Inhospitable Hosts

There were two new guys today, Jeremy and David (#2) (not the tall David). As hosts and elders of noon hoops, we did not welcome them very nicely. I know this for sure, because I was their teammate all day. The beatings and slaughters were handed out to our team one after the other. David (#2) went 0-4, Jeremy 0-9, I managed to win one early and went 1-9. Quite a turnaround from my 7-1 earlier in the week. To quote Die Hard, "Welcome to the party, pal."

Oh! Before I forget, make sure to check out video from Friday night's Celtics/Blazers game if you haven't yet. Big Baby Davis lived up to his name. He was weeping like a baby on the sideline. It was ludicrous. Apparently he got admonished in the huddle by Garnett and Doc Rivers and then he sat on the bench and start wailing like a kid who lost his blankie. Then he's sitting on the bench a few minutes later and tears were streaming down his face. Zoiks.

Anyway, back to the show... Here are today's results. TK and Nate played together some today and did well...

Here are the cumulative stats for guys with at least 20 games (welcome Sean to the club). They are sorted by games played. I could tell you that's because lots of guys ask how many they've played, but it's really sorted this way so that I could be first.

Here are some random observations...

Today we had a team that had the highest sum of their winning %s we've seen in over a month. It was Alvin (64%), Keith (51%), Luke (67%) and TK (66%) for a total of 248%. They won, of course.

It's been almost 80 games since a team with a summed win % under 180 has won a game. That game was Dane 35, Erik 42, Marvena 49 and myself 43. No need to embarrass the people we beat as big underdogs...

Don has hit the GWS in 55% of the games that his team has won. Next highest for someone who plays a lot is Luke with the GWS in 43% of the games that his team has won.

Noon Hoops BCS Power Rankings

So the data set is still small (statiscally speaking), but it's cool to look at different comparisons. For the first PR (a few posts ago) I took your win % and divided it by what your win % should have been based on your teammates and opponents. If your actual win % were equal to your predicted win %, your PR would be 100%. More means you have been better than average, less means not as good as average.

Now, I tried two other methods. Basically, without boring you with the math, I took your opponent's and teammate's win % and used the data to adjust your winning % up or down so that now you have an adjusted win %. So, 50% would mean you have been exactly average. I used this method for the two new versions called "adjusted win % 1" and 'adjusted win % 2". The only diff between 1 and 2 is that for adj win % 2, the opponents and teammates have more emphasis in the adjustment.

So, in the end, of course all the rankings are somewhat similar. However, like the BCS in College Football, there are some differences. So, on the chart I show your rank in each of the 3 ratings systems (Adj win % 1, Adj win % 2 and Power Ratings) and then the last column is the overall composite of the three to determine the final rankings.

Knock yourselves out... (only dudes with 20+ games)...

The first 3 columns are games played, Actual win % and strength of schedule (negative being more difficult, positive being easier)...