collapse

* Resources


UDM 4

* 2018-2019 SOTG


2018-19 Season SoG Tally
Howard11
S Hauser4
John4
Anim3
Chartouny2

'17-18 * '16-17 *
'15-16'14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Recruiting as of 7/15/19 by MU82
[Today at 01:09:10 AM]


Theo John, less fat, more muscle by wadesworld
[Today at 12:42:21 AM]


Big East Is The Winner In This Round Of Conference Expansion by source?
[July 20, 2019, 11:21:33 PM]


TBT 2019 by #UnleashCain
[July 20, 2019, 11:13:42 PM]


[Paint Touches] MU All-Decade Team by PTM
[July 20, 2019, 08:30:41 PM]


Wojo, Mediocrity and Peer Out Performance - Part Two by Lennys Tap
[July 20, 2019, 08:03:09 PM]


NM by 4everwarriors
[July 20, 2019, 06:17:54 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
Marquette

Madness

Date/Time: Oct 4, 2019
TV: ???
Schedule for 2018-19
24-10

Author Topic: Net Ranking  (Read 7332 times)

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #100 on: February 12, 2019, 09:39:43 AM »
So talent should trump performance when it comes to NCAA selection and seeding?


When two teams are VERY VERY close by the #'s, and there really isn't a determiner that separates one from the over using the #'s, yes, talent absolutely should win out.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

HowardsWorld

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #101 on: February 12, 2019, 09:40:02 AM »
Yes, that is very accurate...basically as I like to put it...under all equal circumstances, let's roll the ball out and go play, mano e mano, no sets no nothing...just play. Under these circumstances the more talented team will win 99.9% of the time.

That's what I like to judge teams on...their talent level. I understand and accept the computer models for what they are..but when I watch a game before the game starts, using my knowledge of the teams/players involved I think "okay, they SHOULD win this game, based on the talent level I know they have". Doesn't mean they will, but they absolutely should.

Every year when I get into an NCAA bracket pool, my pick for National Champion is never based on matchups(like the tourney really is), it's based on who I perceive to have the most talent in the field, because all things being equal, I will take that talent over everything else.

Guessing you haven't had much luck with that theory.

jsglow

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7057
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #102 on: February 12, 2019, 09:49:48 AM »
When the world runs out of Cloud space because you guys are still arguing I'm going to be pissed.  ::)

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
  • Has your band begun to rust?
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #103 on: February 12, 2019, 09:51:11 AM »

When two teams are VERY VERY close by the #'s, and there really isn't a determiner that separates one from the over using the #'s, yes, talent absolutely should win out.


But in your example, there was such a determiner.  One more Q1 win.  So you are saying that this performance should be overlooked, for the sake of a team that is more talented. All other things being equal of course.

BTW, I'm not being critical.  I'm enjoying the debate!

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #104 on: February 12, 2019, 09:51:55 AM »
Guessing you haven't had much luck with that theory.

Wanna bet?? I haven't hit on them all, but more often than not I have. You have to remember, not everyone sees the same teams as the most talented.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

THRILLHO

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • twitter feed
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #105 on: February 12, 2019, 09:57:23 AM »
I understand that some people find this an interesting and valuable discussion. To everyone else, I'll just remind you:

Profile->Buddies/Ignore List->Edit Ignore List->'muguru' Add

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
  • Merry Christmas to ALL and to ALL a goodnight
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #106 on: February 12, 2019, 10:01:06 AM »
Did Michigan have better talent than App State?  Marquette vs Miami (OH)?  Virginia vs Chaminade?

Why go that far back, UMBC vs Virginia last year perfect example.  Michigan has better talent than Wisconsin and Uw-Madison beat them at the Kohl hole a few weeks ago.
"The tournament is a crapshoot. It shouldn't be everything. It's such a shallow thing to pin everything on."
Gonzaga Head Coach Mark Few

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #107 on: February 12, 2019, 10:25:27 AM »
Why go that far back, UMBC vs Virginia last year perfect example.  Michigan has better talent than Wisconsin and Uw-Madison beat them at the Kohl hole a few weeks ago.

Yes...and your point is?? I have stated numerous times that the more talented team doesn't always win. The more talented team however SHOULD always win, all things being equal.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

TAMU Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15723
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #108 on: February 12, 2019, 10:34:13 AM »
Yes, that is very accurate...basically as I like to put it...under all equal circumstances, let's roll the ball out and go play, mano e mano, no sets no nothing...just play. Under these circumstances the more talented team will win 99.9% of the time.

So help me understand the bolded. What does under all equal circumstances mean? Do you just mean if both teams are at 100%? Or do you mean that if both teams play to the best of their abilities?

