Gotta love Kenpom
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
Completely comical . Throw this program in the garbage where it belongs
Joke. As the AP Stats teacher in our building says "you can manipulate numbers to say anything you want them to say"
clearly these metrics are being exposed as devaluing actually winning a game.
or maybe we are just exposing that we are relying far too much on them.
or maybe we are just exposing that we are relying far too much on them.
Once again KenPom is also a predictive metrics system.
Did Seton Hall not split with them, each blowing out the opponent while at home?
So KenPom has it correct that on a given night either team is good enough to beat each other based on each team being similar in quality.
KenPom’s system is not ranking them for the tournament. It’s exhausting that we keep pushing this anti-metrics narrative.
Seton Hall is going to make the tournament with a win against DePaul but their performance has been very uneven throughout the year and the metrics are reflective of that.
We understand the metrics but we’ll take the WINS.
So will I for the record.
But most people are trashing the metrics because they don’t favor SHU and we want to see things through our blue tinted glasses.
I can almost guarantee that if our metrics were positive everyone would be claiming how that is just another validation as to why we should be higher ranked in tournament projections.
If they had beaten Providence (up 10), Creighton (3 OT), and / or had just won 2 more games in the OOC, then none of this would even be a debate. The metrics would be somewhere in the 40 or better range and there would be no complaints.
Hmmm..do you happen to work in the Yankees front office…..
ehhh. what about xaviers net vs all the teams they lost to? that should count. shu split with uconn, marquette, nova, etc. their nets are wildly different. based on your logic shu shouldnt even be in the ballpark, let alone win those games. hell they won both vs SJU.
looks like its doing a bad job at predicting.
and NET is similar to KP and is used to seed in the tournament and likely used as a reason to choose the teams who get in , despite what anyone says.
I don’t know how to convince people that the NET is NOT used as a likely reason to choose teams from getting in or not.
Each year there are examples of teams with lower NET scores that get in and others with stronger NET scores that get left out. And the margin between some of those scores is significant.
If we are being lied to and they are using this as a reason to include or exclude teams, this common occurrence would not be the case.
SHU disproves the metrics - to a degree. Certainly they measure certain things, but in the case of SHU they fail to accurately predict the most important outcome - WINS. And that is an absolutely relevant criticism. If the NET and KenPom are meant to predict success and wins/losses and then a team like the Pirates defies the metric, then the whole idea of the metric is thrown into question.
Seton Hall is 10-1 vs Quad 3 and 4 opponents and have an additional loss vs a team that is ranked 97 and is barely a quad 2 loss. So say 10-2 for argument sake.
In the other games they are 9-9 which is good and worthy of tournament inclusion because they have proven they can beat some of the best teams in the country.
But they are still .500 and in those 9 losses have lost by double digits 7 times and by 18 or more six times.
We are a good team and our metrics against better competition does not predict that we are better than a .500 team. And that’s about wins and losses. Win one / lose one.
This is the same board that (rightfully) groaned when we got matched up with an 11-seeded Gonzaga ranked in the 20's in KenPom. The bashing of the metrics this year is just silly biased fanboy stuff.
what is used as a factor and can it is it consistent year to year? its just a few guys in a room that decide what reasons someone gets in and theres many factors. and it could be different from different teams. do we really think the people that make these decisions behind closed doors dont look at NET?
i dont buy it. i think having a bad net is just another tool to have these guys justify whatever decision they want to go with.
but if NET was around back then, they would have been seeded much higher. since its used in sorting the teams. no?
These guys are a good follow on Twitter. Some interesting stats as to who has been given an at large bid and who has been left out in the era of the NET.
https://x.com/jbrbracketology/status/1765459221171056988?s=46&t=skVKgZk0XT_360GqHXZzyA
https://x.com/jbrbracketology/status/1765459221171056988?s=46&t=skVKgZk0XT_360GqHXZzyA
It was mildly amusing during most of the regular season, but now that it’s coming down to it, and the committee is going to be picking our seed in the next nine days or so, i find it to be somewhat worrying and infuriating. We have come back from the brink multiple times this season to prove ourselves. I find it kinda offensive that multiple teams, who are not hacking it in this conference this season, are rated higher than us. The blowout loses don’t help our numbers, but we have done the work elsewhere. It’s not like these other teams haven’t had their problems this season.
