@Gunman
In a narrow 4 point win there are many ways to look at drivers of victory, but I like to think about two first.
- A change in several variables could have left us with a Loss. Examples...
--5 fewer offensive rebounds, and so 5 fewer second shots, since we were making around 50% inside the stripe would likely have put us behind. We have been such a poor rebounding team that this is one very likely way we would have lost this game maybe 3 out of 4 times.
--We only needed to make two fewer treys and we would have lost; that suggests a lot of sensitivity and risk of variance. We made 55% of 20 3ptas. We average almost 42% from treyville. We way overshot our tendency. It would have been VERY easy not to make 2 of the 11 treys we made. 9 of 20 would have been 45%, or still above our season average. Did we win the game largely because of abnormally high 3 point shooting? Hell, yeah! But let's explore some more variables we could have lost and their significance and probability.
--5 fewer made FTs spread around our guys would have lost the game, but we shot 69% and without Doke in the lineup much our guys would probably be able to average close to what we actually shot, so the chances of us losing by FT variance might only happen 1 in 4 or 5 games against TCU.
--6 fewer KU blocks (stops) would likely have yielded an L.
And so on.
In this way of thinking about what made us win, it becomes apparent that unfavorable change of as little as 1-2 in only 3-4 categories listed above would have lead us to a loss. Such a slight change is getting into random error territory. This means our victory was not based on superior play, but on a lucky break in the random error factor.
This is why in close games its not enough just to make big plays at the end. Playing even just a little harder and smarter in all phases of the game, so that you tip everyone of the categories just a little farther in your favor is really how you steal wins at home, or away, in close games. Getting the scoring spread into random error territory is also how lesser teams beat better teams. Fail to play a little harder and a little smarter and the opportunity to make a big play at the end to eliminate unfavorable breaks in random error will vanish.
But as I noted, there is another way to look at close games and what drove the win, or at least drove the game to be close enough to be settled by the luck of random error.
- Divide 2pts, 3pts and FTs into a pie chart and attribute winning to the most points and compare that to the opposing team. The biggest disparity between KU and TCU scoring by category is what won it.
KU
2pt 32 points 36%
3pt 33 points 37%
FT 23 points 26%
Total 88 points 100%
TCU
2pt 36 points 43%
3pt 27 points 32%
FT 21 points 25%
Total 84 points 100%
--TCU was +4 in 2pt scoring. TCU defeated KU inside the stripe.
--KU was +2 in FTs, but that still left TCU with a 2 point edge.
--KU was +6 from treyville. Three point scoring gave KU a winning margin.
CONCLUSION:
In the first way of looking at the game, 3 point shooting was a huge driver because KU was so far above its average in 3pt shooting, but the closeness of the game meant that the number of variables that could have easily have moved by just 1-2 units and altered the game outcome indicated that the most decisive driver of victory was likely random error.
In the second way of looking at the game, TCU beat KU inside the trey stripe and KU narrowed that advantage at the FT line. But the deciding factor was KU's awesome 55% 3pt shooting on 20 attempts.
Either way, the 3 point ball played a big part in KU's victory.
