2016 Playoffs

[bleedpurple]

Don't let the math get in the way of the "disrespected underdog status" which is a badge Bleed (and a few others) likes to wear with honor whenever possible even if no one else believes it.

Thank you, Usee. At least someone understands. 

Obviously, I'm not going to feel UW-W is disrespected by a mathematical model. I love what Logan does as I've rambled in my other posts. I think HSCoach explained the point well that I was trying to make regarding UW-W and Mount.

But upon further review, I see that the model's ratings have UW-W behind UW-Platteville (3 losses, including at home to UW-W), Oshkosh (loss to UW-W), Mount Union (1 loss), and St John's (2 losses). Is it really naive, biased, or wearing a "disrespected underdog" badge if I ask why the Johnnies and Platteville, at least, have higher ratings than UW-W,  John Carroll and Alma? 

(And LH, I just saw your response. I'm more asking this questions to the guys that went to bat for the results. I think in one of my other posts, I may have even said something like "I doubt very much LH believes that" about one of the results that popped out. Or at least I was going to! Anyway, your stuff is awesome to talk over to get through a week. Thanks again!)

[Ryan Stoppable]

Don't let the math get in the way of the "disrespected underdog status" which is a badge Bleed (and a few others) likes to wear with honor whenever possible even if no one else believes it.

Thank you, Usee. At least someone understands. 

Obviously, I'm not going to feel UW-W is disrespected by a mathematical model. I love what Logan does as I've rambled in my other posts. I think HSCoach explained the point well that I was trying to make regarding UW-W and Mount.

But upon further review, I see that the model's ratings have UW-W behind UW-Platteville (3 losses, including at home to UW-W), Oshkosh (loss to UW-W), Mount Union (1 loss), and St John's (2 losses). Is it really naive, biased, or wearing a "disrespected underdog" badge if I ask why the Johnnies and Platteville, at least, have higher ratings than UW-W,  John Carroll and Alma? 

(And LH, I just saw your response. I'm more asking this questions to the guys that went to bat for the results. I think in one of my other posts, I may have even said something like "I doubt very much LH believes that" about one of the results that popped out. Or at least I was going to! Anyway, your stuff is awesome to talk over to get through a week. Thanks again!)

That model doesn't seem to have been very fond of Whitewater's first round performance, that's for sure. But it doesn't have eyes to inform it, it only has numbers.

[HansenRatings]

UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

[emma17]

UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

I'm one of those fans. I'd say UWW would have found a way like they almost always do.
The immeasurables. Like ITH is getting at. It's that champion spirit that comes alive against the best competition.

But don't take me for a Hansen Ratings basher, I think it's really interesting information and appreciate all the work you do. I know stats can't measure everything that drives outcomes.

[bleedpurple]

UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

I agree with you about UW-RF and UW-Stout. Not Lakeland though. Ahead by 31 after 36 minutes of football. After that, the result was not in doubt, which affects everything from who is on the field to play calling. So, IMO, a system that weighs the last 24 minutes of that game more than a win over UW-O simply because of "recency" could use a tweak (my original point). And I'm not at all bashing your efforts. I think it is interesting. And maybe you really believe UW-W has less than 7% chance of winning the championship. That's cool too. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unlike some others, i am guessing you enjoy the banter and find more value in dissenting opinions than a continual flow of "Awesome Ratings, Logan".

[smedindy]

The only way to make a model better is for constructive criticism. A good data scientist always tries to improve based on observations.

But sometimes a 2% chance hits...

[Mr. Ypsi]

And if the model is really good, that will happen 1 in every 50 chances!

If it never happens, or happens 1 in 10, time for a tweak.

[art76]

So Alfred has a chance?

[AUPepBand]

So Alfred has a chance?

No, wait, Alfred's still playing? Pep thought it was Albright!

[jamtod]

So Alfred has a chance?

No, wait, Alfred's still playing? Pep thought it was Albright!

I'm giving both an equal shot at winning it all!

(Where's those darn sarcasm tags?)

[02 Warhawk]

UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

Funny, because that's what the general consensus was in 2014 for UWW...and things ended up ok for the Hawks . I remember Wabash fans saying prior to the playoff game, "Hey, we're better than UWRF and they almost beat the Hawks!!" Hell, I think BashDad wrote the longest post in D3boards history about this prior to the game. I think I counted 30 "If" statements in his post 

I was guilty of it myself after that UWRF game 2 years ago. And I learned my lesson back then saying things like: If the Hawks struggle against teams X, Y, Z...how can they possibly beat teams A, B, C? Because it doesn't work that way. One thing that's not accounted for here is the team rising to the level of competition, and health of players from week to week. Not all things are equal from game to game.

[USee]

Don't let the math get in the way of the "disrespected underdog status" which is a badge Bleed (and a few others) likes to wear with honor whenever possible even if no one else believes it.

Thank you, Usee. At least someone understands. 

Obviously, I'm not going to feel UW-W is disrespected by a mathematical model. I love what Logan does as I've rambled in my other posts. I think HSCoach explained the point well that I was trying to make regarding UW-W and Mount.

But upon further review, I see that the model's ratings have UW-W behind UW-Platteville (3 losses, including at home to UW-W), Oshkosh (loss to UW-W), Mount Union (1 loss), and St John's (2 losses). Is it really naive, biased, or wearing a "disrespected underdog" badge if I ask why the Johnnies and Platteville, at least, have higher ratings than UW-W,  John Carroll and Alma? 

(And LH, I just saw your response. I'm more asking this questions to the guys that went to bat for the results. I think in one of my other posts, I may have even said something like "I doubt very much LH believes that" about one of the results that popped out. Or at least I was going to! Anyway, your stuff is awesome to talk over to get through a week. Thanks again!)

First and foremost, I like the banter and the questions because the alternative is no discussion, opposing views, etc, which would make these boards non existent.

As to the "disrespected underdog" comment I think it's not specific to this particular issue but more of a theme the UWW faithful like to attach themselves to. Whether it's yelling at a math model for disrespecting their chances, or "why aren't we #1 after the stretch we just played" or "we don't have a recruiting advantage", etc, etc. I Don't view any of those things as negative, rather I view them more along the lines of Michael Jordan, who would use anything to fuel his competitive desires. He took a couple of reporter comments that he was a poor defensive player (early in his career) and used it to become DPOY and one of the best defensive players ever. He used comments about his shooting to propel his work to become a prolific shooter of the ball. I view UWW's program, and the posters on here who are alums/close to the program, as having a chip on their shoulder. That same chip is a big part of what makes them great.

I embrace the discussion and the questions. To this point, I  think the model is capturing the "odds" of each team winning. I would think most people would place money on a 6.4% UWW Stagg bowl probability. I certainly wouldn't take the short side of that bet.

[wally_wabash]

UWW was #1 after their run through UWO/UWP/UWSP/UWL, but has been dropping in recent weeks because they've been underperforming against the lower-tier teams in the WIAC, and didn't beat Lakeland by nearly as much as you'd expect a WIAC champion to. Recency matters, and UWP was peaking at the end of the season (and in the model, a 1-point loss to SJU is viewed as a 2-point "win" on a neutral field). Ask a fan from UWW, and I bet they would say that the way they played against UWRF/UW-Stout/Lakeland wouldn't be enough to beat UWO/UWP, and the model is accounting for that.

I agree with you about UW-RF and UW-Stout. Not Lakeland though. Ahead by 31 after 36 minutes of football. After that, the result was not in doubt, which affects everything from who is on the field to play calling. So, IMO, a system that weighs the last 24 minutes of that game more than a win over UW-O simply because of "recency" could use a tweak (my original point). And I'm not at all bashing your efforts. I think it is interesting. And maybe you really believe UW-W has less than 7% chance of winning the championship. That's cool too. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unlike some others, i am guessing you enjoy the banter and find more value in dissenting opinions than a continual flow of "Awesome Ratings, Logan".

Models that shut off after some point and/or ignore MOVs are bad models.  And maybe it happens that because UWW threw out the anchor that this model, which does take MOV into account, undervalues UWW somewhat because of that.  But you can't expect any of these models to subjectively dig into every single box score and cherry pick which stats are situationally important and which ones aren't. 

I think you're also way too hung up on the 7% thing and the perception that it's too small.  It isn't really unreasonable at all.  The path forward is winning against John Carroll, then winning against St. Thomas/UW-Oshkosh (the model appears to have UWW as slight underdogs to either), and then also winning against whoever survives UMHB/Wheaton/UMU/AU (the model will say UMHB more often than the others).  That gauntlet is more daunting than the Morningside/UWO/UWP that Whitewater ran earlier this year.  Is it crazy to think that UWW would win all three of those games, in succession, more than 7 out of 100 times?  I don't think so.  In fact, I think that number gives UWW an immense amount of credit- there aren't more than 3-4 teams that could win those three games in a row more than a few times in 100 chances. 

[emma17]

I don't want Hansen's model getting any more accurate.  There'd be no further need for the "eye test".

[wally_wabash]

As to the "disrespected underdog" comment I think it's not specific to this particular issue but more of a theme the UWW faithful like to attach themselves to. Whether it's yelling at a math model for disrespecting their chances, or "why aren't we #1 after the stretch we just played" or "we don't have a recruiting advantage", etc, etc. I Don't view any of those things as negative, rather I view them more along the lines of Michael Jordan, who would use anything to fuel his competitive desires. He took a couple of reporter comments that he was a poor defensive player (early in his career) and used it to become DPOY and one of the best defensive players ever. He used comments about his shooting to propel his work to become a prolific shooter of the ball. I view UWW's program, and the posters on here who are alums/close to the program, as having a chip on their shoulder. That same chip is a big part of what makes them great.

An apt analogy, USee.  There's a really thin line between finding/inventing that "oh, you think I can't do this?" motivation and having that attitude be disingenuous and petty.  For all of his greatness, Jordan certainly crossed that line a lot.