Top 25 talk

[augie77]

Don't feed the troll!

[Mr. Ypsi]

Don't feed the troll!

I don't think Spence is Appleton Rocks!  He is a bit over-invested (and over-enthusiastic) fan, not IMO a troll.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Spence, for you to be SO invested in the polls SO early in the season IS getting tiresome.

You remind me of me eleven years ago.  I wasn't protesting the polling (IWU was unanimously #1), but giddiness overtook me and I started giving probabilities of IWU being an undefeated national champion (they finished third in the last season D3 still had a third-place game).  Looking back, I blush at how much people must have been put off by those posts.

That's not going to happen. I don't think there's anything wrong with having the courage of conviction when the facts are on your side. I know that facts aren't really "in" this year, but I do hope there's still a place for them in our country at some point in the future. I'm not invested at all. I spent 23 1/2 straight hours in the same school building yesterday and last night. This is definitely not my priority in any way.

I'm not going to be giving probabilities of anything, though, even though I could, because it's way too easy to look ridiculous. What was the probability fo MC losing to Gwynedd last year? I don't know, but it happened. Predictives is an interest of mine, but that's not really the right application, IMO.

But that doesn't say anything about looking backward at what has already happened and making an honest, eyes-wide-open assessment of it and what it says about the teams.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Don't feed the troll!

The only post you've made on the topic that I've seen was a blatant troll relating to the Augustana-MC game, which I acknowledged and then sidestepped.

Good talk.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Marietta cruises again, +25 at Otterbein. Was up 33-13 after 14 minutes. 10 players played at least 10 minutes.

Dillon Young and Anthony Wallace tied for game high with 19. AJ Edwards had 15 and added 7 offensive rebounds. Marietta got its own rebound almost as often as Otterbein rebounded a Marietta miss (17 off rebs to 18 def reb).

Elsewhere, Tufts lost again. Massively overrated. Lucky not to be on a 3 game losing streak.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Don't feed the troll!

The only post you've made on the topic that I've seen was a blatant troll relating to the Augustana-MC game, which I acknowledged and then sidestepped.

Good talk.

Trolling is not about what one says, but about what one fails to address.  A troll is someone who only engages the points on which they can argue and ignores those that make their perspective look weaker - thus filling the page/board/comments with, essentially propaganda - whether it's deserved or not.  What I've seen is you making the same argument over and over again with no real new information.  People understood your position, engaged a little, you responded.  It should've been over.  Continued posting is what moves something like this into the troll territory.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Then I guess once a team is mentioned on this thread, it shall never be spoken of again. Gonna be a pretty short thread.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Then I guess once a team is mentioned on this thread, it shall never be spoken of again. Gonna be a pretty short thread.

This will be Exhibit B: arguing points nobody made.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Then I guess once a team is mentioned on this thread, it shall never be spoken of again. Gonna be a pretty short thread.

This will be Exhibit B: arguing points nobody made.

Except that you did.

"People understood your position, engaged a little, you responded.  It should've been over. "

Why should it be over? Is Marietta off topic for this thread now? No, no they aren't. Far from.

There's a lot of research to back up the benefit of repetition in learning. This really shouldn't be a teaching forum, but apparently it is because 1 voter out of 25 chose the *clearly* best choice. Objectively, it should not even be a discussion.  There's Marietta, there's Whitman, and then there's everyone else in terms of what is actually provable with results, and we have enough results that nothing else is really relevant at this point.

Everything else is anchoring bias -- people came into the season with an opinion and they're unwilling to change even in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

But y'all feel free to label me however you want if it makes you feel better.

(FYI, I'm averaging about 3 hours of sleep for about 4-5 days, so any goofy typos are probably attributable to this)

[KnightSlappy]

Then I guess once a team is mentioned on this thread, it shall never be spoken of again. Gonna be a pretty short thread.

This will be Exhibit B: arguing points nobody made.

Except that you did.

"People understood your position, engaged a little, you responded.  It should've been over. "

Why should it be over? Is Marietta off topic for this thread now? No, no they aren't. Far from.

There's a lot of research to back up the benefit of repetition in learning. This really shouldn't be a teaching forum, but apparently it is because 1 voter out of 25 chose the *clearly* best choice. Objectively, it should not even be a discussion.  There's Marietta, there's Whitman, and then there's everyone else in terms of what is actually provable with results, and we have enough results that nothing else is really relevant at this point.

Everything else is anchoring bias -- people came into the season with an opinion and they're unwilling to change even in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

But y'all feel free to label me however you want if it makes you feel better.

(FYI, I'm averaging about 3 hours of sleep for about 4-5 days, so any goofy typos are probably attributable to this)

I think Marietta is very probably the best team in Division III right now. I also think you're overstating the case a little bit. I wouldn't have a particular problem with Whitman or Babson or Hope, to name a few. I don't think anything is 'provable' with respect to those teams (and a few others) right now (or even come March).

I would also use the term 'Bayesian prior' instead of 'anchoring bias' in this case. It's very reasonable for voters, fans, and the like to include some amount of weight for a program's recent history when submitting their opinion for who is probably the best team, particularly in the early going (Massey does it).

I value your enthusiasm, however. "Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[HOPEful]

"...incontrovertible evidence..."

= something that does not exist in sports without head to head results.

No one here has denied that Marietta is a really good team. Why is it so important to you that they are recognized as the current #1 in a human poll? Whether a team is ranked #1 or #15 on D3hoops.com in December is completely meaningless. Your team has John Carroll, Wesleyan, and Whitman before Christmas. Wouldn't you rather be excited knowing your team is playing as well as anyone and has the very real opportunity to make this a really special season rather than spending too much time concerned with whether others think they're the best team or "just" elite...

There's Marietta, there's Whitman, and then there's everyone else

How? It seems like you are simply using Massey numbers and forming your assessment of every team in D3 basketball based on an SoS algorithm after 5 games. And you're getting angry because most voters don't vote in the exact order of Massey. Marietta looks really good right now. So does Babson. And Amherst. And Whitewater. And Hope. And North Park.

And if Babson goes into Amherst on Saturday and gets a win, I'd be ok if next week all 25 first place votes go to the Beavers. And if Amherst is able to play the same sufficating defense against Flannery and Co., I don't know who, if anyone, will be able to score on them this season. And although I'm usually on the other side of what Dave calls "the usual suspects" aguement, I've seen Amherst win it all twice in the last 10 years. I think Babson would have last year if Flannery didn't get hurt. That counts for something in the eyes of voters.

Marietta is really good. But their case for #1 is far from incontrovertible. Luckily for us all, the polls are mostly for fun and we get to watch in all unfold on the court.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

For the record, the following statement never mentioned voters and their opinions of Marietta when they voted:

"Plugging for first place votes and saying voters aren't being responsible could actually hurt your team - leaving negative thoughts with people."

I made sure not to say comments would affect how voters felt about Marietta. I was talking about people in general, especially on these boards, when someone like yourself constantly trolls - Ryan's explanation is best - for one's team. Your comments have no affect on me voting and how I vote... I am quite confident they don't affect the 24 other voters. However, your comments do have an affect those reading them and posting thoughts here. I have seen it in the past and alluded to the NJAC comparison as well. That was what I was talking about.

Speaking of which, I've been on the house mike when Wooster was being presented with a regional championship and called out their names for all tournament and earned compliments from the SID for the professionalism with which I did it.

Congrats... but has no bearing to the argument. I am a professional announcer and have been for 20+ years. That doesn't mean if my alma mater was in a national conversation it wouldn't be hard to put those feelings aside. That said, I have announced several instances where "my team" wasn't being honored with the hardware and had to announce the moment. I did it... professionally... was thanked for that work... it is what you are supposed to be paid to do.

The voters have Marietta third, right now. They average 22.8 points per voter which is pretty much locked in at #3. I have them second, which means one or two voters probably have them fourth. Not bad. Top 5 at the start of the season. Don't see why we are complaining about it.

As for "anchoring bias," if a pollster has their reasons to vote for a team number one and there is no evidence they see to knock said team down, why should they? You can argue circles around whether or not you feel there is evidence to the contrary, but it comes down to how individual voters feel and if they don't think there is any evidence to change their opinion, who says they should change their opinion? You talk about these boards being a place for opinion, the pollsters are allowed the same freedom. I don't have Amherst number one, but I am not chastising voters who do. I don't see it the same way they do, but I don't tell them they are wrong.

This really shouldn't be a teaching forum, but apparently it is because 1 voter out of 25 chose the *clearly* best choice. Objectively, it should not even be a discussion.

These two sentences contradict themselves. In an opinion you say, "clearly best choice," followed by "objectively, it should not even be discussed." You aren't being objective. You have clearly stated your affinity for Marietta and haven't proven any objectivity. By telling people there is clearly a best choice, you aren't being objective. By telling people they are wrong for not voting for Marietta, you aren't being objective.

You maybe need some sleep - and that is coming from a guy whose last 20+ years of life have been lived basically sleep deprived (career and health wise). I now try hard to stay off these boards in the evening so I can go to bed, maybe you should try it too and lay off the caffeine. You are fired up, as Ypsi has stated, for no real reason. You just want to the victorious moment Marietta is crowned #1 and you probably will still be ticked off if they aren't unanimous - unless they win the national championship, the chances of a unanimous number one this year for any team are pretty slim.

Good for you on your voting experience (though, in Division III basketball, there is only one poll, so I am not sure where you have actually voted in Division III - nor is it relevant). But to be riding one team so hard and telling other voters they are wrong in how they vote is disturbing.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

This is in response to HOPEful (since another reply slipped in there.

If your team has been the best team, why would you not want them to be ranked as such?

That has nothing to do with the future.

Massey is really just support for what I've said other ways regarding schedule and game dominance, and it's obviously not biased in favor of a particular team.

And again, it's not just the ranking, it's the rating. MC is 1.07, Whitman is .91, Hope is .80 (which the polls also are underrating them). So that's basically like 15% above Whitman and more than 25% above Hope, which is the #3 team in the division! Do you really think Massey is off by that much?

Add in the fact that the 3 primary teams being overrated just happen to be from the same region of the country, and it really starts to look like something is going on here.

Sure, other teams are looking good, but no one has looked as good against as good a schedule as Marietta. I don't think many people are even disputing that -- just contending that for some reason it's acceptable to vote on some other basis.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

As for "anchoring bias," if a pollster has their reasons to vote for a team number one and there is no evidence they see to knock said team down, why should they? You can argue circles around whether or not you feel there is evidence to the contrary, but it comes down to how individual voters feel and if they don't think there is any evidence to change their opinion, who says they should change their opinion? You talk about these boards being a place for opinion, the pollsters are allowed the same freedom. I don't have Amherst number one, but I am not chastising voters who do. I don't see it the same way they do, but I don't tell them they are wrong.

You can't (well you could, but the case isn't very strong) because there's not really the evidence to base that argument. Their bodies of work are not much different. There is evidence on which to base my argument.

Apparently if you support a team, you can't be objective even if you've held jobs more than a decade that required just that. That will probably be news to all of the people that run betting lines or make projections based on public opinion polls...they may have an opinion, so obviously thye can't be objective.

It's ridiculous. You're falling back on bias because you have no other argument, and then you further cast the blame back on me for being "fired up." I guess people are supposed to just not care about such injustices.

Again, it's not like this is close. No one else has close to the body of work. MC could probably lose and still be #2 to Whitman -- the two are that much above everyone else.

I voted in D3 baseball. I also voted in conference polls in D1, and AP polls for several high school sports in different states.

Funny that the guy throwing around implications of backlash against me in voting is disturbed by anything re: the polls.

You should just say I thought Babson was the best team and until they lose I'm not changing my mind. I would at least respect the honesty in that.

I wouldn't be telling the voters (are all of them here?) they're wrong if they weren't so wrong. If it was close, I'd be fine. But it's not close. It's not even close to being close. If someone is a quarter of a lap ahead after 1 lap of a 5 lap race, sure they might not win, but you'd certainly say they were a clear leader in the race.

Feel free to make a fact-based case that someone else other than Whitman has made the best case for itself in the season so far. Even against a tougher schedule and using the bench more liberally in lopsided games, MC has a higher margin of victory than Babson.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Per this line: "You should just say I thought Babson was the best team and until they lose I'm not changing my mind. I would at least respect the honesty in that."

I have Marietta #2. Despite their wins, I think Babson is the better team. I think Babson has better talent on the court with their starting five than Marietta. No, that is NOT a slight at Edwards. It is a compliment to how many players on Babson's squad I think can take over a game at any one point. I also think Flannery is better than Edwards (different positions, I know) and has proven he can put his team on his back - and yes, that could backfire on them as well. And please, don't argue each and every player to me as to why they are better... I am just going to ignore it. I have seen Marietta in person. I will probably see them again. I know Babson well as well. I have my opinion as one of the 25 voters and you are not going to change my mind - especially with the approach you have given in here. Other factors will change my mind.

Hey... look at that paragraph of my post yesterday at 11:35 AM ET... did you read that? That comes from the one you quoted and said you didn't have time to respond. Pretty sure I am stating my case.

Furthermore, I have posted my ballot and my point of view for I think five years. Nearly every week of those seasons. I don't shy away from it. I put my ballot and my thoughts out in the open for whomever cares to read them.

Funny that the guy throwing around implications of backlash against me in voting is disturbed by anything re: the polls.

Are you reading anything I write? I didn't say there would be backlash on the poll, I never mentioned voters in my statement, I said that people in general have not taken well to trolling as the NJAC case is a great example of on these boards. In no way did I mention anything about a backlash, just that people will not take kindly to you and it could taint their impression of Marietta - in their opinions on these boards when you speak. They just aren't going to take the case seriously when you are the author.

I wouldn't be telling the voters (are all of them here?) they're wrong if they weren't so wrong. If it was close, I'd be fine. But it's not close. It's not even close to being close. If someone is a quarter of a lap ahead after 1 lap of a 5 lap race, sure they might not win, but you'd certainly say they were a clear leader in the race.

Yeah... believe it or not, I know voters are reading these pages, because there have been comments to me about how "they are so wrong." I am not sure what you determine as close. Marietta's vote total has them third... that's close to the top, but again, your determination of close might be something hair-thin. Who knows.

And laps of a race compared to a basketball race poll (Edit: got my mind doing gymnastics to stay with the thought process, apparently)? Wow... ok.

It's ridiculous. You're falling back on bias because you have no other argument, and then you further cast the blame back on me for being "fired up." I guess people are supposed to just not care about such injustices.

Hmm... made my argument many times as I have stated above. Said it on these boards, blog about it nearly weekly, etc. You are the one who keeps throwing out arguments and "facts," has them countered by people, and then no longer brings them up. I have stated my opinion rather often for who ever wants to read it. I am not falling back on anything, I am just making an argument for why I don't think your "bias" point of view is not necessarily accurate. It may work for you; doesn't work for me. And I am not casting any blame, but I am saying you are a little too worked up on this. But to call this is an injustice is just about the biggest stretch I have read in awhile. ... Nope... NJAC example was based on the same premise. Never mind.