Toggle sidebar

Pomeroy numbers......not good

M

Mojocat_rivals48469

Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
18,120
12,185
0
Just checked our numbers at kenpom.com. To say they aren't great is an understatement. Overall ranking is 26. Offensive efficiency is 32. Defensive efficiency is 43. We are free falling.

The juxtaposition of that profile vs the gutty road win we got last night.....it's hard to reconcile.

Historically of course, you can throw out a lot of polling data, a lot of advanced metrics, it comes down to this: is your team in the top 20 on offense per Pomeroy, and is your team in the top 20 on defense per Pomeroy? That's the formula. Since 2002, every national champion has hit those 2 marks, with one exception - 2014 UConn.

And right now, we ain't close to either.

I suppose 2 things can be said. One, this is a crazy year. Maybe someone like UConn in '14 wins, maybe this is one of those nutty years when conventional norms are out the window. Two, we can improve, and with 3 freshmen playing good minutes, maybe we can improve a lot. The Duke 2015 team was 57 in defense at the start of the ACC tournament, and it ended the season 3 weeks later at 11. This team isn't like that one, not like a typical Cal team either - we don't rely that heavily on freshmen, so I doubt we can rocket up the rankings once the light bulb goes on. But we can get better.

Likely have to......
 
  • Like
Reactions: JasonS., K-Town Kat and EliteBlue
C

caneintally

Heisman
Oct 1, 2002
27,455
17,056
0
Yeah I never have nor never will care what Saragin , Pom ect ect have to say as I trust my eyes after watching 20 plus college basketball games a week for the past 25 years . Just don't care and also they aren't used by the NCAA . The one stat that is we keep moving up in .
 
  • Like
Reactions: ManitouDan, blubo, Anon1679859502 and 3 others
C

cathouse_rivals216755

Heisman
Dec 30, 2002
10,641
20,618
0
Nope. Numbers don't matter. There is not a team out there that will want to go up against this team at tournament time.
Regardless of what these so called gurus think about UK, the games are settled on the floor.
Do yourself a big favor and stop reading their biased bullcrap. Most of their secret formulas are just plain bull crap that supports their personal biases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CGblue, jaknfo90, bigbluelou and 1 other person
C

caneintally

Heisman
Oct 1, 2002
27,455
17,056
0
bigbluelou said:
Crazy year. And we WILL continue to get better. Coming together more and more every game. You can just see it and feel it. Not worried about Pomeroy right now. It’s a lagging indicator. I like our leading indicators.
Click to expand...
Well you just said what I was trying to say way better then me . Exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbluelou
A

anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y

Guest
Mojocat said:
Just checked our numbers at kenpom.com. To say they aren't great is an understatement. Overall ranking is 26. Offensive efficiency is 32. Defensive efficiency is 43. We are free falling.

The juxtaposition of that profile vs the gutty road win we got last night.....it's hard to reconcile.

Historically of course, you can throw out a lot of polling data, a lot of advanced metrics, it comes down to this: is your team in the top 20 on offense per Pomeroy, and is your team in the top 20 on defense per Pomeroy? That's the formula. Since 2002, every national champion has hit those 2 marks, with one exception - 2014 UConn.

And right now, we ain't close to either.

I suppose 2 things can be said. One, this is a crazy year. Maybe someone like UConn in '14 wins, maybe this is one of those nutty years when conventional norms are out the window. Two, we can improve, and with 3 freshmen playing good minutes, maybe we can improve a lot. The Duke 2015 team was 57 in defense at the start of the ACC tournament, and it ended the season 3 weeks later at 11. This team isn't like that one, not like a typical Cal team either - we don't rely that heavily on freshmen, so I doubt we can rocket up the rankings once the light bulb goes on. But we can get better.

Likely have to......
Click to expand...
Don’t overthink this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbluelou and Mojocat_rivals48469
W

Wildcats1st

Heisman
Sep 16, 2017
18,949
28,911
0
I’m of the opinion that the crazy year argument isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. There is a clear cut top team thats emerged as well as 6-7 other solid contenders where the title will come from. This crazy year argument is based mostly on Home losses by number 1 teams to crap teams. There seems to be more parody than other years but when the dust settles it will be a top 2-3 seed win the title.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CincinnatiWildcat
B

BigKari

All-American
Apr 15, 2014
5,062
9,549
53
This team has been pretty solid defensively, overall opposing team shooting percentage for the year is 39%. Refs are manufacturing a lot of points for opposing teams though, which hurts. I wouldn’t call this team defensively intimidating or particularly dominant compared to some other Cal teams, but they are good. Need to improve to go from good to solid, to make the kind of run we want to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbluelou
J

Jkwo_rivals113955

All-American
Apr 6, 2007
28,225
7,410
0
Mojocat said:
The Duke 2015 team was 57 in defense at the start of the ACC tournament, and it ended the season 3 weeks later at 11.
Click to expand...
The other part of this is that the kenpom prediction is actually kind of a retrodiction. If they're just talking after the tournament numbers, then yeah, the champion has just run through 6 legitimate teams and come out on top. You'd have to start kinda low on either O or D for that not to boost your rank into the top 20.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deplion_rivals116063, K-Town Kat, bigbluelou and 2 others
M

Mojocat_rivals48469

Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
18,120
12,185
0
Jkwo said:
The other part of this is that the kenpom prediction is actually kind of a retrodiction. If they're just talking after the tournament numbers, then yeah, the champion has just run through 6 legitimate teams and come out on top. You'd have to start kinda low on either O or D for that not to boost your rank into the top 20.
Click to expand...
Good point! That's occurred to me in the past, but i was forgetting it.

Maybe that 57 to 11 run by Duke isn't so much that they were mostly freshmen and they suddenly got it, maybe it's just 6 extra games against good competition......
 
D

DerekMcPwn

Heisman
Sep 13, 2016
5,937
19,655
0
Mojocat said:
Just checked our numbers at kenpom.com. To say they aren't great is an understatement. Overall ranking is 26. Offensive efficiency is 32. Defensive efficiency is 43. We are free falling.

The juxtaposition of that profile vs the gutty road win we got last night.....it's hard to reconcile.

Historically of course, you can throw out a lot of polling data, a lot of advanced metrics, it comes down to this: is your team in the top 20 on offense per Pomeroy, and is your team in the top 20 on defense per Pomeroy? That's the formula. Since 2002, every national champion has hit those 2 marks, with one exception - 2014 UConn.

And right now, we ain't close to either.

I suppose 2 things can be said. One, this is a crazy year. Maybe someone like UConn in '14 wins, maybe this is one of those nutty years when conventional norms are out the window. Two, we can improve, and with 3 freshmen playing good minutes, maybe we can improve a lot. The Duke 2015 team was 57 in defense at the start of the ACC tournament, and it ended the season 3 weeks later at 11. This team isn't like that one, not like a typical Cal team either - we don't rely that heavily on freshmen, so I doubt we can rocket up the rankings once the light bulb goes on. But we can get better.

Likely have to......
Click to expand...

Well there’s this for starters:


That’s a particularly acute example of what I suspect is a larger problem with the predictiveness of KenPom efficiency numbers when applied to Kentucky.

Cal spends a huge part of the season learning about his players and experimenting, and doesn’t usually settle the team into its final, most efficient rotation/strategy until January or February.

I suspect Kentucky is significantly undervalued by analytics this season. Not saying we’re top 10 or a Final Four team, and we’ve certainly failed to deliver the resume you would expect from a team that is, but I do think the KenPom numbers are misleading and that will be proven by outcomes through the remainder of the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AFSTALLION13, carolinacat, CatOfDaVille and 4 others
R

Ron Mehico

Heisman
Jan 4, 2008
15,473
33,054
0
The issue with Kenpoms numbers is it’s at the end of the year, which is ridiculous. Its after you win the championship, so of course you’ll be high up you just caught fire on a neutral court against good opposition for 6 straight games. You should look at numbers before conference tournaments - you know, the actual season. Lots of exceptions in that case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mojocat_rivals48469
P

Poetax

Heisman
Apr 4, 2002
29,410
20,887
0
Mojocat said:
Just checked our numbers at kenpom.com. To say they aren't great is an understatement. Overall ranking is 26. Offensive efficiency is 32. Defensive efficiency is 43. We are free falling.

The juxtaposition of that profile vs the gutty road win we got last night.....it's hard to reconcile.

Historically of course, you can throw out a lot of polling data, a lot of advanced metrics, it comes down to this: is your team in the top 20 on offense per Pomeroy, and is your team in the top 20 on defense per Pomeroy? That's the formula. Since 2002, every national champion has hit those 2 marks, with one exception - 2014 UConn.

