PDA

View Full Version : Best Comebacks Under Coach K



Truth&Justise
02-13-2019, 12:13 PM
After that whirlwind victory, I saw an article listing the best comebacks under Coach K. Here is what this author decided on (https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/02/duke-basketball-best-comebacks):

7. 2012 vs NC State, coming back from 20 point second half deficit.
6. 1992 at Clemson, 19 point second half deficit erased in seven minutes.
5. 1998 vs UNC, coming back from 17 in the second half to win ACC (and K's 500th win)
4. 2001 vs Maryland in the Final Four, a slow burn comeback to erase a 22 point first half deficit
3. 2012 at UNC, coming back from 10 point deficit with two minutes left, capped by Austin Rivers buzzer beater
2. 2019 at Louisville, coming back from 23 point deficit with nine minutes left
1. 2001 vs Maryland, the Miracle Minute, coming back from 10 point deficit in final 54 second, winning in OT.

The author gives a bit of an explanation for each pick, but what do you think? How would you rank them? Also, are there other games you'd include?


FYI, there was a poll on this boards asking the same question seven years ago (https://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?27524-What-is-your-favorite-Duke-comeback&highlight=comeback), right after Austin River's shot over UNC. The results from that one were:

85 Votes - 2001 Final Four Against Maryland
72 Votes - 2001 Miracle Minute against Maryland
37 Votes - 2012 Rivers Buzzer Beater Against UNC
13 Votes - 1998 Comeback Against UNC
9 Votes - 2011 Nolan/Seth Comeback Against UNC
3 Votes - 2005 Dockery over VaTech
2 Votes - 1991 Final Four Against UNLV (despite not being listed in the original poll)
1 Votes - Unspecified Other

HereBeforeCoachK
02-13-2019, 12:15 PM
I would be tempted to go the comeback from 39-17 deficit to Maryland in the FF.....as the top comeback. But last night, and the miracle minute, are way up there. Well, all of them are way up there.

fan345678
02-13-2019, 12:30 PM
I would be tempted to go the comeback from 39-17 deficit to Maryland in the FF....as the top comeback. But last night, and the miracle minute, are way up there. Well, all of them are way up there.

I'd agree that the Final Four comeback has to be #1, but I remember not being terribly worried when we were down 22. By that point in the season, we'd already seen the Miracle Minute, we knew that Maryland was mentally unstable, and we had seen the team/K handle the adversity of losing Boozer and adjusting on the fly to win eight in a row, including UNC twice and Maryland.

I do remember thinking during the Miracle Minute game that we were just laying an egg and showing little to no energy the whole game. I was actually more surprised by that one, but it wasn't the "better" comeback.

superdave
02-13-2019, 12:33 PM
No win on that list is bigger than Maryland in the Final Four.

It won us a title.

sagegrouse
02-13-2019, 12:35 PM
I'd agree that the Final Four comeback has to be #1, but I remember not being terribly worried when we were down 22. By that point in the season, we'd already seen the Miracle Minute, we knew that Maryland was mentally unstable, and we had seen the team/K handle the adversity of losing Boozer and adjusting on the fly to win eight in a row, including UNC twice and Maryland.

I do remember thinking during the Miracle Minute game that we were just laying an egg and showing little to no energy the whole game. I was actually more surprised by that one, but it wasn't the "better" comeback.

I was in the house for the Maryland Final Four game, and I was "terribly worried."

CDu
02-13-2019, 12:42 PM
In terms of degree of difficulty, this is right there at the top. We were SOOOOO far behind so late in the game that it was virtually impossible to pull off.

The win over UNC in 1998 (still the most exciting game I've ever witnessed in person) is probably second, maybe pushing first when you account for the quality of opponent. The Miracle Minute is in the discussion. But that required just a swing of a couple of possessions, whereas this one and the UNC one required such a prolonged stretch of dominance to happen.

In terms of magnitude of the moment, no question that the Final Four win over Maryland was tops. Not even close.

COYS
02-13-2019, 01:05 PM
In terms of magnitude of the moment, no question that the Final Four win over Maryland was tops. Not even close.

Another thing that made the FF4 win over Maryland so amazing was that it ended up being a relatively comfortable victory in the end. In all these other comebacks, the game was a nail-biter until the end. The Maryland FF4 game had a relatively chill final few minutes.

CDu
02-13-2019, 01:16 PM
Another thing that made the FF4 win over Maryland so amazing was that it ended up being a relatively comfortable victory in the end. In all these other comebacks, the game was a nail-biter until the end. The Maryland FF4 game had a relatively chill final few minutes.

True, although that is somewhat a function of how much time there was left in the game when we bottomed out down 22. We fell behind SO quickly in 2001 that we had a ton of time to make the comeback. Coach K basically said "let's win each 4 minute segment as we come back."

Last night had about 17 minutes less of game (~10 minutes left rather than ~27 minutes left) time when we reached the 23-point deficit. So it would be virtually impossible to win going away from that deficit.

jimsumner
02-13-2019, 01:27 PM
The 1990 season featured some big comebacks. I believe Duke was down to Georgia Tech at home something like 43-29, when Dennis Scott picked up his third foul. Duke came back to win. Duke also overcame a double-digit deficit at GT. Robert Brickey missed that game with a knee injury but Greg Koubek had a career game in his stead.

And that Duke team overcame a huge deficit at home against Arizona.

UrinalCake
02-13-2019, 01:49 PM
The 1998 game was special because the Cheats had dominated us for years, always with bigger and stronger inside players. Earlier that season they had destroyed us by 30, and this looked to be more of the same. This game was the start of a sea change for us in which we finally gained the upper hand in the rivalry.

duke2x
02-13-2019, 01:55 PM
In terms of degree of difficulty, this is right there at the top. We were SOOOOO far behind so late in the game that it was virtually impossible to pull off.

The win over UNC in 1998 (still the most exciting game I've ever witnessed in person) is probably second, maybe pushing first when you account for the quality of opponent.

There was as much riding on that game as the 2012 football win over UNC. 1998 probably ranks first on my list because I was there. It probably earned a brief paragraph in the history of Duke University three days later.


I was in the house for the Maryland Final Four game, and I was "terribly worried."

I was also there and was wondering why I gave up FF miles to Europe to see that. I had the same reactions in my rocking chair last night. I have enough FF miles now that I don't care about using them up this April. Hotels are a little scare in Minneapolis, FYI.

gam7
02-13-2019, 01:55 PM
I link to this every time a thread like this shows up... https://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?23568-Who-Doesn-t-Love-Lists-Coach-K-s-Top-Wins-and-Toughest-Losses-at-Duke&highlight=doesn%27t+love+lists

BandAlum83
02-13-2019, 02:00 PM
The 1998 game was special because the Cheats had dominated us for years, always with bigger and stronger inside players. Earlier that season they had destroyed us by 30, and this looked to be more of the same. This game was the start of a sea change for us in which we finally gained the upper hand in the rivalry.

What makes that game special for me is that it was the last game I've attended at Cameron, and what a game it was! I was also able to meet Wojo when he showed up at the Hideaway that night.

The day is a blur for me. I diverted a business trip and had to get up at 4:30 the next morning to catch a flight, but it was well worth it!

CDu
02-13-2019, 02:32 PM
One of the nice things about Duke being so good for so long is that we get situations like this where we can reminisce about old games. I started re-watching the 2001 Final Four game against Maryland. We all agree that the comeback against the Terps was unbelievable. To give some perspective about how amazing last night's comeback was, consider this: it took over 20 minutes of game time for us to finally catch up (and pass, on the same possession) Maryland after being down 22, making up a 23-point total margin over that time. Duke came back from 23 down to tie it in just under 8 minutes of game time. That is just unbelievable.

So in terms of degree of difficulty, last night was more impressive. Obviously not in terms of magnitude of the moment. But man, to be behind by that much that late in last night's game is really amazing.

