ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Model Update…

Got to remember Bama getting shelled by 24 at 12-9 Oklahoma a week ago. Bama is definitely a good team, but maybe a bit more flawed than some of the other models recognize.
BAMA is too streaky on offense, much like Auburn.
 
Totally get it but 16 considering who they've beat and how bad they've massacred some decent and bad teams? Again, there may be nothing wrong with your mathematics but it looks like you are focusing on the wrong metrics.
So you’re saying that every team that massacres a decent team during the regular season couldn’t possibly have statistical flaws that would undermine them in a single elimination tournament? Like UK smoking KU last year and then losing to a 15 seed?

You do realize that no team in this model has a score of 6.0 because the NCAA tournament is about as chaotic as predicting weather, right?

Is your point that mathematical models don’t perfectly predict real world events? Talk about a Captain Obvious take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBUK
On Bama…they are still in line for a 1 seed. So they will almost definitely be favorites the first 2 games and maybe the 3rd. Maybe a coin flip in that Sweet 16 game.

So even though they don’t model great, they should still be in line for an Elite Eight run because they’ve performed well against their schedule. They’ve earned their way up the latter.

Is this model projecting seed too? Seed and draw makes such a big difference.

Tennessees offense is so bad. But, at this point in the season without knowing seed and draw it’s understandable how they’d be the safest bet to make the second weekend because of how well they defend. Defense travels.
 
If you're not saying 15 other teams would beat Bama in the tournament and instead 15 teams have had better seasons, how does that predict tournament success?

He’s saying his model shows there are 15 other teams racking up statistical indicators that in general they’re likely to do better against the field than Alabama would.

@Aike ‘s right. You really are that guy.
 
He’s saying his model shows there are 15 other teams racking up statistical indicators that in general they’re likely to do better against the field than Alabama would.

@Aike ‘s right. You really are that guy.
Which is asinine. Arkansas would not be favored to perform better than the field over Bama in any data model grounded in logic. Which, again, why his model needs tweaking.

Common sense "that guy".
 
So you’re saying that every team that massacres a decent team during the regular season couldn’t possibly have statistical flaws that would undermine them in a single elimination tournament? Like UK smoking KU last year and then losing to a 15 seed?

You do realize that no team in this model has a score of 6.0 because the NCAA tournament is about as chaotic as predicting weather, right?

Is your point that mathematical models don’t perfectly predict real world events? Talk about a Captain Obvious take.

No, I'm saying in no real world model would 15 teams, including Arkansas, be predicted to fare better than Bama in the tournament. At least not as of today (in theory they could have a major injury, etc.).

Not sure why that captain obvious take is so hard for a few of you knuckleheads to comprehend?
 
Last edited:
No, I'm saying in no real world model would 15 teams, including Arkansas, be predicted to fair better than Bama in the tournament.

Not sure why that captain obvious take is so hard for a few of you knuckleheads to comprehend?
Because the good old eye test is shit and this season, above probably any I can remember in the last 40 years, has shown that to be true. And the only “stat” you’re offering is eye test.

I’m curious what you think the best mathematical predictor of tournament success is? I’m trying hard not to be a knucklehead and wanted to finally find the foolproof predictive model.
 
Because the good old eye test is shit and this season, above probably any I can remember in the last 40 years, has shown that to be true. And the only “stat” you’re offering is eye test.

I’m curious what you think the best mathematical predictor of tournament success is? I’m trying hard not to be a knucklehead and wanted to finally find the foolproof predictive model.

Dorks who solely base their decisions on data, without a smell test, fail miserably. Metrics have their place but you have to quantify those metrics vs common sense and life experiences. Those that can do that are extremely successful.

As far as best predictor - its random, which is why you can typically narrow it down to a handful of teams but rarely the favorite wins.

But in no universe is Bama 16 on that list this year at this moment in time. Data isn't needed to call that one. Eye test for the win.

There's a major flaw in his data or his method if that's what he has.
 
Dorks who solely base their decisions on data, without a smell test, fail miserably. Metrics have their place but you have to quantify those metrics vs common sense and life experiences. Those that can do that are extremely successful.

As far as best predictor - its random, which is why you can typically narrow it down to a handful of teams but rarely the favorite wins.

But in no universe is Bama 16 on that list this year at this moment in time. Data isn't needed to call that one. Eye test for the win.

There's a major flaw in his data or his method if that's what he has.
I just find it odd that you think a Bama upset in the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA tournament (which is equivalent to what the model predicts) is so out of the realm of possibility that you’re willing to continuously shit on it for an entire thread to prove the point that no one is arguing.

The tournament is random. Especially this year. If there were a mathematical model that was vastly superior to all others, everyone would use it and make millions. Aike’s model is just another model that one of our board members shares for conversation. You’ve made it clear you think it’s flawed. We get it.
 
The metrics are comparing everyone to the same norm.

In the tourney, higher seeds play lower seeds in first two rounds particularly.

Purdue at 1.6 is almost a lock to win 2 games because of seeding. Cannot be said for a number of teams ranked better.
 
Got to remember Bama getting shelled by 24 at 12-9 Oklahoma a week ago. Bama is definitely a good team, but maybe a bit more flawed than some of the other models recognize.
I haven’t followed your posts or model and I’m not much on analytics.

But I find it interesting. And it sure seems you put a lot of work into it. So good on you for that.

If you have been doing this for 5 seasons, unless I misunderstood, how has your model played out in the tournaments?

But use whatever you want and what you think is important.

I remember when KenPom came on the scene and then The Professor.

One of them, and I don’t remember which, didn’t count an offensive rebound as a possession in regards to pace. And one did.

Then it seems they ended up changing to both in agreement that an offensive rebound was not a possession. Or maybe I have it backwards. The point is, it doesn’t matter. It’s just their metrics.

I doubt either ever played. At a high level anyway.

To me, any rebound is a possession. The ball in the air is in no one’s possession. As soon as it’s rebounded, by an offensive or defensive player, it’s that team’s possession.

But I don’t have a metrics website nor aspire to have one. They do.

I like to look at the numbers from time to time to see if they jive with the eye test.

So keep them coming.
 
I just find it odd that you think a Bama upset in the Sweet Sixteen of the NCAA tournament (which is equivalent to what the model predicts) is so out of the realm of possibility that you’re willing to continuously shit on it for an entire thread to prove the point that no one is arguing.

The tournament is random. Especially this year. If there were a mathematical model that was vastly superior to all others, everyone would use it and make millions. Aike’s model is just another model that one of our board members shares for conversation. You’ve made it clear you think it’s flawed. We get it.

No one is saying it's not possible. Anything is possible in the tournament. UVA got UMBC's, UK got St. Peter'd. That is not the point.

We are talking about a predictive model showing 15 teams who have had better seasons, better chance at tournament success, or whatever aike trying to predict, than Bama. I pointed out that that doesn't pass the smell test - which is obvious.

Not sure why a few folks are so butt hurt?
 
ADVERTISEMENT