Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OFID, post: 3431213, member: 10412"] It's a good point that while all of these services are eager to provide point estimates, none are willing to part with measures of uncertainty; that is, none of them say how accurate their estimates are. Elo and the Massey estimates are model-based, so I expect their properties are quite good. The further into the season we go, the better the estimates are. HHS is proprietary, so I couldn't say about that one. RPI is ad hoc, and I expect does not have good properties. Stony Brook (23-1) and Princeton (17-1) would be counter-examples to that. Each team has only lost one game, but they haven't beaten any really good teams either. To be elite, you have to beat really good teams. Baylor has beaten 7 Massey top 50 teams; Oregon has beaten 5 Massey top 50 teams (including 4 top 11 wins) and South Carolina 11 Massey top 50 wins (including two top 5 wins). On the other hand, Princeton has only 1 Massey top 50 win and Stony Brook doesn't even have a Massey top 100 win. Another counterexample would be Maryland (17-4), which has 9 Massey top 50 wins and is ranked 5th in Massey despite having 4 losses. Our problem is not that we scheduled Baylor and Oregon, it's that we did schedule enough teams that ended up being really good. Our best win (so far) is DePaul. Our other Massey top 50 wins are Ohio State and Tennessee. That's it, just 3 Massey top 50 wins. I completely agree that there are things that are not captured in the inputs to these rating scales: points for, points against, home/away/neutral site etc., and that these estimates are not the be-all and end-all. However, whether an eyeball estimate is better will depend on who's eyeball it is. I'd argue that any eyeball estimate can be improved by looking at (and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of) ratings scales. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,446

Messages: 4,396,597

Members: 10,209

Latest member: gemini*trvl