First of all, I was already contemplating bringing this to the fore, so Sader, don't think your call for elevating the discourse prompted this!
BPI stands for, of course, Bucephalus Polytechnic Institute--the WarHorses are known for their powerful cross country teams and excellent metallurgical engineering...er...right. Sorry, DMValpo. Comes out every now and again.
The Basketball Power Index is a stat still not quite a year old, invented by the drones at The Worldwide Leader. (Here's an in-depth blurb about it: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7561413/bpi-college-basketball-power-index-explained (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7561413/bpi-college-basketball-power-index-explained))
Basically, why should you care? Well, because it likes us (81), and likes us more than RPI (89, to the WWL).
But more than that, because it purports to do different--and more helpful--things.
--It includes scoring margin (unlike RPI).
--but does not overemphasize blowouts (unlike KenPom) (sorry McCallumz).
--Like KenPom, but no one else, it takes tempo into account (sorry, 1990 Loyola Marymount and the 1950 Fort Wayne Zollner Pistons)
--Unlike RPI, it goes even deeper into SOS than opponents' opponents (no, bbtds, you don't have to post the scores for everyone)
--Wins are better than losses. Duh, right? But Sagarin and KenPom think that some losses (like to Duke) are better than some wins (like Chicago St). THIS IS AMERICA NOT VICTORIAN ENGLAND FERGODSAKES. WINNING IS THE POINT.
--It even takes into account the missing of key players. So (rather than use a hypothetical example which will scare everyone on this board and cause me to be run out of the InterWeb on a rail should it come to pass) it sees, for example, how important Dority has been to us since he became eligible, and correspondingly de-weights losses (G-D NEBRASKA!) that happened before we were at full strength.
It was meant to be a summation of where your team is at in the moment, and whether they are worthy of a tourney berth, but turns out to predict the NCAA tourney better than RPI, KenPom, or Sagarin (!). So.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi)
We are 81 with a rank of 67.5. 50=average, 100=perfect. (Duke gets 93.8; Rick Pitino's Hair gets a 105.7)
RAW ranking (we're 15-5): #57 in the country! Florida #1; Grambling St. #347; next highest HL: WSU, #76; last, Milwaukee, shockingly, at #316.
SOS ranking (we're slightly above average at 50.6): #147. That brings us down. Colorado #1; Tex-Pan-Am #347. Detroit #121; YSU #279.
VARIANCE: we're ranked #242 of 347, meaning we've been mostly consistent (i.e. performance more or less consistent with what the BPI said it should have been). Duke the most consistent; UIC the least! (I initially wrote more exclamation points, then realized it wasn't really that surprising.) Green Bay is #13; CSU #31; WSU #69. That makes four teams in the top 20% of the country in inconsistency, and YSU right behind (#77). Yikes. We are the most consistent in the HL; would it shock you to know that Detroit is #2?
Interestingly, we have a PVA of 5.9: if we played an average (50) team on a neutral court at an average pace, we'd be favored to win by 6. (The only HL teams that would not be favored to win such a game are CSU and Milwaukee. You may now wipe off the coffee you just spit all over your screen.)
The HL by BPI:
1. Valpo 67.5
2. Detroit 64.5 (this was before their latest debacle tonight)
3. WSU 57.9 (ditto)
4. GB 56.4
5. UIC 54.8
6. Loyola 54.1
7. YSU 51.3
8. CSU 38.6 (yowza)
9. Milwaukee 30.9 (the same number as Jordan Aaron's shooting %)
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/teamId/2674 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/teamId/2674)
It has us 7-4 in games missing top players; 8-1 in games when the full cast is available. It lists Ga-So as our best performance, and Loyola as our worst. When BOTH teams are at full strength, we are 7-1! (It correspondingly de-weights games where we beat someone without a key player, of course.) Vs. teams in the top 150, we're only 4-3.
A good measure of a system is the number of times it has been violated--how many times has it been wrong? (I.e., when did the higher team not win?) They suggest success rate around 75%, higher than RPI, KenPom, or Sagarin. Obviously the best time to do this would be at the end of a season, but for right now it shows the only upsets on our schedule as Nebraska (argh, again), Oakland (next to Missouri State in BPI!), and Loyola. None of our wins, not even Murray St., are upsets. That's 85% accuracy.
