Beating a Team the Third Time

[conn53victor]

It is often said that it is harder to beat a team the third time is a season, but...



"According to STATS LLC., there have been 981 similar matchups across Division I college basketball over the past 10 seasons. The teams entering the third game 2-0 are a combined 710-271 (.724 winning percentage) in the third meeting. So over a 10-year period in college basketball including almost 1,000 games, the team that won the first 2 games won the third meeting 72% of the time. So it clearly doesn't follow that it is hard to beat a team 3 times. In fact, it's actually kind of easy."

http://blog.coachbobwalsh.com/2015/03/its-hard-to-beat-a-team-3-times/



I did my own analysis. I think I got this right. In the 2013-14 season, there were twelve teams in the B1G 10 with eleven games played in the conference tournament. The team that won twice in the regular season won the third meeting 60% of the time (3 of 5).



Three pairings resulted in the team that won twice in the regular season won the third time in the tourney.

Northwestern Lost Three Times to Michigan State

Penn State Lost Three Times to Minnesota

Purdue Lost Three Times to Ohio State



Two pairings resulted in the team that won twice in the regular season lost the third time in the tourney.

Michigan Beat Michigan State Twice in the Regular Season and Lost the Third Time They Played

Iowa Beat Northwestern Twice in the Regular Season and Lost the Third Time They Played



Four pairings split the regular season and met again in the conference tournament.

Indiana-Illinois

Minnesota-Wisconsin

Wisconsin-Michigan State

Nebraska-Ohio State



Two pairings only met once in the regular season and once in the conference tournament.

Ohio State lost both times to Michigan

Illinois lost both times to Michigan

 

[Cydkar]

I've been saying this for years. If you win the first 2 matchups it generally means you are the better team so the 3rd matchup still favors the better team. It's weird how something false can be propagated.

 

[HawkNAZTY20]

I just believe we cause to many mismatches against nebbie or psu. We would really have to beat ourselves to lose to one of them. Purdue would be an equal match up and a really tough game.

 

[Gary-Waterloo]

The flip side of that is over the first two games against those opponents the teams were 1.000% so a drop to 72% is significantly lower.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Originally posted by Cydkar:
I've been saying this for years. If you win the first 2 matchups it generally means you are the better team so the 3rd matchup still favors the better team. It's weird how something false can be propagated.

It would be interesting to see if there was any statistically relevant change in expected outcome. As you say, if you win the first two games, odds are that you're the better team so we'd expect to see the better team win a relatively high percentage of the time.

However, if the projections would predict these teams winning 80% of the time, but they're only winning 72% of the time, perhaps there is some merit to the argument that beating a team for a third time is more difficult than beating them the first two times. For example, if Wisconsin beat NW twice this season and we'd expect them to beat NW 90% of the time, but in the third game they only win 60% of the time, even though Wisconsin is more likely to win the third game, the odds of doing so have decreased significantly -- I still doubt there is statistical relevance if this analysis is done, but it appears the analysis linked by the OP is incomplete (although I have not read the link).

 

[Recruiting Violation]

I don't know know if I agree that 72.4% is necessarily that great of a winning percentage for a team that has already shown itself to be superior.

For example, if you told me that we could either play Nebraska a third time to get our third win, or simulate the game with a 72.4% chance to win, I would definitely play the game. I think Wisconsin would also take their chances against Iowa and just play the game rather than bank on 72.4% odds.

Having said that, I might have to think a little bit harder about those choices if it was Iowa versus OSU.

What would be helpful to put those records in perspective would be the overall average winning percentages of the teams going into the third game. If the 2-0 team has an average 80% win rate, and the 0-2 team is winning at a 50% rate, then I'd expect the 2-0 team to be better than 72.4% against the 0-2 team in that 3rd matchup. Since we don't have winning percentages, all we can do is say, "Hmm, that's interesting." To me, any other conclusion just doesn't have enough data to say something definitive.

 

[LifelongHawk]

Not that false. The assumption from many is that if you beat them home and home you should beat them a 3rd time, usually on a neutral court, close to 100% of the time. So the result of winning 60-75% of the time seems inexplicably low and spawned a simplistic adage

 

[LarryMullenJr.]

 

[conn53victor]

My feeling (not brain) always heard, "It's hard to beat a team the third time" as "the odds are against beating a team the third time." That is incorrect. It is HARDER beating the team the third time because you beat them 100% the first two times. Of course it is "harder" before you've won. I would like to see the "beat the odds" figure for the third game.

I don't mind the odds of winning 3/4 times over the team you have already beaten twice.

