[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=AlbanyCardinal link=topic=13928.msg147793#msg147793 date=1449952304]
Because Wisconsin in '12/'13 went 2-6 in close games, whereas Iowa went 5-1 this season, Wiscy's the better team? That makes no sense, you do see that, right? Does losing close games count as two wins or what am I missing? Also, do you really believe the B10 conference was stronger in '12 than in '15?

IN BEFORE STUPAC.

Over the long run, teams go .500 in close games. So overperforming in close games often isn't a sign of skill, or grit, or whatever; it's often a sign of getting lucky bounces or favorable calls. So for instance stupac was very confident (and I somewhat less so) by SC's incredible run of close-game luck under the Helton regime. And sure enough we handled SC rather well.

And you can often predict regression to the mean based on close game luck. So I'd be happy to bet Iowa doesn't do as well next year in close games. Check the difference in close games between Stanford 2012 and Stanford 2013 and 2014. What happened? Did the same personnel somehow become gutless chokers? Or, more likely, is it just kind of random?
[/quote]

I'm okay with that line of thinking, but I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.

[AlbanyCardinal]

[quote author=AlbanyCardinal link=topic=13928.msg147793#msg147793 date=1449952304]
Because Wisconsin in '12/'13 went 2-6 in close games, whereas Iowa went 5-1 this season, Wiscy's the better team? That makes no sense, you do see that, right? Does losing close games count as two wins or what am I missing? Also, do you really believe the B10 conference was stronger in '12 than in '15?

IN BEFORE STUPAC.

Over the long run, teams go .500 in close games. So overperforming in close games often isn't a sign of skill, or grit, or whatever; it's often a sign of getting lucky bounces or favorable calls. So for instance stupac was very confident (and I somewhat less so) by SC's incredible run of close-game luck under the Helton regime. And sure enough we handled SC rather well.

And you can often predict regression to the mean based on close game luck. So I'd be happy to bet Iowa doesn't do as well next year in close games. Check the difference in close games between Stanford 2012 and Stanford 2013 and 2014. What happened? Did the same personnel somehow become gutless chokers? Or, more likely, is it just kind of random?
[/quote]

I'm okay with that line of thinking, but I did laugh at the confidence he showed in claiming that 2012/13 Wiscy was absolutely the better team than 2015/16 Iowa, just based on their record in close games and nothing else. I also think that winning close games can be a sign of a good team. More than anything, though, my memory tells me that we gave Wisconsin chances to win that game and played not to lose, hanging on for dear life. My gut tells me that wouldn't work agst. this Iowa team.