On Saturday ESPN introduced the Basketball Power Index, their crack at improving on RPI. (This is much like ESPN's attempt to improve on the Quarterback Rating in Football with the QBR.) The RPI is probably overly simple in its methodology but is still confusing. Personally I find myself going to the google or Buffnik for explanation of RPI's nuances. Apparently ESPN isn't ready to bore us with the details yet, either that or they don't think we are smart enough to understand them. From the article "There are a number of small details that we have in our methodology to make it reflective of a résumé for a tournament team -- these are pretty technical and many people won't be interested, so we won't go into detail, but we think they improve how the tool works." Note who developed the method and wrote the article, none other than the godfather of the "Four Factors" and former Denver Nuggets Director of Quantitative Analysis, Dean Oliver.
What they do explain, I like.
1) They have a way to account for missing players, so if you are missing your star player for 5 games and lose those 5 games but then continue to win when he gets back those games are weighted less
2) In BPI, a close win at home is better than a close loss on the road against the same opponent. This isn't necessarily true in other methods and, in methods that do that, they don't typically account for bigger wins.
3) BPI gives marginally decreasing credit for bigger wins, with a 30-point win being only about 20 percent better than a 15-point win, not twice as good, which can happen in other methods. This bascially means they are account for blowouts but not over-weighing them.
4) Pace of play matters
The article is worth a read, they do a nice job of comparing and contrasting their new BPI with RPI, KenPom and Sagarin.
FYI - Colorado debuts on the BPI at 85. (Currenlty in 74 in RPI, 77 in KenPom and 78 in Sagarin)
What they do explain, I like.
1) They have a way to account for missing players, so if you are missing your star player for 5 games and lose those 5 games but then continue to win when he gets back those games are weighted less
2) In BPI, a close win at home is better than a close loss on the road against the same opponent. This isn't necessarily true in other methods and, in methods that do that, they don't typically account for bigger wins.
3) BPI gives marginally decreasing credit for bigger wins, with a 30-point win being only about 20 percent better than a 15-point win, not twice as good, which can happen in other methods. This bascially means they are account for blowouts but not over-weighing them.
4) Pace of play matters
The article is worth a read, they do a nice job of comparing and contrasting their new BPI with RPI, KenPom and Sagarin.
| Includes | RPI | BPI | Sagarin | KenPom |
| Scoring margin | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Diminishing returns for blowouts | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Pace of game matters | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Home/Neutral/Road | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| SOS beyond Opponent's opponents' W-L | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| All wins are better than losses (before Opp Adj) | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| De-weighting games with missing key players | No | Yes | No | No |
FYI - Colorado debuts on the BPI at 85. (Currenlty in 74 in RPI, 77 in KenPom and 78 in Sagarin)
Last edited:
