If Wichita State hears its name called on Selection Sunday – and that’s a big if – Shockers head coach Gregg Marshall should send a bouquet of flowers to college basketball advanced analytics guru Ken Pomeroy. And while’s he at it, a box of chocolates for stathead Jeff Sagarin would also probably be in order.
When Wichita State lost its Missouri Valley Conference tournament semi-final game, the Shockers’ record dropped to 24-8 overall. This is a team that has qualified for the tournament in each of the last four seasons, but this year boasts a tournament resumé that features only one quality win (a home win against Utah in December), and several questionable losses.
Traditionally, a team with a profile like that would have been left for dead as far as tournament selection was concerned. Yet many who cover the sport have passionately championed the Shockers’ cause.
At the crux of the argument for those defending Wichita are advanced analytics rankings, primarily those devised by Pomeroy and Sagarin. Despite WSU’s shaky traditional profile, Pomeroy has the Shockers rated as the 11th best team in the country. Sagarin’s formula places them 24th.
The rise of advanced metrics in college basketball has coincided with their rise in baseball, pro basketball and the NFL. But in those sports, inclusion in the postseason is based solely on winning percentage, and there is no subjectivity as to which teams qualify. Sagarin believes there is a place for metrics like his in the selection process.
“I think the selection committee should look at all sorts of metrics, and each one can make his own judgment as to which philosophies underlying the different metrics makes sense,” he noted, while going on to say that he thinks Wichita State should be included in the field.
Pomeroy was more circumspect when asked about whether the Shockers should hear their name called on Sunday.
“I think the selection committee needs to decide what they are trying to do,” Pomeroy said. “They have said that they are trying to find the best 36 at-large candidates. And if that is really what they are trying to do, I think they need to look beyond just wins and losses.”
Reading between the lines, Pomeroy also believes the Shockers should be in. However, it is important to note that in the opening paragraph of an essay explaining his rankings’ methodology on his site, kenpom.com, Pomeroy explicitly states: “The first thing you should know about this system is that it is designed to be purely predictive. If you’re looking for a system that rates teams on how ‘good’ their season has been, you’ve come to the wrong place.”
Pomeroy’s analysis is revered in college basketball circles. But much of the enthusiasm surrounding the concept of using advanced metrics to help guide tournament selection stems from the near-universal disdain for the metric primarily used by the selection committee, the Ratings Percentage Index or RPI. And to be sure, the RPI has its flaws. Programs that schedule cleverly can manipulate the system. It does not account for scoring margin (the primary basis of Sagarin’s ratings) or offensive and defensive efficiency (the guiding principles underlying Pomeroy’s rankings). It does not care about player injuries (ESPN’s Basketball Power Index does make allowances for top players missing games, and WSU point guard Fred VanVleet did miss three games that the Shockers lost in a three-day span in November). All the RPI cares about is who you played, where you played them, and who won and who lost.
But in a way, the RPI’s flaws account for its greatest strength: it is ruthlessly dispassionate. Your point guard was hurt and you lost? Tough break, that’s an L. You hammered Missouri State by 31? That’s nice, but winning by a point would have sufficed. Yes, the RPI is less nuanced, but it values accomplishment, and winning games has to matter.
Pomeroy concedes that in his methodology there is almost no difference between a one-point win and a one-point loss. Sagarin’s formula suggests that losing one game by a point and winning the next one by five is virtually the same as winning the first game by a point and also winning the next one by three. And in the case of the Shockers, the RPI isn’t the problem. They are currently 49th in the RPI rankings – not great to be sure, but hardly disqualifying as four teams with a less flattering mark were selected for last year’s tournament. Wichita’s problem is that outside of that Utah game, they haven’t beaten anybody.
In 2013, Wichita State became the first Missouri Valley team to make the Final Four since 1979. The next year the Shockers became the first squad since 1991 to enter the NCAA Tournament undefeated. And last season, they advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. There is no questioning Wichita State’s recent pedigree, and this year they have pummeled the lesser opponents that dot their conference slate (Wichita State’s average margin of victory in MVC play is a staggering 22 points per game.) But with their regular season already completed, it can be argued that all Wichita State has proven in this campaign is that they are good enough to beat bad teams very badly.
Sagarin, like Pomeroy in his manifesto, emphasized that his ratings are designed to be used as a method of predicting the outcomes of future contests. But it is important to note how badly these metrics have performed in prognosticating the Shockers’ results. Sagarin said that his formula would have predicted that Wichita State would be 31-2 at this point in the season, rather than 24-8. Pomeroy’s ratings suggest a similar simulated record. When asked about this discrepancy, Sagarin got philosophical and quoted an old friend, Bobby Ryder, a high school superstar athlete in his hometown of New Rochelle, NY.
“The best team doesn’t always win,” he mused.
In the end, the case against Wichita State is too strong. Bill Parcells once said “you are what your record says you are,” and when you strip away the metrics that reward them for beating the brakes off of terrible teams, who are the Shockers?
They are team that has only one quality win all season long, or half as many as La Salle – a squad that finished with only seven wins all season but two of them came against tournament-caliber competition. They are a team that wilted in just about every game in which they were tested (WSU went just 2-6 in games decided by seven points or fewer). And they are a team that has not earned the right to be in the NCAA tournament.
Sagarin’s friend is right: the best team doesn’t always win. But when you lose games your analytics-based defenders projected you should have won as often as the Shockers have, at a certain point you have to question whether or not Wichita State is actually one of the best teams. The results say they are not.
