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.