In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online now 460 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Florida got to the elite 8 by beating a 14 seed, an 11 seed, and a 15 seed.
Wright seems out of place here.
Does anybody remember the cold fish handshake that he and Gary exchanged when we played them there?
So would they be more likely to win it all if they played worse in their wins and one a few games by one or two points? Or would they be more likely to win it all if they played worse in their losses and got blown out instead of losing close?
Donovan got real underrated in the three years post-titles after he forgot how to win.
I mean yes, I do think they would be more likely to win it all if they had learned how to win close games. If you've lost every close game you've been involved in, that can creep into your head when there's three minutes left and the game is close. Especially if its in the Elite 8. The more close games you've won, the easier it is to stay loose and play your game in those type of situations. Look at the Orioles last year, it wasn't a coincidence they kept winning one run games after their hot start in those games at the beginning of the year. The opposite can also be true
That's a nice narrative that we like to tell ourselves. In reality, there's a lot of variance in close games, and winning and losing is more a roll of the dice than which team is really better. When a poor team might score 40% of the time, a good team might score 60% of the time, and it comes down to a couple possessions and whistles, random chance is going to determine the result more than "knowing how to win".
Results in close games don't track with teams' overall records and other indicators of team strength - they're essentially randomly distributed. Florida's poor record in close games means they've been unlucky and their overall record doesn't reflect how good they are. If they'd split their close games, they'd have been seeded higher than 3rd. Kenpom actually had them 1st if you remove the luck factor. Instead of being 29-7 right now, with normal luck they would be 32-4 or 33-3 right now - and would probably have been the overall #1 seed.
I'll just assume that Ohio State has been lucky in their last two games.
Call me a relic, call me what you will,
Say I'm old-fashioned, say I'm over the hill....
Are you disagreeing with that? They had a very questionable call and two huge late game shots go their way to beat teams seeded way lower than them.
I mean yea, they have been.
There is a lot of luck involved in close games but players do have to step up and make big plays. It's a combination of both. Usually the "lucky" play is the 50/50 ball that comes right before the "clutch" play at the end.
Serious question, did you play sports? Obviously there is significant variance in those situations but the confidence that comes with being comfortable in close games is far from meaningless.
This post was edited by Russell Jones 13 months ago
You make it seem like everything in close games boils down to luck and I would strongly disagree with that. It's a factor but close games are not all rolls of the dice or coin flips as you suggest.
You said it better than my quip about Ohio State.
Of course they are. The difference between a miss and a make is inches. There are also bad calls, etc. that disproportionately swing a game beyond a team's control. Which is not to say there is no "clutch" skill involved or "knowing how to win" present but over five games, or a season, or any small amount of time, the presumption should always be that it's luck rather than some deeper meaning.
No, the argument is not that every close game is due to luck.
The argument is that it is much harder to rule out the role of chance factors (luck) in close games than in blow-outs (in which the result being a result of chance factors is close to zero).
If Team A, for example, goes 30-1 with a average scoring margin of 4.5, I would say the team's record is not indicative of its strength. They were lucky not to lose more of them.
If Team B with the same schedule has a record of 25-6 but a scoring margin of 35.0, then they are likely much stronger than Team A. The losses are more flukish.
Seems like you are taking credit for good plays and responsibility for bad plays away from the players and giving it to luck and I don't agree with that at all. There is definitely a luck factor involved but teams don't win and lose randomly. If I believed that I wouldn't even bother watching.
What was the deal with those weird racist threads you made about Turgeon??
I think this is where the stat people look down on me.
don't put much stock into Florida losing close games. All those losses were 1. on the road 2. low possession games (with the exception of Arkansas). Florida is actually one of the slowest tempo teams in the country and it masks just how good they are. Beating teams by 20+ at 62 possessions is far more impressive than a faster team winning by 20+. If Donovan sped his team up, and i believe he should, they probably would have won several of those games. The lower the number of possessions, the better chance an inferior team has of winning.
Of course, playing uptempo might just be a total disaster for Florida and thats why Donovan prefers the half court game.
So in conclusion.....Donovan is good but he could probably be better
that's not luck, chance, or randomness though...
Bad calls by the official are related to the actual skill and "clutchiness" of a team?
No but when you say "Makes and misses are inches" it seems like you think guys making and missing shots that decide close games is just luck.
Luck is just a shorthand term for talking about the various probabilities in play.
You were about a 60% FT shooter. Do you think that if you had 10 attempts every game you'd always go 6/10? Of course not. And while no one would say that whether or not you made the shot was out of your control or anything, it was probably fairly random whether you had a good game or a bad game. And when you aggregate that on a team level and throw in all the other things that happen over 40 minutes, all we're saying is that whether you won a game by 1 or lost by 4, probably doesn't tell you as much about a team as is commonly claimed.
We are closer than I thought. Part of it was you using the word luck in that way. I know what you meant now.
I don't agree with your analogy still though. I don't think it is random at all whether a player or team has a bad game. I agree that there are a lot of factors that contribute to whether a guy has a rough night and some of those may not be in his control but to say good games and bad games are largely random doesn't really work for me as a former player. Maybe if I wasn't it would be more palatable I dunno. Hopefully I'm making sense.
I look at it this way on the team level. Let's take Florida, and say their bench doesn't matter (oversimplifying here, obviously), so it all comes down to how their five starters play as to whether they win. Let's say that if four or five play well they win, if two or three play well they play a close game, and otherwise they always lose.
So while you would argue that it's not random whether a player has a bad game, there's certainly substantial randomness in the number that have a bad game in a given game. So if Florida were a "consistent" team that had one guy play poorly every night, they'd be undefeated. But the "real" Florida has all five play well almost every night except for four or five games in a year where three guys all play poorly in a night and they lose those games every time. Is that second team worse? I don't really think so, but their record sure does.
And obviously there are myriad reasons why three guys playing poorly in a game might not be random - Donovan got outcoached, etc. But the argue here isn't to dismiss their existence completely, but more to say most of the time we have absolutely no idea what factors caused that or if they're meaningful. These teams are always chokers up until the point that they're not, and then everyone moves onto the next narrative they want to create and on we go.
Anyway, this was long and rambling, but yeah. "Luck" (I don't like the term, either) matters.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports