Ah, but you can't fool the algorithms!

[businesslawyer]

BL's suggestion that I stop worrying about this has me wondering if I should start worrying about this.

Who would have thought that the proposition that UConn is better than the models say would elicit so much support for the models? On a UConn forum at that! Is it because KenPom had us in the Top 5 most of last year when the pundits were ignoring us?

This causes me to recall that, besides KenPom, Jay Bilas was very high on us last March, picking us to win the whole thing.

Now I'm worried -- because besides KenPom rating us outside the Top Five, we are not Jay Bilas's current favorite, either. He's about the only pundit at ESPN who is not on the UConn bandwagon.

Darn you, BL, now I'm worried.

I’m a lawyer. I’m already damned, thank you very much, without needing anyone’s help.

 

[businesslawyer]

Because they're lazy and use Kenpom?
I share the same doubts when I look at who Houston's played and their record and look back to our win over uNC.

If your theory is that large public companies are lazy, and not setting spreads to equalize the money bet on each team so that they maximize profits … well, let’s just say you need a new theory.

 

[DogMania]

I think there's a inherent flaw to trusting metrics. It's based on pure numbers not taking into account so many nuances that take place such as:

Teams don't play the same common teams.
Some home courts are tougher than others.
Some neutral courts aren't always neutral (MSG).
Injuries and outlier foul trouble.
Teams that back off often that have big leads which impact statistical values.
The occasional bad game or unexpected blow out.
Some conferences are tougher than others regardless to how talented or not the teams might be. (an actual top team could be in a weak conference but be real good, or in a really tough conference where they lose some tough road games.)

The eye test is important that won't show up in the numbers, such as:

Has the team showed the ability to win and compete in various ways and against different opponent styles.
Can they handle pressure situstions, come back from late deficits, put away teams late in close games.
Do the have players who can make shots when highly contested.
I'm sure we could come up with others.

How often have we seen some top ACC and SEC teams get bounced early when facing a team that plays relentless D, or some deliberate offensive team unable to handle the quickness when they don't have any or many teams that play fast and/or physical in their conference.

I like how last year's and this year's UConn teams can beat you in many ways. I don't see a team out there that I'd be afraid of unless the refs would allow our opponent to impede our off the ball motion, hack our handlers and/or call a lot of incidental contact. I don't think there are metrics for that.

 

[uh-no]

I think there's a inherent flaw to trusting metrics. It's based on pure numbers not taking into account so many nuances that take place such as:

Teams don't play the same common teams.
Some home courts are tougher than others.
Some neutral courts aren't always neutral (MSG).
Injuries and outlier foul trouble.
Teams that back off often that have big leads which impact statistical values.
The occasional bad game or unexpected blow out.
Some conferences are tougher than others regardless to how talented or not the teams might be. (an actual top team could be in a weak conference but be real good, or in a really tough conference where they lose some tough road games.)

Modern metrics account for most of those things...

 

[djct1999]

This. Eye tests are absolutely relevant, and in a particular instance might be better than a computer analysis. But over a course of many 7 gamer series, where do you think the smart money is? Computer metrics or one person’s eye test?

Better yet, that one person being a biased fan.

 

[Dove]

Let's just focus on the eye test. Works every time.

 

[Dove]

More and more these days we are passing the eye test with pundits, but it appears that you can't fool the algorithms. If you thought that last night's win at Villanova might fool them, silly you.

This morning we're 6th in KenPom, 7th in Torvik and 8th in the NET, down a notch, I believe, in all three rankings.

The NET, which is said to greatly value road victories, has us lower now, after wins at Butler, Xavier and Villanova, than it did when we had no road wins at all. Mr. Pomeroy, this morning, has us 7 points down to Houston on a neutral court. Mr. Torvik values Alabama's 14-6 record, 2-5 against Quad 1, higher than our 17-2, 6-2. The NET believes UNC would take us on a neutral court, that is, inless you believe the lying evidence of our already having beaten them by 10 on a neutral court.

And don't even get me started on BYU.

Yes, I know, the algorithms are still catching up. Our KenPom defensive rating in now down to 29. But it's a curious kind of catching up that sees us dropping in the rankings. We are the defending national champions. We are 17-2 with 7 straight wins, 3 of them in tough road gyms. How can it be that other teams are passing us in the rankings?

 

[Tenspro2002]

lol well you certainly summarized why Vegas is insanely successful at making money off sports betters.

Ha, well, the reason they're so successful is there's vig on every bet and they almost always make money on every game regardless of who wins.

 

[zls44]

Torvik, BPI, KenPom, Haslam and NET all have Houston at 1. Yes, today, Houston would absolutely open as a favorite against UConn on a neutral floor.

 

[zls44]

If you don't like those numbers, take a look at Strength of Record. An evaluation of how a team has done against their schedule to this point. Purdue 1, UConn 2.

2023-24 Resume Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN

View the 2023-24 Resume Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance of the season.

www.espn.com

 

[7774]

So you would bet Houston, Alabama, UNC and BYU against UConn straight up on a neutral court?

If I was forced to bet I wouldn’t bet them straight up because most of them would open as underdogs and then would be bet to bigger underdogs by people like you and then I could just get that number.

That‘s kind of the point. Exploiting the gap between what the metrics say and what’s believed by people who post that Houston has been disappointing in the NCAA tournament recently.

 

[7774]

Ha, well, the reason they're so successful is there's vig on every bet and they almost always make money on every game regardless of who wins.

Lol yeah that is definitely a huge part of it.

 

[my2cents]

Who gives a hoot about those ranking models? It is not football, where only 4 teams get a chance to win it all. Basketball has a tournament to determine who becomes number one.
All I know is that whatever negative can be brought up about UCONN in the national media, it is.
We become AP#1, and all you hear is that it's the first time since 2009...when we have won multiple national titles since then.

 

[superjohn]

Torvik, BPI, KenPom, Haslam and NET all have Houston at 1. Yes, today, Houston would absolutely open as a favorite against UConn on a neutral floor.

I don't gamble on games, especially UConn games but that would be easy money.

 

[The Yakk]

If your theory is that large public companies are lazy, and not setting spreads to equalize the money bet on each team so that they maximize profits … well, let’s just say you need a new theory.

Lol that's a common myth, but the sports books are definitely not setting spreads to equalize the money bet on each team. And even if they could do that, that is not how they would maximize their profits. That would certainly eliminate all the risk, but the books are willing to put their capital at risk for the sake of bigger profits.

Sports books absolutely take positions on the games, and they do it with a level of research and analysis that is far more refined than most bettors'. They are betting against the public, and winning.

A better way to think of it: the sports books want to solicit bets in a proportion that optimizes the outcome of their risk/reward analysis, which is not necessarily an equal amount bet on each side.

 

[jleves]

Lol that's a common myth, but the sports books are definitely not setting spreads to equalize the money bet on each team. And even if they could do that, that is not how they would maximize their profits. That would certainly eliminate all the risk, but the books are willing to put their capital at risk for the sake of bigger profits.

Sports books absolutely take positions on the games, and they do it with a level of research and analysis that is far more refined than most bettors'. They are betting against the public, and winning.

A better way to think of it: the sports books want to solicit bets in a proportion that optimizes the outcome of their risk/reward analysis, which is not necessarily an equal amount bet on each side.

They use this guy

 

[The Yakk]

They use this guy

View attachment 95459

Lol yes definitely, backed by state-of-the-art computer models as well as insider knowledge that we will never see.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Houston is REALLY liked by the metrics. We're not close to them there right now. They're considered 2021 Baylor/Gonzaga level right now. They went up since B12 play as well. We would be given a ton of consideration for injuries. It wouldn't make up the difference between them and us. Straight off the metrics (both KenPom and Evan Miya) they'd be 7 point favorites over us. Vegas would list it a bit closer (maybe 4 or so), and then I expect the public would bet it even closer and then Vegas would live with being on Houston's side.

This Houston/BYU game is definitely one of the games circled on my calendar. Curious to see the Houston D against a borderline elite offense. Really haven’t played anyone close to that yet.

 

[navery12]

The only thing this thread has shown is that the people who hate the analytics sites have no idea how to even read the info on them

 

[superjohn]

This Houston/BYU game is definitely one of the games circled on my calendar. Curious to see the Houston D against a borderline elite offense. Really haven’t played anyone close to that yet.

BYU has looked awful the times I've seen them.

 

[uh-no]

The only thing this thread has shown is that the people who hate the analytics sites have no idea how to even read the info on them

lol yeah. "but it doesn't consider that not all wins or home court are equal!"

yes. that's literally what it does.

 

[Husky68]

If you don't like those numbers, take a look at Strength of Record. An evaluation of how a team has done against their schedule to this point. Purdue 1, UConn 2.

2023-24 Resume Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN

View the 2023-24 Resume Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance of the season.

www.espn.com

I like any index that has Duke below Seton Hall but I'm not buying Fruit at #25.

 

[zls44]

"KenPom doesn't consider home court or the refs at all!"

Meanwhile

 

[giddyup]

The best know predictor of outcome is the scoreboard at the end of the game. Just take care of business, and improve. We are not nearly good enough when Clingan isn’t on the floor to dominate.

 

[tzznandrew]

They made S16, E8, F4 last 3 years as 1, 5, and 2 seeds. A little below one year, a little above 2 years.

And last year Sasser was slowed in the NCAAs if I remember right.