DavidBenAkiva
02-13-2019, 02:38 PM
7. 2012 vs NC State, coming back from 20 point second half deficit.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1KMQs86K0c
6. 1992 at Clemson, 19 point second half deficit erased in seven minutes.
5. 1998 vs UNC, coming back from 17 in the second half to win ACC (and K's 500th win): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3y-aO6gi58
4. 2001 vs Maryland in the Final Four, a slow burn comeback to erase a 22 point first half deficit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJcbvh3rfMk
3. 2012 at UNC, coming back from 10 point deficit with two minutes left, capped by Austin Rivers buzzer beater: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyVKM08KgIU
2. 2019 at Louisville, coming back from 23 point deficit with nine minutes left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OydPe7ZtdRY
1. 2001 vs Maryland, the Miracle Minute, coming back from 10 point deficit in final 54 second, winning in OT.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9_pPqWfI84

I was unable to find the Clemson-Duke comeback from 1992. To make up for it, here are couple highlights of recent comebacks against UNC:

2015, at home (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNp7_-in2es) (OT victory)
2016, at UNC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTBy8oK0m-g) (Derryck Thornton defense seals the win)

And a compilation video of the Top 10 finishes in the Duke-UNC series that was published 2 years ago


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sn9s4r0N6o

kako
02-13-2019, 02:42 PM
Duke-UK, 1992 Elite 8

I know we only came back down by 1. But when you are down by 1 with 2.1 seconds left and need to go the length of the court to continue the dream to repeat as national champs, I'd call that a comeback. And it's my favorite.

#2 - the Austin Rivers game because it is the only buzzer beater in the rivalry. Anything that tears the heart out of Carolina is monumental in my book.

9F

Ian
02-13-2019, 02:46 PM
Last year also featured a couple of unlikely comebacks in back to back fashion against Texas and Florida. Although neither were quite as impressive as last night since 1) neither deficit were quite as big as last night's 2) neither opponent were quite as highly rated as Louisville and 3) both were on neutral floors and not on the road.

Edouble
02-13-2019, 02:55 PM
Duke-UK, 1992 Elite 8

I know we only came back down by 1. But when you are down by 1 with 2.1 seconds left and need to go the length of the court to continue the dream to repeat as national champs, I'd call that a comeback. And it's my favorite.

#2 - the Austin Rivers game because it is the only buzzer beater in the rivalry. Anything that tears the heart out of Carolina is monumental in my book.

9F

Disagree that 1992 East Regional is a "comeback".

Also disagree that the Austin Rivers game is the only buzzer beater in the rivalry. I'd call Capel's shot to go to OT a buzzer beater, but it could be argued both ways.

mr. synellinden
02-13-2019, 03:25 PM
One of the nice things about Duke being so good for so long is that we get situations like this where we can reminisce about old games. I started re-watching the 2001 Final Four game against Maryland. We all agree that the comeback against the Terps was unbelievable. To give some perspective about how amazing last night's comeback was, consider this: it took over 20 minutes of game time for us to finally catch up (and pass, on the same possession) Maryland after being down 22, making up a 23-point total margin over that time. Duke came back from 23 down to tie it in just under 8 minutes of game time. That is just unbelievable.

So in terms of degree of difficulty, last night was more impressive. Obviously not in terms of magnitude of the moment. But man, to be behind by that much that late in last night's game is really amazing.

Also worth noting that we were down 19 (62-43) about 6:30 left. I wonder if we were a longer shot to win at that point or when it was 59-36.

superdave
02-13-2019, 03:32 PM
One of the nice things about Duke being so good for so long is that we get situations like this where we can reminisce about old games. I started re-watching the 2001 Final Four game against Maryland. We all agree that the comeback against the Terps was unbelievable. To give some perspective about how amazing last night's comeback was, consider this: it took over 20 minutes of game time for us to finally catch up (and pass, on the same possession) Maryland after being down 22, making up a 23-point total margin over that time. Duke came back from 23 down to tie it in just under 8 minutes of game time. That is just unbelievable.

So in terms of degree of difficulty, last night was more impressive. Obviously not in terms of magnitude of the moment. But man, to be behind by that much that late in last night's game is really amazing.

Keep in mind that that Maryland squad won the title the next year. They were really, really ridiculously good. This Louisville team wont be remembered quite the same way.

Remember Illinois - Arizona in 2005? 20-5 run the final 4 minutes to win by 1. http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/recap?gameId=254000061

CDu
02-13-2019, 03:38 PM
Keep in mind that that Maryland squad won the title the next year. They were really, really ridiculously good. This Louisville team wont be remembered quite the same way.

They had lost 10 games and were a 3 seed that year. They were good, but not the same team that would win it the next year.

For reference, Louisville might very well be a 3 or 4 seed this year too. And this was AT Louisville, whereas that was at a neutral site.

Again, no comparison in terms of magnitude. But in terms of degree of difficulty, I think last night was a way tougher achievement.

devildeac
02-13-2019, 03:48 PM
Also worth noting that we were down 19 (62-43) about 6:30 left. I wonder if we were a longer shot to win at that point or when it was 59-36.


My calculations from: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2008/03/the_lead_is_safe.html

1. At 62-43:

19-3=16
16-0.5=15.5
15.5x15.5=240.25
~390 seconds left in game (I used 6:30 here-did not verify), so, lead not safe as 240<390.

2. At 59-36:

23-3=20
20-0.5=19.5
19.5x19.5=380.25
~587 seconds left in game (I used 9:47 here-did not verify), so lead not safe as 380<587.

(I *think* I got fairly accurate numbers and performed the math correctly and even got to use the "shift" and "," keys for my "less than" symbols:o.

If you use this "calculator," (http://www.lilliechilen.com/billjames/):

1. At 62-43, the lead is 61.6% safe (up 19, trailing team has ball with 6:30 to go).

2. At 59-36, the lead is 64.8% safe (up 23, trailing team has ball with 9:47 to go).

If someone else wishes to fine tune it a few seconds either way, have at it.

BandAlum83
02-13-2019, 03:56 PM
My calculations from: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2008/03/the_lead_is_safe.html

1. At 62-43:

19-3=16
16-0.5=15.5
15.5x15.5=240.25
~390 seconds left in game (I used 6:30 here-did not verify), so, lead not safe as 240<390.

2. At 59-36:

23-3=20
20-0.5=19.5
19.5x19.5=380.25
~587 seconds left in game (I used 9:47 here-did not verify), so lead not safe as 380<587.

(I *think* I got fairly accurate numbers and performed the math correctly and even got to use the "shift" and "," keys for my "less than" symbols:o.

If you use this "calculator," (http://www.lilliechilen.com/billjames/):

1. At 62-43, the lead is 61.6% safe (up 19, trailing team has ball with 6:30 to go).

2. At 59-36, the lead is 64.8% safe (up 23, trailing team has ball with 9:47 to go).

If someone else wishes to fine tune it a few seconds either way, have at it.

Wow!

DevilDeacs with the maths!

I guess all the beer through the years hasn't had a deleterious impact.

Acymetric
02-13-2019, 04:04 PM
My calculations from: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2008/03/the_lead_is_safe.html

1. At 62-43:

19-3=16
16-0.5=15.5
15.5x15.5=240.25
~390 seconds left in game (I used 6:30 here-did not verify), so, lead not safe as 240<390.

2. At 59-36:

23-3=20
20-0.5=19.5
19.5x19.5=380.25
~587 seconds left in game (I used 9:47 here-did not verify), so lead not safe as 380<587.

(I *think* I got fairly accurate numbers and performed the math correctly and even got to use the "shift" and "," keys for my "less than" symbols:o.

If you use this "calculator," (http://www.lilliechilen.com/billjames/):

1. At 62-43, the lead is 61.6% safe (up 19, trailing team has ball with 6:30 to go).

2. At 59-36, the lead is 64.8% safe (up 23, trailing team has ball with 9:47 to go).

If someone else wishes to fine tune it a few seconds either way, have at it.

Does that mean 61.6% chance to win, or does 61.6 % "safe" mean something else?

arnie
02-13-2019, 04:08 PM
My calculations from: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2008/03/the_lead_is_safe.html

1. At 62-43:

19-3=16
16-0.5=15.5
15.5x15.5=240.25
~390 seconds left in game (I used 6:30 here-did not verify), so, lead not safe as 240<390.

2. At 59-36:

23-3=20
20-0.5=19.5
19.5x19.5=380.25
~587 seconds left in game (I used 9:47 here-did not verify), so lead not safe as 380<587.

(I *think* I got fairly accurate numbers and performed the math correctly and even got to use the "shift" and "," keys for my "less than" symbols:o.

