We have some young pieces with good potential, so we'll get better, but nine games in I think we have enough data now to confirm that we currently still stink:

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/2020/conference/

I believe the "Recent" numbers are most relevant for most teams, though ours are about the same as the main rating because we stunk last year too. Stanford is much improved. UCLA is much worse.

Pac-12
Tier 1 (High Seeds)
87.41 #12 Oregon
87.40 #13 Arizona
86.53 #20 Stanford
85.78 #23 Colorado
Tier 2 (Middle seeds if they keep up performance)
83.33 #42 Arizona St.
83.13 #43 Washington
Tier 3 (Bubble teams that can make tourney with good results in conference)
81.13 #63 USC
81.12 #65 Oregon St.
79.57 #77 Utah
Tier 4 (Teams that stink relative to P6 conference expectations)
74.34 #144 Washington St.
73.47 #153 UCLA
71.71 #182 California

Last season we finished:
68.93 #214

The best Pac-12 teams last year:
85.62 #27 Oregon
82.84 #45 Washington
81.77 #51 Arizona St.
79.86 #64 Colorado

Obviously that's a huge difference.

The conference season is much bigger than the non-conference season for determining how good teams are against tough competition. Unfortunately I think Cal's current team composition will struggle more as the competition gets tougher. Teams that can generate offense against tough defense will perform better in conference than they have so far this year and there will be enough Quadrant 1 wins available in conference that we'll probably get 6 or 7 teams into the tourney based on how the conference looks going into the new year.

While we're better than last year and will continue to improve, the conference average is significantly higher this year so the final standings could end up being similar. We'll have some games where we play and shoot well enough to pull off an upset, but most will just be losses where we root for player and team development. For me the games will still be interesting because it's not really about winning or losing, but rather teamwork, attitude and the fundamentals of basketball.

Other stinky P6 teams based on "Recent" ratings:

ACC
72.61 #166 Georgia Tech
71.53 #185 Boston College

Big East
71.78 #180 Providence

Big Ten
71.74 #181 Nebraska

Big 12
72.85 #161 Kansas St.

SEC
67.03 #253 Texas A&M

Texas A&M has taken over the title of stinkiest P6 team from us this year, but we're in a close race with several teams for second stinkiest... at least for now.

R90 said:

---

While we're better than last year...

---

Not sure I can agree with that. This year's team continues to get blown out by mediocre competition and most certainly isn't playing up to the level of last year's team at the end of the season.

Quote:

---

Texas A&M has taken over the title of stinkiest P6 team from us this year, but we're in a close race with several teams for second stinkiest... at least for now.

---

1. Is STINK based solely on Sagarin? If not, why not? Please provide documentation.

2. If A&M blows out Texas today, are we in trouble?

Civil Bear said:

---

R90 said:

---

While we're better than last year...

---

Not sure I can agree with that. This year's team continues to get blown out by mediocre competition and most certainly isn't playing up to the level of last year's team at the end of the season.

---

Like the vast majority of human beings, you prefer anecdotal evidence that supports your preconceived notions.

I attempt to make my posts rely on objective data. They're for nerds, not neuro-normals. Feel free to ignore me and my posts and enjoy the rest of the board.

bearup said:

---

Quote:

---

Texas A&M has taken over the title of stinkiest P6 team from us this year, but we're in a close race with several teams for second stinkiest... at least for now.

---

1. Is STINK based solely on Sagarin? If not, why not? Please provide documentation.

2. If A&M blows out Texas today, are we in trouble?

---

1. There are a lot of differences in methodology among the computer ratings sites, but they generally yield similar results. We currently stink on all of them. Sagarin's "Recent" appears to be the most accurate to me for the purpose of determining current stench. More data as the season goes along will of course provide more validity in the results, and interpreting the results of other methods helps as well.

2. If A&M somehow leaps past us, we're susceptible to those click-bait, trolling journalists who want write articles about who the worst P6 team is. We're safe for now, but that would likely change if we started the conference season 0-10 again.

R90 said:

---

While we're better than last year...

---

That's what the numbers say for last year's entire season. I suspect just our last 4 games would look a lot better but I'm too lazy to do the math.

Anyway I think it's valid to compare last season's end to this season's beginning.

R90 said:

---

bearup said:

---

Quote:

---

Texas A&M has taken over the title of stinkiest P6 team from us this year, but we're in a close race with several teams for second stinkiest... at least for now.

---

1. Is STINK based solely on Sagarin? If not, why not? Please provide documentation.

2. If A&M blows out Texas today, are we in trouble?

---

1. There are a lot of differences in methodology among the computer ratings sites, but they generally yield similar results. We currently stink on all of them. Sagarin's "Recent" appears to be the most accurate to me for the purpose of determining current stench. More data as the season goes along will of course provide more validity in the results, and interpreting the results of other methods helps as well.

2. If A&M somehow leaps past us, we're susceptible to those click-bait, trolling journalists who want write articles about who the worst P6 team is. We're safe for now, but that would likely change if we started the conference season 0-10 again.

---

1. I understand about using all info reasonably available.

2. Yes, there seems to be enough distance between us and A&M for now (also they're starting a walk-on at PG). TJ Sparks was, uh, suspended and is in the portal....now.

Unfortunately, I can also see the headlines......hope that doesn't happen

********************

On another thread, I asked you about "Relative Game Performance".

WRT Sagarin it's not all clear to me what that is.

stu said:

---

R90 said:

---

While we're better than last year...

---

That's what the numbers say for last year's entire season. I suspect just our last 4 games would look a lot better but I'm too lazy to do the math.

Anyway I think it's valid to compare last season's end to this season's beginning.

---

We were young last year, with a 2nd year coach and improved some. Our "Recent" rating last year was 70.78, vs. 68.93 for the full season.

We're young again this year, with a first year coach, and it's likely we'll improve more. The players still need to learn a lot of what Fox has to teach. I could see us getting up to 74 or 75 as a best case scenario. Most of our freshmen could blossom and become solid players by the end of the season, but they're all climbing a steep learning curve right now (including Brown).

R90 said:

---

We were young last year, with a 2nd year coach and improved some. Our "Recent" rating last year was 70.78, vs. 68.93 for the full season.

We're young again this year, with a first year coach, and it's likely we'll improve more. The players still need to learn a lot of what Fox has to teach. I could see us getting up to 74 or 75 as a best case scenario. Most of our freshmen could blossom and become solid players by the end of the season, but they're all climbing a steep learning curve right now (including Brown).

---

That would be nice. I wish I had the patience to feel better about it in the meantime.

bearup said:

---

On another thread, I asked you about "Relative Game Performance".

WRT Sagarin it's not all clear to me what that is.

---

Sagarin's method is relatively transparent and easy to understand. For that post I just took the strength of each team, added in home court advantage and point differential to see how that game would fit into Sagarin's formulas.

Our performance agains Santa Clara was 75.92 + 3.25 - 19 = 60.17.
That's just above the Duke game (59.13), and way below the Cal Baptist (90.79) and Pepperdine (86.02) games where we ran away in the end.

How things go in garbage time greatly effects the final results in irrelevant ways. Our last 6 games have ranged between 59.13 and 69.27, supporting the idea that we've been playing poorly of late, but several of those games could have ended better and produced better performance results.

The games are all just individual data points, but the more data you get, generally the more validity you'll find.

R90 said:

---

bearup said:

---

On another thread, I asked you about "Relative Game Performance".

WRT Sagarin it's not all clear to me what that is.

---

Sagarin's method is relatively transparent and easy to understand. For that post I just took the strength of each team, added in home court advantage and point differential to see how that game would fit into Sagarin's formulas.

Our performance agains Santa Clara was 75.92 + 3.25 - 19 = 60.17.
That's just above the Duke game (59.13), and way below the Cal Baptist (90.79) and Pepperdine (86.02) games where we ran away in the end.

How things go in garbage time greatly effects the final results in irrelevant ways. Our last 6 games have ranged between 59.13 and 69.27, supporting the idea that we've been playing poorly of late, but several of those games could have ended better and produced better performance results.

The games are all just individual data points, but the more data you get, generally the more validity you'll find.

---

Thank you. I understand. I needed it spelled out.

When I talk about his methodologies, I'm referring to PREDICTOR and ELO-CHESS. Also, he's
the only one that I know of who actually states that he uses Bayes (maybe even Empirical Bayes).
He, of course, doesn't give the details....or, better put, I've not seen them.

R90 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

R90 said:

---

While we're better than last year...

---

Not sure I can agree with that. This year's team continues to get blown out by mediocre competition and most certainly isn't playing up to the level of last year's team at the end of the season.

---

Like the vast majority of human beings, you prefer anecdotal evidence that supports your preconceived notions.

I attempt to make my posts rely on objective data. They're for nerds, not neuro-normals. Feel free to ignore me and my posts and enjoy the rest of the board.

---

I don't think your data supports your accusation here. The "recent" number you cited for last year is about a point from our current number, which supports Civil's contention. Didn't see you cite a recent number for this year, but we've been dropping, so i'd guess it is lower. And if you took a number from the last 4 games of last year, we'd be way behind that. That is even if you assume Sagarin is definitive.

If we were facing a 15-3, 4-14, 8-10, 10-8 stretch in our schedule right now, how do you think that would go?

Agree that ultimately the two seasons should be judged in total, but you and Civil made 2 different statements. His statement that we aren't playing up to the end of last year is clearly true. I'm not sure that yours is just based on Sagarin rating a couple points higher. When the Sagarin ratings are that close, the difference doesn't mean much. I think this season could easily be better, worse, or the same.

R90 said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

R90 said:

---

While we're better than last year...

---

Not sure I can agree with that. This year's team continues to get blown out by mediocre competition and most certainly isn't playing up to the level of last year's team at the end of the season.

---

Like the vast majority of human beings, you prefer anecdotal evidence that supports your preconceived notions.

I attempt to make my posts rely on objective data. They're for nerds, not neuro-normals. Feel free to ignore me and my posts and enjoy the rest of the board.

---

Just to clarify, what exactly is my preconceived notion?

Regardless, I tend to agree that using the eye test on the last 4 games of last years against the last 4 games played this year (or even the entirety of this season) may not be scientific, but I would bet if you sharpen your data points some you would come to the same conclusion.

Lastly, I have no issues reading opposing points of view and welcome discourse as long as it isn't disrespectful. At this point, I will continue to read your posts and reply if I want to.

Civil Bear said:

---

R90 said:

---

While we're better than last year...

---

Not sure I can agree with that. This year's team continues to get blown out by mediocre competition and most certainly isn't playing up to the level of last year's team at the end of the season.

---

Is it a fair comparison to compare this year's team at the start of the season to last year's team at the end of the season when three underclassmen from that team are gone?

I want to see if we're better at the end of the year than we were at the start of the year. And I think we're gonna have to find some guys with terminally ill parents/grandparents living in the greater Bay Area in the transfer portal because the recruiting class we have is not going to save us next year.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

R90 said:

---

While we're better than last year...

---

Not sure I can agree with that. This year's team continues to get blown out by mediocre competition and most certainly isn't playing up to the level of last year's team at the end of the season.

---

Is it a fair comparison to compare this year's team at the start of the season to last year's team at the end of the season when three underclassmen from that team are gone?

I want to see if we're better at the end of the year than we were at the start of the year. And I think we're gonna have to find some guys with terminally ill parents/grandparents living in the greater Bay Area in the transfer portal because the recruiting class we have is not going to save us next year.

---

LAST FOUR GAMES LAST YEAR

Sueing, Vanover, and McNeill accounted for 55% of the points and 59% of the rebounds.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

R90 said:

---

While we're better than last year...

---

Not sure I can agree with that. This year's team continues to get blown out by mediocre competition and most certainly isn't playing up to the level of last year's team at the end of the season.

---

Is it a fair comparison to compare this year's team at the start of the season to last year's team at the end of the season when three underclassmen from that team are gone?

I want to see if we're better at the end of the year than we were at the start of the year. And I think we're gonna have to find some guys with terminally ill parents/grandparents living in the greater Bay Area in the transfer portal because the recruiting class we have is not going to save us next year.

---

When someone says "While we're better than last year...", then yes I think it is a fair comparison, regardless of the reasons why we aren't. The Bears may end up being better, but I think it is clear they are not at this point. And it is not clear at this point that they will make up for the lost "talent" and be better than last year by seasons end. I'm rooting for them tho.

Put another way (and I'm not suggesting I wish it were so), had Cal stayed put, kept the coach and the transferred players and the incoming Jones recruits, does anyone think SC would have been favored last week?