Seton Hall

[buckchuckler]

Maybe. I think we have improved more than they have. Look at their last 6 games a little closer:

6 point win vs. CREI at home (we won by 8)
22 point loss vs. NOVA at home (we won by 2)
7 point win vs. X at home (we won by 22)
3 point win vs. DEP on the road (we won by 13)
3 point win vs. GTWN at home (we won by 10)
6 point win vs. BUT on the road (we lost by 8)

Honestly, the only game where I think they were impressive was @Butler. The rest were underwhelming results against middle of the conference competition. Seems kind of like Creighton post Mo Watson honestly.

So will the Hall team that beat Butler on the road show up? Or will the Hall team that barely escaped Depaul and Georgetown show up?

Is this the transitive property of basketball theory?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Is this the transitive property of basketball theory?

No. The transitive property of basketball theory would be "We beat Nova, they lost to Nova, we will be Seton Hall." This is a series of data points that indicate we might be better than Seton Hall based on how how we've fared against a group of common opponents. But its very basic and far from conclusive.

Honestly shouldn't have even mentioned our margin of victory. My point was that Seton Hall's winning 5 out of 6 isn't quite as impressive as it sounds on its face. Three of the wins were against teams playing in the first day of the BET and had single digit margins of victory. Two of them were by 1 possession despite being against the two worst teams in the conference, one of which was at home. 1 of their wins was at home against the 6th placed team in the conference. Really they only have one impressive win during this streak and that was their most recent at Butler. Doesn't mean that they aren't dangerous....just not as much as one might assume.

[Benny B]

Awesome.

[buckchuckler]

Honestly shouldn't have even mentioned our margin of victory. My point was that Seton Hall's winning 5 out of 6 isn't quite as impressive as it sounds on its face. Three of the wins were against teams playing in the first day of the BET and had single digit margins of victory. Two of them were by 1 possession despite being against the two worst teams in the conference, one of which was at home. 1 of their wins was at home against the 6th placed team in the conference. Really they only have one impressive win during this streak and that was their most recent at Butler. Doesn't mean that they aren't dangerous....just not as much as one might assume.

Margin of victory is a ridiculous reason to say we may be better.  But anyway...

Ok well, just to be devil's advocate... Maybe our 4 out of 5 wasn't as impressive as it seems.  I mean, 3 of the 4 were against teams playing on the first day of the Big East Tourney (better margins, but then, that doesn't really matter, does it?  Win by 1 win by 50 it is the same thing).  The one other win we had was at home against a team that didn't have its (arguably) most important player. (If you are looking to minimize accomplishments, this is an easy way to do so.)

They beat Creighton, X and Butler in their last 6.  We beat X,X and Creighton in our run.  That is advantage Hall.  Heck, their win at Butler is nearly as impressive as our win over Nova. 

Best not try to minimize the accomplishments of others when your own are just as vulnerable.

[Herman Cain]

We have to get into a transition game. A slower game favors the grind it out strength of Seton Hall.

This is going to be a heckuva of a Big East tournament .

Can't wait to go.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Margin of victory is a ridiculous reason to say we may be better.  But anyway...

Ok well, just to be devil's advocate... Maybe our 4 out of 5 wasn't as impressive as it seems.  I mean, 3 of the 4 were against teams playing on the first day of the Big East Tourney (better margins, but then, that doesn't really matter, does it?  Win by 1 win by 50 it is the same thing).  The one other win we had was at home against a team that didn't have its (arguably) most important player. (If you are looking to minimize accomplishments, this is an easy way to do so.)

They beat Creighton, X and Butler in their last 6.  We beat X,X and Creighton in our run.  That is advantage Hall.  Heck, their win at Butler is nearly as impressive as our win over Nova. 

Best not try to minimize the accomplishments of others when your own are just as vulnerable.

So you assertion is that margin of victory isn't an indication of a better team. That seems suspect. Pretty much every ranking system but RPI uses margin of victory.....and RPI is universally categorized as inaccurate and outdated.

I mean if one team beats Grambling by 30 and one beats Grambling by 1, that wouldn't give you some clue that one team might be a little better than the other? It wouldn't be definitive, because its too small of a sample size, but the more games you add, the more predictive it becomes. Again, this is oversimplified but this very concept is the basis for ranking systems like KP. That's why Marquette is 28 in KP and Seton Hall is 54.

Personally, I think we are playing better ball right now. In our 4 wins, we dominated the competition from coast to coast. Seton Hall squeaked out games against Georgetown (H), Depaul (A), was solid against Creigton (H) and X (H), and was great against Butler (A).

But none of that really matters on Thursday. How either team has played over the past few game doesn't really affect how they will play in the next one. It will depend on which team plays closer to the ceiling of their ability. But I do think that if both teams played an average game for their ability, Marquette would win because they are the better team....especially with Ish Sanogo injured.

[buckchuckler]

So you assertion is that margin of victory isn't an indication of a better team. That seems suspect. Pretty much every ranking system but RPI uses margin of victory.....and RPI is universally categorized as inaccurate and outdated.

