Advanced metrics that gauge luckiness?

29 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
March 11th, 2011 at 9:54 PM
#1
CarrIsMyHomeboy
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 356
Advanced metrics that gauge luckiness?

Hi, so as to keep this short and sweet I'll withhold most of the nature of my ulterior motives (except to mention that I'm trying with small amounts of effort to convince myself and others that I'd be thrilled with the long-term implications of OSU firing Tressel and hiring Dantonio--unlikely though all of that may be).

I simply want to know--point blank--whether any statistical metrics ("advanced" or otherwise) are respected for their ability to assess a football team's "luckiness" (e.g., whether Team A received a disproportionate number of "lucky bounces", perhaps at "critical times", relative to the field of Teams B through triple-Z). And, if they do exist, I'd like to know which they are and why they are.

Thanks in advance for the help.

"I have long thought that anyone who does not regularly - or ever - gaze up and see the wonder and glory of a dark night sky filled with countless stars loses a sense of their fundamental connectedness to the universe."

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
March 11th, 2011 at 10:05 PM | I'm not sure about (Score:1)
bronxblue
Joined: 11/22/2008
MGoPoints: 12591

I'm not sure about basketball, but I know in football you can usually determine how "lucky" a team is by whether or not they have a particularly good or bad TO ration compared to historical averages and the circumstances.  So while a bad TO margin is somewhat expected with a young offense, Minny a couple of years ago had an amazing TO margin and went to a bowl game.  The next couple of years they regressed to the mean and they were horrible. 

March 11th, 2011 at 10:25 PM | there is definitely some luck there with TO margin (Score:1)
NateVolk
NateVolk's picture
Joined: 07/19/2010
MGoPoints: 3827

I remember the Lions in 07 started out 6-2 and everyone was talking Super Bowl. Those 8 games, their turnover margin was like plus 15, maybe as high as 20. Unheard of type numbers.Teams were throwing the ball to untalented players who were playing centerfield, dropping snaps at the goal line. etc.

The second half it came back to normal: 1-7. The next year more of the normal, 0-16.  You take away the luck element and that franchise could have been 2-30 over a two year period very easily. They had no players.

"because character wins in life and character wins on the football field....."  1-11-11

October 27th, 2011 at 12:27 AM | I remember the "bar set (Score:1)
Jinxed
Joined: 09/15/2009
MGoPoints: 267

I remember the "bar set higher" fiasco that year... (Lions)

March 11th, 2011 at 10:07 PM | No. To think that you can (Score:1)
JimLahey
JimLahey's picture
Joined: 01/18/2011
MGoPoints: 2369

No. To think that you can gauge "luck" is a classic logical fallacy.

I've decided to lay off the food for a while, and go on the booze.

March 11th, 2011 at 10:08 PM | you meaure luck by looking at (Score:1)
ish
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 7692

you meaure luck by looking at the difference between what the advanced metrics would predict the outcome would be and what the actual outcome was.

March 11th, 2011 at 11:31 PM | By that logic, advanced (Score:1)
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
MaizeAndBlueWahoo's picture
Joined: 07/02/2008
MGoPoints: 11821

By that logic, advanced metrics predict the outcome of games perfectly except for the influence of luck - which is far and away the deciding factor in each and every game.  I think not.

"We've beaten Michigan the last four years.  So where's the threat?"

- Mark Dantonio

Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<

March 12th, 2011 at 11:45 AM | Why not? (Score:1)
Alton
Joined: 07/05/2008
MGoPoints: 991

Why do you think not?  This makes perfect sense to me:

Result = Measurable Skill + Unmeasurable Skill + Luck

What advanced metrics do is attempt to ensure that Measurable Skill >> Unmeasurable Skill.  As the "Unmeasurable Skill" variable approaches zero, luck is the only thing left that causes variation in the result. 

March 11th, 2011 at 10:11 PM | According to KenPom (Score:1)
Michigan4Life
Joined: 07/29/2010
MGoPoints: 5674

Michigan's luck is +.009 which ranks 159 in the country.  They're slightly lucky but everything has been correct as KenPom predictions for the most part.

March 11th, 2011 at 10:11 PM | Ok, I guess it depends on (Score:1)
JimLahey
JimLahey's picture
Joined: 01/18/2011
MGoPoints: 2369

Ok, I guess it depends on your definition of luck.

I've decided to lay off the food for a while, and go on the booze.

March 11th, 2011 at 10:13 PM | Well, I heard this from the (Score:1)
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 28972

Well, I heard this from the BTN postgame show: Michigan is now 6-5 in games decided by single-digits, compared to 1-8 (!) last year.  It seems like we were very, very unlucky last season.

March 12th, 2011 at 1:45 AM | Or just mentally soft. We (Score:1)
the_white_tiger
the_white_tiger's picture
Joined: 02/07/2009
MGoPoints: 5227

Or just mentally soft. We didn't have great leadership last year or a player who could run the offense and the team, so it's logical that we'd lose close games. Off of the top of my head, the OSU one was due to luck, but I can't think of many times where we just weren't outplayed down the stretch. Illinois is that team this year, they just can't close. I hate harping on intangible things (at least to the outside observer) but dang, Illinois sems like a dysfunctional team that isn't playing to its potential to me.

Maize n Brew

March 11th, 2011 at 10:33 PM | lol I love how I got negged (Score:1)
JimLahey
JimLahey's picture
Joined: 01/18/2011
MGoPoints: 2369

lol I love how I got negged for saying that measuring luck is a fallacy. If you are measuring luck, you aren't, it's something else. Go look up the definition of luck.

I've decided to lay off the food for a while, and go on the booze.

March 11th, 2011 at 10:39 PM | best way ive seen (Score:1)
tricks574
tricks574's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 428

There is a formula where you use offensive and defensive metrics to determine a predicted record for a team. Compare that to said teams actual record to see how lucky they are.

www.get2formaizenblue.blogspot.com

For all of your obscure college wrestling blog needs

March 11th, 2011 at 10:41 PM | this was (Score:1)
jaggs
jaggs's picture
Joined: 02/03/2009
MGoPoints: 2442

There was an excellent diary about this last year. Try a search. I'm on my phone now and if I get around to it I will look for it when I get in. I think The Mathlete (where are you btw??) was the aurhor. The answer was yes, and Northwestern was consistently 'lucky' and Oklahoma had the 'unluckiest' year.

March 11th, 2011 at 10:47 PM | Someone please give me an (Score:1)
JimLahey
JimLahey's picture
Joined: 01/18/2011
MGoPoints: 2369

Someone please give me an example of what luck is pertaining to a sporting event. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the question.

I've decided to lay off the food for a while, and go on the booze.

March 12th, 2011 at 11:04 AM | Trying to sound intelligent? (Score:1)
JimLahey
JimLahey's picture
Joined: 01/18/2011
MGoPoints: 2369

Trying to sound intelligent? My posts were exact responses to the OP's question and I apologized for being a bit of a dick long before you came along. While your in an insulting mood, get a dictionary and look up the word oxymoron, then go stand in front of a mirror.

I've decided to lay off the food for a while, and go on the booze.

March 11th, 2011 at 10:56 PM | tricks574 & jaggs (Score:1)
CarrIsMyHomeboy
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 356

Those posts most well align with what I am searching for:

That I'm effectively trying to find a spreadsheet of teams, rank, and numbers that **suggest** something about their luckiness. Id est, that suggests something about their apparent record relative to their mathematically conceived coulda/shoulda/woulda record (by the way, that asterisk-sandwich-as-a-highlighter-&-qualifier is for you, JLahey--with whom I agree apropos the nature of "luck" [But still: I'm trying to be practical here; so let's save the etymology and philosophy for later, if you will]).

As far as the archives and MGoSearchEngines are concerned, I'm not finding anything. Hopefully, this doesn't mean that it's actually there in spite of my tries, that I suck at feeding search engines efficient roots, and that I'm about to get embarrassed. But maybe it does. And I can accept that.

Again, thanks in advance for the help.

"I have long thought that anyone who does not regularly - or ever - gaze up and see the wonder and glory of a dark night sky filled with countless stars loses a sense of their fundamental connectedness to the universe."

March 12th, 2011 at 11:44 AM | Point differential vs Winning percentage (Score:1)
Alton
Joined: 07/05/2008
MGoPoints: 991

The best and simplest way to measure team "luck" is to compare their point differential with their winning percentage.  Let's say we have 2 basketball teams--

TEAM A--72.3 points per game, 71.4 points allowed per game, record 19-13.

TEAM B--72.3 points per game, 71.4 points allowed per game, record 15-16.

There are 2 possible explanations for the difference in records--either (1) Team A has been luckier than Team B so far, or (2) winning close games is a skill, and Team A has more of the "winning close games" skill than Team B has.

So first we have to determine which is true, (1) or (2).  How would you test whether winning close games is a skill?  An obvious approach would be to see if it is repeatable from season to season--in other words, are teams who have winning records in games decided by less than 5 points able to do the same thing again the next season?  If the answer is "yes", than winning close games is a repeatable skill and the difference is not due to luck.

I have news for you--the answer in every sport is no, winning close games is not a repeatable skill.  Which means of course that winning a large number of close games is a result of luck, and (1) is true--Team A is a "lucky" team in terms of winning games.

So now all that you have to do to measure luck is to determine an expected relationship between points scored, points allowed, and winning percentage.  Whatever is left over you may call "luck."  Again, luck is, by definition, not directly measurable.  It is what is left over after you remove measurable effects.  But be careful--there really are unmeasured skills out there, so don't accidentally assume those unmeasured skills are actually luck.

March 11th, 2011 at 10:59 PM | Ok, fair enough. Thank you (Score:3 Normal)
JimLahey
JimLahey's picture
Joined: 01/18/2011
MGoPoints: 2369

Ok, fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. I am a philosophy grad at a school that is heavily geared toward logic and mathematics so I was being a bit of a dick.

I've decided to lay off the food for a while, and go on the booze.

March 12th, 2011 at 12:10 AM | No harem, no fowl (Score:2 Normal)
CarrIsMyHomeboy
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 356

I am a big fan of that inclination--in some ways I'm a very amateur philosopher myself. I'm slowly meandering through Kant's Critique of Pure Reason as an interesting coincidence; beyond that, abstraction is my favorite playground, yadda yadda, so on and so forth. I also tend to be very deliberate with my choice of words. This thread and that whole "luck" thing need not apply, of course.

Still, sometimes shit need be gotten done (or questions need be gotten answered), and when that's the case, the philosophers never get to the finish line first...they just most accurately and pain-stakingly articulate the conception of what the finish line is and isn't.

 

"I have long thought that anyone who does not regularly - or ever - gaze up and see the wonder and glory of a dark night sky filled with countless stars loses a sense of their fundamental connectedness to the universe."

March 12th, 2011 at 12:58 AM | Sweet, Kant is very (Score:3 Normal)
JimLahey
JimLahey's picture
Joined: 01/18/2011
MGoPoints: 2369

Sweet, Kant is very influential but not one of my favorites. Your next read should logically be Hegel. I have a degree in philosophy and dropped out of law school literally yesterday to pursue a doctorate in philosophy so I can become a prof. I went to MIT, which is heavily focused on logic and mathematics.

I've decided to lay off the food for a while, and go on the booze.

March 11th, 2011 at 11:27 PM | Luckier basketball teams (Score:1)
Hurricane
Hurricane's picture
Joined: 02/17/2011
MGoPoints: 332

Luckier basketball teams generally have the token ginger at the end of the bench.  Little bro has had a number of these red people over the past few 10 years which falls in direct correlation with their strong record over that time.  Unconfirmed reports state that they could be leprechauns. Case in point Smotrycz has a little ginger in him and we have been luckier this year than last. Coincidence? I think not.

And when we play as a team, when the old season is over, you and I know, it's gonna be Michigan again, Michigan

March 11th, 2011 at 11:34 PM | hmmmm not bad at all, can you (Score:1)
JimLahey
JimLahey's picture
Joined: 01/18/2011
MGoPoints: 2369

hmmmm not bad at all, can you put this theory into a formal essay and i'll present it to my profs?

I've decided to lay off the food for a while, and go on the booze.

March 12th, 2011 at 12:11 AM | Rather than write an essay, I (Score:1)
Hurricane
Hurricane's picture
Joined: 02/17/2011
MGoPoints: 332

Rather than write an essay, I will use bulletpoints in honor of the esteemed legal eagle Chris Cicero.

  • Wisconsin has the kid with the ginger fro. They had the luckiest shot ever against us.
  • Brian Scalabrine has no talent yet has lasted 9 NBA seasons and has played in 4 Finals series, won 1 title, and is on another contender this year despite having no talent.
  • Bill Walton served as team leprechaun for the mid-80's Celtics playing few minutes but he undoubtedly caused the famous steal by Bird in the 87 Conference finals.
  • State seemingly has a ginger every year on the end of the bench but they must not have one this year which helps explain their poor season.

These are just a few examples, albeit weak, I could put together an essay if I wasnt drinking or didnt have a life.

And when we play as a team, when the old season is over, you and I know, it's gonna be Michigan again, Michigan

March 12th, 2011 at 12:04 AM | here it is (Score:1)
jaggs
jaggs's picture
Joined: 02/03/2009
MGoPoints: 2442

was the first entry after typing 'luck' into mgoblog search function: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/luckiest-teams-2009-updated-michigan-2008

Doesn't get real nitty gritty with stats, using only ppg, but is worth a read. Basically it treats events like fumbles as random events with an expected regression to the mean on a year to year basis, hence the 'luck' aspect. Happy reading.

 

March 12th, 2011 at 3:04 AM | You can get a vague idea of it (Score:1)
SpartanDan
Joined: 08/20/2008
MGoPoints: 598

But the difference between what the advanced metrics predict and what actually happens isn't all luck. I think bad luck in basketball has a tendency to correlate very strongly with bad free throw shooting; certainly the least "lucky" team I've ever seen (2008 Illinois, had three overtime losses and four more by 4 points or less) fit this profile, as they blew at least three late leads (and opportunities to win another game) by bricking free throw after free throw (notably, Pruitt had two free throws with less than 5 seconds left in regulation and a tie game against Indiana and bricked both, then same thing happened in the first OT).

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.