Rank | Prev. Rank |
TEAM | Record | Weighted Metric |
2013-14 Metric Rank |
AP Rank |
1 | 2 | Kansas | (4-0, 0-0) | 6.125 | 7 | 2 |
2 | 16 | Florida | (5-1, 0-0) | 15.585 | 9 | 15 |
3 | 7 | Pittsburgh | (5-0, 0-0) | 16.89 | 13 | 39 |
4 | 20 | Syracuse | (5-0, 0-0) | 18.215 | 34 | 8 |
5 | 1 | Louisville | (5-1, 0-0) | 18.228 | 44 | 9 |
6 | 18 | Memphis | (2-1, 0-0) | 18.49 | 6 | 21 |
7 | 3 | Arizona | (5-0, 0-0) | 18.72 | 27 | 4 |
8 | 5 | Ohio State | (5-0, 0-0) | 19.67 | 28 | 7 |
9 | 13 | Oklahoma St | (5-0, 0-0) | 20.31 | 1 | 5 |
10 | 11 | Michigan St | (6-0, 0-0) | 20.665 | 8 | 1 |
11 | 14 | Iowa State | (5-0, 0-0) | 22.55 | 2 | 17 |
12 | 15 | Wisconsin | (6-0, 0-0) | 22.89 | 25 | 10 |
13 | 10 | UCLA | (5-0, 0-0) | 28.575 | 19 | 19 |
14 | 4 | Duke | (5-1, 0-0) | 32.08 | 84 | 6 |
15 | 22 | Kentucky | (5-1, 0-0) | 32.275 | 4 | 3 |
16 | 19 | Minnesota | (5-1, 0-0) | 33.205 | 15 | 43 |
17 | 42 | Wichita St | (7-0, 0-0) | 33.55 | 23 | 12 |
18 | 23 | Baylor | (5-0, 0-0) | 33.68 | 36 | 18 |
19 | 26 | Colorado | (6-1, 0-0) | 33.685 | 11 | 36 |
20 | 21 | Oregon | (4-0, 0-0) | 34.115 | 43 | 14 |
21 | NR | N Carolina | (4-1, 0-0) | 34.292 | 12 | 16 |
22 | 40 | California | (5-0, 0-0) | 36.675 | 24 | NR |
23 | 31 | Villanova | (4-0, 0-0) | 37.895 | 22 | 37 |
24 | 43 | Connecticut | (6-0, 0-0) | 38.755 | 30 | 13 |
25 | 25 | BYU | (5-2, 0-0) | 41.125 | 29 | NR |
26 | 30 | Cincinnati | (4-0, 0-0) | 43.48 | 57 | 42 |
27 | 37 | Iowa | (5-0, 0-0) | 44.865 | 32 | 23 |
28 | 32 | St Marys | (5-0, 0-0) | 45.55 | 58 | NR |
29 | NR | Texas | (4-1, 0-0) | 45.58 | 17 | NR |
30 | 35 | Creighton | (4-0, 0-0) | 45.645 | 45 | 20 |
31 | 36 | Oklahoma | (4-1, 0-0) | 46.105 | 33 | NR |
32 | 45 | Arkansas | (3-1, 0-0) | 46.34 | 18 | NR |
33 | 39 | Butler | (4-0, 0-0) | 46.515 | 65 | NR |
34 | 41 | San Diego St | (2-1, 0-0) | 47.28 | 50 | NR |
35 | NR | Stanford | (5-1, 0-0) | 48.085 | 39 | NR |
36 | 27 | Illinois | (5-0, 0-0) | 48.745 | 77 | 44 |
37 | 34 | New Mexico | (4-1, 0-0) | 49.138 | 38 | 26 |
38 | 46 | U Mass | (6-0, 0-0) | 49.3 | 20 | 24 |
39 | 12 | Gonzaga | (4-1, 0-0) | 49.47 | 55 | 11 |
40 | 29 | Saint Louis | (5-0, 0-0) | 50.22 | 67 | NR |
41 | 9 | Marquette | (3-2, 0-0) | 50.898 | 52 | 25 |
42 | NR | Tennessee | (3-1, 0-0) | 50.9625 | 5 | 41 |
43 | NR | Dayton | (5-0, 0-0) | 52.36 | 35 | NR |
44 | 17 | Missouri | (5-0, 0-0) | 54.63 | 94 | NR |
45 | 50 | LSU | (3-1, 0-0) | 54.65 | 14 | NR |
46 | NR | Belmont | (6-1, 0-0) | 55.263 | 68 | 33 |
47 | NR | Xavier | (5-0, 0-0) | 55.57 | 31 | 38 |
48 | NR | Mississippi | (3-0, 0-0) | 55.755 | 70 | NR |
49 | 28 | VCU | (4-2, 0-0) | 57.005 | 53 | 27 |
50 | 6 | Michigan | (4-2, 0-0) | 57.67 | 10 | 22 |
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Statistical College Basketball Rankings, Vol. II
Below are my rankings for the Top 50 college basketball teams. Statistics/ratings are through games played on Monday, 11/25. Louisville, the former #1, dropped to #5 following their loss to UNC. Kansas is the new #1 team and I suspect they'll be near the top much of the season. Dropping out were: Indiana, Georgetown, Virginia, NC State, Arizona State, Southern Mississippi, Colorado State, and Alabama. Replacing those teams were: North Carolina, Texas, Stanford, Tennessee, Dayton, Belmont, Xavier, and Mississippi. As I expected with it being early in the season, some teams fluctuated quite a bit, and I think that will continue for maybe another month. It seems there is not much separating teams ranked 35-50 from team ranked 51-65, so look for another ten or so teams to move up in my Top 50 next week.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Developing Statistical College Basketball Rankings
In past years, I have enjoyed making a college basketball 'Top 50' during the course of a season. However, it was essentially an opinion poll, based off of final score, and perceived strength of opponent. In essence, there was no way of validating it any higher than the AP Top 25. This season, I have decided to go from a near 100% opinion-based poll, to a near 100% statistical-based poll. There are a couple of constraints that will prevent this from being as timely, accurate, and predictive as Ken Pomeroy's (http://kenpom.com/index.php) rankings: a.) I am not a computer scientist and have no idea how to develop code to make this a more automated process, and; b.) I am not a statistician, so it is above my head as to how to develop a unique methodology or statistical testing to take this to the next level. So I'll do the best I can with data that is freely available and my trusty sidekick OpenOffice Calc.
There are five key factors I use in developing the strength of a team both offensively and defensively. For offense, they are:
- Points Per Possession, or Offensive Efficiency
- Effective Field Goal %
- Free Throws Attempted Per Field Goal Attempted
- Offensive Rebounding %
- Turnover %
Conversely, the five key factors on defense are:
- Opponent Points Per Possession, or Defensive Efficiency
- Opponent Effective Field Goal %
- Opponent Free Throws Attempted Per Field Goal Attempted
- Opponent Offensive Rebounding %
- Opponent Turnover %
For reference, see http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/help_with_team_page for a description of these stats. A big thanks goes to Team Rankings for making all of these statistics freely available (http://www.teamrankings.com/ncb/stats/). Without that site, I couldn't embark on this endeavor without shelling out some cash. Offensive and defensive metrics were given a 75/25 adjustment based off strength of schedule. For example, say Team A has the #12 offense but #100 strength of schedule; while Team B has the #40 offense with the #4 strength of schedule. Team A would receive an 'Adjusted Offense Rank' of 34 [(0.75*12)+(0.25*100)], while Team B would Receive an 'Adjusted Offense Rank' of 31 [(0.75*40)+(0.25*4)]. A slightly worse offense with a noticeably tougher schedule, yields a better adjusted offense.
Before I post my Top 50, keep in mind the ultimate caveat, in that it is early in the season and the sample size is small. With that said, I weighed the current metric, with recruiting rankings (http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Basketball/CompositeTeamRankings), and a blend of the final 2012-13 final rankings from Ken Pomeroy (http://kenpom.com/index.php?y=2013) and Team Rankings (http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/overall-power-ranking-by-team?rating_date=2013-04-09). I have currently placed a heavier weight towards last years final rankings (about 48%), while recruiting received the lowest weight (about 17%). This season's metric rank receives the remaining weighting (about 35%). There is no rhyme or reason for those values other than some trial and error on my part. The lower the score in the Weighted Metric, the better. As the season progresses, those weights will be modified, ultimately until the point that this season's metric rank accounts for the entire 100%. I have developed a "Bad Loss Correction" to adjust a team's weighted rank when they lose to a team perceived to be worse than them. For now, I will keep my methodology behind that private, as I want to test it for a while to see how well it works.
To give you an idea of the direction a team is headed, I am posting this year's metric rank to the right of my current blended rank. This will give you an idea of whether a team is rated too high or low because of how the finished last year. For example, I have Kentucky rated #22, but they are playing as the #1 overall team this season, despite their loss to Michigan State. One last thing, current rankings are through games played on Sunday, 11/18/2013. Due to time constraints, I will likely update this only once per week - probably every Monday to coincide with the latest AP rankings (http://collegebasketball.ap.org/poll). Alright, here are my current rankings:
Rank | TEAM | Weighted Metric |
2013-14 Metric Rank |
AP Rank |
1 | Louisville | 8.26 | 19 | 3 |
2 | Kansas | 9.23 | 16 | 2 |
3 | Arizona | 10.095 | 2 | 5 |
4 | Duke | 10.69 | 22 | 6 |
5 | Ohio State | 11.39 | 4 | 8 |
6 | Michigan | 12.984 | 9 | 15 |
7 | Pittsburgh | 14.475 | 6 | 36 |
8 | Indiana | 20.045 | 50 | 27 |
9 | Marquette | 22.78 | 33 | 25 |
10 | UCLA | 23.745 | 5 | 22 |
11 | Michigan St | 23.77 | 17 | 1 |
12 | Gonzaga | 23.865 | 8 | 13 |
13 | Oklahoma St | 24.105 | 12 | 7 |
14 | Iowa State | 24.275 | 7 | 21 |
15 | Wisconsin | 26.685 | 36 | 12 |
16 | Florida | 27.053 | 21 | 16 |
17 | Missouri | 27.375 | 15 | 38 |
18 | Memphis | 27.41 | 42 | 11 |
19 | Minnesota | 29.065 | 3 | 39 |
20 | Syracuse | 29.6 | 67 | 9 |
21 | Oregon | 29.63 | 30 | 17 |
22 | Kentucky | 31.24 | 1 | 4 |
23 | Baylor | 31.955 | 31 | 20 |
24 | Georgetown | 33.435 | 39 | 47 |
25 | BYU | 34.915 | 11 | 44 |
26 | Colorado | 36.1 | 18 | 37 |
27 | Illinois | 36.325 | 41 | NR |
28 | VCU | 36.525 | 13 | 10 |
29 | Saint Louis | 36.765 | 28 | 40 |
30 | Cincinnati | 36.925 | 38 | 42 |
31 | Villanova | 37.205 | 20 | 33 |
32 | St Marys | 38.305 | 37 | NR |
33 | Virginia | 38.43 | 24 | 28 |
34 | New Mexico | 38.94 | 35 | 19 |
35 | Creighton | 39.435 | 27 | 23 |
36 | Oklahoma | 39.55 | 14 | NR |
37 | Iowa | 42.795 | 26 | 26 |
38 | NC State | 43.58 | 69 | NR |
39 | Butler | 46.17 | 64 | NR |
40 | California | 46.335 | 52 | NR |
41 | San Diego St | 46.935 | 49 | NR |
42 | Wichita St | 49.765 | 70 | 14 |
43 | Connecticut | 50.83 | 65 | 18 |
44 | Arizona St | 52.105 | 23 | 32 |
45 | Arkansas | 56.345 | 47 | NR |
46 | U Mass | 63.13 | 34 | 43 |
47 | S Mississippi | 65.04 | 58 | NR |
48 | Colorado St | 65.415 | 87 | NR |
49 | Alabama | 65.545 | 83 | NR |
50 | LSU | 66.525 | 59 | NR |
[Note: The following AP ranked teams are not in my Top 50...#24 North Carolina (61st), #29 Harvard (75th), #30 Boise State (56th), #31 Belmont (78th), #34 Xavier (54th), #35 Tennessee (55th), #41 Florida State (62nd), #45 Indiana State (79th), and #46 Notre Dame (60th)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)