MBB: Duke 95, NC State 60 Post-Game Thread

[Kedsy]

So first you are arguing that we should believe Vermont is decent because Pomeroy says so, but now you're saying you think Pomeroy is overrating 8 of the top 10? So which is it: according to your logic, if you think Pomeroy is wrong about 8 of the top 10, then you can't trumpet Vermont's top-100 Pomeroy rating as evidence that they are not bad. Seems like you are arguing just to argue here, because you have now argued both sides of the ledger.

Regardless, I can't understand why you can't see that any mathematical attempt to measure something that is not purely mathematical can result in a good overall approximation while missing wildly on some of the particulars.

My point is it's impossible to know which ones are hits and which ones are misses.

I said I think 8 of the 10 are overrated to suggest that once you let the genie out of the bottle, you no longer have an objective system.

[CDu]

My point is it's impossible to know which ones are hits and which ones are misses.

I said I think 8 of the 10 are overrated to suggest that once you let the genie out of the bottle, you no longer have an objective system.

It is impossible to know with certainty. But we can make reasonably educated guesses. And Vermont's resume doesn't really suggest to me that they are a top-100 team, in spite of what Pomeroy suggests.

I agree that it is not a completely objective system. Luckily, since I am not using it as a hard-and-fast metric, I am not bound to your all-or-nothing system. I use Pomeroy not as a purely objective ordinal list, but rather a good starting point for discussion. If I see a team ranked #20 in Pomeroy and their resume looks reasonable, I conclude they are good. But I don't say that the #20 team is necessarily better than the #40 team. I think Pomeroy does a good job overall, but he misses the mark substantially in some cases. And when I compare Vermont's resume to their ranking, I conclude that they are most likely overrated.

[Kedsy]

It is impossible to know with certainty. But we can make reasonably educated guesses. And Vermont's resume doesn't really suggest to me that they are a top-100 team, in spite of what Pomeroy suggests.

I agree that it is not a completely objective system. Luckily, since I am not using it as a hard-and-fast metric, I am not bound to your all-or-nothing system. I use Pomeroy not as a purely objective ordinal list, but rather a good starting point for discussion. If I see a team ranked #20 in Pomeroy and their resume looks reasonable, I conclude they are good. But I don't say that the #20 team is necessarily better than the #40 team. I think Pomeroy does a good job overall, but he misses the mark substantially in some cases. And when I compare Vermont's resume to their ranking, I conclude that they are most likely overrated.

Of course you are not bound. If you can figure out which of the 351 Division I teams deserve their ranking and which don't, then more power to you. I know from experience that I can't tell which is which, so even if I think/feel a team is overrated (or underrated), if a valid computer system says a team is top 100 I don't quibble with it.

Out of curiosity, if Vermont isn't really a top 100 team, what are they? Top 120? Top 150? Bottom 10? On what would you base such a conclusion? "Resume" is kind of amorphous.

FWIW: Vermont is #93 in Sagarin Predictor, so it's not just Pomeroy that apparently got it wrong.

[Des Esseintes]

It is impossible to know with certainty. But we can make reasonably educated guesses. And Vermont's resume doesn't really suggest to me that they are a top-100 team, in spite of what Pomeroy suggests.

I agree that it is not a completely objective system. Luckily, since I am not using it as a hard-and-fast metric, I am not bound to your all-or-nothing system. I use Pomeroy not as a purely objective ordinal list, but rather a good starting point for discussion. If I see a team ranked #20 in Pomeroy and their resume looks reasonable, I conclude they are good. But I don't say that the #20 team is necessarily better than the #40 team. I think Pomeroy does a good job overall, but he misses the mark substantially in some cases. And when I compare Vermont's resume to their ranking, I conclude that they are most likely overrated.

Here's the thing, CDu. You're saying Vermont has a garbage resume for a top-100 team and must therefore be overrated by the machines. But have you looked at what a top-100 resume actually consists of? Here's Louisiana-Lafayette, ranked one kenpom spot higher than Vermont. You mentioned that Vermont has ugly losses to Bradley #149 and Wagner #217, with little of import accomplished against good teams except Duke.

Among their six losses, Louisiana-Lafayette has lost to:
#224 South Alabama
#227 Louisiana-Monroe
#292 Jackson St.

