stc23
Sophomore
Posts: 195
|
Post by stc23 on Oct 27, 2014 23:20:53 GMT -5
The Stanford result surprises me. I like Washington at #1 though. Can't wait for the Washington/Stanford game. In another thread, bluepenquin pointed out that since conference play began, Stanford and Washington have played all the same teams, and Washington's average margin of victory has been higher. And Penn State outscored Stanford in their own gym. Given that data, pablo's relative ranking is not too surprising. Illinois also outscored Stanford in their own gym two days later.
|
|
|
Post by beachbomb on Oct 27, 2014 23:54:45 GMT -5
this is such crap... really... I like the opinions you provide on matches (post game analysis, commentary, etc.). So please say why this is crap? If you said "this is really awesome" I'd be asking you the same thing. Just want to know where you're coming from. i'm not trying to be a homer for stanford because i think they can be ALOT better... and I'm ok with Washington being number one because they have beaten some really great teams like USC and Wisconsin and other pac 12 teams, but penn state ahead of Stanford, i think Wisconsin is solid but i don't see them ahead of Stanford... i think kelli bates and elli chapman would get shut down... Penn State is so talented but this shouldn't be a ranking on potential but record and what the teams have done so far. Stanford has proven to be the best team BY beating the top team at the time and not losing... texas plays in a really weak conference and got swept by an unranked team , i know every set was 24-26 but a lose is a lose.... essentially i don't really care about rating because it's stupid to compare teams just like it is to compare players but when something is really off, it just makes me think... that is crap.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 28, 2014 0:10:20 GMT -5
Ok, I see where you're coming from. I agree with your assessment of the top teams. I also feel that Pablo is far from perfect; they put too much emphasis on total number of points won, and sets won, rather than just matches won. However, I think Pablo is pretty good overall. If I wanted to know how good a team was, I would look to Pablo a thousand times before looking at RPI. I think the coaches poll is still the most accurate, but it's nice to have some alternatives out there, if only to keep the coaches honest.
|
|
|
Post by beachbomb on Oct 28, 2014 0:13:34 GMT -5
absolutely i love stanford but i'm ok with them not being number 1 on everything... actually i would love to see the current team play agains the 2007 team, i think the 2007 team would win in 4.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 28, 2014 0:41:12 GMT -5
absolutely i love stanford but i'm ok with them not being number 1 on everything... actually i would love to see the current team play agains the 2007 team, i think the 2007 team would win in 4. Ugh... I want a rematch between Stan 07 v Kaczor... Or maybe just a re-serve at 14-13
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 28, 2014 1:20:09 GMT -5
Ok, I see where you're coming from. I agree with your assessment of the top teams. I also feel that Pablo is far from perfect; they put too much emphasis on total number of points won, and sets won, rather than just matches won. However, I think Pablo is pretty good overall. If I wanted to know how good a team was, I would look to Pablo a thousand times before looking at RPI. I think the coaches poll is still the most accurate, but it's nice to have some alternatives out there, if only to keep the coaches honest. I believe Pablo is designed to be more of a predictor, i.e. measuring which teams are better and more likely to win - I'd consider Pablo a 'rating' vs. a ranking, hence it ends of with an order of teams according to what it's formula spits out which team is more likely to win (on a neutal court). - two different things. Should Stanford be rated above Penn State? Not necessarily Should Stanford be ranked above Penn State? Absolutely Yes two completely acceptable results given their performance
|
|
|
Post by beachbomb on Oct 28, 2014 2:29:32 GMT -5
absolutely i love stanford but i'm ok with them not being number 1 on everything... actually i would love to see the current team play agains the 2007 team, i think the 2007 team would win in 4. Ugh... I want a rematch between Stan 07 v Kaczor... Or maybe just a re-serve at 14-13 i bring that match up with cassidy all the time and everytime she says... "IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING 10 FEET OUT... AND THEN THE BOTTOM DROPPED FAST AND I ALMOST SCREAMED" I watch that match all the time... i wish game 5 of the championship of 07 could be redone and kehoe set Barboza... she was hot that match and only got set once in 5 five on a predictable set....
