This Week in the ACC - ACCT

[pfrduke]

First off, kudos to Georgia Tech and Virginia for a strong finishing push that got them back in the Pomeroy top 100 - only Wake is on the outside (and let's be honest - they're not even close enough that we can say they're looking in).

So here are the ACC standings:
UNC
Duke
FSU
Clemson
Boston College
Virginia Tech
Maryland
Virginia
Miami
NC State
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest

The efficiency performance in conference play (weighing how you played, not whether you won or lost) tells a slightly difference story:
Duke
UNC
Clemson
Virginia Tech
FSU
Maryland
Boston College
Miami
Georgia Tech
NC State
Virginia
Wake Forest

And the Pomeroy ratings (for the whole season, not just ACC play) tell still another story:
Duke
UNC
Clemson
Maryland
Virginia Tech
FSU
Boston College
Miami
Georgia Tech
NC State
Virginia
Wake Forest

So with all that in mind, how do Thursday's matchups stack up?
[8][96]Virginia v. [9][64]Miami. Virginia ended up ahead of Miami in the standings, but Miami had the stronger performance both in conference play and overall on the season. The only game between the two was in Coral Gables and was a nail biter - in fact, the only overtime game in ACC play this year.

[5][62]Boston College v. [12][252]Wake Forest. BC has no business losing this game. It's a bonus to their tournament status, actually, that they get what is essentially a free win on Thursday.

[7][34]Maryland v. [10][90]NC State. Hard to say whether or not Maryland has just given up on this season - after a good win over FSU, they finished conference play with 3 consecutive double digit losses, including at home to Virginia (that finally put a substantial ding in their Pomeroy numbers). For State, the tournament has been a spot of rare success for Sidney Lowe. The two teams matched up only once this year, with Maryland winning by 7 in College Park.

[6][37]Virginia Tech v. [11][85]Georgia Tech. This is the only first-round game where the teams met twice this year, and it will be a rubber match - Georgia Tech won by 15 in Atlanta and then lost by 25 in Blacksburg. Remarkably, the Jackets scored at essentially the same rate - 72 in the win, 77 in the loss - but the Hokies were 45 points of offense better at home.

Friday
[1][12]UNC v. Virginia/Miami winner. Carolina played each of these teams once, and wasn't particularly impressive in either win (although the Virginia game was back in the Drew era) - by 6 in Charlottesville, and by 3 in Coral Gables. Miami's the better team and has at least a little bit more of a front line to contend with.

[4][32[Clemson v. Boston College/Wake Forest winner (okay, Boston College). This could, theoretically, be an NCAA elimination game, although I for one don't think Clemson deserves to be on the bubble. They played only once this year, at Clemson, and the Tigers won by 8.

[2][3]Duke v. Maryland/NC State winner. Duke has already played both teams twice, and is 4-0, with only the home game against Maryland closer than 14 points. It's hard to beat a team 3 times in one year; hopefully the Devils will be up to the task.

[3][40]Florida State v. Virginia Tech/Georgia Tech winner. If the seeds hold, FSU will actually be an underdog in this matchup - the Hokies were both better in conference play and ended up more highly ranked in the Pomeroy numbers (and neither fully take into account the absence of Chris Singleton). The Noles have only played each team once, both on the road, and went 1-1, losing in Blacksburg and winning in Atlanta.

Saturday and Sunday to be updated as the weekend's results play out.

[dukebballcamper90-91]

anybody going?

[ncexnyc]

I'd love to see a UVA/UNC rematch. The heels struggled the first go round, granted it was with LDII running the show, but the Cavs played with Ziggy coming off his knee injury, Sherill was on one leg, and Senne was just getting used to his role. UVA gets after it on the defensive end and that could disrupt the heels bigtime.

[Reilly]

... It's hard to beat a team 3 times in one year ...

Is it? I'm guessing it's not when one team is very good and the other is mediocre or bad. And I'm guessing it has happened a lot in the ACC tournament over the years (that is, one team go 3-0), back when teams played twice in the regular season and the tourney was everybody's third game.

I can see where it's hard for two equally matched teams -- for one to the beat the other three times, when each game is a 50/50 proposition. But not if the teams are significantly unequal in strength.

Basically, I just found it funny/interesting to see this old canard in your excellent write-up/preview, when you are starting other threads that somebody needs a graduate degree to follow in order to get at the "truth" of comparison.

[pfrduke]

Is it? I'm guessing it's not when one team is very good and the other is mediocre or bad. And I'm guessing it has happened a lot in the ACC tournament over the years (that is, one team go 3-0), back when teams played twice in the regular season and the tourney was everybody's third game.

I can see where it's hard for two equally matched teams -- for one to the beat the other three times, when each game is a 50/50 proposition. But not if the teams are significantly unequal in strength.

