Program trajectory and wojo

[Cheeks]

Chico, you don’t know sh!t about data science! You must use true team data NOT some talking head projections!

Lol.  I swim in data every day that would make your head spin.  Petabytes of it. 

You keep saying true team data, not taking head projections...what on earth are you barking about.  The whole point of using these different sources, which have their algorithm unto themselves, was to prevent anyone claiming a bias source.  Further, I chose those the NCAA uses to JUDGE teams, which is the entire point of the exercise.  To judge, independently, without unhinged emotions, which so many seem to have. 

You are free to offer your own data, I’ll stick with that which the committee uses for the tournament since that is all that matters to some of you....I literally couldn’t be any fairer or unbiased in the data selected.

[curbina]

Two trips to the NCAA and both trips ended with a 19 point loss. This is NOT trending upward, it is One-And-Done!

[Cheeks]

Again, you don’t know sh!t about data science! Dumb as a box of rocks!

Still waiting for your data and still waiting for why you are calling it talking head data since that is what the NCAA has been on record using to help sort teams out.  But please, continue with your enlightenment.

[Cheeks]

They are ONLY facts if YOU want them to be..You are using predictive measures to support your argument. That's bunk. How about you throw those out the window and look at REAL results...

Year 1- Losing record, no tournament
Year 2- No tournament with an NBA draft pick on the roster
Year 3- NCAA's as a 10 seed...got blasted by 20
Year 4- NIT(anytime you go from NCAA to NIT it's a step back)
Year 5- NCAA's as a 5 seed...blasted by 20 to a mid major. When you factor in a 1-6 end to a season, at the time the slide started were no worse than a 3 seed, needed 1 win to win a BE title(with 4 remaining), that is NOT a positive trend line. Your sgarain etc, tell us NOTHING. They are simply numbers. Look at the real results and what has occurred and the trend line is NOT good, especially the way they ended the season...if that isn't trending down..I don't know what is.

Since you want to site numbers(which you seem to love so much), tell me..what were the odds that with 4 games to go, and only needing to win one of those, with two of them at home, that a team(any team) would NOT get at least one of those wins?? I know the answer and i'm pretty sure you do to. If you don't understand how absolutely astronomical the odds were against them not winning at least one of those games to win a ttile, then there is nothing I can say. If you think accomplishing an incredibly rare feat like they did with that, is "trending in the right direction". Then all hope for you is lost...For real.

1) some of these metrics are predictive, some are pure ratings with no predictive KPI to them... so you are incorrect

2) your own little diatribe above admits trending positive....the oh so delicious irony

Again, it may not be fast enough for you or steep enough, but proper trend regardless.  Your own words give you away, and so does the data and so do the results even if they aren’t the results you wanted or believe we should have had

[Cheeks]

Fxxk the data. Watch other teams play and see how we stack up. Frankly, I did and we don’t. In reality, we played a sh1t schedule and the data looks good. Don’t blame MU on sh1t schedule, it just ended up played 30 games against teams were not elite this year.

You are speaking with emotion right now.  We played a solid schedule and did well against it. We did not play a crap schedule. You are right that we are not elite, but we did what the NCAA asked which is to play a tough schedule and do well with it. 

Are you suggesting we didn’t deserve to be in the tournament?

[Cheeks]

Boston

Agreed. What does that say about the data trend? It was a crap year in college ball, outside of 8-12 teams, and we won a bunch of close games against similar talent levels. Not a bad thing, just reality.

This I agree with, but that doesn’t mean we weren’t good enough to be in the next tier and proved it over the long haul.  College basketball in general isn’t as good as it used to be, but it’s all relative. 

We could say the Final Four team of 2003 wasn’t as good as the 71 team, but it doesn’t really matter.  This year’s Duke team is not nearly as good as some past Duke teams, but they are playing against this year’s college teams so what does it matter?  It’s ultimately relative to who your peers are that you play in that year, right?

[curbina]

Still waiting for your data and still waiting for why you are calling it talking head data since that is what the NCAA has been on record using to help sort teams out.  But please, continue with your enlightenment.

Chico, you are just BS! The win/loss data is available in many locations. If you want the data go get it yourself! I don’t answer to you and NOT intimidated by you. Actually, I think you are dumb as a box of rocks! Enjoy your evening.

[Cheeks]

1-6 to end the season from February 27th on and failing to win one of 4 games(two at home), and NOT winning a Big east title when it was essentially a done deal based on probability/odds is a positive trend?? If you were okay with how the season ended, so be it...I would think that would be weird, but whatever.

You keep moving the goalposts to get an answer you want.

On one hand you complain about what has he done in five YEARS, but then you switch to what did he do the last three weeks...I hope you see how dishonest that is in your analysis.  No one is going to say the end of the season was good or positive, but that hasn’t been what we’ve been talking about.

