Updated Resume (2/24)

[Get a Job]

I am being serious and I asked politely. If you think I am wrong, please explain.

Let's call the team trying to avoid the 3-game sweep Team A, and the team trying for its 3rd win Team B.

If you are saying:

Team A had a 0% chance to win games 1 and 2, but they have a 27.6% chance to win game 3.​

Therefore it will be harder for Team B to win game 3 than it was to win games 1 and 2.​

Then I can't even believe you are making that argument. Obviously Team A had a better than 0% chance to win games 1 and 2.

Either you're just being cheeky, or one of us is a dummy.

 

[businesslawyer]

Let's call the team trying to avoid the 3-game sweep Team A, and the team trying for its 3rd win Team B.

If you are saying:

Team A had a 0% chance to win games 1 and 2, but they have a 27.6% chance to win game 3.​

Therefore it will be harder for Team B to win game 3 than it was to win games 1 and 2.​

Then I can't even believe you are making that argument. Obviously Team A had a better than 0% chance to win games 1 and 2.

Either you're just being cheeky, or one of us is a dummy.

I'm not saying team A had a zero per cent change of winning games 1 and 2. I'm saying that team A won 0% of games one and two, and managed to win over a quarter of games three. If it wasn't harder to beat a team a third time, even allowing for some randomness of distributions, you wouldn't expect Team A to win 27% of the time against a team they hadn't yet beaten.

More likely we're disagreeing over syntax, but if that makes me a dummy so be it.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

You can safely sleep at night. You are not misreading my tone. I was being snarky. That is how I react to people murdering logic. You are welcome to think I shouldn't, and I will fully concede that yours is a perfectly reasonable opinion. People can have different opinions. But what I was being snarky about wasn't an opinion -- it was just wrong.

If I get divorced I’m hiring you.

 

[MuchoDogYears]

So what happens if UConn is in the tourney, makes it past the first weekend, but someone on the staff tests positive for Covid before the second weekend of games?

Do they follow Connecticut covid rules, in which case they can’t play?

Or do they follow Indiana covid rules, whatever they are?

Or does the NCAA have their own covid rules?

 

[ZenConn]

This was interesting. Didn't want to create a thread for it.

Hmmm. I'm ready just in case. cough cough

 

[Get a Job]

I'm not saying team A had a zero per cent change of winning games 1 and 2. I'm saying that team A won 0% of games one and two, and managed to win over a quarter of games three. If it wasn't harder to beat a team a third time, even allowing for some randomness of distributions, you wouldn't expect Team A to win 27% of the time against a team they hadn't yet beaten.

More likely we're disagreeing over syntax, but if that makes me a dummy so be it.

The fact that Team A lost the first two matchups says nothing about their likelihood of winning game 3. Basketball games are not dice rolls, but the statistical truism "past results do not affect future outcomes" is still applicable.

The data set I referenced only looked at scenarios where Teams A had lost twice to Teams B. It is unknown (to us anyway) which team was favored in any of those already-completed games, but we can safely say Team A had a better-than-0 chance in every game. We can certainly not say that team A had a lower-than-27% chance of winning games 1 and 2, but your assertion requires that we can.

At the risk of repeating myself, I cannot believe you actually hold this position. You're doing that thing they do in law school where you are asked to argue for the side that you disagree with, aren't you?

 

[businesslawyer]

The fact that Team A lost the first two matchups says nothing about their likelihood of winning game 3. Basketball games are not dice rolls, but the statistical truism "past results do not affect future outcomes" is still applicable.

The data set I referenced only looked at scenarios where Teams A had lost twice to Teams B. It is unknown (to us anyway) which team was favored in any of those already-completed games, but we can safely say Team A had a better-than-0 chance in every game. We can certainly not say that team A had a lower-than-27% chance of winning games 1 and 2, but your assertion requires that we can.

At the risk of repeating myself, I cannot believe you actually hold this position. You're doing that thing they do in law school where you are asked to argue for the side that you disagree with, aren't you?

I do understand your point, and we're arguing about syntax. You are fully correct that I am not arguing that Team A, coming in, had a zero per cent chance to win either game one or game two.

I am, however, saying not as a matter of hard statistics but common sense, that if you line up 200 teams on 100 courts, and you tell someone that the team in the left get swept in the first two games, how many of the 100 games that we're about to play do you expect the team on the left to win, without knowing more about how close the games were or computer rankings or anything else, most people using common sense would answer higher than 72.

But I acknowledge that is neither provable nor statistical science.

 

[olehead]

That'd be a heck of a fun game. The 29th fastest team against us slow pokes: plus Vance Jackson!

In March, I've noticed way more half-court offense than in the regular season. With that in mind, I like UConn in that matchup.

