Looking at the remaining teams in the tournament and their KenPom rankings for comparison purposes, and I stumbled onto the "Luck" ranking. It was interesting to see Marquette rated 364 of 365 teams.
How is this metric measured? What goes into compiling this stat? Bounces of the ball off shots and deflections? Ref foul calls that could go either way? Opponents' historically low percentage shooters having career nights? Just curious.
Quote from: GoFastAndWin on March 24, 2026, 04:51:10 PMLooking at the remaining teams in the tournament and their KenPom rankings for comparison purposes, and I stumbled onto the "Luck" ranking. It was interesting to see Marquette rated 364 of 365 teams.
How is this metric measured? What goes into compiling this stat? Bounces of the ball off shots and deflections? Ref foul calls that could go either way? Opponents' historically low percentage shooters having career nights? Just curious.
Luck is the deviation in winning percentage between a team's actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method.
Is this where I insert the smart ass comment about Hamilton's "luck" under 2' from the rim? ;)
Quote from: WhiteTrash on March 24, 2026, 05:25:30 PMIs this where I insert the smart ass comment about Hamilton's "luck" under 2' from the rim? ;)
Oh, it
IS. It definitely is.
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on March 24, 2026, 05:27:00 PMOh, it IS. It definitely is.
Stupid Shaka basically benched him for be unlucky. Outrageous!!!
Quote from: MUbiz on March 24, 2026, 04:55:27 PMLuck is the deviation in winning percentage between a team's actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method.
Basically, being 364th in Luck means that our actual wins (12) are way less than our expected wins (much more than 12). Which either means we just shat the bed in clutch time all season (we did) and lost games we shouldn't have or we had some really good wins that make our computer numbers look better (also true). Which fits for a young, inexperienced team that had to learn on the fly and got some bad bounces along the way.
OR the coach sucks and causes you to lose games you should win. Which is possible, but I trust that Shaka's previous record shows that isn't the case.
We were unlucky to have the three "unluckstateers" on the team.....Tre....Sean....and Hamilton....
That is how you get to be 364 out of 365....
There are walk-ons on a lot of teams that are better than 2 out of those 3.....
Quote from: burger on March 24, 2026, 10:01:15 PMWe were unlucky to have the three "unluckstateers" on the team.....Tre....Sean....and Hamilton....
That is how you get to be 364 out of 365....
There are walk-ons on a lot of teams that are better than 2 out of those 3.....
Those three should be tarred and feathered. Or worse. I can't believe they are still allowed to take a breath, frankly.
Quote from: SaveOD238 on March 24, 2026, 09:42:12 PMBasically, being 364th in Luck means that our actual wins (12) are way less than our expected wins (much more than 12). Which either means we just shat the bed in clutch time all season (we did) and lost games we shouldn't have or we had some really good wins that make our computer numbers look better (also true). Which fits for a young, inexperienced team that had to learn on the fly and got some bad bounces along the way.
OR the coach sucks and causes you to lose games you should win. Which is possible, but I trust that Shaka's previous record shows that isn't the case.
This is one of the reasons I'm not as hard on this years team as others. The 12-20 record looks bad, but the teams play generally (analytically and eyeball test) they played like a middling 15-16 win team, but somehow found a way to crap the bed a few extra times to make it look even worse than it really was. No, still not happen with a 15 win team, but they didn't play like the D3 team everyone thinks they did. Just watching the play of the young core and how they grew all year while still stumbling with some young player mistakes was enough to prove that out to me.
Yep. They were 0-4 in games decided by 3 points or less. They could have easily finished 16-16 overall and 9-11 in conference. That would have been tied for 5th with Creighton.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on Today at 01:23:27 PMYep. They were 0-4 in games decided by 3 points or less. They could have easily finished 16-16 overall and 9-11 in conference. That would have been tied for 5th with Creighton.
Which is also a pathetic indictment of this year's big east...
Quote from: UWW2MU on Today at 01:17:07 PMThis is one of the reasons I'm not as hard on this years team as others. The 12-20 record looks bad, but the teams play generally (analytically and eyeball test) they played like a middling 15-16 win team, but somehow found a way to crap the bed a few extra times to make it look even worse than it really was. No, still not happen with a 15 win team, but they didn't play like the D3 team everyone thinks they did. Just watching the play of the young core and how they grew all year while still stumbling with some young player mistakes was enough to prove that out to me.
It certainly didn't help that Shaka inexplicably played Caedin 20 mpg over our first 12+ games. Crazy the turnaround that occurred after Lowery left and Caedin saw the bench. Who would have figured.
Quote from: Tha Hound on Today at 01:27:48 PMIt certainly didn't help that Shaka inexplicably played Caedin 20 mpg over our first 12+ games. Crazy the turnaround that occurred after Lowery left and Caedin saw the bench. Who would have figured.
He must have been doing really well in practice and then it just wasn't there during the games. Wanted to give him some run to see if he could work through it on the big stage. Turns out he couldn't.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on Today at 01:23:27 PMYep. They were 0-4 in games decided by 3 points or less. They could have easily finished 16-16 overall and 9-11 in conference. That would have been tied for 5th with Creighton.
The problem with this logic is you're only looking at the close losses and not the close wins (or the upset over Uconn), all of which could have just as easily gone the other way.
That would have put us 8-24 overall (4-16 in conference), and 2 full games behind 9th place Xavier/Georgetown.
Quote from: The Equalizer on Today at 01:54:35 PMThe problem with this logic is you're only looking at the close losses and not the close wins (or the upset over Uconn), all of which could have just as easily gone the other way.
That would have put us 8-24 overall (4-16 in conference), and 2 full games behind 9th place Xavier/Georgetown.
The stat that the entire thread is about suggests that, when looking at the close wins, the close losses, the upsets, etc., we had more losses that could've gone the other way than wins that could've gone the other way.
Quote from: The Equalizer on Today at 01:54:35 PMThe problem with this logic is you're only looking at the close losses and not the close wins (or the upset over Uconn), all of which could have just as easily gone the other way.
That would have put us 8-24 overall (4-16 in conference), and 2 full games behind 9th place Xavier/Georgetown.
Are you stupid or something? We didn't have any close wins. 0-4.
Sure keep expanding outliers and we could have won or lost all 32 games!
Quote from: The Equalizer on Today at 01:54:35 PMThe problem with this logic is you're only looking at the close losses and not the close wins (or the upset over Uconn), all of which could have just as easily gone the other way.
That would have put us 8-24 overall (4-16 in conference), and 2 full games behind 9th place Xavier/Georgetown.
Regardless of the team or the sport, I never like the close-loss argument for this exact reason - those who make it rarely mention the close wins. I'm not accusing anybody of being duplicitous; folks just tend to forget about the close wins. During my years living in Chicago, all I heard about were the Bears' close losses but never their close wins - it was pretty funny. In the Marquette example, we very easily could have lost to Valpo, Providence, Xavier and UConn. But we didn't lose to them, and that's great ... just like we didn't win any of the losses, and that blows.
That being said, anybody with a working pair of eyes and an even slightly open mind could see that the team improved pretty significantly in the 2026 part of the schedule. That's worth nothing in the standings, and our overall season was still infuriatingly bad ... but I don't think folks are crazy for being encouraged about the future because of the way the team progressed, especially the play of James, Parham and Stevens.
As far as what the Luck Rating says, my overall reaction is: "So?"
Quote from: Hards Alumni on Today at 02:09:59 PMWe didn't have any close wins. 0-4.
Valpo, Providence, Xavier and UConn weren't close wins?
Quote from: MU82 on Today at 02:11:48 PMRegardless of the team or the sport, I never like the close-loss argument for this exact reason - those who make it rarely mention the close wins. I'm not accusing anybody of being duplicitous; folks just tend to forget about the close wins. During my years living in Chicago, all I heard about were the Bears' close losses but never their close wins - it was pretty funny. In the Marquette example, we very easily could have lost to Valpo, Providence, Xavier and UConn. But we didn't lose to them, and that's great ... just like we didn't win any of the losses, and that blows.
That being said, anybody with a working pair of eyes and an even slightly open mind could see that the team improved pretty significantly in the 2026 part of the schedule. That's worth nothing in the standings, and our overall season was still infuriatingly bad ... but I don't think folks are crazy for being encouraged about the future because of the way the team progressed, especially the play of James, Parham and Stevens.
As far as what the Luck Rating says, my overall reaction is: "So?"
Valpo, Providence, Xavier and UConn weren't close wins?
I have been foisted upon my own petard.
but to be fair my spread was 3 points, so you can delete the UConn game from your list.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on Today at 02:09:59 PMAre you stupid or something? We didn't have any close wins. 0-4.
Sure keep expanding outliers and we could have won or lost all 32 games!
We beat X and PC at home by 1 point each.
Edit: already discussed
He did say Xavier in his post.
So we went 3-4.
I'm kind of a dumbass.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on Today at 01:23:27 PMYep. They were 0-4 in games decided by 3 points or less. They could have easily finished 16-16 overall and 9-11 in conference. That would have been tied for 5th with Creighton.
I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but we were not 0-4 in games decided by 3 points or less. We were 3-4 (Wins vs Valpo/Xavier/Providence, Losses vs Oklahoma/Nova/@Nova, vs Xavier). 3-5 if you count the OT loss to Dayton.
I think extending it out shows the bigger picture:
Record In games decided by 1 possession or OT:
3-5
Record in games decided by 2 possessions:
1-4
Record in games decided by 7-11 points:
0-5
Record in games decided by 14 points or more:
8-6
When we won, we tended to blow teams out of the water in no doubt fashion. When we lost, the game was usually at least somewhat competitive. I may be misremembering, but I think all of those 7-11 point losses were in question within the last few minutes.
This data could indicate that we were better a team than our record showed (and some of the underlying analytics do support that). It could also indicate that our coaches, players, or both have trouble executing in high pressure situations. I think that's a fair concern moving forward.
Yeah, I acknowledged my buffoonery in the last couple of posts.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on Today at 02:37:17 PMYeah, I acknowledged my buffoonery in the last couple of posts.
Yeah, my post took a little longer to write. But I think your point is valid if your numbers were off. There were 4 close wins that could have easily gone the other way. There were 9 close losses that could have easily been reversed (and you could argue the there were even two or three more than that).
Were we better than our record showed or just not a clutch team? Time will tell
Why didn't I say that.
UConn was a 2-point game until Hurley's two Ts with a second left, so I sure as heck define that as a close win. And any game that was tied after regulation (in other words, any OT game) is a "close" game in my book.
TAMU - I don't know if we were "better" than our record. I'm usually of the mind that a team plays to its record. As Popeye says, "I yam what I yam." And I think we agree that we executed horribly late in most close games, which was a bad look for Shaka. But this season was so effed up in all kinds of ways that I'll be judging with a clean slate in 2026-27. We certainly won plenty of close games under Shaka when we had very good, experienced players.