I'd be interested to know your thoughts: is this a useful addition to statistics? Or does it needlessly complicate something that already has too many numbers thrown about?
Love it, but as a math freak (someone threw that label out earlier today) that probably comes as no surprise to anyone :thumbsup:
So here's a personal problem with RPI:
It's projected that the loss to New Mexico will be more valuable than any other team on our schedule--even the win at Murray St or at Detroit--unless until we beat Wright State and Detroit again. And even then, it's only the two wins over them that propel it higher. Right now, the impact of the loss to UNM (+2.13) is precisely thrice that of the win over Detroit (+0.71)!!!*
It was a nice game, don't get me wrong, but we lost. And we had awesome, awesome games at Murray and Detroit...both games that will be remembered for years to come.
RPI just seems like too circular logic to be that useful. (Dicky-V-voice: "Why are the good teams good? Because they play good teams! Even if they lose, they lost to good teams! So ... they're good!")
*"Precisely Thrice" would be a great art-rock band name.
Or let's look at it from the other side: the loss to Oakland (projected -0.45) isn't as damaging as a win over Chicago St (proj. -0.74) or Mo St (-1.08), IUPUI, NIU etc.?
There's a certain degree of silliness built into the stat of RPI.
There is nothing wrong with the RPI itself. The problem is that it is not applied in a vacuum. It is applied to an un-level playing field where teams have autonomy over their own non-conference schedule, meaning the haves use the RPI to their advantage to avoid bad losses, while they can afford cupcake wins because their conference schedule will make up for the RPI hit (I'm lookin' at you, Syracuse).
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on January 22, 2013, 09:09:23 AMAnd we had awesome, awesome games at Murray and Detroit
We had an awesome half at Detroit.
All of these stats have flaws (except PPS, ha). Just win, baby!
Quote from: HC on January 22, 2013, 10:02:35 AM
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on January 22, 2013, 09:09:23 AMAnd we had awesome, awesome games at Murray and Detroit
We had an awesome half at Detroit.
All of these stats have flaws (except PPS, ha). Just win, baby!
And Detroit had an awesome half too. Our half just slightly out-awesomed their half. No shame in that first half.
HC, there's a reason that "halves" aren't stats. Just "games".
STL, that's a trifle ridiculous. If RPI cannot be applied in a vacuum (that sucks), it is an inaccurate stat. It's not easy to be predictive as well as representational, but BPI seems to do that better than anything else I've seen.
Saying that "the stat itself is good, it's just the atmosphere in which it is deployed that doesn't work" is like saying that "there's nothing wrong with a slingshot, the problem is that it is applied to an un-level playing field where the other side has bazookas".
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on January 22, 2013, 10:12:44 AMSTL, that's a trifle ridiculous. If RPI cannot be applied in a vacuum (that sucks), it is an inaccurate stat. It's not easy to be predictive as well as representational, but BPI seems to do that better than anything else I've seen.
Fair enough. I actually agree that it's highly inaccurate and therefore I have little use for it, but the lion's share of the blame for that has less to do with the math than with the flaws of the confederation of teams it is applied to.
I'm partial to Sagarin, myself ;)
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 22, 2013, 10:47:18 AMI'm partial to Sagarin, myself
Sagarin, TeamRankings, Massey and Pomeroy for myself.
Know why RPI can't be applied in a vacuum? Afraid of BLOWOUTS!!
+1
we really need a rating system for posts on this board.
Didn't we try that already, or were we rating posters?
We had a rating system, but deterred some readers from posting.
Reviving this topic to talk about HISTORICALLY BAD GAMES.
To refresh: ESPN invented BPI to measure teams in reality (as opposed to RPI, which does not take into account injuries to important players, relative performance vs. just victory/defeat, etc.).
It measures teams both on the whole season and by individual game. So, similar to passer rating, the sample size is not as accurate as that for the whole season, but it does tell you something. It even takes possessions into account. The strength of the opponent. Who was injured, etc.
Thus: our worst games this year. On a 100-point scale.
1) @ UCF II 8.6 And dear God, didn't it feel even worse.
2) @ ETSU 17.5 Would have been lower but for the quality of opposition
3) @ Evansville 29.8 Despite the frantic end, yeah.
Our best:
1) vs. James Madison 91.7 Kind of surprised.
2) vs. UCF I 91.0 I prefer this one
3) @ Ball State 84.4 Only road win
So, I suppose if you took the totals and averaged them, you could say we played two mediocre games against UCF (50.2 avg)?
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/bpi?id=2674&year=2014 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/bpi?id=2674&year=2014)
10 Best performances of the Bryce Drew era.
2011-12 @ Cleveland St 97.8
2012-13 @ Green Bay 96.6
2012-13 vs. EKU 96.1
2011-12 vs. Butler (tourn) 94.7
2012-13 vs. UIC 94.6
2011-12 vs. Duquesne 93.9
2013-14 vs. James Madison 91.7
2013-14 vs. UCF 91.0
2012-13 vs. Green Bay 88.4
2011-12 vs. Butler (reg) 88.1
10 Worst
2011-12 @ Wright St 5.6
2011-12 @ YSU 8.1
2013-14 @ UCF 8.6
2011-12 @ IPFW 10.0
2011-12 @ Green Bay 10.2
2012-13 vs. Loyola 15.2
2012-13 @ YSU 17.1
2013-14 @ ETSU 17.5
2011-12 @ IUPUI 20.6
2013-14 @ Evansville 29.8
Takeaways, since my friend WH is so fond:
--Remember that YE GODS Loyola game last year? Stench still palpable in certain corners of the ARC. Only home loss in worst 10.
--2 of the worst 2 are at Youngstown. Doesn't bode particularly well for this year's model.
--2 of the top 10 were within like 10 days of one another at home vs. Butler. Remember those? Me too. (and the OT win @ Butler the same season was like an 88.7)
--As bad as UCF was--and it was, let's hope it's the worst performance of the year--there were still TWO WORSE GAMES.
--Too early to compare this year, but of the top 10, 2011/12 had 4 of the top and 5 of the bottom. 2012/13 had 4 of the top and just 2 of the bottom. This year so far has 2 of the top and 3 of the bottom.
I predict that this conference season there will be an even worse performance than the ETSU game, most likely on the road. Which conference opponent will it be against? There is no way to predict that.
Quote from: historyman on December 30, 2013, 12:34:14 PM
I predict that this conference season there will be an even worse performance than the ETSU game, most likely on the road. Which conference opponent will it be against? There is no way to predict that.
The more athletic the more problems. We WAY out rebounded ETSU but were clobbered because athletically (speed) we couldn't stop them or they could stop us via steals etc. The speed also caused us to turn it over a kazillion times. So, based on my careful and in-depth analysis of our situation, I'll say the worst loss will come at YSU
I mentioned it in the chat, it wasn't their speed that caused most of our turnovers, it was just absolutely stupid passes. We tried many times to throw it through defenders, or pass it to a guy that had a dude on top of him.
UPDATED unsurprisingly
10 Worst
2011-12 @ Wright St 5.6
2013-14 vs. Wright St 7.4
2011-12 @ YSU 8.1
2013-14 @ UCF 8.6
2011-12 @ IPFW 10.0
2011-12 @ Green Bay 10.2
2012-13 vs. Loyola 15.2
2012-13 @ YSU 17.1
2013-14 @ ETSU 17.5
2011-12 @ IUPUI 20.6
Yep, worst home performance ever, due to several scientific factors:
1) WSU is crappy.
2) They were missing some of their regular players.
3) Um we were at home.
4) And oh, yeah, playing like GOLD.
That's right. I said "GOLD" because it was a GOLD SANDWICH. That 18-2 run was GOLD.
Too bad the BUN of the sandwich, speaking of runs, was FECES (37-20 and 22-7).
