Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Patman, post: 5176497, member: 3391"]
From my perspective, wins losses and a simple enough model is understandable and can be more readily agreed on.  Once we factor in score and other things it gets a bit calvinball.  I'm sure if I was read in on espns fpi I'd probably give a nod to what it does.  I understand it's more machine learning oriented and may be an impressive mathematical work but that's basically on rumors.  I run the simpler model for now because I can look under the hood and get what's going on for better, worse, and large variances.

Reality is I haven't tried to be sagarin or Massey because I'm not thrilled with the options as best I know them and wish they were a bit more universally true.  Maybe I don't know enough math, maybe the stuff under their hood is a degree of nonsense but without people like them doing their thing maybe I don't go into this field.  Maybe I do.  I've been kinda predestined since I was like 10.

Somebody's model is going to be somebody's bullshit.  I'd rather have transparency.  This is why I like methods such as the Colley Matrix.  I can repeat his method with little trouble
[/QUOTE]

Verification

First name of men's bb coach