(12-21-2022 08:01 PM)tke75hawk Wrote:  Kenpom also said during the game that the big south was a better conference than the caa this year. He also said uncw 1st lost would be at hofstra jan 19.

???

Where to begin with these guys.

I seem to remember ESPN "bracketologist" Joe Lunardi pontificating during the CBI tournament...mostly about himself. He also clearly knew very little about the teams he had been bracketing beyond some algorithms he has chosen to follow - so he was clearly surprised to see some of what he was seeing on the floor right in front of him.

KenPom seems like the type of guy who - if what it happening before his eyes doesn't conform to what his algorithms say should be happening - then it's "luck", not that his algorithm (vs another like ELO) is misaligned.

I was not that impressed with Ken Pomeroy. A glorified numbers guy that would be a terrible scout when it comes to judging team talent.

(12-21-2022 08:01 PM)tke75hawk Wrote:  Kenpom also said during the game that the big south was a better conference than the caa this year. He also said uncw 1st lost would be at hofstra jan 19.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

So KP says the Big South is better than the CAA. The CAA has 3 teams in the Mid-major top 25. The Big South has zero. Hawks have beaten two of their better teams. His comments with a microphone is exposing his lack of true basketball knowledge.

Listening to his commentary now. He definitely seemed to think we were lucky

Who got the "Toughness Chain"? MHH?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Kp was asked to do game at campbell and he indicated the big south was was better in the bottom half of the conference than the caa.. most posters on here have talked about how bad the bottom half of caa is this year

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

(12-22-2022 05:11 AM)tke75hawk Wrote:  Kp was asked to do game at campbell and he indicated the big south was was better in the bottom half of the conference than the caa.. most posters on here have talked about how bad the bottom half of caa is this year

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification.

Odds makers seem to use the KenPom model (as opposed to others) in setting betting lines on teams about which they really don't have intimate knowledge. I think UNCW has an 8-3 record against the spread so far this year, meaning that either UNCW has been really lucky - or that his model is mis-specified in some ways.

KenPom ranks UNCW lower than some other metrics/mathematically-based models. So if KenPom is sitting there watching UNCW do things with his own eyes that his model say shouldn't be happening, he either has to concede that there are statistically significant variables not captured in the KenPom model - or dismiss what he is seeing as a statistical outlier, ie 'luck'.

(12-22-2022 05:28 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 05:11 AM)tke75hawk Wrote:  Kp was asked to do game at campbell and he indicated the big south was was better in the bottom half of the conference than the caa.. most posters on here have talked about how bad the bottom half of caa is this year

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification.

Odds makers seem to use the KenPom model (as opposed to others) in setting betting lines on teams about which they really don't have intimate knowledge. I think UNCW has an 8-3 record against the spread so far this year, meaning that either UNCW has been really lucky - or that his model is mis-specified in some ways.

KenPom ranks UNCW lower than some other metrics/mathematically-based models. So if KenPom is sitting there watching UNCW do things with his own eyes that his model say shouldn't be happening, he either has to concede that there are statistically significant variables not captured in the KenPom model - or dismiss what he is seeing as a statistical outlier, ie 'luck'.

Good take and insight 70’s Hawk! Every time I looked at his rating I came away with the impression that either his algorithm was flawed and/or it wasn’t completely connecting all of the data in real time/ near real time.

Perfect example is the Real Time RPI site that also has Power ratings too. Well just yesterday the Power ratings were updated and now UNCW is at # 33 (they were like 133 before). Hawks ELO is good-44 ish? Net rating was decent at about 70-76 ish? Not sure on Sagarin but that is probably 100-120 range.

Looking at all of that data, KenPom is finally catching up I think but still biased low relative to the consensus mean and common sense test. At the end of the day, Hawks would have to run the table or lose only 1-2 times to get NCAA look and would definitely need to beat the Cougars. The data suggests however that the Hawks are positioned nicely for NIT if they don’t win the tournament.

(12-22-2022 05:28 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(12-22-2022 05:11 AM)tke75hawk Wrote:  Kp was asked to do game at campbell and he indicated the big south was was better in the bottom half of the conference than the caa.. most posters on here have talked about how bad the bottom half of caa is this year

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification.

Odds makers seem to use the KenPom model (as opposed to others) in setting betting lines on teams about which they really don't have intimate knowledge. I think UNCW has an 8-3 record against the spread so far this year, meaning that either UNCW has been really lucky - or that his model is mis-specified in some ways.

KenPom ranks UNCW lower than some other metrics/mathematically-based models. So if KenPom is sitting there watching UNCW do things with his own eyes that his model say shouldn't be happening, he either has to concede that there are statistically significant variables not captured in the KenPom model - or dismiss what he is seeing as a statistical outlier, ie 'luck'.

I think he’s waiting for some form of regression out of this team so he can still say “See? I was right all along”.

The test will be if we continue to win. Does he come out and say he misjudged? Or does he pretend he never said anything and move on to discussing other teams? Probably the latter.