The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 (/thread-13602.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - Papa John - 03-20-2017

MT, don't you mean 9 beating 8 gets 1 point?

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - Card Fan in OR - 03-21-2017

I think MT's ranking is rather clever, even if he (she) didn't "invent" it. I appreciate your posting it.

However--isn't there always something? Doesn't the Big 10 get two points for two one-seed-difference upsets? Think they should have two points, not zero, unless I'm missing something.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - 2006alum - 03-21-2017

Congrats to WBB. Solid win, with great contributions from all of our starters. Even when McCall has a "quiet" game like she did last night, she was still critical to keeping the offense flowing and maintaining a dominant rebounding presence inside. Our control of the boards was beyond impressive, given that we actually didn't have a height advantage. And McPhee - wow - if she can shoot from 3 like that next year, she could be our most versatile player since Wiggins. I'm excited to think about what she and Smith will be able to do on offense, because they are both pretty great passers but also can create offense on their own, so they will be very hard to defend as a dynamic duo.

And major kudos to the coaches - they clearly scouted KState well and knew they would target Karlie, and prepped everyone else to be ready to take advantage of it.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - Papa John - 03-21-2017

(03-21-2017, 01:09 AM)Card Fan in OR link Wrote:I think MT's ranking is rather clever, even if he (she) didn't "invent" it. I appreciate your posting it.

However--isn't there always something? Doesn't the Big 10 get two points for two one-seed-difference upsets? Think they should have two points, not zero, unless I'm missing something.

Yep, that's what I was thinking, CFiOR.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - TheFarm07 - 03-21-2017

(03-21-2017, 07:25 AM)2006alum link Wrote:Congrats to WBB. Solid win, with great contributions from all of our starters. Even when McCall has a "quiet" game like she did last night, she was still critical to keeping the offense flowing and maintaining a dominant rebounding presence inside. Our control of the boards was beyond impressive, given that we actually didn't have a height advantage. And McPhee - wow - if she can shoot from 3 like that next year, she could be our most versatile player since Wiggins. I'm excited to think about what she and Smith will be able to do on offense, because they are both pretty great passers but also can create offense on their own, so they will be very hard to defend as a dynamic duo.

And major kudos to the coaches - they clearly scouted KState well and knew they would target Karlie, and prepped everyone else to be ready to take advantage of it.

Brit and Alanna can be an extremely difficult to guard combo next season, because they can stretch the floor with their perimeter shooting, but they also are skilled on the inside. It depends on how much they can improve over the summer. Both of them need to work on consistency. Brit was shooting 25% from 3-point range before last night's game and Alanna wasn't much better. With Karlie's graduation, we will need proven long range shooters to spread the defense next year. If the two of them can improve their percentages to around 35-40% from long range, that will go a long way in making defenses honest.

Inside, they'll need to up their conversion percentages as well. Alanna's strength is in the low post and she's already shown in the last few games how strong she can be there. Maybe she can call Chiney or Nneka to see if they can give her some pointers. I heard UCLA's Billings benefited from some advice from them. Surely the Ogwumikes can lend a fellow Cardinal a helping hand.

With Brit, her strength inside is driving to the basket and using her agility, quickness and acrobatic moves to score. If she can draw more fouls en route to the basket and keep her strength and leaping ability while converting more of those layups, she'll be difficult to defend. Too tall for guards, but too maneuverable for posts.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - BobK - 03-21-2017

Just a note to your great post 07, Alanna is shooting 51% from inside the arc this season. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - TheFarm07 - 03-21-2017

(03-21-2017, 09:51 AM)BobK link Wrote:Just a note to your great post 07, Alanna is shooting 51% from inside the arc this season.

Thanks Bob. If Alanna can maintain the level of production that she has had over the last few games over the course of an entire season, I think she can up her inside the arc production to the upper 50s (percentage wise).

