Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="champs99and04, post: 2672158, member: 488"] I watched basically every tournament game both of those teams played from the round of 32 on. The difference between those two teams is shot-making, I think it's really that simple. Michigan has guys that can spot up and hit shots, Nova has guys who can hit shots off the dribble, with a hand in their face, in semi-transition, coming off a screen, etc. Obviously 3 of 23 or whatever Michigan shot was something of an anomaly, but I don't think it's as simple as saying "if they shoot closer to their average..." as if these things exist in a vacuum. Not all looks are created equal. Based on the looks Michigan got tonight, I'd expect them to hit maybe 25-30% of those shots. They were all under duress, taken by guys who, save for Robinson, aren't natural shooters, in an environment they're not used to playing in. Then there's the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. If Michigan hits a couple more shots early on, the rest of the game probably doesn't play out the same way. Better teams tend to demonstrate their superiority when they're threatened. If Villanova wanted to win that game by 30 you get the sense that they could have, but human nature is human nature and you're not as dialed in up 20 as you are down 4. So if you want to say Michigan "deserved" to lose by less, that's fine, but couldn't we make that argument irrespective of their shooting numbers? We could say the spread was seven, the most likely outcome is to lose by seven, therefore they deserve to lose by seven. And it would get us to about the same place as your analysis. Problem is, by the time you defy a trend, there's already a new one, and there's no way of knowing how the regression of that data - for instance, Michigan shot 21 of 32 from two, well above average - might directly confront the presence of other data. All we know based on that game is that Nova was 17 points better than Michigan. I think there is a way to allow for some degree of variance while acknowledging that the games are not played in a laboratory. I knew the numbers, I saw the spread, I know I'm not beating Vegas...yet I still expected this result. And while this is the sort of sentimental bliss that usually makes sports fans look stupid, you're also never going to be able to handicap the future based on the past. Every statistical reality is invisible until it isn't. This tournament only happened once and so we can't know if Nova was 7 points better than Michigan or if that initial conclusion was obscured by evidence we never got to see. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach