Think? Nope. Hope beyond hope? Yep. I hate it, always have. Here is a team that is 22-3 and is being crapped on continuously because of metrics. Like I said, the actual record doesn’t matter. when a team loses and their ranking advances while the winning team recedes, it’s time for me to bow out in considering it’s usefulness. But by all means knock yourself out with it.
See this is exactly what I’m talking about. PC beat Texas Tech sans Jared Bynum. I don’t know, is that an important consideration? apparently not when you have an agenda to crap on a team to promote ridiculous metrics.
Not when that’s not an equal trade off lol. Now maybe if you guys were without Nate Watson youd have a point
I simply asked if it matters? Apparently it doesn’t. I think in the future we should just let KenPom tell us who actually won the games. It would be so much easier than looking at the scoring.
I mean I wouldn’t say it doesn’t matter, but beating teams without their best player isn’t the flex PC fans think it is. Had we beat you guys without Watson and a hobbled Durham you would be giving us crap for bragging about it
Congrats on the luck.
, I’m not flexing. I’m pointing out an agenda. If TT was missing a player you analytics guys wouldn’t stop mentioning it.
The issue is that you're entirely misunderstanding what KenPom is supposed to tell you. It's a predictive model, not descriptive, so by definition their record doesn't matter. PC is very highly rated by the descriptive metrics because they're a very good team who's won a ton of games. The predictive models see them winning a lot of close games and expect regression to come. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but just because a model doesn't like your team doesn't mean it's wrong
KenPom at one point yesterday had PC at a less than 1% chance of winning. It was still just 5% with two minutes left. The whole thing is pure crap when it obviously has factors it somehow can’t seem to track. He needs a clutch statistic.
No I wouldn’t. If they were missing their best player…maybe.
Yes.
The lowest win% yesterday was 5.1% for PC with around 3 or 4 minutes left and was up to 20% with 2 minutes left. So it was low but not as low as you're claiming. I think the luck statistic is just horribly named, that's really what it means. When you're consistently winning close games all year that's a clutch team, not a lucky team
But you would certainly admit that "actual record doesn't matter" in other contexts. Wagner only has 3 losses. Do you accuse KenPom of criminally underrating them at 130? You question KenPom's usefulness, but imply that a list of D1 teams sorted by win percentage would somehow be useful. No one says any metric is perfect, but in a 350+ team league where most teams don't play each other, you have to look far beyond the win percentage to have any hope at comparing the teams.
But people keep saying Martin was 1/2 a player that game. Why don’t they mention Bynum was 1/2 a player??? He had missed the previous 4 games. Only 1 player was rusty, not both. Oh, it’s because Martin is so good, and Bynum stinks. He was only BE player of the week 2 weeks in a row, and PC’s best player the last month.
Bynum being less than 100% didn’t matter as much.m, because they weren’t missing their best player
I thought Cole played. I will have to rewatch the game I guess.
bracketologists.com
bracketologists.com
I’ve never thought of that, it’s definitely food for thought. No matter what though Howard needed to stick his hands in pockets at end of day.
LolI just realized that I’m debating this with someone who thinks
Team A:
Providence Friars Nitty Gritty at Bracketologists
Has a less impressive resume than team B:
UConn Huskies Nitty Gritty at Bracketologists
Because KenPom told him so.
Yeah that’s not at all about Howard, he should be suspended for the rest of the year. However, I have seen multiple games this year when walkons would normally get minutes and they remain glued to the bench. I don’t have any other reason to explain it.
That's a good question, I'll say no since I think most metrics weed out garbage time stats for that reason. But I think it 100% affects coaching in the 5-10 minute range where the end of bench guys would be playing actual minutes instead of just garbage time with the walk ons
Point differential is not weeded out though.
I could be wrong but I thought it was. I thought once a game was analytically finally they stopped looking. And now after typing that I'm going to say no coach is aware of all that and is playing until the end for the maximum point differential
You don't seem to understand statistics. PC was down 19 yesterday: there's a very low percentage chance of winning those games regularly. Good on PC to do that. It shows a really plucky and gritty team.