Basically, I just found it funny/interesting to see this old canard in your excellent write-up/preview, when you are starting other threads that somebody needs a graduate degree to follow in order to get at the "truth" of comparison.

I think I'm entitled to an old canard every once in a while ;). I have no idea what the general performance is by teams who go 2-0 against an opponent during the regular season when those teams face off in the conference tournament. If anybody was inclined to dig into those matchups, it would be interesting to see which team, if any, outperformed the expected results.

[gus]

I think I'm entitled to an old canard every once in a while ;). I have no idea what the general performance is by teams who go 2-0 against an opponent during the regular season when those teams face off in the conference tournament. If anybody was inclined to dig into those matchups, it would be interesting to see which team, if any, outperformed the expected results.

Without doing any research, I am willing to bet a large sum of money that teams that are 2-0 have a winning record in a third game.

[pfrduke]

Without doing any research, I am willing to bet a large sum of money that teams that are 2-0 have a winning record in a third game.

Right, but winning record doesn't tell the whole story (although, I suppose, framed in terms of the canard it could). What would be interesting is if, in the aggregate, teams who went 2-0 who were expected to win, say 75% of the time only did so 50% of the time. That would support (at least somewhat) the statement that it's relatively harder to beat the same team 3 times.

[Reilly]

No, I don't believe you are entitled to any canards. You've set a high bar for analysis, so any slippage down into "conventional-wisdom-speak-that's-probably-not-true" is especially egregious. You have nobody to blame but yourself for this state of affairs.

My sense is that the third win over an opponent, or a first loss to somebody beaten twice previously, has precious little to do with with the outcomes of the previous games. Rather, it's a function of how evenly-matched the teams are (that is, whether one can beat the other on any given day, not based on what happened before). But lo should somebody beat somebody else two times, then lose the third time, and the analysts say "that's how hard it is to beat a team three times in a season" as though the previous two wins is what made it hard; the previous two wins did not make it hard, it's hard b/c it's a 50/50 game.

[pfrduke]

My sense is that the third win over an opponent, or a first loss to somebody beaten twice previously, has precious little to do with with the outcomes of the previous games. Rather, it's a function of how evenly-matched the teams are (that is, whether one can beat the other on any given day, not based on what happened before). But lo should somebody beat somebody else two times, then lose the third time, and the analysts say "that's how hard it is to beat a team three times in a season" as though the previous two wins is what made it hard; the previous two wins did not make it hard, it's hard b/c it's a 50/50 game.

I'm not sure there's any way to prove conclusively its truth or falsity. But you could get a good sense by doing what I suggested above - figuring out, in the aggregate, how 2-0 teams were expected to perform in game 3, and then see how they did perform. My gut tells me that the results individually would be very scattered - perhaps too scattered to reveal a meaningful trend. But if there was a statistically significant drop in expected performance by the 2-0 teams, it would give some teeth to the old saying. I have neither the time nor inclination to do this.


No, I don't believe you are entitled to any canards. You've set a high bar for analysis, so any slippage down into "conventional-wisdom-speak-that's-probably-not-true" is especially egregious. You have nobody to blame but yourself for this state of affairs.

I'm hoping this is sarcastic.

[Reilly]

Would be an interesting study.

Almost totally sarcastic; I don't do the little smiley faces -- trust others to get it. Honestly, if I saw that phrase (to me, empty phrase) from nearly anyone else or on some other site, I'd let it pass. Just seemed jarring to see it in the midst of the very detailed, very well-supported other analysis in the post, and on the heels of the other very detailed, very well-supported (I assume, if I could follow the math) other post about strength of schedule. So in that sense, it's not sarcastic: you have set a high bar, making any seeming (again, seeming to me, pending study by someone) mis-step that much more egregious.

[gus]

Without doing any research, I am willing to bet a large sum of money that teams that are 2-0 have a winning record in a third game.

I took a look at the old charlieboard stats. From the '54 to '02 seasons, Duke was 2-0 going into a third game with an opponent 55 times, and is 43-12 in those games.

Duke was also 3-0 going into a 4th game 5 times, and went 4-1 in those 5 games.

So I think the old adage is wrong. It's very easy to beat a team a third time, providing you've already beaten them twice.

[gus]

Right, but winning record doesn't tell the whole story (although, I suppose, framed in terms of the canard it could). What would be interesting is if, in the aggregate, teams who went 2-0 who were expected to win, say 75% of the time only did so 50% of the time. That would support (at least somewhat) the statement that it's relatively harder to beat the same team 3 times.

Proper framing is key. It was a response to the canard.

Flip a coin a few hundred times, and record the results. When you have heads two times in a row, what percentage of the time is it followed by heads?

I'm willing to bet it's 50%, give or take a percentage point.

