|
Post by bringbackcaro on Mar 3, 2017 20:11:27 GMT -5
Sure, they're "much weaker" if you're going to robotically default to KenPom rankings. But if you're going to actually look at who shows up in the gym for the game, it would be foolish to dismiss a Jeff Jones team with guys like Stokes, Miles, and Rodriguez compared to this Bucknell team that has not been tested at all in the PL this year after coming off a 1st round exit in the PLT last year. There's no possible way to counter any of your opinions, is there? If all the facts are against you, you just dismiss the facts, dismiss the objective measures, and imply that your opinion trumps all. I have to give you full credit: "Robotically default to KenPom rankings" is one of your best phrases yet. Just for the record: do you completely discount any objective measure of team performance such as RPI, Sagarin Rankings, and Ken Pomeroy? LOL, "all the facts are against me" because of one 15 year-old KenPom ranking. Too funny. I have never "completely discounted" the use of stats and/or other measures. They are all tools to judge a team's performance, but should never be the sole indicator of evaluation. I watched American teams that played some excellent HC teams (better than the current Bucknell team) toe-to-toe, including an extremely memorable Friday night game at the Hart Center in the second half of the 2002-03 season that was played at an exponentially higher level (in an exponentially better atmosphere) than any game in the PL this season. Based on watching those teams and knowing how good of a coach Jeff Jones is, I believe that their guards (Miles, Stokes, and Rodriguez) would punch Bucknell's guards in the mouth and give them all they can handle (and then some). 137 (and apparently you) think that American's KenPom Rating in that year was too low to compete with the current untested Bucknell team that is coming off a 1st round exit in the PLT. I stand by my argument. I welcome arguments and opposing points of view (as anyone should), but have trouble taking it seriously when the only response is pointing to 15 year-old KenPom rankings. Do you completely discount watching games and maybe rewinding plays once or twice to evaluate the scheme? Any thoughts on the very specific observations and suggestions I listed above regarding scheme? Or just throwing out potshots without actually considering the detail behind observations that begin with analyzing the play on the court? Have a nice weekend!
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Mar 3, 2017 20:11:45 GMT -5
this thread is an excellent case study for why pomeroy, rpi, sagarin, etc. are considered far superior measures of the relative strength of teams from different eras than are memory, anecdote, descriptive imagery, etc.
these factors can understandably bias one's opinion of the relative strength of teams. i also view some of the rw teams perhaps more favorably than they really were, because i was enamored with rw and his defense-focused style of play. but we tend to selectively forget that these teams drove us crazy with the offensive struggles and inability to seemingly ever get the big bucket that we needed to win big games.
the fact is that this is a human bias that does not affect the aforementioned objective measures. conjuring up imagery of the hart during that period or the strength of the coaches is not a compelling argument, because every objective measure demonstrates that the league as a whole was weaker back then. it's really not even debatable if one is approaching this topic objectively.
|
|
|
Post by cfrivals on Mar 3, 2017 21:09:54 GMT -5
Simple question, what would 02-03' team do against last years tourney team? I say they would pound inside and play matchup and win by 20plus. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 3, 2017 21:14:23 GMT -5
They would win, but by around 10 in a very low scoring game, provided our last season's team played at the level we played in the PLT.
