1m4tr
Cliffmas
By all metrics we are one of the unluckiest teams in P5.
Week of 2/12 Games Thread
- Status
Illinicpa14
- Chicago
I agree with this but I do think an underlying reason he doesn’t get as crazy is because we don’t have Kofi.
They are never gonna call it every play but he (and to be honest Edey and any other dominant low post big) was probably fouled half of his touches.
You beat me to this. I think we are like bottom 10 percentile in luck ranking, which just means we're far better than our current W-L record indicates.
Illinicpa14
- Chicago
Not the absolute most important game but I’m super curious to see Wisconsin at Iowa tomorrow.
Wisconsin desperate to truly get on track and also a Q1 opportunity, but on the road in at least not the easiest environment.
Iowa if they have a pulse left of trying to get back into the tourney picture/climb standings playing at home in a Saturday game.
Wisconsin desperate to truly get on track and also a Q1 opportunity, but on the road in at least not the easiest environment.
Iowa if they have a pulse left of trying to get back into the tourney picture/climb standings playing at home in a Saturday game.
Honest question. How is his “luck” different than “team has problems closing out games that my predictive model says they should have won”?
Read the link I posted. Luck rating is the deviation in winning percentage between a team's actual record and their expected record using the correlated gaussian method. We are actually 2-0 in games decided by 3 points or less (MSU @ home, NEB at home) and in addition to those games we pulled away from FAU at the end of that game, pulled away from Indiana at the end of that game, and so on. So no, it doesn't seem that "team has problems closing out games they should've won" is what I'd draw from the luck rating.
EDIT: If we want to talk about "games we should have won" just note that I think we've only been favored in 2 of our 6 losses. So out of 24 games, we've only dropped 2 games that we "should have" won. Problem is, we haven't won any games we shouldn't have. That's why we need to beat Wisconsin and/or Purdue in this final stretch of games.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. I skimmed the KenPom explanation. I’m not a statistician and have no idea what CGM is nor care much. And by should have won I’m not talking about favorite going into game but rather have decent lead down the stretch but end up losing. Also I’m not talking Illini specifically but just in general.
But using Illini, do you know which of their games this year have had the greatest impact on giving the team this low luck rating and why?
Last edited:
I don't other than the short explanation by the creator of the statistic that a high luck rating means you're worse than your W-L record and a low luck rating meaning you're better than your W-L record.
We have been on the good end of a lot of big blowouts against teams that rate anywhere from terrible (cupcakes/Missouri/Michigan) to meh (Rutgers, for example) all the way up to pretty decent (Northwestern). So I think those huge margins have propped up our efficiency margin and made us look like a lot better team than what we see in the W-L column.
So my conclusion is that I don't really know
I respect people who attempt to analyze things in a rational manner and can come to a conclusion of I don't know. Sadly some people can't take that leap. To me it's a sign of true intelligence not get all SocraticI don't other than the short explanation by the creator of the statistic that a high luck rating means you're worse than your W-L record and a low luck rating meaning you're better than your W-L record.
We have been on the good end of a lot of big blowouts against teams that rate anywhere from terrible (cupcakes/Missouri/Michigan) to meh (Rutgers, for example) all the way up to pretty decent (Northwestern). So I think those huge margins have propped up our efficiency margin and made us look like a lot better team than what we see in the W-L column.
So my conclusion is that I don't really know
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
As I said in an earlier post, I definitely agree we are unlucky. With that said, I do have to wonder how much missing LAYUPS is bad luck vs. just poor finishing. Again, luck or not, if we make ONE DAMN LAYUP against NU, we are one game back of Purdue with them heading to Champaign eventually.
Either way, let's hope that our luck normalizes over the next several games. We do seem due for a 2021-esque or FAU-esque performance here soon (hopefully vs. Purdue at home) where everything is clicking vs. a good opponent. This team can win out if it plays to its potential, pure and simple. If we can just pick up one more loss, I think we can stay in the bottom half of the bracket for March Madness - that promised land we have all dreamed about!
Don't ya think coaches having the ability to challenge a time or two would go a long way correct the human error? It works in other sports and leagues and could here. It is foolish to let players work so hard to not take some simple steps to at least give the fair opportunity to correct often times obvious mistakes like in the Purdue game with 3 1/2 minutes left and the Gophers down 4 and the refs took away an opportunity that could have easily been corrected with a coaches challenge. It is foolish when often times one screw up can and does have a major impact on opportunities nearly every game. Challenges would level things and take away some of the home court bias whether intended or not.
