Bart comment on RU

[PSAL_Hoops]

I mean he’s not wrong?

It’s the context that’s wrong because non-conference and conference games are aggregated for NCAA consideration.

Easy demonstration of the cherry picking. Take any mid-major bubbler. Take their 6 worst Q4 wins (they all have plenty of those) and hand pick their worst 4 losses. The combined SOS on those 10 games will in all cases be comparable to RU’s OOC SOS. I can almost guarantee it. That’s why it’s cherry picking to emphasize this specific point.

 

[fluoxetine]

It’s the context that’s wrong because non-conference and conference games are aggregated for NCAA consideration.

Easy demonstration of the cherry picking. Take any mid-major bubbler. Take their 6 worst Q4 wins (they all have plenty of those) and hand pick their worst 4 losses. The combined SOS on those 10 games will in all cases be comparable to RU’s OOC SOS. I can almost guarantee it. That’s why it’s cherry picking to emphasize this specific point.

Well it's not exactly cherry-picking in the same manner because conference/non-conference is a natural split and one that is known before the games are played. And his tweet is probably made because a lot of people are talking specifically about our conference record and position in the conference standings.

That said, I 100% agree that the only thing that should matter is the combined record and combined SOS. Talking about "non conference strength of schedule" is about as useful as "weekday strength of schedule".

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Well it's not exactly cherry-picking in the same manner because conference/non-conference is a natural split and one that is known before the games are played. And his tweet is probably made because a lot of people are talking specifically about our conference record and position in the conference standings.

That said, I 100% agree that the only thing that should matter is the combined record and combined SOS. Talking about "non conference strength of schedule" is about as useful as "weekday strength of schedule".

Is that true? It doesn’t seem to have any relation to the 12-8 conference mark.

He’s trying to make a point that we were the only team in consideration to perform 6-4 against a sub-set of their schedule as weak as that and it’s a joke that we’re in the equation. I don’t care if it’s natural season split, he can’t have it both ways and all the mid-major bubblers have gone 6-4 against some group of 10 teams that are comparably weak as our OOC. It’s an inaccurate premise.

 

[fluoxetine]

He’s trying to make a point that we were the only team in consideration to perform 6-4 against a sub-set of their schedule as weak as that and it’s a joke that we’re in the equation.

I don’t think this is what he is doing, but I’m not going to go back through his tweet history to verify.

I mean his own model has us as the 3rd team out with a 24% chance of a bid if the season ended today which certainly doesn’t translate to “joke we are even in the equation”

Also this demonstrate how broken his simulations are because they have us with a 3.5% chance because when he does them he literally just selects the field instead of accounting for the uncertainty (so a simulation where the season ends today has us OUT 100% even though his actual model gives us a 24% bid chance)

 

[G- RUnit]

And what was the overall strength of schedule Bart?

 

[zebnatto]

My reply:
Holy cherry pick your stats, Bartman. BTW how did our performance down the stretch compare to your predictions? If
@RutgersMBB
is not in the NCAA tourney, it diminishes the winner and the "championship." No reason to do that

Cherry-picking, stacking the deck, partial disclosure, misleading, strawman