Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Nuttin' but Net' started by BengermanV, Jan 24, 2014.
Much better than a team they lost to rather convincingly? Pass that chit maaaan (Chris Tucker voice)
Single outcomes obviously aren't always indicative of overall strength. Think about Ole Miss vs. Florida football in 2008.
KenPom actually generated some interesting stats on homecourt outcomes. If team A beats another team, B, by 30 points at home, guess what percentage of the time that team A beats B in the return trip to B's arena.
That Michigan squad had plenty of upperclassmen leadership. You can use all the Cinderella teams as plenty of examples of experience winning out.
Can Kansas beat us on a neutral court? Absolutely... My thing is I think saying they are "much" better than we are, now, beginning of the season or in the tourney, is ludicrous.
You can cherry pick examples all you want, but there is no way that a team led by Trey Burke and Mitch McGary should be considered to have more senior tourney experienced leadership than one led by Kenny Boynton, Erik Murphy, and Mike Rosario.
I don't know what "much" means exactly, but I probably wouldn't say that any team is "much" better than Florida this year. That said, Kansas is doing some more impressive things that we are currently.
PS In answer to my trivia question: A team that beats another team at home by 30 beats that same team on return road trip about 50% of the time. How crazy is that? After winning by 30.
Who's cherry picking? They're factual examples. You need to read a little more careful. I stated that they had leadership; never stated more experience. You made it sound like they were boys amongst men. That wasn't the case.
Do you think that "cherry picked" examples are not "real" examples? The opposite of cherry picking data is to use systematic comprehensive analysis. Do you think that looking only at "Cinderella teams" constitutes comprehensive analysis? I could point to Carmelo's title team, UK's fantastic 2012 team, Derrick Rose's Memphis team, Ohio State's 2007 team...or even UF 2006 team led by a bunch of sophomores. But again this is cherry picking. If you look at the data more holistically, you'll see that both senior led teams and youthful teams have had good tourney runs.
As far as Michigan goes, those kids weren't just any normal FR. Its my understanding that most of them were all kids of former NBA players or coaches.
Either way, it doesn't matter what other teams are doing right now, because with a limited roster, we could EASILY be undefeated right now. We are just as good or better than any team in the country and there isn't one single team that I would say is "much" better than we are regardless of how many lottery picks they have. We have talent AND experience. Every team in the country just better hope we don't get Walker back.
I'm quite educated on the history of basketball. The question at hand was how one could state Kansas, a team we have already beat not at full strength, could be much better then us come tourney time. Sure there have been teams that are young that have made runs but I think history shows the more experienced teams do better and win more championships.
It turns out that KenPom keeps experience stats. Florida ranked 28th in the nation last years with an average of 2.3 years of experience per player. Michigan actually ranked 342nd (out of 347) with an average of 0.73 years experience per player. I won't argue that those guys weren't special. They were, but they were certainly young as well. Not unlike Kansas's roster this year.
I think that we have a good team. And we could easily be undefeated this year. We could easily have additional four losses though as well. I would be nervous to play us in the NCAA tourney. But there is another 15 teams that I also be nervous to face. Any given Saturday. Or Sunday, Friday, Thursday, I guess.
Now this is a different question, which I addressed above. But let's apply your logic to another example: How could Florida in 2006, a team that Alabama beat in February, be much better than Alabama come March? Because the regular season game represents a random single outcome.
I am not arguing that Kansas is much better than Florida, by the way, but I don't agree that (1) their youth and (2) their six point loss to us on the road is proof that they aren't better than us.
Kansas is one of the teams I don't think anyone will want to play come March. They'll be more "battle tested" than anyone else and are tremendously talented. They're also the 13th most offensively efficient team in the nation right now - and remember that this has been while playing the toughest schedule as well. They also may have the top 2 picks in the NBA draft - both of whom started the season never having played against college competition. They could both be deadly by the end of the year. IMO Kansas simply has the most room for improvement. They're clearly not the same team they were in November and I think they're still a ways from where they'll be come tourney time. The only question I see with them is point guard play.
One of the things I think is great about what Billy does is field a team in November comprised of players with talent and experience. When inexperienced, young players are counted on, its usually only at one position. The other side of this though is that it can mean that his teams have less room for improvement relative to others. This doesnt' matter at all when he's got a great team (certainly didn't matter in 07). And I'm not saying his teams dont' have plenty of room for imrovement. But IMO, even considering roster instability so far this year), I don't think Florida has as much room for growth as a team like Kansas. Its not a slight against this Florida team - its just logical from my perspective.
I agree with just about everything you said here and in this thread, my only problem has been with the couple people on here confidently saying Kansas will be "much" better than us.
Head to head is not something they really look at when seeding teams because its not just between 2 teams for each seed. A few years ago we got a 2 seed and Kentucky got a 4 seed even though Kentucky had beaten us 2 out of 3 times including SEC tourney championship. Kentucky fans were in an uproar because they used the idea of head to head to compare themselves to only UF while ignoring the entire body of work by each team.
Kansas has had a ridiculously tough schedule, and their losses are to some very highly rated teams. They have also got some very good Big 12 wins so far. Joel Embiid looks like a beast. They are already better than when we played them. I think UF still has a shot at a 1 seed though, and the possible addition of Chris Walker may help that.
We are a top team right now and we can still add a lottery player to our team...no other top team has that situation right now so we could be even way better than we are now.
I'd have no argument with anything you said here. My issue, like Gatorchamps, was the MUCH better comment made by another poster which was what I initially addressed.
I don't think we are the same team we were when we beat Kansas in November. I may be wrong, but wasn't Wilbekin suspended, Yeguette gimpy, and did Prather even play?
Honestly, Kansas doesn't scare me at all the NCAA tourney and I'd be surprised if they made it to the Elite 8 and downright shocked if they made it to the Final Four. Wiggins is just too wildly inconsistent at this point and I don't think he can string together the 6 in a row to win the tourney. Against Iowa St he's a beast with 17/19 stat line and the next game he scores 3 pts and has 2 rebounds. They are doing well now but they will get nipped in the tourney.
They played 36, 30 and 30 minutes, respectively. Embiid went for 6 and 6. Could have been good defense against him, but I also suspect (like the rest of the world) that he's improved a good bit lately.
Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Florida hasn't improved when they talk about how much improvement Kansas has seen.