I posted something similar after the OSU game. Everything thought this was going to be a 20+ point loss. The team fought, competed, and was within striking distance the entire game. The team exceeded almost everyones expectations. So why is the tone of the board so negative?
Seems totally expected. No need to be salty, but losses to rivals always stoke the fires.
People are drunk.
Not angry. Expected a 20 pt loss all year, feared Kaminsky and Dekker playing volleyball on the offensive boards. They are good. MU is a work in progress. All about the process this year. And really, there are only a couple of guys who are truly angry.
Fans have short memories and don't like losing to rivals. But we looked alright against the number two team in the nation. Bring in Luke, and maybe we can be a competitor in the BEast.
Quote from: MUEagle1090 on December 06, 2014, 02:54:07 PM
I posted something similar after the OSU game. Everything thought this was going to be a 20+ point loss. The team fought, competed, and was within striking distance the entire game. The team exceeded almost everyones expectations. So why is the tone of the board so negative?
Because not all of us are clueless.
Quote from: duanewade on December 06, 2014, 03:21:03 PM
Because not all of us are clueless.
Right now its looking like just one of us is...
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 06, 2014, 03:03:36 PM
Fans have short memories and don't like losing to rivals. But we looked alright against the number two team in the nation. Bring in Luke, and maybe we can be a competitor in the BEast.
We will be a competitor in the BE. People don't know or forget even in Al's hay days we played hard but lost because we were undersized. The Bonnie's as one obvious example. This team is progressing. Give them a chance.
I gotta say, this is one Badger loss I can stomach. It was one more step in the process.
Wojo had a good plan and adjusted well. Cohen hit a big shot. Hope Teve plays better when he has another big on the floor with him. Bo game planned for Duane, and Duane will be better prepared for it next time. We don't have thouroghbreds, but we do have hard working horses.
I'm wearing Blue and Gold goggles.
Quote from: MUEagle1090 on December 06, 2014, 02:54:07 PM
I posted something similar after the OSU game. Everything thought this was going to be a 20+ point loss. The team fought, competed, and was within striking distance the entire game. The team exceeded almost everyones expectations. So why is the tone of the board so negative?
this. We played great. The size difference is like a HS team playing the Spurs.
Quote from: Ellenson for an mu-rara on December 06, 2014, 03:32:43 PM
I gotta say, this is one Badger loss I can stomach. It was one more step in the process.
Wojo had a good plan and adjusted well. Cohen hit a big shot. Hope Teve plays better when he has another big on the floor with him. Bo game planned for Duane, and Duane will be better prepared for it next time. We don't have thouroghbreds, but we do have hard working horses.
I'm wearing Blue and Gold goggles.
MacIlvaine said something on the post-game show that was interesting. He mentioned Duane and how he struggled in the lane with Kaminsky and that he'll learn. He may have played against Diamond Stone but there is a difference between a high school sophomore in Stone and a college senior in Kaminsky. Duane will learn to finish those kinds of shots in the future, this is a good opportunity for him to learn.
Trust the process.
Quote from: mu03eng on December 06, 2014, 04:08:15 PM
MacIlvaine said something on the post-game show that was interesting. He mentioned Duane and how he struggled in the lane with Kaminsky and that he'll learn. He may have played against Diamond Stone but there is a difference between a high school sophomore in Stone and a college senior in Kaminsky. Duane will learn to finish those kinds of shots in the future, this is a good opportunity for him to learn.
Trust the process.
Exactly. As I posted in another thread, I am more optimistic about this team AFTER seeing them play - undermanned - against MSU and UW.
Just the same few whiners as there ever were.
Quote from: mu03eng on December 06, 2014, 04:08:15 PM
MacIlvaine said something on the post-game show that was interesting. He mentioned Duane and how he struggled in the lane with Kaminsky and that he'll learn. He may have played against Diamond Stone but there is a difference between a high school sophomore in Stone and a college senior in Kaminsky. Duane will learn to finish those kinds of shots in the future, this is a good opportunity for him to learn.
Trust the process.
