PDA

View Full Version : Man, them dork polls is crazy



hurleyfor3
01-08-2009, 12:04 PM
Pomeroy ratings updated through Wednesday's games:

1. Duke
2. WVU
3. Pitt
4. UConn
5. Georgetown
6. Unc

Wake is 10th. Sagarin makes slightly more sense, although I'm still not sure we're the second-best team in the country:

1. Pitt
2. Duke
3. UConn
4. Unc
5. Clemson
6. Wake... WVU is 8th, Georgetown is 10th.

rthomas
01-08-2009, 12:23 PM
From watching WVU this year, the team is not a bad team and getting better, but ranked 2? ha ha.

JasonEvans
01-09-2009, 11:41 AM
It is still very early in the season. Most good teams have played, at most, 4 or 5 games they had any chance of losing. These rankings will sort themselves out pretty nicely over the next 2-3 weeks, I suspect.

That said, once they do sort themselves out, I still expect Duke to be at the very top of the rankings. This is an exceptionally good Duke club, one of our most balanced teams in quite a long time with elite talent in a lot of places. It is clearly our best team since JJ and Shelden left school.

--Jason "of course, the test will be Feb and especially March" Evans

RepoMan
01-09-2009, 12:42 PM
This is an exceptionally good Duke club, one of our most balanced teams in quite a long time with elite talent in a lot of places. It is clearly our best team since JJ and Shelden left school.


I think it is the lest team since Deng left school. The post-Deng JJ/Shel teams were not as balanced.

Bluedog
01-09-2009, 12:55 PM
I think it is the lest team since Deng left school. The post-Deng JJ/Shel teams were not as balanced.

Maybe....but that might be stretching it. If this team is better than the team that started out 29-1, went 14-2 in ACC action capturing the regular season title, captured the ACC tournament title, and was ranked #1 in the country the vast majority of the season, then we're in for a great ride! I think right now I'd take the 05-06 club over this one - they just happened to have a bad game when it mattered most. Anything can happen in the NCAA tourney, as we all know. The best team doesn't always win in a one-and-done format.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-09-2009, 01:27 PM
Maybe....but that might be stretching it. If this team is better than the team that started out 29-1, went 14-2 in ACC action capturing the regular season title, captured the ACC tournament title, and was ranked #1 in the country the vast majority of the season, then we're in for a great ride! I think right now I'd take the 05-06 club over this one - they just happened to have a bad game when it mattered most. Anything can happen in the NCAA tourney, as we all know. The best team doesn't always win in a one-and-done format.

I think there are good arguments for both teams, and of course we'll have to see how this team performs for the rest of the season. My own sense is that 05-06 was two great players carrying a very mediocre team. When J.J. was "on" we could outscore most teams, but other than him and Shel we were below average in every significant area (Dock was our only other good defender, McBob was our only other offensive option, etc.)

Our two all-timers created easy shots (esp. for Melch and Dock) and Shel covered up for tons of defensive mistakes, but as a team we were fairly weak (in comparison to other "great" teams). We basically peaked in the Texas game and went downhill (or maybe other folks caught up) from there. Don't forget we got blasted on Senior Night by a less-than-amazing UNC team and really had to struggle in the ACC tournament (we won by 4, 12, and 2 points (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/team-gbg.php?season=2005-06)). I loved that team and am still proud of what they did, but this team is already a much better defensive unit and has the potential to be offensively reliable and steady in a way that that team never could. Time will tell, I suppose. I'm already enjoying this team MUCH more.

DukeCO2009
01-09-2009, 04:59 PM
I agree 100% with DevilCastDownfromDurham. As much as I loved Dockery, Lee, and the freshman version of GP3 (I'm leaving McBob out of this list intentionally), when you boil things down the team was really just JJ, Shelden, and friends. They were the only two guys that were legitimately scary, and if you could limit the production of one the them you had a good chance of winning the game. I'm sure most of ya'll remember the Georgetown game. JJ had 41, but Shelden struggled mightily; we lost.

