Luck or Grit?

[NorthernDancerColt]

'I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it'     Thomas Jefferson   (although many others have variations of the same)

In golf alone, there are 5 or 6 linksters to whom this quote has been attributed to at one time or another. While Jerry Barber apparently coined it, I have heard it attributed to (or appropriated by) Gary Player, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino etc.

When Ben Hogan kept getting hounded by reporters after his miraculous comeback from a horrific traffic accident, he was often asked, "What is your secret?"  This interrogative also alluded to his excitement after finding the cure to his brutal tee-ball hooks, a malady which often afflicts better players....reporters wanted him to spew technical info about the golf swing like "lateral pronation", "supination", "weakening" grip etc. Hogan stoically responded with his version of the work/luck maxim: "THE SECRET IS IN THE DIRT"

In many ways, I really believe Wojo's Warriors grasp this concept. Hogan loved to practice and work at the game almost as much as he loved to play it. We all know that when you love something that much, it's a joy to pursue it. This team shows they embrace the process of getting better.  Apologies to Dr. Bob Rotella, but basketball, like golf, "is not a game of perfect."

[1SE]

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2019/01/the-high-risk-game-of-luck.html?m=1

I wrote about this last month. Take from it what you will, but in general teams that are overseeded on luck don't fare well in March.

That's really good - sorry I missed that.

I guess what's been bothering me is the way Kenpom sets it up, luck is the random error.

I'm not entirely sure it's random - if it was teams should be regressing to "mean luck". My sense is teams mostly stay "lucky" or "unlucky" throughout the season - which suggests it's not random.

I know that's certainly the case for MU (I think we've been about 25 in luck all season). It would be interesting if that's the case systematically.

If it is, it suggests Kenpom's model suffers from omitted variable bias (which is being picked up in the error term) - it also suggests that it would make sense to bet on the teams Kenpom suggests are "lucky".

[brewcity77]

If it is, it suggests Kenpom's model suffers from omitted variable bias (which is being picked up in the error term) - it also suggests that it would make sense to bet on the teams Kenpom suggests are "lucky".

I think March is when teams tend to track to the mean. It's when teams that are talented but unlucky overcome the bad breaks and make runs while teams that have lived on the edge all year fall off it. And at the end, it will usually be the teams that have just been good, consistently winning in convincing fashion, that tend to cut down nets.

[Lennys Tap]

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2019/01/the-high-risk-game-of-luck.html?m=1

I wrote about this last month. Take from it what you will, but in general teams that are overseeded on luck don't fare well in March.

Don't know if I missed this the first time around but this is good stuff Brew. There will always be head scratching upsets in the tournament but it's not a total crap shoot as some have suggested.

[cheebs09]

If it's grit, can this guy be our mascot?

[Bocephys]

If it's grit, can this guy be our mascot?

The natural sunlight of Georgia has really done wonders for Crean's skin.  I prefer his unnatural tanning bed glow kissed by the Wisconsin snow.

[HowardsWorld]

A team makes its own luck. If a team is getting blown out then obviously there is no chance close game or game decided by 5 points or less. If they are going to measure "Luck" it should be renamed to something more useful like closeouts or something. It's not luck that Marquette has only lost 1 game by 5 points or less they learned how to play that way and close out games.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

A team makes its own luck. If a team is getting blown out then obviously there is no chance close game or game decided by 5 points or less. If they are going to measure "Luck" it should be renamed to something more useful like closeouts or something. It's not luck that Marquette has only lost 1 game by 5 points or less they learned how to play that way and close out games.

Yep, luck is the wrong word.  It implies randomness.  I'd call it either "Wins Above Mean" or "Wins Above Probability."

Sure, luck may be involved.  Marquette was aided by a lot of luck in the Creighton game.  Both Theo's block at Georgetown wasn't luck. Late game execution isn't always "luck."

But, I understand the overall concept and application from a math sense.  The math is good, it's the English that is poor.

[UWW2MU]

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2019/01/the-high-risk-game-of-luck.html?m=1

I wrote about this last month. Take from it what you will, but in general teams that are overseeded on luck don't fare well in March.

I hadn't read this until now... but it closely aligns with what my intuition was telling me.  This is why I've held the belief that our resume may be top 10 quality but our game play, until we shore things up (which could definitely still happen before the tourney) has us playing more as a top 25.  I'm not disappointed with that, because that is where I expected them this year. 

So I have really been enjoying our season so far, as it is exceeding my expectations a little bit.  Come March, I'd be happy with a Sweet16 year.   Anything else is gravy there as well.

[UWW2MU]

Yep, luck is the wrong word.  It implies randomness.  I'd call it either "Wins Above Mean" or "Wins Above Probability."

Sure, luck may be involved.  Marquette was aided by a lot of luck in the Creighton game.  Both Theo's block at Georgetown wasn't luck. Late game execution isn't always "luck."

But, I understand the overall concept and application from a math sense.  The math is good, it's the English that is poor.

I've always thought of it as "Wins above/below expectations" based on the analytics. 

It is no coincidence that teams we can clearly see are over rated in Kenpom's system are very low on the "luck" scale (think: Wisconsin).  To me it demonstrates that the system favors the way they play and probably over values them.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

The Flyer's mascot was at Stephen Colbert's Super Bowl Party.

