mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-16-21 06:20 PM - Post#322163
Now that the 2020-21 season is over for all but the 92 (?) teams playing on, the Ivy is officially BACK IN BUSINESS, so we can shift our attention to way-too-early projections for 2021-22.
Curious what other folks are thinking. My initial gut is this:
1. Harvard
Still a lot of unknowns about the structure of non-conference play, which will be vital to a team that will be long on talent but short on experience.
Kirkwood, Ledlum, Tretout, Sakota and Forbes would be a solid Ivy starting five, but add to that a combined recruiting class in 2020 and 2021 that rivals 2016 and Harvard should have the ability to go 10 deep in its rotation.
After its loss to USC in Orlando (and essentially the end of Bryce's Crimson career), Harvard posted an even WAB resume the rest of the way including going 1-0 Tier I and 2-0 Tier II. How quickly the new talent can get comfortable will likely have more impact on efficiency rankings than ultimate Ivy standings and Harvard hosts the Ivy Tourney in 2022.
2. Yale
Losing Atkinson is a bummer, but saving a season of Swain and Gabbidon will be huge as a steadying force for the Bulldogs.
Yale had a plus-resume (+0.2) heading into its season-ending loss at Harvard and was the collapse against Penn St. away from being a legit at large contender.
There are a few recruits that should contribute immediately, and Yale should remain a Top 100ish team.
3. Princeton
Gets a lot trickier from here. *Assuming* Jaelin returns healthy, his presence separates Princeton from the pack. Martini, Hooks, Johnson highlight what is *probably* the third best haul (you could argue Brown) over the past two cycles, so in a year that will be heavily influenced by newcomers, I'll try to stay in line with the recruiting rankings.
4/5. Brown/Penn
Penn probably gets the nod here if Wang returns healthy and to his early freshman year self. Otherwise, this might finally be Brown's moment to overtake Penn. Brown is right there for the third-best haul over the past two years. No doubt the Bears' defense will be game, but it's hard to feel great about a terrible offense that lost its two highest usage players.
Either way, I expect any team that can crack the Top 200 to feel good about fourth and its possible only three teams will end up doing so.
6.7.8. Columbia/Cornell/Dartmout h
The recruiting from these three has actually been sneaky okay. But all three have lost a LOT from the last time we saw them finish 7, 4 and 3 games behind T-4, respectively. I just don't see how recruiting that is good but not better than the teams ahead of them, plus the losses, helps these three make up any ground.
If I had to guess at an order, I'd probably go Cornell, Dartmouth, Columbia, but I could be talked into any ordering of that group. What I will say is that I do think all three are good enough to avoid a 300+ ranking.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-16-21 06:39 PM - Post#322166
In response to mrjames
As usual, you are grossly underestimating Penn. But that's fine--just your opinion.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-16-21 06:54 PM - Post#322169
In response to palestra38
It is my opinion. I’m not sure that it’s true that my predictions usually underestimate Penn, though. I’d have to go back and check.
|
welcometothejungle
Masters Student
Posts: 788
Age: 27
Reg: 07-31-19
|
03-16-21 07:07 PM - Post#322173
In response to mrjames
I think if Llewellyn returns at full health next season I would feel pretty confident in Princeton's Ivy tournament spot. Llewellyn and Wright was a very strong backcourt down the stretch last season. Llewellyn in particular looked the most confident and aggressive he had at Princeton since his debut against St. John's in the last 5-6 games of the 19-20 season, really brutal luck for him that the tournament ended up being canceled while he was finding a groove.
Friberg and Evbuomwan were nice pieces last time we saw them, and I expect them to play big roles. With Schwieger gone Langborg and Friberg should see expanded roles (unless a newcomer takes on a lot). Would love to see Johns find his way into the rotation again, he showed some nice flashes as a freshman, especially defensively, but the offense was brutal to start his sophomore season and his PT quickly vanished.