|
|
|
Post by Ray on Mar 3, 2017 22:01:15 GMT -5
Given the current conversation, I think it's just important to get it on the record that the Hamilton charge call was bull $h*t. Carry on. Perhaps the only viewpoint that truly unites this board. Bison137 excluded, of course.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Mar 3, 2017 23:36:20 GMT -5
There's no possible way to counter any of your opinions, is there? If all the facts are against you, you just dismiss the facts, dismiss the objective measures, and imply that your opinion trumps all. I have to give you full credit: "Robotically default to KenPom rankings" is one of your best phrases yet. Just for the record: do you completely discount any objective measure of team performance such as RPI, Sagarin Rankings, and Ken Pomeroy? LOL, "all the facts are against me" because of one 15 year-old KenPom ranking. Too funny. I have never "completely discounted" the use of stats and/or other measures. They are all tools to judge a team's performance, but should never be the sole indicator of evaluation. I watched American teams that played some excellent HC teams (better than the current Bucknell team) toe-to-toe, including an extremely memorable Friday night game at the Hart Center in the second half of the 2002-03 season that was played at an exponentially higher level (in an exponentially better atmosphere) than any game in the PL this season. Based on watching those teams and knowing how good of a coach Jeff Jones is, I believe that their guards (Miles, Stokes, and Rodriguez) would punch Bucknell's guards in the mouth and give them all they can handle (and then some). 137 (and apparently you) think that American's KenPom Rating in that year was too low to compete with the current untested Bucknell team that is coming off a 1st round exit in the PLT. I stand by my argument. I welcome arguments and opposing points of view (as anyone should), but have trouble taking it seriously when the only response is pointing to 15 year-old KenPom rankings. Do you completely discount watching games and maybe rewinding plays once or twice to evaluate the scheme? Any thoughts on the very specific observations and suggestions I listed above regarding scheme? Or just throwing out potshots without actually considering the detail behind observations that begin with analyzing the play on the court? Have a nice weekend! Your arguments are laughable. First you refer to "15 year old Pomeroy rankings". That's when the games were played for the teams under discussion!! When do you think the rankings would be from? Then you refer to Bucknell's performance LAST YEAR to try to define how good they are this year. Incredible. it's clear your hazy memories of those American teams are inaccurate, but since you refuse to look at only facts - instead arguing that biased subjectivity trumps all facts - there is no more to be said. Hard to argue with irrationality.
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Mar 4, 2017 0:17:14 GMT -5
Well, my memories of those AU teams--and every one for the last 30+ years--are not "hazy." I'm not sure why you think AU's teams weren't all that good back then. Their main competition was not the rest of college basketball, but the other teams in the Patriot League. And since we made the PL title game three straight years from 2002-04, I'm not sure how their accomplishments can be dismissed so cavalierly. Yes, I know we had scholarships then and many PL schools didn't. Babe Ruth didn't play against black or Latino players. He is still viewed as a great baseball player, yes? What was the phrase? "That's when the games were played for the teams under discussion."
Patrick Doctor was the best offensive big man we had since Kermit Washington, and we haven't had one as good since. Rodriguez was an outstanding point guard, as good as any in any era. For the record, I believe the 2008 and 2009 teams were the best in school history and would have defeated the 2002-04 teams. But that doesn't mean I believe those teams were awful. Would this year's Bucknell team have beaten those 2002-04 AU teams? Maybe. But you seem so desperate to diminish what they accomplished. (By the way, the '03 AU team that you say wasn't all that good beat HC--which KenPom ranked 66th nationally that year--by 23 points in the teams' first game that season. AU then lost by two in the regular season rematch, and by eight in the PL Final at Cross--a game that I attended and that went down to the final five minutes. I don't know; I think that's a pretty decent team that would have competed fine against this year's Bucknell team. Maybe my memories are hazy.)
I know KenPom makes all rivers straight and turns dross into gold. Really. So let's just have KenPom seed the NCAA tournament and hand out the trophy based on his data-based predictions. Oh, right. They actually still play the games to see who wins.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Mar 4, 2017 0:26:09 GMT -5
Well, my memories of those AU teams--and every one for the last 30+ years--are not "hazy." I'm not sure why you think AU's teams weren't all that good back then. Their main competition was not the rest of college basketball, but the other teams in the Patriot League. And since we made the PL title game three straight years from 2002-04, I'm not sure how their accomplishments can be dismissed so cavalierly. Yes, I know we had scholarships then and many PL schools didn't. Babe Ruth didn't play against black or Latino players. He is still viewed as a great baseball player, yes? What was the phrase? "That's when the games where played for the teams under discussion." Patrick Doctor was the best offensive big man we had since Kermit Washington, and we haven't had one as good since. Rodriguez was an outstanding point guard, as good as any in any era. For the record, I believe the 2008 and 2009 teams were the best in school history and would have defeated the 2002-04 teams. But that doesn't mean I believe those teams were awful. Would this year's Bucknell team have beaten those 2002-04 AU teams? Maybe. But you seem so desperate to diminish what they accomplished. I know KenPom makes all rivers straight and turns dross into gold. Really. So let's just have KenPom seed the NCAA tournament and hand out the trophy based on his data-based predictions. Oh, right. They actually still play the games to see who wins. Down goes Robot 137! Down goes Robot 137!
|
|
|
Post by sonsofspitler on Mar 4, 2017 2:29:58 GMT -5
Let me hop in here, if I may, with several comments:
1) I love Ken Pomeroy. Let's get that out of the way first.
2) I think the 04-05 Bucknell team was better than this edition (perhaps only because Nathan Davis isn't battle tested yet but in fairness neither was Flannery in 04-05), but it's my opinion and very, VERY close.
3) That 02-03 American team was not nearly as good as many editions of HC and Bucknell squads of the last 15 years. To make that argument is a stupid one, yet reading through this thread no one had made it. What they were was an absolute MATCHUP NIGHTMARE for that 02-03 HC squad. Those AU guards were tough as balls and brought it against those teams. Jernavis Draughn, all 6-4 of him, held more than his own against our superb front court ... that kid could play for me any day. And all those damn Baltics (nothing against Baltics!) they rolled out, decent depth. They THROTTLED us in their building. They gave us all we could handle on that electric Friday night in the Hart and in the PL championship game. That team brought out the best in the 02-03 squad and they helped make the season what it was. God bless them. And one more time, for the helluva it ... screw you, Steven Miles.
4) We missed a major opportunity in a facilities upgrade during that era. We rode RW for as long as we could, and he left behind the same crap infrastructure that greeted him on day 1.
|
|
|
Post by res on Mar 4, 2017 9:14:30 GMT -5
Pomeroy isn't perfect but his ratings and those of others are the only objective data we have to go by. I know I would rely on Pomeroy over my own faulty and less than objective memories of 15 years ago and I am even more certain that I would rely on him over the faulty and less than objective 15-year memories of some of the other posters in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by ts1970 on Mar 4, 2017 10:18:25 GMT -5
Down goes Robot 137! Down goes Robot 137! Chuckling at the clever funny.....................but maybe not necessarily so. Leaving the merits of the case to be decided by the experts.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Mar 4, 2017 10:24:07 GMT -5
Down goes Robot 137! Down goes Robot 137! Chuckling at the clever funny.....................but maybe not necessarily so. Leaving the merits of the case to be decided by the experts.Even funnier is that a couple of posters are saying "I guess he's talking about me"........
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Mar 4, 2017 11:17:29 GMT -5
Pomeroy isn't perfect but his ratings and those of others are the only objective data we have to go by. I know I would rely on Pomeroy over my own faulty and less than objective memories of 15 years ago and I am even more certain that I would rely on him over the faulty and less than objective 15-year memories of some of the other posters in this thread. My question remains, why are you so desperate to compare eras and find "definitive" answers about who was better than who? Was Ella Fitzgerald "better" than, say, Patsy Cline as a singer? I don't know. Nor do I care. I'm sure some smart person could develop an algorithm based on record sales, Rolling Stone/Billboard covers, appearances on the old Tonight Show, etc., which could "prove" that Ella or Patsy was "better." But I don't want to reduce all human behavior and achievement to a number. In the case of basketball, "proving" one team was superior to another across eras completely ignores factors such as officiating (was there more contact allowed then, or less? And how would that impact a team's play and/or record?), rules (a 35-second shot clock compared with today's 30-second clock; how did that change how a team played, or how its strengths and weakness then would be impacted by having less time now? For that matter, what about teams that played in the 45-second shot clock era [1985-86 to 1993-94]--or before then, when there was no shot clock at all?) and other factors, like chemistry, coaching, financial commitment by a university, and the like. UCLA had perhaps the greatest dynasty in the history of college basketball. UCLA had one of the greatest coaches of all time in John Wooden. UCLA also had a booster named Sam Gilbert who provided financial assistance to many of the players who played there during the Wooden Era and afterward (Gilbert's actions were a catalyst to UCLA being put on probation in 1981 and having to vacate its 1980 national championship game appearance against Louisville) that almost assuredly violated numerous NCAA rules. What is one supposed to do with the third piece of information when assessing UCLA's teams against other teams in different eras? Historical examination without context is folly. I'm not dismissing a statistically-based comparison between teams and eras as having no validity whatsoever. I'm saying it's one tool in the bag. You seem to imply it's the only thing that matters. (Leaving aside for now the consistent need by some to denigrate or otherwise dismiss AU's coaches, players and/or achievements since joining the PL.)
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Mar 4, 2017 11:26:43 GMT -5
Pomeroy isn't perfect but his ratings and those of others are the only objective data we have to go by. I know I would rely on Pomeroy over my own faulty and less than objective memories of 15 years ago and I am even more certain that I would rely on him over the faulty and less than objective 15-year memories of some of the other posters in this thread. My question remains, why are you so desperate to compare eras and find "definitive" answers about who was better than who? Was Ella Fitzgerald "better" than, say, Patsy Cline as a singer? I don't know. Nor do I care. I'm sure some smart person could develop an algorithm based on record sales, Rolling Stone/Billboard covers, appearances on the old Tonight Show, etc., which could "prove" that Ella or Patsy was "better." But I don't want to reduce all human behavior and achievement to a number. In the case of basketball, "proving" one team was superior to another across eras completely ignores factors such as officiating (was there more contact allowed then, or less? And how would that impact a team's play and/or record?), rules (a 35-second shot clock compared with today's 30-second clock; how did that change how a team played, or how its strengths and weakness then would be impacted by having less time now? For that matter, what about teams that played in the 45-second shot clock era [1985-86 to 1993-94]--or before then, when there was no shot clock at all?) and other factors, like chemistry, coaching, financial commitment by a university, and the like. I'm not dismissing a statistically-based comparison between teams and eras as having no validity whatsoever. I'm saying it's one tool in the bag. You seem to imply it's the only thing that matters. (Leaving aside for now the consistent need by some to denigrate or otherwise dismiss AU's coaches, players and/or achievements since joining the PL.) Great post, njj. It's rather amusing that the only "expert" (KenPom) whose opinion is allowed on the case likely never watched a minute of any of these teams play. How ass backwards is that when an imperfect formula is taken as gospel and actually watching teams play is completely thrown out the window? But, hey, what do I know? I am incredibly biased when discussing my favorite team on the planet, the American Eagles!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 4, 2017 11:27:16 GMT -5
njj, I remember reading that AU's athlete academic performance had clearly improved since joining the PL. Is that correct? I seem to remember seeing a rating list that shows a large jump be AU...largest of any of the PL teams being examined.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Mar 4, 2017 11:28:09 GMT -5
Notjuan---
Temper down the paranoia--nobody on this board is anti-American University, nobody
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Mar 4, 2017 11:35:10 GMT -5
I do remember those early HC-AU battles were real rockfights......that Friday night game one of the most intense/exciting games that I have ever seen in person.
|
|
|
Post by res on Mar 4, 2017 11:36:51 GMT -5
My question remains, why are you so desperate to compare eras and find "definitive" answers about who was better than who? Not sure why you're addressing this to me. I've got no dog in the hunt as I don't give a fig as to whether or not the current Bucknell team is better than the '04-'05 team or not. I was simply commenting on the best way, in my opinion, to answer the question posed. In fact, the spirit with you have entered the debate tells me you have a lot more interest in defining who was better than whom than do I. The fact that you have been feuding for years with another poster on this forum is none of my concern. btw, I don't know about Fitzgerald vs. Cline, either, but I've always been partial to Patsy's "I Fall to Pieces".
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 4, 2017 11:37:56 GMT -5
I do remember those early HC-AU battles were real rockfights..... You did not note the copyright that BF has on that term !
