Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-18 02:54 PM - Post#247013
In response to SomeGuy
If one is going to write off a single digit victory as merely a function of luck
This is a strawman. No one here has done that.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
02-09-18 03:27 PM - Post#247017
In response to Chip Bayers
We've all seen the improvement in the decisiveness and choices of Penn's players both with the ball and on D compared to last year. That's the eye-test aspect. How much that holds up and how much it matters the rest of the way remain to be seen, but there is good reason for Penn fans to feel a lot better about what they're watching this year.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
02-09-18 03:32 PM - Post#247018
In response to SRP
I'm still waiting for a game to be decided in the last minute or so at the FT line. Penn has done a better job of late at the line, but overall it's still not very good.
|
LyleGold
PhD Student
Posts: 1712
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-09-18 03:49 PM - Post#247024
In response to AsiaSunset
Agreed. The better teams tend to win close games. We are better than last year in part because we are better at winning close games. Occasionally the lesser team manages to "steal" a close game because they manage to take advantage of their one chance to win. How many times do you see the lesser team not quite pull out the victory in regulation, and then lose by 10 or more in OT? In '79, we beat Princeton twice in overtime. Were we lucky twice or better than them? We happened to go to the Final Four that year. In '96, Princeton beat us in the playoff in OT. Were they lucky or better? They happened to beat defending national champs UCLA in the NCAAs. In last year's Ivy tournament, 14-0 Princeton beat 6-8 Penn in OT after Penn missed a front end that could have iced the game in regulation. Bad luck or was Princeton better?
The whole discussion of discounting single digit victories as luck is largely a waste of time because it fails to take into account the intangibles that distinguish a winner from a close loser. I believe the Quakers have crossed over because they have gotten better.
|
Cvonvorys
Postdoc
Posts: 4473
Loc: Princeton, New Jersey
Reg: 10-11-06
|
02-09-18 03:51 PM - Post#247025
In response to penn nation
Both Wood & Betley are pretty good foul shooters and Foreman has done well late in games, so I think we should be OK as long as we get the ball in their hands at the end of games.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-09-18 04:09 PM - Post#247026
In response to Cvonvorys
One could make the argument that the ability to win close games is a skill-- or, more properly, a set of skills.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
02-09-18 04:57 PM - Post#247031
In response to Silver Maple
It's better to avoid close games. Better teams do that.
Right now I'm happy with any sort of win.
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23368
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-18 04:59 PM - Post#247032
In response to TheLine
Better teams win. Winning teams are better. Tautology equals tautology.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Dartmouth
02-09-18 05:15 PM - Post#247033
In response to AsiaSunset
If that’s directed at me, i’ll reiterate— I think 6-0 rather tha 5-1 is a function of luck given how close we have played. I do not think any individual win was lucky, or undeserved. I think we were clearly the better team in every game but Brown (and I would just call that one even). But if you play as close as we have, the numbers say your expected wins are somewhere south of six. Agreed that Harvard is in the same boat. They easily could have lost both Dartmouth games.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-09-18 05:23 PM - Post#247035
In response to Silver Maple
One could make the argument, but I think whether it is true is quantifiable. I think there is a pretty direct correlation between how much teams win by and how much they win. But Mrjames probably knows for sure.
We had this debate years ago regarding the Rosen Penn team. Even if the correlation is direct overall, there will be outliers. The question is whether those outliers are just small sample variations, or whether those individual teams really are better at winning close games.
While this is all interesting (at least to me), ultimately TheLine is right — in the end, this Penn team’s success or failure will be determined by their record and whether they win the league (either regular season or tournament). Won’t matter whether they were lucky or unlucky. 6-0 is 6-0,
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
02-09-18 05:31 PM - Post#247036
In response to 10Q
Better teams win. Winning teams are better. Tautology equals tautology.
OK, but remember that the first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
02-09-18 05:39 PM - Post#247037
In response to Silver Maple
Rule 2:
If confused, consult Rule 1.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1146
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
02-09-18 05:47 PM - Post#247039
In response to AsiaSunset
Good teams win their share of close games. While "luck" is always a factor, good teams seem to find a way to create their own luck.
See, for example, Dartmouth Football 2017.
http://www.dartmouthsports.com/SportSelect.dbml?SP...
|
Cvonvorys
Postdoc
Posts: 4473
Loc: Princeton, New Jersey
Reg: 10-11-06
|
02-09-18 05:47 PM - Post#247040
In response to penn nation
Rule 3:
If confused by Rule 2, consult Rule 3.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-18 05:56 PM - Post#247041
In response to SomeGuy
Correct - you can look at game scripts (the average margin a team lead's by throughout a game - think of it as the area under the curve) and see that the winning percentage at each increment of game script winning margin rises. That is to say, the longer and more you lead by during a game, the more times you're expected to win. A more technical approach that leads to the same result is to look at whether - in games that are close in the final minutes - the original projected winner wins at about the same rate or if the outcomes tend to shift more toward 50/50 (it's the latter). If the better team were more likely to win close games, we'd expect to see the winning percentage to stay the same as it started or even increase.
Both demonstrate that the closer a game is toward the end, the more randomness reigns.
What definitely *isn't* true is that any single-digit win is just luck and should be written off. That's crazy. In general, the better team will win close games - it doesn't immediate revert to a coin flip. It's just that the later in the game it gets with the game still close, the higher leverage each possession becomes and one crazy thing that happens on a possession can shift win percentage odds in a massive way.
Penn has posted both the best record and the best efficiency margin in Ivy play thus far. When those two align, it generally means that the team that has played best to that point is leading the league. I think that should be the most important takeaway here.
|
Cvonvorys
Postdoc
Posts: 4473
Loc: Princeton, New Jersey
Reg: 10-11-06
|
02-09-18 06:05 PM - Post#247042
In response to mrjames
As for this weekend's games:
http://www.pennathletics.com/news/2018/2/8/mens-ba ...
For those who are hoping for a successful weekend, according to this article, this is the 62nd time Penn has made this trip to the Northern-most Ivy League programs. Penn has been swept nine times including each of the last four years. Here's hoping Penn's luck and Penn's skill continue...
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2138
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
02-09-18 08:15 PM - Post#247046
In response to Cvonvorys
I hate my ISP, and I hate ESPN3. I have tried three different browsers, and none of them will allow me to use my login credentials with the ISP to get access to tonight's game.
I am not a happy camper.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
02-09-18 08:52 PM - Post#247078
In response to weinhauers_ghost
It's on ILDN as well
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8236
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-09-18 09:02 PM - Post#247089
In response to weinhauers_ghost
Watch ESPN has an app on amazon fire TV if you have that. Works well.
|
UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1121
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
02-09-18 10:39 PM - Post#247179
In response to Streamers
It is true that luck plays an important part in any close game. However, when a team wins 6 straight close games of loses 6 straight close games, their performance in such circumstances takes on statistically significance. Therefore we can conclude that this year's Penn team's performance in close games has a significant skill component as well as some luck.
Put differently Penn is rightfully favored to finish first in the league. It is also likely that a continuation of such close games will result in some losses. Penn will not go 14-0 with two blowouts and 12 nailbiters. So the team needs to improve its performance to sweep. I would love to see that improvement against Harvard on Saturday. Free throw shooting has improved as has Silpe's performance. Let's hope Caleb regains his form.
|
