MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Marcus92 on May 23, 2017, 02:40:11 PM
-
Where was Marquette predicted to finish in the Big East last season? I just happen to have made some screen caps last fall answering that very question. (Attached in the following posts.)
Of the 9 predictions here, 5 picked MU to finish 7th. Athlon and Matchup Zone predicted 5th in the conference. Garry Parrish predicted 6th. Matt Norlander predicted 8th. Those that specified the number of total regular season or conference wins were surprisingly close.
-
Athlon's prediction: a 5th place Big East finish.
-
CBS was short on specifics, not on opinions.
-
KenPom picked MU to finish 18-11, 9-9 in Big East play (7th in the conference).
-
Matchup Zone picked MU to finish 17-12, 9-9 (5th in the Big East).
-
Sports Illustrated picked us for 7th in the Big East (9-9).
-
T-Rank picked Marquette to finish 17-12, 9-9 (7th in the Big East).
-
A couple more:
USA Today (8th in the Big East):
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigeast/2016/10/31/big-east-conference-college-basketball-season-preview-2016-17/92788038/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigeast/2016/10/31/big-east-conference-college-basketball-season-preview-2016-17/92788038/)
Big East coaches (7th):
http://www.bigeast.com/news/2016/10/10/MBB_1010164924.aspx (http://www.bigeast.com/news/2016/10/10/MBB_1010164924.aspx)
-
Had Creighton and Xavier not lost their point guards a 7th place finish would of been correct.
-
Had Creighton and Xavier not lost their point guards a 7th place finish would of been correct.
Impossible to know. Providence also benefitted from those injuries. And you never know if either Sumner or Watson would have played poorly. Marquette might win even if they played even well. But we'll never know.
-
Impossible to know. Providence also benefitted from those injuries. And you never know if either Sumner or Watson would have played poorly. Marquette might win even if they played even well. But we'll never know.
True, but without looking I expect no other team had 4 games against those teams after the injuries. The schedule broke perfectly for MU.
-
True, but without looking I expect no other team had 4 games against those teams after the injuries. The schedule broke perfectly for MU.
I agree that MU benefitted from the way the schedule broke. But the slippery floor game at Providence was a bit of bad luck. We could play the what if game all day. What if JJJ didn't give Georgetown bulletin board material by calling their defense lazy? What if Wojo would have drawn up a play for Rowsey at the end of the first Providence game? And, so on...
-
Who is going to post the preseason Scooper predictions?
-
Who is going to post the preseason Scooper predictions?
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52524.0 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=52524.0)
23% of scoopers correctly predicted the Nova upset.
A high number even with B&G goggles on.
-
I agree that MU benefitted from the way the schedule broke. But the slippery floor game at Providence was a bit of bad luck. We could play the what if game all day. What if JJJ didn't give Georgetown bulletin board material by calling their defense lazy? What if Wojo would have drawn up a play for Rowsey at the end of the first Providence game? And, so on...
We definitely got screwed in that game. The refs gave the ball back to Providence several times and I do not remember them giving it back to us at all.
They slipped on offense and it did not matter if we slipped on defense. Providence did slip more, because they tried to drive, so it did have an effect on their game.
Outside shooting kept us from slipping, but we were not given any second chances.
-
We definitely got screwed in that game. The refs gave the ball back to Providence several times and I do not remember them giving it back to us at all.
They slipped on offense and it did not matter if we slipped on defense. Providence did slip more, because they tried to drive, so it did have an effect on their game.
Outside shooting kept us from slipping, but we were not given any second chances.
The slipping rules were stupid, but Wojo agreed to them
-
It's pretty amazing they agreed to tip off, let alone finish the game. Those were by far the most dangerous playing conditions I've ever witnessed on a basketball court. Fortunate nobody got hurt.
-
Impossible to know. Providence also benefitted from those injuries. And you never know if either Sumner or Watson would have played poorly. Marquette might win even if they played even well. But we'll never know.
This.
The only thing we can know for certain is what happened. We could have won several games we lost and could have lost several games we won.
-
This.
The only thing we can know for certain is what happened. We could have won several games we lost and could have lost several games we won.
Of course. OTOH, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that Creighton (with Watson) and Xavier (with Sumner and Bluiett) were much better than us. The odds of going 4-0 against them would have been staggering.
And if Scoop limits its discussions to what we "know" this would be a nearly empty and exceedingly boring place to visit.
-
True, but without looking I expect no other team had 4 games against those teams after the injuries. The schedule broke perfectly for MU.
A completely reasonable hypothesis. I could also make the argument that if those injuries hadn't happened we still could have gone 4-0 against them and the wins would have been a lot more impressive possibly leading to higher seeding. Maybe even 3-1 would have been just as impressive. I mean we smoked Xavier twice, the Creighton games were closer but we led both nearly coast to coast IIRC. Impossible to know how those games would have ended up. So its possible the injuries hurt us.
-
We lost quite a few games after Haani's confidence was badly sprained!
-
A completely reasonable hypothesis. I could also make the argument that if those injuries hadn't happened we still could have gone 4-0 against them and the wins would have been a lot more impressive possibly leading to higher seeding. Maybe even 3-1 would have been just as impressive. I mean we smoked Xavier twice, the Creighton games were closer but we led both nearly coast to coast IIRC. Impossible to know how those games would have ended up. So its possible the injuries hurt us.
You could make the argument we would have gone 4-0 vs Xavier and Creighton if they hadn't lost their best players. And you could make the argument that those injuries hurt us (and I guess by extension helped Xavier and Creighton). They would be silly arguments with no basis in fact, but you could make them. In fact, you just did!
-
You could make the argument we would have gone 4-0 vs Xavier and Creighton if they hadn't lost their best players. And you could make the argument that those injuries hurt us (and I guess by extension helped Xavier and Creighton). They would be silly arguments with no basis in fact, but you could make them. In fact, you just did!
They are silly with no basis in fact. Just as saying we would go 0-4 against them would be silly with no basis in fact. Unless you have the ability to see alternate dimensions, there are no facts to be had in this conversation.
-
They are silly with no basis in fact. Just as saying we would go 0-4 against them would be silly with no basis in fact. Unless you have the ability to see alternate dimensions, there are no facts to be had in this conversation.
Plenty of facts:
1. Creighton, with Watson, was a better basketball team than us last year.
2. Watson was their best player.
3. They became a much worse team after they lost Watson.
4. We got to play the much worse version of their team twice.
5. We went 2-0 against the much worse version of their team.
6. The odds against us beating Creighton both home and road with Watson would have been slim, by my calculation approximately 15-1.
Deduction: we got lucky, and anyone who doubts it is being foolish.
Regarding Xavier, see above, rinse and repeat subbing Bluiett and Sumner for Watson.
-
Plenty of facts:
1. Creighton, with Watson, was a better basketball team than us last year.
2. Watson was their best player.
3. They became a much worse team after they lost Watson.
4. We got to play the much worse version of their team twice.
5. We went 2-0 against the much worse version of their team.
6. The odds against us beating Creighton both home and road with Watson would have been slim, by my calculation approximately 15-1.
Deduction: we got lucky, and anyone who doubts it is being foolish.
Regarding Xavier, see above, rinse and repeat subbing Bluiett and Sumner for Watson.
Those are facts. None of them can you get to the conclusion that we would haven't still gone 4-0 against Creighton/Xavier. You can make an educated guess. But that's all it is, a guess. Basketball is not played on paper. We were a significantly better team than Providence last year but we still went 0-2 against them.
Personally, I think we would have gone 3-1 against them if they had been fully healthy. Which probably would have been just as favorable as going 4-0 against them being depleted.
-
Those are facts. None of them can you get to the conclusion that we would haven't still gone 4-0 against Creighton/Xavier. You can make an educated guess. But that's all it is, a guess. Basketball is not played on paper. We were a significantly better team than Providence last year but we still went 0-2 against them.
Personally, I think we would have gone 3-1 against them if they had been fully healthy. Which probably would have been just as favorable as going 4-0 against them being depleted.
Odds say the most educated guess would be 1-3. Next would be 0-4, then 2-2. Second least educated guess would be 3-1 (6% chance of occurring - .1x.1x.5 +.1x.1x.5 + .5x.5x.1 + .5x.5x.1 = .005 +.005 +.025 +.025 =.06) beating out only 4-0, which would occur approximately 2.5 times per thousand (.1x.1x.5x.5 =.0025).
Certainly anything is possible, but the people who turn facts into probabilities in Vegas for a living would say you have an extremely low probability of being right. That's a fact.
-
Basketball is not played on paper.
Basketball is played on the precursor to paper, depending on the mill.
-
Odds say the most educated guess would be 1-3. Next would be 0-4, then 2-2. Second least educated guess would be 3-1 (6% chance of occurring - .1x.1x.5 +.1x.1x.5 + .5x.5x.1 + .5x.5x.1 = .005 +.005 +.025 +.025 =.06) beating out only 4-0, which would occur approximately 2.5 times per thousand (.1x.1x.5x.5 =.0025).
Certainly anything is possible, but the people who turn facts into probabilities in Vegas for a living would say you have an extremely low probability of being right. That's a fact.
I have no idea what all those numbers are or where they came from. I don't care about gambling odds. They aren't real stats.
Let's use actual stats.
Mo Watson had a Value Add of 4.87 points per game last season. We beat Creighton by 8 twice.
Trevonn Blueitt had a Value Add of 7.17 points per game. Edmond Sumner had a value add of 6.49 for a total of 13.66. We beat Xavier by 22 the first game.