Also, it would be interesting who gets the minutes at the 2 next year. DiJonai seems most obvious, but with Bri's graduation and Anna's injury woes, Kiana Williams might get a lot of minutes as a freshman next year. From my limited knowledge, it seems like both DiJonai and Kiana both are very athletic, which will add another matchup nightmare for opponents, if we can have another player that not only can drive to the basket, but shoot from long range as well.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - BostonCard - 03-21-2017

(03-20-2017, 11:29 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16698.msg190332#msg190332 date=1490075665]
Except your formulation is not right either because you give an 8 seed the same credit for beating a 9 seed as you give a 16 seed for beating a 1 seed. 

That's not what I did.  12 Quinnipiac beating 5 Marquette  got 7 points.    8 beating 9 gets 1 point.
[/quote]

That's not what you show.  You show 1 point for 9 beating 8 (Purdue over Green Bay and Cal over LSU), but you don't show any points for the 8 seeds beating the 9 seed.  My point is that because 8 and 9 seeds are so close, an 8 beating a 9 while "expected" is still more of an accomplishment than a 1 beating a 16.

BC

Re: PAC-12 in the WBB tourney - CTcard - 03-21-2017

(03-20-2017, 09:48 PM)MT link Wrote:For bragging rights at this point in the tournament, I'd give the nod to MAAC, with the PAC-12 on their heels.

Counting teams in the tourney is subject to selection committee/ranking bias.  Wins by seeded teams doesn't seem terribly informative. (Really, how much credit should be given to Bullyor for beating Texas Southern by a big score?)  That means that saying the PAC-12 is 9-1 isn't terribly meaningful until you dig down a bit.

But counting upsets, and by how many seeded positions, does give credit where it is due.

MAAC +15:  12 Quinnipiac vs 5 Marquette; 12 Quinnipiac vs 4 Miami
PAC-12  +12:  10 Oregon vs 7 Temple;  9 California vs 8 LSU;  10 Oregon vs 2 Duke
BIG 10  0:  5 Ohio St vs 4 Kentucky;  9 Purdue vs 8 Green Bay
<other conferences in the tourney but not upset>: 0
Horizon  -1:  9 Purdue vs 8 Green Bay
SEC -2:  9 California vs 8 LSU;  5 Ohio St vs 4 Kentucky
AAC -3:  10 Oregon vs 7 Temple
ACC -8:  12 Quinnipiac vs 4 Miami

I guess it depends what you are trying to count.

I think it's a stretch to give the MAAC significant bragging rights because Quinnipiac won two games - doesn't say a lot about how good Rider is. It does provide Quinnipiac itself with giganto bragging rights.

The Pac 12 getting five teams in the final 16 does say a lot about the quality depth in the conference, particularly with respect to the next best conference having three teams. In this case wins by seeded teams is informative that their seeding was appropriate.

Your method might count which conferences are most over and under-rated, but it's a single elimination tournament - there's a fair amount of randomness.

I do like the magnitude of upset scoring for tournament pool scoring. My favorite group always adds upset bonus points that scaled with the difference in seed numbers.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - BobK - 03-21-2017

So many questions about next season but it starts with the style of offense.  And that's not known. 
Is Alanna a 3? 4? Or even a 5?
Is Brittany a 2 or 3 ?

I'll predict now Wilson will be very good next season. Certainly hard luck with both injuries this season

Ah more after the season.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - BostonCard - 03-21-2017

Here are the historical first round results:

The #1 seed is 95–1 against the #16 seed (.990). [ugh, don't remind me]
The #2 seed is 96–0 against the #15 seed (1.000).
The #3 seed is 96–0 against the #14 seed (1.000).
The #4 seed is 90–6 against the #13 seed (.938).
The #5 seed is 75-21 against the #12 seed (.781).
The #6 seed is 68–28 against the #11 seed (.708).
The #7 seed is 63-33 against the #10 seed (.656).
The #9 seed is 50–46 against the #8 seed (.521).

