Georgetown - Butler 2/9/19 Gray Out Shirt Discussion

[FrazierFanatic]

Another 2 game winning streak? Let's go above .500 in conference. With more to come.

Hoya Saxa.

[DanMcQ]

I will be there with 10 other class of 81 friends to watch the Hoyas keep pushing up in the BE standings.

[bigelephant]

KenPom has us 79 this AM

NCAA NET rankings also 79 - down from 82. We are going in the right direction.

[jwp91]

KenPom has Butler ranked #55. We are 54% favored to win with a forecasted margin of victory of 1 point. KenPom needs to re-examine his model.

[SSHoya]

Feb 7, 2019 5:49:57 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

I will be there with 10 other class of 81 friends to watch the Hoyas keeppushing up in the BE standings.

Classes of '76, '77, and '78 taking over the Irish Channel for postgame festivities. All are welcome.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Feb 7, 2019 7:37:54 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

KenPom has Butler ranked #55. We are 54% favored to win with a forecasted margin of victory of 1 point. KenPom needs to re-examine his model.

You are forgetting that KenPom accounts for home court advantage. That’s why, even though Butler is ranked higher than us, we are a slight favorite. If the same game was being played on a neutral court, KenPom’s model would give Butler a slight edge.

[jwp91]

Feb 7, 2019 7:58:50 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Feb 7, 2019 7:37:54 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

KenPom has Butler ranked #55. We are 54% favored to win with a forecasted margin of victory of 1 point. KenPom needs to re-examine his model.

You are forgetting that KenPom accounts for home court advantage. That’s why, even though Butler is ranked higher than us, we are a slight favorite. If the same game was being played on a neutral court, KenPom’s model would give Butler a slight edge.

You missed my point. Our recent form is far better that Butler’s. Yet we are 1 point favorite at home.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Feb 7, 2019 8:01:43 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Feb 7, 2019 7:58:50 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

You are forgetting that KenPom accounts for home court advantage. That’s why, even though Butler is ranked higher than us, we are a slight favorite. If the same game was being played on a neutral court, KenPom’s model would give Butler a slight edge.

You missed my point. Our recent form is far better that Butler’s. Yet we are 1 point favorite at home.

Those odds sound about right to me. Are we playing better than our ranking? Perhaps and if so, maybe KenPom does underestimate our odds. But Butler’s overall efficiency stats are better than ours, which is why they are ranked higher. My guess is the Las Vegas oddsmakers will put the line close to where KenPom’s prediction is, as well.

I do think we’ve been playing better the last few games, but it’s only a few games. Could it be a trend? Absolutely. Or it could just be a few good wins. Hopefully the former! But from a handicapping perspective I think the game is pretty close to 50/50.

[jwp91]

Feb 7, 2019 8:08:51 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Feb 7, 2019 8:01:43 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

You missed my point. Our recent form is far better that Butler’s. Yet we are 1 point favorite at home.

Those odds sound about right to me. Are we playing better than our ranking? Perhaps and if so, maybe KenPom does underestimate our odds. But Butler’s overall efficiency stats are better than ours, which is why they are ranked higher. My guess is the Las Vegas oddsmakers will put the line close to where KenPom’s prediction is, as well.

I do think we’ve been playing better the last few games, but it’s only a few games. Could it be a trend? Absolutely. Or it could just be a few good wins. Hopefully the former! But from a handicapping perspective I think the game is pretty close to 50/50.

Just so we are on the same page, this is a Butler team that has won fewer games than Georgetown, lost more games than Georgetown, lost head to head vs. Georgetown at home and sits at 4-6 in the conference.

If your model shows Butler as 24 places higher than Georgetown, I start losing trust in your model.

[ColumbiaHeightsHoya]

Gotta get this sweep. We beat them on their court without Mac & Trey. Things are clicking. Get this one and then I expect a tight game at Seton Hall.

[jwp91]

Maybe Malinowski will channel his Hinkle version of himself.