This team is different. Scheyer, Singler, Smith, Henderson could all go off for 25, Greg can hit threes in flurries, and Zoubek and Lance can both give us double-doubles when they're on their games. Add in the tremendous upside of EWill, the steady contribution of McClure on the boards and on defense, Marty's athleticism, and the potential of Plumlee to develop into a solid contributor, and you've got a hell of a team. If you're an opposing coach, who do you stop? In '05-'06, that was any easy question to answer. This year? Not so much. JJ and Shelden were two of my three or four favorite players to put on a Duke uniform, so I mean no disrespect to them when I say that we've got something really, really special on our hands this season. The chemistry, talent, and cohesiveness are all there. Should be fun to watch.

mgtr
01-09-2009, 06:42 PM
Well said. I, too, am optimistic about this team. The only real problem we seem to have is the tendency to fall asleep at times (Davidson, for example). As others have said, we should put a little more emphasis on getting the ball to Zoubek -- when he touches the ball, good things tend to happen. He doesn't even have to shoot much -- he draws a crowd, leaving others open.

hurleyfor3
01-12-2009, 09:14 AM
Now after Sunday's games, Pomeroy is

1. Duke (OK, but not #1)
2. Pitt (actually belongs here)
3. Cackalacky (two losses)
4. WV (four losses)
5. Arizona State (can't have a dork poll without a dork coach)
6. Gonzo (four losses)
7. UConn (has beaten #4 and #6)
8. Georgetown (beat uconn but has three losses)
9. Wake (finally!)

Dork polls. They're downright... dorky.

gw67
01-12-2009, 09:48 AM
Sagarin makes more sense to me. I would replace BYU but they hung tough with Wake which counts for something.

1 Duke
2 Pittsburgh
3 Connecticut
4 Clemson
5 Wake Forest
6 North Carolina
7 Arizona State
8 Oklahoma
9 BYU
10 Michigan State

gw67

pfrduke
01-12-2009, 11:10 AM
Now after Sunday's games, Pomeroy is

1. Duke (OK, but not #1)
2. Pitt (actually belongs here)
3. Cackalacky (two losses)
4. WV (four losses)
5. Arizona State (can't have a dork poll without a dork coach)
6. Gonzo (four losses)
7. UConn (has beaten #4 and #6)
8. Georgetown (beat uconn but has three losses)
9. Wake (finally!)

Dork polls. They're downright... dorky.

The big thing to remember with these ratings (at least Pomeroy - I think this is true for Sagarin but I'm not 100% sure) is that they don't care about wins and losses. A team that wins three games by 40 and loses three by 1 will likely be ranked well, even though they're 3-3.

The merits of this are obviously debatable.

camion
01-12-2009, 12:06 PM
To quote from the Saragin rating page (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt0809.htm):

In ELO CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence, which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.
PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR of future games.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall RATING is a synthesis of the two diametrical opposites, ELO CHESS and PURE POINTS (PREDICTOR).

Troublemaker
01-12-2009, 03:16 PM
The big thing to remember with these ratings (at least Pomeroy - I think this is true for Sagarin but I'm not 100% sure) is that they don't care about wins and losses. A team that wins three games by 40 and loses three by 1 will likely be ranked well, even though they're 3-3.


Right, and that's where the value of Pomeroy lies. You can identify when teams are underrated or overrated based on record. For example, even though St. Mary's (#57 Pomeroy) has only 1 loss and Gonzaga (#6 Pomeroy) has 4 losses, Gonzaga is more likely to win the WCC.

Plus, I don't think Pomeroy wanted the exact order of his rankings to be interpreted in a strict, lockstep fashion, especially when comparing teams that are closely clustered together (his opinion is not "my #4 team is definitely better than my #6 team"), and especially when there's still half a season to play and more data to collect. He is a resource for objective data but I'm sure he has a subjective opinion that differs from the exact order of his rankings.

Troublemaker
01-12-2009, 03:25 PM
Now after Sunday's games, Pomeroy is

1. Duke (OK, but not #1)
2. Pitt (actually belongs here)
3. Cackalacky (two losses)
4. WV (four losses)
5. Arizona State (can't have a dork poll without a dork coach)
6. Gonzo (four losses)
7. UConn (has beaten #4 and #6)
8. Georgetown (beat uconn but has three losses)
9. Wake (finally!)

