Hubert Davis Catch-all

[Enigma94]

I mean this in the least snarky way I can try to make it come across…you essentially don’t like the metrics that say your team isn’t as good as you believe it is and it upsets you when folks use these metrics to make that point?

Make the case that Ohio State is better than UNC this year using the results from this season.

 

[UNCatTech]

Are you saying if we have the same outcomes only the teams we played were considerably better than they actually are we’d be considered better because our outcomes would have been achieved against better teams?

Yes.

 

[NYCBlueBlood]

We are a team that is terribly inconsistent and we often win games by limited margins (which is indicative of limited efficiency), which means we only do so well in the predictive metrics (which are often what folks mean when they say "advanced metrics").

There are also "resume metrics" which take into account wins and losses rather than pure efficiency, such as Strength of Record (SOR) and Wins Above Bubble (WAB). Carolina does better in those this year than in the efficiency metrics.

No version of advanced metrics do much with taking into account injuries, mostly because no one has figured out a good way to do so.

This is a very good post. My understanding is that the "advanced metrics" play more of a role in determining who gets in... thus how they helped us last season when we were on the razors edge of the bubble. But for purposes of seeding, the selection committee gives greater weighting to "resume metrics," in particular the Wins Above Bubble (WAB). And with the fact that we are not a bubble team this year but have a number of good wins, we will once again benefit from this dynamic.

 

[stankeylegjones]

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 sure what you're asking, sorry. Are you asking if the 2025-26 UNC can be compared to say an earlier team through the same metrics? If so, yes, as long as the metric service you're using dates back to the team you want to compare them with.

(I wasn't comparing this year's team with past teams, sorry if I was being confusing. I was saying that basing performance off of W-L records can be deceiving.)

 

[stankeylegjones]

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.

What is the cutoff/number where you would you say a sample size becomes no longer "small," in this situation.

 

[rodoheel]

I have said over and over I am in agreement with using the metrics as a tool, so I don't know where you are getting this criticism that I am somehow invalidating the formula as a whole. I do think it's still important to point out where the metrics miss so those misses can be taken into the context of seeding decisions, as the committee is appropriately doing. It's no different than pointing out that the polls are off by putting Miami (OH) at number 19.

OK, sure. I think this is mainly semantics then. I wouldn't say that what you describe is taking into account the "misses" of the metrics so much as considering them in context with many other data points. Your framing makes it sound like you think the metrics are making a mistake that needs to be fixed. When really we're just agreeing that the metrics are only one data point to take into account. That doesn't make them "wrong" every time they are at odds with other data.

 

[UNCatTech]

This feels very much like an "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" point. Yes, if we had played a significantly harder schedule and had the same record, that would be more impressive. Is that a controversial point?

Isn't that the difference in going 24-7 and being a 5 seed vs 24-7 and being a 2 seed?

Wasn't meant to be controversial, just adding to the conversation.

It was really more of a response to how coaching has no impact on those variables, since we are discussing HD's successes and failures.

Same with the season we were ranked #1 preseason. Out of his control, but he seems to get some blame for that as a greater failure than had we started ranked #5 and not made it.

My personal belief is that the #1 ranking hurt more than acknowledged that year. I believe if we were ranked #10 and had the same results we would have made the tournament. I think the expectations were elevated because of the ranking and held against us.

 

[rodoheel]

Make the case that Ohio State is better than UNC this year using the results from this season.

I think all available data suggests that OSU and UNC are extremely similar teams in terms of quality, which certainly aligns with the head to head result when we played them. However, UNC has a much better tournament resume.

 

[finesse]

I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. Are you asking if the 2025-26 UNC can be compared to say an earlier team through the same metrics? If so, yes, as long as the metric service you're using dates back to the team you want to compare them with.

(I wasn't comparing this year's team with past teams, sorry if I was being confusing. I was saying that basing performance off of W-L records can be deceiving.)

I'm not completely sure what I'm trying to ask. I want to understand a little more about the expected consistency of all teams in the future and it helps to understand the past even though we can't recapture it. The times when you could plan overlapping rosters and substantial time in the program for most players is gone.

I was primarily curious if there was a way to approximate how closely our rankings and seeds coincide if looked at in terms of advanced metrics. Really just a matter of curiosity.

 

[Enigma94]

I think all available data suggests that OSU and UNC are extremely similar teams in terms of quality, which certainly aligns with the head to head result when we played them. However, UNC has a much better tournament resume.

This is where we part ways. First, I have been told by many that one game results aren't a reasonable way to look at the quality of a team and the metrics are taking a more wholistic approach. OSU is 2-10 versus Quad 1 teams with one nice win over Purdue and the other being against 13-17 Northwestern. Our wins absolutely dwarf that resume. They also have a loss to 103rd ranked Pittsburgh, who we beat without our two best players. I don't see any way looking at the overall results these two teams have produced that you could say OSU is as good as UNC.

 

[duluoz]

That does not somehow invalidate or undercut the formulas as a whole. It is impossible for there to be any metric that perfectly ranks every team right where every person thinks they should be.

That’s exactly what the isolated outputs do — to some degree or another, they invalidate or undercut the infallibility of the metrics and models. They point out that those who rely so heavily on them and laugh in the face of (what can loosely be referred to as) the eye test, they should check their certitude, which is something very few “metrics” heavy fans tend to do. At least in my experience.

 

[SnoopRob]

Make the case that Ohio State is better than UNC this year using the results from this season.

First, as of this moment we have the exact same rating as them down to the hundredths place, so I wouldn't say either team is better but that they are of very similar quality. And even if there were a small difference in our rating and ranking with them, it'd be best to say the teams are similar rather than one clearly better.

As far as their rating/ranking, they have played a number of really good teams close, although they have lost more of those than they've won, and they have only 2 blowout loses, to #2 Michigan and #23 Iowa. Their strength of schedule is fairly decently better than ours, which means their results have been achieved against a reasonably harder schedule.

While our W/L record is better than theirs, we have a lot of close wins (yay for us!) which is indicative that the records gap between us and tOSU is likely larger than the actual performance gap, particularly when you consider their decently harder strength of schedule. We've also only got two blowouts on our resume, although one of them is a huge loss to #35 State, which is far worse than either of theirs. In fact, given how badly we lost that game (82-58), it's probably the worst loss that either team has on the season.

Given that we have played them on a neutral court and won by a single point, the idea that these are essentially equal teams is the right call. So, in short, KenPom has it right in this case.

 

[Enigma94]

First, as of this moment we have the exact same rating as them down to the hundredths place, so I wouldn't say either team is better but that they are of very similar quality. And even if there were a small difference in our rating and ranking with them, it'd be best to say the teams are similar rather than one clearly better.

As far as their rating/ranking, they have played a number of really good teams close, although they have lost more of those than they've won, and they have only 2 blowout loses, to #2 Michigan and #23 Iowa. Their strength of schedule is fairly decently better than ours, which means their results have been achieved against a reasonably harder schedule.

While our W/L record is better than theirs, we have a lot of close wins (yay for us!) which is indicative that the records gap between us and tOSU is likely larger than the actual performance gap, particularly when you consider their decently harder strength of schedule. We've also only got two blowouts on our resume, although one of them is a huge loss to #35 State, which is far worse than either of theirs. In fact, given how badly we lost that game (82-58), it's probably the worst loss that either team has on the season.

Given that we have played them on a neutral court and won by a single point, the idea that these are essentially equal teams is the right call. So, in short, KenPom has it right in this case.

You might as well just say winning the game doesn't matter. And you think losing to ncst without our two best players and projected first round draft picks in a rivalry game is worse than losing to Pitt? I just can't get on board with that. It's ok, this is what I was talking about when I said some people think the metrics are infallible.

 

[rodoheel]

This is where we part ways. First, I have been told by many that one game results aren't a reasonable way to look at the quality of a team and the metrics are taking a more wholistic approach. OSU is 2-10 versus Quad 1 teams with one nice win over Purdue and the other being against 13-17 Northwestern. Our wins absolutely dwarf that resume. They also have a loss to 103rd ranked Pittsburgh, who we beat without our two best players. I don't see any way looking at the overall results these two teams have produced that you could say OSU is as good as UNC.

And this is what I mean about semantics. I would agree with you if your point was that no one could argue that OSU has a better resume than we do. They clearly don't. We have much better quality of wins, we are better in results-based metrics like SOR and WAB, etc. Our overall resume is far better. We will and should be seeded much higher in March.

But the question of who should be seeded higher is, IMO, pretty clearly a different question than who is better which is a question I think efficiency metrics are much better equipped to help answer. So when several different efficiency metrics (KP, BPI, Torvik) all agree the teams are pretty close in terms of quality, that is meaningful to me. And the head-to-head result is just one data point that further informs that, certainly not something that should be elevated as answering the question on its own. But of all the individual data points, a neutral-site meeting between two teams is probably the most important individual data point, even if it is limited in what it can tell us by being such a small sample size.

 

[Enigma94]

And this is what I mean about semantics. I would agree with you if your point was that no one could argue that OSU has a better resume than we do. They clearly don't. We have much better quality of wins, we are better in results-based metrics like SOR and WAB, etc. Our overall resume is far better. We will and should be seeded much higher in March.

But the question of who should be seeded higher is, IMO, pretty clearly a different question than who is better which is a question I think efficiency metrics are much better equipped to help answer. So when several different efficiency metrics (KP, BPI, Torvik) all agree the teams are pretty close in terms of quality, that is meaningful to me. And the head-to-head result is just one data point that further informs that, certainly not something that should be elevated as answering the question on its own. But of all the individual data points, a neutral-site meeting between two teams is probably the most important individual data point, even if it is limited in what it can tell us by being such a small sample size.

But it begs the question - if the two teams are basically the same, how did we win all those games against superior opponents while they lost basically all of them? Is it just luck? I guess if I'm a one seed and get OSU as my nine seed I should be pissed since they are essentially the same level as a 5 seed.

 

[rodoheel]

That’s exactly what the isolated outputs do — to some degree or another, they invalidate or undercut the infallibility of the metrics and models. They point out that those who rely so heavily on them and laugh in the face of (what can loosely be referred to as) the eye test, they should check their certitude, which is something very few “metrics” heavy fans tend to do. At least in my experience.

I would absolutely agree with you that if someone were arguing that metrics are "infallible" then what you are talking about would undercut their "infallibility." But luckily no one is arguing that! The metrics are not infallible. They are a fairly rough attempt to measure team quality - for numerous reasons, I don't think anything other than a very rough measurement is possible for college bball teams. I do think they accomplish their function of predicting outcomes better than any other system I've seen, even if individual game outcomes very frequently are far different from what the metrics would predict.

There is simply no such thing as "certitude" when it comes to comparing quality of teams and predicting outcomes in any sport, especially college basketball. So anyone who is looking for "certitude" from metrics is going to be disappointed, that's for sure. If anyone is using them to express "certainty" about anything, they should be mocked. But I would also mock anyone who thinks their own personal "eye test" is betetr than efficiency metrics at ranking every team in college bball.

 

[uncjhodges]

But it begs the question - if the two teams are basically the same, how did we win all those games against superior opponents while they lost basically all of them? Is it just luck? I guess if I'm a one seed and get OSU as my nine seed I should be pissed since they are essentially the same level as a 5 seed.

Yea, most teams would be upset if they got a team that efficiency ratings wise was vastly underseeded (Ohio state as a 9 doesn’t really fit that bill)
it’s also a really weird team to quibble with since we literally played them to a 1 pt game on a neutral floor and their resume is very similar to ours last year.

 

[Enigma94]

Yea, most teams would be upset if they got a team that efficiency ratings wise was vastly underseeded (Ohio state as a 9 doesn’t really fit that bill)
it’s also a really weird team to quibble with since we literally played them to a 1 pt game on a neutral floor and their resume is very similar to ours last year.

I'm really more quibbling with UNC's spot, Ohio State is just one that is right by us with vastly inferior results.

 

[donbosco]

That #1 ranking seems to have fallen prey to Deja Do.

 

[Enigma94]

Let me approach this a different way - how many would trade our roster for Ohio State's? I mean if it's basically the identical team then it shouldn't matter which roster we have. Personally I think we have a superior roster with two projected first round picks and one in the top 5. Then you look at the actual results of the season and I don't see how people can claim the two teams are identical.