Top 25 talk

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

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.

And I'm glad voters are reading. I'm pleasantly surprised. Maybe at some point they'll be convicted.

As for the race, it's an analogy. Think of a season as a 5 lap race. Basically we've finished 1 lap, and MC is like a quarter of a lap ahead of the peloton. Whitman is the only other team ahead of the pack. Which team is ahead? Obvious things are obvious.

You can walk it back all you want but everyone saw what you did. You tried to scare me into line by implying people might vote against my interests because of me. It was odious and despicable and I'd throw you off the poll if it was my poll. I notice you didn't go back and copy that part.

Btw, you can tar me with this NJAC thing all you wnat. I don't know what the **** you're talking about so I don't care. I probably wouldn't care anyway, since you all keep bringing it up. Since I know I'm right and the facts are on my side, I can only assume the same was true in this case and that's why you see it as a basis of comparison. That might not be true, but based on what I know it well could be, and so why would I be bothered by that?

[Fifth and Putnam]

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.

You've made your point...numerous times. People have responded to you....numerous times. You still don't agree. We're spinning circles here about something that at the end of the day means next to nothing, especially a couple of weeks into the season. I love the Top 25 ranking, it spurs discussion and conversation about teams which is why we're all fans and congregating here. However, it is not criteria for regional rankings, doesn't affect seeding in the NCAA tournament, and guarantees nothing in terms of where your school finishes the season. I know I can't be the only one who has hated logging onto these boards the last several days and seeing another argument over one team's ranking. Relax. Can we move on and talk about something else? There's some great stories out there this season in addition to Marietta.

(modified by GS for formatting)

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

I don't think I'm the one keeping this going at this point.

It's pretty much just people having a go at me and making trolling accusations. Ho hum.

I don't think they realize how little I care of their personal views of me. I don't think a lot of most of them either, based on evidence provided here.

If you have this little tolerance of someone that disagrees with you and you feel like you have to tar them with that label or some collection of letters unintelligible to anyone that isn't "in on the joke", then you really haven't earned much respect from me.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Btw, the Kenpommy effort that was posted here earlier has much the same solution as Massey, excepting CMS  bc they have only 3 D3 games so far.

It has Marietta 40.2, Hope 32.6, Whitman 31.2. MC 25% above anyone else in the field, and the only team top 10 in adjusted offense and adjusted defense efficiency, again aside from CMS.

So it's not just me, and it's not just me and Massey. There's pretty much no way to make a data-driven argument against Marietta being #1. Apparently everyone else agrees since no one has tried to do it.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency-ratings/

[KnightSlappy]

Btw, the Kenpommy effort that was posted here earlier has much the same solution as Massey, excepting CMS  bc they have only 3 D3 games so far.

It has Marietta 40.2, Hope 32.6, Whitman 31.2. MC 25% above anyone else in the field, and the only team top 10 in adjusted offense and adjusted defense efficiency, again aside from CMS.

So it's not just me, and it's not just me and Massey. There's pretty much no way to make a data-driven argument against Marietta being #1. Apparently everyone else agrees since no one has tried to do it.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency-ratings/

To be clear, the linked data makes such an argument.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Btw, the Kenpommy effort that was posted here earlier has much the same solution as Massey, excepting CMS  bc they have only 3 D3 games so far.

It has Marietta 40.2, Hope 32.6, Whitman 31.2. MC 25% above anyone else in the field, and the only team top 10 in adjusted offense and adjusted defense efficiency, again aside from CMS.

So it's not just me, and it's not just me and Massey. There's pretty much no way to make a data-driven argument against Marietta being #1. Apparently everyone else agrees since no one has tried to do it.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency-ratings/

To be clear, the linked data makes such an argument.

How so?

[KnightSlappy]

Btw, the Kenpommy effort that was posted here earlier has much the same solution as Massey, excepting CMS  bc they have only 3 D3 games so far.

It has Marietta 40.2, Hope 32.6, Whitman 31.2. MC 25% above anyone else in the field, and the only team top 10 in adjusted offense and adjusted defense efficiency, again aside from CMS.

So it's not just me, and it's not just me and Massey. There's pretty much no way to make a data-driven argument against Marietta being #1. Apparently everyone else agrees since no one has tried to do it.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency-ratings/

To be clear, the linked data makes such an argument.

How so?

In Claremont-Mudd-Scripps being rated #1 and Marietta being rated #2.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Btw, the Kenpommy effort that was posted here earlier has much the same solution as Massey, excepting CMS  bc they have only 3 D3 games so far.

It has Marietta 40.2, Hope 32.6, Whitman 31.2. MC 25% above anyone else in the field, and the only team top 10 in adjusted offense and adjusted defense efficiency, again aside from CMS.

So it's not just me, and it's not just me and Massey. There's pretty much no way to make a data-driven argument against Marietta being #1. Apparently everyone else agrees since no one has tried to do it.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency-ratings/

To be clear, the linked data makes such an argument.

How so?

In Claremont-Mudd-Scripps being rated #1 and Marietta being rated #2.

You have to be kidding me. And people accuse me of parroting the computer.

But whatever. Fine. Does anyone care to argue that CMS is the best team and is by nearly 1/2 better than anyone else in the country except Marietta?

Go.

[KnightSlappy]

Btw, the Kenpommy effort that was posted here earlier has much the same solution as Massey, excepting CMS  bc they have only 3 D3 games so far.

It has Marietta 40.2, Hope 32.6, Whitman 31.2. MC 25% above anyone else in the field, and the only team top 10 in adjusted offense and adjusted defense efficiency, again aside from CMS.

So it's not just me, and it's not just me and Massey. There's pretty much no way to make a data-driven argument against Marietta being #1. Apparently everyone else agrees since no one has tried to do it.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency-ratings/

To be clear, the linked data makes such an argument.

How so?

In Claremont-Mudd-Scripps being rated #1 and Marietta being rated #2.

You have to be kidding me. And people accuse me of parroting the computer.

But whatever. Fine. Does anyone care to argue that CMS is the best team and is by nearly 1/2 better than anyone else in the country except Marietta?

Go.

None of us has taken that position, I don't think. Of course there's tons of uncertainty in CMS's data. Just like there's tons of uncertainty (though less) in Martietta's data.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Btw, the Kenpommy effort that was posted here earlier has much the same solution as Massey, excepting CMS  bc they have only 3 D3 games so far.

It has Marietta 40.2, Hope 32.6, Whitman 31.2. MC 25% above anyone else in the field, and the only team top 10 in adjusted offense and adjusted defense efficiency, again aside from CMS.

So it's not just me, and it's not just me and Massey. There's pretty much no way to make a data-driven argument against Marietta being #1. Apparently everyone else agrees since no one has tried to do it.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-efficiency-ratings/

To be clear, the linked data makes such an argument.

How so?

In Claremont-Mudd-Scripps being rated #1 and Marietta being rated #2.

You have to be kidding me. And people accuse me of parroting the computer.

But whatever. Fine. Does anyone care to argue that CMS is the best team and is by nearly 1/2 better than anyone else in the country except Marietta?

Go.

None of us has taken that position, I don't think. Of course there's tons of uncertainty in CMS's data. Just like there's tons of uncertainty (though less) in Martietta's data.

Again, how so?

They've played more than double the games and there's basically no game they've played that you can reasonably say they should have lost or could have lost.

The difference is massive, which is why no one has tried to make that argument about CMS. It's patently foolish. If they're still there in 2 more games, then maybe you have to ask why.

[Gregory Sager]

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.

When you don't format properly and your replies end up getting mixed in with the original statements within a quote box, I just skip right past the post without reading it. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one.

If you're going to be so painstaking in your replies, take the time to format your post properly.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

I don't suppose it would help if I said that as far as I could tell, there was nothing I could do to improve the formatting. I checked.

Anything to criticize me at this point.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Oh dammit. Apparently you can't stop it from formatting when you don't want it to either.

Basically I just cut some out of Dave's post because it wasn't relevant to my reply and made the post even longer. And it came out like that. I didn't put my post inside of any quote statement.

I don't know how to show this without posting the code, but I can't do that without it formatting.

[Gregory Sager]

Please, spare us the paranoia. All I said was that if you don't format properly, you run the risk of having people skip past your post. Nobody likes to have to sort out who is saying what when they're reading dialogue. That's all.

The "preview" button is there for a reason.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Please, spare us the paranoia. All I said was that if you don't format properly, you run the risk of having people skip past your post. Nobody likes to have to sort out who is saying what when they're reading dialogue. That's all.

The "preview" button is there for a reason.

There wasn't anything wrong about the formatting, though. It looked just like your post does now. Quote statement, text, closed quote. I did that on purpose to make it simple, rather than trying to do the in-stream replying, which ironically would have made it much more difficult to follow than that about which you are complaining now.

Previewing wouldn't give me any way to change what it decided to do. I don't know why it does it different if you edit inside of the previous post.

I don't think it's that hard to work out who is saying what, though, really, unless you think Dave quoted himself for some reason.

Anything to pick a fight with me though. Paranoia, indeed. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you, and clearly this thread is now for the crime of making an inarguable point that runs counter to the majority view. Fiery pitchforks and all of that.

It's not hard to see why comfortable lies propagate much more easily than inconvenient truth.