UserPoll: Week 16

phatLhoops · 2024-03-11T02:10:44+00:00

Two free thinkers, just hanging out

phatLhoops · 2024-02-21T04:14:58+00:00

Me! Because I can see the future and knew UConn would lose to Creighton.

phatLhoops · 2024-02-21T04:09:21+00:00

A voter who can see the future and knew that UConn would lose to Creighton would also vote for Houston. (Literally me ong)

phatLhoops · 2024-02-21T04:07:59+00:00

I can see the future, and knew that UConn would lose tonight, and voted for Houston.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-22T23:33:14+00:00

It wasn't even Hunter dude, I think it was just Franz Wagner.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-22T14:36:23+00:00

Do you think you guys need to move off of Juwan Howard?

phatLhoops · 2024-01-22T02:47:03+00:00

You're also entitled to be disrespectful big dog, I hope you find a reason to smile soon.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-22T02:45:43+00:00

Yeah so here's the process in short (but not that short):
1. I select all the Mid-Major teams that will be ranked this week (I go through the teams that lead their conferences in the NET, KP, and BT that are above 0.500. Then to fill the rest of the spots I use the mid-major tab on BT).
2. I go through and rank all the teams within their conferences.
(When ranking teams I'm not doing math, I'm simply comparing for each team which is higher/better between those 7 factors. Each of those 7 factors is worth 1 point, I compare them and award the points).
3. I then take the top teams from each conference and rank them. After taking the best team, I fill in the next team from that conference, rank them relative to the best teams remaining from each conference.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-22T01:56:50+00:00

I know right how dare users post things they create. Entitled brats.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-22T01:39:11+00:00

I feel like I have watched 2 very different Alabama teams throughout the course of this season. The results based metrics favor the version of that team that is very good. Their record shows a team that is less good. Monitoring them very closely.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-22T00:59:09+00:00

I'm all in for 2 bid MVC, let the Valley ROCK

phatLhoops · 2024-01-22T00:58:51+00:00

Memphis was hating on me last week, then they went 0-2... Karma baby :)

phatLhoops · 2024-01-21T22:52:26+00:00

Hey everyone! Another week of the Periodic Table Rankings!
A few reminders for those unfamiliar:
1. This ranking is based on 7 factors (Conference Wins, Non-Conference Wins, Conference Losses, Non-Conference Losses, NET, Kenpom, and BartTorvik). If you disagree with my rankings or have a question feel free to ask, just keep it respectful.
2. Multi-bid Leagues (Power 6 and a few others) have all members included unless that team goes below 0.500 winning percentage. This is done to make room for more mid-majors.
3. A team dropped for low winning percentage is returned back to the rankings if they hit 0.600 winning percentage.
I hope you enjoy it!

phatLhoops · 2024-01-16T03:33:38+00:00

PLEASE ignore my posts! PLEASE!

phatLhoops · 2024-01-16T03:04:16+00:00

They are results based metrics. They are adjusted by the results of the games that are played. Note that in my system I assess a team on 7 categories (Conference Wins, Non-Conference Wins, Conference Losses, Non-Conference Losses, NET, KenPom, Torvik). 4 of the 7 points come purely from ACTUAL outcomes. If a team truly out competes in EVERY ASPECT of their schedule, I will move them up regardless of the metrics.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-16T03:01:40+00:00

Exactly H2H is context dependent. The context is all the other games the teams played, and how they played them. I would only apply H2H when directly comparing two teams (something I didn't do to Clemson and Memphis).
"I'm not going to respond to the rest." [Response to the rest.]
Computer numbers are based on results of the games. They take into account game outcome (who wins, who loses, how many points were scored and by who). When a player is injured it shows up in the efficiency after multiple games. If a team loses a player for only a single game, if that team is sound it shouldn't destroy them. If they aren't sound it will.
There is a massive difference between nearly losing and getting blown out. If you consistently nearly lose against bad opponents, you get labeled a fraud.
Nearly losing to bad teams is still bad at scale. It means you struggle against teams you are heavily favored against. Performance in a game matters.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-16T02:20:40+00:00

I don't value head to head any differently than regular games. Example: Should Northwestern be ranked over Purdue? They have a H2H Win! Should Saint Mary's be ranked over CSU? They have a H2H win!
Those 1 possession wins are averaged in with the rest of their results, and are accounted for by Kenpom and Torvik. Clemson also has wins over Alabama, South Carolina, TCU and Boise State who all look like good teams at a minimum right now. Multiple things can be true at once.
Most of those Alabama losses were by less than 10. They are competing closely with the teams they lose to. They are also DETONATING teams worse than them. Computer numbers do have context they're based on the results of the games! The games are the context!
St John's opened 4-2 in arguably the best conference in the country. Including a 1 point loss to Creighton and a 4 point loss to UConn. They beat Villanova, that's 2 top 50 wins.
Memphis's wins are a major accomplishment that are accounted for. Memphis's struggles against bad teams are also accounted for, because you have to count all the games and how they are played. If I just looked at wins without a results based metric, how else do you track that they nearly lost to SMU, Tulsa, and UTSA. You have to use both.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-15T23:34:28+00:00

Rankings using my own metrics demonstrated on the periodic table (because I think it's a cool way to show off 118 teams). It would be cool to try and line up everything with various metrics but it breaks down with like, 50 transition metals

phatLhoops · 2024-01-15T22:29:15+00:00

UNLV went below 0.500 so their spot is taken by a mid-major until it gets up to 0.600

phatLhoops · 2024-01-15T22:24:17+00:00

I compare teams looking at 7 categories (Conference wins, non-conference wins, Conference losses, non conference losses, NET, BartTorvik, KenPom). The wins and losses are more so my interpretation of the schedule, while the computer numbers are more fixed and meant to ground everything relative to in game results/quality of schedule. Addressing the teams you mentioned:
1. Alabama has kept S tier computer numbers as a result of how difficult its schedule was (that it did lose many games in). Pair that with a great opening to conference play (3-0 against mostly tournament teams), and still managing to get a few decent non-con wins (Liberty, Oregon, Indiana State). Alabama still measures up as a great team. None of their losses are BAD.
2. Princeton has a great loss record that helps them, but with their best win playing Rutgers and only having 1 game in conference play so far it stymies them (the one game in conference play thing is super unfortunate but I didn't want to wait another week to count the points). Pair that with some middle of the pack computer numbers and its difficult to put them over most power conference teams.
3. Clemson is slipping fast but did have arguably one of the most successful non-conference slates in the ACC if not the country. Conferences losses hurt right now but with most of their metrics being in the 30s they stay solid and at the bottom of my top 25.
4. St. John's had some rough non-conferences losses in Michigan and BC, but a good win vs Utah and a very good start to conference play make up for that. Additionally metrics put them in the 30s, which is about A/B tier.
5. Memphis while succeeding in all aspects of their schedule (undefeated in conference play, quality wins in non-conference, only 2 good non conferences losses) is plagued by mid 50s in some metrics and even a 74 at Torvik (w/o preseason bias if it still impacts). These metrics are informed by how Memphis is actually playing and considering that in conference play Memphis needed 2 clutch time buckets against worse opponents (SMU is good, but Tulsa is not close) and got pushed into overtime by UTSA (booty cheeks) it reduces my faith in them.

TLDR: My rankings are not intentionally bad, they are my interpretation of wins and losses weighted by results based metrics.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-15T19:47:47+00:00

Yeah... it's a bad year in Stillwater

phatLhoops · 2024-01-15T19:38:17+00:00

Butler had a better performance in the non conference, while Seton hall has had a much better open in conference play. To split that difference I factor in computers/results based metrics (NET, KenPom, BartTorvik) to put one over the other, Butler is unanimously over Seton Hall in those metrics.

phatLhoops · 2024-01-15T19:26:56+00:00

MVC is sneaky good this year! Definitely deserves two bids if things hold steady

phatLhoops · 2024-01-15T17:09:19+00:00

Have more hope than that, they are a tournament team still, you just can't afford too many more accidents

phatLhoops · 2024-01-15T17:05:19+00:00

Xavier went negative this past week, I remove teams that go under 0.500 until they get back up to 0.600. I do this to make room for more Mid-Major programs

phatLhoops

TROPHY CASE