ADVERTISEMENT

If The Season Ended Today (Friday)

Tango Two

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 21, 2001
47,954
32,694
113
North Brunswick, New Jersey
154640400_10158607024924022_1011556153710666627_o.jpg
 
We all know the real comparable of playing a team 3 times. The worst loss by far in Rutgers basketball history. The game which would have cemented Rutgers over Syracuse as the best team in the East.A chance to beat lowly Penn to get to the last weekend. SJU in 1979.Still smarts.
 
I think the worse memory of playing a team for the third time after winning the first two was St. Johns in the 1978-79 NCAA tournament. Probably cost us a trip to our second final four.

Was at that game - we were far better but they got hot and RU was flat. Really tough loss.
 
I also was at that game with St. John's in Greensboro. It was devastating. However, I would rather play Indiana or Maryland at this point rather than Michigan State as hot as they are right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shields
would be nice to be #6 and get one of the four bottom feeders.
Agreed - if we win out and WI dumps 3 straight to Ill and at Purdue and Iowa, we're 6th (they hold the tiebreaker over us). Very low probability though. I still say we should be 10-8 now if not for the refs stealing that game against OSU where we were pummeling them until MJ got whistled for the phantom fouls.
 
Yes, but tough to beat a team 3 times in the same season, especially in this conference. And it would be a home game for Indiana.

No (regarding the first point).

It's tough to win three coin flips in a row. That doesn't mean winning two makes the third one harder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor Worm
Think we match up well with Indiana and I'd rather face Illinois in the Quarter Finals than Michigan, Ohio State or Iowa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTRINI
It always seems like whenever you hope for a particular opponent and you get them, you wind up losing to them.
 
If we win out we have a shot at the 6th seed. Wisconsin is 10-7 but will be a dog in all its remaining games
 
I think I'd rather be the six - win two more and we have a real shot with Wisconsin's schedule. Then again, usually when you start wishing for matchups it turns out bad.
 
No (regarding the first point).

It's tough to win three coin flips in a row. That doesn't mean winning two makes the third one harder.
If you get around me with a crossover move twice, the third time I’m gonna pick your pocket and score on a breakaway. That’s not a matter of chance. It’s me learning how to beat you the third time.
 
Enough of these tropes, let's get some data in here. Anyone have?

Not data, but: home teams have won 65% of the time this year. Let's adjust that down to 60% to try to take out the effect of gimme noncon games.

So, you can kinda solve for the prior distribution from there. i.e. if you sweep a team home-and-home, there's about a 76% chance on average that you are the better team or that you match up better, or something else that gives you the advantage.

I'd thus expect the team that sweeps the home-and-home to win the 3rd game on a neutral court about 76% of the time. There's some margin of error there, both around the assumptions and natural fluctuation of data around the average. If teams are finding that it's hard to beat a team 3x to the tune of only winning the 3rd matchup say 60-65% of the time, I think we can start to say there's proof that it's hard to beat a team 3x.

I doubt it's that low.

With that said, I don't think RU is much better than IU so it'd be closer to a toss-up for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fluoxetine
It is very hard to beat one team three times in one season.

No (regarding the first point).

It's tough to win three coin flips in a row. That doesn't mean winning two makes the third one harder.
.

If you get around me with a crossover move twice, the third time I’m gonna pick your pocket and score on a breakaway. That’s not a matter of chance. It’s me learning how to beat you the third time.

Are you? It sounds great in that game you just made up.

Does anyone have any data to demonstrate that teams lose a 3rd matchup more often after winning 2 games against a team? Because we've seen them twice too. Why should their adjustments be any better than ours just because they lost before? There is no logic to support this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RURM85
I think the worse memory of playing a team for the third time after winning the first two was St. Johns in the 1978-79 NCAA tournament. Probably cost us a trip to our second final four.

Was at that game - we were far better but they got hot and RU was flat. Really tough loss.
Ugh, you have dredged up some awful memories. I was down in Greensboro for WRSU with my best friends from the sports department geared to win the region and get back to the final 4. I was slated to broadcast the regional final. The only damn time St. John’s was leading was with 2 seconds left. Duke and UNC losing in the sub regional opened the door for us. We would have beaten Penn and joined Magic and Bird in the final four. Needless to say it was a loooong car ride back to NB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JavaDunk18
If you get around me with a crossover move twice, the third time I’m gonna pick your pocket and score on a breakaway. That’s not a matter of chance. It’s me learning how to beat you the third time.

Also, why is it the third time, specifically, that you are going to beat me in this made up hypothetical? What if I use a different move the third time? Why didn't you just steal the ball the second time? What happens the fourth time? Is it only the third time that is magical? What makes it so??
 
  • Like
Reactions: RURM85
Also, why is it the third time, specifically, that you are going to beat me in this made up hypothetical? What if I use a different move the third time? Why didn't you just steal the ball the second time? What happens the fourth time? Is it only the third time that is magical? What makes it so??
Because it's a charm. Just stating facts bro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fluoxetine
Yes, I was at that game in Greensboro in 1979. Rutgers was leading with about 10 minutes tried to go & tried to go into a freeze. Took all the momentum away. Rutgers/Michigan St would have been interesting game in the final four. If RU went to final, they could have faced Bird & (Undefeated) Indiana St again. (RU was the last team to beat them, in the NIT the year before)
 
.



Are you? It sounds great in that game you just made up.

Does anyone have any data to demonstrate that teams lose a 3rd matchup more often after winning 2 games against a team? Because we've seen them twice too. Why should their adjustments be any better than ours just because they lost before? There is no logic to support this.
In the NFL, 1970 (NFL - AFL merger) through 2017 data supports the team going for the 3 game sweep accomplishing the sweep 67% of the time. It’s about who’s the better team and/or matchups.
In the case of Rutgers - Indiana, Myles plays his best defensive basketball against TJD, and our Guard play is consistently better than Indiana. Now there’s the possibility that Franklin may miss the rest of the season. It’s a good matchup for Rutgers and has been for the past 2 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fluoxetine
In the NFL, 1970 (NFL - AFL merger) through 2017 data supports the team going for the 3 game sweep accomplishing the sweep 67% of the time. It’s about who’s the better team and/or matchups.
In the case of Rutgers - Indiana, Myles plays his best defensive basketball against TJD, and our Guard play is consistently better than Indiana. Now there’s the possibility that Franklin may miss the rest of the season. It’s a good matchup for Rutgers and has been for the past 2 years.
Wait, shouldn’t the better team win 100% of the time? Or at least, say, 90% of the time? The lesser team winning 33% of the time seems to support the idea that it’s hard to beat the same team, even a lesser team, 3 times in the same season.
 
Wait, shouldn’t the better team win 100% of the time? Or at least, say, 90% of the time? The lesser team winning 33% of the time seems to support the idea that it’s hard to beat the same team, even a lesser team, 3 times in the same season.

The **** you talking about mate?

Let's say team A is slightly better than team B, such the the probability of team A winning a game between them is:
70% if team A is at home
60% neutral site
50% if team B is at home

If these teams play a home and home + a neutral site game, the chances of A winning all three are
70% * 60% * 50% = 21%

So by this token, it is "hard" to win all three games.

But if team A has already won both games in the home and home, their chance of winning the neutral site game is still 60%.


You are taking a true statement
"It is hard to beat a team three times in a row" <= true
and using it to support a false statement
"If you've already beaten a team twice, it is now more difficult to beat them again" <= almost certainly false
 
Wait, shouldn’t the better team win 100% of the time? Or at least, say, 90% of the time? The lesser team winning 33% of the time seems to support the idea that it’s hard to beat the same team, even a lesser team, 3 times in the same season.
That’s twisted logic. A 67% probability means the NFL team going for the sweep wins 2 out of every 3 games. It means it’s much more likely for the team going for the sweep to win compared to the team playing to avoid the sweep. It’s a game and 100% winning percentage in the NFL is not based on reality due to many factors including performance and injuries between the 2nd and 3rd games as examples.
 
I think the worse memory of playing a team for the third time after winning the first two was St. Johns in the 1978-79 NCAA tournament. Probably cost us a trip to our second final four.

Was at that game - we were far better but they got hot and RU was flat. Really tough loss.

IIRC, RU still had a chance to win but a turnover sealed the loss. Is that correct?
 
The **** you talking about mate?

Let's say team A is slightly better than team B, such the the probability of team A winning a game between them is:
70% if team A is at home
60% neutral site
50% if team B is at home

If these teams play a home and home + a neutral site game, the chances of A winning all three are
70% * 60% * 50% = 21%

So by this token, it is "hard" to win all three games.

But if team A has already won both games in the home and home, their chance of winning the neutral site game is still 60%.


You are taking a true statement
"It is hard to beat a team three times in a row" <= true
and using it to support a false statement
"If you've already beaten a team twice, it is now more difficult to beat them again" <= almost certainly false
Go back and look at my first comment. I never said anything about probabilities. I said it was tough to beat the same opponent 3 times in the same season, especially in this conference, and (since the game would be played in Indianapolis) that it would be a home game for Indy. I stand by my statement.
 
Go back and look at my first comment. I never said anything about probabilities. I said it was tough to beat the same opponent 3 times in the same season, especially in this conference, and (since the game would be played in Indianapolis) that it would be a home game for Indy. I stand by my statement.

lol u
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyC80
ADVERTISEMENT