2024-2025 MBB computer projections thread

[Dgilbertson]

Hence why I make this thread every season to consolidate the discussion.

Basketball has the best-developed analytics of any major sport with the exception of baseball. Baseball has better individual metrics than basketball (though that gap is closing over time) but basketball has very well-developed team metrics and there are so many good and free (e.g., Torvik) or cheap (e.g., KenPom) resources that anybody with even a basic comprehension of statistics can understand well.



A hypothetical I've been kicking around in my head...

You're given the chance to select three of these six guys.

Brandton Chatfield
Dishon Jackson
Joshua Jefferson
Rob Jones
Tre King III
Hason Ward

Which ones do you choose? Do you take the size and offensive skill of the Presidents? Do you take the defense acumen and lateral quickness of Rob Jones? Do you take Ward's spring? Do you take Tre or Brandton's toughness and rebounding ability? What is the optimal three to mix together?

For my money... Jackson/Jefferson (simply too skilled not to keep) and Jones > Chatfield.

Rob comin' off the bench with Curtis Jones rockin' the headband, the 'stache, and the 'fro ready to ******* go with 15:39 on the clock in the first half sounds like a role he would just relish here.



I agree with your point but wanted to run a little math on it...

Jackson = 41/53 (77.4%)
Jefferson = 32/40 (80.0%)
---
Presidents = 73/93 (78.5%)

Senior BRE = 51/100 (51.0%)
Senior Ward = 26/45 (57.8%)
---
BRE/Ward = 77/145 (53.1%)

78.5% minus 53.1% = 25.4%

Take 25.4% of the makes away from the presidents makes them 49/93 (52.7%), which is 24 fewer points than we have earned with the improved FT shooting from the center position.

We've played 11 games. Adding 24 points over 11 games is 2.18 PPG.

College games are usually around ~72 possessions. So the per 100 addition is 2.18/0.72 =

2.94 per 100 added to the offensive output

Team actual 2025 so far = 125.6
Team actual 2024 = 113.6

125.6 minus 113.6 = 12.0

2.94 / 12.0 = 24.5%

So, about a fourth of the improvement in the offense is from their improved FT%. I will also note that the Presidents draw A TON of fouls compared to the guys last year. They're averaging 8.45 attempts per game while BRE and Ward were averaging only 3.92 per game between the two of them.

More than double the volume and a much better make rate... nice.

This analysis reminds me of one I found for the NFL a few years ago (and I cannot seem to find it again) about how much of the improvement in NFL scoring/offenses since the 1970s has simply been kickers making more field goals at longer ranges more consistently. That the increase in pass-first offenses, the "Age of the Quarterback," and rule changes and changes in rule enforcement that seemed to favor the offense wasn't the deciding factor but rather just that NFL kickers had become robots where any miss is shocking nowadays.

I think we haven’t come close to scratching Jefferson’s ceiling. It feels like we have a Niang, IZB, Monte type end of game killer in development.

 

[Dgilbertson]

Hence why I make this thread every season to consolidate the discussion.

Basketball has the best-developed analytics of any major sport with the exception of baseball. Baseball has better individual metrics than basketball (though that gap is closing over time) but basketball has very well-developed team metrics and there are so many good and free (e.g., Torvik) or cheap (e.g., KenPom) resources that anybody with even a basic comprehension of statistics can understand well.



A hypothetical I've been kicking around in my head...

You're given the chance to select three of these six guys.

Brandton Chatfield
Dishon Jackson
Joshua Jefferson
Rob Jones
Tre King III
Hason Ward

Which ones do you choose? Do you take the size and offensive skill of the Presidents? Do you take the defense acumen and lateral quickness of Rob Jones? Do you take Ward's spring? Do you take Tre or Brandton's toughness and rebounding ability? What is the optimal three to mix together?

For my money... Jackson/Jefferson (simply too skilled not to keep) and Jones > Chatfield.

Rob comin' off the bench with Curtis Jones rockin' the headband, the 'stache, and the 'fro ready to ******* go with 15:39 on the clock in the first half sounds like a role he would just relish here.



I agree with your point but wanted to run a little math on it...

Jackson = 41/53 (77.4%)
Jefferson = 32/40 (80.0%)
---
Presidents = 73/93 (78.5%)

Senior BRE = 51/100 (51.0%)
Senior Ward = 26/45 (57.8%)
---
BRE/Ward = 77/145 (53.1%)

78.5% minus 53.1% = 25.4%

Take 25.4% of the makes away from the presidents makes them 49/93 (52.7%), which is 24 fewer points than we have earned with the improved FT shooting from the center position.

We've played 11 games. Adding 24 points over 11 games is 2.18 PPG.

College games are usually around ~72 possessions. So the per 100 addition is 2.18/0.72 =

2.94 per 100 added to the offensive output

Team actual 2025 so far = 125.6
Team actual 2024 = 113.6

125.6 minus 113.6 = 12.0

2.94 / 12.0 = 24.5%

So, about a fourth of the improvement in the offense is from their improved FT%. I will also note that the Presidents draw A TON of fouls compared to the guys last year. They're averaging 8.45 attempts per game while BRE and Ward were averaging only 3.92 per game between the two of them.

