Ken Pomery/Tennessee Rank Question (NWT)

[Wakeforest22890]

They also lost to TX A&M twice, Vandy and UTEP.

And Duke lost to Wake and Notre Dame, both outside the top 100 of KenPom.

Is there a statistically significant difference in losing two bad games versus losing four bad games over the course of a 33 game season? I would suspect there isn't since there's such a high variance at this sample size.

It boils down to this: are we going to use sample size 33 where we weight wins and losses as equal and don't consider margin very much, or are we going to use sample size 33 times 65 (for possessions) as the base unit, which increases the sample size, thus lowering variance? Just from a statistical vantage point it makes more sense to use points per possession.

 

[RJKarl]

Example:

Duke played 12 games where the score was in single digits, they went 7-5 in those games.

Tennessee played 12 games where the score was in single digits, they went 2-10 in those games.

You could say Martin sucks as a coach, you could say Coach K is fantastic, or you could say Tenessee generally got a little bit unlucky since you would anticipate single digit games roughly turn out a 50/50 proposition over the long run.

On the other side is double digit games:

Duke played 22 of these games and went 19-3 (including a double digit loss to Wake)

Tennessee played 21 games and went 19-2

What milennial BULLSHIT!!! They lost the games. Quit making excuses. If they were good like you, they would have won many more. They didn't.

It's one thing to talk this BS preseason or mid-season, but ON THE COURT they PROVED they aren't a good team.

You don't get paid to win computer simulations. You get paid to win on the court. There is no justification to say "they should have won". They didn't and it wasn't one or two games.

 

[RJKarl]

Kansas lost NINE games. Should they be like an 8th seed by your standards?

They has serious injuries. They shouldn't have been a #2 seed.

 

[TownieDeac]

opcorn:

 

[Biff Tannen]

See what i was getting at when I said, "Who gives a shit?"

 

[Wakeforest22890]

What milennial BULLSHIT!!! They lost the games. Quit making excuses. If they were good like you, they would have won many more. They didn't.

It's one thing to talk this BS preseason or mid-season, but ON THE COURT they PROVED they aren't a good team.

You don't get paid to win computer simulations. You get paid to win on the court. There is no justification to say "they should have won". They didn't and it wasn't one or two games.

I mean the issue doesn't really fall with the stats, it falls with our differences in the assumptions we're making. I assume that close games even out over the long run at around a 50/50 rate, and you assume that good teams win more games regardless of if they're close or not.

 

[RJKarl]

And Duke lost to Wake and Notre Dame, both outside the top 100 of KenPom.

Is there a statistically significant difference in losing two bad games versus losing four bad games over the course of a 33 game season? I would suspect there isn't since there's such a high variance at this sample size.

It boils down to this: are we going to use sample size 33 where we weight wins and losses as equal and don't consider margin very much, or are we going to use sample size 33 times 65 (for possessions) as the base unit, which increases the sample size, thus lowering variance? Just from a statistical vantage point it makes more sense to use points per possession.

none of that shit matters. When in close games THEY LOSE. When you get good teams in a bunch of close games, THEY WIN.

Who gives a give a fuck about "possessions" or "efficiency" when a team LOSES and plays in a bad conference.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

none of that shit matters. When in close games THEY LOSE. When you get good teams in a bunch of close games, THEY WIN.

Who gives a give a fuck about "possessions" or "efficiency" when a team LOSES and plays in a bad conference.

Again, we are making different assumptions. I assume that games are for the most part arbitrary amounts of time where a finite number of possessions will be played while you attribute far more value to individual wins and losses.

 

[WFU Lurker]

Again, we are making different assumptions. I assume that games are for the most part arbitrary amounts of time where a finite number of possessions will be played while you attribute far more value to individual wins and losses.

And one of these is a lot more logically sound than the other.

 

[RedSoxFaithful]

This is awesome.

 

[RedSoxFaithful]

none of that shit matters. When in close games THEY LOSE. When you get good teams in a bunch of close games, THEY WIN.

Who gives a give a fuck about "possessions" or "efficiency" when a team LOSES and plays in a bad conference.

Yeah, see, that's just not true.

 

[TownieDeac]

So let's say team B plays team A 100 times and loses by 1 point in every game and also that team C plays team A 100 times but loses by 15 points in every game. Do you really not think that team B is better than team C?

rj, please address this question

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Also using wins and losses as dispositive metrics presents some concerns in games featuring unlikely buzzer beaters. Does Ennis drilling that three from 35 feet against Pitt make Syracuse "better" than Pittsburgh, despite the fact that it took a pretty unlikely occurrence to happen? I would argue that this does not indicate that at all, but if we're using wins and losses as the only metric, Pitt is punished for losing while Syracuse is handsomely rewarded for winning. In reality, these two teams were very close to one another over the course of 65 possessions and it took a crippling 35 footer to separate the two.

 

[RJKarl]

Again, we are making different assumptions. I assume that games are for the most part arbitrary amounts of time where a finite number of possessions will be played while you attribute far more value to individual wins and losses.

Wrong again! I give more value to an entire season of wins and losses. The reality is whether they are playing a good team or a bad team, if the game is close they lose.

The ONLY numbers that count are the ones on the scoreboard. When the games are close TN loses. Good teams don't lose 10 out of 12 close games. By definition, if you are a Top 30 team you are good. If you are allegedly a Top 15 team, you are supposed to be very good. You can't be considered either going 2-10 in close games.

 

[RJKarl]

Also using wins and losses as dispositive metrics presents some concerns in games featuring unlikely buzzer beaters. Does Ennis drilling that three from 35 feet against Pitt make Syracuse "better" than Pittsburgh, despite the fact that it took a pretty unlikely occurrence to happen? I would argue that this does not indicate that at all, but if we're using wins and losses as the only metric, Pitt is punished for losing while Syracuse is handsomely rewarded for winning. In reality, these two teams were very close to one another over the course of 65 possessions and it took a crippling 35 footer to separate the two.

Now you are the one who wants to use one game versus the season. I've spoken about any one game. It's the total amount of times they have lost.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

I'm going to take the top four seeds and see what their overall record is in games 5 points or closer. I don't know what the result is, and it is still admittedly a small sample size, but I would suspect that the 16 teams will be relatively close to .500 in games 5 points or closer. RJ, it seems you would assume that the top 16 teams (according to the selection committee) will be far greater than .500 in close games right?

ETA: Also this is likely to be more in favor of your position because the tournament committee is more likely to seed teams in the top four that have been "lucky" i.e. had good luck over the course of the year in close games.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Now you are the one who wants to use one game versus the season. I've spoken about any one game. It's the total amount of times they have lost.

Pitt lost three games on buzzer beaters this year, what does that tell us? That we should continue to see Pitt lose on buzzer beaters moving forward?

 

[Milhouse]

it should be more about who a team beat vs who a team is capable of losing to, particularly if losses are close.

but rj knows a coach who knows something else or something

 

[Milhouse]

Pitt lost three games on buzzer beaters this year, what does that tell us? That we should continue to see Pitt lose on buzzer beaters moving forward?

yes because they LOST!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Again, we are making different assumptions. I assume that games are for the most part arbitrary amounts of time where a finite number of possessions will be played while you attribute far more value to individual wins and losses.

I get the usefulness of the rating system, but I disagree with this. If this were the case, then we'd just look at the season as a whole with these offensive and defensive metrics, and not bother with wins and losses. But that is not how the system works. We count wins and losses. I would say that the differences in wins in close games is more about execution and coaching than about luck. And the basket down 2 with 2 seconds left is obviously more important than other possessions.