2023-2024 B1G Basketball Thread

[ELA]

Basically Zach Edey is in any game with a 20 point Purdue lead and less than four minutes to play, Painter must really hate the opposing coach. Not saying that Painter/Purdue has or would do this, just saying that the system should be set up so as not to infinitely credit any quality team for needlessly running up the score.

I don't think it's running up the score, I think it's not artificially letting the game get close.

There is an MSU-UM game I always remember.  Looked up the PBP to get the details right, it was 2016.  Izzo called a timeout with 2:53 left, and an 87-57 lead, to empty the bench.  Beilein pressed the walk ons, and Michigan ended the game on a 16-2 run in 2:53.  So the final MOV was 16, because the walkons couldn't defend, and went a combined 0-4 with 5 turnovers.  Their 2 points were on FTs.  This was pre-NET, and I don't think the RPI counted MOV at all, which is also problematic.  But today, you absolutely can't do that

[betarhoalphadelta]

Apparently MOV is no longer included. I didn't include the link to what I quoted, so here it is:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2022-12-05/college-basketballs-net-rankings-explained

Now, the adjusted efficiency DOES mean that you benefit from not pulling the starters in a blowout, because the efficiency numbers for the walk-on whiteout are typically dreadful.

So it's possible that they removed MOV but replaced it with a similar incentive to what existed when MOV was included.

[boilerbanger]

You guys are awesome, great stuff here in understanding the numbers.

[medinabuckeye1]

I don't think it's running up the score, I think it's not artificially letting the game get close.

There is an MSU-UM game I always remember.  Looked up the PBP to get the details right, it was 2016.  Izzo called a timeout with 2:53 left, and an 87-57 lead, to empty the bench.  Beilein pressed the walk ons, and Michigan ended the game on a 16-2 run in 2:53.  So the final MOV was 16, because the walkons couldn't defend, and went a combined 0-4 with 5 turnovers.  Their 2 points were on FTs.  This was pre-NET, and I don't think the RPI counted MOV at all, which is also problematic.  But today, you absolutely can't do that

Apparently MOV is no longer included. I didn't include the link to what I quoted, so here it is:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2022-12-05/college-basketballs-net-rankings-explained

Now, the adjusted efficiency DOES mean that you benefit from not pulling the starters in a blowout, because the efficiency numbers for the walk-on whiteout are typically dreadful.

So it's possible that they removed MOV but replaced it with a similar incentive to what existed when MOV was included.

It sounds like MoV is not a "thing" which kiboshes @ELA 's proposed cap on it (with or without my tweaks). 

Instead they use efficiency which is measured in points scored and points allowed per 100 possessions.  That still effectively includes MoV but it is much more complex. 

From ELA's example above, in that 2016 game MSU scored 87 and gave up 57 in the first roughly 37 minutes then got outscored 16-2 in the last three. 

It looks like there were around 9 possessions each in the last three minutes and 1.2 points per possession is very good so lets assume that each team had 72 possessions in the first 37 minutes.  Thus:

• 121 MSU points per 100 possessions in the first ~45 minutes (87/72=1.21)
• 79 MSU points given up per 100 possessions in the first ~45 minutes (57/72=0.79)
• 22 MSU points per 100 possessions in the last ~3 minutes (2/9=0.22)
• 178 MSU points given up per 100 possessions in the last ~3 minutes (16/9=1.78)
• 110 MSU points per 100 possessions for the game (89/81=1.10)
• 90 MSU points given up per 100 possessions for the game (73/81=0.90)

So MSU's offensive AND defensive efficiency each deteriorated by 11 points per 100 possessions because Izzo sent in the backups.  That is a HUMONGOUS swing which would take that from a VERY good win where you were scoring ~120 and allowing ~79 per 100 possessions to a run of the mill win where you were scoring 110 and allowing 90 per 100 possessions.  Ie, MSU's advantage got cut in half in just three minutes. 


