MUScoop

Jay Williams just called MU the biggest sleeper in the Big East.    Believes they have every chance of being near the top all season. 

Near the top, but not in the upper echelon with Cuse and Louisville.

Quote from: PTM on January 21, 2013, 08:43:01 PM
Near the top, but not in the upper echelon with Cuse and Louisville.

For a team that lost 2 pros and was picked to finish 8th I for one would be ecstatic with near the top.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 21, 2013, 08:47:25 PM
For a team that lost 2 pros and was picked to finish 8th I for one would be ecstatic with near the top.

Just what they said.

Also big fans of ...Buzz....Blue....Gardner and Otule.... said if MU hits enough jump shots....

Keep on winning the games we are supposed to and we can finish in the top 5 of the BE. Win a couple on the road and its even better from there.

Maybe I'm getting greedy, but I'll be disappointed if we don't get a double bye. I think MU is better than all teams not named Syracuse and Louisville, and about even with Cincinnati.

Top 4 should be the goal, in my opinion

With 15 teams, what is the big east tournament format this year?

14 teams since uconn isn't eligible. Schedule is posted here
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=35446.0

I don't want to sound like too much of a pessimist, but we are wildly inconsistent.  I hope we stay up near the top, but I honestly believe that we are just as likely to lose as win almost every game going forward.  Scoring 13 points in a half kinda drove that message home for me, no matter how well they rebounded in the second half.  I hope that's just chicken little talking and this team just keeps winning.

Quote from: TJ on January 21, 2013, 10:52:23 PM
I don't want to sound like too much of a pessimist, but we are wildly inconsistent.  I hope we stay up near the top, but I honestly believe that we are just as likely to lose as win almost every game going forward.  Scoring 13 points in a half kinda drove that message home for me, no matter how well they rebounded in the second half.  I hope that's just chicken little talking and this team just keeps winning.

+1.

Quote from: TJ on January 21, 2013, 10:52:23 PM
I don't want to sound like too much of a pessimist, but we are wildly inconsistent.  I hope we stay up near the top, but I honestly believe that we are just as likely to lose as win almost every game going forward.  Scoring 13 points in a half kinda drove that message home for me, no matter how well they rebounded in the second half.  I hope that's just chicken little talking and this team just keeps winning.

"Inconsistent" is the word that nay-saying fans of every top 25 team use to describe their team.  The only D-I teams that have been consistent this year are those that are consistently bad.

It doesn't matter how well you play the game or how good you look... the only thing that matters is what the scoreboard says when the clock hits 0:00.  Just ask Gonzaga.

Look at ND's schedule to date. They were 14-1 with only two wins against good teams -- and one of those was against a Kentucky team that obviously was overrated at the time. Now that their schedule has gotten just a little tougher -- and only a little, as UConn, St. John's, Rutgers and Georgetown can hardly be called great -- the Irish have wilted.

Notre Dame ... I'm not impressed with them at all.

Quote from: Benny B on January 21, 2013, 11:14:36 PM
"Inconsistent" is the word that nay-saying fans of every top 25 team use to describe their team.  The only D-I teams that have been consistent this year are those that are consistently bad.

It doesn't matter how well you play the game or how good you look... the only thing that matters is what the scoreboard says when the clock hits 0:00.  Just ask Gonzaga.

I don't know what to tell you.  The defense has been great so far, but I'm not sure what would happen against a really good shooting team that can make open threes.  We don't have a good offense - it hasn't looked good for more than small stretches of any conference game so far.  Call me a nay-sayer if you want, but I could see us just as easily finishing with 10 or 11 wins as I can see us with 12 or 13.  I'm glad they have been winning, I hope it continues.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 12:10:13 AM
I don't know what to tell you.  The defense has been great so far, but I'm not sure what would happen against a really good shooting team that can make open threes.  We don't have a good offense - it hasn't looked good for more than small stretches of any conference game so far.  Call me a nay-sayer if you want, but I could see us just as easily finishing with 10 or 11 wins as I can see us with 12 or 13.  I'm glad they have been winning, I hope it continues.

Keep in mind, to be fair to MU...according to Pomeroy MU has faced the toughest Defensive schedule in the country so far. That might have a lot to do with it. In Cincy, Pittsburgh, and Georgetown you have the 12th, 21st and 10th ranked Defensive teams in the country. That's pretty tough. Wait until MU plays Syracuse(7th), and Louisville(1st). It's no wonder MU's offense has looked ugly so far.

http://kenpom.com/[url]

Lot of basketball yet to be played. Glad we are getting some attention and hope it continues. Every game will be tough for us and if mentally tough enough things will be good.

