Scholarship table
Eye testers vs science - "Screw those meteorologists, I'm staying on the beach. I've been around a bit, and it doesn't even look like rain to me".
Exactly. The advanced matrices say that Derek Jeter isn't that great. All of those hits and all of those rings say differently. Because he is clutch and a true leader and those don't show up in stats.
You've said it, I've said it, others have said it. Marquette's "expectations" last year (as set by the conference coaches, AP, USA Today and some of our flat earth posters) were ridiculous - especially without Blue, Du Wilson and McKay. All the hand wringing over the coach "changing", not trying to win, etc., was nonsense. Buzz the coach was who he always was, Buzz the GM was the guy caught short on talent. Can't wait to see Ners and his posse weigh in and attack Pudner's accurate and prescient analysis of last year's team - had John published them earlier here maybe it could have prevented some of the silliness of the past 8 months.
Player 2013 Value Add Expected Improvement Expected 14 VA Actual 2014 VA Juan Anderson 1.12 31% 1.47 1.1 Davante Gardner 6.13 18% 7.23 4.75 Todd Mayo 0.66 18% 0.78 1.82 Chris Otule 2.06 18% 2.43 0.41 Steve Taylor 1.47 102% 2.97 0.08 Jake Thomas 0.44 18% 0.51 0.77 Derrick Wilson 0.9 31% 1.17 0 Jamil Wilson 4.2 18% 4.96 1.47 TOTALS 16.98 21.52 10.40
I'll be happy to wager anything you or Sultan want regarding Pudner's statistical predictions for this upcoming year putting MU as a 7th place finisher in the Big East. Just let me know what. MU will finish better than 7th. I know you buy into his analysis as THe Bible and foolproof - but I'm happy to go with my eye test analysis. Don't care that we have a rookie coach. Don't care that we lost 4 starters...and our THREE leading scorers off of last year's team.
I am not going to put you on ignore like TAMU, but I am simply not going to engage in debate with you about this stuff any longer. It just wears people out.
You think they will be better then seventh...and you very well might be right! I hardly view his statistics as the Bible. John even said that MU exceeded expectations in Buzz's 2nd year as an example of how no model can be perfect. You don't know how individuals will improve - they aren't robots.The only reason I posted the standings in the first place is because I was astounded as to how accurately his model predicted the actual order of finish. And to use it as a guide for how we might want to predict this year's finish.As for the rest of your usual talking points...
As for the MU projections, most stats people will tell you sample size makes a big difference. Most of the MU players coming back did not have a lot of sample size to work with and I think most of us believe that they are better players than their small sample showed.
Good grief. Am I reading about Sheldon, Leonard, Raj and Howard? Does Penny live across the hall?????This is incredibly ridiculous. The whole schematic suggests a group of people with more time than sense on their hands. Statistically, we stank last year. No ifs ands or buts. We'll stink again this year if we don't improve.If you are going to get THIS technical, then solve for the "Red X" that led to last year's miserable season. Was the performance correlated to talent, coaching or some other factor we need to identify. Remember, only three mistakes in a million tries.
And by the way....the model you are referring to...actually didn't predict things correctly....going into the season the model projected MU would finish with a 21.65 Value Add (without factoring any freshman contribution..and I'd project this projection would have put MU near the top of the Big East pre-season). The issue was that based on the WAY we performed last season, we were only a Value Add of 12.36 - - Think you may want to re-think your understanding of this data. It should predict close to how the standings would rank when based on end of year data turned in, no?
Oh. See I was afraid I didn't understand the data correctly.LOL...nevermind. Thanks for pointing out my error.
I'm curious which "advanced matrices" think Jeter isn't that great.
Time out, I think we all need to reevaluate the data. The 12.36 value add doesn't include the freshmen like Burton, who presumably added value. But even if we ignore that, if our Value Add was suppose to be 21.something and ended up 12.36....we still finished ranked right around where we were predicted to within the Big East. Does this mean the Big East as a whole was down. I think we've got to look at this at a conference level as well. What conferences were predicted to be at preseason per value add and what they ended up being.It's a closed system, if we did worse than predicted but ended up finishing at the predicted ranking, those we are relative to must also have done worse. If they did worse, someone had to do better as a whole.
Defensive ones. He's been crap defensively for years.But agree with everything else you wrote.