• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Wake/UVA

deacvision7 said:
Actually, it is.

An egregious call that goes against you is "unlucky", but that is just unskillful by the referee.


Name one time where a shot was made that wasn't the result of skill. Go.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure last week some guy blocked a pass into his own net. I'd call that unlucky rather than skillful
 
deacvision7 said:
Actually, it is.

An egregious call that goes against you is "unlucky", but that is just unskillful by the referee.


Name one time where a shot was made that wasn't the result of skill. Go.
Click to expand...

What about the accidental banked in three that's a big part of many upsets? Lucky or skill?
 
If you have the last shot to win or tie, at least get a shot up. Dribbling off your foot( FSU), getting it stolen ( Clemson) or just dribbling then fumbling it away 18 feet from the basket ( UVA) is unacceptable. Turnovers and missed shots or free throws in the last 4 minutes of the Louisville and Duke games contributed to tie games getting away from us . Turnovers and missed free throws in the last minute of both regulation and overtime at Syracuse were very costly too. Until we get a lead guard who can hit an outside shot, take care of the ball and make free throws at crunch time , we are going to lose a lot of close games. Yes, we held onto big leads against NCSU and Miami at the end , but those games would have been lost if theyhad lasted another minute . There is no confident leader out there for us who wants and can do something with the ball with the game on the line.
 
Last edited:
1985 DEAC said:
Please share with us why HOF coaches win 75% plus of their games but only 50-60% of their close games. Why? Because close games can go either way, regardless of how great of a coach you are. Lines like "you are good enough to win" are such bluster. Shouldn't K be "good enough" to win more than 60% of his close games if he is the best?
Click to expand...


Holy shit, you are such a dumb cunt.


Your argument against me is good-- coaches winning more than their fair share of 50/50 games? Just fuck off, you moron.
 
Last edited:
I don't like KenPom's use of the term "luck." I think random variation is the better term. More skilled players make a higher percentage of their shots than less skilled players, but there will always be variation because people's actions just by human nature will have variation. Sometimes a coach draws up a good play, and the player misses an open shot. Sometimes a coach literally doesn't call a play and just gives the ball to a player and tells everyone else to spread the floor, and the player makes a great 1-on-1 play and scores.

I'm guessing if you compiled a bunch of end of game data and ran a logistic regression model to predict the probability a team wins down 1, with ball, end of game situations using the offensive coach's career win % as one of the explanatory variables, that variable's regression coefficient wouldn't be significant.
 
Last edited:
deacvision7 said:
Name one time where a shot was made that wasn't the result of skill. Go.
Click to expand...

How about a shot that banks in because the player made the shot so unskillfully that he completely missed, but then it luckily banks in?
 
Rafi said:
How about a shot that banks in because the player made the shot so unskillfully that he completely missed, but then it luckily banks in?
Click to expand...

NOT LUCK. He skillfully missed so that it would go in.
 
deacvision7 said:
I roll my eyes at you both.
Click to expand...

Your crusade against 'luck' has been going on for many years. You are, sadly, very wrong.

There are a million examples of skillful sports players doing something poorly or accidentally and the originally desired result occurs. Like, for instance, if a soccer player completely miscues/miskicks a ball they intend to place somewhere and their mistake wrong-foots the goalkeeper. That is not skill, it is luck. Pure luck.

[I suppose you might argue here that it was "unskillful" (to use your terminology) by the goalkeeper, but it is still lucky for the offensive player]

I do agree with your usual argument that a ball that comes off of the crossbar is not "unlucky" -- that instead, it was a shot that wasn't skillful enough. But you must admit that there are lucky and unlucky moments in sports and in life. Shit happens.
 
tbpnwe said:
NCSU at home Duncan's senior year after Rutland made a bonehead play.
Click to expand...

This is a prime example of my favorite basketball (and all sports, really) offense: the clusterfuck offense. Relies heavily on having players skilled in luck.
 
1985 DEAC said:
Duke and UNC have both lost a higher percentage of close games than WFU over the past 18 years. Learning how to win close games is the most overrated concept in sports. K wins 84% of all his games because 90 percent of his wins aren't close. No program wins more than 60% of its close games over time. We have actually outperformed in close games given our overall record. Better players leads to more big wins. The last play of any game is just one play. Winning that play more than 60% of the time is not sustainable. Coach Manning's quotes suggest he understands this. As fans, we obsess way too much on final plays.
Click to expand...

Coach K does not let most games get close because he has a close out strategy with awesome guards and good enough free throw shooting starting at about the four to five minute mark. He takes time off the clock, either goes to the hole or gets fouled. He does it every game when he has a lead so they close out 85-90% of close games because they do not chike them away with bad ball handling. If he is in a 1 pointer or tie game then his percentage might be 60%.
 
wakephan09 said:
Your crusade against 'luck' has been going on for many years. You are, sadly, very wrong.
Click to expand...

I had no idea he had a longstanding crusade against luck. How fitting. That made my night.

The lucky shot happens frequently in tennis. The player goes for a shot but completely miss hits it and shanks it off his frame, but it luckily drops in for a winner.
 
Bones McKinney said:
Coach K does not let most games get close because he has a close out strategy with awesome guards and good enough free throw shooting starting at about the four to five minute mark. He takes time off the clock, either goes to the hole or gets fouled. He does it every game when he has a lead so they close out 85-90% of close games because they do not chike them away with bad ball handling. If he is in a 1 pointer or tie game then his percentage might be 60%.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. That's my whole point. He does not have many games that go down to the last possession. Some people here think you can will yourself to win 80% of the one possession games with "skill". It's not going to happen. No program in the country will win more than 60% of the 5 point ball games over time. Look it up. It's fact. Doesn't matter if you are playing good teams or bad teams. You get in tight games. you win about half. So deacvision resorts to name calling.
 
Bones McKinney said:
Coach K does not let most games get close because he has a close out strategy with awesome guards and good enough free throw shooting starting at about the four to five minute mark. He takes time off the clock, either goes to the hole or gets fouled. He does it every game when he has a lead so they close out 85-90% of close games because they do not chike them away with bad ball handling. If he is in a 1 pointer or tie game then his percentage might be 60%.
Click to expand...

But to be clear, his 5 points or less final margin winning percentage is only 60%...over the past 18 years. Not just the one point games. Even with your good points noted above. His guard work at the 4 minute mark leads to many 10 point wins.
 
Ayo said:
I don't like KenPom's use of the term "luck." I think random variation is the better term. More skilled players make a higher percentage of their shots than less skilled players, but there will always be variation because people's actions just by human nature will have variation. Sometimes a coach draws up a good play, and the player misses an open shot. Sometimes a coach literally doesn't call a play and just gives the ball to a player and tells everyone else to spread the floor, and the player makes a great 1-on-1 play and scores.

I'm guessing if you compiled a bunch of end of game data and ran a logistic regression model to predict the probability a team wins down 1, with ball, end of game situations using the offensive coach's career win % as one of the explanatory variables, that variable's regression coefficient wouldn't be significant.
Click to expand...

Some would argue that luck is random variance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top