Massey Ratings

[CBear01]

Massey ratings are computer ratings. They are NOT subjective. And without any game results from this year, there is no data to generate a ranking.

I know what the Massey Ratings are and I mention that in a previous post when someone asked why the rankings "didn't work for me." In fact I stated that all preseason rankings bother me simply because there isn't much need to rely on a either a computer based statistic nor an AP opinionate view to know where teams fall. I said I prefer to see what teams bring to the court and what happens there includes the emotional side of basketball where it can be anyone's game.

But how is massey any different than the preseason AP or coaches poll? In my opinion they are all a bunch of hoopla until we see what actually happens on the court. This rating is no different than any other in that regard. I'd read above my last post if you didn't understand my view b4 you weighed in. Computer or person, a preseason ranking doesn't mean much to me. But it does say soemthing of the caliber of a team. I mean what computer or person will say that Central Arkansas State is the #1 team pre season? Even tho no games played who's to say they can't go undefeated or run into a UCONN or ND in the tournament and send them home? Come on, now it's just a poll but let's not get crazy here folks...we all know UCONN belongs at or near the top even without the seniors last year. And I guess a computer statistical program agrees as well, who woulda guessed?

 

[Vowelguy]

But how is massey any different than the preseason AP or coaches poll?

A preseason AP poll is some human beings evaluating the teams, who they have returning, prospects for the season.
A computer program that relies on game results has no information preseason.

That is the difference.

 

[southbendcane]

Those ratings are the final from last year. That's why UConn is first and there is a huge gap. Also why Oregon State and Syracuse are so high. And why there are offensive and defensive efficiency stats despite no games having been played yet.

I was about to say i want some of what their smoking.

 

[stamfordhusky]

I Computer or person, a preseason ranking doesn't mean much to me. But it does say soemthing of the caliber of a team. I mean what computer or person will say that . . . but let's not get crazy here folks...we all know UCONN belongs at or near the top even without the seniors last year. And I guess a computer statistical program agrees as well, who woulda guessed?

The computer rankings, including Massey, only say something about the caliber of the team in past years. They say nothing about this year's team. If UConn was suiting up ten 5-footers who never played basketball before, they would still be ranked #1 by Massey at this point due to what their teams have done in the past. It often works out pretty well - but is not a judgement at all on this year's team.

 

[Alydar]

Those preseason rankings are not based on last year alone. They are based on the last 3 years. And while their relevance for a team that is replacing 3 starters is dubious, there is one factor that is relevant, the statistical gaps between UConn and the rest of the field. Looking at the scores under the overall rankings, these are the numbers:

1. UConn 3.33
2. Baylor 2.67 gap from 1-2 0.66
3. N. Dame 2.66 gap from 2-3 0.01
4. S Car. 2.59 gap from 3-4 0.02

I could continue and show that the gap in the top 10 is less than 0.05 for every gap EXCEPT 1-2. The gap between UConn and the next best team is 66 times larger. In order to put this gap in perspective let's find the team that is 0.66 behind No 2 Baylor. That team is No 29 Georgia. That's how much better than everyone else UConn was last year.

What that says to me is that UConn can slide quite a bit in terms of performance and would still be No. 1. So yes, UConn lost a lot of talent last year but they were so much better than the rest of wcbb that even with the loss of players from last season they remain one of the logical candidates for winning it all this year.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

What that says to me is that UConn can slide quite a bit in terms of performance and would still be No. 1. So yes, UConn lost a lot of talent last year but they were so much better than the rest of wcbb that even with the loss of players from last season they remain one of the logical candidates for winning it all this year.

They were so much better because they had WNBA players that graduated. I don't think one can subtract them and simply say that sorta lowers UConn's gap. Those three were a huge reason for that gap. Remember when Geno sat the seniors to start against Cincinnati late in the year? That game was 15 apiece when Stewart, Tuck, and Jefferson entered.

 

[Alydar]

They were so much better because they had WNBA players that graduated. I don't think one can subtract them and simply say that sorta lowers UConn's gap. Those three were a huge reason for that gap. Remember when Geno sat the seniors to start against Cincinnati late in the year? That game was 15 apiece when Stewart, Tuck, and Jefferson entered.

The starting 5 in that game (Butler, Samuelson, Nurse, Collier and Williams) outscored the entire Cinci team 42-34. The 3 WNBA players combined for 33 pts. The 15-15 tie occurred midway through the 1st period. There were games in which the "3 WNBA players" started and the score was also close in the first quarter.

UConn had several games that were close early. Ten days later against Tulane the WNBA players all started and they trailed 11-2 midway through the first period. Was that score predictive? No, and neither is the example you offered.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

The starting 5 in that game (Butler, Samuelson, Nurse, Collier and Williams) outscored the entire Cinci team 42-34. The 3 WNBA players combined for 33 pts. The 15-15 tie occurred midway through the 1st period. There were games in which the "3 WNBA players" started and the score was also close in the first quarter.

UConn had several games that were close early. Ten days later against Tulane the WNBA players all started and they trailed 11-2 midway through the first period. Was that score predictive? No, and neither is the example you offered.

Tulane was significantly better (70th in Sagarin) than Cincinnati (222nd).

Also, Chong started that game, not Williams. So even if you want to look at all the points they scored which include later on when they played with the seniors, the starters were 34-34 vs Cincy since Williams outscored Chong 8-0.

 

[easttexastrash]

So yes, UConn lost a lot of talent last year .

We already have a winner for understatement of the season. That competition can be cancelled.

 

[Carnac]

we can skip the season, now. looks like UConn's already won it all again, right?

If Massey says UConn is number one, I'll take it. Never look a gift horse in the mouth!

 

[Carnac]

Perhaps...and yet the most interesting statistic is the overall rating is a giant leap ahead of everyone else.

View attachment 16080

Anyone think this year's national champion is not on this list?

 

[Alydar]

We already have a winner for understatement of the season. That competition can be cancelled.

The relevant question is not who left but rather how much talent does UConn have this year? I say a lot. Those who only look at the graduates are deluding themselves. Why? Because the last 8 years UConn has won 6 championships. Nine in the last 15 years. 9 straight final fours. Players come and go at UConn but the titles keep coming. I remember all the predictions in 2003. Four AA's leave, get drafted 1,2,3 & 5 and the chatter was that they "lost too much". UConn lost more pts/gm in 2003 than this year, had less size in 2003 than the 2017 team and most of the roster was freshman and sophomores who contributed very meagerly,if at all, to the 2002 championship. And yet somehow they won it all again.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I just noticed that the 2016-17 Massey Ratings for college women's basketball are out. UConn is #1, followed by Baylor... See for yourself: Masseyratings.com

I take a few lousy hours off and something like this happens and I'm playing catch up.

 

[CBear01]

A preseason AP poll is some human beings evaluating the teams, who they have returning, prospects for the season.
A computer program that relies on game results has no information preseason.

That is the difference.

Are you even reading the posts? WE ALL KNOW THIS and have stated it several times. The point is....what's the difference when it's preseason? Who cares? We all want to see the action on the court dictate who is the top team and who isn't. I think what the majority of posters here are in awe of is the gap that STILL exists between the Huskies and everyone else. Maybe once the season starts we see that gap closed. Who knows. But for now the stats show a gap and I'm sure "some human beings" can also acknowledge that gap.

I'd read more of the posts, you would get a better idea of what some of us are saying here.