The race for last

[GatoLouco]

After Kennesaw State won a game they were supposed to, we are tied for last with Washington State. Bring it on Washington State. We will show you who's the least lucky team in the land. Out of 358:

Ranking	Team	Luck rating
351	Green Bay	-0.116
352	Utah	-0.119
353	Utah State	-0.119
354	Illinois State	-0.119
355	Eastern Kentucky	-0.120
356	Dartmouth	-0.123
357	Northwestern	-0.125
358	Washington	-0.125

I believe this also means, for NU:

	As of 02/28	%	Ken Pom predicted	%
Overall record:	13-15	46.43%	16.5-11.5	58.93%
B1G record:	6-13	31.58%	9.5-9.5	50.00%

We have a 76.6% probability of winning against MN.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I think your B1G record % (46.15%) looks optimistic??

 

[Hungry Jack]

Luck is the product of design.

[ducks]

 

[GatoLouco]

I think your B1G record % (46.15%) looks optimistic??

Brain fart

 

[GatoLouco]

Luck is the product of design.

[ducks]

When I was a kid and we played, multiple games and sports, outside, on my street, sometimes there would be someone who, upon losing, would say something like "I would have won if I were not so unlucky".

The collective response to that was always "Being unlucky is falling backwards and breaking your di**".

Wisdom.

 

[NJCat]

Luck is the product of design.

[ducks]

The product of design and what??

Luck =(Design) x (?)

 

[wicker]

A physics question
Is stumping Northwestern grads.
But they know b-ball

E is MC squared.
Mass times acceleration
is what this team needs

 

[Hungry Jack]

The product of design and what??

Luck =(Design) x (?)

The Turk Coefficient

 

[loyolacat]

IF we finish last do we get the ist draft pick??????

 

[CookyMonster_rivals63285]

IF we finish last do we get the ist draft pick??????

You get Miller Kopp back

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Luck = 0.00939 * Design * (Effort ^ 2)

How are we 6-13 in the Big Ten, just like last year?
Our players certainly have improved from last year, right?
We only lost Kopp and Gaines...
The league is not as good as last year, either.

What's our excuse?

 

[TheC]

Luck = 0.00939 * Design * (Effort ^ 2)

How are we 6-13 in the Big Ten, just like last year?
Our players certainly have improved from last year, right?
We only lost Kopp and Gaines...
The league is not as good as last year, either.

What's our excuse?

A purely observational, opinion based answer to this question (stated knowing fully aware that statistics will probably prove me wrong in some of these assessments)...

1. Buie is better - though he has always had the ability to have a breakout game that carried us to a win. I don't think he's done it any more often this year, which would have helped.
2. Nance is slightly better, but no great leap. His inside game still seems to suffer and he still lacks the ability/desire to take over games in crunch time. That was the one improvement I think we really needed to see from him and it didn't happen.
3. Audige, one might argue, has gotten a little worse
4. Beran remains the same - flashes some skill, but then totally disappears
5. Berry - has moments where he looks like he has improved, but they don't last long
6. Young - better, but not by much. Just as crafty scoring in the post, but just as unathletic, which prevents him from taking that next step
7. Greer - definitely better, but not enough to make much of a difference
8. Nicholson - TONS better!! Clearly the best back-up big man in the league now
9. Frosh class - I think it's fair to say Roper and Simmons add more than Berry and Nicholson did last year, but not by a wide margin
10. Williams - Not sure if he adds much more than we lost in Gaines

 

[GatoLouco]

This season:

1) We lost Gaines and Kopp. Consensus was that was a positive. Addition by subtraction
2) We added 2 and 1 transfer freshmen who provided depth. One even ended up in the starting 5
3) We had very limited problems with injuries. Audige to start the season, Nance was out one game. That's probably less than (almost) any other team in the B1G
4) We were, in theory a "veteran" team
5) Our schedule was, pretty much unanimously, seen as easier than last year
6) The conference was, according to analytics, worse than last year
7) We had no disruptions with Covid
8) At best we will win 1 more game

 

[willycat]

A purely observational, opinion based answer to this question (stated knowing fully aware that statistics will probably prove me wrong in some of these assessments)...

1. Buie is better - though he has always had the ability to have a breakout game that carried us to a win. I don't think he's done it any more often this year, which would have helped.
2. Nance is slightly better, but no great leap. His inside game still seems to suffer and he still lacks the ability/desire to take over games in crunch time. That was the one improvement I think we really needed to see from him and it didn't happen.
3. Audige, one might argue, has gotten a little worse
4. Beran remains the same - flashes some skill, but then totally disappears
5. Berry - has moments where he looks like he has improved, but they don't last long
6. Young - better, but not by much. Just as crafty scoring in the post, but just as unathletic, which prevents him from taking that next step
7. Greer - definitely better, but not enough to make much of a difference
8. Nicholson - TONS better!! Clearly the best back-up big man in the league now
9. Frosh class - I think it's fair to say Roper and Simmons add more than Berry and Nicholson did last year, but not by a wide margin
10. Williams - Not sure if he adds much more than we lost in Gaines

#3 is definitely right on the money, while #6 is just telling it like it is. #8 is meant as a joke, right?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Gato & TheC:

The scores say we were more competitive.
Last year we got outscored 1419 - 1279 in 20 games. (71.4 - 64.3 typical loss)
This year we are currently trailing 1568-1522 in 22 Power 5 games. (70.1 - 68.0 loss)

Greer is the most notable improvement.
We got beat 371-429 in 181 minutes last year when he was on the court.
This year we have won 743-717 in his 421 minutes.
Thats a dramatic swing from -58 to +26, while more than doubling his minutes.

But I can't really explain it. The KenPom luck # says it all.

 

[SDakaGordie]

This season:

1) We lost Gaines and Kopp. Consensus was that was a positive. Addition by subtraction
2) We added 2 and 1 transfer freshmen who provided depth. One even ended up in the starting 5
3) We had very limited problems with injuries. Audige to start the season, Nance was out one game. That's probably less than (almost) any other team in the B1G
4) We were, in theory a "veteran" team
5) Our schedule was, pretty much unanimously, seen as easier than last year
6) The conference was, according to analytics, worse than last year
7) We had no disruptions with Covid
8) At best we will win 1 more game

I thought we would win 10 BIG games this year; I attribute some of that prediction error to my NU bias. In reality, we are still just as lacking in relative talent as last year. Other teams’ players improve as well. That being said, we played better than last year as a whole. When I watch other teams, I see NU finishing about equivalent to our relative talent level; maybe one or two games better, but nothing more. I thank and respect our guys, but we need better players. As I’ve said - if we think a new coach can get them, then that could justify a move. Not sure how we know that, though we do know the upcoming recruiting class and lack of pipeline don’t give us much hope.

 

[GatoLouco]

As of 03/04 we are last

Ranking	Team	Luck rating
351	Delaware St.	-0.116
352	Green Bay	-0.116
353	Kennesaw St.	-0.116
354	Utah	-0.119
355	Utah State	-0.119
356	Eastern Kentucky	-0.120
357	Dartmouth	-0.123
358	Northwestern	-0.125

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

So KenPom, who has been universally acclaimed as a genius by everybody who posts here, says that we are the worst team in all of Division 1 in winning games relative to our talent level.

The biggest underperformer in all of NCAA basketball. Relative to our talent.

Interesting.

 

[PURPLECAT88]

So KenPom, who has been universally acclaimed as a genius by everybody who posts here, says that we are the worst team in all of Division 1 in winning games relative to our talent level.

The biggest underperformer in all of NCAA basketball. Relative to our talent.

Interesting.

That's not what KenPom is saying at all. Bottom of the barrel luck-wise means we have the worst record relative to how we've played. The stat makes no comment regarding our talent or our performance relative to it.

But I guess if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

That's not what KenPom is saying at all. Bottom of the barrel luck-wise means we have the worst record relative to how we've played. The stat makes no comment regarding our talent or our performance relative to it.

But I guess if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Maybe you should re-think that comment.

Unless you think there's not a significant correlation between talent and how well a team plays.

We have the worst record in Division 1 relative to our performance on the court.
Our performance on the court is actually worse than our performance relative to our talent, because our coach is bad at using his roster.
Even if you lie to yourself and believe that Collins is "average" at using his roster's talent, you still must conclude that Ken Pom's "luck" rating says we are the worst at winning games relative to our talent.

Its just logic.

 

[CatJones]

As of 03/04 we are last

Let's schedule Dartmouth next year. The place would be packed.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

You get Miller Kopp back

We wouldn’t know how to deploy all that talent.

 

[Vassar69]

So KenPom, who has been universally acclaimed as a genius by everybody who posts here, says that we are the worst team in all of Division 1 in winning games relative to our talent level.

The biggest underperformer in all of NCAA basketball. Relative to our talent.

Interesting.

Not even close lol

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Not even close lol

Only if "exactly right" doesn't qualify as "close."

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Here's how a real coach handles a meltdown...

"I'll take the blame for this. I tried to sub a little bit there at the end, trying to keep some fresh legs, and we lost all of our rhythm offensively. And then we took some real poor shots, didn't defend, didn't guard. Everything that we needed to do to allow them to come back in the game, we did.

"I'm not going to put the blame on these kids. It's my fault... As a coach I learned a valuable lesson there today."

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33424970/my-fault

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

Here's how a real coach handles a meltdown...

"I'll take the blame for this. I tried to sub a little bit there at the end, trying to keep some fresh legs, and we lost all of our rhythm offensively. And then we took some real poor shots, didn't defend, didn't guard. Everything that we needed to do to allow them to come back in the game, we did.

"I'm not going to put the blame on these kids. It's my fault... As a coach I learned a valuable lesson there today."

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33424970/my-fault

Learing a valuable lesson would imply a future change of strategy. Therefore, I don't ever expect CCC (or Fitz) to utter these words.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Learing a valuable lesson would imply a future change of strategy. Therefore, I don't ever expect CCC (or Fitz) to utter these words.

I’m sure they both read the boards and take all these pointers to heart. Thank Goodness.

 

[Vassar69]

Only if "exactly right" doesn't qualify as "close."

KenPom knows nothing about a team’s “talent”. It looks at game adjusted efficiencies and says “based on these efficiencies, this is what the most likely outcome would be”. The Luck attribute is just the deviation from that.

It could actually be luck. It’s probably influenced heavily by intangibles like culture (does this team constantly choke late?), coaching decisions, etc. But it literally has nothing to do with “talent” or lack of talent

 

[Sec_112]

A purely observational, opinion based answer to this question (stated knowing fully aware that statistics will probably prove me wrong in some of these assessments)...

1. Buie is better - though he has always had the ability to have a breakout game that carried us to a win. I don't think he's done it any more often this year, which would have helped.
2. Nance is slightly better, but no great leap. His inside game still seems to suffer and he still lacks the ability/desire to take over games in crunch time. That was the one improvement I think we really needed to see from him and it didn't happen.
3. Audige, one might argue, has gotten a little worse
4. Beran remains the same - flashes some skill, but then totally disappears
5. Berry - has moments where he looks like he has improved, but they don't last long
6. Young - better, but not by much. Just as crafty scoring in the post, but just as unathletic, which prevents him from taking that next step
7. Greer - definitely better, but not enough to make much of a difference
8. Nicholson - TONS better!! Clearly the best back-up big man in the league now
9. Frosh class - I think it's fair to say Roper and Simmons add more than Berry and Nicholson did last year, but not by a wide margin
10. Williams - Not sure if he adds much more than we lost in Gaines

I could pick some of these nits, but in general, I think you're right on target, C. Even generous in some areas.