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 4, 2017 11:39:23 GMT -5
My question remains, why are you so desperate to compare eras and find "definitive" answers about who was better than who? Not sure why you're addressing this to me. I've got no dog in the hunt as I don't give a fig as to whether or not the current Bucknell team is better than the '04-'05 team or not. I was simply commenting on the best way, in my opinion, to answer the question posed. In fact, the spirit with you have entered the debate tells me you have a lot more interest in defining who was better than whom than do I. The fact that you have been feuding for years with another poster on this forum is none of my concern. btw, I don't know about Fitzgerald vs. Cline, either, but I've always been partial to Patsy's "I Fall to Pieces". I'll take Ella
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Mar 4, 2017 11:58:39 GMT -5
njj, I remember reading that AU's athlete academic performance had clearly improved since joining the PL. Is that correct? I seem to remember seeing a rating list that shows a large jump be AU...largest of any of the PL teams being examined. Correct. (Keep in mind; I'm not an expert on academic measurement; just a fan with a computer.) The Graduation Success Rate (GSR) for men's basketball has risen dramatically: from 50 percent in the cohort years 1999-2002 (not great, but still: the Federal Graduation Rate, the previous metric used by the NCAA from the Department of Education to determine graduation rates of college students, was 14 percent for all basketball players nationwide during the same time period) to 93 percent for the cohort year 2008. (A cohort is any group of students who began their college or postsecondary education in the same academic year.) The GSR for men's basketball was 91 percent in 2009; that's the last year I could find. (I believe that's because a cohort covers a six-year period during which students are expected to graduate, which would make sense, a 2009 cohort thus running out to 2015.) There is no question that overall as well, AU's academic profile has increased significantly since joining the PL. The freshman acceptance rate for this past year was 25.7 percent, the lowest in school history. It was 46 percent just a couple of years ago. Approximately 43 percent of all students have a GPA of 3.75 or better. Joining the Patriot League in combination with enhancing the academic standards of the student body as a whole has been an incredibly good move for our school across the board. There is no way--none--I'd get into AU today. And I was pretty smart, other than my hazy memories of our old basketball teams.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 4, 2017 12:29:44 GMT -5
njj, Thanks for the details. That is a record of which AU (and the Patriot League) can boast!
|
|
|
Post by cardman529 on Mar 4, 2017 13:32:13 GMT -5
Everything cfrivals said I agree with.im not a holy cross alum I'm a fan of the cross since 1966 when a friend of my brothers mr.phil O'Neil went to the cross.ive always followed basketball and football at the cross.watching buddy venne through up 30 footers at the old auditorium.then a teacher of mine at millbury high school his wife was George blaney's secretary so I used to go with him to the games at the hart in the 70's all the time and go in the locker room to meet potter,vicens,Browne,etc it was great times for holy cross sports.now I still follow and go to occasionall games but it's like watching high school.no more Georgetown,Connecticut,BC,st.johns etc .its now Colgate,Loyola,Lafayette,etc.i as a Worcesterite never said I had to have holy cross win everything I just wanted them to compete against tuff competition.back in the day I could brag to all my friends or co workers that holy cross was going to beat a certain team,and they would say no way then the cross would win and I could Bragg and say I told you so and I'm a fan not an alum.id look up to those kids that they were pro athletes.not that I don't today I still look up to them knowing that they play sports and all there academics they have to worry about.but I'm sorry I'm not excited about what league they play in.somehow I wish it could get better I hope it does before I get to old so I can enjoy it more.all my friends and family that filled cross sports feel the same way and I know that go's for the worcester community believe me I hear it all the time so if anyone is wondering why there is not that much support anymore I think that is some of the reasonings anyway I'll always follow and I hope things get better.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 4, 2017 14:14:39 GMT -5
I do remember those early HC-AU battles were real rockfights......that Friday night game one of the most intense/exciting games that I have ever seen in person. 02-03 PLC still my favorite game. We had to take our 2 year old daughter out of day care to ge able to go; and, of course, because we knew it would be crowded* we were there at least 45 minutes early. She was fine for a while, but when they were going to play the national anthem, and the place got quiet; if you were anywhere near us, you could hear a quite audible little voice "I want to go home!". Had to walk her in the aisles practically the entire game to get her to calm down. Still LMAO about that. And what does my daughter do at high school games...why she is the soloist for the National Anthem! * There was a marked difference between that game and the PLC games after that. Whatever the Hart capacity is/was, there had to be a good 500 extra people in there and I doubt any fire marshalls signed off on it.
|
|