MU KenPom Luck rating 364 of 365

[GoFastAndWin]

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.

[MUbiz]

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.

Luck is the deviation in winning percentage between a team's actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method.

[WhiteTrash]

Is this where I insert the smart ass comment about Hamilton's "luck" under 2' from the rim? 

[Scoop Snoop]

Is this where I insert the smart ass comment about Hamilton's "luck" under 2' from the rim? 

Oh, it IS. It definitely is.

[WhiteTrash]

Oh, it IS. It definitely is.

Stupid Shaka basically benched him for be unlucky. Outrageous!!!

[SaveOD238]

Luck 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.

[burger]

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.....

[MU82]

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.....

Those three should be tarred and feathered. Or worse. I can't believe they are still allowed to take a breath, frankly.

[UWW2MU]

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.

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.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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.

Which is also a pathetic indictment of this year's big east...

[Tha Hound]

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.

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.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

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.

[The Equalizer]

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.

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

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.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

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!

[MU82]

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.

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?"

We didn't have any close wins. 0-4.

Valpo, Providence, Xavier and UConn weren't close wins?

[Hards Alumni]

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?"

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.

[BM1090]

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!

We beat X and PC at home by 1 point each.

Edit: already discussed

[Hards Alumni]

He did say Xavier in his post.

So we went 3-4. 

I'm kind of a dumbass.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

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.

[Hards Alumni]

Yeah, I acknowledged my buffoonery in the last couple of posts.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yeah, 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

[Hards Alumni]

Why didn't I say that.

[MU82]

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.

[mileskishnish72]

Luck is the deviation in winning percentage between a team's actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method.

Well, thank God for that! The uncorrelated Gaussian method wouldn't have meant squat.

[brewcity77]

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).

This felt like a team that made their own luck.

[muwarrior69]

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.

Which underlying analytics supports that we were a better team than our record and is there a single analytic that measures trouble executing? Not a metrics guy, just an eye test guy and curious about your statement.

Appears the team had trouble executing just about everything: can't shoot, rebound, make layups and play defense.

[panda]

This felt like a team that made their own luck.

Poor roster construction, bizarre in game management, not enough depth etc. Luck favors the prepared and this team was nowhere near prepared.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Which underlying analytics supports that we were a better team than our record and is there a single analytic that measures trouble executing? Not a metrics guy, just an eye test guy and curious about your statement.

Appears the team had trouble executing just about everything: can't shoot, rebound, make layups and play defense.

The major services, KenPom, Bart Torvik, Evan Miya, all ranked us between #83 (KenPom) and #73 (Evan Miya). If you look at the other high major teams ranked in the same range as us, you will see much better W/L records despite us playing similar strengths of schedule:
Colorado 17-15
Creighton 15-17
Cal 22-12
Minnesota 15-17
Georgetown 16-18
USC 18-14
Oklahoma State 20-15
Wake Forest 18-17
Butler 16-16
Syracuse 15-17

Oversimplifying it a bit, but essentially a team who put up the metrics we did against the strength of schedule we played you would expect to be around a .500 record. Actually, according to all three, we were the highest rated team with 14 or less wins.

I'm not aware of any single metric that measures a team's performance in high pressure end of game situations and compares it against other teams. I think it's fair to assume that if you have poor record in close games, you likely have some issues performing high pressure end of game situations.

[1SE]

Economists call it "Total Factor Productivity"

[muwarrior69]

The major services, KenPom, Bart Torvik, Evan Miya, all ranked us between #83 (KenPom) and #73 (Evan Miya). If you look at the other high major teams ranked in the same range as us, you will see much better W/L records despite us playing similar strengths of schedule:
Colorado 17-15
Creighton 15-17
Cal 22-12
Minnesota 15-17
Georgetown 16-18
USC 18-14
Oklahoma State 20-15
Wake Forest 18-17
Butler 16-16
Syracuse 15-17

Oversimplifying it a bit, but essentially a team who put up the metrics we did against the strength of schedule we played you would expect to be around a .500 record. Actually, according to all three, we were the highest rated team with 14 or less wins.

I'm not aware of any single metric that measures a team's performance in high pressure end of game situations and compares it against other teams. I think it's fair to assume that if you have poor record in close games, you likely have some issues performing high pressure end of game situations.

Thanks! Another question. Everyone is looking forward to the tranfer(s) we might sign and some have compared NM playing for St. Thomas and NJ using BPR rating. Do they have BPR ratings for High School recruits? If they do how well do they translate to performance in college?

[MUbiz]

Thanks! Another question. Everyone is looking forward to the tranfer(s) we might sign and some have compared NM playing for St. Thomas and NJ using BPR rating. Do they have BPR ratings for High School recruits? If they do how well do they translate to performance in college?

They do not have BPR ratings for high school guys to my knowledge.

[cheebs09]

It feels like we had a large number of games where a pretty crummy last 3 minutes took a solid performance (by our standards) to a loss. Largely with a rash of turnovers or bad shots.

I'm not sure how that looks in the metrics, but I could see us being .500 if we didn't seem to find new ways to lose in the last 3 mins.

[SaveOD238]

The major services, KenPom, Bart Torvik, Evan Miya, all ranked us between #83 (KenPom) and #73 (Evan Miya). If you look at the other high major teams ranked in the same range as us, you will see much better W/L records despite us playing similar strengths of schedule:
Colorado 17-15
Creighton 15-17
Cal 22-12
Minnesota 15-17
Georgetown 16-18
USC 18-14
Oklahoma State 20-15
Wake Forest 18-17
Butler 16-16
Syracuse 15-17

Oversimplifying it a bit, but essentially a team who put up the metrics we did against the strength of schedule we played you would expect to be around a .500 record. Actually, according to all three, we were the highest rated team with 14 or less wins.

I'm not aware of any single metric that measures a team's performance in high pressure end of game situations and compares it against other teams. I think it's fair to assume that if you have poor record in close games, you likely have some issues performing high pressure end of game situations.

Miami (OH) went 31-2 and is ranked BEHIND us in those metrics.  But they managed to win every single close game and multiple times in OT.  Did Miami benefit from weaker competition, yes, but they were also incredibly "lucky" to keep surviving all of those close battles.

[muwarrior69]

Miami (OH) went 31-2 and is ranked BEHIND us in those metrics.  But they managed to win every single close game and multiple times in OT.  Did Miami benefit from weaker competition, yes, but they were also incredibly "lucky" to keep surviving all of those close battles.

Was it really luck or were their players just able to execute under pressure regardless of what the metric are.

[wiscwarrior]

nm

[WhiteTrash]

MUScoop redirected me to a DePaul fan forum? 

[Shooter McGavin]

MU was "unlucky" and lost many close games due to seniors and juniors who were not fit for end of game clutch roles in the beginning of the season. When the freshmen and sophomores were deferred to in the second half of the season the metrics improved.  The clutch portion didn't because of inexperience.

To summarize, the first portion of the season was "unlucky" due to poor upperclassmen clutch performances and the second portion of the season was "unlucky" due to inexperience.

MU had the perfect "unlucky" roster. 

[burger]

MU was "unlucky" and lost many close games due to seniors and juniors who were not fit for end of game clutch roles in the beginning of the season. When the freshmen and sophomores were deferred to in the second half of the season the metrics improved.  The clutch portion didn't because of inexperience.

To summarize, the first portion of the season was "unlucky" due to poor upperclassmen clutch performances and the second portion of the season was "unlucky" due to inexperience.

MU had the perfect "unlucky" roster. 

Chase was 0 for the season in taking the last shot at the end of the game for the win....

And they kept on going to him....

On Shaka again.....

Once we started to go to.James....We started winning those close games at the end.....Except for the last one.....

[Shooter McGavin]

Agreed much better chance to win in the second half of the season with Nigel over Ross in end game situations. But still inexperienced.

Bottom line, we didn't get unlucky.  Our roster had the wrong combination of alpha players and experience.