Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Zorch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,408
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: W&M
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
(02-26-2020 12:32 PM)Rocco Wrote:  
(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 the first segment above: yes, every shot is independent of every other shot -- but that doesn't mean that the results are not repeatable. That is true even if the second shot is missed (like your Thornton example; that is, based on experience that year he was the best candidate to take that second shot (although based on openness, Rusthoven was the best candidate)). Trying to repeat that result through practice is how you can move the needle closer to the success line. Repeatability (leading to muscle memory) is also why players (should) practice so many free throws.

Not sure what your point was in the second segment above. Comparing NE this year to NE last year is basically meaningless (same reason why I said Nate the Junior is not the same player as Nate the Senior). Also, there is a reason that certain thoughts become cliches -- because over eons, millenia, decades, whatever timeframe you want to use, the common perception is that they are true more often than not. Disregarding a cliche just because it is a cliche makes no more sense that giving it extra weight because it is a cliche. Anyway, they were included more for amusement.

Re the last segment above: all things being equal, of course you want the best player taking the last shot. But that alone is not why I mentioned Knight; rather it was because he has already "done it" twice this season. Bryce Barnes has also done it once. If it had been Barnes who had done it two more times against NE (for a total of three) then I would be saying that Barnes would be a great choice to take that last shot (even though Knight is clearly the best player). It is just gravy for the Tribe that the best player also has the most experience (repeatability) this year.
02-26-2020 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WMInTheBurg Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,788
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 34
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
The terms are defined as such: "luck", as it pertains to the KenPom stats, is defined by record in close games. Yeah, they come down to the last few plays, but everything leading up to those last few plays matters too. Somebody's foot slips on a cut that turns into a turnover, a ref gets screened and makes a call or doesn't make a call, a ball hits a dead spot and doesn't bounce up where a defender can steal it... all of these things matter when the game is down to a couple of plays. Better teams don't play in those games, they build up their lead and take luck out of it. It's not a matter of who takes the last shot. It's that there is a last shot to take.

Even setting all that aside, the best players in all of basketball miss shots at least 40% of the time. If a player makes 6 game winning shots but shoots 30% on the season, it doesn't mean he's a different shooter when the game is on the line. It means that he probably missed a bunch of other shots that got them into situations where he had to make a shot at the end of the game. The team is "lucky" he made those shots, and would not be a more or less talented team had he missed them. They'd just have a worse W/L record. That's the point of this stat at all. Teams that have better records in close games are as likely to regress to the mean as they are to continue to win close games. Teams that blow teams out are more likely not to be in situations to lose games at the end. Equally, teams that get blown out are more likely not to be in situations to win games at the end.
02-26-2020 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zorch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,408
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: W&M
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
Then:

1. Why count such games as wins or losses at all (such as W&M being 7-1 in such games, I believe the original poster said)? Why not just say that W&M has been in 8 close games? Since it doesn't seem to matter to you/others whether a team wins or loses or that the team is any better or worse (just that their W/L record is different) then why express it that way at all? And who is to say that 5 points is the delimiter for a close game? Why not 4, or 3?

2. Back to one of my original statements: I think using "luck" as the word to define this phenomena is a grossly poor choice of words. "Luck" already has had a well known meaning for hundreds of years and using that word but defining it a whole new way was dumb. Seems like Pomeroy or whomever could have thought it out a little more deeply. Maybe he could have just invented his own word (that is, if he actually thought that he was the first person to ever think of this concept).
02-26-2020 11:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zorch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,408
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: W&M
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
(02-26-2020 09:08 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  If a player makes 6 game winning shots but shoots 30% on the season, it doesn't mean he's a different shooter when the game is on the line.

That statement, as written and if true, would very much indicate to me that he is a different shooter when the game is on the line.
02-27-2020 12:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wmmii Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,179
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 21
I Root For: William & Mary
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Post: #25
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
(02-27-2020 12:04 AM)Zorch Wrote:  
(02-26-2020 09:08 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  If a player makes 6 game winning shots but shoots 30% on the season, it doesn't mean he's a different shooter when the game is on the line.

That statement, as written and if true, would very much indicate to me that he is a different shooter when the game is on the line.

The missing question is how many game winning shots did the player attempt, if 6 it is awesome if 18 not so good. My guess is he attempted 9 and made 6 then I would claim he is a different shooter in crunch time!
02-27-2020 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
greenandgold75 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 77
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Willam & Mary
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
(02-27-2020 01:21 PM)wmmii Wrote:  
(02-27-2020 12:04 AM)Zorch Wrote:  
(02-26-2020 09:08 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  If a player makes 6 game winning shots but shoots 30% on the season, it doesn't mean he's a different shooter when the game is on the line.

That statement, as written and if true, would very much indicate to me that he is a different shooter when the game is on the line.

The missing question is how many game winning shots did the player attempt, if 6 it is awesome if 18 not so good. My guess is he attempted 9 and made 6 then I would claim he is a different shooter in crunch time!

Exactly. If he was 6/6 on game winning attempts the likelihood that he is not a better shooter at crunch time is approx. 0.06%.
02-27-2020 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WMInTheBurg Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,788
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 34
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
If you flip a coin 6 times and it always comes up heads, is that a coin that somehow always comes up heads? Put another way: suppose there's a walk-on who through a series of circumstances has taken six shots on the season, made them all, and they all were 2-point game-winners. The walk-on shoots about 10% in practice. You also have an All-American who's shooting 65% from the field on the season, but who has missed 3 potential game-winners. Who do you want to take the last shot of every close game?