 

[BeepBeepInMyJeep]

I would think you would have to look at point spreads and money lines to
get an expected value on the 3rd game to make an accurate assessment.
Just using the eye/smell test you'd think a match up like Iowa/Nebraska
or Wisconsin/Iowa, or NW/Iowa last year would yield the favorite winning more than 72% of the
time on a neutral court. Furthermore, when examining the entire scope of Division 1, about a dozen or so conferences use campus sites where the higher seed will host the lower seed, and of course the team that swept the other during the regular season is almost always going to be the higher seed. So you have to control for home court advantage as well.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

gamblers fallacy strikes again. some teams can and should beat other teams 10 times in a row without much of a problem. i don't care how many times they play. the best team usually comes out on top.

saying something or believe something like "it's hard to beat a team three times" is simplistic and the product of an ignorant mind.

Simpletons will reference last year's Iowa - Northwestern BTT game as "proof" because they are simple minds. Last year's game is an anecdotal instance but in no way shape or form would confirm the proposed statement. It was called an upset, Northwestern wasn't expected to win. Northwestern had no better chance of winning or losing that game because of the two previous encounters. They had nothing to do with each other at all.

Like I've been trying to tell Hawk fans all season long. Last year has nothing to do with this year. Nothing. This is a different team, with different leadership, they play better team ball and it has showed throughout the season.

 

[nu2u]

Thank you conn53Victor. This post should be permanently pinned to this board for future reference.

I tried to argue this point last year and got nowhere. The "third win vs. same opponent is very difficult" meme has become entrenched.as fact and some are unwilling to persuaded otherwise.

 

[StatisticsLie]

Originally posted by nu2u:
Thank you conn53Victor. This post should be permanently pinned to this board for future reference.

I tried to argue this point last year and got nowhere. The "third win vs. same opponent is very difficult" meme has become entrenched.as fact and some are unwilling to persuaded otherwise.

The problem with this argument is that considering a 72% chance of winning a good number. It's like considering a C- a good grade. It's acceptable but nobody should make the argument that beating a team 3 times in a season isn't easy nor should they make the argument that it's difficult.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

Originally posted by StatisticsLie:

Originally posted by nu2u:
Thank you conn53Victor. This post should be permanently pinned to this board for future reference.

I tried to argue this point last year and got nowhere. The "third win vs. same opponent is very difficult" meme has become entrenched.as fact and some are unwilling to persuaded otherwise.

The problem with this argument is that considering a 72% chance of winning a good number. It's like considering a C- a good grade. It's acceptable but nobody should make the argument that beating a team 3 times in a season isn't easy nor should they make the argument that it's difficult.

Yeah 72% is not good for a test grade.

I just use my own experience. Every year in baseball if we faced a conference opponent in the post-season we lost. Did not matter who it was, if we beat them the previous two times, they would beat us the third. It happened in my 3 years in high school and even when I was an assistant coach. I don't know what it was, but if we went 1-1 vs the team then we won. But if we were 2-0 and met up in the post-season we lost. I could not put my finger on it when I was coaching. I don't know if the players got lazy or didn't focus, but it was frustrating.

Like Iowa last year we dominated NW the two previous meetings and then they beat us in Chicago. I think its just because the team that is 2-0 gets lazy or complacent and doesn't work hard and it gives the losing team a little momentum.

 

[nu2u]

Originally posted by StatisticsLie:

Originally posted by nu2u:
Thank you conn53Victor. This post should be permanently pinned to this board for future reference.

I tried to argue this point last year and got nowhere. The "third win vs. same opponent is very difficult" meme has become entrenched.as fact and some are unwilling to persuaded otherwise.

The problem with this argument is that considering a 72% chance of winning a good number. It's like considering a C- a good grade. It's acceptable but nobody should make the argument that beating a team 3 times in a season isn't easy nor should they make the argument that it's difficult.

I agree that claiming a third win "easy" is likely not valid in most cases but it is probable.

 

[DanL53]

Testing my old brain.

Sampling with replacement, or starting over.

As long as nothing changes a team has a 90% chance of beating another, the first time they play, the second time they play, the third time they play.

Sampling without replacement.

Chances the same team will beat the other three games in a row? 90% X 90% X 90% = 72.9%

Am I correct?

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

the logic is false because for some it presumes there is a 50/50 chance of winning vs losing. There isn't.

Kentucky vs Rutgers is like 98 / 2 and if Rutgers played Kentucky 10 times UK would win 10 straight.

The logic is unsound and ignores the primary reason the logic is unsound.

Past results do not predict future outcomes. Each game has its own merits and considerations, injuries, etc.

Winning two times in a row vs the same team does not make a team more likely to lose the third.

Just as losing two times in a row does not mean the same team is more likely to win.

The logic is faulty.