AP and Coaches Poll Watch Thread (2015-16 Edition)

[WuDrWu]

Does anyone know what being almost dead last in the "luck" factor means?

[AndShock]

Does anyone know what being almost dead last in the "luck" factor means?

In simplest terms, our record doesn't represent our abilities.

[ROOT ANGRY!]

Does anyone know what being almost dead last in the "luck" factor means?

pomeroy has a ratings glossary post on his blog from june 8, 2012
luck is:Luck - A measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It’s a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky).

[proshox]

Does anyone know what being almost dead last in the "luck" factor means?

Adding up a number of vague memories from various blog posts of his...

First, Kenpom doesn't buy-in to "clutch." He basically thinks a tie game with a couple minutes left is a toss-up and the relative strength of the teams doesn't matter.

So if you lose more than a fair share of close games vs. winning a fair share of those games he is going to consider you unlucky. On the flip side he does not give extra credit for winning more than a fair share of those close games (Insert what most analyst will call tough minded or crunch time teams).

I count one close win vs. Evansville (I am not sure where he would stand on the UNLV game).

Taking all of the above into account makes KenPom think our losses to Alabama, USC, and Seton Hall are more about bad luck than anything else. A bounce here or there in any of those games and we could have three more wins….

[Ricardo del Rio]

Adding up a number of vague memories from various blog posts of his...

First, Kenpom doesn't buy-in to "clutch." He basically thinks a tie game with a couple minutes left is a toss-up and the relative strength of the teams doesn't matter.

So if you lose more than a fair share of close games vs. winning a fair share of those games he is going to consider you unlucky. On the flip side he does not give extra credit for winning more than a fair share of those close games (Insert what most analyst will call tough minded or crunch time teams).

I count one close win vs. Evansville (I am not sure where he would stand on the UNLV game).

Taking all of the above into account makes KenPom think our losses to Alabama, USC, and Seton Hall are more about bad luck than anything else. A bounce here or there in any of those games and we could have three more wins….

I will never forget the officiating in the Seton game. It verged on suspicious.

[Ricardo del Rio]

pomeroy has a ratings glossary post on his blog from june 8, 2012
luck is:Luck - A measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It’s a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky).

Unexplained good fortune.

[Dave Stalwart]

So if we're 21-7 and the unluckiest team ever, what does that mean? :)

[ROOT ANGRY!]

So if we're 21-7 and the unluckiest team ever, what does that mean? :)

It means the higher seed team that draws us is the real unluckiest team ever

[Dave Stalwart]

It means the higher seed team that draws us is the real unluckiest team ever

Thats exactly what it means.

[WSUwatcher]

In effect, Doc, the very low luck rating is just one more thing that reflects the injury to LeFred (and to a lesser extent, the situation with Grady).

Considering how close the game was even without him, there's no way the Shocks lose to USC if Fred is in there and himself, and judging from his obvious impact on both sides of the ball, it may not even have been a win close enough to show up as "positive luck" for KenPom rating purposes. And much the same is true of the tight loss against Bama, which of course was also affected by Grady's debacle in the closing minutes (although WSU would have been playing Xavier instead had they won against USC, and a different opponent than "seventh place" Iowa as well). Actually, although he was back against Seton Hall and played 34 minutes (of 45), few would say Fred was back at full speed even then, which was only two weeks after his somewhat tentative return at St. Louis.

So, yes -- luck may reflect close losses (the implausible home defeat to the UNIs comes to mind -- just how many open shots is it possible for a team to miss on a given day?), but in WSU's case it also reflects the source of some of those close losses, which in a couple of cases at the very least was the injury absence of Mr. Indispensable.

Edit: by the way, I just took another look at KenPom, which has now been updated to reflect all today's games, and not only have the Shocks jumped into the top ten, but they're also closer based on their overall rating to 8th (good old Iowa) than they are to 11th (Utah victim Duke).

[Kel Varnsen]

The way I have understood luck, as it pertains to KenPom, is that it's basically variance in terms of wins and losses.

Per his site:

Luck - A measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It’s a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky).

So basically it doesn't have much to do with the injuries. He gives more weight to more recent games, so the effect of Fred being out likely has a minimal effect on the overall rankings. What this means is (and I think @WSUwatcher: alluded to this) that our winning percentage, both with and without Fred, has been lower than expected given our overall winning percentage.

On the negative side, our record should be much better because we've lost a lot of close games (Tulsa and Iowa are the only ones by 10+, and the Tulsa game was much closer than that). On the positive side, our team is much better than their record shows and probably at full strength would have 3-4 losses against the same schedule. And we're getting better.

[shock]

It means the higher seed team that draws us is the real unluckiest team ever

2nd unluckiest team ever*. The undefeated team still got jobbed the worst.

[another shocker]

2nd unluckiest team ever*. The undefeated team still got jobbed the worst.

they went into the tournament ranked #2 in the country but were placed lowest of the four 1 seeds. 'pretty harsh.

[RussDaBus]

Bozich Ballot - http://www.wdrb.com/story/31276504/b...-top-25-ballot

#23

[RussDaBus]

Bret Strelow's Ballot - http://www.fayobserver.com/blogs/spo...48352ea65.html

#24