With the first option I would say you are wrong about the 99.9% number. Just look at Marquette. I would guess that you would say that Marquette has been more talented than every team they have played this season except for Kansas. In non Kansas games, Marquette is 19-3. That is 86.3%. In games against non-cupcakes that would be 12-3 or 80% Even though Marquette was more talented than St. John's and Indiana they lost three times (and badly two of those games). Just because a team is more talented, doesn't mean that they will play to their talent level every game.

With the second option, I would say duh. Of course the team with the higher ceiling would win every game if they played to the best of their abilities every game. But they don't. Sometime an inferior team plays close to their ceiling and the superior team plays close to their floor and the inferior team wins. You can't just dismiss that game an anomaly.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

TAMU Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15723
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #109 on: February 12, 2019, 10:40:32 AM »
Yes...and your point is?? I have stated numerous times that the more talented team doesn't always win. The more talented team however SHOULD always win, all things being equal.

What I'm sensing here is that you think teams should always play to their ceiling. These aren't robots, they aren't going to be at their best every night.

Every team has a ceiling. Every team has a floor. Most nights, teams play somewhere between those two extremes. So if an inferior team is playing close to their ceiling and the superior team is playing close to their floor, the inferior team may when. Or if the inferior team plays their average and the superior team plays near their floor the inferior team could win. Or the inferior team plays near their ceiling and the superior team plays near their average the inferior team could win. Or the inferior team could play near their floor but the superior team plays even closer to their floor....and on and on and on. This is why probabilities matter, because teams don't put up the same performances every night. How well they play varies from game to game.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

TAMU Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15723
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #110 on: February 12, 2019, 10:48:43 AM »
In regards to the NCAA tournament...this is where I have an issue with "#'s". Almost every decision they make is numbers driven...who's in, who's out, where is a team seeded etc. That's fine except, #'s don't always tell the whole story. That's why I would like to see the committee made up of basketball people. Former players, Coaches, commentators etc. people that see these teams on a regular basis, or can watch a game or two or whatever and KNOW that team is more or less talented then their computer #'s say they are.

Now granted, we can't just hand out invitations to teams that don't have winning records because someone thinks they are talented enough to be a tournament team. That's not the way the process works. However, if it is close between two teams for the last spot, or a seeding or something, instead of looking at the #'s and saying "okay team X here has one more Q1 one win than team Y, so I give them the nod". How about we look at them and say "I know what the numbers are telling us here, but..this team is more talented than that team, and based on that(because the numbers are all pretty close), they should be in". That's all I'm saying.

Here's where I think we disagree most. I don't think the best teams should go to the NCAA tournament. I think the teams that have earned it should go to the NCAA tournament.

My personal example is Texas. My personal eye test says there is a lot of talent on that team. I watched them beat North Carolina earlier this year and handle Kansas a few weeks ago and I see a very talented roster. I think when they are on they can beat almost anyone in the country. But I can't ignore the fact that they also lost to Radford, VCU, and Providence all at home! Their resume makes them a tournament team but only just barely, even though I think they have a lot of talent.

I also think you over worry about the numbers and selection. The committee uses a lot of different numbers to judge a team's resume. If they went strictly by NET, we would be 6 seed. Kenpom would have us as an 8 seed. But the committee just told us that we are a 3 seed. The NET, KenPom, Sagarin, etc are all just different tools for evaluating teams. No one is saying we should use just them for selection/seeding.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

Lazar's Headband

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2564
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #111 on: February 12, 2019, 10:49:32 AM »
For the record,  the computers all have Nevada ranked between 12-17.

Pops Sims

  • Walk-On
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #112 on: February 12, 2019, 10:58:09 AM »
I never said KU would win emphatically(ie a blowout). I was simply emphatic that KU would win they game. At the end of the day...they did. I come out looking bad?? I stated unequivocally that KU would win the game. Pomeroy's model was more accurate?? Boy you really drink the f'n kool aid don't you?? Pomeroy's model had the probability that TCU would win the game...they didn't. I said that was wrong, and it was proven out. So if you want to slobber all over a "model" that says the probabilities of a lessor talented team beats a more talented team, be my guest. Any predicative model that more often then not, has a lessor talented team beating a more talented team simply because the lessor talented team is on their home floor, is absolutely flawed.

The perfect example as I cited previously was last years MU@UW game. UW was like a 3 or 4 point favorite if I remember right. Who in the F made that line?? Pomeroy's "wonderful" model had UW winning that game as well. His model is broken. there was ZERO possibility a That UW team was going to beat MU. Especially after both Guards were declared out. Simply the easiest $$ I have ever made in my life.

Now, Pomeroy is also wrong tonight...MSU WILL beat UW. Why? Because MSU has more talent. It's that simple. Period.

Maybe make another bet, win more $$$...

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9430
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #113 on: February 12, 2019, 11:29:22 AM »
You don't seem to understand probabilities vs predictions, that is your fundamental flaw.  Pomeroy didn't predict Kansas would lose, it gave the probability of it happening at 51%, but you ignore the 49% that said it would win.  Fundamental. 



Exactly. For all intents and purposes Pomeroy called the game a coin flip. The game was tied at the end of regulation. So, basically dead on.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #114 on: February 12, 2019, 11:40:46 AM »
So help me understand the bolded. What does under all equal circumstances mean? Do you just mean if both teams are at 100%? Or do you mean that if both teams play to the best of their abilities?

With the first option I would say you are wrong about the 99.9% number. Just look at Marquette. I would guess that you would say that Marquette has been more talented than every team they have played this season except for Kansas. In non Kansas games, Marquette is 19-3. That is 86.3%. In games against non-cupcakes that would be 12-3 or 80% Even though Marquette was more talented than St. John's and Indiana they lost three times (and badly two of those games). Just because a team is more talented, doesn't mean that they will play to their talent level every game.

With the second option, I would say duh. Of course the team with the higher ceiling would win every game if they played to the best of their abilities every game. But they don't. Sometime an inferior team plays close to their ceiling and the superior team plays close to their floor and the inferior team wins. You can't just dismiss that game an anomaly.

To me, all equal circumstances means everything is equal...the game is played on a neutral floor, both teams at full strength etc. Now you might say "but that's not the way it works, games are played in away teams arenas". That is correct. But that's where, at least for me, being able to tell who's talented(and by how much), matters. Can that teams superior talent make up for home court advantage etc. Can their pure talent overcome all obstacles even if they don't play their best??

I understand why probabilities hold some clout. But for me, I trust my eyes and my evaluations of teams. Let's use an example...when MU played Georgetown, many in the game thread that night figured MU was done as soon as Markus went out. I, however stated it was a game MU still should/would win. I even said Sam would take over the game. He did. You might think I just got lucky or whatever. That's fine, I understand why you'd think that. But that wasn't it...my eyes/ability to judge talent, told me even without Markus(I promise you the computer model probabilities at that point would have been sky high against MU), MU still had more talent than Georgetown even at full strength. And I also felt the talent discrepancy was enough to make up for the game being AT Georgetown.

How I judge a game as to who should win or lose is by relying on my eyes, and what I have seen with both teams to that point. Am I always right?? Absolutely 100% definitely not. That being said, based off MY(and only my) evaluations, there are times when I think the % probabilities of kenpom etc are off by a significant margin. Last night's Kansas-TCU game is a good example. Kenpom had it as a virtual coin flip(ie 50% probability TCU wins based on his model). Judging by what I have seen from both teams this year, my eyes told me that that probability was too high. I would have had it at more 25% chance TCU wins. When I see #'s like that, is when I confidently(at least to me) proclaim that I think the team that he doesn't have projected to win will win. I never assumed it wouldn't be a close game. But even if it was, I told myself that I felt Kansas's talent level was superior enough to TCU's that they would win the game.

Tonight...he has UW beating Michigan State 66-65 with a 50% probability. So a coin flip. For me, it's not as close as his model says it will be. First of all, I think MSU wins that game, and secondly I think the probability is closer to 65% MSU. That's just the way I see it. Others may not, and that's fine. I will say something like 72-64 MSU.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #115 on: February 12, 2019, 11:43:08 AM »
Exactly. For all intents and purposes Pomeroy called the game a coin flip. The game was tied at the end of regulation. So, basically dead on.

No, I wasn't ignoring it..I just felt that his probability %'s were off by a significant margin in this one. I felt it was closer to 60% chance Kansas would win, based on what I know about both teams etc..That's why I felt confident Kansas would win, I trusted my eyes and my evaluations of those two teams.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

Its DJOver

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #116 on: February 12, 2019, 11:46:41 AM »
Judging by what I have seen from both teams this year, my eyes told me that that probability was too high. I would have had it at more 25% chance TCU wins.

No, I wasn't ignoring it..I just felt that his probability %'s were off by a significant margin in this one. I felt it was closer to 60% chance Kansas would win, based on what I know about both teams etc..That's why I felt confident Kansas would win, I trusted my eyes and my evaluations of those two teams.

Did they chance the way percentages work in the 3 minutes between these posts?

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11662
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #117 on: February 12, 2019, 12:08:46 PM »
Have you read some of the posts here?? A lot of people are shocked that they are in the top 10, and saying how they are "overachieving"

Nice goalpost shifting!

In your earlier post, you didn't say "a lot of people are shocked." You said, "ALMOST NO ONE even thought this MU team would be this good."

You said that despite an entire thread of evidence that a lot of Scoopers thought the team would be this good (as opposed to almost no one). You make it sound like the majority of us are absolutely stunned that we are contending for the BEast title and a high seed when many of us said publicly that's exactly what we expected.

Of course, you interjected that you -- who has forgotten more basketball than any of us will ever know -- absolutely did think MU would be this good:

"I told many people privately long before the season started that they were going to be talented enough to be a top-10 team at some point..lo and behold..here we are."

How convenient! While others made their predictions publicly, you made yours privately.

What you have done here is set yourself up for your two favorite things in the world:

1. Rooting for the Warriors.

2. Beyotching that the Warriors aren't good enough to meet your standards -- which you think are higher than anybody else's because you're the "most competitive" fan in the world.

Not necessarily in that order, because it sure seems that you get more jollies beyotching than you actually do watching us win games.

guru, this thread has really been something to behold. It has added just about zero to the discussion about NET rankings, but it has given us yet more insight into your psyche, my friend.
"We need journalists who are on the side of victims, on the side of those who are persecuted, excluded, thrown away and discriminated against ... situations of suffering that often are in the dark, or have light shining for a moment only to return to the darkness of indifference."

-- Pope Francis

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 19254
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #118 on: February 12, 2019, 12:16:19 PM »
I come out looking bad??

Yes. I'm glad you get that.

Pomeroy's model was accurate within one point of the score after 40 minutes. On the same measure, you were wrong. Kansas did not win by that measure. So try again, you were wrong.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 19254
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #119 on: February 12, 2019, 12:17:07 PM »
Until you incorporate margins to your predictions, they are useless.

HowardsWorld

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #120 on: February 12, 2019, 12:18:02 PM »
Pomeroy should have nailed this 100% but TCU had a mental meltdown. They had the lead 69-65 with 1 minute on the clock and turned it over twice. Cost them the game.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #121 on: February 12, 2019, 12:19:43 PM »
Nice goalpost shifting!

In your earlier post, you didn't say "a lot of people are shocked." You said, "ALMOST NO ONE even thought this MU team would be this good."

You said that despite an entire thread of evidence that a lot of Scoopers thought the team would be this good (as opposed to almost no one). You make it sound like the majority of us are absolutely stunned that we are contending for the BEast title and a high seed when many of us said publicly that's exactly what we expected.

Of course, you interjected that you -- who has forgotten more basketball than any of us will ever know -- absolutely did think MU would be this good:

"I told many people privately long before the season started that they were going to be talented enough to be a top-10 team at some point..lo and behold..here we are."

How convenient! While others made their predictions publicly, you made yours privately.

What you have done here is set yourself up for your two favorite things in the world:

1. Rooting for the Warriors.

2. Beyotching that the Warriors aren't good enough to meet your standards -- which you think are higher than anybody else's because you're the "most competitive" fan in the world.

Not necessarily in that order, because it sure seems that you get more jollies beyotching than you actually do watching us win games.

guru, this thread has really been something to behold. It has added just about zero to the discussion about NET rankings, but it has given us yet more insight into your psyche, my friend.

“Non-Competitive people will never understand what goes on in the mind, body, and spirit of a true warrior.”

I think we just ended this conversation..in a grand fashion MU82. Greatest quote ever.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 19254
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #122 on: February 12, 2019, 12:21:38 PM »
“Non-Competitive people will never understand what goes on in the mind, body, and spirit of a true warrior.”

I think we just ended this conversation..in a grand fashion MU82. Greatest quote ever.

When it comes to Marquette basketball, guru, you are NOT competitive. Until you take the court, you are just an observer. That is not a competitive role. You may be so in pickup basketball, Monopoly, or Fortnite, but you are not competitive in regards to Marquette basketball. Period.

79Warrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3360
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #123 on: February 12, 2019, 12:24:52 PM »
When it comes to Marquette basketball, guru, you are NOT competitive. Until you take the court, you are just an observer. That is not a competitive role. You may be so in pickup basketball, Monopoly, or Fortnite, but you are not competitive in regards to Marquette basketball. Period.

THIS

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #124 on: February 12, 2019, 12:27:22 PM »
Until you incorporate margins to your predictions, they are useless.

Have you not read ANYTHING I posted in this thread..I clearly stated, the way I evaluate a game(and decided who will win or lose) is most likely decidedly different than most people's. If they want to use Pomeroy that's totally okay. For MY(get that...me) evaluations, his #'s are sometimes significantly different than what I think. Is that okay with you Mr Brew?? Yet, you kneel under the table and perform for Mr Pomeroy. Many do. That's fine. Different strokes for different folks. I personally trust my eyes, and my ability to "see" things his model doesn't always see. Just the way It is. Why do I need margins?? Just like FTNOMATTA, scores no matta. It only matters who wins and loses. At least to me it does.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.