Zombie OT: Zion

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
e_blazer said:
Seems like there was plenty of hype about LeBron coming straight out of high school. Great players get noticed. For lesser talents, or later-blooming talents, your point is well taken.
Click to expand...
And Zion had been noticed, but not to the degree he was once he started playing at Duke. Hell, we had a thread about a game his team played against Lamelo Ball's a couple years ago. But a lot of people thought he was just a big kid who dunked; the notion that he might be a franchise-changer or a generational talent didn't surface until he played at the college level. Even top-level talents benefit from the exposure the NCAA provides.
 
...I guess Zioff was a good nickname after all, too soon :dunno:
 
tlongII said:
That's ridiculous. Any formula that puts the Ducks ahead of a team with a better record and that swept the Ducks this season is wack.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you're talking about. The formula is based on all the factors the committee weighs and values them to put out results accurate with what the committee has done in the past. It's not as simple as having a better record and H2H. SMH.
 
Last edited:
BonesJones said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. The formula is based on all the factors the committee weighs and values them to put out results accurate with what the committee has done in the past. It's not as simple as having a better record and H2H. SMH.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. A ranking like that would be laughed at.
 
BonesJones said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. The formula is based on all the factors the committee weighs and values them to put out results accurate with what the committee has done with the past. It's not as simple as having a better record and H2H. SMH.
Click to expand...
This is a rather general comment, so don't take it as an argument against you, or whatever formulas you've written.
Sometimes I have an issue with advanced stats in that at times it feels like people are just manipulating numbers to get to the results they want. They don't like what they come up with when using one formula so they make another, and another, they change the weights on things until they subjectively like the outcome.
Should it be as simple as H2H and a better record, I don't know probably not, but it's really pretty easy to build algorithms to get the results you want and I feel like College sports especially do that quite frequently.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
This is a rather general comment, so don't take it as an argument against you, or whatever formulas you've written.
Sometimes I have an issue with advanced stats in that at times it feels like people are just manipulating numbers to get to the results they want. They don't like what they come up with when using one formula so they make another, and another, they change the weights on things until they subjectively like the outcome.
Should it be as simple as H2H and a better record, I don't know probably not, but it's really pretty easy to build algorithms to get the results you want and I feel like College sports especially do that quite frequently.
Click to expand...
You don't understand then.

My rankings and formulas are based off what the committee has done in the past. It's not me trying to produce the results I want, it's me valuing certain factors the selection committee considers in a way that'll produce seed lines consistent with what the committee has produced in the past. It's a form of backwards engineering, replacing the results from the committee's human opinions with a formula that can replicate their final product.

So none of the valuations are based on my opinion, they're based on the committee's opinion, and since they're the ones who decide the seed lines...

That's why it's funny having ignorant Beaver fans like Tlong trying to tell me it's bullshit and would get laughed at when it has hours upon hours of research poured into it and is based on what actually happens.

Hopefully you understand what this is now.
 
BonesJones said:
You don't understand then.

My rankings and formulas are based off what the committee has done in the past. It's not me trying to produce the results I want, it's me valuing certain factors the selection committee considers in a way that'll produce seed lines consistent with what the committee has produced in the past. It's a form of backwards engineering, replacing the results from the committee's human opinions with a formula that can replicate their final product.

So none of the valuations are based on my opinion, they're based on the committee's opinion, and since they're the ones who decide the seed lines...

That's why it's funny having ignorant Beaver fans trying to tell me it's bullshit and would get laughed at when it has hours upon hours of research poured into it and IS BASED ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

Hopefully you understand what this is now.
Click to expand...
I said right off the bat it was a general comment and not about you or your rankings.
 
BonesJones said:
@TorturedBlazerFan As someone who I know is mathematically savvy, I think you'd enjoy the challenge of trying to replicate results. It's an adventure. You should see the formula. It's been being built for 3 years and is pretty crazy.
Click to expand...
Reverse engineering is always an interesting challenge in general. So I probably would find it fun.

I am really not anti analytics at all in fact I think they can be incredibly useful.

I am warming up more and more to sports analytics, but some of “reasoning” ESPN and other sites gives for their weightings and how they constructed an algorithm tend to give me a nice chuckle.

Also Im not at all that familiar with most of the algorithms youve mentioned here.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Reverse engineering is always an interesting challenge in general. So I probably would find it fun.

I am really not anti analytics at all in fact I think they can be incredibly useful.

I am warming up more and more to sports analytics, but some of “reasoning” ESPN and other sites gives for their weightings and how they constructed an algorithm tend to give me a nice chuckle.

Also Im not at all that familiar with most of the algorithms youve mentioned here.
Click to expand...
"NET" is the new "RPI". College Basketball is no longer using RPI, and is instead using what they claim to be a more comprehensive metric with NET. Nobody knows the formula except for them though.
"BPI" is ESPNs ranking metric, which takes into account things like road games, player injuries, rest days, etc.
"KENPOM" is a favored advanced metric in the college basketball community.

All three are used along with other data. "WQ" is something I developed which weighs Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2, Quadrant 3, and Quadrant 4 wins (something the committee also looks at). I boil different sets of basic information from the four above categories down into four ratings and combine them. There's other factors that I have to account for (Wins against Tournament Teams, Mid-Major Discount, etc).
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Not to mention the fact that the exposure Zion and other players receive from the platform provided by the NCAA is worth a ton, and the players certainly aren't quantifying that. Would the amount of hype currently surrounding Zion exist to its present degree if he were playing in the G-League (which he could have done)? Not likely. Even if he's not receiving a check, he's garnering a benefit that shouldn't be ignored.
Click to expand...
Yes sir...look at March madness and the TV contracts that brand the top collegiate players before they are old enough to drink. Donavan Mitchell is way off base, and Doncic is 100% correct. There is a reason its called amateur sports in college. There are options.
 
Barkley said Zion hadn't changed his shoe in some time. Usually players change weekly and some pro's by the game.
 
For all of you hatin’ on this cat, check out this short video. Seems like he’s pretty chill to me ....

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top