The Law of Averages

[diggerfoot]

When Auriemma was interviewed up 11 points in the fourth quarter he said the focus would be to deny 3 pointers, a conservative strategy, but a sound one. With some teams, anchored by Dolson or Stewart, the strategy probably does not make a difference, but with this team's disadvantage inside this conservative strategy likely means losing ground by 2-3 baskets, 4-6 points, based on the law of averages of what usually will happen. If I stopped watching the game at that point, it would be with the confidence that we would likely win by 5-7 points based on the strategy Auriemma was about to employ.

Both sides had two distinct mishaps down the stretch. Change any of the mishaps on one side it might also have affected the mishaps on the other side. Yet in the end the mishaps "averaged" each other out and the final score was what one might expect given Auriemma's strategy in denying the three down the stretch to a team fully capable of getting points against us in the lane.

The Law of Averages suggests that Samuelson would bust out with a hot hand at some point. Unfortunately, when it comes to shooting one never knows how or when it will occur. What experience shows is that the ups and downs of shooting are more mental than physical. Let's face it, Samuelson is not healed physically. On the same drive that prompted Rowe to comment it was the first time she saw Samuelson do that since before the injury, the contact on the play caused her to grimace. She did not drive like that again for the rest of the game.

Fortunately, she did not have to. Samuelson's hot hand brought her towards the average we would expect for the season. I noticed a fierce look on Samuelson's face I don't often see and I wondered what was behind this, as it likely also was behind her regaining a hot hand. Was it all the contact? No, she's been one of the most hammered Huskies this side of Taurasi. Was it the calls throughout the game that eventually got her into foul trouble, while suffering the same contact the refs alleged she was making? That's what I thought.

Then I heard Auriemma say in the press conference that Samuelson was hurting physically, mentally and emotionally on Saturday. One could imagine why and hardly blame her. Apparently he had a closed door talk with her; apparently, this talk had an effect. She was not all she could be physically, but that was not necessary for the role she can play for this team.

There is conventional wisdom, untested but still with merit, that you need three players to stand out for your team to guarantee a win. During the regional every single one of our starters stood out at some point. Collier against UCLA, Samuelson against Louisville, Dangerfield in a fourth quarter crunch, Walker in a necessary first quarter counter tactic, Williams when Samuelson was in foul trouble. Every single one of our starters has shown they can shine when the circumstances call for it. If three do for any particular game we likely will win. ODO for that matter has shown some promise of being a game changer on defense. That is no guarantee, but the law of averages favors a team getting three out of six players to shine than a team that only has three potential players that all has to shine in the same game at the same time.

If I am being honest, I still think Notre Dame beats us if we have to play them a second time with the same squads. I think the knowledge and motivation gained from the previous game, along with the law of averages, favors them. However, I really do like our chances against any other team we will face, even with Samuelson not being 100 percent physically.

 

[Bronxjeff]

When Auriemma was interviewed up 11 points in the fourth quarter he said the focus would be to deny 3 pointers, a conservative strategy, but a sound one. With some teams, anchored by Dolson or Stewart, the strategy probably does not make a difference, but with this team's disadvantage inside this conservative strategy likely means losing ground by 2-3 baskets, 4-6 points, based on the law of averages of what usually will happen. If I stopped watching the game at that point, it would be with the confidence that we would likely win by 5-7 points based on the strategy Auriemma was about to employ.

Both sides had two distinct mishaps down the stretch. Change any of the mishaps on one side it might also have affected the mishaps on the other side. Yet in the end the mishaps "averaged" each other out and the final score was what one might expect given Auriemma's strategy in denying the three down the stretch to a team fully capable of getting points against us in the lane.

The Law of Averages suggests that Samuelson would bust out with a hot hand at some point. Unfortunately, when it comes to shooting one never knows how or when it will occur. What experience shows is that the ups and downs of shooting are more mental than physical. Let's face it, Samuelson is not healed physically. On the same drive that prompted Rowe to comment it was the first time she saw Samuelson do that since before the injury, the contact on the play caused her to grimace. She did not drive like that again for the rest of the game.

Fortunately, she did not have to. Samuelson's hot hand brought her towards the average we would expect for the season. I noticed a fierce look on Samuelson's face I don't often see and I wondered what was behind this, as it likely also was behind her regaining a hot hand. Was it all the contact? No, she's been one of the most hammered Huskies this side of Taurasi. Was it the calls throughout the game that eventually got her into foul trouble, while suffering the same contact the refs alleged she was making? That's what I thought.

Then I heard Auriemma say in the press conference that Samuelson was hurting physically, mentally and emotionally on Saturday. One could imagine why and hardly blame her. Apparently he had a closed door talk with her; apparently, this talk had an effect. She was not all she could be physically, but that was not necessary for the role she can play for this team.

There is conventional wisdom, untested but still with merit, that you need three players to stand out for your team to guarantee a win. During the regional every single one of our starters stood out at some point. Collier against UCLA, Samuelson against Louisville, Dangerfield in a fourth quarter crunch, Walker in a necessary first quarter counter tactic, Williams when Samuelson was in foul trouble. Every single one of our starters has shown they can shine when the circumstances call for it. If three do for any particular game we likely will win. ODO for that matter has shown some promise of being a game changer on defense. That is no guarantee, but the law of averages favors a team getting three out of six players to shine than a team that only has three potential players that all has to shine in the same game at the same time.

If I am being honest, I still think Notre Dame beats us if we have to play them a second time with the same squads. I think the knowledge and motivation gained from the previous game, along with the law of averages, favors them. However, I really do like our chances against any other team we will face, even with Samuelson not being 100 percent physically.

I like our chances on the law of averages - we owe the Damers a few still. And I think our motivation to clear the semi-final hump will carry us through to the promised land.

 

[BostonCanuck]

Great post. It's interesting about Notre Dame. If we can stay out of foul trouble, then I feel it's more likely than not that we win. They may have the slightly higher basketball IQ on the floor at any given time. But we're more athletic, we're hungry, and I've never seen Geno as motivated and providing better in-game coaching that he has this post season. Both teams are peaking right now, so it could be another instant classic.

Frankly, the only team I really fear is Baylor. If they are on and they bring their A game, then I think Geno's right, we just don't have all the pieces needed. However, they do lack experience in the biggest moments, and there are things the Huskies can to do increase the chances that they don't play their A game. Geno will have tactics ready to take them out of their comfort zone, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that team and/or its coach lose their poise at some point. So there is a pathway, but it sure won't be easy.

 

[PacoSwede]

When Auriemma was interviewed up 11 points in the fourth quarter he said the focus would be to deny 3 pointers, a conservative strategy, but a sound one. With some teams, anchored by Dolson or Stewart, the strategy probably does not make a difference, but with this team's disadvantage inside this conservative strategy likely means losing ground by 2-3 baskets, 4-6 points, based on the law of averages of what usually will happen. If I stopped watching the game at that point, it would be with the confidence that we would likely win by 5-7 points based on the strategy Auriemma was about to employ.

Both sides had two distinct mishaps down the stretch. Change any of the mishaps on one side it might also have affected the mishaps on the other side. Yet in the end the mishaps "averaged" each other out and the final score was what one might expect given Auriemma's strategy in denying the three down the stretch to a team fully capable of getting points against us in the lane.

The Law of Averages suggests that Samuelson would bust out with a hot hand at some point. Unfortunately, when it comes to shooting one never knows how or when it will occur. What experience shows is that the ups and downs of shooting are more mental than physical. Let's face it, Samuelson is not healed physically. On the same drive that prompted Rowe to comment it was the first time she saw Samuelson do that since before the injury, the contact on the play caused her to grimace. She did not drive like that again for the rest of the game.

Fortunately, she did not have to. Samuelson's hot hand brought her towards the average we would expect for the season. I noticed a fierce look on Samuelson's face I don't often see and I wondered what was behind this, as it likely also was behind her regaining a hot hand. Was it all the contact? No, she's been one of the most hammered Huskies this side of Taurasi. Was it the calls throughout the game that eventually got her into foul trouble, while suffering the same contact the refs alleged she was making? That's what I thought.

Then I heard Auriemma say in the press conference that Samuelson was hurting physically, mentally and emotionally on Saturday. One could imagine why and hardly blame her. Apparently he had a closed door talk with her; apparently, this talk had an effect. She was not all she could be physically, but that was not necessary for the role she can play for this team.

There is conventional wisdom, untested but still with merit, that you need three players to stand out for your team to guarantee a win. During the regional every single one of our starters stood out at some point. Collier against UCLA, Samuelson against Louisville, Dangerfield in a fourth quarter crunch, Walker in a necessary first quarter counter tactic, Williams when Samuelson was in foul trouble. Every single one of our starters has shown they can shine when the circumstances call for it. If three do for any particular game we likely will win. ODO for that matter has shown some promise of being a game changer on defense. That is no guarantee, but the law of averages favors a team getting three out of six players to shine than a team that only has three potential players that all has to shine in the same game at the same time.

If I am being honest, I still think Notre Dame beats us if we have to play them a second time with the same squads. I think the knowledge and motivation gained from the previous game, along with the law of averages, favors them. However, I really do like our chances against any other team we will face, even with Samuelson not being 100 percent physically.

why focus on irish?

if we play them, same basic factor applies as with cardinal: gotta play well, hope they don't go superhuman, and that refs and the fates are favorable.

and then... same applies to iowa or baylor. simple as that.

