2018-2019 computer projections thread

[NoCreativity]

@jereseib

You disagreed with @ChickenNuggetMan about the "best team since '00-'01." Which would you say was better? The Kane-Ejim-Niang team, perhaps?

I am actually starting to agree with that assessment -- this team is excellent.

None of the Morgan, McDermott, or Hoiberg teams was ever Top 10 in the computer rankings. This team is roughly tenth or slightly below in all of them now.

We got a 98 on Barttovik against Mississippi. Beating up on a good team like that on the road was not nearly as easy as we were making it look against them.

Our first seven men are really good, and we have serviceable ones behind that.

Barttovik has us ending up as a #3 seed right now.

View attachment 62006

Despite what our efficiency numbers are I just feel like the 13-14 team was the best we've seen since the Eustachy teams. Kane and Ejim were men against boys out there and we had Monte starting as a freshman. I really feel we could have made a Final 4 run if Niang doesn't get hurt.

Thanks for linking the Barttorvick site, I've been playing around alot on there lately. Where are you seeing us as a 3 seed? Every metric I've seen with our resume so far has us on the 4 line.

I ran some scenarios, if everything holds to form we should be looking at a 4 seed which would be good enough to get Des Moines. I also ran some scenarios where we finish 10-8 in the conference and still get a 3 seed by winning the Big 12 tourney.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Despite what our efficiency numbers are I just feel like the 13-14 team was the best we've seen since the Eustachy teams. Kane and Ejim were men against boys out there and we had Monte starting as a freshman. I really feel we could have made a Final 4 run if Niang doesn't get hurt.

Thanks for linking the Barttorvick site, I've been playing around alot on there lately. Where are you seeing us as a 3 seed? Every metric I've seen with our resume so far has us on the 4 line.

I ran some scenarios, if everything holds to form we should be looking at a 4 seed which would be good enough to get Des Moines. I also ran some scenarios where we finish 10-8 in the conference and still get a 3 seed by winning the Big 12 tourney.

I can see one making a case for the 2013-2014 as you did above. However, some of me wonders if our conception of them is on the merits and not the narrative. The computer rankings are not particularly kind to that team (or at least not any more kind to it than any of the other teams from the era) and there is all sorts of fuzzy nostalgia wrapped around its story.

Points against that team...

-- as you can see above, while it was elite offensively (#11), it was suspect defensively (#71)

-- it pulled a ton of close games out of its butt, including some super dramatic wins against Northern Iowa, Iowa, Oklahoma State (twice!), North Carolina, and the like

-- fans tend to look back on teams that won close games as "an elite team that pulled it out!" when computers tend to look back at them bemused and say, "if they were really that good, then they would have won by a solid, comfortable margin, not on heroics"

-- history says that winning close games is essentially random, everybody regressing to 50-50 in the long-term, not a particular skill that a coach or team can have

-- if they were really that good, they would not have needed so many furious, even desperate comebacks and late-game heroics, constantly poised on the edge of a knife

-- I think that team embodied lucky before good more than any other of that era... not that it was a bad team, far from it, just that it was the luckiest of Fred's run

-- they went 11-7 in the Big 12... good, but hardly great

-- I think we tend to act like they "would have went further if Georges did not break his foot," which might have been the case, but we do not know that... we have to work with the reality and the data that we have, which meant a Sweet Sixteen was the end of the road

Plus, if you go up and down the lineups, man-to-man, using Barttovik's PPRG! (essentially a WAR but for points added per adjusted game, not wins per season)...



I think Shayok is every much "a man among boys" as Kane or Ejim. Nick does not have the same numbers, but he is something of the same thing -- the experienced, calming influence who is steady with the ball, always trying to get everybody else involved.

Haliburton from this season is something the team that year simply lacked -- an ultra low-usage, ultra high-efficiency guard who spaced the floor, kept the ball moving, ran the break, and made his open threes at an absolutely blistering pace (45.7% right now).

I always thought the one guy the 2013-2014 team needed to add to it was Chris Babb. It needed an elite 3&D wing to shut down the opponents' best scorer. Haliburton is maybe the best pure 3&D wing in the Big 12 right now. He deserves consideration for an all-Big 12 team at some tier even beyond all-freshman or all-newcomer teams. He is a big reason for our efficiency on offensive this season and the improvements in our overall defensive rating.

I think the rest of the guys, man-to-man, are pretty comparable, though I would say our bench now of Wigginton and Lard is better than our bench that season of a developing sophomore Naz and a talented-but-struggling-at-times Matt Thomas. We also know that Wigginton and Lard can be awesome, all-conference guys, once they really get it together.

The computers think this team is already better than 2013-2014, and given what we know about LW and CL, we know this team has probably not yet peaked this year.

They are close. Betting against DeAndre, Melvin, and Georges would be difficult in any one-game showdown with anybody. We will have to see how this team finishes its season, but if it keeps it up, I can see saying this team was better in a comfortable fashion.

For the #3 seed projection on Barttovik, go here...

http://www.barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&team=Iowa+St.&year=2019

 

[bosco]

So now we have quantitative numbers that show that Prohmball is superior to hoiball. The hybrid of offense and defense.

 

[NoCreativity]

I can see one making a case for the 2013-2014 as you did above. However, some of me wonders if our conception of them is on the merits and not the narrative. The computer rankings are not particularly kind to that team (or at least not any more kind to it than any of the other teams from the era) and there is all sorts of fuzzy nostalgia wrapped around its story.

Points against that team...

-- as you can see above, while it was elite offensively (#11), it was suspect defensively (#71)

-- it pulled a ton of close games out of its butt, including some super dramatic wins against Northern Iowa, Iowa, Oklahoma State (twice!), North Carolina, and the like

-- fans tend to look back on teams that won close games as "an elite team that pulled it out!" when computers tend to look back at them bemused and say, "if they were really that good, then they would have won by a solid, comfortable margin, not on heroics"

-- history says that winning close games is essentially random, everybody regressing to 50-50 in the long-term, not a particular skill that a coach or team can have

-- if they were really that good, they would not have needed so many furious, even desperate comebacks and late-game heroics, constantly poised on the edge of a knife

-- I think that team embodied lucky before good more than any other of that era... not that it was a bad team, far from it, just that it was the luckiest of Fred's run

-- they went 11-7 in the Big 12... good, but hardly great

-- I think we tend to act like they "would have went further if Georges did not break his foot," which might have been the case, but we do not know that... we have to work with the reality and the data that we have, which meant a Sweet Sixteen was the end of the road

Plus, if you go up and down the lineups, man-to-man, using Barttovik's PPRG! (essentially a WAR but for points added per adjusted game, not wins per season)...

View attachment 62010

I think Shayok is every much "a man among boys" as Kane or Ejim. Nick does not have the same numbers, but he is something of the same thing -- the experienced, calming influence who is steady with the ball, always trying to get everybody else involved.

Haliburton from this season is something the team that year simply lacked -- an ultra low-usage, ultra high-efficiency guard who spaced the floor, kept the ball moving, ran the break, and made his open threes at an absolutely blistering pace (45.7% right now).

I always thought the one guy the 2013-2014 team needed to add to it was Chris Babb. It needed an elite 3&D wing to shut down the opponents' best scorer. Haliburton is maybe the best pure 3&D wing in the Big 12 right now. He deserves consideration for an all-Big 12 team at some tier even beyond all-freshman or all-newcomer teams. He is a big reason for our efficiency on offensive this season and the improvements in our overall defensive rating.

I think the rest of the guys, man-to-man, are pretty comparable, though I would say our bench now of Wigginton and Lard is better than our bench that season of a developing sophomore Naz and a talented-but-struggling-at-times Matt Thomas. We also know that Wigginton and Lard can be awesome, all-conference guys, once they really get it together.

The computers think this team is already better than 2013-2014, and given what we know about LW and CL, we know this team has probably not yet peaked this year.

They are close. Betting against DeAndre, Melvin, and Georges would be difficult in any one-game showdown with anybody. We will have to see how this team finishes its season, but if it keeps it up, I can see saying this team was better in a comfortable fashion.

