Ah, but you can't fool the algorithms! | The Boneyard

Ah, but you can't fool the algorithms!

Sphinx

Sphinx

Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
765
Reaction Score
4,825
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?
 
I would only say this to those who defend the algorithms. Reread my examples.. Would you really care to bet money on the algorithm's current projections? Would you really prefer to take Houston or Alabama or BYU (or even UNC) against UConn on a neutral court? Good luck.
 
We failed to cover the spread last night which doesn't normally help the ratings. Some of the computer models are heavily based on how you perform relative to expectations vs whether or not you won. The saying "good teams win, great teams cover" exists because great teams outperform expectations consistently. I think our metrics are hurt a lot by failing to cover vs some of the cupcakes early on as well. We're only 11-6 vs the spread this year. I think a lot of the algorithms will be more favorable to us as Clingan eases back in and our defensive efficiency climbs back up, but there is room for improvement.

Houston might very well be overrated but their 2 losses are true conference road games against ranked opponents by a combined 5 points. Losing by 15 vs Seton Hall in a game we were picked to win by 9ish hurt us a lot.
 
.-.
Teams in the Big Xii and SEC are playing a tougher game in, game out schedule than we are, and we played SIX games OOC against really God awful basketball teams. Not one or two. Six. It doesn’t take a computer genius to wonder if teams that don’t play so many so awful teams might get a boost for that.

We’re playing really well, are #1 in the polls and are in a good place to win our first conference championship in 18 years. If the computer models bother you, why don’t you just take advantage of them by betting heavily on the Huskies every game and view it as an opportunity instead of something to worry about?
 
yungdowork said:
We failed to cover the spread last night which doesn't normally help the ratings. Some of the computer models are heavily based on how you perform relative to expectations vs whether or not you won. The saying "good teams win, great teams cover" exists because great teams outperform expectations consistently. I think our metrics are hurt a lot by failing to cover vs some of the cupcakes early on as well. We're only 11-6 vs the spread this year. I think a lot of the algorithms will be more favorable to us as Clingan eases back in and our defensive efficiency climbs back up, but there is room for improvement.

Houston might very well be overrated but their 2 losses are true conference road games against ranked opponents by a combined 5 points. Losing by 15 vs Seton Hall in a game we were picked to win by 9ish hurt us a lot.
Expand ...
The computers love Houston
 
I believe UConn was 7th or 8th in kenpom before the Villanova game. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that is correct then they did move up 1 spot after the win last night. Not sure about the NET or Torvik.
 
Here's the thing.

The computers didn't see Spenser playing on one foot in Kansas. They don't take into account that Clingan was hurt and lost during the Seton Hall game. That's worse then not having him for the whole game because it disrupts the game plan and you can't repair an airplane when its in flight. The computer just sees the numbers.

Another thing the computers simply cannot grasp is that these are college kids. College kids that are greatly affected when their girlfriends are jerking them around, or they are having trouble in class, or they are sulking about their playing time, or having poison put into their ears. Outside unrelated junk can have a big affect on their play.

No ranking system will ever be perfect. They are approximations. Quantum mechanics cannot even tell you if a cat is alive or dead. That little algorithm is doing the best it can.
 
Sphinx said:
I would only say this to those who defend the algorithms. Reread my examples.. Would you really care to bet money on the algorithm's current projections? Would you really prefer to take Houston or Alabama or BYU (or even UNC) against UConn on a neutral court? Good luck.
Expand ...
That's it right there. It's all so silly.

Oh and the the computers like us less because Mark Armstorng hit a meaningless half court shot at the end of the game.
 
.-.
7774 said:
So given they’re terrible why do you think Vegas opening lines align with Kenpom projected scores so closely?
Expand ...

You think Vegas would make us underdogs by 7 to Houston? Or a pickem with UNC? Or favored by 2 over BYU?

I'm going to suggest NFW

Computer formulas don't have eyes, and they're important too
 
Sphinx said:
I would only say this to those who defend the algorithms. Reread my examples.. Would you really care to bet money on the algorithm's current projections? Would you really prefer to take Houston or Alabama or BYU (or even UNC) against UConn on a neutral court? Good luck.
Expand ...
lol well you certainly summarized why Vegas is insanely successful at making money off sports betters.
 
superjohn said:
That's it right there. It's all so silly.

Oh and the the computers like us less because Mark Armstorng hit a meaningless half court shot at the end of the game.
Expand ...