Very curious to see which of the new pieces will play early on - Hooks seems like the most likely candidate given Aririguzoh's departure, and I think Martini and Johnson will see minutes in the front court as well with Desrosiers gone. I also think Keeshawn Kellman has a chance to get some of the center minutes.
|
OldBig5
Masters Student
Posts: 639
Age: 66
Reg: 02-18-18
|
03-16-21 08:11 PM - Post#322179
In response to welcometothejungle
I heard Coach K is retiring and Amaker taking is place.
(Ok, just kidding).
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-16-21 08:19 PM - Post#322181
In response to welcometothejungle
My understanding was that Martini was the prize of the 2020 class. Hooks got a lot of publicity, but Martini was likely to be the better player.
Regardless, there’s no Aririguzoh, and that’ll force a big change from Princeton’s style in 19-20 (possibly back to a more normal Princeton style).
Plenty of talent left though to find those answers, assuming that Llewellyn is back and as dynamic as he has been in the past.
|
welcometothejungle
Masters Student
Posts: 788
Age: 27
Reg: 07-31-19
|
03-16-21 08:53 PM - Post#322184
In response to mrjames
Yeah definitely possible. Hooks was also planning to take a gap year and enter with the 2021 HS class, which would mean he's probably not on campus this spring while the rest of the 2020 class + returners have been working out with the coaching staff at Jadwin during the spring semester
https://twitter.com/pollonpreps/status/12 983642025...
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-17-21 08:50 AM - Post#322197
In response to mrjames
Last year, you were actually too high on Penn — you had them 2nd and top 100. Way low on Yale (3rd/4th, 150), way high on Harvard (1st, top 50). Exactly right on Princeton and Cornell (like, you basically guessed their kenpom rank exactly at the start of the season). A little high on Brown, a little low on Dartmouth, and too high on Columbia.
I think you’ve underestimated Penn on the recruiting rankings over the years (though perhaps as a reasonable counter balance to our tendency to overrate our classes). I haven’t really noticed it in your standings predictions though. My guess, if we went back, is that you were low on Penn in the standings in ‘17 and ‘18, and then high in ‘19. But I assume that is true of everyone’s predictions. Penn exceeded expectations generally in AJ’s first two years, and underperformed expectations the last two.
But that’s just a consideration of whether you usually underestimate Penn. The other question is whether you underestimate them for 21-22. I think Penn stays ahead of Brown next year. But I don’t have an issue with the tiers as far as Penn is concerned (I would put Yale firmly ahead of Harvard though), and I do think Brown closes the gap (I recognize we can debate whether there was a gap, and how much there was — I think overall there was a big gap between Penn and Brown as evidenced by kenpom and overall record, though it was not reflected in the Ivy standings). And I probably take the field over either Penn or Brown for the fourth spot — I think the league will be closer next year, and not in a good way. I could see 5-6 teams outside the top 200. That could lead to a random result for the last spot (or two spots if Llewelyn isn’t the same or Harvard doesn’t gel).
Should be a fun year, particularly because Penn looks to me to have a wide range of possible results, which could lead to a powerful “I told you so†from either P38 or mrjames.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-17-21 11:10 AM - Post#322218
In response to SomeGuy
Yeah, we have a long way to go, and usually a firmer understanding of what to expect from the newcomers is helpful and can lead to demonstrable shifts.
The variance point is a good one, and while March projections are always fraught with peril from our normal October/November injury parade alone, with so many newcomers, there's probably even more variance than normal.
The Harvard/Yale decision was a tough one, but the way I look at 19-20 for Harvard is essentially to split off everything that happened for the first month of the season, when the team was still hoping it would have Seth and (did have for a part of it) Bryce. After it returned from Orlando, it posted the 52nd best resume and the 91st best efficiency margin, pretty much even with Yale (51st and 85th).
