KenPom 2023-2024 KenPom Rankings Thread

[big red22]

I feel like the NET is trying to save face on moving Nebraska to 31.  BPI is the only one that looks idiotic now

[49r]

I didn't get an update up after the Michigan game, sorry about that.

 

Duquesne is all the way up to #94 now, just about on par with Indiana.  Rutgers is into the triple digits.  We popped up to 27th after our win last night but have settled in at #29.  But #25 and #29 are separated by less than 0.10 of a point.

 

Torvik has us at #22, ahead of #23 Wisco and #24 MSU.

 

Here we go.

 

---

 

 

KenPom rankings as of 3-16-24

=======================

 

B1G (12-8) (1-0 BTT):
3. Purdue - W
10. Illinois - L
17. Wisconsin - L, W
20. Michigan State - W
29. Nebraska

46. Northwestern - W, L

47. Ohio State - W, L
52. Iowa - L
65. Maryland - L
77. Penn State - W

78. Minnesota - L, W

92. Indiana - W, W, W

103. Rutgers - L, W

128. Michigan - W, W

 

Non-Conference (10-1):
356. Lindenwood - W

342. Florida A&M - W

---Cornhusker Classic---
221. Rider - W
172. Stony Brook - W

---Sanford Pentagon---
159. Oregon State - W

 

---Cornhusker Classic---

94. Duquesne - W

 

231. Cal State Fullerton - W

11. Creighton - L
69. @Kansas State - W
237. North Dakota - W

301. South Carolina State - W

[HuskerFever]

33 minutes ago, big red22 said:

I feel like the NET is trying to save face on moving Nebraska to 31.  BPI is the only one that looks idiotic now

 

For what it's worth, we didn't really have many "quality wins" over the last month.

[hhcmatt]

The complaints about metrics with margin of victory have decreased ever since we started doling out ass-whoopins this last month

[Huskerpapa]

38 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

For what it's worth, we didn't really have many "quality wins" over the last month.

Given our history, every win is a quality win.

[Vinny]

13 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

The complaints about metrics with margin of victory have decreased ever since we started doling out ass-whoopins this last month

I just don’t understand why overtime games have a cap of one point victory.

[millerhusker]

14 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

The complaints about metrics with margin of victory have decreased ever since we started doling out ass-whoopins this last month

Make that ten double digit conference wins. Margin of victory in those games is nearly 18 points. Nebraska has been the most dominant team in the Big Ten since February 1st. We are smoking teams. Why does BTN never mention this? They couldn’t stop talking about how hot indiana was the past couple weeks. Smoked em, then it was “Meh, Indiana isn’t even an NIT team.” Same with when we played Minnesota. Smoked them too. The sentiment last night was, “Well, Nebraska will lose tomorrow to Illinois but they are fun to watch when Tominaga is shooting threes!” 

[hhcmatt]

14 minutes ago, Vinny said:

I just don’t understand why overtime games have a cap of one point victory.

 

depends on who is doing the metrics. there isn't a cap for that in kenpom

[49r]

5 minutes ago, millerhusker said:

Make that ten double digit conference wins. Margin of victory in those games is nearly 18 points. Nebraska has been the most dominant team in the Big Ten since February 1st. We are smoking teams. Why does BTN never mention this? They couldn’t stop talking about how hot indiana was the past couple weeks. Smoked em, then it was “Meh, Indiana isn’t even an NIT team.” Same with when we played Minnesota. Smoked them too. The sentiment last night was, “Well, Nebraska will lose tomorrow to Illinois but they are fun to watch when Tominaga is shooting threes!” 

 

Seems like BTN talking teams up is the kiss of death.  I kinda like flying under the radar.

[millerhusker]

1 minute ago, 49r said:

 

Seems like BTN talking teams up is the kiss of death.  I kinda like flying under the radar.

True. Some acknowledgment of what we’ve actually done to this point would be nice though

[Huskerpapa]

1 minute ago, millerhusker said:

True. Some acknowledgment of what we’ve actually done to this point would be nice though

At one point prior to the game, one of the announcers continually reference Ohio State while meaning to say Nebraska.  I thought it sounded rather disrespectful.  

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

20 minutes ago, Vinny said:

I just don’t understand why overtime games have a cap of one point victory.

Say there’s two games happening simultaneously. In both of them a team is down one with one second left shooting one FT. One team makes it, sends it to OT, and loses by 10. The other team misses it and loses by one in regulation.

 

If you don’t cap it, you’re punishing the team that actually did better and was able to send it to OT. And they’re already being punished by the efficiency metrics anyways, because I believe those still count in OT.

[Vinny]

7 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

Say there’s two games happening simultaneously. In both of them a team is down one with one second left shooting one FT. One team makes it, sends it to OT, and loses by 10. The other team misses it and loses by one in regulation.

 

If you don’t cap it, you’re punishing the team that actually did better and was able to send it to OT. And they’re already being punished by the efficiency metrics anyways, because I believe those still count in OT.

Then play better in OT? Why do they treat it like it doesn’t count? It’s five more minutes of basketball. They’re punished for what they do in that five minutes.

[HuskerFever]

7 minutes ago, Vinny said:

Then play better in OT? Why do they treat it like it doesn’t count? It’s five more minutes of basketball. They’re punished for what they do in that five minutes.

 

I have a bigger problem with a +3 point game turning into +12 or -8 strictly off of free throw scheming in the final minute of a game than I do counting OT or not.

 

It's difficult to evaluate "was this truly a close game or not?" Because no two 12-point victories are the same. But all OT games begin with two teams having the same amount of points after 40 minutes.

[BugeaterZ]

Seems intuitive to me that losing by 10 in overtime is better than losing by 10 in regulation. In the former you were one play from winning and in the latter several things would have to be different. 

[Norm Peterson]

2 minutes ago, BugeaterZ said:

Seems intuitive to me that losing by 10 in overtime is better than losing by 10 in regulation. In the former you were one play from winning and in the latter several things would have to be different. 

Yeah, the other team goes on a mini run in OT and suddenly you’re having to foul to stop the clock and a six point game quickly turns into a 10 point game. I would say capping it at one point gives you more accurate indication of how comparable the teams really were.

[PimpMario]

9 minutes ago, BugeaterZ said:

Seems intuitive to me that losing by 10 in overtime is better than losing by 10 in regulation. In the former you were one play from winning and in the latter several things would have to be different. 

 

For a counter point another way to look at it is if a team is tied with 5 minutes but loses by 10 is that more impressive than a team that was down 10 the entire time?  

[hhcmatt]

The value depends on the focus of your metrics.  When W/L is the focus, capping the OT makes sense.  When your focus is more OE/DE based, OT tends to give you the metrics of two teams giving their best so it certainly is relevant.

[BugeaterZ]

10 minutes ago, PimpMario said:

 

For a counter point another way to look at it is if a team is tied with 5 minutes but loses by 10 is that more impressive than a team that was down 10 the entire time?  

No but that's much harder to measure.

Also, the time is a fixed factor that dictates strategy.

[49r]

We stay at #29.  Torvik has us at #24.

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

12 hours ago, Vinny said:

Then play better in OT? Why do they treat it like it doesn’t count? It’s five more minutes of basketball. They’re punished for what they do in that five minutes.

OT is treated as a tiebreaker. The way I see it the two teams tied, but since ties aren’t allowed and playing HORSE is a stupid way to break a tie, they play 5 more minutes.

 

There’s a case for both ways of doing it. Sounds like some metrics cap it, some don’t. Either way is reasonable. And again the metrics that do cap it still count the efficiency metrics in OT, so a 10 point loss in OT is still punishing you. Just a muted punishment.

Edited March 17 by Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

[AuroranHusker]

12 hours ago, millerhusker said:

Make that ten double digit conference wins. Margin of victory in those games is nearly 18 points. Nebraska has been the most dominant team in the Big Ten since February 1st. We are smoking teams. Why does BTN never mention this? They couldn’t stop talking about how hot indiana was the past couple weeks. Smoked em, then it was “Meh, Indiana isn’t even an NIT team.” Same with when we played Minnesota. Smoked them too. The sentiment last night was, “Well, Nebraska will lose tomorrow to Illinois but they are fun to watch when Tominaga is shooting threes!” 

 

Screw these dillweeds. lol

 

[AuroranHusker]

13 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

Given our history, every win is a quality win.

 

I savor them all, especially stomping the likes of Indiana 3x. I was there for those early Hoiberg years. Oh boy, that was equivalent to sitting through many pain-filled afternoons at Memorial Stadium in these past 10 or so years.

[AuroranHusker]

5 hours ago, 49r said:

We stay at #29.  Torvik has us at #24.

 

I like the Roarin' Twenties. Let's Dance !!!!!!!!

 

 

[Norm Peterson]

On 3/16/2024 at 11:20 AM, Vinny said:

Then play better in OT? Why do they treat it like it doesn’t count? It’s five more minutes of basketball. They’re punished for what they do in that five minutes.

 

The day is Saturday, January 13, 1996, and the Nebraska Cornhusker men's basketball team is taking on Kelvin Sampson's Oklahoma Sooners down in Norman.

 

The game ends in a tie. But we can't have ties. So we go to overtime.

 

Overtime ends in a tie (after the officials waive off a Jaron Boone buzzer-beater -- that would have won the game -- because he released it from the short corner behind the plane of the backboard). But we can't have ties. So we go to a second overtime.

 

Second overtime ends in a tie, but Nebraska is losing starters to foul trouble. And we can't have ties. So we go to a third overtime with the Huskers short-handed.

 

And OU blows it open in OT #3 and wins by 17 points, 117-100.

 

Just play better in OT? That's the answer? Thanks for the recommendation.

 

Is that what the metrics are supposed to reflect? Whether a short-handed team was able to "play better" in the third OT?

 

Most games don't go to OT, let alone 3OT. And the likelihood that a team's efficiencies and results will be impaired by foul trouble increases in each extra 5-minute increment by which the game is extended.

 

Seems to me calling that 1996 game a 17-point loss rather than a 1-point loss would skew the data of what the metrics are intended to reflect, which is to reliably rank every team from best to worst.

 

The vast majority of games are decided in regulation. How is including results from OT going to improve your ability to rank the way teams are likely going to play in regulation?