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 7334 times)

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4774
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2019, 06:55:57 AM »
What mystifies me more than anything is almost no one(I did) even thought this MU team would be this good.. I honestly think that's because people have a hard time judging Talent that's not a knock on anyone it's definitely a unique skill I saw how talented this team was..so it doesnt surprise me at all they are a top 10 team. It took almost the entire fanbase..over half a season to finally see it..and a lot still don't believe it. 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.

So while it's fun and trendy for all of you to be excited because this team is "exceeding" expectations.. that's simply because you didn't realize how talented they were before the season started so for me I'm not the least bit surprised this is where I thought they would be at some point this year.

I think this is patently false, lots of people had them winning a lot this season. Not pimping the podcast but I'm recorded saying I think MU would lose only 5 games in the regular season and my pod partner said 6 losses. Lots of folks had high expectations that the team is meeting
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Bocephys

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1987
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2019, 07:07:23 AM »
I think this is patently false

A good summary for every Guru post

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 19254
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #77 on: February 12, 2019, 07:14:14 AM »
I think this is patently false, lots of people had them winning a lot this season.

It is patently false. This is where Jay Bee would scream "LIAR" or something similar.

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56683.0

It looks like most predictions had 24-26 wins. Even the most pessimistic had us in the 22-23 range. guru is trying again to prop himself up as the "best" fan when pretty much everyone had them as one of the top teams in the country (I said 26-5 in the regular season and earning a 2-seed, which still seems realistic).

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #78 on: February 12, 2019, 07:19:00 AM »
It is patently false. This is where Jay Bee would scream "LIAR" or something similar.

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56683.0

It looks like most predictions had 24-26 wins. Even the most pessimistic had us in the 22-23 range. guru is trying again to prop himself up as the "best" fan when pretty much everyone had them as one of the top teams in the country (I said 26-5 in the regular season and earning a 2-seed, which still seems realistic).

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". They aren't. I am NOT propping myself up to be the best fan. My whole point of this argument is..there are DISTINCT differences between being a good team and having talent. If people don't understand that, I don't know what to tell them. I 100% agree, the models DO tell you who the good TEAMS are. They do NOT tell us who the most talented teams are however. That's just reality.
“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.

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 14651
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #79 on: February 12, 2019, 07:22:44 AM »
My prediction was always 22-24 wins, top 3 in the big east.   5 seed.     If I am low by a game or two, yippee!
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #80 on: February 12, 2019, 07:26:44 AM »
They certainly didn't win emphatically. When you make a case as strongly as you did and the game is decided in overtime, you come out looking really bad. Like it or not, Pomeroy's model was far more accurate than your own prediction.

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.
“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.

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
  • Has your band begun to rust?
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #81 on: February 12, 2019, 07:39:50 AM »
His model isn't "broken."  It's a model, and like any objective model, it's going to be wrong sometimes when you are predicting a subjective performance like a basketball game.

But why don't we start a "guru v. KenPom" topic.  Someone can pick out ten games, you post your predictions, and we will see how you perform v. Pomeroy.  Deal?

The Thing

  • Scholarship Player
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #82 on: February 12, 2019, 07:43:17 AM »
I just still am in shock that you are basing your entire defense of your “talent” argument over one game that resulted in an overtime win.

How about those Net Rankings by the way?

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9430
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #83 on: February 12, 2019, 08:09:29 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.

You called "heads" on a coin flip. It came up "heads". Congratulations, you're a genius. If your "eye test" is really better than the computers that set the Vegas line why don't you withdraw all your money from your bank, drive to Vegas, set up residence and proceed to bust all the sport's books out there? My prediction? You'll arrive in a $40,000 car and leave in an $800,000 bus. Good luck.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 08:16:50 AM by Lennys Tap »

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #84 on: February 12, 2019, 08:46:09 AM »
You called "heads" on a coin flip. It came up "heads". Congratulations, you're a genius. If your "eye test" is really better than the computers that set the Vegas line why don't you withdraw all your money from your bank, drive to Vegas, set up residence and proceed to bust all the sport's books out there? My prediction? You'll arrive in a $40,000 car and leave in an $800,000 bus. Good luck.

