Toggle sidebar

NET falls to 80

LeapinLou

LeapinLou

All-American
Jul 24, 2001
13,183
6,877
113
zappaa said:
The negatives margin of victory and defeat bring into play make the people who seriously use this metric to determine an invite to the tournament anti-sportsmanship and disgraceful.
I’m sure I don’t have to get into what those margins mean in regard to leaving your starters in, not using your bench and purposely embarrassing opponents.
Click to expand...
If you look at the teams with a "good" NET because they have a bunch of lopsided wins instead of quality wins, its pretty obvious the algorithm needs to be tweeked to de-emphasize it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scangg, Phi_1055, goru7 and 1 other person
B

BillyC80

Heisman
Oct 23, 2006
17,114
15,545
72
Greene Rice FIG said:
Not many games were played on Sunday. Everyone played in Saturday

If there is a combo of win percentage and efficiency you probably have your answer in a world with no external forces.
Click to expand...
Not understanding the Saturday/Sunday thing.

I doubt any teams near us NET-wise, even if they won their last game and moved up in the NET, would have played better against Purdue than we did.
 
S

Shell21

Heisman
Mar 23, 2004
35,279
24,889
113
BillyC80 said:
I wonder how many teams around us that moved up in NET would have done better against Purdue. I’m guessing none, but your point is well taken.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. How many teams are going against the highest efficiency offense in the country or top ten ones like Iowa game after game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scangg and BillyC80
P

PSAL_Hoops

Heisman
Feb 18, 2008
13,375
12,677
78
Greene Rice FIG said:
I have zero problem if it is only used to gauge strength of schedule. When it comes to evaluation of one's resume it should be binary. You either get a 0 or a 1 in the win column. What the score was should be eliminated from conversation.
Click to expand...
100%. The way NET works justifies Howard’s decision to press with 1 minute to go. Makes you question Wisconsin’s decision to unload its bench. Shouldn’t be that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biker7766, RUChoppin and Phi_1055
F

fluoxetine

Heisman
Nov 11, 2012
23,529
16,898
0
Greene Rice FIG said:
I am a huge believer that WAB is the best metric I know of. How much better or worse are your with your schedule with the team square on bubble.

Now it is a measure that will downplay Q1 and Q4 games relative to what our fans want to see.

if NY Knicks are 47-35
And NJ Nets are 46-36 we don’t check and look at Q1 records. The Knicks are ahead. WAB tries to standardize the schedule each team plays
Click to expand...
I am 100% against this parsing which teams on your schedule you beat thing.

The hypothetical version of us that beat Maryland at home, Lafayette, and UMass and lost to Purdue at home, Illinois at home, and Wisconsin has exactly the same average performance and lower variance.

Unless you for some reason value high variance there is no reason to value the real Rutgers over that hypothetical Rutgers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greene Rice FIG
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
BillyC80 said:
Not understanding the Saturday/Sunday thing.

I doubt any teams near us NET-wise, even if they won their last game and moved up in the NET, would have played better against Purdue than we did.
Click to expand...
79 Colorado beat Stanford in Stanford by 17 on Saturday
77 Witchita lost by only 2 AT Houston on Sunday
 
S

Scangg

Heisman
Mar 19, 2016
25,448
49,369
113
Greene Rice FIG said:
I am a huge believer that WAB is the best metric I know of. How much better or worse are your with your schedule with the team square on bubble.

Now it is a measure that will downplay Q1 and Q4 games relative to what our fans want to see.

if NY Knicks are 47-35
And NJ Nets are 46-36 we don’t check and look at Q1 records. The Knicks are ahead. WAB tries to standardize the schedule each team plays
Click to expand...
How does Rutgers rate in WAB?
 
B

BillyC80

Heisman
Oct 23, 2006
17,114
15,545
72
Greene Rice FIG said:
79 Colorado beat Stanford in Stanford by 17 on Saturday
77 Witchita lost by only 2 AT Houston on Sunday
Click to expand...
You mean 15-12 Stanford with a NET of 104?

