People have already called out whether or not there’s relevance for a lot of the inputs, I’m struggling to see how you got to the conclusion.
Where is this analysis looking at causality anywhere, in order to state good teams make their own luck?
Based on the splits at the end, it sounds like there’s only likely a mild correlation between your metric and win percentage, and nothing to tease out why a team is lucky (let alone if we’re being strict on what “luck” is then you can’t create it, it’s just beneficial bounces of probability)
TO and Josh Gordon - why not?