• 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!

PSU Hoops - National Media Sees Chambers as Possible Manning Replacement

But the opponent and margin matters, right? I think even you'd hopefully agree that blowout wins over crappy teams like Houston Baptist, etc. combined with close losses to teams like Duke are more indicative of a good team than close wins over minnows and blowout losses to the good teams, even if the result is the same number of wins, yes?

Unless I'm betting, I don't give a damn about losing margins. The object is to get to wins. Accepting close losses is accepting losing. Get those Jimmies and Joes.
 
It's because Wake is so bad on the road. It compares how a team performs on the road and at home. As Wake has been awful on the road for a decade now it makes our HCA very high.

The oddsmakers would totally disagree, but perhaps KenPom is not playing to them.
 
This thread is the equivalent of a couple who's been married for 25 years engaging in the same joyless sex every month or so
 
Gonna need to hear from RJ on this.

I wonder what a literal RJ batsignal would look like.

I mean, we already know that statistical analysis is his kryptonite.

But what would we need to flash a picture of in the sky to get him to show up?
 
It's not my kryptonite at all. I just don't immediately accept bogus stats. I'm not a lemming.
 
It's not my kryptonite at all. I just don't immediately accept bogus stats. I'm not a lemming.
Like offensive and defensive points per possession? Its weird you being such a baseball guy.
 
Then you have to add pace to the raw stats.

My biggest bone of contention is numbers without context. UVA has great numbers about scores per possession, but they don't have the ability to speed their game up.
 
There are more pages in this thread than any basketball thread on the Penn State message board.
 
Then you have to add pace to the raw stats.

My biggest bone of contention is numbers without context. UVA has great numbers about scores per possession, but they don't have the ability to speed their game up.

Why do they need to speed up and how would that be calculated into any analysis? They're the top ranked team in advanced metrics and are 23-2.

The issue UVA runs into isn't an advanced stats one, it's that since they slow the game down (therefore creating fewer possessions per game) the sample size for possessions is lower over the course of one game so they're more susceptible to an upset.
 
Why do they need to speed up and how would that be calculated into any analysis? They're the top ranked team in advanced metrics and are 23-2.

The issue UVA runs into isn't an advanced stats one, it's that since they slow the game down (therefore creating fewer possessions per game) the sample size for possessions is lower over the course of one game so they're more susceptible to an upset.

By playing slowly, each mistake you make in The Dance carries more negative implications. This is proven by many years of underachieving in The NCAAT. They've even gotten blown out twice by over 25 points against relatively the same seeds.

If you can't ramp up your pace, you are lessening your options.

My bad. KP's computer counts far more than actual results.
 
That's just small sample size and is exactly what I said anyway: an inherent issue with a slow pace is fewer possessions = smaller sample size.

I think that UVA does such a good job at controlling the pace that over Bennett's tenure they've won far more games by forcing other teams to slow down, even when opponents didn't want to, than they've lost games when they've needed to speed up.

I don't really know what your last sentence means because, again, it's a predictive system. The only thing that matters are the results of your points per possession adjusted for schedule strength.

how-many-times-5b5ca8.jpg
 
Va doesn't show much variation from human polls and kp anyway. Their results consistently warrant one seeds even if they underperform in the tournament.
 
How is SIX YEARS of NCAA results a "small sample size"?

In their six losses, they averaged 52.6 ppg and they weren't losing to world beaters.

As to the last sentence, I bet KP's predictive positions were that UVA would have won each the games it was a higher seed. I seriously doubt KP predicted 26 point losses to #7 FL as a #10 seed or to #4 FL as #5 seed.
 
Yeah their record over the last six years is 166-35 so I'm willing to chalk up random losses in the postseason to "it is what it is" and I'll value those 199 games in total over 12 total postseason games over that span.

And the system provides percentages for each game, it doesn't pick winners at 100% v. losers at 0%.
 
They are the most important games of the season.

So what is different about UVA's system where they consistently beat top 10 to 20 teams in the regular season but then lose in the postseason? The possessions per game aren't any different in the tournament v. the regular season. They beat Cuse in the regular season the year they lost to them in the Elite 8 (and the postseason game featured just one more possession).

ETA: In UVA's five losses in the NCAAT the last five years, they were within 3 possessions of their season average in every single game (three faster and two slower).
 
Back
Top