mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
02-01-12 12:48 PM - Post#118938
Solid game (16 points - 16 boards) helping his team get a big win over a quality opponent (Woodland Hills the #3 big school in western PA). Looks like he is putting up solid numbers against good competition, but the recruting service consensus seems to be "who's he?" Does anybody know anything about him?
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Nolan Cressler
02-03-12 11:06 AM - Post#119139
In response to mountainred
If you go over to the BRF blog you'll find everythinbg you ever wanted to know about him. The issue you raise regarding recruiting services and their lack of recognition can basically be summed up in two words, western Pennsylvania. It's not exactly a hotbed of high school hoops.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-04-12 02:28 PM - Post#119333
In response to Buckeye Quake
Let me get this straight, Pennpal, you just willingly recommended someone visit BRF's site.
You've changed man.
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-04-12 06:08 PM - Post#119373
In response to Jeff2sf
Hey someone had to bring Dr. Frankenstein his bodies didn't they?
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
Nolan Cressler
02-05-12 05:16 PM - Post#119529
In response to Buckeye Quake
At the risk of turning another Cornell post into a discussion about BRF, I do read his blog and saw that Cressler is the "steal" of the Ivy recruiting year. I hope you understand that I'm looking for other sources.
Pittsburgh isn't exactly NYC or even Indiana, but neither is Cleveland and Miller looks like he is for real. Of course, the services knew of Shonn. I guess the message is temper expectations that Nolan will be more than "generic Ivy League guard."
Edited by mountainred on 02-05-12 05:17 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-06-12 11:37 AM - Post#119583
In response to mountainred
Recruits get missed - think about Marin Kukoc, the son of an NBA player in the Chicago-land area. How did ESPN not see him play? But somehow they didn't (maybe he was in Europe during AAU seasons?).
It happens. It's unlikely you got the POY or even ROY but you might have got a real contributor, more than just generic.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-06-12 03:15 PM - Post#119605
In response to Jeff2sf
BTW, I assume that BRF is censoring the Lin/NBA comment thread, right? It's robbing me of some much needed hilarity for my day.
|
pennhoops
Postdoc
Posts: 2470
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-06-12 04:09 PM - Post#119611
In response to mrjames
Hilarity? I dunno. Breaking out the "Lin's only in the NBA because he's Chinese" bit is one of the few times he's gone from nuts to offensive; it really does cross the line.
Anyway.
Jeff's right in that you can't take a lack of scouting service coverage as a knock on a kid. Conversely, though, you don't want to fall into the trap (I think this was on the Princeton or Columbia board) of seeing some YouTube footage and deciding that a recruit has NBA-level talent. The vast majority of us on these boards see few if any recruits until their first college game. Except in rare cases, to anoint anyone the anything of a class is just darts blindfolded.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
02-07-12 03:32 PM - Post#119671
In response to Jeff2sf
I will take contributor. If he has a nice outside shot there is a possible role for him immediately as Cornell doesn't have a pure shooter returning. I was just wondering if anyone had any intel on him.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
02-07-12 03:38 PM - Post#119672
In response to pennhoops
As for Lin, I basically don't care -- but that's because I basically don't care about the NBA in general. This Cornellian bears him no ill will and hopes he has a nice career. But I watch too much sports as it is and the NBA is on the other side of my interest line.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-07-12 03:56 PM - Post#119673
In response to mountainred
As for Lin, I basically don't care -- but that's because I basically don't care about the NBA in general. This Cornellian bears him no ill will and hopes he has a nice career. But I watch too much sports as it is and the NBA is on the other side of my interest line.
My feelings exactly. I also question the sentiment being expressed here that Lin's success (assuming it holds up) is somehow "good for the league." It's possible that it's good for Harvard, but I really can't see how it benefits your alma mater or mine.
|
pennhoops
Postdoc
Posts: 2470
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-07-12 04:16 PM - Post#119676
In response to mountainred
As for Lin, I basically don't care -- but that's because I basically don't care about the NBA in general. This Cornellian bears him no ill will and hopes he has a nice career. But I watch too much sports as it is and the NBA is on the other side of my interest line.
