeroy has correctly predicted each of NU's loses, and before the game today Pomeroy predicted 8-12. If anything that will decrease with the Illinois win. It isn't being defeatist to feel like NU will finish 8-12 in the B1G just using your observation......

 

[corbi2961]

Yes, based on what I saw today.

 

[torque-cat]

Earlier this week you pointed out that Pomeroy has correctly predicted each of NU's loses, and before the game today Pomeroy predicted 8-12. If anything that will decrease with the Illinois win. It isn't being defeatist to feel like NU will finish 8-12 in the B1G just using your observation......

The NCAA tourney takes 68 teams so depending on definitions, will take a number of mediocre major conference teams--ie teams that are clearly not among the top 20-25 in the country but that on a good day could beat some of those teams which equate to a top 5 or 6 seed.

If betting, I think 8 wins in the big ten (ie 8-12 overall) is the over-under, which is why we are a long-shot to make the tourney.

Today we played hard and pretty well for the first 18 minutes but then the missed shots by us and made shots by Wisc just sapped our confidence. In reality we have been steadily mediocre the whole year--beating who we should, losing to who we should--but today we were a bit worse than normal due to the difference in shooting.

 

[Palindrome_rivals517509]

Media narratives reflect this too. A shot can rim in and out and lose the game or barely roll in and win the game. The teams played exactly the same and the only difference was a half inch on the final shot. But the narrative of media and fans will quickly parallel the outcome—this team is figuring it out, learning to win, great leadership, coaching etc... or this team doesn’t have what it takes and maybe the coach needs to go....

Or maybe the zebras fail to notice an opponent’s hand fiddle-farting around inside the net on a shot attempt at the close of an amazing cliff-hanger of an NCAA tournament game. Not that that would ever happen, just hypothetically speaking. And the screwed team will always show as having lost that game, forever. And thus may be categorized as 1-win “good”, not 2-win “very good.” Labels… arggghhhh.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

Anybody remember when Billy Martin bet a sportwriter $500 to a penny that he could kick his a$$? 50000 to one odds

Billy Martin would bet against our postseason chances. If I were a betting man, so would I

 

[freewillie07]

The NCAA tourney takes 68 teams so depending on definitions, will take a number of mediocre major conference teams--ie teams that are clearly not among the top 20-25 in the country but that on a good day could beat some of those teams which equate to a top 5 or 6 seed.

If betting, I think 8 wins in the big ten (ie 8-12 overall) is the over-under, which is why we are a long-shot to make the tourney.

Today we played hard and pretty well for the first 18 minutes but then the missed shots by us and made shots by Wisc just sapped our confidence. In reality we have been steadily mediocre the whole year--beating who we should, losing to who we should--but today we were a bit worse than normal due to the difference in shooting.

Are we sure that 8-12 in conference and a win in the Big Ten Tournament doesn’t get NU into the NIT this year, given the strength of the league (all teams in Top 100 of KenPom)?

 

[Fitz51]

Are we sure that 8-12 in conference and a win in the Big Ten Tournament doesn’t get NU into the NIT this year, given the strength of the league (all teams in Top 100 of KenPom)?

The NIT is poopy.

 

[freewillie07]

The NIT is poopy.

Ok. It would nevertheless be the second-best postseason appearance in the Chris Collins era.