Team Canada Basketball Thread V4.0

[TheFutureMM]

Can't wait to see the updated ranking...

Wins against Spain (#1), the US (#2), France (#5), and Slovenia (#7) will boost us into the Top 10 no question. It's too bad Latvia is ranked way below their current talent level (honestly performed like a Top 10) as they are another great win for us but just wont matter as much.

Germany, Serbia, and us are probably going to rise the most. Argentina should be in free fall when the updated rankings land.

[DoctaJ]

Pretty wild that we had a legitmate shot at the Gold if we could have got past Serbia.

Incredible finish with a Bronze over the US regardless. Can't wait for the Olympics now.

Also looking forward to the updated rankings! Any idea how long after the tournament it generally takes?

[TheFutureMM]

Pretty wild that we had a legitmate shot at the Gold if we could have got past Serbia.

Incredible finish with a Bronze over the US regardless. Can't wait for the Olympics now.

Also looking forward to the updated rankings! Any idea how long after the tournament it generally takes?

Not 100% but pretty sure one of the die-hards said it took about a week after the last world cup.

[Hair Canada]

Can't wait to see the updated ranking...

Wins against Spain (#1), the US (#2), France (#5), and Slovenia (#7) will boost us into the Top 10 no question. It's too bad Latvia is ranked way below their current talent level (honestly performed like a Top 10) as they are another great win for us but just wont matter as much.

Germany, Serbia, and us are probably going to rise the most. Argentina should be in free fall when the updated rankings land.

My reading of FIBA's convoluted ranking system (and the very partial and unclear explanation they have for it on their website) is that the ranking of the rival team doesn't matter that much actually. For example, if Latvia was ranked 10 spots higher, that would only add 10 points to the ranking poingt we got from that game. But beating them by 26 actually added 200 points (relatively to beating them by only 9, like we did with the US). Beyond that, the win against Slovenia (by 11, so it's worth 100 points more than the one against the US, while the difference in ranking between the two teams is worth on 5 points) is worth 4 times more than the wins over France and Lithuania.

Other unknows (to me):

What does the loss to a team like Brazil actually mean? does it actually hurt our weighted ranking? if the points we get for that loos is 400 and something and our overall new ranking is now going to be in the 600s, it seems like quite a detractor (which is also worth twice as much in weighting as the games against France and Latvia)...

How is the win against the US in the bronze medal game actually weighted? Is it considered a 5th round win (that is worth 6 times more than the win over France)? If so, it would weigh in quite heavily (and too bad for Dort's late FT miss that may have cost us 100 extra points in that game). But FIBA's explanations don't actually provide enough evidence that this is indeed the case. If it is, then Latvia's big win over Lithuania in the 5th place game, worth around 900 points (times 6?) might be much more substantial for ranking purposed than Germany's narrow win over Serbia in the Gold Medal game, which is surely the wrong way to do these things...

In short, it seems like a pretty **** way to rank teams and the way it is explained is even more ****. Guess we'll just have to wait and see where we (and the others) end up, but to me at least (maybe others here have a better insight or understanding of how it works) it will remain a black box and it's surprising (or maybe not really; it's FIBA after all) that we can't get a better explanation and be able to calculate these things ourselves if we want to.

[TheFutureMM]

Can't wait to see the updated ranking...

Wins against Spain (#1), the US (#2), France (#5), and Slovenia (#7) will boost us into the Top 10 no question. It's too bad Latvia is ranked way below their current talent level (honestly performed like a Top 10) as they are another great win for us but just wont matter as much.

Germany, Serbia, and us are probably going to rise the most. Argentina should be in free fall when the updated rankings land.

My reading of FIBA's convoluted ranking system (and the very partial and unclear explanation they have for it on their website) is that the ranking of the rival team doesn't matter that much actually. For example, if Latvia was ranked 10 spots higher, that would only add 10 points to the ranking poingt we got from that game. But beating them by 26 actually added 200 points (relatively to beating them by only 9, like we did with the US). Beyond that, the win against Slovenia (by 11, so it's worth 100 points more than the one against the US, while the difference in ranking between the two teams is worth on 5 points) is worth 4 times more than the wins over France and Lithuania.

Agreed, upon reading on the ranking system, the ranking differential isn't that helpful. They matter to an extent but really the amount that you win by (gets you the basis points) and the round / tournament (get you the multiplier) are WAY more important.

Based on the example they give us - we can actually calculate a couple examples of how much extra RP (Rating Points) we got for our 1st round wins...

France: RP = 800 + 0 + ORP = 800 + 0 + 1.5 (83 - 5) = 800 + 0 + 117 = 917

Lebanon: RP = 800 + 0 + ORP = 800 + 0 + 1.5 (83 - 43) = 800 + 0 + 60 = 860

Latvia: RP = 800 + 0 + ORP = 800 + 0 + 1.5 (83 - 29) = 800 + 0 + 81 = 881

So a win vs a country in the top 5 vs a country in the top 30 is worth about 30 different RPs.

Now, couple caveats:

I don't know if the 83 number is relevant as the average ranking amongst countries but I stole it from their calculation example from 2021, can't imagine it's changed too much.

Last caveat is - these differences in points get exponential as the tournament gets deeper as you start to get the round multiplier. Aka, these points are worth more once you apply the weighting per round and the fact that this is the World Cup. That 30 in differential gets an incremental increase based on the fact that this is the WC (2.5x weight) and our Spain / Slovenia / US wins likely get round multipliers that increase that weight by 2x, 4x, and 6x respectively.

Other unknows (to me):

What does the loss to a team like Brazil actually mean? does it actually hurt our weighted ranking? if the points we get for that loos is 400 and something and our overall new ranking is now going to be in the 600s, it seems like quite a detractor (which is also worth twice as much in weighting as the games against France and Latvia)...

I think we can hypothesize the loss to Brazil...

RP = 400 + 0 + ORP = 400 + 0 + 1.5 (83 - 13) = 400 + 0 + 105 = 505

W = 1 * 2.5 * 1 * 1 = 2.5

One thing to note is, it appears that a loss is always weighted as a 1x multiplier for the round component, as opposed to a win which is variable (1x - 6x). The example they give on the website showcases that when Slovenia and Spain played in the semis and Slovenia won, Spain only weighted the game at 1x (for the round) whereas Slovenia rated it at 6x (for the round).

Our Spain victory for example...

RP = 600 + 0 + ORP = 600 + 0 + 1.5 (83 - 1) = 600 + 0 + 123 = 723

W = 1 * 2.5 * 2 * 1 = 5

So the Brazil loss is weighted the same as the France, Lebanon, and Latvia games but the Spain game is worth double each of those four games. Essentially they don't penalize you for losing deeper in the tourney.

How is the win against the US in the bronze medal game actually weighted? Is it considered a 5th round win (that is worth 6 times more than the win over France)? If so, it would weigh in quite heavily (and too bad for Dort's late FT miss that may have cost us 100 extra points in that game). But FIBA's explanations don't actually provide enough evidence that this is indeed the case. If it is, then Latvia's big win over Lithuania in the 5th place game, worth around 900 points (times 6?) might be much more substantial for ranking purposed than Germany's narrow win over Serbia in the Gold Medal game, which is surely the wrong way to do these things...

They don't outright explain it, which is incredibly annoying, but the logical way to view the consolation wins, would be to weigh them at the level in which you lost at. Hence, all 5 - 8 classification games should be weighed at 4x (for the winner), whereas our Bronze medal game against the States should be weighed at 6x for the winner (as that's what the Semis + Finals are weighed at).

If that is how it works, our win over the US is going to be our most weighted win, and it really sucks that we couldn't win by 1 more point as we would have got 100 more RPs.

In short, it seems like a pretty **** way to rank teams and the way it is explained is even more ****. Guess we'll just have to wait and see where we (and the others) end up, but to me at least (maybe others here have a better insight or understanding of how it works) it will remain a black box and it's surprising (or maybe not really; it's FIBA after all) that we can't get a better explanation and be able to calculate these things ourselves if we want to.

We can't really calculate stuff all that well because of the time decay really making things complicated but in a nutshell, the most important thing to note is: winning in big tournaments (especially the World Cup) really help your rating, and doing so by 20+ points in the deeper rounds is even better. You don't get penalized for losing in the deeper rounds any harder than you get penalized for losing in the first round. Ranking bonus does help a little bit especially in the WC / deeper rounds but really doesn't move the needle that much.

[mojo13]

I love that you two nerds are also digging into this.

Hair - I wouldnt necessarily call it a black box, because if we cared enough we could re-create this model fairly easily (there are a couple unknowns like the weighting of the 5-8th place games).

Most of what we'd need is the last 8 years of historical data of all FIBA games (which we could find if we had nothing better to do).

I'm really not sure how far Canada can move up, I've been wrong in the past (usually by being too conservative). I do think Top 10 for sure. Not sure if they move into the top 8 though.

I do think the newbies (Canada, Latvia) have the biggest potential for for the highest movement because they have the most limited historical data points. Thus the new data points with the higher weighting will have much more pull on their average than say someone like Spain or USA (they will switch places though and USA will be back to #1).


And yes...FIBA could have the new rankings out within the week. As long as there are no other competitions going on in the next few weeks.



Here is a WAG on the updated Top 10. This is almost all about "feel" for this formula. Let's see how close we can get:
1. USA
2. Spain
3. Serbia
4. Germany
5. Australia
6. Slovenia
7. France
8. Lithuania
9. Canada
10. Italy

Argentina is the tough one for me. Don't have a good feel for how far they drop. It will be a big one, but all the way out of the Top 10? They could hold on around 9 or 10.

[frumble]

Of the teams that have already qualified, only two (South Sudan and Japan) will be ranked behind us. The other five - the US, France, Serbia, Germany, and Australia - will be ahead of us.

I think at least three of the four teams to be determined may also be seeded ahead of us for the draw. For the Tokyo Olympics, the draw was held before the last-chance tournaments, and placeholders were entered into the draw, using the ranking of the top team in each last-chance tournament. If they do the same for the 2024 Olympics, the winner of the last chance tournaments with Spain, Slovenia, Lithuania, and perhaps even Italy, would be seeded ahead of us.

Being the 10th highest seeded team going into the draw will be brutal, as it will mean Pot 4, and no chance of being in the same group as Japan or South Sudan. It means a group with, e.g., Australia and two European powers (we can't be in the same group as the US).

So it would be very beneficial if Mojo's prediction is correct, and we are ahead of Italy in the rankings. That would mean no worse than the 9th seed, and Pot 3. Which would mean a 2/3 chance of drawing Japan or South Sudan into our group.

[frumble]

There is always a chance of an upset in those last-chance qualifers, but even if Spain or Slovenia is out, the likely replacement would be a team like Croatia, Latvia, Greece or Turkey. I think the difference between Pot 3 and Pot 4 will be quite meaningful.

[TheFutureMM]

I love that you two nerds are also digging into this.

Hair - I wouldnt necessarily call it a black box, because if we cared enough we could re-create this model fairly easily (there are a couple unknowns like the weighting of the 5-8th place games).

Most of what we'd need is the last 8 years of historical data of all FIBA games (which we could find if we had nothing better to do).

I'm really not sure how far Canada can move up, I've been wrong in the past (usually by being too conservative). I do think Top 10 for sure. Not sure if they move into the top 8 though.

I do think the newbies (Canada, Latvia) have the biggest potential for for the highest movement because they have the most limited historical data points. Thus the new data points with the higher weighting will have much more pull on their average than say someone like Spain or USA (they will switch places though and USA will be back to #1).


And yes...FIBA could have the new rankings out within the week. As long as there are no other competitions going on in the next few weeks.



Here is a WAG on the updated Top 10. This is almost all about "feel" for this formula. Let's see how close we can get:
1. USA
2. Spain
3. Serbia
4. Germany
5. Australia
6. Slovenia
7. France
8. Lithuania
9. Canada
10. Italy

Argentina is the tough one for me. Don't have a good feel for how far they drop. It will be a big one, but all the way out of the Top 10? They could hold on around 9 or 10.

