2016-17 Bracketology

[OregonShocker]

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. Math is so useless in the context of sports, right?

Do you think the story that inspired Moneyball would be better if it was about the eye test instead. Do you think professional sports betters prefer a source like the AP Poll over one like Haslametrics?

Yet the Moneyball philosophy is not perfect in it's predictions, either. I believe this is why we need several guides to contemplate; the final decision is human, and therefore somewhat biased, but is better than just having a computer pick. Truth is, we lost some games that we had begged to play in the past; do I believe we would lose some of those games again at this point in the season? No. And that's why computers shouldn't be trusted fully to make these picks. It is what it is.

[wufan]

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. Math is so useless in the context of sports, right?

Do you think the story that inspired Moneyball would be better if it was about the eye test instead. Do you think professional sports betters prefer a source like the AP Poll over one like Haslametrics?

How did "Trouble with the Curve" do compared to moneyball?

[SHOCKvalue]

How did "Trouble with the Curve" do compared to moneyball?

Well since Moneyball actually happened, and the other is simply a fictitious movie, I guess I'll go with real life.

[ShockerPhi]

For perspective, early NCAA 1 seeds Baylor and KU are currently #8 and #9 in kenpom, respectively.

Wichita State is just 5 and 4 spots (again, respectively) behind those 1 seeds in kenpom, and we are fighting some well-known "bracket experts" to even be included in the tournament. No one else REMOTELY close to WSU in kenpom ranking is even contemplating a double digit seed, much less tournament inclusion. Think about that level of asinine nincompoopness for a moment.

The sooner we leave for the AAC the better, but will it ever happen?

FIFY

[SHOCKvalue]

We're getting into the weeds here. My position is simply that via purely human rating factors the Shocks take it up the rear regularly, but via computer metrics the Shocks have exceeded the respect given to them from the former for a long time now. There's a disconnect, and it gets old.

[jazztrane]

We're getting into the weeds here. My position is simply that via purely human rating factors the Shocks take it up the rear regularly, but via computer metrics the Shocks have exceeded the respect given to them from the former for a long time now. There's a disconnect, and it gets old.

And actual tournament results seem to back up the computers.

[ShockingButTrue]

Everyone wants to bag on the Valley, but no one wants to give credit to WSU for doing what they're doing. It's as if this kind of thing happens in the Valley all the time rather than about once in a generation. Now, I'm obviously primarily referring to P5 guys, Chickenfans/and boob lutz. It's the "yeah, but..." syndrome. You gotta be kidding me.

Someone who watches, and has watched, the Valley for some time is, and would be, quick to give credit where it's due. The point is those other guys ARE NOT following/watching the Valley in any way shape or form. Ever. The consensus of the committee last year was that WSU, at best, was a play-in? That's reality.

[OregonShocker]

We're getting into the weeds here. My position is simply that via purely human rating factors the Shocks take it up the rear regularly, but via computer metrics the Shocks have exceeded the respect given to them from the former for a long time now. There's a disconnect, and it gets old.

I agree; the only thing I'd change is that the human rating factors are actually biases partly on WSU and mostly because of our conference.

[OregonShocker]

And actual tournament results seem to back up the computers.

Unfortunately, our success hasn't overcome the biases. At first it was, "Well, they only won because of FVV and RB". Who knows what it will be next year, but I'm guessing it starts with "MVC", as in, "A good high school All Star squad could win the Valley".

[OregonShocker]

Everyone wants to bag on the Valley, but no one wants to give credit to WSU for doing what they're doing. It's as if this kind of thing happens in the Valley all the time rather than about once in a generation. Now, I'm obviously primarily referring to P5 guys, Chickenfans/and boob lutz. It's the "yeah, but..." syndrome. You gotta be kidding me.

Someone who watches, and has watched, the Valley for some time is, and would be, quick to give credit where it's due. The point is those other guys ARE NOT following/watching the Valley in any way shape or form. Ever. The consensus of the committee last year was that WSU, at best, was a play-in? That's reality.

Truth is, the Valley has generally had a few really good teams each year but until the Shocks of recent, it hasn't had the same team(s) CONSISTENTLY, and that hurts the conference appearance. But, we're quickly morphing this thread into another "realignment" thread.

[AndShock]

A large part of our perception problem is that we don't recruit McDonald's All-Americans. People can't comprehend that we can be as good as the teams with 5 starters who are going to the NBA. People view Gonzaga the same way. I don't recall people saying the same things about Memphis that is said about us and the Zags.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Bleck. Only thing I can figure is that four road losses, granted a couple being bad, figured better than our two neutral losses and one home loss (along with the single road loss).

Bad losses, good wins, etc., do not matter in RPI. If you are 24-4, it absolutely does not matter which 4 you lost. Could have lost 4 really bad games, or simply lost the 4 toughest.

RPI is merely about winning %s of you, your opponents, and your opponents opponents. The specifics of which specific games a team lost just don't have any impact on the RPI.

[ShockCrazy]

Bad losses, good wins, etc., do not matter in RPI. If you are 24-4, it absolutely does not matter which 4 you lost. Could have lost 4 really bad games, or simply lost the 4 toughest.

RPI is merely about winning %s of you, your opponents, and your opponents opponents. The specifics of which specific games a team lost just don't have any impact on the RPI.

I think WuShock16 was referring to the fact that WHERE you win or lose matters. Since road wins are given more weight and home wins less.

[jdshock]

I think WuShock16 was referring to the fact that WHERE you win or lose matters. Since road wins are given more weight and home wins less.

I actually don't think any of that is considered. It's a very simplistic formula, hence the criticism.

[OTR Shockfan]

Bleck. Only thing I can figure is that four road losses, granted a couple being bad, figured better than our two neutral losses and one home loss (along with the single road loss).

What are you considering to be our bad losses ? Louisville rpi #5 OKS rpi #28 ISUr rpi #31 MSU rpi #42 ???