10th Place

[Jayzwin]

The Blue Jays got a big and mostly unexpected win last night and are now 2 - 9 in the conference. Some teams have only played 9 conference games to date, others like Creighton as many as 11. I like Creighton's chances of climbing out of the cellar. Their remaining games are at St Johns, Seton Hall, and DePaul. They play Marquette, Butler, Villanova and Xavier in Omaha. It might take 3 or 4 more wins to excape the bottom. Any predictions?

[GoldenWarrior11]

Looks like Marquette is the favorite for something this year. I'm excited.

[GumbyDamnit!]

If you want an honest answer I would say that they lose the rest of their away games, lose to Nova and Butler definitely, and most likely X gets revenge. I think 3-15 is your probable conf record.

[jfan]

We came close to Butler at their place, so I don't think that is a definitely. Nova is a definitely (Unless we channel our inner 2014). 4-5 wins likely and a fight with Marquette for last.

[gosports1]

its still mathematically possible for anyone to finish first(or last)

[gmoser1210]

If Villanova lost the rest of their games, they'd be tied for last, at worst, with Creighton, but they'd win the tie-breaker.

Realistically, the last place team will probably be Creighton or Marquette, but St. John's isn't too far ahead of them. Their remaining schedules are fairly similar. Tough to say who has the hardest path to the end of the conference season.

Creighton:

• Seven games remaining
• Four home games remaining, three against teams to which they've already lost, one against a team they've beaten, two against teams currently in the top 4 of the conference
• Three away games remaining, two against teams to which they've already lost, one against a team they've beaten

Marquette:

• Eight games remaining
• Four home games remaining, all against teams to which they've already lost, one against a team currently in the top 4 of the conference
• Four away games remaining, two against teams to which they've already lost, two against teams they've beaten, one against a team currently in the top 4 of the conference but that they've already beaten

St. John's:

• Nine games remaining
• Five home games remaining, three against teams to which they've already lost, two against teams they haven't played, two against a team currently in the top 4 of the conference (one of which they haven't yet played)
• Four away games remaining, one against a team to which they've already lost, one against a team they've beaten, two against teams they haven't played, one against a team in the top 4 of the conference that they have not yet played

[Edrick]

We came close to Butler at their place, so I don't think that is a definitely. Nova is a definitely (Unless we channel our inner 2014). 4-5 wins likely and a fight with Marquette for last.

Pet peeve alert. I know, I'm sorry. Why do people do that? Every team in the country or that has ever existed has a whole continuum of performances throughout a year. Some like Kentucky range from the best team to ever play college basketball to a team that's probably around 15th this season. Because this sort of range makes results stochastic using a simple transitive property of "well this game ended this way, so this...." is useless for projection.

It simply doesn't work that way. An individual game is an intersection of two nearly infinite possibility distributions on a given day. How we define "best" is by assessing those teams if their distributions intersected right at both of their 50% points. And because you've all taken statistics, you understand the normal distribution curve makes that sensible.

So back to the original point. Analyzing Butler's performance vs Creighton and using it to cast the future is as sensible as taking Providence's game with Brown, they reside at similar spots on each's range of possibilities. You don't even need to do any work, Pomeroy gives you results at the 50% spot adjusted for location.

Large numbers > small numbers

/end pet peeve rant

[jfan]

We came close to Butler at their place, so I don't think that is a definitely. Nova is a definitely (Unless we channel our inner 2014). 4-5 wins likely and a fight with Marquette for last.

Pet peeve alert. I know, I'm sorry. Why do people do that? Every team in the country or that has ever existed has a whole continuum of performances throughout a year. Some like Kentucky range from the best team to ever play college basketball to a team that's probably around 15th this season. Because this sort of range makes results stochastic using a simple transitive property of "well this game ended this way, so this...." is useless for projection.

It simply doesn't work that way. An individual game is an intersection of two nearly infinite possibility distributions on a given day. How we define "best" is by assessing those teams if their distributions intersected right at both of their 50% points. And because you've all taken statistics, you understand the normal distribution curve makes that sensible.

So back to the original point. Analyzing Butler's performance vs Creighton and using it to cast the future is as sensible as taking Providence's game with Brown, they reside at similar spots on each's range of possibilities. You don't even need to do any work, Pomeroy gives you results at the 50% spot adjusted for location.

Large numbers > small numbers

/end pet peeve rant

I understand your point, but I was responding to the word "definitely". We do "that" because it's fun. Definitely not for you!



d

[Jayzwin]

We were certainly know more this weekend. if the Jays can upset St Johns to kick off the contests Saturday, they have a real hope of leaving the cellar.

[Bluejay]

We came close to Butler at their place, so I don't think that is a definitely. Nova is a definitely (Unless we channel our inner 2014). 4-5 wins likely and a fight with Marquette for last.

Pet peeve alert. I know, I'm sorry. Why do people do that? Every team in the country or that has ever existed has a whole continuum of performances throughout a year. Some like Kentucky range from the best team to ever play college basketball to a team that's probably around 15th this season. Because this sort of range makes results stochastic using a simple transitive property of "well this game ended this way, so this...." is useless for projection.

It simply doesn't work that way. An individual game is an intersection of two nearly infinite possibility distributions on a given day. How we define "best" is by assessing those teams if their distributions intersected right at both of their 50% points. And because you've all taken statistics, you understand the normal distribution curve makes that sensible.

So back to the original point. Analyzing Butler's performance vs Creighton and using it to cast the future is as sensible as taking Providence's game with Brown, they reside at similar spots on each's range of possibilities. You don't even need to do any work, Pomeroy gives you results at the 50% spot adjusted for location.

Large numbers > small numbers

/end pet peeve rant

Sometimes it is just all about match-ups. Statistics aside, some teams just match up better against other teams.

I think what the Creighton poster was essentially trying to say is that Creighton matches up well with Butler. Where Creighton has really struggled is against teams that are really athletic and tall at the guard positions. The height differential causes us problems on the defensive end as opponents just shoot over our guys. on the offensive end, the lack of height often keeps our guards from getting quality looks and messes with their confidence as they worry about getting shots blocked.

For the most part, Butler is neither athletic or tall at the guard positions.. Barlow and Dunham are not very athletic and Barlow is short. Creighton did a great job frustrating and shutting down Dunham in the first game. The piece that is crazy hard for Creighton to deal with, along with everybody else that has played Butler this year, is the freak of nature that is Roosevelt Jones...