KP Frustration

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Because every additional blue-blood road game is one less game that's played at home.  IOW, scheduling for RPI can't be done at the expense of game revenue.

Well seeing as though we've burned a non-con game 2 of the past 3 seasons, this doesn't hold much water.

[Benny B]

Well seeing as though we've burned a non-con game 2 of the past 3 seasons, this doesn't hold much water.

This isn't an all-or-none proposition.  Burning one non-con game is much, much different than burning 3 or 4.  In fact, it's 3 or 4 times the difference.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

This isn't an all-or-none proposition.  Burning one non-con game is much, much different than burning 3 or 4.  In fact, it's 3 or 4 times the difference.

Well they've burn 1 in two of the past three seasons.  If they did a 2 for 1 with a blue blood, it'd be the same amount of homes games lost, but guess what, that 1 on the backend is going to drum up far more interest for the program than Southwest Idaho A&M State. 

Maybe this scenario is not super realistic, but just wish MU scheduled better.  That's it.  I see other teams do it, so it is certainly possible. 

[g0lden3agle]

A couple thoughts/notes.

1) I believe the KenPom ratings include a recency factor. Seem to remember reading something about that in his blog at the beginning of the season.

I didn't realize this was the case but you are right, in a blog post earlier this year he mentioned that the recency factor has been tuned to be even smaller than it used to be.  Does anyone have a link to how that impacts the rankings?  I couldn't seem to find it.

2) Analytics are a big step forward in how we evaluate sports performance. But a system based primarily on points per possession excludes the most important result of any matchup: who actually won the game.

I know KenPom accounts for this to some degree with the Luck factor. But I'm not sure it gives winning or losing enough weight/credit.

Imagine a hypothetical team in an average conference with an average strength of schedule. The team loses every single game by 1 point (say 0-30). If I understand the system at all, KenPom would rate this team somewhere near the middle of the pack — say in the 160 range — with a Luck rating approaching -0.999. But by definition, this isn't an average team; it's the worst team in the country. They couldn't win a game, which is ultimately what counts.

I would argue that a team that plays an average SOS but loses every game by 1 point is not the worst team in the country.  There would be a number of teams that they would be able to beat, because they were good enough to go play-for-play with all the "average" teams in college.

[skianth16]

You don't have to go further than last year's Syracuse team to see an example of the latter.  Lost 5 of 6 heading into the tournament and ended up in the Final Four.

You can also look at UNI last year. They struggled throughout the year, won their conference tournament, and went on to win their first round game against a 20 win Texas team that had 4 top 10 wins on its resume. And then for 39 minutes and 58 seconds they looked poised to make it to the Sweet 16 as well.

Anecdotes are easy to come by in March. But I have to think that in general, the teams playing better in February than November perform better in the tournament than the teams who play well in November and struggle in February.

[GooooMarquette]

We got this.

[Marcus92]

We got this.

Hope you're right. We sure need it.

[Jay Bee]

.
Imagine a hypothetical team in an average conference with an average strength of schedule. The team loses every single game by 1 point (say 0-30). If I understand the system at all, KenPom would rate this team somewhere near the middle of the pack — say in the 160 range — with a Luck rating approaching -0.999. it's the worst team in the country.

Sounds like you may not know the system at all

[bilsu]

Because every additional blue-blood road game is one less game that's played at home.  IOW, scheduling for RPI can't be done at the expense of game revenue.

That would not of been true this year. MU could of scheduled a 31st game, but did not. They simply could of scheduled to play a game at a blue blood and not of had any less home games this year. Giving up a home game is just an excuse.

[BM1090]

That would not of been true this year. MU could of scheduled a 31st game, but did not. They simply could of scheduled to play a game at a blue blood and not of had any less home games this year. Giving up a home game is just an excuse.

They had a game (home and home?) with Utah scheduled, but it either fell through/was delayed. After that, they made the decision to skip the 31st game instead of playing a game that would drag down their RPI.

[Marcus92]

Sounds like you may not know the system at all

I'm always the first to admit a lack of knowledge, especially when it comes to statistical analysis.

But you didn't exactly enlighten anyone with this statement. I'm not trying to be argumentative — just looking for a little explanation beyond "you're wrong." Where did I misrepresent how KenPom evaluates the relative performance of basketball teams?

[Newsdreams]

They had a game (home and home?) with Utah scheduled, but it either fell through/was delayed. After that, they made the decision to skip the 31st game instead of playing a game that would drag down their RPI.

Yes this is correct because of a change in their conf schedule next year would not allow. All that was left at that point were terrible buy games.