I'll remember that
Tracking Iowa's RPI, KenPom, & Sagarin
- Thread starter NikeHawk21
- Start date
I'll remember that
Thank god.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
You have to take any of these computer rating with a grain of salt. They are simply a mathematical formula and there is no "perfect" formula for determining the quality of a team with you have so many variables. I think the perfect point is the fact that say a Nebraska is #48 in RPI and #85 in Kenpom and Iowa is #74 in KenPom and #148 in RPI.
It is just a measure at a point in time anyway, none of them matter until the final game is played and all the data is in.
It is just a measure at a point in time anyway, none of them matter until the final game is played and all the data is in.
Now you've done it. Twins is going to mention you hating KenPom in every other post now.
You could say that about any stat or any ranking. It's just annoying that some one or some people decide to point out every possible flaw in a statistic that doesn't fit their narrative. It went from Mike's "fake assists", PER being stupid and now KenPom is bogus. Every time someone brings up Bohannon's points per game I should mention that PPG has it flaws like PC pointed out. You think I'm a troll but could you imagine me doing that and how annoying that would be?
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
Let us know when the RPI drops below 100. Until that time, it isn't going to matter.
That's because of your blanket statements like "he sick because this stat says so" or "we haven't improved because that stat says so". Quit acting like stats mean everything and people will quit pointing out why they don't.
Every time we point out a stat that shows something positive, you point our one that shows something negative and act like that stat is more important. Isn't that pretty much the same thing?
I said our team defense isn't good because of our AdjD and you said it was a bogus stat. That's not a blanket statement and it's a true statement but because it doesn't fit your narrative you have to go off about how we shouldn't use KenPom's AdjD anymore because you don't think it's accurate
That's like saying Nebraska isn't playing good basketball right now because of their overall record.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Woah....might want to read my post. If you ask what a guy shoot or what a guy does for assists or points, that is easy math. If you say "who is the best player" well that is more subjective and takes a much more complex formula with way more data that can lead to more flaws.
Same with "what team is best"? Well a metric will only spit out what is feed into it and is told what is important and what isn't.
I never said they were worthless, just saying only an idiot looks at a single metric and considers that gospel.
We have gone back and forth on PER, offensive rating and defensive rating (we both agreed this one was worthless). They are fine to look at, but they certainly aren't he end all beat all. I still say you get a better idea of what a player is by using several traditional stats (PPG, RPG, Assist, etc) than you ever could by just looking at a single Offensive rating or PER stat.
No it's not. You say our defense is so improved but who have we played good defense against since Omaha?
Traditional stats like PPG, RPG and especially Assists are flawed though according to PC
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Hey, what was kenpom adjust D rating for Iowa on Dec 4th? Bet it has improved a lot since then.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
So? Do you think those tell you more or a single PER rating?
I told you I don't know
I think a PER tells you more than flawed stats like assists per game
We didn't need to play good defense to be improved. There was a huge window between what we were playing and good. We are somewhere in that window.
I don't think our last two games against good offenses showed improved defense. I don't think giving up 73 and 68 points to terrible offensive teams like North Dakota and Stetson is improved defense either.
All stats are flawed in the sense you can always find an argument against them. For instance. One player averages 20 points and 2 assists and the other averages 2 points and 6 assists. Your dumb ass would argue the second player was better because he has more assists. Then others will point out how dumb you are. Then you would say people think stats are pointless. It's not the stats that are flawed, it's how you apply them.