Quote from: TJ on January 22, 2013, 12:10:13 AM
The defense has been great so far, but I'm not sure what would happen against a really good shooting team that can make open threes. 

I know what would happen.  Florida 82, Marquette 49.  Fortunately, there aren't many teams that are of Florida's quality this year.

Right now, its hard to say what we are.  The think I can say with some confidence that we're a team somewhere between 20th and 50th best in the country.  I hope we're closer to 20 than 50.   We are a very good defensive team, a very flawed offensive team, and an undeniably tough-willed team.  It seems we are destined to play a lot of close games and that our season's success will depend a lot on thins like a referee's call here, a clutch jumpshot there, etc.

Quote from: TJ on January 21, 2013, 10:52:23 PM
I don't want to sound like too much of a pessimist, but we are wildly inconsistent. 

Counterpoint - An average team in college basketball has a point spread standard deviation of 15. An inconsistent team has a point spread standard deviation of 22. Marquette's point spread standard deviation is 8.

/math

Quote from: Benny B on January 21, 2013, 11:14:36 PM
"Inconsistent" is the word that nay-saying fans of every top 25 team use to describe their team.  The only D-I teams that have been consistent this year are those that are consistently bad.

It doesn't matter how well you play the game or how good you look... the only thing that matters is what the scoreboard says when the clock hits 0:00.  Just ask Gonzaga.

Duke, Michigan, Kansas, Syracuse, and Arizona have been pretty consistent. (Unless, of course, losing only once in two months is now considered inconsistent)

Not to mention the 10 teams that have lost only twice in two months which seems to be a fairly consistent pattern of winning.

Quote from: CTWarrior on January 22, 2013, 07:27:00 AM
I know what would happen.  Florida 82, Marquette 49.  Fortunately, there aren't many teams that are of Florida's quality this year.

Right now, its hard to say what we are.  The think I can say with some confidence that we're a team somewhere between 20th and 50th best in the country.  I hope we're closer to 20 than 50.   We are a very good defensive team, a very flawed offensive team, and an undeniably tough-willed team.  It seems we are destined to play a lot of close games and that our season's success will depend a lot on thins like a referee's call here, a clutch jumpshot there, etc.

+1  That's basically what I was trying to say.

Quote from: Warrior's Path on January 22, 2013, 08:49:29 AM
Counterpoint - An average team in college basketball has a point spread standard deviation of 15. An inconsistent team has a point spread standard deviation of 22. Marquette's point spread standard deviation is 8.

/math

3 games in overtime help lessen that point spread.

/numbersneedcontext

Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on January 22, 2013, 08:49:47 AM
Duke, Michigan, Kansas, Syracuse, and Arizona have been pretty consistent. (Unless, of course, losing only once in two months is now considered inconsistent)

Not to mention the 10 teams that have lost only twice in two months which seems to be a fairly consistent pattern of winning.

In this context, consistency is being used in reference to on-the-court play, not results.  Otherwise, I would inquire as to why you conveniently left Stephen F. Austin off your list of examples.

My only hope for this year's team is to make the NCAAs to keep that string alive. The team is wildly inconsistent on offense but their grit and determination make up for it. I don't care how they do it, or if they look ugly doing it, just make that dance and everything after that is just gravy. This is a bridge year to get to the incoming recruits that should bolster the roster for Gardner, Blue, Anderson, J Wilson, D Wilson, and Taylor next year.

Quote from: Warriors10 on January 22, 2013, 09:09:38 AM
3 games in overtime help lessen that point spread.

/numbersneedcontext

And the blow out loss to Florida would increase that point spread standard deviation.  You could argue that the sample size isn't big enough as a whole to take much from statistics like point spread std. deviation, but calling out 3 data points and saying that shows context and lessens Warrior's Path's point shows misunderstanding of the statistics he generated. 

A better way to attack the stat is to question if a lower std. deviation is actually a good thing.  Sure, it means you are generally losing/winning by the same general numbers, but there needs to be some sort of weighting applied to factor in the quality of opponent.  A close win against a superior opponent and a close loss against an inferior opponent would show small point spread std. deviation, but you could make the valid point that the team was inconsistent.