FECES I TELL YOU
WSU's "hedging" defense really disrupted our offensive flow. As we all know, a regular part of our offense is our 5 setting a pick at the top of the key for whoever has the ball, then "rolling" to the basket. Not once when their big would stay with the ball and hedge our guard were we able to make them pay for leaving our center unguarded. Last season we rendered their hedge totally ineffective as Kevin would set the pick, then receive a lob over the top as he cut to the basket for an easy layup. This year we don't have a guard experienced enough or a center athletic enough to make that play.
Quote from: wh on January 12, 2014, 06:09:36 PMWSU's "hedging" defense really disrupted our offensive flow. As we all know, a regular part of our offense is our 5 setting a pick at the top of the key for whoever has the ball, then "rolling" to the basket. Not once when their big would stay with the ball and hedge our guard were we able to make them pay for leaving our center unguarded. Last season we rendered their hedge totally ineffective as Kevin would set the pick, then receive a lob over the top as he cut to the basket for an easy layup. This year we don't have a guard experienced enough or a center athletic enough to make that play.
While I think this belongs on the WSU thread, I'll respond in line here.
I agree with about 75% of this statement.
1. Our PGs (Lexus and Keith) are inexperienced, but Jordan and LaVonte can run the hedge and if they have an open lane to drive, they can with great skill. While Lexus and Keith are great ball handlers and I want them to continue to run this offense, I think it should go through LaVonte 60% of the time and Jordan, Lexus and Keith starting up the play at the top of the 3 point line the other 40%.
2. We don't have a center athletic enough to make that play, this is very true, but last year the person running that play was 6'8" and 240 lbs. Looking at our roster we currently have a 6'8" 225 lb freshman, a 6'7" 225 lb freshman and a 6'10" 235 lb senior who all have excellent hands, great body control and the ability to close out at the rim. We also have two 7' who can pass the ball reasonably well, or at least can be coached up to pass better.
I'm going to give a pro basketball analogy, despite my dislike for all things in the pro game. Can we use Vashil and Moussa like a lesser version of Joakim Noah early in his career when he couldn't score and was used for defense, rebounding and inlet passes to the lane to Luol Deng and Kirk Heinrich? Can we use Jordan like Deng, or Alec, Bobby, and Jubril as Carlos Boozer-lites or even KVWs from last year??
There was some overreaction to a loss on the board (imagine that) and that the CSU loss was just about the worst thing that had happened since we were 5 and 22.
Wasn't even close to our worst performance this year!
One of the cool things about BPI is that it's a sliding scale until the end of the year--when you finally have the complete picture as to how the team is.
WORST 5 PERFORMANCES THIS YEAR
- @ UCF 6.0
- vs. WSU 8.3
- @ ETSU 12.6
- @ CSU 19.4
- @ Evansville 23.1
BEST 5 PERFORMANCES THIS YEAR
- vs. UWGB 96.6
- vs. JMU 90.6
- vs. UCF 87.5
- vs. UWM 83.7
- @ BSU 82.2
And because BPI takes into account the fact that they were missing Brown--imagine how high it could have been (and what with all the turnovers in garbage time).
It will be interesting to see how the 96.6 for last night changes throughout the rest of the year--if it holds it will exactly match the score at UWGB last year, and be the 2nd best Bryce-Drew-era performance.
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on January 30, 2014, 02:47:44 PMBEST 5 PERFORMANCES THIS YEAR
vs. UWGB 96.6
vs. JMU 90.6
vs. UCF 87.5
vs. UWM 83.7
@ BSU 82.2
REVAMPED:
vs. UWGB 96.7
vs. JMU 90.5
@ UIC 88.1vs. UCF 87.6
vs. UWM 84.2
It says a lot about how good we played yesterday for the score to be that high, because quality of opponent is taken into account. GB's base score was 71.7 and UIC's 36.8, so as great as the game played against GB was, it was even better against UIC to be that high.
And JMU's is only 39.4 (egads).
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 02, 2014, 07:06:32 PMQuote from: LaPorteAveApostle on January 30, 2014, 02:47:44 PMBEST 5 PERFORMANCES THIS YEAR vs. UWGB 96.6 vs. JMU 90.6 vs. UCF 87.5 vs. UWM 83.7 @ BSU 82.2
REVAMPED: vs. UWGB 96.7 vs. JMU 90.5 @ UIC 88.1 vs. UCF 87.6 vs. UWM 84.2 It says a lot about how good we played yesterday for the score to be that high, because quality of opponent is taken into account. GB's base score was 71.7 and UIC's 36.8, so as great as the game played against GB was, it was even better against UIC to be that high. And JMU's is only 39.4 (egads).
JMU should have been named Dolly Madison University because they sure were a cupcake that night. ;)
Quote from: historyman on February 02, 2014, 08:23:06 PMDolly Madison University
(http://cdn.firstworldprblems.com/2012/6/19/ll_2_richworldproblems.com_81881_1342450803.jpg)
BEST 5 PERFORMANCES THIS YEAR
vs. UWGB 96.4
@ MILW 91.2*vs. JMU 90.0
vs. UCF 87.4
@ UIC 87.3
*why the asterisk? ESPN thinks this was a neutral site game. imagine if we'd been on the road.
also interesante: UCF just passed UIC, even though both games were a while ago.
WORST 5 PERFORMANCES THIS YEAR
- @ UCF 5.9
- vs. WSU 7.7
- @ ETSU 13.7
- @ CSU 19.5
- @ Evansville 21.7
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 02, 2014, 08:27:37 PM
Quote from: historyman on February 02, 2014, 08:23:06 PMDolly Madison University
(http://cdn.firstworldprblems.com/2012/6/19/ll_2_richworldproblems.com_81881_1342450803.jpg)
Not sure I get the point. One of our best performances was losing by 2 on a last second shot to the team now ranked in the top 12 (St. Louis)
Quote from: vu72 on February 16, 2014, 10:30:01 PMNot sure I get the point. One of our best performances was losing by 2 on a last second shot to the team now ranked in the top 12 (St. Louis)
That was our best performance in a loss; perhaps in a long time (80.7; our 9th highest score this year).
What exactly don't you get?
TEAM JEKYLL
- vs. UWGB 96.8
- @ MILW 89.9*
- vs. JMU 89.8
- vs. UCF 86.8
- @ UIC 87.9
*why the asterisk? ESPN thinks this was a neutral site game. imagine if we'd been on the road.
TEAM HYDE
- @ UCF 5.6
- vs. WSU 8.7
- @ ETSU 12.5
- @ CSU 21.1
- @ Evansville 22.7
WORST WINS
- vs. Oakland 59.1
- vs. YSU 59.2
- vs. Murray St 59.9
- vs. Cincinnati Christian 59.5
- vs. Southeastern 61.2
'BEST' LOSSES
- vs. Saint Louis 78.2
- @ OHIO 54.2
- @ Illinois 41.6
- @ GB 37.4
- vs. Detroit 37.4
remember BPI? It tries to isolate things and give your team a score for their performance on a 0-100 scale.
Best 5 games this year
1) Murray St 99.0 (that's right...close to a perfect game)
t2) Portland 95.8
t2) @ JMU 95.8
4) @ EKU 85.8
5) vs. ETSU 84.6
Worst 5 performances
1) @ Oakland 13.5
2) @ Missouri 14.5
3) vs. New Mexico 16.9
4) vs. TrinIntl 54.0
5) vs. Goshen 54.8
Yeah, this is a stat that makes you kind of shrug like "duh" most of the time, but it's useful in quantifying how good or bad that performance is. I'd be interested to see if anyone has posted higher than a 99 this year. If I could see such a thing.
EDIT: well that didn't take long. When #5 KS came to KY and got thumped 72-40, KY posted a 99.9. (Their team average is 95.1!)
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on January 13, 2015, 08:14:16 PM
remember BPI? It tries to isolate things and give your team a score for their performance on a 0-100 scale.
