• 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

Wakeforest22890 said:
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.
Click to expand...
could you make some team-agnostic calculation for this?

e.g. any team up 15 with 30 seconds to go has a > 99% of winning, regardless of priors
 
deacon14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
But why wouldn't Torvik 'emphasize the lack of Q1 wins the way the committee will,' if they're trying to make a predictive model that's rooted in reality.

Not arguing with you, just saying it would be odd if Torvik came up with a whole tool that was ultimately pointless because it didn't account for the way the system actually works.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
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!”
Click to expand...
I mean sure, but I would imagine Forbes would have played a lineup like Boopie, PFred, Canka, Carr, Keller for the rest of the game once it was 65-28 with 9:39 left if margin didn't mean anything. Winning by 37 with <10 minutes left would have almost certainly meant that high minutes guys like Sallis/Hildreth/Reid were done for the night if scoring margin was meaningless.

But last night was an incredibly uncommon example as far as this discussion goes, teams aren't normally winning by 30+ for the majority of a game lol
 
DeacDaddy said:
But why wouldn't Torvik 'emphasize the lack of Q1 wins the way the committee will,' if they're trying to make a predictive model that's rooted in reality.

Not arguing with you, just saying it would be odd if Torvik came up with a whole tool that was ultimately pointless because it didn't account for the way the system actually works.
Click to expand...
Because the quad system is so new that it's hard to accurately predict how much emphasis is being placed on it each year. I'm sure that Torvik's tool takes the quads into account, it was just my assumption that it's less than what the committee does. I could definitely be wrong about that.
 
Sadly it's probably going to take an injury to a star in the final otherwise meaningless minutes of a game to force change.

NCAA wants their stars to be available in March.
 
based on state getting an 11 seed last year torvik may be spot on.

Sent from my SM-S711U using Tapatalk
 
DeacDaddy said:
Sadly it's probably going to take an injury to a star in the final otherwise meaningless minutes of a game to force change.

NCAA wants their stars to be available in March.
Click to expand...
For sure. Some team loses a Wooden Award candidate in the last three minutes of a game they lead by 20 because prediction was they would win by 20 and starters are playing, trying to push the margine above 20.
 
I mean they already cap the scoring margin in the NET, but if you're not going to cap offensive efficiency (minus) defensive efficiency when a game enters "garbage time", then that doesn't do anything because scoring margin obviously still matters.

I know there is predictive value in getting as much data as you can (KP has said several times that getting 40 mins of sample size per game instead of using garbage time results in more "accurate" rankings at the end of the year), but in the NET, which should not be predictive focused at all, and instead all resume based, I would think a cap might make sense.

That being said, it's really, really hard to do what we did tonight to even a top 125 KP/NET team, so the conversation is kind of pointless in my mind.

Bonner was just being a blowhard for most of the night about the NET and metrics being dumb when it's clear he doesn't understand at all how it's measured or used.
 
Deaconblue said:
For sure. Some team loses a Wooden Award candidate in the last three minutes of a game they lead by 20 because prediction was they would win by 20 and starters are playing, trying to push the margine above 20.
Click to expand...
I mean starters routinely are still in the game in 20 point games with three minutes to go in the NBA, where scoring margin means nothing.

Realistically, basketball coaches often leave their best players in until about 2 minutes left (or less) regardless of what the score is, so I don't think this potential for injury due to pressure from the expected margin thing is all that big of a deal. Coaches would probably have their best players in anyway until it was walk-on time.
 
you are absolutely forced to run up the score in conference play now

it's like the ole BCS system in that way
 
i think we had 2. but we had 18 Q3/Q4 wins. that killed us.

Sent from my SM-S711U using Tapatalk
 
KP updated projected final ACC Standings:

1. UNC 16-4
2. Duke 14-6
3. UVA 13-7
3. WF 13-7
5. Clemson 11-9 (think they will get to 12)
5. FSU 11-9
5. Clemson 11-9
8. VT 10-10
8 Cuse 10-10 (don't see them getting to 10)
10. Pitt 9-11
10. Miami 9-11 (appears the Canes have quit, but wouldn't be shocked if they rallied late)
12. BC 8-12
13. GT 6-14
14. L'ville 5-15
15. ND 4-16

If this happens, ACC gets 5 bids: UNC, Duke, UVA, WF and Clemson.
 
Pilchard said:
KP updated projected final ACC Standings:

1. UNC 16-4
2. Duke 14-6
3. UVA 13-7
3. WF 13-7
5. Clemson 11-9 (think they will get to 12)
5. FSU 11-9
5. Clemson 11-9
8. VT 10-10
8 Cuse 10-10 (don't see them getting to 10)
10. Pitt 9-11
10. Miami 9-11 (appears the Canes have quit, but wouldn't be shocked if they rallied late)
12. BC 8-12
13. GT 6-14
14. L'ville 5-15
15. ND 4-16

If this happens, ACC gets 5 bids: UNC, Duke, UVA, WF and Clemson.
Click to expand...

Were we finally able to kick NC State out of the conference?
 
My bad: NCS is projected to go 11-9

1. UNC 16-4
2. Duke 14-6
3. UVA 13-7
3. WF 13-7
5. Clemson 11-9 (think they will get to 12)
5. FSU 11-9
5. NC State 11-9
8. VT 10-10
8 Cuse 10-10 (don't see them getting to 10)
10. Pitt 9-11
10. Miami 9-11 (appears the Canes have quit, but wouldn't be shocked if they rallied late)
12. BC 8-12
13. GT 6-14
14. L'ville 5-15
15. ND 4-16
 
Pilchard said:
KP updated projected final ACC Standings:

1. UNC 16-4
2. Duke 14-6
3. UVA 13-7
3. WF 13-7
5. Clemson 11-9 (think they will get to 12)
5. FSU 11-9
5. Clemson 11-9
8. VT 10-10
8 Cuse 10-10 (don't see them getting to 10)
10. Pitt 9-11
10. Miami 9-11 (appears the Canes have quit, but wouldn't be shocked if they rallied late)
12. BC 8-12
13. GT 6-14
14. L'ville 5-15
15. ND 4-16

If this happens, ACC gets 5 bids: UNC, Duke, UVA, WF and Clemson.
Click to expand...
Duke plays BC and ND in their next two games.

After 12 games they will have played. ND x2 GT x2, Louisville, BC, Pitt x2, Syracuse, VT, Clemson, UNC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top