I don't bet on games..I don't care about $$, that's not what motivates me. never has been, never will be. I guess I'm baffled that people don't seem to think "the eye test" is a real thing. It is..if it wasn't, there wouldn't be scouting departments in pro sports etc.
“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 #85 on: February 12, 2019, 08:51:23 AM »
I just still am in shock that you are basing your entire defense of your “talent” argument over one game that resulted in an overtime win.

How about those Net Rankings by the way?

I'm not basing it on one game...I just want people to understand that computer models cannot see sometimes what the human eyes see. That's a fact. Can people seriously watch a basketball game(or any game) and NOT be able to tell who the more talented team is?? Honestly, I'm thinking not.

Great example...Ron Wolf traded a first round pick for a QB that most had never heard of..Brett Favre. Not a single # he could have looked at would have told him to do that, none of them. Not even close. Yet, he did it, because...wait for it...he SAW the talent in him that many others didn't. Your eyes tell you things...or at least they should. The key is not being tricked into thinking your eyes see something they don't really see.
“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.

Bocephys

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1987
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #86 on: February 12, 2019, 08:55:24 AM »
I'm not basing it on one game...I just want people to understand that computer models cannot see sometimes what the human eyes see. That's a fact. Can people seriously watch a basketball game(or any game) and NOT be able to tell who the more talented team is?? Honestly, I'm thinking not.

What about a computer that has a camera?  Surely it can see.

HowardsWorld

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #87 on: February 12, 2019, 08:59:03 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.

I would like to wager something if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

WarriorDad

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #88 on: February 12, 2019, 09:08:30 AM »
K whatever..his MODEL gave TCU a better chance of winning that game than Kansas..his model was WRONG. There should never be a model that gives the Lesser talented team regardless of venue a better chance of winning then the more talented team ever that's what I'm saying. Numbers don't judge talent..case in point..Houston..there #'s are all pretty good..now maybe some of you are guillable enough to believe that "well the #'s say they are the 10th most talented team in the country..so they must be". All you have to do is watch them play and you will see that yes they are a good basketball team are they as talented as their numbers make them out to be hell no!

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. 

If  Pomeroy says Marquette will win tonight 77% probability, it still means 23% of the time we will lose. Do you not understand this?
“No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”
— Plato

Its DJOver

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #89 on: February 12, 2019, 09:10:13 AM »
I'm not basing it on one game...I just want people to understand that computer models cannot see sometimes what the human eyes see. That's a fact. Can people seriously watch a basketball game(or any game) and NOT be able to tell who the more talented team is?? Honestly, I'm thinking not.

Great example...Ron Wolf traded a first round pick for a QB that most had never heard of..Brett Favre. Not a single # he could have looked at would have told him to do that, none of them. Not even close. Yet, he did it, because...wait for it...he SAW the talent in him that many others didn't. Your eyes tell you things...or at least they should. The key is not being tricked into thinking your eyes see something they don't really see.

Yea sure, there will always be stories of someone seeing something in someone else and giving them a chance, which turned out to be a good move in hindsight, but there are so many more stories where the "eye test" didn't pan out.  Sam Bowie, Greg Oden, Kwame Brown, and my personal favorite, Darko who was labeled "the next Dirk" based on many scouts eye test.

There are times where the eye test is valuable, there are times where strictly looking at numbers is valuable.  You think MSU beating Bucky is a #donedeal because your eye test that MSU has more talent.  However, my eye test tells me that MSU is on a bad run (losing 3 of 4), and Bucky is on a good run (winning 7 of 8).  There is no "talent meter" that tells us how much better MSU should be, the same way there is no "momentum meter" that tells us how much better Bucky is playing lately.  Both depend on the eye test, so the eye test can give varying results, which makes it easy to flip from one side to another, whereas metrics like kenpom have to give a definitive prediction.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #90 on: February 12, 2019, 09:13:13 AM »
I would like to wager something if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

Let me ask you a question, and answer it honestly...does MSU have more talented players than UW??
“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.

fjm

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #91 on: February 12, 2019, 09:14:24 AM »
I remember when you only used to post if MU loses.

I also remember me saying “you should post more often! How about posting after an MU win for once guru!”

Now I am starting to question myself. ;)


I just feel like maybe your eye test isn’t as good as a predictive model. I would be interested to see a you vs KenPom of the final 2 weeks of the season top 25 this year.

WarriorDad

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #92 on: February 12, 2019, 09:15:10 AM »
Let me ask you a question, and answer it honestly...does MSU have more talented players than UW??

Did Michigan have better talent than App State?  Marquette vs Miami (OH)?  Virginia vs Chaminade? 
“No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”
— Plato

DoctorV

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #93 on: February 12, 2019, 09:17:04 AM »
I don't bet on games..I don't care about $$, that's not what motivates me. never has been, never will be. I guess I'm baffled that people don't seem to think "the eye test" is a real thing. It is..if it wasn't, there wouldn't be scouting departments in pro sports etc.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and attempt to better explain your point with an example.

Before I do that though, I completely understand your argument of “the eye test” but I think it would benefit you to give the computers a bit more credit and try to meet in the middle.

These computers these days are pretty darn impressive in the masses of data they collect and put together, and they are correct much more often than they are wrong. As another poster said, you could spend every hour of your day for months studying sports and game lines and still not be able to break Vegas for precisely that reason.

As for eye test, that is developed by watching many hours of the team or teams in question. A good example is this current Nevada squad. That team is loaded with talent, there’s no way around it. They’ve become my second favorite team because I just enjoy watching them play- there is something about a large collection of talented transfers/castaways all joining at the same smaller program to show that they can play that appeals to me (a la MU under buzz?)

Now, the computers aren’t high on that team, they are projected as a 4 seed. Knowing what I know after seeing them play many times I would argue that they will be one of the best 4 seeds in history if they stay on that line. That is a nightmare matchup for a 1 seed any way you slice it. They’ve got multiple talented players (upperclassmen) and 3 that are borderline NBAers and a seasoned head coach that shouldn’t get rattled, he showed that last yr.

They play in a crapty conference, their OOC games ended up being worse than expected and the computer numbers reflect it. Some argued that they shouldn’t have even been on the 4 line because of the numbers. Here lies the rub- you have to take the computer numbers with a caveat and know what they are telling you first and foremost and why they are telling you what they are. That’s where the eye test comes in and it is indeed important, but you can’t completely dismiss the data either.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #94 on: February 12, 2019, 09:19:19 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. 

If  Pomeroy says Marquette will win tonight 77% probability, it still means 23% of the time we will lose. Do you not understand this?

Of course I understand this..100% I understand..What most of you don't seem to understand is...his computer models can say what they want...and the sad thing is, a lot of you fawn all over them. The point is...you all believe that if Kansas and TCU played 100 times that because Pomeroy's model said it was basically 50/50, that TCU would beat Kansas half the time, if the game was "roll the ball out and go play"?? I seriously beg to differ.

You can say "we aren't talking 100 times though, we are talking 1 game". Yes, we are talking one game...and that's fine..but if you play that 1 game, 10 different times, TCU ain't winning 5 of them.

If Kenpom isn't making predictions, then why on his site under Fanmatch does he specifically have a column that says "prediction"??
“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 #95 on: February 12, 2019, 09:23:16 AM »
Did Michigan have better talent than App State?  Marquette vs Miami (OH)?  Virginia vs Chaminade?


Yes to all of those and I have stated many many many times, even the eye test isn't right 100% of the time. Talent does NOT(I repeat) does NOT always win..but what I will tell you is if all those games listed above were played 100 times, the other team would win 99% of those, because they have MORE talent. They happened to play bad enough for one day, that the under dog beat them. It happens. What do you think the "probabilities" were on those above results happening??
“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 #96 on: February 12, 2019, 09:24:10 AM »
Guru, I'm going to try to find some common ground here.

So you say there is a difference between talented teams and good teams. Tell me if I'm wrong, but how I'm reading this is that in your mind a "talented" team is one that has a really high ceiling. If they are playing near what they are capable of, only another talented team will be able to beat them. A "good" team on the other hand has a really high floor. They are very rarely going to have a bad game and their average is going to beat most teams....but when faced with a "talented" team that is playing near their ceiling, they are going to lose.

I'll use two teams that you've already mentioned as examples. Duke strikes me as a "talented" team. When they are playing at their ceiling, they are unbeatable because they are the most talented team in basketball. But they are a little more volatile and more susceptible to an "anomaly" (I think that's the word you used) performance and that's how they every once in awhile they put up a stinker like their loss at home to Syracuse. Virginia on the other hand is a "good" team. Their floor is so high that even if they play poorly they are still going to beat most teams, even talented teams if they are having an average or bad night. But when they ran into Duke playing at a high level, they couldn't win.

Is this an accurate summary of what you are trying to say?
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

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #97 on: February 12, 2019, 09:32:34 AM »
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and attempt to better explain your point with an example.

Before I do that though, I completely understand your argument of “the eye test” but I think it would benefit you to give the computers a bit more credit and try to meet in the middle.

These computers these days are pretty darn impressive in the masses of data they collect and put together, and they are correct much more often than they are wrong. As another poster said, you could spend every hour of your day for months studying sports and game lines and still not be able to break Vegas for precisely that reason.

As for eye test, that is developed by watching many hours of the team or teams in question. A good example is this current Nevada squad. That team is loaded with talent, there’s no way around it. They’ve become my second favorite team because I just enjoy watching them play- there is something about a large collection of talented transfers/castaways all joining at the same smaller program to show that they can play that appeals to me (a la MU under buzz?)

Now, the computers aren’t high on that team, they are projected as a 4 seed. Knowing what I know after seeing them play many times I would argue that they will be one of the best 4 seeds in history if they stay on that line. That is a nightmare matchup for a 1 seed any way you slice it. They’ve got multiple talented players (upperclassmen) and 3 that are borderline NBAers and a seasoned head coach that shouldn’t get rattled, he showed that last yr.

They play in a crapty conference, their OOC games ended up being worse than expected and the computer numbers reflect it. Some argued that they shouldn’t have even been on the 4 line because of the numbers. Here lies the rub- you have to take the computer numbers with a caveat and know what they are telling you first and foremost and why they are telling you what they are. That’s where the eye test comes in and it is indeed important, but you can’t completely dismiss the data either.

Doctor, you are 100% correct, Nevada is incredibly talented. Zero question about that. having seen them play as often as I have, I echo your sentiments. Yes, the data is useful in some instances..but Nevada is a great example...the computers aren't high on them because who they have played. Well, I am telling you, it doesn't matter who they play...they would beat almost anyone.

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.
“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.

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
  • Has your band begun to rust?
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #98 on: February 12, 2019, 09:35:02 AM »
So talent should trump performance when it comes to NCAA selection and seeding?

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #99 on: February 12, 2019, 09:38:31 AM »
Guru, I'm going to try to find some common ground here.

So you say there is a difference between talented teams and good teams. Tell me if I'm wrong, but how I'm reading this is that in your mind a "talented" team is one that has a really high ceiling. If they are playing near what they are capable of, only another talented team will be able to beat them. A "good" team on the other hand has a really high floor. They are very rarely going to have a bad game and their average is going to beat most teams....but when faced with a "talented" team that is playing near their ceiling, they are going to lose.

I'll use two teams that you've already mentioned as examples. Duke strikes me as a "talented" team. When they are playing at their ceiling, they are unbeatable because they are the most talented team in basketball. But they are a little more volatile and more susceptible to an "anomaly" (I think that's the word you used) performance and that's how they every once in awhile they put up a stinker like their loss at home to Syracuse. Virginia on the other hand is a "good" team. Their floor is so high that even if they play poorly they are still going to beat most teams, even talented teams if they are having an average or bad night. But when they ran into Duke playing at a high level, they couldn't win.

Is this an accurate summary of what you are trying to say?

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.

ETA: It also means that to me, the more talented team can get away with not playing their best every single time and still win games more often then not, simply because they have so much more talent then their opponent. Then there are times when one team is so much more talented then the other team, that as long as nothing happens prior to the game that devastates the entire team, no matter how well the other team plays, they are going to lose, even if they play their very best game, and the far more talented team plays their worst, they may still lose by 15-20.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 09:50:39 AM by muguru »
“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.