2019 Quality Curve Analysis - January Edition

First things first, Project Perfect Bracket would like you to join in celebrating its third birthday. Now that our birthday party is over (if only the articles were as long as the parties), we can move onto real issues: The first look at the 2019 Quality Curve. I warn you before proceeding, it is not pretty!

2019 QC with KenPom Ratings

Let's take a look at the chart first, and then I'll point out a few important details.

Yikes, and I'm not referring to the atrocious color pattern of the chart.

Quick Takeaways:

• Above the Pack: #1QC Team (I don't think this will last long either, more on this later).
• Middle of the Pack: #2QC, #8-#11QC Teams
• Comparable to 2018: #7QC, #12-#14QC, and #20-#21QC Teams
• Comparable to 2017: #32-#35QC and #49-#50QC Teams
• Below the Pack: EVERYWHERE ELSE!

We know 2017 was the most stable tournament in the last eight years, and we know 2018 was the 2nd-wildest (possibly 3rd-wildest depending on which sanity/insanity metrics being used) in the last eight years. We also know sane tournaments like 2017 are higher than average in the front-end of the curve (#1-#20QC teams) and lower than average in the back-end of the curve (#31-#50QC teams), and crazy tournaments like 2018 are lower than average in the front-end of the curve (#1-#20QC teams) and higher than average in the back-end of the curve (#31-#50QC teams). 2019 fits neither of these ideals. The obvious description of 2019 is a comparatively weak curve at all points.

2019 QC with Sagarin Ratings

Before we draw any conclusions about the 2019 January QC, it is important to test the system behind the QC (the KenPom ratings). I'm not suggesting anything is wrong with his ratings system, I am merely testing if another ratings system is showing the same phenomenon. To do this, I will employ the Sagarin Ratings in the same manner. Below is the chart, followed by the important details.

Quick Takeaways:

• Above the Pack: #1QC Team (It is the same team as the #1QC KenPom team).
• Middle of the Pack: #3QC and #29QC Teams
• Below the Pack: #6 QC, #15-#16QC, and #39-#44 QC Teams
• Comparable to 2017: #26-#28QC, #30-#38QC, and #45-#50QC Teams
• Comparable to 2018: #4-#5QC, #7-#14, and #17-#25 (or EVERYWHERE ELSE!)

For the most part, both curves (and the ratings systems too) show the same general phenomenon: Comparative weakness at all points along the curve. The points of contention -- "above", "below", "middle", and "comparable to" -- have their differences, and those differences seem most likely due to the ratings systems. At the current moment, I seriously doubt the points of contention suggest any areas of bracket-picking interest, such as possible seed-lines to look for upsets, but if these differences are still present in the March QC (when more data is available), it will be something to further scrutinize.

What the January QC Foretells

1. With weakness at all points along the curve, I expect another tournament with a M-o-M rating of 17% or higher. In the last eight tournaments (2010-2018), six have had M-o-M ratings of 17% or higher, with 2015 and 2017 being the exceptions. 2019 does not look like either of those years, not in the ratings systems, not in the raw data, and not even in player/team compositions (use the Experienced Talent Model as a reference for this terminology).
2. In the Welcome to 2018-2019 Season article, I said trying to predict the curve was a waste of time since I'm more interested in predicting the bracket than predicting the Final QC/SC. Well, I'm about to waste my time again because I think the 2019 curve will start to gravitate toward the 2018 curve at all points. The 2017 QC started high in the front-end and stayed high throughout the course of the year. The 2018 QC stayed along its own path in pretty much the same fashion. I don't think QCs make such extraordinary shifts over the course of a year without significant improvements/reductions in on-court production. Unless the teams in 2019 set off a fireworks display on offense in conference play, the 2019 QC will stay along the same path, if not move towards 2018. The place to watch is the back-end of the QC. If it begins to shift up towards the 2018 QC (which assumes first surpassing the 2017 QC at the back-end), the teams that could pay for this shift will be those at the front-end of the 2019 curve.
3. Speaking of teams at the front-end of the curve that could potentially pay for this upward-shift in the back-end of the curve, the #1 QC team in both ratings systems is currently DUKE. They hold a 4-5 point lead over the #2 QC team (UVA in KenPom and GONZ in Sagarin). You can say whatever you wish about their player/team composition, about how they get their points (transition and full-court opportunities) and how they don't get their points (in half-court sets and pure-shooting opportunities), about how they steam-rolled a typically ill-prepared-at-the-season-opener UK, yet struggled mightily against experienced AUB, GONZ, and TXTC on neutral courts, or about how ESPN wets themselves every time Zion gets a dunk. Mark my words: They play one of the hardest (if not hardest of all) conference schedules in the ACC. With H/A games versus UNC, UVA, and SYR and road-only games versus FLST, DAME, LOU, and VT, the only favorable break they receive is a home-only game versus NCST. In my opinion, DUKE is a 4-deep team, and this lack of depth was on clear display in Maui. I think it will also be a limiting factor in ACC conference play with groups of three tough opponents in a 7-day stretch (similar to two tough opponents in a 3-day window like the NCAA tourney). We'll learn more about this team's propensity to handle this situation from their conference play, but I think it will be the sole reason their 4-5 point advantage in the ratings systems will come down to earth by March.
4. In an earlier article, I said (in my opinion) there are four teams head-and-shoulders above everyone else (DUKE, GONZ, MICH, MIST). I also said if these four teams received 1-seeds, then we could potentially see four 1-seeds in the F4. The QC has me doubting the latter-half, but if the QC is getting weaker at a faster rate as you go further down the curve, it definitely raises the probability of all four 1-seeds making the S16 (which didn't happen in 2018 or 2017). As I stated above, the movement of the QC will be monitored closely by yours truly over the remainder of this season, and it will be very indicative of things to come in the 2019 tourney.

Conclusions

While this is a preliminary examination into the 2019 QC and nothing is set in stone until the Final QC and SC in mid-March, the weakness is evident, and I believe I have done a good job exposing the explanation for this weakness in previous articles this season. Again, nothing is set in stone until we see the actual bracket. As always, thanks for reading my work, and the bi-weekly article schedule starts with the next article on Jan 20, but in all honesty, I have no idea what I want to discuss. Nonetheless, I hope to have you back.