Pistol Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Slate ran an article ("Teams We Hate") about this year's tournament, and it has a nice dressing-down of our A10 nemesis, the Dayton Flyers. Here's what they had to say: http://www.slate.com/id/2213975/ University of Dayton In sports, the saying goes, the breaks even out. Unlike most athletic clichés, this one turns out to be kind of true. College hoops genius Ken Pomeroy tracks a statistic called "luck"—to oversimplify things, a team is considered "lucky" (subscription required) if it pulls out an unexpectedly high number of close victories, whereas a squad is "unlucky" if it absorbs a lot of close defeats. In college basketball, luck doesn't last: Last year's six most-fortunate teams have all regressed substantially in 2009. Conversely, three of Pomeroy's four unluckiest teams in 2008 were Illinois, Utah, and Missouri. All three missed out on March Madness last season, and all three earned surprisingly good seeds to this year's tourney. This year's luckiest—in other words, least deserving—at-large NCAA Tournament team is the University of Dayton. Of the Flyers' 26 victories, 12 came by an average of 3.25 points, including five decided by 1 or 2 points. By contrast, Dayton earned its seven defeats, losing by an average of 11.7 points. If those fluky Ohioans didn't get a tournament bid on merit, then somebody must've been jobbed. It wasn't St. Mary's or Penn State or Creighton or San Diego State—each of those teams had above-average luck, too. Of all the legitimate at-large candidates, Florida (luck ranking: 324 of 344) got most screwed over by the fates. Gators fans should find some solace in the fact that next year can't possibly be as bad. The reverse is true for Dayton: Savor that first-round loss to West Virginia, Flyers. Next year's going to be a lot worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Slate ran an article ("Teams We Hate") about this year's tournament, and it has a nice dressing-down of our A10 nemesis, the Dayton Flyers. Here's what they had to say: http://www.slate.com/id/2213975/ University of Dayton In sports, the saying goes, the breaks even out. Unlike most athletic clichés, this one turns out to be kind of true. College hoops genius Ken Pomeroy tracks a statistic called "luck"—to oversimplify things, a team is considered "lucky" (subscription required) if it pulls out an unexpectedly high number of close victories, whereas a squad is "unlucky" if it absorbs a lot of close defeats. In college basketball, luck doesn't last: Last year's six most-fortunate teams have all regressed substantially in 2009. Conversely, three of Pomeroy's four unluckiest teams in 2008 were Illinois, Utah, and Missouri. All three missed out on March Madness last season, and all three earned surprisingly good seeds to this year's tourney. This year's luckiest—in other words, least deserving—at-large NCAA Tournament team is the University of Dayton. Of the Flyers' 26 victories, 12 came by an average of 3.25 points, including five decided by 1 or 2 points. By contrast, Dayton earned its seven defeats, losing by an average of 11.7 points. If those fluky Ohioans didn't get a tournament bid on merit, then somebody must've been jobbed. It wasn't St. Mary's or Penn State or Creighton or San Diego State—each of those teams had above-average luck, too. Of all the legitimate at-large candidates, Florida (luck ranking: 324 of 344) got most screwed over by the fates. Gators fans should find some solace in the fact that next year can't possibly be as bad. The reverse is true for Dayton: Savor that first-round loss to West Virginia, Flyers. Next year's going to be a lot worse. Luck, in Pomeroy's analysis, is not really how often you win close games. "Luck" is how much better or worse your record is different compared to what it would be using just offensive and defensive efficiency and possessions. Dayton is then "lucky" in Pomeroy sense not by winning close games, although that comes in, but by not being that great offensively and yet grinding out wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerhawk Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Luck, in Pomeroy's analysis, is not really how often you win close games. "Luck" is how much better or worse your record is different compared to what it would be using just offensive and defensive efficiency and possessions. Dayton is then "lucky" in Pomeroy sense not by winning close games, although that comes in, but by not being that great offensively and yet grinding out wins.the Flyers beat Fordham by 1 point at home when Lowry drove the length of the court to win at the buzzer. They beat GW when Colonials were foud to have 6 players on the court in the final minute of a one point game. Yes, they were lucky in some games. But that says nothing about next year's likely success. Flyers lose one player from this team. They get Lowry back from his mid-season injury. Their talent level should go up; maybe they will win as many but by larger margins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 the Flyers beat Fordham by 1 point at home when Lowry drove the length of the court to win at the buzzer. They beat GW when Colonials were foud to have 6 players on the court in the final minute of a one point game. Yes, they were lucky in some games. But that says nothing about next year's likely success. Flyers lose one player from this team. They get Lowry back from his mid-season injury. Their talent level should go up; maybe they will win as many but by larger margins. Add to that Kwamain Mitchell's shot that rimmed out at Dayton. If any one of those goes against UD, they may not get in, especially losing to Fordham. But the bottom line is Dayton did win those games and they deserve to go. I agree that they are set up to be better next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 the Flyers beat Fordham by 1 point at home when Lowry drove the length of the court to win at the buzzer. They beat GW when Colonials were foud to have 6 players on the court in the final minute of a one point game. Yes, they were lucky in some games. But that says nothing about next year's likely success. Flyers lose one player from this team. They get Lowry back from his mid-season injury. Their talent level should go up; maybe they will win as many but by larger margins. You miss my point. I am not disputing that the Flyers won some close games (I am intimately familiar with one of those close wins) just the describing of Ken Pomeroy's "luck measure" which is better translated as an "intangible" measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted March 18, 2009 Author Share Posted March 18, 2009 You miss my point. I am not disputing that the Flyers won some close games (I am intimately familiar with one of those close wins) just the describing of Ken Pomeroy's "luck measure" which is better translated as an "intangible" measure. In SLU's 2004-2005 season, we finished with a 9-21 record (my senior year, so I'll never forget). We were 1-11 in games decided by 6 points or less (and/or OT games), what is generally thought of as the definition for "close" games. Sometimes it's a fragile thing- the difference between an average season and a terrible season, or between a very good season and a mediocre season. My personal opinion is that Dayton is an average team that had a very good season, partially because of winning a few close games, and partially because of its weak schedule. I couldn't pass up this chance to take a jab at my most hated (probably only hated) A10 opponent, and I thought the Slate article was interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.