Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

2026-2027 MBB computer projections thread

Sigmapolis

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
27,854
44,401
113
Waukee
Time for the new one!

The Torvik "rostercast" has the "completed" roster (more on that in a moment here) at #10.

1776287096386.png

The Cyclones finished last year #7 on Torvik, for comparison, so similar in overall team quality.

Sounds like the modal outcome is Milan stays in the NBA. But hypothetically...

1776287159252.png

Pushes you up from #10 to #7 through more efficient offense even if the defense is (slightly) worse.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Cyhig, ChickenNuggetMan, dahliaclone and 6 others
Sigmapolis said:
Time for the new one!

The Torvik "rostercast" has the "completed" roster (more on that in a moment here) at #10.

View attachment 170397

The Cyclones finished last year #7 on Torvik, for comparison, so similar in overall team quality.

Sounds like the modal outcome is Milan stays in the NBA. But hypothetically...

View attachment 170399

Pushes you up from #10 to #7 through more efficient offense even if the defense is (slightly) worse.
Click to expand...

As much as I like Torvik data, I'd appreciate an update in a week or two. Some of these other schools are really starting to beef up their rosters. would think Iowa State will fall
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: aobie, ChickenNuggetMan, conmebol and 5 others
@not-the-manager

I am planning on it. It is SUPER early right now.

Rosters are going to change, and Torvik is going to tweak the model.

@Acer88

I think we all know to take this model with a grain of salt. I think it shows high-level potential for the team next year, but the "eye test" from the media and basketball people were already saying it.

Pleta is *in* the model before you add Prather, so he's in there somewhere.

1776288800249.png

I am sure it will work out as it is updated.

@nrg4isu

1776288845035.png
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: cyclones500, Acer88, dahliaclone and 3 others
CloneFan65 said:
I know it’s early, but ISU could be loaded in 2027/28. Toure, Batemon, Johnson, Wiggins in the backcourt. And Pleta, Singleton, DRK up front, all with another full season under their belts. The future is bright!
Click to expand...
I don't know if we'll ever have the shear talent/depth that teams like Michigan and Arizona had this year, but that could be a 5 year stretch with a pretty d*** good roster. It's been several years since we've had a glaring flaw.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Cyhig, NENick, LincolnSwinger and 1 other person
Sigmapolis said:
@not-the-manager

I am planning on it. It is SUPER early right now.

Rosters are going to change, and Torvik is going to tweak the model.

@Acer88

I think we all know to take this model with a grain of salt. I think it shows high-level potential for the team next year, but the "eye test" from the media and basketball people were already saying it.

Pleta is *in* the model before you add Prather, so he's in there somewhere.

View attachment 170400

I am sure it will work out as it is updated.

@nrg4isu

View attachment 170401
Click to expand...
Torvik has us sitting at 12 for now. For reference, last years preseason Torvik projections had us at 15th overall. 48th in offense and 2nd in defense.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyjacks, Cyclonepride, not-the-manager and 3 others
NorthCyd said:
The improved free throw shooting is probably going to help a lot in making up for some of the offensive metric losses we will have.
Click to expand...
I mentioned in some thread last week that it seems like transfers often have a lower FT% at ISU than they did previously - I had started looking at this a couple years ago, but didn't finish it.

I had some time this afternoon so I looked it up.

Overall, I looked at 17 transfers who took at least 25FTs both at the previous school and ISU. Grill was the only one I used who played after transferring away from ISU, since he had both.

As a whole, the transfers shot ~1% worse at ISU than at other schools. (70% vs. 69%)
6 shot better at ISU, 11 shot worse. The overall isn't worse because those that improved (Jones & Brockington especially) were high volume - but I think there is an identifiable trend of FT% dropping - but a significant amount - after transferring in.

My very uneducated hypothesis would be that the physicality of practice and games is a key factor in affected FT% - the more tired and beat-up you are, the worse you are going to shoot. There's probably other factors as well.

Here's the whole list, in order of ISU FT% - Non-ISU FT%:
T King +20.5%
C Jones +8.0%
I Brockington +4.7%
D Jackson +3.8%
O Osunniyi +2.8%
J Jefferson +1.1%
B Buchanan -3.0%
K Gilbert -3.1%
R Jones -3.8%
J Holmes -4.9%
B Chatfield -5.0%
A Kunc -7.0%
D Nelson -8.4%
C Grill -8.6%
N Heise -9.2%
H Ward -16.5%
G Kalscheur -20.2%
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: ChickenNuggetMan, LincolnSwinger, alexssdean12 and 5 others
bawbie said:
I mentioned in some thread last week that it seems like transfers often have a lower FT% at ISU than they did previously - I had started looking at this a couple years ago, but didn't finish it.

I had some time this afternoon so I looked it up.

Overall, I looked at 17 transfers who took at least 25FTs both at the previous school and ISU. Grill was the only one I used who played after transferring away from ISU, since he had both.

As a whole, the transfers shot ~1% worse at ISU than at other schools. (70% vs. 69%)
6 shot better at ISU, 11 shot worse. The overall isn't worse because those that improved (Jones & Brockington especially) were high volume - but I think there is an identifiable trend of FT% dropping - but a significant amount - after transferring in.

My very uneducated hypothesis would be that the physicality of practice and games is a key factor in affected FT% - the more tired and beat-up you are, the worse you are going to shoot. There's probably other factors as well.

Here's the whole list, in order of ISU FT% - Non-ISU FT%:
T King +20.5%
C Jones +8.0%
I Brockington +4.7%
D Jackson +3.8%
O Osunniyi +2.8%
J Jefferson +1.1%
B Buchanan -3.0%
K Gilbert -3.1%
R Jones -3.8%
J Holmes -4.9%
B Chatfield -5.0%
A Kunc -7.0%
D Nelson -8.4%
C Grill -8.6%
N Heise -9.2%
H Ward -16.5%
G Kalscheur -20.2%
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider 1% to be significant. To put that in context that is likely one more made FT every 5 games. (ISU averaged 20 FTs attempted per game last year.)

Not that they shouldn't continue to improve FT shooting...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SolarGarlic, GoodOleDays, bawbie and 2 others
VeloClone said:
I wouldn't consider 1% to be significant. To put that in context that is likely one more made FT every 5 games. (ISU averaged 20 FTs attempted per game last year.)

Not that they shouldn't continue to improve FT shooting...
Click to expand...
I agree that the overall number isn't significant - but looking at the list where 65% of transfers shot at least 3% worse does seem significant.

I guess the other point was - we shouldn't assume that team FT shooting will get better just because incoming transfers shoot at a higher %
 
bawbie said:
I agree that the overall number isn't significant - but looking at the list where 65% of transfers shot at least 3% worse does seem significant.

I guess the other point was - we shouldn't assume that team FT shooting will get better just because incoming transfers shoot at a higher %
Click to expand...
I can agree with that. I put an optimistic rating on an earlier post that said ISU would shoot better because of incoming transfers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bawbie
bawbie said:
I agree that the overall number isn't significant - but looking at the list where 65% of transfers shot at least 3% worse does seem significant.

I guess the other point was - we shouldn't assume that team FT shooting will get better just because incoming transfers shoot at a higher %
Click to expand...
I think we would want to compare the variance of ISU vs not at ISU to the variance between their seasons. i.e. I bet that most players have at least 3% variance (up or down) from season to season.

SO - better AI the **** of out this and I think this summarizes what I am trying to say - 1% is insignificant variance
1776732311141.png
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: aobie, VeloClone and Letterkenny
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom