|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 26, 2019 11:58:16 GMT -5
OMG - Baylor got outscored 25-13, 25-17, 25-10 in the last 3 sets. This is 100% proof that their opponent is clearly the better team. How could anyone possibly think that Baylor should have been in consideration for a regional host? Oh, wait - that was Washington... Hot streaks are fleeting - that is why analytics don't put so much weight on the last game/match as most humans. Is there actually a significant number of people arguing that Baylor "shouldn't be in consideration for a regional host"? I believe the issue that people were actually debating was whether or not Baylor should be ranked over Texas in an opinion poll. That is not the same thing. I also recall the discussion being whether Baylor should remain ranked ahead of Texas, not whether Baylor should be a regional host. Maybe a handful are questioning that, but not many. If Baylor loses again to Texas and it's not close, then that likely will be a debate.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 26, 2019 12:01:14 GMT -5
RPI type question. With the question concerning improving its position for a regional host, is it better for Texas that Stanford wins or Stanford loses? Loses for sure. Any advantage Texas gets for their RPI Percentage on Stanford's wins are offset by where the two teams will rank in RPI. In other words - a Stanford win helps Stanford a lot more than it helps Texas and since these two teams may be competing for the same rank - Texas wants them to lose. Same thing in terms of regional host - as Texas will need to have a better RPI than Stanford and may want some distance. That was my thought also, but still trying to get a feel for the dynamics of RPI so I wanted to check.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Oct 26, 2019 12:23:21 GMT -5
Hot streaks are fleeting - that is why analytics don't put so much weight on the last game/match as most humans. Unless the "hot streak" is actually a return to normalcy when the team's most impactful player returns from injury. Butler is a BEAST, and makes a huge difference. Analytics can factor that in, but it takes too much work. A healthy Butler all year and she's would be in the discussion for NPOY. Can you think of a more impactful player other than possibly Plummer, Pressley or sometimes Rettke?
|
|
|
Post by oldunc on Oct 26, 2019 12:25:02 GMT -5
I'd hardly expect you to buy it. I would expect that the Texas team would have had a more constructive takeaway from the match than "We're pretty good". Okay. My issue (that you helpfully removed when you quoted me--there is a whole lot more that I said after the ellipsis there) is that it seemed like you were going out of your way to discredit the parts of the match when Texas was playing well, as you wanted to write off an entire set as well as a "freak run" that led to Texas winning another set. I just think that any time a team wins two sets, they were competitive. Now, with the way Stanford has been playing lately, playing them competitively is looking less and less impressive, though I think Texas got Stanford at the point of the season the Cardinal was playing its best. You will note that I also eliminated most of my own comments, simple matter of eliminating clutter; if anyone really cares, all that stuff is right there on the page. As a fan, you can be expected to take an optimistic take on the outcome, but the Texas team and it's coaching staff would be far better advised to explore why they were badly outplayed for the majority of the match. After all, they presumably know the potential of their offense, they probably know that if they played first rate defense all the time they'd be unstoppable. Just as the Stanford side would be far better advised to explore why they were badly outplayed in the first set (an issue they evidently haven't resolved, as they have continued to look bewildered in first sets all year) or how they managed to give up such a wacko scoring run- you can dismiss it, but how many runs that long has Texas given up? Or any other decent team?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 26, 2019 12:51:19 GMT -5
Okay. My issue (that you helpfully removed when you quoted me--there is a whole lot more that I said after the ellipsis there) is that it seemed like you were going out of your way to discredit the parts of the match when Texas was playing well, as you wanted to write off an entire set as well as a "freak run" that led to Texas winning another set. I just think that any time a team wins two sets, they were competitive. Now, with the way Stanford has been playing lately, playing them competitively is looking less and less impressive, though I think Texas got Stanford at the point of the season the Cardinal was playing its best. You will note that I also eliminated most of my own comments, simple matter of eliminating clutter; if anyone really cares, all that stuff is right there on the page. As a fan, you can be expected to take an optimistic take on the outcome, but the Texas team and it's coaching staff would be far better advised to explore why they were badly outplayed for the majority of the match. After all, they presumably know the potential of their offense, they probably know that if they played first rate defense all the time they'd be unstoppable. Just as the Stanford side would be far better advised to explore why they were badly outplayed in the first set (an issue they evidently haven't resolved, as they have continued to look bewildered in first sets all year) or how they managed to give up such a wacko scoring run- you can dismiss it, but how many runs that long has Texas given up? Or any other decent team? Okay, fair enough. Though just to be clear, I'm not a fan of either Texas or Stanford.
|
|