Debunking the myth

[Valpo89]

According to the Horizon League, Valpo is 17-2 over the last 20 years when trying to beat an opponent for the third time in the same season.

So all of you people who keep bringing up the "tough to beat a team three times in the same year" theory can quit bringing it up. This isn't baseball.

[crusaderjoe]

One of the "2" came at the hands of UMKC in 2007 at the tournament, IIRC.  When was the other?

17-2 is impressive, but I'm left wondering whether VU's record would still be the same in this respect if we had a previous 20 years in the MCC/HL to reflect upon as opposed to a majority of years in the Mid-Con during the same time period.

[valporun]

One of the "2" came at the hands of UMKC in 2007 at the tournament, IIRC.  When was the other?

The first one was in 2002-2003 with IUPUI, then in 2004-2005 we lost to Chicago St. in Tulsa, 2006-2007 to UMKC. I looked for this on on the Valpo athletics website in the Records & History section under 'All-Time Records'. I knew it had to have happened in 2003 with IUPUI because we knew they were tough to play. I didn't think we lost to Chicago St. though.

[valpopal]

On the other hand, if we go by probability, the odds are a little more difficult since we beat Detroit three times last year and are trying to do it a second time.

[Alum2001]

I've always thought the conventional wisdom that it's tough to beat a team three times in one year was an example of the "gambler's fallacy", in which people assume that the "law of averages" will change the probability of a favorable outcome even though the games are logically independent. (Imagine flipping a coin twice, and noticing that it's landed heads-up both times. The probability that it will land heads-up a third time is still the same as it was the first time: 50%.)

It's possible that the human element can create a little more of a connection between games than there is between coin flips. Perhaps the team that won becomes complacent, or the coaching staff fails to adjust the gameplan, or the team that lost gets hungrier or tries harder. But since we're dealing with pretty good coaches and serious players, I'm hoping that these sorts of psychological factors are minimized as we prepare for a third game this year.

[crusaderjoe]

One of the "2" came at the hands of UMKC in 2007 at the tournament, IIRC.  When was the other?

The first one was in 2002-2003 with IUPUI, then in 2004-2005 we lost to Chicago St. in Tulsa, 2006-2007 to UMKC. I looked for this on on the Valpo athletics website in the Records & History section under 'All-Time Records'. I knew it had to have happened in 2003 with IUPUI because we knew they were tough to play. I didn't think we lost to Chicago St. though.

Interesting.  I took a quick look at the all time records over the last 10 years:

2001-2002 Chicago State third game: W
2001-2002 UMKC third game: W
2001-2002 IUPUI third game: W
2002-2003 IUPUI third game: L
2003-2004 Oakland third game: W
2004-2005 Chicago State third game: L
2006-2007 UMKC third game: L
2007-2008 Wright State third game: W
2010-2011 Detroit third game: W
2011-2012 Butler third game: W
2011-2012 Detroit ?

Third game record: 7-3 over the last 10 years (unless I missed something).

[valporun]

crusaderjoe, I saw the same thing. Over the last 20 years, we would be 17-3, unless they are saying this is year 20, then it would be 16-3.

[DMvalpo18]

I've always thought the conventional wisdom that it's tough to beat a team three times in one year was an example of the "gambler's fallacy", in which people assume that the "law of averages" will change the probability of a favorable outcome even though the games are logically independent. (Imagine flipping a coin twice, and noticing that it's landed heads-up both times. The probability that it will land heads-up a third time is still the same as it was the first time: 50%.)

It's possible that the human element can create a little more of a connection between games than there is between coin flips. Perhaps the team that won becomes complacent, or the coaching staff fails to adjust the gameplan, or the team that lost gets hungrier or tries harder. But since we're dealing with pretty good coaches and serious players, I'm hoping that these sorts of psychological factors are minimized as we prepare for a third game this year.

Well put.

[agibson]

I've always thought the conventional wisdom that it's tough to beat a team three times in one year was an example of the "gambler's fallacy",

I think it's that, and a little bit more.

Gambler's fallacy is a part of it, I think you're definitely right.  If we consider two evenly matched teams, that would average to 50-50 if playing lots of games each other, then for a three-game set 3-0 isn't a very probably outcome.  But, once you're already 2-0, 3-0 and 3-1 have the same probability.

But, that's assuming the teams are evenly matched!

If the teams are 2-0, that's likely to be because one team is _better_.  Then it's likely that they'll _win_ making 3-0 a more likely outcome at that point than 2-1. 

This is even more the case when the last game is at home, and one of the earlier ones on the road.  Is Detroit hungry?  Are they embarrassed to have lost twice?  Sure.  Does Valpo have a ton of incentive to take the game seriously themselves, and for everybody on the team (players and coaches, if you count coaches getting there as _coaches_) to get their first trip to the Big Dance?  You bet. 

I like our chances.

[drewsaders11]

18-4