If you use this "calculator," (http://www.lilliechilen.com/billjames/):

1. At 62-43, the lead is 61.6% safe (up 19, trailing team has ball with 6:30 to go).

2. At 59-36, the lead is 64.8% safe (up 23, trailing team has ball with 9:47 to go).

If someone else wishes to fine tune it a few seconds either way, have at it.
I’m not using the calculator, but I think the % safe numbers are way off. Would think a 20+ point lead with less than 10 minutes in a college b-ball game has to be 95% or better safe. Am I missing something?

devildeac
02-13-2019, 04:11 PM
Wow!

DevilDeacs with the maths!

I guess all the beer through the years hasn't had a deleterious impact.

Yet :o.

(genuflects humbly)

devildeac
02-13-2019, 04:13 PM
Does that mean 61.6% chance to win, or does 61.6 % "safe" mean something else?

Since I discovered that article (most likely from a link here), I've interpreted "safe" as meaning "likely/chance to win."

HereBeforeCoachK
02-13-2019, 04:15 PM
Since I discovered that article (most likely from a link here), I've interpreted "safe" as meaning "likely/chance to win."

On the ESPN "Game tracker" those odds go up and down with every play....any idea how they're calibrating this?

uh_no
02-13-2019, 04:16 PM
I’m not using the calculator, but I think the % safe numbers are way off. Would think a 20+ point lead with less than 10 minutes in a college b-ball game has to be 95% or better safe. Am I missing something?

the bill james safe lead is a bit of a higher bar....the metric being "if your team is up by this much with this much left, you might as well turn off the game and go home, because there ain't no way the other team is coming back ever"

So from the BJ perspective, % safe isn't really a thing....a lead is either safe or it's not. What this calculator is doing is telling you is how much longer you'd need to maintain that lead for it to be safe. a 20 point lead becomes safe somewhere around 5 minutes to go, so at 10 minutes to go, you're only 50% safe. I'm not sure that's a particularly useful number, but that's what it's doing.

devildeac
02-13-2019, 04:19 PM
I’m not using the calculator, but I think the % safe numbers are way off. Would think a 20+ point lead with less than 10 minutes in a college b-ball game has to be 95% or better safe. Am I missing something?

From The Slate article, here's his formula:

Take the number of points one team is ahead.
Subtract three.
Add a half-point if the team that is ahead has the ball, and subtract a half-point if the other team has the ball. (Numbers less than zero become zero.)
Square that.
If the result is greater than the number of seconds left in the game, the lead is safe.

I've run the numbers twice for each scenario and *think* I got them correct but, as Mrs. dd says, "You've been wrong before."

I'm amazed, too, because scottdude8 (I think-my apologies for quoting wrong poster/not giving proper credit to correct poster) posted an espn graphic upthread where our chance to win was near 0 and, I saw a screen shot down 36-59 from espn that said "chance to win" loovill was 99.9%.

uh_no
02-13-2019, 04:21 PM
From The Slate article, here's his formula:

Take the number of points one team is ahead.
Subtract three.
Add a half-point if the team that is ahead has the ball, and subtract a half-point if the other team has the ball. (Numbers less than zero become zero.)
Square that.
If the result is greater than the number of seconds left in the game, the lead is safe.

I've run the numbers twice for each scenario and *think* I got them correct but, as Mrs. dd says, "You've been wrong before."

I'm amazed, too, because scottdude8 (I think-my apologies for quoting wrong poster/not giving proper credit to correct poster) posted an espn graphic upthread where our chance to win was near 0 and, I saw a screen shot down 36-59 from espn that said "chance to win" loovill was 99.9%.

yeah on the gamecast there were a couple times when it was 99.9

devildeac
02-13-2019, 04:22 PM
On the ESPN "Game tracker" those odds go up and down with every play...any idea how they're calibrating this?

Bolded: yep

Underlined: nope, but I've wondered that also

uh_no
02-13-2019, 04:28 PM
On the ESPN "Game tracker" those odds go up and down with every play...any idea how they're calibrating this?

everyone does it slightly different, but at simplest, it's score, time left, who has the ball, and then you just sample all games ever.

Getting more advanced, you can adjust based on quality of teams, estimate number of possessions left and what the efficiency difference should be

Getting more advanced, you could adjust efficiencies on the fly. UL was up 23 on duke with 9 to go...so we now have a datapoint that UL is 23 points better than duke over 50 possessions...how does that affect the likelihood of duke going on a tear?