For the #3 seed projection on Barttovik, go here...

http://www.barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&team=Iowa+St.&year=2019

The win today over Ole Miss must have jumped us up to the 3 line, I was looking at that a couple days ago and they had us as a solid #4. The potential to get a #3 seed and play in Des Moines is good possibility according to scenarios I ran from that site.

I think a 12-6 conference finish and we are locked in as a #3. I expect us to at least win a game or two in Kansas City also and I believe he even has us as the favorite in Kansas City.

 

[NWICY]

I can see one making a case for the 2013-2014 as you did above. However, some of me wonders if our conception of them is on the merits and not the narrative. The computer rankings are not particularly kind to that team (or at least not any more kind to it than any of the other teams from the era) and there is all sorts of fuzzy nostalgia wrapped around its story.

Points against that team...

-- as you can see above, while it was elite offensively (#11), it was suspect defensively (#71)

-- it pulled a ton of close games out of its butt, including some super dramatic wins against Northern Iowa, Iowa, Oklahoma State (twice!), North Carolina, and the like

-- fans tend to look back on teams that won close games as "an elite team that pulled it out!" when computers tend to look back at them bemused and say, "if they were really that good, then they would have won by a solid, comfortable margin, not on heroics"

-- history says that winning close games is essentially random, everybody regressing to 50-50 in the long-term, not a particular skill that a coach or team can have

-- if they were really that good, they would not have needed so many furious, even desperate comebacks and late-game heroics, constantly poised on the edge of a knife

-- I think that team embodied lucky before good more than any other of that era... not that it was a bad team, far from it, just that it was the luckiest of Fred's run

-- they went 11-7 in the Big 12... good, but hardly great

-- I think we tend to act like they "would have went further if Georges did not break his foot," which might have been the case, but we do not know that... we have to work with the reality and the data that we have, which meant a Sweet Sixteen was the end of the road

Plus, if you go up and down the lineups, man-to-man, using Barttovik's PPRG! (essentially a WAR but for points added per adjusted game, not wins per season)...

View attachment 62010

I think Shayok is every much "a man among boys" as Kane or Ejim. Nick does not have the same numbers, but he is something of the same thing -- the experienced, calming influence who is steady with the ball, always trying to get everybody else involved.

Haliburton from this season is something the team that year simply lacked -- an ultra low-usage, ultra high-efficiency guard who spaced the floor, kept the ball moving, ran the break, and made his open threes at an absolutely blistering pace (45.7% right now).

I always thought the one guy the 2013-2014 team needed to add to it was Chris Babb. It needed an elite 3&D wing to shut down the opponents' best scorer. Haliburton is maybe the best pure 3&D wing in the Big 12 right now. He deserves consideration for an all-Big 12 team at some tier even beyond all-freshman or all-newcomer teams. He is a big reason for our efficiency on offensive this season and the improvements in our overall defensive rating.

I think the rest of the guys, man-to-man, are pretty comparable, though I would say our bench now of Wigginton and Lard is better than our bench that season of a developing sophomore Naz and a talented-but-struggling-at-times Matt Thomas. We also know that Wigginton and Lard can be awesome, all-conference guys, once they really get it together.

The computers think this team is already better than 2013-2014, and given what we know about LW and CL, we know this team has probably not yet peaked this year.

They are close. Betting against DeAndre, Melvin, and Georges would be difficult in any one-game showdown with anybody. We will have to see how this team finishes its season, but if it keeps it up, I can see saying this team was better in a comfortable fashion.

For the #3 seed projection on Barttovik, go here...

http://www.barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&team=Iowa+St.&year=2019

That's a whole lot of words but that Niang broken foot team and the team that got screwed up in Detroit against Sparty were probably ISU's two best chances to make the final four so far. This team is a typical Prohm team getting better as the yr goes on and hopefully will be a whole lot of fun in March. This yrs team is already a lot of fun to watch but some keyboard warriors aren't bright enough to realize it. The last sentence does NOT apply to you Sig you just like your stats and projections and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[every_yard]

I don’t need to compare this team to past teams. All I know is we are really good, so fun to watch, and still room for improvement. Gonna be a fun 2 months.

 

[Doc]

That's a whole lot of words but that Niang broken foot team and the team that got screwed up in Detroit against Sparty were probably ISU's two best chances to make the final four so far. This team is a typical Prohm team getting better as the yr goes on and hopefully will be a whole lot of fun in March. This yrs team is already a lot of fun to watch but some keyboard warriors aren't bright enough to realize it. The last sentence does NOT apply to you Sig you just like your stats and projections and there is nothing wrong with that.

I really think this team is the best team since I’ve been a fan (2003).

 

[NoCreativity]

If we end up as a 4 seed in the tourney will people still think this years team is better than the 13-14 and 14-15 teams that got a #3 seed those years?

 

[peteypie]

If we end up as a 4 seed in the tourney will people still think this years team is better than the 13-14 and 14-15 teams that got a #3 seed those years?

Guess it would depend on the next 3 weeks then, shut up and enjoy the ride

 

[Beyerball]

sky Is the limit for this team...how far we go will depend on one thing...us.

We are a top 20 offense and top 20 defense...those types of teams almost always make a deep run..

 

[WIB]

Whether this team is better than the teams mentioned is still to be determined. However, it's my belief that they have the potential to be the best since 2001. For one, they are a top 30 defensive team, and I think that is sustainable with the players we have. We were all happy in 2017 with that teams defense. They finished 42nd.

Second, the talent on this team is top 10 in the country. Wigginton, THT, and Haliburton are all potential first round guys. Shayock is possibly the best player in the conference, and Babb and Jacobsen are high level rotation players. Then there's Cam Lard who could be a first rounder if he ever figures everything out.

Add all that up and this team has a ceiling of a national title. I don't think the Hoiberg teams had that potential, minus the 2014 one, but as stated previously, that team had major flaws and I don't think this one has anything that glaring.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Whether this team is better than the teams mentioned is still to be determined. However, it's my belief that they have the potential to be the best since 2001. For one, they are a top 30 defensive team, and I think that is sustainable with the players we have. We were all happy in 2017 with that teams defense. They finished 42nd.

Second, the talent on this team is top 10 in the country. Wigginton, THT, and Haliburton are all potential first round guys. Shayock is possibly the best player in the conference, and Babb and Jacobsen are high level rotation players. Then there's Cam Lard who could be a first rounder if he ever figures everything out.

Add all that up and this team has a ceiling of a national title. I don't think the Hoiberg teams had that potential, minus the 2014 one, but as stated previously, that team had major flaws and I don't think this one has anything that glaring.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, if this team has any flaws, I would include...

Rebounding -- This is by far our worst trait, I would say. This is simply a product of our style in playing four guards 100% of the time. I doubt we even practice playing with two traditional big men and/or with Jacobson at the 4. Either way, while Mike and Cameron can be crafty at finding an angle and our larger guards/wings do rebound well for their position, we are routinely slaughtered on the boards even in games we win comfortably, like Ole Miss.

Inexperience -- Nobody but Nick and Marial have played in an NCAA tournament game, and only Marial has played in a "deep run." They have never played in one together as a team, maybe in a shallow run the previous year that presages a deep run the following season. We are still relying on two 18 year old true freshman for major minutes. That carries risks.

Generating turnovers -- We do not generate many turnovers on defense, which is not itself a terrible thing, but this limits our full-court potential (this team runs far less than the Hoiberg teams and the first two Prohm teams). This mostly makes us a half-court team, and I found this surprising given the length and ball sense we have in our guards going for steals.

Drawing fouls -- We do not draw many fouls despite the propensity of guys like Nick, Marial, Talen, and Lindell to go to the hoop. Jacobson rarely does. This can be a problem because (1.) getting the other team's big men in foul trouble, like #1 on Kansas, can be a very good thing and (2.) we shoot FTs well, so you would want to be taking as many of them as possible.

"Stopping Power" at the rim -- We saw it in the Kansas game, but we are a relatively easy team to drive on. We are not quite elite, in like the Virginia sense, at defensive rotations, and Jacobson does not offer a ton as a rim protector and Lard has trouble not fouling and staying in the game. A team with elite slashers might be able to give us trouble in March. It does not need to be an elite rim-protector, but we have to have something to slow the slashers down.

