[BostonCard]

I don't want to get into verboten topics to the sensitive administrators here, so I'll leave part of the rationale for why I think Stanford was lucky for another time and place.

But putting that aside, do you consider Prechtel getting hot from long range lucky for Stanford in the Elite 8 game?  If so, I'm fine abandoning (a) and (b) as it does not undermine the point.  If you don't consider that lucky or fortunate or what have you, well . . . I disagree.

I mean, it's hard for me to fathom how an opponent missing a bunny at the buzzer in a the semifinal game constitutes "luck" for Stanford, while Prechtel going off from long range in Elite 8 does not constitute good luck.  (Both strike me as unlikely occurrences in a hoops game).

I have no idea what you mean. A philosophical discussion about luck is by no means verboten.  Even if you touch on COVID-19 (if that is what you were getting at), there is no rule against it in the context of Stanford athletics.

In one sense, virtually any outcome in a close game is “luck”.  There are 130 or so shots in an average womens basketball game, of which 50 to 60 will be made, so in any game where the margin is less than a handful of points, a couple of buckets can make all the difference, especially if the outcome is unexpected (a ridiculously acrobatic shot that somehow rattles its way in or a missed bunny).  Basketball is less predictable than some sports (for example, many individual sports, especially races, where time on one day is very strongly correlated to time on another day), but it is one of the more deterministic team sports out there (compare, for example, to baseball, where you can beat a team 10-0 one day and lose decisively to the same team the next).

You cite Louisville as a game where we were “lucky”, but it is worth remembering that we won that game by 15 points, and while it was a bit unexpected that Prechtel would have gotten 16 points, even if she had had a “normal” day, going, say 1/3 from 3 instead of 3/3, ceteris paribus, we still would have won the game.  And while we might have been fortunate that we had Prechtel and that she went off that night, was that any more lucky than Dana Evans going 6/8 from 3 for the Cardinals (like Prechtel, she had about a .35 three point percentage).

Arizona was a close game that easily could have gone either way, and was a tough McDonald three away from an Arizona victory.  While that shot was well-defended, McDonald did get it off and it had a chance. Even if it was a low-probability shot, sometimes low probability shots do go in.  So we’re we “lucky”?  Or was Arizona, a team we had beaten by 27 and 14 points, respectively, in the regular season, “lucky” to even be in it at the end?  Again, it is a philosophical question, but to the extent that luck means something unexpected happening,you might argue they were “lucky” to even have had a shot. On the other hand, I might point to the fact that they played hard, their defense held us to 54 points and that they scored just enough to put themselves to be in a position to win.

The best case for luck playing a role was the semi-finals game against South Carolina, where we were playing a team that matched up well to us, and who you could reasonably believe would beat us a fair number of times had we played a long series.  You don’t necessarily want to count on Boston missing a putback as time expires to win a chance to go to the final, but if you were South Carolina, you wouldn’t have necessarily wanted to count on your opponent to commit a turnover (one of only 12 all day) with 8 seconds left in the game either.  Would it still have been luck if Brink didn’t turn the ball over?

Stanford was the best team in college basketball last year. We were the overall #1 seed, and then we won the tournament. We had some close calls, and anytime that happens, the outcome of a chaotic and stochastic process might well have turned out differently. But that outcome was, on the whole, due to the skills of our players compared to the competition, our team depth, coaching, and factors under our control. If you want to argue that luck is also a necessary component of any tournament run, then you are uttering a truism.

But in the end, I certainly think the women earned their national title.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't want to get into verboten topics to the sensitive administrators here, so I'll leave part of the rationale for why I think Stanford was lucky for another time and place.

But putting that aside, do you consider Prechtel getting hot from long range lucky for Stanford in the Elite 8 game?  If so, I'm fine abandoning (a) and (b) as it does not undermine the point.  If you don't consider that lucky or fortunate or what have you, well . . . I disagree.

I mean, it's hard for me to fathom how an opponent missing a bunny at the buzzer in a the semifinal game constitutes "luck" for Stanford, while Prechtel going off from long range in Elite 8 does not constitute good luck.  (Both strike me as unlikely occurrences in a hoops game).

I have no idea what you mean. A philosophical discussion about luck is by no means verboten.  Even if you touch on COVID-19 (if that is what you were getting at), there is no rule against it in the context of Stanford athletics.

In one sense, virtually any outcome in a close game is “luck”.  There are 130 or so shots in an average womens basketball game, of which 50 to 60 will be made, so in any game where the margin is less than a handful of points, a couple of buckets can make all the difference, especially if the outcome is unexpected (a ridiculously acrobatic shot that somehow rattles its way in or a missed bunny).  Basketball is less predictable than some sports (for example, many individual sports, especially races, where time on one day is very strongly correlated to time on another day), but it is one of the more deterministic team sports out there (compare, for example, to baseball, where you can beat a team 10-0 one day and lose decisively to the same team the next).

You cite Louisville as a game where we were “lucky”, but it is worth remembering that we won that game by 15 points, and while it was a bit unexpected that Prechtel would have gotten 16 points, even if she had had a “normal” day, going, say 1/3 from 3 instead of 3/3, ceteris paribus, we still would have won the game.  And while we might have been fortunate that we had Prechtel and that she went off that night, was that any more lucky than Dana Evans going 6/8 from 3 for the Cardinals (like Prechtel, she had about a .35 three point percentage).

Arizona was a close game that easily could have gone either way, and was a tough McDonald three away from an Arizona victory.  While that shot was well-defended, McDonald did get it off and it had a chance. Even if it was a low-probability shot, sometimes low probability shots do go in.  So we’re we “lucky”?  Or was Arizona, a team we had beaten by 27 and 14 points, respectively, in the regular season, “lucky” to even be in it at the end?  Again, it is a philosophical question, but to the extent that luck means something unexpected happening,you might argue they were “lucky” to even have had a shot. On the other hand, I might point to the fact that they played hard, their defense held us to 54 points and that they scored just enough to put themselves to be in a position to win.

The best case for luck playing a role was the semi-finals game against South Carolina, where we were playing a team that matched up well to us, and who you could reasonably believe would beat us a fair number of times had we played a long series.  You don’t necessarily want to count on Boston missing a putback as time expires to win a chance to go to the final, but if you were South Carolina, you wouldn’t have necessarily wanted to count on your opponent to commit a turnover (one of only 12 all day) with 8 seconds left in the game either.  Would it still have been luck if Brink didn’t turn the ball over?

Stanford was the best team in college basketball last year. We were the overall #1 seed, and then we won the tournament. We had some close calls, and anytime that happens, the outcome of a chaotic and stochastic process might well have turned out differently. But that outcome was, on the whole, due to the skills of our players compared to the competition, our team depth, coaching, and factors under our control. If you want to argue that luck is also a necessary component of any tournament run, then you are uttering a truism.

But in the end, I certainly think the women earned their national title.

BC