2022 Quality Curve Analysis - January Edition (Pt 1 of 2???)

Happy New Year, and you already know what that means: Every time we replace a calendar, we get our first look at the QC analysis for the upcoming tournament. To begin with, I'm getting mixed signals from the data sets this early in the season. Of course, we don't make any predictions until the Final QC Analysis arrives on Selection Sunday, but I'm a little concerned at what I'm seeing. Let's take a look.

Current Jan QC versus Nov-Present Range

This first chart has three pieces. The current Jan QC is in the dark blue. The green and red curves are the maximum value and minimum value, respectively, for each spot on the quality curve over the range of dates from the start of the season (Nov 9) to the current date (Jan 2). To describe with an example, at position 1 (the #1-ranked KenPom team), the current value (blue line) is 30.11 (BAY), the maximum value (green line) that the #1-ranked KenPom team took from Nov 9 to Jan 2 is 33.45 (GONZ on Nov 25), and the minimum value (the red line) that the #1-ranked KenPom team took from Nov 9 to Jan 2 is 29.2 (Gon on Dec 9). These three lines have been created for each of the fifty positions along the QC (the QC is the fifty highest-ranked teams in the KenPom ratings).

Let's break it down in sections:

• The #1 and #3 teams are performing closer to their minimum values (bad for tournament quality).
• The #2 team and the #7-#16 teams are performing in line with their maximum values (good).
• The #4-#6 and the #17-#20 teams are performing just off of the their maximum values (good).
• The #21, #22 and #29 teams are performing at their minimum values (bad for 6- and 7-seeds).
• The #23-#28, #30, #31, #33-#39, and #46-#50 are performing below-average and closer to their minimum values. If the tournament was seeded according to KenPom rankings, this would be good for chalky tournaments, as 7- thru 12-seeds would be much weaker than their 1- thru 5-seeded rivals (i.e. - less upsets in the R32 if seeded in line with KenPom ratings).
• The #32 and the #40-#45 teams are in line with the median values of the ranges. The high was set around Nov 14-15 and the low was set Dec  18 (a result of an inflection point on the QC, which is something I'm going to focus upon in Pt 2). Since these teams are approaching their current position from the minimum line, it means these teams (potential 11-seeds) are trending upwards.

Our QC gives us the most value when making historical comparisons, so let's move onto that.

Current Jan QC versus Historical Jan QCs

These are the QCs of the last five years, all of which are taken at their January point in time. Let's take a year-vs-year approach to see how 2022 currently compares to its historical counterparts.

• Vs 2021: This year does not have the high-rising tail from the #29-#50 spots like 2021 had. The elevated tail of 2021 resulted in record-level AVs for the R64 (tied 2nd-highest all-time), R32 (highest all-time), S16 (tied 4th-highest all-time) and E8 (tied 7th-highest all-time). Remember, high AVs imply insane tournament, so to be in the highest seven in four of the six tournament rounds is just madness.
• Vs 2019: This year does not have the overall steepness (top-left to bottom-right) that 2019 had. Steepness of the QC implies sane and chalky tournaments, which was a characteristic of 2019. It featured these four match-ups in the E8: 1v2, 1v3, 1v3, and 5v2. This resulted in an E8 AV of 18, which tied for 3rd lowest all-time.
• VS 2017: From #12-#20, this is the closest approximation of 2022. The flatness of 2017in the front of the curve is why top-seed advancement was a staple of this tournament. If not for the complete mis-seeding of several teams by the Selection Committee, 2017 could have produced the lowest M-o-M rating in tournament history. In one aspect separate from advanced metrics, 2022 resembles 2017, but I think I'm going to save that for Part 2 as well.
• VS 2018: At their respective points in the season, the 2022 Jan QC most resembles the 2018 Jan QC. 2018 was a wild year in its own right (the first ever 16-over-1 upset). The only major difference between the two curves is the range of spots previously discussed that matches the 2017 tourney. The range from #8-#14 spots on the 2022 QC are furthest away from the 2018 QC, which could foretell some strength in the 3- and 4-seeds in 2022, especially if any of these teams are under-seeded by the Selection Committee (1- or 2-seed quality given a 3- or 4-seed by the Committee).

To keep in mind, Selection Sunday is still very distant from the present day, so a lot can change. If you would like to see how much things can change, let's look at how the other four years changed and compare that to the 2022 Jan QC.

Current Jan QC vs Historical Final QCs

As this chart shows, I'll reiterate: These teams have a long way to go until Selection Sunday. I personally am yearning for the improvement in quality. For example, shooting statistics are really bad at the present point in the season. It is significantly below the ending values for the four seasons we have to which we have compared 2022. Worse, I can even sense it in the games that I've watched this season. In my "Opening Week Thoughts" article, I thought offense would be good at the start of the season due to the disruption of defensive chemistry by the transfer portal. To say the least, I'm shocked at the paltry shooting numbers so far.

Anyways, I thought I would get this (covering the QC basics) article up quick, and then, in the second part, delve into the nuances of the Jan QC and quality in general. As always, thanks for reading my work, and look for part two within the next seven days.