Denzel Valentine's absence cost Michigan State 6 points of offense and gave Iowa an extra 2 points - enough to change Michigan State from a 73-72 favorite last night at Iowa on KenPom to a 67-74 underdog. In fact, they lost to the Iowa team that looked so good at Marquette by a 70-83 margin.
We just completed the first true run of Value Add Basketball 3.0 (click here if you want detailed explanation of the result of the 1000 plus lines of code programmers completed this break as we calibrated much more advanced calculations). The new data projects a healthy Marquette to beat a healthy Seton Hall 70-69 tonight in the Big East opener - and KenPom, Massey, Sagarin and the Fox Sports projection also all project a one to three point MU win tonight on Fox Sports 1 in what KenPom ranks as the most exciting game of the day.
| Value Add 3.0 Adjustment to kenpom | Michigan St. | Iowa |
|---|---|---|
| Pomeroy | 73.0 | 72.0 |
| Valentine's Value Add 12 of 13 games | 8.9 | -2.6 |
| Valentine Per Game | 9.6 | -2.8 |
| 71 trips in Iowa Game / 100 | 0.71 | 0.71 |
| Impact of losing Valentine | -6.4 | 1.8 |
| Pomeroy Projection - Valentine Loss | 66.6 | 73.8 |
| Actual Final | 70.0 | 83.0 |
To go over the math using last night's game as an example, Pomeroy calculated a 73-72 MSU win based on all results to date. Valentine's current Offensive Value Add is 8.9 and Defense is -2.6 - meaning that is how many points he impacts each team's points per 100 possessions. However, that includes the ZERO rating for the game Valentine already missed to injury, so his per game is actually 9.6 and -2.8 - the fourth best total in the country. Since there were 71 possessions each in last night's game, losing Valentine cost Michigan State 6.4 points total and added 1.8 points to Iowa's score.
When you add those figures to Pomeroy's projection it yields the 67-74 projected loss for the No. 1 ranked Spartans. And lose they did.
| Source | Seton Hall | at Marquette |
|---|---|---|
| Pomeroy | 70.0 | 71.0 |
| Massey | 70.0 | 72.0 |
| Sagarin | UD | by 0.6 |
| Fox Sports Projection | UD | by 3 |
| Value Add Offense | 24.6 | 21.2 |
| Value Add Defense | -6.0 | -5.9 |
| Cross add previous two +82 | 100.7 | 97.3 |
| KenPom Tempo/100 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Neutral Court Score | 70.5 | 68.1 |
| VA Home +2, Away -2 | 68.5 | 70.1 |
Because Seton Hall and Marquette are healthy for tonight as far as I know, no adjustment is made. You can go with your favorite projection - Fox Sports' listed spread is a 3-point MU win, Massey Ratings and Value Add (with rounding) says MU by 2, and Pomeroy and Sagarin have MU by 1.
Value Add 3.0 continues to be focused on individual player values, but to give a better understanding of how the sum of values add up to a total team performance, I ran the math above. The sum of the Offensive Ratings for Seton Hall players is 24.6, over three points better than Marquette's 21.2. The defenses are virtually even at -6.0 and -5.9. The assumption behind Version 3.0 is that a team of replacement players would score about 82 points per 100 trips going up against an AVERAGE D1 defense (this total will always be 20 points less than the national average moving forward).
Therefore both teams "start" with 82 points per 100 trips, and Seton Hall has enough offense to add 24.6 points per 100 trips when healthy, while Marquette has enough defense to take 5.9 back away - leaving Seton Hall projected to score 100.7 points in 100 trips against Marquette and Marquette scoring 97.3. Of course, neither team will get 100 possessions - Pomeroy projects 70 possession each, so we multiply by .7 and get a 71-68 Seton Hall win on a neutral court. However, teams average scoring 2 points better than average at home and 2 points less on the road, so with the game being played at Marquette the projected final is 70-69 Marquette (actually a 2-point favorite due to rounding of 70.1 - 68.5).
| Source | Seton Hall | at Marquette |
|---|---|---|
| Without Desi Rodriguez would lose | 6.4 | -1.8 |
| Value Add Offense | 18.3 | 21.2 |
| Value Add Defense | -4.2 | -5.9 |
| Cross add previous two +82 | 94.4 | 99.0 |
| KenPom Proj 70 Tempo/100 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Neutral Court Score | 66.1 | 69.3 |
| VA Home +2, Away -2 | 64.1 | 71.3 |
Where Value Add 3.0 is more versatile is in quickly adjusting if a player misses a game from either team. Pirates small forward Desi Rodriguez is among the leaders in steals, 2-point shooting and 3-point shooting to rank as the 87th est player in the country with a 6.35 Offensive Rating and a -1.77 Defensive Rating. (other adjustments for position and another factor make the total slightly different than the basic Offense - Defense total).