Best 5 games this year
1) Murray St 99.0 (that's right...close to a perfect game)
t2) Portland 95.8
t2) @ JMU 95.8
4) @ EKU 85.8
5) vs. ETSU 84.6
Worst 5 performances
1) @ Oakland 13.5
2) @ Missouri 14.5
3) vs. New Mexico 16.9
4) vs. TrinIntl 54.0
5) vs. Goshen 54.8
Yeah, this is a stat that makes you kind of shrug like "duh" most of the time, but it's useful in quantifying how good or bad that performance is. I'd be interested to see if anyone has posted higher than a 99 this year. If I could see such a thing.
EDIT: well that didn't take long. When #5 KS came to KY and got thumped 72-40, KY posted a 99.9. (Their team average is 95.1!)
In addition, Oakland, Missouri and New Mexico performed at (or very near) their season high in our games. Tough to beat an opponent when you play so poorly and they play their best. If only we played a little under average in the Oakland game...
The Murray State and Portland wins will look better and better as the season progresses. Murray (64) is now ranked higher than us (78) in the Sagarin's. Green Bay is ranked 53rd
Did Kentucky hit that perfect score in their game with Missouri? That was a beat down!
How the Horizon stacks up| Rank | Team | BPI | SOS |
| 66 | Green Bay | 71.0 | 48.0 |
| 95 | Valparaiso | 64.8 | 41.7 |
| 128 | Cleveland State | 59.5 | 52.7 |
| 154 | Detroit | 54.6 | 51.5 |
| 164 | Wright State | 53.3 | 50.1 |
| 220 | Oakland | 45.0 | 57.7 |
| 255 | Youngstown St | 40.9 | 41.5 |
| 302 | Milwaukee | 32.8 | 48.9 |
| 303 | UIC | 32.7 | 46.7 |
Notable teams on our schedule:
82 Murray State: 67.7
96 New Mexico : 64.7
127 Portland: 59.6
132 E Kentucky: 58.9
157 Missouri: 54.4
Quote from: HC on January 14, 2015, 02:03:10 PM
Did Kentucky hit that perfect score in their game with Missouri? That was a beat down!
I doubt it because quality of opponent. Kansas (at #5) was much tougher. I'll look...
A measly 97.1...but impressive because Mizzou only at 54.1 while KS at 87.1.
BPI is an odd measure. I would argue, from a statistical perspective, that it places too much emphasis on a very weak performance when a team has generally been good (such as Valpo) as well as the reverse. This is because (I think) that they are simply averaging together each game BPI for the total BPI. It would be better to "winsorize" the measure so that extremely good or extremely bad performances do not overweight the measure. The one measure from the BPI that I really do like, though it would be better with the aforementioned correction, is the variance of performance measure. Valparaiso's varance rank is 92 which is not particularly good and reflects some the wide mix of performances. Green Bay, interestingly enough, has a variance rank of 53 which is clearly an indicator that they are an inconsistent team.
follow me down memory lane...
(a year ago this list was here: http://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=1182.msg40221;topicseen#msg40221 (http://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=1182.msg40221;topicseen#msg40221))
10 Best performances of the Bryce Drew era.
1) 2014-15 vs. Murray St 99.0
2) 2011-12 @ Cleveland St 97.8
3) 2012-13 @ Green Bay 96.6
4) 2014-15 @ James Madison 96.3
5) 2012-13 vs. EKU 96.1
6) 2013-14 vs. Green Bay 95.7
7) 2011-12 vs. Butler (tourn) 94.7
8) 2012-13 vs. UIC 94.6
9) 2014-15 vs. Portland 94.6
10) 2011-12 vs. Duquesne 93.9
10 Worst
1) 2011-12 @ Wright St 5.6
2) 2011-12 @ YSU 8.1
3) 2013-14 @ UCF 8.6
4) 2013-14 vs. Wright St. 8.9
5) 2013-14 vs. Milwaukee (tourn) 9.3
6) 2011-12 @ IPFW 10.0
7) 2011-12 @ Green Bay 10.2
8) 2014-15 @ Mizzou 13.9
9) 2012-13 vs. Loyola 15.2
10) 2014-15 @ Oakland 15.3