• 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!

Worst Team in ACC History? Wake 2012 might challenge Wake 2011

After this year, which team will be remembered as worst in ACC history?

  • Total voters
    77
  • Poll closed .
deacvision7 said:
The concept of "luck" in sports is just so silly to me. Shot rims out, "oh, so unlucky!" No, it wasn't "unlucky," it just wasn't a good enough shot to go through the basket. Simple as that.

"He was 'unlucky' that the ball went off his hand last. No, he wasn't. He put his hand in that spot and as a result the ball deflected off of him and out of bounds. Where is "luck" involved in that? It's just so preposterous, IMO.
Click to expand...

What would you say if Miles Plumlee beat wake on a half-court buzzer beater falling out of bounds? It was a good shot?
 
Do you think Clemson is better than Wake or Maryland?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Looking at Clemson and Maryland provides a pretty good dichotomy of the two sides of the luck equation:

Maryland is second in the nation in luck. They are 11-4 and have no wins by more than 12 points despite playing the 262nd hardest schedule in the country. They have as many losses by fewer than 10 points (2) as they do by 20+ (2).

Clemson on the other hand is 335th in the nation in luck. They are 9-7 overall. They have won each of the 9 games by 8+ points and 7 of the 9 have been by double digits. 6 of the 9 have been won by more than 15 points. Of their 7 losses 4 of them have been by one possession (3 or fewer points), and only two have been double digit losses.

It's just an example but pretty much encapsulates the extremes and reasonable application of the luck quotient.

Furthermore this probably describes why people on here think Clemson is awful (aside from the eye test of actually watching that horrific game last night). Clemson is 80 spots higher on KenPom because over the course of 10,000 seasons, Clemson would be better than Maryland in a large number of them. This is further substantiated by the efficiency numbers that KenPom uses and is the basis for the entire system. Despite being 9-7 and Maryland be 11-4, Clemson would beat Maryland probably 65% of the time they played (the one matchup for the season is in Death Valley and Clemson has an 80% shot of winning with an average score of 69-60).

The fun part is that while KenPom is good for projections, every game and season is only played once so every now and then you have your 1 in 10,000 season and make noise throughout the year.
Click to expand...


How is the fuckidy fuck is ANY of that "luck"??


Losing close games means you are unlucky now? WTF???
 
ChrisL68 said:
Do you think Clemson is better than Wake or Maryland?
Click to expand...

Clemson is almost without a doubt better than Wake and Maryland. Wake and Maryland (with Maryland not having Howard and Len factored in for the whole year because of injury) are almost identical.
 
ChrisL68 said:
luck is the difference between Clemson's expected record using kenpom and what their record actually is.

Teams with high luck factors (Wake/Maryland) are likely candidates to be underrated by the rating system, and teams with low factors the opposite.
Click to expand...

so basically kenpom is saying when he fucks up it's because the team got lucky not that he was wrong.

Now I get it.

What unmitigated BS.
 
deacvision7 said:
How is the fuckidy fuck is ANY of that "luck"??


Losing close games means you are unlucky now? WTF???
Click to expand...

Well that's why I said I think a better description would be "deviation from the expected" which is what we typically regard as luck is it not? Shots are deemed "lucky" because they would normally not go in, like Unpredeactable's example. It's the same concept in this terminology in that over the course of a season teams are deemed "lucky" because they normally would not be 11-4 like Maryland currently is if the season were simulated 10,000 times.
 
Fuck me, I agree somewhat with rj.


Time to go sit in a corner and reevaluate my life.
 
RJKarl said:
so basically kenpom is saying when he fucks up it's because the team got lucky not that he was wrong.

Now I get it.

What unmitigated BS.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can think KenPom is BS, the system is pretty simple in that it takes offensive points per possession, defensive points per possession, and then weights them based on strength of schedule and ranks them according to the numbers
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Clemson is almost without a doubt better than Wake and Maryland. Wake and Maryland (with Maryland not having Howard and Len factored in for the whole year because of injury) are almost identical.
Click to expand...

Of course, when Clemson was ranked in the 50s earlier in the year, you were saying that they would rebound and win 18 games or so. Still holding by that prediction?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Wake/Maryland and Clemson all end up with comparable ACC records.
 
