WAB (Wins Above Bubble)

[RuffRuff]

The NET is not intended to be used this way. It is not used for ranking/seeding teams, it was created as a way to organize the teams into quadrants on the team sheet and then the resume/predictive metrics and records in quadrants are what is used to seed the teams

So are you waying the WAB is the most predictive index? What would be the point of the NET used for organizing teams if not used itself as a metric?

 

[businesslawyer]

They're obviously important. Have you seen the NET? They're 2 and we are 10. The gap there is pretty sizeable. They'll also have some chippy games left against the ACC that would probably have equivalent or better value than the remaining BE for us.

I have seen the NET. The NET rewards teams for margins. If two teams play 3 times at a neutral site, and Team A wins twice by 1 point and Team B wins the 3rd game by 20, the NET says Team B is better and that Team A’s winning the series is due to good fortune. Literally, Ken Pom has a “luck” metric that “explains” why teams win more games than their NET rankings say they should. Please post the link to the MLB, NFL or NBA standings that use total margin of points or runs to determine who deserves to be rewarded for the better season as opposed to wins and losses. If you can’t point me to where those rankings are used (other than as a predictive metric), maybe it’s time to drop it?

And yes, comparing teams across the country, mere wins and losses without adjusting for schedule isn’t fair either. What WAB and the other resume metrics to is reward wins and punish losses after adjusting them for schedule. Without caring about margins.

 

[businesslawyer]

So are you waying the WAB is the most predictive index? What would be the point of the NET used for organizing teams if not used itself as a metric?

What is wrong with you? Seriously? Again, not a single person is saying that. WAB is not a predictive metric. That’s why it’s called a resume metrics and not a predictive metric. Teams don’t make the playoffs in MLB, NFL or NBA based on how they would be predicted to do in playoffs. They make the playoffs, and get seeded, based on their actual wins and losses. That’s what a resume metrics is. It rewards wins and punishes losses adjusted for schedules but not for margins.

It’s really not that hard. And I’m getting tired of pretending that you’re not trolling.

 

[navery12]

So are you waying the WAB is the most predictive index? What would be the point of the NET used for organizing teams if not used itself as a metric?

Not at all, WAB is not predictive. It's a resume/results based metric.

The point of grouping teams by NET is that it's borderline impossible to jump back and forth between every ranking across 6 different metrics for every team to gauge if a win is good. Is beating the 30th NET team really that much better than 31st? No. But there has to be a cutoff somewhere to group them

 

[HooperScooper]

So are you waying the WAB is the most predictive index? What would be the point of the NET used for organizing teams if not used itself as a metric?

I guess you still haven’t read the article I posted.

 

[RuffRuff]

None of this stuff matters, we control our own destiny for a 1 seed.

If we are angling to jump Duke for the 1 in the East, then I get it. We'd need help.

 

[auror]

We will lose around 0.8 WAB from this loss, falling to 4th. And more importantly, the gap between us and Houston is now quite small, and they have a massive lead in the predictive metrics, meaning they will likely be the 4th 1-seed on Saturday in the bracket reveal.

 

[Hi-Low]

At this point we seem like a 2 seed at best. The team that played Creighton tonight will have a tough time winning @Nova, home vs SJU & Hall. The next 3 game stretch is our toughest of the conference season and it's coming at a time UConn is playing it's worst basketball.

 

[BFieldHusky]

1 seed would be unlikely now, but didn't move in the NET, still 4th in WAB. Q2 loss.

 

[RuffRuff]

1 seed would be unlikely now, but didn't move in the NET, still 4th in WAB. Q2 loss.

At this point, this Uconn team just needs to start playing well. I'm over the seeding chase. It doesn't matter what seed they are if they don't adjust.

 

[BFieldHusky]

WAB (2/22)

1. Michigan 10.0
2. Duke 9.8
3. Arizona 9.2
4. UConn 8.3
5. Purdue 7.1
6. Houston 6.9
7. Nebraska 6.5
8. Gonzaga 6.5
9. Illinois 6.4
10. Iowa St. 6.1

 

[RuffRuff]

WAB (2/22)

1. Michigan 10.0
2. Duke 9.8
3. Arizona 9.2
4. UConn 8.3
5. Purdue 7.1
6. Houston 6.9
7. Nebraska 6.5
8. Gonzaga 6.5
9. Illinois 6.4
10. Iowa St. 6.1

Sizeable gap - Purdue isn’t getting a 1. I’d say back in control. If they can win out 1 is theirs, after a perfect Saturday.

 

[auror]

Sizeable gap - Purdue isn’t getting a 1. I’d say back in control. If they can win out 1 is theirs, after a perfect Saturday.

Yes, because our predictive metrics are a little worse, we need a fairly big gap. And right now we've got it.

 

[RuffRuff]

Yes, because our predictive metrics are a little worse, we need a fairly big gap. And right now we've got it.

If you listened to the unveiling, you could sense there was heavy emphasis put on top 3 wins. It will be tough for anyone to compete with UConn if all else is close. It was actually a bit surprising given all of ours are first months or so. Hurley is going to stock the early season every year.

 

[CTBasketball]

WAB (2/22)

1. Michigan 10.0
2. Duke 9.8
3. Arizona 9.2
4. UConn 8.3
5. Purdue 7.1
6. Houston 6.9
7. Nebraska 6.5
8. Gonzaga 6.5
9. Illinois 6.4
10. Iowa St. 6.1

I think Duke, barring a collapse, locked up the East #1 seed yesterday.

 

[BFieldHusky]

If you listened to the unveiling, you could sense there was heavy emphasis put on top 3 wins. It will be tough for anyone to compete with UConn if all else is close. It was actually a bit surprising given all of ours are first months or so. Hurley is going to stock the early season every year.

I also liked that they said head to head was a factor when they originally ranked Iowa St ahead of Houston. That helps if we get close to Illinois or Florida for seeding. Hurts us with Arizona, but I think they are ahead of us by a decent margin at this point.

 

[auror]

I think Duke, barring a collapse, locked up the East #1 seed yesterday.

They'd have to lose at least two and one of which would have to be an early ACCT game so they don't acquire more wins, and then we'd have to win out beating St. John's twice. Still might not be enough. Might need 3 losses.

 

[bendm]

At what point does S curve trump geographic preference? Does S curve define seed lines and then it’s geographic preference within each seed line? worst case scenario would be getting the 2 seed in the south with Houston as the 3 seed. But I think the Only way that could Happen is if Illinois gets the last 1 seed. That head to head win is huge.

 

[auror]

At what point does S curve trump geographic preference? Does S curve define seed lines and then it’s geographic preference within each seed line? worst case scenario would be getting the 2 seed in the south with Houston as the 3 seed. But I think the Only way that could Happen is if Illinois gets the last 1 seed. That head to head win is huge.

Correct. S-curve is the order teams get assigned region by geography (they don't technically get to pick except for overall #1, they're just assigned based on what is closer) within the seedline. The only time s-curve really matters in that is that the #5 overall can't be put in the same region as the #1 overall.

After the top 16 are placed in by geography (minding the conference restrictions and such), then the committee adds up all the s-curve numbers and checks to make sure they're within 5 total of each other (so 1+6+9+14 = 30 vs. 2+8+12+16 = 40 is 10 apart). If they're too far apart, they then swap teams to make it more fair at the cost of optimal geography, so that is when s-curve trumps geography. In that example, they might swap 12 and 9 and that would be 33 and 35 now, which is acceptable.