I think it is important to cap that somehow but it is a LOT more complex when you are calculating efficiency than when you are just looking at MoV.

[betarhoalphadelta]

@medinabuckeye1 when did CBB games become 48 minutes long? 

[medinabuckeye1]

@medinabuckeye1 when did CBB games become 48 minutes long?

LoL, oops. Fixed it.

[NickSmith4Three]

So assembly hall in Bloomington has been evacuated during the game?  

[847badgerfan]

Someone pulled a fire alarm. Very frustrating.

[medinabuckeye1]

Someone pulled a fire alarm. Very frustrating.

Might be appropriate for Wisconsin right now.  

[847badgerfan]

Might be appropriate for Wisconsin right now. 

Well, they were actually on a good run when it happened.

[medinabuckeye1]

Last night Iowa beat Penn State as expected but Indiana's win over Wisconsin was an upset so quick update:

For Indiana the win moves them up into a projected tie with tOSU for 12th/13th and Indiana wins that tie based on a H2H sweep so they get the #12 seed which knocks tOSU down to the #13 seed.  Ultimately not a big deal since #12 and #13 play on Wednesday in the BTT so this only changes the jersey colors.  

For Wisconsin this drops them from a projected tie with Nebraska for 3rd/4th into a tie with Northwestern for 4th/5th.  I *THINK* Wisconsin wins that tie so they still project to get a double-bye but it is REALLY close.  

How bad are things for Wisconsin?  
First, lets not overreact.  They've lost six of their last eight but three were expected losses and one was Purdue which is just a tough nut to crack.  The other two, however, are a bit troubling.  Wisconsin lost in Ann Arbor three weeks ago and in Bloomington last night.  Those are not good losses in any way, shape, or form.  

Another way to look at it is that five of the six losses were very close:

• Two were in OT, @ UNL and @ Iowa
• Two were by four points, @ Mich and @ IU
• One was by six points, vs PU
• Only one was a decisive defeat, @ RU by 22

OTOH, the home win over Maryland during that stretch was also only by four points so this cuts both ways.  


Wisconsin now has two positive upsets and four negative upsets.  That isn't bad but the concerning thing is the timing.  The two positive upsets occurred in early December and mid January.  One of the positive upsets also occurred in mid January but the other three are all fairly recent.  

The difference between Tier-2 (where they are now) and Tier-3 is the expected result in home games against Tier-1 and road games against Tier-4.  There are five of those:

• at tOSU, W on 1/10
• at PSU, L on 1/16
• vs PU, L on 2/4
• at IU, L on 2/27
• vs IL, 3/2

At this point we need to move Wisconsin down a tier because even if they manage to beat Illinois this weekend they'll still be below .500 in these games at 2-3.  

[847badgerfan]

Concur.

[medinabuckeye1]

I'm sure someone will ask why we aren't also moving MSU down a tier.  Well, same question, home games against Tier-1 and road games against Tier-4.  There are potentially five such games but MSU doesn't host Purdue nor visit Ohio State so that just leaves three:

• vs IL, W on 2/10
• @ PSU, W on 2/14
• @ IU, 3/10

MSU is 2-0 with one to play so even if they lose in  Bloomington they'll still finish over .500 in these games at 2-1.  

Below you'll see that MSU and UW end up projected to finish tied at 11-9.  If you are wondering why they project to finish tied despite MSU being in a higher tier there are three reasons:

• MSU has a less favorable schedule.  They miss four projected wins and two projected losses while Wisconsin misses three of each.  
• MSU is net -2 in upsets with one up (win at Maryland) and three down (loss vs UW, loss vs IA, loss vs tOSU).  
• Now that we have moved them down a tier, UW is net +2 in upsets with three up (win at MSU, win at tOSU, win at MN) and one down (loss at M).  

[847badgerfan]

The vultures are out on Greg Gard this morning. Wow.

Who do they think their gonna get? 

Even though he'd be great, Lamont Paris would be an absolute no, since he and Gard are besties.