[daveg023]

Feb 7, 2019 8:01:43 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Feb 7, 2019 7:58:50 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

You are forgetting that KenPom accounts for home court advantage. That’s why, even though Butler is ranked higher than us, we are a slight favorite. If the same game was being played on a neutral court, KenPom’s model would give Butler a slight edge.

You missed my point. Our recent form is far better that Butler’s. Yet we are 1 point favorite at home.

I don’t get how Butler is ranked so high. They have one win against Florida (who then blew them out the second time). To me our win at St Johns is a better win. The rest of their OOC schedule is very comparable to ours.

I keep harping on this, but those games against UMES, CCSU, AR LR, App St, etc are killing us not from a SoS perspective, but an efficiency one as we should have beaten those teams by much more (UMES especially as they are ranked #353).

The more I dive into these ratings and see Butler and even even 8-15 Illinois ahead of us, the more flawed they seem. I really hope the committee uses an eye test more so this year as they phase in this new NET ranking, as by that measure there’s no way you’d put Butler ahead of us currently in any way.

[aleutianhoya]

Feb 7, 2019 10:23:22 GMT -5 daveg023 said:

Feb 7, 2019 8:01:43 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

You missed my point. Our recent form is far better that Butler’s. Yet we are 1 point favorite at home.

I don’t get how Butler is ranked so high. They have one win against Florida (who then blew them out the second time). To me our win at St Johns is a better win. The rest of their OOC schedule is very comparable to ours.

I keep harping on this, but those games against UMES, CCSU, AR LR, App St, etc are killing us not from a SoS perspective, but an efficiency one as we should have beaten those teams by much more (UMES especially as they are ranked #353).

The more I dive into these ratings and see Butler and even even 8-15 Illinois ahead of us, the more flawed they seem. I really hope the committee uses an eye test more so this year as they phase in this new NET ranking, as by that measure there’s no way you’d put Butler ahead of us currently in any way.

But you point out the very way they aren't flawed. Beating really bad teams by small amounts (and let's be honest....it wasn't like we coasted to victories that became closer when the subs went in...those scores pretty accurately reflect the games) is absolutely a valid way to reflect relative strength.

Are we better now? Sure seems that way. And if history is any guide, the Committee would take that into account. But the NET rankings Pomeroy purposefully don't do that.

That doesn't mean the NET is NOT flawed. It seems to be flawed....but not for that reason.

Importantly, Pomeroy DOES take recency into account. Our better recent performances count more than our early poorer ones. Butler began conference play way ahead of us though, so we have a lot of ground to make up.

[sleepy]

Feb 7, 2019 10:23:22 GMT -5 daveg023 said:

Feb 7, 2019 8:01:43 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

You missed my point. Our recent form is far better that Butler’s. Yet we are 1 point favorite at home.

I don’t get how Butler is ranked so high. They have one win against Florida (who then blew them out the second time). To me our win at St Johns is a better win. The rest of their OOC schedule is very comparable to ours.

I keep harping on this, but those games against UMES, CCSU, AR LR, App St, etc are killing us not from a SoS perspective, but an efficiency one as we should have beaten those teams by much more (UMES especially as they are ranked #353).

The more I dive into these ratings and see Butler and even even 8-15 Illinois ahead of us, the more flawed they seem. I really hope the committee uses an eye test more so this year as they phase in this new NET ranking, as by that measure there’s no way you’d put Butler ahead of us currently in any way.

The rankings by the analytic systems are always really flawed and aren't accurate measures of which teams are better. Good data points for sure in seeing the whole pictures, but in the last 10 years fans and analysts have inflated their importance in terms of ranking and valuing teams. They are much better imo, after the season to analyze a teams year overall, not so good at telling you who the best teams are right now.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Feb 7, 2019 9:54:04 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Just so we are on the same page, this is a Butler team that has won fewer games than Georgetown, lost more games than Georgetown, lost head to head vs. Georgetown at home and sits at 4-6 in the conference.

If your model shows Butler as 24 places higher than Georgetown, I start losing trust in your model.

Wins and losses do not mean anything directly to the KenPom rankings, but rather, they are based on the underlying efficiency and stats.

There is a site (Massey Ratings) that, each week, aggregates a variety of different rankings for all teams. Without listing the specific models for ease, here are Butler's ratings among the first 20 models listed (there are more), as of Sunday, February 3, 2019 (so doesn't include results since then): 57, 58, 58, 55, 67, 62, 56, 51, 55, 65, 56, 62, 57, 60, 55, 54, 59, 66, 44, 49.

And here are Georgetown's first 20: 71, 65, 68, 77, 84, 69, 72, 68, 82, 67, 87, 86, 61, 67, 79, 78, 61, 79, 71, 93.

So of these 20 models - all of which rank the teams in different ways and using different methods - Butler is ranked higher than Georgetown in every single one. (By the way, among those above are NET, KenPom, and Sagarin.) My point is that if 20 different models are ranking Butler ahead of Georgetown there has to be something to it.

There are multiple factors explaining this:

- As others said, Georgetown's underwhelming wins against some very bad teams hurt it in the rankings (which is different from strength of schedule).
- Butler has some decent wins - using KenPom rankings, they have beat Florida (37), Mississippi (46), St. John's (47), Creighton (49).
- Georgetown's best wins are: St. John's (47), Butler (55), Liberty (61), Illinois (71).
- Butler has two sub-100 losses (St. Louis (118) and Xavier (102)), to Georgetown's three (Loyola Marymount (139), SMU (114), and Xavier (102).

I admit that based purely on wins and losses, the teams probably look more similar to one another than in rankings. That said, after last night, Georgetown is ranked 79 on KenPom, and Butler 55. If Georgetown convincingly beats Butler, we very well could have a situation where they're much closer ranked after the game.

I think people put too much stock in the ranking number, too. If you look at the underlying ranking stats, it is more telling, and shows how tightly packed the teams in the 25-75 range are. For example, these are the Adjusted Efficiencies of the teams that are ranked #1, #25, #50:

#1: 36.07
#25: 18.42
#50: 12.72
#75: 9.35

In other words, in terms of performance, there is a way bigger difference between #1 and #25, than there is between #25 and #50. So Butler being ahead of Georgetown on KenPom by 24 spots really isn't as drastic a difference as it seems.

[sleepy]

Feb 7, 2019 10:47:20 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

Feb 7, 2019 10:23:22 GMT -5 daveg023 said:

I don’t get how Butler is ranked so high. They have one win against Florida (who then blew them out the second time). To me our win at St Johns is a better win. The rest of their OOC schedule is very comparable to ours.

I keep harping on this, but those games against UMES, CCSU, AR LR, App St, etc are killing us not from a SoS perspective, but an efficiency one as we should have beaten those teams by much more (UMES especially as they are ranked #353).

The more I dive into these ratings and see Butler and even even 8-15 Illinois ahead of us, the more flawed they seem. I really hope the committee uses an eye test more so this year as they phase in this new NET ranking, as by that measure there’s no way you’d put Butler ahead of us currently in any way.

But you point out the very way they aren't flawed. Beating really bad teams by small amounts (and let's be honest....it wasn't like we coasted to victories that became closer when the subs went in...those scores pretty accurately reflect the games) is absolutely a valid way to reflect relative strength.

Are we better now? Sure seems that way. And if history is any guide, the Committee would take that into account. But the NET rankings Pomeroy purposefully don't do that.

That doesn't mean the NET is NOT flawed. It seems to be flawed....but not for that reason.

Importantly, Pomeroy DOES take recency into account. Our better recent performances count more than our early poorer ones. Butler began conference play way ahead of us though, so we have a lot of ground to make up.

Didn't we have the discussion already, Pomeroy doesn't take recency into account from reports. Is there a reason to think it does?

Either way, I don't totally by that margin of victory is a good way to reflect relative strength. There are a lot of factors, especially early in the season, that influence that final margin of victory that don't adequately reflect the difference of two teams. It shouldn't be totally disregarded, but as it seems like there is too much emphasis on that going into these analytic models to give an accurate picture. At the end of the day, the point of the game is to score one more point than your opponent, no matter how you go about doing it. I also think these models used to severely overrate III teams because of how they value certain metrics over others.

For example:

2017 (III's last year) 69 (14-18)

2016 62 (15-18)

2015 22 (22-11)

2014 57 (18-15)


Our ranking was severely inflated in those years because III's teams played well to how these systems run numbers. They don't place enough value on the actual ability to win games.

[sleepy]

Feb 7, 2019 11:29:06 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Feb 7, 2019 9:54:04 GMT -5 jwp91 said:

Just so we are on the same page, this is a Butler team that has won fewer games than Georgetown, lost more games than Georgetown, lost head to head vs. Georgetown at home and sits at 4-6 in the conference.

If your model shows Butler as 24 places higher than Georgetown, I start losing trust in your model.

Wins and losses do not mean anything directly to the KenPom rankings, but rather, they are based on the underlying efficiency and stats.

There is a site (Massey Ratings) that, each week, aggregates a variety of different rankings for all teams. Without listing the specific models for ease, here are Butler's ratings among the first 20 models listed (there are more), as of Sunday, February 3, 2019 (so doesn't include results since then): 57, 58, 58, 55, 67, 62, 56, 51, 55, 65, 56, 62, 57, 60, 55, 54, 59, 66, 44, 49.

And here are Georgetown's first 20: 71, 65, 68, 77, 84, 69, 72, 68, 82, 67, 87, 86, 61, 67, 79, 78, 61, 79, 71, 93.

So of these 20 models - all of which rank the teams in different ways and using different methods - Butler is ranked higher than Georgetown in every single one. (By the way, among those above are NET, KenPom, and Sagarin.) My point is that if 20 different models are ranking Butler ahead of Georgetown there has to be something to it.

There are multiple factors explaining this:

- As others said, Georgetown's underwhelming wins against some very bad teams hurt it in the rankings (which is different from strength of schedule).
- Butler has some decent wins - using KenPom rankings, they have beat Florida (37), Mississippi (46), St. John's (47), Creighton (49).
- Georgetown's best wins are: St. John's (47), Butler (55), Liberty (61), Illinois (71).
- Butler has two sub-100 losses (St. Louis (118) and Xavier (102)), to Georgetown's three (Loyola Marymount (139), SMU (114), and Xavier (102).

I admit that based purely on wins and losses, the teams probably look more similar to one another than in rankings. That said, after last night, Georgetown is ranked 79 on KenPom, and Butler 55. If Georgetown convincingly beats Butler, we very well could have a situation where they're much closer ranked after the game.

I think people put too much stock in the ranking number, too. If you look at the underlying ranking stats, it is more telling, and shows how tightly packed the teams in the 25-75 range are. For example, these are the Adjusted Efficiencies of the teams that are ranked #1, #25, #50:

#1: 36.07
#25: 18.42
#50: 12.72
#75: 9.35

In other words, in terms of performance, there is a way bigger difference between #1 and #25, than there is between #25 and #50. So Butler being ahead of Georgetown on KenPom by 24 spots really isn't as drastic a difference as it seems.

That is a a major flaw in a system when the main goal of a single game is to win. Not win by 5/10/15/20. One point. If you don't take that into account, your analysis of teams is always going to be flawed.


When we beat Butler on Saturday, we will still be behind them on KenPom. There are very very few reasons a team who beats another team twice in one season should be behind that team in any ranking system.

[daveg023]

Feb 7, 2019 10:47:23 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Feb 7, 2019 10:23:22 GMT -5 daveg023 said:

I don’t get how Butler is ranked so high. They have one win against Florida (who then blew them out the second time). To me our win at St Johns is a better win. The rest of their OOC schedule is very comparable to ours.

I keep harping on this, but those games against UMES, CCSU, AR LR, App St, etc are killing us not from a SoS perspective, but an efficiency one as we should have beaten those teams by much more (UMES especially as they are ranked #353).

The more I dive into these ratings and see Butler and even even 8-15 Illinois ahead of us, the more flawed they seem. I really hope the committee uses an eye test more so this year as they phase in this new NET ranking, as by that measure there’s no way you’d put Butler ahead of us currently in any way.

The rankings by the analytic systems are always really flawed and aren't accurate measures of which teams are better. Good data points for sure in seeing the whole pictures, but in the last 10 years fans and analysts have inflated their importance in terms of ranking and valuing teams. They are much better imo, after the season to analyze a teams year overall, not so good at telling you who the best teams are right now.

To me beating a 200 or below team by 10 or 30 shouldn’t really matter. Also, these models are way too kind to teams who lose while playing a tough schedule (it was something JTIII ironically mastered). Essentially we’d have been better off losing by 25 to Duke, Kansas, and Mich St in the preseason as opposed to beating Richmond, Campbell, or App St.

There should be some middle ground, and I think next year’s schedule is getting closer to that, but unfortunately for this year we really need to win virtually every game but one or two left to make up for this.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Feb 7, 2019 11:34:36 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Didn't we have the discussion already, Pomeroy doesn't take recency into account from reports. Is there a reason to think it does?

Either way, I don't totally by that margin of victory is a good way to reflect relative strength. There are a lot of factors, especially early in the season, that influence that final margin of victory that don't adequately reflect the difference of two teams. It shouldn't be totally disregarded, but as it seems like there is too much emphasis on that going into these analytic models to give an accurate picture. At the end of the day, the point of the game is to score one more point than your opponent, no matter how you go about doing it. I also think these models used to severely overrate III teams because of how they value certain metrics over others.

For example:

2017 (III's last year) 69 (14-18)

2016 62 (15-18)

2015 22 (22-11)

2014 57 (18-15)


Our ranking was severely inflated in those years because III's teams played well to how these systems run numbers. They don't place enough value on the actual ability to win games.

You are right. KenPom does not take recency into account. At the beginning of the season, he builds in predictive effects based on the previous year, but by conference season, that is no longer a factor. But I think you keyed in on the item in bold above. Models like KenPom are based on offensive and defensive efficiency, and that's how they determine who they predict will score at least one more point than the other team. Clearly, the models aren't perfect (and I don't think Ken Pomeroy or the author of any other model would argue with that), fluid, and subject to a variety of factors.

The value of these models is analyzing a large set of data over time. For example, you point to the JT3 teams, and say you think KenPom overrated them. Maybe. But, what KenPom does provide is a basis for comparing the same sets of data over a long period of time. For example, JT3's poor teams of 2014, 2015, and 2017 were ranked better than last year's team. Those teams were more efficient. How that translates to wins and losses is another matter, of course, and depends on things like strength of schedule, luck, etc.

I also agree with your statement that these models are best used at the end of the season with full amounts of data. Keep in mind predictive models are just that. If Georgetown has a 55% chance to win against Butler, that doesn't mean we "should" win. It just means that the model predicts that if the game was played 100 times, Georgetown would win 55 times, Butler 45. But, the games are just played once.

That's why, when results happen that contradict the models, it doesn't necessarily mean the models are wrong. It's just a reflection that the models are just that - estimates and predictions - and not a prediction of one specific outcome.

[daveg023]

My bigger problem with the model is that I think it puts too much weight on OOC as once you get into conference the strength of your wins and losses are limited to how good your conference is. It’s almost a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Last year when the BE had a strong OOC season, all the teams came into conference with great RPIs and therefore all future wins were “good” wins while losses remained “good” losses. Most teams stayed in the Top 40 as a result.

This year the conference was not nearly as strong early on and the rankings starting January showed that. As a result it’s really hard to move up when the teams you are playing are at a certain level and then everyone just beats up on each other, with rankings converging to the mean.

Look at the Big 12 this year, last I looked 8/10 teams were considered “in” because the relative rankings were strong and therefore every game virtually becomes a quality game.

I get the OOC sets the foundation for relative strength, but it seems as a result once a conference is deemed good in January it stays that way because there’s no more comparison point for the teams in the conference to get recalibrated.