Does The Big East Hurt Our KenPom? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Does The Big East Hurt Our KenPom?

Inyatkin said:
So to recap, you thought when he said we should forfeit the rest of our games that he was being serious?
Expand ...
That part was obviously a joke, but it wasn't clear to me at all that he actually understood why the number changed.
 
7774 said:
That part was obviously a joke, but it wasn't clear to me at all that he actually understood why the number changed.
Expand ...
This poster had a detailed breakdown of what KP is and isn’t like three posts up, so it seemed pretty straightforward, to me
 
businesslawyer said:
Of course not. But when he noted our increase on a night off like it was odd, why wouldn't I think that (as opposed to his solution) was serious? I guaranty you that there are some posters on here who would view our rating going DOWN on a night off as proof someone was against us or our conference.
Expand ...

I literally quoted my previous post where I explained how a team's KP metrics can change even when they are not playing, based on how the teams they already played are performing as the season progresses.
 
businesslawyer said:
Seriously? We're this many years into bulletin board discussions and you think readers not able to hear your voice and see your body language can tell when you're being facetious? That's on the poster, not the reader. (I do it sometimes and when called out simply say "my bad.")
Expand ...
I also put a winking smile right at the end of my sentence to make it apparently obvious I was making a joke.

;-)
 
JustbrewitMan said:

Its why you can see your team's NetRtg change (slightly) even on days that they are not playing. The other teams that they have played are changing, as well.

The panic some people have over ORtg currently is absurd.
Expand ...

7774 said:
That part was obviously a joke, but it wasn't clear to me at all that he actually understood why the number changed.
Expand ...
 
Inyatkin said:
This poster had a detailed breakdown of what KP is and isn’t like three posts up, so it seemed pretty straightforward, to me
Expand ...
Gotcha. I scroll past that person's posts if they're more than 2-3 sentences.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
The SEC and Big 12 just lay waste to the low majors on their schedules. The SEC in particular is dominating KenPom, and this year's conference currently has one of the highest conference ratings of all time. This despite the fact that the SEC has a losing record against the other majors (Big 10, Big 12, Big East, ACC) and is #4 in RPI, which just measures wins and losses.

Pomeroy has questioned whether his ratings should be used by the tournament selection committee because he did not build his models for the purpose they are being used for.
Expand ...
This is explained by the idea that while the SEC lacks teams in the elite tier, there are multiple decent or tourney-caliber teams that hover around above-average to just OK.

They had a record season last season so it’s not outlandish to believe that some level of quality was preserved over the past year.
 
businesslawyer said:
Seriously? We're this many years into bulletin board discussions and you think readers not able to hear your voice and see your body language can tell when you're being facetious? That's on the poster, not the reader. (I do it sometimes and when called out simply say "my bad.")
Expand ...
Any cheese to go with that whine?
 
Hurleyman216 said:
I can’t help but notice even though we are about to move up to the #2 team in the country, it seems like every year once we get into league play our KenPom offensive efficiency #’s start a downward trend. I wish I had access to KenPom’s archives so I could go back and plot the trend. Seems like this also isn’t just a this season thing, seems to happen every year.

For the record, I’m only really concerned with how our offensive efficiency numbers change out of conference vs. in conference. My gut tells me playing all these physical teams limits our freedom of movement and hurts our offensive efficiency numbers, but I haven’t saved the weekly or game by game data to prove it. I will also say that Solo Ball is a big part of our offense and his poor play of late could have an impact on this as well.
Expand ...
Kenpom is crap. Who cares about this?
 
FightOnCT said:
This is explained by the idea that while the SEC lacks teams in the elite tier, there are multiple decent or tourney-caliber teams that hover around above-average to just OK.

They had a record season last season so it’s not outlandish to believe that some level of quality was preserved over the past year.
Expand ...

But they aren't actually winning that many games. They have a losing record against the other majors, didn't play many mid-majors, and then annihilated the low majors on their schedule. That is a recipe for this year's SEC to currently be rated #6 or #7 conference of all time.
 
Woof said:
Games that should be easy wins are turning into stressful events.
Expand ...
I honestly haven't been stressed about any games other than AZ, and that was only because we were down two starters. Even Providence I had a good feeling we'd come back and win it (we cut it closer than I'd like but I never panicked.) I feel we pass the eye test which is why I am not getting nervous even if we are playing a tight game, I just always feel we are going to win.
 
.-.
auror said:
Main difference is Torvik considers game script via average lead. We've had a lot of big leads that have reduced late into worse final margins, but we've gotten credit for the leads in Torvik.
Expand ...

That I had not seen. That's interesting. I did see Torvik also tries to ignore garbage time - which probably helps UConn a decent amount.
 
uconn_jack said:
I honestly haven't been stressed about any games other than AZ, and that was only because we were down two starters. Even Providence I had a good feeling we'd come back and win it (we cut it closer than I'd like but I never panicked.) I feel we pass the eye test which is why I am not getting nervous even if we are playing a tight game, I just always feel we are going to win.
Expand ...
You thought we'd come back against PC is rich.
 
Maybe the BE is a problem from an overall perspective, but BYU losing at home appeared to hurt our KP last night more than anything. After that loss, we dropped from 10 to 11 and our Drating dropped from 4 to 6. I know there’s a combination of factors that caused the drop, but that one seemed to do the most damage.

As far as NET goes, Nova loss to St. John’s last night dropped them to Quad 2. They play Gtown on Wednesday night, and maybe they win and go from 31 back to top 30 and Quad 1 for our game, and hopefully they stay Quad 1. Regardless of all that, a convincing win on Saturday might move the needle on our metrics,
 
DCHuskyFan said:
Maybe the BE is a problem from an overall perspective, but BYU losing at home appeared to hurt our KP last night more than anything. After that loss, we dropped from 10 to 11 and our Drating dropped from 4 to 6. I know there’s a combination of factors that caused the drop, but that one seemed to do the most damage.

As far as NET goes, Nova loss to St. John’s last night dropped them to Quad 2. They play Gtown on Wednesday night, and maybe they win and go from 31 back to top 30 and Quad 1 for our game, and hopefully they stay Quad 1. Regardless of all that, a convincing win on Saturday might move the needle on our metrics,
Expand ...
Our metrics have been steadily dropping with the narrow wins. It's fine for now, but we don't have a lot of room to lose these games now. If we actually drop a couple of games to these BE teams, we could move off the one line quick. 11 in KPI and 8 in the NET at this point. A win is a win, sure, but the quality of the win does matter these days.
 
I used to be a big fan, but KenPom has jumped the shark this year. A 10-8 Washington team with 3 wins in the Top 100, is 52? Oregon is 8-10 with no Top 100 wins and 2 close wins over teams between 101-150 is 88. South Carolina is 77 at 10-8, with 1 win in the Top 200. After their win over LSU, SC's next best win is a 12 point victory over 221 Charleston Southern.

The "house effect" for the SEC and Big 10 has gotten a little out of hand.
 
.-.
DCHuskyFan said:
Maybe the BE is a problem from an overall perspective, but BYU losing at home appeared to hurt our KP last night more than anything. After that loss, we dropped from 10 to 11 and our Drating dropped from 4 to 6. I know there’s a combination of factors that caused the drop, but that one seemed to do the most damage.

As far as NET goes, Nova loss to St. John’s last night dropped them to Quad 2. They play Gtown on Wednesday night, and maybe they win and go from 31 back to top 30 and Quad 1 for our game, and hopefully they stay Quad 1. Regardless of all that, a convincing win on Saturday might move the needle on our metrics,
Expand ...
That drop is really just non-significant statistical noise. The difference between 4th and 6th is 0.4 pts per 100 possessions.

An average game has about 60-70 possessions. That’s about 0.2 pts per 100 possessions difference in the 4th, 5th, and 6th ranked teams’ defensive metric over about a 20 game sample size.

It means literally nothing.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I used to be a big fan, but KenPom has jumped the shark this year. A 10-8 Washington team with 3 wins in the Top 100, is 52? Oregon is 8-10 with no Top 100 wins and 2 close wins over teams between 101-150 is 88. South Carolina is 77 at 10-8, with 1 win in the Top 200. After their win over LSU, SC's next best win is a 12 point victory over 221 Charleston Southern.

The "house effect" for the SEC and Big 10 has gotten a little out of hand.
Expand ...
There is no house effect or jumping of sharks. It is an algorithm. It isn't biased based on conferences.
 
JustbrewitMan said:
That drop is really just non-significant statistical noise. The difference between 4th and 6th is 0.4 pts per 100 possessions.

An average game has about 60-70 possessions. That’s about 0.2 pts per 100 possessions difference in the 4th, 5th, and 6th ranked teams’ defensive metric over about a 20 game sample size.

It means literally nothing.
Expand ...
It means we moved down a list that the committee will see when they determine our seed. A committee that seems to like to seed us low. A committee that can, indeed, be biased and looking for confirmation to seed us low.
 
Woof said:
There is no house effect or jumping of sharks. It is an algorithm. It isn't biased based on conferences.
Expand ...

I have worked with plenty of algorithms over the years. Sometimes they get detached from reality.
 
Woof said:
It means we moved down a list that the committee will see when they determine our seed. A committee that seems to like to seed us low. A committee that can, indeed, be biased and looking for confirmation to seed us low.
Expand ...
There’s 12+ games left in the regular season. Let’s save our panic and conspiracy agita until then…
 
Woof said:
It means we moved down a list that the committee will see when they determine our seed. A committee that seems to like to seed us low. A committee that can, indeed, be biased and looking for confirmation to seed us low.
Expand ...

You are defending a model that is used for seeding when that model appears to have an inherent bias while complaining that the committee which uses this model is biased against us. Is it possible that the model is the problem?
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
I have worked with plenty of algorithms over the years. Sometimes they get detached from reality.
Expand ...
Sure. Some algorithms are better than others and no model is perfect. But you implied that one of them had a "house effect" and "jumped the shark". What is your proof of that, other than not liking the results? "Jumping the shark" implies that the algorithm was changed. Any evidence? A "house effect" implies bias. Any evidence of that?
 
Woof said:
Sure. Some algorithms are better than others and no model is perfect. But you implied that one of them had a "house effect" and "jumped the shark". What is your proof of that, other than not liking the results? "Jumping the shark" implies that the algorithm was changed. Any evidence? A "house effect" implies bias. Any evidence of that?
Expand ...

Common sense test. I gave several examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,158
Messages
4,555,301
Members
10,440
Latest member
Regan23


Top Bottom