• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ken Pomery/Tennessee Rank Question (NWT)

RJKarl said:
It's one thing if TN played a killer schedule and in a tough league. They didn't and they still lost TWELVE games.

Sorry REAL world RESULTS matter far more than any computer hypotheticals.
Click to expand...

Er. They did play a tougher overall schedule than Louisville, Iowa, Syracuse, and essentially every Pac-12 team, plus mid-majors like Wichita St, Gonzaga, VCU, and New Mexico.

It's not like they played a bunch of nobodies.
 
Pitt is actually a really good example of close games impacting your seeding and people's perception.

If Pitt played San Diego State right now on a neutral court they would be favored in Vegas. Pitt is a 9 seed and SDSU is a 4 seed. I don't really have an issue with this because Pitt did lose nine games, but every single loss except the Duke game was a single digit game, and every loss was to a team who made the tournament except for FSU. Moral of the story: I don't want to play Pitt in the 8 v. 9 game and I sure as hell don't want them as a one seed in the second round.
 
BiffTannen said:
But lots of them had Duke in the Final Four.

So are you betting the house on Arizona this year or are you going to use your brain to process what you've seen over the course of the season?
Click to expand...

You think I'm going to post BRACKET SECRETS for everyone to see?

No thank you, that billion dollars is going to be mine. Fuck you guys.
 
The Arizona thing is also interesting. Arizona is likely the single most likely team to win the tournament (number one in most rankings, probably has the easiest bracket) so if you're going to pick one team to win it all, it should probably be Arizona, but of course Arizona has a lower chance of winning the whole thing than any other team does at large. So when Arizona loses, if they do, people will say "I guess Arizona wasn't the favorite after all." Well no, they're still the single team who has the best shot of winning it, but those chances are still pretty low.

It's the same thing with the NBA lottery. Teams who have the first shot only have a 25% chance of winning the lottery, but when they inevitably do not win it, people always say it's rigged. No, you just had a 25% chance to win it and a 75% chance to lose it. The fact that the team with the 3% chance to win it got the top pick doesn't mean that it's rigged, it just means that they were lucky that time in that the 75% chance came up and then the 3% team happened to win it.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Arizona is number one overall in almost every metric besides the bracket.
Click to expand...

Ignoring RJ's idiotic rantings about how a team that only lost 4 games, all of them in the final minute, is soft....

Arizona's only glaring flaw is their awful FT shooting, which was responsible in large part for the 4 losses. Aaron Gordon is horrific at the line.

Back to the village idiot - Soft teams aren't ranked 4th in the nation in rebounding margin, and 1st in defensive efficiency.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Pitt is actually a really good example of close games impacting your seeding and people's perception.

If Pitt played San Diego State right now on a neutral court they would be favored in Vegas. Pitt is a 9 seed and SDSU is a 4 seed. I don't really have an issue with this because Pitt did lose nine games, but every single loss except the Duke game was a single digit game, and every loss was to a team who made the tournament except for FSU. Moral of the story: I don't want to play Pitt in the 8 v. 9 game and I sure as hell don't want them as a one seed in the second round.
Click to expand...

So losing at home to NC State with the season on the line is a positive in your book. Okay.
 
BiffTannen said:
So you're picking Arizona to win it all? I mean they are 25 thousandths of a point better than Louisville.
Click to expand...

I'd pick Arizona before I picked Louisville. Louisville has to win two games against top 7 KenPom teams just to make the Final Four (Wichita and Duke) while Arizona doesn't have a team better than 20th (Gonzaga) to reach the Sweet 16 and then has either Creighton (8th) or Wisconsin (11th) to make the Final Four. Arizona is slightly better all things equal, they definitely have a better chance with the better bracket.
 
BiffTannen said:
So losing at home to NC State with the season on the line is a positive in your book. Okay.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was a positive? I said Pittsburgh lost a lot of close games (fact) and was seeded relatively low because of it (also a fact). My overall point is that losing close games has no impact on predictive value. It's not that it has little impact on it, it literally has no impact on predictive value.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The Arizona thing is also interesting. Arizona is likely the single most likely team to win the tournament (number one in most rankings, probably has the easiest bracket) so if you're going to pick one team to win it all, it should probably be Arizona, but of course Arizona has a lower chance of winning the whole thing than any other team does at large. So when Arizona loses, if they do, people will say "I guess Arizona wasn't the favorite after all." Well no, they're still the single team who has the best shot of winning it, but those chances are still pretty low.

It's the same thing with the NBA lottery. Teams who have the first shot only have a 25% chance of winning the lottery, but when they inevitably do not win it, people always say it's rigged. No, you just had a 25% chance to win it and a 75% chance to lose it. The fact that the team with the 3% chance to win it got the top pick doesn't mean that it's rigged, it just means that they were lucky that time in that the 75% chance came up and then the 3% team happened to win it.
Click to expand...

So march madness = NBA lottery?

:plos:
 
BiffTannen said:
But lots of them had Duke in the Final Four.

So are you betting the house on Arizona this year or are you going to use your brain to process what you've seen over the course of the season?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet the house on any one team. I'd guess Arizona probably doesn't have more than 10-15% chance to win it all.
 
This is some millenial BULLSHIT but the Harvard undergrads have a little sports analytics club (Harvard Sports Analytics Collective). They post things to their blog every now and then at www.harvardsportsanalysis.org.

Anyway, they've done an NCAA bracket model every year based on what they call Survival Analysis. Its basic premise is that postseason games are fundamentally different than regular season games, and then it does some statty stuff to account for that. Here's the big 2012 post: http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpr...t-a-new-model-for-ncaa-tournament-prediction/

They also did one for 2013: http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpr...-fittest-predicting-the-2013-ncaa-tournament/

Does it work? From 2012:

screen-shot-2013-02-19-at-5-33-26-pm.png
 
Why waste time playing the games? JUST USE A PING PONG BALL LOTTERY
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Where did I say it was a positive? I said Pittsburgh lost a lot of close games (fact) and was seeded relatively low because of it (also a fact). My overall point is that losing close games has no impact on predictive value. It's not that it has little impact on it, it literally has no impact on predictive value.
Click to expand...

What about the fact that they lose games like that? A seven point loss on your home court, in March, to an obviously inferior team, when you really need a win? Does that provide you with any sort of predictive value? Or is that just another data point?
 
BiffTannen said:
What about the fact that they lose games like that? A seven point loss on your home court, in March, to an obviously inferior team, when you really need a win? Does that provide you with any sort of predictive value? Or is that just another data point?
Click to expand...

It's just another data point. They did have a couple of scrappy wins against Notre Dame and Clemson in overtime sandwiching that State game where they showed they had courage, intestinal fortitude, and are clearly a top team who has lots of success in the postseason though! That is until they lost to UVA by three, losing their resolve to win close games.

What does it say about Pitt that they beat Clemson on the road IN OT after a crushing home loss to State? It was a game they HAD to have and they HAD it. Also with their backs against the wall against an upstart Wake team on Thursday of the ACC Tournament, they had a come to Jesus meeting and were able to defeat the Deacs by 30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top