ADVERTISEMENT

****Official B1G Off Season Thread****

Old B1G threads get deleted, do we keep everything as is?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
You act like the alternatives are fool proof, which is inane in its own right. That’s if you can actually settle on a method for comparing under/over achieving.
No, I did not say anything about anything being foolproof. You can quit trying to win arguments by putting words in peoples' mouths at any point.
 
The best way? Wait until the season ends and then compare the talent and experience level to the results while factoring in injuries.

Definition of underachiever:
-one that fails to attain a predicted level of achievement or does not do as well as expected.

Definition of underachieve:
-to perform below expectations or achieve less than expected, especially by others.


The prediction/prior expectation aspect is an inherent part of the word underachieving.
 
Agreed. Predictive models are better than people but still flawed.

“You might be surprised to hear this, but I’m a big fan of the pre-season AP poll. There is no doubt poll participants have their biases in the pre-season. They may tend to over-estimate the importance of the previous postseason, especially when a team needed more than its fair share of luck to advance. But otherwise, whatever biases are present are uniquely individual, and in the collection of 70 or so ballots, those biases are cancelled out, leaving a useful signal. The end result is that it provides a better picture of the state of college hoops before the season begins than any single person or algorithm could produce. It’s informed groupthink at its finest.” - Ken Pomeroy
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz
I don’t have a study, but I’m fairly confident that KenPom’s model is going to be more accurate than Joe Blow’s best guess. There are people voting on those polls that have no idea about anything outside of a handful of teams.

Some Joe Blow's are better than average.

If you look at my preseason rankings and KenPom's preseason, and then compare it to the final KenPom standings, I actually hit the mark better than he did. I was closer on 23; he was closer on 21; we tied on 6. And I had a smaller deviation on the misses. I think he's much better at getting depth than I am, though. He did much better in the bottom half of the top 50 than I did.

kenpom-dd-2021-Final.png

kenpom-dd-2021-Final1.png
 
Some Joe Blow's are better than average.

If you look at my preseason rankings and KenPom's preseason, and then compare it to the final KenPom standings, I actually hit the mark better than he did. I was closer on 23; he was closer on 21; we tied on 6. And I had a smaller deviation on the misses. I think he's much better at getting depth than I am, though. He did much better in the bottom half of the top 50 than I did.

kenpom-dd-2021-Final.png

kenpom-dd-2021-Final1.png
I was speaking towards guys that rank on feel rather than analytics when it comes to "Joe Blow", as can be seen in other posts in the thread. I've always been complimentary toward your rankings, and through our past discussions, I know what you put into these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz
Why would you imply that anyone thinks it's foolproof? No one has made a remark that would suggest that.

We both agree it’s not fool proof. Glad that’s covered. Thoughts on this:

“You might be surprised to hear this, but I’m a big fan of the pre-season AP poll. There is no doubt poll participants have their biases in the pre-season. They may tend to over-estimate the importance of the previous postseason, especially when a team needed more than its fair share of luck to advance. But otherwise, whatever biases are present are uniquely individual, and in the collection of 70 or so ballots, those biases are cancelled out, leaving a useful signal. The end result is that it provides a better picture of the state of college hoops before the season begins than any single person or algorithm could produce. It’s informed groupthink at its finest.” - Ken Pomeroy
 
Some Joe Blow's are better than average.

If you look at my preseason rankings and KenPom's preseason, and then compare it to the final KenPom standings, I actually hit the mark better than he did. I was closer on 23; he was closer on 21; we tied on 6. And I had a smaller deviation on the misses. I think he's much better at getting depth than I am, though. He did much better in the bottom half of the top 50 than I did.

kenpom-dd-2021-Final.png

kenpom-dd-2021-Final1.png

Nice work
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz
We both agree it’s not fool proof. Glad that’s covered. Thoughts on this:

“You might be surprised to hear this, but I’m a big fan of the pre-season AP poll. There is no doubt poll participants have their biases in the pre-season. They may tend to over-estimate the importance of the previous postseason, especially when a team needed more than its fair share of luck to advance. But otherwise, whatever biases are present are uniquely individual, and in the collection of 70 or so ballots, those biases are cancelled out, leaving a useful signal. The end result is that it provides a better picture of the state of college hoops before the season begins than any single person or algorithm could produce. It’s informed groupthink at its finest.” - Ken Pomeroy
It essentially echoes what I'm saying about individual polls, but I didn't consider the collective wisdom neutralizing biases.
 
Definition of underachiever:
-one that fails to attain a predicted level of achievement or does not do as well as expected.

Definition of underachieve:
-to perform below expectations or achieve less than expected, especially by others.


The prediction/prior expectation aspect is an inherent part of the word underachieving.
Yep, and every analysis done using expectations is grossly flawed. So doing that analysis is stupid.
 
Yep, and every analysis done using expectations is grossly flawed. So doing that analysis is stupid.
This. I don't get the importance of setting an arbitrary bar to measure people against. When the bar is completely variable and subjective, it makes zero sense to use it as a benchmark. There are much better ways.

One obvious and objective way is to measure observed against the expected outcomes of a model. Outperform the model, and you've overachieved - though that too is a measure of the validity of a model. There are ways to parse that out though.
 
It essentially echoes what I'm saying about individual polls, but I didn't consider the collective wisdom neutralizing biases.

An informed Joe Blow using an algorithm as a guide and/or comparing multiple algorithms can be just as good as a stand alone algorithm at predictions. See: @dukedevilz
 
This. I don't get the importance of setting an arbitrary bar to measure people against. When the bar is completely variable and subjective, it makes zero sense to use it as a benchmark. There are much better ways.

One obvious and objective way is to measure observed against the expected outcomes of a model. Outperform the model, and you've overachieved - though that too is a measure of the validity of a model. There are ways to parse that out though.

@flight 33

You hear that? Jaycg says based on Kenpom Michigan over achieved in Howard’s first year. Suck it.
 
Yep, and every analysis done using expectations is grossly flawed. So doing that analysis is stupid.

Sure, you can think that. But when someone tries to troll by saying that Howard underachieved it’s fair to point out he exceeded preseason model, polls, and/or “expert” expectations. Considering the definitions of underachieve and overachieve.
 
Sure, you can think that. But when someone tries to troll by saying that Howard underachieved it’s fair to point out he exceeded preseason model, polls, and/or “expert” expectations. Considering the definitions of underachieve and overachieve.
Yep. The guy who trolled you was stupid. And you let him suck you into his abyss.
 
An informed Joe Blow using an algorithm as a guide and/or comparing multiple algorithms can be just as good as a stand alone algorithm at predictions. See: @dukedevilz
Now you're completely misrepresenting my stance. My stance was pro-analytics and that includes people that aren't paid to do it. There are plenty of good amateurs that do analytics, and I've never said otherwise.
 
Now you're completely misrepresenting my stance. My stance was pro-analytics and that includes people that aren't paid to do it. There are plenty of good amateurs that do analytics, and I've never said otherwise.

But any good college basketball writer for ESPN or SI is going to incorporate analytics. They cite Kenpom a lot these days. It’s not just gut feelings.
 
But any good college basketball writer for ESPN or SI is going to incorporate analytics. They cite Kenpom a lot these days. It’s not just gut feelings.
The preseason pollsters don’t have KP to rely on at that point in time. It’s a lot of gut feel guys.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t cite pollsters I cited ESPN and SI preseason rankings from college basketball writers that do have access to models when they make their list.
You keep bringing up the AP, and last time I checked something like 90%+ of AP voters are just local newspaper guys. Let’s not pretend that the lion’s share are as informed as the ones you keep using as examples. They are few and far between. That’s who I’ve been referring to - not the fringe.
 
You keep bringing up the AP, and last time I checked something like 90%+ of AP voters are just local newspaper guys. Let’s not pretend that the lion’s share are as informed as the ones you keep using as examples. They are few and far between. That’s who I’ve been referring to - not the fringe.

I brought up the AP because the reactor of the model you suggest is the best available tool literally said he thinks the AP preseason poll is better than any algorithm.

So there’s that.

But what I was referencing in my initial response to flight was stuff like DukeDevilz having Michigan 30th preseason or Jay Bilas having Michigan 42nd preseason (released 2 weeks after Kenpom released his rankings). Those guys are positively looking at models to go with their human element.
 
Seems Rothstein was at our practice today. These are two names I think folks will get to know better this season. Pikiell has stated he believes this is his best team since he has become our HC.




 
Seems Rothstein was at our practice today. These are two names I think folks will get to know better this season. Pikiell has stated he believes this is his best team since he has become our HC.




Gonna run it back with you guys to win the B1G. Should get decent odds with all the money being out on UM and the Illini
 
Are we really sure Purdue is top 3 good? They beat one good team last season and promptly lost to 14 seed North Texas in the tournament. Outside of Ivey, meh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT