UDPride Discussion Forums    
     

Go Back   UDPride Discussion Forums > LATEST ARTICLES > UDPride Articles

UDPride Articles Published content from your UDPride staff

» Log in
User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
» Advertisement
Comment
 
Article Tools Display Modes
Post Season Math Lesson
Post Season Math Lesson
Jim Meadows
Published by Swampy Meadows
03-24-2009
Post Season Math Lesson

BEVERLY HILLS (MI) -- At times like these, we need Simon and Garfunkel to put things in perspective:

“Why don’t we stop fooling ourselves?
The game is over,
Over,
Over.
No good times, no bad times,
There’s no times at all,
Just the New York Times.”


And speaking of the New York Times, the Flyers may have stumbled against Kansas, but according to them, the UD Arena had itself a pretty darn good weekend:

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ama-in-dayton/

After the West Virginia game I told myself that anything that happened to come UD’s way after that was gravy. Of course, that didn’t stop me from yelling at my computer (we got stuck with the X game on CBS here in Detroit) or pounding on the table and thus traumatizing our dog in response to the dog squeeze calls that the refs made/didn’t make during the game.

It is what it is.

It’s over.

Wait until next year.

Which is the source for the title of this mindless meandering -– “End of Season Math Lesson.” It’s a little bit of geometry with some addition and logic thrown in for good measure.

In sports, we all tend to think that progress is made in a relatively straight-line fashion.

UD went to the NIT Quarterfinals last year ----->

The Flyers made it to the 2nd round of the NCAAs this season ----->

Ergo ----->

UD should at least make it to the Sweet Sixteen…or the Elite Eight or…dare we think it…the Final Four during next year’s campaign!

Or, to put it in simple numeric terms:

2007-2008 23 wins

2008-2009 27 wins

2009-2010 > 27 wins


Stands to reason, doesn’t it? Yeah, on paper maybe, but that’s why they play the games. Nothing in life moves in a straight line. This year’s performance is not necessarily predictive of how the Flyers will do next season. We would like to think that with the team only losing Charles Little while adding Matt Kavanaugh, Josh Benson and (hopefully) re-inserting a healthy Rob Lowery into the mix that it will mean bigger and better things, but there is no guarantee that it will.

Especially if you believe Ken Pomeroy and his BS “Luck Factor” index that indicates that UD was one of the most fortunate basketball teams in the whole US of A this year. Pomeroy conveniently ignores the logical fact that two independent occurrences of the same activity (flipping coins, playing basketball games or whatever) are totally unrelated to each other and the result of one has no bearing on the outcome of the other. But why let logic stand in your way, right Ken?

Okay, that’s the geometry/logic portion of today’s lesson, class; here comes the addition.

One of my least favorite words in the entire English language is "synergy."

“Synergy” is BS consultant-speak for combining two things (usually companies) and predicting that the end result will come out to be more than simply adding the two together. As a veteran of the AOL/Time Warner fustercluck, I can tell you firsthand and with 100% certainty that one plus one does not and never will, make three. Sometimes it doesn’t even add up to two. Most of the time in these kinds of situations, one plus one ends up equaling more like one and a half.

That’s right: you actually end up with less than what you had before you started.

Now I’m not saying that next year’s UD team isn’t going to be better than the 2008-2009 edition was. Heck no. But there is some work to be done between here and there, now and then.

Interestingly enuf, both John Beilen at Michigan and BG were quoted as saying pretty much the exact same thing when asked what needs to happen to their respective teams between now and next season.

It’s up to the players.

Doug Harris of the DDN provides details:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/con...409spudbb.html

BG can’t magically give London and Chris Wright a mid-range game; or Kurt a killer post move; or Devin and Josh more bulk; or Marcus a stop-and-pop jumper; or Paul, Mickey, Stephen and Luke a 40%+ 3 point shot; or Chris Johnson a handle; or assimilate Kavs with his new teammates or Rob a healthy knee or teach any of them to make a darn FT–- they have to do it. They have to put in the work. Their teammates have to push them; they have to motivate themselves. This has nothing to do with coaching; it is all about individual and collective dedication and determination. That is the kind of hard-fought ‘addition’ that we can all believe in.

“Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.”

Go get ‘em, boys. Thanks for a truly outstanding season. See you in October.

That’s it “From the Swamp.”
You can email me at: swampy@udpride.com
Article Tools
  #1  
By goodenchiladas on 03-25-2009, 12:00 PM
Why so serious about the Pomeroy "luck"? Whether it is called "luck" or "deviation between actual wins and expected wins", Pomeroy isn't the only one around that publishes a stat like that. A stat based on the same principal appears on the Major League Baseball website's standing page under the name "X W-L" or "Expected Wins-Losses": http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/standings/

A team's Points For and Points Against suggest a winning percentage. This has been studied and understood for 30 years, dating back to current Boston Red Sox special assistant Bill James' "Pythagorean Theorem." Being extremely fortunate or unfortunate is almost unsustainable from one year to the next. Over enough seasons, everyone's expected wins over all seasons and actual wins over all seasons tend to converge to the same value.

Dayton was +20 net points in regular season A-10 play this year. +20 points is enough to go 16-0 in regular season A-10 play. Heck, +16 net points is enough to go 16-0 in A-10 play, but the points would have to be spread perfectly for that to happen. To be +20 net points and 11-5, the points don't need to be spread perfectly, but they do need to be spread favorably. A +20 suggests a 9-7 record (as does +16 points). Rhode Island was +93 net points in regular season A-10 play, suggesting an 11-5 record. Temple was +108 net points, suggesting an 11-5 or a 12-4 record. And Xavier was +184 net points, suggesting a 13-3 or a 14-2 record.

What does it all mean? Dayton had better improve at putting the ball in the hoop or next year could be a step backwards rather than a step forwards. But you already said that.

And please leave poor Ken Pomeroy alone. His website is an amazing resource for college basketball fans, and he didn't go out of his way to design formulas to shortchange Dayton. I'm sure he would more diplomatically say that Dayton merely approached getting the maximum number of wins they could out of the points they scored versus the points they allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
By John C. on 03-25-2009, 02:33 PM
The problem with just looking at raw numbers is that there is no understanding of how they got there. Certainly there is a good history behind these beliefs, but summing up net points can be dangerous. It leaves out the guts factor. UD showed a great deal of guts this year and I don't expect that to change. Some teams just know how to win close games, others do not. We were on the good side on this one with no reason for that to change. It isn't luck, it's ability and fortitude.
Reply With Quote
Comment

Article Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.6 By   Branden

Article powered by GARS 2.1.8m ©2005-2006

     
 
Copyright 1996-2012 UDPride.com. All Rights Reserved.