thatguy2016
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2017
- Messages
- 10,929
- Reaction score
- 3,953
Does Attenborough discuss what a proxy is? Because some people could use some education, there
So you think a data point for comparison is the same thing as a proxy?
Bless your heart. This explains a great deal
Hey everyone, Manning sucks as evidenced by his over all win loss record, but he doesn't suck as much as [Redacted] did/does as evidenced by Manning's Kenpom rankings. The basketball program is still very disappointing because not sucking a badly as [Redacted] is an extremely low bar and we all want the program to be what it was ~25 years ago. It is pretty straight forward, so y'all don't have to argue about this anymore if you don't want to. I'm gonna go watch the David Attenborough Life of Birds series now.
You seem to think the data point is relevant and are using it as a comparison of the overall quality of the teams. Sure sounds like a proxy to me.
Hey everyone, Manning sucks as evidenced by his over all win loss record, but he doesn't suck as much as [Redacted] did/does as evidenced by Manning's Kenpom rankings. The basketball program is still very disappointing because not sucking a badly as [Redacted] is an extremely low bar and we all want the program to be what it was ~25 years ago. It is pretty straight forward, so y'all don't have to argue about this anymore if you don't want to. I'm gonna go watch the David Attenborough Life of Birds series now.
ok, moving on; so what we confirmed here is that in Danny's dream season he went 3-14 against the top 70*, and that you like to lie
*this of course casts into doubt the infamous "Top 40" proclamation ([Redacted] had a better record vs. the top 70 in 2013-14), but that's probably for another day
I think W-L record against top teams is one of several important metrics to consider when comparing the accomplishments of two or more teams. Can you point me to where I say we should use this one statistic as a proxy for those relative values?
Also, remind me how Pomeroy accounts for wins and losses in his predictive model.
The fact that any coach is not obviously better than BZ by any and all measures indicates that Wake currently has a bottom 5% coach.
You could be way better than BZ and still be an awful coach. Manning cannot even reach that bar on the ground. RCHill has to use the only measure that does not include win-loss in order to make Manning slightly palatable.
Manning is so bad in the last 5 minutes that he might break KenPom. Kenneth is going to have to reconfigure his metrics to allow for the "Manning effect". Are you just unlucky if your team finishes last in luck year after year?
Certainly not. The luck factor captures some bad/good luck, but it also certainly captures a team’s ability/inability to win close games. The only way Manning is comparable to [Redacted] is if all wins and losses are weighted equally and the overall quality of their teams is ignored.
So how much better have the teams that Manning played been than the teams BZ played. What is the difference in average RPI? I would think it may be a little bit better for Manning's opponents but surely not enough better to make him an appreciably better coach.
The one thing Manning has over BZ is the margin of defeat. BZ led the world in just plain getting his ass kicked. Manning keeps the game close until the inevitable last few minutes collapse.
So that is definitely in Manning's favor. Much less embarrassing losses which indicates a better team. But, damn, at some point losing by 3 or by 30 is still a loss.
With BZ, you lost hope shortly after the tip. With Manning, you can believe a win is possible for up to 36 or 37 minutes of the game. Baby steps, I guess.
Is there any other reason other than total desperation that people think a Buffalo transfer who averaged 3 points and never played more than 14min a game, is going to be a significant contributor on this team? Okeke should be better than Smart unless there is something lm missing.
Unlimited potential until we actually see him play. Could be a massive upgrade over Moore. I'm thinking 16/8/4/2 in limited minutes.
Pomeroy doesn’t. It’s not relevant for his purposes (Identifying how good a team is in order to predict outcomes vs other teams). I do wish he would include a ranking that reflects the expected adjusted efficiency of a team that finishes with your record against your schedule.
If you finished 89 in Kenpom, but have the same record that the 140th team in KP would be expected to have against your schedule, that’s relevant information.
yeah, that quote that you pulled up didn't prove your point Friday, and it still doesn't today
it is, however, good that we agree that Pomeroy doesn't account for wins and losses
strange, then, that one would use take those rankings as the definitive source regarding actual performance
unless, of course, one is more concerned with efficiency than actually winning games
What rankings did you use to come up with your top 70 you referenced earlier?
Is Kenpom or win/loss percentage a more accurate measure of a team’s performance?