Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020-21 Games of Interest

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The "luck" column in Kenpom is one potentially problematic data point for us:

    The easiest one to understand is Luck, which is the deviation in winning percentage between a team’s actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method. The luck factor has nothing to do with the rating calculation, but a team that is very lucky (positive numbers) will tend to be rated lower by my system than their record would suggest.
    [source]

    The problem is, we had a ton of turnover so our preseason rank was very low. Because it was low to begin the season, it will stay lower than it might (should?) have due to our "luck" factor. His algorithm doesn't assume that his "expected record" might have been wrong; instead it assumes that it was right all along and that you are just over-performing. So we will "tend to be rated lower" than "our record would suggest".

    Our luck factor is the 8th highest in the country at +0.157.

    It's quite possible that we may not be that lucky. Instead, we might actually be as good as our record indicates (meaning our luck factor should be zero), and he might have just had us WAY TOO LOW in the preseason rankings.
    Kung Wu say man who take lady on camping trip, have one intent.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stickboy46 View Post

      The Number say that too

      @55 Ole Miss > home vs 72 North Texas
      Loyola blasted #59 Drake by 27 in the first game. North Texas is their second best win and Ole Miss is our best win.

      You can’t just throw out the Drake win and not throw out our win at Ole Miss if we really want to compare “best wins” (which is an arbitrary and meaningless metric on the whole, but it was brought up here...in or out of conference has no bearing on that).
      "In God we trust, all others must bring data." - W. Edwards Deming

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Shockm View Post

        Weaker ranked opponents than us, but still good opponents. The bad opponents we’ve played are ORU in our first game. We haven’t had opportunities against bad opponents like Valpo. Tulane is a good 150 opponent. ECU beat Houston. Temple is a Top 160 team.
        You’re right and that’s part of the strength of the American this year. Even teams near the bottom of the standings are still solid.

        That being said, Tulane should have been a 10+ point win. Cincinnati should have been a 10+ point win. We let down some in both of those games to let the other team get close. I imagine getting destroyed at Memphis isn’t doing us any favors either.

        How much difference would maintaining those leads have made on our NET? I have no idea and I’m really not too concerned about it.

        As a fan, I just want to see the team continue to improve and shore up the areas of their game that they have control over, like defensive rebounding. If they do that I can live with the results although I think if we improve that one area in particular the results in W-L record will continue to be positive.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
          Loyola blasted #59 Drake by 27 in the first game. North Texas is their second best win and Ole Miss is our best win.

          You can’t just throw out the Drake win and not throw out our win at Ole Miss if we really want to compare “best wins” (which is an arbitrary and meaningless metric on the whole, but it was brought up here...in or out of conference has no bearing on that).


          What had Drake done as far as quality wins to counter their Valpo loss as to be consider a "quality win" prior to them beating Loyola short-handed the 2 game. We already know that Loyola is top notch due to their N Texas win at home which countered their losses to Richmond and Indiana State.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
            Loyola blasted #59 Drake by 27 in the first game. North Texas is their second best win and Ole Miss is our best win.

            You can’t just throw out the Drake win and not throw out our win at Ole Miss if we really want to compare “best wins” (which is an arbitrary and meaningless metric on the whole, but it was brought up here...in or out of conference has no bearing on that).
            I'm throwing Drake out the window because the conversation is we really don't know how good Loyola and Drake are. Them beating each other tells us nothing. So yes i can throw it out the window.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stickboy46 View Post

              I'm throwing Drake out the window because the conversation is we really don't know how good Loyola and Drake are. Them beating each other tells us nothing. So yes i can throw it out the window.
              If that's your standard, we don't know how good anyone is. You can't pick and choose results that matter. Either they matter or they don't.

              We have myriad ways of gauging how good these teams are via predictive metrics (Torvik, KenPom, Haslametrics, Sagarin). None of those have us better than Drake and none of them have Drake lower than 66th (Sagarin, where we are 69). We also have a good way of gauging how good their resumes are via Wins Above Bubble (a descriptive metric). Both teams are above us in this metric according to Bart Torvik...Drake is a 7 seed and Loyola is a 10 seed, even though Loyola is a better team according to predictive metrics. Both of the aforementioned types of metrics take each game and result into account.

              This line of reasoning for excluding teams like Loyola or Drake from the tournament is just as wrong now as it was when it was used against us for seeding purposes ("we don't know how good they are", "they haven't played/beaten anyone", "any decent team could go undefeated in the Valley", etc.).
              "In God we trust, all others must bring data." - W. Edwards Deming

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kel Varnsen View Post

                If that's your standard, we don't know how good anyone is. You can't pick and choose results that matter. Either they matter or they don't.

                We have myriad ways of gauging how good these teams are via predictive metrics (Torvik, KenPom, Haslametrics, Sagarin). None of those have us better than Drake and none of them have Drake lower than 66th (Sagarin, where we are 69). We also have a good way of gauging how good their resumes are via Wins Above Bubble (a descriptive metric). Both teams are above us in this metric according to Bart Torvik...Drake is a 7 seed and Loyola is a 10 seed, even though Loyola is a better team according to predictive metrics. Both of the aforementioned types of metrics take each game and result into account.

                This line of reasoning for excluding teams like Loyola or Drake from the tournament is just as wrong now as it was when it was used against us for seeding purposes ("we don't know how good they are", "they haven't played/beaten anyone", "any decent team could go undefeated in the Valley", etc.).
                Metrics with limited sample sizes outside of conference this year make them unreliable. Many of the creators of these metrics have said so.

                Any metric that says that Drake is a 7 seed should be thrown out the window IMO.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stickboy46 View Post

                  Metrics with limited sample sizes outside of conference this year make them unreliable. Many of the creators of these metrics have said so.

                  Any metric that says that Drake is a 7 seed should be thrown out the window IMO.
                  These are the only metrics we have for this season. We don’t have anything else that isn’t completely arbitrary. And what is your standard in terms of what we are seeking to measure in the selection process?

                  WAB is easy. A bubble team would be expected to win fewer games than Drake if they played the same schedule. Saying, “Drake shouldn’t be a 7 seed” as a reason for their exclusion isn’t sufficient.
                  "In God we trust, all others must bring data." - W. Edwards Deming

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kel Varnsen View Post

                    These are the only metrics we have for this season. We don’t have anything else that isn’t completely arbitrary. And what is your standard in terms of what we are seeking to measure in the selection process?

                    WAB is easy. A bubble team would be expected to win fewer games than Drake if they played the same schedule. Saying, “Drake shouldn’t be a 7 seed” as a reason for their exclusion isn’t sufficient.
                    Saying Drake has played Exactly 1 Top 85 team (and lost to them once by 27) and also lost to the 237th team by 17 IS enough to fully exclude them

                    Sorry if you are going to play the 229th best schedule, you don't get the benefit of the doubt of a bad game.

                    Edited to add for Comparison since you keep mentioning "this is what WSU went against"
                    WSU's SOS:
                    2012 - 53
                    2013 - 39
                    2014 - 95
                    2015 - 76
                    2016 - 90
                    2017 - 109

                    Trying to put Drake in the same bucket as any of our previous teams is just stupid.
                    Last edited by Stickboy46; February 15, 2021, 02:52 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stickboy46 View Post

                      Saying Drake has played Exactly 1 Top 85 team (and lost to them once by 27) and also lost to the 237th team by 17 IS enough to fully exclude them

                      Sorry if you are going to play the 229th best schedule, you don't get the benefit of the doubt of a bad game.
                      Really? Drake has no control over their conference schedule (that sounds awfully familiar). As far as their non-con goes, it’s kind of hard to fault them in a year like this, is it not? I imagine they’ve had cancellations like everyone else. How quickly we forget the challenges of scheduling for Valley teams.

                      WSU fans have walked a mile in a team Drake’s shoes and shouldn’t forget it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by pie n eye View Post

                        Really? Drake has no control over their conference schedule (that sounds awfully familiar). As far as their non-con goes, it’s kind of hard to fault them in a year like this, is it not? I imagine they’ve had cancellations like everyone else. How quickly we forget the challenges of scheduling for Valley teams.

                        WSU fans have walked a mile in a team Drake’s shoes and shouldn’t forget it.
                        Read my edited post. We NEVER had a schedule close to as bad as Drakes. Not even within 100 spots of as bad as Drakes.

                        Comment


                        • You guys are pissing me off with this dissing of the Drake. You gotta love the Drake!

                          Its all about the Drake, bout the Drake like no other!

                          CoffeeCakes_NewLook_720x.jpg
                          There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MoValley John View Post
                            You guys are pissing me off with this dissing of the Drake. You gotta love the Drake!

                            Its all about the Drake, bout the Drake like no other!

                            CoffeeCakes_NewLook_720x.jpg
                            This is the only Drake I cheer for....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stickboy46 View Post

                              Read my edited post. We NEVER had a schedule close to as bad as Drakes. Not even within 100 spots of as bad as Drakes.
                              I don't know what their original non-conference schedule was, do you? Surely that is relevant information.

                              All due respect to Drake, but it isn’t exactly fair to try and compare their ability to schedule games to WSU’s. We had a top 10 coach who had been in place for years, sustained success and a name brand. And we still struggled to put together a schedule that satisfied fans at times.

                              We were in the 200+ a few times early in the Marshall era.

                              But then, based on a lot of the discussions this year you don’t seem willing to acknowledge the difficulties of putting together a schedule either. You seem to think it’s just “call team, get game”.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pie n eye View Post

                                I don't know what their original non-conference schedule was, do you? Surely that is relevant information.

                                All due respect to Drake, but it isn’t exactly fair to try and compare their ability to schedule games to WSU’s. We had a top 10 coach who had been in place for years, sustained success and a name brand. And we still struggled to put together a schedule that satisfied fans at times.

                                We were in the 200+ a few times early in the Marshall era.

                                But then, based on a lot of the discussions this year you don’t seem willing to acknowledge the difficulties of putting together a schedule either. You seem to think it’s just “call team, get game”.
                                So they get a pass?

                                Drake SOS History
                                2020: 143 overall .. 291 Non-con
                                2019: 173 overall, 133 non-con
                                2018: 159 overall, 317 non-con
                                2017: 161 overall, 215 non-con

                                Not gonna keep going any farther, but you get the picture. Yea, COVID makes scheduling hard ... history tells us they wouldn't have scheduled any harder anyways.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X