I Agree, this would be a fun game. Watched Arkansas quite a bit. Really solid team with explosive players. Beat Bama last night. Moses Moody against Bouk, that is must see TV, though Jackson and Martin would probably matchup defensively.

 

[olehead]

Common tone amongst lawyers...I've seen it too much.

Not all. In my estimation it's a drag on the legal community, but I understand your sentiments.

 

[HooperScooper]

Not sure this adds anything to the conversation but figured I'd post it. Aren't the St. John's and PC losses worse than the Seton Hall loss?

UConn (11-6, NET: 41)​

How funky? Stevie Wonder-funky.
Best wins: vs. USC, at Xavier
Worst losses: vs. Seton Hall
Gimme the funk: There's not a lot of bad on the low end, but UConn's record is a mixed bag. The reason the team is listed is because it's entirely different with vs. without James Bouknight, the potential future first-round NBA pick who alters the equation for Dan Hurley's team. UConn is 7-2 with him, 4-4 without him. He's back. He's Stevie Wonder-valuable. UConn's trending in the right way. But it has work to do and will need sweeps of Marquette, Seton Hall and Georgetown to work its way into the field. Those are its final three regular-season opponents. That USC win is invaluable.

Court Report: Use the NIT as insurance for NCAA Tournament, plus weird resumes and coaches have new concerns

Matt Norlander's weekly college hoops insider notebook looks at the role of the NIT this year and much more

www.cbssports.com

 

[Storrs South]

Not sure this adds anything to the conversation but figured I'd post it. Aren't the St. John's and PC losses worse than the Seton Hall loss?

UConn (11-6, NET: 41)​

How funky? Stevie Wonder-funky.
Best wins: vs. USC, at Xavier
Worst losses: vs. Seton Hall
Gimme the funk: There's not a lot of bad on the low end, but UConn's record is a mixed bag. The reason the team is listed is because it's entirely different with vs. without James Bouknight, the potential future first-round NBA pick who alters the equation for Dan Hurley's team. UConn is 7-2 with him, 4-4 without him. He's back. He's Stevie Wonder-valuable. UConn's trending in the right way. But it has work to do and will need sweeps of Marquette, Seton Hall and Georgetown to work its way into the field. Those are its final three regular-season opponents. That USC win is invaluable.

Court Report: Use the NIT as insurance for NCAA Tournament, plus weird resumes and coaches have new concerns

Matt Norlander's weekly college hoops insider notebook looks at the role of the NIT this year and much more

www.cbssports.com

Yes, that reads as poorly as the FOX resume graphic during the Xavier game that listed Marquette and Butler as their best wins of the season. Let's just hope that the Selection Committee actually does their homework since I don't agree with a lot of the write-up here.

 

[Jbirdp5]

Yes, that reads as poorly as the FOX resume graphic during the Xavier game that listed Marquette and Butler as their best wins of the season. Let's just hope that the Selection Committee actually does their homework since I don't agree with a lot of the write-up here.

Strange article because I usually find norlander to be knowledgeable And generally a good read.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I'm not saying team A had a zero per cent change of winning games 1 and 2. I'm saying that team A won 0% of games one and two, and managed to win over a quarter of games three. If it wasn't harder to beat a team a third time, even allowing for some randomness of distributions, you wouldn't expect Team A to win 27% of the time against a team they hadn't yet beaten.

More likely we're disagreeing over syntax, but if that makes me a dummy so be it.

OK, so would you expect Team A to win Game 3 0% of the time? 1% of the time? 10% of the time?

What's the expected winning percentage of Game 3 such that the actual 27% suggests that it is harder to win Game 3 than the others?

 

[OkaForPrez]

OK, so would you expect Team A to win Game 3 0% of the time? 1% of the time? 10% of the time?

What's the expected winning percentage of Game 3 such that the actual 27% suggests that it is harder to win Game 3 than the others?

Fellas, the common ground here is that the statistic as presented is inconclusive. If expressed as a change in % likelihood from the first two games we may be able to conclude. The reality is the sample set of teams who have beaten a team twice already may or may not average to a likelihood of winning more than 73% of the time in the first two games.

 

[Get a Job]

OK, so would you expect Team A to win Game 3 0% of the time? 1% of the time? 10% of the time?

What's the expected winning percentage of Game 3 such that the actual 27% suggests that it is harder to win Game 3 than the others?

This is a good way of challenging his premise to show that it's nonsensical. I don't think he will concede though. I gave it a try and have since given up.

 

[businesslawyer]

OK, so would you expect Team A to win Game 3 0% of the time? 1% of the time? 10% of the time?

What's the expected winning percentage of Game 3 such that the actual 27% suggests that it is harder to win Game 3 than the others?