Are you seriously suggesting that means Colorado would have played better against Purdue than we did? Not seeing it.
 
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
Our low point of the season was Feb 1 we were 2.3 off the bubble after losing at NW

beat MSU -1.9
Beat OSU -1.5
Beat Wisconsin. -.7
Beat Illinois -.2
Loss to Purdue. Back to -.3

we got dinged
1.0 for losing to lafayette
.8 for losing to Martyland
.7 for losing to umass

beating Maine and CC moved the needle 0 (at least rounded to the .1)

remaining games
Michigan win +.71. Lose -.29
Wisc. Win +.44. Lose -.56
Indy. Win +’73. Lose -.27
PSU win +.25. Lose -.75

all numbers can move slightly depending how teams on schedule do in future games
 
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
BillyC80 said:
You mean 15-12 Stanford with a NET of 104?

Are you seriously suggesting that means Colorado would have played better against Purdue than we did? Not seeing it.
Click to expand...
They won by 17
We lost by 12

purdue isn’t 29 better than Colorado. It is about half that.

again it isn’t eyeballs. It is computer.
 
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
Showing you how much movement there can and will be. If we beat Michigan everything else equal we’d leap frog over 7 teams (in WAB land)
 
B

BillyC80

Heisman
Oct 23, 2006
17,114
15,545
72
Greene Rice FIG said:
They won by 17
We lost by 12

purdue isn’t 29 better than Colorado. It is about half that.

again it isn’t eyeballs. It is computer.
Click to expand...
Say what? If Colorado would have lost to Purdue by 13 or more, then they would not have played better against Purdue than we did. That was my point, which you just confirmed.
 
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
BillyC80 said:
Say what? If Colorado would have lost to Purdue by 13 or more, then they would not have played better against Purdue than we did. That was my point, which you just confirmed.
Click to expand...
The Bart spread was Stanford -2.5 and Colorado won by 17. 19.5 point outpwrformace

we were -12.9 Va Purdue and only lost by 12
.9 outperformance
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUfanSinceAnderson
B

BillyC80

Heisman
Oct 23, 2006
17,114
15,545
72
Greene Rice FIG said:
The Bart spread was Stanford -2.5 and Colorado won by 17. 19.5 point outpwrformace

we were -12.9 Va Purdue and only lost by 12
.9 outperformance
Click to expand...
Those metrics do not prove Colorado would have played Purdue better than we did. Even you said Purdue is “about half” of 29 points better than Colorado, which is 14.5 points, and we only lost by 12.
 
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
bac2therac said:
Colorado is a absolutely terrible like most of the Pac 12. They maybe the worst 18-9 Power 6 school in history. Purdue would beat them by 30 plus.
Click to expand...
We are talking NET and what moves the NET. PAC12 basketball is trash. I learned a lot watching 1 defensive possession of Oregon. Jacob goes under a screen against a defeder who is hot. Would never of happened at RU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyC80
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
BillyC80 said:
Those metrics do not prove Colorado would have played Purdue better than we did. Even you said Purdue is “about half” of 29 points better than Colorado, which is 14.5 points, and we only lost by 12.
Click to expand...
I am just talking NET and what moves the NET and wht the NET might have dropped us a few places. Teams around us outperformed their NET slot more than us.

That's it. We would beat Colorado right now by 10+ on a neutral site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyC80
R

RUChoppin

Heisman
Dec 1, 2006
19,270
13,695
0
So, question on offensive and defensive ratings.

We had our worst DRtg of the season @Purdue, of 129.2..... but Purdue's average ORtg for the year is 121.0 (delta of 8.2 pts/100 poss)

Meanwhile, we had DRtg of 112.3 @Depaul (better on paper).... but DePaul's average ORtg for the season is just 102.7 (delta of 9.6 pts/100 poss)

Shouldn't the delta there matter? Isn't giving up 112.3 pts/100 possessions to DePaul a worse defensive showing than giving up 129.2 to Purdue?

