Jump to content

2010 v 2014


Clock_Tower

Recommended Posts

So much talk about our team 5 years ago v. now. How about some facts before we disparage our current guys too much more.

Number of Freshman: 4 in 2010 v. 6 in 2014

Record thru today: 3 wins and 5 losses in 2010 and 6 wins v. 4 losses in 2014. Note: not counting the Rockhurst win. Also, not trying to present a false snapshot of the 2010 season in that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much talk about our team 5 years ago v. now. How about some facts before we disparage our current guys too much more.

* Number of Freshman: 4 in 2010 v. 6 in 2014

* Record thru today: 3 wins and 5 losses in 2010 as compared with 6 wins v. 4 losses in 2014. Note: not counting the Rockhurst win. Also, not trying to present a false snapshot of the 2010 season in that Slu went on to lose 6 of their next 7 games in 2010

* In 2010, we had no SRs but we did have 3 Juniors in Conklin, Cassity and Eckerle along with 3 Sophs in Ellis, Remekun and Salisich.

* In 2014, we have 2 SRs (GG who remains injured and JM) along with 2 JRs in AM and AY and 3 Sophs in MC, RA and TL

* In 2010, bad losses included a 2 point loss to Austin Peay (ranked #130), a 9 point loss to Portland (ranked #103), a 6 point loss to Bowling Green (ranked #245), a 22 point loss to Duquesne (ranked #108) and we had only 1 win the entire year against a team ranked in the top 100 (end of the year win over Dayton which was ranked #70).

No doubt we have had some bad games this year. At the same time, I would say the non-freshman from 2010 were stronger than our non-freshman this year, that we have had to rely upon our Freshman more this year than in 2010, that we have more players to evaluate and see what they can do (12 plus GG) as opposed to only 10 in 2010 as WR and KM both sat out along with JB who sat out to redshirt. Now, if our Sophs continue to contribute, JM can continue his defensive role of blocking shots and shooting FTs, if Ash becomes more reliable and if AM plays more under control and as a team player, then we have the ability to be much better than the 2010 team. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can play games with statistics all they want. For example, the 2010-11 team had a final Pomeroy rating of 129 whereas the current team has a Pomeroy rating of 221. Sagarin ranks us 291 right now, compared with 150 in 2010-11.

I'd certainly value the Pomery and Sagarin rankings which normalizes for strength of schedule over a simple comparison of records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't really a fair comparison for one reason. The only one that matters. The 2010 squad had the core of the team torn apart before the season started. The freshman at that point had been thrown into the fire an it was not planned that way. I suppose that paid benefits later on. This squad with all the freshman was expected so I think they are doing much better because of that. Keith Carter's transfer probably put a kink in coach's plan but the damage is contained more or less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The five losses we had in 10-11 to this point were all to teams that ended up winning at least 20 games and advanced to a post season tournament. We actually beat a team that ended up winning 20 games and going to the postseason at this point in 10-11, too.

This kind of stuff is what I mean by the schedule is hiding how bad we actually are. We have lost to teams ranked by sagarin at 328, 168, and 175. The best team we have beat is rated 197. Our next best victory is over a team rated 260.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can play games with statistics all they want. For example, the 2010-11 team had a final Pomeroy rating of 129 whereas the current team has a Pomeroy rating of 221. Sagarin ranks us 291 right now, compared with 150 in 2010-11.

I'd certainly value the Pomery and Sagarin rankings which normalizes for strength of schedule over a simple comparison of records.

Comparing the CURRENT rankings of this team to the FINAL rankings of that team is the worst kind of apples to oranges comparison. Even a doomsday scenario over the course of the conference schedule would raise this team's rankings come March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't really a fair comparison for one reason. The only one that matters. The 2010 squad had the core of the team torn apart before the season started. The freshman at that point had been thrown into the fire an it was not planned that way. I suppose that paid benefits later on. This squad with all the freshman was expected so I think they are doing much better because of that. Keith Carter's transfer probably put a kink in coach's plan but the damage is contained more or less.

And losing Glaze has hurt this team. No, he's not an impact player like Mitchell or Reed and was never going to be, but given their trouble on the boards he certainly would've helped. And this team had less time to prepare for his absence than they did when Mitchell and Reed got in trouble the previous spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the CURRENT rankings of this team to the FINAL rankings of that team is the worst kind of apples to oranges comparison. Even a doomsday scenario over the course of the conference schedule would raise this team's rankings come March.

+1

Some are jumping the gun on these rankings/statistics way too early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the CURRENT rankings of this team to the FINAL rankings of that team is the worst kind of apples to oranges comparison. Even a doomsday scenario over the course of the conference schedule would raise this team's rankings come March.

That simply isn't true. If we play the way we have for the first 11 games the rest of the season our rankings in the Pomerey and Sagarin computers will remain the same. It is definitional with how those rankings are calculated because margin of victory/defeat does matter.

