Resume vs. Eye Test

[TrollyMcTroller]

Right, but you can twist the resume as well...

Team A beats Michigan State, but they did so when they had 3 starters out.

Team B beats XYZ, but their player had a careern night, and XYZ had an uncharacteristically bad night because their best player was sick, or was playing with a bum ankle, etc...

It can't be just about who you beat, but also WHEN you play them, which falls in line with the eye test. If you aren't using both to make a decision, then you're not doing your due dilligence.

It depends on what your goal is. IF you're goal is to include and seed teams based on merit then using the eye test doesn't do much for you. I don't really care how uncharacteristic it is for a team to go 0-20 and their opponent have a guy end up with 30-15-10-11-12. The liklihood doesn't mean shit when you're talking about resume. Resume is about what actually happened, not what should have happened. The eyeball test is speculative.

The eyeball test says that Syracuse beats BC at home 95 out of 100 times.
Resume says Syracuse lost at home to BC. The speculation doesn't matter.

I'll go with concrete results for picking and seeding tournament teams. I'd rather see teams that got there by actually doing something on the court, rather than getting there by someone guessing what they could have done. And that's all the eyeball test really is... speculating what might happen.

Don't get me wrong... I think the eyeball test is quite useful in general, in determining how good a team really is. But in the context of this conversation (selecting and seeding tournament teams) I think it has no place.

 

[ericd7633]

That doesn't make any sense. If a team is overhyped that means they're playing badly (UCLA is a good example of that this year). That means they are not passing the eye test.

Then using the eye test is completely and utterly worthless. Everybody has shown they can lose games, except Wichita State. Why would any one teams loss look better than another teams loss? It's still losing. It's why it is incredibly dumb to say someone passes the eye test when a team is on the bubble. Are you really going to say a team with double digits losses passes the eye test while another team with double digit losses doesn't? It's just dumb. You HAVE to go by resume.

It's dumb and subjective. A perfect example of this is Iowa. Advanced metrics suggest they are a top 8 team. Meaning they pass the eye test, yet they have 7 losses already and would be a 5 or 6 seed if the tournament started today. Instead of a 2 seed that the eye test would have given them. Why reward a team for losing, for a lack of a better word, prettier than anybody else?

 

[Jim Rome is Flaming]

Relevant article on this topic, I found it to be a pretty good read.

College Basketball Bubble Watch - When it comes to the 'eye test,' trust, but verify - NCAA Men's Basketball - ESPN

 

[Cincyfan78]

Then using the eye test is completely and utterly worthless. Everybody has shown they can lose games, except Wichita State. Why would any one teams loss look better than another teams loss? It's still losing. It's why it is incredibly dumb to say someone passes the eye test when a team is on the bubble. Are you really going to say a team with double digits losses passes the eye test while another team with double digit losses doesn't? It's just dumb. You HAVE to go by resume.

It's dumb and subjective. A perfect example of this is Iowa. Advanced metrics suggest they are a top 8 team. Meaning they pass the eye test, yet they have 7 losses already and would be a 5 or 6 seed if the tournament started today. Instead of a 2 seed that the eye test would have given them. Why reward a team for losing, for a lack of a better word, prettier than anybody else?

Of course it's subjective. No one is suggesting otherwise. But, there are many factors that you can argue that can't be "computed".

Again, I'll point to G-town's win of Michigan State. (I think it was G-town). They had 3 starters out with injury. G-town doesn't pass the eye test if they are (and they are) a bubble team, even with that impressive win. Why? Because computers don't take into account things like injuries, sickness, other influences that would otherwise impact the outcome of a game.

You have to use both. If you are only using one or the other you are doing a diservice to yourself and the team(s) you are ranking. Resume can get the bulk of the weight, and I can conceed that point, but to totally dismiss the eye test would be folly.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Of course it's subjective. No one is suggesting otherwise. But, there are many factors that you can argue that can't be "computed".

Again, I'll point to G-town's win of Michigan State. (I think it was G-town). They had 3 starters out with injury. G-town doesn't pass the eye test if they are (and they are) a bubble team, even with that impressive win. Why? Because computers don't take into account things like injuries, sickness, other influences that would otherwise impact the outcome of a game.

You have to use both. If you are only using one or the other you are doing a diservice to yourself and the team(s) you are ranking. Resume can get the bulk of the weight, and I can conceed that point, but to totally dismiss the eye test would be folly.

I don't consider that part of the "eye test" and maybe some clarification is needed on that.

When I hear someone say "Team X (with 8 losses) is playing like a Top 10 team right now" that's the sort of nonsense that I think falls under the "eye test." Totally subjective, and often arbitrary judgements of team, typically based on the viewing of a single game.