Quote from: g0lden3agle on January 22, 2013, 09:36:10 AM
A close win against a superior opponent and a close loss against an inferior opponent would show small point spread std. deviation, but you could make the valid point that the team was inconsistent.

I'm not going to start doing a statistical analysis of the team, but this is true.

Quote from: g0lden3agle on January 22, 2013, 09:36:10 AM
And the blow out loss to Florida would increase that point spread standard deviation.  You could argue that the sample size isn't big enough as a whole to take much from statistics like point spread std. deviation, but calling out 3 data points and saying that shows context and lessens Warrior's Path's point shows misunderstanding of the statistics he generated. 

A better way to attack the stat is to question if a lower std. deviation is actually a good thing.  Sure, it means you are generally losing/winning by the same general numbers, but there needs to be some sort of weighting applied to factor in the quality of opponent.  A close win against a superior opponent and a close loss against an inferior opponent would show small point spread std. deviation, but you could make the valid point that the team was inconsistent.

Well the three data points is approx. 17 percent of data because, as you said, it is a small sample size; I get your point though and I get Warrior's analysis.  I was just pointing out that some data points are different than others because of the time played, but I would agree that this team isn't as inconsistent as people make it out to be. 

Quote from: Warriors10 on January 22, 2013, 10:04:15 AM
Well the three data points is approx. 17 percent of data because, as you said, it is a small sample size; I get your point though and I get Warrior's analysis.  I was just pointing out that some data points are different than others because of the time played, but I would agree that this team isn't as inconsistent as people make it out to be. 

Ok, they're consistently mediocre?  Pitt, GU, and Cincy have good defenses - but we looked REALLY bad on offense those games.  Seton Hall doesn't and we still looked pretty bad.  I'm glad they keep winning, but the goal this year is a tourney birth - not competing for first in the Big East.

The consistency of our point spread standard deviation is the consistency of both our offense and our defense and the gap between those two. It's not just the point spread itself.

My basic argument is that MU has been consistent lately. For example, we have the #7 offense and the #7 defense in conference. Note that I said "consistent" and not "pretty".

Considering we are 4-1 in conference, being consistent is a good thing, right?

Quote from: Warrior's Path on January 22, 2013, 08:49:29 AM
Counterpoint - An average team in college basketball has a point spread standard deviation of 15. An inconsistent team has a point spread standard deviation of 22. Marquette's point spread standard deviation is 8.

/math

What is this? Did you just make up a standard point spread for inconsistent" teams? If you can't see this team is wildly inconsistent on offense, I don't know what to tell you - but you should look at the scoring differences between halves and the long scoring droughts we run into instead.

We're getting better at it - but trying to say we're not inconsistent because some other teams have been playing worse overall doesn't make sense.  Being inconsistent is not defined by your "point spread."  

Quote from: Warrior's Path on January 22, 2013, 10:40:06 AM
The consistency of our point spread standard deviation is the consistency of both our offense and our defense and the gap between those two. It's not just the point spread itself.

My basic argument is that MU has been consistent lately. For example, we have the #7 offense and the #7 defense in conference. Note that I said "consistent" and not "pretty".

Considering we are 4-1 in conference, being consistent is a good thing, right?

Could you go a little more in depth with how you are calculating your numbers?  I thought I understood what you were doing until I read this post.  Thanks in advanced!

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 22, 2013, 11:31:04 AM
What is this? Did you just make up what a standard point spread for inconsistent" teams? If you can't see this team is wildly inconsistent on offense, I don't know what to tell you - but you should look at the scoring differences between halves and the long scoring droughts we run into instead.

We're getting better at it - but trying to say we're not inconsistent because some other teams have been playing worse overall doesn't make sense.  Being inconsistent is not defined by your "point spread." 

I pulled the numbers from "Basketball on Paper" by Dean Oliver. It's not just some made up standard point spread for inconsistent teams.

I've paid attention to this stat since the Crean years, because many of Crean's teams were really inconsistent. And I've been particularly tracking it this year because I felt the team would struggle early and then improve as the year went on.

Quote from: g0lden3agle on January 22, 2013, 12:03:45 PM
Could you go a little more in depth with how you are calculating your numbers?  I thought I understood what you were doing until I read this post.  Thanks in advanced!

It's a moving five game average of the efficiency margin standard deviation. The actual calculation is:

[VAR(Ortg) + VAR(Drtg) - 2*COVAR(Ortg, Drtg)]^0.5

but it's run over five games at a time. I should also clarify that our current five game Point Spread STDEV is 8 and that has been the average for the past nine games. We were very inconsistent for everything around the Florida game (>22), but since the Wisconsin game we've been more and more consistent.

Again, I view this all as a good thing. But hey, if people want to discount the data because it conflicts with their pre-existing notions, go ahead.

Quote from: Warrior's Path on January 22, 2013, 12:35:05 PM
I pulled the numbers from "Basketball on Paper" by Dean Oliver. It's not just some made up standard point spread for inconsistent teams.

I've paid attention to this stat since the Crean years, because many of Crean's teams were really inconsistent. And I've been particularly tracking it this year because I felt the team would struggle early and then improve as the year went on.

It's a moving five game average of the efficiency margin standard deviation. The actual calculation is:

[VAR(Ortg) + VAR(Drtg) - 2*COVAR(Ortg, Drtg)]^0.5

but it's run over five games at a time. I should also clarify that our current five game Point Spread STDEV is 8 and that has been the average for the past nine games. We were very inconsistent for everything around the Florida game (>22), but since the Wisconsin game we've been more and more consistent.

Again, I view this all as a good thing. But hey, if people want to discount the data because it conflicts with their pre-existing notions, go ahead.

Or you can manipulate data to support preconceived notions. There is no standard data on inconsistent teams because, for one, they're inconsistent.

This isn't baseball where the structure of the sport makes it is easy to take data absent from the context of the game and create conclusions. You can be inconsistent in a game and still win, but the only data you are looking at is the end score -  not what happened to get there. It's like saying the game was called fair because the number of fouls were even without taking into account when the calls were given, if the calls changed the game's momentum, how many calls changed the game's possession, etc.  (i.e., crap you can't make data create conclusions for).

Inconsistent is not a synonym for "bad" and pointing out that our most "inconsistent" time came around our statistically worst game of the year really doesn't mean anything.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 22, 2013, 12:58:05 PM
Or you can manipulate data to support preconceived notions. There is no standard data on inconsistent teams because, for one, they're inconsistent.

This isn't baseball where the structure of the sport makes it is easy to take data absent from the context of the game and create conclusions. You can be inconsistent in a game and still win, but the only data you are looking at is the end score -  not what happened to get there. It's like saying the game was called fair because the number of fouls were even without taking into account when the calls were given, if the calls changed the game's momentum, how many calls changed the game's possession, etc.  (i.e., crap you can't make data create conclusions for).

Inconsistent is not a synonym for "bad" and pointing out that our most "inconsistent" time came around our statistically worst game of the year really doesn't mean anything.

Whatever you want to believe. I'm not going to discuss this with you any further.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 22, 2013, 12:58:05 PM
Or you can manipulate data to support preconceived notions. There is no standard data on inconsistent teams because, for one, they're inconsistent.

Show me where his methodology is manipulated and how so. Then show me that the manipulation is specifically targeted at producing a certain analytical conclusion.

Please use math or at least terminology relavent to dicussing his method.

Quote from: Warrior's Path on January 22, 2013, 12:35:05 PM
I pulled the numbers from "Basketball on Paper" by Dean Oliver. It's not just some made up standard point spread for inconsistent teams.

I've paid attention to this stat since the Crean years, because many of Crean's teams were really inconsistent. And I've been particularly tracking it this year because I felt the team would struggle early and then improve as the year went on.

It's a moving five game average of the efficiency margin standard deviation. The actual calculation is:

[VAR(Ortg) + VAR(Drtg) - 2*COVAR(Ortg, Drtg)]^0.5

but it's run over five games at a time. I should also clarify that our current five game Point Spread STDEV is 8 and that has been the average for the past nine games. We were very inconsistent for everything around the Florida game (>22), but since the Wisconsin game we've been more and more consistent.

Again, I view this all as a good thing. But hey, if people want to discount the data because it conflicts with their pre-existing notions, go ahead.

Does this account for quality of opponent? Because if not, going from Maryland Baltimore County to Florida to Wisconsin to Savannah State is going to make every team look inconsistent in a rolling 5 game average.

Quote from: Benny B on January 22, 2013, 09:10:37 AM
In this context, consistency is being used in reference to on-the-court play, not results.  Otherwise, I would inquire as to why you conveniently left Stephen F. Austin off your list of examples.

If you're only talking about on-the-court play then no team in the history of any game has been consistent.

Quote from: boyonthedock on January 22, 2013, 02:41:25 PM
Does this account for quality of opponent? Because if not, going from Maryland Baltimore County to Florida to Wisconsin to Savannah State is going to make every team look inconsistent in a rolling 5 game average.

Yes, I agree. We went from crushing UMBC to getting crushed by UF.

This is why I prefer to really only start looking at numbers during conference play.

Quote from: akmarq on January 22, 2013, 01:35:04 PM
Show me where his methodology is manipulated and how so. Then show me that the manipulation is specifically targeted at producing a certain analytical conclusion.

Please use math or at least terminology relavent to dicussing his method.

You don't have to manipulate methodology or data to manipulate an outcome, but your decisions on what data to include or not include can. His findings are based on the end of game point spread - eliminating the ability to judge the inconsistency of our play inside one game, something I think was the focus and meaning of TJ's point.

You want me to mathematically analyze a fancy metric so I can more confusedly come to a conclusion I can clearly see with my eyes? Tough s**t. If you can't clearly see that we play like a bag of hammers sometimes without an overly complex mathematical equation to support it, I don't know what to tell you...but maybe you should start by looking at the only two numbers that matter from our last game:

1st Half: 13 points
2nd Half: 50 points

Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on January 22, 2013, 03:11:30 PM
If you're only talking about on-the-court play then no team in the history of any game has been consistent.

I wasn't actually going to take it that far, but yes, that was pretty much the point.

Quote from: Aughnanure on January 22, 2013, 04:24:29 PM
You don't have to manipulate methodology or data to manipulate an outcome, but your decisions on what data to include or not include can. His findings are based on the end of game point spread - eliminating the ability to judge the inconsistency of our play inside one game, something I think was the focus and meaning of TJ's point.

You want me to mathematically analyze a fancy metric so I can more confusedly come to a conclusion I can clearly see with my eyes? Tough s**t. If you can't clearly see that we play like a bag of hammers sometimes without an overly complex mathematical equation to support it, I don't know what to tell you...but maybe you should start by looking at the only two numbers that matter from our last game:

1st Half: 13 points
2nd Half: 50 points

I wasn't trying to sound confrontational in my post to you, I was merely wondering what your issue with his metric was and was hoping you could show me. Apologies if the tone came off otherwiese.

You seem interested in looking at MU's offensive point spread between the two halves as a measure of consistency. I'm not sure this is the best way to go about things as it neglects things like fatigue, in-game adjustment, and foul trouble, but here is the difference between our offensive production in each half of our BE games:

MU - CIN: 13/50: differnence of 37
MU - SH: 26/43: differnence of 17
MU - PITT: 33/24 : differnence of 9
MU - GT: 20/29: differnence of 9
MU - UCONN - 30/39: differnence of 9

Average differnence inc. CIN game : 16.2
Average differnence w/o CIN game : 11

I figured the average difference b/t halfs w/o the CIN game because I think there is a compelling case that the CIN game was an outlier (worst half ever played by MU under Buzz perhaps). You will see that we bounced back and played our best half of offensive BE basketball to date in that game as well (they were certaintly inconsistant in that game).

If I have more time I'll try to do this for some other BE teams to get something to compare us to. I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are several flaws with the above, but I also think your method has its flaws as well (in that it's your subjective, observational opinion that you backed up with splits from one game).

Three more schools for points of comparison:

Georgetown
GU - Marq: 19/29: difference of 10 (L)
GU - PITT: 22/23: difference 1 (L)
GU - SJU: 36/31 : difference 5 (W)
GU - Prov: 38/36: difference 2 (L)
GU - USF - 31/27: difference 4 (L)
GU - ND - 34/29: difference 5 (W)

Average difference: 4.5 

Louisville
LU - PROV: 37/43: difference of 6 (W)
LU - SH: 36/37: difference 1 (W)
LU - USF: 38/26 : difference 12 (W)
LU - UCONN: 28/45: difference 17 (W)
LU - SYR - 38/30: difference 8 (L)
LU - VIL - 28/36: difference 8 (L)

Average difference: 8.66 

Syracuse
SYR - RU: 39/39: difference of 0 (W)
SYR - USF: 30/25: difference 5 (W)
SYR - PROV: 30/42 : difference 12 (W)
SYR - VIL: 27/45: difference 18 (W)
SYR - LOU - 38/32: difference 6 (W)
SYR - CIN - 22/35: difference 13  (W)

Average difference: 9

I'd be interested to see what the bottom of the conference looks like. I'll take our record and offensive inconsistency over Georgetowns consistency and record.

I am sorry I used the word consistency, it has derailed this thread.  What I meant was that while we can be good at times, we can also be very, very bad (see the first half against Cincy).  I could easily see the bad coming back to haunt us a few more times before this season ends.

Quote from: TJ on January 23, 2013, 10:59:21 AM
I am sorry I used the word consistency, it has derailed this thread.  What I meant was that while we can be good at times, we can also be very, very bad (see the first half against Cincy).  I could easily see the bad coming back to haunt us a few more times before this season ends.

+1

I think the whole thing got derailed b/c posters were using 'inconsistency' in very different ways and some were equating it with 'bad' and others were not. We do tend to score in spurts, but we usually do so in the second half which, to me, is indicative of good coaching, good player adjustments, and a commitment to drawing fouls. Our bad first half cost us the game at CIN, but I think that second half play has been a strength of this team.

Quote from: akmarq on January 23, 2013, 09:02:13 AM
I wasn't trying to sound confrontational in my post to you, I was merely wondering what your issue with his metric was and was hoping you could show me. Apologies if the tone came off otherwiese.

You seem interested in looking at MU's offensive point spread between the two halves as a measure of consistency. I'm not sure this is the best way to go about things as it neglects things like fatigue, in-game adjustment, and foul trouble, but here is the difference between our offensive production in each half of our BE games:

MU - CIN: 13/50: differnence of 37
MU - SH: 26/43: differnence of 17
MU - PITT: 33/24 : differnence of 9
MU - GT: 20/29: differnence of 9
MU - UCONN - 30/39: differnence of 9

Average differnence inc. CIN game : 16.2
Average differnence w/o CIN game : 11

I figured the average difference b/t halfs w/o the CIN game because I think there is a compelling case that the CIN game was an outlier (worst half ever played by MU under Buzz perhaps). You will see that we bounced back and played our best half of offensive BE basketball to date in that game as well (they were certaintly inconsistant in that game).

If I have more time I'll try to do this for some other BE teams to get something to compare us to. I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are several flaws with the above, but I also think your method has its flaws as well (in that it's your subjective, observational opinion that you backed up with splits from one game).

Sorry about being confrontational as well. Your post was after Warrior Path's "I'm not going to bother discussing this with you further" cop-out, so I was riled up. Also, manipulate was too strong of a word.

I just don't like bringing in overly complex calculations to discuss something that is very hard to define such as "consistency" and very much based on the eye test. I'm a big fan of stats...in baseball. But I just don't think they apply the same way inside a more constant flow/running sport such as basketball beyond efficiency ratings. There's no clearer point I can show than the blatant discrepancy between home and road play. No stat or calculation can explain, or justify, why an above avg team like Wisconsin is freaking unbeatable at a certain venue or how it makes competitive sense that Kansas can win some 63 games in a row at home. In fact, its down right silly that it works out in that way.

Can we say that we were inconsistent or was it the other team that was? Is it simply missing your shots or is it poor offensive motion and getting up poor shots? I think stats answer a lot, but consistency against different teams and players in different situations is an exceedingly difficult calculation (especially as someone wisely pointed out, basketball is a game where all teams play inconsistently - so where's your base start from?). I think people were drawing WAY too big of conclusions on whether this team plays inconsistent or not from the end of games scores.

Quote from: Benny B on January 21, 2013, 11:14:36 PM
"Inconsistent" is the word that nay-saying fans of every top 25 team use to describe their team.  The only D-I teams that have been consistent this year are those that are consistently bad.

It doesn't matter how well you play the game or how good you look... the only thing that matters is what the scoreboard says when the clock hits 0:00.  Just ask Gonzaga.

Then let me add-on to the previous statement.

We are wildly inconsistent and we lack a go-to scorer. Many a team remains inconsistent, but they at least have one or two go-two guys to get the biscuit in the basket. We don't have that. We also have a downlow scorer that can only play 25 effective minutes at most. So put all three of those things together and you have cause for concern this year.