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,131
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 28, 2014 3:14:25 GMT -5
Ugh... I want a rematch between Stan 07 v Kaczor... Or maybe just a re-serve at 14-13 i bring that match up with cassidy all the time and everytime she says... "IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING 10 FEET OUT... AND THEN THE BOTTOM DROPPED FAST AND I ALMOST SCREAMED" I watch that match all the time... i wish game 5 of the championship of 07 could be redone and kehoe set Barboza... she was hot that match and only got set once in 5 five on a predictable set.... I went back and rewatched the 5th set just now. I logged the amount of set distribution. USC set its attackers 30 times. Carico 2 (over on two) Gysin 5 Copenhagen 5 Kaczor 18 They never set their middles in the 5th set. They were so predictable. This was classic Mick Haley. But thats what that team was good with. Olgard was probably the best middle USC has seen in a long time but was underutilized offensively.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2014 8:12:44 GMT -5
Ok, I see where you're coming from. I agree with your assessment of the top teams. I also feel that Pablo is far from perfect; they put too much emphasis on total number of points won, and sets won, rather than just matches won. However, I think Pablo is pretty good overall. If I wanted to know how good a team was, I would look to Pablo a thousand times before looking at RPI. I think the coaches poll is still the most accurate, but it's nice to have some alternatives out there, if only to keep the coaches honest. I believe Pablo is designed to be more of a predictor, i.e. measuring which teams are better and more likely to win - I'd consider Pablo a 'rating' vs. a ranking, hence it ends of with an order of teams according to what it's formula spits out which team is more likely to win (on a neutal court). - two different things. Should Stanford be rated above Penn State? Not necessarily Should Stanford be ranked above Penn State? Absolutely Yes two completely acceptable results given their performance Who's better, Penn St or Stanford? There will be those who will point to the fact that Stanford beat Penn St, and that settles it. But it doesn't, not for me, and not objectively. Because there's more to it. Not all wins are equal. So take Stanford's win over Penn St, in Maples, where Penn St scored 51.5% of the points. What would happen if they played again? We can't know, of course, but we can look to see what has happened in other circumstances like this, where the home team has won despite scoring only 48.5% of the points. I have the database to do it. A team who wins at home despite scoring 48 - 49% of the points wins 19% of the time if the two teams play again on the other team's home court. Shoot, even if they play again on their home court, they only win 25% of the time. I was actually shocked at how lopsided this is. Admittedly, there aren't a ton of examples to base it upon (50 to 80 examples, depending on the circumstances), but still, that is really, really lopsided. Now, if the road team can pull of the 5 set win, they are more likely than not to win if they play again. Interestingly, it's been about 55% whether they turn around and play at home or even if they play again on the road. Could be some distortion due to small numbers, but the trend is consistent. Even if the two matches are both on neutral sites, 40% of the time, the team that lost the first match wins the second. Very clearly, this is what Pablo is seeing when it comes to Penn St. I keep telling you all this, because it's true. If you want to know how many wins and losses a team has, look at their wins and losses. However, if you want to know how good a team is, look at the number of points they are scoring, because that where that information is. Keep in mind, this is not just a Pablo bias, and I'm not just making this up. Sure, I started out Pablo with this type of idea as the underlying model, but as the data above show, it's born about by what happens on the court. See my comment yesterday in the 3210 thread. If you know how many points were scored, then knowing who won tells you very little about who is better (it's not completely worthless - there is a tiny, tiny premium in winning, to the tune of increasing the expected winning percentage by maybe 2% in the region close to zero - what this means is that if two teams score the exact same number of points, the winning team has like a 52% chance of winning a second match; the tipping point looks to be about 49.5% of the points).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 10:41:39 GMT -5
It's crap because the poster thinks his team is better than it says his team is.
Hard to argue with that. It's also why I think I'm six-foot-five. To hell with tape measures!
|
|
|
Post by alwayslearning on Oct 28, 2014 11:47:19 GMT -5
A team who wins at home despite scoring 48 - 49% of the points wins 19% of the time if the two teams play again on the other team's home court. Shoot, even if they play again on their home court, they only win 25% of the time. Fascinating, given how close the teams play in the first match-up. Thanks for this interesting statistical insight.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 28, 2014 13:17:30 GMT -5
Of course, I suppose one could argue that what is true for most teams might not be true for some teams. The further we stray from the elite level of teams, the more providential (or accidental) the results. Happenstance always plays a role, just less of one the better the teams.
While Penn State scored more points, hit for higher percentage, and sided out at a higher rate, Stanford dominated the 5th set. Foreman also won the punch count, but Ali ended up landing the punches that mattered. An interesting look might be at just instances where a 5th set was won by 5 or more points.
One area that Stanford clearly won was errors, committing only 18 hitting errors to Penn State's 29, and 11 service errors to Penn State's 14. In the 5th set, Stanford had zero errors, to 5 for Penn State. That speaks to Stanford clearly being the more experienced and mature team. That edge should be narrowed, however, if the teams should meet again in the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Oct 28, 2014 13:56:15 GMT -5
A team who wins at home despite scoring 48 - 49% of the points wins 19% of the time if the two teams play again on the other team's home court. Shoot, even if they play again on their home court, they only win 25% of the time. This is one of the most bizarre stats I have ever seen. Are you absolutely sure you're calculating that right? If so (and I believe you are)...is it possibly a revenge factor between evenly matched teams? Or an advantage to the team that adapts (usually the loser of first game) over the one that stays with same strategy (the winner of first game)? If so you would also see an advantage in the second game for teams that lost the first match while winning 48-49% of the points, and that advantage in the second game should decline as the proportion of points won by the winning team in the first game increased. i think I said that right. Very interesting. Not sure it necessarily relates to who is best per se, as the order seems to distort the results...i.e., you don't have independence between points, which is kind of the point of your analysis I guess.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 28, 2014 14:20:43 GMT -5
Fascinating, given how close the teams play in the first match-up. Thanks for this interesting statistical insight. It's even more bizarre. The team that scores 48.5% and wins at home is even more likely to lose the second match than the team that scores 48.5% and loses! I've revised things a bit by looking only at 5 set matches, but here are the numbers: For teams that score 48-49% at home and WIN Win 2nd match on road: 22% Win 2nd match at home again: 26% Win 2nd match on neutral site: 43% (only 20 examples) LOSE Win 2nd match on road: 26% Win 2nd match at home again: 29% Win 2nd match on neutral site: 37% (41 matches, so better) I won't claim that the difference between winning the second match after winning or losing is statistically significant, but it certainly does not support any hypothesis that winning makes you better in the second meeting. (interesting case of small numbers: the record of teams that win in 4 at home while scoring 48 - 49% of the points is 0 - 6)
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 28, 2014 14:39:30 GMT -5
(interesting case of small numbers: the record of teams that win in 4 at home while scoring 48 - 49% of the points is 0 - 6) To get outscored in a four-set match means you had one really bad set. That means you are vulnerable to something. It's not terribly surprising that the vulnerability shows up as losses in the future. All that being said, I strongly suspect that the distinction between teams that won at home and teams that lost at home is just random error. I don't see any plausible causal mechanism there.
|
|