I hold next to no stock in the media for pre-season rankings. They know very little more than we know.
Illini Basketball 2021-2022
- Status
Agree, Frazier is going to be a double digit scorer for us no doubt...hopefully mid to upper.
It would appear to me that based on physical attributes (length and athleticism) that Hutch and Hawk would be higher NBA draft possibilities than anyone else on the roster if they can show the skills. Doesn’t mean they are most valuable to the team as that belongs to the PG. BIG winners have always (or at least usually) had outstanding PG’s. That success hasn’t meant any success in the NBA. With the accumulation of longer, more athletic and skilled players, the game is changed. Think it is all about defense and smaller PG’s can’t defend the length of typical NBA players. Ratings of players seem to me more about NBA potential than ability to contribute in a role at the college level. My point is simply looking at ratings isn’t really much of a predictor of team success.
I am ready for the rebuttal by better basketball minds.
I am ready for the rebuttal by better basketball minds.
Analytic based preseason rankings are not always great either. Kenpom had us at 18 to start the season last year. Makes sense if you think about it - they're based on data and at this point there isn't much.
Thanks Joel
For those like me who missed it, it looks like it is on again Monday at 6:30 pm.
I actually think preseason media is better because they can take more (and some non-calculable) factors into account: coach, returners, transfers, recruits, experience, chemistry etc.
The analytic ratings are flying blind in some areas because they’re not calculable or because there’s not enough data for input yet, especially on teams that might have large turnover.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
IlliniBoard published an article recently comparing media pre season rankings to the computer pre season rankings based on how well teams did in the tournament. If I remember correctly, they were almost dead even in their accuracy,
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
Yeah, I think I read many moons ago Kenpom say it takes about 10 games for his and Sagarin's rankings to start to successfully be predictive. Interestingly, about 60% of the time, Kenpom is closer to predicting the point spread than Sagarin. It's just something I'm always keeping track of as the season goes on. And Sagarin going live is just another indicator it's finally basketball season.
I don't see how one projects chemistry in the preseason. There are always guys that are going to be more selfish than desired or, not as selfish as you need them to be. Guys set goals in the spring and summer that impact how they play once the season starts. You could end up with the wrong guy taking big shots at the end of games and disrupting the whole team.
I see it as you know if a team is returning a bunch of guys, even if they lost a few important ones from the year, you know if those remaining guys played well together, like each other, etc.
You can also predict based on what you physically see (if you’re a media member allowed in practices) if new guys fit in, if some guys appear to not be bought in, etc.
Most media members are not likely to attend preseason practices for more than 1 team, so not sure how that would make their preseason rankings better than analytics. For the record, I don’t really have an opinion which entity is more accurate — and believe both have flaws.
ChazzReinhold
Mom! The Meatloaf!
Holy Eff. That was awesome
Sagarin's methodology is pretty old. Kenpom has experimented over the years with ways to refine the model to better fit the data. Both seem mathematically sound, but I prefer Kenpom. His preseason rankings may wind up being off, but I believe he has a decent model for plugging in freshman based on recruiting rankings. IIRC, he plugs in individual players, based on average yoy improvement to get the team's rating.
Just for funzies, I saved his preseason data. Will be interesting to see who does better and who does worse.
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
I like this number cruncher's take:
4 of top 13 players. No other team with more than 2 of top 20. Just wished I believed it.
Bill_Cole_SuperFan
The Insider's Insider
- Ubben Laundry Room
Any word on Curbelo, Hutch, Damonte, and Trents injury status?
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
foby
- Bonnaroo Land
Iowa has three.
I agree. The individuals look great. They eye test for a top 10 team just doesn't seem there.
The thing that seem missing between a good team and great team is the passing. The ball movement is slow. The extra 1/2 second per pass gives the defense time to recover. As a result the half court offense stalls vs. an open 3 when they double Kofi. The great teams also seem to do better at under the basket passes between bigs, and wrap around passes from a driving guard.
foby
- Bonnaroo Land
- Status