I'd have to say I'm ambivalent too but what isn't acceptable is saying he's only in the league because he's Asian. I could care less about the Knicks but BRF's just far out of line here and it is necessary to point it out.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-07-12 05:55 PM - Post#119683
In response to Silver Maple
It's possible that it's good for Harvard, but I really can't see how it benefits your alma mater or mine.
I strongly disagree with this. The Ivy League has a perception issue. Anything that starts to chip away at that issue is positive for all teams.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-07-12 06:18 PM - Post#119686
In response to pennhoops
As for Lin, I basically don't care -- but that's because I basically don't care about the NBA in general. This Cornellian bears him no ill will and hopes he has a nice career. But I watch too much sports as it is and the NBA is on the other side of my interest line.
I'd have to say I'm ambivalent too but what isn't acceptable is saying he's only in the league because he's Asian. I could care less about the Knicks but BRF's just far out of line here and it is necessary to point it out.
I'm shocked, shocked to discover that besides being a liar and a censor BRF is also a racist.
|
Penn94
PhD Student
Posts: 1461
Loc: Dallas, Texas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-07-12 06:20 PM - Post#119687
In response to mrjames
It's possible that it's good for Harvard, but I really can't see how it benefits your alma mater or mine.
I strongly disagree with this. The Ivy League has a perception issue. Anything that starts to chip away at that issue is positive for all teams.
Respectfully disagree. As great as Lin's last week has been, three Penn players had (as of now) better NBA careers than Lin in the 90s, Matt, Jerome and Ira Bowman. Nothing they did chipped away at the Ivy's perception issue, and Maloney's playoff series vs. the Sonics was a lot more high profile than what Lin is doing now.
I like Lin and wish him the best. I think BRF's comments are, as usual, deplorable, this time with a racist tinge. But I don't think this will help the league at all.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
02-07-12 07:01 PM - Post#119688
In response to Penn94
It's possible that it's good for Harvard, but I really can't see how it benefits your alma mater or mine.
I strongly disagree with this. The Ivy League has a perception issue. Anything that starts to chip away at that issue is positive for all teams.
Respectfully disagree. As great as Lin's last week has been, three Penn players had (as of now) better NBA careers than Lin in the 90s, Matt, Jerome and Ira Bowman. Nothing they did chipped away at the Ivy's perception issue, and Maloney's playoff series vs. the Sonics was a lot more high profile than what Lin is doing now.
I like Lin and wish him the best. I think BRF's comments are, as usual, deplorable, this time with a racist tinge. But I don't think this will help the league at all.
I have to vote with Penn94 here. I remember Chris Dudley having a very respectable NBA career, free throws aside, but it didn't do anything for the league's rep in the 90's. Same thing with Ron Darling and Ivy baseball. Kevin Boothe's super bowl ring isn't going to make 5 star lineman choose Cornell. "Ivy League" is just too well-established as an academic/non-athletic brand to change. Amaker may be able to use it to help Harvard, but that's it.
That said, maybe I don't wish Lin too much success... 
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-07-12 09:41 PM - Post#119696
In response to Penn94
Maloney's playoff series vs. the Sonics was a lot more high profile than what Lin is doing now.
That was in my basketball sweet spot, and I have to disagree.
At the end of the day - the world is different now. Social media/blogs/etc are crafting narratives that have a much broader audience.
We now have more recruiting info than we ever have and those recruits have more exposure to how schools and leagues are perceived than ever.
This starts with the players and those players can now be deluged with narratives that never would have made it to them in the past. Everything is amplified now. Everyone who has said that Amaker would only do something for Harvard has had to face the reality that these last two years have been the strongest leagues top-to-bottom since the 1970s.
Our league is getting publicity that it rarely got in the past more frequently than it ever has. It's just a different age. The tide is rising. And it's carrying all boats.
(Except Dartmouth's).
