Hubert Davis Catch-all

[Bigs23]

I doubt that metrics beyond wins and losses are seriously considered when deciding to retain or fire a coach.

 

[Enigma94]

It's one data point that I brought out, you're the one who decided to focus on it beyond 1 data point within a much larger season.

My best argument is that when you look at each team's seasons in totality, it is understandable why they would be roughly equal in the predictive metrics.

But you focus on these 2 games and all of the outlier events surrounding one of them in order to keep from having to deal with the overarching quality nature of predictive metrics.

I'm the one focusing on the performance of both teams, in particular against the toughest parts of their respective schedules, where UNC majorly outperformed Ohio State. You are making a general argument that looking at totality they are roughly equal. How do two roughly equivalent teams have such wildly different results against the best teams they played? Also, just fyi you are the one who brought up the ncst game.

 

[duluoz]

They have bookmakers, it is not just AI. And they rely on multiple data sources. But if you think lines are being set on hunches, I just don't know what to tell you.

The best gamblers have the best metrics, better than KenPom. As do the books. And they are not saying, well the line should be -5, but I saw that look in Caleb Wilson's eyes and Hubert is clutch at the end of games, so let's set it at -3.

If you want to continue to deny that there remains (and always will remain) some incorporation of the eye test at various levels of the bookmaking process, then I don’t know what to tell you.

What they’re saying is, we’re 0.0000462 from making the line -4.5 or -5. Somebody back there is responsible for saying ok let’s drop it to -4.5 but put it at -115 instead of -110. But no, no way the eye test would come into play there right?

That’s what I’m saying — oddsmaking is not purely a function of getting the best data — EVERYONE has access to the same data and the same geniuses with the same AI driven models trying to make money on either side of the house, and either side of the lines. It’s not just the deep insiders and MIT sharps like it was for a long while. The eye test has swung all the way back around to become a key differentiator once more.

 

[finesse]

Can you be both? It's easy enough to believe metrics is the best we have and still be suspicious about flaws. That's about where I am. I don't particularly understand metrics but they really aren't too important to my feeling for the game in general or the Heels in particular.

 

[SnoopRob]

I'm the one focusing on the performance of both teams, in particular against the toughest parts of their respective schedules, where UNC majorly outperformed Ohio State. You are making a general argument that looking at totality they are roughly equal. How do two roughly equivalent teams have such wildly different results against the best teams they played? Also, just fyi you are the one who brought up the ncst game.

I brought up the State game, but only as 1 data point within a larger argument. You've brought it up multiple times to hammer on it as a single argument.

I'd like you to explain what you mean by "wildly different results against the best teams they played" and identify the exact games you're referencing for each team before I answer, because I want to be sure I'm answering the exact question you're asking.

 

[Enigma94]

This is essentially HD meta-discussion that lays bare a significant difference between HD supporters and HD detractors as there are clear overlaps between being an HD supporter and suspicious of the metrics and being an HD detractor and favoring of the metrics.

Just as a fact check I am on record saying I don't think HD is the guy. I do think he's done enough this season to earn another one and the whole reason I got into this conversation was to rebut the talking point that this season wasn't really that great because the metrics have us ranked around 25th - 30th. I also think this comment is similar in nature to the one you objected to about how some people believe the metrics are infallible.

 

[SnoopRob]

Just as a fact check I am on record saying I don't think HD is the guy. I do think he's done enough this season to earn another one and the whole reason I got into this conversation was to rebut the talking point that this season wasn't really that great because the metrics have us ranked around 25th - 30th. I also think this comment is similar in nature to the one you objected to about how some people believe the metrics are infallible.

Just because a general point may not apply to you doesn't invalidate the general argument, it may just make you an outlier.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make regarding the relationship between this and your hyperbolic to the point of foolishness claim that some folks believe the metrics to be infallible.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

 

[Enigma94]

Just because a general point may not apply to you doesn't invalidate the general argument, it may just make you an outlier.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make regarding the relationship between this and your hyperbolic to the point of foolishness claim that some folks believe the metrics to be infallible.

It's just as hyperbolic to say those who support HD are suspicious of the metrics as it is to say those who want him gone think they are infallible. As proof I offered I don't really support HD long term, although I do think he's earned another year. And I'm not really suspicious of the metrics in a sense that I think they are useless. I simply think they should not be used as a reason to undermine what this team has accomplished this year, which is what is happening when people say our record is misleading and as evidence you should look at the metrics.

 

[duluoz]

Can you be both? It's easy enough to believe metrics is the best we have and still be suspicious about flaws.

