• 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!

2023-24 Wake Forest Basketball Season - 21-14 (11-9) - KP#29 / NET#43

Teams in top 50 who have had less than 5 Q1 opportunities:

Auburn (1-3) they have one tonight
New Mexico (2-2)
Indiana St (1-3)
FAU (2-1)
WF (0-3)
UVA (2-2)
Grand Canyon (1-1)
SMU (0-2)
 
thatguy2016 said:
Teams who are in the top 50 of NET with zero Q1 wins:

28 Gonzaga
32 Wake Forest
49 SMU

Of the wins WF has, Virginia (#34 in NET) and Florida (#39) could become Q1 wins.

Remaining opportunities for Q1 wins are

Duke x2
at UVA
at VPI (#54 - must stay top 75)
Clemson (#31 - must move into top 30 and stay there after we beat them)

2-3 in those five plus 4-0 in the others should get a double bye. Win the 4-5 game and get another shot at UNC on a neutral floor (or win the 3-6 game and get Duke). Either way we're in at that point.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. Gotta find a way to steal at least 2 of Duke (2x), @UVA, @VT, and Clemson.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think there’s a good argument that winning margin should be capped for NET purposes especially since each possession will still be reflected in the adjusted efficiency. However the winning margin cap should be way higher than the 10 it originally was. Thinking somewhere in the 25-30 range is right.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing for the NET to add margin back into the metric? You think 20+ wins should be weighted even higher than the efficiency measures already do?
 
DCDeac said:
Are you arguing for the NET to add margin back into the metric? You think 20+ wins should be weighted even higher than the efficiency measures already do?
Click to expand...
margin is already in the metric for efficiency (obviously). Im saying that there’s solid data out there that once a game hits like 25 points at a certain point in the game subsequent possessions in that game are less predictive. I don’t know if there’s a way to scrape data where possessions in “garbage time” are excluded or not.
 
Also a 20 point win isn’t weighted any heavier in the system than a 10 point win - it’s all relative to what the expectation is for two teams at their spots playing each other. If you’re a 5 point dog and win by 10, you move up more than if you’re a 15 point favorite and win by 20
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think there’s a good argument that winning margin should be capped for NET purposes especially since each possession will still be reflected in the adjusted efficiency. However the winning margin cap should be way higher than the 10 it originally was. Thinking somewhere in the 25-30 range is right.
Click to expand...
It would be nice to do something like this just so that we could stop hearing about walk-ons losing the opportunity to chuck threes with 70 seconds left in a 25 point blowout.

At the end of the day those possessions don't matter much at all to your efficiency ratings anyways, so let's just find a way to remove them from the metrics and let walk-ons get back to it
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Also a 20 point win isn’t weighted any heavier in the system than a 10 point win - it’s all relative to what the expectation is for two teams at their spots playing each other. If you’re a 5 point dog and win by 10, you move up more than if you’re a 15 point favorite and win by 20
Click to expand...
He’s doubling down
 
daaberry said:
As Wake fans we got to bitch that teams took leaps by blowing out shitty teams and now it’s nice to be the benefactor.
Click to expand...
shitty Quad 2 team is the key there. We were stuck in neutral with our terrible non-con schedule.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
He’s doubling down
Click to expand...
I mean what he said makes perfect sense, I don't get the issue. Even someone that hates advanced stats in sports will admit that a 10 point underdog winning by 5 is more impressive than a 10 point favorite winning by 15.
 
Seems like it would be easy enough to back out possessions where win probability >99% or something. I think all coaches would agree to that.
 
bmoneydeac said:
Seems like it would be easy enough to back out possessions where win probability >99% or something. I think all coaches would agree to that.
Click to expand...
The question here is are we analyzing it based on 99% for the average team to win based on the game state or is it team specific? If it’s the latter you run into matchups where basically none of the game would count. The minimum win percentage for UNC against Lehigh was 97.4% and almost the entire game took place at 99% or higher.
 
bmoneydeac said:
Seems like it would be easy enough to back out possessions where win probability >99% or something. I think all coaches would agree to that.
Click to expand...
We hit 99.1% with 8:31 to go in the first (29-5). We hit 99.9% with 19:24 to go in the 2nd half (48-20).

I post this not to contradict you, but because I find that set of probabilities hilarious.
 
Torvik has a really interesting tool called Teamcast where you can fill out the rest of the season's results and it will project whether or not you make the tournament if you're looking to waste some time on that.

According to it, if Wake goes 4-0 against NCSU, Pitt, ND, GT and then goes 2-3 with wins against Clemson/UVA and losses to Duke/VT, Wake would be projected for a 9 seed in the tournament. If you drop that to just beating Clemson and going 0-4 against Duke/UVA/VT, Wake is listed as one of the last 4 byes.

I think that's a bit optimistic because Torvik (presumably) isn't emphasizing the lack of Q1 wins the way the committee will, but nonetheless it's an interesting look at what Wake needs to do to finish the season and the position that Wake is in currently.
 
deacon14 said:
It would be nice to do something like this just so that we could stop hearing about walk-ons losing the opportunity to chuck threes with 70 seconds left in a 25 point blowout.

At the end of the day those possessions don't matter much at all to your efficiency ratings anyways, so let's just find a way to remove them from the metrics and let walk-ons get back to it
Click to expand...
That would be very easy to build into a model. Just set the parameters - once a team is up X with Y minutes remaining, the rest of the possessions do not factor into efficiency ratings. Maybe 25 points with 5 minutes remaining?

Of course, we don't have the model the NET uses, so who knows what they're doing. That's the second most problematic part of the NET. The most problematic part is the quad system, which is so dumb because the NET ranking already considers who a team played and where it was played, so why count that again with arbitrary cutoffs built in?
 
Rafi said:
That would be very easy to build into a model. Just set the parameters - once a team is up X with Y minutes remaining, the rest of the possessions do not factor into efficiency ratings. Maybe 25 points with 5 minutes remaining?

Of course, we don't have the model the NET uses, so who knows what they're doing. That's the second most problematic part of the NET. The most problematic part is the quad system, which is so dumb because the NET ranking already considers who a team played and where it was played, so why count that again with arbitrary cutoffs built in?
Click to expand...
Yes the quad system is very dumb.

And absolutely agreed on the margin needing a time attached to it - which would act as a proxy for when teams likely wouldn’t be playing their starters if they didn’t need to. Like yesterday Bonner was rambling on to start the second half that Wake isn’t running up the score they’re just doing what they need to for the NET but it’s an ACC road game - we weren’t just gonna play backups the entire second half. It gets taken too far as a “teams are forced to run it up!”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top