Ranking Every Kentucky Team Since 1948 (Revised)

[Blueism]

Based on feedback that era penalty was too strong and postseason accomplishments were not factored heavily enough, I present a revised version of the algorithm.

1. 1996
2. 2012
3. 2015
4. 1978
5. 1948
6. 1997
7. 1949
8. 1998
9. 1951
10. 1993
11. 1966
12. 1975
13. 1984
14. 1954
15. 2010
16. 2003
17. 1995
18. 1958
19. 1986
20. 2017
21. 1970
22. 1947
23. 2004
24. 2011
25. 1977
26. 1980
27. 1952
28. 1992
29. 1988
30. 2005
31. 2019
32. 2001
33. 1962
34. 1999
35. 1968
36. 1994
37. 2022
38. 1971
39. 1981
40. 1991
41. 2014
42. 2016
43. 2020
44. 1964
45. 1969
46. 1983
47. 2025
48. 1950
49. 1955
50. 1957
51. 1959
52. 1946
53. 2024
54. 2002
55. 2000
56. 2018
57. 1972
58. 1973
59. 1945
60. 1982
61. 1956
62. 2023
63. 1961
64. 1976
65. 1933
66. 1987
67. 2006
68. 2007
69. 1942
70. 1934
71. 1960
72. 2008
73. 1979
74. 2013
75. 1985
76. 2009
77. 1931
78. 1963
79. 1990
80. 1965
81. 1967
82. 1974
83. 1989
84. 2021
    
    
    Is it better? What do we think?

 

[AdolphRupp'sBigHairyAss]

If anyone wants to know more about the assumptions I used to build the algorithm, I'll be happy to expand on that. My algorithm assumes a reasonably healthy roster, so Derek Anderson is active in 1997, for example. There are also era penalties --- I wanted to respect the past, while acknowledging the differences in competition, training, skill, etc. for a team in, say the 1940s versus a team in 2016. For now, I'd love to hear how badly you think the results came out.


THE GOATS

1. 1996
2. 2012
3. 2015
4. 1978
5. 1997
   ELITE, ELITE, ELITE
6. 1998
7. 2010
8. 1993
9. 2003
10. 1995
11. 1975
12. 1948
13. 1949
14. 1984
15. 1966
16. 1986
17. 1951
18. 2017
19. 1954
20. 1970
    GREAT, BUT NOT ELITE
21. 2004
22. 1977
23. 1980
24. 1992
25. 2005
26. 2019
    VERY GOOD, BUT FLAWED
27. 1988
28. 2001
29. 2011
30. 1999
31. 2022
32. 1994
33. 1981
34. 1968
35. 2020
36. 1983
37. 2025
38. 1962
39. 2016
40. 1969
41. 1958
42. 1952
43. 1971
44. 2024
45. 1964
    PRETTY GOOD, SERIOUS FLAWS
46. 2002
47. 1957
48. 1959
49. 2000
50. 2018
51. 1955
52. 1972
53. 1973
54. 2014
55. 1950
    UNDERWHELMING, BELOW THE STANDARD
56. 1982
57. 2023
58. 1976
59. 1956
60. 2007
61. 2006
62. 1987
63. 1961
    TROUBLE IN PARADISE
64. 2008
65. 1960
66. 2013
67. 1985
68. 2009
69. 1979
70. 1990
71. 1963
72. 1974
73. 1965
74. 1967
75. 1989
76. 2021

Well, hell’s bells, Blueism, you damned idiot, it’s Adolph Rupp, the Baron of the Bluegrass, half-lit on bourbon and mad as a hornet on this here message board! I been tippin’ the bottle today, and then I see your sorry-*** “best UK teams” list from ‘48 to now, and not one of my championship squads in your initial top five? Boy, you’re dumber’n a box of rocks with a brain smaller’n a gnat’s pecker! Skippin’ my Wildcats? That’s a kick in the nuts.

My ‘48, ‘49, ‘51, and ‘58 title teams would’ve f'd up them modern sissy squads you’re falling over for. My ‘48 crew—Groza and Beard—tore through fools like a twister through a trailer park, scorin’ like hellfire and lockin’ down tighter’n a virgin’s chastity belt. And ‘58? Cox and Hatton clawed their way to that trophy, meaner’n a junkyard dog with a burr up its ***. Your fancy-*** new teams, with their prissy dunks and one-and-done horseshit, would’ve been ***-whupped till they crawled home cryin’, pukin’ up their guts.

And don’t get me started on coaches! Ain’t no UK coach ever had my fire, my brains, or my pure damn magic on the hardwood. I built this program, you knucklehead, with four titles and a swagger bigger’n my big hairy ***! Somebody get me another cigar—I’m riled up!

 

[UKBB4Ever]

The closet to the top you get 1978 the better!!

 

[AdolphRupp'sBigHairyAss]

Well Blueism, I'm back now with my hat in hand, so to speak. I reckon I got a mite carried away last time, slingin’ cusses like a drunk sailor. Maybe that brown water was tasting a little too sweet today. I ain’t too proud to admit I came off like a jackass. So, I’m sorry, son. That ain’t the gentlemanly way, even if I’m a ornery cuss.

But let me set one thing straight: I still think my ‘48-‘49 squad, led by that mean motherf'er Alex Groza, would’ve run off any team put in front of ‘em, no question. That boy was a terror—tougher’n rawhide, scorin’ like a house afire, and rippin’ rebounds like he owned the damn paint. My Cats back then were battle-ready, forged in fire, not like these distracted kids today, fiddlin’ with their phones and fussin’ over their hair. My boys were grizzled, hungry, and meaner’n a pack of wild dogs—ready to chew up and spit out anybody. I stand by that, Blueism, but I’ll keep the cussin’ down this time. Now, where’s my cigar? Let’s keep this civil.

 

[Blueism]

The closet to the top you get 1978 the better!!

Your feedback actually helped me reconsider the algorithm. As you now see, the updated version has 1978 closer to the top. They didn't move into the top three, but they are within points of the teams above them.

 

[Littlecreek10]

Well Blueism, I'm back now with my hat in hand, so to speak. I reckon I got a mite carried away last time, slingin’ cusses like a drunk sailor. Maybe that brown water was tasting a little too sweet today. I ain’t too proud to admit I came off like a jackass. So, I’m sorry, son. That ain’t the gentlemanly way, even if I’m a ornery cuss.

But let me set one thing straight: I still think my ‘48-‘49 squad, led by that mean motherf'er Alex Groza, would’ve run off any team put in front of ‘em, no question. That boy was a terror—tougher’n rawhide, scorin’ like a house afire, and rippin’ rebounds like he owned the damn paint. My Cats back then were battle-ready, forged in fire, not like these distracted kids today, fiddlin’ with their phones and fussin’ over their hair. My boys were grizzled, hungry, and meaner’n a pack of wild dogs—ready to chew up and spit out anybody. I stand by that, Blueism, but I’ll keep the cussin’ down this time. Now, where’s my cigar? Let’s keep this civil.

The 48 team actually won the Olympics, didn't they?

 

[AdolphRupp'sBigHairyAss]

The 48 team actually won the Olympics, didn't they?

Yes they did and thank you for reminding this old codger of those sweet memories! 8-0 and we dismantled the French by over 40 points in the finals!

The U.S. team was built ‘round my Cats, with some AAU fellas thrown in, and they slapped the title of “head coach” on this Bud Browning fella with yours truly as a lowly assistant. That brain-dead jackass couldn’t coach a dog to piss on a tree! Bud was dumber’n a bag of busted doorknobs, standin’ there with his thumb up his *** while I drew every play and hollered orders till my throat was raw. I was the real head coach, and anybody sayin’ different can kiss my big hairy ***.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

Based on feedback that era penalty was too strong and postseason accomplishments were not factored heavily enough, I present a revised version of the algorithm.

1. 1996
2. 2012
3. 2015
4. 1978
5. 1948
6. 1997
7. 1949
8. 1998
9. 1951
10. 1993
11. 1966
12. 1975
13. 1984
14. 1954
15. 2010
16. 2003
17. 1995
18. 1958
19. 1986
20. 2017
21. 1970
22. 1947
23. 2004
24. 2011
25. 1977
26. 1980
27. 1952
28. 1992
29. 1988
30. 2005
31. 2019
32. 2001
33. 1962
34. 1999
35. 1968
36. 1994
37. 2022
38. 1971
39. 1981
40. 1991
41. 2014
42. 2016
43. 2020
44. 1964
45. 1969
46. 1983
47. 2025
48. 1950
49. 1955
50. 1957
51. 1959
52. 1946
53. 2024
54. 2002
55. 2000
56. 2018
57. 1972
58. 1973
59. 1945
60. 1982
61. 1956
62. 2023
63. 1961
64. 1976
65. 1933
66. 1987
67. 2006
68. 2007
69. 1942
70. 1934
71. 1960
72. 2008
73. 1979
74. 2013
75. 1985
76. 2009
77. 1931
78. 1963
79. 1990
80. 1965
81. 1967
82. 1974
83. 1989
84. 2021
    
    
    Is it better? What do we think?

It has definitely improved imo. We may not be 100% in agreement but you've done good work and your continued flexibility and openness to opinion is admirable.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

Yes they did and thank you for reminding this old codger of those sweet memories! 8-0 and we dismantled the French by over 40 points in the finals!

The U.S. team was built ‘round my Cats, with some AAU fellas thrown in, and they slapped the title of “head coach” on this Bud Browning fella with yours truly as a lowly assistant. That brain-dead jackass couldn’t coach a dog to piss on a tree! Bud was dumber’n a bag of busted doorknobs, standin’ there with his thumb up his *** while I drew every play and hollered orders till my throat was raw. I was the real head coach, and anybody sayin’ different can kiss my big hairy ***.

I’m all about 1978 because I witnessed them and everyone after them too.

I have not seen a UK team I thought was better.

I did not witness the 1948 team.

But I have studied them. I would not bet against the ‘48 team against any UK team.

And ‘48 was coached by the greatest college coach ever.

Can’t go against that either.

 

[paulcalhoun_rivals397471]

I get your point. ‘78 was not plow horse basketball Tubby style but it wasn’t race horse basketball like ‘96 either.

It was a different game. Played inside out.

They scored a lot because of efficiency. Not pace.

That’s why the rules they were play under would be key.

Under the ‘78 rules ‘96 wouldn’t have a chance.

While I agree '78 was not as "fastpaste" as 1996 84.2 ppg with no 3 pt line and no shot clock is pretty solid.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

The 1978 team played two ranked teams in the regular season, winning those particular games by an average of 6 points. The 1996 team played four ranked teams in the regular season, winning those particular games by an average of close to 12 points a game. Both teams played good teams in the NCAA tournament and the 1996 was significantly more dominant there as well. No shade at an outstanding 1978 team, but to say that the 1996 squad played "lesser competition" is just false.

Thanks. I appreciate the detailed follow up to the other guy.

And UK was number 2 for most of the season because they lost 1 game to the number 1 team most of the season, UMASS, early on.

Both teams played 5 ranked teams n the ncaa.

 

[Artlaibesghost]

1978 would beat 1996 if played under the rules of 1978.

If played under the rules of 1996 it would need to be a 7 game series and it would most likely go 7 games.

I think 1978 would win the series too.

Not a chance in hell. 96 would roll 78 team? and anyone else for that matter

 

[UKBB4Ever]

Not a chance in hell. 96 would roll 78 team? and anyone else for that matter

Not a chance in hell. 96 would roll 78 team? and anyone else for that matter

Why didn't they then?

 

[davtay]

Why didn't they then?

I love them, but the "96 team didn't roll a one man Syracuse team. And even then it took a record setting (at the time) behind the arc from Tony Delk to beat them. So...I am not convinced that they would roll the '78 team.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

I love them, but the "96 team didn't roll a one man Syracuse team. And even then it took a record setting (at the time) behind the arc from Tony Delk to beat them. So...I am not convinced that they would roll the '78 team.

I love them too.

One of my favorite teams.

‘78 is just more favorite.

 

[Littlecreek10]

I love them too.

One of my favorite teams.

‘78 is just more favorite.

Younger people who didn’t get to watch the 78 team don’t realize how good they really were. Jack Givens is one of the best players in school history, Robey and Phillips were the best big man combo in history (better than Bowie and Turpin), and Macy was the best pure point guard. They were basketball smart too. Younger folks tend to get caught up in what someone did in the pros (none I mentioned did a whole lot), but it’s what they did while at Kentucky that means the most to me.

 

[Blueism]

Younger people who didn’t get to watch the 78 team don’t realize how good they really were. Jack Givens is one of the best players in school history, Robey and Phillips were the best big man combo in history (better than Bowie and Turpin), and Macy was the best pure point guard. They were basketball smart too. Younger folks tend to get caught up in what someone did in the pros (none I mentioned did a whole lot), but it’s what they did while at Kentucky that means the most to me.

I frequently rewatch games from 1975-1978. For the 1978 season, I have the Notre Dame and UNLV regular season games, as well as Florida State, Miami OH, Michigan State, Arkansas and Duke tournament games that I rewatch time to time and I think '78 is an amazing team. Certainly top 5 in school history for me.

 

[Artlaibesghost]

Why didn't they then?

From the Natty banner hanging for that year,It looks like they did.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

From the Natty banner hanging for that year,It looks like they did.

You claimed they rolled everyone and would roll every other team.

They didn’t.

7 others won an NC here. Doesn’t mean they rolled everyone.

Maybe ‘48 can make that claim?

 

[Blueism]

You claimed they rolled everyone and would roll every other team.

They didn’t.

7 others won an NC here. Doesn’t mean they rolled everyone.

Maybe ‘48 can make that claim?

Yep, anyone not ranking 1948 as the greatest team in school history is applying some type of era penalty. They have the highest average win margin of any championship team in school history. They averaged a 15.7ppg win margin in the NCAA tournament. They won our first, and probably most significant, championship. They won a gold medal, something no other championship team in school history can claim. They won 36 games, which is insane for a team in the 1940s. They won the SEC Championship, going undefeated in the conference and capped it off with an SEC Tournament championship.

 

[Aike]

1982 jumps out as too low. Disappointing tournament upset, but that was a solid team all year who finished first in the SEC.

Good work, though.

 

[Blueism]

1982 jumps out as too low. Disappointing tournament upset, but that was a solid team all year who finished first in the SEC.

Good work, though.

They were a #6 seed in the NCAA tournament. They didn't win the SEC --- they were Co-SEC champions with a Tennessee team that was unranked by the end of the season. They didn't win an SEC tournament championship. They lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament (Round of 48) to Middle Tennessee. They were #15 in the final AP rankings. They won 73.3% of their games, which means they would have likely been a double digit loss team if they had played the amount of games that more recent teams play. They had a win margin of only 6.87 ppg, which is something I factored for every team. They were a middling team at best according to all the metrics I have for them. Something I acknowledged is that I didn't watch them live --- is there some kind of metric or other factor I'm missing about the 1982 team?

 

[Aike]

They were a #6 seed in the NCAA tournament. They didn't win the SEC --- they were Co-SEC champions with a Tennessee team that was unranked by the end of the season. They didn't win an SEC tournament championship. They lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament (Round of 48) to Middle Tennessee. They were #15 in the final AP rankings. They won 73.3% of their games, which means they would have likely been a double digit loss team if they had played the amount of games that more recent teams play. They had a win margin of only 6.87 ppg, which is something I factored for every team. They were a middling team at best according to all the metrics I have for them. Something I acknowledged is that I didn't watch them live --- is there some kind of metric or other factor I'm missing about the 1982 team?

4-2 vs ranked teams. Were still top 10 in late February. Like I said, first in SEC (even if tied).

Lost in SEC Tourney Final. On the bad side it was at Rupp, but it was a 2 point loss to a ranked Bama team we’d already beaten twice.

All regular season losses were on the road ( road has always been tough in the SEC). Non-SEC loss in regular season was at number 1 UNC.

Not shocked by scoring margin. Kind of boring style. Shot well. Shot a lot of free throws.