Duane also had some nice passes when he drove. By far the best freshman / sophomore MU has right now.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 06, 2014, 04:42:36 PM
Duane also had some nice passes when he drove. By far the best freshman / sophomore MU has right now.
Yep. Not too worried about Duane.
It isn't everyone, its about three immature whiners.
Defense was significantly better than I expected today, offense somewhat below expectations. Balances out to a bit better result that expected.
Quote from: MUEagle1090 on December 06, 2014, 02:54:07 PM
I posted something similar after the OSU game. Everything thought this was going to be a 20+ point loss. The team fought, competed, and was within striking distance the entire game. The team exceeded almost everyones expectations. So why is the tone of the board so negative?
Eagle ... this is a message board so posters come her to whine/bitch and complain. If they don;' have a legit issue, they make one up, like the posters that are angry because they saw red shirts in the BC today.
I've been here for many years and never stop getting amazed at the lengths posters will search/twist/rationalize things so they have something to complain about. Two years ago, in the midst of an E8 season, we had posters complaining about "look on Todd Mayo's face" when he played.
Sit back an what how posters make complete idiots of themselves.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 06, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
Eagle ... this is a message board so posters come her to whine/bitch and complain. If they don;' have a legit issue, they make one up, like the posters that are angry because they saw red shirts in the BC today.
I've been here for many years and never stop getting amazed at the lengths posters will search/twist/rationalize things so they have something to complain about. Two years ago, in the midst of an E8 season, we had posters complaining about "look on Todd Mayo's face" when he played.
Sit back an what how posters make complete idiots of themselves.
Two words: Slap of five.
How could one not be impressed with MU's defense? Who was saying that Frank was definitely going to get 40? Ooops. They fought hard for boards... and did reasonable given the size differences and most of the rebounds were off of long shouts, which come off hard.
I can see why some people were questioning attacking the rim, but there was no space on the three point line because the UW guards were extended. So they were getting in the lane and drew some fouls. But should have looked to dish a little more or pull-up. With that said, a few of the drives and layup attempts by Derrick and JJJ were reckless and not good. And not sure why Burton kept losing the handle?
Make a few FTs and limit some stupid TOs, and they could have been right in it.
If you're asking why people are angry on the internet, it may be time to get off the internet.
;D
but really, I thought we played alright. If we make our easier shots today, we had a chance to pull off an upset.
Quote from: brandx on December 06, 2014, 04:10:54 PM
Exactly. As I posted in another thread, I am more optimistic about this team AFTER seeing them play - undermanned - against MSU and UW.
Just the same few whiners as there ever were.
Agree 100%. After the NJIT game, and after seeing Butler dismantle UNC, I thought we might struggle to win 10 games. Then we did very well in Orlando, hung in there with highly regarded Bucky and Sparty ... and NJIT beat effen Michigan!
I am quite encouraged that we will avail ourselves admirably in the Big East.
Hell, we didn't lose to Wisconsin any worse than Wisconsin lost to Duke!
Quote from: only a warrior on December 06, 2014, 07:07:06 PM
I count 3 words Chief. You an MU grad bro?
Must have gone right over your head, dude. Or probably you weren't on the board last year to know what he is referencing.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 06, 2014, 08:36:37 PM
Two words: Thirtyeight points!!!!!
We just held the #2 offsense in the nation (according to Pom) to 49 pts. I think that's certainly a postive to draw on.
Quote from: mreezybreezy on December 06, 2014, 08:56:17 PM
We just held the #2 offsense in the nation (according to Pom) to 49 pts. I think that's certainly a postive to draw on.
We just scored 38 points. Even more positive to draw on.
Got that goin' or us, aina?
We all kinda knew we would be at or about .500 the year.... Im not surprised..
Quote from: DiehardMU on December 06, 2014, 05:03:16 PM
Make a few FTs and limit some stupid TOs, and they could have been right in it.
Heck, we pulled within 6 and had the ball with 1:25 left when Carlino lost the dribble out of bounds. If we hit a 3 there instead of losing the ball, it's a one-possession game and maybe Bucky's sphincters get a little tight.
Unfortunately, Carlino did turn it over. And then I thought Wojo made a tactical error by letting Bucky dribble the shot clock away before Kaminsky hit the clinching 3.