It also quietly says something that blows my mind that few people seem to acknowledge. There's almost nothing on this team you can depend on game-to-game ... minute-to-minute.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I could pick some of these nits, but in general, I think you're right on target, C. Even generous in some areas.

It also quietly says something that blows my mind that few people seem to acknowledge. There's almost nothing on this team you can depend on game-to-game ... minute-to-minute.

A large part of that is attributable to Collins changing the lineup an average of about 26 times a game.

Change the lineup, change the dynamic, change the result.

If we substituted less, we'd see more consistency (and it would be easier to see what works and what doesn't).

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

KenPom knows nothing about a team’s “talent”. It looks at game adjusted efficiencies and says “based on these efficiencies, this is what the most likely outcome would be”. The Luck attribute is just the deviation from that.

It could actually be luck. It’s probably influenced heavily by intangibles like culture (does this team constantly choke late?), coaching decisions, etc. But it literally has nothing to do with “talent” or lack of talent

KenPom calculates efficiencies for every teams offense and defense, then uses those to predict outcomes of games. These obviously are a reflection of the team's ability (aka TALENT).

The "Luck" is the deviation in winning percentage from that expectation.

Luck = Actual winning Percentage - Expected Winning Percentage.

When Luck is negative, you are losing games you should win, based on your typical performance.

Here are our Luck rankings over the last many years...

Season Ending	Rating	Coach	Overall	Big Ten
2022	358/358	Collins	13-15	6-13
2021	331/357	Collins	9-15	6-13
2020	334/353	Collins	8-23	3-17
2019	348/353	Collins	13-19	4-16
2018	326/351	Collins	15-17	6-12
2017	135/351	Collins	24-12	10-8
2016	178/351	Collins	20-12	8-10
2015	161/351	Collins	15-17	6-12
2014	101/351	Collins	14-19	6-12
2013	241/347	Carmody	13-19	4-14
2012	57/345	Carmody	19-14	8-10
2011	157/345	Carmody	20-14	7-11
2010	167/347	Carmody	20-14	7-11

When you are ranked above the median, you are winning more games than expected based on your team's ability. Logic would strongly suggest that it isn't really the players because rosters change every year.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

KenPom calculates efficiencies for every teams offense and defense, then uses those to predict outcomes of games. These obviously are a reflection of the team's ability (aka TALENT).

The "Luck" is the deviation in winning percentage from that expectation.

Luck = Actual winning Percentage - Expected Winning Percentage.

When Luck is negative, you are losing games you should win, based on your typical performance.

Here are our Luck rankings over the last many years...

Season Ending	Rating	Coach	Overall	Big Ten
2022	358/358	Collins	13-15	6-13
2021	331/357	Collins	9-15	6-13
2020	334/353	Collins	8-23	3-17
2019	348/353	Collins	13-19	4-16
2018	326/351	Collins	15-17	6-12
2017	135/351	Collins	24-12	10-8
2016	178/351	Collins	20-12	8-10
2015	161/351	Collins	15-17	6-12
2014	101/351	Collins	14-19	6-12
2013	241/347	Carmody	13-19	4-14
2012	57/345	Carmody	19-14	8-10
2011	157/345	Carmody	20-14	7-11
2010	167/347	Carmody	20-14	7-11

When you are ranked above the median, you are winning more games than expected based on your team's ability. Logic would strongly suggest that it isn't really the players because rosters change every year.

Sure

 

[hoosboot]

A large part of that is attributable to Collins changing the lineup an average of about 26 times a game.

Change the lineup, change the dynamic, change the result.

If we substituted less, we'd see more consistency (and it would be easier to see what works and what doesn't).

