That Championship Season - Q6
by BabaGhanouj
(2018-10-10 07:24:52)
Edited on 2018-10-10 17:28:17
Grab yourself a cup of coffee and bear with me here. (You can blame this long, torturous question on domerduck for making fun of and giving away the answer to the last question.)
First, a philosophical diversion:
Life is fuzzy. Why aren’t high school students taught about quantum physics, or even just the history (over 100 years old) of quantum physics? We know that an atom is not like planets orbiting the sun, but, rather, a spherical electron probability cloud growing denser near a nucleus. The world is made from fuzzy things and much of it remains fuzzy. Translating life into numbers is an attempt to make life less fuzzy, but that happens to have problems of its own.
Next, a practical diversion:
One of these problems, I discovered, is that not everyone uses the same numbers. As you might suspect the dilemma stems, like so many other problems, from UConn’s Women’s Basketball. Here is an example:
2017-18 team statistics per UConn’s web site
UConn Field Goals Made - Attempted: 1246 - 2353
2017-18 team statistics per NCAA web site
UConn Field Goals Made - Attempted: 1290 - 2422
2017-18 team statistics per National Statistical (natstat) web site
UConn Field Goals Made - Attempted: 1286 - 2394
Notre Dame’s statistics, and I assume other schools (all, for the few I checked), showed consistent (i.e. the same) numbers among all three sites. Why can’t UConn provide consistently accurate statistics for the women’s basketball team? I don’t know, but I suspect it has something to do with either the level of education provided, or that Geno Auriemna prefers to live in a universe of his own making rather than the one the rest of us share.
Last, the diversion concluded, or why I wasted your time entertained you with the above:
Some of these quiz questions will involve statistics garnered by nastat about all schools for the 2017-18 season. I disclaim all responsibility for the accuracy of UConn’s stat contributions. That team is untrustworthy!
There is a statistic called Team Context Rating. This is a composite index composed of the following statistics:
1. Winning Percentage, 2. Opponents’ Winning Percentage, 3. Opponents’ Opponents’ Winning Percentage, 4. Pythagorean Expected Winning Percentage*, 5. Conference Winning Percentage (for teams in your conference), 6. Road Winning Percentage, 7. Point Differential, 8. Efficiency (Pts. per Possession), 9. Defense (Opp. Pts. Allowed per Possession), 10. Scoring Balance, 11. Luck*
Most of these are recognizable, but feel free to look up any to refresh your memory. I’ll briefly comment on the 2 most unusual ones:
* Pythagorean Expected Winning Percentage - This is an estimation of what a team’s winning percentage “should” be based only on their points scored and points allowed.
* Luck - This the difference between a team’s actual winning percentage and their Pythagorean Expected Winning Percentage.
Now for some spoilers/helpers:
Notre Dame ranked second in Opponents’ Opponents’ Winning Percentage.
Notre Dame tied for first in Conference Winning Percentage, along with all other ACC teams.
Notre Dame ranked third in Efficiency (Pts. per Possession).
The question:
This is a two part question: 1. Where did Notre Dame finish in Team Context Rating? (1st, 2nd, 3rd, …188th?)
2. ND led the nation in two categories which make up Team Context Rating (other than tying for Conference Winning Percentage). What were they?
Saw a funny reference to this on the Boneyard
They seemed to misinterpret your comments to suggest that you were saying Geno was messing with the stats to some kind of advantage for him.
I don't think that they get that:
1. It seemed to be a UConn only problem and that there were actually 3 sets of data that didn't match, not just 2. It does seem to be a strange thing.
2. You were being sarcastic regarding Geno and the stats. You were just making fun of the fact that the stats didn't match and it seemed to be a UConn only problem.
Also, one poster mentioned Chris Masters posting on the ESPN board. I don't ever recall him posting there. I think they are confusing me with him.
Yes and No (I mean, Yes)
Yes, it is funny (and telling) how messages are misinterpreted between the two boards, specifically in this case about the UConn statistics anomaly. I was thinking of having a "telephone" game between the two boards:
McGraw's Bench: "Geno Auriemna prefers to live in a universe of his own making rather than the one the rest of us share."
Boneyard: "the poster said that Geno was cheating."
I thought it pretty funny. Well, at least they are reading—comprehension is another story.
…and No—Oh wait, Oh wait. I need to pay more attention. (that telephone game again) I see what you are saying. Yes, I know nothing about the ESPN board. That could have been you. Are you wound pretty tight? :-)
I could have been considered to be that at the time
I was kind of expecting the 2011 and later success to happen earlier than it did (I thought it should happen around 2004 or so), but it took longer than expected. There were one or two posters there who used to be serious jerk-offs (one I actually met in person, and he was actually nice then, but online he was a real dick).
Well, apparently you're off the hook for this one.
By now, I suppose hardly anyone on either board understands what's going on, but it seems it was a tightly wound Chris Masters defending Ms. McGraw.
Could we strike up another chorus of 🎶 "Oh, the Irish and the Huskies should be friends." 🎵
Yes that is obscure...an appropriate punishment because of
me...like getting the whole football team to run laps because I screwed up....I won't tell you how many times that happenned.
Answers:1.No idea.but I am guessing 3.
2. Most ACLinjuries and Most players named Arike
Now that I read the answer.................................
I like this statistic!
If you (or anyone) stayed with it (OK, that's asking a lot,
but we are ND students, former ND students, or want-to-be ND students so buck up!), the answers are quite logical. Come on, what is Opponents' Winning Percentage other than which team faced the toughest schedule? We know that. And with our disastrous loss(es) and giving up so many points, it's pretty logical we would be high in the difference between a team’s actual winning percentage and winning percentage based only on points scored and points allowed. In other words we probably didn't have a great overall point differential but only lost 3 games.
By the way, thanks!
answers
1. huh?
2. least fouls committed, most green shirts per game
Ha, ha, ha! … You made my (off to a stressful) day. *
Answer
1. Notre Dame finished first in Team Context Rating with 818 points (Baylor had 813 and UConn 797). (One of the few statistics where UConn did not finish first—another one being the NCAA National Championship.)
2. Notre Dame also finished first in these categories:
Opponents Winning Percentage (67.29%)
Luck (.309)
Note: Posters have sometimes complained about the inability to decipher when a poster on the Bench is being funny or sarcastic. This question was developed days before domerduck's post. Later I expanded it after the problem with UConn stats was discovered, so I was just kidding about the duck. Maybe the Bench enjoys being told the answer?