The Ken Pomeroy "luck" metric and this year's UT team

[Clockwork Orange]

Pomeroy's system has UT ranked 23rd in the country. For those not familiar, Pomeroy's data does not use wins and losses at all-- it instead uses performance statistics adjusted for schedule strength in order to determine how good a team is, not where someone should rank them according to achievement.

So based on these performance ratings, Pomeroy's system can look at a team's schedule and estimate what their win % should be, and then compare that to what it actually is. The difference between these two is what he calls "luck," though that is a misnomer IMO.

Losing close games instead of winning them doesn't affect your performance stats (and Pomeroy rating) much, but it has a larger effect on your win percentage-- making your "luck" go down. Looking amazing in some games but playing down to the competition (and losing to lesser teams) will also make your "luck" decline. To me, each of these elements is a reflection of poor coaching. It's inconsistent play; it's failure to motivate; it's failure to make adjustments in close games; it's failure to close out games against lesser teams; and more generally, it's failure to get the best out of the talent you have on an every-game basis.

UT's "luck" this year is -0.128, which is 10th-worst in the nation out of 351 teams. That -0.128 translates to two entire losses on the basis of "luck." Now, I think you can look at the schedule and find three games we clearly shouldn't have lost-- UTEP (108th), NC State (99th), and Texas A&M (111th), with one of them offset by winning against UVA (12th) when we shouldn't have (and that is example #1 of the team's maddening inconsistency-- we looked like a final four team in that game). So Pomeroy's "luck" passes the eye test here, and I personally think it's an indictment of Coach Martin.

The problem is what this does when you look at the rest of the schedule. There are really only two good wins left on the schedule-- the two games against Florida. Wins over Missouri, or at least a split, should be expected based on performance so far, so they may not help us even if we win both. So if we lose another 2-3 we shouldn't, there simply aren't enough good wins possible to make up for it. We will end the season with more bad losses than good wins, and we will fail to make the tournament again.

To avoid the bubble, I think we have to win 3 of 4 against UF and Mizzou and probably win 9 of the other 10 games. Anything short of that and our tourney hopes are in doubt. Anybody think we'll do that, based on what we've seen so far? I don't. I think we'll find ourselves exactly where we have been the last two years-- needing SEC tourney wins to push us over the hump. And while KenPom says we are the 3rd best SEC team, Martin's "luck" is likely to bite us before we can win enough of them.

[volmeister]

Even if we take 3 of those 4, I guarantee you we will lose a couple of games we aren't supposed to.  It is the Cuonzo way.  I have zero faith in this team making the NCAA's. 

[Tnphil]

Even if we take 3 of those 4, I guarantee you we will lose a couple of games we aren't supposed to.  It is the Cuonzo way.  I have zero faith in this team making the NCAA's.  

It will be considered a miracle if we do.

[Volznut]

cuonzo needs to go. No need in delaying the inevitable

[Stogie Vol]

CO, your skills in analysis are tremendous and much appreciated.  I can't help but think that you need a wider audience.

[Clockwork Orange]

CO, your skills in analysis are tremendous and much appreciated.  I can't help but think that you need a wider audience.

That's very kind of you to say, Stogie. I sometimes get the urge to get back into blogging (hard to believe it's been almost 5 years since I abandoned The BruceBall Blog) but I just don't have the time or energy to do it consistently. I'm also just interested in way, way too many things these days. I could blog on science, education, gardening, economics/finance, sports, philosophy, music, pyschology, religion, beer, food, politics, book reviews . . . if I only had to write 4-5 times a year on each subject. But nobody wants to follow a blog that talks about all of those things, so I tend to just share my thoughts randomly on here and on the MudDuck and to anyone who's willing to listen in person.

The fact is that the kind of analysis I like to do when it comes to sports is now done really, really well by a number of people, and some of them are getting paid pretty well for it. Sometimes I wish I still had a piece of that, but mostly I'm content just boring you guys with my rambling. 

[Creek Walker]

I could blog on science, education, gardening, economics/finance, sports, philosophy, music, pyschology, religion, beer, food, politics, book reviews . . . if I only had to write 4-5 times a year on each subject. But nobody wants to follow a blog that talks about all of those things, so I tend to just share my thoughts randomly on here and on the MudDuck and to anyone who's willing to listen in person.

Who says they don't? I write a blog (granted, it isn't updated nearly as frequently now as it used to be) that is a hodgepodge of sports, politics, music, weather, and whatever else catches my fancy at any particular time. I don't have a huge blog following but I can say that I have some well-connected readers who drop me notes from time to time just to let me know that they're still lurking. I say you should go for it. 

[Clockwork Orange]

Who says they don't? I write a blog (granted, it isn't updated nearly as frequently now as it used to be) that is a hodgepodge of sports, politics, music, weather, and whatever else catches my fancy at any particular time. I don't have a huge blog following but I can say that I have some well-connected readers who drop me notes from time to time just to let me know that they're still lurking. I say you should go for it. 

Yeah, but blogging is at least tangential to what you do career-wise. It's a pretty natural extension, right? You know what I do for a living . . . I have to put on a completely different hat to write. Sometimes the energy just isn't there.

I mean, nothing says I can't have a blog that goes weeks without new posts . . . but I have doubts about whether such a thing is worthwhile to get going, especially not knowing who to target for readership and whether anonymity is going to matter. I don't need the extra stress that I fear might accompany that, because I wouldn't really want to half-ass it.

[BanditVol]

So what this means now is we have to take 2-3 against Mizzou and UF and not drop more than one other game?

I don't know if it's possible, but I hope we can pull it off.  Tired of not going to the tournament.