Yes you can and should be both, and I said that pages ago. The guys who are far less acknowledging of that fact are the ones driving this argument. They think it’s metrics or cave man.

 

[Calheel]

If you want to continue to deny that there remains (and always will remain) some incorporation of the eye test at various levels of the bookmaking process, then I don’t know what to tell you.

What they’re saying is, we’re 0.0000462 from making the line -4.5 or -5. Somebody back there is responsible for saying ok let’s drop it to -4.5 but put it at -115 instead of -110. But no, no way the eye test would come into play there right?

That’s what I’m saying — oddsmaking is not purely a function of getting the best data — EVERYONE has access to the same data and the same geniuses with the same AI driven models trying to make money on either side of the house, and either side of the lines. It’s not just the deep insiders and MIT sharps like it was for a long while. The eye test has swung all the way back around to become a key differentiator once more.

We are now balancing angels on a pinhead.

You seem to agree with my larger point that metrics are the basis of all gambling lines. Maybe you adjust a smidge here or there for idiosyncratic factors, but in general, there is no dispute about the significance of metrics when it comes to setting lines.

If metrics were as worthless as some on this site seem to believe, the sportsbooks would be out of business by now.

 

[Bigs23]

We are now balancing angels on a pinhead.

You seem to agree with my larger point that metrics are the basis of all gambling lines. Maybe you adjust a smidge here or there for idiosyncratic factors, but in general, there is no dispute about the significance of metrics when it comes to setting lines.

If metrics were as worthless as some on this site seem to believe, the sportsbooks would be out of business by now.

Has anyone actually said they are completely useless?

 

[duluoz]

We are now balancing angels on a pinhead.

You seem to agree with my larger point that metrics are the basis of all gambling lines. Maybe you adjust a smidge here or there for idiosyncratic factors, but in general, there is no dispute about the significance of metrics when it comes to setting lines.

If metrics were as worthless as some on this site seem to believe, the sportsbooks would be out of business by now.

And if the eye test/intuition/subjectivity gained from experience were as worthless as some on this site seem to believe, human bookmakers would be out of business by now.

 

[Calheel]

Has anyone actually said they are completely useless?

"as worthless"

 

[Calheel]

And if the eye test/intuition/subjectivity gained from experience were as worthless as some on this site seem to believe, human bookmakers would be out of business by now.

Do you think bookmakers watch all 6,000 Div 1 basketball games a year? That would be 12,000 hours of time. There are only 3,000 hours in a cbb season. How are they making lines on all of these games?

 

[Bigs23]

"as worthless"

Or worthless?

 

[SnoopRob]

It's just as hyperbolic to say those who support HD are suspicious of the metrics as it is to say those who want him gone think they are infallible. As proof I offered I don't really support HD long term, although I do think he's earned another year. And I'm not really suspicious of the metrics in a sense that I think they are useless. I simply think they should not be used as a reason to undermine what this team has accomplished this year, which is what is happening when people say our record is misleading and as evidence you should look at the metrics.

I didn't say that those who support HD are suspicious of the metrics as an absolute rule, I said there are significant overlaps between the two groups.

And I would pretty much guarantee you that if you took a poll of HD supporters and compared their feelings concerning advanced metrics to those fans who are HD detractors, you'd find a significant correlation between HD support and metrics suspicion and DH detraction and metrics belief. I've read far too many discussions of each topic featuring the same posters and the overlap is obvious once you see enough comments on each topic from those same posters. That's not to say that everyone would follow that rule - that would be a silly claim as there are certainly folks for whom the commonality wouldn't apply - but I'm certain a general correlation would apply.

That's a far different claim than saying that a group of folks believe metrics to be infallible despite many folks in that supposed group repeatedly denying that belief and giving specific reasons why they don't believe it.

 

[finesse]

Do you think bookmakers watch all 6,000 Div 1 basketball games a year? That would be 12,000 hours of time. There are only 3,000 hours in a cbb season. How are they making lines on all of these games?

Delegation. Committees of league specialists, team specialists for Top 25 and such. Some variant that almost any large business would recognize.

 

[Calheel]

Or worthless?

There is a straw man fallacy on this site in which a lot of posters engage. They assert an extreme position -- not actually advanced by a poster -- to argue against that poster's point.

To my knowledge, no one on this site has argued that metrics are "completely" worthless or "completely" accurate.

When you do that, you are not actually advancing the discussion.

 

[rodoheel]

Can you be both? It's easy enough to believe metrics is the best we have and still be suspicious about flaws.

I think this is entirely reasonable, but rather than saying "suspicious about flaws" I would say "conscious of the many limitations that are inherent in trying to measure the quality of 350+ college basketball teams."