Any sense of what the average number of lineup changes is for P5 teams? I'm assuming that this definition means that a single lineup change may include multiple players coming in and out.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

KenPom calculates efficiencies for every teams offense and defense, then uses those to predict outcomes of games. These obviously are a reflection of the team's ability (aka TALENT).

The "Luck" is the deviation in winning percentage from that expectation.

Luck = Actual winning Percentage - Expected Winning Percentage.

When Luck is negative, you are losing games you should win, based on your typical performance.

Here are our Luck rankings over the last many years...

Season Ending	Rating	Coach	Overall	Big Ten
2022	358/358	Collins	13-15	6-13
2021	331/357	Collins	9-15	6-13
2020	334/353	Collins	8-23	3-17
2019	348/353	Collins	13-19	4-16
2018	326/351	Collins	15-17	6-12
2017	135/351	Collins	24-12	10-8
2016	178/351	Collins	20-12	8-10
2015	161/351	Collins	15-17	6-12
2014	101/351	Collins	14-19	6-12
2013	241/347	Carmody	13-19	4-14
2012	57/345	Carmody	19-14	8-10
2011	157/345	Carmody	20-14	7-11
2010	167/347	Carmody	20-14	7-11

When you are ranked above the median, you are winning more games than expected based on your team's ability. Logic would strongly suggest that it isn't really the players because rosters change every year.

“Talent” and “playing ability” are very very very very not the same thing. Ken Pom, or literally any major statistical rating/prediction system, is exclusively the latter.

 

[Sec_112]

A large part of that is attributable to Collins changing the lineup an average of about 26 times a game.

Change the lineup, change the dynamic, change the result.

If we substituted less, we'd see more consistency (and it would be easier to see what works and what doesn't).

So you're saying you don't like Collins. Do I understand that correctly?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

“Talent” and “playing ability” are very very very very not the same thing. Ken Pom, or literally any major statistical rating/prediction system, is exclusively the latter.

By my definition, they are basically the same thing.
Talent is not just physical.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

So you're saying you don't like Collins. Do I understand that correctly?

I'm saying he isn't a good coach.
I don't know the man personally.

I guess I'd say "I don't like Chris Collins being the head coach of Northwestern's basketball team."

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Any sense of what the average number of lineup changes is for P5 teams? I'm assuming that this definition means that a single lineup change may include multiple players coming in and out.

Sorry, hoosboot, I don't know the average number of lineup changes for P5 teams.
Nobody provides that information (for free) on the internet, as far as I can tell.
Nor can I find stuff like "This lineup has played 35% of the available minutes for the Iowa Hawkeyes."

Yes, when I refer to lineup changes, I'm talking about when we put one or more guys into the game at any specific point in time (on the game clock).
So if we sub one guy out, shoot a free throw, then sub another guy out, that counts as one lineup change, because the clock was stopped.
Free throws are credited to the lineup that was on the court when the foul was committed.

 

[Sec_112]

I'm saying he isn't a good coach.
I don't know the man personally.

I guess I'd say "I don't like Chris Collins being the head coach of Northwestern's basketball team."

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[hoosboot]

Sorry, hoosboot, I don't know the average number of lineup changes for P5 teams.
Nobody provides that information (for free) on the internet, as far as I can tell.
Nor can I find stuff like "This lineup has played 35% of the available minutes for the Iowa Hawkeyes."

Yes, when I refer to lineup changes, I'm talking about when we put one or more guys into the game at any specific point in time (on the game clock).
So if we sub one guy out, shoot a free throw, then sub another guy out, that counts as one lineup change, because the clock was stopped.
Free throws are credited to the lineup that was on the court when the foul was committed.

Got it. I figured that was a big ask, but thanks for clarifying on the methodology. It certainly seems like it would really hard to get really good rhythm with a lineup change every 90 seconds. I'm sure the changes aren't evenly spread out like that, but even if the reality is every three minutes it's not easy to find rhythm.