KenPom preseason ranking

[dtodd4475]

I don't put much credence in college pre season rankings, but UNC falls in at 17 right in between Texas & Kentucky. His system is big on Arizona not so much on lasts years Cinderella Florida Atlantic.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...EQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3r7Q8NHRVFs-AMC5_QwhkS

 

[FlaTarHeel]

He's a clown

 

[dtodd4475]

He's a clown

His numbers normally match up with the NET pretty well, which is the formula for the seeding and invites for the dance. The weekly rankings are just goofy for fun stuff, but these type algorithms hold some weight. Especially the NET.

It is kinda pointless without the stats from this years rosters and results, just predictions like the rest, but the low expectations of the ACC as a whole caught my eye as well.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

My understanding is that Pomeroy's early rankings are part algorithm - things like last year's performance weighted by who's returning - and part subjective - where subjective includes other rankings like AP. Over a few weeks of play, the subjective weighting is reduced until there are enough games to rely on the algorithms.

What makes Pomeroy better than many other ratings, imo, is that he includes all the teams. And you get their schedule* at the same time as you get their rating, which is very convenient.

*The schedule only includes known opponents. So, for example, he doesn't yet list 2nd and 3rd round games from our early tourney.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

He's a clown

I will unhelpfully point out that your comment is unhelpful. ;-)

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

His numbers normally match up with the NET pretty well, which is the formula for the seeding and invites for the dance. The weekly rankings are just goofy for fun stuff, but these type algorithms hold some weight. Especially the NET.

It is kinda pointless without the stats from this years rosters and results, just predictions like the rest, but the low expectations of the ACC as a whole caught my eye as well.

Although his algorithms factor in returning players, that looks pretty tricky to me with all the departures and movement. I'm guessing he's worked his algorithms to accommodate transfers. But imagine how difficult it would be to predict St John's - under new coach (Pitino) and iirc 11 new players. He has them at #60, right next to NC State (61), Pitt (62), and Va Tech (65).

 

[ChiShankCity]

These projections are probably not going to be entirely accurate by the end of the season (I'm talking general CBB, not UNC). Last year's #1 offensive team's efficiency was 122.3. This year's projected #1 offense is 114.9. Last year's #1 defensive team's efficiency was 87.5. This year's projected #1 defense is 85.0.

But big picture, that's how I'm projecting UNC this year. Something around a Sweet 16 team. The KenPom rankings projects our offense to be 15th best and defense 24th best. That goes in line with my thinking. We'll be a pretty damn good offensive team. Our defense will be a weakness relative to Final Four contending teams.

The interesting number is projected tempo 72.5 (59th in the country).

And before people freak out about only being the 59th fastest team. Here were Roy's team's tempo

2022: 70.2
2021: 71.5
2017: 71.3
2016: 70.5
2009: 72.9
2008: 72.5
2005: 73.1

So the projected tempo is slightly above the average tempo Roy's teams played at.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

These projections are probably not going to be entirely accurate by the end of the season (I'm talking general CBB, not UNC). Last year's #1 offensive team's efficiency was 122.3. This year's projected #1 offense is 114.9. Last year's #1 defensive team's efficiency was 87.5. This year's projected #1 defense is 85.0.

But big picture, that's how I'm projecting UNC this year. Something around a Sweet 16 team. The KenPom rankings projects our offense to be 15th best and defense 24th best. That goes in line with my thinking. We'll be a pretty damn good offensive team. Our defense will be a weakness relative to Final Four contending teams.

The interesting number is projected tempo 72.5 (59th in the country).

And before people freak out about only being the 59th fastest team. Here were Roy's team's tempo

2022: 70.2
2021: 71.5
2017: 71.3
2016: 70.5
2009: 72.9
2008: 72.5
2005: 73.1

So the projected tempo is slightly above the average tempo Roy's teams played at.

I wonder what our fastest team would look like. With Cadeau and RJ in the backcourt, we're good there. Withers looks fast to me. Trimble, Ryan and maybe Wojcik should give us a pretty quick team if we go small, but will we have a fast big team? How fast are Hill and Okonkwo?

 

[gauchoheel]

These projections are probably not going to be entirely accurate by the end of the season (I'm talking general CBB, not UNC). Last year's #1 offensive team's efficiency was 122.3. This year's projected #1 offense is 114.9. Last year's #1 defensive team's efficiency was 87.5. This year's projected #1 defense is 85.0.

But big picture, that's how I'm projecting UNC this year. Something around a Sweet 16 team. The KenPom rankings projects our offense to be 15th best and defense 24th best. That goes in line with my thinking. We'll be a pretty damn good offensive team. Our defense will be a weakness relative to Final Four contending teams.

The interesting number is projected tempo 72.5 (59th in the country).

And before people freak out about only being the 59th fastest team. Here were Roy's team's tempo

2022: 70.2
2021: 71.5
2017: 71.3
2016: 70.5
2009: 72.9
2008: 72.5
2005: 73.1

So the projected tempo is slightly above the average tempo Roy's teams played at.

The #24 defense seems optimistic to me. We were #46 last year, and we lost our best defensive player in Leaky. Nance to Ingram is probably a bit of an upgrade, and Love to Cadeau is hard to tell (most freshman aren't good defenders though, especially smaller guards). Overall it seems worse if anything. I suppose there could be some regression to the mean if last year was just a bit fluky bad.

My defensive skepticism leads to hope that the offense can be really freakin' good, as I think it'll need to be for us to be a top team. That basically translates into Cadeau fully living up to the hype. If he can be a good lead guard I think our offense will hum, as Ryan is at minimum a much better shooter than Leaky, we drop Love's shot selection issues, and there's more offensive depth with Ingram/Withers/ Wojcik instead of just Nance. There's also potential for further improvements from Bacot and Davis, or a leap from one of the sophomores.

 

[ChiShankCity]

The #24 defense seems optimistic to me. We were #46 last year, and we lost our best defensive player in Leaky. Nance to Ingram is probably a bit of an upgrade, and Love to Cadeau is hard to tell (most freshman aren't good defenders though, especially smaller guards). Overall it seems worse if anything. I suppose there could be some regression to the mean if last year was just a bit fluky bad.

My defensive skepticism leads to hope that the offense can be really freakin' good, as I think it'll need to be for us to be a top team. That basically translates into Cadeau fully living up to the hype. If he can be a good lead guard I think our offense will hum, as Ryan is at minimum a much better shooter than Leaky, we drop Love's shot selection issues, and there's more offensive depth with Ingram/Withers/ Wojcik instead of just Nance. There's also potential for further improvements from Bacot and Davis, or a leap from one of the sophomores.

I second your skepticism. I think our defense will get naturally better if we're better offensively but I don't see us being a team that can win games 55-50. I think it will be weak relative to the really good teams in the country. Maybe in the 35 range at the end of the season.

 

[gauchoheel]

I second your skepticism. I think our defense will get naturally better if we're better offensively but I don't see us being a team that can win games 55-50. I think it will be weak relative to the really good teams in the country. Maybe in the 35 range at the end of the season.

Yeah the issue is that Bacot isn't a great defender in space and we've had poor point of attack defenders at guard, then to top it off we force very few turnovers. I don't see that changing this year unless Cadeau really surprises on defense, and we're also losing our wing stopper in Leaky. I'm worried about that side of the ball.

 

[dtodd4475]

I also think the pre conference schedule will be important, get going early with the new faces gelling. If the league is sub par again, gotta win some of the non conference matchups. Have struggled there lately.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Using Pomeroy's ratings, warts and all, we start out with 3 creampuffs, then a not-quite-a-creampuff.

168 - Radford
269 - Lehigh
234 - UC Riverside
98 - Northern Iowa

That's a little better than last season, when we started with 5 creampuffs. Although, to be fair, 2 of those 5 ended the season out of creampuff territory.

After those 4 we probably face 3 top 25 teams in a row. Does that early lineup prepare us? We'll find out.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Unless you are really on top of things it's harder to judge teams this early than it used to be.

Take our first foe, Radford. They were 21-15 last season, 2nd in their conference, and made the semifinals of some lesser postseason tournament. Not too shabby for a creampuff.

In the old days, we'd look at their roster from last year and think "OK, they return 4 starters." Still a creampuff but not a creampuff you should sleep on. But these days, who knows how many of their better players return?

 

[dtodd4475]

That Tennesee, UConn, Kentucky, Oklahoma stretch, with Florida St. conference opener mixed in between will be important.

Using Pomeroy's ratings, warts and all, we start out with 3 creampuffs, then a not-quite-a-creampuff.

168 - Radford
269 - Lehigh
234 - UC Riverside
98 - Northern Iowa

That's a little better than last season, when we started with 5 creampuffs. Although, to be fair, 2 of those 5 ended the season out of creampuff territory.

After those 4 we probably face 3 top 25 teams in a row. Does that early lineup prepare us? We'll find out.