Top 3 in each conference
- Thread starter GE Nole
- Start date
Thank you for quoting my post. I was trolling mgk. Obviously zona and Purdue are on the lists.
He ignored me. Lol
I'm not totally against analytics/metrics, they have their place when it comes to certain things like when trying to be as fair as possible when determining why team A deserves a dance bid over team B, etc. But as a whole, nope... I will go with what I see and what actually happens in reality. Besides, when you base opinions on metrics that have been established based on playing a quarter of the season, they are going to be skewed. I don't know the metrics of the ACC as a whole last year (I assume they were the #1 ranked conference in basketball by all metrics), but how did those metrics play out in the tournament? Something like 8 of 9 ACC teams didn't make it past the first weekend? They finished 11-8 as a conference with 6 of those wins belonging to UNC.
Mgk only likes metrics if they help Purdue. Can you imagine if they put a team that PU beat in front of them. Lol
Rational PU fans. Don't take my posts to heart. I just like getting him riled up.
aaaand the year before the ACC accounted for 50% of the elite 8 and final four with most likely the same metrics. last year was an anomaly and the ACC was still the best conference. but for the most part I agree with what you're saying.
That wasn't meant to come off as a jab at the ACC if it seemed that way, just the best and most recent example I could think of. Also last year, the SEC (who was what, probably 5th or 6th in RPI?) comprised 3 of the 8 teams in the Elite Eight, with no other conference having more than 1 representative. That is why I don't base my opinions on those metrics as the gospel like some of these Jonah Hill nerds do.
I hate odd numbers..
AAC
Wichita State
Cincy
Houston
SMU
ACC
Duke
Miami
North Carolina
Virginia
nBE
Nova
Seton Hall
St. John's
Xavier
*****
B1G
Purdue
Michigan State
Maryland
Minnesota
Big XII
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Kansas
TCU
Pac12
Zona State
Zona
USC
UCLA?
SEC
aTm
UK
UF
Tennessee
MWC
Nevada
UNLV
Boise State
SDSU
****Pains me not to have Creighton here.
I flippin LOVE Creighton
AAC
Wichita State
Cincy
Houston
SMU
ACC
Duke
Miami
North Carolina
Virginia
nBE
Nova
Seton Hall
St. John's
Xavier
*****
B1G
Purdue
Michigan State
Maryland
Minnesota
Big XII
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Kansas
TCU
Pac12
Zona State
Zona
USC
UCLA?
SEC
aTm
UK
UF
Tennessee
MWC
Nevada
UNLV
Boise State
SDSU
****Pains me not to have Creighton here.
I flippin LOVE Creighton
Yeah this is incorrect. On court results have Purdue as the 6th best team in the nation, ahead of all CUSA teams.
Theyre 6th in the nation in net rating.
You don't have to like things like advanved metrics and facts, but dont think youre entitled to just create false narratives in their place and me have to accept them.
You just said you cant use metrics that are only based on one quarter of the season, then proceed to say your eye test, which is also only based on one quarter of the season, is what you prefer. So youve contradicted yourself there.
An ACC team won the national title last season but regardless, your comment shows extremely flawed thinking wrt the nature of the ncaa tournament.
Advanced metrics have basically spelled out that 2015 UK was the best team of the past 15-20 years or so. That they lost one game to 2015 Wisconsin, who is a top 10 team of the past 15-20 years or so according to metrics as well, doesnt change that.
2016 Michigan State wasnt a worse team than 2016 Middle Tennessee State, who beat them as a 15 seed vs 2 seed.
Just based off this comment of yours I quoted alone, you really should start subscribing more to advanced metrics because your eye test telling you MTSU being a better team than MSU based off of a 40 minute sample size as opposed to 35 game sample size, is very, very wrong.
@GE Nole, I actually said I think VT could finish in the top 3, but especially in the top 4. I said it was probably more likely that they finish 4th, in my eyes. I love the idea of this thread though.
