For you RPI fans

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Come on Lenny, Steve, like John Dawson hadn't earned the minutes in practice.  Steve saw action in a few games since his 16 point Grambling performance - I highly doubt Buzz would have put Taylor on the floor if he was legitimately jeopardizing his career/leg through playing.

At the end of the day, Steve not playing, and Dawson not getting any real PT, were both coaching decisions.  Perhaps the G'Town game gave Buzz enough data to run with Steve and John for more PT.

It was a coaching decision not to risk further injury. Just look at the film on Steve in those few games he played. He clearly favored one leg over the other and did not look comfortable out there. Last night he looked strong. @Butler may have been a coaching decision, but not before that.

Dawson on the other hand, I will hold is a worse PG than D Wil. BUT doesn't have any fatal flaws like Derrick does. Buzz thought playing the better overall PG was the better way to win, but eventually it became clear that his lack of outside shooting effected the team too much. Enter Dawson

[NersEllenson]

It was a coaching decision not to risk further injury. Just look at the film on Steve in those few games he played. He clearly favored one leg over the other and did not look comfortable out there. Last night he looked strong. @Butler may have been a coaching decision, but not before that.

Dawson on the other hand, I will hold is a worse PG than D Wil. BUT doesn't have any fatal flaws like Derrick does. Buzz thought playing the better overall PG was the better way to win, but eventually it became clear that his lack of outside shooting effected the team too much. Enter Dawson

Wow...just wow!  I'd love to hear what skills you feel DW possesses that make him a better PG than Dawson?

As far as Steve - I didn't see a whole lot of difference between the way he played in non-conference and in conference - he just got a much longer stretch of run against GTown and his production increased as it should have.  Steve's never been an explosive athlete - he's a very long armed guy, with good rebounding instincts - his "athleticism" isn't what make him a great player.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Wow...just wow!  I'd love to hear what skills you feel DW possesses that make him a better PG than Dawson?

Defense, handle, court vision, body type, strength, slashing, leadership...list goes on. Look, I now agree with you that Dawson should get more minutes but I don't think he's the overall best PG on the floor.

The best analogy I can come up with comes from a video game. Imagine playing Madden. You have two wide receivers. One has an Overall score of 85 but a speed score of 70/100 (this is almost o-lineman slow). The other has an overall score of 80 but has a speed score of 88/100 (pretty average for a WR). Even though wide receiver 1 is a better overall player, he is almost useless because his speed is so low that he can never get open and just hurts the offense. So despite him being better than his competition, you sit him in favor of wide receiver #2.

I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything, but his shooting is so poor that it makes him almost useless as an offensive player. Ergo, you have to run with Dawson.

Again, this is about RIGHT NOW. Not upside.

[MuMark]

Court vision? You have to be on drugs...seriously......I like Derrick...he is a good kid who plays hard...but he has no court vision...he has no ability to make others better.

He has a better handle at this point and is better on defense...he is stronger........

Bottom line is Derrick is what he is......Dawson is quicker and more skilled in all areas offensively and should only get better. The first 2 possessions of OT were  baskets that never happen if Derrick is in the game. Dawson hits a beautiful step back baseline jumper and then spaces the floor and nails a 3 off a pass from Gardner.

I also like Dawson's swagger (for lack of a better term) on the court. His teammates respond to him....he isn't afraid.

He will make mistakes but so does Derrick.

[NersEllenson]

Defense, handle, court vision, body type, strength, slashing, leadership...list goes on. Look, I now agree with you that Dawson should get more minutes but I don't think he's the overall best PG on the floor.

The best analogy I can come up with comes from a video game. Imagine playing Madden. You have two wide receivers. One has an Overall score of 85 but a speed score of 70/100 (this is almost o-lineman slow). The other has an overall score of 80 but has a speed score of 88/100 (pretty average for a WR). Even though wide receiver 1 is a better overall player, he is almost useless because his speed is so low that he can never get open and just hurts the offense. So despite him being better than his competition, you sit him in favor of wide receiver #2.

I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything, but his shooting is so poor that it makes him almost useless as an offensive player. Ergo, you have to run with Dawson.

Again, this is about RIGHT NOW. Not upside.

This is pure comedy!  I mean you are resorting to making comparisons to a freaking video game.  The ONLY area Derrick may have an advantage on Dawson is physical strength, and a slightly* better defender at this point - which I'd hope after 3 years in the program. 

Seriously TAMU - I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything except shooting!!  Well guess what, shooting is a huge part of basketball.  A bigger part than "leadership," body type, strength..

