Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 460
  1. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    I do not love NET but there is not a perfect system and it is better than RPI. It is not the sole tool used to select teams. I look at Kenpom, the polls and my eyes. The Gophers are hurt in NET by two bad Kenpom losses, poor performances by the non con except for Washington. People really do not understand efficiency and how it spells winning by playing well. People do not understand pace of play either and that has nothing to do with efficiency ppp. Instead of complaining, what is it that you want to use . Can not pick RPI because coaches wanted it out with all its flaws. It was overly generous to wins like Santa Clara and then worse, not recognizing a power conference team that actually was above .500 in conference with several top 25 wins. RPI was deeply flawed but i suppose since likes us, you like it. Sure BC and Illinois have a nice win or two, everyone knows anyone can beat anyone but their body of work is truly awful. For someone who think winning is all that matters then those two teams do not win very often because they play poorly most of the time. I have us as a 7-8 seed right now. Play great, win the rest and we would have a 2 seed. Get to 13-7 and we will be a 5. It was not me that voted for the changes, it was the coaches themselves who wanted good play against good teams rewarded. The way they laid out the quads stink in my opinion.
    But our two bad losses and non conf. schedule are already baked in thru the sos, and our sos are very similar - 32 vss. 36.
    Also, havent heard much negative about quadrants so would be interesting to hear your thoughts on that.
    Last edited by ltf; 01-29-2019 at 07:57 AM.


  2. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    Instead of complaining, what is it that you want to use .
    A combination of measures, of course. RPI may not be elegant enough for some purists but it measures the two most fundamental components for selection: winning and quality of opponents. It also has the feature of not relying on initial assumptions. If measures are highly correlated, then using any one of them will do. But, if there is a substantial discrepancy between measures (note the example of North Carolina State in Face the Facts lists), then combined measures should be considered.

  3. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjbfbp View Post
    A combination of measures, of course. RPI may not be elegant enough for some purists but it measures the two most fundamental components for selection: winning and quality of opponents. It also has the feature of not relying on initial assumptions. If measures are highly correlated, then using any one of them will do. But, if there is a substantial discrepancy between measures (note the example of North Carolina State in Face the Facts lists), then combined measures should be considered.
    They do use a combination of measures. NET isn't the end all be all. There are six on the team sheets.

    NC State's are at least somewhat correlated. Here are their rankings in the six systems used by the selection committee.

    ESPN BPI - 21
    Sagarin - 27
    ESPN Strength of Record - 29
    NET - 29
    Pomeroy -32
    KPI - 62

    Not all the ranking systems rely on assumptions. NET doesn't rely on any data from previous years. For the ones that do those initial assumptions are no longer part of the calculation at this point.

    https://kenpom.com/contact.php

    When is the influence of preseason ratings removed from the system?
    As of 2018, it is 73 days from the date of the first game. This ends up being sometime around January 20th. However, the influence of the preseason ratings is gradually reduced between the first week of the season and this point, so that the influence of the preseason ratings is minimal in mid-January.

  4. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjbfbp View Post
    A combination of measures, of course. RPI may not be elegant enough for some purists but it measures the two most fundamental components for selection: winning and quality of opponents. It also has the feature of not relying on initial assumptions. If measures are highly correlated, then using any one of them will do. But, if there is a substantial discrepancy between measures (note the example of North Carolina State in Face the Facts lists), then combined measures should be considered.
    And several measures will be used and thank goodness RPI will not be one of them.

  5. #80

    Default

    Plus NC State has the chance to put it all to rest tonight by beating UVA tonight, a top 4 team by any measure.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bracketville, MN
    Posts
    21,575
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Gophers drop a spot to #52

    Tuesday's NET ranking.

  7. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SelectionSunday View Post
    Tuesday's NET ranking.
    I’m not actually sure the gophers are much better than 52,

    I am certain that based on results to this point they should be rated higher than some of the teams you mentioned.
    Or at least near them.

  8. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    They do use a combination of measures. NET isn't the end all be all. There are six on the team sheets.

    NC State's are at least somewhat correlated. Here are their rankings in the six systems used by the selection committee.

    ESPN BPI - 21
    Sagarin - 27
    ESPN Strength of Record - 29
    NET - 29
    Pomeroy -32
    KPI - 62

    Not all the ranking systems rely on assumptions. NET doesn't rely on any data from previous years. For the ones that do those initial assumptions are no longer part of the calculation at this point.

    https://kenpom.com/contact.php

    When is the influence of preseason ratings removed from the system?
    As of 2018, it is 73 days from the date of the first game. This ends up being sometime around January 20th. However, the influence of the preseason ratings is gradually reduced between the first week of the season and this point, so that the influence of the preseason ratings is minimal in mid-January.
    Thanks for clarifying when the initial assumptions are dropped. Your list of ratings for NC State indicates that 5 of them are highly correlated. #2 through #5 are virtually indistinguishable. For all practical purposes, #2 through #5 are all measuring the same thing. If that is the case, using those 6 measures together reduces the influence of #6 to almost nothing. A better system would take one of the first five (or perhaps #1 and one of the other four) and combine that with #6.

  9. #84

    Default

    The issue is relying on efficiency so heavily in a system that is not on an equal playing field. The reason these rating are more reliable in the nba is because the competition is more level (they play the same teams). Also they play 82 games, have a 24 second shot clock, play 48 minutes. Point being there is a lot more data to analyze and the data you get usually actually matters so you get a more accurate depiction of what those numbers mean. Not saying that efficiency is a bad thing, there are just times when its more beneficial than others. Now as far as this rating system goes...lol... Using other metrics to make your own, then also using those same metrics as another differentiator on top of the metric they just made. Sound confusing, yea super redundant and makes zero sense mathematically.

  10. #85

    Default

    The best teams use OE and DE even more intensely per player in combination and who it is against. Look at the top 10 Kenpom and look at the best teams and coaches and they correlate very well. K, Izzo, Belien, Bennett etc.. all believe heavily in efficiency. Then they compare it to common opponent. Look at who throttled BC and look at the efficiency numbers and look at ours. Seeking good shots, taking care of the ball, playing great defense to limit good shots is a fantastic formula to win. Any coach worth his salt aims for the consistentcy of those three things. Rebounding is a no brainer as it ends the possession or keeps it going. Even fans hate watching high turnover basketball and it drives coaches nuts.

  11. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjbfbp View Post
    Thanks for clarifying when the initial assumptions are dropped. Your list of ratings for NC State indicates that 5 of them are highly correlated. #2 through #5 are virtually indistinguishable. For all practical purposes, #2 through #5 are all measuring the same thing. If that is the case, using those 6 measures together reduces the influence of #6 to almost nothing. A better system would take one of the first five (or perhaps #1 and one of the other four) and combine that with #6.
    Using 6 metrics would hopefully protect teams from falling victim to an outlier metric. I guess as builtbadger says there is no perfect metric and the coaches asked for this additional one. Also, havent heard any coach complain about NET to this point. Think I personally am to the point where I see no value that these metrics provide to the committee, they're too flawed. However, have never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, so there is that.

  12. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    The best teams use OE and DE even more intensely per player in combination and who it is against. Look at the top 10 Kenpom and look at the best teams and coaches and they correlate very well. K, Izzo, Belien, Bennett etc.. all believe heavily in efficiency. Then they compare it to common opponent. Look at who throttled BC and look at the efficiency numbers and look at ours. Seeking good shots, taking care of the ball, playing great defense to limit good shots is a fantastic formula to win. Any coach worth his salt aims for the consistentcy of those three things. Rebounding is a no brainer as it ends the possession or keeps it going. Even fans hate watching high turnover basketball and it drives coaches nuts.
    Wait, you’re saying you want teams to play well?

  13. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    The best teams use OE and DE even more intensely per player in combination and who it is against. Look at the top 10 Kenpom and look at the best teams and coaches and they correlate very well. K, Izzo, Belien, Bennett etc.. all believe heavily in efficiency. Then they compare it to common opponent. Look at who throttled BC and look at the efficiency numbers and look at ours. Seeking good shots, taking care of the ball, playing great defense to limit good shots is a fantastic formula to win. Any coach worth his salt aims for the consistentcy of those three things. Rebounding is a no brainer as it ends the possession or keeps it going. Even fans hate watching high turnover basketball and it drives coaches nuts.
    If a possession leads to an offensive rebound, does that rebound end the possession and start a new one? I only ask because the Gophers are an elite offensive rebounding team, to the point that players aren't afraid to put up shots because they know there's a chance Jordan Murphy or Oturu will come down with it. Hell, Jordan Murphy himself seems willing to throw up a shot just so that he can can grab an offensive board and put back..

    Do those type of sequences hurt our offensive efficiency?

  14. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    The best teams use OE and DE even more intensely per player in combination and who it is against. Look at the top 10 Kenpom and look at the best teams and coaches and they correlate very well. K, Izzo, Belien, Bennett etc.. all believe heavily in efficiency. Then they compare it to common opponent. Look at who throttled BC and look at the efficiency numbers and look at ours. Seeking good shots, taking care of the ball, playing great defense to limit good shots is a fantastic formula to win. Any coach worth his salt aims for the consistentcy of those three things. Rebounding is a no brainer as it ends the possession or keeps it going. Even fans hate watching high turnover basketball and it drives coaches nuts.
    Pretty much agree with all of this...Its a great coaching tool and it is a fantastic formula to win, but its not the only one....sometimes nitty gritty tough defense get to the foul line, make the game ugly is what you want (this gophers team), many teams play to their competition but just know how to win..all im saying is that sometimes ax+b just equals c and you dont need to do calculus to complicate things and prove it

    now how would i do it...quick thought keep the old system and figure out who should be in the field.....there are always a few outliers so lets make everyone happy and decide the last four in by doing some sort efficiency thing.....now once we have the field set we could rank these teams off a combination off few things (coaches rankings, media rankings and efficiency rankings vs field) and just come up with the average...seems fair enough to me

  15. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ltf View Post
    Using 6 metrics would hopefully protect teams from falling victim to an outlier metric. I guess as builtbadger says there is no perfect metric and the coaches asked for this additional one. Also, havent heard any coach complain about NET to this point. Think I personally am to the point where I see no value that these metrics provide to the committee, they're too flawed. However, have never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, so there is that.
    You will definitely hear about it on Selection Sunday when some team believing they are deserving gets left out because of NET.

    What I have not heard much talk of with the new metric is the old stand-by of mid-majors not getting the chance at high level wins because the big boys won't play them. It was an issue before and may be even more of one now with the power conferences shrinking their out of conference schedules. So far, it looks like the NET highly favors the high majors. My one example is Oklahoma State being a really bad team, but 70 in the NET the last I saw a couple of days ago. That's enough evidence to me that the metric is flawed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •