Massey Ratings | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Massey Ratings

Boreifs said:
It is my understanding that Massey does not accurately reflect the current season until after 10 games have been played.
Expand ...
Sorry, I was only trying to give other BYers a link to the ratings in case they wanted to bookmark it (like I did).
In past seasons, people (me included) would post links to the weekly AP Top 25 but I don't recall anyone posting the link to the Massey ratings.
And I am aware of how the ratings are generated, meaning the current preseason ratings are "useless", but I didn't think that I had to mention that to anyone that might want the link. I apologize.
 
Skeets said:
DD, you just exposed one of the major flaws with metric based rating systems. Such systems do not know just from analyzing the numbers that a team is preparing to go into the toilet, or ready to explode as UConn did in the latter half of the season. I think at best these ratings can give some insight into teams that you know very little about, not the teams that you are intimately familiar with. For those teams eyeballs work the best.
Expand ...
I'd just like to add that UConn was like a muscle car sitting at a red light revving its engine in a menacing way. You just knew what was going to happen when the light turns green. No way can you capture that with a metrics-based rating system, but you have a shot to capture it with your eyeballs.
 
Skeets said:
I'd just like to add that UConn was like a muscle car sitting at a red light revving its engine in a menacing way. You just knew what was going to happen when the light turns green. No way can you capture that with a metrics-based rating system, but you have a shot to capture it with your eyeballs.
Expand ...
To your point, I remain baffled that, after UConn absolutely dismantled SC in Columbia last season, many of the so-called pundits continued to push either SC or UCLA as the team to beat for the national championship. My eyeballs told me otherwise, to the point where I began to wonder if I needed new glasses…. 🥸
 
Skeets said:
I'd just like to add that UConn was like a muscle car sitting at a red light revving its engine in a menacing way. You just knew what was going to happen when the light turns green. No way can you capture that with a metrics-based rating system, but you have a shot to capture it with your eyeballs.
Expand ...
Man, what a great metaphor!
 
Boreifs said:
It is my understanding that Massey does not accurately reflect the current season until after 10 games have been played.
Expand ...
This number 10 has been plucked out of the ether and propagated as an urban myth. There's no set number of games for the previous season's results to disappear.
 
.-.
Plebe said:
This number 10 has been plucked out of the ether and propagated as an urban myth. There's no set number of games for the previous season's results to disappear.
Expand ...
To identify a trend, it's generally recommended to have at least six data points to reduce the risk of error, as fewer points can lead to misleading conclusions. However, for more reliable analysis, having around 25 data points is often suggested to establish a stable trend.
 
oldude said:
To your point, I remain baffled that, after UConn absolutely dismantled SC in Columbia last season, many of the so-called pundits continued to push either SC or UCLA as the team to beat for the national championship. My eyeballs told me otherwise, to the point where I began to wonder if I needed new glasses…. 🥸
Expand ...
As has been noted elsewhere, filtering data for relevant results is useful, and I'd like to see what this shows about lots of teams, including SC. The first blowout down in Columbia exposed Dawn's front court, and especially Chloe Kitts, who was asked to do more than her physical skills allowed. Don't get me wrong, I like Chloe's game, but she is not a physical post player and that's what she was being asked to be. Her +/- numbers were the best on the team, though her defensive +/- was weakest among the starters. The same story is visible in the win share numbers: overall highest, but on defense among the lowest. And this reality is even more visible in the competitive games than in the blowouts -- the Texas games, the UCLA game and the UConn games.

If I go by the eyeball test, what I see is that Dawn's front court reserves were weak, especially after the loss of Watkins and Walker. Dauda and Tac simply couldn't carry the burden of the position in competitive games. As a result, It was only Feagin, Edwards and Chloe, and no one would seriously think this group was comparable to the great SC teams of recent years. In effect, they had a front court that topped out at 6'3" and wasn't nearly as athletic as it had been in the past.

Interestingly, on Geno's side, after that first SC game, he worried that his team would not recognize the possibility that a rematch could go very differently. Then he walked into the locker room to see Paige telling them all to expect a rematch to be much more competitive. That shows the other side of the eyeball test: Paige led a very savvy team that wasn't blind to its own vulnerabilities. And when the unsung heroes, like Jana and Ice stepped up in big games, she knew to celebrate them loud and long.
 
Skeets said:
DD, you just exposed one of the major flaws with metric based rating systems. Such systems do not know just from analyzing the numbers that a team is preparing to go into the toilet, or ready to explode as UConn did in the latter half of the season. I think at best these ratings can give some insight into teams that you know very little about, not the teams that you are intimately familiar with. For those teams eyeballs work the best.
Expand ...

Everything you say is true. In spite of that, once Jan 1 comes around, Massey has been especially good at predicting final scores and MOV's, despite injuries and fouls.
 
Plebe said:
This number 10 has been plucked out of the ether and propagated as an urban myth. There's no set number of games for the previous season's results to disappear.
Expand ...

Massey over-weights the last 10 games. Past season games remain in the database but to a much lesser degree. I studied Massey's explanation of their algorithm years ago. As the season goes on the data base of results grows and it's reliability increases.
 
Alydar said:
Massey over-weights the last 10 games. Past season games remain in the database but to a much lesser degree. I studied Massey's explanation of their algorithm years ago. As the season goes on the data base of results grows and it's reliability increases.
Expand ...
At the beginninng of the season what are the last 10 games? As I said above, I pay no attention to the service until mid December because I find their predictions consistently wide of the mark and sometimes ludicrous.
 
.-.
Alydar said:
Massey over-weights the last 10 games. Past season games remain in the database but to a much lesser degree. I studied Massey's explanation of their algorithm years ago. As the season goes on the data base of results grows and it's reliability increases.
Expand ...
Where did you read an explanation that specifically mentions “the last 10 games”? The only explanation I've found is here and states that “there is a slight de-weighting of early season games” but it doesn't state a specific threshold by number of games.
 
Massey's comments on his preseason ratings:

"Preseason ratings are based on an extrapolation of recent years' results, tuned to fit historical trends and regression to the mean. A team's future performance is expected to be consistent with the strength of the program, but sometimes there may be temporary spikes.

Other potentially significant indicators (ex. returning starters, coaching changes, and recruiting) are ignored. Therefore, preseason ratings should not be taken too seriously,"
 
Duke is only #7 ?



giphy.gif
 
.-.
triaddukefan said:
Duke is only #7 ?



giphy.gif
Expand ...
Well, maybe if your offense wasn't ranked a paltry #31 (even that may be a generous ranking!) you would be higher. You did lose your best player to Maryland right? On the bright side, Kara was named the USA Coach, I just hope she picks an offensive minded assistant coach like Jenny B from Oklahoma....
 
DefenseBB said:
Well, maybe if your offense wasn't ranked a paltry #31 (even that may be a generous ranking!) you would be higher. You did lose your best player to Maryland right? On the bright side, Kara was named the USA Coach, I just hope she picks an offensive minded assistant coach like Jenny B from Oklahoma....
Expand ...

Naw, we didn't lose our best player. Our best players still are in West Durham.
 
FanFromMaine said:
Man, what a great metaphor!
Expand ...
I agree in concept, but it is either a simile or an analogy because he used the word "like." "E.g. crazy like a fox..."

Metaphor: The Huskies are a finely tuned top fuel dragster after doing their burnouts, and easing up to the starting line, ready to accelerate rapidly through the finish line. No worries!

Go Huskies!!!
 
The CDR-Ret said:
I agree in concept, but it is either a simile or an analogy because he used the word "like." "E.g. crazy like a fox..."

Metaphor: The Huskies are a finely tuned top fuel dragster after doing their burnouts, and easing up to the starting line, ready to accelerate rapidly through the finish line. No worries!

Go Huskies!!!
Expand ...
That thought went through my mind also, but I wasn't going to look a gift horse compliment in the mouth. That's a metaphor, right?
 
The CDR-Ret said:
I agree in concept, but it is either a simile or an analogy because he used the word "like." "E.g. crazy like a fox..."

Metaphor: The Huskies are a finely tuned top fuel dragster after doing their burnouts, and easing up to the starting line, ready to accelerate rapidly through the finish line. No worries!

Go Huskies!!!
Expand ...
Thanks. I make no claim to use these terms correctly.
 
Bone Dog said:
I agree. The difference between a 1 seed and a 2 seed isn't that important.
Expand ...
Bone Dog, same opponents. The only difference would have been the color of the uniforms they would have worn. We would have been the number 4 one seed and USC would have been the number 1 two seed.
 
.-.
oldude said:
To your point, I remain baffled that, after UConn absolutely dismantled SC in Columbia last season, many of the so-called pundits continued to push either SC or UCLA as the team to beat for the national championship. My eyeballs told me otherwise, to the point where I began to wonder if I needed new glasses…. 🥸
Expand ...
Your point is well taken and understood BUT - one of the charms about sport is its inherent one-off nature.

A terrible team can have an uncharacteristically perfect game and beat a much better team and the opposite is equally true.

At the time UConn hosed the Gamecocks (I was at the game with my entire family, kids and grandkids - what a great time!) I don’t think anyone could really know that the team we saw in Columbia was the team we would see without exception the remainder of the year.

Based on all relevant data to that point in time, it wasn’t crazy to still consider SC and USC as potential champions.

And if I recall correctly, didn’t SC bounce back from that loss in the same way we did after the Tennessee game?
 
cabbie191 said:
Your point is well taken and understood BUT - one of the charms about sport is its inherent one-off nature.

A terrible team can have an uncharacteristically perfect game and beat a much better team and the opposite is equally true.

At the time UConn hosed the Gamecocks (I was at the game with my entire family, kids and grandkids - what a great time!) I don’t think anyone could really know that the team we saw in Columbia was the team we would see without exception the remainder of the year.

Based on all relevant data to that point in time, it wasn’t crazy to still consider SC and USC as potential champions.

And if I recall correctly, didn’t SC bounce back from that loss in the same way we did after the Tennessee game?
Expand ...
Your point is valid. But here’s the thing. Geno has been at this for 30+ years. He is the absolute best at building his team for a championship run in March. A 30-pt win in Columbia in February is not an “inherent one off.” I know that Dawn and some in the media attempted to portray it as such. But that was just not the case.

The common refrain was that “SC was not ready.” The Gamecocks had one of the most talented rosters in WBB, coached by one of the very best coaches in WBB, at home on national tv, before a sellout crowd against the greatest team in the history of WBB, and you’re asking us to believe that they “weren’t ready?” I didn’t buy it then, and from the result of the championship game, I think I got it right.

As for SC bouncing back, they won the games they were supposed to win, mostly in conference. A number were close, particularly with TX. Almost all were physical battles, the type of game SC thrives in. But no one SC faced until the championship game had UConn’s ability to spread the floor, move the ball and knock down outside shots, while playing relentless defense.

We’re not talking about some huge underdog pulling off a once in a lifetime miracle upset on a last second basket. I have watched many years of UConn WBB. After the beat down in Columbia, UConn was clearly the team to beat, and not by a little.
 
Last edited:
oldude said:
Your point is valid. But here’s the thing. Geno has been at this for 30+ years. He is the absolute best at building his team for a championship run in March. A 30-pt win in Columbia in February is not an “inherent one off.” I know that Dawn and some in the media attempted to portray it as such. But that was just not the case.

The common refrain was that “SC was not ready.” The Gamecocks had one of the most talented rosters in WBB, coached by one of the very best coaches in WBB, at home on national tv, before a sellout crowd against the greatest team in the history of WBB, and you’re asking us to believe that they “weren’t ready?” I didn’t buy it then, and from the result of the championship game, I think I got it right.

As for SC bouncing back, they won the games they were supposed to win, mostly in conference. A number were close, particularly with TX. Almost all were physical battles, the type of game SC thrives in. But no one SC faced until the championship game had UConn’s ability to spread the floor, move the ball and knock down outside shots, while playing relentless defense.

We’re not talking about some huge underdog pulling off a once in a lifetime miracle upset on a last second basket. I have watched many years of UConn WBB. After the beat down in Columbia, UConn was clearly the team to beat, and not by a little.
Expand ...

Great points. My comment was largely framed in the aftermath of the win at SC. Certainly as the season progressed it became clearer that UConn had jelled and was absolutely an elite team. But the other teams, IMO, were legitimately considered contenders.

I thought we should have been a one-seed but didn’t get offended by the selection committee’s decision. As someone pointed out, the basic outcome was the uniform color the team had to wear. Other than that, perhaps extra motivation, and the coolness of beating 3 # 1’s.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,258
Messages
4,560,157
Members
10,448
Latest member
MillerLitEd


Top Bottom