+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: CAAbbs (/forum-676.html)
+---- Forum: CAA Conference Talk (/forum-677.html)
+----- Forum: William & Mary (/forum-691.html)
+----- Thread: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) (/thread-894994.html)
Pages: 1 2
Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - tribeinexile - 02-24-2020 02:58 PM
One can view it from a glass half-full or a glass half-empty perspective but, if I’m reading it correctly, Tribe MBB is 3rd in the country in luck this year - as defined by Ken Pomeroy.
I did a quick check of our results and it appears we are 7-1 in games decided by 5 or less. The Oklahoma meltdown is the sole blot on that record.
NE is 3-9 in games decided by 5 or less.
The impact of this is pretty significant. Imagine how NE and we would be feeling about our respective seasons if those records in tight games were reversed.
(I realize record in tight games is not how luck is calculated but it seems like a useful proxy.)
Being ranked 3rd in the country in anything is a significant statistic worthy of note. There are many possible explanations:
1) Dane Fischer is a great coach; Bill Coen is a piker.
2). W&M has a great talent having a CAS POY type season.
3). W&M has one of the oldest teams in the country.
4). Data deviates from the mean and returns to it randomly.
5). Lies, damn lies & statistics.
6). ...
I would go for some combination of 2-4. The second half of statement 1 is false and the first half lacks sufficient data to be tested.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - nogretheogre - 02-24-2020 03:58 PM
Our luck is named Nathan Knight
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - TribeFan1983 - 02-24-2020 03:59 PM
(02-24-2020 02:58 PM)tribeinexile Wrote: One can view it from a glass half-full or a glass half-empty perspective but, if I’m reading it correctly, Tribe MBB is 3rd in the country in luck this year - as defined by Ken Pomeroy.
I did a quick check of our results and it appears we are 7-1 in games decided by 5 or less. The Oklahoma meltdown is the sole blot on that record.
NE is 3-9 in games decided by 5 or less.
The impact of this is pretty significant. Imagine how NE and we would be feeling about our respective seasons if those records in tight games were reversed.
(I realize record in tight games is not how luck is calculated but it seems like a useful proxy.)
Being ranked 3rd in the country in anything is a significant statistic worthy of note. There are many possible explanations:
1) Dane Fischer is a great coach; Bill Coen is a piker.
2). W&M has a great talent having a CAS POY type season.
3). W&M has one of the oldest teams in the country.
4). Data deviates from the mean and returns to it randomly.
5). Lies, damn lies & statistics.
6). ...
I would go for some combination of 2-4. The second half of statement 1 is false and the first half lacks sufficient data to be tested.
So almost all of our losses are by more than five points. Maybe that means we're likely to throw in the towel when we get down by a large margin.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - Tribe32 - 02-24-2020 04:30 PM
(02-24-2020 03:59 PM)TribeFan1983 Wrote:(02-24-2020 02:58 PM)tribeinexile Wrote: One can view it from a glass half-full or a glass half-empty perspective but, if I’m reading it correctly, Tribe MBB is 3rd in the country in luck this year - as defined by Ken Pomeroy.
I did a quick check of our results and it appears we are 7-1 in games decided by 5 or less. The Oklahoma meltdown is the sole blot on that record.
NE is 3-9 in games decided by 5 or less.
The impact of this is pretty significant. Imagine how NE and we would be feeling about our respective seasons if those records in tight games were reversed.
(I realize record in tight games is not how luck is calculated but it seems like a useful proxy.)
Being ranked 3rd in the country in anything is a significant statistic worthy of note. There are many possible explanations:
1) Dane Fischer is a great coach; Bill Coen is a piker.
2). W&M has a great talent having a CAS POY type season.
3). W&M has one of the oldest teams in the country.
4). Data deviates from the mean and returns to it randomly.
5). Lies, damn lies & statistics.
6). ...
I would go for some combination of 2-4. The second half of statement 1 is false and the first half lacks sufficient data to be tested.
So almost all of our losses are by more than five points. Maybe that means we're likely to throw in the towel when we get down by a large margin.
I think it's more like a rock rolling down hill. In all of our blow out losses one or both of our big guys played poorly. Let's just be realistic and say that if Knight has a bad game, and Van Vliet doesn't pick it up, we're toast.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - tribeinexile - 02-24-2020 05:06 PM
My fear is slightly different. Go back to the CofC game. We scored 7 points in the last 13 minutes and Knight had 5 of them. He had a monster night (37 points and dominated the boards). Van Vliet was so-so but the supporting cast was 6-29 (2 for 16 from three).
Knight and Van Vliet obviously must excel. That is a necessary but not sufficient requirement. We need solid play from the rest of the rotation and our margin for error there is minute.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - TribePride52 - 02-24-2020 06:00 PM
(02-24-2020 03:58 PM)nogretheogre Wrote: Our luck is named Nathan Knight
This.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - Rocco - 02-24-2020 06:27 PM
(02-24-2020 03:58 PM)nogretheogre Wrote: Our luck is named Nathan Knight
Last year with Knight (and a bunch of other guys for whom there was much rending of garments when they left) in games decided by 5 points or fewer they were 7-6. Knight helps but he's not the entire answer.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - wmmii - 02-24-2020 06:29 PM
We have the 15th most experienced starting team which goes a long ways to win close games and therefore we do not often lose our composure. Cannot remember Barnes ever missing a FT in the last two minutes of a tight game plus he made the winning layup at Wofford. You are correct that Nathan has hit the winning shot in at least 4 of these close games!!
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - tribeinexile - 02-24-2020 06:36 PM
(02-24-2020 06:27 PM)Rocco Wrote:(02-24-2020 03:58 PM)nogretheogre Wrote: Our luck is named Nathan Knight
Last year with Knight (and a bunch of other guys for whom there was much rending of garments when they left) in games decided by 5 points or fewer they were 7-6. Knight helps but he's not the entire answer.
We now have a vote for reason (1).
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - Tribe2011 - 02-25-2020 12:07 PM
Knight certainly helps, but examinations of this have consistently shown that no matter who you have (a star point guard who hits free throws down the stretch, senior leadership, etc) this tends to be somewhat random variance from year to year. It means that our record is better than we actually are. We should be thrilled with this as you don't get any points for the alternative.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - wmmii - 02-25-2020 01:12 PM
You cannot discount the mental toughness of this team and their expectation in a close game that they will pull out the win. This is not all random luck this year, just hope it can continue for at least 5 more games!
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - tribeinexile - 02-25-2020 01:47 PM
The term luck is the one Pomeroy uses - the title of the thread was not meant to denigrate the success the team has had in close games this year. What some might call luck, others would call magic and both could be right.
Without doing any research, I can recall 3 games we won on last-second, heady plays made by talented seniors (Wofford, both NE games).
Winning begets winning. We may end up looking back at that Wofford game as the beginning of a magic carpet ride.
We are a very good rebounding team (2nd in conference to Towson) and block a lot of shots (1st in conference). This limits opponent’s options in end-of-game situations.
And finally, a less benign explanation: our offensive firepower and options are somewhat limited. Most of our losses have been lopsided caused by a collapse in offensive production, resulting in blowouts.
I certainly didn’t start this thread to imply the team doesn’t deserve its success or to suggest we shouldn’t be enjoying its magical season.
I was simply struck me that we are 3rd in the country in something and there has been no discussion of it.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - Zorch - 02-25-2020 04:28 PM
Here are a few old saws (paraphrased):
"It is better to be lucky than good".
"I may not be able to define [luck] but I know it when I see it".
"Luck is where opportunity meets preparation" (or something like that).
I think calling the phenomenon of winning lots of close games "luck" is a huge misnomer. As the quote above says, I know luck when I see it and I don't think any of the close games mentioned qualify as lucky wins. Sure, it was fortuitous that Nathan's two last second shots against Northeastern rolled in instead of rolling out but it is not like they were full court heaves at the buzzer. They were plays run by a talented player and executed in the time allotted --- and, score-wise, W&M was close enough to be "in the game" at those points in order to take advantage of the good plays.
So, I think W&M's success in close games is more attributable to being "good" than being "lucky". I haven't seen any lucky finishes. I don't think NE thought that W&M was "lucky" to win those games, I think that they thought "gosh darn, that Nathan Knight is good".
BTW, yes we had Nathan Knight last year -- but that was Nathan Knight the junior. This year we have Nathan Knight the senior. Not the same guy.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - tribalwarfare - 02-25-2020 07:53 PM
FWIW, the Luck metric only measures the difference between a team's actual winning percentage and what the efficiency metrics project the winning percentage should be. So, at 20-10, we have a 67% win percentage, which is +.142 (14.2 percentage points) higher than what is implied from the game-by-game efficiency data. KenPom believes that our win percentage should be ~53% (16-14). Applying this historically:
18-19: 14-17 Actual (+.029 Luck) ~= 13-18 KenPom Projected
17-18: 19-12 Actual (+.098 Luck) ~= 16-16
16-17: 17-14 Actual (-.003 Luck) ~= 14-14
15-16: 20-11 Actual (-.015 Luck) ~= 20-11
14-15: 20-13 Actual (-.024 Luck) ~= 21-12
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - Rocco - 02-25-2020 07:55 PM
Kansas this year is 2-2 in games decided by 5 or fewer points. Are they not good? Are they not "clutch"?
