Bracketology 2017
- Thread starter WFUWaldo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Deacsfan27
Well-known member
Really???
How about the hot hand?
That's a different topic altogether.
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,923
i wanna take this post out behind the middle school and get it pregnant
MichDeac25
Well-known member
Doubters of the Hot Hand theory suffered a serious blow by way of the NCSU v. Syracuse games and UK v. Georgia games the other night. Players who were on fire were just hitting insane shots down the stretch to win and/or tie the games.
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
#SCIENCE
siff
Scott "Rufio" Feather
It happened with Purdue vs Northwestern last night. Vince Edwards hit four 3s in a five minute span. Blew the game open, and helped the Boilers blow out #25 Northwestern.
This team is talented enough to go 6-2 down the stretch but also shaky enough to go 2-6. I can't see us winning @Duke or at home against Lville, other than that I think this team CAN win on a good night. We're overdue for some unexpected wins.
cheeseheads12
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,978
- Reaction score
- 1,066
Why can't we beat Louisville?
Perhaps the unexpected win I referred to.
Pilchard
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 17,143
- Reaction score
- 6,393
KP rating and win probaility for remaining opponents:
GT #74 - 79%
@ND #26 - 29%
State #88 - 81%
@Clemson #31 - 33%
@Duke #13 - 20%
Pitt #76 - 79%
L'ville #4 - 30%
VT #54 - 45%
So, of the games that WF will likely be an underdog, WF's best chances to win are @VT, @ Clemson and L'ville.
Notre Dame was awful against Duke at home on Monday. Doubt ND will shoot like that again 33% from 3, 67% from the line (going into that game ND was on pace to have the highest FT% of any team in NCAA history), but if they do, WF could win in South Bend.
GT #74 - 79%
@ND #26 - 29%
State #88 - 81%
@Clemson #31 - 33%
@Duke #13 - 20%
Pitt #76 - 79%
L'ville #4 - 30%
VT #54 - 45%
So, of the games that WF will likely be an underdog, WF's best chances to win are @VT, @ Clemson and L'ville.
Notre Dame was awful against Duke at home on Monday. Doubt ND will shoot like that again 33% from 3, 67% from the line (going into that game ND was on pace to have the highest FT% of any team in NCAA history), but if they do, WF could win in South Bend.
Last edited:
Deacsfan27
Well-known member
I really, really don't want to turn this into another hot hand discussion, so I will just make this post and let it be.
In order to have a conversation on this (on another thread, or via PM) I would want to see the following:
1. A definition of the hot hand (as in when does it start, when does it end?. It seems to me that "hot hand" is defined all too often after the event has already taken place. Meaning, "oh, X has made his last 4 shots in a row, he has the hot hand".
2. How do you know when the hot hand ends? In theory, if you have a "hot hand" then you would never cool down until the game ends (maybe???), yet players all the time have 5 makes in a row, and then miss 2 or 3 of their next shots.
Players make 4-5 shots in a row all the time in nearly every single college basketball game played a night. In a data size of so many attempts there are going to be runs that fall on the outside of the average/norm.
Kennard hitting 10 shots in a row is pretty rare, especially since a lot of them were threes. It's clear that he was playing very, very well, and also against a pretty poor defensive team. That allowed him to take shots from rather open spots in the flow of a good offense. That increases the likelihood of making shots as opposed to playing a team like Virginia, where every single shot would be contested and he rushes bad shots out of rhythm from places that he isn't used to.
Of course players have odd strings of shots made, but that doesn't mean their next shot is any more likely to go in than what they "average" as a shooter is, unless they are shooting from the exact same spot on the floor, in which case there is a slight (1-2%) change to their "average" chance of making that shot to begin with. Basically I am arguing that each shot is more of an independent variable than a dependent variable on the last shot. Has there been data that shows if you make one shot you are more likely to make the next shot? What about if you've made 2 in a row, is the 3rd more likely? And so on.
That's it for this thread, as I don't want to ruin it.
In order to have a conversation on this (on another thread, or via PM) I would want to see the following:
1. A definition of the hot hand (as in when does it start, when does it end?. It seems to me that "hot hand" is defined all too often after the event has already taken place. Meaning, "oh, X has made his last 4 shots in a row, he has the hot hand".
2. How do you know when the hot hand ends? In theory, if you have a "hot hand" then you would never cool down until the game ends (maybe???), yet players all the time have 5 makes in a row, and then miss 2 or 3 of their next shots.
Players make 4-5 shots in a row all the time in nearly every single college basketball game played a night. In a data size of so many attempts there are going to be runs that fall on the outside of the average/norm.
Kennard hitting 10 shots in a row is pretty rare, especially since a lot of them were threes. It's clear that he was playing very, very well, and also against a pretty poor defensive team. That allowed him to take shots from rather open spots in the flow of a good offense. That increases the likelihood of making shots as opposed to playing a team like Virginia, where every single shot would be contested and he rushes bad shots out of rhythm from places that he isn't used to.
Of course players have odd strings of shots made, but that doesn't mean their next shot is any more likely to go in than what they "average" as a shooter is, unless they are shooting from the exact same spot on the floor, in which case there is a slight (1-2%) change to their "average" chance of making that shot to begin with. Basically I am arguing that each shot is more of an independent variable than a dependent variable on the last shot. Has there been data that shows if you make one shot you are more likely to make the next shot? What about if you've made 2 in a row, is the 3rd more likely? And so on.
That's it for this thread, as I don't want to ruin it.
Deacsfan27
Well-known member
The most recent studies I have read indicate that there is a slight increase in your odds of making the next shot if it is shot from nearly the exact identical location, and even then it is a negligible difference. I think it was somewhere between 1.2%-2.4% of an increase.
If you have a more recent/relevant link I would love to read it. I could easily be wrong on this as new data has come forth with VUAnalytics and Synergy Sports.
tiltdeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,496
- Reaction score
- 965
If we're able to win 4 games (most likely vs GT, NC State, Clemson and Pitt) we're looking at 17-13 (8-10). Probably puts us out of playing in the first day of the ACCT which means we'd be matched up vs someone like Syracuse or VT. We'd probably need to win our first game in the ACCT to have a chance. 17-14 screams 1 seed NIT.
Deacsfan27
Well-known member
Thanks for that. Really interesting read.
Deacsfan27
Well-known member
If we are 8-10 we will probably be playing the 14 or 15 seed as the 10 or 11 seed (depending on tiebreaks). There are 7 teams projected to go between 8 and 10 wins in the ACC right now.
RChildress107
Well-known member
This type of post only makes sense if you care about things like strength of schedule and margin of victory. Of course if you care about those things then it becomes impossible to claim we aren't in the top 35-40 (i.e. squarely on the bubble).
If you bitch about us losing games without taking into account the margin or the quality of the opponent you don't get to bitch about the margin or the quality of the opponent when we win games.