(01-25-2013 10:44 AM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  Stats to me are like Movie trailers. They make all movies look good if you want them to.

Joachim Noah is going to the all-star game this year. On paper he doesn't look that great. He only averages 10 points a game. Yet all the coaches in the league understand how good he is based on all the intangibles that make you a winner.

Even stats we do use to evaluate players/teams can be misleading. Joe Jackson has been criticized for his low assist totals. If he had better shooters around him his stats would look better wouldn't they? He makes the right pass to Crawford on the perimeter and he keeps clanking wide open shots then Joe can't get assists. What happens if he makes a bullet pass to someone in a position to score but he has bad hands and it goes out of bounds. No assist and I believe he gets credit for a turnover.

Stats are a good starting point, but they don't come close to telling the whole story imo.

I know I shouldn't but I can't help but get aggravated when Joe throws a perfect pass, to complete a perfect play and then the shooter miffs the shot.

(01-25-2013 10:19 AM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 10:10 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 09:01 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 12:03 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  My only beef is that if people are gonna throw numbers out, be thorough. The OP cherry picked the ONLY set of numbers favorable to that side. There are three other statistical metrics more exhaustive than RPI that tend to have a different outcome than the simplistic RPI.

Sorta like the "no returning starters" issue. Show all your cards in the beginning and it can become an honest discussion about the pros and cons of the info presented, instead of the poster having to equivocate and retract statements.

Again, I will ask you, and maybe you will answer me this time. Would you rather have the number that the NCAA committee uses as your highest ranked number (RPI), or the number they don't use (Pom/Sag) to be the highest ranked number? Because Pastner had considerably the better numbers in the eyes of the committee his first 3 years vs. Calipari's first 3 years.

I will ask you, in what way does the NCAA use those numbers?

If that were the case the seedings would be laid out by RPI. When it gets down to it, RPI means a little less than nothing to the selection committee.

Like someone else pointed out, if RPI mattered, a 16 RPI team would be a 4 seed.

Just because you WANT them to use that particular RPI for selection doesnt mean they really do.

If RPI was a good metric on evaluating teams vs other teams, why were other metrics included by the selection committee to decide seeding? Like teams vs top 100, top 50.

Shouldn't the RPI be able to stand on its own without additional caveats? Why isn't the top 25 a direct correlation to RPI ratings?

The RPI does stand on its own because it is an emotionless measure of performance. The RPI was the bible less than 10 years ago, when home, road, and neutral site games weren't weighted. It "worked" perfectly because the teams from the power conferences played 75% of their games at home.

When the adjustments were made for game locations, the mid majors came out in much better shape. The NCAA realizes that teams from major conferences were their cash cow, and that's when they started saying the RPI wasn't the end all, and using bull**** terms like the "eye test."

Sagarin and Kenpom are never referenced; RPI is all the time, including on the NCAA's website.

(01-25-2013 10:47 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 10:44 AM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  Stats to me are like Movie trailers. They make all movies look good if you want them to.

Joachim Noah is going to the all-star game this year. On paper he doesn't look that great. He only averages 10 points a game. Yet all the coaches in the league understand how good he is based on all the intangibles that make you a winner.

Even stats we do use to evaluate players/teams can be misleading. Joe Jackson has been criticized for his low assist totals. If he had better shooters around him his stats would look better wouldn't they? He makes the right pass to Crawford on the perimeter and he keeps clanking wide open shots then Joe can't get assists. What happens if he makes a bullet pass to someone in a position to score but he has bad hands and it goes out of bounds. No assist and I believe he gets credit for a turnover.

Stats are a good starting point, but they don't come close to telling the whole story imo.

I know I shouldn't but I can't help but get aggravated when Joe throws a perfect pass, to complete a perfect play and then the shooter miffs the shot.

As a team, we're shooting 48% from the field. Players from every team miss easy shots all the time.

I have yet to fully understand why we are continually comparing Josh to Cal; one came with a ton of experience and one didn't.

However, if we have to compare; we should wait until we have another NCAA review and end up with an 0-40 season accompanied with required accounting improvements. That would put everything on a more even basis.

All successful coaches have strengths and weaknesses. If we really have to compare strengths and weaknesses of recent coaches, some need seasoning as a bench coach/leader and some need character development.

(01-24-2013 05:55 PM)Stammers Wrote:  ....

If he wanted the job he would have taken it. Thank you again for taking the time to prove the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Are you serious? He would have taken the job if Johnson hadn't 'hemmed and hawed" about it over that weekend. If you narrow the set of people who "wanted the job" or "would have taken the job" to people who actually took the job, then I guess Pastner is the only person who would have taken the job by definition since he is the only person who actually took the job. But that's twisting words around to where they are meaninglessness. The fact is, had Johnson conducted the search differently at that point, Drew would have been the coach.

(01-25-2013 10:34 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  ...

Again, for the 3rd time - Would you rather have the number that the NCAA committee uses as your highest ranked number (RPI), or the number they don't use (Pom/Sag) to be the highest ranked number?

In a discussion about seeding the tournament? The RPI. In a discussion about which team or schedule is actually better or harder? Probably one of the more in depth statistical models like Sagarin or Kenpom.

The RPI is nothing more than your record, your opponents record, and their opponents record, with an adjustment for home and away games. No one takes that seriously as an actual ranking. It's more useful, and in my understanding this is how the tournament committee more or less uses it, in looking at how a team performs against various RPI segments as opposed to actually ranking a team. If the committee actually used it that way, we should have/would have gotten a higher seed based on our RPI last year.

(01-25-2013 12:07 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 10:34 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  ...

Again, for the 3rd time - Would you rather have the number that the NCAA committee uses as your highest ranked number (RPI), or the number they don't use (Pom/Sag) to be the highest ranked number?

In a discussion about seeding the tournament? The RPI. In a discussion about which team or schedule is actually better or harder? Probably one of the more in depth statistical models like Sagarin or Kenpom.

The RPI is nothing more than your record, your opponents record, and their opponents record, with an adjustment for home and away games. No one takes that seriously as an actual ranking. It's more useful, and in my understanding this is how the tournament committee more or less uses it, in looking at how a team performs against various RPI segments as opposed to actually ranking a team. If the committee actually used it that way, we should have/would have gotten a higher seed based on our RPI last year.

Well put.

(01-25-2013 10:12 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 09:41 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 09:01 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 12:03 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  My only beef is that if people are gonna throw numbers out, be thorough. The OP cherry picked the ONLY set of numbers favorable to that side. There are three other statistical metrics more exhaustive than RPI that tend to have a different outcome than the simplistic RPI.

Sorta like the "no returning starters" issue. Show all your cards in the beginning and it can become an honest discussion about the pros and cons of the info presented, instead of the poster having to equivocate and retract statements.

Again, I will ask you, and maybe you will answer me this time. Would you rather have the number that the NCAA committee uses as your highest ranked number (RPI), or the number they don't use (Pom/Sag) to be the highest ranked number? Because Pastner had considerably the better numbers in the eyes of the committee his first 3 years vs. Calipari's first 3 years.

Of course Pastner had better numbers because Cal built the program back to relevancy. It was a powerhouse. When Cal came on board Memphis had been floundering around for four or five years and no one paid attention.

Let it all play out. Josh has a great opportunity to do great things at Memphis.

I know this. I was only stating to Saluki that the RPI matters to the NCAA committee, not Pom or Sag.

I think those ratings can be swayed by the rep of the coach.

(01-25-2013 10:44 AM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  Stats to me are like Movie trailers. They make all movies look good if you want them to.

Joachim Noah is going to the all-star game this year. On paper he doesn't look that great. He only averages 10 points a game. Yet all the coaches in the league understand how good he is based on all the intangibles that make you a winner.

Even stats we do use to evaluate players/teams can be misleading. Joe Jackson has been criticized for his low assist totals. If he had better shooters around him his stats would look better wouldn't they? He makes the right pass to Crawford on the perimeter and he keeps clanking wide open shots then Joe can't get assists. What happens if he makes a bullet pass to someone in a position to score but he has bad hands and it goes out of bounds. No assist and I believe he gets credit for a turnover.

Stats are a good starting point, but they don't come close to telling the whole story imo.

Not to take away from your overall point (and these rankings are hardly definitive) but CBS has Noah as one of the top 5 Centers in the league this year, and he does average a double double and leads the league in assists per game from the center position.

Second, and this is more directed at those who would be critical of Joe's assits, his assist and A/TO numbers have pretty much always been right in line with Tyreke Evan's and Darius Washington's, and this year are only slightly off Rose's 2008 numbers. So Joe really shouldn't get as much grief about that as he does

(01-25-2013 12:20 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 10:44 AM)Chi-TownTiger Wrote:  Stats to me are like Movie trailers. They make all movies look good if you want them to.

Joachim Noah is going to the all-star game this year. On paper he doesn't look that great. He only averages 10 points a game. Yet all the coaches in the league understand how good he is based on all the intangibles that make you a winner.

Even stats we do use to evaluate players/teams can be misleading. Joe Jackson has been criticized for his low assist totals. If he had better shooters around him his stats would look better wouldn't they? He makes the right pass to Crawford on the perimeter and he keeps clanking wide open shots then Joe can't get assists. What happens if he makes a bullet pass to someone in a position to score but he has bad hands and it goes out of bounds. No assist and I believe he gets credit for a turnover.

Stats are a good starting point, but they don't come close to telling the whole story imo.

Not to take away from your overall point (and these rankings are hardly definitive) but CBS has Noah as one of the top 5 Centers in the league this year, and he does average a double double and leads the league in assists per game from the center position.

Second, and this is more directed at those who would be critical of Joe's assits, his assist and A/TO numbers have pretty much always been right in line with Tyreke Evan's and Darius Washington's, and this year are only slightly off Rose's 2008 numbers. So Joe really shouldn't get as much grief about that as he does

I love Noah and I think he may be the best center. His passing skills are amazing for a center. He's defense is as good as it gets. Since I watch most of their games you see the hustle plays that just don't appear on a stat sheet.

Here is a good example from the other night.

(01-26-2013 12:23 PM)Psicosis Wrote:  Five and maybe six of the recruits will come if we keep Pastner, and we won't have to find a new coach in the middle of conference realignment returning us to the brink of being old-C-USA (which did have Crean and Cal and Huggy and Pitino, but was by no means as nationally respected as it deserved). And we get to keep the rookie head coach we've been grooming who's already keeping pace with the biggest coaching names in our program's history instead of letting another school reap the fruits of our growing pains.

I have no compunction about wanting coaches out when they start smelling like doo doo. It happened with West long before the depressing end came, and despite wanting to give Porter three years it was blatantly obvious we needed to change something halfway through 2011. The only thing that's obvious in this situation is that a lot of people are either trolling or out of their damn minds.

Personally, and I've said this before. I don't think Josh Pastner will not be up to the challenge of the real Big East next year. If Tarik, Joe Jackson, Adonis, and Shaq come back, and the recruits are eligible, he'll probably have the most talent in the BEast and really enough talent to win the NCAA title.

I think we brag on empty accomplishments too much. Cal winning CUSA three straight years undefeated may seem like something, but he didn't beat anybody. Cal's regular season accomplishments were always based on the out-of-conference schedule. Yes, the CUSA teams would give it their all... But our talent would run circles against the guys they put on the floor.

The CUSA story hasn't changed, but that's really all we have to brag on. How valuable is 90 wins in 3 and a half seasons when you played almost 60 games against the current CUSA and another 24 or so buy games?

Yeah he might have gotten there the 2nd fastest, but he might have also had the easiest road to get there.

I don't believe in lowering expectations. This school values basketball enough and puts enough money into basketball that we don't need to ok with mediocrity. And winning 80% of your games against schools they don't really have a commitment to basketball is mediocrity.

So next year, when we have the best conference schedule in the history of Tiger basketball, and we have a great opportunity, what happens if we go 9-9 or 8-10 and we have the deepest roster in the league?

Even if it's so bad that Pastner is fired, that would be a great opportunity lost on the levels of squandered seasons in 1994 and 2005. Then our basketball league goes back to being on the level of CUSA its first couple seasons and Memphis is known for four straight seasons of being in the preseason top 20 and underachieving, and we have a reputation for not being good.