2022-2023 MBB computer projections thread

enisthemenace

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2009
13,947
10,143
113
Runnells, IA
Torviks initial projections (post #6) were interesting.

1. What they had, which included Williams, has an offensive output of 71.8. Our top 10 contributors last year totaled 68. Without Williams and no other changes, we would be 64.6. So…in short…with Williams, Torvik saw us as a better team offensively than we were last year. Without Williams, down about 3.4 points from last season.

2. Torvik expected Kalschuer and Grill to increase production by 3 and 3.4 pts respectively. I can see Grill’s increasing that much, maybe, but not Kalschuer (hope I’m wrong)

3. Torvik has Kunc down 0.6 pts. That will be wrong. Kunc will provide higher offensive production than last year, IMO

4. Holmes was predicted to produce about on par with his career average. Osun and Ward are down 1.2 and 1.9 respectively from their career averages. Williams was down 2.2 from his career average.

5. Torvik expects Osun, Tre King AND Hason Ward all to outproduce Conditt, and Osun by almost 4 pts

6. Jones is predicted to match his output from last year.

7. They don’t have Lipsey in their expected top 10 contributors, which is understandable given Williams was expected to be there. I wonder what they see from Lipsey without Williams? If they have 1.7 from Watson, I’d have to think Lipsey would be in the 3-4/5 point range if he is the primary ball handler. If we get 3 pts from Lipsey, we are virtually identical in the eye of Torvik compared to last year. 67.6 Torvik projections v 68 last year.

Fun with numbers, but I’d say our defense will be similar to last year, so perhaps we are basically the same team, statistically.
 

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
75,450
79,544
113
DSM
Torviks initial projections (post #6) were interesting.

1. What they had, which included Williams, has an offensive output of 71.8. Our top 10 contributors last year totaled 68. Without Williams and no other changes, we would be 64.6. So…in short…with Williams, Torvik saw us as a better team offensively than we were last year. Without Williams, down about 3.4 points from last season.

2. Torvik expected Kalschuer and Grill to increase production by 3 and 3.4 pts respectively. I can see Grill’s increasing that much, maybe, but not Kalschuer (hope I’m wrong)

3. Torvik has Kunc down 0.6 pts. That will be wrong. Kunc will provide higher offensive production than last year, IMO

4. Holmes was predicted to produce about on par with his career average. Osun and Ward are down 1.2 and 1.9 respectively from their career averages. Williams was down 2.2 from his career average.

5. Torvik expects Osun, Tre King AND Hason Ward all to outproduce Conditt, and Osun by almost 4 pts

6. Jones is predicted to match his output from last year.

7. They don’t have Lipsey in their expected top 10 contributors, which is understandable given Williams was expected to be there. I wonder what they see from Lipsey without Williams? If they have 1.7 from Watson, I’d have to think Lipsey would be in the 3-4/5 point range if he is the primary ball handler. If we get 3 pts from Lipsey, we are virtually identical in the eye of Torvik compared to last year. 67.6 Torvik projections v 68 last year.

Fun with numbers, but I’d say our defense will be similar to last year, so perhaps we are basically the same team, statistically.

Are there any numbers on 3pt defense?
 

enisthemenace

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2009
13,947
10,143
113
Runnells, IA
Are there any numbers on 3pt defense?
Didn’t look that far into it, but it will be interesting. Hunter, Kalschuer and Brockington put A LOT of pressure on the perimeter last year. We have been pressuring up top against these slapsticks so far (Grill being a major nuisance). Be interesting how we look against Villanova. Kalschuer being healthy is key.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyclonePigskin

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
75,478
65,719
113
LA LA Land
They use 3 years input. We need next year to bury that 2 win season.

So what many of these looked at before this year was:
- Horrific 2 win season (assume it ignores recruiting for a season in the books?)
- Good year (assume it ignores recruiting for a season in the books?)
- This year's good (not elite) recruiting with no results yet

Or are you saying it looks at those things plus the season BEFORE the 2 win season?

If I was making these I'd take last year's results and this year's losses/additions into account. Too much turnover in no penalty transfer era to care about two/three seasons ago.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,893
41,516
113
Waukee
Help me understand this system, how can ISU be the #5 team in conference, #30 team in country, but a bubble team?

I would imagine their bubble is "fuzzy" at this point because the season is so young and so few game outcomes have actually come into the model. Lacking that real data to focus their vision on the 5-10 teams fighting for the tournament at the end of the season, they're probably projecting more like 20-30 teams within that range of projection orbiting around a larger cloud of uncertainty early in the season.

For what it is worth, this is right in line with Torvik. Torvik has them as the very last non-bye team right now --

1669053009490.png

Are there any numbers on 3pt defense?

Iowa State is #27 in the country in 3PT defense right now.

Opponents are shooting 24.6% against that defense.

They were #5 nationally last year (opponents shot 28.9% against them).
 
Last edited:

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
75,478
65,719
113
LA LA Land
Current Warren Nolan projections:

View attachment 105784


0-9 in Q1 wouldn't be great.


I wish I could place a bet that our strength of schedule will be better than 99. Probably almost a 100% chance I'd win.