 

[WIB]

Playing the Devil's Advocate, if this team has any flaws, I would include...

Rebounding -- This is by far our worst trait, I would say. This is simply a product of our style in playing four guards 100% of the time. I doubt we even practice playing with two traditional big men and/or with Jacobson at the 4. Either way, while Mike and Cameron can be crafty at finding an angle and our larger guards/wings do rebound well for their position, we are routinely slaughtered on the boards even in games we win comfortably, like Ole Miss.

Inexperience -- Nobody but Nick and Marial have played in an NCAA tournament game, and only Marial has played in a "deep run." They have never played in one together as a team, maybe in a shallow run the previous year that presages a deep run the following season. We are still relying on two 18 year old true freshman for major minutes. That carries risks.

Generating turnovers -- We do not generate many turnovers on defense, which is not itself a terrible thing, but this limits our full-court potential (this team runs far less than the Hoiberg teams and the first two Prohm teams). This mostly makes us a half-court team, and I find this surprising given the length and ball sense we have in our guards going for steals.

Drawing fouls -- We do not draw many fouls despite the propensity of guys like Nick, Marial, Talen, and Lindell to go to the hoop. Jacobson rarely does. This can be a problem because (1.) getting the other team's big men in foul trouble, like #1 on Kansas, can be a very good thing and (2.) we shoot FTs well, so you would want to be taking as many of them as possible.

"Stopping Power" at the rim -- We saw it in the Kansas game, but we are a relatively easy team to drive on. We are not quite elite, in like the Virginia sense, at defensive rotations, and Jacobson does not offer a ton as a rim protector and Lard has trouble not fouling and staying in the game. A team with elite slashers might be able to give us trouble in March. It does not need to be an elite rim-protector, but we have to have something to slow the slashers down.

Yeah you're not wrong. I had a few bevs before typing that portion about the national title.
The major flaws to me are rebounding and a heavy reliance on jump shots.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Yeah you're not wrong. I had a few bevs before typing that portion about the national title.
The major flaws to me are rebounding and a heavy reliance on jump shots.

I agree with you that this team is good enough where seeing it make a Final Four or win a national title is not unreasonable. It is unlikely, but not unreasonable given our numbers. We could still very well win the Big 12 or the Big 12 tournament yet this season.

The lack of generating fouls is a product of a reliance on jump shooting, as you said, and we rely on jump shooting because we mostly play offense in the half-court. If we generated more turnovers and rebounds, we would be running in the full-court more often, which is where you go to the rim and tend to generate more contact and fouls.

The lack of rebounding and turning the ball over limits our "live ball" possessions, so we end up in our PNR/reversal/drive-and-kick offense in the half-four more often than not, which are plays and systems that usually yield jump shots. That is just how it comes together.

These flaws are all interrelated -- and a great team will find and exploit them. I bet we could beat anybody in the country, though, on our best of nights in March.

Watching Shayok on a hot shooting night against UVA would be fun, for instance.

 

[mb7299]

I agree on the reliance on jump shooting, its a big reason I love that we used THT in the midrange yesterday, he's elite in that area and we rarely use him there. If we have other ways of scoring we should really take off.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I agree on the reliance on jump shooting, its a big reason I love that we used THT in the midrange yesterday, he's elite in that area and we rarely use him there. If we have other ways of scoring we should really take off.

I've been wanting to see THT take it inside for a while now, as he's so creative, and needs to learn to use his body to create his own space. He did that really well yesterday.

 

[Sigmapolis]

It would take an epic collapse for us to miss the NCAA tournament now.

 

[Cyclonepride]

It would take an epic collapse for us to miss the NCAA tournament now.

View attachment 62017

Odd that they rank us at 14 yet project a 5 seed.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Odd that they rank us at 14 yet project a 5 seed.

The computer rankings are generally much friendlier to us than human ones. We are #24 in the AP poll yet the computers have us in the #9 or #10 range.

Humans have/had Kansas in the Top 10 yet the computers have them 15-20.

It is all about being good in 1965 with the human voters.

 

[ILikeCy]

Do any of these computer rankings systems have a Remaining SOS feature? I'd love to see what that looks like for all the B12 teams.