[Lighthouse 84]

Speaking of which, did the Pope get a TO or just voluntarily stop pontificating?

[Dr. Blackheart]

I said this in the preseason but Kpom switched from a multiplicative to additive model.  While this makes for an easier model to explain, I think he loses in-season predictability.

[MUBigDance]

Sure. But any team can always be upset. It just seems to happen more frequently with teams that rate highly in luck & are disproportionately seeded.

I'm concerned about this...I've "felt" like we have been lucky in a way. Louisville and Creighton for sure. We did show up in overtime with Louisville but they had 4 puppies to win and blew it.

My thought was originally "over-rated"...but thats not true. We did WIN those games. its on the court and it counts for us...and against them. They did blow it.

And "luck" is a weird word...but that "luck" calculation corresponding to upsets really makes sense to me. That's why we need a higher seed....a 5 would scare me...4 more comfortable...2,3 and I would feel good about the sweet-16.

[brewcity77]

I'm concerned about this...I've "felt" like we have been lucky in a way. Louisville and Creighton for sure. We did show up in overtime with Louisville but they had 4 puppies to win and blew it.

My thought was originally "over-rated"...but thats not true. We did WIN those games. its on the court and it counts for us...and against them. They did blow it.

And "luck" is a weird word...but that "luck" calculation corresponding to upsets really makes sense to me. That's why we need a higher seed....a 5 would scare me...4 more comfortable...2,3 and I would feel good about the sweet-16.

When considering rankings, it's important to consider what all of them are evaluating. Sites like Pomeroy and Torvik are looking at efficiency. So when it comes to efficiency, we are correctly not going to look as good because we have allowed inferior teams to play close to us and when we lose, more often than not we do so in trainwreck fashion. For what they evaluate, Pomeroy and Torvik are not wrong.

The polls, AP & Coaches, are looking mostly at results with an emphasis on recent results. We're what, 17-2 in our last 19 games? That is going to lead to a great ranking, no matter what the margins look like. So based on results, we are deservedly a top-10 team. For what they evaluate, the polls are not wrong.

Then you have the NET, and frankly, this is why I'm largely pleased with how the NET has worked out thus far. We're right around the middle, in the 18-21 range. As a hybrid of results and efficiency, I also don't think that's wrong. As UWW2MU noted, this team feels like a top-25ish team. The NET reflects that.

Either way, I'm riding the wave. We're winning, we're definitely better than we've been in years, and if we're a little lucky, maybe we can ride that to a conference banner of some sort. If we flame out early in March, it will suck, but that doesn't take away from how incredibly fun this season has been.

[MU82]

Folks might define "luck" in different ways.

I will say we were definitely lucky to win at Creighton. That was a freak, 1-in-10,000 (or more) occurrence. Every time I think about it, what goes through my mind is: "It was impossible for us to win that game."

I'd accept we were at least somewhat lucky to beat Louisville, too, thanks to the 3 that counted only as a 2 and the attempts LV had to beat us at the end of regulation.

Still, in both cases, we took advantage of the breaks and then played great in OT.

Otherwise, I don't think good luck has been a major factor for us at all.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Folks might define "luck" in different ways.

I will say we were definitely lucky to win at Creighton. That was a freak, 1-in-10,000 (or more) occurrence. Every time I think about it, what goes through my mind is: "It was impossible for us to win that game."

I'd accept we were at least somewhat lucky to beat Louisville, too, thanks to the 3 that counted only as a 2 and the attempts LV had to beat us at the end of regulation.

Still, in both cases, we took advantage of the breaks and then played great in OT.

Otherwise, I don't think good luck has been a major factor for us at all.

Is a nut punch considered lucky?

[MUBigDance]

When considering rankings, it's important to consider what all of them are evaluating. Sites like Pomeroy and Torvik are looking at efficiency. So when it comes to efficiency, we are correctly not going to look as good because we have allowed inferior teams to play close to us and when we lose, more often than not we do so in trainwreck fashion. For what they evaluate, Pomeroy and Torvik are not wrong.

The polls, AP & Coaches, are looking mostly at results with an emphasis on recent results. We're what, 17-2 in our last 19 games? That is going to lead to a great ranking, no matter what the margins look like. So based on results, we are deservedly a top-10 team. For what they evaluate, the polls are not wrong.

Then you have the NET, and frankly, this is why I'm largely pleased with how the NET has worked out thus far. We're right around the middle, in the 18-21 range. As a hybrid of results and efficiency, I also don't think that's wrong. As UWW2MU noted, this team feels like a top-25ish team. The NET reflects that.

Either way, I'm riding the wave. We're winning, we're definitely better than we've been in years, and if we're a little lucky, maybe we can ride that to a conference banner of some sort. If we flame out early in March, it will suck, but that doesn't take away from how incredibly fun this season has been.

Right with you. Thanks.

[buckchuckler]

Is a nut punch considered lucky?

I thought everyone knows it is lucky if you hit the left one, and the left one only. 

[MU82]

Is a nut punch considered lucky?

Depends on what floats the punchee's boat.