Marquette's Greatest 100 - Update Patch

This in from John Pudner, Cracked Sidewalks' occasional guest writer.  Pudner's Book, UHG- Marquette, is in bookstores now:

OK, as the Ultimate Hoops Guide – Marquette University hits the books stand in the student union today, my Catholic guilt is kicking for the 16 players I cheated pretty badly in my initial Top 100 columns. Once I went back and crunched numbers on the 141,265 points, 74,257 rebounds, 29,086 assists, 14,942 steals and 8,410 blocked shots credited to MU players during our first 2,266 games, I ended up with a much more precise measurement of how many wins each player has gotten for MU.

The new book (www.collegeprowler.com/basketball) does not focus on the Top 100, but when you look up any of the 667 players in the index, it does list not only their stats but where they rank in the Top 200. But while 74 of the initial Top 100 players were ranked very accurately in the initial blog, but I wanted to go ahead and clear up my mistakes on the 16 players I shortchanged in my earlier Top 100 columns.

I don’t know any of the players, but for sake of anyone who looks up my Top 100 columns in the future, I am glad to have these apologies and corrections posted:

1. Gary Brell (1970-71). I know I should build up to the worst mistake, but again – Catholic guilt – I’ve got to start with my biggest apology to Gary Brell. I ranked him 91st, by far my biggest mess up as once I crunched all the numbers I moved him up 70 spots to the 21st best player in MU history. His two seasons calculated as the 36th- and 25th best seasons of all time among the 1,519 players seasons to date. No wonder he has the best record (54-4) of any MU player, and is one of the Top 20 rebounders of all time, as well as being one of the most complete players.

2. Dave Quabius (1937-39). Granted, the stats from the 1930s were harder to come by, still my second biggest mistake was the guy who almost took MU to the Elite 8 a full 25 years before Al McGuire was on campus. I moved Quabius up from 31st to 11th once I crunched all the numbers, and with just a couple of more baskets to win at Kentucky, Long Island or Temple (the latter two were the first two national champions), Quabius may have had MU in the first two Elite 8s and be in the Top 10 of all time. I found old newspaper articles from Pennsylvania in the 1930s with photos of Quabius before he came to play Temple, and the newspapers treated it as a big upset when they beat MU despite Quabius six baskets.

3. Jim Chones (1971-72). OK, I was only 7 years old when Chones had to leave for the pros during his second season so I really didn’t get the story until I dove into my research. I had him at 12th in my initial rankings, but when I crunched numbers I realized he was the only player who ever had a shot at actually being BETTER than Dwyane Wade. He wasn’t, but he was on pace in 1972 to almost catch Wade’s 2003 season, and with a 49-1 record he moves up to the 6th best player in MU history. If every MU player had played a full 4 seasons, I now believe its clear Chones would have been the 2nd best player in MU history, so 12th really was way too low.

4. Richard Quinn (1922-25). I left Quinn off the original Top 100, and now have him at 31st as part of the incredible duo with Red Dunn that gave MU their first dominant stretch. Dunn was also too low, but both got big credit once I pulled info from all the early accounts of games in the 1920s.

5. Kerry Trotter (1983-86). I know we were all still down on MU for not competing for the national title in the first decade after McGuire left, but I really didn’t realize just how awesome Trotter’s numbers were as I have to move him from 88th to 46th best in the book.

6. Al Delmore (1918-19). I left the grandfather of MU basketball out of my Top 100 as well. Admittedly, it was hard to dig out the early season stats, but once I did it was clear Delmore was the first great, coming in at 56th best of all time in the new book.

7. Walt Mangham (1958-60). Kojis is a top 10 player, but I let his incredible play overshadow his partner under the boards. Mangham and Kojis were called the “Kangaroo Kids” by the national media, and at the end of their two seasons together (1959 and 1960) their stats were almost identical and it was unclear which was the greater player. While Kojis shot ahead the year after Mangham graduated with an incredible 1961 season, Mangham’s numbers pushed him from 57th on the original list up to the 35th best MU player of all time.

8. Mandy Johnson (1982-85). Even though I watched Mandy play and he even stole the ball from my roommate one time in a pickup game, I didn’t realize just how good he was in 1985 until I crunched the numbers and he moved from 94th on my original list up 32 spots to the 62nd best MU player of all time in the book. In the seven years between Doc Rivers All-American season in 1982, and Tony Smith’s All-American season in 1990, Johnson’s 1985 season was the best of any player. The fact that he helped them win an NIT game at Cincinnati and take Indiana to double overtime in his final two games were the conclusion to a great career that I underestimated until crunching all the numbers.

9. George Frazier (1971-73). I really have no excuse for initially leaving Frazier off the Top 100 list, as he comes in at 77th once the numbers are crunched. I have his final season in 1973 (306 points, 199 rebounds and 70 steals while helping MU allow only 61 points a game) as the 101st best season of 1,519 played by MU players.

10. Robert Deneen (1938-40). The other player I missed by under appreciating just how good the run was in the late 1930s was Deneen, who was the big scorer to go along with Quabius. I left him off the initial list, but he comes in at 69th in the book.

11. Raymond Morstadt (1934 – 36). I also underestimated the guy who might just be the greatest scorer in MU history when you consider the pace basketball games in the mid-1930s, when there were jump balls after every basket and the shots were all set shots. Despite this slow paced game, Morstadt scored 9.7 points per game during his career, while he helped MU allow opposing TEAMS to score only 24.7 points per game during the three year. This means that Morstadt was scoring more than 39% of the points MU needed to win each game, which is by far the best career scoring total in MU history, and would be the equivalent of scoring 25.9 points per game in modern times. That’s enough to move him from 72nd best on my initial list, to the 50th best player in the book.

