Pilot Nation
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Realistic Rating Goal?

3 posters

Go down

default Realistic Rating Goal?

Post by up7587 Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:47 am

DD posted the following rating numbers for the upcoming schedule on the schedule thread:
Arizona State #59
Willamette
Alcorn State #338
Arkansas Pine-Bluff #355
Morgan State #208
Portland State #204
Incarnate Word #318
TBD
SE Missouri St. #246
VMI #210
Cal Poly #286
Oregon #39
San Jose State #269
Montana State #223
UC Davis #232

Gonzaga #1
St. Mary’s #37
BYU #40
USF #50
LMU #63
Santa Clara #110
Pacific #128
San Diego #158
Pepperdine #183
UP #292

Looking at the WCC, one of these things is not like the others. The median rating is less than 100. The average rating of the other 9 schools is 86. Throw out GU, and the average rating of the other 8 schools is still 96. UP near 300 is not acceptable.

In 2010 and 2011, UP was #94 and #92 respectively. The collapse in 2012 was to #272. Reveno finished his term with ratings of #254, #112, #114, #180. (If we only knew then what we know now). The best ranking in Porter's time was #264, and the average over his time was 289.

The ratings do not go back to Reveno's first year, which was very similar to his 2nd. UP was #271 his 2nd year and #107 his 3rd year, the start of his 3 year run-good.

So with a new coach and new players, some who are experienced, some who know the coach's system, and some who are unknown (to us) quantities, what is a reasonable goal for a year-end UP rating? I think getting anywhere near 100 is not reasonable. Getting to 200, in Portland State territory, would still be last in the WCC, but that seems like an ambitious goal to me. So I think a reasonable goal for Legan's first year is around 250, better than SJS and Cal Poly (and any of Porter's teams), behind UC Davis and Montana St.

Am I too conservative? Reveno built through recruiting freshman, so it took time to show improvement. Porter turned over the roster, but he could not get results. Does Legan's total roster turnover and use of grad transfers offer a better chance to rate higher? Legans has the staff he wanted and was successful with at EWU. FYI, EWU was #233, #150 and #91 the last three years. What are your predictions for the year-end rating?


up7587
Recruit
Recruit

Number of posts : 43
Registration date : 2021-06-10

Back to top Go down

default Re: Realistic Rating Goal?

Post by DoubleDipper Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:45 am

up7587 wrote: What are your predictions for the year-end rating?
The Pilots are obviously going to have win games during the preseason when they are the underdogs (they are currently the underdogs in all but three games), but the final rating is going to depend largely upon how well UP does in WCC play.

Potentially as high as #150 unless the team goes 8-8, and then then the rating could be closer to #125.

Yes, I am an optimist...why else would many of us stick with the Pilots over the past five seasons! Basketball
DoubleDipper
DoubleDipper
Pilot Nation Legend
Pilot Nation Legend

Number of posts : 9398
Location : Flying or Golfing
Registration date : 2011-11-03

BSleik likes this post

Back to top Go down

default Re: Realistic Rating Goal?

Post by up7587 Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:01 am

DoubleDipper wrote:Yes, I am an optimist...why else would many of us stick with the Pilots over the past five seasons! Basketball

Well, you have some in-person observation, so I hope you are closer than me.

up7587
Recruit
Recruit

Number of posts : 43
Registration date : 2021-06-10

Back to top Go down

default Re: Realistic Rating Goal?

Post by Dean Murdoch Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:14 am

up7587 wrote:I think getting anywhere near 100 is not reasonable.  Getting to 200, in Portland State territory, would still be last in the WCC, but that seems like an ambitious goal to me.

Well, here's the good news.

If you delve into barttorvik.com a little bit, he's got the Pilots ranked 352nd in defence (out of 358) as a team. That is absolutely sewering the Pilots' preseason rating, and along with it the season projections.

There's not an algorithm in existence that can accurately project the defensive efficiency of a team with 100% turnover and I would be very surprised if they were significantly worse than Div I average when the other team has the ball. And here's why.

Look back at Jim Hayford's tenure at EWU. We all know he had some really good teams there, but if you crunch some numbers those EWU teams under him were all horrible defensively. Kenpom has EWU's best defensive year in the Hayford era as his first year, when they were 218th in the country in adjusted defensive efficiency. That's 40th percentile so not terrible, but Hayford's other five years had EWU ranked among the dregs of Div I in AdjD - 303, 282, 283, 336, 296.

But suddenly, starting in 2017-18 EWU had an immediate improvement in AdjD and that coincides with Hayford heading to Seattle and Coach Legans taking the reins at EWU. EWU's AdjD for four seasons in the Legans era - 164, 240, 142, 156. Not elite, but a massive improvement over Hayford's years.

Now what do we chalk that up to? Just a coincidence? Coaching? Development of key players? Maybe some combination of all three, but I'm guessing the defensive philosophy brought in by Coach Legans played no small role in the stark turnaround. Defence at the Div I level is often as much to do with effort, intensity, and buy-in than it is about skill, and I think we're all hoping to see more of each of these characteristics than we did under any of Porter's teams.

barttorvik.com has the Pilots ranked 169th in Div I in offensive efficiency. A similar defensive improvement as Legans brought to EWU a few years back would give the Pilots a fighting chance to reach levels not seen since the Reveno era. Not that that's a high bar or anything!
Dean Murdoch
Dean Murdoch
Playmaker
Playmaker

Number of posts : 1222
Location : SK
Registration date : 2015-01-20

DoubleDipper likes this post

Back to top Go down

default Re: Realistic Rating Goal?

Post by DoubleDipper Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:41 am

Dean Murdoch wrote:Well, here's the good news.

Now what do we chalk that up to? Just a coincidence? Coaching? Development of key players? Maybe some combination of all three, but I'm guessing the defensive philosophy brought in by Coach Legans played no small role in the stark turnaround.
Repeating up7587's question, "What are your predictions for the year-end rating?"
DoubleDipper
DoubleDipper
Pilot Nation Legend
Pilot Nation Legend

Number of posts : 9398
Location : Flying or Golfing
Registration date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

default Re: Realistic Rating Goal?

Post by Dean Murdoch Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:41 pm

DoubleDipper wrote:Repeating up7587's question, "What are your predictions for the year-end rating?"

I was wondering if anyone was going to notice that I wrote a 350-word essay without actually answering the original question Very Happy

I don't think they're going to be nearly as helpless as these initial projections indicate. I'll guess high 100s/low 200s.
Dean Murdoch
Dean Murdoch
Playmaker
Playmaker

Number of posts : 1222
Location : SK
Registration date : 2015-01-20

DoubleDipper likes this post

Back to top Go down

default Re: Realistic Rating Goal?

Post by DoubleDipper Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:53 pm

Dean Murdoch wrote:There's not an algorithm in existence that can accurately project the defensive efficiency of a team with 100% turnover and I would be very surprised if they were significantly worse than Div I average when the other team has the ball.

Realistic Rating Goal? Defens10
DoubleDipper
DoubleDipper
Pilot Nation Legend
Pilot Nation Legend

Number of posts : 9398
Location : Flying or Golfing
Registration date : 2011-11-03

BSleik likes this post

Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum