Top 25 talk

[Mr. Ypsi]

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.

Yeah, and I taught both statistics and research methodology my whole university career.  Now that we have the self-promoting puffery out of the way, what exactly is your complaint?  That D-mac had 4 NESCAC teams in the top 25?  (I'd have three; I'm guessing his 4th is Tufts.  But I'd have AT LEAST four Northeast teams in - 3 NESCAC plus MIT, and probably E. Conn.) 

I agree that D-mac kinda stumbled with his 4-each of NESCAC and WIAC (reminded me of Archie Bunker denying prejudice because he liked Sammy Davis!), but disagree with you that Massey is INHERENTLY better (or less biased) than the d3 poll.  Statistical models are no better than than the assumptions built into them.  Massey is a useful tool (which gets gradually better the farther into the season we go); it is NOT necessarily better than than the consensus opinions of 25 conscientious and well-informed voters.

[me]

While I was in the shower I thought of the perfect way to describe this, in layman's terms.

Say Pat and I ran a 5k race. Pat won by 1000 meters. He was clearly faster. But because I'm heavier (likely true) the race is called a tie.

So am I as good a runner as Pat? Or were the "rules" of the race biased to favor me over him?

That's the same as saying "I took 4 from this conference and 4 from that conference, so clearly I'm not favoring (or biased toward) either one." 

[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.

Yeah, and I taught both statistics and research methodology my whole university career.  Now that we have the self-promoting puffery out of the way, what exactly is your complaint?  That D-mac had 4 NESCAC teams in the top 25?  (I'd have three; I'm guessing his 4th is Tufts.  But I'd have AT LEAST four Northeast teams in - 3 NESCAC plus MIT, and probably E. Conn.) 

I agree that D-mac kinda stumbled with his 4-each of NESCAC and WIAC (reminded me of Archie Bunker denying prejudice because he liked Sammy Davis!), but disagree with you that Massey is INHERENTLY better (or less biased) than the d3 poll.  Statistical models are no better than than the assumptions built into them.  Massey is a useful tool (which gets gradually better the farther into the season we go); it is NOT necessarily better than than the consensus opinions of 25 conscientious and well-informed voters.

Well, then who is going to volunteer as tribute to go against the Massey algorithm picking every game in D3 the rest of the year?

And to make it interesting, a further rule that the tribute can't use the Massey ratings or win probabilities?

It would be even more interesting if all of the poll voters picked all of the games and their "win probability" was compared to Massey's. But pretty sure that's not going to happen.

Prob the best idea is compare the win probs to actual results. Then we would see if there is really bias in the ratings or if the bias is on the human side of the equation. We could certainly do that now past seasons for anyone that is interested enough to put in the time. I'm not. I'm happy with "keep calm and trust the algorithm" until proven otherwise.

[sac]

shower revelations that basically describes sailing handicapping in a top 25 board on a d3 website get a bump of the top 25

How They Fared (So Far)

Top 25

Rank	Pts	Team	W-L	Results
#1	625	Whitman	14-0	def. #3 Whitworth, 91-75; 01/12 vs. George Fox
#2	530	Augustana	11-3	LOST to Wheaton (Ill.), 81-86; 01/13 vs. Carroll
#3	512	Whitworth	12-2	LOST at #1 Whitman, 75-91; 01/13 vs. George Fox
#4	479	Williams	11-2	01/12 vs. #44 Tufts; 01/13 vs. Bates
#5	473	UW-Whitewater	12-2	won at UW-Eau Claire, 78-65; 01/13 vs. UW-Stout
#6	461	Washington U.	10-2	01/12 vs. Brandeis; 01/14 vs. New York University
#7	459	UW-River Falls	11-2	def. #27 UW-Platteville, 91-84; 01/13 at #13 UW-Oshkosh
#8	458	York (Pa.)	14-0	def. Penn State-Harrisburg, 88-78; 01/13 vs. T#33 Christopher Newport
#9	452	Swarthmore	12-1	won at McDaniel, 80-49; 01/11 vs. Johns Hopkins; 01/13 at #22 Franklin and Marshall
#10	359	Wittenberg	14-0	won at Wabash, 72-58; 01/13 at T#35 Wooster
#11	352	MIT	13-1	def. Emerson, 83-69; 01/13 at Wheaton (Mass.)
#12	349	Lycoming	15-1	def. #38 Albright, 86-85; 01/13 at Arcadia
#13	345	UW-Oshkosh	12-2	def. UW-Stout, 89-66; 01/13 vs. #7 UW-River Falls
#14	306	Wesleyan	10-2	01/12 at #18 Hamilton; 01/13 at Amherst
#15	287	St. John's	11-1	won at Carleton, 69-68; 01/13 at T#39 Augsburg
#16	258	Middlebury	9-3	def. Morrisville State, 85-64; 01/12 vs. Bates; 01/13 vs. #44 Tufts
#17	249	Ohio Wesleyan	10-4	LOST to Hiram, 79-88; 01/13 at Allegheny
#18	219	Hamilton	12-0	01/12 vs. #14 Wesleyan; 01/13 vs. Connecticut College
#19	115	Marietta	11-3	won at Mount Union, 78-57; 01/13 at Heidelberg
#20	111	Emory	10-2	01/12 vs. Carnegie Mellon; 01/14 vs. Case Western Reserve
#21	84	Wartburg	11-3	def. Luther, 73-51; 01/13 at Simpson
#22	77	Franklin and Marshall	11-2	LOST at Muhlenberg, 80-82; 01/11 at Washington College; 01/13 vs. #9 Swarthmore
#23	70	John Carroll	12-2	def. Otterbein, 122-66; 01/13 at Wilmington
#24	59	Eastern Connecticut	12-2	def. Mass-Dartmouth, 101-77; 01/13 at Southern Maine
#25	56	Baldwin Wallace	11-3	LOST to Ohio Northern, 73-80; 01/13 at Otterbein

Others receiving votes

Rank	Pts	Team	W-L	Results
#26	55	New Jersey City	12-2	def. Stockton, 81-67; 01/13 at T#35 Ramapo
#27	48	UW-Platteville	12-2	LOST at #7 UW-River Falls, 84-91; 01/13 vs. UW-La Crosse
#28	46	St. Norbert	11-2	01/12 at Illinois College; 01/13 at Monmouth
#29	40	Juniata	13-1	def. Goucher, 64-53; 01/13 at Drew
#30	39	Skidmore	8-3	LOST at Vassar, 59-67; 01/12 at Rochester Tech; 01/13 at Hobart
#31	25	Rochester	9-3	01/12 vs. Case Western Reserve; 01/14 vs. Carnegie Mellon
#32	23	Illinois Wesleyan	11-3	01/13 at North Park
T#33	13	Christopher Newport	11-3	won at Southern Virginia, 83-58; 01/13 at #8 York (Pa.)
T#33	13	Nichols	10-2	won at Curry, 100-68; 01/11 vs. Salve Regina; 01/13 at Wentworth
T#35	11	Ramapo	11-4	won at Rowan, 86-76; 01/13 vs. #26 New Jersey City
T#35	11	Wooster	11-3	def. Allegheny, 79-58; 01/13 vs. #10 Wittenberg
#37	10	Salem State	11-3	def. Fitchburg State, 80-63; 01/13 at Framingham State
#38	9	Albright	11-3	LOST at #12 Lycoming, 85-86; 01/13 vs. Messiah
T#39	7	Augsburg	11-3	won at St. Thomas, 62-52; LOST to Bethel, 67-78; 01/13 vs. #15 St. John's
T#39	7	Buena Vista	12-2	won at Dubuque, 96-87; 01/13 vs. Loras
T#39	7	Emory and Henry	13-1	def. Roanoke, 75-73; 01/13 at Hampden-Sydney
T#39	7	Hanover	10-4	def. Earlham, 90-54; 01/13 at Anderson
#43	4	Nebraska Wesleyan	12-2	LOST at Loras, 87-97 OT; 01/13 vs. Dubuque
#44	3	Tufts	11-3	01/12 at #4 Williams; 01/13 at #16 Middlebury
#45	2	Lebanon Valley	11-5	LOST to Arcadia, 82-94

[me]

shower revelations that basically describes sailing handicapping in a top 25 board on a d3 website get a bump of the top 25

Well, I would probably make a better boat than a runner.

[TheOsprey]

Homena, homena, homena!!! 

https://youtu.be/WiKTO0ujK_k

[Knightstalker]

Homena, homena, homena!!! 

https://youtu.be/WiKTO0ujK_k

+1

[smedindy]

I'm a data guy too, (Director of Data Analytics) but I try to be nice about it when Pat and Dave have the feels. 

I do like a debate, but I rarely get really riled up now. Maybe it's the Paxil and Wellbutrin!

What I've learned from the baseball wars about advanced metrics is that being a smarty-pants and / or a Jerky McJerkface won't help your cause. Joe Sheehan and Ketih Law are brilliant, but their demeanor turns off a lot of "luddites".

Also, in my field 'fundraising' - we use data to target certain people or groups - but there's still a human element to it all since people are people. A prospect that you think has the interest, capacity, and affinity may not give a major gift, while someone else who isn't rated as high may give a major gift because he was properly cultivated (the human element).

So I can say that I believe Pat is incorrect when the algorithm in Massey overrates the MIAC based on the data, but since human beings play basketball games the algorithms may not work on a day-to-day basis. That, and the differences in individual ranking points are pretty minute, and rankings like this should perhaps be separated into quintiles or groups of 25.

[smedindy]

One thing I appreciate about Logan Hansen's work on football is that he acknowledges his algorithm isn't perfect, and he's working to make it better there are still times where he picks against his algorithm - or at least I thought he did.

[WUPHF]

OK, I must be totally out of it because who the pf#$% is Pfeiffer?

[deiscanton]

OK, I must be totally out of it because who the pf#$% is Pfeiffer?

Pfeiffer University is in North Carolina, and is a 1st year reclassifying institution in the transition process from DII to DIII.  Pfeiffer will become a full member of DIII in the 2021-22 season, if all goes well.  Pfeiffer is one of the newest members of USA South.  Apparently, one computer model, StatGeek, ranked Pfeiffer #1 in DIII in the first week of January, believe it or not.

Fortunately, DIII does not use outside polls or computer rankings in the selection process.  Pfeiffer is not eligible for the NCAA DIII tournament until the 2021-22 season, anyway.  This year, games vs Pfeiffer are secondary criteria games.

[AO]

OK, I must be totally out of it because who the pf#$% is Pfeiffer?

Pfeiffer enrollment: 1200
Small school in a small town in central North Carolina.
They are in their first year of provisional D3 membership, moving from D2. 
The players that were on the roster prior to their move can remain on scholarship including their top guard Josh Calhoun who is averaging 27.6 ppg.

The loss to Illinois hurts Augustana a bit since they lost by 36 instead of the predicted 20.  It's not much of a negative impact but it will continue to hurt the Vikings and the rest of their opponents throughout the season.  This is not the NCAA SoS where just the fact that you played a good team will help you.  Again it will have very little effect on Augustana's ranking or any of the other teams in the CCIW, but the effect that it does have is negative. 

For the MIAC doubters, what have you seen thus far that makes you doubt?  The top 8 teams down to Gustavus and Hamline have been incredibly impressive to me in person. 

By the way, you can ask Massey questions on twitter if you're curious.  https://twitter.com/masseyratings

[WUPHF]

+1 Thanks guys! Much appreciated.

[me]

I'm a data guy too, (Director of Data Analytics) but I try to be nice about it when Pat and Dave have the feels. 

I do like a debate, but I rarely get really riled up now. Maybe it's the Paxil and Wellbutrin!

What I've learned from the baseball wars about advanced metrics is that being a smarty-pants and / or a Jerky McJerkface won't help your cause. Joe Sheehan and Ketih Law are brilliant, but their demeanor turns off a lot of "luddites".

Also, in my field 'fundraising' - we use data to target certain people or groups - but there's still a human element to it all since people are people. A prospect that you think has the interest, capacity, and affinity may not give a major gift, while someone else who isn't rated as high may give a major gift because he was properly cultivated (the human element).

So I can say that I believe Pat is incorrect when the algorithm in Massey overrates the MIAC based on the data, but since human beings play basketball games the algorithms may not work on a day-to-day basis. That, and the differences in individual ranking points are pretty minute, and rankings like this should perhaps be separated into quintiles or groups of 25.

I love everything about this post. You were one of the people I could tell was savvy about this, but I like what you said about the human element and you're right. I did go on to qualify that in context of what has happened here, but I don't want to restart anything, so I'll just leave it at that.

There is usually more of a separation at the top, and then a big peloton. This year there's not as much, at least not yet, because no one is really that good. In past years there have been teams ranked higher than 200 in the composite, and this year #1 is outside of 300. Even still, the difference between 1 and 7 is the same is the difference from 7 to 24, and 24 to 51.

So not sure a quintile approach would work, but I do keep this in mind when I'm looking down the chart a bit, which is why I ranked Wheaton despite being ranked 41 bc of having a couple of dumb losses (which I'm convinced just about any team in the nation this year could have if played a decent schedule). So I do still use my own noggin. BC basically 25-50 is pretty close.

I'm interested to see what Massey does with some of the losses that have happened this week. I think Ohio Northern's win over BW says more about them than it does about BW. The OAC is not as overall strong a conference as WIAC and CCIW, but it has some really really good teams at the top.

[me]

OK, I must be totally out of it because who the pf#$% is Pfeiffer?

Pfeiffer University is in North Carolina, and is a 1st year reclassifying institution in the transition process from DII to DIII.  Pfeiffer will become a full member of DIII in the 2021-22 season, if all goes well.  Pfeiffer is one of the newest members of USA South.  Apparently, one computer model, StatGeek, ranked Pfeiffer #1 in DIII in the first week of January, believe it or not.

Fortunately, DIII does not use outside polls or computer rankings in the selection process.  Pfeiffer is not eligible for the NCAA DIII tournament until the 2021-22 season, anyway.  This year, games vs Pfeiffer are secondary criteria games.

I have no problem believing Pfeiffer is the best team playing a D3 schedule (sort of) this year. They were 26-5 or something last year playing D2. I'm sure they still have at least some of those players. I would guess they're actually underrated bc of playing an awful schedule (understandable bc lot of teams wouldn't want to play them).

I'm really interested to see how they do after reclassification. They've had some really good teams in the past, before falling on some hard times before this recent resurgence. Geographically, they seem ideally situated to be able to recruit really well. But you never know how it's going to do. A lot of people in that part of the south have no real clue what D3 is.

But saying small school in small town is a little misleading. They're just outside suburban range of Charlotte. Easy, peasey drive from Charlotte. Been a long time since I've been there, but I'm assuming it's still a nice area as it was then.