You want to claim the last 3 weeks sucked, I don’t think you will find a man, woman, gender neutral, alien, mushroom, blade of grass, or vat of Crisco that would disagree with you. 

[MUDPT]

This is a topic, I thought a bunch about the last couple of days.  I kind of view it like WAR in baseball.  I still think Wojo is a positive WAR (a random replacement coach, maybe a mid major would be 0 WAR).  But he's on the lower scale, a 1.0, where Beilein is a 8 WAR and Coach K is 10 WAR.  Can he get better, into the upper echelon, like the other coaches?  I'm not sure.  The end of the season, especially the blow out and the end of the @ Seton Hall games were weird.

I also think about something I read on Kirk Ferentz last fall. Basically, the Iowa fanbase and administration are okay with their program when they are good most years, outstanding every once in awhile and terrible every once in a while. Could they do better? Maybe.  But the alternative is programs, like Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota who cycle through coaches as soon as they sniff they might not be good. 

[curbina]

You keep moving the goalposts to get an answer you want.

On one hand you complain about what has he done in five YEARS, but then you switch to what did he do the last three weeks...I hope you see how dishonest that is in your analysis.  No one is going to say the end of the season was good or positive, but that hasn’t been what we’ve been talking about.

You want to claim the last 3 weeks sucked, I don’t think you will find a man, woman, gender neutral, alien, mushroom, blade of grass, or vat of Crisco that would disagree with you.

Two trips to the NCAA and both trips ended with a 19 point loss! One-And-Done Wojo! You’re wasting your time trying to convince me that Wojo is a good coach.

[jesmu84]

NCAA 3 seed to NCAA 5 seed in final three weeks of the season, and then ass kicking in the tournament by a 12 seed.  Negative trend.

Oh. I understand the game now.

I'm gonna go through every NCAA team and point out the negative trend in their season that demonstrates how bad the coach is.

In case you missed the topic of the thread, it's about season over season success.

[curbina]

This is a topic, I thought a bunch about the last couple of days.  I kind of view it like WAR in baseball.  I still think Wojo is a positive WAR (a random replacement coach, maybe a mid major would be 0 WAR).  But he's on the lower scale, a 1.0, where Beilein is a 8 WAR and Coach K is 10 WAR.  Can he get better, into the upper echelon, like the other coaches?  I'm not sure.  The end of the season, especially the blow out and the end of the @ Seton Hall games were weird.

I also think about something I read on Kirk Ferentz last fall. Basically, the Iowa fanbase and administration are okay with their program when they are good most years, outstanding every once in awhile and terrible every once in a while. Could they do better? Maybe.  But the alternative is programs, like Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota who cycle through coaches as soon as they sniff they might not be good.

MUDPT,
I respect your opinion but my opinion is just st different. I view Wojo as a losing stock and/or commodity in my portfolio. My past experience in trading has taught me to never hang on to a loser no mater how much you may like it. You can always find a better trade. This rule has treated me well for many years.

[muguru]

Oh. I understand the game now.

I'm gonna go through every NCAA team and point out the negative trend in their season that demonstrates how bad the coach is.

In case you missed the topic of the thread, it's about season over season success.

I know what it's about..and the ONLY reason you Wojo slurpers can say the program is trending positively is because he went to the NCAA'S this year after coming off an NIT season..stop and think about that..the ONLY way it's possible to have an upward trend is to go up from where you were..in this instance..it was NCAA(upward from prior seasons), NIT(DOWN) from previous season..and now NCAA(up from previous season)...

Well..see..here's the problem with your "upward trajectory"..it's 3 letters..NIT...that's sandwiched in between two NCAA'S..and that's the ONLY reason it's on an upward trend now..my point being..you replace those three letters..NIT with 4 letters..NCAA like it should be and there wouldn't be an upward trend for you Wojo slurpers to keep pointing to.

Here is an upward trend..as an example..

Year 1..NCAA appearance
Year 2..NCAA appearance..advance to round of 32.
Year 3..NCAA appearance..Sweet 16
Year 4..NCAA Elite 8
Year 5..NCAA Final Four

That's an upward trend..and how it should look..2 ncaa blowout losses sandwiched around an NIT by any measure is at best stagnant. At a program like Saint Louis or Old Dominion for example im sure theyd be extactic with the "upward" trend that MU is on..that should NEVER be ok at Marquette however.

[curbina]

Oh. I understand the game now.

I'm gonna go through every NCAA team and point out the negative trend in their season that demonstrates how bad the coach is.

In case you missed the topic of the thread, it's about season over season success.

I understand time frames and trends very well, I use them every day. My problem is the data. You’re not using true team data for each game. You are using talking heads predictions/ratings, that is data of opinions not true data.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If MU basketball was trending upward and Wojo was fulfilling all expectations then this board would not be in such turmoil!

You must be new here.

[curbina]

I know what it's about..and the ONLY reason you Wojo slurpers can say the program is trending positively is because he went to the NCAA'S this year after coming off an NIT season..stop and think about that..the ONLY way it's possible to have an upward trend is to go up from where you were..in this instance..it was NCAA(upward from prior seasons), NIT(DOWN) from previous season..and now NCAA(up from previous season)...

Well..see..here's the problem with your "upward trajectory"..it's 3 letters..NIT...that's sandwiched in between two NCAA'S..and that's the ONLY reason it's on an upward trend now..my point being..you replace those three letters..NIT with 4 letters..NCAA like it should be and there wouldn't be an upward trend for you Wojo slurpers to keep pointing to.

Here is an upward trend..as an example..

Year 1..NCAA appearance
Year 2..NCAA appearance..advance to round of 32.
Year 3..NCAA appearance..Sweet 16
Year 4..NCAA Elite 8
Year 5..NCAA Final Four

That's an upward trend..and how it should look..2 ncaa blowout losses sandwiched around an NIT by any measure is at best stagnant. At a program like Saint Louis or Old Dominion for example im sure theyd be extactic with the "upward" trend that MU is on..that should NEVER be ok at Marquette however.

You can take the win/loss for each game during Wojo’s tenure and plot it w.r.t time. Then calculate the linear regression line for the data and it will give you the slope. If the slop is positive then you have an upward trend but if the slope is negative you have a downward trend. Note a time frame of 5 years can contain smaller timeframes where the slope maybe positive and/or negative. You can also compare the trend for each year. At this period of time, MU in a down trend.

[curbina]

You must be new here.

Sorry, you’re in error. If you had taken the time you could have found out how long I’ve been here, that information is availiable.

[curbina]

You must be new here.

BTW, I will tell you just as I told Chico. I don’t answer to you and NOT intimidated by you. Enjoy your evening.

[Cheeks]

Two trips to the NCAA and both trips ended with a 19 point loss. This is NOT trending upward, it is One-And-Done!

Ah yes, you have nothing and bellowing in emotion...not data.  As I thought.

[Cheeks]

I understand time frames and trends very well, I use them every day. My problem is the data. You’re not using true team data for each game. You are using talking heads predictions/ratings, that is data of opinions not true data.

Data of opinions?  WTF are you talking about? 

[Cheeks]

BTW, I will tell you just as I told Chico. I don’t answer to you and NOT intimidated by you. Enjoy your evening.

You aren’t the boss of me



Lol.  Holy crap that is awesome

[brewcity77]

I don't think it was the 17th best resume for reasons mentioned in the earlier post.  We got wins against teams in the lower portion of the top 75 on the road (Butler, Xavier, Creighton and Georgetown) that made our resume look better than it was.  Then we lost to a couple of them at home and they didn't count as Quad 1 losses at home that made our Quad 1 record look better than it really was.  I think the NCAA's criteria was different this year than usual and that it went in our favor. 

But I get what you're saying.

I had our resume 18th. The only surprise I had was that the NCAA didn't alter their criteria more this year. They acted the same as past years. And look at the other teams on the 5 line. Wisconsin got Q1 wins against Nebraska (2), Penn State, & Xavier. Auburn got them against Florida and Alabama (and only 5 total). Mississippi State had Q1 wins against St Mary's, Clemson, Arkansas, & Dayton. It's easy to say our resume had flaws, but it's unfair to do so without acknowledging the flaws of other similar resumes.

[curbina]

You aren’t the boss of me



Lol.  Holy crap that is awesome

[rocky_warrior]

Two trips to the NCAA and both trips ended with a 19 point loss! One-And-Done Wojo! You’re wasting your time trying to convince me that Wojo is a good coach.

Well you posted this in your first post on Feb 1, 2015 , so at least you're consistent.

Considering the inconsistent track record of Duke assistants (see list shown below) Marquette gambled on an assistant with no experience as a head coach. Under Wojo's leadership Marquette basketball is now in complete turmoil! I suppose you could say that "you've got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em" and it is now time to send Wojo back to Duke and hire an experienced basketball coach!

Of course, he's made 2 NCAAs and had a fairly successful NIT since then.  But f*ck that, DATA! Or, you just want to be right.

Hah.

[curbina]

Well you posted this in your first post on Feb 1, 2015 , so at least you're consistent.

Of course, he's made 2 NCAAs and had a fairly successful NIT since then.  But f*ck that, DATA! Or, you just want to be right.

Hah.

I don’t have the right to post my opinion?