Were it me, It would be mostly the second, but as the game wound down, you'd factor in the first more...since things like fouling to stalling are going to be better accounted for in historical game data than current team efficiencies which are more relevant at the whole game level.

HereBeforeCoachK
02-13-2019, 04:37 PM
everyone does it slightly different, but at simplest, it's score, time left, who has the ball, and then you just sample all games ever.

Getting more advanced, you can adjust based on quality of teams, estimate number of possessions left and what the efficiency difference should be

Getting more advanced, you could adjust efficiencies on the fly. UL was up 23 on duke with 9 to go...so we now have a datapoint that UL is 23 points better than duke over 50 possessions...how does that affect the likelihood of duke going on a tear?

Were it me, It would be mostly the second, but as the game wound down, you'd factor in the first more...since things like fouling to stalling are going to be better accounted for in historical game data than current team efficiencies which are more relevant at the whole game level.

I had contemplated all of those data points...and I tend to agree that the second one is a great way to do it. Without some of that data, it wouldn't really mean that much.
The third advance...that would be tough to do, but in this day and age of metrics at the push of a button, I suppose it could be done. Frankly, watching some of these a little bit, I'm not sure ESPN even factors in the second part.

uh_no
02-13-2019, 04:42 PM
Frankly, watching some of these a little bit, I'm not sure ESPN even factors in the second part.

They must, to some basic degree, or all games would start ~50% (+- Home court).

kako
02-13-2019, 04:52 PM
Disagree that 1992 East Regional is a "comeback".

Also disagree that the Austin Rivers game is the only buzzer beater in the rivalry. I'd call Capel's shot to go to OT a buzzer beater, but it could be argued both ways.

OK, the only buzzer beater to win a game. Capel's shot, Davis' shot, Banks' shot - they beat the buzzer. But they didn't win the game.

Agree to disagree on UK '92. But I stand by my statement. As Dykes said, it was over, but it wasn't over.

9F

-jk
02-13-2019, 05:19 PM
OK, the only buzzer beater to win a game. Capel's shot, Davis' shot, Banks' shot - they beat the buzzer. But they didn't win the game.

Agree to disagree on UK '92. But I stand by my statement. As Dykes said, it was over, but it wasn't over.

9F

Freddy Lind?

-jk

kako
02-13-2019, 07:44 PM
Freddy Lind?

-jk

I personally define a buzzer beater as a FG that goes in and leaves no time left on the clock and the game is over (others can define it differently if they want, but I stand by my definition). From what I understand, in the Fred Lind game he hit shots and FTs near the end of 0:00 but not at 0:00. And he didn't hit the shot in double OT to win the game. Not taking away anything from him or that that game, since of course Duke won!

9F

jimsumner
02-13-2019, 08:39 PM
Freddy Lind?

-jk

There was no game-winning buzzer-beater in the 1968 game. By anyone.

Bobby Jones had a game-winner in the first 1974 game.

Guess we're not counting that.

Robby West won the 1972 game late. But there were a few seconds left. Carolina even got off a desperation shot at the buzzer.

House P
02-13-2019, 08:46 PM
everyone does it slightly different, but at simplest, it's score, time left, who has the ball, and then you just sample all games ever.

Getting more advanced, you can adjust based on quality of teams, estimate number of possessions left and what the efficiency difference should be

Getting more advanced, you could adjust efficiencies on the fly. UL was up 23 on duke with 9 to go...so we now have a datapoint that UL is 23 points better than duke over 50 possessions...how does that affect the likelihood of duke going on a tear?


Were it me, It would be mostly the second, but as the game wound down, you'd factor in the first more...since things like fouling to stalling are going to be better accounted for in historical game data than current team efficiencies which are more relevant at the whole game level.

