Help me understand this

[AURex 1,994]

I just watch BB as yer ordinary fan, except maybe with more years of games behind me. I've never been interested in these various statistical analyses, because I don't bet.

Out of lazy curiosity today, I looked at these four analytical sites. I'm not wanting for an explanation of specifics of the analytical techniques. I'm just curious about the following --

As of today, Auburn's KenPom is 16, Sagarin is 13, T-Rank is 13, and NET is 23. Yet Auburn is not ranked in the polls, and really doesn't deserve to be ranked (IMO) based on their W-L record and performance against quality (and not so quality) opponents.

So, is Auburn under-performing, or are these various analyses just off target, or is all the number-crunching just smoke and mirrors mumbo jumbo BS?

 

[gr82be 14,423]

32 minutes ago, AURex said:

I just watch BB as yer ordinary fan, except maybe with more years of games behind me. I've never been interested in these various statistical analyses, because I don't bet.

Out of lazy curiosity today, I looked at these four analytical sites. I'm not wanting for an explanation of specifics of the analytical techniques. I'm just curious about the following --

As of today, Auburn's KenPom is 16, Sagarin is 13, T-Rank is 13, and NET is 23. Yet Auburn is not ranked in the polls, and really doesn't deserve to be ranked (IMO) based on their W-L record and performance against quality (and not so quality) opponents.

So, is Auburn under-performing, or are these various analyses just off target, or is all the number-crunching just smoke and mirrors mumbo jumbo BS?

 

I'm there with you as just a fan watching the game with no side interest whatsoever. I don't think the team is underperforming anymore. They are what they are after 29 games, an up and down team with more ups thankfully. The polls in basketball really don't mean anything, if you get to the dance you will basically rank yourself by your wins and losses and poll-based opinion is out  the window. Just from what I've read about KenPom I like it the best. 

[AURex 1,994]

Yes, I understand that. But apparently the selection committee looks at these statistical analyses in making decisions about seeding. And seeding makes a difference in advancing in the NCAA tourney. So I'm interested in why the discrepancy between these analytical rankings and Auburn's actual performance.

We've got people here in the family who know this kind of stuff. Hoping they'll help explain.

 

[Gene Loblaw 636]

Given how many teams and games there are in college basketball and little of the ap voters have time to watch any of it, the AP poll is mostly just a decorative thing to talk about. It’s sort of like the Wikipedia of rankings where kenpom and NET etc are well researched, objective, data based documents that deserve to be taken way more seriously 

[WeagleTheBeagle 60]

I'm no expert but my thoughts...

On paper we look really good...even better than last year by many metrics.  But we don't have the killer instinct of last year's team (with a healthy McLemore).   We play decent basketball most of the time but have failed much too frequently this season when it really matters.  When a play needs to be made, when the game is on the line, we have mostly come up short.  We're kind of like the Rickie Fowler of CBB.  Always seems to be respectable in the PGA standings but can't get the job done when it matters in the majors.  Some call it "choking" and metrics have a hard time measuring that.  

I'm still enjoying the ride mind you and am thankful we have Coach Pearl.  Some teams have IT, some teams don't.  Maybe we'll find it.   

 

[ellitor 33,090]

On 3/3/2019 at 2:24 PM, AURex said:

So, is Auburn under-performing, or are these various analyses just off target, or is all the number-crunching just smoke and mirrors mumbo jumbo BS?

We have under performed due to injuries & physical elements like Murray & Heron & a defensive element in Mitchell leaving the team. With that said, the analysts are not off target either, well their data isn't, specifically for Pom & Sagarin. No clue on the Net. I think the Net may be smoke & mirrors but Pom & Sagarin are legit. Pom specifically is considered by most in the industry to have the best measuring standards & data for ranking teams. Voter rankings is based on subjectivity of Wins & Losses. while Pom & Sagarin's data also looks at things such as strength of schedule. FWIW @AURex historically speaking, seeding for the NCAA Tourney is much more alligned on the whole with data ranking from sources like Pom & Sagarin than poll voting. For example, there have been teams finish in the latter part of the top 25 in the human polls in some years the last poll before the NCAA Selection is done but not make the NCAA Tourney.

Never heard of T-Rank til this post. No clue what that is.

[ellitor 33,090]

On 3/3/2019 at 5:54 PM, AURex said:

Yes, I understand that. But apparently the selection committee looks at these statistical analyses in making decisions about seeding.

This year the NCAA is using the NET specifically, which is their own concoction that nobody knows the data formulas or variables for. FWIW we aren't from from the Net in the AP poll. You noted we are 23 in the net. We are 26 in the AP Poll.

[ellitor 33,090]

7 hours ago, Gene Loblaw said:

Given how many teams and games there are in college basketball and little of the ap voters have time to watch any of it, the AP poll is mostly just a decorative thing to talk about. It’s sort of like the Wikipedia of rankings where kenpom and NET etc are well researched, objective, data based documents that deserve to be taken way more seriously 

Agree on Pom. Won't know how I feel about NET til they make their data points public.