Duke? 3-1. Good, but not W&M. Baylor? 4-2. Texas Tech? 1-5. On the other end of the spectrum, Evansville is 5-5 but 9-20 overall. Florida A&M is 12-14 but 5-1 in 5 point games.
The point of "luck" isn't that a team doesn't deserve its wins, but that performance in close games is not a repeatable skill. There's no hidden skill or secret sauce. The best way to deal with close-game variance is to kick the crap out of the opponent and avoid close games.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - Seahawk Nation 08 - 02-25-2020 08:02 PM
(02-25-2020 07:55 PM)Rocco Wrote: The best way to deal with close-game variance is to kick the crap out of the opponent and avoid close games.
So THAT'S the secret!
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - Rocco - 02-25-2020 08:51 PM
(02-25-2020 08:02 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:(02-25-2020 07:55 PM)Rocco Wrote: The best way to deal with close-game variance is to kick the crap out of the opponent and avoid close games.
So THAT'S the secret!
The only winning move is not to play.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - Zorch - 02-26-2020 10:37 AM
(02-25-2020 07:55 PM)Rocco Wrote: The point of "luck" isn't that a team doesn't deserve its wins, but that performance in close games is not a repeatable skill. There's no hidden skill or secret sauce.
I disagree with this premise that performance in close games is not a repeatable skill. We already know that Nathan Knight won a close game against NE and then he repeated that effort just weeks later.
Someone said "winning begets winning". Another way to say that is "success builds confidence". Teams that have done it know that they can do it again, and that very confidence might be the factor that indeed does enable them to do it again. Likewise, failure begets failure. Look at all the close games that NE has lost this year. You don't think that maybe those failures are "in their head" just a little bit? Having failed so often, the next time they are in that position it will be in the back (or front) of their minds that "oh no, here we go again", and thus it makes it so.
This concept of "repeatability" is why, the next time W&M is in a last-second game-deciding situation, I would prefer that Nathan Knight get the ball and not << fill in name of W&M bench-warmer >>.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - Rocco - 02-26-2020 12:32 PM
(02-26-2020 10:37 AM)Zorch Wrote:(02-25-2020 07:55 PM)Rocco Wrote: The point of "luck" isn't that a team doesn't deserve its wins, but that performance in close games is not a repeatable skill. There's no hidden skill or secret sauce.
I disagree with this premise that performance in close games is not a repeatable skill. We already know that Nathan Knight won a close game against NE and then he repeated that effort just weeks later.
Marcus Thornton hit a game winning 3 to beat Drexel. He missed the game winner that same season against Delaware. The results were independent of one another.
Quote:Someone said "winning begets winning". Another way to say that is "success builds confidence". Teams that have done it know that they can do it again, and that very confidence might be the factor that indeed does enable them to do it again. Likewise, failure begets failure. Look at all the close games that NE has lost this year. You don't think that maybe those failures are "in their head" just a little bit? Having failed so often, the next time they are in that position it will be in the back (or front) of their minds that "oh no, here we go again", and thus it makes it so.
The problem with cliches is they tend to not hold up to actual analysis. It's trickier with college sports because rosters turn over a lot, but in pro sports performance in close games varies a lot year-to-year. It's pretty common to see a team win a ton of close games one year then struggle in those spots the next year and vice versa.
As for Northeastern, last year they were 3-5 in games decided by 5 points- not great, not terrible. They're not as good this year, so games they won comfortably last year are coming down to the wire. They also had a CAA first team player, so if it truly were down to having a great player, you'd think that number would have been higher. (And he hit at least one buzzer beater that I know of without looking.) Hofstra last year (with JWF, the CAA POY) was 7-4 in 5 point games, which is good but not that crazy when you consider they were 22-7 overall.
Quote:This concept of "repeatability" is why, the next time W&M is in a last-second game-deciding situation, I would prefer that Nathan Knight get the ball and not << fill in name of W&M bench-warmer >>.
You want the best player on the team taking that shot. Of course. That's not because of some magical clutch ability necessarily, but because the best player is more likely to make the shot than a nobody.
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy) - EvanJ - 02-26-2020 02:57 PM
(02-26-2020 12:32 PM)Rocco Wrote: Hofstra last year (with JWF, the CAA POY) was 7-4 in 5 point games, which is good but not that crazy when you consider they were 22-7 overall.Hofstra is 3-2 this season in 5-point or closer games. They had four consecutive games decided by 2, one by 4, and everything else by at least 6, including every nonconference game decided by at least 7. If you look at Hofstra's winning percentage and point differential per game this season and last season, you would expect them to do better in close games this season because their point differential has decreased more than their winning percentage has, but they have fewer wins and a worse winning percentage in those games this season.