• 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!

Wake opens +9

MACdeac said:
Too many wake fans are picking wake to win...this might be a typical lowf blowout. We only have big wins under BzKill when nobody cares
Click to expand...

Seriously, I keep wondering why a Wake win is even a subject of conversation. We must be really bored.

But since it IS a subject of conversation, it is fascinating to think where this day would rank in WF sports history if we had a big football commit added to a win over the #2 team in the nation.
 
RJKarl said:
I cannot fathom that there are only 31 teams that would be 14-6 versus our schedule. That is such crap.

There are probably 100 teams that would have gone at least 10-3 against our OOC schedule. A good portion of them would have won more.
Click to expand...

Of course more than 31 teams would have more than 14 wins. Lots of teams would have positive variance. But the 32nd ranked kenpom team, if starting the season over with our schedule, would have an expected value win total of like 13.9
 
FckVwls said:
Of course more than 31 teams would have more than 14 wins. Lots of teams would have positive variance. But the 32nd ranked kenpom team, if starting the season over with our schedule, would have an expected value win total of like 13.9
Click to expand...

Didn't KenPom say Tony C and Carson have better offensive numbers than Devin?
 
Take your stupid fake ranking argument to another
Thread
 
Ha, you Deacs beat Notre Dame and all of a sudden Cuse is going down?

How does a program with Buzzdick as its coach forget its place? You are bottom of the barrel, with us. There will be no beating Cuse....
 
This @hoover2500 guy is trolling hard.

SsBNjMI2.jpeg
 
DiegoTiger said:
Ha, you Deacs beat Notre Dame and all of a sudden Cuse is going down?

How does a program with Buzzdick as its coach forget its place? You are bottom of the barrel, with us. There will be no beating Cuse....
Click to expand...

Define bottom of the barrel please.
 
In defense of students... They are showing up well tonight also. Not to historically competitive standards though, lol
 
MACdeac said:
Take your stupid fake ranking argument to another
Thread
Click to expand...

It's actually pretty relevant. People all the time on here say "oh we are 14-6 but it was against an easy schedule." But that's annoying because it's pretty wrong. The argument should be "we aren't very good and our run of getting blown out a lot while winning every close winnable game can't continue"
 
*Facepalm*

KenPom ranks teams based on efficiency, not record. That means that point differential is more significant than whether you won or lost the game. Because we have won a bunch of close games (5-0 in games decided by 7 points or less) and have been blown out in a bunch of our losses (4 defeats by 15+), we are a worse team than our record would suggest. Our win expectancy, therefore, if we were to play our previous 20 games over again, would not be 14; it would be lower than that. Likewise, teams better than we are would not be expected to win 14 games in those 20. They would likely drop a close game or two that we won, yet would post higher margins of victory in some of the games we won and smaller margins of defeat in games we lost.

In other words, we are lucky to have won as many games as we have so far. Our point differential would suggest that we are worse than our record. KenPom rates us 23rd nationally in luck.
 
RangersboysWFBB said:
this is kind of a pot meet kettle statement….
Click to expand...

I actually understand it very well. Kenpom doesn't care about wins and losses. It only grades offensive and defensive possessions. A team with offensive and defensive ratings of WF would be 14-6 only very rarely. We have managed to win every close game and have been very lucky.
 
This team is getting better. The staff is developing the kids. mcKie decided to show up. devin staying more under control. Tyler redeeming himself against Clemson showed some balls after getting bitch slapped the year before. Codi staying engaged at end.

I like our chances tonight. Tyler and Devin playing from the middle of that zone. We've got a good chance.

Buzz is not going to stick around. Get behind the kids.

Go Deacs!
 
Last edited:
I can't stop laughing that first someone would have the balls to say, "Hey I've got a formula to figure how lucky your team has been, is and will be for the rest of the season."

That's batshit crazy.

What's even crazier is to believe someone who is saying such nonsense.
 
OldGoldBeard said:
In other words, we are lucky to have won as many games as we have so far. Our point differential would suggest that we are worse than our record. KenPom rates us 23rd nationally in luck.
Click to expand...

If kenpom thinks we are so fucking lucky, why are we stuck with buzz?
 
RJKarl said:
Didn't KenPom say Tony C and Carson have better offensive numbers than Devin?
Click to expand...

This is actually a pet peeve mistake that is frequently made. Tony C has a 110 offensive efficiency rating. Devin has a 101 offensive efficiency rating. This by no means says that Tony C is a better offensive player.

Tony C's usage is only 14% of possessions. It is very easy to have high efficiency on low usage. He only shoots when he's wide open. Aaron Rountree had the highest efficiency of our 7 soph's as a freshman but he is awful at offense and never shoots.

Just like in all advanced NBA stats analysis, usage is crucial.
 
One of the big KenPom guys on here (sorry whomever, can't remember who) explained this to me recently and in doing so admitted that "Luck" is a really poor name for the differential between expectation and actual occurrence, which usually comes about by winning close games.
Winning the close games you're in is undoubtedly a skill or set of skills that is overwhelmingly positive and anything but luck. The term "luck" really does teams a disservice IMO because it sounds flukey and dismissive.
 
I didn't say better offensive player. I said better offensive numbers.

Carson also had better numbers in spite of scoring and boarding less per minute; having a much lower FG%. There is no rational way to create a formula that would make Carson be more efficient than Devin this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top