Edmond Sumner had a value add of 6.49. We beat Xavier by 11 the second time.
Now I am not suggesting that this is proof that we would have gone 4-0 against Creighton and Xavier had they been fully healthy. That is impossible to say. Which has always been the point I was making. We have NO idea what happens if Waston/Sumner don't go down. We can make guesses but that is all they are, guesses.
-
Timing in life is everything. ;D
-
I have no idea what all those numbers are or where they came from. I don't care about gambling odds. They aren't real stats.
Just because you don't understand predictive statistics (Pomeroy, Nate Silver, etc.) or simple multiplication doesn't make them "not real".
Let me explain what those numbers are and where they came from. With their full rosters, Xavier and Creighton were approx. 10 point favorites vs MU at home and 1-2 point favorites on the road. This means (accordinding to real statisticians like Pomeroy or Silver)) that MU had roughly a 12% chance to win the 2 road games and a 45% chance to win the 2 home games. I rounded the road games down to 10% and the home games up to 50% for simplicity. So the mathematical chance that MU would have gone 4-0 given those odds are .1 (10%) x .1 (10%) x.5 (50%) x .5 (50%). So the fair value over/under on how many times Marquette would win all 4 of those games if X and Creighton are at full strength is 2.5 times per thousand. Conversely, the fair over/under on MU going 0-4 is .9 X .9 x .5 x .5 (202.5 per thousand)
You can dismiss these as "gambling odds" but I let you wager versus Vegas if you let me wager versus whatever formula you care to use. If your numbers don't jibe with Pomeroy's, Silver's, Caesar's, etc., you'll end up very broke and I'll end up very rich.
-
So the mathematical chance that MU would have gone 4-0 given those odds are .1 (10%) x .1 (10%) x.5 (50%) x .5 (50%). So the fair value over/under on how many times Marquette would win all 4 of those games if X and Creighton are at full strength is 2.5 times per thousand.
That could be the case for any set of games. If we were 60% favorites in four home games, we'd only go 4-0 12% of the time.
I think it's significant that we didn't just win those games, we won them fairly comfortably. Might one or two players have made a huge difference? Sure. Entirely possible. But certainly not a given. No matter what the percentages say.
-
That could be the case for any set of games. If we were 60% favorites in four home games, we'd only go 4-0 12% of the time.
I think it's significant that we didn't just win those games, we won them fairly comfortably. Might one or two players have made a huge difference? Sure. Entirely possible. But certainly not a given. No matter what the percentages say.
As to paragraph #1 - 12.96% of the time to be exact, so 13% is more correct. Those are the true (and fair) odds of such an occurrence (given your probabilities) happening.
As to paragraph #2 - meaningless, besides the point information/speculation /opinion that does nothing to alter the indisputable fact that the odds/chances of a team winning 4 straight if the games are pick 'em, pick 'em, +10 and +10 are around 400-1 (2.5 in 1000).
-
It's exactly as meaningless as the speculation of what might have happened had unavailable players played, and the presumption that odds always go to form (I'd point to our odds of beating 'Nova when we were down 17).
The reality is what happened, not what might have happened. If nothing else, it's only worth even discussing for three of the games. Watson was never going to play the season finale with a felony hanging over his head, regardless of his health.
-
A look back at LNH's Preseason Predictions:
http://latenighthoops.com/revisiting-marquettes-2016-17-preseason-projections/#.WSro_-srLIU (http://latenighthoops.com/revisiting-marquettes-2016-17-preseason-projections/#.WSro_-srLIU)
"We said, “A net improvement of 2.5% in eFG% differential means a +5.8% and places Marquette in or around the top 35 of eFG% differential, by far the most important of the four factors. Do that, and they are in business even without improvement in rebounding.”
As of Selection Sunday, Marquette’s actual eFG% differential was 5.7% (57.6% on offense, 51.9% on defense) and they were selected to the tourney’s field."
-
Thanks for posting, Jay Bee. Still love the reference to Katin's rebounding allergy. This season will be tough to predict. JaJuan, Katin and Luke were all among the team's leaders in minutes, possessions and shots. But none of them had complete games.
JaJuan's inside-outside game, rebounding, passing and steals were compromised by inconsistent shooting and turnovers. Katin's offensive prowess was offset by a low free throw rate and the lowest defensive rebounding percentage on the team — behind Markus Howard and tied with Andrew Rowsey. And while Luke had one of the team's highest offensive ratings, he never developed into a strong rebounder.
Returning players Markus Howard, Andrew Rowsey, Haanif Cheatham, Sam Hauser and Matt Heldt provide a strong foundation to build on — with plenty of game experience between them. But the team will need solid contributions from multiple unproven newcomers to make it back to the NCAA tournament.