Exempt Tourney Performance Under Marshall

[pie n eye]

Yet, there's a very important post-season tournament played every year, the teams which are selected based mostly on records and data/paper, not watching every single game.

I highly doubt "historical record in exempt tournaments" or even "winner of battle 4 Atlantis" is considered when fielding the NCAA tournament. Besides the purpose of this "discussion" isn't to determine who makes the NCAA tournament. Allegedly it's to determine a reason for the shockers exempt tourney record. If you don't watch the games then how are you supposed to come up with an explanation outside of pulling something out of your backside like "we play tough defense so we get tired." (Sorry to the people who posed that theory but you were set up by this nonsense thread)

When you play good teams you're bound to lose sometimes. There isn't going to be some magic bullet answer that applies to every single loss. It's a case by case answer.

[Cdizzle]

Speaking of selecting teams to the dance, anybody catch the UConn/Syracuse game last night? Cause every single person at ESPN was ready to just have the game forfeited because it was terrible and unwatchable. Yet come March, I'm sure we'll hear these same idiots lauding that these teams pass the eye test with flying colors.

[ShockingButTrue]

This reminds me a bit of a discussion from last year about why the B12-2 underperforms during NCAA tournament time. Many of us concluded that they were simply overrated and that they didn't know how to win against teams that play tough defense. Everyone that didn't agree with that assessment agreed that there just wasn't enough data to reach a conclusion, too small of a sample size. This looks to be the same type of discussion. Those that want there to be a reason that the team has a "disappointing" record in the exempt tourneys will find something to go with. Those that don't will agree that it's too small of a sample size. It's possible that either side could be right or wrong. It all depends on what you consider to not be "too small of a sample size." And it appears that it depends on which side of the discussion your opinion sits.

You bring up a good point. Valid.

My assertion to this "baited topic" is who said they were disappointing/bad losses (other than chicken fans)?All losses are disappointing. Were these bad teams? Who said so? Kempom?

[ShockdaWorld]

You bring up a good point. Valid.

My assertion to this "baited topic" is who said they were disappointing/bad losses (other than chicken fans)?All losses are disappointing. Were these bad teams? Who said so? Kempom?

I agree with you. All losses are disappointing. I'm of the opinion that there's nothing to be gleaned from the small sample size we have as far as exempt tournaments are concerned.

[ShockTalk]

I'll just throw this out there since it's been mentioned that we play so well in March. But which part of March?

Over the last 7 years of Valley tournament play:

We finished 2nd in league play 3 times finishing only 1,2 and 1 game ahead of 3rd place. All 3 times we made it to the Valley tournament finals, lost, but played to "seed level". We also had a post season record of 9-2 (NIT 0-1, 5-0, NCAA 4-1).

We finished 1st in league play 4 times finishing ahead over 2nd/3rd by 2/7, 6/6, 1/6, and 4/4. 3 of the 4 times we never made it past the semis, losing to teams who finished well behind us in league play. Yet our NCAA post season went 0-1, 2-1, and 2-1.

The other year above, we won the Valley tournament as it was the year we went undefeated until the 2nd game of the NCAA.

I am NOT making any kind of reasons here for why, just pointing out oddities.

[Cdizzle]

Arch Madness is easy to explain.

Daylight Savings.

[ShockdaWorld]

Arch Madness is easy to explain.

Daylight Savings.

And all this time I thought it was Al Gore.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Interesting. Can you breakdown home vs away on the 18-5. Also, how many of those 1-5 come after the exempt tournaments have been played? Or in other words, how does the average number of games played prior to exempt record compare to the average number of games played prior to the other non-con record?

Home: 11-0 (WSU hasn't lost a home non-con game (bracket busters excluded) since UMKC on 11/19/08)
Neutral: 1-0 (vs Memphis, 11/18/14)
Road: 6-5

Exempt tournament dates vary. Here's a breakdown of that 18-5 record, grouped by month played (November vs December). I agree this is worthwhile to evaluate, but as you will see, the results don't seem to support a conclusion that the Shox get better as the non-con season plays out.

November (5-1 vs top 100)
Wins - H98, H85, N87, @82, @18
Losses - @65

December (13-4 vs top 100)
Wins - @99, @95, H91, H90, @86, H83, H72, H61, H55, H37, @35, H33, H10
Losses - @73, @29, @8, @8

(I'm not saying this *disproves* the theory that WSU gets better with more games under their belt. I'm just saying this data, in and of itself, and limited as it is, does not actually help *support* that conclusion.)

[RoyalShock]

I highly doubt "historical record in exempt tournaments" or even "winner of battle 4 Atlantis" is considered when fielding the NCAA tournament. Besides the purpose of this "discussion" isn't to determine who makes the NCAA tournament. Allegedly it's to determine a reason for the shockers exempt tourney record. If you don't watch the games then how are you supposed to come up with an explanation outside of pulling something out of your backside like "we play tough defense so we get tired." (Sorry to the people who posed that theory but you were set up by this nonsense thread)

When you play good teams you're bound to lose sometimes. There isn't going to be some magic bullet answer that applies to every single loss. It's a case by case answer.

My point is that if the most important event of the season is largely based on data, then it's just as valid to have this discussion based on data. Obviously, adding specific game elements can only add to the discussion. But not having those elements doesn't totally invalidate it.

[ShockdaWorld]

Why do the Shockers perform so disappointingly against teams from Kentucky? Yes, that mere thought made me a little sick to my stomach.

[Steeleshocker]

Maybe it's the proximity of beaches. Quick, someone compare the miles from the arena to the nearest beach between the exempt tourneys and our NCAA sites.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Non-conference, but not an exempt tourney game.

Shox win. Whodathunkit?

Good game. Will be very valuable come March.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

No, I don't agree to that premise. I think there is enough data to *start* to draw conclusions in both cases.

Sure, I'll do the other thread too if you want to see it. No time today, but soon enough. And I'm assigning you to personally reply to all the trolling responses Fever makes in that thread.

I'll look forward to Doc's post telling us how that thread is statistically irrelevant too.

Long overdue, but here is your "way too small of sample size & statistically irrelevant" data, as requested.

cc: Cdizzle .

Last 8 post season tournaments under Marshall:
vs. KenPom top 25: 6-5
vs. KenPom 26-50: 4-1
vs. KenPom 51-100: 4-1

Considering WSU has had an average ranking of #20 themselves, I'd say the records vs top 25 and 26-50 are very good, vs 51-100 is about as expected. Overall, very good.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Updated to include Maui 2018

Last 9 exempt tournaments:
vs. KenPom top 25: 0-4
vs. KenPom 26-50: 3-5
vs. KenPom 51-100: 2-2

The contrast with performance in March still intrigues me, and this year has only added more data to the set.

[Cdizzle]

Updated to include Maui 2018

Last 9 exempt tournaments:
vs. KenPom top 25: 0-4
vs. KenPom 26-50: 3-5
vs. KenPom 51-100: 2-2

The contrast with performance in March still intrigues me, and this year has only added more data to the set.

It will be interesting to see if it gets even more skewed (I hope so) with no McDuffie in Maui, and a healthy McDuffie in March. I think my biggest takeaway is still that we have poor luck with injuries in early season, and good luck with injuries in post-season (knock-knock).