From there, I dove into what they lost. The interesting thing about 19-20 Harvard is that measures like Bart Torvik's PORPAGATU! (points over replacement player per adjusted game at that usage) show that basically Harvard's contributions were spread really widely (its nine rotation players were between 0.4 and 2.3), while Yale's were a lot more top heavy with Paul at 4.6, Swain at 2.7, Bruner at 2.2 and Monroe at 1.8 with four more between 0.6 and 1.2. Yale's losses were the 4.6, 2.2 and 1.8. Harvard's losses were a 2.3, 2.0, 1.0, 0.8, 0.8 and 0.4.
So, while Harvard lost more people, the key difference is Atkinson. Atkinson scored double digits in every game with a ORAT below 100 just four times and as many games with a usage above 30 (4) as a usage below 20. This, by the way, is the Yale analog to Penn's AJ problem - though AJ at least had a couple games where he showed to be human.
Basa-Ama should be college ready from the jump and EJ Jarvis could make a leap, but Atkinson's production simply cannot be replaced by one person. Luckily Yale recruited well and should be able to spread it around, but I expect there to be a bit of a step back.
As for Harvard, it didn't really have any consistency to lose. When we last saw the Crimson, it was destroying Yale in its season finale while not playing its All-Ivy First Teamer (and one of only three All-Ivy players returning league-wide) and getting 17 mins and a -3.2 BPM out of its other All-Ivy selection (Chris Lewis). It won a couple Ivy games down the stretch where no one scored more than 12 points and put up 85 on Cornell with no one scoring more than 15.
So, projecting out 2021-22 becomes a question of what you'd rather have coming back. Yale has a core of Swain, Cotton, Mahoney and Gabbidon plus a probable contributor in Jarvis and a recruiting class that should be good for three more pieces. But, that group has to replace a star.
Harvard has a core of Kirkwood, Forbes, Ledlum and Tretout plus a couple of probable contributors in Sakota and Catchings and a recruiting class that should be good for a few more pieces. And it doesn't have to replace a star.
Add it all up, and I just think Harvard is better equipped to deal with the weirdness because it was pretty successful in 19-20 and that entire season was weirdness. Yale will likely be a more consistent team, but ultimately consistent at a bit of a lower level than Harvard.
As for the rest of your post... I agree that there's an odd mediocrity risk for the Ivy in 21-22, but at the same time, I think there's not a lot of "abysmal" risk. We could see a bunch of teams in the 200s, for sure, but I think the floor is higher than we might presume. Really want to hear some reports from on the ground in the fall before I try to parse through that part of the Ivy ladder, though.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-17-21 01:51 PM - Post#322232
In response to mrjames
Over time, i have gotten confident in Yale’s ability to retool. Next year will admittedly be different, though. They seem to produce a never ending stream of big men, but not playing this year makes it a little harder to project exactly who the replacements will be. Usually, a guy like Jarvis is stepping up after playing significant minutes as the third big and, usually for Yale, doing so with reasonable per minute performance.
Next year, both bigs will more or less be new to the rotation. I guess I wouldn’t be shocked if they play small more than usual, at least early, with a core of the guys you mentioned (Swain, Mahoney, Gabbidon, Cotton).
Harvard is complex too. Yes, the losses are arguably more spread out in a sense. They weren’t counting on an Atkinson. On the other hand, they lose practically all of their 100+ ORAT guys (everyone but Forbes) and replace them with players who have been less efficient. Kirkwood and Ledlum may be too talented to stay below 100, but on the other hand that’s where they were while carrying less burden than they likely will next year.
So I choose Yale as of now, but agree that question marks abound — for everyone. I assume the ratings people will like Yale initially because they lose less in a statistical sense. But of course with the recruiting classes, etc., it is quite possible Harvard will fab five us all in the end.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-17-21 02:36 PM - Post#322235
In response to SomeGuy
If Harvard's other recruits are like Louis Lesmond, it's over. That kid is gonna light up the Ivy League from day 1.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-17-21 05:30 PM - Post#322248
In response to PennFan10
If I had to rank likelihood to contribute and size of contribution off the bat, Louis would be tops among the newcomers (2020 and 2021). Ajogbor and Pitcher would be up there too. Combined, it's a good, deep class that would be very competitive against the similarly sized 2016 class.