We only had 3 team fouls. We needed to get super-aggressive and go for steals -- and if we committed some slapping fouls in the process that would have been fine, too. We needed the ball and we needed fouls so we could get them in the 1-and-1. Instead, Bucky dribbled away 30 seconds,Kaminsky hit his 3 and Duane missed another wild runner. Only then, with 30 seconds left and trailing by 8, did we start fouling. By the time we got them to the line, there were only 28 seconds left.
I am not "angry" at either Carlino or Wojo, though. Carlino was the only offensive weapon we had all game and was just trying to make something happen. Wojo is learning just as his players are.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 06, 2014, 04:56:04 PM
Two words: Slap of five.
Shall we out together a list of stupid things complained about here?
Mayo's face
Buzz's hair
Vander's high five
National TV losses
The terrible student section attendance against crappy teams
Bucky fans at the Bucky game
Others please
Quote from: MU82 on December 07, 2014, 06:09:58 AM
Heck, we pulled within 6 and had the ball with 1:25 left when Carlino lost the dribble out of bounds. If we hit a 3 there instead of losing the ball, it's a one-possession game and maybe Bucky's sphincters get a little tight.
Unfortunately, Carlino did turn it over. And then I thought Wojo made a tactical error by letting Bucky dribble the shot clock away before Kaminsky hit the clinching 3.
We only had 3 team fouls. We needed to get super-aggressive and go for steals -- and if we committed some slapping fouls in the process that would have been fine, too. We needed the ball and we needed fouls so we could get them in the 1-and-1. Instead, Bucky dribbled away 30 seconds,Kaminsky hit his 3 and Duane missed another wild runner. Only then, with 30 seconds left and trailing by 8, did we start fouling. By the time we got them to the line, there were only 28 seconds left.
I am not "angry" at either Carlino or Wojo, though. Carlino was the only offensive weapon we had all game and was just trying to make something happen. Wojo is learning just as his players are.
Bingo! +1000! (I'm not angry either, but come on, it's basketball, not rocket surgery. Enough of the "he's still learning, just like his young players" cachet; Wojo has been an assistant for more than a decade to the winningest coach ever, and does not deserve any pass for his boneheaded-ness in certain crucial moments.) I like him and what he has done for MU so far and repeat, I am not angry. On the contrary, the future of MUMen'sBB looks very promising.
I doubt that Wojos game plan was 'drive into lane and shoot out of control off balance layups.' Players need to execute. Attack the basket, but pull up or make the extra pass.
Quote from: murara1994 on December 07, 2014, 08:20:46 AM
I doubt that Wojos game plan was 'drive into lane and shoot out of control off balance layups.' Players need to execute. Attack the basket, but pull up or make the extra pass.
When Wojo was on Homer show after the game, he said the game plan was to drive the lane but then to dish to the open man on the wing. We only did half of that.
Regarding the fouling after Carlino TO, that was never going to work anyway. Buckys is too good a foul shooting team to honestly expect them to miss enough front ends that we could've gotten back into the game.
QuoteWhen Wojo was on Homer show after the game, he said the game plan was to drive the lane but then to dish to the open man on the wing. We only did half of that.
As anyone who has coached knows, there is a big difference between having a game plan and getting the kids to execute it. This team is progressing, but not fast enough to beat WI. The good news is the game was always in reach so a bit more schooling up plus add a few pieces, experience and I think we have a winner.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 07, 2014, 08:29:13 AM
Regarding the fouling after Carlino TO, that was never going to work anyway. Buckys is too good a foul shooting team to honestly expect them to miss enough front ends that we could've gotten back into the game.
It's "never going to work" so you shouldn't even try?
With 20 seconds left, after we finally got them into 1-and-1, we fouled Gasser. He was shooting 91.6% from the line. And guess what ... he missed the front end -- which I guess was impossible because he's too good a foul shooter.
"Miss enough front ends" to get back into the game? We only needed them to miss two: Foul ... Gasser misses ... Carlino 3 ... foul ... Hayes (or whomever) misses ... Duane 3 ... game tied.
And maybe when we're being super-aggressive, we don't even get called for a foul. Maybe we strip the ball away and then turn it into a score for us.
Is all that a long shot? Of course. It also was a long shot that Lazar would clank FTs that let DePaul beat us a few years ago. It also was a long shot that we'd come back from 7 down with a minute to go against Davidson. Crazy stuff happens in sports. If crazy stuff didn't happen, we wouldn't enjoy sports so much.
All I know is that you always try --
as Wojo did when he instructed his team to foul down 9 with 30 seconds left. Wojo did it even though he had to know it was never going to work.
Because you always try!!!!!If you're gonna foul down 9 with 30 seconds left, there's no reason you shouldn't have fouled down 6 with 60 seconds left, especially when you only have 3 team fouls at that point. You have to at least go for some steals rather than sit back in a tight zone letting them dribble the clock away. Jeesh.
And again, I say this as one who likes Wojo and thinks he's doing a great job. Even the best coaches in history made mistakes sometimes.
Yes, MU should have started fouling sooner.
Quote from: wildbill sb on December 07, 2014, 08:17:37 AM
Bingo! +1000! (I'm not angry either, but come on, it's basketball, not rocket surgery.
Shite, rocket surgery sounds intense!
Quote from: MU82 on December 07, 2014, 08:53:42 AM
"Miss enough front ends" to get back into the game? We only needed them to miss two: Foul ... Gasser misses ... Carlino 3 ... foul ... Hayes (or whomever) misses ... Duane 3 ... game tied.
Three, stop, then another three and the game is tied. I was waiting 39+ minutes for that too happen. It did not and it was not going to in the last 30 seconds either.
So go ahead an bellyache that should have started fouling sooner. If they did exactly what you suggested, guess what, we get exactly the same outcome.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 07, 2014, 11:10:17 AM
Three, stop, then another three and the game is tied. I was waiting 39+ minutes for that too happen. It did not and it was not going to in the last 30 seconds either.
So go ahead an bellyache that should have started fouling sooner. If they did exactly what you suggested, guess what, we get exactly the same outcome.
You don't know that to be true.
Meanwhile, I absolutely know it's true that by not fouling and just letting them stand 40 feet from the basket dribbling away the clock, we had no chance.
Wojo did eventually come to his senses and start fouling. And one of the 1-and-1s was missed by a 91% FT shooter.
I remember a Heat game where Ray Allen missed two FTs to contribute to a Heat loss, and he is the fifth-best FT shooter in NBA history. It was impossible to expect him to miss ... but he did. Stuff happens in sports. You at least have to try.
This is what drives me nuts about Scoop sometimes. You are so obviously wrong here but it somehow would affect your manhood to admit it. Hell, even Wojo admitted it!
This is simple. Maybe there ALMOST NO chance of winning if we foul. But there is NO chance if we don't. Foul and don't stop until "almost no" becomes "no".
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 07, 2014, 07:37:57 PM
This is simple. Maybe there ALMOST NO chance of winning if we foul. But there is NO chance if we don't. Foul and don't stop until "almost no" becomes "no".
Exactly ... 82 sounds like those pathetic types that piss their money away on lottery tickets ... " you can't win if you don't play."
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 07, 2014, 08:30:04 PM
Exactly ... 82 sounds like those pathetic types that piss their money away on lottery tickets ... " you can't win if you don't play."
Actually MU82 is making the sound logical argument for what every team should do in the circumstances just witnessed.
The fact that you're arguing against it is what's curious.
Big Frank's three was a statistical changer.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2014/12/06/wisconsin-49-marquette-38/flow
Quote from: mattyv1908 on December 07, 2014, 08:50:00 PM
Actually MU82 is making the sound logical argument for what every team should do in the circumstances just witnessed.
The fact that you're arguing against it is what's curious.
I'm not arguing that it is the wrong strategy, it just a long shot strategy, so long that you should not expect it to work.