I'd add don't lose to your four best non-conference opponents -- three of whom are unlikely to make the field. One is 15-14 and 12th in its league while another is 12-17 and 11th in its league.
Don't have your best OOC win (by NET) be against an 8-22 team that is winless in its conference (and in calendar year 2024) and ranked No. 157 in the NET.
There are some great positives to our resume -- the UConn and Marquette wins, the six Q1 wins, wins against conference opponents in the same range that we are in.
Likewise, there are some glaring negatives, or at least items that will probably be glossed over.
I couldn't care less about the metrics. The eye test and results matter.
Seton Hall had some bad losses in the early pre season to teams that did not perform up to expectations. But it’s how the team is playing at the end of the season that matters more than the beginning of the season. They gelled and became more cohesive.
This is a better team than in the beginning of the season. Yes, those losses are a factor, it’s just not determinative.
Likewise Kenpom should not be determinative because of teams like Seton Hall that defy the metrics.
The selection committee will see Seton Hall as a bye team.
I could have given a crap about the metrics. My dumb basketball head saw them play and thought they were ridiculously underseeded. Like many people here and elsewhere.
Metrics to me is fanboy stuff.
The Rutgers game still haunts me. For so many reasons . Horrendous.
The UConn and Marquette games were closer to the start of the season than the end of the season (Dec. 20 and Jan. 6 respectively).
Do we downplay those as well?
I understand your point but the reality is we'll be evaluated on 32-34 games and not a fraction of our schedule.
And I do agree that the Selection Committee may look at our resume more kindly than the bracket crowd.
I don’t get how folks don’t realize this.
I’m mixed on the metrics.
I will say, however, that this team is an absolutely Jekyll & Hyde. They can certainly beat anyone but also get blown out.
And that will be their capsule description during tournament time.
Regardless of seeding, I do like the idea of Holloway getting them ready for hopefully 4-5 days before a tourney game.
And I’d rather have them going 13-7 in conference and playing better over the last 2+ months and coming together at the right time.
I will say, however, that this team is an absolutely Jekyll & Hyde. They can certainly beat anyone but also get blown out.
And that will be their capsule description during tournament time.
Regardless of seeding, I do like the idea of Holloway getting them ready for hopefully 4-5 days before a tourney game.
And I’d rather have them going 13-7 in conference and playing better over the last 2+ months and coming together at the right time.
That’s insane.
The margin of victory in the metrics is puzzling to me. It penalizes a defense first team that plays deliberately that is not going to have as many opportunities for wide victory margins.
only 10 teams have more Q1 wins than us. gotta be good to do that. not lucky, not bad, GOOD
there are different strategies to playing games and these metrics are completely biased to some. wins dont matter. its how you lose that matters.
Every team goes thru ups and downs during the season. Not every game goes the way coaches and players want them to. Sure we’ve had some tough losses but we’ve also had some great wins. SHU has six Q1 wins. How many bubble teams with better metrics than we have and with whom we are competing for an invite compare with that? From what I’ve seen, not very many.
WE still cant get past xavier and maryland who are .500, it nuts
Never once have I said we don’t deserve a bid. Those quality wins will put us over the top.
I have never once said the NET should be used as a ranking tool. And for the record it is NOT.
I am just saying the metrics are more accurate in reflecting a team’s consistency and evaluating their overall body of work in terms of competition played, than we are giving it credit for.
Because of the poor OOC and the lopsided losses, Seton Hall’s metrics will be an outlier relative to the strength of their performance during BE play. And there will be some other teams who have manipulated their score with strong efficiency numbers or a strong overall SOS. No system is perfect.
but overall it does a fairly decent job of combining the principles of the RPI / KenPom into a sorting tool to determine the general quality of the opponent you played.
the majority of people endlessly trash the NET because they either don’t understand it, don’t understand its purpose, or don’t like how it portrays Seton Hall.
How do u defend Xavier and Maryland at .500 with a higher NET?
How is St John's and Nova 30 spots higher?
How is St John's and Nova 30 spots higher?
ThEy ArE MoRE eFfiCiEnT WhEn ThEy LoSe
