KenPom 2015-2016: Back on Top: #1 in Luck (1/11)

[Atlanta Deacon]

Also, Joe Lunardi is posting his updated bracketology tomorrow. I expect the Deacs to be in the "Next 4 Out" (aka 5th-8th best teams that miss the field).

I know it's early and meaningless, but still pretty cool to see the Deacs in the bubble conversation.

While it means squat as to what we do in March, it does mean something if we show back up in top 25 after wandering in the wilderness for 5 years. It means we're on the main page for "results". It means we get a little sportscenter time. It means that recruits see us and know we're not the shit pile that we have been their whole AAU and high school careers.

 

[RedSoxFaithful]

It just means we have the biggest discrepancy between scoring margin and record. Any reason you can think of for why we haven't beaten teams by more is valid.

Yeah. The CMM (and Hudson/Watson) stuff just strikes me as the big disconnect there because it's completely unaccounted for in KP preseason rankings. I expect us to shoot back up once CMM gets back, which should cause our luck to drop.

 

[wsc8521s]

It just means we have the biggest discrepancy between scoring margin and record. Any reason you can think of for why we haven't beaten teams by more is valid.

I don't think it's purely scoring margin as 5-2 Alabama's margin is worse than us at 6-2, yet we are the "luckier" team.

I'm sure doofus/numbers will swoop in soon to save the day

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Nah I'll let you guys figure it out you seem smart enough

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

I don't think it's purely scoring margin as 5-2 Alabama's margin is worse than us at 6-2, yet we are the "luckier" team.

I'm sure doofus/numbers will swoop in soon to save the day

It's not done as a total but game by game. So Bama might have an overall worse scoring margin but we've played more games where we were closer to losing yet didn't.

 

[Timberdeac]

Luck is usually thought to be a random favorable occurrence but with Ken Pom it purports to measure our ability to win close games ...could be also known as "clutch down the stretch" a nice quality to have and we hope to see more of it.

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

The fact that the metric is named "luck" shows you how much faith KenPom puts into the ability of winning close games as a skill.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Once again, from the KenPom page:

Luck - A measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It’s a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky).

 

[Deacsfan27]

While the overall "luck" factor is really just looking at offensive and defensive efficiencies (points per possession over 100 possessions, adjusting for the quality of opposing defenses, site of the game, and when the game was played), it can be explained in thought with the below:

Wake has won 6 games by 20 points.

In very few cases would you expect a team to win all 6 games when they are close. Alabama is 5-2 and has a worse scoring margin, but they also have a 13 point win, and a 12 point win. Those weren't "toss-ups" in the sense that nearly all of our wins have been toss-ups towards the end. Alabama is second in the nation in this category.

On the flip side, Harvard is the "unluckiest" team in the country. They have lost games by 12, 6, 13, 1, 9, and 6 points, while winning their only game against a Division I team (Bryant) by 35 points. Therefore they would never lose that game against Bryant, but could have easily beaten some of the teams they lost to. They have the worst record they could possibly have, while Wake has nearly the best (you could argue that we could have come back to beat Richmond).

 

[deacvision7]

Sounds like Harvard isn't very skilled at closing out games.

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

I feel like I just said all that in less words.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Sounds like Harvard isn't very skilled at closing out games.

Not in the small sample size of the games that they have played so far.

Yet they were ranked 13th in luck last year, so I guess they forgot how to win/close out games over the summer.

 

[Deacsfan27]

I feel like I just said all that in less words.

Yet people clearly still do not get it because they keep asking what factors go into "luck".

 

[FckVwls]

If winning/losing close games was a skill you would see high Kenpom "luck" teams 25 games into a season perform better in close games at the end of the season. But no such predictive pattern exists.

 

[Deacsfan27]

For people who say "you make your own luck", or, "good teams aren't lucky, they are skilled"...

Last year 12 teams in the KenPom final top 50 finished in the top 100 in luck, or one less than the number of teams ranked 301-351st in the KenPom final rankings last year (13).

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

I mean it's a very simple concept to understand. If you won every game of the season by 1 point you'd very clearly be lucky. You'd sound like a lunatic if you tried to argue otherwise. A better team wouldn't leave it to chance that they could lose on a last second shot or have to hit FTs in a clutch situation or whatnot. It's really weird that it's argued about so much.

 

[deacvision7]

Not in the small sample size of the games that they have played so far.

Yet they were ranked 13th in luck last year, so I guess they forgot how to win/close out games over the summer.

How many seniors with serious minutes last year? How many this year?

 

[deacvision7]

If winning/losing close games was a skill you would see high Kenpom "luck" teams 25 games into a season perform better in close games at the end of the season. But no such predictive pattern exists.

So "lucky" teams win close games and lose by being blown out? Is that correct?

 

[Deacsfan27]

How many seniors with serious minutes last year? How many this year?

They were the 28th most experienced team last year, and the 237th most experienced this year. That may explain Harvard in this instance (as well as the fact that they have some freshmen on their team playing serious minutes).

How does that explain Wake though? We are ranked 320th in experience and were 304th last year, and ranked 241st in luck.

I actually have no idea if there is a relationship between luck and experience. There may be a brief positive correlation (the older you are, the luckier you are), but I doubt it.

 

[deacvision7]

I mean it's a very simple concept to understand. If you won every game of the season by 1 point you'd very clearly be lucky. You'd sound like a lunatic if you tried to argue otherwise. A better team wouldn't leave it to chance that they could lose on a last second shot or have to hit FTs in a clutch situation or whatnot. It's really weird that it's argued about so much.

So they wouldn't be a dominant UNLV circa 1991 (until Duke) team. I agree. But I think that hypothetical team would be more skilled than lucky. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been good enough to have been in close games versus every team they played in the first place.