Too Soon UL Game Thread?

[Patrick Bateman]

Those metrics don't lie. It isn't so much as a Cincinnati vs Louisville thing, more about where they are in the scheme of college basketball. Efficiency wins out, it is the truth...

If the metrics don't lie, why aren't you a millionaire? You can't lose right

 

[ervins84]

My eyes tell me.... that eye witnesses tend to be unreliable in court cases over really basic things.

Also, how many games of these other teams do we all get to watch? If we're lucky maybe 5. This is another shortfall of EYES! There is only so much we can watch because we have other stuff we have to do.

And of course kpom isn't everything. But its predictive value is better than any one set of eyes on this forum.

Also, if you all are this confident about a team or two (ville=UC), lucky for us there is a way to back it up. The betting market still has Louisville as #1 and UC around 20. Im sure you can find a way to profit off this inefficiency if you use your EYES.

 

[ervins84]

If the metrics don't lie, why aren't you a millionaire? You can't lose right

Ummm herp derp because the betting market mirrors kenpom/sagarin pretty closely and rarely differs by more than a point here or there.

 

[BearcatsHoops]

Also, if you all are this confident about a team or two (ville=UC), lucky for us there is a way to back it up. The betting market still has Louisville as #1 and UC around 20. Im sure you can find a way to profit off this inefficiency if you use your EYES.

That's interesting. Where do you find that info? I'd be curious to look where other teams stand and get a better idea of the spreads. I'll admit, I thought UC would have been favored by a couple on Saturday.

 

[ervins84]

That's interesting. Where do you find that info? I'd be curious to look where other teams stand and get a better idea of the spreads. I'll admit, I thought UC would have been favored by a couple on Saturday.

www.inpredictable.com is the site I use for it, but I'm sure there are others. I can't get the exact link for cbb market rankings to cut/paste on my phone right now for some reason, but I'm sure you can find it quickly on there.

 

[UCBearcats]

My eyes tell me.... that eye witnesses tend to be unreliable in court cases over really basic things.

Also, how many games of these other teams do we all get to watch? If we're lucky maybe 5. This is another shortfall of EYES! There is only so much we can watch because we have other stuff we have to do.

And of course kpom isn't everything. But its predictive value is better than any one set of eyes on this forum.

Also, if you all are this confident about a team or two (ville=UC), lucky for us there is a way to back it up. The betting market still has Louisville as #1 and UC around 20. Im sure you can find a way to profit off this inefficiency if you use your EYES.

And the betting market lost on Louisville on Saturday. I'm sure you can't find a single advanced metric stat to indicate that Syracuse was going to lose to BC last week.

Like I said, metrics have a place but it's a much smaller place than some of you make it out to be. Metrics don't factor in the human element or the emotion of a game itself. Metrics can't tell you if Russ Smith has brass balls the size of watermelons to stand in the face of Titus Rubles and drain a shot with 2 seconds left on the clock.

 

[UCalum08]

I rewatched the ending and I am not throwing Titus Rubles under the bus or anything but he shouldn't have left Smith like he did. He was freaking standing in the middle of the paint and was way too delayed recovering to Smith. I understand he wants to help stop any dribble but you can't lay off Smith like he did.

 

[ervins84]

And the betting market lost on Louisville on Saturday. I'm sure you can't find a single advanced metric stat to indicate that Syracuse was going to lose to BC last week.

Like I said, metrics have a place but it's a much smaller place than some of you make it out to be. Metrics don't factor in the human element or the emotion of a game itself. Metrics can't tell you if Russ Smith has brass balls the size of watermelons to stand in the face of Titus Rubles and drain a shot with 2 seconds left on the clock.

This is so dumb. Pointing out when the betting market is "wrong" after a game is beyond LOL and I shouldn't bother engaging with you on this but I'll try.

1. If u wanted to bet on BC to win, it was about bet 1$ to win 8$. Not bet 1$ to win 1 million the way ESPN made the upset out to be. It wasn't some historic upset. It was a surprise though.

That doesn't in any way mean the market is wrong. If those two teams play again please tell me who should be favored? OBV cuse and obv by a lot.

And in case you didn't know a guy like Russ has missed a ton of those shots too. Prob missed more than made. But If you want to buy into narrative that he made bc his BRASS BALLS then lmfao ok. Where were his brass balls every other game ending situation and critical spot? A guy with BRASS BALLS surely never misses when the games on the line.

Variance and randomness explains way more of the stuff you're referencing than any intangible. Especially when intangible is always applied post hoc instead of in a predictive manner.

 

[UCBearcats]

This is so dumb. Pointing out when the betting market is "wrong" after a game is beyond LOL and I shouldn't bother engaging with you on this but I'll try.

1. If u wanted to bet on BC to win, it was about bet 1$ to win 8$. Not bet 1$ to win 1 million the way ESPN made the upset out to be. It wasn't some historic upset. It was a surprise though.

That doesn't in any way mean the market is wrong. If those two teams play again please tell me who should be favored? OBV cuse and obv by a lot.

And in case you didn't know a guy like Russ has missed a ton of those shots too. Prob missed more than made. But If you want to buy into narrative that he made bc his BRASS BALLS then lmfao ok. Where were his brass balls every other game ending situation and critical spot? A guy with BRASS BALLS surely never misses when the games on the line.

Variance and randomness explains way more of the stuff you're referencing than any intangible. Especially when intangible is always applied post hoc instead of in a predictive manner.

