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?