Butler

[ZDeac]

IAI is sounding significantly more logical than dv7 here, although I think I still see where dv7 is coming from.

I wonder if you can sort of combine what the two of your are saying:

If the player is a true 80% free throw shooter and he misses, then that player simply did not put forth a skilled enough effort to succeed on that attempt. That is not "luck" (which we'll continue to allow as a stand in for noise/variance/etc.). However, the opponent, who has no control whatsoever over that free throw attempt, has gotten "lucky." They would logically have expected that player to make that free throw, as it was much more likely than not that he would. He didn't make it, and therefore they can very reasonably consider themselves "lucky."

I think my point is that "luck" can be much more easily observed on the side of the party that doesn't actually control the outcome.

In the case of the soccer shot off the post, the player who took the shot simply did not take a good enough shot to succeed in that particular instance (not enough skill). But the defending team realizes that he was fully capable of striking the ball ever so slightly differently and drilling it in the upper 90. Therefore, they consider themselves "lucky," and I think that is a reasonable assessment.

Also, Stevens is awesome.

 

[PaddyWF]

Your first point is absolutely correct. I usually try to refer in these hypotheticals as a "true X% shooter" because we can never absolutely be absolutely sure about anything if we base them on our empirical observations.

And that ties into your second point -- it's true nothing can be perfectly predicted, because we are only estimating based on our observations. It is possible, although I'd say very unlikely, that a true 80% free throw shooter in a regular season game might be a true 20% shooter in a clutch elite 8 scenario.

However, the underlying point stands - - said 20% free throw shooter (in a particular situation) only has 20% as his mean, and will perform around that, with the variances getting bigger the smaller the sample size.

Well put. I like the "true x% shooter" term. That idea is familiar, but I don't think I have used that phrase.

Also +1 (positive rep!) for getting the discussion going on sports statistics. Even if people disagree about their validity... it always adds something interesting to the conversation. #Moneyball

 

[deacvision7]

IAI is sounding significantly more logical than dv7 here, although I think I still see where dv7 is coming from.

I wonder if you can sort of combine what the two of your are saying:

If the player is a true 80% free throw shooter and he misses, then that player simply did not put forth a skilled enough effort to succeed on that attempt. That is not "luck" (which we'll continue to allow as a stand in for noise/variance/etc.). However, the opponent, who has no control whatsoever over that free throw attempt, has gotten "lucky." They would logically have expected that player to make that free throw, as it was much more likely than not that he would. He didn't make it, and therefore they can very reasonably consider themselves "lucky."

I think my point is that "luck" can be much more easily observed on the side of the party that doesn't actually control the outcome.

In the case of the soccer shot off the post, the player who took the shot simply did not take a good enough shot to succeed in that particular instance (not enough skill). But the defending team realizes that he was fully capable of striking the ball ever so slightly differently and drilling it in the upper 90. Therefore, they consider themselves "lucky," and I think that is a reasonable assessment.

Also, Stevens is awesome.

In a contest of two separate teams. If one is "lucky" then the other must be "unlucky" by definition.

That is where nearly everything you posted breaks down, IMO.


From my perspective...the sheer notion that a player can dribble through a defense, hit a shot, that shot beat the keeper but bounce back off the post --- that anybody could say that is "unlucky" is absurd. And if the shot itself was "unlucky" then the other team, by definition was "lucky."


"Luck" is thrown out there and I think it is because people don't want to admit that sometimes things just don't break your way.

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

Pomeroy has a "luck" factor rating on kenpom that looks at the difference between expected winning percentage and actual winning percentage.

He also had a relevant and rather detailed discussion of FTs and "luck" when he wrote about Kansas shooting 12-30 from the line in the 2003 national championship. He feels that "bad luck" played a definite role.

 

[deacvision7]

I didn't click the link. But did he argue that a 12-30 clip from the free throw line was "bad luck"?

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

I didn't click the link. But did he argue that a 12-30 clip from the free throw line was "bad luck"?

The numbers are still so outrageous that this appears to be a case where random chance cannot totally explain streakiness. The temptation is to say Kansas “choked”, partly because it has been a term used to describe their post-season performance in the past. But that’s too simplistic. An additional explanation on the poor shooting is that Collison and Graves both played their most minutes of the year (Collison played 40, his season average was 32; Graves played 37 compared to an average of about 20). So fatigue probably played a role. But bad luck also played a role. Two mediocre free throw shooters both happened to have one of their worst FT shooting games ever in the most important game of their careers.

 

[ZDeac]

"Luck" is thrown out there and I think it is because people don't want to admit that sometimes things just don't break your way.

Isn't something not breaking your way the very definition of luck?

what's the difference between a "break" and "luck"?

 

[msd]

wow... Unfortunately, I just read this whole thread. My bad LUCK I guess.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

The biggest problem is we never know what player's "true" shooting percentage is.

 

[CheesePritchard]

Luck.

This was the last post I read last night and knew my BOY was about to cram some stats up people's asses.

 

[TWDeac]

Well put. I like the "true x% shooter" term. That idea is familiar, but I don't think I have used that phrase.

Also +1 (positive rep!) for getting the discussion going on sports statistics. Even if people disagree about their validity... it always adds something interesting to the conversation. #Moneyball

Sadly, your rep doesn't count quite yet. You need 25 more posts.

I'll rep IAI for you, I love statistics.

 

[ABCDeac]

The good coaching comes in two forms - (1) having your team consistently be in a position (at worse) that they will win when they get their fair share of the breaks; and (2) instilling in your players the confidence and composure such that, in critical times, they are more likely to execute, and will therefore appear more likely to get MORE than their fair share of the breaks.

Luck is a component in end-of-game situations for sure. Butler arguably got "unlucky" that the last shot didn't go in last year in the finals. But, the good coaching is that an undermanned team was in a position to take such a shot against Duke. Same as this year. This is the hallmark of the great coaches - they are either going to win in a rout, or they are going to be right there in the end. The great, great coaches have teams that are composed in those tight, critical situations. They get more breaks than the others, and over time, become recognized as the great coaches they are.

It is just happening particularly fast for Stevens. He appears to be an obviously-great coach, and to attribute a significant part of that analysis to luck is ridiculous (but it is also ridiculous to ignore the luck component entirely).

 

[lawdeke]

Bump to make original point. Brad da man

 

[RJKarl]

The good coaching comes in two forms - (1) having your team consistently be in a position (at worse) that they will win when they get their fair share of the breaks; and (2) instilling in your players the confidence and composure such that, in critical times, they are more likely to execute, and will therefore appear more likely to get MORE than their fair share of the breaks.

Luck is a component in end-of-game situations for sure. Butler arguably got "unlucky" that the last shot didn't go in last year in the finals. But, the good coaching is that an undermanned team was in a position to take such a shot against Duke. Same as this year. This is the hallmark of the great coaches - they are either going to win in a rout, or they are going to be right there in the end. The great, great coaches have teams that are composed in those tight, critical situations. They get more breaks than the others, and over time, become recognized as the great coaches they are.

It is just happening particularly fast for Stevens. He appears to be an obviously-great coach, and to attribute a significant part of that analysis to luck is ridiculous (but it is also ridiculous to ignore the luck component entirely).

How do you call missing a 25+' shot unlucky? It was "lucky" it was that close.

There's also something that gives Butler an advantage that many of the big programs don't have -experience playing together.

If you know, without looking, that if you do this on offense or defense and it's 99% sure where your teammate will be and what he will do.

This gives you greater confidence and allows you to take some chances you wouldn't if you hadn't played with him.

It also allows you to create plays that may look "lucky".

Knowing where your teammates will be and how they will react balances out quickness and talent.