I do think, top-to-bottom, people are going to be surprised at the amount of talent that has been brought into the league over the past two years. Obviously, you need a lot of talent to overcome losing (almost) two full classes, but I'm supremely impressed. Not just with Brown, which I know I've talked to death already, but even teams that don't traditionally recruit well (Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth) got a bunch of guys that can contribute to a good Ivy team. We may not see it immediately, as teams shake off the rust, but the 22-23 and 23-24 seasons could be peak cycle years.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-18-21 08:48 AM - Post#322275
In response to mrjames
Wasn’t aware it wasn’t official yet, but the YDN confirmed today with the league office that Harvard will host in 2022 and the tourney sites will all just get pushed back two years.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32835
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-18-21 09:33 AM - Post#322276
In response to mrjames
Harvard has had plenty of time to build a facility worthy of hosting a tournament. How are they doing on that? Play it at BU.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21212
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-18-21 11:51 AM - Post#322278
In response to palestra38
Harvard has had plenty of time to build a facility worthy of hosting a tournament. How are they doing on that? Play it at BU.
P38, this is where you're supposed to add, "they're spending it instead on DI athletes".
Edited by penn nation on 03-18-21 11:52 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-18-21 11:58 AM - Post#322279
In response to penn nation
So much joy in here.....
|
bradley
PhD Student
Posts: 1842
Age: 74
Reg: 01-15-16
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
03-18-21 12:11 PM - Post#322280
In response to SomeGuy
I agree with you that next year is going to be a tough year for the IL and I suspect that the following year will better but still below par. What happens after that, who knows.
Hopefully, we are wrong but we will know in 2+ years from now based on non-conference play. Time will tell.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3058
Reg: 10-20-14
|
04-27-21 10:37 PM - Post#323663
In response to bradley
ESPN's 1st 2022 NCAA Tournament Bracketology:
Men - Yale #16 seed (vs. #1 Kansas)
https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/ page/bra...
Women - Penn #14 seed (vs. #3 Michigan)
https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/ id/30423...
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-28-21 08:52 AM - Post#323668
In response to rbg
There is next to zero chance the Ivy rep will be a 16 seed unless there are some Ivy tourney upsets.
|
iogyhufi
Masters Student
Posts: 681
Age: 27
Reg: 10-10-17
|
Re: 2020-21 Regular Season is dead, long live 2021-22
05-05-21 09:51 PM - Post#323945
In response to mrjames
I am less rosy on Harvard's prospects - not to say they won't be good, but there's a real world of difference between having the biggest stone-cold killer there to clean up your messes (poor, poor Columbia) and not having him. (EDIT: Whoo man, I forgot Aiken didn't play in 19-20. They say the mind is the first thing to go... Nonetheless all the non-Kirkwood production is gone, and the rim protection too. Defense will be tougher than usual but that's something Amaker usually does well - wonder how it'll go without a Zena/Lewis this time.) Also, I'll believe that Forbes will be good when I see it, because what I recall from 2019-20 was, uh, not that.
Haven't the foggiest what to think of everybody generally with a year off, though I would wager Yale returns the highest-value player in Swain. Losing Atkinson is a toughie, to put it mildly, but the younger bigs are talented enough that they'll be fine. Sneaky big loss for Yale is Monroe - good floor generals who can make absolutely clean blocks on Ivy PoY winners (  ) don't just appear out of thin air.
I think Penn benefits the most from the chaos year-off, since losing the player who made the team go in every aspect of the game wasn't going to be easy anyway.
Gun to my head, I say Y/H/Pe/Pr/B/D/Cor/Col but I wouldn't wager one red cent on it.
Edited by iogyhufi on 05-05-21 09:58 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
|
|
Report Post
Quote Post
Quick Reply
|
|
Print Topic
Email Topic
11221 Views
|
|
|
|
|