And right now, we ain't close to either.

I suppose 2 things can be said. One, this is a crazy year. Maybe someone like UConn in '14 wins, maybe this is one of those nutty years when conventional norms are out the window. Two, we can improve, and with 3 freshmen playing good minutes, maybe we can improve a lot. The Duke 2015 team was 57 in defense at the start of the ACC tournament, and it ended the season 3 weeks later at 11. This team isn't like that one, not like a typical Cal team either - we don't rely that heavily on freshmen, so I doubt we can rocket up the rankings once the light bulb goes on. But we can get better.

Likely have to......
Click to expand...






Honestly I think it all works out if we continue to win most of our games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UK-Chulo
J

Jkwo_rivals113955

All-American
Apr 6, 2007
28,225
7,410
0
DerekMcPwn said:
Well there’s this for starters:


That’s a particularly acute example of what I suspect is a larger problem with the predictiveness of KenPom efficiency numbers when applied to Kentucky.

Cal spends a huge part of the season learning about his players and experimenting, and doesn’t usually settle the team into its final, most efficient rotation/strategy until January or February.

I suspect Kentucky is significantly undervalued by analytics this season. Not saying we’re top 10 or a Final Four team, and we’ve certainly failed to deliver the resume you would expect from a team that is, but I do think the KenPom numbers are misleading and that will be proven by outcomes through the remainder of the season.
Click to expand...
Jeez. That's really unfortunate.

I'm definitely not one to pile on any of the kids here, but I do wonder where KW ranks in terms of the high-minutes players at the bottom of the output rankings.

Like, leave aside the guys who got 5 minutes a game - they can't have had too much of an impact.

Is Whitney among the 2-3 least productive we've had here of the substantial players under Cal? He must be.
 
B

bigbluelou

All-American
Apr 13, 2011
9,274
5,560
0
DerekMcPwn said:
Well there’s this for starters:


That’s a particularly acute example of what I suspect is a larger problem with the predictiveness of KenPom efficiency numbers when applied to Kentucky.

Cal spends a huge part of the season learning about his players and experimenting, and doesn’t usually settle the team into its final, most efficient rotation/strategy until January or February.

I suspect Kentucky is significantly undervalued by analytics this season. Not saying we’re top 10 or a Final Four team, and we’ve certainly failed to deliver the resume you would expect from a team that is, but I do think the KenPom numbers are misleading and that will be proven by outcomes through the remainder of the season.
Click to expand...
Well said. Completely agree.
 
B

bigbluelou

All-American
Apr 13, 2011
9,274
5,560
0
Wildcats1st said:
I’m of the opinion that the crazy year argument isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. There is a clear cut top team thats emerged as well as 6-7 other solid contenders where the title will come from. This crazy year argument is based mostly on Home losses by number 1 teams to crap teams. There seems to be more parody than other years but when the dust settles it will be a top 2-3 seed win the title.
Click to expand...
Maybe "crazy year" isn't the right term. I think there is more parity than I can ever remember in CBB, and I've been watching since the mid-70's. We hear it every year, but I think we're actually seeing it this year more than ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wildcatwelder_rivals
P

Poetax

Heisman
Apr 4, 2002
29,410
20,887
0
bigbluelou said:
Maybe "crazy year" isn't the right term. I think there is more parity than I can ever remember in CBB, and I've been watching since the mid-70's. We hear it every year, but I think we're actually seeing it this year more than ever.
Click to expand...




Some bracket guy was on Leach’s radio shop and was saying that the elites weren’t getting to stock pile all the talent anymore. Spreading it out over several like a GA and Washington keeps parity among the schools which makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbluelou
D

DerekMcPwn

Heisman
Sep 13, 2016
5,937
19,655
0
Jkwo said:
Jeez. That's really unfortunate.

I'm definitely not one to pile on any of the kids here, but I do wonder where KW ranks in terms of the high-minutes players at the bottom of the output rankings.

Like, leave aside the guys who got 5 minutes a game - they can't have had too much of an impact.

Is Whitney among the 2-3 least productive we've had here of the substantial players under Cal? He must be.
Click to expand...

The Hoops Insight guy claims that KW is the worst real-minutes player (from a +/- standpoint) that he’s measured in the seven years he’s been keeping stats for Kentucky. The second worst was freshman Nick Richards. I think that gives you a picture of the work KW had cut out for him. Starting behind Nick Richards, but without the physical gifts and desperate roster need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jkwo_rivals113955
M

Mojocat_rivals48469

Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
18,120
12,185
0
DerekMcPwn said:
Well there’s this for starters:


That’s a particularly acute example of what I suspect is a larger problem with the predictiveness of KenPom efficiency numbers when applied to Kentucky.

Cal spends a huge part of the season learning about his players and experimenting, and doesn’t usually settle the team into its final, most efficient rotation/strategy until January or February.

I suspect Kentucky is significantly undervalued by analytics this season. Not saying we’re top 10 or a Final Four team, and we’ve certainly failed to deliver the resume you would expect from a team that is, but I do think the KenPom numbers are misleading and that will be proven by outcomes through the remainder of the season.
Click to expand...
Good post - and that Hoops Insight tweet.....:flushed:
 
A

anon_013cn8yrfncx2

Guest
Mojocat said:
Just checked our numbers at kenpom.com. To say they aren't great is an understatement. Overall ranking is 26. Offensive efficiency is 32. Defensive efficiency is 43. We are free falling.

The juxtaposition of that profile vs the gutty road win we got last night.....it's hard to reconcile.

Historically of course, you can throw out a lot of polling data, a lot of advanced metrics, it comes down to this: is your team in the top 20 on offense per Pomeroy, and is your team in the top 20 on defense per Pomeroy? That's the formula. Since 2002, every national champion has hit those 2 marks, with one exception - 2014 UConn.

And right now, we ain't close to either.

I suppose 2 things can be said. One, this is a crazy year. Maybe someone like UConn in '14 wins, maybe this is one of those nutty years when conventional norms are out the window. Two, we can improve, and with 3 freshmen playing good minutes, maybe we can improve a lot. The Duke 2015 team was 57 in defense at the start of the ACC tournament, and it ended the season 3 weeks later at 11. This team isn't like that one, not like a typical Cal team either - we don't rely that heavily on freshmen, so I doubt we can rocket up the rankings once the light bulb goes on. But we can get better.

Likely have to......
Click to expand...

So who are the teams that are top 20 in both. That should give us a clue
 
OldRed

OldRed

All-Conference
Jun 7, 2001
17,998
4,654
113
Wildcats1st said:
I’m of the opinion that the crazy year argument isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. There is a clear cut top team thats emerged as well as 6-7 other solid contenders where the title will come from. This crazy year argument is based mostly on Home losses by number 1 teams to crap teams. There seems to be more parody than other years but when the dust settles it will be a top 2-3 seed win the title.
Click to expand...
We are just a parity of a Final Four team right now.
 
RoyKent

RoyKent

Heisman
Feb 3, 2015
22,999
33,217
66
People saying KenPom is dumb or they don’t care about his rankings are being ignorant.

They are very much taken into consideration for seeding. Posters blowing if off are being dumb.
 
Col. Angus

Col. Angus

Hall of Famer
Apr 7, 2017
78,132
240,044
83
The 20 and 20 thing with Pomeroy is an after the season figure. Not before the NCAAT. Playing 6 good teams in a row and beating them usually boosts the **** out of your numbers.
 
S

Sithlyone

All-Conference
Apr 12, 2012
2,086
1,501
0
There are no good teams in Cbb this year. Throw out all the metrics, they dont mean squat this season.

Use the "eye test" and see which team is best.

We are getting better and look to be rounding into form as we turn the corner for the back stretch of the season. Good things ahead, no matter what those numbers say!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ManitouDan and BigBubDaBiz
C

carolinacat

All-Conference
Nov 7, 2007
4,954
4,827
113
Our stats are really pretty good...with a couple of exceptions.
--3 pt FG % is 32%...but that is trending upward in SEC play at 37%. Thank you IQ. We are holding teams below 29% on 3 pt FG%. I'll take that.
--Turnovers. We have more turnovers than our opponents in SEC play (81-65) and even overall, which is inexcusable considering how many teams we played that we dominated. We also start three athletic guards who should be excellent ballhandlers. I believe Cal will fix that before March.
--Hagans is shooting 35% in conference play...good news is a couple good games and that number will increase as the sample size is small. We can't go far with him shooting that poor of a %.

Excepting the turnovers, I thought the TTU game might have been one of our best given the hype and the environment.
 
4

4UK

All-Conference
Sep 26, 2005
30,388
4,433
0
It's almost comical how so many fans these days want to prove how "smart" they are by buying into all the advanced analytical numbers.

We were told for years that analytics have changed the game of baseball, and the Astros, Red Sox, and all the other teams who hired people out of the business world and the top math kids out of college were proof of this. In fact, they were just skilled at using technology to cheat, and it had zero to do with analytics.

As others have said, you can manipulate numbers to say anything you want them to. So just use your eyes. It's clear this team is getting better. It's also clear they can beat any team out there, and sadly, they can lose to just about anyone as well.

How far this team goes will be entirely dependent on the effort they bring to the floor. When they play hard and together for 40 minutes, they win. When they don't, they generally lose. It will have absolutely nothing to do with contrived "efficiency" numbers from Ken Pomroy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CalipariCapo
K

kybassfan

Heisman
Jul 1, 2005
20,032
16,368
113
4UK said:
It's almost comical how so many fans these days want to prove how "smart" they are by buying into all the advanced analytical numbers.

We were told for years that analytics have changed the game of baseball, and the Astros, Red Sox, and all the other teams who hired people out of the business world and the top math kids out of college were proof of this. In fact, they were just skilled at using technology to cheat, and it had zero to do with analytics.

As others have said, you can manipulate numbers to say anything you want them to. So just use your eyes. It's clear this team is getting better. It's also clear they can beat any team out there, and sadly, they can lose to just about anyone as well.

How far this team goes will be entirely dependent on the effort they bring to the floor. When they play hard and together for 40 minutes, they win. When they don't, they generally lose. It will have absolutely nothing to do with contrived "efficiency" numbers from Ken Pomroy.
Click to expand...

Lot of truth to this. The advanced analytics are essentially just quotients chosen to further whatever point the user is trying to make. You can destroy the predictive nature of this with a simple observation. Basketball is not transitive. Essentially each team has a range of potential performances, from a best to worst with a distribution of likelihood for those. You catch a team like Evansville on a very good night against a team like Kentucky on a bad night, an upset happens. This is how a team like Auburn loses twice to us then wins the third.

Simple minds struggle with this and the concept makes gamblers vomit. However it is the reason simple quotients fail. The question is, if they play great and we play bad, can we lose. In any given game, the answer is yes.
 
B

BoulderCat_rivals187983

All-Conference
May 22, 2002
7,871
3,227
0
Mojocat said:
Just checked our numbers at kenpom.com. To say they aren't great is an understatement. Overall ranking is 26. Offensive efficiency is 32. Defensive efficiency is 43. We are free falling.

The juxtaposition of that profile vs the gutty road win we got last night.....it's hard to reconcile.

Historically of course, you can throw out a lot of polling data, a lot of advanced metrics, it comes down to this: is your team in the top 20 on offense per Pomeroy, and is your team in the top 20 on defense per Pomeroy? That's the formula. Since 2002, every national champion has hit those 2 marks, with one exception - 2014 UConn.

And right now, we ain't close to either.

I suppose 2 things can be said. One, this is a crazy year. Maybe someone like UConn in '14 wins, maybe this is one of those nutty years when conventional norms are out the window. Two, we can improve, and with 3 freshmen playing good minutes, maybe we can improve a lot. The Duke 2015 team was 57 in defense at the start of the ACC tournament, and it ended the season 3 weeks later at 11. This team isn't like that one, not like a typical Cal team either - we don't rely that heavily on freshmen, so I doubt we can rocket up the rankings once the light bulb goes on. But we can get better.

Likely have to......
Click to expand...
Interesting, I tend to think defense is this team’s strength yet those ratings have us higher in offensive efficiency. I’ll guess that being such a great FT shooting team is part of that. It’s certainly not our percentage behind the 3 point line though that has been improving, 7-15 yesterday, that’s excellent.

This is an unusual year. There are 3 “mid-majors” currently in the top 7 Gonzaga, SDSU, and Dayton. With them being in conference play who knows if they are flukes, or one of them will walk away with an NCAA title. I tend to dismiss this year’s UK team, but who knows maybe as an 8 seed we’ll knock off the #1 ranked team and go to the F4. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.
 
T

The_Answer1313_rivals

Heisman
May 27, 2007
31,927
25,066
113
Ron Mehico said:
The issue with Kenpoms numbers is it’s at the end of the year, which is ridiculous. Its after you win the championship, so of course you’ll be high up you just caught fire on a neutral court against good opposition for 6 straight games. You should look at numbers before conference tournaments - you know, the actual season. Lots of exceptions in that case.
Click to expand...

Yeah but u can.
I mean you can look at the rankings at any date in time on the website. So if you want to ignore post conference ratings and just look at where teams were before the tournament, you can.
 
T

The_Answer1313_rivals

Heisman
May 27, 2007
31,927
25,066
113
4UK said:
It's almost comical how so many fans these days want to prove how "smart" they are by buying into all the advanced analytical numbers.

We were told for years that analytics have changed the game of baseball, and the Astros, Red Sox, and all the other teams who hired people out of the business world and the top math kids out of college were proof of this. In fact, they were just skilled at using technology to cheat, and it had zero to do with analytics.

As others have said, you can manipulate numbers to say anything you want them to. So just use your eyes. It's clear this team is getting better. It's also clear they can beat any team out there, and sadly, they can lose to just about anyone as well.

How far this team goes will be entirely dependent on the effort they bring to the floor. When they play hard and together for 40 minutes, they win. When they don't, they generally lose. It will have absolutely nothing to do with contrived "efficiency" numbers from Ken Pomroy.
Click to expand...

Just because the Houston Astros decided to cheat, doesn't mean that analytics haven't played a role.

It allowed the Oakland As to compete with the higher payroll teams for so long. The Pittsburgh Pirates used it to their benefit. The Red Sox don't win a title in how long, they hire Bill James and end up winning two right after that.

I mean there are countless examples. The thing about that is eventually teams catch up and the advantage is lost. The bigger payroll teams eventually realize hey wait up we can spend money on that as well.

Also I don't understand the whole manipulating of numbers. People always use this argument but it's a load of BS. Yes you can manipulate numbers to make them say anything you want. But these aren't people working for a specific team. Why would they go through the trouble of developing a system and designing it to say what they want? That doesn't make any sense.

I could make a model and have it say that UK is the number one team in the nation. Why on earth would I want to do that tho? What benefit does that bring?

The reason people do this stuff is to try and estimate to the best of their ability the true talent level of teams. If I'm just designing something to tell me something I want it to, what's the purpose in that.
 
B

BigBlueFanGA

Heisman
Jun 14, 2005
26,435
23,456
0
Mojocat said:
Just checked our numbers at kenpom.com. To say they aren't great is an understatement. Overall ranking is 26. Offensive efficiency is 32. Defensive efficiency is 43. We are free falling.

The juxtaposition of that profile vs the gutty road win we got last night.....it's hard to reconcile.

Historically of course, you can throw out a lot of polling data, a lot of advanced metrics, it comes down to this: is your team in the top 20 on offense per Pomeroy, and is your team in the top 20 on defense per Pomeroy? That's the formula. Since 2002, every national champion has hit those 2 marks, with one exception - 2014 UConn.

And right now, we ain't close to either.

I suppose 2 things can be said. One, this is a crazy year. Maybe someone like UConn in '14 wins, maybe this is one of those nutty years when conventional norms are out the window. Two, we can improve, and with 3 freshmen playing good minutes, maybe we can improve a lot. The Duke 2015 team was 57 in defense at the start of the ACC tournament, and it ended the season 3 weeks later at 11. This team isn't like that one, not like a typical Cal team either - we don't rely that heavily on freshmen, so I doubt we can rocket up the rankings once the light bulb goes on. But we can get better.

Likely have to......
Click to expand...
I dont think to much of Kenpom anymore.
 
T

The_Answer1313_rivals

Heisman
May 27, 2007
31,927
25,066
113
Lastly, people look at the front page of Kenpom and conclude things.

These numbers aren't too bad. The teams are so close to one another, one good performance can have us shoot up the efficiency ratings on both offense and defense.

You wanna know what's alarming to me?
The underlying numbers.
For so long on offense, we have feasted on offensive rebounds and getting to the line. We still get to the line. We are ranked 9th in the nation.

The problem is 77th in offensive rebounding % when we are usually top 10 in the Cal era.

If you don't shoot the ball well and u turn it over at an average rate, you better be rebounding the misses.

And we aren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatguy87
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom