RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Starting to think about next season's rankings

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/14 12:30 pm    ::: Starting to think about next season's rankings Reply Reply with quote

I thought it was time to start looking at the 2014-15 teams.

As a start, I took the top ten teams at the end of last year.

I identified seniors leaving, and other transfers when know.

I listed the incoming frosh, when known.

For players leaving, I calculated the total points, minutes rebounds and assist, and calculated the ratio of the total team's amount lost.

For incoming Frosh, Or Redshirt Frosh, I listed the HoopGurlz rank.

Before I start thinking about how the losses and gains affect the team, I'd like to make sure my data is correct.

Are there transfer in or out that I have missed?
I only have frosh for the top 100 Hoopgurlz, I assume some of these teams have other incoming frosh. If anyone knows, I can add them, although I doubt I would adjust my view materially based upon a player ranked beyond #100 (which isn't to say they can't have an impact, but I doubt I can predict that now.)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YZW-sCFVM6pG-3vWg9v0F1cb_LNUE5QaEjDzGgGS4Lo/edit?usp=sharing


NoDakSt



Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/14 1:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

To further complicate variables, Phil, you may also have to look at non-frosh redshirts who are now eligible for the upcoming season.

For example, TAMU has Oral Roberts Sophomore transfer Taylor Cooper and JUCO transfer Shlonte ALlen available next season. I've included Cooper's bio and Allen's write up.


http://www.aggieathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=632733&SPID=93247&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=27300&ATCLID=209259701&Q_SEASON=2014

http://www.aggieathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=632734&SPID=93247&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=27300&ATCLID=209478150


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/14 2:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree.

Added.

Thanks


Oldfandepot2



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 996
Location: Northeast


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/14 2:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Boy, that is a lot of work, Phil! Thank you. Gabby Williams, ranked 14th on Hoopgurlz is also apart of UCONN's incoming class.



_________________
Cave Canem!
We must listen to each other no matter how much it hurts. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/17/14 3:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Thanks, added


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 9:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

First stab at analysis

Starting with losses, I looked at the players leaving, either as seniors, or otherwise transferring. I calculated the points, minutes, rebounds and assists lost, as a percentage of the total. I simplistically averaged the amounts to come up with a single value. (Understandably, some categories are more important than others, so a better weighting scheme could be devised, but I think this is good enough for a first pass.)

Oddly, the team naturally divide into two groups. (See new chart on right). The top six teams (last years final rankings) all lost between 35 and 44 per cent of their last year's production. Teams ranked 7-10 all lost much smaller amounts, between 3 and 15%. The direction isn't unexpected; one hopes that a team with a large class will find that when that class is a senior class, the team will be ranked high, but the sharp dropoff is interesting.

The bulk of the team next year will be the returning players. However, one generally expects that as frosh become sophs, they get better, and there is little reason to think this improvement should be markedly different from team to team (This claim may provoke controversy, as fans of many teams are convinced that their coach develops players better than other coaches. Of course, there are differences, but as a simplifying assumption, I'll assume that returning players will all get better, and we can examine individual cases if necessary.)

Another potential issue is coaching changes, but there are no coaching changes in the top ten (with the arguable exception of North Carolina) so that doesn't need analysis.

Roughly speaking, we can start with last year's position, then decide whether to move down based upon losses, and up based upon incoming new players.

Let's start with UConn. The Huskies lose a fair amount with the losses of Dolson and Hartley. Arguably, the number 39%, understates the loss, depending on whether Stokes can fill the gap and whether Tuck returns healthy. Ignoring incoming classes for the moment, teams ranked below UConn can move ahead if losses are lower. ND was second, but loses almost exactly the same. One can argue about weighting, but the ND losses are slightly more, or at best a push. When we then look at the incoming frosh, it isn't an easy calculation, as ND has the #2 player, which may be worth a lot. ESPN
http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/class-rankings?class=2014

ranks the UConn class better, but the two classes are consecutive in the rankings, so the margin couldn't be slimmer.

Based on this information alone, it appears that UConn will remain ahead, but only slightly ahead of ND

Without doing a full analysis, let's glance down to see who could pull ahead of these two.
Stanford loses more and adds less. No
Maryland loses more and adds less. No
Louisville loses more and adds less. No

Baylor loses less than either UConn or ND. The value of Sims is arguably more than the numbers, so it may be a bigger loss than the 35% value. However, losing 35% versus 39 or 41% isn't than much of a difference, so on losses alone, then might be a little movement up, but not enough to move past those two. However, the incoming class is not in the ESPN top 20, so I think Baylor is more likely to move down than up.

North Carolina should have been in the driver's seat. They had no seniors, so had the potential of a major leap up. However, as we all know, DD decided to leave. Even with that loss, UNC only loses 17% of their production, and gets Hatchell back. The incoming class isn't highly ranked, so may not be much of a factor. It is difficult to estimate what shock waves will results from the DD decision, so UNC might move up, but a major question mark.

Tennessee also lost less than most other teams. With only Simmons as a senior, they lost 14% overall. Add in a very solid frosh class, which is ranked just below the UConn and ND classes, then note that assessment ignores the return of very highly ranked Tucker, and Tennessee could very well move up considerably in the rankings.

South Carlina, though, won the lottery. Losing only Montout, a player only responsible for 3% of production, the team would be likely to move up a lot before considering the incoming class. Headlined by #1 Wilson, but let's not overlook Jatarie White, plus two other solid players. The class is ranked second, only to UCLA, so I see USC moving up considerably. Maybe to number 3.

TAMU is a bit tougher, not much in losses, definitely less than any of the top six teams. I can't assess the incoming class effectively, as it includes two transfers I know little about. It seems like they should move up, but I don't see them moving past TN or USC. They lost less than any of the top six, but four spots is a long way to move.

My initial assessments:

    UConn
    Notre Dame
    South Carolina
    Tennessee
    Stanford
    UNC
    Maryland
    Louisville
    TAMU
    Baylor


To be fair, I haven't looked at any teams outside the top ten to see if they are likely to crack the top spots. UCLA and Duke out to be reviewed, and maybe Ohio State or Nebraska, just looking at incoming classes. Maybe later, but I'll be interested in reactions so far.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 10:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What I don't understand is how this can ignore the impact of bench players who now get a chance to contribute. Penn St may be the ultimate example of this. They had a huge 2013 recruiting class who played very little last year on a senior laden team.

I understand that conceptually they should show up in the returning points, but some coaches by choice or philosophy don't play their bench or freshmen as much as others but may have a lot of returning talent not really reflected in the numbers.

If freshmen are considered, shouldn't an equally ranked sophmore who spent most of last year waiting her turn on the bench? I would probably expect a bigger contribution from the sophmore finally getting minutes than I would expect from a true freshman. Why should for example PSU's 2013 class be ignored but an identical 2014 class would be considered?

BTW, I don't know if this is a significant factor for any of your top 10.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 12:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:

To be fair, I haven't looked at any teams outside the top ten to see if they are likely to crack the top spots. UCLA and Duke out to be reviewed, and maybe Ohio State or Nebraska, just looking at incoming classes. Maybe later, but I'll be interested in reactions so far.


I think you have to assume that UCLA and OhSt are a year away. They have returning squads that were thoroughly mediocre and some very talented freshmen. Give them a year to develop. It's up to them to surprise by developing more quickly.

I don't expect NU to suffer much if any dropoff and expect them to be the best of the Big10. Question is whether that makes them top 10 or more likely mid teens.

Duke is a serious top 10 contender despite the losses. They may actually be better because they won't be so leaden. Large question is how well Jones recovers. They have a great foundation with Jones, Williams, Henson And Chidom. Greenwell could be a huge factor if she is recovered. And they have a large and very talented freshman class, but they are mostly bigs. Their problem is a lack of guards. They'll be different, but they certainly have gobs of talent. The shortage at guard will require some real coaching by McCallie if they're going to succeed. But going into the season, I think they're as good as the last four of your ten.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 1:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
What I don't understand is how this can ignore the impact of bench players who now get a chance to contribute. Penn St may be the ultimate example of this. They had a huge 2013 recruiting class who played very little last year on a senior laden team.

I understand that conceptually they should show up in the returning points, but some coaches by choice or philosophy don't play their bench or freshmen as much as others but may have a lot of returning talent not really reflected in the numbers.

If freshmen are considered, shouldn't an equally ranked sophmore who spent most of last year waiting her turn on the bench? I would probably expect a bigger contribution from the sophmore finally getting minutes than I would expect from a true freshman. Why should for example PSU's 2013 class be ignored but an identical 2014 class would be considered?

BTW, I don't know if this is a significant factor for any of your top 10.


I don't disagree that the development of freshman is an issue. Many good coaches give limited playing time to freshman, as due to the big transition between high school and college. In fact, my guess is that the freshman to sophomore increase is the biggest, with each succeeding year, on average, being less of an increment. (One possible exception is the star junior playing second fiddle to the star senior, then becoming the go-to player as a senior. Sims comes to mind, but I'm not sure often that happens. As an aside, it would be a straightforward exercise, if you had the data base, to measure the impact of each class's transition. If you had that information, it could be used to revisit my simplistic assumption of uniform improvement.

I considered that to some extent in my UNC choice. While part of my thinking is that they did not lose that much, they didn't add that much with new players, so the fact that they had a strong freshman class, now becoming sophs, was part of my consideration that they will move up.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
What I don't understand is how this can ignore the impact of bench players who now get a chance to contribute. Penn St may be the ultimate example of this. They had a huge 2013 recruiting class who played very little last year on a senior laden team.

I understand that conceptually they should show up in the returning points, but some coaches by choice or philosophy don't play their bench or freshmen as much as others but may have a lot of returning talent not really reflected in the numbers.

If freshmen are considered, shouldn't an equally ranked sophmore who spent most of last year waiting her turn on the bench? I would probably expect a bigger contribution from the sophmore finally getting minutes than I would expect from a true freshman. Why should for example PSU's 2013 class be ignored but an identical 2014 class would be considered?

BTW, I don't know if this is a significant factor for any of your top 10.


I don't disagree that the development of freshman is an issue. Many good coaches give limited playing time to freshman, as due to the big transition between high school and college. In fact, my guess is that the freshman to sophomore increase is the biggest, with each succeeding year, on average, being less of an increment. (One possible exception is the star junior playing second fiddle to the star senior, then becoming the go-to player as a senior. Sims comes to mind, but I'm not sure often that happens. As an aside, it would be a straightforward exercise, if you had the data base, to measure the impact of each class's transition. If you had that information, it could be used to revisit my simplistic assumption of uniform improvement.

I considered that to some extent in my UNC choice. While part of my thinking is that they did not lose that much, they didn't add that much with new players, so the fact that they had a strong freshman class, now becoming sophs, was part of my consideration that they will move up.


I think we agree. I guess what I was thinking was that at UNC, but also at places like Baylor, Rutgers, Maryland, and GaTech, the impact of the class of '13 is already significantly reflected in the returning output because star freshmen played big roles last year. But at PSU, for example, it's not reflected because the freshmen didn't play. Not sure how you compensate for those differences in "returning little-used reserves expected to play major roles this year". Those missing players will have a huge impact at some schools, while there are no such players at many others.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 2:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Nice attempt at a quantitatively-based analysis. Your proposed top 10 seems reasonable to me, though I'd probably put Duke somewhere in the 5-10 range.
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/14 10:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I added four teams to the stats (those ranked 11-14 at end of last year):

Kentucky
West Virginia
Duke
Penn State

In the top 10 teams, the largest losses due to graduation (or transfer) were Maryland and Stanford, each at 44%

Kentucky moves us into new territory, losing five players accounting for 46% of production. That's a big hit. The incoming class is ranked 17th, and the frosh class is only 2 players, so Mitchell is going to have his work cut out for him. I don't see much chance of breaking into the top ten.


If Kentucky lost a lot, they won't get much sympathy form Coach Carey. His Mountaineers lost 5 seniors, and a whopping 54% of production. Holmes will have to carry the team, but it looks like a rebuilding year, and not much of an incoming class to build on. West Virginia had a good run last year, surprise a few people, and made me look smart when I picked them to win, but I think the run is over, and they will struggle to be in top 25.


If Carey is hurting, what about McCallie? Five seniors (seems like a trend) accounting for 68% of overall production. Over 65% of points graduated, and over 80% of assists. Duke, though, needs to be handled carefully. While they ended in 13th, they were second or third much of the season before devastating injuries to Gray and Jones. In most cases, I started with the ending position, but in this case, it would be better to assume they are a top five team to start. Still while getting Jones back will help, they did lose a lot. Balancing that, they bring in the third best recruiting class, but I checked, and they are all going to be freshman. They'll drop back from top five, but may still remain in top 10.

Penn State is also an interesting study. Just as I think no one can top the Duke losses, here comes PSU losing 68% of their production. They lose 75% of their points. No top 100 frosh incoming, but as someone pointed out, their anaconda freshman class will become sophomores. The class has seven though there was an ACL so only six played. That class will have to step up, but there is a lot of production to replace. Makes them a bit of a wild card. I like Washington as a coach, but she'll have her work cut out for her. I know she'll aim for top 10, but I don't see that happening.

I don't see any of the 4 other than Duke, cracking the top 10.

Hard to say where, I'll guess they don't quite pass UNC, but can remain ahead of MD. That knocks Baylor out of my top ten, which feels wrong, but I'll stick with it.

UConn
Notre Dame
South Carolina
Tennessee
Stanford
UNC
Duke
Maryland
Louisville
TAMU


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/01/14 7:28 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hmmm, got to rethink Duke, now that Jones is not returning. That's a blow.


NoDakSt



Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/01/14 7:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
Hmmm, got to rethink Duke, now that Jones is not returning. That's a blow.


A very big hit. They have no proven ball handlers, although from the sound of it, she wouldn't have been available anyway as her rehab has been slow and she would probably have had to sit out.


Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/01/14 1:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm returning to my earlier top 10

UConn
Notre Dame
South Carolina
Tennessee
Stanford
UNC
Maryland
Louisville
TAMU
Baylor

I didn't realize Jones might not be back this season, so my selection in top 10 was on the assumption she would be there. Without her, I don't see it happening.

I'm sure there will be someone else who gets into the top 10, just not seeing who it could be at the moment.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin