The Fallacy of "Knowing" How to Win

Often when a team wins or loses by five or less points, you'll hear a commentator talk about how this team performs X, Y and Z under pressure. Some virtues are also normally attached to the coach involved as well. Some coaches just know "how to win" close games, while other players and coaches wilt and crack under pressure.

Hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story? When you actually look at win-loss records for games decided by five points either way, the picture isn't so clear, and it suggests that luck plays a great role in the outcome of games. Specifically, I'm looking at the past five years. The following group has one sure Hall of Fame coach, one borderline candidate, one coach on the hot seat, and two coaches who were fired after the 2008 season. Quick, who are these coaches?:

Coach 1: 20-15 (0.571)
Coach 2: 29-23 (0.557)
Coach 3: 25-25 (0.500)
Coach 4: 14-16 (0.467)
Coach 5: 17-22 (0.436)

The first coach is Duke's Mike Krzyzewski, which may or may not be surprising to you. It may not be because he is first in this mini-sample. It may be surprising because his overall win percentage is 0.809 in that time frame. While he does seem to be the best of this bunch, his edge isn't that great over the second coach...

... Who is Ben Braun of California, who was fired following the 2008 season after a second straight year among the bottom of the Pac-10. Despite an overall record of 79-75 (0.520) in that time period, Braun posted a 29-23 record in close games, a slight improvement.

Coach three is Jim Baron of Rhode Island, who has gotten a reputation for being an average / mediocre coach. His overall record in the last five years is 80-76. His 25-25 record in close games seems to support that theory, except that the next coach on the list is...

... Michigan State's Tom Izzo. You might know him as the man that won an NCAA championship in 2000. His Spartans have made the tournament every year from 1998 to 2008. Yet he has done this despite a record below .500 in close games. His overall winning percentage in the same time frame is 0.691.

The last coach is Providence's Tim Welsh, who was fired after several years of mediocrity with the Friars. While his 17-22 record in close games isn't great, it isn't that different from Izzo's. His overall winning percentage for the past five years is .530.

Although it is only a five-team sample, I don't doubt that running the numbers for more teams or more years will produce more inconsistencies, and a general trend toward .500. This mirrors the work done in other sports when it comes to margin of victory - Baseball teams with an unusually good record in one-run games one year will often see the total flip-flop the next year despite keeping the same personnel.

When columnists, analysts and color commentators love to harp about the heroic clutch abilities of some teams to pull out games, it obscures the real reason why Michigan State and Duke are among the elite college teams - They beat the snot out of weaker teams and stay out of tight scores. It seems odd to say, but in a close game, an elite team isn't much better than a 50/50 shot to win the game. In a five-point game, all it takes is two possessions for a weak team to sneak out a win.