(3) Tuesday Big East Games 2/1/22

[XUFan09]

Why would Ken Pomeroy have to change his entire formula because of one team in one year? He's a big basketball fan; it's not like he doesn't know that some teams are good at closing out games and some teams are bad at it. With any statistical or mathematical model, I think some people expect it to nicely capture every single piece of data, which is incredibly unreasonable. He calls it Luck because still a lot of it comes down to luck, regardless of how smart and collected a team is at closing out games. Providence is undervalued by his model, for sure, just as a team good at blowing out cupcakes can be overvalued.

It helps to also understand that these efficiency metrics really demonstrate win probability more than anything. That just correlates strongly with how good a team is, but it's not exactly the same. If a team is not putting a lot of their games out of reach down the stretch, they are leaving themselves open to the caprice of the Basketball Gods, because they are playing a sport where the ball doesn't go in the basket half the time. Essentially, if you're controlling the game and have the lead, you want to make the chance of the opponent coming back 0%, not let them hang around in the danger zone.

[Hall2012]

Why would Ken Pomeroy have to change his entire formula because of one team in one year? He's a big basketball fan; it's not like he doesn't know that some teams are good at closing out games and some teams are bad at it. With any statistical or mathematical model, I think some people expect it to nicely capture every single piece of data, which is incredibly unreasonable. He calls it Luck because still a lot of it comes down to luck, regardless of how smart and collected a team is at closing out games. Providence is undervalued by his model, for sure, just as a team good at blowing out cupcakes can be overvalued.

It helps to also understand that these efficiency metrics really demonstrate win probability more than anything. That just correlates strongly with how good a team is, but it's not exactly the same. If a team is not putting a lot of their games out of reach down the stretch, they are leaving themselves open to the caprice of the Basketball Gods, because they are playing a sport where the ball doesn't go in the basket half the time.

He wouldn't, obviously. It's impossible for a statistical model to explain 100% of the variation in college basketball (or just about anything, really) and overall his model does a very good job. It's silly to dismiss everyting his model can't explain as "luck" though.

[kayako]

Pretty much this. For example, Providence and Seton Hall have very similar adjusted efficiency margins, with SHU actually just above PC in Kenpom rankings. Based on this, KenPom's model would predict roughly the same results for them - however the results have been anything but. The "luck" rating basically just shows by how much a team has outperformed or underperformed its predicted results based on its adjusted efficiency. It would lead you to believe that the only difference between PC and SHU is that PC has been luckier. In reality, it's a testament to Providence's ability to close out close games. What are they, something like 8-0 in games decided by 2 possessions (6 pts) or less? KP calls it luck because it can't be explained by an efficiency model. Most people call it finishing games. SHU on the other hand is 4-6 in those games.

I had once mistakenly assumed that KP's Luck factored in specific stats like opponents FT percentage vs their normal efficiency, but yeah it's purely win percentage in close games.

[XUFan09]

Why would Ken Pomeroy have to change his entire formula because of one team in one year? He's a big basketball fan; it's not like he doesn't know that some teams are good at closing out games and some teams are bad at it. With any statistical or mathematical model, I think some people expect it to nicely capture every single piece of data, which is incredibly unreasonable. He calls it Luck because still a lot of it comes down to luck, regardless of how smart and collected a team is at closing out games. Providence is undervalued by his model, for sure, just as a team good at blowing out cupcakes can be overvalued.

It helps to also understand that these efficiency metrics really demonstrate win probability more than anything. That just correlates strongly with how good a team is, but it's not exactly the same. If a team is not putting a lot of their games out of reach down the stretch, they are leaving themselves open to the caprice of the Basketball Gods, because they are playing a sport where the ball doesn't go in the basket half the time.

He wouldn't, obviously. It's impossible for a statistical model to explain 100% of the variation in college basketball (or just about anything, really) and overall his model does a very good job. It's silly to dismiss everyting his model can't explain as "luck" though.

I do agree that "luck" is a bit of a misnomer, probably some name that he gave early on that just stuck, but I think basketball fans also highly underrate luck in close games.

[stever20]

Why would Ken Pomeroy have to change his entire formula because of one team in one year? He's a big basketball fan; it's not like he doesn't know that some teams are good at closing out games and some teams are bad at it. With any statistical or mathematical model, I think some people expect it to nicely capture every single piece of data, which is incredibly unreasonable. He calls it Luck because still a lot of it comes down to luck, regardless of how smart and collected a team is at closing out games. Providence is undervalued by his model, for sure, just as a team good at blowing out cupcakes can be overvalued.

It helps to also understand that these efficiency metrics really demonstrate win probability more than anything. That just correlates strongly with how good a team is, but it's not exactly the same. If a team is not putting a lot of their games out of reach down the stretch, they are leaving themselves open to the caprice of the Basketball Gods, because they are playing a sport where the ball doesn't go in the basket half the time.

He wouldn't, obviously. It's impossible for a statistical model to explain 100% of the variation in college basketball (or just about anything, really) and overall his model does a very good job. It's silly to dismiss everyting his model can't explain as "luck" though.

I do agree that "luck" is a bit of a misnomer, probably some name that he gave early on that just stuck, but I think basketball fans also highly underrate luck in close games.

I think it's kind of like what we see in baseball- that Pythagorean runs thing we see where it's what the runs scored would typically produce record wise.

[ecasadoSBU]

Why would Ken Pomeroy have to change his entire formula because of one team in one year? He's a big basketball fan; it's not like he doesn't know that some teams are good at closing out games and some teams are bad at it. With any statistical or mathematical model, I think some people expect it to nicely capture every single piece of data, which is incredibly unreasonable. He calls it Luck because still a lot of it comes down to luck, regardless of how smart and collected a team is at closing out games. Providence is undervalued by his model, for sure, just as a team good at blowing out cupcakes can be overvalued.

It helps to also understand that these efficiency metrics really demonstrate win probability more than anything. That just correlates strongly with how good a team is, but it's not exactly the same. If a team is not putting a lot of their games out of reach down the stretch, they are leaving themselves open to the caprice of the Basketball Gods, because they are playing a sport where the ball doesn't go in the basket half the time. Essentially, if you're controlling the game and have the lead, you want to make the chance of the opponent coming back 0%, not let them hang around in the danger zone.

He will not and shouldn't have to modify his model due to one team. Because as you guys mentioned here. No model is perfect. We all get that. Even if he decides to tweak it, it won't be perfect.

But what he SHOULD do in my opinion is to MAN up and call "LUCK RATING" what it truly is - It's an statistical unexplained model error - as opposed to calling it something as silly as "luck" which puts the basketball on his own court as opposed to making it seem like the team is just lucky. There is no such thing as luck. You either win games or you don't. Every decision and every outcome is due to the men out there playing in the basketball court. Their effort, practice, mental fortitude, and decision making is what determine the outcomes of games. Not LUCK!

[Hall2012]

He wouldn't, obviously. It's impossible for a statistical model to explain 100% of the variation in college basketball (or just about anything, really) and overall his model does a very good job. It's silly to dismiss everyting his model can't explain as "luck" though.

I do agree that "luck" is a bit of a misnomer, probably some name that he gave early on that just stuck, but I think basketball fans also highly underrate luck in close games.

It's definitely a factor, but I'm also a believer that you create your own luck. I'll use SHU again as an example. They're 4-6 in 1-2 possession games. I believe they've been within 1 possession in the final minute of all 6 losses, but not with the ball and any reasonable amount of time on the clock to tie or take the lead. Why not? Well they currently have something like the 4th highest opponent's free throw % in the country, so you could argue bad luck in that their opponents never missed that free throw they needed for an opening to tie up the game. The part that's not luck though, is that they were the team a possesion down going into the fouling stretch. PC is 8-0 in those games because they consistently get into that final phase with a small lead and get the opportunity to close games out themselves rather than hope for a miss or 2 that they have no control over. The efficiency difference is negligible, but it's night and day towards determining the result.

[XUFan09]

Why would Ken Pomeroy have to change his entire formula because of one team in one year? He's a big basketball fan; it's not like he doesn't know that some teams are good at closing out games and some teams are bad at it. With any statistical or mathematical model, I think some people expect it to nicely capture every single piece of data, which is incredibly unreasonable. He calls it Luck because still a lot of it comes down to luck, regardless of how smart and collected a team is at closing out games. Providence is undervalued by his model, for sure, just as a team good at blowing out cupcakes can be overvalued.

It helps to also understand that these efficiency metrics really demonstrate win probability more than anything. That just correlates strongly with how good a team is, but it's not exactly the same. If a team is not putting a lot of their games out of reach down the stretch, they are leaving themselves open to the caprice of the Basketball Gods, because they are playing a sport where the ball doesn't go in the basket half the time. Essentially, if you're controlling the game and have the lead, you want to make the chance of the opponent coming back 0%, not let them hang around in the danger zone.

He will not and shouldn't have to modify his model due to one team. Because as you guys mentioned here. No model is perfect. We all get that. Even if he decides to tweak it, it won't be perfect.

But what he SHOULD do in my opinion is to MAN up and call "LUCK RATING" what it truly is - It's an statistical unexplained model error - as opposed to calling it something as silly as "luck" which puts the basketball on his own court as opposed to making it seem like the team is just lucky. There is no such thing as luck. You either win games or you don't. Every decision and every outcome is due to the men out there playing in the basketball court. Their effort, practice, mental fortitude, and decision making is what determine the outcomes of games. Not LUCK!

"There is no such thing as luck," is something a coach tells their team as a motivational tactic. As a claim by a fan, though, it's nonsense. The closing minutes of basketball games are not these magical periods where the team that better executes always wins. Favorable and unfavorable bounces happen all the time.

[XUFan09]

He wouldn't, obviously. It's impossible for a statistical model to explain 100% of the variation in college basketball (or just about anything, really) and overall his model does a very good job. It's silly to dismiss everyting his model can't explain as "luck" though.

I do agree that "luck" is a bit of a misnomer, probably some name that he gave early on that just stuck, but I think basketball fans also highly underrate luck in close games.

It's definitely a factor, but I'm also a believer that you create your own luck. I'll use SHU again as an example. They're 4-6 in 1-2 possession games. I believe they've been within 1 possession in the final minute of all 6 losses, but not with the ball and any reasonable amount of time on the clock to tie or take the lead. Why not? Well they currently have something like the 4th highest opponent's free throw % in the country, so you could argue bad luck in that their opponents never missed that free throw they needed for an opening to tie up the game. The part that's not luck though, is that they were the team a possesion down going into the fouling stretch. PC is 8-0 in those games because they consistently get into that final phase with a small lead and get the opportunity to close games out themselves rather than hope for a miss or 2 that they have no control over. The efficiency difference is negligible, but it's night and day towards determining the result.

Yeah, those small differences can be magnified. A lot of it does come down to execution. For example, St. John's execution in the closing minutes was terrible. I think the announcers said they went like three minutes without a shot attempt. That's awful. Still, they knocked down a low percentage three and then after they knocked down another decent look (but it was only relevant because of the low-percentage one), and they made it a dangerous situation for Providence. If St. John's had managed to tie or win that game at the end of regulation, it ironically would have been unlucky for them after the stark difference in quality of performance in the last few minutes.

[ecasadoSBU]

Why would Ken Pomeroy have to change his entire formula because of one team in one year? He's a big basketball fan; it's not like he doesn't know that some teams are good at closing out games and some teams are bad at it. With any statistical or mathematical model, I think some people expect it to nicely capture every single piece of data, which is incredibly unreasonable. He calls it Luck because still a lot of it comes down to luck, regardless of how smart and collected a team is at closing out games. Providence is undervalued by his model, for sure, just as a team good at blowing out cupcakes can be overvalued.

It helps to also understand that these efficiency metrics really demonstrate win probability more than anything. That just correlates strongly with how good a team is, but it's not exactly the same. If a team is not putting a lot of their games out of reach down the stretch, they are leaving themselves open to the caprice of the Basketball Gods, because they are playing a sport where the ball doesn't go in the basket half the time. Essentially, if you're controlling the game and have the lead, you want to make the chance of the opponent coming back 0%, not let them hang around in the danger zone.

He will not and shouldn't have to modify his model due to one team. Because as you guys mentioned here. No model is perfect. We all get that. Even if he decides to tweak it, it won't be perfect.

But what he SHOULD do in my opinion is to MAN up and call "LUCK RATING" what it truly is - It's an statistical unexplained model error - as opposed to calling it something as silly as "luck" which puts the basketball on his own court as opposed to making it seem like the team is just lucky. There is no such thing as luck. You either win games or you don't. Every decision and every outcome is due to the men out there playing in the basketball court. Their effort, practice, mental fortitude, and decision making is what determine the outcomes of games. Not LUCK!

"There is no such thing as luck," is something a coach tells their team as a motivational tactic. As a claim by a fan, though, it's nonsense. The closing minutes of basketball games are not these magical periods where the team that better executes always wins. Favorable and unfavorable bounces happen all the time.

It doesn't matter though. Favorable and Unfavorable bounces are created by the players themselves as they shoot and position themselves in the right locations to take advantage of it. So you can't attribute that to luck They don't happen by pure magic, do they? The only things that I attribute to luck are those things in which players have absolutely no control of - such as coin toss to start OT in the NFL by the ref to put one example.