I mean if one team beats Grambling by 30 and one beats Grambling by 1, that wouldn't give you some clue that one team might be a little better than the other? It wouldn't be definitive, because its too small of a sample size, but the more games you add, the more predictive it becomes. Again, this is oversimplified but this very concept is the basis for ranking systems like KP. That's why Marquette is 28 in KP and Seton Hall is 54.

Personally, I think we are playing better ball right now. In our 4 wins, we dominated the competition from coast to coast. Seton Hall squeaked out games against Georgetown (H), Depaul (A), was solid against Creigton (H) and X (H), and was great against Butler (A).

But none of that really matters on Thursday. How either team has played over the past few game doesn't really affect how they will play in the next one. It will depend on which team plays closer to the ceiling of their ability. But I do think that if both teams played an average game for their ability, Marquette would win because they are the better team....especially with Ish Sanogo injured.

Do any of those ratings use margin as their primary factor?  Their only factor as you did?
If so thise rankings should be flushed.  Each game is independent of the others.  Thats why transitive property doesn't apply.  Also that is why margin is a poor yard stick.

We are playing well now, probably as well as we have all season.  Hall just had their biggest win, on the road.  They are playing well right now also. 

[mu03eng]

If your premise is that matchup is an important part of the puzzle, I would agree with you. I would also agree that margin of victory alone can't give you the whole picture, not even close. But it is relevant data.

Margin of victory mattas.

I'm not so sure it matters as more than a secondary indicator. Take the first MU-Nova game, we got beat by 12 points but mostly because of a late flurry of 3s by MU....howeva, we also had the #1 offensive performance against Nova that night that they've seen all season. Not sure how margin of victory helps you unpackage that.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Do any of those ratings use margin as their primary factor?  Their only factor as you did?
If so thise rankings should be flushed.  Each game is independent of the others.  Thats why transitive property doesn't apply.  Also that is why margin is a poor yard stick.

We are playing well now, probably as well as we have all season.  Hall just had their biggest win, on the road.  They are playing well right now also.

It is not the only factor but it is one of the primary factors in all of them yes. It is a valid data point. Get enough of them and it paints a good picture. As I've said repeatedly, this is not definitive or scientific proof that we are better than Seton Hall. Just an observation.

Seton Hall played its best basketball of the season in its last game. In the few games before that they played very average basketball for them.

But as you point out, this doesn't matter because each game is independent. Just because we've been playing well and they played great their last time out doesn't have any bearing on how they will perform tomorrow.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm not so sure it matters as more than a secondary indicator. Take the first MU-Nova game, we got beat by 12 points but mostly because of a late flurry of 3s by MU....howeva, we also had the #1 offensive performance against Nova that night that they've seen all season. Not sure how margin of victory helps you unpackage that.

First, I would ask why a late flurry of 3s matters less than an early flurry of 3s.

Second, I would say that the Nova game is one data point. Fairly useless on its own. The more data points you add, the more accurate a picture it becomes.

[Marcus92]

Here is KenPom's explanation of predictive analytics:

http://kenpom.com/blog/ratings-explanation/

You can scroll down about 6 or 7 paragraphs for the key sentence. "The inputs into the pythagorean equation are the team's adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies."

Granted, that is clearly not the same thing as scoring margin. Scoring margin doesn't take into account the site (home, away or neutral), and it's not adjusted for pace or the level of competition. But ultimately, all other factors being equal, a more efficient offense produces more points than a less efficient offense — and wins games by a bigger margin.

That's a tremendous, gigantic simplification. But it's also an easy-to-understand way to differentiate between systems like KenPom and RPI — where offensive/defensive efficiency plays no role whatsoever, only who wins and who loses.

All that said, looking forward to postseason basketball this year. Hopefully MU can make some noise.

[buckchuckler]

It is not the only factor but it is one of the primary factors in all of them yes. It is a valid data point. Get enough of them and it paints a good picture. As I've said repeatedly, this is not definitive or scientific proof that we are better than Seton Hall. Just an observation.

Ok understood.  Good conversation, I guess, I think that while winning margins are data points they arent necessarily linked together, they are just data floating in space, but then, I am no expert and mostly ignorant about most things.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Marquette opens -3.

[ski44]

Marquette opens -3.

O/U 153

[bilsu]

Maybe. I think we have improved more than they have. Look at their last 6 games a little closer:

6 point win vs. CREI at home (we won by 8)
22 point loss vs. NOVA at home (we won by 2)
7 point win vs. X at home (we won by 22)
3 point win vs. DEP on the road (we won by 13)
3 point win vs. GTWN at home (we won by 10)
6 point win vs. BUT on the road (we lost by 8)

Honestly, the only game where I think they were impressive was @Butler. The rest were underwhelming results against middle of the conference competition. Seems kind of like Creighton post Mo Watson honestly.

So will the Hall team that beat Butler on the road show up? Or will the Hall team that barely escaped Depaul and Georgetown show up?

We lost at Georgetown the last game we played them. We beat Georgetown in the opening conference game and I am not sure how this fits into the picture of Seton Hall's last 6 games.

[Benny B]

First, I would ask why a late flurry of 3s matters less than an early flurry of 3s.

Two reasons - though not particularly applicable here:

The easiest way to summarize the first point is to say that "garbage time" cannot - by definition - exist in the first half.  While there's a chance that a late flurry won't have any effect on the outcome of a game, an early flurry will always have an impact on the outcome of a game.  Related to this is that an early flurry is often associated with building a lead while a late flurry is typically associated with playing catch-up, therefore, as a single metric the early flurry would more often be a greater indicator of positive performance than a late flurry would.

Second, when a team shoots from the perimeter, they draw fewer fouls per possession.  Essentially, when you attempt a 3, you miss an opportunity to draw a foul and potentially put an opposing player into foul trouble (which is correlated with higher PPP).  Since coaches will actively manage their bench so as to avoid early foul trouble, there becomes fewer opportunities in the first half.  So you're giving up fewer opportunities to put an opposing player into foul trouble with the early flurry than you are with the late flurry.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

We lost at Georgetown the last game we played them. We beat Georgetown in the opening conference game and I am not sure how this fits into the picture of Seton Hall's last 6 games.

Because where you play a game is significantly more relevant than when the game was played. But again, I shouldn't have put our margins of victory in. I did it just to give people something to compare it to. My point wasn't to say we were better than Hall. My point was to show that Hall's win streak to end the season may not necessarily mean that they are a better basketball team now than they were when we played them.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Two reasons - though not particularly applicable here:

The easiest way to summarize the first point is to say that "garbage time" cannot - by definition - exist in the first half.  While there's a chance that a late flurry won't have any effect on the outcome of a game, an early flurry will always have an impact on the outcome of a game.  Related to this is that an early flurry is often associated with building a lead while a late flurry is typically associated with playing catch-up, therefore, as a single metric the early flurry would more often be a greater indicator of positive performance than a late flurry would.

Second, when a team shoots from the perimeter, they draw fewer fouls per possession.  Essentially, when you attempt a 3, you miss an opportunity to draw a foul and potentially put an opposing player into foul trouble (which is correlated with higher PPP).  Since coaches will actively manage their bench so as to avoid early foul trouble, there becomes fewer opportunities in the first half.  So you're giving up fewer opportunities to put an opposing player into foul trouble with the early flurry than you are with the late flurry.

I personally have never put much stock into the garbage time argument unless walk ons are in the game. Wright kept his starters in until the end (maybe not the last minute). There is no evidence that Marquette's late flurry of threes was because Nova "called off the dogs"  and not because Marquette executed its offense better than Nova executed their defense. I can understand why its reasonable to make that assumption but I don't think its as big of a factor as many think. But more to this conversation, garbage time would be significant because it is a one game example. But it becomes less and less important the more games get added. After all, there were games where we had garbage time against opponents so our margin of victory in those games would have been affected. And most teams that play Nova end up facing Nova in garbage time mode but we were the only one (to my knowledge) that took advantage and cut this big into the deficit.

[Benny B]

Because where you play a game is significantly more relevant than when the game was played. But again, I shouldn't have put our margins of victory in. I did it just to give people something to compare it to. My point wasn't to say we were better than Hall. My point was to show that Hall's win streak to end the season may not necessarily mean that they are a better basketball team now than they were when we played them.

I would argue that the where is more significant to the when only if discussing an early-season game,

i.e. There comes a point where the when is greater than where.

[Goose]

Looks like Golden Avalanche was right on top of the dumpster fire. I hope Wojo is not utilizing Golden's ball knowledge in any of his game planning sessions. Really is amazing the confidence Golden had in his analysis of the SH situation.

[Golden Avalanche]

Looks like Golden Avalanche was right on top of the dumpster fire. I hope Wojo is not utilizing Golden's ball knowledge in any of his game planning sessions. Really is amazing the confidence Golden had in his analysis of the SH situation.

Burn.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Burn.

Didn't look like much of dumpster fire today.

[Golden Avalanche]

Didn't look like much of dumpster fire today.

Today's result is irrelevant. This isn't a game by game referendum, contrary to you two not being bright enough to comprehend. The embers continue to flame in South Orange.

[Goose]

Golden

How do you find the time to be an expert on multiple programs? Hat's off to you, you have a very blessed life.

[bilsu]

Because where you play a game is significantly more relevant than when the game was played. But again, I shouldn't have put our margins of victory in. I did it just to give people something to compare it to. My point wasn't to say we were better than Hall. My point was to show that Hall's win streak to end the season may not necessarily mean that they are a better basketball team now than they were when we played them.

True, but the post started out saying we improved more than Seton Hall and went on to verify this by looking at Seton Hall's last 6 games. The fact that we beat Georgetown the first game of the conference season has nothing to do with improvement in the last 6 games. This certainly was verified in yesturdays game, where Seton Hall certainly looked like they improved more than we did.