Ah, but you can't fool the algorithms! | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Ah, but you can't fool the algorithms!

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...
 
jake14mw said:
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.
Expand ...
I never get upset with algorithms, my favorite is when he used to say "lockbox." There's a funny SNL skit on that.
 
CL82 said:
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...
Expand ...
We didn't go down, Auburn jumped us. They beat a then 15-2 team by 23 points.
 
auror said:
We didn't go down, Auburn jumped us. They beat a then 15-2 team by 23 points.
Expand ...
I hear you, and yet we did go down. The number 13 team beat the number 22 team, what's that got to do with us.

( I understand the math of it, I'm just talking about how it feels intuitively.)
 
auror said:
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.
Expand ...
In addition to injuries, are officiating and crowds factored into algorithms? Playing in an arena with 21,000 fans is different than playing an away game in which no one shows up for the home team.

Is it possible the Alabama coaching staff, recognizing their limitations, are playing the algorithm game to get the best possible seeding as opposed to using the weaker opponents to improve overall development? Coaches of mediocre teams that have no realistic opportunity to win their conferences or national championships could run up scores and not put any effort into overcoming their weaknesses in the games against weaker opponents. I guess I'm asking if job security is factored into the algorithms.
 
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 ...
You listed 4 teams, 3 are rated lower than UConn.
 
ctchamps said:
In addition to injuries, are officiating and crowds factored into algorithms? Playing in an arena with 21,000 fans is different than playing an away game in which no one shows up for the home team.
Expand ...
KenPom does give each team a bespoke home court advantage calculated from the last few years worth of data. Not sure if he separates it by specific arena for teams with multiple home courts.

Officials are not considered by regular metrics. Gamblers do consider them in their models.
 
djct1999 said:
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.
Expand ...
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?
 
superjohn said:
Nah, Vegas is in the business of making money.
Expand ...
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.
 
auror said:
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.
Expand ...
You think healthy Houston would be 4 or so point favorites over healthy UConn on a neutral floor...

Sorry brother but that's nuts.
 
auror said:
Our rating went up (well actually mostly stayed the same), our ranking went down.
Expand ...
What happened with Kansas and Duke yesterday (ratings and rank)?
 
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 ...
We’d be favored against 3 of those I would guess.
 
7774 said:
So given they’re terrible why do you think Vegas opening lines align with Kenpom projected scores so closely?
Expand ...
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.
 
Looked at Massey. They have UConn as # 2 behind Purdue with Houston a close #3. They also have something called "power" rating which is per them a measure of potential vs. actual past wins and losses (not sure what that means or what they take into consideration). In order from #1 to #7 power is Houston, Purdue, Arizona, Alabama, Tenn., UConn, Gonzaga.
In team vs. team calculation have UConn losing by 1 to 3 points to all rated higher except Tenn. which is tie and Gonzaga which is tie.
Two things stand out in Massey ratings:
1. Houston has by far the worst SOS in top 10 except for Baylor but seems to not be dinged in terms of "how good their performance has been/will be".
2. Top 15 or so teams are mostly 1 or 2 points favored or not which is going to make the NCAA's wild. As an example has Purdue favored over # 25 St. Mary's by 5 if they played on neutral court.
 
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 ...
You're right if history has no influence on the algorithms.

I point to Houston's high seeding and poor performance in the tournament as exhibit #1 and rest my case.
 
7774 said:
lol well you certainly summarized why Vegas is insanely successful at making money off sports betters.
Expand ...
So you would bet Houston, Alabama, UNC and BYU against UConn straight up on a neutral court?
 
Scrutiner said:
You're right if history has no influence on the algorithms.

I point to Houston's high seeding and poor performance in the tournament as exhibit #1 and rest my case.
Expand ...
Using previous years' tournament results to try to judge the resume of this year's teams seems like maybe not the best way to do it, but I have been wrong before. Houston's best player wasn't even on the team last year, and they've been pretty successful in the tournament compared to 98% of programs in the country.

The algorithms are just measuring resumes, they're never going to be perfect for determining who would beat who, or who is going to be more successful in the postseason. They're fun little metrics you can use to say your team is better than somebody else and should be ranked higher
 

Online statistics

Members online
237
Guests online
2,799
Total visitors
3,036
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,241
Messages
4,388,486
Members
10,196
Latest member
ArtTheFan


.
..
Top Bottom