"NC State played Syracuse down to the wire" is something one would say in regards to the eye test, implying that NC State should be looked at in a better light for having lost closely to to a good team. Looking at the resume, it's still just a loss. It's not a bad loss, but it is a loss.

I have no issue with applying some common sense to a resume. Injuries can be taken into account on a resume. I see no problems with putting an asterisk by a win (or loss) when a team had players out due to injury. (especially if those players have already returned or will return before the tournament) It's not an arbitrary thing. players being out has a tangible effect on games. Beating MSU or UF or SU when they are healthy should look better on a resume than beating them when they aren't full strength. And if you're MSU, UF, or SU, losses taken while you were short handed, shouldn't count against you as much as losses that came while you were full strength.

If it's something tangible, I son't really think it fits under the umbrella of "the eye test"

 

[gordontrue]

I don't consider that part of the "eye test" and maybe some clarification is needed on that.

When I hear someone say "Team X (with 8 losses) is playing like a Top 10 team right now" that's the sort of nonsense that I think falls under the "eye test." Totally subjective, and often arbitrary judgements of team, typically based on the viewing of a single game.

"NC State played Syracuse down to the wire" is something one would say in regards to the eye test, implying that NC State should be looked at in a better light for having lost closely to to a good team. Looking at the resume, it's still just a loss. It's not a bad loss, but it is a loss.

I have no issue with applying some common sense to a resume. Injuries can be taken into account on a resume. I see no problems with putting an asterisk by a win (or loss) when a team had players out due to injury. (especially if those players have already returned or will return before the tournament) It's not an arbitrary thing. players being out has a tangible effect on games. Beating MSU or UF or SU when they are healthy should look better on a resume than beating them when they aren't full strength. And if you're MSU, UF, or SU, losses taken while you were short handed, shouldn't count against you as much as losses that came while you were full strength.

If it's something tangible, I son't really think it fits under the umbrella of "the eye test"

Well said. There ARE metrics that exist for most of the examples people are giving of what you need an "eye-test" for.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I don't consider that part of the "eye test" and maybe some clarification is needed on that.

When I hear someone say "Team X (with 8 losses) is playing like a Top 10 team right now" that's the sort of nonsense that I think falls under the "eye test." Totally subjective, and often arbitrary judgements of team, typically based on the viewing of a single game.

"NC State played Syracuse down to the wire" is something one would say in regards to the eye test, implying that NC State should be looked at in a better light for having lost closely to to a good team. Looking at the resume, it's still just a loss. It's not a bad loss, but it is a loss.

I have no issue with applying some common sense to a resume. Injuries can be taken into account on a resume. I see no problems with putting an asterisk by a win (or loss) when a team had players out due to injury. (especially if those players have already returned or will return before the tournament) It's not an arbitrary thing. players being out has a tangible effect on games. Beating MSU or UF or SU when they are healthy should look better on a resume than beating them when they aren't full strength. And if you're MSU, UF, or SU, losses taken while you were short handed, shouldn't count against you as much as losses that came while you were full strength.
If it's something tangible, I son't really think it fits under the umbrella of "the eye test"

This is all true, but none of it is actual "resume" stuff. Resume is computer based, for the most part. We talk about BPI and RPI, and SOS, and all of that saber stuff, which is all well and good, but NONE of the computer parts talk about when you beat a team, how they were playing, injuries, etc..etc...and that is why the eye test comes into play.

I guess it could be semantics, really. We are agreeing on the same issue bolded, but disagree in terms of how to explain it.

Either way, it's all good.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

This is all true, but none of it is actual "resume" stuff. Resume is computer based, for the most part. We talk about BPI and RPI, and SOS, and all of that saber stuff, which is all well and good, but NONE of the computer parts talk about when you beat a team, how they were playing, injuries, etc..etc...and that is why the eye test comes into play.

Yeah we clearly are way off as far as the terminology goes.

RPI and to a lesser degree BPI are the only metrics designed to actually look at a teams resume. The rest are all basically trying to determine team strength, not resume strength. (who would beat who, not who has done the most so far) And for the Record, BPI does devalue games with injured starters, and iirc also gives more weight to the most recent ten games.

But the rest of the rankings I think are trying to measure what most people use for the "eye test" (close losses, blowout wins and the like)

I guess it could be semantics, really. We are agreeing on the same issue bolded, but disagree in terms of how to explain it.

Either way, it's all good.

But yeah... regardless of the terminology it looks like we mostly agree on the important stuff. Mainly, get your shit together if you wanna go dancing in March.