Quaoarsking
03-08-2015, 02:32 PM
I really like the Ken Pomeroy ratings (kenpom.com) because they analyze how good teams' offenses and defenses are, and wins and losses don't enter into the equation. They're a lot better at determining how good a team really is and how they would theoretically do over the next set of games.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/35_08_03_15_2_16_24.png
I've charted the Overall Ranking of our team going back to 2002, along with our Offensive Ranking (blue), Defensive Ranking (green), and Luck Ranking (black). Luck is a mathematical formula that compares how good the team really is to their W/L record.
A few observations:
First of all, this chart is skewed because it doesn't include the first three years of the Stansbury Era. I would have included them if Kenpom went back that far, but unfortunately it does not. This makes comparisons of "Ray's best X is worse than Stansbury's worst X" not entirely valid.
The chart is also skewed because 2015 isn't over yet. I doubt we can do much to change our rankings at this point, but theoretically we could win 2 or 3 games this week and raise our rankings. I doubt they would fall too much with a loss to Auburn, unless we just get demolished, though, since we're already below Auburn in the rankings.
We finished #1 in defense in 2003 (lost in the first round to Butler that year as a 5 seed). We were always very good defensively under Stans until Varnado and Stewart left, and we got a lot worse. All 3 of Rick Ray's seasons have been better defensively than Stansbury's last 2. 2015 was an improvement on 2014 defensively, but only back to the point we were in 2013.
On the flip side, Rick Ray's offensive stats have been abysmal, especially 2013. We improved a lot offensively from 2013 to 2014, and a little more in 2015. However, we are still 88 spots below 2005, which was a pretty mediocre season.
We had some terrible luck under Stans, and also some under Ray. Remember, "Luck" is a poorly-named catch-all category that would reflect having bad losses that don't represent the team's actual ability. We had 3 of those this year, and had them often during Stansbury's tenure, so that's probably the reason why. Kenpom calls it luck that our record is usually less than the teams' actual ability, while I say it's just a characteristic of Mississippi State basketball, regardless of coach, to lose to bad nonconference teams.
All of Ray's teams have been significantly worse than Stansbury's teams, at least Stansbury's final 11. However, at the same time, it is clear that Ray's teams are improving. We will need to improve by more than our typical 40 spots, though, to sniff the NIT next year. Tennessee is a likely NIT team with a Kenpom ranking of 94 (74/147/112). That's 75 points better than us, so we'd need to double the improvement of 2014 and 2015 in 2016 to have a reasonable expectation to get there (and yes, we could get into the NIT with less improvement or not get there with more improvement depending on how the RPI goes and how our actual W/L record represents how good we really are.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/35_08_03_15_2_16_24.png
I've charted the Overall Ranking of our team going back to 2002, along with our Offensive Ranking (blue), Defensive Ranking (green), and Luck Ranking (black). Luck is a mathematical formula that compares how good the team really is to their W/L record.
A few observations:
First of all, this chart is skewed because it doesn't include the first three years of the Stansbury Era. I would have included them if Kenpom went back that far, but unfortunately it does not. This makes comparisons of "Ray's best X is worse than Stansbury's worst X" not entirely valid.
The chart is also skewed because 2015 isn't over yet. I doubt we can do much to change our rankings at this point, but theoretically we could win 2 or 3 games this week and raise our rankings. I doubt they would fall too much with a loss to Auburn, unless we just get demolished, though, since we're already below Auburn in the rankings.
We finished #1 in defense in 2003 (lost in the first round to Butler that year as a 5 seed). We were always very good defensively under Stans until Varnado and Stewart left, and we got a lot worse. All 3 of Rick Ray's seasons have been better defensively than Stansbury's last 2. 2015 was an improvement on 2014 defensively, but only back to the point we were in 2013.
On the flip side, Rick Ray's offensive stats have been abysmal, especially 2013. We improved a lot offensively from 2013 to 2014, and a little more in 2015. However, we are still 88 spots below 2005, which was a pretty mediocre season.
We had some terrible luck under Stans, and also some under Ray. Remember, "Luck" is a poorly-named catch-all category that would reflect having bad losses that don't represent the team's actual ability. We had 3 of those this year, and had them often during Stansbury's tenure, so that's probably the reason why. Kenpom calls it luck that our record is usually less than the teams' actual ability, while I say it's just a characteristic of Mississippi State basketball, regardless of coach, to lose to bad nonconference teams.
All of Ray's teams have been significantly worse than Stansbury's teams, at least Stansbury's final 11. However, at the same time, it is clear that Ray's teams are improving. We will need to improve by more than our typical 40 spots, though, to sniff the NIT next year. Tennessee is a likely NIT team with a Kenpom ranking of 94 (74/147/112). That's 75 points better than us, so we'd need to double the improvement of 2014 and 2015 in 2016 to have a reasonable expectation to get there (and yes, we could get into the NIT with less improvement or not get there with more improvement depending on how the RPI goes and how our actual W/L record represents how good we really are.