Metrics (1/18)

[BFieldHusky]

#7 NET.
#7 ESPN BPI
#6 KenPom

This includes last nights game.

We are playing terrible, but the good start has led the metrics to really like us.

 

[Storrs South]

If the season ended today I don't even know what the committee would do with this resume. They don't consider recency bias anymore (i.e. how did you play at end of season.)

The metrics say a 2 seed but the on court performance today is of an NIT team but they looked like a 1 seed for 2/3 of the season.

 

[Billy Jack]

Panic is setting in, I see.

 

[AntG168]

If the season ended today I don't even know what the committee would do with this resume. They don't consider recency bias anymore (i.e. how did you play at end of season.)

The metrics say a 2 seed but the on court performance today is of an NIT team but they looked like a 1 seed for 2/3 of the season.

If we can wake tf up there’s a lot left to salvage of this season

 

[Jay-Bone]

So...........don't follow the metrics??

 

[CTBasketball]

#7 NET.
#7 ESPN BPI
#6 KenPom

This includes last nights game.

We are playing terrible, but the good start has led the metrics to really like us.

 

[JustbrewitMan]

#7 NET.
#7 ESPN BPI
#6 KenPom

This includes last nights game.

We are playing terrible, but the good start has led the metrics to really like us.

These metrics systems are clearly all imperfect as they do not adequately account for team performance trends throughout the season. We are not the UConn team that beat Bama, Iowa St, etc. any more.

 

[jpeakin]

If we can wake tf up there’s a lot left to salvage of this season

That's a giant IF

 

[AntG168]

These metrics systems are clearly all imperfect as they do not adequately account for team performance trends throughout the season. We are not the UConn team that beat Bama, Iowa St, etc. any more.

Agreed. BUT those wins still hold a ton of weight in the eyes of the committee. 1 seed worthy? Absolutely not. Top 4-5 seed? Still very doable. Unless we are really this bad. Then all bets are off

 

[auror]

These metrics systems are clearly all imperfect as they do not adequately account for team performance trends throughout the season. We are not the UConn team that beat Bama, Iowa St, etc. any more.

The predictive models don't include recent performance trends as a factor because on the whole it's not as predictive as the full body of work. Been tested extensively by all these guys. Makes the models worse.

Of course there will be anomalies where recent stretches are more predictive. Usually that's when there are changes (ie injuries or coach leaves, etc.), but not always. And we certainly seem to be a "nothing changed but we still did" exception.

 

[aburks41]

Agreed. BUT those wins still hold a ton of weight in the eyes of the committee. 1 seed worthy? Absolutely not. Top 4-5 seed? Still very doable. Unless we are really this bad. Then all bets are off

I think we are just really this bad unless the staff wants to make major personnel minutes changes. It's pretty damn obvious that our offense and defense get bogged down with Sanogo in the game. He still gets his points, but he's just so ineffective that it doesn't even matter. He doesn't pass, can't dunk, and doesn't draw fouls. Clingan is pretty good at all of those things. I would be completely in favor of letting Clingan get more minutes to develop for next season. It's not a surprise that every run we've gone on in recent games has been with Sanogo on the bench. His +/- numbers are atrocious. Newton and Alleyne are complete no shows too. They are providing us with nothing. Diarra, great on defense, bad offense. He dribbles way way way too much. And Jackson just doesn't do anything on offense. The current formula is not working anymore. And running the same rotation out there is getting to be borderline insane

 

[JustbrewitMan]

The predictive models don't include recent performance trends as a factor because on the whole it's not as predictive as the full body of work. Been tested extensively by all these guys. Makes the models worse.

Of course there will be anomalies where recent stretches are more predictive. Usually that's when there are changes (ie injuries or coach leaves, etc.), but not always. And we certainly seem to be a "nothing changed but we still did" exception.

Yep, it's tough to build accurate models that can account for all outliers. I am hoping we can somehow un-outlier ourselves over the rest of the season

 

[HailUConn]

#7 NET.
#7 ESPN BPI
#6 KenPom

This includes last nights game.