[tigeraddikt 1,602]

12 hours ago, ellitor said:

We have under performed due to injuries & physical elements like Murray & Heron & a defensive element in Mitchell leaving the team. With that said, the analysts are not off target either, well their data isn't, specifically for Pom & Sagarin. No clue on the Net. I think the Net may be smoke & mirrors but Pom & Sagarin are legit. Pom specifically is considered by most in the industry to have the best measuring standards & data for ranking teams. Voter rankings is based on subjectivity of Wins & Losses. while Pom & Sagarin's data also looks at things such as strength of schedule. FWIW @AURex historically speaking, seeding for the NCAA Tourney is much more alligned on the whole with data ranking from sources like Pom & Sagarin than poll voting. For example, there have been teams finish in the latter part of the top 25 in the human polls in some years the last poll before the NCAA Selection is done but not make the NCAA Tourney.

Never heard of T-Rank til this post. No clue what that is.

Wish the word pom didn't look so much like the word porn. Porn and Sagarin poll evaluations haha

[atl-tiger 655]

Kenpom is a great tool for filling out your March Madness brackets.  

[tigerbrotha12 2,362]

NET and KenPom take into account how you have performed against all types of teams. Auburn really doesn’t have a “bad loss” this season. The closest one is South Carolina, and they could very well be the 4 seed in the SEC tournament. They also have performed very well against “Quadrant 2” teams, and that’s why their NET and KenPom are so high. The committee looks at Quadrant 1 record, but it looks more at your total record against Quadrants 1&2, a record that is actually pretty good for Auburn. KenPom also takes into account points per game, and points given up per game and all that to try and determine how good your team actually is on a level playing field against everyone else. 

[AURex 1,994]

The confusing thing to me is that, looking at NET, Auburn would be a 6-seed. Looking at KenPom, Auburn would be a 4-seed. But all the projections by "experts" puts Auburn as an 8-seed. That's a significant difference in first round opponent.

To what extent are these analytical assessments "speculative"? Are the "experts" projecting seeding based on what they THINK Auburn's final record might be? Are the various analytical sites different because they look back and not forward?

To what extent do these analyses influence "expert" opinion, and to what extent do polls and "expert" opinion influence selection committee seeding?

 

[Tiger 8,821]

I THINK they project the seed based on if the tournament started today

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,662]

The SOS metric had ours as being around the 9th-10th hardest 

 

Im sure that factored in with our margin of victory (probably bigly inflated at home) may make us look a good bit better than we are 

[ellitor 33,090]

4 hours ago, AURex said:

To what extent are these analytical assessments "speculative"?

They're not. They're a strictly data analysis of resume work completed to the moment. One reason our analytics are so high is due to our Strength of schedule being 24th in the nation & projected to be in the top 20 after the Vols game Saturday. That is better than most teams we are battling with in that important element.

4 hours ago, AURex said:

Are the "experts" projecting seeding based on what they THINK Auburn's final record might be?

There really is no such thing as experts. There are only media talking heads, but most talking heads that do seeding do it on work completed, not projecting forward. In the end the only opinions that matter are the NCAA Selection committee's.

4 hours ago, AURex said:

Are the various analytical sites different because they look back and not forward?

They are different because they are strictly data points & formulas. Talking heads use elements like the "eye test".

4 hours ago, AURex said:

To what extent do these analyses influence "expert" opinion

The data points do have an affect on the talking heads opinions. To what extect depends on each talking head.

4 hours ago, AURex said:

to what extent do polls and "expert" opinion influence selection committee seeding?

None. All the more reason I call them talking heads instead of experts. The committee relies more on Resume & NET more than any polls or opinions.

[ellitor 33,090]

4 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

The SOS metric had ours as being around the 9th-10th hardest 

NCAA had us 24th before the Bama game FWIW.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,662]

9 minutes ago, ellitor said:

NCAA had us 24th before the Bama game FWIW.

I was just going off of what basketball reference had said, my b 

[ellitor 33,090]

Also @AURex a major reason the talking heads have us as a worse seed as of now than the NET, KenPom, or Sagarin would project is because we have a so-so combined road + neutral (7-7) record & a poor Quad 1 record (2-7) compared to a number of teams we are battling. The NCAA committee puts emphasis on those records & most talking heads know it.

[AuburnEagle79 2,165]

I think we are a lock to be a 6-8 seed after last night. We need a good showing against UT and to win at least one SEC tourney game. If that happens I think we wind up at 6, which is not a bad place to be. 

[Mid Atlantic Tiger 150]

Auburn moved up to 15 in the Kenpom after the bammer win

[toddc 13,194]

12 hours ago, AURex said:

The confusing thing to me is that, looking at NET, Auburn would be a 6-seed. Looking at KenPom, Auburn would be a 4-seed. But all the projections by "experts" puts Auburn as an 8-seed. That's a significant difference in first round opponent.

To what extent are these analytical assessments "speculative"? Are the "experts" projecting seeding based on what they THINK Auburn's final record might be? Are the various analytical sites different because they look back and not forward?

To what extent do these analyses influence "expert" opinion, and to what extent do polls and "expert" opinion influence selection committee seeding?

 

This, and I think Washington fell out of that Q1 rankings and that hurt us some. We have two Q1 wins in the last two games so we may move up.

[Tiger 8,821]

We need Washington to win the Pac 12 tourney

[ellitor 33,090]

1 hour ago, Tiger said:

We need Washington to win the Pac 12 tourney

Would be nice but it's not a need given the work we have done recently..

[Tiger 8,821]

12 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Would be nice but it's not a need given the work we have done recently..

True, "need" was poor word choice. But it would be a nice little addition to our resume