[RockyMtDevil]

It's hard to beat a team 3 times in one year; hopefully the Devils will be up to the task.

Actually, this is a completely incorrect assumption and one of the great myths of sports. Duke has accomplished this task 5 times in the last several years. We beat Maryland 3 times in 08-09, FSU 3 times in 08-09, Wake 3 times in 05-06, Ga. Tech 3 times in 04-05 and UVA 3 times in 03-04.

We would have done it more if we had had the chance to play teams on three occassions instead of just 2. This has zero bearing on whether we win or lose on Friday.

[94duke]

I'm curious, can someone narrow the search to Duke/unc?
Both teams are usually very good, as opposed to one team being clearly better than the other. If it's more of a "toss-up," one would expect the numbers to drop a little.

[Reilly]

K Era, 2-0 in regular season against the team, how’d we do in the ACCT?

86 – W (WFU), W (UVA)
88 – W (UVA), W (UNC)
89 – W (UVA)
90 – W (MD) L (GT - semis)
91 – L (UNC - semis)
92 – W (MD), W (GT)
94 – W (Clem), L (UVA)
96 – L (MD)
97 – L (NCSU)
98 – W (UVA), W (Clemson)
99 – W (UVA), W (NCSU), W (UNC)
00 – W (Clemson), W (WFU)
01 – W (NCSU)
02 – W (UNC), W (WFU), W (NCSU)
03 – W (UVA)
04 – W (UVA), L (MD – final)
05 – W (GT)
06 – W (WFU)
09 – W (MD), W (FSU)


Under K, we’re 26-6 in the ACC Tournament against teams we were 2-0 against in the regular season. Four of the six losses were in the semis or finals; only two losses in the opening game (96 and 97 when we weren’t particularly strong).

K ERA, when we play somebody we’re 0-2 against in the regular season in the tourney:

82 – L WFU
83 – L UVA
84 – W UNC
88 – W NCSU
95 – W NCSU, L WFU (Not K's games, of course)

If K has beaten you twice in the regular season, there’s an 81% chance he’ll beat in the tourney, too (26/32).

If you have beaten K twice in the regular season, the game is still 50/50 in the ACCT (3/6).

[gus]

I'm curious, can someone narrow the search to Duke/unc?
Both teams are usually very good, as opposed to one team being clearly better than the other. If it's more of a "toss-up," one would expect the numbers to drop a little.

Since 1954, Duke has been 2-0 against UNC going into a 3rd game 6 times. (1964, 1966, 1988, 1991, 1999, 2002). Duke won that 3rd game 5 times. The only loss was 1991.

Carolina has led Duke 2-0 8 times (1957, 1959, 1967, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1984, 2003), and won 6 (losing 1984 and 2003)

It is very easy to beat a team the third time.

[pfrduke]

Well there you have it. Nice work folks.

[gus]

Actually, this is a completely incorrect assumption and one of the great myths of sports.

This extends beyond sports. The gambler's fallacy is human nature, and intrudes on any probabilistic event.

Know anyone who would play last week's winning lottery numbers? They have exactly the same probability of winning this week's.

It happens all the time in sports, especially basketball. Whenever says someone is cold, is due, is hot... it's a function of the same revesentativeness heuristic at play when people make the completely erroneous assertion that it's hard to beat a team a third time.

[gus]

And, to add even more pointless data.

Of the 120 times Duke has played one ACC opponent 3 times (form '54 to '02 seasons), Duke has won:



0 - 15x - 13%
1 - 31x - 26%
2 - 31x - 26%
3 - 43x - 36%

[gus]

Since 1954, Duke has been 2-0 against UNC going into a 3rd game 6 times. (1964, 1966, 1988, 1991, 1999, 2002). Duke won that 3rd game 5 times. The only loss was 1991.

Carolina has led Duke 2-0 8 times (1957, 1959, 1967, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1984, 2003), and won 6 (losing 1984 and 2003)

It is very easy to beat a team the third time.

Make that 7 times and 6 for the heels. Duke and Carolina split the regular season in 2003.

[Reilly]

Pretty cool that of the six times Duke was 2-0 against UNC, we took care of business in game #3 five times, and the one time that we didn't ... we went on to win the national championship (against Dean protege Roy, no less) to lessen the hurt, and we got to see Dean kicked out of the Final Four game.

And for Carolina, of the seven times it was 2-0 against Duke, they took care of business in game #3 six times, and the one time that they didn't ... they went on to watch Jordan lose in the sweet 16 (to K mentor Knight) and turn pro.

So combined, Duke and Carolina are 11-2 if they go into game #3 of the rivalry that year with a 2-0 record. .... I bet after the two losses ('84 for UNC, '91 for Duke), folks said "it's hard to beat a team three times in one year."