Top 25 talk

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I didn't get a chance to post this prior to Hoopsville hitting the air Sunday night. I apologize. Was trying to finish up some holiday items around the house and spend some time with the family.

The advantage, Hoopsville is available On Demand and via podcast:

This might be one of the toughest parts of the Division III season. Balancing finals, time off, and starting to get into a groove with the basketball season which then is disrupted by a break. Some teams are caught looking ahead, some are worn out or distracted, others are simply cruising along.

On Sunday night's Hoopsville, Dave will talk to several teams who are not only off to good starts, but also discovering some of the bumps in the road a third of the way into the season.

You can watch the Hoopsville archive or listen to the podcast here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/dec11

Guests include (in order):
- Andrew Sachs, No. 15 Salisbury men's coach
- Tom Slyder, No. 18 North Park men's coach
- Jon Prevo, Rose-Hulman women's coach
- Loree Payne, No. 22 Puget Sound women's coach

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

A reminder that Thursday's edition of Hoopsville will not take place due to D3football.com coverage of Gagliardi Trophy and Stagg Bowl next week. We will be back on air Sunday, December 18 for the final show before the Christmas holiday. Hoopsville will then return on January 5, 2017 and air Sundays and Thursdays at 7:00 PM ET for the rest of the season.

[sac]

Two things:

1.  PM's are useful
2.  See #1

Thanks.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Two things:

1.  PM's are useful
2.  See #1

Thanks.

What has been off-topic since your last post? I don't see the logic in trying to force people to PM when the discussion is germane to the thread topic.

Unless you're just trying to suppress someone's opinion, of course. Then, the logic is clear.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

You call it a cop out, but I also don't care much for Massey's numbers at this point in the season. As many have talked about, their numbers aren't that solid until late January (in my opinion). Again, you can call it a cop out, but your opinion on how I vote affects me about as much as Trump's opinion on the same topic.

Of course you don't care for them; they disagree with you and reveal your bias.

Nope. You are clearly new to the basketball boards after ten years driving people crazy on the baseball boards. Where you bored or did you finally realize Marietta had a good team and decided to drill it into everyone's heads over here? Despite the fact, we have known they have been good for a few years now.

Also per that, we have discussed and debated Massey ratings quite a bit on these boards over the years. I am in the camp that I don't take much stock in them at this point in the season. I haven't for years. I find too many flaws and not enough data to see anything in them that means much at this point. Those numbers are going to shift a lot as conference play becomes more and more prevalent. (I also have issues with how non-D1 games can't be weeded out not to mention the fact they influence the numbers too greatly; a team playing a top D1 program for money gets a boost in Massey as a result at this point in the season.)

I also don't take much stock in the NCAA SOS at this point in the season, either! The conference schedule will influence the SOS greatly, so I can't get a read on a team's scheduling strength or anything else when we have only played a third of the season (weeks wise) and maybe a quarter (games wise).

I understand you like Massey probably more than most, but you demanding I and others use it as a determining fact isn't going to change my mind. I also use other items like what I have seen either in person or via web stream. I also consider what I know about the opponents that Massey can't gauge. If the Top 25 and the voters were voting strictly on what Massey or other computers said, we wouldn't need to vote at all - though, we also would have teams like CMS ranked pretty high, wouldn't we?!

The difference between Neumann and Amherst is a great example. Sure, Amherst has played a soft schedule leading up to their game against Babson. That is common knowledge and something I have discussed on Hoopsville often. I didn't vote Amherst number one, but I am also not going to have Massey dictate to me that Amherst isn't a good team when I have seen them and know the talent that they have. Neumann on the other hand I understand has what appears to be a better schedule number, but looking at that schedule doesn't blow me away (as I stated). I have been told by some they are pretty good; they are the pick to win the conference. I am looking at them, but don't turn around and tell me I am trying to cop out with my answer. I am giving my opinion on a team. Just my opinion. You keep saying things like tell me your opinion at least you will respect that... and then you don't respect it. You are a damn hypocrite. Heck, when we do give you reasons and explanations, I am pretty sure you ignored them.

Just because many talk about it doesn't mean it's right. It's almost certainly not right that you need that many games worth of data. Considering computers are better than humans at this kind of thing, it's odd that you and others trust yourselves over them. Guess just the world we live in -- resist or don't though, the age is coming when it will be accepted that there are just some things humans aren't very good at and can benefit from help doing. This is really child's play for a computer.

Dude, get over yourself. The Top 25 is NOT a computer poll and never designed to be. The D1 polls must drive you crazy (but please, don't tell us about why). Computers can't figure out things like injuries, finals distractions, illnesses, and so many factors. Pollsters as a result use their rather educated experience to vote. They may use Massey, some more or less than others. They may talk to other people, coaches, etc. to get their take on things - I do. They do everything they can to best understand who the best 25 teams are in the country on any given week. You are more than welcome to disagree, you clearly do, but are you just going to disagree with people everytime? First you hated how Marietta was ranked (though, interestingly Coach VanderWal is on record saying he thought #17 was rather high in the preseason considering the number of questions surrounding his team). Now you hate people's opinions about Neumann. What next? Are you going to hate that Wesleyan isn't getting enough love? Or do you now have to look them up and criticize us because they aren't in the Top 25?

Give it a rest. We get you disagree. You apparently disagree all the time in baseball as well. You aren't adding anything to this dialogue. The NJAC comparison made earlier (which you think makes your case better) was actually a guy who did the same thing as you did... pestered and even yelled at people because they disagreed with him (with bad language and a struggles with the writing). It got so bad he had to be banned (not saying you will be, just saying what happened). Turns out he was not proven right. It has gotten worse, off the boards, but that isn't worth talking about.

Be careful, I got accused of destroying the virginity of the board in so many words for referencing Trump. But then we all know the rules are different for me. And you. I guess 500 viewers buys you a lot of goodwill.

Rules are different for you... you just aren't following them. Sorry if you didn't like the reference, I was just trying to find the most outlandish comparison I could off the top of my head. Not sure what the 500 viewers comment is about, but it doesn't buy me anything.

I am a voter who puts his ballot out there every week. I state my opinions. I am in no way think I am right. I state that accordingly. I also admit when I am wrong - often. But don't say I am coping out. That couldn't be further from the truth. You can disagree, that's fine, but do it respectfully. I don't mind a respectful conversation, but you have dragged things into a rather nasty area to the point I rather avoid these boards... and that doesn't let me enjoy covering Division III basketball one bit. Just tone it down a bit, will ya?

[sac]

PM's......PM's......PM's.....PM's.....PM's.....PM's.....PM's.....PM's.....PM's......PM's.....PM's.....PM's.

[smedindy]

I'm a big analytics guy and even I say that it's too early to really rely on Massey for anything except a general idea. It's too early for Sagarin or KenPom, really, as well.

With over 400 teams in D-3, there are a lot of things to consider, and not every team will be slotted in right where you think they should be in any poll or ranking system. A big upset or two can ripple through everything until the data calms down.

Besides, every team has a couple of months to prove their mettle.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Good Lord, totally makes sense why a guy has a 180 min show for 500 viewers with a post like that. Sure do love to hear/read your own words.

[Pat Coleman]

Two things:

1.  PM's are useful
2.  See #1

Thanks.

What has been off-topic since your last post? I don't see the logic in trying to force people to PM when the discussion is germane to the thread topic.

Unless you're just trying to suppress someone's opinion, of course. Then, the logic is clear.

Spence,

I don't think anyone is trying to suppress your opinion. You just don't need to roll the board by posting it repeatedly. You've made your opinion clear. Just use a little moderation in repeating it so that we don't have to use our moderation tools in, to use your term, blowing the whistle on this conversation.

I know you know there's a TOS since I'm not sure which iteration this is of your posting privileges, but I'm making an official reference for you now.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

I'm a big analytics guy and even I say that it's too early to really rely on Massey for anything except a general idea. It's too early for Sagarin or KenPom, really, as well.

That's the CW. But is it true?

You say you're a big analytics guy (I'd be genuinely interested to know in what context, btw). I would encourage you to read all 3 parts of this and the original stuff from which it's derived, but for me as it specifically relates to this discussion, the end result is the chart in the 3rd.

https://jameswgrayson.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/after-how-many-premiership-games-does-talent-become-more-important-than-random-variation/

Keep in mind, this is for Premier League soccer, which rates just below baseball in terms of the amount of random variation involved in the game. In the original Birnbaum article, Tom Tango's comments add up to this, summarized by Grayson.

"The equation works out that you know roughly as much after 12 NFL games (75% of the season) as you do after 14 NBA games (17%), 36 NHL games (44%), and 69 MLB games (43%)." For PL soccer, it's even higher, 47% of games. Point: basketball is by far the least random.

So in case you didn't open the link...the real point is this.



So in soccer, 3 games or less (of results, nothing else) is pretty much worthless, but by 5 games you can get close to half of the information that you're ever going to get on talent vs. results. By 8 games you have about 2/3 of it. After 10 games, the curve levels off from 70ish%. So you only gain about 3% more information per game between 10 games and the end of the season. It's basically a logarthmic scale.

How does this work in basketball? Easy answer is I don't know. But we know from Tango's work that it's obviously a steeper learning curve, and that the % of variation due to talent by the end of the season is probably quite a bit higher as well.

If by 8 games you can get 2/3 of the information on offer in soccer, then I don't think it's a stretch to say you could get it in 5 in basketball. It might be less. I doubt it's more based on Tango's equations.

And this is all purely based on the result -- W, L, T in soccer and hockey; binary in baseball, football (excepting rare cases) and the NBA. If one adds in things like margin of victory with diminishing returns, it stands to reason that more information would be gained. Massey does this, though the power rating does it more than the standard rating. This was one of the ridiculous things about the BCS not including margin of victory.

So we're likely at a point in the season when each result yields progressively less information, yet the people here that vote are saying they can't make judgments -- at least not those that contradict their original thinking -- based on the majority of the useful information that they're *ever* going to get.

So, we'll go back to your self-identification as an analytics guy. And then I'll ask: Is the CW right that it's too early?

(And yes this probably was offtopic, but everyone here could stand to read and understand it. Especially the voters.)

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Two things:

1.  PM's are useful
2.  See #1

Thanks.

What has been off-topic since your last post? I don't see the logic in trying to force people to PM when the discussion is germane to the thread topic.

Unless you're just trying to suppress someone's opinion, of course. Then, the logic is clear.

Spence,

I don't think anyone is trying to suppress your opinion. You just don't need to roll the board by posting it repeatedly. You've made your opinion clear. Just use a little moderation in repeating it so that we don't have to use our moderation tools in, to use your term, blowing the whistle on this conversation.

I know you know there's a TOS since I'm not sure which iteration this is of your posting privileges, but I'm making an official reference for you now.

I feel like other people have done a lot more to make this confrontational and personal than I have, and one of them is you.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Two things:

1.  PM's are useful
2.  See #1

Thanks.

What has been off-topic since your last post? I don't see the logic in trying to force people to PM when the discussion is germane to the thread topic.

Unless you're just trying to suppress someone's opinion, of course. Then, the logic is clear.

Spence,

I don't think anyone is trying to suppress your opinion. You just don't need to roll the board by posting it repeatedly. You've made your opinion clear. Just use a little moderation in repeating it so that we don't have to use our moderation tools in, to use your term, blowing the whistle on this conversation.

I know you know there's a TOS since I'm not sure which iteration this is of your posting privileges, but I'm making an official reference for you now.

I feel like other people have done a lot more to make this confrontational and personal than I have, and one of them is you.

It is that overwhelming lack of self-awareness which has turned pretty much everyone against you.  YOU have been confrontational and insulting from virtually your first post.  I came to your defense after one of your earlier banishments.  If it happens again, don't hold your breath.

Donald Trump made statements during the campaign that would have killed off any other candidacy in American history.  You, sir, are no Donald Trump.

[Pat Coleman]

Two things:

1.  PM's are useful
2.  See #1

Thanks.

What has been off-topic since your last post? I don't see the logic in trying to force people to PM when the discussion is germane to the thread topic.

Unless you're just trying to suppress someone's opinion, of course. Then, the logic is clear.

Spence,

I don't think anyone is trying to suppress your opinion. You just don't need to roll the board by posting it repeatedly. You've made your opinion clear. Just use a little moderation in repeating it so that we don't have to use our moderation tools in, to use your term, blowing the whistle on this conversation.

I know you know there's a TOS since I'm not sure which iteration this is of your posting privileges, but I'm making an official reference for you now.

I feel like other people have done a lot more to make this confrontational and personal than I have, and one of them is you.

I understand you may feel that way -- I'm sure there's not a great way to make a dry, analytical judgment about feelings, but if we counted up the number of posts made by you here about this subject in the past 10-12 days and the number I've made about your posting, that's a statistic I think favors my point of view.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Two things:

1.  PM's are useful
2.  See #1

Thanks.

What has been off-topic since your last post? I don't see the logic in trying to force people to PM when the discussion is germane to the thread topic.

Unless you're just trying to suppress someone's opinion, of course. Then, the logic is clear.

Spence,

I don't think anyone is trying to suppress your opinion. You just don't need to roll the board by posting it repeatedly. You've made your opinion clear. Just use a little moderation in repeating it so that we don't have to use our moderation tools in, to use your term, blowing the whistle on this conversation.

I know you know there's a TOS since I'm not sure which iteration this is of your posting privileges, but I'm making an official reference for you now.

I feel like other people have done a lot more to make this confrontational and personal than I have, and one of them is you.

I understand you may feel that way -- I'm sure there's not a great way to make a dry, analytical judgment about feelings, but if we counted up the number of posts made by you here about this subject in the past 10-12 days and the number I've made about your posting, that's a statistic I think favors my point of view.

Well, I'm pretty sure I could prove out my feeling, so really it's more than that. But whatever. I want the focus as mcuh as possible to be on my post to smedindy because I think it really encapsulates the whole problem here -- people simply have the wrong idea about information gain.

[Gregory Sager]

Two things:

1.  PM's are useful
2.  See #1

Thanks.

What has been off-topic since your last post? I don't see the logic in trying to force people to PM when the discussion is germane to the thread topic.

Unless you're just trying to suppress someone's opinion, of course. Then, the logic is clear.

Spence,

I don't think anyone is trying to suppress your opinion. You just don't need to roll the board by posting it repeatedly. You've made your opinion clear. Just use a little moderation in repeating it so that we don't have to use our moderation tools in, to use your term, blowing the whistle on this conversation.

I know you know there's a TOS since I'm not sure which iteration this is of your posting privileges, but I'm making an official reference for you now.

I feel like other people have done a lot more to make this confrontational and personal than I have, and one of them is you.

I understand you may feel that way -- I'm sure there's not a great way to make a dry, analytical judgment about feelings, but if we counted up the number of posts made by you here about this subject in the past 10-12 days and the number I've made about your posting, that's a statistic I think favors my point of view.

Well, I'm pretty sure I could prove out my feeling, so really it's more than that.

No, you really can't. You just don't seem to have any self-awareness as to how you come off. I'm sorry to say that, but you really don't. I don't think that I'm going out on a limb here in saying that pretty much everybody who posts here thinks that you're the one who has made this board confrontational and personal. It never was the least bit confrontational or personal before you showed up, with the exception of that NJAC poster a few years ago to whom Dave refers (and for most of us that particular poster was a source of great amusement rather than vexation). And although you say that you don't care what other people think about you, the fact of the matter is that they're going to tune you out because your attitude irritates them, which makes your stance self-defeating. Your posts have a tendency to be long and redundant, which doesn't help matters, but it's your belligerence that is the bigger problem in terms of your getting a fair hearing.

You can't be an effective Marietta booster, or even a halfway-decent gadfly, if your attitude alienates people into skipping right past your posts or abandoning this particular board altogether. And sac is right: If you have a personal issue with someone, take it to PMs. Don't air your dirty laundry here.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

You can't be an effective Marietta booster, or even a halfway-decent gadfly, if your attitude alienates people into skipping right past your posts or abandoning this particular board altogether. And sac is right: If you have a personal issue with someone, take it to PMs. Don't air your dirty laundry here.

Seriously? After this post?

Physician, heal thyself.

Btw, it is the introduction of a new way of thinking that runs counter to the norm that has made this thread confrontational. I just happen to be the person with those ideas.

As you all have proven (and seem to quite revel in), you'll do the same if it's someone else. TGHISTIHOFMEHSREXOI!!