Top 25 talk

[me]

I guess the best thing is to compare that rate to KenPom.

One thing that Pat, Dave, etc. should consider is that expected results don't move the needle. So the inclusion of the Augie - Illinois game probably doesn't matter much, because it was expected.

If, say, a UMAC team would upset a top MIAC team, then....that would have a some effect.

Does Kenpom do D3 though? I didn't think so, but I'm not sub so I can't even get anything past the front page there anymore.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

It is always an exciting and surprising point in the season. The midway point. We are already halfway through another thrilling Division III basketball season. The best part, we have plenty more basketball to come. The hard part, we are also closer to the season coming to a close.

On Thursday night's Hoopsville, Dave will try and pull out his crystal ball and read the tea leaves on who can sustain their momentum, who may fall off, and which teams could make a run to the end. While we won't have all the answers, some of Dave's guests will be able to give us their insight on their own squad's chances.

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE starting at 7pm here: http://bit.ly/2D3pOrw.

A reminder the Thursday edition of Hoopsville primarily covers the East, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, and West regions, but we will answer any questions about all of Division III throughout the show. You can also send your questions to the show and have them featured on the Hoopsville Mailbag segment. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com.

Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Matt Croci, No. 10 Wittenberg men's coach
- Jim Scheible, No. 7 Rochester women's coach
- Lori Kerans, Millikin women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
- Danny Young-Uhrich, No. 17 Juniata women's
- Pat McKenzie, No. 15 St. John's men'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

[smedindy]

I guess the best thing is to compare that rate to KenPom.

One thing that Pat, Dave, etc. should consider is that expected results don't move the needle. So the inclusion of the Augie - Illinois game probably doesn't matter much, because it was expected.

If, say, a UMAC team would upset a top MIAC team, then....that would have a some effect.

Does Kenpom do D3 though? I didn't think so, but I'm not sub so I can't even get anything past the front page there anymore.

No, he doesn't. But we can see how well his predictions do against Massey's. It may not be that far off.

Sagarin is now doing predictions, too.

[smedindy]

I guess the best thing is to compare that rate to KenPom.

One thing that Pat, Dave, etc. should consider is that expected results don't move the needle. So the inclusion of the Augie - Illinois game probably doesn't matter much, because it was expected.

If, say, a UMAC team would upset a top MIAC team, then....that would have a some effect.

My only curiosity is... despite comments that it doesn't matter much... is how much does it inflate (or not) their resume and thus the resume of those they play (i.e. like it would in the SOS math for OWP and OOWP; though, SOS is only DIII teams - so not a direct comparison).

Here is the deal: the comments made were voters need to look at Massey and Bennett because teams highly ranked there are not highly ranked in our poll and visa versa. The premise being those rankings are telling us things that we voters are not paying attention to or are not willing to factor in, thus we aren't correctly ranking teams.

My contention is I am not sure whether to believe the numbers especially when I find fault in some of the information. While I am ranking Augustana high and Massey is as well, I used Augustana as an example because it jumped right out at me. At the time I looked at them, Massey had Augustana at three losses when in reality it was two and I knew the rankings were factoring in the Illinois game. IF the system is factoring in Illinois, we do not know how much influence it is or isn't giving it. Thus, if they are doing that for Augustana, then I have to assume they are doing it for others AND it would be affecting opponents of those teams. That starts to raise questions in my head about the rankings I am looking at.

Is Augustana really that good in the ranking's eyes if they didn't include Illinois? How much would they go down or up in the rankings if the game wasn't included (and how much would it affect their opponents; remember, Augustana's schedule is also affected by being in contact with at least the Big Ten). What about other teams whose games are being considered and shouldn't? Which direction would they move and what numbers would go up or down accordingly?

With that in mind... why should voters be implored to use a ranking system that doesn't seem to be accurately ranking the teams when it is factoring games that aren't relevant or count.

Again... I am curious about this. I am trying not to attack the rankings. I am trying to better understand them if I am going to use (or trust) them any more than I am now.

If one wants me to use those as measuring sticks and I see a flaw I can't understand its impact, isn't a fair to question how accurate really is the ranking? Maybe I am over-selling Augustana myself. The lost again. I need to make an adjustment. However, if I should look at Massey and they keep them high or drops them a bit (what if) based on not necessarily accurate information, how am I to factor that in?

I hope that makes sense. I am just trying to grasp the concept of being told these rankings should be utilized as reliable information when I see a unreliability issue and the impact of that issue can't be truly explained or understood.

Well, again, they do include it, and do show Augie with an extra loss, but:

1. Augie was going to lose to Illinois 95% of the time, or more.
2. The margin wouldn't be close.
3. The rankings already predict #1 and #2.
4. Thus the factors that go into the rankings aren't affected, really, by an expected result.

There would be nothing revelatory about that game that isn't baked in to all of the other results for Illinois or Augie.

Also, while it seems SOS factors into the ratings too much, it actually makes sense since you should get more juice for playing and beating the prediction for good teams (or hitting the prediction), and be penalized for beating a backmarker by 12 when you should win by 24. But after about a dozen games, that one result will kind of wash away a bit, especially when other results pile on top of it.

BASICALLY - Augie's loss to Illinois is kind of a nothingburger data point in the Massey world. They lost convincingly (where the diminishing returns factor kicked in) to a team that they were expected to lose to - one ranked 285 spots ahead of it.

Think of it this way, Dave - would you think Augie would beat Wisconsin Superior (285 spots behind it) convincingly in the same way Illinois whacked Augie? I would.

BTW, the crux of the matter is the exhibition / non-exhibition thing. In order for the whole thing to balance, you have to have everything in the universe count. Massey does the entire basketball universe, so a game counts if it counts for one team. Otherwise, it'd be out of balance, and the model would work even worse. I'm not that familiar with Bennett, but I looked on Augie's page and saw they were 11-3, 3-2, which is right. But it doesn't seem Bennett gets really in the weeds like Massey, Ken Pom, and Sagarin. Ken Pom and Sagarin are only dealing with D-1.

BUT - I don't think I've ever said that you should just use the computer rankings. I think you definitely need to consider the data as one of the points used in ranking - especially adding in the nuance a calculation can't (injuries, illness, travel issues). But those same nuances, I think, get missed some by human rankings too.

[me]

I guess the best thing is to compare that rate to KenPom.

One thing that Pat, Dave, etc. should consider is that expected results don't move the needle. So the inclusion of the Augie - Illinois game probably doesn't matter much, because it was expected.

If, say, a UMAC team would upset a top MIAC team, then....that would have a some effect.

Does Kenpom do D3 though? I didn't think so, but I'm not sub so I can't even get anything past the front page there anymore.

No, he doesn't. But we can see how well his predictions do against Massey's. It may not be that far off.

Sagarin is now doing predictions, too.

But if they don't do predictions for D3 then people here will say it's not valid, right?

[me]

Listening to the beginning of Hoopsville, and it's becoming clear why Dave is confused about the Massey ratings and Augustana.

He says "I don't favor the northeast, I have 4 teams from the NESCAC in my top 25, but I have 4 teams from the WIAC too."

This is a fundamental misrepresentation of what bias is. Equality is not a lack of bias. If you have 4 teams in the top 25 but in reality (whatever reality is), none of them actually are top 25, then that is either random, or a bias.

I certainly don't see 4 teams in the Northeast that should be ranked top 25. That's not the point, though. The point is that presenting this as proof of lack of favoritism is just fundamentally incorrect. And so now I'm not surprised that he also doesn't understand how the Illinois thing could be a non-factor.

[sac]

uh oh

[me]

uh oh

Am I wrong? (Hint: I'm not)

[Mr. Ypsi]

uh oh

Am I wrong? (Hint: I'm not)

Yes, you're wrong.  Sorry.

[me]

uh oh

Am I wrong? (Hint: I'm not)

Yes, you're wrong.  Sorry.

No, I'm not. I know what bias is and is not. Data analysis is literally my job.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Listening to the beginning of Hoopsville, and it's becoming clear why Dave is confused about the Massey ratings and Augustana.

He says "I don't favor the northeast, I have 4 teams from the NESCAC in my top 25, but I have 4 teams from the WIAC too."

This is a fundamental misrepresentation of what bias is. Equality is not a lack of bias. If you have 4 teams in the top 25 but in reality (whatever reality is), none of them actually are top 25, then that is either random, or a bias.

I certainly don't see 4 teams in the Northeast that should be ranked top 25. That's not the point, though. The point is that presenting this as proof of lack of favoritism is just fundamentally incorrect. And so now I'm not surprised that he also doesn't understand how the Illinois thing could be a non-factor.

No where does the word bias come up. All he said was he didn't favor the northeast and gave an example showing that while he has 4 from a NE conference in his top 25 (which may seem biased towards the NE by having that many from one conference), he also has 4 from a non-NE conference as well.
Just because you may not think 4 NESCAC teams are top 25 doesn't mean he's biased.

[me]

Listening to the beginning of Hoopsville, and it's becoming clear why Dave is confused about the Massey ratings and Augustana.

He says "I don't favor the northeast, I have 4 teams from the NESCAC in my top 25, but I have 4 teams from the WIAC too."

This is a fundamental misrepresentation of what bias is. Equality is not a lack of bias. If you have 4 teams in the top 25 but in reality (whatever reality is), none of them actually are top 25, then that is either random, or a bias.

I certainly don't see 4 teams in the Northeast that should be ranked top 25. That's not the point, though. The point is that presenting this as proof of lack of favoritism is just fundamentally incorrect. And so now I'm not surprised that he also doesn't understand how the Illinois thing could be a non-factor.

No where does the word bias come up. All he said was he didn't favor the northeast and gave an example showing that while he has 4 from a NE conference in his top 25 (which may seem biased towards the NE by having that many from one conference), he also has 4 from a non-NE conference as well.
Just because you may not think 4 NESCAC teams are top 25 doesn't mean he's biased.

OMG I literally said my point wasn't to say whether there were 4 NESCAC teams that should be ranked or not.

favor and bias could be synonyms or they could be two sides of the same coin. But they're definitely related and just because I used the statistical term instead of the word he used doesn't change that. He was claiming that his voting shows that he's not biased...same as saying favor. But his ballot doesn't show that, does nothing to show that without proving that those schools deserve those votes.

I didn't say he was biased at all. Deary me.

I think I'm just going to talk to the like 2 other people that have shown they have some clue on statistics from now on. This is pointless.

[Pat Coleman]

I think I'm just going to talk to the like 2 other people that have shown they have some clue on statistics from now on. This is pointless.

I think you're going to find most people here don't have the experience to have or the interest in having the type of conversation you describe. Most of us will define bias as laymen.

[me]

And yet there continue to be seemingly serious arguments that rankings done by a PhD that has been doing highly reputable sports rankings for many leagues and sports for decades are not valid for D3 basketball.

That's where we are here. People who can't define bias critiquing one of the most respected rankings algorithms in the world of sports.

[Pat Coleman]

As someone who has watched a lot of Division III basketball, indeed, they seem to overrate MIAC teams. Your citations of stuff from actual statistics courses aren't going to have much impact on me here in the basketball world -- I was basically an English major.