12. Tony Smith (1987-90). I was called to task for leaving Smith out of the Top 20 at 22nd in the initial list, and when I crunch the numbers he moves up to 13th. I know some will still be mad he is not in the Top 10 based on his 689 points and all-time best scoring average in 1990. However, he doesn’t quite get the Top 10 because his other three seasons weren’t nearly at that level, as he never had even 400 points until the senior year. I don’t blame him for that, as I note in the book he was just hardly shooting at all until O’Neill took over, but with all the MU greats it does let 12 slip ahead of him in the rankings.

• The other four players who were shortchanged in the initial rankings were Mike Bargen (1996-99, left off list and now 80th), Red Dunn (1922-25 was 86th, now 30th), Marcus Washington (1972-74, 59th to 40th), Larry McNeil (1972-73, 29th to 14th) and Richard Nixon (1961-63, left off list but now 87th).

Still, the initial Top 100 was pretty good with 74 of 100 players ranked right about where they should be and still are in the book.

I won’t go through the 10 players that I should not have had in my Top 100, as they are all still in the Top 200. Basically, lacking most stats the initial list gave average players on championship teams higher rankings than superior players on lesser teams, a mistake now fixed.

And truly, thank you for everyone who criticized the bad rankings in the initial column – it really set me down the road to needed additional research that ended up creating the new book. And for the criticism’s that I still believe were ill-founded, it made me do additional research to back up my original assertions.

Now I just wish Mbakwe was still going to be around. Now his 17 points, 23 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 steals and 4 blocked shots listed in the book will apparently never increase – what a shame, but I’m sure Buzz will plug the hole soon.

Thanks to John for his data crunching and CS columns.  Make sure you order his book here.  Look, the dude has like 8 children.  He needs the dough.

'Smart' promotion by MU

Now this is a great promotion by Marquette:

Marquette Athletics announced Saturday that two students will win a blue or gold Marquette-themed Smart Car as part of the 2008-09 Fanatics Rewards Program. The Smart Cars are courtesy of Bergstrom Automotive and have a retail value of about $17,000 each.

With the new freshmen on campus and the rest of the student body returning, the athletic department is pulling out all the stops to rally the base to maintain a high level of interest in the program.

The incoming crop of freshmen students figure to be at the institution for another stellar era of hoops --- Rivals.com currently has Buzz Willliams' 2009 recruiting class as the 8th best in the nation (and incredibly, only the fourth best in the Big East). With the recent departure of Trevor Mbakwe, Buzz will be able to smartly add to the haul in the coming months. Bob Gibbons slots MU in as the nation's 5th best class (behind two other Big East schools, wow). Talk about it at MUScoop.

Jamil Wilson now a legitimate possibility?

With the surprise departure of Trevor Mbakwe from the basketball team over the weekend, does this mean Jamil Wilson's chances of ending up in blue and gold have increased significantly?

I'll say a speculative yes to that. Though MU continue to recruit Michael Snaer, one of the top recruits in the country, there is plenty of competition for his services and geographical prejudices to potentially stifle his commitment. Jamil Wilson, on the other hand, as recently as two weeks ago still listed Marquette in his final list despite MU not having any scholarships available. Michigan State has recruited him hard, but it seemed MU was at or near the top of his list for months when Tom Crean was still the head coach. Now, with a spot open and Buzz Williams desire to balance out the scholarships by position, this could mean Wilson's MU opportunity has taken a huge step in a positive direction.

Wilson still plans on waiting until March of 2009 to announce his school of choice, but one has to wonder if the latest turn of events puts MU back near the top for this SE Wisconsin player. Or will Coach Williams sign someone else in the meantime?

Trevor Mbakwe transfers from Marquette - Shocker

Todd Rosiak is reporting that Trevor Mbakwe has decided to quit the team essentially days before classes are to begin. New coach Buzz Williams said he was "shocked by the news". The last minute decision leaves MU even thinner in the middle as it prepares for the 2008-09 season.

For weeks it has been rumored that Buzz has been recruiting several other players even though no scholarships are available. Some have linked Trevor's departure as a reason for Williams' continued recruiting. However, if it is true that Williams was shocked by Mbakwe's transfer, then it's obvious Williams has been recruiting for another reason the last few weeks and months. Is it simply to stay in on kids "just in case" someone doesn't make it academically or backs out of their verbal commitment? Who knows, but it seems to me that Williams recruiting of late had nothing to do with Mbakwe.

Mbakwe was rumored to transfer after Tom Crean left for Indiana, but he reaffirmed his commitment back in May to stay with Marquette. Last year he was out for most of the season due to a leg injury, but came back early after medical clearance from MU's doctors. He was raw, but showed signs of rebounding presence in several games. It appeared he would be a significant contributor to MU this season as the squad attempts to go for four straight NCAA berths.

What is even more stunning is the reason Mbakwe gave for leaving. According to Coach Williams, the reason he left was to go the junior college route. Strange indeed. I'm sure more information will come about in the coming days.

This leaves Williams in a tough spot. Things had been going very smoothly for him the last 3 months, but now this last second decision has caught him and the MU faithful off guard.

Todd Rosiak's blog with this entry can be found here.

http://blogs.jsonline.com/muhoops/archive/2008/08/24/mbakwe-quits-team.aspx

Dog Days Media Update

With August coming to a close quickly, here's a look at news items about the Marquette hoops program from the past few days:

• First, Liam McMorrow is quite the intriguing character. The Canadian seven-footer grew several inches in the last few years and initially played hoops to mollify incessant questions about his athletic interests. BTW, as tough as this kid might be, I'm guessing his hockey thug brother sets the tone at home. Read all about it here in the Toronto Sun.
• Rivals.com is out with their post-summer rankings for the class of 2009. All three of MU's 2009 high school commits cracked the top 100: Jeronne Maymon (#46), Junior Cadougan (#60), and Erik Williams (#99). A fine showing for MU -- and we expect Williams to rise during his senior year as he returns to full health following the ankle injury last winter.
• Tom Shanahan, columnist for the Voice of San Diego, remembers Al McGuire with now notable playwright Dick Enberg. Good stuff, as always, when it's about Coach Al.
• Mark Miller of Wishoops.net updates readers on several players, including 2010 guard Chim (T.J.) Kadima who just visited MU.
• Mike DeCourcy from TSN penned a Q/A with new coach Buzz Williams. While the interview is quite good and we realize coach Williams can't discuss the 2009 class, Mike chose not to pepper Buzz with questions about coaching at a school "outside his geographic comfort zone" or the disadvantages of recruiting at the "Western edge of an Eastern league". Apparently TC was too busy finalizing his own contract to FUD* the Warriors program once more. Regardless, Buzz is refreshingly honest and it shows in this Q/A once more when he calls a spade a spade in reference to MU's big men, "we are very disproportionate, as it compares to our league, to have four scholarships at one position."
  
• MUScoop asks: Is a low post threat essential for a championship level team? Jump in.
  

*Fear Uncertainty Doubt

2008-09 Big East Basketball Preview Now Available

While classes haven't yet started, the Big East basketball office has been busy preparing the 2008-09 preview guide.  Added to the Big East website without fanfare, the guide includes:

• League highlights from last season
• Team rosters and previews
• Team by Team results and league stats from 2007-08
• Capsules on each of the 60 players new to the league this year

The most interesting section is the incoming career leaders in various statistical categories. Two MU players are among the leaders. 

• Dominic James leads total points with 695 and total assists with 245
• Jerel McNeal leads total steals with 99

Neither James nor McNeal lead the per game averages for their categories.  USF's Dominique Jones has the highest returning scoring average with 18.7; Tory Jackson of Notre Dame leads the per-game assist category with 5.9 and Jeff Xavier of PC is the per-game steal leader with 2.7.

Also interesting to note is that every Big East team will appear in some sort of non-conference tournament this year:  

Cincinnati: Las Vegas Invitational Nov. 22-29

Connecticut:   Paradise Jam (Virgin Islands) Nov. 21-24 

DePaul:   Las Vegas Classic Nov. 22-23 

Georgetown:   Old Spice Classic, Orlando Nov. 27-30 

Louisville:   Home Tournament TBA Dec. 6-8 

Marquette:   Chicago Invitational Nov. 17, 28-29 

Notre Dame:   Maui Invitational Nov. 24-26 

Pittsburgh:   Legends Classic Nov. 19-23, 28-29 

Providence:   Anaheim Classic Nov. 27-30 

Rutgers:   Garden City Challenge Nov. 14-23 

St. John’s:   NIT Tipoff Nov. 7-8 

Seton Hall:   O’Reilly Auto Parts Tipoff (P.R.) Nov. 20-23 

USF:   San Juan Shootout Dec. 20-22 

Syracuse:   CBE Classic Nov. 16-18, 24-25 

Villanova:    Philly Classic Nov. 19, 25 

West Virginia:   Las Vegas Invitational Dec. 22-23 

 

Alas, there are no predictions yet--for that we'll need to wait until October 22nd when the Big East hosts the Men's Basketball Media Day--only two months and three days away.

Download the PDF here

Or, if you'd like to purchase, visit the Big East online store.

Rosiak delivers: Interviews with Cadougan and Buycks

Todd Rosiak came through with a pair of in-depth Q/As with two of Marquette's most recent recruits, Junior Cadougan and Dwight Buycks.

Here's the Q/A with point guard recruit Junior Cadougan.

Here's the Q/A with JUCO guard Dwight Buycks.

Good stuff.

Media updates and more

As the dog days of summer wear on, bits and pieces of news and information related to the Marquette basketball program continue to pop up.....here's a quick look at the latest:

• According to HuskerExtra.com, the Warriors will scrimmage the Nebraska Cornhuskers in Lincoln on November 1. The scrimmage, yet to be confirmed by Marquette, would be the third scrimmage in as many years for MU. Marquette continues to match up against the Big XII, as they scrimmaged against K-State the previous two years.
• Buzz Williams remains active on the recruiting trail. Although MU is presently full-up for the 2009 recruiting class, the Warriors remain in the final seven schools for Racine's Jamil Wilson, and continue to be mentioned as a possible destination for NYC's Kevin Parrom and Omari Lawrence.
  
• Brendon and Dante are back with a new-look Web site and another installment of the informative Big East Cast. Nice work, fellas.
  
• You know we love lists -- and the folks at the Cards Hoops blog compiled a list of the top 75 players in the Big East. A fun read.
• For you Wisconsin hoops fanatics, Mark Miller of Wishoops.net updated his rankings of the state's best prospects for each of the next three classes. Marquette commit Jeronne Maymon tops the list for 2009.
• Ray Floriani, the New Jersey-based basketball writer and guest contributor on Cracked Sidewalks, just published his first book -- a pictorial history of the NIT. Check out Ray's interview with The Leader here.

Finally, kudos to Marquette University for fully embracing the digital age. In case you haven't noticed, Marquette has been slowly satisfying the desire for constant news about the basketball program through a steady stream of podcasts and video clip releases.

• Want to listen to player and coach interviews on your iPod? Then visit Marquette's podcast website. You could also just download the MP3's directly. Here are links to the files for Joe Fulce, Jimmy Butler, Liam McMorrow, Chris Otule, Assistant Coach Aki Collins, and the most recent entry, Steve Novak. Personally, we found the interview with Aki Collins to be the most insightful.
• Want some video with your Marquette hoops? Then look at how the summer includes video production. Or you could realize exactly how weak you are by looking at the Record Setting Summer in the Weight Room.
• Maybe you want to take Marquette on the go? You can sign up for Marquette Mobile, where you can register for Mobile Headlines and Score Alerts. You can even pick up Marquette Wallpaper and Ringtones. Too bad Marquette Mobile costs $3.99 / month. Although we have to wonder why the Athletic Department couldn't have found some way to make that free. How about to season ticket holders? We know you already have our phone numbers.
• Finally, if that's not enough, feel free to search through Marquette All-Access. There is a ton of archived information.
  

We think it's great that Marquette is moving towards more self-generated content. It's the natural evolution of PR and Marketing, and allows the university to more effectively manage the perception of its brand. Besides, it's not as if Marquette can expect local media to report on the team on a regular basis...

**Thanks to Henry Sugar for his contributions to this post.

Is the Aggressive Defense Worth it?

During the two-part Big East Preview, there were a number of questions that popped up in the MUScoop.com thread. One poster, Pardner, who has helped contribute information regarding Official Bias, wondered if we were going to see any change in the fact that TC's teams always outfouled the competition. So I decided to look into this a little bit further.

If you look at the 2007 Pomeroy Marquette page and the 2008 Pomeroy Marquette page, one can see Marquette's Defensive Free Throw Rate (FTA / FGA) ranking. In the last two years, Marquette ranked #236 (in 2007) and #262 (in 2008). Despite being a Top 15 team according to Pomeroy, Marquette was one of the worst teams in the country at preventing opponents from getting to the line. Last year Marquette fit in comfortably between Albany and Sacred Heart. yeesh

While one could say that this is a product of our guard-centric lineup and big man deficiency, I don't believe that roster mix is the reason. After all, Marquette put our opponents on the line more regularly than South Carolina Upstate. (did you even know that was a school? yes, they exist)

Instead, I attribute this more to our defensive philosophy, which is commonly known as an aggressive style defense that favors deflections and steals. In fact, my key assumption is that the there is a link between the aggressive style of defense, increased opponent turnovers and more fouls committed. Marquette had a stingy and thieving defense last year, ending up #11 in the country at steal percentage. We forced turnovers (#49 in the country), and when the defense was working we were off and running for easy points.

But was the defensive strategy worth it?

If you look at the Pomeroy Game Plan for Marquette, you'll see that Marquette had a 99% significant correlation between our Opponent's Free Throw Rate and our Defensive Efficiency. In other words, when our opponent had a good Free Throw Rate, our defense suffered. (As I say all the time, it sounds intuitive, but it's not the same for every team. It doesn't apply to Wisconsin) We allowed our opponents to have a FTR of 41% last year. That means that an average opponent, shooting 54 FGA, would also take 22 free throws. To repeat, this was #262 in the country.

Against Top 100 opponents, the story is even worse. Our opponent's FTR goes up to 46% (~25 Free Throw Attempts per game).

Yeah, but so what? The average impact of this Free Throw Rate was a worsening of our Defensive Efficiency of 26.2, with a range from 16.9 (low) to 35.5 (high). Keep in mind our season Defensive Efficiency was 87.8, so this impacted our defense by 20-40%. I calculate that the way we put opponents on the line cost Marquette an average of 17.8 ppg with a standard range from 11.5 ppg to 24.2 ppg.

As previously stated above, Marquette's aggressive defense was one of the best in the nation. How much did we benefit from our aggressive defense? Going back to the Game Plan, we also see a 99% significant correlation between our Opponent's Turnover Rate and our Defensive Efficiency. More turnovers from our opponent means that our defense was better. (Still sounds intuitive, but it doesn't apply to Pittsburgh). We forced opponents into a turnover rate of 23.4%, meaning that our opponents ended up with about 16 turnovers per game, or almost one out of every four possessions.

Against Top 100 opponents, the turnover story is also not as good. Better teams protect the ball more. We only forced opponents into a turnover rate of 21.7%. Remember that 20% is considered average (a turnover one out of five possessions).

We come back to the so what? The average benefit on our defense was an improvement of our Defensive Efficiency of 13.2 with a range from 10.2 to 16.3. On a percentage basis, this is about 10-20% of our defensive results. I calculate that the turnovers for our opponents cost them (and benefited Marquette) an average of 9.0 ppg with a standard range from 6.9 ppg to 11.1 ppg.

If the assumption is right, then the style of defense that's taught is to focus on deflections and steals, which leads to more turnovers and fouls committed. The problem is that this benefit to our defense is not enough to overcome the negative implications from the extra fouls we commit. The extra trips to the free throw line for our opponent are worse for us than the times our opponent commits a turnover.

Furthermore, since conventional wisdom tells us teams protect the ball better in the post-season, does Marquette's defense get exposed even further? Our ability to force turnovers went way down last year in the post-season, but I'll have to do more analysis before saying the defensive strategy gets worse for MU.

If the assumption is wrong, then I can't blame the defensive strategy and emphasis on turnovers for the extra fouls committed. However, the fact remains that there is a significant impact on team performance from allowing our opponents to head to the free throw line so much. One thing is certain, no matter what the implications of the defensive strategy may be, the coaching staff needs to emphasize that we stop putting opponents on the free throw line so much.

Big East Preview - Part Two

Back now with Part Two of the Big East Preview. In case you missed Part One, you can find it at this link. If you want more details on the factors I'm using, you can check it out here.

The data I used is taken from Pomeroy's site, where I extracted conference data only and worked with that. As a reminder, the factors under consideration were:

1. A team that underperformed or overperformed based on last year's stats
2. Consistency (or Inconsistency) of the team last year
   
3. Quality of Junior and Senior players (Using data provided by Villanova by the Numbers and then modified)
   
4. Regression of a team towards 0.500
   
5. Quality of incoming players based on RSCI
   

Before we move onto the the top eight teams (Connecticut, Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia), I wanted to make sure that something was clarified.

Projections are forecasts based on limited data. They are inherently inaccurate. Don't focus too much on any predictions regarding specific Wins/Losses or where the selected team is ranked in the preview. The most important value (IMO) is in the areas that I regard as statistical outliers, or where a team may have a red flag or potential bonus.

Clear? Onto the preview

Competing for a BET first round bye
The next six teams are all fairly close, and I'd expect each team to be somewhat in contention for a spot in the top four

#8 - Syracuse

• 2007 Results - underperformed. Based on their stats in conference, Syracuse (9-9), should have finished with a record of 9.9 - 8.1.
  
• Consistency - Modest impact. Syracuse was one of the more consistent teams in conference last year.
• Quality of Returning Starters - limited impact. Syracuse returns relatively few junior and senior minutes. They also lost Donte Green but will gain productivity from the return of both Eric Devendorf and Andy Rautins.
  
• Expected Regression - They were at 0.500 last year, so no impact
  
• Incoming Freshmen -Syracuse welcomes 6'7 WF Kris Joseph to a team that was already young and talented. Bonus
  

Projection - 10-8. Expect Syracuse to be better this year. They're definitely talented, but are they too young to compete for a top spot? Expectations for the 'Cuse may be understated.

#7 - Notre Dame

• 2007 Results - Significant Overperformer. Based on their stats in conference, Notre Dame (14-4), should have finished with a record of 11.7 - 6.3. Red Flag
  
• Consistency - Modest impact. Notre Dame was one of the more consistent teams in conference last year, which means that I don't attribute their overperformance to inconsistency.
• Quality of Returning Starters - Significant Impact. Notre Dame returns one of the highest percentages of Junior and Senior minutes, as well as last year's BE POY, Floppy McFlopperson. Bonus
  
• Expected Regression - Significant impact. Based on their win % last year, Notre Dame should feel some pull back towards 0.500. Red Flag
  
• Incoming Freshmen - No Impact
  

Projection - 11-7. Despite the big advantage of returning almost everyone except the productive Rob Kurz, I see some major red flags for ND.

#6 - Pittsburgh

• 2007 Results - underperformed. Based on their stats in conference, Pittsburgh (10-8), should have finished with a record of 10.7 - 7.3. Of course, some of this was due to the injury suffered by Levance Fields.
  
• Consistency - No impact. Pitt was just slightly more inconsistent than league average.
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - limited impact. Although they return most of their players, relatively few of those players are junior and senior returning minutes. (This obviously changes if Mike Cook is granted an 8th year of eligibility). Pitt's on the wrong side of league average.
  
• Expected Regression - No impact
  
• Incoming Freshmen - Pittsburgh brings in 6'5 WF Nasir Robinson (#81). Too bad he's not from New York City. I bet you didn't know that Pitt gets a lot of players from NYC. Jamie Dixon also added solid backcourt performer Travon Woodall who should take some of the minutes vacated by the departed Keith Benjamin and Ronald Ramon. Bonus
  

Projection - 11-7. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, any of the teams in here could finish between 8th and 3rd. So why is Pitt down at #6? Because I don't like Pitt! Refreshing candor from Cracked Sidewalks, and hey... Pitt is above ND.

#5 - Georgetown

• 2007 Results - Significant overperformer. Based on their stats in conference, Georgetown (15-3), should have finished with a record of 13.7 - 4.3. This is just using math to say what everyone in conference knows... Georgetown got lucky last year against West Virginia, Villanova, and even Marquette. Red Flag
  
• Consistency - Modest impact. Georgetown was one of the more consistent teams in conference last year
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - Modest impact. I know you're thinking that Georgetown lost everyone from that team (Roy Hibbert, Jonathan Wallace, Little Rivers, Little Ewing, and Vernon Macklin). However, even though they're on the low side of league average for returning junior and senior minutes, they're not at the bottom of the league.
  
• Expected Regression - Significant impact. There should be a strong pull on Georgetown's win percentage. Red Flag
  
• Incoming Freshmen - Fresh off of the 07 recruiting class that was top 10 RSCI, Georgetown brings in FOUR players in the RSCI Top 100 list, but can the kids step in and immediately replace the veteran production from last season? JTIII will also welcome 6'10" FSU transfer Julian Vaughn to campus this fall. Bonus
  

Projection - 12-6. Conventional wisdom is that Georgetown will be significantly down this year. I'm less bearish on the Hoyas' chances than many, despite the two big red flags listed above. The biggest reason is that GU will still have a decent number of returning contributors, as well as a huge influx of talent.

#4 - West Virginia

• 2007 Results - underperformed. Based on their stats in conference, West Virginia (11-7), should have finished with a record of 11.5 - 6.5.
  
• Consistency - Significant impact. West Virginia was one of the more inconsistent teams in conference last year. Just as mentioned with Providence, this is a red flag, but possible bonus. If Year 2 of the Huggins Experience results in the 'Eers playing more consistently, then that's a boost. Red Flag (but possible bonus)
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - Modest impact. Yes, I know that West Virginia lost Joe Alexander and Darris Nichols. However, West Virginia still returns one of the higher percentages of Junior and Senior minutes.
  
• Expected Regression - Limited impact
  
• Incoming Freshmen - The late addition of former IU signee Devin Ebanks (#22) to go with Kevin Jones (#49) are big reasons why WVU could surprise to the upside this year. Bonus

Projection - 12-6. This is a team that could just as easily finish 8th as well. I just think that Huggins will get West Virginia to play more consistently and they won't be as bad.

#3 - Marquette

• 2007 Results - underperformed. Based on their stats in conference, Marquette (11-7), should have finished with a record of 11.3 - 6.7.
  
• Consistency - Significant impact. Marquette was the most inconsistent teams in conference last year. We even covered it in some depth on this site. Just as mentioned with West Virginia, this is a red flag, but possible bonus. The big question is if experience will result in more consistency, or if the inconsistency is a result of a guard-heavy roster. I hope it's the former, but fear it's the latter. Red Flag (but possible bonus)
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - Significant impact. Three 1,000 point scorers and a junior in Lazar Hayward that was among the league's most improved players last year. Bonus
  
• Expected Regression - Limited impact
  
• Incoming Freshmen - No impact. No offense to Chris Otule, but there are no incoming players on the RSCI Top 100 list. However, there is hope that new juco players Joe Fulce and Jimmy Butler will provide solid contributions.
  

Projection - 12-6. Before anyone gets on me for making this a homer pick, I'll say that this is a team that could just as easily finish 8th. I'm picking Marquette to finish third for one single reason: this is the year for Marquette and the Three Amigos to achieve great things. There is no grace period for new coach Buzz Williams. Expectations are, and should be, very high.

Truth is, this team underachieved in the regular season last year, yet it returns every meaningful player and introduces a few potentially useful spare parts. Despite coaching turnover, this mix should equate to more wins despite the overall improvement of the Big East across the board. MU has the veteran backcourt that coaches crave, admirable depth, and the seasoning of three straight NCAA appearances.

If this team significantly underachieves with all of their experience and talent, I could care less how good of a recruiter Buzz Williams is. No matter how good the incoming talent will be starting in 2009, Marquette will take a significant step back after losing McNeal, James, and Matthews. Anyone else not that interested in two disappointing years? That puts the pressure on performing well in 2008 - 2009.

The Top Two
I think these two teams will be the class of the Big East next year:

#2 - Connecticut

• 2007 Results - Overperformed. Based on their stats in conference, UConn (13-5), should have finished with a record of 12.3-5.7. Chalk one up to the Hall of Fame coach.
  
• Consistency - No impact. UConn was about league average
  
• Quality of Returning Starters. UConn returns the highest percentage of Junior and Senior experience in the league. Bonus
  
• Expected Regression. Some regression expected, but not significant
  
• Incoming Freshmen. UConn brings in the 6'1 PG Kemba Walker (#24) and 6'6 WG Nate Miles (#60) to another team that was good and now has a lot of experience. In particular look for point guard Kemba Walker to start fast as coach Jim Calhoun waits for A.J. Price to make a full recovery from knee surgery. Also, Miles can really play and will make UConn fans quickly forget the (for now) departed Stanley Robinson. Bonus
  

Projection - 13-5. At the end of the day, I just think that they're not the best team in the league. But they're close.

#1 - Louisville

• 2007 Results - Underperformed. Based on their stats in conference, Louisville (14-4), should have finished with a record of 14.9 - 3.1. Injuries surely played a role
  
• Consistency - Louisville was one of the most consistent teams in the league, which helps when you're good. Bonus
  
• Quality of Returning Starters. Again, UL returns one of the highest number of Junior and Senior minutes. Bonus
  
• Expected Regression. Significant regression expected. Red flag
• Incoming Freshmen. Louisville brings in the RSCI #5 player, PF Samardo Samuels, to a loaded and experienced team. Bonus
• Wildcard: Derrick Caracter. Who knows what to expect from this talented yet troubled collegian. For now, he's factored out of the equation.
  

Projection - 14-4. Pitino hauls in the BE title he should have won last year.

Again, the focus is more on the potential bonus or red flag areas for each team, instead of the projected wins/losses or projected final ranking. Any of the teams from #3 through #9 could realistically fit in any random order. Besides, if I could accurately model results, I'd be typing this from my own private desert island.

Thanks to NYWarrior for his additional contributions. Finally, want to review the data in depth? Here is a link to the spreadsheet. (The file opens up automatically)

Update: Earl Tatum

After we posted this item on Earl Tatum and his health, many of you wrote in to wish Tatum a speedy recovery.

We got a follow up from his daughter:

My dad is doing much better. He is improving remarkably fast according to his Physician. He had a good time recently at the Nicole Ellis Foundation Dinner.

Note from Earl : "I want to thank everyone for the wonderful well wishes. It was nice seeing notes from Marquette fans and Mount Vernon HS fans. It has been a blessing that I am back on my feet.
If you base it on 100%, I feel like I am at 99%.
Learn about your family health history, ask relatives questions, and keep in close touch with your Physcian. Don't take it lightly."

Cracked Sidewalks hopes to see Earl back in Section 204 this season!

Earl Tatum Wiki Page

Big East Preview - Part One

I'm going to run this down from worst to first. My approach to the analysis is to look at five various factors to see how they might impact each of the teams in the Big East. The factors under consideration were:

1. A team that underperformed or overperformed based on last year's stats
2. Consistency (or Inconsistency) of the team last year
   
3. Quality of Junior and Senior players (Using data provided by Villanova by the Numbers and then modified)
   
4. Regression of a team towards 0.500
   
5. Quality of incoming players based on RSCI
   

Read the previous post to get more insight. To get to the projected records, I started with last year's numbers and then revised up and down based on stat performance, returning minutes, incoming talent, etc. Those projections are as good as any projection at this time of year. However, I think the real value of the preview is in the bonus factors or red flags that pop up for each team.


Today's preview focuses on the bottom eight teams in conference.

====

The Bottom of the Barrel
These three teams show that it's hard to dig yourself out

#16 - DePaul

• 2007 Results - Overperformed. Based on their stats in conference, DePaul (6-12), should have finished with a record of 5.4 - 12.6. Yay?
  