 

[huskeynut]

Let's have this discussion after tonight's game. ND does not have cake walk against Stanford. If they think they do, they may very well being going home later tonight.

 

[diggerfoot]

why focus on irish?

if we play them, same basic factor applies as with cardinal: gotta play well, hope they don't go superhuman, and that refs and the fates are favorable.

and then... same applies to iowa or baylor. simple as that.

I should have added what I predicted elsewhere. I like Stanford's chances against Notre Dame, which means I like our chances overall.

 

[huskyd]

Great post. It's interesting about Notre Dame. If we can stay out of foul trouble, then I feel it's more likely than not that we win. They may have the slightly higher basketball IQ on the floor at any given time. But we're more athletic, we're hungry, and I've never seen Geno as motivated and providing better in-game coaching that he has this post season. Both teams are peaking right now, so it could be another instant classic.

Frankly, the only team I really fear is Baylor. If they are on and they bring their A game, then I think Geno's right, we just don't have all the pieces needed. However, they do lack experience in the biggest moments, and there are things the Huskies can to do increase the chances that they don't play their A game. Geno will have tactics ready to take them out of their comfort zone, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that team and/or its coach lose their poise at some point. So there is a pathway, but it sure won't be easy.

Geno: "It's not supposed to be easy."

 

[Bama fan]

When Auriemma was interviewed up 11 points in the fourth quarter he said the focus would be to deny 3 pointers, a conservative strategy, but a sound one. With some teams, anchored by Dolson or Stewart, the strategy probably does not make a difference, but with this team's disadvantage inside this conservative strategy likely means losing ground by 2-3 baskets, 4-6 points, based on the law of averages of what usually will happen. If I stopped watching the game at that point, it would be with the confidence that we would likely win by 5-7 points based on the strategy Auriemma was about to employ.

Both sides had two distinct mishaps down the stretch. Change any of the mishaps on one side it might also have affected the mishaps on the other side. Yet in the end the mishaps "averaged" each other out and the final score was what one might expect given Auriemma's strategy in denying the three down the stretch to a team fully capable of getting points against us in the lane.

The Law of Averages suggests that Samuelson would bust out with a hot hand at some point. Unfortunately, when it comes to shooting one never knows how or when it will occur. What experience shows is that the ups and downs of shooting are more mental than physical. Let's face it, Samuelson is not healed physically. On the same drive that prompted Rowe to comment it was the first time she saw Samuelson do that since before the injury, the contact on the play caused her to grimace. She did not drive like that again for the rest of the game.

Fortunately, she did not have to. Samuelson's hot hand brought her towards the average we would expect for the season. I noticed a fierce look on Samuelson's face I don't often see and I wondered what was behind this, as it likely also was behind her regaining a hot hand. Was it all the contact? No, she's been one of the most hammered Huskies this side of Taurasi. Was it the calls throughout the game that eventually got her into foul trouble, while suffering the same contact the refs alleged she was making? That's what I thought.

Then I heard Auriemma say in the press conference that Samuelson was hurting physically, mentally and emotionally on Saturday. One could imagine why and hardly blame her. Apparently he had a closed door talk with her; apparently, this talk had an effect. She was not all she could be physically, but that was not necessary for the role she can play for this team.

There is conventional wisdom, untested but still with merit, that you need three players to stand out for your team to guarantee a win. During the regional every single one of our starters stood out at some point. Collier against UCLA, Samuelson against Louisville, Dangerfield in a fourth quarter crunch, Walker in a necessary first quarter counter tactic, Williams when Samuelson was in foul trouble. Every single one of our starters has shown they can shine when the circumstances call for it. If three do for any particular game we likely will win. ODO for that matter has shown some promise of being a game changer on defense. That is no guarantee, but the law of averages favors a team getting three out of six players to shine than a team that only has three potential players that all has to shine in the same game at the same time.

If I am being honest, I still think Notre Dame beats us if we have to play them a second time with the same squads. I think the knowledge and motivation gained from the previous game, along with the law of averages, favors them. However, I really do like our chances against any other team we will face, even with Samuelson not being 100 percent physically.

enjoyed your post and find much of it to be credible. But the law of averages was repealed in The Age of Enlightenment.

 

[diggerfoot]

enjoyed your post and find much of it to be credible. But the law of averages was repealed in The Age of Enlightenment.

Nice catch, though I am a fan of the theory that a variable will reflect it's usual probability over a large enough sample size, not the gambler's fallacy.

Now as for the Age of Enlightenment, expect a PM from me one of these days.

 

[Bama fan]

PM anytime. And are you a fan of aardvarks or the Wilson, NC band? I suppose the two are not mutually exclusive, so perhaps both?