For those who missed it over the summer - the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee has added two metrics to the team sheets they will be able to use as a reference, both from Torvik:
— JBR Bracketology (@JBRBracketology) November 1, 2024
-T-Rank (Torvik’s version of efficiency metric, similar to KenPom)
-WAB (Torvik’s version of… https://t.co/6zZGg6xqcj
Post Reply
1 of 1
2 new metrics added to the team sheets
1,019 Views |
6 Replies |
Last: 18 days ago by CactusThomas
The WAB rating is nice. This whole process is still pretty dumb but it has gotten better recently.
bobinator said:
The WAB rating is nice. This whole process is still pretty dumb but it has gotten better recently.
"measuring the value of each win/ loss proportionally to how likely a bubble team would have won or lost a given game"
If this sounds better, I don't want to know what it was before.
There's still the secret sauce.
I mean for the last however many years it's mostly been based on vibes in the committee room, and it probably still mostly is, but at least they're pretending to use advanced data.
WAB does a good job of basically comparing a team against an average bubble team based on their schedule. In this era of extremely unbalanced schedules, it's a pretty helpful tool.
WAB does a good job of basically comparing a team against an average bubble team based on their schedule. In this era of extremely unbalanced schedules, it's a pretty helpful tool.
Adding more data only helps if there is transparency on exactly which factors were used and how they are used. Otherwise more data is more cigar smoke.
Expanding the field does a better job of pushing out the boundary towards teams that arguably unqualified. In my mind the only concern I have for that is the possibility a better team (subjectively speaking) gets offed by a lesser team that came in through an expanded field and we lose viewing value. But traditionally we have thought of those as cinderellas and they don't usually last long as the competition selects out the less talented and capable teams.
So…historic question based on that: was Larry Bird's Indiana State team (I've mentioned my father-in-law was a trainer in that time period at ISU) a true Cinderella?
Expanding the field does a better job of pushing out the boundary towards teams that arguably unqualified. In my mind the only concern I have for that is the possibility a better team (subjectively speaking) gets offed by a lesser team that came in through an expanded field and we lose viewing value. But traditionally we have thought of those as cinderellas and they don't usually last long as the competition selects out the less talented and capable teams.
So…historic question based on that: was Larry Bird's Indiana State team (I've mentioned my father-in-law was a trainer in that time period at ISU) a true Cinderella?
At this point not considering a team's net DAWG rating is borderline criminal