|
Post by GauchoDon on Oct 6, 2004 11:39:05 GMT -5
But to a first approximation, a team that scores 51.3% of the points will win 2/3 of the time. In this case, it may just be one of those 1/3 matches... Guess you never know unless we were to play them 2 more times?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2004 11:50:26 GMT -5
I still say a team that loses 1-3 after being down 0-2 is not the same as being at 1-1 and losing 1-3.
The stats would not be so distorted if this were taken into account.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 6, 2004 11:54:04 GMT -5
Guess you never know unless we were to play them 2 more times? Even if they do have a 51.3% chance, the probability of LMU winning all three is 3.7%, or one in 27. Now that LMU has won the first won, the probability they would win the next two is 1/9, whereas there would be a 44% chance of UCSB winning them both. A split is equally as likely. Of course, this is all predicted on the assumption that they score 51.3% of the time. Actually, the real benefit to be gained from playing twice more is that we will get a better idea of the point % in the matchup of UCSB and LMU.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 6, 2004 12:01:44 GMT -5
I still say a team that loses 1-3 after being down 0-2 is not the same as being at 1-1 and losing 1-3. I've tried to find evidence of this in the game scores of DI matches, but have found absolutely nothing. The average scores 4 game matches in the games the loser wins are the same regardless of whether it happens in games 1, 2, or 3. Similarly, the scores of the winning team do not depend on whether they lost games 1, 2, or 3. I did find a distorted distribution of when the losing team won, although I would need to verify it now with more data because it was close enough to wonder if it was real. If you can tell me what should be a statistical consequence of your hypotheis, I can look for it, but so far nothing I have done has come up with anything.
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Oct 6, 2004 13:35:38 GMT -5
After reading the few comments in print from the game, one thing was clear, Loyola did their homework. They saw what happened against UOP with Nelson out and didn't serve her. It worked.
One thing that really worries me is that the way we played that match indicates a team that is losing confidence in itself. Prior to the UOP game, we were doing quite well. Our senior leader goes to the hospital right before the match and we fall apart. Not really surprising for a very young team. However, I'm not sure that making changes to the lineup because of one match is necessarly a good idea. Dutro, MVP of the Berkeley tourney, is now basically riding the pine. In addition, Baylee Hassett is now part of the regular rotation. I just wonder if we are trying to fix something that wasn't broken and in the process instilling doubt into the team. Then again, what do I know, I'm on teh other side of the world.
|
|
|
Post by 7thWoman on Oct 6, 2004 14:58:59 GMT -5
I had to shake my head a couple of times last night when I saw Dutro in the front row. It just doesn't work. Maybe we can use her in the back row, but she isn't looking very good to me yet. You could tell where her sets were going every time. I guess we have to play her as much as possible though, or we'll have a completely inexperienced setter next year.
|
|
|
Post by UCSBVball on Oct 6, 2004 15:19:35 GMT -5
7thWoman is correct with Dutro in the front row the sets are predictable. Some not her fault as she often had to chase the ball, Nelson is a good consistent passer if she is just off slightly major problems quickly develop. Still wondering why one LMU server hurt the Gauchos so much.
|
|