MU finishes calendar year 1-8 in close games despite forcing 16 turnovers

[bamamarquettefan]

When Dominic James nailed a 3-pointer in Raleigh on December 22, 2008, it made the Three Amigos 14-9 in close games at Marquette (4 points or closer or overtime games).

Who would have known then that MU would go 1-8 in close games in calendar year 2009?  Here are the games:

Dec 29 WVU 62-63, Dec 5 NCSt 73-77, Nov 29 FSU 56-57, Mar 22 Missouri 79-83, March 20 Utah St 58-57, March 12 Nova 75-76, March 7 Syracuse 79-86 OT, March 1 Lville 58-62, Feb 6 USF 56-57.

The good news is that in study after study in every sport things usually even out.  A team that loses a lot of close game over a stretch tends to then win a lot more games during the next stretch.

So just playing the numbers, MU barely losing games they were expected to lose by more against FSU (the tallest team in college basketball) and WVU (where all five starters were taller than all five of our starters today) and six other heartbreakers in 2009 should spell a lot of wins the rest of the season.

Obviously the question is whether there is something systemic, such as the lack of size or freezing up on free throws, that is putting MU at a big disadvantage at the end of close games.

Only time will tell.  As I outlined in the preview on www.crackedsidewalks.com, we were bound to see WVUs big guys dominate inside, and their starting front line sat only 5 minutes between them and still went 8-13, 8-13 and 8-12 respectively from the field as they got easy shots thorughout.

However, MU was able to rattle WVU for 16 turnovers, including two great stretches.  With the score tied
11-11 with 12:50 left, MU forced six turnovers in six minutes to take a 22-18 lead.  MU forced no turnovers in the next nine and half minutes as they fell back behind 39-40, but then went on another great stretch, forcing 7 turnovers in the next 11 minutes to build a 57-53 lead.  However, after Dwight Buycks steal with 6:15 to go, MU forced only one more turnover in the final 6 minutes as WVU closed on the 10-5 run to win the heartbreaker.

Pretty clear that we can beat even the biggest teams in the country when we are forcing turnovers.  When not, we are really at a disadvantage.

To give you a flow, here is the timing of the 16 turnovers:  First half - 17:09, 16:35 (DJO steal), 12:37, 10:23 (Lazar steal), 9:33, 8:53 (Cube steal), 8:32 (Lazar steal), 6:30 (capping 6 turnovers in 6 minutes).
Second Half - 16:42, 15:58 (Butler steal), 12:50, 12:27, 9:54 (DJO steal), 7:31, 6:15 (Buycks steal, caps 7 turnovers in 11 minutes), 1:36.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here's another interesting stat...MU is now 4-10 against ranked teams last season and this season....many of them were nail biters.

[NersEllenson]

Here's another interesting stat:  MU lost 5 of those games against ranked teams last year without Dominic James.  Prior to his injury, they were doing just fine against ranked teams. 

[MUFan11]

we were elite 8 with D James...without him we were second round

[4everwarriors]

James couldn't make free throws either.

[Rollout-the-Barrel]

Heres hoping for an 8-1 run in close games in 2010!  These tough losses make me increasingly mad/depressed for a good 24 hours.

[MR.HAYWARD]

Here is another stupid stat....in the last calender year I beleive we have only lost like like 12 games total....so to go on and say thet 8 of them were close proves what!?  When we lose it s close?   WoW!!  that does not tell me we are chokers that tells me we are damn hard to beat and if you do beat us it is going to be a war. 

Another stupid stat .... in blowouts we are like 35-0 in the last year. 

[bamamarquettefan]

Mr. Hayward, why so angry!  All teams tend to be around .500 in close games, good or bad.  My point is not to put MU down, my point is that if two teams basically play an even game on a given night, there is a good bit of luck involved in who wins and it is usually more a matter of a couple of bad bounces, or something Jimmy Butler's 3-pointer missing iron by a half an inch against Missouri, to shift the game.  Of course going 35-0 in blow outs means you have a great team (though I don't think we were quite that good since Dayton and at Villanova seemed like blowouts last year), and the ones that come down to the wire are, to some degree, lucky either way.  A team that barely survives 8 close games to go 12-0, usually ends up losing a lot of games the rest of the year because they aren't really that good, and normally (and my hope this year) is that a team that blows out a lot of teams (like MU) but has had the ball bounce the wrong way in 8 out of 9 close games may just be destined for great things when the luck evens out.  As Roll-out-the-barrell says, here is to an 8-1 record in close games the rest of the year!

