If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If my team could win every game by 1 point, I would take it right now.
I love digging through metrics, but this is insanity.
The reason why KenPom and other efficiency metrics do not value W and Ls because of one reason.
Ohio State is at home against Nebraska today. Ohio State is favored to win by 17 per KenPom. Let's say they win by 3, yes they won the game, but should OSU be perceived as a better team even though they performed worse than they were expected to?
(ESPECIALLY AT HOME WHERE YOU GET AN ASTRONOMICALLY BETTER WHISTLE)
Agree with everything in your rebuttal but this. And only because, I'm sorry, this doesn't seem to apply to CKA. I wish it did, but man, it sure seems like we don't get a lot of "better" whistles, no matter where we play, even at home!
Plain and simple, clucky boy was bent that KU lost to Baylor and he had to formulate a way to justify them being ahead of Baylor in the polls. He glommed on to whatever "metric" he could to justify it. Bottom line is wins and losses. The other analytics are great, but they are subjective as well. Just looking at possessions is nonsense.
And to say that whoever wins the National Championship might not be the best team, well you may be right, but I'd rather be the Champ than the "best" team I guess.
A balanced schedule is impossible in college. In a perfect world all teams would play the other team 100 times (1000?) and we would know for sure who is the best team.
KP and other analytics try to paint a more accurate, objective picture of the landscape, and they generally do a good job and are more reliable than subjective polls, but they’re still working with imperfect data and make many assumptions.
On any given night a team can play better or worse than their average. Refs can suck. Players can be sick. Weird stuff can happen. Etc. The only way to really tell the difference between a 5 point win and a 15 point win is to watch the game and analyze every play of every game. No one has time to do that. KP and analytics are not gospel.
There have been many ridiculous arguments on SN, but this is the winner of all time. It got to the point where winning no longer really means anything.
I guess I'm just old school. I use the scoreboard to determine who "won". If team A loses to Team B, it's going to take a lot more than some statistical model to convince me that Team A is still the better team. Those metrics were not achieved against identical competition. Accurately adjusting them for degree of difficulty based on the opponents is a fool's errand, but it does convince people who "want to believe" to pay subscription fees. Clever!
The future's so bright - I gotta wear shades. We like to cut down nets and get sized for championship rings.
Should a team be perceived as a better team if they only won a game by 5 yet they were supposed to win by 15?
You don't play to win by 1 point.
Uh, yeah, you do! Wins are better than losses and 30-point wins tally the same as 1-point wins in the ultimate record.
FIVE losses is NOT BETTER than ZERO losses. No debate. No question. If that math were to be true, cover your head because all the buildinngs and bridges the engineers have built are going to come crashing down!
"I not sure that I've ever been around a more competitive player or young man than Fred VanVleet. I like to win more than 99.9% of the people in this world, but he may top me." -- Gregg Marshall 12/23/13 :peaceful:
--------------------------------------- Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare: "We have to pass it, to find out what's in it".
A physician called into a radio show and said: "That's the definition of a stool sample."