Big Ten schedule is out

Well yeah we improved, but I wouldn’t say it was a drastic improvement. For example, we improved from 75 to 58 on KenPom despite an extra year of seasoning + adding Walton, Duncan and Mo to the mix. We weren’t a tournament quality team in my opinion and just got kind of lucky that our resume worked out just well enough. So I don’t think just one more year of growth is gonna make a huge difference at this point. I think a lot of these players have gotten near their peaks. Obviously we won’t get worse, but I can see it remaining fairly stagnant (a bit of improvement in the advanced metrics and a 8-10 seed).

Saying stuff like “This year’s team is not last year’s team” and “You can choose to look backward and dwell on past short comings, or look forward with optimism” is not meant to create a discussion, because it is not actual saying anything about basketball. It is just meant to shame people for not being overly optimistic and get them to stop saying anything negative.

He was discussing it. Quit trying to shut down his positive outlook. That’s not how discussion works.

3 Likes

Oh, so we agreed that we improved despite having the same core players as 2014/2015. Interesting.

But now we can’t improve despite having those core players back again and adding Simpson in place of Andew Dakich as our backup PG? Interesting.

3 Likes

Reasons we will be better.

  1. Healthy Irvin
  2. MAAR starting from day one
  3. Simpson backup pg
  4. Wagner with a year to adjust
  5. Duncan with a year to adjust
3 Likes

But it’s the same core!

3 Likes

Basically our rotation last year was

Walton - Dakich
Rahk
Robinson - Dawkins
Irvin - Kam
Donnal - Doyle - Wagner

So this year we basically are swapping

Dakich for Simpson
Dawkins for Watson
Kam for Wilson
Doyle for Teske or Davis (although they’ll be the 3rd big instead of the 2nd big)

As a whole, I don’t think our backup situation has significantly improved as I don’t really have any faith in Watson, Wilson or Teske/Davis to be plus contributors next year. Xavier will probably be solid, but Dakich only played 5 mpg anyway and I’m not sure how much Beilein will be willing to play 2 PG lineups (which is the only way Simpson will be getting more than 6-7 mpg in conference). Our backup situation probably got worse unless we can make 2 PG lineup works and Beilein is willing to use them.

And I think basically every single one of our contributors returning from last year is at or near their ceiling (besides Mo).

So yeah, my prediction for next year based on all that is 40-50 in the metrics and a 8-10 seed.

Our backup situation got worse? Getting rid of Dakich and Dawkins is addition by subtraction, even before you consider that Simpson should be pretty good in his own right.

How can we get up to 40 in the metrics from 58 with the same team as last year? You’re contradicting yourself.

2 Likes

You think Dawkins to Watson is some sort of massive upgrade? I mean maybe it is. But I wouldn’t bet on it at all. I view them as having similar skillsets but Watson is younger and appears to be a worse shooter. So I don’t think removing Dawkins automatically makes the team better, because what you’re replacing with him is likely worse. As we’ve heard on this board, Watson isn’t exactly known for his defense either.

There’s a reason I gave a range. 40 is what I think the best case is (assuming Mo doesn’t blow up into a star or something) assuming slight improvement all around from the returners. So I think we’ll be about 45 or so. Which would feel very meh to me.

Let’s break it down by groups.

Back court.

From
Walton (Jr), MAAR (So), Dakich (So)
to
Walton (Sr) MAAR (Jr), Simpson (Fr)

Improvement? I say yes.

Wings.

From
Irvin (Jr), Robinson (So), Dawkins (So), Kam (So)
to
Irvin (Sr), Robinson (Jr), Wilson (So), Watson (Fr)

Improvement? Debatable but I’ll say push at this point.

Front court.

From
Donnal (Jr), Mo (Fr), Doyle (So)
to
Donnal (Sr), Mo (So), Teske/Davis (Fr)

Improvement? Yes.

So despite it being the same core players, it’s certainly not being a homer to see how this team can improve from the past season to the upcoming season.

Yeah, I agree there should be some slight improvement (as I’ve made clear a few times). What level of improvement do you foresee?

Depends on health. Health was the biggest crippler of the past two seasons. If no one in the rotation misses significant time I can see this team with a ceiling higher than 40 in the metrics and 10-12 wins in conference.

Without injury, I don’t see how one could predict a sub .500 conference season.

If I was betting, I’d probably say 45 on the metrics and 10 wins in conference.

So we’re basically in agreement. That’s just not enough of an improvement for me to be excited/satisfied with the season to be honest.

That wasn’t what you said, though. You implied that this team couldn’t improve because it’s the same core. I’m glad you backed off that hot take, to be honest.

2 Likes

That’s not what I ever said.

AA7596 said he was concerned that this year’s team could let bad games snowball like last years. Champions said that “this year’s team is not last year’s team.” I said these are the same core players, and that an added year of experience isn’t enough to dismiss AA7596’s concerns.

Beyond that, the first thing I said about improving next year was.

So I don’t think just one more year of growth is gonna make a huge difference at this point. I think a lot of these players have gotten near their peaks. Obviously we won’t get worse, but I can see it remaining fairly stagnant (a bit of improvement in the advanced metrics and a 8-10 seed).

That’s pretty much what I’ve always been saying about what this team will do. A little bit of improvement in metrics (I don’t think 58 to 45 is a big jump) and a 8-10 seed. Which I feel is fairly stagnant in the grand scheme of things.

Just based on my own eye test, I actually feel the 14/15 team was slightly better than the 15/16 despite a better record. Assuming the strength of schedule were the same (bottom half of the B10 was complete trash in 15/16) both years, my gut tells me the 14/15 team would’ve outperformed the 15/16 team. Just feel like we were able to compete better vs quality teams on a more consistent basis, whereas we had an inflated record beating up on horrible teams in 15/16 sprinkled with a few Ws vs legit teams.

Doesn’t Kenpom adjust his ratings based on SOS? I may be wrong on that.

Probably so, hence my eye test. Does Kenpom acct for margin of loss, I.E. Competitiveness?

It does. KenPom ratings are basically just your points per possession differential adjusted for SOS (which is just the points per possession differential of your opponents). I love it because of how intuitive and simple it is, and it works so well.

2 Likes

His rating is based on AdjO and AdjD which is adjusted points per 100 possessions. So yes, margin of victory would be accounted in for because those points/possessions are factored into the equation.