More than double the volume and a much better make rate... nice.

This analysis reminds me of one I found for the NFL a few years ago (and I cannot seem to find it again) about how much of the improvement in NFL scoring/offenses since the 1970s has simply been kickers making more field goals at longer ranges more consistently. That the increase in pass-first offenses, the "Age of the Quarterback," and rule changes and changes in rule enforcement that seemed to favor the offense wasn't the deciding factor but rather just that NFL kickers had become robots where any miss is shocking nowadays.

And interesting thought for sure, but I’m confident that you put those 6 head to head against each other and it’s not a particularly close game.

This squad has so much more individual skill and size.

The area they lack is the experience and proficiency with help defense for TJ/Green’s defensive scheme.

 

[nrg4isu]

I think we haven’t come close to scratching Jefferson’s ceiling. It feels like we have a Niang, IZB, Monte type end of game killer in development.

Jefferson kinda reminds me of a thicker version of Scottie Pippin. Passes super well for a big man, can rebound well and can beat you in a ton of different ways scoring. He's already an absolute beast, but has room for growth.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I think we haven’t come close to scratching Jefferson’s ceiling. It feels like we have a Niang, IZB, Monte type end of game killer in development.

We saw something like this scheme in Iowa City.

The closing lineup was this...

Lipsey
Gilbert
Jones
Heise
Jefferson

Get Jefferson the ball on the block or at the elbow. Let him go to work one on one. If the double does not come, then he's likely going to score or draw a foul. If it does, then oh so smoothly pass out of it to a cutter or a shooter. He had seven assists, and I feel like most of them came in the last ten minutes.

Iowa neither had an answer for it nor had a way to exploit that small lineup on offense. We almost never went "small" last year because that idea would have meant playing Paveletzke or Watson for extended minutes, and Pav was just too small for extended minutes in the Big 12 and D-Wat is a good part of the team who has his moments but is so limited offensively. Heise doesn't have any eyepopping skills but has no real weaknesses, and he has Big 12 size and athleticism, can make open threes, and finish from an easy Jefferson dish.

Only having three playable guards last year hurt the team even if it had many good forwards to make up for it. Having four playable guards this season gives some more options in the rotation.

 

[Thomasrickj]

A few games Jackson has had some blocks. Ward had a lot last year. I think ISUs three bugs are pretty good defensively, but Ward and Rob were elite.

Tom Crean is annoying, but it was interesting during halftime one of our games Crean referred to Rob as the QB of the defense last year and one of the best defensive big men in the country.

But man Jefferson is a weapon and Swiss Army knife and Jackson’s ability to hit FTs makes him a great weapon.

As awesome as BRE was, Jackson > BRE overall and it's not even close.

 

[clone4life82]

We saw something like this scheme in Iowa City.

The closing lineup was this...

Lipsey
Gilbert
Jones
Heise
Jefferson

Get Jefferson the ball on the block or at the elbow. Let him go to work one on one. If the double does not come, then he's likely going to score or draw a foul. If it does, then oh so smoothly pass out of it to a cutter or a shooter. He had seven assists, and I feel like most of them came in the last ten minutes.

Iowa neither had an answer for it nor had a way to exploit that small lineup on offense. We almost never went "small" last year because that idea would have meant playing Paveletzke or Watson for extended minutes, and Pav was just too small for extended minutes in the Big 12 and D-Wat is a good part of the team who has his moments but is so limited offensively. Heise doesn't have any eyepopping skills but has no real weaknesses, and he has Big 12 size and athleticism, can make open threes, and finish from an easy Jefferson dish.

Only having three playable guards last year hurt the team even if it had many good forwards to make up for it. Having four playable guards this season gives some more options in the rotation.

Wasn’t that the same lineup as we had that we finished up the Marquette game with? I know they ran a Spain action with Gilbert, jones and Jefferson a couple times towards the end of Dayton too which basically gives you those options for scoring.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I updated my analysis regarding which teams have the easiest schedules...



The 20-game wins are their projected wins against their actual schedule.

The 30-game wins are their projected wins against a double round-robin.

"IMPACT WINS" is "20-game %" minus "30-game %" multiplied by 20. It is used to estimate how many more wins/losses out of 20 that team can expect given the strength or weakness of its schedule.

I was surprised to find Iowa St. actually has one of the easier schedules. I was assuming Houston would have an easy one given how much Torvik likes projecting the Cougars as conference champions, which I thought was schedule but it turns out the computers really do just like UH that very much.

Cincinnati might be a dark horse for the conference title with their easier schedule. They've been spotted roughly a whole game of win expectation over teams like Baylor and Arizona.

Overall, though, I think they did an okay job balancing things out.

There are no egregious outliers, and the spread from top to bottom is 0.96 games.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Lipsey
Gilbert
Jones
Heise
Jefferson


Iowa neither had an answer for it nor had a way to exploit that small lineup on offense.

Watson is a good part of the team who has his moments but is so limited offensively. Heise doesn't have any eyepopping skills but has no real weaknesses, and he has Big 12 size and athleticism, can make open threes, and finish from an easy Jefferson dish.

Having four playable guards this season gives some more options in the rotation.

Never too much structural lineup talk

How many teams have two real bigs that have the offensive game to exploit our guards in the post?

Heise is giving us essentially what I hoped Watson would (3/4) when we signed him, although I still think there are times we’ll miss Watson’s elite length/athleticism

IMO our ceiling is highest with Milan getting a good amount of time in the front court.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Reminder the Colorado/Maui game is incorrectly coded as a conference game --

 

[madguy30]

Saw Kenpom D rating dropped to #18.

I thought for spurts and to close out last night the D looked better.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Saw Kenpom D rating dropped to #18.

I thought for spurts and to close out last night the D looked better.

Adjusted 100.5 per 100 against Colorado.

Good for #78 in the country if extended across a whole season.

The defense still isn't there.

Good thing the offense has been.

 

[stuclone]

Reminder the Colorado/Maui game is incorrectly coded as a conference game --

View attachment 140299

View attachment 140300

Curious as to how Arizona is still #9. Haven’t they really struggled this year?

 

[Sigmapolis]

Curious as to how Arizona is still #9. Haven’t they really struggled this year?

Up and down. They're 7-5 (1-0) with a very challenging schedule so far.



Only four Q4 games up there compared to the Iowa St. with six.

Won their opener as a Big 12 team last night, too.

Sort of a poor man's version of Iowa St. so far... excellent offense, struggle to stop people.

 

[CloniesForLife]

Adjusted 100.5 per 100 against Colorado.

Good for #78 in the country if extended across a whole season.

The defense still isn't there.

Good thing the offense has been.

Defense is there at times but definitely still inconsistent. I'd be curious what our efficiency metrics look like with Dishon on and off the court. He's great on offense but can struggle on defense

 

[HoraceGrant]

Defense is there at times but definitely still inconsistent. I'd be curious what our efficiency metrics look like with Dishon on and off the court. He's great on offense but can struggle on defense

I wouldn't take it as gospel but the on/off numbers show we are better on D when he is playing and worse on O.

 

[VeloClone]

Iowa State NET 6 (2nd in Big 12 – UH 5)
Overall: 11-1 OOC: 10-1 Big 12: 1-0
NET SOS: 52, NET OOC SOS: 56

Q1 3-1
..Q1a 1-1 (1 N Auburn L-2, 12 H Marquette W+11)
..Q1b 2-0 (44 N Dayton W+5, 49 A Iowa W+9)
Q2 2-0
..Q2a 1-0 (84 A CU W+10)
..Q2b 1-0 (84 N CU W+28)
Q3
Q4 6-0 (242 H UMKC W+26, 295 H UNO W+32, 320 H UI Indy+35, 338 H JSU+42, 352 H Morgan St+27, 364 H MVS+39)

ISU
Low Score: 79 High Score: 100 Ave Score: 87.7
OPP
Low Score: 44 High Score: 83 Ave Score: 65.8

Notes

• ISU in top 10 of most results based (SOR, WAB) and predictive (BPI, POM, T-Rank) metrics with KPI(18) being an exception.
• CU non-con game dropped to a Q2b game.
• Big 12 doesn’t have a single team undefeated vs. Q1. ISU’s 3-1 mark is the best Q1 record.
• As of today the best games ISU has left on the schedule:
  • 5 A UH (Q1a)
  • 15 A KU (Q1a)
  • 19 A TTU (Q1a)
  • 24 A UA (Q1a)
  • 35 A WVU (Q1a)
  • 15 H KU (Q1a)
• As of today the worst games ISU has left on the schedule:
  • 106 H KSU (Q3)
  • 84 H CU (Q3)
  • 80 H UCF (Q3)
  • 76 H TCU (Q3)
• Next games:
  • 04 JAN - 21 H BU (Q1b)
  • 07 JAN - 64 H UU (Q2b)
  • 11 JAN - 19 A TTU (Q1a)
  • 15 JAN - 15 H KU (Q1a)

 

[cyclonespiker33]

Are there places that break down defensive efficiency by segment of game? It seems like the middle of halves the defense has a lull and then is very good at the end of halves.

 

[CychiatricWard]

Are there places that break down defensive efficiency by segment of game? It seems like the middle of halves the defense has a lull and then is very good at the end of halves.

I would agree with that. Iowa game, Marquette game, and last night we got it done when we we needed to. I agree that we seem to struggle for a bit in the middle part of the game, and then we shut them down to end the game.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

I would agree with that. Iowa game, Marquette game, and last night we got it done when we we needed to. I agree that we seem to struggle for a bit in the middle part of the game, and then we shut them down to end the game.

It was generally the case against the bye teams too. Get up big at the start and then let off a bit.

 

[CychiatricWard]

It was generally the case against the bye teams too. Get up big at the start and then let off a bit.

When this team needs it I think they will be a great defensive team. Obviously not as elite as the last few years but they can crank it up when we need to. We are also still figuring out how to rotate brand new big guys, and it’s taking some time to see who is it when it matters.