If Rodriguez did not play (just for illustration, I do not know of any player expected to miss the game) then you would rerun the math with his contributions out, and Marquette would be a 71-64 favorite against a Seton Hall team without Rodriguez.
LSU's Ben Simmons is easily the top player in the country in the first run of the new system with a 15.31 rating, with Oklahoma's Buddy Hield in second. Luke Fischer breaks into the top 100 at 98th to be just behind Rodriguez for best player on the court tonight, while Henry Ellenson keeps skyrocketing as the third best player on the court tonight despite ranking outside the top 2000 after his first few games.
| Rnk | Player | Team | Ht | Yr | Offense | Defense | Total Value | PGPer | NBA? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Simmons, Ben 25 | LSU | 6'10" | Fr11gms | 9.99 | -4.10 | 15.31 | SF*1.015 | 96% |
| 2 | Hield, Buddy 24 | Oklahoma | 6'4" | Sr11gms | 10.87 | -2.05 | 13.92 | SG*1 | 57% |
| 87 | Rodriguez, Desi 20 | Seton Hall | 6'6" | So12gms | 6.35 | -1.77 | 9.25 | SF*1.015 | |
| 98 | Fischer, Luke 40 | Marquette | 6'11" | Jr12gms | 7.17 | -0.79 | 9.07 | C*1.015 | |
| 258 | Ellenson, Henry 13 | Marquette | 6'10" | Fr12gms | 4.28 | -1.74 | 7.11 | C*1.015 | 92% |
| 304 | Carrington, Khadeen 0 | Seton Hall | 6'3" | So12gms | 4.77 | -0.84 | 6.61 | SG*1 | |
| 350 | Delgado, Angel 31 | Seton Hall | 6'9" | So12gms | 3.18 | -2.06 | 6.32 | C*1.015 | |
| 398 | Cohen, Sandy 5 | Marquette | 6'6" | So12gms | 4.07 | -0.91 | 6.05 | SF*1.015 | |
| 423 | Nzei, Michael 1 | Seton Hall | 6'7" | Fr12gms | 4.22 | -0.63 | 5.93 | PF*1.015 | |
| 470 | Sanogo, Ismael 14 | Seton Hall | 6'8" | So11gms | 1.97 | -2.56 | 5.60 | C*1.015 | |
| 640 | Whitehead, Isaiah 15 | Seton Hall | 6'4" | So12gms | 2.30 | -1.36 | 4.65 | PG*1 | |
| 867 | Johnson, JaJuan 23 | Marquette | 6'5" | Jr12gms | 1.59 | -1.12 | 3.75 | SF*1.015 | |
| 895 | Wilson, Duane 1 | Marquette | 6'2" | So12gms | 2.12 | -0.51 | 3.63 | SG*1 | |
| 1113 | Cheatham, Haanif 25 | Marquette | 6'5" | Fr12gms | 1.77 | -0.13 | 2.90 | SG*1 | |
| 1398 | Carter, Traci 21 | Marquette | 6'0 | Fr12gms | 0.21 | -0.87 | 2.08 | PG*1 | |
| 1450 | Gordon, Derrick 32 | Seton Hall | 6'3" | Sr12gms | 0.49 | -0.48 | 1.97 | SG*1 | |
| 1672 | Ellenson, Wally 22 | Marquette | 6'6" | Jr10gms | 0.00 | -0.45 | 1.46 | C*1.015 | |
| 1798 | Singh, Veer 33 | Seton Hall | 6'7" | Fr11gms | 0.45 | 0.36 | 1.23 | PF*1.015 | |
| 1812 | Anthony, Rashed 25 | Seton Hall | 6'9" | So8gms | 0.41 | 0.86 | 1.21 | PF*1.015 | |
| 1825 | Soffer, Dalton 21 | Seton Hall | 6'5" | Fr5gms | 0.39 | 0.23 | 1.20 | SF*1.015 | |
| 1879 | Anderson, Braeden 4 | Seton Hall | 6'9" | Jr10gms | 0.00 | -0.13 | 1.13 | PF*1.015 | |
| 1952 | Carter, Myles 23 | Seton Hall | 6'9" | Fr3gms | 0.07 | 2.43 | 1.04 | PF*1.015 | |
| 1981 | Anim, Sacar 2 | Marquette | 6'5" | Fr8gms | 0.01 | 0.29 | 1.01 | SF*1.015 | |
| 1988 | Heldt, Matt 12 | Marquette | 6'10" | Fr8gms | 0.00 | 0.34 | 1.00 | PF*1.015 |
No comments:
Post a Comment