When was the last time our SOS was lower than top 30? Per net ranking #11 last year, I think even higher than that disastrous 2 win season.

We'd have probably been a 3-4 seed in the NCAA last year if our schedule was that actually that easy after mowing through non conf undefeated, you're looking at 3-4 total losses for ISU last year if they actually had a 99 SOS instead of an elite schedule.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,893
41,516
113
Waukee
So what many of these looked at before this year was:
- Horrific 2 win season (assume it ignores recruiting for a season in the books?)
- Good year (assume it ignores recruiting for a season in the books?)
- This year's good (not elite) recruiting with no results yet

Or are you saying it looks at those things plus the season BEFORE the 2 win season?

If I was making these I'd take last year's results and this year's losses/additions into account. Too much turnover in no penalty transfer era to care about two/three seasons ago.

The Torvik model uses different methodologies for offense and defense.

For offense, the algorithm assumes you are the sum of your parts/efficiencies but adjusts for --

(All of these are based on historical trends on the impacts of these factors.)

-- some progress from season-to-season from returning players as they grow older
-- some bonus/penalty for players moving up/down between conferences
-- incoming freshmen are assigned these values based on their recruiting rankings (e.g., Omaha is going to look better than Jelani, etc.) and their height for their position

The two-win finale to the Prohm era isn't going to factor into that anymore. I guess you could say Caleb Grill still being on the roster means it has some impact, but not a direct one.

For defense, the model assumes a "steady state" from season-to-season. That is, to use two examples, you don't need a complex model to tell you the long-term trends of defensive efficiency for the Bennett-era UVA teams were excellent while the Hoiberg-era ISU teams were poor for a P6 squad. The idea here is a defense is less the sum of its parts than the long-run impact of coaching and of program culture.

This model does use the past few years, so the awful defenses of the late Prohm teams (at least they could score during Haliburton's sophomore year... but not after that...) is dragging it down. Hence, the preseason Torvik rankings underrate the Cyclone defense because it has just not had enough time and data for the deadwood to wash itself out and recognize what this TJ/Green defensive culture is all about.
 
Last edited:

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,590
63,639
113
Not exactly sure.
So what many of these looked at before this year was:
- Horrific 2 win season (assume it ignores recruiting for a season in the books?)
- Good year (assume it ignores recruiting for a season in the books?)
- This year's good (not elite) recruiting with no results yet

Or are you saying it looks at those things plus the season BEFORE the 2 win season?

If I was making these I'd take last year's results and this year's losses/additions into account. Too much turnover in no penalty transfer era to care about two/three seasons ago.
I thought I read the prior three seasons. So that would be the year before the year not to be mentioned.
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 15, 2011
57,228
55,123
113
I know people are down on Gabe, but we need him as close to 100% for Portland as possible to be successful. Glad they shut him down last night.

If his minutes are spotty as the year goes on I can't wait for the 'why can't we stop that guy!?' posts if the opponent's stud guard goes off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gunnerclone

CyPunch

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2019
4,707
11,988
113
Sandy Springs, GA

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
98,800
62,329
113
55
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,893
41,516
113
Waukee
This is from Torvik for the PK85 Invitational --

1669226482521.png

54.2% chance to defeat Villanova
10.8% chance to win the bracket

Iowa State has the best-rated defense in the field.
Also has the worst-rated offense, though.
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
98,800
62,329
113
55
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
11-10 in Q1.

The % was mediocre. It sort of reflected the season as a whole. Good enough to win a lot in the upper level, but equally susceptible to losses.
Mediocre compared to what? Most teams would love that kind of record in quad one, particularly with the kind of grind that that many games represents.
 

cyclones500

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2010
38,752
26,755
113
Michigan
basslakebeacon.com
Mediocre compared to what? Most teams would love that kind of record in quad one, particularly with the kind of grind that that many games represents.
You're right, "mediocre" probably a bad word choice on my part. My main point was, with 21 Q1 opportunities 11-10 maybe might appear "pedestrian." (I think KU is the only other tournament team that played 21 Q1s (was 16-5) and a bunch of tourney teams played fewer but were well below .500.

(This is completely ignoring Q2-3-4 details, but that's straying from the initial post of the 0-9 vs. Q1 projection)
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,893
41,516
113
Waukee
I can't find an easy way to sort this outside of # of games played against Q1 opponents.

But Iowa State tied last year for the second-most (this includes the NCAA tournament) --

1669228556360.png

I don't think 11-8 against Q1 teams was all that bad. The only teams with a substantially higher winning percentage up there would be national champion Kansas and the other #1 or #2 seeds.
 

cyclones500

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2010
38,752
26,755
113
Michigan
basslakebeacon.com
I can't find an easy way to sort this outside of # of games played against Q1 opponents.

But Iowa State tied last year for the second-most (this includes the NCAA tournament) --

View attachment 105834

I don't think 11-8 against Q1 teams was all that bad. The only teams with a substantially higher winning percentage up there would be national champion Kansas and the other #1 or #2 seeds.
This is link I used.

 

Help Support Us

Become a patron