OrangeBlue98
- Des Moines, IA
As a soccer fan who has to endure video assistant referee review, I do NOT want to see subjective calls challenged. So to answer your question bluntly, no.
Video review already slows the game down and doesn't always get to the right call. All coaches challenges do is shift the complaining from "how could the officials miss that call?" to "How do they not change the call on replay?"
I always chuckle just a little at the "human error" smokescreen. Players miss layups and free throws. Coaches make bad in-game adjustments. A bad out of bounds play causes a five-second violation. Sometimes, a timeout is called at a bad time or even when a team doesn't have a timeout left. Human error is a part of every game, and a LOT more on the players and coaches than the officials.
I am not saying personal fouls but key goal tending when the ball hits the glass first and out if bounds plays should be able to be challenged vs getting obvious calls wrong. That wasn't a subjective call it was an obvious missed blown call! It's already in place in the final 2 minutes but missed calls like that one in the Purdue vs Gophers game last night was awful and robbed the Gophers an opportunity.
And what are all these metrics other than KenPom. And more importantly, how do they measure “unluckiest.”
OrangeBlue98
- Des Moines, IA
Got it - that's fair. I wouldn't have a big issue with goaltends/basket interference being challenged/reviewed. That's a lot more objective than a block/charge type of call.
I don't ever want to see block/charge, verticality, etc. be challenged/reviewed. It's tough enough to get officials on the same page for these types of calls in real time. Trying to get to a standard that would be consistently upheld or overturned would be too much. Full disclosure that I do officiate collegiate soccer and am on a number of webinars and video reviews about game clips. I'm sure that Big Ten officials are on more frequent and more intense calls than I am for the D3 and mid-major conference I generally officiate as an assistant. There is always an effort to get officials calling the same types of plays in the same manner, but the human vision system is a strange beast sometimes.
Appreciate your honesty.I don't other than the short explanation by the creator of the statistic that a high luck rating means you're worse than your W-L record and a low luck rating meaning you're better than your W-L record.
We have been on the good end of a lot of big blowouts against teams that rate anywhere from terrible (cupcakes/Missouri/Michigan) to meh (Rutgers, for example) all the way up to pretty decent (Northwestern). So I think those huge margins have propped up our efficiency margin and made us look like a lot better team than what we see in the W-L column.
So my conclusion is that I don't really know
Rereading the KenPom explanation, the luck and consistency numbers seem to just show how closely actual results to games are to the systems predictions for those games. Really has nothing to do with luck in the sense we would traditionally use the term. The real value to those columns probably is if you’re using the system’s predictions to bet games. If KenPom predicts a team to win by say 7 points and the spread is only 2 points that would seem like a good bet to give the points. But if one or both of the teams have wonky (believe that’s a statistics term) Luck or Consistency values then lit may not be as good (or maybe better) of a bet as the system alone says it is. Just gives you another thing to consider.
I could be way off base, but using that number to say a team is lucky or unlucky in the “traditional” sense is probably incorrect Using a different word for that column/number would probably be better.
Missing layups is not bad luck it is bad execution. I’m sure NW could point to multiple chippies that they should have made in regulation too.
Goillinikobd
- Southeastern US
Black hole Friday for men’s BB. Villanova at Georgetown, anyone?
Maybe time for women’s gymnastics.
Maybe time for women’s gymnastics.
Won't ever have to worry about that one. Haven't seen that called in 3-4 years it seems like. They were calling it like crazy those first couple years. Now you never see itGot it - that's fair. I wouldn't have a big issue with goaltends/basket interference being challenged/reviewed. That's a lot more objective than a block/charge type of call.
I don't ever want to see block/charge, verticality, etc. be challenged/reviewed. It's tough enough to get officials on the same page for these types of calls in real time. Trying to get to a standard that would be consistently upheld or overturned would be too much. Full disclosure that I do officiate collegiate soccer and am on a number of webinars and video reviews about game clips. I'm sure that Big Ten officials are on more frequent and more intense calls than I am for the D3 and mid-major conference I generally officiate as an assistant. There is always an effort to get officials calling the same types of plays in the same manner, but the human vision system is a strange beast sometimes.
Tophe
- Middle TN
There's usually not much college basketball on Friday nights.
New Mexico at San Diego St at 9pm central looks like a good matchup though. Both are top 25 in Kenpom
- Status