“The player development is the main thing I like (about Michigan),” Williams said. “You can see that they develop their players. They get them in the gym and they work them hard. And their hard work pays off.”
Northwestern finished 11th in the Big Ten last year with a 6-12 record. There is no guarantee that they will get any better as they lose some key players. 10th Year senior Drew Crawford finally graduates, and they also lose seniors Nikola Cerina, and James Montgomery the third. Kale Abrahamson, and Chier Ajou also are transferring. Northwestern loses 26% of their assists, 29% of their rebounds, 32% of their minutes, and 34% of their points. They do bring in 4 freshmen so that could be promising.
Here is their projected roster:
# Name HT WT YR POS
23 Jershon Cobb 6-5 205 RS.SR. G
Cobb will have to be their go to guy, losing Crawford means a huge void in scoring. Cobb showed the ability last year to take over, he may be able to this year as well. Cobb will be the starting Small Forward.
3 Dave Sobolewski 6-1 180 SR. G
The starting Point Guard, got hurt last year, but will continue to start. Takes A LOT of shots, but does not make many of them.
14 Tre Demps 6-2 193 RS.JR G
Demps was another player that could score in bursts, he will be the starting Shooting Guard and the second go-to scorer.
22 Alex Olah 7-0 265 JR. C
Olah is a foul magnet, but is a large body that hopefully can continue his defensive prowess. The latest installment in the old looking young guy series. Starting Center.
34 Sanjay Lumpkin 6-6 210 RS. SO F
Lumpkin will be the starting Power Forward, and will look to add to his 3.8 points per game. He will most likely add to his points due to the large amounts of minutes he will get.
31 Aaron Liberman 6-10 215 RS.SO C
Liberman did not play much this year, and probably won't play that much this year either.
32 Nathan Taphorn 6-7 190 SO. F
The 6th man, Taphorn averaged 2.5 points last season and he is going to be an important piece going forward.
Victor Law 6-6 185 FR. F
Northwesterns highest touted recruit, a Four star, that could be playing meaningful minutes right away.
Bryant McIntosh 6-3 175 FR. G
A three star, will most likely be the first guard off the bench.
Scott Lindsey 6-5 180 FR. F
Another three star, probably a 8 minute a game kind of guy.
Johnnie Vassar 5-11 175 FR. PG
Most likely a redshirt
Projected Starting Lineup:
Point Guard: Dave Sobolewski
Shooting Guard: Tre Demps
Small Forward: Jershon Cobb
Power Forward: Sanjay Lumpkin
Center: Alex Olah
Northwestern will not be good. I think they will finish 12th in the conference with a 5-13 record. They are very thin, and not uber experienced.
Michigan plays them at Home and Away, which again is very favorable.
Next up... Indiana.
I vowed to have a wallpaper done for ya'll for tomorrow's game and HERE IT IS! I actually made two, and while I definitely like the first one best, the second actually took me longer to put together. I just was TOO frustrated with my keyboard/mouse combo that I have yet to replace to go any further in refining it. Hope you like them. As always, constructive criticism and/or ideas for future wallpapers are welcome. BEAT THE VOLS! CHARLES WOODSON! 2014!
"Simply Sixteen" Desktop (1920x1080):
"I'll Take That One" Desktop (1920x1080):
It has been discussed a few times on the board that Michigan is typically very good at dictating the game to its opponents, and there is definitely evidence of that in the team’s offensive efficiency numbers. During the season to date, Michigan has maintained an average offensive efficiency of 1.20 with a standard deviation of 0.163 (0.118 during conference play only), which seems to me to be a relatively narrow band considering that the standard deviation for Michigan’s possessions per game was only 4 against an average of 62 (and 61 possessions with a standard deviation of 3 in conference play). Long story short, the play was relatively consistent in its production and pace. When we talk about how it is vital to impose your will early in a game, there aren’t too many teams that can do it quite in the way that Michigan has.
Below is the normalized graph for offensive efficiency:
You’ll note right away the relative handful of games on the extreme ends of performance. There are only four games with a Z-score greater than 1.00, meaning that offensive efficiency was greater than one standard deviation above the mean. On the other end, there were five games where efficiency was more than one standard deviation below the mean, all of them losses.
The story is a little different when we flip to defense, of course:
Here you can see a little more in the way of erratic behavior, but for those of us who kept saying that the defense “is what it is”, well, this is it. Interestingly, the distribution has a similar look to the offensive one with a standard deviation here of 0.168 against an average of 1.04. Seven games actually are greater than one standard deviation above the mean compared to six games more than one standard deviation below the mean. There is a marked jump in the number of “extreme” performances in this aspect of the game.
From this data, we can build a nice little set of histograms and get an idea of what the probability distributions looked like for efficiency on both offense and defense, but I would also like to throw scoring margin in here because it is interesting in the case of Michigan. Actually, let’s discuss that first.
For each of these next graphs, I broke the cumulative function into fifths (hence, for example, “0.00-0.20”, which represents the first fifth of the total area under the curve) and made the histograms based on relative position. For scoring margin, it is important to note that for the season to date (postseason included for giggles) our average margin is +9.45 points with a standard deviation of 16.08 points.
Here’s what the histogram for scoring margin looks like:
So, what you see here is a lot of close games basically. Indeed, we played in 20 games where the scoring margin was +10 or less (12 of which were wins), compared to only 13 games won by more than 10 points (also, two where the margin was exactly 10 points).
Here is offensive efficiency getting a similar treatment:
Again, the relative steadiness of the offense is seen here. If you look at the three bars in the middle, that more or less represents the two-thirds of Michigan’s games which sit in their “zone” around the 1.20 line, if you will.
Yeah, this one is decidedly wobbly and definitely skewed towards “meh” performances. Many of the games on the left (“better” defensive efficiency, in this case) represent our out-of-conference schedule actually.
Like everything else, this is for the board’s perusal. The only thing I hoped to do was perhaps give some numerical credence to some of the themes on the board of late.
Oh, and here's a gem...Super Mario 3, a cappella...
Continuing after the Purdue preview, I decided to start at the bottom and work my way up what I think will be the standings next year. Rutgers was not very good this year, finishing 5-13 in the not-so-good American conference. A lot of people would say, "you can only get better from here". This may be true for this Rutgers team. Rutgers loses seniors Wally Judge and J.J Moore. Jerome Seagears and D'Von Campell, and Craig Brown are also transferring. Losing these five players means a loss of 48% of their points and 41% of their rebounds per game, along with 50% of their minutes. They do bring in 4 freshmen who, unless they contribute right away will leave Rutgers pretty awful.
So here is their projected roster:
# Name HT WT YR POS
11 Kadeem Jack 6-9 230 SR. PF
Starting Power Forward, averaged 14.3 points per game with 6.8 rebounds. A close second to Mack.
4 Myles Mack 5-9 175 SR. PG
Starting Point Guard, averaged 15 points per game with 4.3 Assists. Rutgers' best player.
13 Malick Kone 6-5 200 SR. SF
The starting Shooting Guard, averaged 3.5 points per game last year.
44 Kerwin Okoro 6-5 220 JR. SF
Does not play meaningful minutes.
21 Stephen Zurich 6-5 205 JR. SF
Same as Okoro.
23 Jalen Hyde 5-8 160 JR. PG
Same as Okoro.
35 Greg Lewis 6-9 260 JR. PF
The starting Center that has a decent rebound rate. With him starting Rutgers actually has a pretty big lineup.
10 Junior Etou 6-7 225 SO. SF
The starting Small Forward, averaged 5.3 points per game.
30 Khalil Batie 5-10 175 SO. PG
5 Mike Williams 6-2 180 FR. SG
3 Star, offers from Dayton, Iowa, ST. Johns, Temple...
3 Bishop Daniels 6-3 185 FR. SG
3 star, no other offers
14 Ibrahima Diallo 6-9 215 FR. C
Rawer than sushi. 3 Star
22 Dwayne Foreman 6-7 215 FR. PF
Offers from Iowa State, Minnesota, Pittsburgh...
My projected starting lineup:
Point Guard: Myles Mack
Shooting Guard: Malick Kone
Small Forward: Junior Etou
Power Foward: Kadeem Jack
Center: Greg Lewis
Michigan plays Rutgers at home and on the road next year, which is favorable for us.
In all, Rutgers is a pretty small team that is losing a lot of players of. They do not have depth, or much skill. The junior class looks to have nothing so the team will rely on mostly seniors. I project Rutgers will go 4-14 and tie with Purdue for last.
Next up... Northwestern.
Let me preface this by saying that this is my first thread here and it would be nice if you guys take it easy on me. I have always been interested in statistics and putting together previews of certain teams. I got the idea to go through an early preview of the B1G teams. So, here goes it.
The Purdue basketball team has suffered through an awful year in which they finished last in the B1G. The team lost seniors Terone Johnson (#0), Errick Peck (#32), Sterling Carter (#1), and Travis Carroll (#50). Not only did they lose these four core seniors, but they also lost Terone's younger brother Ronnie Johnson who is transferring. In addition, Jay Simpson unfortunately has suffered a career ending heart condition and will not be playing. Between these six players they are losing 55% of their minutes and 52% of their points. So here is the projected roster for next season:
Number Name HT WT YR POS
30 Neal Beshears 6-7 198 SR. SF
Has only played in 26 games in his 3 years, most likely will continue on that path.
11 Stephen Toyra 6-3 177 JR. SG
Kind of the same deal, only played in 19 games in his two years.
2 Jon McKeeman 6-1 180 JR. PG
Even more of a scrub, 6 games, 2 years.
*20 A.J. Hammons 7-0 251 JR. C
Hammons is one of the biggest headcases in college basketball. When trying, he is a dominant force, when careless, he is a foul and turnover machine. Could go pro this year, but not likely. Has averaged 10.7 points and 6.7 rebounds over his career. Starting Center.
*35 Rapheal Davis 6-5 211 JR. SG
Davis will most likely be the starting two guard or three. He has averaged 5.8 points and 3.8 rebounds over his career. He is and most likely will continue to be just an average player.
*21 Kendall Stephens 6-6 193 SO. SG
Stephens is "just a shooter". He will most likely continue this. Because of his game he might play the 2 on offense and the 3 on defense. Stephens will most likely make a jump and add to his 8 points per game. May have to come off the bench.
*5 Basil Smotherman 6-5 222 SO. SF
Basil Smotherman, a candidate for name of the year, will continue his starting ways. He will look to add to his 5 points per game.
*12 Bryson Scott 6-1 201 SO. PG
Bryson Scott will most likely get the nod at the Point. He only started two games last year and his A:TO is not very good, but he can make a Freshman jump.
24 Anfernee Brown 6-1 190 SO. PG
Will not play.
44 Isaac Haas 7-2 275 FR. C
Thier highest touted recruit, a 7-2 center is a rare commodity and he may get some meaningful minutes. 4 star on rivals.
4 Vince Edwards 6-7 205 FR. SF
Another freshman that may get some important minutes, no more than any other established forwards, as there are plenty on the team.
23 Jacquill Taylor 6-9 215 FR. PF
May get some minutes.
31 Dakota Mathias 6-4 190 FR. SG
Possibilty for him to get some good minutes, relies on whether or not Eron Harris transfers. Although Harris does not play the same position, he would take up valuable minutes.
3 P.J. Thompson 5-10 155 FR. PG
Earlier today I wrote a diary which looked at how John Beilein has performed as a coach when his team gets 4-7 days of rest. Now I look at how John Beilein has performed as a coach in the tournament when compared to other coaches and the norm.
As many pundits such Nate Silver have pointed out, John Beilein is the best at outperforming his seed level. This was evident last year and back in his Richmond days when the No. 15 Spiders took down a No. 2 seed. But what does that actually look like?
John Beilein is 9-4 in the NCAA Tournament while at Michigan and he was 5-2 at West Virginia. He went 1-1 at Richmond bringing his combined tournament record to 15-7 or a .681 win percentage. Of course, some of those losses were with a stacked deck. Can anyone blame Richmond for losing a second round game in 1998? Can anyone blame John Beilein for losing to Duke on a missed floater, or losing to Louisville after last year's run?
By adjusting for what the expected outcomes are, John Beilein is solid in the NCAA tournament when favored to win or in a close matchup. He is also .500 when expected to lose. Yes. On the biggest stage, coach B is .500 when his team is expected to lose! Amazing.
Let's start at how I came to this conclusion
Richmond: 1-1 in games where he was expected to lose (15 seed).
West Virginia: 2-0 in games he was expected to win (vs. Northwestern State, Southern Illinois) and 1-0 in toss up games (his No. 8 seed vs. No. 9 Providence) and 2-2 in games where his team was the clear underdog.
Michigan: 4-1 when expected to win (the loss being against Ohio) and 2-0 in toss up games (Clemson, Tennessee). He is also 3-3 in games where his teams were expected to lose such as games vs. Oklahoma, Duke, Kansas, Syracuse, Florida and Louisville. In fact that may be generous as many expected Michigan to fold against VCU last year. That could have been considered a tossup.
Spanning his three schools, coach B is 6-1 in games he was expected to win, 3-0 in tossup games and 6-6 where his team was an underdog. Based on Ken Pom rankings, you can make the case that this is a tossup game. Based on the seeds, you can say No. 11 Tennessee is a clear underdog. But even if you classify Michigan as the underdog, remember, coach Beilein is 6-6 in the NCAA Tournament in games he is supposed to lose with wins over top seeds and blue blood programs.
No matter how much love is given to Tennesee's big men or their tournament play as of late, Beilein has beaten better teams with far less. And for that, you have to feel pretty excited about his tournament odds.
By the way, his .681 win percentage is just slightly south of Izzo's .688 conference game winning percentage. And if you are wondering what the best percentage is in the tournament? Well, that belongs to coach K. He's right around .750.