My bad: I thought Friars did not have their PG Bynum for the game. My bad. First rule of holes you know...so I put down my shovel on that one.
There’s a big difference between arguing predictive metrics during the season and after the season. I think there’s nothing wrong with using those metrics to judge teams at this point. When the season is over it’s obviously useless to bother.
As a predictive metric, I agree with you. To diminish what a team has accomplished using predictive metrics, I do not. If Providence keeps flipping the coin long enough, it will not keep coming up heads. But you cannot take away that the coin has come up heads 22 times out of 25
The two UConn runs are really the exception and not the rule. It will be interesting to see when the dust settles is providence exposing a flaw in the metrics or will the metrics prove to be correct. Shocked when I first saw how low they were ranked on kenpom
If they entered the tournament with a 40+ kenpom and win the tournament they’d have made history. It’s never been done for a reason. Historically good teams don’t have 40+ kenpoms. It’s not the end all be all. But a top 10 team with a 40+ Kenpom and 35+ for every other predictive metric is crazy, It can’t be denied. It doesn’t mean they aren’t good. That’s not for me to say. But of I were a betting man, I’d bet those numbers prove to be more true than not come seasons end
You think KenPom is going to die because a team is winning more than the metric predicts? Isn't it literally always the case that someone is first in the Luck category?
Let’s be very clear: I am not saying Providence is winning any tournaments this year.
Yea I’m not apart of the “their lucky” crew. I made a post last week after the nova game saying, “whatever started as luck, has now turned into supreme confidence.”
The analytics aren't necessarily wrong. The bold is mine.
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.