#s if he uses factors like his definition of "luck", then it is BS.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Of course, when Clemson was ranked in the 50s earlier in the year, you were saying that they would rebound and win 18 games or so. Still holding by that prediction?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Wake/Maryland and Clemson all end up with comparable ACC records.
Click to expand...

Yeah I didn't really anticipate that they would continue to lose close games and get upset so many times. They're not gonna reach 18 wins. They'll end up with a similar record to Wake and Maryland, but will probably worst case go 2-1 the three total times they play us.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Well that's why I said I think a better description would be "deviation from the expected" which is what we typically regard as luck is it not? Shots are deemed "lucky" because they would normally not go in, like Unpredeactable's example.
Click to expand...

Just because a certain shot has a low chance for success (and a half court off balance shot is certainly a low % shot), that doesn't mean that the shots that do go in are therefore "lucky."


I can get with "deviation from the expected", because that implies that some skill was involved to make the shot. A guy tried to make a tough shot and it went in. Sounds skillful to me. Not lucky.

It's the same concept in this terminology in that over the course of a season teams are deemed "lucky" because they normally would not be 11-4 like Maryland currently is if the season were simulated 10,000 times.
Click to expand...
Who is simulating this season 10,000 times? KenPom?

So he is using his own model to reinforce what he has already said, and if it doesn't work out right he just throws the blame on some mysterious "luck" factor?

Please tell me that I am not understanding this correctly. And if so, please do try to explain it to me further. Cheers.
 
RJKarl said:
#s if he uses factors like his definition of "luck", then it is BS.
Click to expand...

He doesn't use that factor in his calculation. He uses offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, strength of schedule of both, and then ranks teams based on the number.

He offers a lot of numbers that are merely auxiliary to his rankings which help provide insight to why teams are good, why teams are bad, and why teams' records might not correlate with what we would expect.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
He doesn't use that factor in his calculation. He uses offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, strength of schedule of both, and then ranks teams based on the number.

He offers a lot of numbers that are merely auxiliary to his rankings which help provide insight to why teams are good, why teams are bad, and why teams' records might not correlate with what we would expect.
Click to expand...

In other words, he comes up with BS excuses for when his "model" fails.


Nobody expects some computer or any human to get everything right, so why would he make up some bullshit "luck" meter? Or however the fuck he wants to phrase it.
 
deacvision7 said:
J
Who is simulating this season 10,000 times? KenPom?

So he is using his own model to reinforce what he has already said, and if it doesn't work out right he just throws the blame on some mysterious "luck" factor?

Please tell me that I am not understanding this correctly. And if so, please do try to explain it to me further. Cheers.
Click to expand...

It's just a "what if" simulation. Let's say Wake plays Duke a million times in the same conditions. Wake would beat Duke a handful of times. In most of these cases Duke would win, but it only takes one game for Wake to beat them. KenPom uses his system to try and find percentage. So as of right now Wake's odds of beating Duke at home on February 28th is 12%. Through his understanding of statistics and system, that's the number that he has arrived at for the number of Wake victories as the law of large numbers increasingly applies.

Your second point is an issue I have with the system in that he's using his own statistics and predictions (albeit based on trends he has researched from the past which he believes hold predictive value) and it's relatively tough to move up or down quickly because of the constraining factor of strength of schedule being based on his own numbers.
 
deacvision7 said:
In other words, he comes up with BS excuses for when his "model" fails.


Nobody expects some computer or any human to get everything right, so why would he make up some bullshit "luck" meter? Or however the fuck he wants to phrase it.
Click to expand...

He recognizes the fact that no computer or human gets everything right and so he uses luck to try and indicate why his system did not get things right. A good example of this is Wisconsin being number two in his rankings and probably not falling out of the top 5 the rest of the year. They are "breaking the model" because of their torridly slow pace of play and their relative inability to score consistently, despite their efficiency in doing so.

Luck has value in seeing what you could expect from the team the next year for example. It can also help explain outside factors. For instance, Wake is top 20 in luck. For BzzOuters this is a reason why we have 10 wins already this year, we're having a lucky season.
 
Sounds like he has a good system with reasonable data used to make up the numbers. But he wants to be right so badly that he tries to skew the numbers to make himself look like a genius.

He should probably simplify it and just let the fact that humans play the game as reason enough why his model won't always get things right. You can't predict when a team will have a cold night shooting because they just weren't up for it.
 
If we played Duke fifty times at home I doubt we'd beat them once much less the one in eight KenPom says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top