Here is what KenPom says about calculating in-game win probabilities. I assume that Bart Torvik and ESPN use a similar approach.

https://kenpom.com/blog/ingame-win-probabilities/

In short, the calculation is based on score, time remaining, which team has possession, and the relative strength of each team (adjusted for home court advantage). The relative strength of each team is important in explaining why Bart Torvik still gave Duke an 85.9% chance of beating BC despite the fact that Duke trailed by 2 at halftime.

http://www.barttorvik.com/box.php?muid=Boston+CollegeDuke2-5&year=2019

As others have pointed out, the “Bill James method” isn’t trying to predict the chance each team has of winning at a given point, but is trying to establish a rule-of-thumb for determining the point at which the trailing team has no chance of winning. In other words, the lead is either safe (100% chance of winning) or it isn’t safe (less than 100% chance of winning).

arnie
02-13-2019, 09:06 PM
The ACC network game on free TV tonight. Announcers said our win last night represented the largest comeback to win in last 10 minutes in NCAA history. Had not heard that before.

summerwind03
02-13-2019, 09:08 PM
The ACC network game on free TV tonight. Announcers said our win last night represented the largest comeback to win in last 10 minutes in NCAA history. Had not heard that before.

This article has some cool stats.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2019-02-13/remarkable-numbers-dukes-historic-comeback-over-louisville

JetpackJesus
02-13-2019, 09:09 PM
Also worth noting that we were down 19 (62-43) about 6:30 left. I wonder if we were a longer shot to win at that point or when it was 59-36.

There's been a lot of win probability discussion already, but here's a visual of what it looked like according to ESPN's WP tracking doodle:
9066 9067
Who knew math could be so beautiful?

HereBeforeCoachK
02-13-2019, 09:52 PM
There's been a lot of win probability discussion already, but here's a visual of what it looked like according to ESPN's WP tracking doodle:
9066 9067
Who knew math could be so beautiful?

At first glance, it looks like we were bottomed out at 9:58 and still bottomed out at 6:30.....

kako
02-13-2019, 10:13 PM
Bobby Jones had a game-winner in the first 1974 game.


Ugh. I forgot about that. It was before my time, but I do remember hearing about it now.

9F
9F
9F

JetpackJesus
02-13-2019, 10:49 PM
At first glance, it looks like we were bottomed out at 9:58 and still bottomed out at 6:30...
Pretty much. I went back and looked at it again. L'ville's win probability was at least 99.0% in the second half from the 11:27 mark to the 6:22 mark, and 99.0 doesn't look too different from 99.9. Their win probability didn't fall below 90% until the ~4:13 mark. The last time the graph shows L'ville with a >50% win probability was at 1:10 mark (51.9%). At 0:45 mark, Duke had a 53.5% win probability. That was the first time Duke had a >50% win probability since 3:10 mark of the first half when it was 28-26 L'ville.

turnandburn55
02-13-2019, 10:59 PM
Not saying it's #1 (or 2 or 3), but the 2003 ACC Championship against NC State we were down by 15 with about 10 minutes left before it turned into the JJ Redick show... it's in my top 10

The 2011 Seth / Nolan Smith comeback against UNC was (at the time) the biggest halftime deficit we'd erased in a half-century... probably deservedly eclipsed by the Austin Rivers game the next year but it was special in and of itself.

brevity
02-14-2019, 12:01 AM
All of you are completely wrong. Coach K's best comeback was "F--- you, Dean!"

(I assume we are including verbal comebacks.)

(I think that was the 1989 ACC Tournament final. Please correct me if it was not.)

JetpackJesus
02-14-2019, 12:36 AM
All of you are completely wrong. Coach K's best comeback was "F--- you, Dean!"

(I assume we are including verbal comebacks.)

(I think that was the 1989 ACC Tournament final. Please correct me if it was not.)

If you're wrong, I don't want you to be right.

Acymetric
02-14-2019, 12:50 AM
Here is what KenPom says about calculating in-game win probabilities. I assume that Bart Torvik and ESPN use a similar approach.

https://kenpom.com/blog/ingame-win-probabilities/

In short, the calculation is based on score, time remaining, which team has possession, and the relative strength of each team (adjusted for home court advantage). The relative strength of each team is important in explaining why Bart Torvik still gave Duke an 85.9% chance of beating BC despite the fact that Duke trailed by 2 at halftime.

http://www.barttorvik.com/box.php?muid=Boston+CollegeDuke2-5&year=2019

As others have pointed out, the “Bill James method” isn’t trying to predict the chance each team has of winning at a given point, but is trying to establish a rule-of-thumb for determining the point at which the trailing team has no chance of winning. In other words, the lead is either safe (100% chance of winning) or it isn’t safe (less than 100% chance of winning).

Has the Bill James method ever been wrong? I'm guessing no. Has it ever been close to wrong (a game that was calculated 100% safe that came within 3 points or something similar)?

uh_no
02-14-2019, 01:01 AM
Has the Bill James method ever been wrong? I'm guessing no. Has it ever been close to wrong (a game that was calculated 100% safe that came within 3 points or something similar)?

several times. I did some scoping out of biggest comebacks ever to try to come up with some sort of regression a while back, and here were the ones I found that failed his test:

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/list/college-basketball-comebacks-ncaa-tournament-texas-am-northern-iowa-duke-maryland/17pa3tcsnrweb13xrki0xc13im/slide/3
down 5, safe lead = 4.6

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2008/03/the_lead_is_safe.html
down 8 safe lead = 7

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/list/college-basketball-comebacks-ncaa-tournament-texas-am-northern-iowa-duke-maryland/17pa3tcsnrweb13xrki0xc13im/slide/5
down 10 safe lead 8.5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comeback_(sports)#NCAA
norther iowa over tx a&m
down 12 safe lead 9

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-basketball/list/college-basketball-comebacks-ncaa-tournament-texas-am-northern-iowa-duke-maryland/17pa3tcsnrweb13xrki0xc13im/slide/2
down 13 safe lead 10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comeback_(sports)#NCAA
new mexico nevada
down 14 safe lead 11

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/playbyplay?gameId=400919906
down 17 safe lead 15
down 19 safe lead 18

Those are all the ones i could find.

kako
02-14-2019, 01:06 AM
All of you are completely wrong. Coach K's best comeback was "F--- you, Dean!"

(I assume we are including verbal comebacks.)

(I think that was the 1989 ACC Tournament final. Please correct me if it was not.)

Winner! Winner! Chicken dinner!

9F

arnie
02-14-2019, 07:00 AM
All of you are completely wrong. Coach K's best comeback was "F--- you, Dean!"

(I assume we are including verbal comebacks.)

(I think that was the 1989 ACC Tournament final. Please correct me if it was not.)

I don’t recall when that occurred, but K’s “double standard” quote and Deano pounding the scorers table buzzer was much earlier, 1984 I think.

devildeac
02-14-2019, 09:44 AM
Has the Bill James method ever been wrong? I'm guessing no. Has it ever been close to wrong (a game that was calculated 100% safe that came within 3 points or something similar)?

I would guess it has been wrong rarely. I don't think he claimed it's infallible. He does claim in The Slate article that however that he believes once it's "safe," (or >100% "certain"), it is indeed "safe," even if the "safe" team only wins by a few points. (Yes, I do scratch my chin about that just a bit.)

jv001
02-14-2019, 09:47 AM
There was no game-winning buzzer-beater in the 1968 game. By anyone.

Bobby Jones had a game-winner in the first 1974 game.

Guess we're not counting that.

Robby West won the 1972 game late. But there were a few seconds left. Carolina even got off a desperation shot at the buzzer.

Was Jones game-winner off his steal and layup to beat the Good Guys? Strictly relying on my old-old memory. Jones was one of the few tarheels that I liked. Well up until that play. :cool:GoDuke!

devildeac
02-14-2019, 09:47 AM
I don’t recall when that occurred, but K’s “double standard” quote and Deano pounding the scorers table buzzer was much earlier, 1984 I think.

I believe you and brev are both correct. I'm pretty sure the table-pounding incident also occurred at CIS and added 20 points to the cheats score, even before they really started cheating.

gus
02-14-2019, 10:05 AM
...even before they really started cheating.

I don't think you can say definitively that they had not "really started" at that point. A program willing to cheat so brazenly for decades probably started cheating much earlier on a smaller scale.

devildeac
02-14-2019, 10:17 AM
I don't think you can say definitively that they had not "really started" at that point. A program willing to cheat so brazenly for decades probably started cheating much earlier on a smaller scale.

I could also subscribe to that belief. If dean's myth invented peach baskets, f**r corners, pointing, sliding under shooters, they could have easily invented combined athletic and academic cheating.