Not saying they were an all-time team. Definitely think they are more mid-tier rather than near the bottom.

 

[Blueism]

4-2 vs ranked teams. Were still top 10 in late February. Like I said, first in SEC (even if tied).

Lost in SEC Tourney Final. On the bad side it was at Rupp, but it was a 2 point loss to a ranked Bama team we’d already beaten twice.

All regular season losses were on the road ( road has always been tough in the SEC). Non-SEC loss in regular season was at number 1 UNC.

Not shocked by scoring margin. Kind of boring style. Shot well. Shot a lot of free throws.

Not saying they were an all-time team. Definitely think they are more mid-tier rather than near the bottom.

I actually really appreciate the feedback. I, by no means, consider my algorithm to be perfected and scrutiny helps ensure I'm factoring all the data properly. However, I'm questioning where you're coming to the conclusion they are near the bottom. If you're concluding that by looking at where they are literally ranked in the list itself, that's not a good way to measure this. You have to consider that most Kentucky teams are far above average in the broader scale of college basketball teams. Therefore, most "average to above average" type of teams are going to be far lower in the rankings of Kentucky teams. Let's take a look at the teams that surround the 1982 Kentucky Wildcats in the revised rankings.



2000 - 23-10, 5-Seed, Final AP #19, Round of 32, Avg Margin 6.24
2018 - 26-11, 5-Seed, Final AP #18, Sweet Sixteen, Avg Margin 6.52
1972 - 21-7, Final AP #18, Elite Eight, Avg Margin 7.79, Light Era Penalty
1973 - 20-8, Final AP #17, Elite Eight, Avg Margin 8.68, Light Era Penalty
1945 - 22-4, Elite Eight, Avg Margin 16.3, Slightly Heavy Era Penalty
1982 - 22-8, 6-Seed, Lost in R48, Avg Margin 6.87
1956 - 20-6, Final AP #9, Made Elite Eight, Avg Margin 15.19, Moderate Era Penalty
2023 - 22-12, 6-Seed, Avg Margin 6.73
1961 - 19-9, Made Elite Eight, Very Moderate Era Penalty
1976 - 20-10, Won NIT Title, Didn't have Robey for much of the year due to injury


It seems to me that a closer review of where they are in the list shows they are being treated as an above average team in college basketball. Without era penalties, several of these teams would be above them. What are your thoughts?

 

[Aike]

I actually really appreciate the feedback. I, by no means, consider my algorithm to be perfected and scrutiny helps ensure I'm factoring all the data properly. However, I'm questioning where you're coming to the conclusion they are near the bottom. If you're concluding that by looking at where they are literally ranked in the list itself, that's not a good way to measure this. You have to consider that most Kentucky teams are far above average in the broader scale of college basketball teams. Therefore, most "average to above average" type of teams are going to be far lower in the rankings of Kentucky teams. Let's take a look at the teams that surround the 1982 Kentucky Wildcats in the revised rankings.



2000 - 23-10, 5-Seed, Final AP #19, Round of 32, Avg Margin 6.24
2018 - 26-11, 5-Seed, Final AP #18, Sweet Sixteen, Avg Margin 6.52
1972 - 21-7, Final AP #18, Elite Eight, Avg Margin 7.79, Light Era Penalty
1973 - 20-8, Final AP #17, Elite Eight, Avg Margin 8.68, Light Era Penalty
1945 - 22-4, Elite Eight, Avg Margin 16.3, Slightly Heavy Era Penalty
1982 - 22-8, 6-Seed, Lost in R48, Avg Margin 6.87
1956 - 20-6, Final AP #9, Made Elite Eight, Avg Margin 15.19, Moderate Era Penalty
2023 - 22-12, 6-Seed, Avg Margin 6.73
1961 - 19-9, Made Elite Eight, Very Moderate Era Penalty
1976 - 20-10, Won NIT Title, Didn't have Robey for much of the year due to injury


It seems to me that a closer review of where they are in the list shows they are being treated as an above average team in college basketball. Without era penalties, several of these teams would be above them. What are your thoughts?

I won’t comment on teams I never watched.

