Blind Resume Comparison

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Just thought I'd throw this out there for fun. You will figure out who the 2 teams are easily enough.

So, what do you think? Is there a big difference between these 2 teams? Who's resume do you like better?

[SB Shock]

I take team 2 over team 1

Team 2 has better Top 50 record (4-1), Team 1 has a losing record. Which probably means they will have a better record against NCAA tournament teams.

[Rlh04d]

WSU's, slightly :)

I'm more worried about top 100 RPI than top 50, personally, and the SOS is stronger, while the losses are slightly worse for Creighton.

It's very close, though, when you only look at it like that.

[Shockitude]

I'll take team 1. Team 2 has less Top 100 wins and more 50+ losses.

[Kung Wu]

This is close, and you haven't given us neutral/home/away indicators to weigh, but based on this if you look at the entire body of work I see Team 1 outperforming Team 2 using a method I just made up.

To get that result you have to sum all the wins for team 1 and divide by 26 to get an average win value .. then do the same with Team 2 with their 28 wins.

The average RPI wins for team 1 is 139 and the average RPI wins for team 2 is 151. (The lower number the better, so based on the entire body of work Team 1 has played a tougher schedule and had a better go of it.)

Then I add the average RPI losses which are 60 and 79 respectively. (Again, the lower number the better, and again Team 1 has a better losing record across the entire body of work.)

Anyway after adding the two results, team 1 has an average RPI win/loss value of 199, while team 2 has an average RPI win/loss value of 230. And again, the lower number is better, so Team 1 is the winner by about 30 RPI points.

I have no idea the outcome were I to weigh the wins based on neutral/home/away.

[Kung Wu]

I should also mention that I didn't know who Team 2 was when looking at this, and I assumed Team 1 was WSU. I just scrolled up and see that @Rlh04d: asserts Team 2 is Creighton, which seems reasonable but I am too lazy to verify.

[Shockitude]

I also don't like team 2, in this instance, because their fans are total douchepickles.

[billybud]

If you really have no idea who each team is....it comes down to whether you value good wins more than you devalue for losses when picking one of the teams.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

For those that aren't sure, Team 1 is WSU, Team 2 is Creighton.

My thoughts...
The wins column is a wash. WSU has 3 wins in the 50-100 range that can match Creighton's 2 wins in the 25-50 range. Everything else in the wins column is a wash as well.
The loss column favors WSU. Same number of losses, but WSU's were to better teams.
Intangables... WSU (despite the loss to Illinois State) was unquestionably hotter to finish the year. WSU looked more impressive head to head (blowout win and close loss). WSU's road/neutral profile is more impressive. WSU's non-conf SOS is better.

My conclusion...
WSU should be ahead of Creighton by a small margin. There isn't any reason to place Creighton ahead, but there isn't any reason to place Creighton too far behind either.
Jerry Palm (CU a 5 seed, WSU a 6 seed) should have his head examined. What could he possibly see to lead him to that conclusion?

[proshox]

The blind resumes presented assumes the RPI's of teams played is the end all be all indicator of a team's abilitiy.

Reality tells me that the way teams play can be measured much more accurately - Kenpom, ESPN's new tool, etc.

I think looking at wins vs. RPI groups is interesting, but not really helpful and here is why:

Lets assume you present two teams to the board:

Team 1: Many good, but not great wins (25-125 RPI) and a few losses but none worse than 125
Team 2: Two great wins (1-25), all other wins between (25-200) and a couple of bad losses (175+)

Then you ask two questions (assuming half the board was asked question A, but the other half asked question B):

A: Which team would your rank better and why?

B: Which team would your rand worse and why?


I bet the majority of posters on this board or any other would answer BOTH questions with Team 2. Those looking to justify why Team 2 is better would point at the two top 25 wins. Those looking to justify which team is worse would look at the two bad losses Team 2 suffered. Bias of how the question is presented matters (lots of good information on this in the book "paradox of choice"). Therefore, you have to have more accurate information about how a team plays and how they actually peform in the games.

[billybud]

Interesting.

There is a team that has the following resume:
(Warren Nolan)

RPI...23
SOS...10

two wins over current top 5 RPI teams, one on the road...4-5 Top 50...4-2...51-100

How would you seed them with just that info?

They will be a five or six seed....because they have two losses over 100 (one of them being to a team over 200) and nine total losses. Good wins offset by losses.

[pogo]

I also don't like team 2, in this instance, because their fans are total douchepickles.

Now thats funny.

[WuDrWu]

Interesting.

There is a team that has the following resume:
(Warren Nolan)

RPI...23
SOS...10

two wins over current top 5 RPI teams, one on the road...4-5 Top 50...4-2...51-100

How would you seed them with just that info?

They will be a five or six seed....because they have two losses over 100 (one of them being to a team over 200) and nine total losses. Good wins offset by losses.

You can't just throw out the good stuff...you have to look at everything, and then compare it to who else is out there. You can't just say "That's a 3 seed team" when you don't know the other parameters.

[Rlh04d]

Interesting.

There is a team that has the following resume:
(Warren Nolan)

RPI...23
SOS...10

two wins over current top 5 RPI teams, one on the road...4-5 Top 50...4-2...51-100

How would you seed them with just that info?

They will be a five or six seed....because they have two losses over 100 (one of them being to a team over 200) and nine total losses. Good wins offset by losses.

Obviously I know who you're pointing to, and FSU is being predicted as a four seed by most mock brackets I've seen. I would be very surprised to see them as a six seed. I don't think I've seen anyone, in any mock bracket, rank them that low.

Couple quick brackets for you:

Lunardi: 4 seed ( http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology )
Palm: 5 seed ( http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology)
March 24 7: 4 seed ( http://www.march247.blogspot.com/ )

Mind you, I don't think FSU deserves a 4 seed. I think they're a lazy team and realistically I think over 90% of this season they've played like an 8 or a 9 seed. However, for 10% of the season they played like a 1 seed and now I'd be shocked if they're less than a 5 seed.

[Shockitude]

You can't just throw out the good stuff...you have to look at everything, and then compare it to who else is out there. You can't just say "That's a 3 seed team" when you don't know the other parameters.

Exactly. Manipulating the numbers to the way you wanna see em doesn't mean anything at all.