It’s a shame a team better than the gophers

Donate To GopherHole
Bad Gopher said:
NET isn't the only thing that has PSU ranked higher. Sagarin did too until we beat them yesterday. Let's face it, Penn State is pretty good, especially lately, which makes yesterday's win pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Penn State, or that they are good.
I have a problem with rating systems which routinely have teams with losing records move in a positive direction after a loss when they are already a top 15% team.
 

Bad Gopher said:
NET isn't the only thing that has PSU ranked higher. Sagarin did too until we beat them yesterday. Let's face it, Penn State is pretty good, especially lately, which makes yesterday's win pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

Any rating system that has a .333 team who was swept by a .667 team rated higher than the team that swept them is a flawed metric.

There is absolutely zero way around it. People can argue about efficiency, can say RPI is flawed.
If Penn State is rated higher than Minnesota, I cant take the metric serious.

Counting quad wins using it is worthless to evaluate because there is no integrity to how teams are rated in quads based on using this ass backwards metric
 

I understand that close wins are largely a factor of luck, and that you want to factor that in to your formula by adjusting for efficiency. What I don't get is how it's so overvalued that Net/KenPom/Sagarin until yesterday have a team that's
3-12/4-4/5-2/2-0 over one that's 5-9/7-3/4-0/5-0. We have five more quality wins, and zero bad loses. It's baffling.
 

Agoginabox said:
I understand that close wins are largely a factor of luck, and that you want to factor that in to your formula by adjusting for efficiency. What I don't get is how it's so overvalued that Net/KenPom/Sagarin until yesterday have a team that's
3-12/4-4/5-2/2-0 over one that's 5-9/7-3/4-0/5-0. We have five more quality wins, and zero bad loses. It's baffling.
Click to expand...

I think it is a totally illigitimate claim to say close wins are largely a factor of luck.

So many teams 15-150 are so close, being able to close and win close games is literally the difference between the 30th team and the 120th team. Being able to close is a skill, not luck.
 

Face The Facts said:
I have no problem with Penn State, or that they are good.
I have a problem with rating systems which routinely have teams with losing records move in a positive direction after a loss when they are already a top 15% team.
Click to expand...

Team A has a better NET than Team B. I understand that Team B's NET might improve if they lose a close game to Team A. That makes sense. But Penn St had a better NET than Minnesota, lost the game, and their NET improved while Minnesota's got worse. On a neutral court. That makes absolutely zero sense. No matter how you cut it, that is absolutely baffling.
 


matt said:
Team A has a better NET than Team B. I understand that Team B's NET might improve if they lose a close game to Team A. That makes sense. But Penn St had a better NET than Minnesota, lost the game, and their NET improved while Minnesota's got worse. On a neutral court. That makes absolutely zero sense. No matter how you cut it, that is absolutely baffling.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I would also understand if Minnesota and Penn St were both in the 200+ ranking. Both teams, well below average. They then have an "efficient" low turnover game where certain metrics are above average. In an instance like that they could migrate towards the mean perhaps (with other games going on in the background making slight adjustments to their own calculations.

But out of 355 teams, Penn State is in the top 15% of all teams (top 50). To move up after a loss is just strange and it means NET has such little value for "wins" that winning must not matter. (Yes, I understand being efficient leads to wins, but it shouldn't contradict winning).
 

Some guy said:
Any rating system that has a .333 team who was swept by a .667 team rated higher than the team that swept them is a flawed metric.

There is absolutely zero way around it. People can argue about efficiency, can say RPI is flawed.
If Penn State is rated higher than Minnesota, I cant take the metric serious.

Counting quad wins using it is worthless to evaluate because there is no integrity to how teams are rated in quads based on using this ass backwards metric
Click to expand...

Exactly! The metric is seriously flawed and makes a mockery of the rankings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 


We only beat PSU by 4, so it would have negligible impact on either team. It was about the teams around them moving up or down. We would be better off to have beaten PSU by 20 and lost to Purdue by 4 then to have won both games by a combined total of 6 points. That's the NET blows.
 



howeda7 said:
We only beat PSU by 4, so it would have negligible impact on either team. It was about the teams around them moving up or down. We would be better off to have beaten PSU by 20 and lost to Purdue by 4 then to have won both games by a combined total of 6 points. That's the NET blows.
Click to expand...

For the most part, yes. But Penn St jumped Lipscomb with the loss and Lipscomb didn't play.
 

Some guy said:
Any rating system that has a .333 team who was swept by a .667 team rated higher than the team that swept them is a flawed metric.

There is absolutely zero way around it. People can argue about efficiency, can say RPI is flawed.
If Penn State is rated higher than Minnesota, I cant take the metric serious.

Counting quad wins using it is worthless to evaluate because there is no integrity to how teams are rated in quads based on using this ass backwards metric
Click to expand...

I agree 100%
 

Some guy said:
I think it is a totally illigitimate claim to say close wins are largely a factor of luck.

So many teams 15-150 are so close, being able to close and win close games is literally the difference between the 30th team and the 120th team. Being able to close is a skill, not luck.
Click to expand...

We have ample evidence across virtually every sport that year-to-year records in close games are subject to luck. There is no clutch gene.
 

Agoginabox said:
We have ample evidence across virtually every sport that year-to-year records in close games are subject to luck. There is no clutch gene.
Click to expand...

It's not about a "gene." There are specific skills that come into play in close games. Ability to manage the clock, and how well you execute the foul game with decisions about who and when to foul are things that some teams are better at than others. The wolves had one year where they were awful in close games. It was neither a gene or luck, it was never doing anything besides letting Wiggins play hero ball on the buzzer beating possession and then chucking up an off balance contested jumper. That is why they were bad in those games.
 



Agoginabox said:
We have ample evidence across virtually every sport that year-to-year records in close games are subject to luck. There is no clutch gene.
Click to expand...

For sure. A team that is 10-3 in close games year after year is simply luckier than a program that is unlucky year after year. It has nothing to do with coaching. It has nothing to deal with having the skill to close out games.

Sarcasm
 

Some guy said:
For sure. A team that is 10-3 in close games year after year is simply luckier than a program that is unlucky year after year. It has nothing to do with coaching. It has nothing to deal with having the skill to close out games.

Sarcasm
Click to expand...

What team are you referring to?
 



Plinnius said:
Is there a program out there that consistently wins 75% of its close games?
Click to expand...

There are certainly teams that consistently win close games more than they lose them.
And there are other teams that consistently lose more than they win in close games.

Hard to define exactly as the question of what is a close game would throw it off.

I have no idea about 75%
If you think the outcome of close games has more to do with luck than skill I don’t know now what to say to you. You’re a lost cause
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom