kenpom.com

UC starts 11th

(10-23-2017 11:36 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  kenpom.com

UC starts 11th

I'm sure you will be shocked to find out I've been periodically checking kenpom.com waiting for this. Even a bit higher than I expected, though I was thinking around 15. Really pumped for this season.

(10-23-2017 11:48 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:36 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  kenpom.com

UC starts 11th

I'm sure you will be shocked to find out I've been periodically checking kenpom.com waiting for this. Even a bit higher than I expected, though I was thinking around 15. Really pumped for this season.

I just hope this season turns out as we all expect, we need no severe injuries, tipped shots going in, etc.

How can computer ratings have any validity before games have been played?

I'm interested in where we'll be after December. That month of schedule is brutal.

(10-23-2017 12:07 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  How can computer ratings have any validity before games have been played?

Exactly what I was thinking. It is less biased than the coach's and AP polls, but there is still definitely bias. Just so happens UC is benefiting from it for the first time in a long time.

(10-23-2017 12:07 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  How can computer ratings have any validity before games have been played?

How can any rankings have any validity before games have been played?

You account for returning talent, talent development and new players and use what you know to project.

With human rankings this is done subjectively... With computer rankings this is done using numbers from prior season returning players and weighting of incoming players based on how these things have effected teams historically.

(10-23-2017 12:12 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 12:07 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  How can computer ratings have any validity before games have been played?

How can any rankings have any validity before games have been played?

You account for returning talent, talent development and new players and use what you know to project.

With human rankings this is done subjectively... With computer rankings this is done using numbers from prior season returning players and weighting of incoming players based on how these things have effected teams historically.

kenpom especially. he says his rankings preseason are fundamentally useless. Kenpom's is based of how they played and by the time season's end is usually really good.

His preseason rankings are a trap shoot based off of returning players/coaches.

(10-23-2017 02:40 PM)MercerCo_BearCat Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 12:12 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 12:07 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  How can computer ratings have any validity before games have been played?

How can any rankings have any validity before games have been played?

You account for returning talent, talent development and new players and use what you know to project.

With human rankings this is done subjectively... With computer rankings this is done using numbers from prior season returning players and weighting of incoming players based on how these things have effected teams historically.

kenpom especially. he says his rankings preseason are fundamentally useless. Kenpom's is based of how they played and by the time season's end is usually really good.

His preseason rankings are a trap shoot based off of returning players/coaches.

I'm not sure he's quite so pessimistic and in fact he uses those preseason numbers for a while to balance out the small sample sizes of early season kenpom rankings. He has said his raw numbers without the adjustments are very flawed until you get into january and there are always outliers even with a full season of data.

It is what it is. It's one way to predict...ultimately results on the court are going to win out, but his projections seem consistent with where everyone expects the Bearcats to be this year.

So now there are computer rankings before a single shot has been taken on the season? At a certain point we have jumped the sabermetric shark.

(10-23-2017 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So now there are computer rankings before a single shot has been taken on the season? At a certain point we have jumped the sabermetric shark.

There are writers rankings before a single shot has been taken as well. People like predictions. Why wouldn't someone use data driven measures for that?

BTW there are multiple programs that use these kind of numbers for nonconference scheduling (find the lower level teams that should have good RPI numbers) to great affect.

I know this is crazy, but...

Here's a thought for polls: don't release your first edition until you have a sample size that is appropriate. Preseason polls are meaningless and introduce bias into the equation since other polls and rankings are based upon these.

Like the CFB Playoff Committee, except without the rampant subjectivity and bias towards large conferences. Maybe we wouldn't have situations where UK was ranked 3rd to start the season (because "Kentucky") but didn't make it out of the first game of the NIT.

(10-23-2017 03:48 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:40 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So now there are computer rankings before a single shot has been taken on the season? At a certain point we have jumped the sabermetric shark.

There are writers rankings before a single shot has been taken as well. People like predictions. Why wouldn't someone use data driven measures for that?

BTW there are multiple programs that use these kind of numbers for nonconference scheduling (find the lower level teams that should have good RPI numbers) to great affect.

Uh oh. Someone poo-poo'd KenPom and Mark is getting touchy.


I kid.

...waterskiing Fonzi in a leather jacket...

(10-23-2017 03:51 PM)crex043 Wrote:  I know this is crazy, but...

Here's a thought for polls: don't release your first edition until you have a sample size that is appropriate. Preseason polls are meaningless and introduce bias into the equation since other polls and rankings are based upon these.

Like the CFB Playoff Committee, except without the rampant subjectivity and bias towards large conferences. Maybe we wouldn't have situations where UK was ranked 3rd to start the season (because "Kentucky") but didn't make it out of the first game of the NIT.

The preseason polls do pretty well at predicting tourney success. I know 538 uses them in their model.

(10-23-2017 03:55 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  ...waterskiing Fonzi in a leather jacket...

Here's a seminar action shot from the 2016 KenPom Enthusiasts Society Conference: An Exercise In Predictive Sports Statistics Modeling (note the red conference shirts):

(10-23-2017 03:55 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  ...waterskiing Fonzi in a leather jacket...

lol aka Jumped the Shark...

(10-23-2017 05:04 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 03:55 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  ...waterskiing Fonzi in a leather jacket...

Here's a seminar action shot from the 2016 KenPom Enthusiasts Society Conference: An Exercise In Predictive Sports Statistics Modeling (note the red conference shirts):

(10-23-2017 11:48 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:36 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  kenpom.com

UC starts 11th

I'm sure you will be shocked to find out I've been periodically checking kenpom.com waiting for this. Even a bit higher than I expected, though I was thinking around 15. Really pumped for this season.

Shocked? I expect you have the Super Platinum Membership with synchronized Flesh Light

(10-23-2017 06:31 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:48 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:36 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  kenpom.com

UC starts 11th

I'm sure you will be shocked to find out I've been periodically checking kenpom.com waiting for this. Even a bit higher than I expected, though I was thinking around 15. Really pumped for this season.

Shocked? I expect you have the Super Platinum Membership with synchronized Flesh Light

Wait how did you know about the Super Platinum Membership perks? I thought it was a secret... Billy are you a member too?