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: 3777
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: 3777
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: 3777
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: 3777
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.
|