Aside from several non-DI wins, Louisiana-Lafayette has beaten:
#119 Houston
#35 La. Tech (on the road! Go Cajuns!)
#306 McNeese St
#161 Oakland
#259 Coastal Carolina
#228 Northwestern St.
#194 UT-Arlington
#250 Texas St.
#245 Troy

How is this better than the Vermont resume? The Ragin' Cajuns have one good win over La. Tech, which I would argue is *almost* as impressive as a 1-point loss in Cameron. Otherwise, a wasteland. Not a single top-100 victory, the majority 200-level and lower. This is what a top-100 resume looks like. It's ugly. Vermont's ranking is not an indictment of kenpom. Moreover, your mistake is exactly why we let computers do this kind of work. It is impossible for people to eyeball schedule quality once we get into the scrum of teams north of about 70. For those of us conditioned to following an every-day-is-Christmas program such as Duke, at least. We have a skewed sense of what constitutes reasonable quality at that level. We might think this looks like nothing to speak of, but the fact remains there are 351 Division I teams, and this sort of record puts you in the top third. Maybe you will say Louisiana-Lafayette benefits from the Wisconsin effect, too. For my part, when the numbers keep saying something different from my preconceived notions, it's time to reexamine my preconceived notions.

[Wander]

This is what a top-100 resume looks like. It's ugly. Vermont's ranking is not an indictment of kenpom. Moreover, your mistake is exactly why we let computers do this kind of work. It is impossible for people to eyeball schedule quality once we get into the scrum of teams north of about 70. For those of us conditioned to following an every-day-is-Christmas program such as Duke, at least. We have a skewed sense of what constitutes reasonable quality at that level. We might think this looks like nothing to speak of, but the fact remains there are 351 Division I teams, and this sort of record puts you in the top third. Maybe you will say Louisiana-Lafayette benefits from the Wisconsin effect, too. For my part, when the numbers keep saying something different from my preconceived notions, it's time to reexamine my preconceived notions.

I hear you, but two things:

1. Vermont is actually pretty consistent, so they're not too hard to figure out. They are 10-1 against teams ranked 200 or worse. They are 1-7 against teams ranked 150 or better.
2. You can actually now see teams' rankings through time on the site. Vermont was in the 150-200 range most of the year, then jumped up to its current ~100 ranking only after playing games against awful teams (ranked 218, 325, 338, 343).

Those two facts combined, and I think you can make a strong case that's consistent with CDu's posts: that Vermont is something like the ~175th best team.

[Kedsy]

I hear you, but two things:

1. Vermont is actually pretty consistent, so they're not too hard to figure out. They are 10-1 against teams ranked 200 or worse. They are 1-7 against teams ranked 150 or better.
2. You can actually now see teams' rankings through time on the site. Vermont was in the 150-200 range most of the year, then jumped up to its current ~100 ranking only after playing games against awful teams (ranked 218, 325, 338, 343).

Those two facts combined, and I think you can make a strong case that's consistent with CDu's posts: that Vermont is something like the ~175th best team.

You say you hear Des Esseintes point, but I'm not sure you really do. Louisiana-Lafayette is 2-3 against the top 150, and only 5-3 against teams ranked 200 or worse (9-6 overall against Div I teams). They have one more "good win," but two more "bad losses." Cleveland State is 1-8 against the top 150 and 2-0 against 200 or worse (9-9 overall against Div I teams). To me, those resumes don't look any better than Vermont's and yet Pomeroy ranks Louisiana-Lafayette #99 and Cleveland State #95. Depending on how well a team performed (over and above wins and losses, because if all you care about is wins and losses you might as well just look at the RPI), this is what a team ranked in the 90s looks like.

[Des Esseintes]

I hear you, but two things:

1. Vermont is actually pretty consistent, so they're not too hard to figure out. They are 10-1 against teams ranked 200 or worse. They are 1-7 against teams ranked 150 or better.
2. You can actually now see teams' rankings through time on the site. Vermont was in the 150-200 range most of the year, then jumped up to its current ~100 ranking only after playing games against awful teams (ranked 218, 325, 338, 343).

Those two facts combined, and I think you can make a strong case that's consistent with CDu's posts: that Vermont is something like the ~175th best team.

1. Vermont has rated #175 or below exactly *once* since kenpom began recording stats. This year's team starts five (5) seniors. Does it make intuitive sense that such a team would be its program's worst in a decade?

2. They have a resume similar to that of teams ranked near them. We should just assume they're worse anyway?

3. After a rough start to the season, they are currently undefeated in conference play and riding a 7-game winning streak, with an average victory margin of 26. Yeah, it's weak competition, but they are annihilating it. Plus, kenpom rankings seek to take quality of opponent into account. With his new formula, he seeks to do that more than ever. We don't even KNOW the Wisconsin effect still exists. At some point one must acknowledge that Vermont is rising in the rankings because it is playing much better.

4. They lost by 1 in Cameron and by 6 at Harvard. Is that "consistent" with sucking against top-100 competition? Your point #1 only holds up if you believe W-L has more explanatory power than tempo-free stats. In which case, you and I can just go our separate ways in this conversation right now.

To my eyes, it seems pretty clear people way overprivileged that early 1-4 record and don't want to let go of the narrative.

ETA: I missed Kedsy's previous post, which makes the schedule argument much better than I did. Thank you.

[CDu]

Here's the thing, CDu. You're saying Vermont has a garbage resume for a top-100 team and must therefore be overrated by the machines. But have you looked at what a top-100 resume actually consists of? Here's Louisiana-Lafayette, ranked one kenpom spot higher than Vermont. You mentioned that Vermont has ugly losses to Bradley #149 and Wagner #217, with little of import accomplished against good teams except Duke.

Among their six losses, Louisiana-Lafayette has lost to:
#224 South Alabama
#227 Louisiana-Monroe
#292 Jackson St.

Aside from several non-DI wins, Louisiana-Lafayette has beaten:
#119 Houston
#35 La. Tech (on the road! Go Cajuns!)
#306 McNeese St
#161 Oakland
#259 Coastal Carolina
#228 Northwestern St.
#194 UT-Arlington
#250 Texas St.
#245 Troy

How is this better than the Vermont resume? The Ragin' Cajuns have one good win over La. Tech, which I would argue is *almost* as impressive as a 1-point loss in Cameron. Otherwise, a wasteland. Not a single top-100 victory, the majority 200-level and lower. This is what a top-100 resume looks like. It's ugly. Vermont's ranking is not an indictment of kenpom. Moreover, your mistake is exactly why we let computers do this kind of work. It is impossible for people to eyeball schedule quality once we get into the scrum of teams north of about 70. For those of us conditioned to following an every-day-is-Christmas program such as Duke, at least. We have a skewed sense of what constitutes reasonable quality at that level. We might think this looks like nothing to speak of, but the fact remains there are 351 Division I teams, and this sort of record puts you in the top third. Maybe you will say Louisiana-Lafayette benefits from the Wisconsin effect, too. For my part, when the numbers keep saying something different from my preconceived notions, it's time to reexamine my preconceived notions.

Bingo. The bolded part summarizes my response to your argument here. You've identified another team with the same weak schedule artificially inflating their ranking. If I see more examples that are consistent with my argument (i.e., that success against an incredibly weak schedule can actually artificially inflate a team's Pomeroy ranking), I don't feel the need to reexamine my preconceived notions.

[CDu]

1. Vermont has rated #175 or below exactly *once* since kenpom began recording stats. This year's team starts five (5) seniors. Does it make intuitive sense that such a team would be its program's worst in a decade?

Each season is different.

2. They have a resume similar to that of teams ranked near them. We should just assume they're worse anyway?

They are 11-8, with no wins (one almost win, yes) against teams in the top-100. Aside from those two good games against Duke and Harvard, they have either looked awful or played incredibly awful opponents (or both). Against teams even arguably in the top half of D-1, they are 1-6 with two close losses and the rest comfortable losses or worse. They have a blowout loss outside of the top-200.

State, for comparison, is 6-7 against teams in the top-half of D-1, including two blowout wins, two very close losses, and two blowout losses. They have no losses to teams outside the top-200.

Do you really think those resumes are similar? Because it seems to me that, aside from two blowout losses by State and two close losses by Vermont, nothing suggests they are in the same ballpark at all.

3. After a rough start to the season, they are currently undefeated in conference play and riding a 7-game winning streak, with an average victory margin of 26. Yeah, it's weak competition, but they are annihilating it. Plus, kenpom rankings seek to take quality of opponent into account. With his new formula, he seeks to do that more than ever. We don't even KNOW the Wisconsin effect still exists. At some point one must acknowledge that Vermont is rising in the rankings because it is playing much better.

It's not just weak competition. It is the absolute weakest competition in all of D-1. I don't have to acknowledge that Vermont is playing much better, because I don't know that they are. The level of competition they're facing has just dropped so drastically that we really can't tell if they are playing better. My intuition tells me that it is mostly the level of competition. You may feel free to disagree.

And while we don't know that Pomeroy still has a Wisconsin effect, we know that it has historically had that problem. And we also don't know that his tweaks have actually fixed the problem.

To my eyes, it seems pretty clear people way overprivileged that early 1-4 record and don't want to let go of the narrative.

Since that 1-4 start, they've played Duke and Harvard close, they've lost by double-digits to two sub-125 teams, and they've played a bunch of patsies. I don't think that's anywhere near definitive evidence that the 1-4 start was a mirage.

[greybeard]

They say every team brings their best to Duke. Maybe Vermont's "best" is way better than its average game. It seems like it just from the points scored against Duke. So, it seems to me that Duke's win was a good one, not that it played bad. Duke's defense can never be counted upon; it scored a whole lot of points to beat a Vermont team that apparently was playing out of its collective mind. Losing to a poor team by a normal score, imo, would have been a bad lose, and winning, not meaningful, especially if close. Beating a team with a score like this is terrific fun, lets the team "air it out," which K might have wanted his team to do, and the win, imo, should count for more than otherwise.

[Kedsy]

They are 11-8, with no wins (one almost win, yes) against teams in the top-100. Aside from those two good games against Duke and Harvard, they have either looked awful or played incredibly awful opponents (or both). Against teams even arguably in the top half of D-1, they are 1-6 with two close losses and the rest comfortable losses or worse. They have a blowout loss outside of the top-200.

Louisiana-Lafayette is 9-6 against Division I with one win against the top 100 and 3 losses to sub-200.
Cleveland State is 9-9 against Division I with zero wins against the top 100 (0-5).
Delaware is 13-7 with zero wins against the top 100 (0-6) and a loss to a sub-200.

And yet including Vermont we're talking about Pomeroy's #93, #95, #98, and #99 teams.

I'll grant that they've all feasted on some incredibly awful teams. But do you think they're all overrated recipients of the Wisconsin effect? If so, then we're back to my argument yesterday. Either the computer works or it doesn't. If it's OK to discount 4 of the 10 teams rated in the 90s (and maybe more, but I don't feel like going through every team's schedule and think four is enough to make my point), then why stop there? Why not discount every team's rating if we don't think they're really that good?

Once we go down this rabbit hole, we no longer have an objective system.

[Des Esseintes]

Each season is different.

Of course every season is different. But programs have track records. More importantly, they have coaching staffs and players carried year over year. If Vermont has an incredibly veteran team and hasn't played at 175-level in years, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to say why we should toss out the objective data and JUST ASSUME Vermont sucks way harder than usual. You can't just hand wave at the question by saying each season is a snowflake.

They are 11-8, with no wins (one almost win, yes) against teams in the top-100. Aside from those two good games against Duke and Harvard, they have either looked awful or played incredibly awful opponents (or both). Against teams even arguably in the top half of D-1, they are 1-6 with two close losses and the rest comfortable losses or worse. They have a blowout loss outside of the top-200.

State, for comparison, is 6-7 against teams in the top-half of D-1, including two blowout wins, two very close losses, and two blowout losses. They have no losses to teams outside the top-200.

Do you really think those resumes are similar? Because it seems to me that, aside from two blowout losses by State and two close losses by Vermont, nothing suggests they are in the same ballpark at all.

See, this is bizarre analysis. You say that except for two strong games against high-level competition, they have sucked against high-level competition. BUT THEY HAD TWO STRONG GAMES AGAINST HIGH LEVEL COMPETITION! It's not the Wisconsin effect. No, they didn't win those games, but if you put any credence in the philosophy behind tempo-free statistics, that shouldn't matter. You are slapping a warped lens on Vermont by saying their only quality performances are against awful competition. They are lately crushing bad competition, after performing weakly against some good teams and strongly against other good teams. They were poor against *more* good teams than not, but come on--NO team is going to distribute its performances with perfect evenness of expected quality across its schedule. You are taking what it is not even an especially pronounced bit of random variation and making up a story about it.