SEC:
Kentucky
Texas A&M
Arkansas
ACC:
Duke
Miami
North Carolina
Big XII:
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Kansas
PAC-12:
Arizona State
Arizona
Oregon
Big Ten:
Michigan State
Purdue
Michigan
Big East:
Villanova
Xavier
Seton Hall
American:
Wichita State
Cincinnati
SMU
SEC:
Kentucky
Texas A&M
Arkansas
ACC:
Duke
Miami
North Carolina
Big XII:
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Kansas
PAC-12:
Arizona State
Arizona
Oregon
Big Ten:
Michigan State
Purdue
Michigan
Big East:
Villanova
Xavier
Seton Hall
American:
Wichita State
Cincinnati
SMU
An ACC team won the tournament....key word being AN, as in one. We are talking about the conference as a whole. The sample size of the entire 2017 tournament is enough for me to see that you, and others, put way too much stock into analytics rather than what actually happens on the court.
Ok let me try it from this angle.
Do you understand that a 60% favorite still loses to a 40% underdog, 40% of the time?
In no way do upsets change which team is better. ESPECIALLY when the sample size is 35 games and we are talking about the tournament so really late into the season.
If Kentucky gets a 2 seed this year and gets upset in the first round of the tournament to a 15 seed, would you think that 15 seed is the superior team?
I'll be frank about it. I think Purdue plays quality team basketball, but I don't think they have the kind of talent needed to beat a really talented team that plays quality team ball. The Arizona game looks solid right now because they rebounded from their suck-fest (Purdue caught them smack dab in the middle of a skid), and they look very solid now, but I would bet that if Purdue and Zona played again, Zona would win by about 6-10 points.
I think they have the talent to be a good top 15 team that has real potential to make an Elite 8 game (anything short of a Sweet 16 for Purdue is a disappointment), but I'm not sold that they're anything **special** per se. I don't view them as a top 6 team.
You have to be trolling, right? You cant honestly feel that WKU is a better team than Purdue because they beat them in one game?
Or that any team who beats any other team is automatically better?
You realize that nearly every single season, every single team loses multiple games?
Not to he rude, but why the hell would I care what you think about a team that every single metric has as a top 10 team?
Again, I know this sounds like Im trolling just because its very blunt, but why would I ever discard all this statostical evidence that points to them being one of the t best teams in the nation and listen to your opinion instead?
Meh. Using advanced metrics only (in any sport, let alone one that is lacking like college basketball) is dumb. Looking at BPI, for instance, there is not a chance in the world Arizona State is the 25th best team and UK is only the 35th. That is asinine. Eye test matters. As does metrics.
I have no idea how good/bad Purdue is as I've watched them for about 10 mins this year. No WKU isn't better then them because they lost to them. That is an atrocious loss that you have to talk about when you factor in how good they really are, though.
You don't care, and it shouldn't be an issue, no more than me not caring that all of these metrics (which are wildly inaccurate this early in the season) say that Purdue is a top 6, or even a top 10 team this year. I don't mind you not caring, and I expect that you don't mind me not caring. It is what it is. For me personally, quality of personnel goes a lot further for me on a national scale than quality team basketball.
It's alright if people have different views and value certain things more than others. I just don't buy that Purdue will end this thing being one of the best six teams in the nation.
Of course you have to bring up the 2015 UK/Wisconsin game. Just letting you know I hate you, thanks.
The only thing ill concede is that we are only a quarter of the way into the season so theres no way advanced metrics have everyone pegged exactly correct.
But neither do human eye tests.
75-85% advanced metrics and 15-25% eye test is probably the perfect combo.
Advanced metrics should always carry more weight than eye tests though.
Well he has UK avatar so I used the best and most recent example I could think of to illustrate how bad it is to assume every team who beats another team is better than that team.
And to return to using the NCAA tournament as some barometer of who is better
Only 1 of 68 teams win it all every season. Even if you use the final foue as some benchmark, only 4 of 68 make the Final Four
There are more than 4 good teams every season.
Only 1 of 68 teams win it all every season. Even if you use the final foue as some benchmark, only 4 of 68 make the Final Four
There are more than 4 good teams every season.
None of those properly factor in the "how can I keep the name teams rated high" metric. Until then they are deeply flawed compared to the "I haven't seen 10 games by anyone but my fav teams eye test" AP poll.
The usernames and favorite teams change, but the arguments always stay the same. Everyone except Villanova fans cant wait to tell me how flawed these metrics are because Team X is not as high as Poster X wants them to be.
Its the only thing we can point to that is unbiased and uses strictly performance as a barometer which is why I love using them.
What advance metrics cannot incorporate into an analytical formula is the true quality of a team or opponent. It can factor wins and losses, opponents wins and losses, etc, etc.... but it can't rate quality. Team A that is 20-0 against teams in a low tier conference that only plays teams in said conference would look better analytically than team B that is 15-5 but has played obviously stonger opponents.
Advanced metrics are great. They help tell a story. Since there's no way I can watch every single game I look at the numbers to help fill in.
That said I mostly use them when judging individual players not teams. I look at offensive rating, defensive rating, how much talent you have, coach, etc when judging a team.
That said I mostly use them when judging individual players not teams. I look at offensive rating, defensive rating, how much talent you have, coach, etc when judging a team.
That isn't true at all. SOS is huge in advanced metrics.
KenPom doesnt just have offensive and defensive efficiency, it has ADJUSTED off and def efficiencies weighted heavily due to opponents.
How do you determine true quality in a human poll? You might want to study up on advanced metrics...they take into account the quality of the opponent - seriously it's a key component in the formulas. They are not gimmicky...human polls without a doubt are almost nothing but gimmicky.
Too lopsided. Advanced metrics haven't gotten to the point that they're so advanced, that you can so heavily ignore the eye test.
I think it's reasonable to say, not all lay-ups, 2-5 foot shots, 6-12 foot shots, and 13 - 18 foot shots (and so on and so forth) are created equal. Some players are more prone to fouling certain areas of the floor, and more prone to fouling certain types of players. Some players may be able to adequately defend a guy who has a raw post game that doesn't have much diversity, but has shown a lot of effectiveness overall, but can't adequately defend players with a smooth, diverse low post repertoire (due to not having to see it against most college teams). A 3 point shooter that has the ability to hit step-back threes with some level of dangerous consistency is much more difficult to defend than a spot-up three point shooter. Defensively, Purdue may be able to defend typical college teams that lack elite skill, but when they line up against a Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, or what have you, it's not the same animal, regardless of what analytics and statistics say. Teams that typically do good against the field (sans those elite teams), but line up against one of those types of team-talents, and don't fare well, it isn't because of the name on the jersey. It's because players on those teams have uncommon skills that most lesser-skilled teams have issues adequately defending, or they just flat out don't have the tools.
Offensively, reverse the script. Advanced metrics don't measure how smooth a player's drop-step, spin move, step-back, jump hook, or what have you, actually is. It all chalks up to two points when you score in the low post either way, but I guarantee you, if you had to pick between defending a player who has a raw, mechanical, aesthetically unappealing post game, but shoots 64% from the field, you'd very likely want to defend him more than you'd want to defend a player that shoots 60% from the field, but has an incredibly smooth repertoire to rely on, because that 60 percenter probably has a vast bag of tricks that would make him harder to defend man-on-man, or even if you double him. A lot of people would rather defend Klay Thompson than they would Steph Curry, because even though Klay hits at a higher percentage right now (and it's fairly close for the career too), Klay isn't gonna take it up the floor himself, cross a guy up, and hit a 3 from 29 or 30 feet with regularity. Steph is the more talented, and more skilled player, and that's just the premise of my argument. I don't think Purdue has the horses to handle those guys if they're playing effectively as a team.
SOS is based 100% exclusively on wins and losses, period. Nothing else. 2/3 is opponent's record and 1/3 is their opponent's record.
Similar threads