[Newsdreams]

What happen to RPI? 

[Nukem2]

Defense, handle, court vision, body type, strength, slashing, leadership...list goes on. Look, I now agree with you that Dawson should get more minutes but I don't think he's the overall best PG on the floor.

The best analogy I can come up with comes from a video game. Imagine playing Madden. You have two wide receivers. One has an Overall score of 85 but a speed score of 70/100 (this is almost o-lineman slow). The other has an overall score of 80 but has a speed score of 88/100 (pretty average for a WR). Even though wide receiver 1 is a better overall player, he is almost useless because his speed is so low that he can never get open and just hurts the offense. So despite him being better than his competition, you sit him in favor of wide receiver #2.

I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything, but his shooting is so poor that it makes him almost useless as an offensive player. Ergo, you have to run with Dawson.

Again, this is about RIGHT NOW. Not upside.

Dawson is a much better passer than Derrick.  Knows how to deliver the ball to the right spot on time.  Its called court prescence.  Derrick does not have that.  Derrick's best attributes are in not turning the ball over and defense.  Though his defense is not as good as in the past due to the new rules.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yeah, not playing an injured Steve Taylor Jr was soooo stubborn. Thank God Buzz got over that!

That wasn't my reference to the stubborness.....and I agree with you that Taylor was huge....my STOG.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

We were not one of the last four at large teams in that year. They were UAB, Clemson, VCU and USC who were all in the "play in" games. In addition, Richmond, Utah St and Memphis were 12 seeds so likely in after us. Missouri and Gonzaga were on our line (11). At worst, the 5th last team in, at best the 10th, most likely the 8th.

Respectfully, you are incorrect in several of your comments. 

You are making a false assumption in several areas.  You assume the last four in automatically get play-in games or a seed line of 12 or 13.  Seeding lines can move for other reasons.  For example, Bobinski (last year's chair) admitted that Oregon as a 12th seed was unfortunate and a result of travel and scheduling constraints that moved them from an 11 to a 12. 

Secondly, when there have been play-in games please note where they are sometimes seeded?  2011 is a perfect example, VCU and USC were seeded as 11's.  Doesn't matter that they were a play-in game, they were an 11 seed and one of the last four in, but for seeding purposes despite being one of the last four in they stuck them at an 11 due to the auto qualifiers and where they rated compared to the other seedings.  One cannot just assume the last 4 in are 12 or 13 seed, VCU and USC are prime examples of this.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is pure comedy!  I mean you are resorting to making comparisons to a freaking video game.  The ONLY area Derrick may have an advantage on Dawson is physical strength, and a slightly* better defender at this point - which I'd hope after 3 years in the program. 

Seriously TAMU - I think Derrick is better than Dawson at almost everything except shooting!!  Well guess what, shooting is a huge part of basketball.  A bigger part than "leadership," body type, strength..

I'm not resorting to anything. I thought it was an appropriate analogy so I made it.

The only area Derrick has an advantage in is strength? I humbly disagree. From what I have observed, and from the fact that Buzz, a smarter basketball man than you or I, kept playing him, I would say Derrick has the advantage in most facets of being a point guard, all of which are important.

Unfortunately for Derrick, his shooting is SO poor that it makes his other talents next to useless. He can't slash because his defender is so far off of him. He can't make an entry pass because of the same reason. When the ball is worked into the post, the post can't do anything because Derrick's man is double teaming. The few times where Derrick's defender guarded him honestly, the offense looked great.

I didn't support Dawson before because it wasn't like he had established himself as a shooting threat. His 3P% was hovering somewhere around 13% for awhile. Defesnes weren't going to respect him either and until he could prove that he could make them pay for it, I wasn't willing to give him the nod. But after a 12 point 2/4 from 3P performance, Jay Wright is going to have to pay attention to him and plan for him on Saturday. Dawson will make the offense flow better.

What I am contending is simple. I'm not stubbornly saying to stick with Derrick at point. I want more Dawson! All I am saying is that if Derrick could shoot at even Junior Cadougan levels, the offense would run smoother with him, than with Dawson. But he can't, so Dawson it is.

One more thing, leadership is extremely important at the PG position. You are the quarterback on the floor. Your teammates look to you. I got to sit courtside at the Wooden Legacy and I was very impressed by him. He was the one yelling directions to other players. When a frosh had a freshman moment, D-Wil was the first one on the sideline to support him and give him direction. When Jamil got a dumb foul and was on the verge of mouthing off, D-Wil was in his face telling him to let it go. He even took on the big sheesh when he was having an attitude.

Derrick is the best verbal leader we have on this team. Unfortunately, the other half of leadership is done with your game and Derrick's is not at that level.

[The Equalizer]

RPI is linked to not only how many games you win, but WHO you beat.

This is incorrect.   RPI isn't impacted by who you beat--only who you play.   Our home win against Grambling counts exactly the same as a possible home win against Villanova.

We'll get a positive bump merely by playing Villanova because it will improve our oppponents average w/l percentage.  But a win would count no more than any other home win.

[NersEllenson]

I'm not resorting to anything. I thought it was an appropriate analogy so I made it.

The only area Derrick has an advantage in is strength? I humbly disagree. From what I have observed, and from the fact that Buzz, a smarter basketball man than you or I, kept playing him, I would say Derrick has the advantage in most facets of being a point guard, all of which are important.

Unfortunately for Derrick, his shooting is SO poor that it makes his other talents next to useless. He can't slash because his defender is so far off of him. He can't make an entry pass because of the same reason. When the ball is worked into the post, the post can't do anything because Derrick's man is double teaming. The few times where Derrick's defender guarded him honestly, the offense looked great.

I didn't support Dawson before because it wasn't like he had established himself as a shooting threat. His 3P% was hovering somewhere around 13% for awhile. Defesnes weren't going to respect him either and until he could prove that he could make them pay for it, I wasn't willing to give him the nod. But after a 12 point 2/4 from 3P performance, Jay Wright is going to have to pay attention to him and plan for him on Saturday. Dawson will make the offense flow better.

What I am contending is simple. I'm not stubbornly saying to stick with Derrick at point. I want more Dawson! All I am saying is that if Derrick could shoot at even Junior Cadougan levels, the offense would run smoother with him, than with Dawson. But he can't, so Dawson it is.

One more thing, leadership is extremely important at the PG position. You are the quarterback on the floor. Your teammates look to you. I got to sit courtside at the Wooden Legacy and I was very impressed by him. He was the one yelling directions to other players. When a frosh had a freshman moment, D-Wil was the first one on the sideline to support him and give him direction. When Jamil got a dumb foul and was on the verge of mouthing off, D-Wil was in his face telling him to let it go. He even took on the big sheesh when he was having an attitude.

Derrick is the best verbal leader we have on this team. Unfortunately, the other half of leadership is done with your game and Derrick's is not at that level.

Leaders need to also be productive too - it's hard to take direction from I guy you have serious doubts with regard to their abilities.  Derrick by all accounts is a great kid, and as a result of that has some leadership qualities alone.  Yet in sports, it is really hard for a highly non-productive player to have a lot of leadership credibility in the locker room.

And as for Derrick having good PG qualities - you just listed (bolded above) the basic failures he has as a PG - all of which are very important to being a good PG.  It's almost like saying - he'd be a really good pitcher in baseball, if he just had a better throwing arm!!  You can't be one without the other - yet there are uber quick point guards who aren't great shooters, yet can put a lot of pressure on a defense with their quickness, and savvy.  So - being a great shooter isn't a pre-req to being a great PG - but if you aren't a good shooter as a PG - you better be Peyton Silva good/quick/dynamic in making plays for your teammates.

Furthermore, if you can't see that Dawson has a MUCH better feel for the game, is a much better passer - I guess you'll need to continue to try to reach to video games as analogies.  

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Leaders need to also be productive too - it's hard to take direction from I guy you have serious doubts with regard to their abilities.  Derrick by all accounts is a great kid, and as a result of that has some leadership qualities alone.  Yet in sports, it is really hard for a highly non-productive player to have a lot of leadership credibility in the locker room.

And as for Derrick having good PG qualities - you just listed (bolded above) the basic failures he has as a PG - all of which are very important to being a good PG.  It's almost like saying - he'd be a really good pitcher in baseball, if he just had a better throwing arm!!  You can't be one without the other - yet there are uber quick point guards who aren't great shooters, yet can put a lot of pressure on a defense with their quickness, and savvy.  So - being a great shooter isn't a pre-req to being a great PG - but if you aren't a good shooter as a PG - you better be Peyton Silva good/quick/dynamic in making plays for your teammates.

Furthermore, if you can't see that Dawson has a MUCH better feel for the game, is a much better passer - I guess you'll need to continue to try to reach to video games as analogies.  

Agreed on almost all points. I mentioned in my post about leadership that the other half of it is your game. And Derrick does not have it.

Your second point, I agree with but I'm not sure if we are coming to the same conclusion. My contention is that he is a good passer, is a good slasher, and is a great PG...when defenses play him like a shooter. But he's not a shooter. You mentioned being a great shooter is not a pre-req for a PG. That is true. But being a shooter in general is. If Derrick could shoot even 20% from 3, he would be a great PG. So while I don't agree it's exactly like "he'd be a great pitcher if he had a better throwing arm..." I do see your point.

You can make fun of my video game analogies all you want. I think it fit perfectly in this situation. If I didn't use that, I might have to resort to cliches like "has a better feel for the game."

I'm not sure why my post got you so hot and bothered. I agree with you! You have been proven right! The offense flowed much better with Dawson. I, like most here, are now on the "let's see more of Dawson" train. My post was made because someone was wondering why we didn't see Dawson more. My belief is that Buzz sees Derrick as the better PG. But now he realizes that just because he is the better PG, doesn't mean the offense will flow better with him.

I refuse to believe the popular myth that Buzz is stubborn and will keep talented players out of games just to spite others. If Buzz ever admitted this I would want him fired on the spot. I don't want a coach who puts us in a losing position out of stubborness.

[Benny B]

This is incorrect.   RPI isn't impacted by who you beat--only who you play.   Our home win against Grambling counts exactly the same as a possible home win against Villanova.

We'll get a positive bump merely by playing Villanova because it will improve our oppponents average w/l percentage.  But a win would count no more than any other home win.

This.  Losing at Butler has less of a negative impact on MU's RPI than losing against OSU at home.  The win against Cal State Fullerton will have a greater positive impact on RPI than MU's win against Nova this weekend.  RPI cares about two things: who is on your schedule and what is your (adjusted) W/L record... once your schedule is set, it doesn't matter who you beat or who beats you... it only matters that you got beat or that you beat down.

Yes... in theory, your RPI (raw score) could rise following a loss provided the marginal increase in your opponents' win percentage and opponents' opponents' win percentage offsets the marginal decline in your own W/L percentage; however, I don't know of an instance where this has occurred outside of the first few games of the season.

[onepost]

I'm confused. It doesn't matter WHO you beat anymore? Seriously?? A win at home against Grambling is no different than a win at home against Nova or Creighton, just as long as they are all on our schedule? I feel like that can't be true in the slightest.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm confused. It doesn't matter WHO you beat anymore? Seriously?? A win at home against Grambling is no different than a win at home against Nova or Creighton, just as long as they are all on our schedule? I feel like that can't be true in the slightest.

It matters in the sense that as Grambling continues to get pummeled every game, that dilutes our rating.  Same as a team winning and doing great helps.  Maybe another way to say it is that who you play matters to the extent of what they do in all their games.




RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)

The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP).

For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.

For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).

This weighted record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.

Only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.

[Lennys Tap]

Respectfully, you are incorrect in several of your comments.  

You are making a false assumption in several areas.  You assume the last four in automatically get play-in games or a seed line of 12 or 13.  Seeding lines can move for other reasons.  For example, Bobinski (last year's chair) admitted that Oregon as a 12th seed was unfortunate and a result of travel and scheduling constraints that moved them from an 11 to a 12.  

Secondly, when there have been play-in games please note where they are sometimes seeded?  2011 is a perfect example, VCU and USC were seeded as 11's.  Doesn't matter that they were a play-in game, they were an 11 seed and one of the last four in, but for seeding purposes despite being one of the last four in they stuck them at an 11 due to the auto qualifiers and where they rated compared to the other seedings.  One cannot just assume the last 4 in are 12 or 13 seed, VCU and USC are prime examples of this.

You are right. We could have been the 5th to the last, 10th to the last even 15th to the last. It's possible that teams seeded behind us were in before us and that we were in before teams seeded ahead of us. What we could not have been  (which you posited as "likely") is one of the last 4 in. The last 4 in were the at large teams that were in the play in games.

[onepost]

It matters in the sense that as Grambling continues to get pummeled every game, that dilutes our rating.  Same as a team winning and doing great helps.  Maybe another way to say it is that who you play matters to the extent of what they do in all their games.




RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)

The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP).

For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.

For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).

This weighted record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.

Only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.

That makes sense then. I see that that's how our RPI is calculated, but I was just talking more about quality wins in general and was thrown off when I heard that who we beat doesn't matter. Because we NEED to start stringing together quality/resume wins (Nova, Creighton, Xavier at home would be huge). That was my whole point, looking at things in a tourney resume perspective.

[Jay Bee]

That makes sense then. I see that that's how our RPI is calculated, but I was just talking more about quality wins in general and was thrown off when I heard that who we beat doesn't matter. Because we NEED to start stringing together quality/resume wins (Nova, Creighton, Xavier at home would be huge). That was my whole point, looking at things in a tourney resume perspective.

Yes, you are correct. Who you beat absolutely matters.

RPI is just a barbaric calc that cares a lot about what your opponents do in games that don't involve you. How much will the committee care about the RPI? Don't know. They'll say it's just one thing available to them when selecting and seeding teams... we know they see it on the team sheets. Past that, it depends on the people in the room.

[Benny B]

That makes sense then. I see that that's how our RPI is calculated, but I was just talking more about quality wins in general and was thrown off when I heard that who we beat doesn't matter. Because we NEED to start stringing together quality/resume wins (Nova, Creighton, Xavier at home would be huge). That was my whole point, looking at things in a tourney resume perspective.

Should have locked down the thread right there... but no, you had to go and ruin a perfectly good RPI discussion by looking at things in a tourney resume perspective.

The reason people don't understand RPI is because they don't understand what RPI is.

[Coleman]

It matters in the sense that as Grambling continues to get pummeled every game, that dilutes our rating.  Same as a team winning and doing great helps.  Maybe another way to say it is that who you play matters to the extent of what they do in all their games.




RPI = (WP * 0.25) + (OWP * 0.50) + (OOWP * 0.25)

The basic formula is 25% team winning percentage (WP), 50% opponents' average winning percentage (OWP), and 25% opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP).

For the 2004-05 season, the formula was changed to give more weight to road wins vs home wins. A team's win total for RPI purposes is 1.4 * road wins + neutral site wins + 0.6 * home wins. A team's losses is calculated as 0.6 * road losses + neutral site losses + 1.4 * home losses.

For example, a team that is 4-0 at home and 2-7 on the road has a RPI record of 5.2 wins (1.4 * 2 + 0.6 * 4) and 4.2 losses (0.6 * 7). That means that even though it is 6-7, for RPI purposes, it is above .500 (5.2-4.2).

This weighted record is only used for the 25% of the formula that is each team's winning percentage. The regular team records are used to calculate OWP and OOWP.

Only games against Division I opponents count in the RPI.

This. Of course it matters who you beat in terms of RPI. This is what I meant, and Chicos hit the nail on the head.

[Benny B]

This. Of course it matters who you beat in terms of RPI. This is what I meant, and Chicos hit the nail on the head.

No... that's not what Chicos said.  He said:

Maybe another way to say it is that who you play matters to the extent of what they do in all their games.

Chicos is correct in saying that RPI does take into consideration who you play (irrespective of the outcome of those games) but does not weight your wins and losses based on who you play.  The only weight given to your wins and losses is where you play (home, away or neutral).

As of Jan 22, 2014, MU's RPI is 0.5447.  If MU had beat OSU this past November but lost to IUPUI in December, MU's RPI would be 0.5447.  If MU won against Butler but lost to Georgetown, their RPI would be 0.5447.  If MU lost to GW but beat UNM, their RPI would still be 0.5447.  It makes no difference who you beat... exchange a home, road or neutral win for a win in the same category (home, road or neutral), and your RPI remains unchanged.

Who you schedule (i.e. play) impacts both your RPI and standing with the committee.  Who you beat is important to the committee, but it has no impact on your RPI.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, you are correct. Who you beat absolutely matters.

RPI is just a barbaric calc that cares a lot about what your opponents do in games that don't involve you. How much will the committee care about the RPI? Don't know. They'll say it's just one thing available to them when selecting and seeding teams... we know they see it on the team sheets. Past that, it depends on the people in the room.

I wouldn't call it barbaric, but I would call it incomplete.  Then again, all rating systems have holes in them....the human polls happen to have the biggest holes because humans can only watch so many games and do not computer everything else the team did. 

[Coleman]

Who you beat/who you play...semantics

[ChicosBailBonds]

You are right. We could have been the 5th to the last, 10th to the last even 15th to the last. It's possible that teams seeded behind us were in before us and that we were in before teams seeded ahead of us. What we could not have been  (which you posited as "likely") is one of the last 4 in. The last 4 in were the at large teams that were in the play in games.

Respectfully, what I posted was that Lunardi or CBS, can't remember, stated were one of the last 4 in.  In some years the Chairperson will come right out and say who the last four in were (when asked), in other years the do not.

That particular year they did not identify all four, but did mention USC and VCU, who also got 11 seeds...same seed we got.  I think this is why Lunardi or whomever it was (I'll try to find attribution) said we were one of the last four in.