Making fun of the computer models is easy in a world where we all have access to the computer models. But I would challenge anyone here to go head to head with KenPom for a full week of top 25 games and let us know your results.
Computer models are stupid
- Thread starter silentsaregolden2.0
- Start date
All four have to do with both offense and defense.
So like the 1st factor is shooting % (or well effective FG% more clearly). It's also opponents effective FG%.
Turnover % how well we take care of the ball on offense but also do we force turnovers on defense.
For example
We turn it over on only 13.2% of our possessions. That's very good. 2nd in D1. That helps offensive efficiency obviously.
However we only force turnovers on 14.8% of our opponents possessions. That's not good. That's 324th in D1. Which obviously hurts our defensively efficiency.
So on offense this is where we currently at:
Shooting % = 24th
Turnover % = 2nd
Rebounding % = 167th
Free Throw Rate = 171st.
Our offense is so good cause we shoot it well and we don't turn it over. Usually if you do two things of the four very well you're going to have a good efficiency number.
now to the defense
Shooting % = 66th
Turnover % = 324th
Rebounding % = 66th
Free Throw Rate = 91st
you can see we don't really do anything all that well on defense. Which is why that number is so far down.
Honestly, I'd like to see this team try and force more turnovers. I feel like we have some guys that can do that.
It affects Kenpom, NET, and all other statistic metrics that the committee looks at come selection time. That's why it matters. If they didn't care about this crap then no, it wouldn't matter at all. Sucks but it's just reality.
Jeez, when you look at those numbers, you would think we would have a resume similar to Arkansas'.
Because unfortunately, it's teams like this that tend to get bounced early in the NCAA tournament. We saw this last season.
Because at some point this offense is going to have an off night.......like they did this week vs Georgia.
Goes without saying that you want to be good at as many things as possible, to counter the randomness of the one and done tournament.
Good news is, the committee is going to give our seeds based on resume. Those wins vs UF, Duke, Gonzaga and Miss St and already on the board.
Arkansas seems to have the opposite issue we do apparently.
They are 74th on offense and 26th on defense.
We made a 5 spot jump up to 13th in the NET. Which was shocking but great! Still 21st in Kenpom, BPI 20th, 13th KPI, 17th T-Rank, hopefully the committee weighs more on the "quad 1 wins" this season and SOS. The computer numbers aren't going to be favorable this season I'm afraid.
This is one of those years where given the strength of the SEC, the resume is going to look better than the actual computer numbers. Which should help our seeding.
But might also give a warning sign on how far we might advance.
I think in years past when we had a weak SEC, it was the opposite. We were mis-seeded and we over performed to our seeding (2011, 2014 come to mind)
KP has us as the 3rd best offense, but the 87th rated defense. We have to find a way to get that defensive rating into a respectable range.
The scary thing about this team is it makes a ton of mistakes, misses a ton of free throws and has major rebounding issues. These are all very fixable things and there is plenty of time to fix them.
The scary thing about this team is it makes a ton of mistakes, misses a ton of free throws and has major rebounding issues. These are all very fixable things and there is plenty of time to fix them.
The thing is we've had this discussion all of last year. Nothing changed. The defense maybe even got a bit worse towards the end lol.
So.......we see the numbers. I'm sure Pope is drilling this into the team.
But you just wonder........how much it will be able to be improved upon. We are over half a season in now. These guys have been in college for years. It's an experienced bunch. Which is good in some ways but it also makes me question just how much better one can get.
Like this is the Williams talk lol. We have four and a half years of data on him. I just tend to think players are what they are at this point.
I think we can improve defensively of course. By how much? I dunno.
So.......we see the numbers. I'm sure Pope is drilling this into the team.
But you just wonder........how much it will be able to be improved upon. We are over half a season in now. These guys have been in college for years. It's an experienced bunch. Which is good in some ways but it also makes me question just how much better one can get.
Like this is the Williams talk lol. We have four and a half years of data on him. I just tend to think players are what they are at this point.
I think we can improve defensively of course. By how much? I dunno.
If we can get the defense to an acceptable level we will be very good overall. I think we should play more zone and mix it up. That 1-3-1 to man look is really good. It’s kinda what Pitino ran at lil bro and it worked well.
The difference between last year and this year is, we have a coach that works hard to correct issues, plays his best guys and tries to make his TEAM better.
What he has done with a brand new team in such a short amount of time, is amazing, so I won't doubt him here. I think he can get this defense right. They won't be top 10 good, but he can at least get them into the 50's.
His BYU team last year went into the NCAAT with the 60th rated defense, that team didn't have dudes like this team does.
I feel like unless something changes, we should all probably just assume this is what they are.
A very good offensive team, a very poor defensive team and when you average it out, probably a team with the skill level in the 15-25 range among all teams.
A very good offensive team, a very poor defensive team and when you average it out, probably a team with the skill level in the 15-25 range among all teams.
Good thing I built the model and you didn’t. Since you can’t think of anything else that matters.
Well enlighten us then on what inputs your model uses.
Your model uses additional inputs......and overall probably has the same effectiveness as any other model.
I think they should be relied on heavily, but I still agree with the idea of rewarding teams with better resumes.
You should get seeding line credit for getting more big wins, and avoiding bad losses.
Now should we be using the current Quad system? No, imo. Too simplistic.
Yep. Winning should matter.
If we seeded purely on something like kenpom, winning/losing close games wouldn’t matter. That exciting buzzer beater to beat a top team would be rendered meaningless.
It’s because complaining about how bad we are is the most enjoyable way to be a fan. Step one, wake up in the morning and blow kisses to that Calipari mural. Step two, find something to be upset about when Kentucky beats every single ranked team they match up with. That is how to be a good fan — it means you care more.
Yep. I’d like to see the Quad system updated to some type of strength of record metric.
Our neutral win over Duke should not count the same as Florida’s win at FSU, for instance.
Exactly. It’s a good metric but not perfect.
It can’t account for the snowball effect of some games such as Ohio State where nothing is going right, things snowball, and the game just becomes a “get out healthy and learn from it” type game.
I’m not sure if KP caps the losses but the most useful metrics usually cap the weight of wins and losses at 10 or 15.
I’d like to see a metric that only evaluates the non freethrow, live ball, possessions too to cancel out the impact of “it’s a 5 point game under 1 minute and then the other team hits 4-6 FTs late to win by 10+
I do however believe that we can be in for 4 games and make a final four even with a bad D. I’d prefer it improves for sure, but I can see us shooting well a couple games in a row. We have finally started to hit at a great clip again.
Last edited:
