The key to last 5 games (and the tournaments) is holding this team to its pre Georgetown peak. With the exception of the 2003 team----each year we peak too early-----fatique?
Every year (except 2003) of the Crean era with our first loss in February has set the stage for a losing record (including that game) the rest of the season!
IMO, it's very important this late in the season to maintain the team at a peak by REDUCING practice time and just doing a little tweaking here and there rather than hard practices in an attempt to make major improvements at this point of the season(in which case diminishing returns-----it's a long season).
I would agree that practices should be cut back a little...with players and coaches getting the flu right now, i think it would be better for the team if they focused more on getting healthy again and keeping their heads in the game by watching what they did well during that long stretch of wins, but still doing enough to keep their fitness up since this is a team that runs and they have to be able to hold their stamina at as high a level as possible.
Indeed, there's no doubt that February & March's record over Crean's tenure has been mixed, with March seeing a lot of struggles. .. Whether it's fatigue or that other teams figure out MU (moreso than we figure out them), I know not.
W-L records for the TC era:
Feb: 26-21 (excluding 2002-03: 19-20)
Mar: 17-16 (excluding 2002-03: 11-15)
I think some it is a testimony to the demands Crean puts on his players and the type of players we have recruited in the past. Crean's teams pretty much play hard all the time all season long. Other teams may have as good or better talent but get by with giving 80% during most of the season. When it comes to the end and teams are facing elimination these other teams start putting forth 100% effort. Marquette's guys can't turn it up any higher since they were already playing at 100%. It sometimes even seems that our guys are "surprised" at the intensity level they face in these late season games. Just a theory.
I think there is a lot to what you say!
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 11, 2007, 01:36:06 PM
Indeed, there's no doubt that February & March's record over Crean's tenure has been mixed, with March seeing a lot of struggles. .. Whether it's fatigue or that other teams figure out MU (moreso than we figure out them), I know not.
W-L records for the TC era:
Feb: 26-21 (excluding 2002-03: 19-20)
Mar: 17-16 (excluding 2002-03: 11-15)
Why would you exclude 2002-2003?
I don't think I would exclude 2002-03, except to note that it was a superlative year that bumps the numbers quite a bit by itself.
2002-2003 was anexceptional year because we had a super star who went #5 in a very strong NBA draft that year----looking back he was either a #1 or #2 pick value in that draft.
So a lot of things happened that year because of DW that ordinarily wouldn't have happened ! Had he stayed another 2 years we may have won an NCAA championship !
Before attributing MU's end-of-season issues as something of their own doing, take a look at the Big East records for Feb and March for WVU, Pitt, Georgetown, SHU, Syracuse, etc.
Here's the results (excluding Villanova and UConn--two top 5 teams):
WVU: 14-4; 5-6
MU: 14-6; 5-4
Pitt: 17-2; 7-5
Georgetown: 15-4; 6-5
SHU: 12-6; 6-5
Cincy: 13-7; 4-5
Syr: 15-6; 8-5
UL: 14-7; 4-5
When you compare to the rest of the top half of the league, MU's end-of-season record compares favorably.
If MU is lost in Feb and March because we practiced too hard, why did Pitt lose? Why Georgetown? Why WVU? Is EVERYONE practicing too hard? Must be, because virtually EVERYONE seems to have the same issue in February and March (except the top 5
teams).
So here's an alternate theory--based on actually observing the whole league--not just one team in isolation: Competition simply gets tougher becasue teams are better prepared, plus even marginal opposition can play better knowing that they have nothing to lose.
At the start of the BE season, coaches have zero game film against other BE teams--but by February and March they've had a month to figure out how to play each opponent.
Note that this may help explain why the teams with some of the toughest non-conference scedules (ie Providence, DePaul) had such a hard time in conference play--they gave Big East coaches plenty of game film against quality opposition.
Furthermore, teams have greater motivation when they're the spolier----thus USF can't win meaningless games against DePaul or SJU early in the season, but can play well enough to beat Georgetown keeping them out of 3rd place in the conference.
Here's what I do know--if MU's practice schedule is to blame, then virtually every other competitive team is practicing the same way based on their results over the same stretch of time.
This is the usual Murff complaint, and one that has NEVER been substantiated. Since we aren't allowed at MU practices, no one other than the players, coaches and managers knows what goes on and how hard they're working.
Quote from: Murffieus on February 12, 2007, 07:48:39 AM
2002-2003 was anexceptional year because we had a super star who went #5 in a very strong NBA draft that year----looking back he was either a #1 or #2 pick value in that draft.
So a lot of things happened that year because of DW that ordinarily wouldn't have happened ! Had he stayed another 2 years we may have won an NCAA championship !
Yes but you don't exclude that year in the data either. That's just not right. Let us not forget who carried us those first two games in the NCAAs and I can tell you it wasn't Dwade nor did he carry us in the first game of the CUSA tournament that year with 9 turnovers or whatever it was.
This isn't selective data time, either use it all or don't use any of it.
The one thing that no one is mentioning is that the competition in March is a bit different than the competition in February on a number of levels. Number one, you're playing elimination games in March and often on neutral courts. In February you are playing some at home, some away and a sprinkling of bottom feeders that you will not play in March because they don't make the conference tournament or the NCAA.
Chicos----the reason leaving the 2002-03 season out is that this was a very, very unusual situation withe the best Div 1 player on your roster which would make it possible to overcome or override more normal circumstances.
