|
Post by chipNdink on Dec 8, 2005 14:21:36 GMT -5
Bearclause, I'm very disappointed in you Really. I thought that Seilhamer's 6.8 digs/game would be enough to get her on the 1st team ahead of Lee at 5+ digs/game. (rest of stuff delete) You cannot compare by just using digs/game. Alot of Washington's games have been blowouts with Washington terminating the points quickly and efficiently, giving Lee little opportunity for padding her digging stats; while USC has struggled and played in many long games with alot of long rallies back and forth, giving Seilhamer more opportunities to pad her stats. For a more "fair" comparison, one should look at the two matches where they played head to head, giving both the same number of point and rally opportunities for digging. Lee had more digs than Seilhamer in both of those matches. And, as someone else has already said, digging is not the only criteria for a good libero, serve receive is just as important--if not more so. I think a very important stat that should be tracked is the "sub-assist", i.e. how often a pass or dig results in a successful assist and kill. That would better measure a libero's contribution during serve receive AND raise the importance of "great" digs that result in successful transitions for termination points over "so-so" digs that merely allow the defense to scramble desparately just to free-ball it back over.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 8, 2005 14:22:19 GMT -5
There is a distinct possibility that RPI, by it's nature, is biased toward east coast teams.
Pablo, OTOH, if anything has been accused of being biased toward west coast teams (although I don't agree). It should be a pretty good comparison.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 14:25:36 GMT -5
I'd rather be an objective fool than a subjective elitist any day. What denotes a weak team to you? Other than geography? Do they have to be 100 and up in the RKPI? The RPI is a fool's equation for ranking teams. It's inconclusive,non-predictory, and not a great rating system. Anyone who follows volleyball at any confidence level knows that. Some of us have higher standards than others, I guess. Apparently, your bar is set pretty low. Once again, you are back to your half-ass witty put down and grasping for anything to conjure up another with. I'm done with you. Live in your own world of grand delusion.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 14:26:40 GMT -5
Actually, I give up. You're right. You've convinced me. Nice changed quote.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 8, 2005 14:32:21 GMT -5
Actually, I give up. You're right. You've convinced me. Nice changed quote. Thanks. I felt "twit" was too strong a term, and when pushed to those kinds of extremes, I realized that you're right and I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 8, 2005 14:54:36 GMT -5
The RPI is a fool's equation for ranking teams. It's inconclusive,non-predictory, and not a great rating system. Anyone who follows volleyball at any confidence level knows that. Call me then a fool. To accuse RPI of being "non-predictory" is completely baseless. Comparison of the predicition success of various ranking approaches is given on the Pablo FAQ page. Although RKPI does not do as well as Pablo or BCR, to claim that it is "non-predictory" is BS. It predicts matches pretty darn well, just not as good as certain other methods. If you have a little time to waste, it might be interesting to go back and through RKPI in the mix for all the "Pick the Winners" contest. I predict it holds it own very nicely. Probably a step behind Pablo (and two steps behind Publius), but probably not too far astride from you, for example. I know I am generally critical of RKPI, and note above I point out a criticism I have. OTOH, I also am able to maintain a little perspective.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 8, 2005 15:10:56 GMT -5
I'm not trying to put you down. I'm trying to identify what color the sky is in your world.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 8, 2005 15:19:10 GMT -5
I'm not trying to put you down. I'm trying to identify what color the sky is in your world. Rainbow!
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 15:47:37 GMT -5
It's hard to prove my point when you answer with subjective opinion. Just saying that Nevada would have beaten Maryland doesn't make it so. And I disproved your earlier point by bringing up Sac State and Texas St. And I don't see any wins on NMSU's record that indicates they're any more worthy than Kentucky. The only thing you proved with bring up Sac State and Texas State again is that you're a fool. I said At-Large on purpose. If you don't know the difference, than that is a big part of the problem. You're just not even trying to throw any numbers or ratings in there because they'll further disprove your position, not because it's subjective, EVERYTHING is subjective. IB, you also brought up the supposed negative of having those "weak conference" champions being allowed into the tournament so it would seem fair game to be able to refer to conference champions from other "weak conferences" even if they're conferences from west of the Mississippi.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 15:57:00 GMT -5
I'd rather be an objective fool than a subjective elitist any day. What denotes a weak team to you? Other than geography? Do they have to be 100 and up in the RKPI? The RPI is a fool's equation for ranking teams. It's inconclusive,non-predictory, and not a great rating system. Anyone who follows volleyball at any confidence level knows that. Some of us have higher standards than others, I guess. Apparently, your bar is set pretty low. Once again, you are back to your half-ass witty put down and grasping for anything to conjure up another with. I'm done with you. Live in your own world of grand delusion. You're hurting yourself in these arguments IB by using personal attacks. You asked for a rating comparison and Surfer came back with RPI comparisons then you use more personal attacks. RPI may not be a great rating system, however, it is a valid system of comparison used by many people.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 16:00:41 GMT -5
The RPI is a fool's equation for ranking teams. It's inconclusive,non-predictory, and not a great rating system. Anyone who follows volleyball at any confidence level knows that. Some of us have higher standards than others, I guess. Apparently, your bar is set pretty low. Once again, you are back to your half-ass witty put down and grasping for anything to conjure up another with. I'm done with you. Live in your own world of grand delusion. You're hurting yourself in these arguments IB by using personal attacks. You asked for a rating comparison and Surfer came back with RPI comparisons then you use more personal attacks. RPI may not be a great rating system, however, it is a valid system of comparison used by many people. Where is the personal attack? fool and anyone that knows volleyball are related to the NCAA Selection Committee... I'm staying consistent with those "attacks" because they are warranted. Also, take a minute or two and look through silversurfer's posts. They are always criticizing or belittling.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 16:03:38 GMT -5
I'm not trying to put you down. I'm trying to identify what color the sky is in your world. Rainbow! Once again. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with Hawaii. Why must you always draw them in? I am not Hawaii volleyball. I'm just the biggest fan (well, unless you count Mau, but I'm quite sure I weigh more than he). Pablo, if the RPI is so great, why did you bother to come up with something better?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 16:11:55 GMT -5
"Half-assed witty put down" is a personal attack IB.
Surfer has also made personal attacks, which doesn't help his cause in the discussion either.
RE: You coment(s) regarding Maryland being the best ACC team and Nevada and ratings.
Using Pablo:
Duke is the highest rated ACC team. They're higher ranked than New Mexico State.
North Carolina and Maryland are both higher rated than Nevada.
So using that rating system all three were more deserving of beng allowed into the tournament than Nevada and since Duke ended up being an at large selection the rating makes them more deserving than New Mexico State.
Though New Mexico State was far more deserving than Nevada.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Dec 8, 2005 16:14:28 GMT -5
I'm not defending Nevada being selected into the tournament, but I'd pick them to win 4 out of 5 contest between any equally ranked East coast team.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 16:22:17 GMT -5
Which is a subjective opinion.
Duke is ranked 38th in Pablo, Nevada is ranked 61.
Maryland at 60 and Nevada at 61 would largely be a tossup based on Pablo. Impacted by where the match were to be played.
What I believe Surfer is trying to say is that there are plenty of teams from the east that are worthy of being in the tournament even as at large selections.
Just because you can cite data showing that perhaps the majority of teams from the east are much weaker than teams from the west doesn't mean that the teams from the east which actually are good can be dismissed as being "just east coast teams".
Just because no team from the east (other than Penn State) has won a national championship doesn't mean all teams from the east can simply be dismissed. Especially considering the small number of teams that actually have won national championships.
|
|