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
02-07-12 10:48 PM - Post#119702
In response to mrjames
No argument the league is getting better, but the credit belongs to revised/improved financial aid policies not Tommy Amaker, Jeremy Lin, Cornell's sweet sixteen run or anything else of that ilk. The quality of athlete in all sports is getting better. Didn't four Ivy teams spend time at #1 in the nation last year (Cornell in wrestling, Yale in hockey at least)? There is a whole strata of kids who are essentially getting scholarships in the form of financial aid to play Ivy League sports who previously had to pass to take a scholarship. You can't credit improved play in Ivy hoops for the across the board improvement in all sports -- I seriously doubt the 16 year old blueliner from Vancouver who Cornell, Harvard and Yale are recruiting is giving a lot of thought to Jeremy Lin's play the Knicks when deciding to go Ivy or to North Dakota. He is considering that all of them are now essentially free and that an Ivy degree has benefits (justly or unjustly) that degrees from many other schools don't have.
There is a lot information out there, but we are talking about eight of the best known universities in the world. It's not like Penn and Princeton were flying under the radar for decades. Our brands are deeply ingrained.
I'm not saying an improved league doesn't help at the margins, but I don't think correlation establishes causation here.
But who knows, I could be dead wrong.
|
Penn94
PhD Student
Posts: 1461
Loc: Dallas, Texas
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-07-12 11:24 PM - Post#119707
In response to mrjames
Maloney's playoff series vs. the Sonics was a lot more high profile than what Lin is doing now.
That was in my basketball sweet spot, and I have to disagree.
At the end of the day - the world is different now. Social media/blogs/etc are crafting narratives that have a much broader audience.
We now have more recruiting info than we ever have and those recruits have more exposure to how schools and leagues are perceived than ever.
This starts with the players and those players can now be deluged with narratives that never would have made it to them in the past. Everything is amplified now. Everyone who has said that Amaker would only do something for Harvard has had to face the reality that these last two years have been the strongest leagues top-to-bottom since the 1970s.
Our league is getting publicity that it rarely got in the past more frequently than it ever has. It's just a different age. The tide is rising. And it's carrying all boats.
(Except Dartmouth's).
Social media revolution aside, Lin has had TWO terrific games with the Knicks. I'm not saying he needs to have a Maloney-ish playoff series to get more high profile than Matt's performance back in the late 90s, but at the very least it needs to last more than a week before it's more high profile.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Nolan Cressler
02-08-12 12:13 AM - Post#119708
In response to Penn94
It is possible that although the League is better because of Harvard, it's not Harvard that's raising the other boats. It's that the League is better because Harvard has become a big net-positive instead of a big net-negative.
In 2005, when the League was ranked 20th, Harvard was 223 with a Pomeroy of .3083. In 2007, when the League was 21st, Harvard was 262 with a .2084. If you switch that Harvard team with this year's (No. 37 with a .8467), the League is only marginally worse. But another thing happened since 2007, No. 271 Princeton became Princeton again.
I would argue that the League is better these past two years for a few reasons:
1) Harvard, a longtime doormat has become a power.
2) Princeton, a longtime League flotation device, is again fielding Princeton-level Top 150-caliber teams, but not yet the level teams from before the fall.
3) Penn, the other longtime League flotation device, is again fielding a Top-150 caliber team, after a few years in the wilderness. Again, not the pre-fall caliber but not the 300-level team of two years ago.
4) Cornell still has some residual recruiting advantages from its own Sweet 16 run.
5) Yale's top two players, Mangano and Wilhite are seniors.
6) Columbia is getting a new coach bounce just as Jones' last recruiting classes are becoming upperclassmen.
2007 League (No. 21)/2012 League (No. 15)/(Change)
Penn 105 .6849 / 125 .6085 (-20)
Yale 191 .3777 / 180 .4764 (+11)
Cornell 196 .3708 / 182 .4723 (+14)
Columbia 223 .2983 / 176 .4836 (+47)
Brown 234 .2698 / 306 .1410 (-72)
Harvard 262 .2084 / 37 .8467 (+225)
Princeton 271 .1868 / 132 .5891 (+139)
Dartmouth 298 .1376 / 294 .1859 (+4)
Gee, why's the League so much better? Rising tide, or one classic boat making a comeback and one sleek, new boat leaving others in its wake?
Edited by Howard Gensler on 02-08-12 12:14 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Nolan Cressler
02-08-12 09:06 AM - Post#119718
In response to Howard Gensler
I already ran this and I'll look it up, but I'm pretty sure this is still a Top 5-10 league out of the past 30 years even without including Harvard in the average.
I believe 2010 was 7th, so the last three years have had three of our top 7 leagues since 1980.
Looking at the national rank and not the Pomeroy average is pretty deceptive. Yes the league was 21st in 2007, but the Pomeroy average of .3192 would be 25th this year and is way behind this year's .4691. 2005 was better (Pom average of .3779 which would be 22nd this year), but that's because Penn and Princeton were still Penn and Princeton (until the Tigers gave up in league play).
Ultimately, this three year run is merely the start of a rising tide. The proof lies in the cycle. Historically, the league has had boom/bust cycles. If we have a true rising tide, the highs should be higher and longer and the lows should be less frequent and of a shorter duration. If the league takes a huge step backward in 2012-13 and doesn't respond until 2015-16, then I'd agree - no rising tide.
|
pennhoops
Postdoc
Posts: 2470
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-08-12 12:28 PM - Post#119733
In response to Penn94
Social media revolution aside, Lin has had TWO terrific games with the Knicks. I'm not saying he needs to have a Maloney-ish playoff series to get more high profile than Matt's performance back in the late 90s, but at the very least it needs to last more than a week before it's more high profile.
What also needs to change is the emphasis on the coverage of Lin from "he's playing well but OMG he's from Harvard" to "he's playing well." As long as the sense of exceptionalism permeates the coverage, it can't be argued that his emergence does the League any good. If he were from St. Mary's or Davidson or Wichita State his alma mater would be of secondary importance. But as it stands there is a baseline notion of surprise/disbelief that someone from a program/conference that's so historically poor could make such an impact. I don't see how that stress on longterm badness helps anyone.
|
mountainred
Masters Student
Posts: 513
Age: 57
Loc: Charleston, WV
Reg: 04-11-10
|
Nolan Cressler
02-08-12 01:47 PM - Post#119736
In response to pennhoops
Social media revolution aside, Lin has had TWO terrific games with the Knicks. I'm not saying he needs to have a Maloney-ish playoff series to get more high profile than Matt's performance back in the late 90s, but at the very least it needs to last more than a week before it's more high profile.
What also needs to change is the emphasis on the coverage of Lin from "he's playing well but OMG he's from Harvard" to "he's playing well." As long as the sense of exceptionalism permeates the coverage, it can't be argued that his emergence does the League any good. If he were from St. Mary's or Davidson or Wichita State his alma mater would be of secondary importance. But as it stands there is a baseline notion of surprise/disbelief that someone from a program/conference that's so historically poor could make such an impact. I don't see how that stress on longterm badness helps anyone.
That is going to take a while. The Harvard brand is so well-known and so associated for academics not athletics that Lin is going to have to be exceptional for a long-time to "overcome" it.
In other news, Nolan Cressler -- remember Nolan, this is a thread about Nolan -- went off for 28 points on senior night. Hope springs eternal in Ithaca.
Edited by mountainred on 02-08-12 01:56 PM. Reason for edit: Getting the Alice's Restaurant reference more exact
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Nolan Cressler
02-08-12 02:01 PM - Post#119737
In response to mountainred
Tried to let the CBB board folks know about this thread but CBB deleted my message board post. Apparently the censorship doesn't stop at the comments section. Womp womp.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Nolan Cressler
02-08-12 03:08 PM - Post#119743
In response to mrjames
I already ran this and I'll look it up, but I'm pretty sure this is still a Top 5-10 league out of the past 30 years even without including Harvard in the average.
I believe 2010 was 7th, so the last three years have had three of our top 7 leagues since 1980.
Looking at the national rank and not the Pomeroy average is pretty deceptive. Yes the league was 21st in 2007, but the Pomeroy average of .3192 would be 25th this year and is way behind this year's .4691. 2005 was better (Pom average of .3779 which would be 22nd this year), but that's because Penn and Princeton were still Penn and Princeton (until the Tigers gave up in league play).
Ultimately, this three year run is merely the start of a rising tide. The proof lies in the cycle. Historically, the league has had boom/bust cycles. If we have a true rising tide, the highs should be higher and longer and the lows should be less frequent and of a shorter duration. If the league takes a huge step backward in 2012-13 and doesn't respond until 2015-16, then I'd agree - no rising tide.
Doesn't it matter though how the League rates in comparison to other Leagues more than how it ranks compared to some numerical system. You compete against other teams. If one year you're a .3826 and ranked 24th and the next year you're a .3678 but ranked 20th, assuming some consistency of scheduling, I would argue that the League is getting better against its competition, without worrying that the numerical components of the League may be getting worse.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Nolan Cressler
02-08-12 04:13 PM - Post#119748
In response to Howard Gensler
No - because how the other league's fair is almost completely exogenous to your own performance. Take an extreme example, for instance. Say that the 14th ranked team one year is at .6000 and the 16th ranked team is at .4000.
The 15th ranked league could be mediocre (.4001), average (.5000) or pretty good (.5999) and it would still be 15th.
Then, say, the next year, the 11th through 20th teams are all between .4000 and .6000. You could conceptually be a better league the second year than the first, but ranked lower just because of the way the other leagues have randomly fallen.
As you might have guessed, this actually happened. Last year, the league was 15th with a .4024 Adj Pythag. This year, it has a much improved .4691 Adj Pythag but is 16th.
The Adj Pythag number is already schedule-adjusted, so the number itself is comparable year-over-year. It's a true measure of average quality. Rank is merely an accident of how leagues are distributed in a given year. It is a relative measure which can be biased by things exogenous to league quality.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-08-12 09:14 PM - Post#119773
In response to mrjames
I'm once again confused by this.
Using the League logic applied to an individual team, an Ivy team could have a crappy Adj Pythag but play a bad schedule and finish 16-12, 9-5. The next year the team improves and has a higher AP but other teams on their schedule and in the League improve more and they finish 12-16, 6-8.
You might be able to explain through statistics that the team is really much better in year two but very few people are going to buy what you're selling.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-08-12 09:23 PM - Post#119776
In response to Howard Gensler
Which Cornell team was better? 2008 or 2009?
Because the Cornell 2008 team was 22-6 and 14-0. 2009 was 21-10 and 11-3. According to you, the 2008 team was better. What I would be "selling" is that the 2009 team was better.
There are a ton of examples like this. You can believe or not believe, but it's right.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-08-12 10:06 PM - Post#119788
In response to mrjames
I know you're always right, but don't cherry-pick an example. The idea of the game is to win, not to be better and lose (although that often happens).
There are a finite number of leagues and a finite number of games which create the stats that rate the teams whose accumulated stats rate the leagues. It's a zero-sum game. If one league moves up, another has to move down.
The idea is not simply to improve, it's to improve relative to your peers. So if the Ivy League is 21st one year and 26th the next year, that they have a higher Adj Pythag when they're 26th is meaningless because five leagues that were behind them the previous year are now ahead of them.
"I know we finished 5-9," the coach says to the AD, "but don't you see how much better our O Rating and Adjusted Pythag are."
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-08-12 10:29 PM - Post#119793
In response to Howard Gensler
I'm not concerned with perception, I'm concerned with quality. I can tell you who is better. I can't tell you who is perceived to be better. That's for other people to decide.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-08-12 10:51 PM - Post#119798
In response to mrjames
Sorry Mike, but you can't tell us who's better, you can only tell us who generates better statistics. And that's not a semantic difference.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-08-12 11:02 PM - Post#119801
In response to Silver Maple
Vegas tells you who is "better." I can tell you what Vegas is going to say. Therefore, I can tell you who is better.
I don't see what is so hard about this.
|
pchrystie
Masters Student
Posts: 673
Reg: 03-14-06
|
Nolan Cressler
02-08-12 11:14 PM - Post#119805
In response to mrjames
Vegas tells you who is "better."
Technically Vegas tells you what they think the number has to be to generate equal wagering on both sides. They are not interested in determining who is "better." They are interested in making money. And if they thought making the Binghamton-Kentucky line Kentucky +7 would make the most money, the Binghamton-Kentucky line would be Kentucky +7.
Edited by pchrystie on 02-08-12 11:15 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Nolan Cressler
02-08-12 11:35 PM - Post#119808
In response to pchrystie
SMH. I'm not having this fight with you people anymore. You guys waste so much of my time with this uninformed crap.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Nolan Cressler
02-09-12 12:19 AM - Post#119812
In response to mrjames
Mike--
What makes you think we're uninformed? Both Paul's and my points were factually correct.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Nolan Cressler
02-09-12 08:54 AM - Post#119826
In response to Silver Maple
Not taking the bait.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-09-12 09:39 AM - Post#119830
In response to mrjames
It's not bait. What, specifically, makes you think you're the only person on this forum who knows anything about quantitative analysis?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-12 10:22 AM - Post#119835
In response to Silver Maple
I have every Vegas spread since 1995 for every game. The average spread misses by zero. The average line moves less than a half-point from open to close.
While the assertion that Vegas sets the line to get equal money on both sides is very much true, it is faulty to imply that the way in which it gets equal money on both sides isn't by setting the line in an actuarially fair manner.
It wasn't pchrystie's point that was stupid, it was his example. At the level of money we're talking about in the college basketball market, getting equal money on both sides means setting a true line, which means a true assessment of the quality of the teams.
It's not that I think I'm the only person that knows anything about quantitative analysis. I do loads of research on this stuff and people who are genuinely interested in what I do contact me privately. We walk through everything in moderate to expansive detail. I feel comfortable debating with those folks because they've taken the time to understand what I do.
The reason I stopped presenting my research on these boards - as I said a few months ago - is that I don't have the time to debate this stuff in a public forum, especially when a baseline level of understanding isn't there. I'm still willing to, and have, presented stuff when asked, but I just can't waste my time on these arguments anymore.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-09-12 10:54 AM - Post#119840
In response to mrjames
I don't think you see what the argument here is. I (and, I'm pretty sure, Paul) don't think your methods are faulty. Rather, you seem to have a rather myopic view of the world. The numbers are not reality. They are representations of reality, and while they explain a lot, they hardly explain everything. Your statement that you can determine which is the 'better' team based on the numbers is telling, in that it shows a fatally cramped view of what 'better' means and of what quality actually is. In time I predict you'll begin to understand this, but it's not something that happens overnight. It's easy to grasp the value of numbers, but it takes years of working with quantitative analysis to understand its limitations.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-12 10:58 AM - Post#119842
In response to Silver Maple
I appreciate your assessment of my quantitative skills without every working with me or taking the time to discuss what I do in private.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-09-12 11:06 AM - Post#119844
In response to mrjames
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing whatsoever about your skills.
|
Howard Gensler
Postdoc
Posts: 4141
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-12 02:12 PM - Post#119873
In response to Silver Maple
Hey Silver Maple, on another thread didn't you tell me to drop it. 
While none of my questions regarding Mike's fine work are meant to be taken as a personal affront, his Adjusted Sensitivity Rating on this issue is something like a .9643, which is far greater than it was a year ago when he was more patient with us numbskulls.
My issue is the notion that a league can improve relative to itself (its own quantitative number can be higher from year to year) but yet fall back in the ratings due to the relative strength of other leagues and be called "better." To me, that makes the league worse - maybe because I wasn't a math guy.
Teams do not exist in a vacuum, they exist to compete against other teams. So in my linear brain, if the Ivy League is ranked 21st one year and 26th a few years later, when they're ranked 26th, the League is not as good as it was when it was rankled 21st. I can see how one can make the argument that is not the case (although it's a much more logical argument to make with individual teams whose strength of schedules can change drastically) but over the course of an entire league schedule I would think enough scheduling anomalies would even themselves out that the league ranking would be a truer representation. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm okay with being ignorant in some areas.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-09-12 02:25 PM - Post#119874
In response to Howard Gensler
I think Mike's point there, which I agree with, is that the team ranking measure is simplistic. It's simply not an adequate way of evaluating the strength (relative or absolute) of a system as complex as an eight-team athletic conference.
And you're right. I'm banging my head against the wall. But I'm expecting a message from Mike in 20 years acknowledging that I was correct. I guess it's appropriate that the abbreviation for my screen name is SM.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3994
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-09-12 05:20 PM - Post#119897
In response to Silver Maple
Whatever happened to Nolan Cressler?
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-09-12 05:39 PM - Post#119900
In response to Old Bear
Speaking from a baseball point of view, I know exactly how tiring it is to have these conversations. It's like "we've been over this before, I'm right and am backed up by data that's been rigorously analyzed, you're wrong and are letting your eyes fool you".
I admit that I'm a little puzzled by how the pythag can be SOOO much better yet the relative ranking has fallen. It's not very intuitive. Is it zero sum? In other words, if the absolute pythag has risen while relative rank has gone down, does that imply that the tails are much fatter. That conferences 27 and below just suck REALLY bad? Or could, theoretically, every single conference have improved?
|
pchrystie
Masters Student
Posts: 673
Reg: 03-14-06
|
02-09-12 10:07 PM - Post#119922
In response to mrjames
It wasn't pchrystie's point that was stupid, it was his example.
So you're saying that if Vegas determined that it could make the most money in a Kentucky-Binghamton game at Kentucky +7, they would set the line at Kentucky -37 just out of some sense of honor in spread setting? I understand that Vegas would never set the line at Kentucky +7, but it has nothing to do with that being the inaccurate prediction; it has to do with the inaccurate prediction losing money.
And Vegas does set lines where an objective observer and/or computer would not set them. While we may not agree on much on this board, I assume we can all agree that Cowboy fans are mor0ns. My understanding is that Vegas sets the line to compensate for their mor0nitude, i.e. not where an objective observer or a computer would tell them to set it.
It's not about accuracy. It's about money. If the two coincide, fine (and they probably usually do). But they don't always.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-12 11:16 PM - Post#119924
In response to pchrystie
No, no - you're point is valid, but it's just the magnitude that's off. The New York effect and, sure, the Cowboys effect exists and can cause spreads to have to be adjusted off of actuarially fair number. We can talk about the inefficiencies of pricing the college game - HCA being the biggest among them - but this fan base adjustment doesn't really prove out at the college level, when you look at the data. And the adjustment isn't 40 points, and it isn't even four points. It's a point here or there to entice people to the other side.
So, the difference between accuracy and money is often zero, but even when it exists it is tiny. If it ever got more than a couple points, arb money would flow in and push the spread back.
As for the Pythag issue... It is zero sum. But if there's more parity, as you suggest, then you're going to have a tight middle and ranks can vary wildly with small changes in Pythag. If there's less parity, the middle might be wide open so it takes very large changes in Pythag to move in conference rank. That's the difference between 2011 and 2012. It's also why I like looking at Pythag and not rank. Pythag is based on how my conference has performed on an SOS-adjusted basis. Rank depends on things like whether there is parity or not. I might want to set a target of being a .500 conference. That could be a No. 15 conference, a No. 12 conference, a No. 17 conference - but that just depends on the year.
If anyone wants to talk to me in private about my research, I'm more than happy to do so. My e-mail is mrjames2006@gmail.com. People that have bothered to ask me questions that way have found out that I'm aware of the limitations of my analysis. It's just hard to discuss anything openly here, because the tone is far too hostile for intellectual honesty.
|