Your question is unanswerable. That is why my statement, as I said, is not at all scientific. It can only be answered by one's feel of what would happen based on their prior observations. I still think that 27%, to me, feels like a high number if one has to estimate based on admittedly insufficient data. But if it feels to you like that would be perfectly expected, your conclusion is no less reasonable than mine.

 

[Get a Job]

Your question is unanswerable. That is why my statement, as I said, is not at all scientific. It can only be answered by one's feel of what would happen based on their prior observations. I still think that 27%, to me, feels like a high number if one has to estimate based on admittedly insufficient data. But if it feels to you like that would be perfectly expected, your conclusion is no less reasonable than mine.

It would help if you would express your conclusion unambiguously. When I asked to do that before, you declined. Is it your position that the data I quoted above supports the thesis that it is indeed more difficult to beat a team a third time than it was to have beaten them the first two times?

I am arguing that the data do not support that. I am not arguing that the data prove or even strongly the opposite (that it's easy to beat a twice beaten team a third time). I'm just saying that, in light of data like the ones I quoted, it is meaningless to use the cliché without context.

 

[businesslawyer]

It would help if you would express your conclusion unambiguously. When I asked to do that before, you declined. Is it your position that the data I quoted above supports the thesis that it is indeed more difficult to beat a team a third time than it was to have beaten them the first two times?

I am arguing that the data do not support that. I am not arguing that the data prove or even strongly the opposite (that it's easy to beat a twice beaten team a third time). I'm just saying that, in light of data like the ones I quoted, it is meaningless to use the cliché without context.

Good God. If you are asking what the "data" of knowing the two time loser wins 27% of the third games proves, I agree that it doesn't actually prove or disprove anything. To prove or disprove the original statement -- that the old saying is wrong -- requires either speculation or additional data setting for what the odds were of the teams winning the first two games. Is that unambiguous enough.

My original post was that the two time loser winning 27^ of the time does not disprove the old statement that it's hard to beat a team for the third straight time. It does not. You can not prove anything from the limited data provided.

 

[JB75]

I think it's only "gigantic" for us if we lose one of the other 2. If we beat Marquette and G'town again, we're probably in.

Yeah I agree I think people are underestimating our seeding. We beat gtown and Marquette and lose a close one to seton hall I think we re good. We beat seton hall , were in. Plus -I kno the ncaa hates us- but gotta figure we get a little extra boost from not having Bouk fir 8 games. Finishing top 4-5 in big East has got to get us in.

 

[tzznandrew]

Yeah I agree I think people are underestimating our seeding. We beat gtown and Marquette and lose a close one to seton hall I think we re good. We beat seton hall , were in. Plus -I kno the ncaa hates us- but gotta figure we get a little extra boost from not having Bouk fir 8 games. Finishing top 4-5 in big East has got to get us in.

On one level I agree. On another level it is sort of silly to talk about seeding when the team could put up another half like the first half against Georgetown and lose. They absolutely need to beat Georgetown and Marquette. Losing to Seton Hall may not be enough. 13-7 with 1 good win? They'd need to do some work in the BET.

If the season ended today I think they're in pretty easily. But all that's left are landmines.

 

[Get a Job]

Good God. If you are asking what the "data" of knowing the two time loser wins 27% of the third games proves, I agree that it doesn't actually prove or disprove anything. To prove or disprove the original statement -- that the old saying is wrong -- requires either speculation or additional data setting for what the odds were of the teams winning the first two games. Is that unambiguous enough.

My original post was that the two time loser winning 27^ of the time does not disprove the old statement that it's hard to beat a team for the third straight time. It does not. You can not prove anything from the limited data provided.

Completely agree with the bolded statement. To the extent that I created the impression that I was claiming the data prove the cliché false, I communicated poorly. I shared the data because I thought it would create a reaction of surprise in people who had heard the old saying but never thought more deeply about it. Furthermore, I love promoting nuance, context and rational analysis over dogma.

All that being said, I suspect your argument is in bad faith, and you are just exercising your debate muscle.

 

[businesslawyer]

Completely agree with the bolded statement. To the extent that I created the impression that I was claiming the data prove the cliché false, I communicated poorly. I shared the data because I thought it would create a reaction of surprise in people who had heard the old saying but never thought more deeply about it. Furthermore, I love promoting nuance, context and rational analysis over dogma.

All that being said, I suspect your argument is in bad faith, and you are just exercising your debate muscle.

No, it wasn't, but you may have the last word on this if you want it. This discussion has wasted more than enough of people's time.

 

[CL82]

See, that's a great line. And I don't have a moral problem being snarky in response to certain posts so long as I can take being made fun of as well.

Uh... [sighs]... Never mind.

 

[auror]

Up to 28 in KenPom following the big margin win.