The Bills over GM by 2

[billikenblue]

Wiz PLEASE acknowledge that we suck and aren't a C- team so that you stop getting destroyed in your score predictions. WE ARE NOT GOOD or even bad...we are pathetic.

I along with Rican and I am sure many more have tired of your analytic "shtick" . You can twist it anyway you want we are not better than 100 other teams in D1 ..92 points is the only stat I need

[BACKHANDtheRICAN]

I along with Rican and I am sure many more have tired of your analytic "shtick" . You can twist it anyway you want we are not better than 100 other teams in D1 ..92 points is the only stat I need

I actually LOVE what the Wiz does for us and this board. I just can't get past how god awful I think we are vs. the projected spreads I see....

[slufan13]

We only had 2 turnovers and we lost by double digits. This team is a F team

[johnbj14]

First, I'm a big fan of Wiz's model and the unique analysis he can provide. Second, his model did not account for the lineup put out there tonight. I'm sure that info would have changed the projection a bit. Which direction, I cannot be sure. But his model did not anticipate JC making the decisions he did.

[kmbilliken]

Wiz. if you cut out the first 4 games. Would we be F-?

[Zink]

First, I'm a big fan of Wiz's model and the unique analysis he can provide. Second, his model did not account for the lineup put out there tonight. I'm sure that info would have changed the projection a bit. Which direction, I cannot be sure. But his model did not anticipate JC making the decisions he did.

This. No model can predict a team giving up on its coach, or a coach giving up on his team. We started two frosh who haven't really shown much to date and a former walk-on! We only used two guys over 6'5"!

[BigMouthBilliken]

This. No model can predict a team giving up on its coach, or a coach giving up on his team. We started two frosh who haven't really shown much to date and a former walk-on! We only used two guys over 6'5"!

Whoopdie doo! Is the conversation whether or not statistical analysis does not take into consideration certain variables that cannot be predicted? I'd much rather talk about how bad this team is. And we suck

[Zink]

Whoopdie doo! Is the conversation whether or not statistical analysis does not take into consideration certain variables that cannot be predicted? I'd much rather talk about how bad this team is. And we suck

I wholeheartedly agree that we suck. There are plenty of threads where the level of our terribleness is being discussed.

But this was a conversation about the Wiz's model, so talking about what a model should be expected to account for seemed reasonable.

[BigMouthBilliken]

I wholeheartedly agree that we suck. There are plenty of threads where the level of our terribleness is being discussed.

But this was a conversation about the Wiz's model, so talking about what a model should be expected to account for seemed reasonable.

Yeah stats are just numbers. Anyone thinking different needs to chill

[brianstl]

The Wiz's model has consistently overrated the Billikens for two seasons now. That probably has something to do with the fact we are a team that gets worse as the season progresses.

[Taj79]

Major correction brian ... we are a team that gets worse as the GAME progresses .....

[The Wiz]

Hmm...interesting thread.

First let me say that if you are offended by numbers, statistics or grading systems, you need to put me on your ignore list. If you don't like it , don't read it. If you are here to kill the messenger (me) what's the point. I have been doing this many years. There are people on the board and in the stands who enjoy "the numbers behind the story" I get it that "we suck" Sorry, I can't fix that. I am also sorry that for some of you the numbers aren't as bad as you think they should be. Again, I am here to report my findings. It is interesting that a few years ago in that 1st season we went to NCAA's...I remember typing in that we were an A team...and that we were really good and that created a firestorm too...in that I had a flawed system that over rated the Bills. By the end of that season everybody pretty much agreed we were an A team. FWIW, using my model on other games, I haven't seen anything unusual ...I am coming in pretty much on target. . The Bills are just a tough team to predict this year because they are so inconsistent. Last year we were a D- team at the start of conference play ....that rose up to D+ ( a big move once you are in conference play) and then something happened (of which there has been much discussion about in past threads) and we slipped back to D-. This year at the beginning of conference play we started at D+...rose up to C- and probably tomorrow will slip back to D+. One of the ways to look at the spreads is to see trends. So when we miss a trend on the downside like today, it means we are playing below our norm and are trending downward. A miss again next time by a wide margin on the downside would indicate to me something else was happening besides normal basketball variances. ( see last year's 2nd half conference play or the year of the incident)

As for kmbilliken's question...."Would we be F- if we left off the 1st 4 games. All I can say is we would be lower than we are now. The reason I can't give you a more specific answer is that I would not only have to leave off the 4 games the Bills played against them...but also all the teams they played plus then all the teams they played etc etc. In other words the model is based on all 351 teams. Plus the fact that those 4 teams grades have changed since we have played them .

OK...now a review of the GM game...Remember if you are offended by stats now is your chance to leave.

GM .. a not very good team. The problem is we played worse than they did.

GM season slashline....40 / 29 / 63...which translates to....D- / F / F..Today's slashline 55 / 35/ 86

The 55% was a season high. Many of those shots were gimmes because of no defense underneath.

The good ...we outshot them (FGA) and had an amazing TO rate of 2 ...Pretty good for a team that was averaging close to 20/ gm. Even more amazing considering all the new people. Keeping TOs down will keep us in most games. BUT you still have to make shots. The Bills slashline ...40 / 28 / 64...not good enough to win. We had 12 more FGA than GM and made 4 less baskets. That is a huge swing . No major deadzones this game but a mini one at a crucial time. 52-46 deep into the 2nd half then 1 basket in 4min 46 sec....59-48...ball game. Also before the last 2 Bills baskets in the final 21 seconds of the game...we miss 6 shots in a row..again ball game. It looked to me deep into the 2nd half we were tiring due to lack of depth. I know Jolly was out but where were the others?

This was a game that we could have won but a poor defensive effort near the basket cost us. Btw, how many bunnies did we miss? Answer...too many

Bottomline...We have fixed some problems , others are improving but you can't forget defense. On offense , we need to be able to finish around the basket.

[BACKHANDtheRICAN]

Hmm...interesting thread.

First let me say that if you are offended by numbers, statistics or grading systems, you need to put me on your ignore list. If you don't like it , don't read it. If you are here to kill the messenger (me) what's the point. I have been doing this many years. There are people on the board and in the stands who enjoy "the numbers behind the story" I get it that "we suck" Sorry, I can't fix that. I am also sorry that for some of you the numbers aren't as bad as you think they should be. Again, I am here to report my findings. It is interesting that a few years ago in that 1st season we went to NCAA's...I remember typing in that we were an A team...and that we were really good and that created a firestorm too...in that I had a flawed system that over rated the Bills. By the end of that season everybody pretty much agreed we were an A team. FWIW, using my model on other games, I haven't seen anything unusual ...I am coming in pretty much on target. . The Bills are just a tough team to predict this year because they are so inconsistent. Last year we were a D- team at the start of conference play ....that rose up to D+ ( a big move once you are in conference play) and then something happened (of which there has been much discussion about in past threads) and we slipped back to D-. This year at the beginning of conference play we started at D+...rose up to C- and probably tomorrow will slip back to D+. One of the ways to look at the spreads is to see trends. So when we miss a trend on the downside like today, it means we are playing below our norm and are trending downward. A miss again next time by a wide margin on the downside would indicate to me something else was happening besides normal basketball variances. ( see last year's 2nd half conference play or the year of the incident)

As for kmbilliken's question...."Would we be F- if we left off the 1st 4 games. All I can say is we would be lower than we are now. The reason I can't give you a more specific answer is that I would not only have to leave off the 4 games the Bills played against them...but also all the teams they played plus then all the teams they played etc etc. In other words the model is based on all 351 teams. Plus the fact that those 4 teams grades have changed since we have played them .

OK...now a review of the GM game...Remember if you are offended by stats now is your chance to leave.

GM .. a not very good team. The problem is we played worse than they did.

GM season slashline....40 / 29 / 63...which translates to....D- / F / F..Today's slashline 55 / 35/ 86

The 55% was a season high. Many of those shots were gimmes because of no defense underneath.

The good ...we outshot them (FGA) and had an amazing TO rate of 2 ...Pretty good for a team that was averaging close to 20/ gm. Even more amazing considering all the new people. Keeping TOs down will keep us in most games. BUT you still have to make shots. The Bills slashline ...40 / 28 / 64...not good enough to win. We had 12 more FGA than GM and made 4 less baskets. That is a huge swing . No major deadzones this game but a mini one at a crucial time. 52-46 deep into the 2nd half then 1 basket in 4min 46 sec....59-48...ball game. Also before the last 2 Bills baskets in the final 21 seconds of the game...we miss 6 shots in a row..again ball game. It looked to me deep into the 2nd half we were tiring due to lack of depth. I know Jolly was out but where were the others?

This was a game that we could have won but a poor defensive effort near the basket cost us. Btw, how many bunnies did we miss? Answer...too many

Bottomline...We have fixed some problems , others are improving but you can't forget defense. On offense , we need to be able to finish around the basket.

I think I would feel better if we lost by double digits with a lot of TOs. We had only 2 TOs and still got spanked. We are terrible. Simple atrocious.

[hsmith19]

I always enjoy the numbers. But outside the GW game, I am pretty sure the Bills have lost to every one of your spreads in the last 10 or 12 games. Definitely a sign of something going on.

[Billikenboy]

JC has lost the team is your something going on!

[Soderball]

Enjoy wiz's model. Still recommend you consider clocking the bills at 37 minutes per game. Opponent plays 40. The numbers would look more like the reality. This team is unreal. Mathematics cannot comprehend how bad the Billikens are. That is not the Wiz's fault.

[Taj79]

You can't have any real problems over the Wiz's system. It's just one of many evaluation items based on the numbers input. If you don't put the numbers in, it's no different then old "hot stove league" with guys sitting around the campfire discussing what ifs. It still at best rumor and speculation, complicated by statistics. What it can't do is measure the intangibles. You can't measure heart, determination, talent, coaching, desire, attitude, whatever. You can throw all the slashlines up there you want but if you can't score and can't rebound and can't defend, its all wishful thinking. Wing and a prayer.

I am sure someone somewhere in the bowels of Chaifetz has access to all the same numbers the Wiz does. I am sure every pregame, that guy says "here's what we need to do to win." It is somewhere between that statistical knowledge and actual execution where this team falls short. That, to me, is inferior talent, or inferior coaching, or inferior execution or inferior whatever.

This closet needs to be cleaned. Any and all remnants from a few short years ago are long dead and gone. It is truly staring over time.

How bad is it? Some have likened it to the so-called Ekker years. In Ekker's final season, we went 6 and 21 losing like 18 out of our last 19, getting blown out by 30 in our conference tournament by Louisville. In came Grawer. Savior? I always thought and said so. The very next year, Grawer did Ekker one"better" winning only 5 games all year and finishing 5 and 23. He then won 12, followed by 13, followed finally with a decent 18 and 12 record before blowing up to 25 wins. His fourth year with the program against albeit some weaker competition in the Midwest Cities Conference, not the Metro, CUSA or A10. Seems whomever takes over this dumpster fire as some call it, you are looking at some ramp up time to rebuild ---- if you even can.

A key phrase through all this, including Majerus, has been sustainability. Kiss that pipe dream good-bye. Numbers are facts. Intangibles are feel. Do our numbers get skewed by better second halves where we seem to rise back up to our mediocre numbers, well after the outcome has been decided? Does a computer measure that. Walk,crawl, run -- this team does not know what it takes to win.