SOS - What it does and doesn't tell us

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

For someone who extols the value of Ken Pomeroy and how as the season progresses along more information is a good thing, this seems oddly simplistic.

If knowing the names on the jersey allows us to introduce more information, that is a good thing. Not something to avoid.

I'm trying to start with a basic principal. Not the theory of relativity. (something complicated) This is a basic means of making a logical argument.

[Steeleshocker]

In spite of your injunction about premise, the only reasonable answer is to question the premise. There is simply not enough information to say. This is why RPI is an inferior tool to other statistical models (although even RPI looks at home/away which is information we aren't given here), just looking at wins and losses with no other contextual information gives mediocre ranking results. Any good evaluative system will look at also at a minimum at margin of victory in some form and preferably have an intelligent approach to more sophisticated metrics. The real key, however, is that the model and it's weighing system of these factors be set and followed precisely so that we don't do what we are doing here, which is arbitrarily picking games and instead of trusting the ranking the model gives us (with all the data that goes into it), trying to make an opinion out of a small sample size.

So my question is this: if I believe in a ranking system enough to believe that team A played a top 10 team and a 300+ team and that team B played 2 mid 100 teams, why would I doubt what the ranking system said about teams A & B? I can't reasonably claim that the ranking system knew what it was talking about in regard to the opponents, but not the teams in question. I could say the ranking system is flawed, but then I couldn't use it as a gauge of SOS.

This may be the most thoughtful, logical thing i have read on the internet in a long time.

[Jatrain]

What if team B's starting lineup consisted of Durant, Westbrook, Curry, Lebron and Howard?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

This doesn't solve the problem that everyone has, and has already mentioned. There is literally no way to tell. Sure, A is better, based off one game. KU beats Duke, WSU beats Western Kentucky and Memphis. A week into the season, and we know nothing.

I did not ask who was "better with 100% certainty".
I asked who you would "rank higher based on the limited information".

Of course the first question is impossible to answer.
The second question is intentionally different so that it can be answered easily.

[ShockerExpress]

I did not ask who was "better with 100% certainty".
I asked who you would "rank higher based on the limited information".

Of course the first question is impossible to answer.
The second question is intentionally different so that it can be answered easily.

The second is hardly easy to answer. I think that everyone that has replied in this thread has agreed, it is not easy at all.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Question on validity. Why is Team B playing only two games but their opponents have played 21 games each? How many games have the opponents of Team A played?

Those are all questions that I did not give answers to. I already stated that the information I provided is intentionally limited. I want to establish a basic principal before we get sidetracked with details.

[wu_shizzle]

I'm trying to start with a basic principal. Not the theory of relativity. (something complicated) This is a basic means of making a logical argument.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

In spite of your injunction about premise, the only reasonable answer is to question the premise. There is simply not enough information to say. This is why RPI is an inferior tool to other statistical models (although even RPI looks at home/away which is information we aren't given here), just looking at wins and losses with no other contextual information gives mediocre ranking results. Any good evaluative system will look at also at a minimum at margin of victory in some form and preferably have an intelligent approach to more sophisticated metrics. The real key, however, is that the model and it's weighing system of these factors be set and followed precisely so that we don't do what we are doing here, which is arbitrarily picking games and instead of trusting the ranking the model gives us (with all the data that goes into it), trying to make an opinion out of a small sample size.

So my question is this: if I believe in a ranking system enough to believe that team A played a top 10 team and a 300+ team and that team B played 2 mid 100 teams, why would I doubt what the ranking system said about teams A & B? I can't reasonably claim that the ranking system knew what it was talking about in regard to the opponents, but not the teams in question. I could say the ranking system is flawed, but then I couldn't use it as a gauge of SOS.

See my post #34 in this thread. It answers what you said. You are waaaaay overcomplicating things.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

This isn't really working out how you wanted it to so how about just moving on to whatever point you are trying to make?

Because if we can't start from a point of agreement, further conclusions are pointless.

This should be very simple. I'm spending time responding to everyone because they need to be reeled back in. So many people jumping to conclusions. So few people taking the time to show basic reading comprehension skills.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You introduced RPI, or some facsimile in your original post.

I introduced the generic concept of rankings. There is no reason to do a detailed analysis on the pros and cons of the RPI as I was being very generic for a reason. I wanted to avoid arguments over the rating system itself.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The second is hardly easy to answer. I think that everyone that has replied in this thread has agreed, it is not easy at all.

"Team A appears better based on that little snippet of info that I was given."
"Team B appears better based on that little snippet of info that I was given."
"Both appear equal based on that little snippet of info that I was given."

Choose one of those answers. That is not hard.

[SHOXAAC]

JH4P, you act like a rookie on this forum. You are spending a painful amount of time trying to "reel" people in, because it's difficult to take this example serious enough without more information. Instead of trying to herd all the cats, how about progressing to the next level before you lose the entire asylum.

[Steeleshocker]

Fine, I'll bite. I chose team a to be ranked higher. But if further information shows me something, I reserve the right to change my answer.

Let's get on with it.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

If there were 2 or 3 stragglers, you would have a point SHOXMVC. However, it appears that 90% of the responders so far still can't even grasp the basic initial point. Moving on wouldn't accomplish anything.

[Jatrain]

If there were 2 or 3 stragglers, you would have a point SHOXMVC. However, it appears that 90% of the responders so far still can't even grasp the basic initial point. Moving on wouldn't accomplish anything.

Have you ever thought if 90% of people can't understand you, maybe the problem is you, not them?