I was responding to your initial post where you had them listed as “below the standard.” After that you dropped them 4 spots.

I would just bump them up to “pretty good.”

Not looking to pick your list apart line by line. It appears pretty reasonable. I would probably have 1982 more in the range of 2002.

Not sure why they were a 6 seed. Tourney was seeded more inconsistently in those days, as I recall.

 

[Vek96]

Pretty solid, but, definitely recency biased. 1966 should be top 5, and 1993 should be top 7.

 

[Vek96]

Not a chance in hell. 96 would roll 78 team? and anyone else for that matter

No they wouldn’t. “78 team would go toe to toe with the ’96 team. If they played ten times, they would probably split.

 

[Blueism]

I won’t comment on teams I never watched.

I was responding to your initial post where you had them listed as “below the standard.” After that you dropped them 4 spots.

I would just bump them up to “pretty good.”

Not looking to pick your list apart line by line. It appears pretty reasonable. I would probably have 1982 more in the range of 2002.

Not sure why they were a 6 seed. Tourney was seeded more inconsistently in those days, as I recall.

2002 is only six spots ahead of 1982. I'd say the model works pretty well if we're scrutinizing it over six spots in a greater than 75 team sample. By the way, 2002 team was top 10 in KenPom, a very strong 4 seed, made a Sweet 16 and had a point and a half better win margin. I'm not dogging the 1982 team as they were a good team, just not great.

 

[Blueism]

Pretty solid, but, definitely recency biased. 1966 should be top 5, and 1993 should be top 7.

Read the opening statement. I acknowledged from the beginning that my algorithm factors era differences. I'd argue it factors them pretty softly, considering how different the sport was in the 1940s or 1950s, or even the 1960s or 1970s.

 

[Vek96]

Read the opening statement. I acknowledged from the beginning that my algorithm factors era differences. I'd argue it factors them pretty softly, considering how different the sport was in the 1940s or 1950s, or even the 1960s or 1970s.

Honestly, I’m just nitpicking. I thought your list was spot on.

Extremely cool thread in my opinion. Cool stuff. I wish there were more thought provoking stuff like this.

 

[Aike]

2002 is only six spots ahead of 1982. I'd say the model works pretty well if we're scrutinizing it over six spots in a greater than 75 team sample. By the way, 2002 team was top 10 in KenPom, a very strong 4 seed, made a Sweet 16 and had a point and a half better win margin. I'm not dogging the 1982 team as they were a good team, just not great.

I objected to your characterization as below standard. Obviously the final game was below standard. But the team was decent and the season was decent. Remember it well. Already said I’m not going to nitpick my way through your whole list.

Congratulations on developing a model that gets everything exactly right.

Joking, of course.

 

[Blueism]

I objected to your characterization as below standard. Obviously the final game was below standard. But the team was decent and the season was decent. Remember it well. Already said I’m not going to nitpick my way through your whole list.

Congratulations on developing a model that gets everything exactly right.

Joking, of course.

No model gets everything exactly right and neither does mine. The characterizations didn't come from the model. Those were my decision to draw lines around the pools of data to group them. As I said, anyone is welcome to critique aspects of the model --- which has already led to revisions. Some of the people who provided criticisms did a wonderful job in explaining the error in the methodology, which is what allowed me to revise. In your case, you're pointing out that you feel the 1982 team was rated too low and I appreciate that feedback. However, the metrics, team record, conference accolades, postseason performance, poll rankings, margin of victory, tournament seed, etc do not indicate they've been undervalued to me. This project is very important to me and I'm willing to provide the team comparison data that I used to parse all of this. I'd be open to seeing you develop your own methodology that can accurately rank over 75 teams across entirely different eras and compare notes. I don't have it all figured out --- not even KenPom, Tarvik or anyone else does --- but this was an honest effort for a larger project that I lightly expanded on in another post. Here's the deal though --- my methodology, although imperfect, allows me to take any random team that you provide me --- say for example 1991 Duke, and I can run it through my system and have a reasonable ranking based on the full body of work. If you can help me improve it, I'll be happy for it.

 

[Littlecreek10]

Nice work and I appreciate the effort and time you put in it. A true Kentucky fan.

 

[Aike]

No model gets everything exactly right and neither does mine. The characterizations didn't come from the model. Those were my decision to draw lines around the pools of data to group them. As I said, anyone is welcome to critique aspects of the model --- which has already led to revisions. Some of the people who provided criticisms did a wonderful job in explaining the error in the methodology, which is what allowed me to revise. In your case, you're pointing out that you feel the 1982 team was rated too low and I appreciate that feedback. However, the metrics, team record, conference accolades, postseason performance, poll rankings, margin of victory, tournament seed, etc do not indicate they've been undervalued to me. This project is very important to me and I'm willing to provide the team comparison data that I used to parse all of this. I'd be open to seeing you develop your own methodology that can accurately rank over 75 teams across entirely different eras and compare notes. I don't have it all figured out --- not even KenPom, Tarvik or anyone else does --- but this was an honest effort for a larger project that I lightly expanded on in another post. Here's the deal though --- my methodology, although imperfect, allows me to take any random team that you provide me --- say for example 1991 Duke, and I can run it through my system and have a reasonable ranking based on the full body of work. If you can help me improve it, I'll be happy for it.

Guess I should just stay in my lane. Congratulations again on your impressive efforts.

 

[Blueism]

Guess I should just stay in my lane. Congratulations again on your impressive efforts.

Don't get the reply based on my comment, my brother. No harm intended on my end. Anyhow, thanks for your feedback.

 

[Aike]

Don't get the reply based on my comment, my brother. No harm intended on my end. Anyhow, thanks for your feedback.

You advised me to build my own model if I thought I could do it better (paraphrasing).

You said none of the feedback I gave helped, although I pointed to winning record vs. ranked teams, still being ranked in the top 10 late in the season, winning the SEC regular season, losing by only 2 in the SEC tourney final vs. a ranked team we’d already beaten twice, and the fact that it was a good shooting team that got to the line.

I thought it was within reason that one or more of these data points might have been helpful. They weren’t feelings. But yeah, from a feelings standpoint I did actually watch them play and had some thoughts about how they compared to other teams that I saw play.

Like I said, I’ll just stay in my lane and leave the math to the big boys like you and torvik.

 

[Blueism]

You advised me to build my own model if I thought I could do it better (paraphrasing).

You said none of the feedback I gave helped, although I pointed to winning record vs. ranked teams, still being ranked in the top 10 late in the season, winning the SEC regular season, losing by only 2 in the SEC tourney final vs. a ranked team we’d already beaten twice, and the fact that it was a good shooting team that got to the line.

I thought it was within reason that one or more of these data points might have been helpful. They weren’t feelings. But yeah, from a feelings standpoint I did actually watch them play and had some thoughts about how they compared to other teams that I saw play.

Like I said, I’ll just stay in my lane and leave the math to the big boys like you and torvik.

Well, I can definitely see why it would seem offensive if you thought the reason I said to try building a model was to denigrate. It wasn't. My point was to say that it's one thing to look at a group of teams and say, "That seems high or low to me" and it's another to build an algorithm. Your feedback was helpful and I reviewed it. The factors you cited were already factored in --- perhaps I should have done a much better job explaining that. You said that you only evaluate teams you saw, which I can completely understand. However, this is an algorithm that encompasses teams that none of us saw. I don't want to be too repetitive here, but I'll say again, my methodology isn't perfected, and I'll be continuing to revise. There's no need for passive aggressive allusions to me thinking my process is perfect, because that doesn't match my view on the data. I'm very aware it is flawed and I'm still looking to find those flaws. The idea behind saying I'll share the data is to allow you to take a look and provide insights and, yes, even build your own algorithm and compare notes. After all, statisticians, data analysts, data scientists, etc. --- no matter who you refer to --- are all copycats to some degree. They take things that work and implement and that's what I'm trying to do as well --- be precise as I can. I apologize for any offense caused --- that's not what I'm about. I'll again offer, if you want, to provide the full team comparison sheet that I built. It includes a pretty ridiculous amount of information that I put together from many sources and it includes every Kentucky team since the beginning.