Dork polls. They're downright... dorky.

Oh, also. The one thing computer rankings and even human polls can't adjust for is effort. Duke kills itself playing defense every single game. UNC, on the other hand, often plays very lackadaisically. This difference in effort is bound to skew the data. So, I don't think Duke is the best team in the country either, but because we play so much harder than just about every team in the country, we're bound to be overrated in these types of rankings.

VaDukie
01-12-2009, 03:55 PM
I agree with everything that has been said about the 06 team and its limitations. I might take the argument even further, because in a sense it was an average team that had two players with world class ability in one aspect: scoring for Redick and defense for Shelden.

Now it's not at all fair to discount the other parts of their game because they certainly wouldn't have their jerseys in the rafters if thats all they could to, but when you really push beneath the surface neither of these guys had the complete game that past greats like Hurley, Hill, Laettner, or Battier possessed. They were certainly good in every aspect of their games, but not great.

I don't think any of our current guys have reached that level (yet), but we all see the potential in Henderson-Singler-Scheyer to get there. In the end we may find out that 3 very goods with a solid supporting cast is more valuable than 2 greats at times doing it all alone. All our title teams have had their great players, but they've also had incredibly strong role players: (Davis, Thomas, Lang, McCafferyx1 and Nate, Dunleavy, and Duhon.

The teams that didn't quite meet tourney expectations were very top heavy. The 2000 team was probably done when Dunleavy went down with Mono, but it's amazing to think how far K took that 6 man rotation to begin with (best coaching job of his career IMHO). The development of Dunleavy and Boozer in 02 didn't compensate for the gap that trading Battier and Nate for Dahntay and Ewing produced. The flaws of the supporting cast of the 06 team have been thoroughly discussed.

Contrast that with our recent Final Four teams. 1999 was an all out juggernaut, in no small part due to the fact that our starting forwards where our 4th and 5th offensive options but would go on to be the next two ACC POY. 2004 had no true 'star', but top to bottom it was arguably Duke's most balanced starting 5 ever. JJ and Shelden weren't nearly the players they would become over the next two years then but they were still damn good and had Duhon to run the offense and provide ball pressure with Deng along to create his own shot and slash to the basket. The only team that doesn't really fit this rule is 1994, but Grant was just on another level that year and the supporting guys (especially Capel and Parks) just played lights out in the Regionals. I'd make comments on 91 and 92 but my only memories from those teams is watching 'Duke is King' and 'Blue Reign' (anyone get the reference?).

Anyway to end my rant I think that balance is the reason why I like this team in March IF we stay healthy. But until then I'm loving every game and taking joy in every victory.

Lulu
01-12-2009, 04:07 PM
I hate to get into rankings, but what's with Wake leapfrogging us? When #3 plays #4, someone has to win, and they only won by 3 so it wasn't like it was a blow-out or anything. Were we just predestined to drop no matter who won that game?

The only rational reason I can think of is that we underperformed when letting Davidson and FSU come back on us late. Usually that doesn't matter in the polls though, especially with the final margins still decent.

Was Teague just that great and impressive? Being leapfrogged is slightly annoying when the so-called dork polls still think we're well ahead of Wake.

In one sense, this is how I think the polls should actually operate, where teams perceived as being better are ranked accordingly despite records and who has the more recent loss. On the other hand, I didn't think such leapfrogging often occurred at this point in the season. I know it's not local media, but in light of K's comments last week it just gets me thinking.

In any case, I think we might play a little better the farther down the list we are. I'll take whatever motivation we can get. I definitely like the idea of Wake being ranked ahead of us when we meet. So no complaints, just pondering the reason.

Duvall
01-12-2009, 04:18 PM
I hate to get into rankings, but what's with Wake leapfrogging us? When #3 plays #4, someone has to win, and they only won by 3 so it wasn't like it was a blow-out or anything.

Wake is undefeated, and just beat a better team that any of the ones Duke has played this year. Why shouldn't they be #2?

Devilhawks
01-12-2009, 04:44 PM
I agree with everything that has been said about the 06 team and its limitations. I might take the argument even further, because in a sense it was an average team that had two players with world class ability in one aspect: scoring for Redick and defense for Shelden.

Now it's not at all fair to discount the other parts of their game because they certainly wouldn't have their jerseys in the rafters if thats all they could to, but when you really push beneath the surface neither of these guys had the complete game that past greats like Hurley, Hill, Laettner, or Battier possessed. They were certainly good in every aspect of their games, but not great.

I don't think any of our current guys have reached that level (yet), but we all see the potential in Henderson-Singler-Scheyer to get there. In the end we may find out that 3 very goods with a solid supporting cast is more valuable than 2 greats at times doing it all alone. All our title teams have had their great players, but they've also had incredibly strong role players: (Davis, Thomas, Lang, McCafferyx1 and Nate, Dunleavy, and Duhon.

The teams that didn't quite meet tourney expectations were very top heavy. The 2000 team was probably done when Dunleavy went down with Mono, but it's amazing to think how far K took that 6 man rotation to begin with (best coaching job of his career IMHO). The development of Dunleavy and Boozer in 02 didn't compensate for the gap that trading Battier and Nate for Dahntay and Ewing produced. The flaws of the supporting cast of the 06 team have been thoroughly discussed.

Contrast that with our recent Final Four teams. 1999 was an all out juggernaut, in no small part due to the fact that our starting forwards where our 4th and 5th offensive options but would go on to be the next two ACC POY. 2004 had no true 'star', but top to bottom it was arguably Duke's most balanced starting 5 ever. JJ and Shelden weren't nearly the players they would become over the next two years then but they were still damn good and had Duhon to run the offense and provide ball pressure with Deng along to create his own shot and slash to the basket. The only team that doesn't really fit this rule is 1994, but Grant was just on another level that year and the supporting guys (especially Capel and Parks) just played lights out in the Regionals. I'd make comments on 91 and 92 but my only memories from those teams is watching 'Duke is King' and 'Blue Reign' (anyone get the reference?).

Anyway to end my rant I think that balance is the reason why I like this team in March IF we stay healthy. But until then I'm loving every game and taking joy in every victory.


Are you saying JJ WASN'T the best Dukie of all time? But he has the most points! And how do you win games? By scoring POINTS!

Lulu
01-12-2009, 05:58 PM
Wake is undefeated, and just beat a better team that any of the ones Duke has played this year. Why shouldn't they be #2?

I didn't say Duke was better; I'm afraid we aren't. I'm afraid the rankings are as they should be and Duke might still be too high, if anything. That said, it would seem either Wake or UNC was going to leapfrog us just via the virtue of playing each other earlier. That also doesn't make sense. Someone had to win that game, and again, there was no blow-out, just an even #3 vs #4 game that went as it should (if you trust the rankings heading into the game).

Does everyone still just assume that UNC is the best team out there despite their ranking? because that would explain it.

I just cannot imagine any scenario where we passed Pitt, even if they won every game from here on out by only 1 point and we won by 40 every outing. I'm not saying it makes sense, but at this point in the season that's how the polls always seem to operate. (Yes, I know Pitt is undefeated, but you get my point...)

Duke ended their streak of consecutive years reaching #1 last year, but before then I remember keeping track of this stat and just waiting and waiting for a team ranked above us to lose. They might barely scrape by, game after game, while Duke was rolling, but until they lost there was just no chance of moving up.

loran16
01-25-2009, 12:51 PM
Well, before we were #1 in Sagarin, but #2 to UNC in their Predictor category.

Now we're #1 in both.

Also, our Pomeroy defensive rating improved to #2 after falling behind Memphis earlier. We're now #7 in offense too, (#7 in O, #2 in D).

Yikes!

bdh21
01-25-2009, 01:28 PM
Are you saying JJ WASN'T the best Dukie of all time? But he has the most points! And how do you win games? By scoring POINTS!

You can also prevent you opponent from scoring points. Come to think of it, the number of points you score and the number of points your opponent scores are pretty meaningless except in the context of eachother.