Preseason Rankings: AP vs Pomeroy

[gary-7]

No need. You are not correct.

You might want to refresh on significance.

Good Lord man. what I tried to tell you is obviously 100% correct and it is not arguable, and BTW, it has zero to do with "signifigance".

I've been trying to be nice about this, and I'm really trying to help you here, but you are just embarrassing yourself now.

One last time: Reread what you posted and look up what "random" means and perhaps you'll catch your error.

It's rudimentarily simple. Seriously...

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Good Lord man. what I tried to tell you is obviously 100% correct and it is not arguable, and BTW, it has zero to do with "signifigance".

I've been trying to be nice about this, and I'm really trying to help you here, but you are just embarrassing yourself now.

One last time: Reread what you posted and look up what "random" means and perhaps you'll catch your error.

It's rudimentarily simple. Seriously...

I know you're wrong, but if you disagree (as obviously you do) perhaps you'll explain. I laid out my thought experiment. I made it really simple. Maybe you can do the same?

Here's my thought experiment again, in case anyone wants to see what we're talking about.

1. Create a ratings list of all 364 teams by selecting them at random.​

2. Get Pomeroy's ratings.​

3. Compare the random list with Pomeroy's list at different points throughout the season.​

4. The null hypothesis is that neither will be appreciably better at predicting reality.​

My bet is that over repeated samplings, Pomeroy's list will outperform the random list with an extremely high level of significance. Seems obvious, doesn't it?

 

[DSouthr]

Sorry, but LMAO. That is patentaly absurd (not to mention flunks basic face validity).
Come on, man. If you select teams at random it's literally a coin-flip as to whether ANY alternative selection order will be better or worse, even if it's chosen by a trained chicken.

Moreover, by that logic, every single basketball fan of even the most rudimentary acumen will do better than random because they all know (just for example) that Gonzaga will be better than Elon.

I look at stats --- hell, as a "Dean disciple" I used them when I coached (and probably more than my contemporaries). You can certainly look back and say we need to be better this season at, say, "TO ratio" or the like, but as a fan until this season's games are played, all those "advanced metrics" from the past aren't gonna tell you any more or less than a reasonably aware eye will as to eventual records, any more than any one preseason poll is destined to be any more accurate than another.

I don't know what your obsession with this pomeroy stuff is about, but again hey, enjoy what you enjoy. And so with that said, my advice is to let it go and look forward to Monday.

LMAO, sorry but I have to give it up for gary in this one, on the "trained chicken" line alone!

gary actually nailed my rub with ranking at this time of the season, they do very little good, they are some what educated guesses that mean very little. WE were ranked pre-season #1 with a ton of stats to prove that we deserved in season before last and we wet the bed, didn't even make the post season?

But what the ranking do is very clearly propagate a narrative that does not easily go away. This conference is the best in the land therefore we should not weigh the losses in that power conference as heavy as losses in other less powerful conferences? The ACC has been devalued over the last few years, a narrative that at very least has limited ACC teams ability to play in the NCAAT or negatively effected their seeding.

It makes absolutely ZERO sense to me to weight what happens early season = or even close to the out comes late season when teams have seasoned and come together. But the narrative drives the early hype that one conference is greater than another, for example, the ACC we tend to see our natural hated opponents twice in the regular season and no matter what, beating a team twice in the same season is a hard thing to do. So maybe we slip up against a GT in a game they play way above their heads and we pay a great seeding price for that because the pre-season narrative dictated the ACC as weak so a bottom level program is especially weak. Yet Kansas could lose to a BYU and because the Kansas conference is pumped as the strongest conference they are not hurt seeding wise nearly as much as we would be.

 

[gary-7]

I know you're wrong, but if you disagree (as obviously you do) perhaps you'll explain. I laid out my thought experiment. I made it really simple. Maybe you can do the same?

Here's my thought experiment again, in case anyone wants to see what we're talking about.

1. Create a ratings list of all 364 teams by selecting them at random.​

2. Get Pomeroy's ratings.​

3. Compare the random list with Pomeroy's list at different points throughout the season.​

4. The null hypothesis is that neither will be appreciably better at predicting reality.​

My bet is that over repeated samplings, Pomeroy's list will outperform the random list with an extremely high level of significance. Seems obvious, doesn't it?

LMAO. Yes, please show us once again that you're barking up an extremely wrong tree, not to mention beating a very dead horse.

So... lemme see if I can simplify it for ya:
ANY list that isn't random --- either from pomeroy or literally ANYONE on a basketball forum --- will outperform a random list. Why? Because a random list (which FYI, means every team has an equally likely chance of landing in any ranking position) will inevitably place some elite teams in the lower echelons (that's basic probability*, BTW). In fact, RANDOM means that there's a 50/50 chance that UNC, for example, could land in the bottom half. The same odds apply independently to UConn or dook or any of the other blue-bloods.

*As another math FYI, a Normal distribution of random samples would predict approximately HALF of elite teams landing in the bottom 50 percentile in any given sample iteration.

Thus, ANYONE with even a cursory knowledge of the game will know to rank obviously better teams in the upper echelons, as opposed to those anomolies endemic in random rankings.

In other words, the only thing one can glean from your "thought experiment" is that pomeroy will outperform RANDOM. Well yeah, and DUH!... as I tried to tell you in my initial response --- given that I could go to any sports bar in America and every patron there (who wasn't passed-out drunk) would beat random, so the experiment is basically MEANINGLESS.

Got it? Good, because this is getting tiresome.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

LMAO. Yes, please show us once again that you're barking up an extremely wrong tree, not to mention beating a very dead horse.

So... lemme see if I can simplify it for ya:
ANY list that isn't random --- either from pomeroy or literally ANYONE on a basketball forum --- will outperform a random list. Why? Because a random list (which FYI, means every team has an equally likely chance of landing in any ranking position) will inevitably place some elite teams in the lower echelons (that's basic probability*, BTW). In fact, RANDOM means that there's a 50/50 chance that UNC, for example, could land in the bottom half. The same odds apply independently to UConn or dook or any of the other blue-bloods.

*As another math FYI, a Normal distribution of random samples would predict approximately HALF of elite teams landing in the bottom 50 percentile in any given sample iteration.

Thus, ANYONE with even a cursory knowledge of the game will know to rank obviously better teams in the upper echelons, as opposed to those anomolies endemic in random rankings.

In other words, the only thing one can glean from your "thought experiment" is that pomeroy will outperform RANDOM. Well yeah, and DUH!... as I tried to tell you in my initial response --- given that I could go to any sports bar in America and every patron there (who wasn't passed-out drunk) would beat random, so the experiment is basically MEANINGLESS.

Got it? Good, because this is getting tiresome.

Now that you've wasted all our our time reviewing what was NOT the issue - even though you got part of that wrong, too - maybe you can get back to the thought experiment.

I'm sure you won't. Is it because you don't understand? Now that you have sort of agreed that Pomeroy is better than random, what do you think the next step is?

 

[gary-7]

Now that you've wasted all our our time reviewing what was NOT the issue - even though you got part of that wrong, too - maybe you can get back to the thought experiment.

I'm sure you won't. Is it because you don't understand? Now that you have sort of agreed that Pomeroy is better than random, what do you think the next step is?

SMDH. I got every last bit of it right. What is wrong with you?

As my breakdown clearly shows, if you think it's some sort of validation to do better than random, it makes it painfully clear you are just obsessed with pomeroy.

One last time: AP will be better than random (outside of the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely outlier in which a random array gets close to getting the good teams in the right places), USA Today will be better than random. Yours, mine and rankings from everyone here will be better than random. All because all of the above have precondition knowledge. Again, period.

I'm gonna resist the temptation to disparage anything beyond the incredibly faulty logic, but FYI, I made damn good money from the Athletic Dept in college as a math major tutoring my fellow jocks in a particularly notorious required math course that featured a healthy dose of probablilty and statistics --- a course that had previously cost several athletes their eligibilty --- in which I took groups who were at a D or F level before midterm and got everyone through with final grades usually no worse than B --- and that was a course with a Prof who, trust me, was NOT jock-friendly.

What I laid out for you (on a silver platter) was the most basic of scenarios concerning the most basic of concepts, i.e., randomness --- something that I can tell ya every one of my struggling tutees would have easily understood in a matter of minutes before we went into far more complex concepts. I can only hope you can put aside your blinders and grasp what should be so obvious. Nothing I told you is arguable. It is (simple) mathematical truth.

But honestly, I've wasted far too much time on this. So nutshell? Your "thought experiment" is, ipso facto, meaningless, so the only "next step" is to step away and just read what you want and like what you want and leave me out of it. I'm done with this nonsense and don't care to see any more about it.
Period.

 

[DSouthr]

OK, so WW, my apologies right now, you know I respect you a ton but that "trained Chicken" line was the most funny thing I have ever seen gary say! It reminds me of Kevin Skinner, from I think it was AGT. They asked what he did to make a living and his reply was, "well, I was a chicken catcher for many years". The follow up question from Hassaloff was "so, how many chickens did you catch in a night"? His reply, "well I ain't a maff-a tis, I am not good at math but one guy caught 20 at a time"... Just really funny stuff!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

ANY list that isn't random --- either from pomeroy or literally ANYONE on a basketball forum --- will outperform a random list.

Nonsense.

For the same reason that an informed person could beat a random list most of the time - by knowing enough good teams and putting them on top - an informed person could also create a list that would lose to a random list most of the time - by putting those known good teams on the bottom.

So, no, "ANY list that isn't random" can NOT be counted on to outperform a random list.

You've already agreed - albeit kicking and screaming the contrary - that Pomeroy is better than random. So the next question would logically be "how much better?"

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

OK, so WW, my apologies right now, you know I respect you a ton but that "trained Chicken" line was the most funny thing I have ever seen gary say!

Ha. I'm glad you are easily amused. But this was a math and statistics debate.

I've never trained chickens, but I have trained pigeons. I'm confident we could train pigeons to produce a team ranking list that would outperform random. But it's highly doubtful that we could train pigeons to outperform Pomeroy, or NET.

Gary initially spent a lot of time trying to say Pomeroy's rankings are worthless, but eventually came around to partly agreeing that they aren't.

That's good enough for me.

 

[gary-7]

Nonsense.

For the same reason that an informed person could beat a random list most of the time - by knowing enough good teams and putting them on top - an informed person could also create a list that would lose to a random list most of the time - by putting those known good teams on the bottom.

So, no, "ANY list that isn't random" can NOT be counted on to outperform a random list.

You've already agreed - albeit kicking and screaming the contrary - that Pomeroy is better than random. So the next question would logically be "how much better?"

Apparently you are no better at reading than you are at math. As I clearly and correctly stated above, OTHER than the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely outliers of random arrays getting things anywhere close to right, any ranking by anyone familiar with college basketball will be better than random. If you want an idea of the crazy odds at those outliers hitting even close, with 364 teams the denominator in the damn fraction is 364 Factorial (!). If you don't know what that means, look it up.
*spoiler alert: the actual number will be 776 digits long (with no decimal points).

If this helps your visualization, the odds of a random ranking so much as placing all of the eventual Top-25 teams just somewhere in the top 182 (upper half) is:
1 out of 2-to-the-25th-power = 1 / 33,554,432.
In stark and demonstrative contrast, literally EVERYONE on this board will get at least that much right (barring a really weird outlier cinderella team emerging).

So... one last time, your premise is meaningless. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is what it is.
And for the record, I didn't "come around" to anything. You can spout that disingenuous crap all you want but it doesn't mitigate the speciousness behind your obsessive arguing.

I also clearly stated I have neither the desire nor patience to deal any further with your stubborn unwillingness to learn, yet I just tried one last time. But, do not EVER tell me I'm posting "nonsense". I've done nothing more than state mathematical facts and left the "kicking and screaming" to you.

We're done here, so do NOT reply to this unless you finally "get it" --- you won't like what comes back.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Apparently you are no better at reading than you are at math. As I clearly and correctly stated above, OTHER than the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely outliers of random arrays getting things anywhere close to right, any ranking by anyone familiar with college basketball will be better than random. If you want an idea of the crazy odds at those outliers hitting even close, with 364 teams the denominator in the damn fraction is 364 Factorial (!). If you don't know what that means, look it up.
*spoiler alert: the actual number will be 776 digits long (with no decimal points).

If this helps your visualization, the odds of a random ranking so much as placing all of the eventual Top-25 teams just somewhere in the top 182 (upper half) is:
1 out of 2-to-the-25th-power = 1 / 33,554,432.
In stark and demonstrative contrast, literally EVERYONE on this board will get at least that much right (barring a really weird outlier cinderella team emerging).

So... one last time, your premise is meaningless. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is what it is.
And for the record, I didn't "come around" to anything. You can spout that disingenuous crap all you want but it doesn't mitigate the speciousness behind your obsessive arguing.

I also clearly stated I have neither the desire nor patience to deal any further with your stubborn unwillingness to learn, yet I just tried one last time. But, do not EVER tell me I'm posting "nonsense". I've done nothing more than state mathematical facts and left the "kicking and screaming" to you.

We're done here, so do NOT reply to this unless you finally "get it" --- you won't like what comes back.

Now you're just arguing something that wasn't the bone of contention in the beginning.

This is the trouble with the pissing contests you frequently get into with others. I should have known better than to engage.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Pomeroy is slightly better than random is what I have learned today! Net is slightly better than a drunk bball fan's list!

I would like to thank you both for adding the following to this board:
1. Speciousness
2. Bone of contention
3. Stark and demonstrative contrast (my new band name!)
4. Factorial
5. Thought Experiment
6. Trained Chicken! (Is Trained Pigeon a corollary of the Trained Chicken theorem?)

 

[Bubspub88]

When I joined this board I was told there would be no math.

 

[gary-7]

When I joined this board I was told there would be no math.

Sorry, and it will be in the test ...

 

[gary-7]

Now you're just arguing something that wasn't the bone of contention in the beginning.

This is the trouble with the pissing contests you frequently get into with others. I should have known better than to engage.

SMH. The only "debate" here has been math-vs-you (with the predictable outcome), and the "pissing" was initiated from your end when that inevitably went south, so don't project that on me. You're right though that you should have known better, so in that spirit, my suggestion is to just get ready to enjoy what promises to be a fun season for the Heels.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

A chicken, a pigeon, and a mathematician walked into a bar....

AND all of them enjoyed the lightning fast Tar Heels as they smothered peeps on D; wore down peeps with their depth; and dropped dimes AND 3s on their freaking heads!

This is going to be a fun ride and nobody can steal my joy!