Also, maybe their resume is like State's, and maybe it isn't. It is like Louisiana-Monroe's directly above them, whose schedule I grabbed at random, and it is like the schedules of the teams Kedsy pulled up. Your response was to say that Louisiana-Monroe is Wisconsin effect, too. How much of the kenpom board is Wisconsin-effected? Does that seem likely, that all these random schools are benefiting from an effect that is rare enough to be named after the single school that has been shown to regularly display it? Or, perhaps, are you just not super-familiar with what a 100-level team's resume looks like? I know that I am not, but maybe you spend your free time putting Horizon League teams into their proper tiers. People have really interesting private lives on DBR.

It's not just weak competition. It is the absolute weakest competition in all of D-1. I don't have to acknowledge that Vermont is playing much better, because I don't know that they are. The level of competition they're facing has just dropped so drastically that we really can't tell if they are playing better. My intuition tells me that it is mostly the level of competition. You may feel free to disagree.

Then we disagree. You can only play your schedule, and Vermont is doing the very best they possibly could against that schedule at this point. 26 point average victory margin! And, again, you're just going to dismiss that as meaningless. By your logic, Vermont cannot prove it has gotten one scintilla better for the entire rest of the regular season, no matter how well they play. That strikes me as bizarrely narrow-minded. That schedule might not tell us if Duke is a title contender; I think it has some power to tell us if Vermont belongs in the top half of D1.

And while we don't know that Pomeroy still has a Wisconsin effect, we know that it has historically had that problem. And we also don't know that his tweaks have actually fixed the problem.

Since that 1-4 start, they've played Duke and Harvard close, they've lost by double-digits to two sub-125 teams, and they've played a bunch of patsies. I don't think that's anywhere near definitive evidence that the 1-4 start was a mirage.

We're agreed that we don't know the Wisconsin effect still exists. But you are just going to assume, against both the objective data (kenpom ranking) and reasonable traditional explanations (played poorly to start the season, turned the corner; program with an established better-than-Davidson pedigree) that Vermont is awful based on this maybe-not-even-real-and-in-any-case-uncommon phenomenon. Look, you're a smart guy and a good writer, but I've basically never heard you admit to being on the losing side of an argument. You dig in with more stubbornness than almost anyone I've ever seen. That's fine. It's good to stick to your guns much of the time. But in this instance, I think you are letting your previous position stand in the way of looking with clear eyes at the data.

[Wander]

3. After a rough start to the season, they are currently undefeated in conference play and riding a 7-game winning streak, with an average victory margin of 26. Yeah, it's weak competition, but they are annihilating it. Plus, kenpom rankings seek to take quality of opponent into account. With his new formula, he seeks to do that more than ever. We don't even KNOW the Wisconsin effect still exists. At some point one must acknowledge that Vermont is rising in the rankings because it is playing much better.

You might be right - I'm just uneasy that their rise through the rankings has occurred while playing teams ranked 300+, that's all. It looks like 3 of their next 4 are against significantly better teams, so if they're still ranked in the top 100 after that, I'll concede.

[CDu]

Of course every season is different. But programs have track records. More importantly, they have coaching staffs and players carried year over year. If Vermont has an incredibly veteran team and hasn't played at 175-level in years, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to say why we should toss out the objective data and JUST ASSUME Vermont sucks way harder than usual. You can't just hand wave at the question by saying each season is a snowflake.

You're making the assumption that they haven't systematically overrated by Pomeroy. That assumption is critical here in referencing their recent history as evidence that they should be top-100 this year. But is that assumption correct? If their conference is perennially awful (it is), and if Pomeroy systematically overvalues teams who beat up on awful comp (it has admittedly done so coming into this season), why shouldn't we question those previous rankings for the same reason I'm questioning their ranking this season?

You don't believe that Vermont is systematically overrated based on beating up patsies. So you believe their past rankings. I believe that they are systematically overrated and have been for years. Thus, I don't believe those past rankings, either.