As 82 said:
We needed the ball and we needed fouls so we could get them in the 1-and-1. Instead, Bucky dribbled away 30 seconds, Kaminsky hit his 3 and Duane missed another wild runner. Only then, with 30 seconds left and trailing by 8, did we start fouling. By the time we got them to the line, there were only 28 seconds left.
Instead of fouling, we were trying for a defensive stop. I would argue that is the higher percentage strategy.
So I'm not sure what the "mistake" was in this instance.
Simply because given the amount of time or lack of time, the proper strategy was to aggressively go for the steal but once the Badgers crossed half court it should have been immediate fouls. I have no problem with them trying for force either a steal or a 10 second violation but once neither of those occurred a foul was in order.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 07, 2014, 08:30:04 PM
Exactly ... 82 sounds like those pathetic types that piss their money away on lottery tickets ... " you can't win if you don't play."
Yes, because the odds of a good FT shooter missing a FT are the exact same as winning Powerball.
Have you never seen a game in which missed FTs by one team helped the opponent come back to win?
You must
really think Wojo is a moron for instructing his team to foul with 30 seconds left.
And, as I said in an earlier post, maybe the Warriors don't even foul if they play super-aggressive; maybe they get a steal or force a turnover. Wait. That's impossible, too. I mean, no Davidson player ever has panicked and thrown the ball away before he could get fouled. Besides, the odds against coming back from down 6 with a minute to go (and down 5 with 30 seconds to go) in an NCAA tourney game are worse than winning Powerball -- especially considering Davidson was among the national leaders in FT percentage and Marquette was an awful 3-point-shooting team -- so I can't believe Buzz, Jamil, Vander & Co. even bothered trying.
"We knew the game isn't over until the clock hits zero," said Blue, who obviously forgot to consult with Heisenberg on the proper laying-down strategy.
I'm done arguing with a dude who knows for a fact that a 91% FT shooter can't miss a FT ... just one day after a 91% FT shooter missed a FT.
Later.
Quote from: MU82 on December 07, 2014, 09:49:06 PM
Yes, because the odds of a good FT shooter missing a FT are the exact same as winning Powerball.
Have you never seen a game in which missed FTs by one team helped the opponent come back to win?
You must really think Wojo is a moron for instructing his team to foul with 30 seconds left.
And, as I said in an earlier post, maybe the Warriors don't even foul if they play super-aggressive; maybe they get a steal or force a turnover. Wait. That's impossible, too. I mean, no Davidson player ever has panicked and thrown the ball away before he could get fouled. Besides, the odds against coming back from down 6 with a minute to go (and down 5 with 30 seconds to go) in an NCAA tourney game are worse than winning Powerball -- especially considering Davidson was among the national leaders in FT percentage and Marquette was an awful 3-point-shooting team -- so I can't believe Buzz, Jamil, Vander & Co. even bothered trying.
"We knew the game isn't over until the clock hits zero," said Blue, who obviously forgot to consult with Heisenberg on the proper laying-down strategy.
I'm done arguing with a dude who knows for a fact that a 91% FT shooter can't miss a FT ... just one day after a 91% FT shooter missed a FT.
Later.
Again your arguing for something that has a very low change of working (causing a team to come back from 6 down with less than a minute) and getting worked up that this was a fatal error that lead to the loss.
This was not why we loss, so clam down.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 07, 2014, 09:59:40 PM
Again your arguing for something that has a very low change of working (causing a team to come back from 6 down with less than a minute) and getting worked up that this was a fatal error that lead to the loss.
This was not why we loss, so clam down.
I seem to remember the 1983 NC State team pulled 5 of these games out of their 9 game streak to win an NCAA championship.
It may not be why we lost, but it 100% contributed to why we didn't win.
Quote from: MU82 on December 07, 2014, 06:09:58 AM
We only had 3 team fouls. We needed to get super-aggressive and go for steals -- and if we committed some slapping fouls in the process that would have been fine, too. We needed the ball and we needed fouls so we could get them in the 1-and-1. Instead, Bucky dribbled away 30 seconds,Kaminsky hit his 3 and Duane missed another wild runner. Only then, with 30 seconds left and trailing by 8, did we start fouling. By the time we got them to the line, there were only 28 seconds left.
Not saying right or wrong, but I think Wojo was thinking that if we played aggressive and potentially foul we are giving them new shot clocks each time. Even if only 2-3 seconds go off the clock each time that is another 12 seconds or so that are gone.
In his mind at that point, play good d and if they miss we have the ball only down 6 with about 1 minute to go. Then we score a quick one and can start fouling if need be.
He traded about 20 seconds of clock for a one and one at that point (35- 15 for the fouling). Which would then give us one more "one and one" later in the game as you only get three.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on December 07, 2014, 10:20:35 PM
Not saying right or wrong, but I think Wojo was thinking that if we played aggressive and potentially foul we are giving them new shot clocks each time. Even if only 2-3 seconds go off the clock each time that is another 12 seconds or so that are gone.
In his mind at that point, play good d and if they miss we have the ball only down 6 with about 1 minute to go. Then we score a quick one and can start fouling if need be.
He traded about 20 seconds of clock for a one and one at that point (35- 15 for the fouling). Which would then give us one more "one and one" later in the game as you only get three.
Thanks for this ... Wojo electing not to foul was not a braincramp on his part (as Matty and 82 want us to believe), it was part of a reasonable strategy. Yes it did not work ....
Quote from: mattyv1908 on December 07, 2014, 10:10:04 PM
I seem to remember the 1983 NC State team pulled 5 of these games out of their 9 game streak to win an NCAA championship.
It may not be why we lost, but it 100% contributed to why we didn't win.
You had to go back 31 years to find an example! You're making my point that fouling when down 6 is like winning the lottery. If not, find me some examples from last weekend where fouling down 6 with less than a minute worked. How about the week before? Going back to a previous generation proves the point it rarely if ever works.
For it to work,
four things have to go right 1) a FT miss, 2) a quick three by us, 3) a quick foul and another front-end of 1-1 miss 4) another quick 3 by us. Yesterday we got 1 of these 4 things to happen (front-end 1-1 miss) and not the other three. It was not going to work.
So, it did not 100% contribute to the loss yesterday. Playing for a defensive stop was as good a strategy as this hopeless long-shot.
(Fouling when down 1 or 2 with less than a minute has plenty of examples of working, down 6 is so rare and you have to go to a previous generation to find an example).
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 07, 2014, 09:59:40 PM
Again your arguing for something that has a very low change of working (causing a team to come back from 6 down with less than a minute) and getting worked up that this was a fatal error that lead to the loss.
This was not why we loss, so clam down.
First off, a low chance of working is much better than NO chance of working.
Secondly, he didn't say it led to a loss. He said there was a slight chance that it could have led to a victory.
Quote from: brandx on December 07, 2014, 11:18:39 PM
First off, a low chance of working is much better than NO chance of working.
Secondly, he didn't say it led to a loss. He said there was a slight chance that it could have led to a victory.
The alternative is playing for defensive stop, not fouling or nothing (which is what is being suggested). Why was playing for a defensive stop such a terrible idea?
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 08, 2014, 12:44:15 AM
The alternative is playing for defensive stop, not fouling or nothing (which is what is being suggested). Why was playing for a defensive stop such a terrible idea?
Because they were getting killed on the offensive glass.
Hberg,
Even Wojo said postgame he made a mistake. You are right that Wojo didn't brain cramp, he made what he thought was a good decision. But 95% of college basketball coaches would have told their guys to foul in that situation. Looking back on it, Wojo admitted that he made the wrong decision. Happens all the time. Our coaches aren't perfect. You are right, this isn't the reason we lost, not by a long shot, but it certainly didn't help us.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 08, 2014, 12:44:15 AM
The alternative is playing for defensive stop, not fouling or nothing (which is what is being suggested). Why was playing for a defensive stop such a terrible idea?
I don't mean to attack you Heisenberg. As I watched the last few minutes I thought the same thing as you even though I knew the reality - a good chance they would rebound their own miss, the slim chance we would score quick back-to-back 3s against a good defensive team after watching our performance - was extremely unlikely.
There is a reason coaches almost always have their teams foul in situations like this. While it isn't successful very often, it really does give you the best odds.