Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2017 6:50:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2017 7:11:31 GMT -6
From their composite ranking page with all teams, they have BSU top team in the MAC. WMU and BUFF all grouped closely together. So they seem to agree with our seat of the pants analysis.
On the page you linked for individual games, I count more than 18 BSU wins, 11 conference wins, but they predict projected record with 18 wins overall, 11-7 in conference? So I am not sure how they do that.
In any case lots of close games, which could mean the projected totals even out where they are in error, but also leaves a lot of variation possible.
They do not see OR, ND or OK as close games at all. Although I agree, as I recall you had some thoughts we'd be competitive with OR and OK. Can you tell what is the reason they have for so much difference? I assume their methodology is based on some kind of projection from past individual performance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2017 7:32:00 GMT -6
From their composite ranking page with all teams, they have BSU top team in the MAC. WMU and BUFF all grouped closely together. So they seem to agree with our seat of the pants analysis. On the page you linked for individual games, I count more than 18 BSU wins, 11 conference wins, but they predict projected record with 18 wins overall, 11-7 in conference? So I am not sure how they do that. In any case lots of close games, which could mean the projected totals even out where they are in error, but also leaves a lot of variation possible. They do not see OR, ND or OK as close games at all. Although I agree, as I recall you had some thoughts we'd be competitive with OR and OK. Can you tell what is the reason they have for so much difference? I assume their methodology is based on some kind of projection from past individual performance. It's just a power ranking based on projected sos and efficiency and pace numbers. I agree some of it is little wonky, especially the MAC projections. Look at it this way, if we are 11-7 in the MAC then we aren't very good and the #129 projected RPI is not going to happen. Both Oklahoma and Oregon are borderline tourney teams this season, if we get blown out in those games then we aren't even close to being where some here believe we are.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2017 7:36:14 GMT -6
In the projected contributors analysis, they seem to underestimate what Teague will be contribute, and overestimate what Walker will do, based on minutes played. And to me, Seller seems likely to get more minutes and also Mallers, Gunn will have more PT than they seem to project.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2017 7:39:01 GMT -6
From their composite ranking page with all teams, they have BSU top team in the MAC. WMU and BUFF all grouped closely together. So they seem to agree with our seat of the pants analysis. On the page you linked for individual games, I count more than 18 BSU wins, 11 conference wins, but they predict projected record with 18 wins overall, 11-7 in conference? So I am not sure how they do that. In any case lots of close games, which could mean the projected totals even out where they are in error, but also leaves a lot of variation possible. They do not see OR, ND or OK as close games at all. Although I agree, as I recall you had some thoughts we'd be competitive with OR and OK. Can you tell what is the reason they have for so much difference? I assume their methodology is based on some kind of projection from past individual performance. It's just a power ranking based on projected sos and efficiency and pace numbers. I agree some of it is little wonky, especially the MAC projections. Look at it this way, if we are 11-7 in the MAC then we aren't very good and the #129 projected RPI is not going to happen. Both Oklahoma and Oregon are borderline tourney teams this season, if we get blown out in those games then we aren't even close to being where some here believe we are. Description of Torvik mehodology from 2015 blogI would say most here think the 129 is pretty accurate, and the T-rank finds the games not being close are consistent with that. I'd argue we may start even slower than this projection calls for, because of the injury to Trey, but be in that 100-130 range by end of the MAC season, and that will be strong in the MAC this year. But that will be playing strength, any early losses will be incorrectly factored into the power rankings and especially RPI. How we do in the MAC tourney is mostly beyond the pale to predict, so I discount Kid's predictions on the tourney, not so much his ideas how strong we could be. This I am sure is also true for other college teams where performance varies over the season. Not many of these ranking schemes have discovered any way to measure and weight that kind of factor. And, most important for a MAC team, the hot hand at the season's end is not a random variable exactly, there are reasons for it, but very hard to capture in the stats. Jeff Sagarin and Torvik and other wonks argue about it, and it's why fans can find so much to argue about, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 28, 2017 7:42:49 GMT -6
11-7 in the MAC would be a bit of a letdown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2017 7:44:56 GMT -6
In the projected contributors analysis, they seem to underestimate what Teague will be contribute, and overestimate what Walker will do, based on minutes played. And to me, Seller seems likely to get more minutes and also Mallers, Gunn will have more PT than they seem to project. Yeah the usage ( projected minutes per game) are way off. There is no way a healthy Moses only plays 20, and I doubt Gunn averages 16. I not sure why some of you believe Teague is suddenly going to become a breakout star this season. We would have seen more from him last year. I would be more inclined to think Moses will put up much better numbers. Why would you think Gunn is going to play big minutes. He couldn't guard anyone in High School.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 28, 2017 7:47:10 GMT -6
I think trey will do big stuff once he’s healthy. His best friend and his last words to him are in his heart and he intends to play for him. (Double edged sword on nights trey is mentally/emotionally down)
|
|
|
Post by rgmillikan on Oct 28, 2017 8:07:02 GMT -6
Interesting projection. I don't think it's unreasonable, our nonconf SOS is more difficult than the last 2 seasons and BSU has often played better vs MAC West than the rest of the schedule. Hopefully the team could get to say 12-6 in MAC. I do have cautious optimism, but being that the Cards haven't been to the Dance since I was a freshman in 2001, plus I remember the meltdown in BTs fifth year when I was maybe overly optimistic it is guarded optimism. These next 2 years IMO are very important.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 28, 2017 8:13:40 GMT -6
Exactly.
12-6 is the minimum leap up I’d like to see. If we are as great as Kid says then anything less than that is same ol same ol and underachieving.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2017 8:32:28 GMT -6
In the projected contributors analysis, they seem to underestimate what Teague will be contribute, and overestimate what Walker will do, based on minutes played. And to me, Seller seems likely to get more minutes and also Mallers, Gunn will have more PT than they seem to project. Yeah the usage ( projected minutes per game) are way off. There is no way a healthy Moses only plays 20, and I doubt Gunn averages 16. I not sure why some of you believe Teague is suddenly going to become a breakout star this season. We would have seen more from him last year. I would be more inclined to think Moses will put up much better numbers. Why would you think Gunn is going to play big minutes. He couldn't guard anyone in High School. The best outcome is for Trey to be a workhorse and play a bigger role. Most likely is that Trey plays perhaps 25+minutes, and Teague 25+ minutes. Sellers moves to be a starter, maybe plays 25+. That is about 45 minutes we need to fill with some combination of Gunn, Mallers and perhaps a 3G lineup when Sellers is out. Could be that 3G is the way to go, if everyone firing on all cylinders. But. I think the days we get Teague or Moses in foul trouble means more of those minutes go to Gunn and Mallers. Gunn is bigger and stronger than I expected, the coaches like what he is doing in practice. He actually did have some good games guarding bigger HS players, like most HS stars his coach did not want him playing aggressive defense, he was a scorer. He will play hard, get minutes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 19:47:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by frozenbaugh on Dec 6, 2017 20:00:01 GMT -6
Don't want to get too ahead of ourselves I would be extremely happy at 12-6. You have road games that are never easy with Kent, Akron, Ohio, Western and even Toledo. And that allows for a hiccup or two at home. Two wins for every loss is pretty good.
The best record in the MAC in the last few years is 14-4. I think Akron did twice. Toledo and WMU also did.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Dec 6, 2017 20:19:34 GMT -6
I’m not sure I’ve ever said great but we are on the same page...11-7 in conference is underperforming and I expect no less than 12-6 possibly 13-5
I will say I hear a bit more optimism in everyone’s posts! And that’s great to see
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Dec 8, 2017 15:24:24 GMT -6
Winng
|
|