Playing the Irish this weekend, I believe it is appropriate to bring up the subject of luck. Kenpom ranks us as number 335 out of 345 this year in terms of luck. It seems, according to Kenpom, we have been pretty unlucky over the last 4 years (2010 310th, 2009 200th, 2008 228th). From what I understand is a sort of the standard deviation from the expected outcome by the actual outcome. Can anyone on this board think of a good reason why we are so unlucky? When one is consistently unlucky, isn't the real reason not bad luck but something else not explained by the model?
Thinking of a good reason why we are unlikely is like trying to define unlucky when it comes to losing basketball games:
How about talent/motivation/coaching=lucky/unlucky.
We discussed this back and forth in December I believe...this is a Pomeroy stat and according to this article, "luck" is most correlated to experience. Some of us have extended that in discussions to head coaching experience where Buzz is the 2nd youngest coach still in the BE (to Willard) and the youngest coach on his staff. Again, it is just a statistic but is also an indicator of actual vs. expected (modeled outcomes, within probability ranges) for those interested.
http://yetanotherbasketblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/dont-blame-freshman-forward.html
A real man makes his own luck. Billy Zane, Titanic
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on January 21, 2011, 09:27:18 AM
A real man makes his own luck. Billy Zane, Titanic
I love that you cited it as Billy Zane and not Cal.
The question is .. what can we do to improve our luck rating?
We've got a whole flock of Jesuits .. can't we have an exorcism or something?
Quote from: willie warrior on January 21, 2011, 07:08:57 AM
Thinking of a good reason why we are unlikely is like trying to define unlucky when it comes to losing basketball games:
How about talent/motivation/coaching=lucky/unlucky.
How about we play in a league that has been the toughest league without question in 2008, and 2010...and no slouch in 2009 - when the team had 2 starting players that stood at 5'8" and 5'10", with no one on the roster over 6'7" - yet still managed to finish 5th in the Big East and earn a 6 seed.
Luck correlates to the number of close losses a team experiences - if we had gotten blown out in a lot more games, our luck rating would be much more middle of the pack. It is no coincidence that our luck rating has been near the bottom in Buzz's time...because we've virtually been impossible to blow out in the regular season - maybe 2 games out of about 75 (Dayton and Pitt).
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 21, 2011, 08:56:22 AM
We discussed this back and forth in December I believe...this is a Pomeroy stat and according to this article, "luck" is most correlated to experience. Some of us have extended that in discussions to head coaching experience where Buzz is the 2nd youngest coach still in the BE (to Willard) and the youngest coach on his staff. Again, it is just a statistic but is also an indicator of actual vs. expected (modeled outcomes, within probability ranges) for those interested.
http://yetanotherbasketblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/dont-blame-freshman-forward.html
Excellent point. And my guess is that experience is most important in end-of-game situations when the pressure is high. IOW, "bad luck" is when a young coach takes the air out of the ball too early and doesn't use his timeouts effectively.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 21, 2011, 10:34:09 AM
Excellent point. And my guess is that experience is most important in end-of-game situations when the pressure is high. IOW, "bad luck" is when a young coach takes the air out of the ball too early and doesn't use his timeouts effectively.
Not exactly. If we'd beaten Louisville by 20, we'd still have a bad luck rating because even though we'd have another win, our expected wins would be higher since the stats would say we're a better team. As Ners mentioned, close wins and blowout losses are what push the "luck" stat the other direction.
Speaking of which... add Georgetown from last year's BET to the list >:(
Quote from: TallTitan34 on January 21, 2011, 09:32:23 AM
I love that you cited it as Billy Zane and not Cal.
He should have cited it to Dwight Schrute.
Would certain referees consistently screwing us fit into the category of bad luck?
Quote from: BrewCity on January 21, 2011, 11:44:11 AM
Would certain referees consistently screwing us fit into the category of bad luck?
No, they screw everyone equally
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 21, 2011, 10:43:33 AM
He should have cited it to Dwight Schrute.
"He should have cited it to Dwight Schrute." - Michael Scott
When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about the Bears.
luck is the residue of design.
We are considered nulucky, because we are on the wrong side on one possession games to often. A lot of this can be traced to not even getting a shot off for a chance to win, which has happen several times in Buzz's tenure. Butler won two games for us last year with last second shots, but the the reverse happens to us much more frequently.
Plays out of time outs. We aren't good at them. That is what costs us the 1 possession games.
Ners the fact that we play in the big east has nothing to do with this. If you play a team close for 38 minutes you should win about 50% of the time. Doesn't matter what teams are in question.
Quote from: Ners on January 21, 2011, 10:27:57 AMLuck correlates to the number of close losses a team experiences - if we had gotten blown out in a lot more games, our luck rating would be much more middle of the pack. It is no coincidence that our luck rating has been near the bottom in Buzz's time...because we've virtually been impossible to blow out in the regular season - maybe 2 games out of about 75 (Dayton and Pitt).
I know I've mentioned it before, but Buzz has been amazing at not getting blown out. In our past 58 games, dating to March of 2009, we have only been beaten once by double digits, which was Georgetown (23) in the Big East tournament last year. In the 2008-2009 season, we had a total of five games we lost by double digits, Dayton (14), Tennessee (12), Villanova (18), Connecticut (11), and Pittsburgh (15).
Of those five, some weren't really blowouts. Tennessee was a 5-point game before a 7-0 run in the last 2:08 by the Volunteers. Connecticut went on an 8-1 run in the last 2:05 to blow open what was a 4-point game. Even the Pittsburgh game was a 1-point game with 10:16 remaining before Pitt finished it by outscoring us 26-12 in the final stretch. Most of the Georgetown game also was close, it was 56-51 with 10:52 to play before the Hoyas finished on a 24-6 run.
If luck is going to be determined by close losses, then our bad luck is going to equal the number of losses we have, because Buzz's teams, especially over the past 58 games, really don't lose any other way.
"The harder I work, the luckier I get." Gary Player
Quote from: Sheriff on January 21, 2011, 06:06:07 PM
When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about the Bears.
Why is that in teal? I did question for a split second why this wasn't in the Superbar.
In teal because I didn't REALLY think the thread was about the Bears. If it was, it probably should be in the Superbar. Also wanted to reflect the sarcastic nature related to recent high frequency of luck/Bear word association.
Quote from: RawdogDX on January 21, 2011, 06:29:01 PM
Plays out of time outs. We aren't good at them. That is what costs us the 1 possession games.
Amen!
It is bad luck when the other coach decides to play zone defense.
Quote from: mu77vegas on January 22, 2011, 08:17:23 AM
"The harder I work, the luckier I get." Gary Player
Great quote. Luck is often made