My guess for the Top 10 is...

1. USA
2. Serbia
3. Germany
4. Spain
5. Australia
6. Lithuania
7. Slovenia
8. France
9. Canada
10. Italy

[links135]

I love that you two nerds are also digging into this.

Hair - I wouldnt necessarily call it a black box, because if we cared enough we could re-create this model fairly easily (there are a couple unknowns like the weighting of the 5-8th place games).

Most of what we'd need is the last 8 years of historical data of all FIBA games (which we could find if we had nothing better to do).

I'm really not sure how far Canada can move up, I've been wrong in the past (usually by being too conservative). I do think Top 10 for sure. Not sure if they move into the top 8 though.

I do think the newbies (Canada, Latvia) have the biggest potential for for the highest movement because they have the most limited historical data points. Thus the new data points with the higher weighting will have much more pull on their average than say someone like Spain or USA (they will switch places though and USA will be back to #1).


And yes...FIBA could have the new rankings out within the week. As long as there are no other competitions going on in the next few weeks.



Here is a WAG on the updated Top 10. This is almost all about "feel" for this formula. Let's see how close we can get:
1. USA
2. Spain
3. Serbia
4. Germany
5. Australia
6. Slovenia
7. France
8. Lithuania
9. Canada
10. Italy

Argentina is the tough one for me. Don't have a good feel for how far they drop. It will be a big one, but all the way out of the Top 10? They could hold on around 9 or 10.

My guess for the Top 10 is...

1. USA
2. Serbia
3. Germany
4. Spain
5. Australia
6. Lithuania
7. Slovenia
8. France
9. Canada
10. Italy

Let's hope beating 3 of the Top five, the only ones we faced matters. But if we're lower than France I will be dissapointed

[aminiaturebuddha]

Today's CBC Front Burner podcast (one my of daily favourites) was about Team Canada's performance in the World Cup and the overall growth of the program. It was an interview with Oren Weisfeld.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4qPyTVOjOEycMDPexAfIq2?si=d8d117f957fe4683

So nice to see the program finally getting some mainstream attention after so many years in the media wilderness. Hopefully they can keep this momentum going next year at the Olympics and into the next cycle in 2025-2028.

[frumble]

The new rankings are out and Canada is up to 6th!

https://www.fiba.basketball/rankingmen

Here are the top 15 and some other notables:

1 US
2 Spain
3 Germany
4 Australia
5 Serbia

6 Canada
7 Argentina
8 Latvia
9 France
10 Lithuania

11 Slovenia
12 Brazil
13 Italy
14 Greece
15 Poland

16 PR
18 DR
22 Venezuela
26 Japan
28 Lebanon
31 South Sudan


As we already knew, our group at the Worlds was very tough.
The 6th, 8th, and 9th teams in the world were in our group, and were joined by the 2nd and 12th in the second round.

As for Olympic implications, if they use the same draw format as they did for Tokyo, and if I am understanding other things correctly (e.g., that Argentina won't be in a last-chance tournament because of the loss to the Bahamas a few weeks ago):


Pot 1
US
Whoever wins the last chance tournament that has Spain
Germany

Pot 2
Australia
Serbia
Canada

Pot 3
Whoever wins the last chance tournament that has Latvia
France
Whoever wins the last chance tournament that has Lithuania

Pot 4
Whoever wins the last chance tournament that has Slovenia
Japan
South Sudan

If this is correct, and if they still have the same rule about not having two teams from the same region (other then Europe) in the same group, and of not having three European teams in the same group, then we will very likely have Japan or South Sudan in our group.

[Bobby Plump]

New FIBA rankings:
1. USA
2. Spain
3. Germany
4. Australia
5. Serbia
6. Canada
7. Argentina
8. Latvia
9. France
10. Lithuania

https://www.fiba.basketball/rankingmen

[Bobby Plump]

Hard to believe that Argentina is still in the top ten.

[aminiaturebuddha]

Was just about to post this frumble, thanks.

I knew we'd move up but I can't believe we jumped all the way to 6th! After all those years of being underranked we're finally in the range that our talent and team quality would suggest. I can't believe that the men's team is actually ranked higher than the boys team. Not sure that's happened anytime in the last 15 years.

Hopefully this means that we'll get some easier draws going forward. For instance, I quite like the scenario above, where we wouldn't be in a first round group with either Australia or Serbia (although I guess if Spain doesn't win their last chance tournament, it could slide Australia up into group 1).

Now we just have to take advantage of easier draws going forward!

[Bobby Plump]

FIBA rarely gives Canada a favorable seeding in a major tournament.

[DoctaJ]

FIBA rarely gives Canada a favorable seeding in a major tournament.

To be fair, Canada hasn't really given them a reason to with some very bad losses that should have been wins, imo.

[frumble]

Hopefully this means that we'll get some easier draws going forward. For instance, I quite like the scenario above, where we wouldn't be in a first round group with either Australia or Serbia (although I guess if Spain doesn't win their last chance tournament, it could slide Australia up into group 1).

If I am understanding what happened with the Tokyo draw, they didn't move teams up and down based on how the last-chance tournaments went. The draw was held using the rankings of the top teams in each of those tournament, and the winner of each tournament just slid into that place.

So, if they do the same this time, Australia wouldn't move up even if a lower-ranked team ended up winning the last-chance tournament that has Spain in it. That team would assume Spain's pot 1 status and would simply slide into whatever spot "Spain" was awarded in the draw.

[mojo13]

Hopefully this means that we'll get some easier draws going forward. For instance, I quite like the scenario above, where we wouldn't be in a first round group with either Australia or Serbia (although I guess if Spain doesn't win their last chance tournament, it could slide Australia up into group 1).

If I am understanding what happened with the Tokyo draw, they didn't move teams up and down based on how the last-chance tournaments went. The draw was held using the rankings of the top teams in each of those tournament, and the winner of each tournament just slid into that place.

So, if they do the same this time, Australia wouldn't move up even if a lower-ranked team ended up winning the last-chance tournament that has Spain in it. That team would assume Spain's pot 1 status and would simply slide into whatever spot "Spain" was awarded in the draw.

Confirming your understanding.

"As the four winners of the 2020 FIBA Men's Olympic Qualifying Tournaments (OQT) were yet to be decided at the time of the draw, they were assigned placeholders of "OQT Belgrade", "OQT Kaunas", "OQT Split" and "OQT Victoria". Each of the four placeholders were seeded based on the highest-ranked team in each tournament."

[TheFutureMM]

New FIBA rankings:
1. USA
2. Spain
3. Germany
4. Australia
5. Serbia
6. Canada
7. Argentina
8. Latvia
9. France
10. Lithuania

https://www.fiba.basketball/rankingmen

Happy for Canada but I really do think this updates shows the flaw in FIBA's ranking system.

How on earth, did Argentina, who didn't qualify for the tournament, only fall from 4 -> 7, while teams like France, Lithuania, and Slovenia who qualified and actually won some games, ended up moving down significantly more. I'd be pissed as a fan of these teams.

I think what this shows is that it's average of your Rating Points for the games you play, and because Argentina didn't play any games, their overall average RPs weren't influenced as much as teams that came and lost like France, Lithuania, and Slovenia. They say on their site that they account for this by taking into account games played and penalizing teams for less games played (aka missing a tourney due to not qualifying) but really I think this needs to be way harsher.

I think they need to really switch over to a Tennis Ranking type system. Keep it a little different where you still take into account how you finished in years prior to the current one and weigh them less over time (like they do now) but really focus on where you finish in the tournament as opposed to how much you win / lose by in the games played.

When we beat up on France by +20, we nuked their rating, which is fair, but because Argentina didn't even qualify, they didn't have the opportunity to get nuked by the heavy hitters, so their average score was almost safeguarded. In my opinion, because they didn't even get to show up - they should have been nuked harder than France did.

I could be rambling, and flat out wrong, but this is how I'm interpreting these updated rankings, and if I'm right, the system is ****.