We are playing terrible, but the good start has led the metrics to really like us.

This is a fools gold. The product we are seeing now is dysfunctional.

 

[Get a Job]

I think we are just really this bad unless the staff wants to make major personnel minutes changes. It's pretty damn obvious that our offense and defense get bogged down with Sanogo in the game. He still gets his points, but he's just so ineffective that it doesn't even matter. He doesn't pass, can't dunk, and doesn't draw fouls. Clingan is pretty good at all of those things. I would be completely in favor of letting Clingan get more minutes to develop for next season. It's not a surprise that every run we've gone on in recent games has been with Sanogo on the bench. His +/- numbers are atrocious. Newton and Alleyne are complete no shows too. They are providing us with nothing. Diarra, great on defense, bad offense. He dribbles way way way too much. And Jackson just doesn't do anything on offense. The current formula is not working anymore. And running the same rotation out there is getting to be borderline insane

I have the same impression, but do you know this for sure? I haven't looked at any stats, but it'd be interesting to know. Not just each player's +/- over the last 6 games, but who was on the floor during scoring runs in particular.

 

[navery12]

I think we are just really this bad unless the staff wants to make major personnel minutes changes. It's pretty damn obvious that our offense and defense get bogged down with Sanogo in the game. He still gets his points, but he's just so ineffective that it doesn't even matter. He doesn't pass, can't dunk, and doesn't draw fouls. Clingan is pretty good at all of those things. I would be completely in favor of letting Clingan get more minutes to develop for next season. It's not a surprise that every run we've gone on in recent games has been with Sanogo on the bench. His +/- numbers are atrocious. Newton and Alleyne are complete no shows too. They are providing us with nothing. Diarra, great on defense, bad offense. He dribbles way way way too much. And Jackson just doesn't do anything on offense. The current formula is not working anymore. And running the same rotation out there is getting to be borderline insane

I'm not convinced we really are this bad though. The team that played the 1st half last night was the same team we saw the 1st half of the season and looked really good. There's still plenty that has to be improved on, and it starts with playing a full game. But I think you're overcorrecting a bit after you're overly optimistic early season posts

 

[aburks41]

I have the same impression, but do you know this for sure? I haven't looked at any stats, but it'd be interesting to know. Not just each player's +/- over the last 6 games, but who was on the floor during scoring runs in particular.

Clingan was +9 last night (team high). Sanogo was -10 (team low). That run to get the game up to 17 points was with Clingan in the game. Same story in the Marquette game.

Sanogo is a very skilled player, but he just doesn't fit into the style of basketball that we are best at, which is running and passing the ball. When the ball goes to Sanogo on offense, it's like a black hole.

 

[auror]

I have the same impression, but do you know this for sure? I haven't looked at any stats, but it'd be interesting to know. Not just each player's +/- over the last 6 games, but who was on the floor during scoring runs in particular.

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE WARNING. USE AS DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED, NOT WHAT "IS" OR "WILL BE".

By RAPM over the past 6 games it goes:

Clingan - 7.2
---
Hawkins - 4.9
Jackson - 3.9
---
Diarra - 2.5
Calcaterra - 1.5
Karaban - 1.2
---
Sanogo - 0.3
Newton - (-0.5)
Alleyne - (-1.6)

Of the 5 most used lineups during this 6 game stretch, the worst has been the starting lineup with Diarra in for Newton. The next worst has been the regular starting lineup. Both are for the same reason. The defense has been atrocious. 1.22 and 1.31 points per possession against. Allowing 62% and 60% from 2pt. The Diarra lineup fouled a ton, the starting lineup is letting a lot of guys get to rim (bad) and to hit a % on their midrange jumpers (unlucky).

The 2 best lineups have been the starting lineup with Clingan in place of Sanogo and then a Diarra/Calcaterra/Hawkins/Karaban/Sanogo lineup which has actually been the best but used exclusively against Creighton and St. Johns. The Clingan lineup is protecting the rim and hitting the offensive boards, but struggling in the paint offensively. The Sanogo lineup has been a scoring machine and generally just outscoring teams (they're giving up a lot at the rim and at FT line).

As far as timing of runs goes, my best recollection would say that it is most often when opponent has a couple backups in and we have Clingan in (with like 10-5 min left in 1st half).

 

[AdamaNation]

Agreed. BUT those wins still hold a ton of weight in the eyes of the committee. 1 seed worthy? Absolutely not. Top 4-5 seed? Still very doable. Unless we are really this bad. Then all bets are off

A Big east final and 25 wins should lock a 3 seed. I’d think.

 

[Pmac923]

These metrics systems are clearly all imperfect as they do not adequately account for team performance trends throughout the season. We are not the UConn team that beat Bama, Iowa St, etc. any more.

Who gets credit for those wins then? Do we just act like those games didn’t happen? I saw this same group of kids beat those teams. We just need to soul search a bit and find some confidence.

 

[aburks41]

I'm not convinced we really are this bad though. The team that played the 1st half last night was the same team we saw the 1st half of the season and looked really good. There's still plenty that has to be improved on, and it starts with playing a full game. But I think you're overcorrecting a bit after you're overly optimistic early season posts

I mean, my optimistic posts turned out to be true. And then for whatever reason, we just decided we can't play basketball anymore. I've never ever ever seen a team go from looking as dominant as we did, to completely lifeless in a span of a month. Something is wrong

 

[UCLJ0211]

Surprisingly, and perhaps undeservedly- the metrics still are in our favor. Some “home cooking” and a few wins under our belt and we will right this ship. Everyone take a deep breath, lots of season left.

 

[navery12]

That's the benefit of having such a great early season, it gives a nice cushion to withstand this stretch. That's not going to last forever and the bottom will fall out eventually if this continues, but I expect we've reached rock bottom and we get back to looking like a top 25 team again

 

[willie99]

I just want a win, nothing else matters

This team simply doesn't pass the eye test right now, the most important metric in my world

 

[freescooter]

We have just lost 5 of our last 6. The last 2 to bad teams. We are now in the second tier in our conference ranking with a losing league record. And you care about “metrics”? KenPom and the rest are silly theoretical models that are heavily overweighted toward certain factors that their developers think are important. SOS has actually been studied and shown to be a much weaker relationship to success than most models give it. It is also self influencing. Bad teams in good leagues always have better SOS and higher RPIs and similar rankings than they deserve, and therefore drive up the RPIs of other teams in their league. And good teams in weak leagues are always under rated which underrates teams that beat them. It is one reason there are so many first round upsets in the tournament. A team like Loyola or St Peters is artificially under valued because it’s conference is weak. A mid level major conference team like UConn is generally overvalued because even bad NOOBIE teams are overvalued.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

We have just lost 5 of our last 6. The last 2 to bad teams. We are now in the second tier in our conference ranking with a losing league record. And you care about “metrics”? If you KenPom and the rest are silly theoretical models that are heavily overweighted toward certain factors that their developers think are important. SOS has actually been studied and shown to be a much weaker relationship to success than most models give it. It is also self influencing. Bad teams in good leagues always have better SOS and higher RPIs and similar rankings than they deserve, and therefore drive up the RPIs of other teams in their league. And good teams in weak leagues are always under rated which underrates teams that beat them. It is one reason there are so many first round upsets in the tournament. A team like Loyola or St Peters is artificially under valued because it’s conference is weak. A mid level major conference team like UConn is generally overvalued because even bad NOOBIE teams are overvalued.

Blah blah blah. You're stalling.

Who are the 50 coaches who could do better?

It's already clear that you're convinced the program needs a new coach, so posts like this just reveal that you are afraid to step into the role you set up for yourself. You're worse than you think Hurley is.

The team needs leadership and someone has to step up. Show how it's done. What's stopping you?