With regard to using the term "luck", the purpose of compiling all the stats is to try to gain an understanding of the skill level of the players and teams. Winning and losing close games does not change the skill level, it changes the results. Which is why teams that win close games are luckier than teams that lose them. Staying out of close games, for good or bad, is a repeatable skill.
02-28-2020 12:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tribe32 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,210
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Tribe
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
.....and then there is Oliver Tot. Lucky or good?
02-28-2020 06:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zorch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,408
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: W&M
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
(02-28-2020 12:56 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  ...Winning and losing close games does not change the skill level, it changes the results.

Who says it does not change the skill level? Any play can help in changing the skill level. How is your statement any different than your saying, instead, "Making and missing free throws does not change the skill level, it changes the results". I think that we can see that that statement is false. That is why people practice free throws - and even in-game free throws are practice for the next one (note how many players miss the first one, adjust, and then make the second one). That is why they practice end-of-game plays. So just because that practice paid off and they won the game does not necessarily make them lucky. If they practiced and were prepared -- and were more proficient at it because they had done it before (successfully or even unsuccessfully) -- then I think that it makes them more "good" than "lucky".

(02-28-2020 06:53 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  .....and then there is Oliver Tot. Lucky or good?

Lots of players practice long heaves and some of them become quite good at it (check out you-tube). In Tot's case, I'm sure he would admit that there was some luck to it. However, the next time that team faced an identical situation (same distance from the hoop), would you inbound the ball to Tot knowing that he would have a certain amount of confidence due to his having successfully done it before or would you inbound it to somebody else who had not done it before? I would inbound it to Tot. Connor Burchfield would also be a good choice --- but including Tot in the conversation is justified because he had already made such a shot and Burchfield hadn't.
02-28-2020 09:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tribe2011 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 431
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 13
I Root For: W&M
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
Despite fans being 100% convinced that their team/stars are "clutch," this concept has been consistently debunked by studies dating back to at least the 70s.

https://sabr.org/research/cramer-do-clut...ters-exist
02-28-2020 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dukester Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,982
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 83
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
We don't need luck. In basketball we make our luck!

COGS
02-28-2020 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tribe32 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,210
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Tribe
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
(02-28-2020 06:53 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  .....and then there is Oliver Tot. Lucky or good?

Lots of players practice long heaves and some of them become quite good at it (check out you-tube). In Tot's case, I'm sure he would admit that there was some luck to it. However, the next time that team faced an identical situation (same distance from the hoop), would you inbound the ball to Tot knowing that he would have a certain amount of confidence due to his having successfully done it before or would you inbound it to somebody else who had not done it before? I would inbound it to Tot. Connor Burchfield would also be a good choice --- but including Tot in the conversation is justified because he had already made such a shot and Burchfield hadn't.
[/quote]

The thing about Tot is that we actually recruited him for that. He made lots of 50 foot and longer shots both as an amateur in Slovakia and then as a prep at Kimball Union. This is part of how we found Nathan Knight. Tot regularly talked to Tony about the kid at Kimball Union who could shoot from 50 feet with both hands. Sadly, Tony removed the 50 foot three point play from his motion offense just after he recruited Tot. That frustrated Oliver for almost 4 years. Then against ODU, Shaver called timeout just to call the 50 foot shot play. Oliver's eyes widened and Tony knew that Tot would make it. The rest is history.
02-28-2020 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WMInTheBurg Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,788
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 34
I Root For: William & Mary
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
(02-28-2020 09:45 AM)Zorch Wrote:  
(02-28-2020 12:56 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  ...Winning and losing close games does not change the skill level, it changes the results.

Who says it does not change the skill level? Any play can help in changing the skill level. How is your statement any different than your saying, instead, "Making and missing free throws does not change the skill level, it changes the results". I think that we can see that that statement is false.

A better representation of my statement is "winning and losing close games does not change the observed skill level of the team, it changes the results of games that team played." That is how my statement is different.

(02-28-2020 09:45 AM)Zorch Wrote:  That is why people practice free throws - and even in-game free throws are practice for the next one (note how many players miss the first one, adjust, and then make the second one). That is why they practice end-of-game plays. So just because that practice paid off and they won the game does not necessarily make them lucky. If they practiced and were prepared -- and were more proficient at it because they had done it before (successfully or even unsuccessfully) -- then I think that it makes them more "good" than "lucky".

You are mixing up terms and context throughout this post. I'm going to back out now. You're certainly welcome to think what you'd like, but according to extensive studies there is no skill for winning close games like there is a skill for making free throws. That's why the "Luck" section in KenPom stats is called what it is.
02-28-2020 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zorch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,408
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: W&M
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Luck (per Ken Pomeroy)
(02-28-2020 02:48 PM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  Despite fans being 100% convinced that their team/stars are "clutch," this concept has been consistently debunked by studies dating back to at least the 70s.

https://sabr.org/research/cramer-do-clut...ters-exist

Ah, baseball! I'm not going to argue with a writer who apparently did sabermetrics before Bill James -- but I did find these quotes amusing in that very-dated article:

1. "It is my own belief that clutch hitters...". Always good to be on the lookout for stats that support your own belief.

2. "But Pete and I have always suspected that it is ...". Suspicions and beliefs .....then calculate formulas that support them?

3. "The BWA is tedious to compute with a slide rule or ordinary calculator but is almost as accessible as a batting average with a programmable calculator such as the Hewlett-Packard HP-65." I'm sure that this and similar studies have been redone, now that we are in the age of the commonplace computer.

I don't remember exactly whether it was 1984, 1985, or 1986 (I think it was a combination of his two best years) but anyone who says that clutch hitting does not exist must not have seen Don Mattingly in those years. 04-cheers
02-28-2020 09:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.