If UNC or Gonzaga win a tough road game, then we're better after that game than before that game. I'm sorry, that's something I'll never buy into :)
 
Sphinx said:
I would only say this to those who defend the algorithms. Reread my examples.. Would you really care to bet money on the algorithm's current projections? Would you really prefer to take Houston or Alabama or BYU (or even UNC) against UConn on a neutral court? Good luck.
Expand ...
Not in one game. But in a 7 game series, or 20 game simulation or better yet, 100, I will go with the computer every time, regardless of teams. Even then, something unforeseen can happen, but the larger the sample set the more likely the computers get it right.
 
businesslawyer said:
Teams in the Big Xii and SEC are playing a tougher game in, game out schedule than we are, and we played SIX games OOC against really God awful basketball teams. Not one or two. Six. It doesn’t take a computer genius to wonder if teams that don’t play so many so awful teams might get a boost for that.

We’re playing really well, are #1 in the polls and are in a good place to win our first conference championship in 18 years. If the computer models bother you, why don’t you just take advantage of them by betting heavily on the Huskies every game and view it as an opportunity instead of something to worry about?
Expand ...
We've got to stop playing so many crap teams in the beginning of the season. I really dont get it 2 or 3 maybe but 6 is ridiculous.
 
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.
 
.-.
The analytics accurately reflect how teams have performed to date. We hope UConn has more upside than the other teams, and will be the best in March.

To answer superjohn's question: Right now I would take Houston over UConn on a neutral court, and UConn over Bama, BYU, and UNC. But in March I will take UConn over everyone.
 
pj said:
The analytics accurately reflect how teams have performed to date. We hope UConn has more upside than the other teams, and will be the best in March.
Expand ...
Is that really true? Isn't it the purpose of analytics to predict upside?
 
Sphinx said:
Is that really true? Isn't it the purpose of analytics to predict upside?
Expand ...
Depends on the metric. Some focus on being predictive, some are descriptive and reflect resume strength.

Most of us believe UConn is underrated in the predictive models due to our injuries this year. Most people seem to agree which is why the Vegas lines have been moving towards us after opening lately. Injuries are very hard for models to correct for, because the sample sizes are so small and basketball makes it hard to separate individual players abilities from their teammates. So most models don't really account for it, and sometimes the effect is actually pretty small.

Most people also believe Alabama is overrated because of their disparity in play against higher and lower level opponents. Usually teams that kill bad teams are actually pretty good, and when they play better teams the scoring margin holds to some degree. Some teams are exceptions, though. Alabama certainly appears to be one.
 
superjohn said:
Would you take Houston, Bama, BYU, and UNC over UConn on a neutral court?

You think Vegas would make us dogs to those teams on a neutral court?
Expand ...
Houston would definitely open us a favorite against us on a neutral court. Can't say where the line would end up.

We would be favored against the other 3.
 
businesslawyer said:
Teams in the Big Xii and SEC are playing a tougher game in, game out schedule than we are, and we played SIX games OOC against really God awful basketball teams. Not one or two. Six. It doesn’t take a computer genius to wonder if teams that don’t play so many so awful teams might get a boost for that.

We’re playing really well, are #1 in the polls and are in a good place to win our first conference championship in 18 years. If the computer models bother you, why don’t you just take advantage of them by betting heavily on the Huskies every game and view it as an opportunity instead of something to worry about?
Expand ...
The median net ranking for the big 12 is 35, for the sec it’s 61.

The big east is 42.

Its important to consider that we’re an 11 team conference with a true round robin with 9 teams in the top 65.

The Big 12 is better, not by a lot but better. The SEC is debatable.
 
.-.
Those rankings are just a tool. It's an algorithm a computer is programmed with to try and rank teams. I'm guessing they adjust them more and more over time, when it is learned what situations it doesn't handle well? No reason to get upset with algorithms.
 
auror said:
Houston would definitely open us a favorite against us on a neutral court. Can't say where the line would end up.

We would be favored against the other 3.
Expand ...
Nah, Vegas is in the business of making money.
 
This is a lot easier than some are making it. UConn is essentially two different teams, based on if Donovan Clingan takes the court or not, combined into one ranking.

When UConn has Clingan, it is at least a top 3 team and the computers reflect that. With a healthy roster, UConn is in the clear top tier with Houston (I think Houston’s defensive extremes kind of break the algorithms but that’s a topic for another day) and Purdue, and UConn would easily be favored over every other team mentioned.

Without Donovan, UConn has not performed like a top 3 team and is probably more of a top 15-20 type team. Without him, we would not be favored against teams like UNC, Arizona or Tennessee and very few of us would (realistically) pick us to beat those teams on a neutral court based on what we saw without Donovan available.

Right now, we’ve had him for 2/3 of our game and not for 1/3 and the rankings reflect that split. The more games Donovan plays, the more our rankings will reflect that full strength version.
 
Last edited:
uh-no said:
They were fifth. we dropped a spot.
Sat Jan 20530Villanova
Expand ...
I have to admit it is really counterintuitive that winning a game would make you drop. I mean, I guess, I get it if you're playing a really horrible team, but nova isn't that. I suppose, it is a function of our cumulative SOS and nova cumulative SOS and the fact that it was a one point victory. But still...
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,617
Messages
4,585,799
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom