Valley Game 4

Discuss the MVC hoops season here.

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Stickboy46 » January 9th, 2017, 10:37 am

Redbirdgrad wrote:
Play Angry wrote:Syracuse last year pretty much offers Exhibits A - ZZZ on this issue. Their resume was deficient in nearly every measure vis a vis other bubble teams, and the fact that they were not even subjected to the play-in round was probably the most egregious misstep by the Committee in a decade. The after-the-fact justification that Boeheim's missed games didn't count (when it was for punishment approved by the NCAA, not health reasons or other unforeseen circumstances) showed how far the Committee was willing to stretch to get the Orange in the field at the expense of a more deserving resume like, say, Monmouth.

Then, of course, they got hot and made a huge run to justify further future screwjobs.


You're 100% correct on this. The fact that they made the run is more of a problem than anything because it justified to them that this precedent they set was the correct one. Going to take many years of P5 included teams who fall flat on their face to erase the memory of Syracuse excelling.

Couldn't agree more with you.


What's even more frustrating is the fact that mid-major teams that get included and make runs don't get that same leeway in years after.
Stickboy46
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 664
Joined: April 21st, 2015, 9:24 am

Re: Valley Game 4

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby squirrel » January 9th, 2017, 11:07 am

Historic performance has zero impact on future tournament appearances.

Historically, the "last team in" or team that seems to be the focus of arguments against their inclusion do tend to go on tournament runs. I predicted this would continue with Syracuse last year.

This has been the case during the entire expansion era going back to 1982 and Boston College. That team has frequently been a mid-major team, coming from leagues like the WAC, Big West, WCC, MVC, MAC, A10.

So the favoritism toward the power 5 isn't real in this case. It's just that often times they have to do less to benefit from inclusion.

I think the committee most year's has done a pretty good job of putting the right teams in. I was miffed about the Orange last year, too, because I thought the Bonnies were every actually the better overall team last year. Except they lost the H2H against the 'Cuse when they played. That may have been one of the determining criteria.
squirrel
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 529
Joined: August 4th, 2010, 11:49 am

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby BirdsEyeView » January 9th, 2017, 11:24 am

squirrel wrote:Historic performance has zero impact on future tournament appearances.

Historically, the "last team in" or team that seems to be the focus of arguments against their inclusion do tend to go on tournament runs. I predicted this would continue with Syracuse last year.

This has been the case during the entire expansion era going back to 1982 and Boston College. That team has frequently been a mid-major team, coming from leagues like the WAC, Big West, WCC, MVC, MAC, A10.

So the favoritism toward the power 5 isn't real in this case. It's just that often times they have to do less to benefit from inclusion.

I think the committee most year's has done a pretty good job of putting the right teams in. I was miffed about the Orange last year, too, because I thought the Bonnies were every actually the better overall team last year. Except they lost the H2H against the 'Cuse when they played. That may have been one of the determining criteria.


Here is a good article about last year and how terrible the committee did in their selections...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketb ... e-monmouth
BirdsEyeView
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:51 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Wufan » January 9th, 2017, 11:59 am

Redbirdgrad wrote:
2livewu wrote:To the Redbird poster: Please tell me WSU's "bad" loss. I'm looking forward to your answer.



You are 100% correct, my bad. I was in my head considering the bad loss to be Oklahoma State because of how bad that beat-down was, but when referencing the numbers it's not as bad as it seems. I still don't think Oklahoma State is a good team, and I fully expected you to win that game (as did you guys)... that's probably why I slotted it that way in my head.

Again, in the context of the original discussion, we were discussing resumes and wondering who we should be pulling for right now in the Valley to run the table and lose in the Championship game in order to get 2 teams in since we all agree this is most likely a 1 bid conference right now.

Pertaining to that discussion, and that discussion alone, the numbers work out in favor of Illinois State this year, at this point in time. Here is the current breakdown of the resumes using RPI (Stickboy, when massey, etc. starts being more seriously used by the committee, we can start looking at those numbers, but those metrics aren't referenced at this present time.. but I do concede they favor Wichita currently):

Illinois State:
Current RPI - 46
Current SOS - 79
Wins by RPI - 59, 118, 128, 145, 158, 165, 169, 180, 194, 211, 320
Losses by RPI - 36, 159, 165, 226
Average RPI Win - 167.9
Average RPI Loss - 146.5
RPI should ISU run the table - 24
SOS should ISU run the table - 136

Wichita State:
Current RPI - 96
Current SOS - 251
Wins by RPI - 97, 139, 165, 167, 169, 170, 186, 200, 212, 261, 275, 278, 319
Losses by RPI - 9, 35, 54
Average RPI Win - 202.9
Average RPI Loss - 32.7
RPI should Wichita run the table - 31
SOS should Wichita run the table - 169

So in looking at the data above...

Best win - ISU
Best collection of wins - ISU (Wichita barely has a top 100 win and 6 of their wins come against 200+ teams)
Best loss - Wichita
Best collection of losses - Wichita (by a longshot)

ISU's RPI/SOS numbers are better after showing what would hypothetically happen should each team run the table, so for the purposes of the MVC's best chance at getting 2 in... the Valley should be rooting for ISU to do it.

It's all moot anyway, because no matter which side you look at, neither team gets in as an at large this year. It was a hypothetical exercise in who to root for to run the table, and the numbers back up my original claim.

I appreciate the discussion with the Wichita fans who can have intellectual ones such as this, and look forward to more. I'll be pulling for the Shockers in every single game but 2 this year (maybe 3 in St. Louis). Good luck to you guys!


Hypothetically, 16-2 puts both teams on the bubble, and they might take the loser in the finals. It's important that both teams finish with top 50 RPI. They won't take both teams as at-large IMao, even if they both finish 17-1.

While all of the above facts are true, one problem with rooting for the birds is that it is less likely that they will 16-2 than that Shockers will go 18-0. If you look at the MVC RPI, it is littered with teams (6 or 7) that have an RPI between 100-200. ISU is 8-3 against teams over 100, whereas WSU is 7-0.
Wufan
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: October 19th, 2010, 8:14 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Redbirdgrad » January 9th, 2017, 12:14 pm

Wufan wrote:Hypothetically, 16-2 puts both teams on the bubble, and they might take the loser in the finals. It's important that both teams finish with top 50 RPI. They won't take both teams as at-large IMao, even if they both finish 17-1.

While all of the above facts are true, one problem with rooting for the birds is that it is less likely that they will 16-2 than that Shockers will go 18-0. If you look at the MVC RPI, it is littered with teams (6 or 7) that have an RPI between 100-200. ISU is 8-3 against teams over 100, whereas WSU is 7-0.


But... that wasn't the original argument. If you'd like to concede that discussion, we can begin to then discuss this one.
Redbirdgrad
MVC starter
MVC starter
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 2nd, 2015, 1:40 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby oneNEIGHBOR » January 9th, 2017, 12:18 pm

Just a point of info on the use of advanced metrics by the selection committee.

"And according to several current and former members of the men’s basketball selection committee, the 10-member panel has increasingly relied on more sophisticated metrics to guide its decisions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/sport ... .html?_r=0
Go Shockers!
Ready for some basketball!
User avatar
oneNEIGHBOR
MVC starter
MVC starter
 
Posts: 222
Joined: August 5th, 2010, 8:23 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Stickboy46 » January 9th, 2017, 12:20 pm

Wufan wrote:
Redbirdgrad wrote:

You are 100% correct, my bad. I was in my head considering the bad loss to be Oklahoma State because of how bad that beat-down was, but when referencing the numbers it's not as bad as it seems. I still don't think Oklahoma State is a good team, and I fully expected you to win that game (as did you guys)... that's probably why I slotted it that way in my head.

Again, in the context of the original discussion, we were discussing resumes and wondering who we should be pulling for right now in the Valley to run the table and lose in the Championship game in order to get 2 teams in since we all agree this is most likely a 1 bid conference right now.

Pertaining to that discussion, and that discussion alone, the numbers work out in favor of Illinois State this year, at this point in time. Here is the current breakdown of the resumes using RPI (Stickboy, when massey, etc. starts being more seriously used by the committee, we can start looking at those numbers, but those metrics aren't referenced at this present time.. but I do concede they favor Wichita currently):

Illinois State:
Current RPI - 46
Current SOS - 79
Wins by RPI - 59, 118, 128, 145, 158, 165, 169, 180, 194, 211, 320
Losses by RPI - 36, 159, 165, 226
Average RPI Win - 167.9
Average RPI Loss - 146.5
RPI should ISU run the table - 24
SOS should ISU run the table - 136

Wichita State:
Current RPI - 96
Current SOS - 251
Wins by RPI - 97, 139, 165, 167, 169, 170, 186, 200, 212, 261, 275, 278, 319
Losses by RPI - 9, 35, 54
Average RPI Win - 202.9
Average RPI Loss - 32.7
RPI should Wichita run the table - 31
SOS should Wichita run the table - 169

So in looking at the data above...

Best win - ISU
Best collection of wins - ISU (Wichita barely has a top 100 win and 6 of their wins come against 200+ teams)
Best loss - Wichita
Best collection of losses - Wichita (by a longshot)

ISU's RPI/SOS numbers are better after showing what would hypothetically happen should each team run the table, so for the purposes of the MVC's best chance at getting 2 in... the Valley should be rooting for ISU to do it.

It's all moot anyway, because no matter which side you look at, neither team gets in as an at large this year. It was a hypothetical exercise in who to root for to run the table, and the numbers back up my original claim.

I appreciate the discussion with the Wichita fans who can have intellectual ones such as this, and look forward to more. I'll be pulling for the Shockers in every single game but 2 this year (maybe 3 in St. Louis). Good luck to you guys!


Hypothetically, 16-2 puts both teams on the bubble, and they might take the loser in the finals. It's important that both teams finish with top 50 RPI. They won't take both teams as at-large IMao, even if they both finish 17-1.

While all of the above facts are true, one problem with rooting for the birds is that it is less likely that they will 16-2 than that Shockers will go 18-0. If you look at the MVC RPI, it is littered with teams (6 or 7) that have an RPI between 100-200. ISU is 8-3 against teams over 100, whereas WSU is 7-0.


More interesting data points using KenPom

WSU: 23
ISU: 50
No other MVC teams in the top 100

Record vs Top 100
WSU 1-3
ISU 0-1

Vs > 100
WSU: 12-0
ISU : 11-3.
Stickboy46
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 664
Joined: April 21st, 2015, 9:24 am

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Redbirdgrad » January 9th, 2017, 12:40 pm

Stickboy46 wrote:
More interesting data points using KenPom

WSU: 23
ISU: 50
No other MVC teams in the top 100

Record vs Top 100
WSU 1-3
ISU 0-1

Vs > 100
WSU: 12-0
ISU : 11-3.


What's even more interesting is that kenpom is purely a predictive ranking system rather than a historical one. It doesn't tell you how a team has played to this point, it tells you how that computer thinks they'll play if the ball tipped off tonight. When you play sub 200 teams and beat them all by 20, and then lose to a handful of sub 50's... you'll look very strong to the kenpom because you have barely been challenged all year. And it's noteworthy that when you have been, you've lost.

Read this on kenpom, and then understand why it's seldom used when discussing a tourney's at large candidacy...

http://kenpom.com/blog/ratings-explanation/
Redbirdgrad
MVC starter
MVC starter
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 2nd, 2015, 1:40 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby specialsauce » January 9th, 2017, 1:15 pm

Seldom used? lol

It may have been the main reason why WSU was selected last year. The committee is on record for saying advanced metrics is a tool used to determine selection. Yes, it kills your whole biased ILSU>WSU argument, but the truth hurts.

Can somebody also explain why WSU received Top 25 votes this week and Illinois State has yet to get sniffed? Surely, name recognition has nothing to do with the fact that a 90 RPI team is being voted for and a 47 RPI team isn't? :?
specialsauce
MVC starter
MVC starter
 
Posts: 231
Joined: October 26th, 2016, 9:08 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby BirdsEyeView » January 9th, 2017, 1:56 pm

specialsauce wrote:Seldom used? lol

It may have been the main reason why WSU was selected last year. The committee is on record for saying advanced metrics is a tool used to determine selection. Yes, it kills your whole biased ILSU>WSU argument, but the truth hurts.

Can somebody also explain why WSU received Top 25 votes this week and Illinois State has yet to get sniffed? Surely, name recognition has nothing to do with the fact that a 90 RPI team is being voted for and a 47 RPI team isn't? :?



Lol. I would love to meet you specialsauce, Championz, Baller, ShockerFever and whatever other alias' you have. I would really like to know if your real personality matches your online persona.

Do you go to Arch Madness? I would love to buy you a beer. Send me a pm if you want.
BirdsEyeView
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:51 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby Redbirdgrad » January 9th, 2017, 2:02 pm

specialsauce wrote:Seldom used? lol

Did I stutter? Please site examples of kenpom being used by the committee in post selection discussion as to the merits of the last few in or out. You'll seldom find those, which is why I chose the wording I did.

specialsauce wrote:It may have been the main reason why WSU was selected last year. The committee is on record for saying advanced metrics is a tool used to determine selection. Yes, it kills your whole biased ILSU>WSU argument, but the truth hurts.

No, it really doesn't, because you absolutely refuse to read or use basic comprehension which is taught in 2nd grade. If it's not pro-Wichita, then you throw a fit and act like a 2 year old. In this case, you had to go back to shockernet, regroup, rally the troops, and then come back to the argument and try again. You are exactly the type of poster that degrades an entire fan-base which was at one time likable.

specialsauce wrote:Can somebody also explain why WSU received Top 25 votes this week and Illinois State has yet to get sniffed? Surely, name recognition has nothing to do with the fact that a 90 RPI team is being voted for and a 47 RPI team isn't? :?

Please tell me you're not this stupid.
Redbirdgrad
MVC starter
MVC starter
 
Posts: 313
Joined: December 2nd, 2015, 1:40 pm

Re: Valley Game 4

Postby specialsauce » January 9th, 2017, 2:17 pm

You are not a good poster. Your thin-skinned nature and huge bias keeps you from holding intelligent conversation.

It really is interesting that a guy who posts players advanced metrics twice a week on his own board is so adamant about opposing KenPom metrics on his own team. Oh, that's right. It kills his biased argument.

You need to buy mirrors for your apartment buddy. There obviously aren't enough around because you make hypocritical statements A LOT. Again, look into one once in a while.

Rally the troops? What's da matter? You mad bro? lol.

So, you can't explain the Top 25 votes? Instead of explaining it, you just called a poster a name, which of course is another one of your hypocritical moves.
specialsauce
MVC starter
MVC starter
 
Posts: 231
Joined: October 26th, 2016, 9:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Missouri Valley Conference Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dabirds0987 and 4 guests