Winning games will always be the most important thing. But in college hoops, metrics matter. Tony explains how IU botched the metrics this season, and why it's so important this doesn't happen again.
This is very good work. It highlights a couple of problems beyond the actual results. First, this is probably another area that Woody isn’t familiar with but, our college assistants have to make sure Woody understands the importance of things like the Net. Especially in years where you are struggling to get consideration for the tourney. So do our assistants not understand this or will Woody not listen? Either is bad. Next the reasons that good and bad teams over performed what the metrics would predict is due to how bad our defense has been. For example, Kennesaw State came within one made three of tying the most threes given up by IU. The record was set last year by Penn St. in our case, the analytics all season long have told the story of how bad we have been. We are possibly going to be a historically bad Indiana KenPom team.
Thanks, Tony for detailing this out so well. Shocking as I had wondered the other day why sports outlets were saying MSU was looking good for the Tournament only being one game ahead in Conference play of IU. Guess IU really would have either win rest of games by 30 point blowouts or win the B1G tourney to get to the big dance this year (neither of which are likely).
I could be wrong, but I think IU's bad metrics are much more simply a reflection of their overall bad play rather than an artifact of Woodson's substitution patterns. I'd lay the blame for their bad metrics on poor roster construction compounded by bad luck with regard to backcourt injuries. I think Michigan State's metrics reflect the fact that they're a better team than IU, with far better guards.
This is a part of it yes. The biggest lever you can pull to improve your metrics is simply being a better team. That’s why metrics are useful at all. The question is are we putting ourselves in a position to maximize the metrics of a particular group of players? I would say that for three straight seasons that really hasn’t been the case.
Certainly, to an extent. Better players/coaching/etc. are the #1 thing to aim for & will help the metrics the most. But there is a way to maximize what the metrics say about you even with a limited roster/talent/etc. & IU has showcased they just don't do that.
Analytics are here to stay and were an answer to all of the bitching and moaning on Selection Sunday. Taking emotion out of the equation can only happen with consistent analytics. However, is there a cap on the win or loss margin? It should probably tap out at 30 pts. so that teams don't run the score up on lesser opponents, in my opinion. Regardless, the analytics don't lie.....we aren't very good this year.
With this. Of course Woody isn’t thinking about this during the game, but he should to an extent. Also, we should continue to schedule the KU, Zona, UCONN, etc non-conf games. If we want to get back to where we all want to be, we have to start beating these teams in the national spotlight.
I always appreciate your analysis. I wonder if you could comment on SOS. I do not know IU's SOS this year, but it has been discussed here. I think Woodson is trying to bring IU back to national prominence and so has scheduled high ranked teams for prime time TV over the past two years. These games have mostly resulted in losses by sizable scores. How do you see the value of games with Arizona, Kansas, U Conn, and more in non conference? Obviously they are better if you win, but if you don't how do you see them? I don't know if UK is coming back to the schedule but it would not be a bad thing, at least to me. How about Notre Dame? What happened to that rivalry? I know IU played Louisville - this is good I think. How do you see all of this?
Indiana's overall strength of schedule right now is #22. Our non-conference strength of schedule was just 205th. There were some very good teams in UConn, Kansas, and Auburn, but losing to UConn meant we got #164 Louisville instead of #26 Texas. Playing those high profile games can be great as they are measuring sticks for the program ... but if you consistently get drilled in them, as we have been, then they can start to have a negative impact on both program perception and metrics. Given the lack of quality in our other non-con opponents, we needed to beat those teams more convincingly. Playing to the level of the 150th or 250th best team in the country will make the computers think you are a team of similar quality. Do that over and over without any big performances to counter it, and you get a team like Indiana with a bunch of 4- and 5-star recruits that has unfortunately performed somewhere between 90th-100th in the nation.
Thanks for the kind words! I think the national TV games & matchups with blue bloods is great for the program brand and also for recruiting efforts.
In an ideal world, you're winning those games, or in our case, at least competing. In a year where the Big Ten is down, the opportunity to knock off non-con opponents was IU's best chance at going dancing. Unfortunately, as you noted, there were lots of losses.
But I do still think that IU scheduling those games is the right thing to do.
Decent write-up but to call out X vs. UConn was a weird and unnecessary cheap shot. What if you instead noted that CJG has been brutal for TWO seasons, not helping IU out at all, before he surely transfers this spring? Sound mean? It is. But it’s true. At least X had many good games in an IU uniform.
I added that part in. I didn't intend it as a cheap shot at X. His performance was just the biggest lever that could be pulled in that game to change the final result. When he's been decent or good, we've played well. When he has played poorly or been unavailable, we've been blown out. He's the most important player on the roster, which we knew in the offseason. Unfortunately, health and his own inconsistencies have prevented from the positive impact we all know he can.