• Consistency - Unfortunately for DePaul, they were one of the most consistent teams in the league. Being consistently bad is less than desireable. Red Flag
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - DePaul returns one of the fewest number of junior and senior leadership. Red Flag
  
• Expected Regression - Based on being one of the lower teams in conference last year, DePaul is expected to improve their win% significantly. Bonus
  
• Incoming Freshmen - Nobody on the RSCI Top 100 list
  

Projection - 4-14. Sorry, but someone has to be worst in the league. Kind of a shame, too, because Jerry Wainright is doing something really cool this offseason.

#15 - St. John's

• 2007 Results - Overperformed. Based on their stats in conference, St John's (5-13), should have finished with a record of 4.6 - 13.4
  
• Consistency - No impact. St. John's was about league average
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - St. John's returns the fewest number of junior and senior leadership in the Big East, highlighted by the transfer of the productive Larry Wright. Red Flag
  
• Expected Regression - Based on being one of the lower teams in conference last year, St John's is expected to improve their win% significantly. Bonus
  
• Incoming Freshmen - Nobody on the RSCI Top 100 list
  

Projection - 5-13. Let's just move on

#14 - South Florida

• 2007 Results - Significant Underperformer. Based on their stats in conference, USF (3-15), should have finished with a record of 4.9 - 13.1. Look for some correction this year. Bonus
• Consistency - Limited impact. USF was slightly above average for consistency in the Big East last year
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - Slightly below average, although South Florida does lose massive big man Kentrell Gransberry
  
• Expected Regression - Based on being one of the lower teams in conference last year, USF is expected to improve their win% significantly. Bonus
  
• Incoming Freshmen - Nobody on the RSCI Top 100 list, but coach Stan Health will welcome seven (7!) new players to the program this fall. Let's see what they can do.
  

Projection - 5-13. I give South Florida a modest two game improvement in 2008-2009 based on last year's underperformance and the sublime play of sophomore-to-be Dominique James, but no more than that because of the loss of Gransberry.

====

The dangerous road game
These three teams will probably be towards the bottom of the league, but that doesn't mean they won't be tough to beat on any given night.

#13 - Seton Hall

• 2007 Results - Overperformed. Based on their stats in conference, Seton Hall (7-11), should have finished with a record of 6.3 - 11.7 last year.
  
• Consistency - Limited impact. Seton Hall was slightly above average for consistency in the Big East last year
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - Slightly below average just on the numbers, although the Pirates also lost senior leader Brian Laing and notable Dominic James fouling machine Jamar Nutter. Note that Seton Hall also expects to return steals leader Paul Gause, who was injured for much of the year.
  
• Expected Regression - Seton Hall can expect some modest regression towards 0.500, but I don't think it's significant
  
• Incoming Freshmen - Nobody on the RSCI Top 100 list though the Pirates will welcome perhaps the best transfer player into the Big East this year in 6'6" Robert Mitchell. Mitchell played one year at Duquesne and was one of the nation's best freshmen, averaging better than 16 points and 5 boards per game.
  

Projection - 6-12. Everything's vanilla with Seton Hall (except for Bobby Gonzalez). Nothing significantly noteworthy in the stats.

#12 - Cincinnati

• 2007 Results - Overperformed. Based on their stats in conference, Cincy (8-10), should have finished with a record of 7.2 - 10.8
  
• Consistency - Cincy was one of the most inconsistent teams in the league last year. That means that they probably won more games than they should have last year. Red flag
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - On top of being inconsistent last year, Cincinnati also returns one of the fewest amount of junior and senior minutes this year. Not a good combo. Red flag
  
• Expected Regression - No real impact
  
• Incoming Freshmen - The Bearcats welcome two players on the RSCI Top 100 list. 6'8" PF Yancy Gates (#41) and 6' G Cashmere Wright (#94) join their program this year. Bonus
  

Projection - 6-12. Despite the addition of two talented players, I think the inconsistency from last year and the relatively few experienced players mean that Cincinnati is due to drop down this year.

#11 - Rutgers

• 2007 Results - Underperformed. Based on their stats in conference, Rutgers (3-15), should have finished with a record of 3.5 - 14.5
  
• Consistency - Limited impact. USF was slightly more inconsistent than the league average last year
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - No impact. Rutgers is about league average
  
• Expected Regression - Based simply on being one of the worst teams in conference last year, Rutgers is expected to improve their win% significantly. Bonus
  
• Incoming Freshmen - Fred Hill is bringing in a spate of talented players to the Rutgers team. This year they'll add 6'1 sharpshooter Mike Rosario (#44), 6'9" big man Greg Echinique, and 6'9" Christian Morris. Bonus
  

Projection - 6-12. This might be a reach, but I'm predicting a decent three game jump for the Scarlet Knights this year.

====

Fighting for that Tournament Berth
These two teams will be somewhere around 0.500 and they'll probably be in contention for the eight or nine bids the Big East is expected to receive in the NCAA Tournament this year.

#10 - Providence

• 2007 Results - Significant Underperformer. Based on their stats in conference, Providence (6-12), should have finished with a record of 7.1 - 10.9 last year. This certainly contributed to the hiring of a new coach this offseason. Bonus
  
• Consistency - Providence was one of the most inconsistent teams in the league last year. While it might means that they probably won more games than they should have last year, I believe their underperformance indicates otherwise. I have to flag it but it's worth watching. Red flag (possible bonus)
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - Limited impact, though a return to health for point guard Sharaud Curry will make Keno Davis' transition to the Big East much smoother. Curry missed nearly all of last season with a stress fracture in his right foot. Providence is slightly above league average, even with the transfer of productive point guard Dwain Williams.
  
• Expected Regression - Significant impact. Based on where they finished last year, Providence should expect a solid boost just by virtue of a regression towards 0.500. Bonus
  
• Incoming Freshmen - No impact
  

Projection - 8-10. Who's ready for some "Keno Davis turnaround" stories? Based on some expected team improvements, Providence should be better than last year. If Davis can get PC to play more consistently, this team may surprise.

#9 - Villanova

• 2007 Results - Overperformed. Based on their stats in conference, Villanova (9-9), should have finished with a record of 8.3 - 9.7
  
• Consistency - No impact. Villanova was right at league average
  
• Quality of Returning Starters - Limited impact. Villanova is slightly above average for returning junior and senior minutes.
  
• Expected Regression - No impact
• Incoming Freshmen - No impact
  

Projection - 9-9. It seems unfair to put Villanova this low, especially since they are returning almost everyone from a team that made the Sweet 16 last year. However, this is part of why the Big East is such a tough conference, and also why pundits are saying the Big East may get nine bids in March. I'm just not seeing anything where Villanova is expecting a big bonus or red flag from the stats. And at the end of the day, I just don't think they're better than the top eight teams even when you factor in expected year-to-year player development.

====

Speaking of the top eight teams (Connecticut, Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia), we'll cover the remainder tomorrow.

Contributions from NYWarrior. Thanks
*edit - Messed up the Villanova results from last year

News and Notes, and a start to the Big East Preview

In case you didn't get a chance to see it, ESPN.com has a Shootaround focusing on the Big East. There is a team capsule for every team in the league and a feature article about the new, revised BET that now includes every team in the league. There are also vignettes about Keno Davis (Providence), AJ Price, the difficulty of exiting the BE basement, Shrek, and the likelihood of getting nine teams into the NCAA tournament. Also, Jay Bilas picks Marquette to finish fifth.

A fellow stathead at Villanova by the Numbers has an entry about Returning Minutes Experience. Instead of breaking down the total returning minutes, greyCat looks at the quality of experience. It's an interesting take on the quality of returning players, and it's not just because he ranks Marquette #1.

====

Given all that, I wanted to take my own look at a Big East Preview. We will consider the following areas based only on Big East statistics. Today will just be a quick introduction to the way I'm approaching the analysis. It's obviously not infallible. If it were, then where would be the fun of a preview? Onto the stats being considered:

#1 - A team that underperformed or overperformed based on last year's stats

Based on a team's Offensive and Defensive efficiency during conference, they should end up with a projected win-loss record. Often, the projection will end up not as a nice even integer, leaving the final results as a record of coaching ability (or lack thereof) and/or luck. Sometimes, a team will end up outside the standard deviation as a significant underperformer or overperformer. In particular, these are teams we will watch closely because we expect them to return closer to form.

Example - based on last year's stats, Notre Dame should have finished with a record of 11.7 - 6.3 (0.648) in conference. Instead, they ended up with a record of 14-4 (0.778). That gets a red flag.

#2 - Consistency (or Inconsistency) of the team last year

Consistency is both good and bad. If you're a bad team, it's not very acceptable to be consistently bad. On the other hand, if you're a good team, it's great to be consistent. I'm really looking more at inconsistency than anything. The best way of looking at consistency is that inconsistent good teams lose more than they should and inconsistent bad teams win more than they should. Teams that return a large number of players should become more consistent.

Example - Marquette was the most inconsistent team in the Big East last year. They also finished under their projected win total. This year they are extremely experienced and may end up more consistent.

#3 - Quality of Junior and Senior players (Using data provided by Villanova by the Numbers and then modified)

As mentioned above, Villanova by the Numbers had an interesting look at the quality of returning minutes. It basically factors in the team's percentage of returning minutes while looking at if those players are also Seniors. I modified the percentages slightly to include Junior and Senior returning minutes. This is obviously not a perfect way of looking at returning minutes, but I think a team playing with mostly Seniors and Juniors will beat an equally talented team playing with mostly Freshmen and Sophomores.

Example - UConn returns the highest percentage of Junior and Senior minutes. This is a big bonus.

#4 - Regression of a team towards 0.500

There's a statistical theory in Dean Oliver's "Basketball on Paper" that says a team tends to regress towards 0.500. Intuitively, this makes sense. It's pretty darn hard to stay at the upper echelon of the league on a consistent basis. Players leave, and no matter how talented a team or coach may be, eventually that team gets pulled towards 0.500. It's a mark of a good coach to keep the team performing consistently above this trend. Likewise, it's also hard for a team to stay bad for a consistently long time, if for no other reason than the team can get a new coach and offer players the promise of playing time.

Example - Providence should have finished with a record of 7.1 - 10.9. Based strictly on the numbers, PC should expect a 9% increase in win % for a record of 7.8 - 10.2. Considering that the team actually ended up 6 - 12, PC is looking at a two game bump just based on stats... and the makings of a "Keno Davis Turnaround Story" sometime in Feb.

#5 - Quality of incoming players based on RSCI

I'll fess up... I didn't feel like looking up every single team for notable transfers and incoming juco players. So instead I went on the basis of the RSCI Top 100 list to see which teams were bringing in consensus top 100 talent. In a lot of situations, this can offset the loss of starting minutes. However, as seen by our beloved Marquette team, which introduced two juco players that expect to compete for playing time, there are some limitations to using this format.

Example - Georgetown lost a lot of quality players last year, like some guys named Hibbert and Wallace. However, they offset that by adding the RSCI #65, #66, and #79 players as freshmen. That's a big bonus.

====

For every section, I compiled the stats for last year's conference play, and then tracked teams on each category. Special attention was paid to situations where a team was more than a standard deviation above or below the mean. Using this criteria, we'll tackle each of the teams in the Big East to see where the various teams may be influenced.