So under normal circumstances-----we have a losing record for the rest of the season with the first loss in February in those 6 seasons (ex 2003)----if you insist on including 2003----then it's 6 out of 7 seasons! Either way there is a definite trend there .
SJS----it's a zero sum game----someone has to win more than they lose at seasons end! All you point out are losers!
Murff...so do we dismiss anything Wisconsin does this year because they have POY candidate Alando Tucker on their team?
I'm sorry, but this rationale makes absolutely no sense. We're talking about data, not one's opinion on whether a player's role somehow makes that data an outlyer. Either you use the data or you don't use the data.
Quote from: Murffieus on February 12, 2007, 08:24:11 PM
SJS----it's a zero sum game----someone has to win more than they lose at seasons end! All you point out are losers!
Are you serious? I specifically left OUT the losers!!
Lets go back to square one. There were 8 NCAA tournament teams from the Big East last season.
I'm only looking at the NCAA Tournament teams--not the losers. Apples to Apples.
Lets take a look at the percentage of each team's losses that came after February 1st:
UCONN: 2 of 3 losses came after Feb 1st: 66%
Villanova 2 of 4 losses: 50%
WVU: 6 of 10 losses: 60%
MU: 4 of 10 losses: 40%
Pitt 5 of 7 losses: 71%
Georgetown: 5 of 9 losses: 55%
Seton Hall: 5 of 11 losses: 45%
Syracuse: 5 of 9 losses: 55%
There's the hard data for you Murff--MU had the smallest percentage of its losses after February 1st of ANY BIG EAST NCAA TOURNAMENT TEAM!!! Just 40% of our losses came after February 1st.
Bottom line, your "MU is practicing too hard" theory is absolute bunk. MU actually out-performed the other 7 NCAA teams after February 1st.
What Murff won't say (and with good reason because it makes him look silly) is that Dwyane did very little to get us through the first round of the NCAAs in 2002-03. Travis had perhaps the best back-to-back tourney games of any point guard in history that year.
Quote from: Murffieus on February 12, 2007, 08:20:33 PM
Chicos----the reason leaving the 2002-03 season out is that this was a very, very unusual situation withe the best Div 1 player on your roster which would make it possible to overcome or override more normal circumstances.
So under normal circumstances-----we have a losing record for the rest of the season with the first loss in February in those 6 seasons (ex 2003)----if you insist on including 2003----then it's 6 out of 7 seasons! Either way there is a definite trend there .
Murff,
Can you redo the numbers excluding the games where Travis was injured. Not having your best player on the court is also an unusual situation.
The point is, we can find reasons to exclude almost any game. Duke's record in March, excluding when they had NBA players on the team is probably 0-0 over the past 10 years. Doesn't tell us much.
I do know one thing.....Murf is wrong 100% of the time.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 13, 2007, 03:24:14 PM
I do know one thing.....Murf is wrong 100% of the time.
In that case, have him tell me what numbers are definitely not the winning numbers in tonight's megamillions lottery....
although, IMHO, Murf has actually had a lot more logic in his posts than I have been led to believe by reputation... further, I find myself agreeing with him quite frequently (but not always of course). and finally, even when it seems he is playing 1 vs. 100 on here, he always backs up his statements (unlike lots of other posters here).. so I say post on, murf!
SJS----I ask againwho were the winners after Feb 1st----all you post is the losers----we're talking about a zero sum game here.
Ecompt ----why do you think Diener et al were open so much in the NCAA of 2003-----the opposition was doubling Wade trying to take him out of the game-----this gives others opportunities------Diener and others wouldn't have had those opps if he didn't have DW on the floor!
DW was the catalyst!
BTW SJS-----MU lost to Nova on Feb 4th last year-----with that loss we continued to go 4-5 through the end of the year (including tournaments)!
Murff...please. DW was not the catalyst in our first two games that year. Travis single-handedly won the Holy Cross game and he and Novak won the Missouri game for us. Take Travis off that team and replace him with an ordinary PG and we lose both games.
Quote from: Murffieus on February 13, 2007, 07:43:34 PM
with that loss we continued to go 4-5 through the end of the year (including tournaments)!
Yeah, you're right. I used Ken Pom's stats, and he doesn't include the NCAA tournament games in his listing.
http://www.kenpom.com/sked.php?team=Marquette&y=2006
So of course EVERYONE on my list ALSO has exactly one more loss.
UCONN: 3 of 4 losses came after Feb 1st: 75%
Villanova 3 of 5 losses: 60%
WVU: 7 of 11 losses: 64%
MU: 5 of 11 losses: 45%
Pitt 6 of 8 losses: 75%
Georgetown: 6 of 10 losses: 60%
Seton Hall: 6 of 12 losses: 50%
Syracuse: 6 of 10 losses: 60%
Doesn't change the relative findings one iota.
Of the top teams in the Big East,
one team (and only one team) had less than 50% of its season's loss total after Feb 1--and it happens to be the one team you think is losing more often because they practice too much!
Quote from: Murffieus on February 13, 2007, 07:43:34 PM
SJS----I ask againwho were the winners after Feb 1st----all you post is the losers----we're talking about a zero sum game here.
Murff--please you your brain on this one. Of course it's a zero sum game. For MU and everyone else in the league.
If you really think the likes of USF, Cincy, Providence DePaul, Rutgers, Notre Dame etc. rolled up all the wins in the league after Feb 1, you're really resting on a weak foundataion.
I didn't pick out the "losers" as you suggest, I picked out the BEST teams in the league so we could have an apples to apples comparison. Since many of those teams played each other, there are going to be a certain number of wins and losses.