[MR.HAYWARD]

why am i angry...not angry simply frustrated with the posts that seem to never endingly come out of the wood work with issues such as this one.   

Why dont you and others analyze something more positive.  But no we lost what like 12 games in the last year and 8 of them were withing a couple points but we focus on the 8 we lost.   

You also failed to mention they were all teournamnet caliber teams and i beleive every game but 1 of them was not played at the Bradley center.

it simply gets old.  seems people wehter it be analyzing our close losses or why our scheduling sucks so bad or not practicing Ft's or this or that people simply seem to try to one up each other every day about how bad Marquette sucks in one facet or another.  very pathetic , old and tiresome. 

[wildbillsb]

why am i angry...not angry simply frustrated with the posts that seem to never endingly come out of the wood work with issues such as this one.   

Why dont you and others analyze something more positive.  But no we lost what like 12 games in the last year and 8 of them were withing a couple points but we focus on the 8 we lost.   

You also failed to mention they were all teournamnet caliber teams and i beleive every game but 1 of them was not played at the Bradley center.

it simply gets old.  seems people wehter it be analyzing our close losses or why our scheduling sucks so bad or not practicing Ft's or this or that people simply seem to try to one up each other every day about how bad Marquette sucks in one facet or another.  very pathetic , old and tiresome. 


Dear Mr. H,
"...very pathetic , old and tiresome." For whatever it's worth, my wife's been saying this about me all year, too!

[mviale]

The sky is falling. We lose by one point to the #6 team in the country

[bamamarquettefan]

Mr. Hayward - I understand the frustration, but no one put up more posts than me making fun of all the people who complained about our foul shooting early in the year.  They claimed it was all because of Buzz not using his practice time on it, which is ridiculous since any 19-year-old knows how to practice free throws on his own.  By the end of the year the FT critics looked like fools because we were one of the best FT teams in the country.

I just think we are talking past each other.  We are both frustrated with people who wine every time a ball bounces the wrong way and we lose by a point, and I'm saying not to get down on the kids - they are playing great, they are playing dead even with VERY good teams (as mviale points out, the #6 team in the country by 1 point IN THEIR GYM, so that's typically a 3-point win on a nuetral court) and a Florida State team that went into Atlanta and beat Georgia Tech.  I am saying don't get down on DJO because he runs circles around people for 40 minutes and has one free throw fall short - that free throw wouldn't have mattered if he hadn't dominated guys the rest of the game.  Don't get down on Jimmy because his free throw skims across the rim and falls out when the guy has gone from JC transfer with question marks to a stud in less than 2 years.  My point is these guys look awesome, and once we get a few bounces this could really be a special team.

OK, I'll shut up on the dissertation, this team is awesome and the close losses are bad luck that is about to even out!

[mu_hilltopper]

why am i angry...not angry simply frustrated with the posts that seem to never endingly come out of the wood work with issues such as this one.  

Why dont you and others analyze something more positive.  But no we lost what like 12 games in the last year and 8 of them were withing a couple points but we focus on the 8 we lost.  

You also failed to mention they were all teournamnet caliber teams and i beleive every game but 1 of them was not played at the Bradley center.

it simply gets old.  seems people wehter it be analyzing our close losses or why our scheduling sucks so bad or not practicing Ft's or this or that people simply seem to try to one up each other every day about how bad Marquette sucks in one facet or another.  very pathetic , old and tiresome.  

Dear Mr. H,
"...very pathetic , old and tiresome." For whatever it's worth, my wife's been saying this about me all year, too!

(edit: fixed quote tag)

[mu_hilltopper]

Ok, this is odd.   I tried to edit a msg, but it changed the author to me, and now has deleted Hayward's.

Sorry, folks, database issues.

[VegasWarrior77]

The sky is falling. We lose by one point to the #6 team in the country

... on the road!

[warthog-driver]

All teams tend to be around .500 in close games, good or bad.

There is no statistical probablility to substantiate this. None. Nada. A team that is 100-0 in close games can win the next 100. There is no statistical significance to a team being 100-0 or 0-100 in close games.

[Henry Sugar]

There is no statistical probablility to substantiate this. None. Nada. A team that is 100-0 in close games can win the next 100. There is no statistical significance to a team being 100-0 or 0-100 in close games.

Pythagorean expectation.  If points scored and points allowed are close, pythagorean expectation predicts the team should win approximately 50% of those games.