Thanks, Coach Adranga, for this in-depth, well-explained piece. I appreciate it. It’s not a popularity contest, so we don’t have to like the system (and I don’t), but we do have to adhere to its rules of governing, so to speak. One question, from your paragraph: “It doesn’t care about wins and losses. It looks at how you performed vs how you were expected to perform...” Who (KenPom) determines and how do they determine “how you were expected to perform” since that becomes the basis by which a team is measured?
Thanks, Lisa! KenPom uses the offensive and defensive efficiencies of each team, then some fancy mathematics that create a prediction model for what the final score of a game should be.
At the beginning of the year, he weights last season, alongside returnees, etc. but as the year goes on, it's all this year's data that is factored in.
Thanks, Coach Adragna, for clarifying. Seems like a LOT resting on a perhaps somewhat subjective baseline for a team. Sure wish there was a better formula for establishing the baseline when it effects everything going forward.
I’m confident the coaching staff was well aware of the importance of metrics starting the season. But were probably surprised by how long it took for this group of young players individually and collectively, and the coaches as well, to figure out how hard and smart you have to play in order to succeed. That was particularly true on the defensive end. The best offensive players were also the poorest on defense. Add with some untimely and key injuries, it didn’t lead to more positive results.
Some fans may not have liked certain substitute patterns, but I doubt they would have made a significant difference in outcomes. Coaches were trying to identify subs who could come in and supply energy and a spark. That did not happen except on a few occasions with Walker and Gunn. And later in the schedule with Leal. The bench was not as deep as everyone thought. Nothing teaches a lesson more than getting knocked down and facing adversity. It’s a great motivator, and hopefully a lesson learned. There is no questioning that the Hoosiers are playing with more energy, enthusiasm, and determination now than earlier in the year.
Realistically, the Hoosiers will have to beat a team they’ve lost to twice, and most certainly two more teams seeded higher than them to win the BTT. I’ll be cheering hard, but will not hold my breath for a miraculous ending. Just hoping to see a continuation of the hustle and good play seen at the close of league play.
A. Absolutely I’d feel better about IU at 50 vs 100.
B. Analytics are inevitable in this day and age, so I guess I accept them and move on. Sports has been and will always be “ about the numbers”.
C. Man did I learn some great information. Thank you Tony. As a career educator, well taught. As a “mindset over numbers” guy, well presented.
D. Great work, Tony. It’s very much appreciated and Go Hoosier!
Thanks so much for the kind words, Bill! Means a lot!
This is very good work. It highlights a couple of problems beyond the actual results. First, this is probably another area that Woody isn’t familiar with but, our college assistants have to make sure Woody understands the importance of things like the Net. Especially in years where you are struggling to get consideration for the tourney. So do our assistants not understand this or will Woody not listen? Either is bad. Next the reasons that good and bad teams over performed what the metrics would predict is due to how bad our defense has been. For example, Kennesaw State came within one made three of tying the most threes given up by IU. The record was set last year by Penn St. in our case, the analytics all season long have told the story of how bad we have been. We are possibly going to be a historically bad Indiana KenPom team.
I would be absolutely shocked if all of the assistants and support staff members were not acutely aware of this information.
Likewise!
Great analysis, Tony. Would feel WAY better about the team if we had those green scores of yours and the same record. So, yeah, the metrics work.
You & me both!
Thanks, Tony for detailing this out so well. Shocking as I had wondered the other day why sports outlets were saying MSU was looking good for the Tournament only being one game ahead in Conference play of IU. Guess IU really would have either win rest of games by 30 point blowouts or win the B1G tourney to get to the big dance this year (neither of which are likely).
Sure thing, Steve! IU would certainly need to go on a big run to end the year here. Agreed with you that neither are very likely :(
I could be wrong, but I think IU's bad metrics are much more simply a reflection of their overall bad play rather than an artifact of Woodson's substitution patterns. I'd lay the blame for their bad metrics on poor roster construction compounded by bad luck with regard to backcourt injuries. I think Michigan State's metrics reflect the fact that they're a better team than IU, with far better guards.
This is a part of it yes. The biggest lever you can pull to improve your metrics is simply being a better team. That’s why metrics are useful at all. The question is are we putting ourselves in a position to maximize the metrics of a particular group of players? I would say that for three straight seasons that really hasn’t been the case.
Certainly, to an extent. Better players/coaching/etc. are the #1 thing to aim for & will help the metrics the most. But there is a way to maximize what the metrics say about you even with a limited roster/talent/etc. & IU has showcased they just don't do that.
Analytics are here to stay and were an answer to all of the bitching and moaning on Selection Sunday. Taking emotion out of the equation can only happen with consistent analytics. However, is there a cap on the win or loss margin? It should probably tap out at 30 pts. so that teams don't run the score up on lesser opponents, in my opinion. Regardless, the analytics don't lie.....we aren't very good this year.
Yeah, depending on the website, they do have caps that vary a bit. I agree, though. Your team is what the numbers say your team is.
Each of the different metrics treats it a little different. I believe the NET has it capped somewhere like 10 or 15, but I could be wrong on that.
