Hubert Davis Catch-all

[Bigs23]

To some people the metrics are all that matter and furthermore they are infallible. Of course right now Kenpom has UK, Ohio St and Louisville all ranked ahead of UNC.

The metrics are a bit overrated in CBB. Small sample sizes and many volatile factors.

They aren't useless but are being given more weight than they deserve.

 

[rodoheel]

To some people the metrics are all that matter and furthermore they are infallible.

Who has said the metrics are infallible or "all that matter"? Who are you arguing against?

 

[rodoheel]

Out of curiosity, are the UNC teams the current team is being compared to compared to their seeds at the time, frequently determined with RPI as a big factor, or have they been recalculated by the metrics of today? I don't know if it would affect anything. I'm just curious if we really are comparing apples to apples?

I'm not aware of any metrics going back farther than KenPom, which goes back to 1997 (Dean's last season) and even then only in limited fashion

 

[rodoheel]

Get specific as to what HD did, or didn’t do to turn a supposed #1 team to one outside the top 68?

Not really sure why this was directed at me - my post wasn't about HD at all.

 

[Enigma94]

Who has said the metrics are infallible or "all that matter"? Who are you arguing against?

There are plenty of comments out there about how UNC's season isn't that great because we're a fringe top 25/30 team in the metrics. There is a comment on the previous page that our 24-6 record is misleading and implying it's not that good of a season because of the metrics. I didn't mean you if that makes you feel better.

 

[rodoheel]

There are plenty of comments out there about how UNC's season isn't that great because we're a fringe top 25/30 team in the metrics. There is a comment on the previous page that our 24-6 record is misleading and implying it's not that good of a season because of the metrics. I didn't mean you if that makes you feel better.

Oh OK. I just understood that post as saying that if given a choice between judging a season based only on a team's record or only on its metrics, the latter would be preferable, which I certainly agree with, though personally I would not judge a season solely on either of those things. IMO the best proxy for how good a team was is the seed it gets in the NCAAT. Obviously a season where we go something like 24-7 and get a 4/5 seed is probably not as good as a season where we have the same record and get a 1 seed.

 

[finesse]

I'm not aware of any metrics going back farther than KenPom, which goes back to 1997 (Dean's last season) and even then only in limited fashion

Does that mean that these comparisons might not be so valid? The only reason I bring this up is that on another board, a poster pointed out how wildly different the RPI had us this year from these other sources. Has the way they figure things changed? If not, does that mean earlier teams that got better seedings based on RPI that they wouldn't now?

 

[HeelInTheOzarks]

I'm pretty convinced that the up and down will continue long term with HD, but the team has met my requirements for what he needed to continue. So I give him credit, especially with how well they've done post-CW injury. Next year is going to tell us a ton.

 

[finesse]

Oh OK. I just understood that post as saying that if given a choice between judging a season based only on a team's record or only on its metrics, the latter would be preferable, which I certainly agree with, though personally I would not judge a season solely on either of those things. IMO the best proxy for how good a team was is the seed it gets in the NCAAT. Obviously a season where we go something like 24-7 and get a 4/5 seed is probably not as good as a season where we have the same record and get a 1 seed.

Only true if the selection standards are the same. Don't care if they are worse, better or roughly the same.

 

[Centerpiece]

Not really sure why this was directed at me - my post wasn't about HD at all.

Sorry for any misnomer.
I thought there was a back and forth about the preseason #1 to no tourney year.
I could have sworn someone was arguing that that was the prosecution's evidence labeled Exhibit A in HD's indictment.

This observation was that framing that season as "preseason #1 -> no tourney" is unfair.

I'm befuddled as to what it's unfair. One, that's a simple factual statement. Two, as SnoopRob says, even if it was "top 5 -- no tourney" it would still be an equally disastrous result.

 

[SnoopRob]

The metrics are a bit overrated in CBB. Small sample sizes and many volatile factors.

They aren't useless but are being given more weight than they deserve.

The advanced metrics are the best methods we have of comparing over 300 teams in different conferences across the country, most of whom will not play each other in any given year.

The issues of comparing team are part and parcel of the system of CBB: small sample sizes, wildly varying strengths of schedules, injuries, varying styles of play, that teams play a small minority of all other teams, etc.

The advanced metrics do the best job of cutting through the noise and the biases of the observer to give us something that is the closest to being able provide an unbiased, objective rating/ranking of the strength of each team relative to the others. And because of that, the advanced metrics deserve and get a prime position in discussions on comparing teams.

Oddly, the folks I see who overestimate them the most are those who disagree with them, it's as if they believe the advanced metrics should be infallible and point out every little issue they see. The supporters of advanced metrics generally recognize that they are a great tool but have flaws like any other rating/ranking system.

 

[CRHeel94]

Would, or wouldn't? I mean, in the past it was always the smart play to go pro as soon as possible. But in the NIL era, not necessarily.

I don't see Henri as a guy who is ever going to get a big second contract -- at least not without improving considerably. Which he might do, and he might also do it better in the NBA. But if I were him, I'd focus on near-term earnings.

It's also true, though, that the career trajectory of an NBA washout -- i.e. two or three years in the league followed by Europe -- wouldn't necessarily be unattractive to him as a European.

Wouldn't...went back and corrected. One of those typos that changes things entirely.

The big thing is the risk of the first round and missing out on a guaranteed contract.

 

[rodoheel]

Does that mean that these comparisons might not be so valid? The only reason I bring this up is that on another board, a poster pointed out how wildly different the RPI had us this year from these other sources. Has the way they figure things changed? If not, does that mean earlier teams that got better seedings based on RPI that they wouldn't now?

I think the committee's general approach to seeding has been fairly consistent for the last few decades, the tools they use and data they have available has just changed. As I understand it, the NET replaced RPI as the sort of "framework" ranking that the committee used to organize wins and losses on team sheets. I.e., before you would see all of a team's game-by-game results organized by RPI ranking of the opponents, and sorted into buckets (top 50, 51-100, 101-200, etc) whereas now the ranking for all the opponents is the NET ranking and they're sorted into the quadrants 1-4. I don't know when exactly the committee started having KP or other efficiency metrics on the team sheets, but a quick Google (take with grain of salt) suggests they started looking at KP rankings sometime in the mid 2010s.

I don't think the committee has ever used either RPI or NET as a presumptive seeding order or anything like that. And I think the switch from RPI to NET, and the introduction of efficiency metrics, has likely meant very little at the top of the bracket, where the best several teams are usually pretty clear. Where it could have made more of a difference is farther down the bracket, especially on the bubble.

But in any event you don't have to go back to the RPI era to see a season where we had a similar record but better seed. In 2024 we finished the regular season 25-6 and entered the NCAAT 27-7, likely pretty similar to what we will do this season. and got a 1 seed. Barring a win @ Duke to close the season (fingers crossed!) we will probably get a 4 or 5 seed this year. The main difference is that our schedule in 2024 was significantly more difficult, so that same record resulted in us being consistently higher in the polls and much higher in the metrics. So despite the records being highly similar, I have no problem saying the 2024 team was better (unless we pull out that huge win @ Duke this weekend!).

 

[rodoheel]

Sorry for any misnomer.
I thought there was a back and forth about the preseason #1 to no tourney year.
I could have sworn someone was arguing that that was the prosecution's evidence labeled A in HD's indictment.

The debate back and forth was over how much of a disaster that season was, not who was to blame for it. But obviously as the head coach Hubert is largely judged on his results, because it's a results-based business.

 

[SnoopRob]

I'm not aware of any metrics going back farther than KenPom, which goes back to 1997 (Dean's last season) and even then only in limited fashion

RPI was the original "advanced metric" and was created in 1980 or 1981. Of course it was severely limited, but it was the best of its time. I don't think RPI for previous seasons are readily available anywhere nor would we really want to use them, if they were.

Jeff Sagarin's ratings began in the mid-1980s and were the first "real" advanced metrics that were created and used in CBB. Sadly, he quit doing his ratings a few years ago and I don't believe his ratings for past seasons are available anywhere.

 

[Centerpiece]

The debate back and forth was over how much of a disaster that season was, not who was to blame for it. But obviously as the head coach Hubert is largely judged on his results, because it's a results-based business.

Of course HD gets the blame, the buck has to stop somewhere.

Sorta like judging a teacher on how the class of ne’er-do-wells does on a totally invalid assessment… making the assessment of the teacher totally invalid.

Make no mistake, my question - misnomer notwithstanding - was deemed unfair. So we can leave it at that.

 

[SnoopRob]

Does that mean that these comparisons might not be so valid? The only reason I bring this up is that on another board, a poster pointed out how wildly different the RPI had us this year from these other sources. Has the way they figure things changed? If not, does that mean earlier teams that got better seedings based on RPI that they wouldn't now?

RPI is an outdated metric that is largely based on wins and loses rather than efficiency statistics.

In terms of what it means for seasons where RPI was used as a significant input, it means that those decisions were weighted more toward wins and losses being important. However, given that largely every other metric used then was also W/Ls based, it wouldn't have made a huge difference. (With Jeff Sagarin's model being the first efficiency-based model, which was only a few years after RPI was introduced.)

Folks bringing up RPI now only do so in the limited situations where it makes their team look better than they do in other metrics.

 

[finesse]

I think the committee's general approach to seeding has been fairly consistent for the last few decades, the tools they use and data they have available has just changed. As I understand it, the NET replaced RPI as the sort of "framework" ranking that the committee used to organize wins and losses on team sheets. I.e., before you would see all of a team's game-by-game results organized by RPI ranking of the opponents, and sorted into buckets (top 50, 51-100, 101-200, etc) whereas now the ranking for all the opponents is the NET ranking and they're sorted into the quadrants 1-4. I don't know when exactly the committee started having KP or other efficiency metrics on the team sheets, but a quick Google (take with grain of salt) suggests they started looking at KP rankings sometime in the mid 2010s.

I don't think the committee has ever used either RPI or NET as a presumptive seeding order or anything like that. And I think the switch from RPI to NET, and the introduction of efficiency metrics, has likely meant very little at the top of the bracket, where the best several teams are usually pretty clear. Where it could have made more of a difference is farther down the bracket, especially on the bubble.

But in any event you don't have to go back to the RPI era to see a season where we had a similar record but better seed. In 2024 we finished the regular season 25-6 and entered the NCAAT 27-7, likely pretty similar to what we will do this season. and got a 1 seed. Barring a win @ Duke to close the season (fingers crossed!) we will probably get a 4 or 5 seed this year. The main difference is that our schedule in 2024 was significantly more difficult, so that same record resulted in us being consistently higher in the polls and much higher in the metrics. So despite the records being highly similar, I have no problem saying the 2024 team was better (unless we pull out that huge win @ Duke this weekend!).

Thanks. I appreciate the effort. It doesn't clear up all my questions about much older teams that are in the comparison but it's not worth that effort. I was primarily curious if it had been done.

 

[rodoheel]

RPI was the original "advanced metric" and was created in 1980 or 1981. Of course it was severely limited, but it was the best of its time. I don't think RPI for previous seasons are readily available anywhere nor would we really want to use them, if they were.

Jeff Sagarin's ratings began in the mid-1980s and were the first "real" advanced metrics that were created and used in CBB. Sadly, he quit doing his ratings a few years ago and I don't believe his ratings for past seasons are available anywhere.

Yeah, I should have been more specific that I was referring to the modern *efficiency* metrics like KP.

 

[UNCatTech]

To some people the metrics are all that matter and furthermore they are infallible. Of course right now Kenpom has UK, Ohio St and Louisville all ranked ahead of UNC.

Well it was clear from the final score of those games that.....

Wait a minute....