Still hope ...

[jibsey]

Cincy is clobbering Tulane so let's see what happens against them and SMU. We are definitely getting it defensively. My problem is with the 4 baskets in the second half. Would like to see Adams in there creating and making a perimeter or 2. If DHam can shoot the whole world changes, because Gibbs and Rodney will score. We do that and we can beat top 10 teams I am convinced and with that anything is possible. It 's an old tune but we've played it before.

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

Is Monmouth, William and Mary, and Middle Tennessee better than us? RPI suggests they are.

Or that the best offense in the country is The Citadel? Statistically our best player is Daniel Hamilton - but if you watch the game you'd see that is not always true. Is Shonn Miller really a 55% 3 point shooter?

I agree that we can still contend, I do, especially when Brimah comes back. But in my opinion stats do not hold a lot of fidelity.

What are your thoughts on linear regression? Do you find fig. 3 using the Pythagorean Theorem of Sports interesting? These are probably easy concepts for you to understand but it could be worth the read anyways. I find it really interesting and look forward to great chat if you want to!!!!!!!!!!! Interesting conclusion.

http://web.stanford.edu/class/stats50/finalprojects/SR_Stats50ExtendedAbstract.pdf

 

[CTBasketball]

What are your thoughts on linear regression? Do you find fig. 3 using the Pythagorean Theorem of Sports interesting? These are probably easy concepts for you to understand but it could be worth the read anyways. I find it really interesting and look forward to great chat if you want to!!!!!!!!!!! Interesting conclusion.

http://web.stanford.edu/class/stats50/finalprojects/SR_Stats50ExtendedAbstract.pdf

I'm interested to see what the BPI formula is.

I know KenPom uses a lot of the Dean Oliver teachings from his books/papers which is applied similarly to the Pythagorean method. But yet again the article you linked mentioned that BPI correctly predicted 66% of the tournaments between 2007 - 2012. RPI correctly predicted 61%. So the Pythagorean/KenPom method was somewhere in between, probably closer to 65%. Still the first pythagorean method raises each component to 13.91, but the one in the article doesn't - so it'd be interesting to see what the difference is there.

But the ( points^2 + points against^2 ) / points^2 can also be misleading. I agree its better than RPI, it has a more direct relation to your team's actual performance. But maybe a combination of pythagorean and RPI would be best? No idea.

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

I'm interested to see what the BPI formula is.

I know KenPom uses a lot of the Dean Oliver teachings from his books/papers which is applied similarly to the Pythagorean method. But yet again the article you linked mentioned that BPI correctly predicted 66% of the tournaments between 2007 - 2012. RPI correctly predicted 61%. So the Pythagorean/KenPom method was somewhere in between, probably closer to 65%. Still the first pythagorean method raises each component to 13.91, but the one in the article doesn't - so it'd be interesting to see what the difference is there.

But the ( points^2 + points against^2 ) / points^2 can also be misleading. I agree its better than RPI, it has a more direct relation to your team's actual performance. But maybe a combination of pythagorean and RPI would be best? No idea.

I have a very strong opinion on that which I will share with you when I am more rested but for now watch this vid.

Watch this video. The good stuff starts at minute 6:35....its all tasty stuff.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=6130

 

[Huskyforlife]

Our defensive stats against the great tulsas and tulanes of the world look good? Great! We should be pissed if they didn't... We're not a bad team, but stats are so misleading.

 

[polycom]

Great another thread on Kenpom saying we play great defense. Does Kenpom ranking account for giving up open 3s in the half court? Or our guards being unable to stay in front of the opponents guards? Willing it all is more a matter of will...does this team have the will to win it all, that remains to be seen.

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

I'm interested to see what the BPI formula is.

I know KenPom uses a lot of the Dean Oliver teachings from his books/papers which is applied similarly to the Pythagorean method. But yet again the article you linked mentioned that BPI correctly predicted 66% of the tournaments between 2007 - 2012. RPI correctly predicted 61%. So the Pythagorean/KenPom method was somewhere in between, probably closer to 65%. Still the first pythagorean method raises each component to 13.91, but the one in the article doesn't - so it'd be interesting to see what the difference is there.

But the ( points^2 + points against^2 ) / points^2 can also be misleading. I agree its better than RPI, it has a more direct relation to your team's actual performance. But maybe a combination of pythagorean and RPI would be best? No idea.

CT did you have a chance to watch the vid from the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference (posted above)??? The idea of using cumulative win probabilities as a rating system is an interesting concept as it relates to potential seeding. I admit though it could take away from the fun and entertainment aspect leading up to March Madness (the greatest event in sports). Calculating linear regression is not that easy for me. Interpreting results and making sure all necessary conditions are present can be challenging. Finding the mean variable to a dependent response variable for a guy like me doesn't come natural. What I like most about stats is...they represent unbiased estimators when used properly in the right context. For instance a teams most recent games are a better indicator of a teams strength and therefore should be assigned more value. Discounting games between over matched teams can be analyzed by putting more weight on close games than blow outs. You want your predictions to really be based on BOTH statistical and logical perspective. You have to find flexibility in these ratings systems to get the most value possible. The reason I referred you to the video to enjoy is the method I like the best is Maximum Likelihood Ratings and some of its intricacies. I totally understand that we most likely will never see a change to our present ratings systems that completely covers all the bases per se. The thing is though we are always looking for an edge when engaging in other extracurricular activities. So wouldn't we be remiss not to do our due diligence from all angles when dealing with stats in general?

Enjoy the day! Go Huskies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[1999.2004.2011]

Ten Toes IN!!!!!!!!!!!

If four national titles in sixteen years doesn't have you guys believing that we could win it every year, I don't know what will.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The bickering....just stop. Kenpom provides some useful evidence. The eye test provides some useful evidence. "Who's our Shabazz/Kemba?"....as if most teams have that one guy who dominates. They don't. So here is what I see at this point:

• Defense is good and has learned to play without Amida. Once he is back, they could be dominant.
• Gibbs has finally assumed leadership of the team in the last couple of games. He is now the end of game leader/scorer.
• Hamilton is figuring out what he should be doing, and becoming a major weapon again. Once he gets it, he's as unstoppable as any player anywhere.
• Miller is the best power forward we've had since at least Adrien.
• Purvis will be back...he's penetrating and still finding his shot. He's even hitting FTs.
• Ollie is starting to make in game adjustments more readily. Shorter leash, more shifting defenses (loved the 2-2-1 against Georgetown).
• Nobody else is "all that". Nobody. Any team that is even borderline top 25 has a chance this year.

So yes, they have a shot. Likely? No. It is never likely for any team. No matter how good you are, the odds of winning that 64 team tournament are stacked against you.

 

[amory]

I feel the same way. I think this team has the talent to seriously compete for a national title. Whether or not they can play well enough as a team, I still don't know.

This is a team that could win the title, and also could very well miss the tournament altogether. What makes me feel better, is I felt the same way about the 2014 team at this point in the season.

Obviously the big difference is not having Shabazz, or a similar leader.

 

[tzznandrew]

Great another thread on Kenpom saying we play great defense. Does Kenpom ranking account for giving up open 3s in the half court? Or our guards being unable to stay in front of the opponents guards? Willing it all is more a matter of will...does this team have the will to win it all, that remains to be seen.

Guess what, every team gives up some open looks for three. And our guys stay in front of others just fine.

As for whether they have enough whatever to win...well, all but one team doesn't have that, so it's a moot point, in some way. The same people were saying this in 2014. Hell, we got a ton of mojo from the Heartless, gutless post...which came in at halftime of our first NCAA game...