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)
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
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
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?
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)
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
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
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?