Now, one could argue that if we play like this the rest of the season our RPI could go up because we'll be playing better teams and the RPI doesn't factor in margin of victory. For that, we can look at the RPI Forecast site:

http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Saint%20Louis.html

It says that our current RPI is 258 and if we play like we have thus far (as calculated by Sagarin's model) we'll end up at 269 with 10 or 11 wins. In fact, even if we get to .500 in D1 games, our RPI will only be ~185, far worse than the 2010-11 team.

All that being said, I think this team can play a lot better than it has and I've seen improvements over the past couple games that suggest we might. However, if we play like we have so far this year, people need to get comfortable with the idea that our final rankings in whatever methodology you prefer will be in the 225-275 range which is as bad as its been since the 5-23 season in Grawer's final year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That simply isn't true. If we play the way we have for the first 11 games the rest of the season our rankings in the Pomerey and Sagarin computers will remain the same. It is definitional with how those rankings are calculated because margin of victory/defeat does matter.

This is true only in theory, if you define "play the way we have" as playing to the level of such a crappy ranking. "Tautological" would be a better way of saying this than "definitional." The reality is that decent conference schedules nearly always SIGNIFICANTLY pull up the rankings of teams like SLU with mediocre records in pathetic non-con schedules. The strength of schedule makes a huge impact, and even though the statistical model might currently suggest they would, SLU is not going to lose every game to a decent A-10 opponent by 20 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they sure are fun when they encourage Chicken Little overreaction, right?

It's overreacting to say that this program is trending down already, but it's not an overreaction to say that this year's team is flat out bad. Will they get better? I assume so, but even then, this team will be ranked significantly lower by all metrics than the 2010 team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect them to have a lower final ranking than 2010. But putting a season-end ranking alongside one with two non-conference games left on the schedule is still an apples to oranges one.

That's fair and I agree. But per kenpom we were ranked 102nd after 11 games in 2010. This year we are ranked 221st after 11 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The five losses we had in 10-11 to this point were all to teams that ended up winning at least 20 games and advanced to a post season tournament. We actually beat a team that ended up winning 20 games and going to the postseason at this point in 10-11, too.

This kind of stuff is what I mean by the schedule is hiding how bad we actually are. We have lost to teams ranked by sagarin at 328, 168, and 175. The best team we have beat is rated 197. Our next best victory is over a team rated 260.

Brian. But what does that really mean? They were still losses -- and not only a few but 19 of them!! You cannot say the 2010 team was better than this year's team b/c they played a tougher schedule. Sure, the 2010 team's schedule is tougher. But the 2010 team still lost 2 of every 3 games they played. The 2010 team could have played the toughest teams in the country for all their their losses -- but they still lost 19 times. But our 2010 team didn't play the toughest teams in the country -- really, they played only a few of the toughest teams -- and each was resounding loss. Again, not all of these losses were to team's like Duke (ranked #4) but were to team ranked in the 100's. Speaking of the Duke game, isn't our performance against them (at Duke) similar to this year's team against Witchita State (at WSU)? How about the loss to Bowling Green (ranked #245)? Mediocre teams don't lose 19 game including to team ranked #245 -- bad teams do.

Is you logic that 2 bad early season failures against admittedly bad/terrible teams means that we will lose to all teams ranked higher than them? Regardless of the opponent, I have seen real improvement by our guys. Do we still have a long way to go? Sure.

And 1 win out of 31 games against conference rival Dayton (ranked #70) at the end of the year is not proof that the 2010 was mediocre. Upsets happen -- especially in conference.

Frankly, looking back at the 2010-2011, I still scratch my head as to why were so bad. Sure, we lost WR and KM, but we still had 3 Juniors in BC, KC and PE, we still had CE, CR and CS and we had the 4 Frosh. I know that CE had mono, the fireworks accident and then the bad shoulder, but face it -- we were bad (not mediocre) in 2010. Are we worse this year? I don't think so. I am optimistic of our future -- both this year and next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can only beat who they put in front of you. There are only two losses anybody can really complain about. The rest of the games were much closer than they could have or should have been, but they were still wins.

That's the biggest reason I don't buy into all the doom and gloom. Most people expected a total head-scratching loss or two, and that's exactly what has happened. Until we get to three or four, I don't see a whole lot of cause for alarm over the record or rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People need to quit whining about our close wins. If Crews had magically known who the best players would turn out to be, and had kept a consistent rotation in for most of those games, I'm guessing the margin of victory would have been larger. Maybe healthy crawford's presence would have shifted those margins as well?

Have we struggled a lot on both ends of the floor? Yes. Are we in the bottom tier of division I teams? Don't think so. When the rotation starts to be set, we are a much better team.

Crews likely wants to build up the team for the long term, so he's going to try and give everyone on the roster as many minutes as possible this year. Is it really fair to compare this scenario to 2010-2011, which had pretty much a set roster the whole year? Someone said we were ranked first in the country this season in subs per game... I still think this squad has the potential to be even better in the long term, but it's going to take time.

Enough with the "our program is trending down" BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...