Your overall tone is rather annoying and condescending so I'll just back off because obviously this argument isn't going to go anywhere constructive.

Love your metrics all you want, I'll continue to watch the games for the slight chance that your numbers might be wrong.

 

[ervins84]

Your overall tone is rather annoying and condescending sorts I'll just back off because obviously this argument isn't going to go anywhere constructive.

Love your metrics all you want, I'll continue to watch the games for the slight chance that your numbers might be wrong.

Hop off the high horse and check your tone where you refer to a players' brass balls being analysis and explanatory.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

This is so dumb. Pointing out when the betting market is "wrong" after a game is beyond LOL and I shouldn't bother engaging with you on this but I'll try.

1. If u wanted to bet on BC to win, it was about bet 1$ to win 8$. Not bet 1$ to win 1 million the way ESPN made the upset out to be. It wasn't some historic upset. It was a surprise though.

That doesn't in any way mean the market is wrong. If those two teams play again please tell me who should be favored? OBV cuse and obv by a lot.

And in case you didn't know a guy like Russ has missed a ton of those shots too. Prob missed more than made. But If you want to buy into narrative that he made bc his BRASS BALLS then lmfao ok. Where were his brass balls every other game ending situation and critical spot? A guy with BRASS BALLS surely never misses when the games on the line.

Variance and randomness explains way more of the stuff you're referencing than any intangible. Especially when intangible is always applied post hoc instead of in a predictive manner.

Why would you bet on BC to win when the metrics are never wrong according to NTS? If you did bet on BC, which is against the metrics, you would've won 8:1. BC winning means that the metrics were wrong at that point in time.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

Why would you bet on BC to win when the metrics are never wrong according to NTS? If you did bet on BC, which is against the metrics, you would've won 8:1. BC winning means that the metrics were wrong at that point in time.

Those metrics don't lie. It isn't so much as a Cincinnati vs Louisville thing, more about where they are in the scheme of college basketball. Efficiency wins out, it is the truth...

----------
Learn to read before you make accusations, those metrics are a good way to gauge where a team is IN THE SCHEME of college basketball, not just for one game.

 

[Bearcat22]

Why would you bet on BC to win when the metrics are never wrong according to NTS? If you did bet on BC, which is against the metrics, you would've won 8:1. BC winning means that the metrics were wrong at that point in time.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't approach advanced metrics as an absolute. They can point to which team would be favored to win but randomness and variation, or just good old fashioned sh*t happens, will occur also

Didn't we learn that lesson from the awesome 80's movie Real Genius that you can't live by "all science and no philosophy"

 

[ervins84]

Why would you bet on BC to win when the metrics are never wrong according to NTS? If you did bet on BC, which is against the metrics, you would've won 8:1. BC winning means that the metrics were wrong at that point in time.

8 to 1 favorite does not translate to 100% win probability for a favorite, nor should it. I think it's obv but do u see why?

I'll throw another example. Some degen offers you a prop where you each put up 100$ each hand and you each get same hole cards. You get AA. He gets 66. No rigging and a fair deck. 5 cards dealt out afterwards.

First time through the guy hits a 6 and wins.

That doesn't mean AA wasnt ~80% to win. But in your world it would because AA lost and the odds were "wrong."

 

[ervins84]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't approach advanced metrics as an absolute. They can point to which team would be favored to win but randomness and variation, or just good old fashioned sh*t happens, will occur also

Didn't we learn that lesson from the awesome 80's movie Real Genius that you can't live by "all science and no philosophy"

No one has argued otherwise and I even said virtually the exact same thing wrt to randomness and variance.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't approach advanced metrics as an absolute. They can point to which team would be favored to win but randomness and variation, or just good old fashioned sh*t happens, will occur also

Didn't we learn that lesson from the awesome 80's movie Real Genius that you can't live by "all science and no philosophy"

Never said different. They don't tell the whole story but when the difference is #2 vs #21, I think it is fair to say they are probably a better team...

 

[ervins84]

Never said different. They don't tell the whole story but when the difference is #2 vs #21, I think it is fair to say they are probably a better team...

Sometimes it's scary how much you sound like me. Must be my message board doppelganger.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Those metrics don't lie. It isn't so much as a Cincinnati vs Louisville thing, more about where they are in the scheme of college basketball. Efficiency wins out, it is the truth...

----------
Learn to read before you make accusations, those metrics are a good way to gauge where a team is IN THE SCHEME of college basketball, not just for one game.

You said that they don't lie and in the case of Syracuse vs BC last week, they were wrong.

 

[ervins84]

You said that they don't lie and in the case of Syracuse vs BC last week, they were wrong.

Show your work on how they were wrong? Do you not grasp that kenpom did not have Cuse as 100% to win? What is so hard about that concept?

 

[UCBearcats]

8 to 1 favorite does not translate to 100% win probability for a favorite, nor should it. I think it's obv but do u see why?

I'll throw another example. Some degen offers you a prop where you each put up 100$ each hand and you each get same hole cards. You get AA. He gets 66. No rigging and a fair deck. 5 cards dealt out afterwards.

First time through the guy hits a 6 and wins.

That doesn't mean AA wasnt ~80% to win. But in your world it would because AA lost and the odds were "wrong."

Here's the problem with your example. There's no human element to a deck of cards. The same can't be said for sports.