Great Analysis. Couldn’t agree more
With this. Of course Woody isn’t thinking about this during the game, but he should to an extent. Also, we should continue to schedule the KU, Zona, UCONN, etc non-conf games. If we want to get back to where we all want to be, we have to start beating these teams in the national spotlight.
I certainly agree!
I always appreciate your analysis. I wonder if you could comment on SOS. I do not know IU's SOS this year, but it has been discussed here. I think Woodson is trying to bring IU back to national prominence and so has scheduled high ranked teams for prime time TV over the past two years. These games have mostly resulted in losses by sizable scores. How do you see the value of games with Arizona, Kansas, U Conn, and more in non conference? Obviously they are better if you win, but if you don't how do you see them? I don't know if UK is coming back to the schedule but it would not be a bad thing, at least to me. How about Notre Dame? What happened to that rivalry? I know IU played Louisville - this is good I think. How do you see all of this?
Indiana's overall strength of schedule right now is #22. Our non-conference strength of schedule was just 205th. There were some very good teams in UConn, Kansas, and Auburn, but losing to UConn meant we got #164 Louisville instead of #26 Texas. Playing those high profile games can be great as they are measuring sticks for the program ... but if you consistently get drilled in them, as we have been, then they can start to have a negative impact on both program perception and metrics. Given the lack of quality in our other non-con opponents, we needed to beat those teams more convincingly. Playing to the level of the 150th or 250th best team in the country will make the computers think you are a team of similar quality. Do that over and over without any big performances to counter it, and you get a team like Indiana with a bunch of 4- and 5-star recruits that has unfortunately performed somewhere between 90th-100th in the nation.
Thanks for the kind words! I think the national TV games & matchups with blue bloods is great for the program brand and also for recruiting efforts.
In an ideal world, you're winning those games, or in our case, at least competing. In a year where the Big Ten is down, the opportunity to knock off non-con opponents was IU's best chance at going dancing. Unfortunately, as you noted, there were lots of losses.
But I do still think that IU scheduling those games is the right thing to do.
Decent write-up but to call out X vs. UConn was a weird and unnecessary cheap shot. What if you instead noted that CJG has been brutal for TWO seasons, not helping IU out at all, before he surely transfers this spring? Sound mean? It is. But it’s true. At least X had many good games in an IU uniform.
I added that part in. I didn't intend it as a cheap shot at X. His performance was just the biggest lever that could be pulled in that game to change the final result. When he's been decent or good, we've played well. When he has played poorly or been unavailable, we've been blown out. He's the most important player on the roster, which we knew in the offseason. Unfortunately, health and his own inconsistencies have prevented from the positive impact we all know he can.
Very much appreciate the clarification. Thx.
Thanks, Coach Adranga, for this in-depth, well-explained piece. I appreciate it. It’s not a popularity contest, so we don’t have to like the system (and I don’t), but we do have to adhere to its rules of governing, so to speak. One question, from your paragraph: “It doesn’t care about wins and losses. It looks at how you performed vs how you were expected to perform...” Who (KenPom) determines and how do they determine “how you were expected to perform” since that becomes the basis by which a team is measured?
Thanks, Lisa! KenPom uses the offensive and defensive efficiencies of each team, then some fancy mathematics that create a prediction model for what the final score of a game should be.
At the beginning of the year, he weights last season, alongside returnees, etc. but as the year goes on, it's all this year's data that is factored in.
Thanks, Coach Adragna, for clarifying. Seems like a LOT resting on a perhaps somewhat subjective baseline for a team. Sure wish there was a better formula for establishing the baseline when it effects everything going forward.
Interesting. Analytics are one tool in the quiver. Coaches that ignore them do so to the detriment of their players.
I’m confident the coaching staff was well aware of the importance of metrics starting the season. But were probably surprised by how long it took for this group of young players individually and collectively, and the coaches as well, to figure out how hard and smart you have to play in order to succeed. That was particularly true on the defensive end. The best offensive players were also the poorest on defense. Add with some untimely and key injuries, it didn’t lead to more positive results.
Some fans may not have liked certain substitute patterns, but I doubt they would have made a significant difference in outcomes. Coaches were trying to identify subs who could come in and supply energy and a spark. That did not happen except on a few occasions with Walker and Gunn. And later in the schedule with Leal. The bench was not as deep as everyone thought. Nothing teaches a lesson more than getting knocked down and facing adversity. It’s a great motivator, and hopefully a lesson learned. There is no questioning that the Hoosiers are playing with more energy, enthusiasm, and determination now than earlier in the year.
Realistically, the Hoosiers will have to beat a team they’ve lost to twice, and most certainly two more teams seeded higher than them to win the BTT. I’ll be cheering hard, but will not hold my breath for a miraculous ending. Just hoping to see a continuation of the hustle and good play seen at the close of league play.
Woodson too old to change therefore a new coach is needed!
Woodson has the Talent. He just cannot figure out how to make them into a winning team!