KenPom: The Value of Altitude

[Goose]

KenPom has a nice blog post about the value of altitude and the Buffs are specifically mentioned.

A bigger sample is available if we look at the University of Colorado during its time in the Big 12. For 15 consecutive seasons the Buffaloes played a home and away series with Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Iowa State, and Nebraska. In 75 games at Boulder over that span, the average margin was Colorado +1.5 and in the 75 games at lower elevation, Colorado’s average margin was -13.0, for a whopping 14.5 point difference, leaving 6.5 points unexplained.

It, like everything else Ken does, is worth your time to read. One thing I find interesting is that he thinks that high altitude teams might be at a disadvantage at lower altitude.

Perhaps higher elevation teams are in poorer shape than their lower elevation counterparts, an effect that is overwhelmed when the lower elevation team is suddenly deprived of its usual oxygen, but appears at sea-level when both teams are on equal footing air-wise.

 

[dio]

That last part seems like a stretch to me.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

That last part seems like a stretch to me.

Agreed. Mark Schlereth and another espin pro football analyst (former player, too) were talking about teams from Denver. The other guy said he hated playing at home against the broncs because of their conditioning at altitude (elevation). He said that he'd look at the Denver team in the 4th quarter and it was as if they hadn't played at all -- like they could go another 3 or 4 quarters.

As a side note, if KenPom's theory were true then we should move our Olympic training facility to sea level.

 

[jgisland]

That last part is a total stretch, this is an interesting topic but KenPom needs some more statistical evidence before I come close to buying that theory.

What about the theory that most of the teams playing at altitude have been horrible at cbb over the years and use the altitude to their advantage at home and can't win on the road to save their life.

 

[Darth Snow]

That last part is a total stretch, this is an interesting topic but KenPom needs some more statistical evidence before I come close to buying that theory.

What about the theory that most of the teams playing at altitude have been horrible at cbb over the years and use the altitude to their advantage at home and can't win on the road to save their life.

I can't disagree. I'm pretty impressed by the size of the altitude advantage.

 

[Buffnik]

Teams that train at altitude are in better shape.

I think that KenPom is underestimating how large an advantage it is when we play at home. We haven't had good teams and we get exposed on the road.

 

[MrFrumpylane]

My guess is that basketball is a harder sport to play at altitude than football with the main difference in stamina.

 

[absinthe]

I'd like to see it looked at from a field goal% stand point. Especially in the last 4 minutes of either half relative to what the visiting team normally shoots at home during that stretch.

 

[Del]

His theory about altitude teams being at a disadvantage at sea level is completely wrong. At CU, we did our advanced training camp for ROTC at Ft. Lewis Washington in the summer. All of the CU cadets including me averaged about 30 -45 seconds faster on our 2 mile run time than we did up in Boulder because you can breathe so much easier.

 

[GoldenBuff]

My guess is that basketball is a harder sport to play at altitude than football with the main difference in stamina.

Truth. Football is short bursts of very high level activity. Basketball, on the other hand, is lower exertion over a much longer period of time.

 

[tante]

this might be kenpom worst article ever:

I’m not a runner and I don’t completely understand the concept of “​

living high and training low

” but it seems to be accepted as an optimum way for endurance runners to train.​

this isn't rocket surgery, less oxygen means your body produced more red blood cells to compensate, so when you go to lower elevation (with more oxygen in the air) you have all these extra red blood cells carrying all this extra oxygen. I thought this was an axiom at this point.

 

[jgisland]

this might be kenpom worst article ever:



this isn't rocket surgery, less oxygen means your body produced more red blood cells to compensate, so when you go to lower elevation (with more oxygen in the air) you have all these extra red blood cells carrying all this extra oxygen. I thought this was an axiom at this point.

Are you sure? Can we get Doc Sadler to weigh in?

And yes, this could be the worst KenPom article ever. He lives in SLC, he should know something about this whole altitude thing.

 

[Nor Cal Buff]

Well, he's right in the sense that the players at sea level are able to train harder than the players at altitude but the effect of living at altitude overcomes this, even at sea level. But this is why the optimal strategy is to live high, train low.

Also SLC is below the threshold for where the effects of altitude manifest themselves. Basically anything below 4900 feet is little different than sea level.

I'm confused why he uses such small sample sizes in the article too. Seems pretty simple to me...take the home/away margins of CU, CSU, UNCo, DU, Wyo, UNM and NAU over the past 20 years and compare to nationwide.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

There is a reason our Cross Country teams dominate pretty much where ever they go.

 

[GoonieBuff]

His second theory makes no sense. Even high schools in the Denver metro area travel to the mountains during the summer to train at even higher altitudes.

Altitude training helps for endurance (aerobic) but not for anaerobic (sprinting activities) performance. This is why CU has great XC and track distance runners that come here but not very good sprinters (usually local sprinters).

Also, this is why the altitude difference is most noticed at the end of basketball games, as enough playing time would have gone by to impact the aerobic performance of the athletes.

In short: For a sprint (length of football field, basketball court, basically 400 meters or less), the altitude doesn't give us an advantage. But, when you extend that distance, or put a bunch of those back to back throughout a game, the thin air becomes our big home advantage.

 

[SCB]

KenPom has a nice blog post about the value of altitude and the Buffs are specifically mentioned.



It, like everything else Ken does, is worth your time to read. One thing I find interesting is that he thinks that high altitude teams might be at a disadvantage at lower altitude.

Shouldn't it be the opposite?

 

[BuffaloSoldier76]

His second theory makes no sense. Even high schools in the Denver metro area travel to the mountains during the summer to train at even higher altitudes.

Altitude training helps for endurance (aerobic) but not for anaerobic (sprinting activities) performance. This is why CU has great XC and track distance runners that come here but not very good sprinters (usually local sprinters).

Also, this is why the altitude difference is most noticed at the end of basketball games, as enough playing time would have gone by to impact the aerobic performance of the athletes.

In short: For a sprint (length of football field, basketball court, basically 400 meters or less), the altitude doesn't give us an advantage. But, when you extend that distance, or put a bunch of those back to back throughout a game, the thin air becomes our big home advantage.

For an additional example, look at the dominance of Adams State and Western State in NCAA Div 2 Cross Country. In the past 20 years on the men's side, Western State and Adams State each have 8 national championships, while on the women's side, Adams has won 15 of the last 20 with Western taking 3. The Adams kids live and train in Alamosa, CO at 7,544 feet, and the Western kids live and train in Gunnison at 7,723. These kids go to the national championships and dominate partially because they have significantly more stamina and endurance from training at altitude, and partially because the national championship venues are always at significantly lower elevations. Granted that both of those schools are in high demand by distance runners because of their sustained success over the years, but their abilities are multiplied when they train hard at altitude.

Goonie, et al are absolutely right that the endurance factors translate better to basketball than to football because of the sustained exertion that is required in basketball in comparison to the stop & go nature of football. The altitude factor cannot be taken for granted on the basketball court.