So, seeds 1 - 3 don't really get much credit for advancing to the second round.  But a 9 seed beating an 8 seed is a moderately significant accomplishment.

The historical record in second round games is as follows:

Since the expansion to 64 teams in 1994, the following results have occurred for each pairing:

In the 1/16/8/9 bracket:
vs. #8 vs. #9
#1 44–1 (.978) 44–2 (.956)
#16 – 0–1 (.000)
note: The 3 losses by the #1 seed vs #8/9 were: Duke (vs Michigan St, 2009), Ohio St (vs Boston College, 2006), Texas Tech (vs Notre Dame, 1998).

In the 2/15/7/10 bracket:
vs. #7 vs. #10
#2 47–13 (.783) 29–3 (.906)
#15 – –
In the 3/14/6/11 bracket:
vs. #6 vs. #11
#3 45–21 (.682) 16–10 (.615)
#14 – –
In the 4/13/5/12 bracket:
vs. #5 vs. #12
#4 40–26 (.606) 17–3 (.850)
#13 3–3 (.500) –

So, we can figure out how every team performed versus expected.

BC


Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - PalmTree - 03-21-2017

Don't want to divert too much from the UT game thread, and certainly not take things for granted, but in the event we do advance a game, this news is potentially kind of relevant, si?

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/18967056/brianna-turner-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ncaa-tournament-torn-acl



Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - M T - 03-21-2017

(03-20-2017, 11:32 PM)Papa John link Wrote:MT, don't you mean 9 beating 8 gets 1 point?
You are correct.  (I fixed it)

(03-21-2017, 01:09 AM)Card Fan in OR link Wrote:However--isn't there always something? Doesn't the Big 10 get two points for two one-seed-difference upsets? Think they should have two points, not zero, unless I'm missing something.
You are correct.  (I fixed it)

This isn't meant to be perfect--more of a back-of-the-envelope estimate.  It definitely doesn't credit a one seed for beating a 16, which is a small devaluation for the one seed.  Nor does it credit an 8 seed beating a 9 (if I do my sums correctly!), which seems more unfair.    I like the idea of using the historical probabilities (perhaps after adding noise to smooth them out a bit), but that's harder to calculate.    But to say one conference is better because it has more teams in the tournament is like  ....[example removed because it references politics] ....


Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - 2006alum - 03-21-2017

(03-21-2017, 01:37 PM)PalmTree link Wrote:Don't want to divert too much from the UT game thread, and certainly not take things for granted, but in the event we do advance a game, this news is potentially kind of relevant, si?

http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/18967056/brianna-turner-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ncaa-tournament-torn-acl

That's really unfortunate, and the second time in three years that they've lost their key post player to a knee injury in the middle of the tournament. They lost Natalie Achonwa in a similar fashion during the tournament in 2014.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 Kansas State 48 - BostonCard - 03-22-2017

So I ran the numbers, and here are the average number of wins through two rounds by seed:

#1: 1.91
#2: 1.79
#3: 1.64
#4: 1.53
#5: 1.08
#6: 0.93
#7: 0.79
#8: 0.49
#9: 0.55
#10: 0.38
#11: 0.40
#12: 0.25
#13: 0.09
#14: 0
#15: 0
#16: 0.01

So, for the Pac-12:

UCLA: record 2 - 0; expected wins 1.53; performance +0.47
Oregon: record 2 - 0; expected wins 0.38; performance +1.62
Stanford: record 2 - 0; expected wins 1.79; performance +0.21
ASU: record 1 - 1; expected wins 0.49; performance +0.51
Oregon State: record 2 - 0; expected wins 1.79; performance +0.21
Cal: record 1 - 1; expected wins 0.55; performance +0.45
Washington: record 2 - 0; expected wins 1.64; performance +.36

Overall: record 12 - 2; expected wins 8.07; performance +3.93

That is, so far the Pac-12 has almost 4 more wins than we might have expected based on historical seed performance.

BC