See, this is bizarre analysis. You say that except for two strong games against high-level competition, they have sucked against high-level competition. BUT THEY HAD TWO STRONG GAMES AGAINST HIGH LEVEL COMPETITION! It's not the Wisconsin effect. No, they didn't win those games, but if you put any credence in the philosophy behind tempo-free statistics, that shouldn't matter. You are slapping a warped lens on Vermont by saying their only quality performances are against awful competition. They are lately crushing bad competition, after performing weakly against some good teams and strongly against other good teams. They were poor against *more* good teams than not, but come on--NO team is going to distribute its performances with perfect evenness of expected quality across its schedule. You are taking what it is not even an especially pronounced bit of random variation and making up a story about it.

I've acknowledged that Vermont played well against Duke and Harvard. But in looking at their full resume against decent teams, they've been awful. You seem to want to put your eggs in the basket of those two good games and their performances against the bottom of the bottom feeders of D-1. I prefer to look at their performances against all of the decent teams in D-1. And they've not been competitive enough in those games, in my opinion. Nothing bizarre about my analysis. Just a different point of view.

Then we disagree. You can only play your schedule, and Vermont is doing the very best they possibly could against that schedule at this point. 26 point average victory margin! And, again, you're just going to dismiss that as meaningless. By your logic, Vermont cannot prove it has gotten one scintilla better for the entire rest of the regular season, no matter how well they play. That strikes me as bizarrely narrow-minded. That schedule might not tell us if Duke is a title contender; I think it has some power to tell us if Vermont belongs in the top half of D1.

Vermont is certainly doing the best they can against an awful schedule. But when they've played decent teams, they generally stunk. Yes, they had 2 good performances against good teams. The rest of their performances have stunk.

I'm not blaming Vermont for their awful conference schedule. I'm just saying that their rise in Pomeroy has come specifically against that schedule. And when they had their chances against decent teams, they've mostly (not all of the time, obviously) floundered.

I just disagree iwth your last sentence in this section. I don't really believe that playing teams in the bottom 50 in the nation should be evidence that they should be in the top third of the country.

Ultimately, it will all be moot, because they'll likely win their crappy conference again. And in doing so, they'll make their Pomeroy ranking irrelevant.

We're agreed that we don't know the Wisconsin effect still exists. But you are just going to assume, against both the objective data (kenpom ranking) and reasonable traditional explanations (played poorly to start the season, turned the corner; program with an established better-than-Davidson pedigree) that Vermont is awful based on this maybe-not-even-real-and-in-any-case-uncommon phenomenon. Look, you're a smart guy and a good writer, but I've basically never heard you admit to being on the losing side of an argument. You dig in with more stubbornness than almost anyone I've ever seen. That's fine. It's good to stick to your guns much of the time. But in this instance, I think you are letting your previous position stand in the way of looking with clear eyes at the data.

Again - if my assumption is correct (about the Wisconsin effect), then I'd argue that Vermont's recent history is evidence of the Wisconsin effect. They've been in the same awful conference for years.

As for the last few sentences, I argue vehemently when I vehemently believe I'm right. I won't apologize for that. But I readily admit to being wrong when someone proves me wrong. The trick is to try hard to avoid getting in arguments where I can be proven wrong so that I don't have to admit it very often.

But in a situation like this, ultimately I'm not going to "admit I'm wrong," just like you aren't going to admit you're wrong. We both think we're right. And neither side is going to be able to produce evidence to prove the other wrong. You can't prove to me that Vermont's recent dominance of the sisters of the poor is clear evidence that Vermont really has turned the corner (and not just evidence of playing really bad teams), and I can't prove to you that Vermont's recent rise in Pomeroy is more the result of the Wisconsin effect. Short of either of those things, neither of us is going to back down.

And that's fine - feel free to believe that Vermont is really a top-100 type of team. Heck, you might be right. I'll continue to believe that Vermont is being overrated by Pomeroy's system. And heck, I might be right.

[oldnavy]

They say every team brings their best to Duke. Maybe Vermont's "best" is way better than its average game. It seems like it just from the points scored against Duke. So, it seems to me that Duke's win was a good one, not that it played bad. Duke's defense can never be counted upon; it scored a whole lot of points to beat a Vermont team that apparently was playing out of its collective mind. Losing to a poor team by a normal score, imo, would have been a bad lose, and winning, not meaningful, especially if close. Beating a team with a score like this is terrific fun, lets the team "air it out," which K might have wanted his team to do, and the win, imo, should count for more than otherwise.

They were not playing out of their mind, they were making layups!

We played middle school defense at best in that game.