Subscribe!
Follow me on twitter

The good stuff


At other venues...
  • ESPN.com ($)
  • Deadspin
  • Slate

  • Strategy
  • Whether to foul up 3 late
  • The value of 2-for-1’s

  • Philosophy
  • Brady Heslip’s non-slump
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • A treatise on plus-minus
  • The preseason AP poll is great
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • The lack of information in close-game performance
  • Why I don’t believe in clutchness*

  • Fun stuff
  • The missing 1-point games
  • Which two teams last lost longest ago?
  • How many first-round picks will Kentucky have?
  • Prepare for the Kobe invasion
  • Predicting John Henson's free throw percentage
  • Can Derrick Williams set the three-point accuracy record?
  • Play-by-play Theater: earliest disqualification
  • Monthly Archives

  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003

  • RSS feed

    Memphis choked…or did they?

    by Ken Pomeroy on Thursday, February 28, 2013


    With 23 seconds left in Tuesday’s Memphis-Xavier game, the Tigers’ Chris Crawford took an open three-pointer that would have given his team a two-point lead. He missed and Memphis went on to lose. The shot ended up being a referendum on the quality of Memphis’ 17-game winning streak. Had they won, this would have been a plucky team that comes together in tough times and does enough to win, and we would have seen a rise in the polls. But Crawford’s shot didn’t fall and so Memphis became a fraud in the minds of some. Perhaps no shot this season was more important to a team’s perception than that one.

    Of course, if you’re familiar with my work you know where I stand on this. If your opinion of Memphis was significantly influenced by whether a 35% three-point shooter made a three-point shot, you’re doing it wrong. Based on how both Memphis and Xavier had played over the last two months, one might have expected the game to come down to the last minute. And the fact the Memphis couldn’t win the game says little about their character or their ability to win close games in the future. Hey, it might even reflect positively on their character since they got a really nice look to take the lead. The execution was fine and you can’t expect a 35% shooter to make 100% of his shots.

    In an effort to test this idea, I thought I would run a simple experiment. When a team won its first close game of the season, what was their record in future close games? I only used conference games here to try and keep teams on relatively equal footing. For example, Xavier’s first A-10 game decided by three points or less was a 66-64 win over Saint Bonaventure. Since then, they’ve played one such conference game and lost it (73-71 to Richmond). Do this for every team since 2000 and you end up with a lot of data.

    For instance, a team that won its first close game went 2770-2805 (49.7%) in future close games. By comparison, a team that lost its first close game went 2745-2750 (50.0%) in future close games. If the only information you had on a team’s performance in close games was that it was that clutch performance that one time you saw them, it’s pretty meaningless.

    I’ve repeated this exercise for all three-point ranges up to 30. So in the table below, a team that won the first game it played that was decided by 10-12 points, won 57.8% of future games decided by 10-12 points. The results are fairly intuitive. Teams have more skill at winning games by large margins than small ones. Teams involved in a 30-point win are not likely to find themselves losing a 30-point game later in the season.

       1-3   4-6   7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30
    W 49.7  51.7  54.7  57.8  60.6  64.0  65.5  76.4  77.9  87.0   
    L 50.0  48.2  46.2  41.9  38.7  34.4  29.1  25.8  21.0  19.2 
    
    

    One close-game win isn’t enough to demonstrate a team’s mettle under pressure, but what if they won their first two close games? How did they perform in future close games after that? Obviously, the sample size is going to decrease, but we’re still on solid footing in that regard. Teams that won their first two close games went 914-850 (51.8%) in close games after that and teams that lost their first two close games went 870-881 (49.7%). So we do get a little more information that maybe a team possesses some small skill in close games. The table below contains similar data for other ranges.

        1-3   4-6   7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30
    W2 51.8  51.2  60.2  63.0  69.9  72.0  73.2  87.5  87.9    *   
    L2 49.7  47.2  41.1  35.9  29.2  25.5  18.1  11.9  12.5    * 
    

    * fewer than 20 cases

    Let’s keep going. When a team won its first three close games, they went 278-228 in future close games (54.9%). Teams losing their first three close games went 229-252 (47.6%).

        1-3   4-6   7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30
    W3 54.9  52.0  60.2  68.0  67.4  73.3  79.4   *     *     *   
    L3 47.6  43.2  40.1  31.3  22.7  20.8  22.2   *     *     * 
    

    * fewer than 20 cases

    OK, so if a team won its first four close games, surely they would be clutch and mentally strong. While the team losing its first four close games would be condemned to being choking dogs. In future close games, we’d just expect those teams to lose. We’re getting short on cases here, but the data says we might want to change the way we think. The winners of their first four close games went 75-71 (51.4%) and the losers went 57-67 (46.0%).

        1-3   4-6   7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30
    W4 51.4  48.9  61.0  70.5  69.8   *     *     *     *     *   
    L4 46.0  42.1  24.1  34.2   6.1   *     *     *     *     * 
    

    * fewer than 20 cases

    There are few teams that won their first five close games and played at least one more, but those that did went 17-18 (48.6%) and those that lost their first five went 7-19 (26.9%).

        1-3   4-6   7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30
    W5 48.6  45.2  68.2  80.8   *     *     *     *     *     *   
    L5 26.9  40.9  20.8  18.8   *     *     *     *     *     * 
    

    * fewer than 20 cases

    If a team that had won five close games in a row won a sixth, people would lavish all sorts of praise on their ability to perform under pressure. Even if you were skeptical about close-game powers, you’d look pretty foolish trying to provide an opposite viewpoint. Yet, as we’ve seen, each additional close win provides extremely little information about a team’s performance in its next close game. (For what it’s worth, the teams that won their first six close games went 4-1 if there was a seventh. Or eighth, ‘08 William and Mary is the only team to win its first seven close games against conference teams. They got to the CAA semis on the strength of two of those wins and beat VCU by three before losing by nine to George Mason in the CAA title game.)

    This is not to say there aren’t teams with the ability to consistently win close games. It’s just that their record in close games tells you almost nothing about that skill. Simply identifying a team that has made a bunch of last-second shots (or seen opponents miss) and declaring them a bunch of winners is accurate from a reporting standpoint, but assigning the members of said team some special amount of intestinal fortitude is, in the vast majority of cases, going overboard. Despite what their coaches may say, their intestines are not all that much different from the team that loses a bunch of close games. If you want to judge a team’s ability in close contests, it’s best to look at their execution. The problem is, this might not be consistent with the outcome of the game.

    Of course, this won’t stop people proclaiming that a team that wins close games is truly clutch. And they are going to look brilliant slightly north of 50% of the time after that team’s next close game. You’ll have no choice but to buy in. But that doesn’t mean you’ll be right.