Against Minnesota, we had a 121.4 DRtg.... but Minnesota's ORtg this season is only 101.0.... for a delta of 20.4 pts/100 possessions.

What would it look like if we judged defense based on how far above/below our opponent's average ORtg we held them?
 
B

BillyC80

Heisman
Oct 23, 2006
17,114
15,545
72
Greene Rice FIG said:
I am just talking NET and what moves the NET and wht the NET might have dropped us a few places. Teams around us outperformed their NET slot more than us.

That's it. We would beat Colorado right now by 10+ on a neutral site.
Click to expand...
I understand. Failure to communicate properly on both our parts. I thought you were evading my original question but you were actually making a separate point about movement in the NET. All good.
 
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
RUChoppin said:
So, question on offensive and defensive ratings.

We had our worst DRtg of the season @Purdue, of 129.2..... but Purdue's average ORtg for the year is 121.0 (delta of 8.2 pts/100 poss)

Meanwhile, we had DRtg of 112.3 @Depaul (better on paper).... but DePaul's average ORtg for the season is just 102.7 (delta of 9.6 pts/100 poss)

Shouldn't the delta there matter? Isn't giving up 112.3 pts/100 possessions to DePaul a worse defensive showing than giving up 129.2 to Purdue?

Against Minnesota, we had a 121.4 DRtg.... but Minnesota's ORtg this season is only 101.0.... for a delta of 20.4 pts/100 possessions.

What would it look like if we judged defense based on how far above/below our opponent's average ORtg we held them?
Click to expand...
adjusted bart had 1.084 D vs Purdue
adjusted bart had 1.081 D vs DePaul
 
P

PSAL_Hoops

Heisman
Feb 18, 2008
13,375
12,677
78
RUChoppin said:
So, question on offensive and defensive ratings.

We had our worst DRtg of the season @Purdue, of 129.2..... but Purdue's average ORtg for the year is 121.0 (delta of 8.2 pts/100 poss)

Meanwhile, we had DRtg of 112.3 @Depaul (better on paper).... but DePaul's average ORtg for the season is just 102.7 (delta of 9.6 pts/100 poss)

Shouldn't the delta there matter? Isn't giving up 112.3 pts/100 possessions to DePaul a worse defensive showing than giving up 129.2 to Purdue?

Against Minnesota, we had a 121.4 DRtg.... but Minnesota's ORtg this season is only 101.0.... for a delta of 20.4 pts/100 possessions.

What would it look like if we judged defense based on how far above/below our opponent's average ORtg we held them?
Click to expand...
Very good point. The only thing is that sometimes you come across a team that just doesn’t miss. Or the reverse - there are days when nothing seems to fall including wide open shots. I get that generally it evens out and you win some, you lose some. But that’s the justification for the ends justifying the means of a binary win / loss system.

The problem with NET is it seems like one horrific 30 point blowout loss can hurt a team more than 2 or even 3 close losses. In my opinion that shouldn’t be the case. Winning more should always be valued more
 
  • Like
Reactions: G- RUnit
G

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
Ridiculous thought…….

forgetting our net for a second.

We are beating Michigan by 22 with 3 minutes left. We could maximize our chance of keeping Michigan as a Q1 by putting our bench in earlier.

pike wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t do it. Just shows you how dumb buckets are
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSAL_Hoops
F

fluoxetine

Heisman
Nov 11, 2012
23,529
16,898
0
RUChoppin said:
Which would be our 5th and 7th worst of the season? What goes into the AdjD number?
Click to expand...
AdjD = [RawD] * [LeagueAvgEfficiency]/[Opponent Adj O]

So for purdue

AdjD = 132.4 * 103.5/125.9 = 108.8

This is before any home court advantage adjustments
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom