24 point win over Vandy is better than a 1 point win over LSU
32 point win over Howard is better than a 3 point loss to Belmont
18 point loss to Michigan on a neutral court is better than a 28 point loss to Iowa at home
3 point loss to Pitt is worse but not by much than an OT victory over Arizona State
25 point win over IUPUI is better than an OT victory over IUPUI.
I think it is safe to say that this team is better than last year's....and that team wasn't that far off from dancing. That's what gives me hope. What gives me doubt is that both our non-conference and conference schedules are likely to be more difficult. Will the improvement be enough?
Yes
It should be better than last year. The frosh have experience now and losing Ellenson is offset by the quality newcomers.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 22, 2016, 11:42:28 PM
24 point win over Vandy is better than a 1 point win over LSU
32 point win over Howard is better than a 3 point loss to Belmont
18 point loss to Michigan on a neutral court is better than a 28 point loss to Iowa at home
3 point loss to Pitt is worse but not by much than an OT victory over Arizona State
25 point win over IUPUI is better than an OT victory over IUPUI.
I think it is safe to say that this team is better than last year's....and that team wasn't that far off from dancing. That's what gives me hope. What gives me doubt is that both our non-conference and conference schedules are likely to be more difficult. Will the improvement be enough?
(http://66.media.tumblr.com/875855cf246cdc3119a03c19750250e9/tumblr_inline_o74b4nXZoU1sjh0qi_500.gif)
How does one compare a loss to a top 150 team last year to a blowout win over a bottom 100 team this year?
Quote from: g0lden3agle on November 23, 2016, 07:07:44 AM
How does one compare a loss to a top 150 team last year to a blowout win over a bottom 100 team this year?
Belmont and Howard were the only two that didn't have an obvious partner to compare to. Is what it is.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on November 23, 2016, 07:07:44 AM
How does one compare a loss to a top 150 team last year to a blowout win over a bottom 100 team this year?
Easy when you drink the Kool aid
How could we have been close to dancing last year, when we did not even get an NIT bid?
Revisit the topic on 12/10/16 after the Georgia and Wisconsin games are completed. Then we should know the status of this team.
I agree it is a better start, and I agree the team has improved from last year. May not seem like it to most but that IUPUI win is a very solid win(especially in the manner in which it was won).
Wojo seems to have done some coaching between NYC and this game: Katin was much more disciplined within the offense with only a few lapses, Duane was creating, Luke seemed to look less lost, and the flow of the team seemed much better.
Let's hope the next two games give the team and Wojo practice time and confidence building to get them ready for the 3 games against quality opponents we need to win at least 2 of.
Monitoring status: Cautiously optimistic.
(http://www.vomzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/best-everything-is-awesome-gif-111.gif)
Big difference is the much lower turnover rates even in this year's losses. Yet, Carter and Howard at a poor 30%. Start Duane at PG?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on November 23, 2016, 08:03:06 AM
Start Duane at PG?
That was my thought last night as well when I saw him going out of his way to 'pass first'.
According to Pomeroy, we're a better team this year:
2015-16
Season-opening ranking: 53
Ranking after 5 games: 99
Season offensive efficiency: 106.9 (116)
Season defensive efficiency: 99.0 (88)
2016-17
Season-opening ranking: 47
Ranking after 5 games: 40
Season offensive efficiency: 110.3 (40)
Season defensive efficiency: 95.3 (40)
Quote from: nyg on November 23, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Revisit the topic on 12/10/16 after the Georgia and Wisconsin games are completed. Then we should know the status of this team.
I watched UGA last night against Kansas. Don't have a ton of height, but some strength at the 4 which could give MU trouble. Their zone slowed Kansas down, and vice versa. Georgia shot it terribly. Saw some similarities to Pitt, but I think Pitt is better offensively. Winnable, but it could turn into a rock fight if MU forgets their offensive principles again.
Quote from: MUfan12 on November 23, 2016, 08:18:10 AM
I watched UGA last night against Kansas. Don't have a ton of height, but some strength at the 4 which could give MU trouble. Their zone slowed Kansas down, and vice versa. Georgia shot it terribly. Saw some similarities to Pitt, but I think Pitt is better offensively. Winnable, but it could turn into a rock fight if MU forgets their offensive principles again.
It was our defense or lack thereof that cost us the win over Pitt. I was not impressed with our defense against IUPUI as well. Defense is our achilles heel thus far.
Dr. Blackheart
I would have DW playing a ton of PG at this point. That, if simply a building year, I would give Howard the time.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 23, 2016, 08:55:15 AM
It was our defense or lack thereof that cost us the win over Pitt. I was not impressed with our defense against IUPUI as well. Defense is our achilles heel thus far.
Still so many open layups down low off of pick and rolls...
Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 23, 2016, 08:55:15 AM
It was our defense or lack thereof that cost us the win over Pitt. I was not impressed with our defense against IUPUI as well. Defense is our achilles heel thus far.
Agreed but I think the straw that broke our backs against Pitt was getting away from our offense. Our defense was equally bad in both halves but in the second, we stopped running our offense. I think we are a great offensive and bad defensive team. We should work on our defense but we can still win as long as our offense is humming.
Quote from: Goose on November 23, 2016, 09:04:49 AM
Dr. Blackheart
I would have DW playing a ton of PG at this point. That, if simply a building year, I would give Howard the time.
Duane isn't a PG. He has the build of one and fans seem to want him to be one, but he just isn't. He can drive and create but he's not a strong enough ball-handler against pressure to log significant minutes at the point. He has also done very well providing offense off the bench.
Is Hannie at the point a crazy idea? Leading the team in assists and seems to have tightened his handle.
Personally I think you play Carter when you need defense and whoever is hot between Howard and Rhonda's brother when you need offense.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 23, 2016, 09:12:31 AM
Duane isn't a PG. He has the build of one and fans seem to want him to be one, but he just isn't. He can drive and create but he's not a strong enough ball-handler against pressure to log significant minutes at the point. He has also done very well providing offense off the bench.
Duane may not be a PG, but I do think he could be a PGs best friend and an excellent complement to Howard or Carter.
It would make an undersized team more undersized, but I'd like to see a rotation like this:
1: Carter, Howard
2: Wilson, Rowsey
3: Cheatham, Reinhardt
4: Johnson, Hauser
5: Fischer, Heldt
Obviously there could be some flexibility with the guards, as well as the 3/4 positions, and defensively it'd probably require some schemes, but offensively a second ball handler out there and limits on how much Reinhardt plays (at least until he becomes less shot happy) would help vastly.
Of course, the biggest worry there is who would defend the 4.
I don't mean this in the wrong way, but I REALLY like the idea of no more than 3 nonconf losses.
Rowsey and Duane at the 1 more please. Even though Rowsey doesn't get a ton of assists, he's, in my opinion, our most reliable ball handler and even when he's not hitting 3s the defense still has to respect his shooting ability and run out to him. 2 turnovers in 5 games so far this season.
Or at least 1A. Having either of those guys on the floor as the same time as Markus or Traci gives you multiple ball handlers on the floor at the same time.
Duane doesn't have to start to be effective -- which was exactly the case last night.
Duane doesn't have to be an anointed "PG" to think like a PG -- which was exactly the case last night.
I thought he was used just about right last night. If he really has it going in a tight game, he should play more. If he struggles (as he occasionally does), he should play less.
We have several players capable of initiating the offense: Traci, Markus, Duane, Haani, JJJ, Rowsey. I'm quite convinced that JJJ is the best passer on the entire team; doesn't mean he can play PG but it means he can be (and often is) a facilitator.
As for the OP, I agree we are a better team, especially on offense. The main thing is the lower turnover rate -- we get more and better possessions. I also agree we lost the Pitt game when we got away from what we do best offensively.
Our defense is going to be frustrating all season because we lack size and because some of our best offensive players aren't the best defenders; that's just going to be part of the trade-off. We will have games where JJJ, Haani and others get a lot of steals and it will make us better defensively, but there will be games when they will be out of position and that will hurt us. Again, a trade-off.
I think this team has been entertaining so far and will continue to be.
Quote from: nyg on November 23, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
Revisit the topic on 12/10/16 after the Georgia and Wisconsin games are completed. Then we should know the status of this team.
Exactly.
Quote from: Goose on November 23, 2016, 09:04:49 AM
Dr. Blackheart
I would have DW playing a ton of PG at this point. That, if simply a building year, I would give Howard the time.
Right now Duane is more experienced and a better all around player than Traci, Rowsey or Howard. The numbers and the eye test say it loud and clear. Yet they're all logging similar minutes. People have mocked me in the past for suggesting Wojo (and new coaches in general) favor their own recruits over the leftovers they inherit. Is there any other plausible explanation for those 4 to basically split time?
The traditional PG role is not something that Wojo wants/needs at MU right now. That is good and bad but as a result I think we are going to continue to see variation in performance.
If you look at the potential PG styles we have on the team, we have at least 3 styles
Carter/Duane: is largely a slash and/or kick type who initiates offense out of his initial action
Howard: is a preliminary a ball handler/shooter who is going to kick almost every time he drives
Rowsey: is a shooter who drives off the shooting action to initiate the action
Those styles are different enough that the way the offense works changes depending on who's running the point. Ideally you would have one of Carter/Duane and one of Rowsey/Howard on the court together which generates the best offensive flexibility. However that comes at the price of being the worst defensive/rebounding option.
Wojo is going to have to make a choice here shortly if he is going to stay with man to man pressure defense but maximum offense or if he is going to accept inconsistent offense with a more adequate defensive capability.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 23, 2016, 10:23:25 AM
Right now Duane is more experienced and a better all around player than Traci, Rowsey or Howard. The numbers and the eye test say it loud and clear. Yet they're all logging similar minutes. People have mocked me in the past for suggesting Wojo (and new coaches in general) favor their own recruits over the leftovers they inherit. Is there any other plausible explanation for those 4 to basically split time?
Yes, there is.
Duane plays a different position than the other 3. Comparing Duane's minutes to those other three is like comparing Duane's minutes to Luke's.
As someone said, Duane's biggest weakness offensively is his ball handling. Once in the half court he can play that roll of a point guard initiating the offense, but getting into the half court is Duane's weakness. Hence you need at least one of Traci, Markus, or Rowsey on the court with Duane, whereas Markus and Rowsey can play both on or off the ball.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 23, 2016, 10:40:54 AM
The traditional PG role is not something that Wojo wants/needs at MU right now. That is good and bad but as a result I think we are going to continue to see variation in performance.
If you look at the potential PG styles we have on the team, we have at least 3 styles
Carter/Duane: is largely a slash and/or kick type who initiates offense out of his initial action
Howard: is a preliminary a ball handler/shooter who is going to kick almost every time he drives
Rowsey: is a shooter who drives off the shooting action to initiate the action
Those styles are different enough that the way the offense works changes depending on who's running the point. Ideally you would have one of Carter/Duane and one of Rowsey/Howard on the court together which generates the best offensive flexibility. However that comes at the price of being the worst defensive/rebounding option.
Wojo is going to have to make a choice here shortly if he is going to stay with man to man pressure defense but maximum offense or if he is going to accept inconsistent offense with a more adequate defensive capability.
It's good to have choices and each player will have games where he shines.
But let's not overthink this. Duane is the best player of the four. His runs and his leash should be the longest.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 23, 2016, 10:46:12 AM
It's good to have choices and each player will have games where he shines.
But let's not overthink this. Duane is the best player of the four. His runs and his leash should be the longest.
To be fair, to date, Duane has gotten the most run of the four. Only a little more than Carter but by a couple of minutes a game over Howard/Rowsey. I would also say that Duane has only objectively been the best of the four in one game. Carter was better in the Vanderbilt game, Howard was better in the Howard game (hah!), Howard and Duane were similar in the Michigan game, and Rowsey was better in the Pitt game. His best two games of the season were also the most recent. If that trend continues than I suspect that he will further distance himself from the other three.
Also, like Wades said, Duane is not a PG. He's not competing with Carter, Howard, and Rowsey. He's competing with Johnson and Cheatham. Now if Duane continues this run and shows he's definitively better than Carter/Howard/Rowsey, do you play him at the PG to get your best three guards on the floor? I could hear that argument.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 23, 2016, 10:46:12 AM
It's good to have choices and each player will have games where he shines.
But let's not overthink this. Duane is the best player of the four. His runs and his leash should be the longest.
He's our version of Riley LaChance. Sure, he
could play the point if there is nobody else on the roster available to play the point. But he is much better off the ball. Unfortunately for Vandy, they don't have any other options so Riley has to play out of position. Fortunately for us we do have other options so Duane can play off the ball. Unfortunately for Duane he also has more competition off the ball as well.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 22, 2016, 11:42:28 PM
24 point win over Vandy is better than a 1 point win over LSU
32 point win over Howard is better than a 3 point loss to Belmont
18 point loss to Michigan on a neutral court is better than a 28 point loss to Iowa at home
3 point loss to Pitt is worse but not by much than an OT victory over Arizona State
25 point win over IUPUI is better than an OT victory over IUPUI.
I think it is safe to say that this team is better than last year's....and that team wasn't that far off from dancing. That's what gives me hope. What gives me doubt is that both our non-conference and conference schedules are likely to be more difficult. Will the improvement be enough?
You have said for some time the team would be better this year. I believe the team is better and has better on court chemistry . I also believe the Big East top to bottom is equal to or greater than they were last year and we have two more tough games. We will learn a lot about how improved we are after the Georgia game. We could be a better team and have a worse record.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on November 23, 2016, 11:18:38 AM
You have said for some time the team would be better this year. I believe the team is better and has better on court chemistry . I also believe the Big East top to bottom is equal to or greater than they were last year and we have two more tough games. We will learn a lot about how improved we are after the Georgia game. We could be a better team and have a worse record.
Honestly, that's what I expect. I think I predicted 18 wins for us preseason.
Quote from: Litehouse on November 23, 2016, 08:35:56 AM
I would love that.
[/quoteyes, we need to start that debate of 2 years ago
Deck chairs on the titanic.
Quote from: GB Warrior on November 23, 2016, 11:48:56 AM
Deck chairs on the titanic.
And taking Desert, that's really good.
I watched Duane quite a bit at Dominican. He never seemed like a PG to me, he seemed like a classic combo guard (that to me screams small SG). Sure he could dominate with the ball but that was due to competition rather than instinct.
While I would love to see him starting, I think his role of Super Sub is great for him. He has the 3rd highest usage on the team so it's not like his nailed to the bench. And I think he'll end up being a closer for us.
Quote from: The Lens on November 23, 2016, 11:55:45 AM
I watched Duane quite a bit at Dominican. He never seemed like a PG to me, he seemed like a classic combo guard (that to me screams small SG). Sure he could dominate with the ball but that was due to competition rather than instinct.
While I would love to see him starting, I think his role of Super Sub is great for him. He has the 3rd highest usage on the team so it's not like his nailed to the bench. And I think he'll end up being a closer for us.
Yep, I like your insight.
Quote from: MU82 on November 23, 2016, 11:54:44 AM
Huh?
If the browns start 1-10 next year, they will be "better than last year"
Lenny
If you are playing to win Wilson gets the minutes. I suspect there will be less sharing of minutes as the season moves on.
Quote from: GB Warrior on November 23, 2016, 12:00:56 PM
If the browns start 1-10 next year, they will be "better than last year"
I'm know I've been pessimistic the last couple of days, but this is insane. Last year's team was a DePaul and Belmont win away from making the tournament. So if we agree they are better this year that implies they should make the tournament, correct?
Quote from: mu03eng on November 23, 2016, 12:05:34 PM
I'm know I've been pessimistic the last couple of days, but this is insane. Last year's team was a DePaul and Belmont win away from making the tournament. So if we agree they are better this year that implies they should make the tournament, correct?
I know that's the extreme, but the point is that "better" is not an aspiration this team should be gunning for absent an end goal. I don't agree with polishing our two losses - those look like games last year's team would have lost in that fashion. Yes, Vandy was a great game, but the jury is still out on what all of those independent results mean. But better means very little to me if we miss the dance.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 23, 2016, 09:12:31 AM
Duane isn't a PG. He has the build of one and fans seem to want him to be one, but he just isn't. He can drive and create but he's not a strong enough ball-handler against pressure to log significant minutes at the point. He has also done very well providing offense off the bench.
I agree, if the we are being pressed, Wilson may not be the best choice at point. In that case replace him with someone that is. Otherwise, he may be the best point on the team.
Quote from: The Lens on November 23, 2016, 11:55:45 AM
I watched Duane quite a bit at Dominican. He never seemed like a PG to me, he seemed like a classic combo guard (that to me screams small SG). Sure he could dominate with the ball but that was due to competition rather than instinct.
While I would love to see him starting, I think his role of Super Sub is great for him. He has the 3rd highest usage on the team so it's not like his nailed to the bench. And I think he'll end up being a closer for us.
I agree.
Also, Wojo doesn't see/use Duane as a PG. Outside of handful of minutes, Wilson has played strictly off the ball under Wojo. Posters can agree or disagree whether that is his correct role. But it seems pointless to talk about a position move that is not going to happen.
One big thing I've noticed from Duane is that his explosion and vertical are back. Athletically, he looks like the guy back at Dominican. His first two years, but especially last year, it was missing.
Quote from: GB Warrior on November 23, 2016, 12:12:33 PM
I know that's the extreme, but the point is that "better" is not an aspiration this team should be gunning for absent an end goal. I don't agree with polishing our two losses - those look like games last year's team would have lost in that fashion. Yes, Vandy was a great game, but the jury is still out on what all of those independent results mean. But better means very little to me if we miss the dance.
You are allowed to be a pessimist, just as I am allowed to be an optimist.
I'll take "better," and I think if it happens, we will be dancing.
I find that more fun and satisfying than comparing us to one of the worst pro football teams ever ... but whatevs.
Quote from: RJax55 on November 23, 2016, 12:45:51 PM
I agree.
Also, Wojo doesn't see/use Duane as a PG. Outside of handful of minutes, Wilson has played strictly off the ball under Wojo. Posters can agree or disagree whether that is his correct role. But it seems pointless to talk about a position move that is not going to happen.
One big thing I've noticed from Duane is that his explosion and vertical are back. Athletically, he looks like the guy back at Dominican. His first two years, but especially last year, it was missing.
Right. And you can positively impact the flow of the game and movement of the ball without being a "point guard." In this offense, you have plenty of opportunity which was shown last night with his six assists.
Quote from: GB Warrior on November 23, 2016, 12:12:33 PMI know that's the extreme, but the point is that "better" is not an aspiration this team should be gunning for absent an end goal. I don't agree with polishing our two losses - those look like games last year's team would have lost in that fashion. Yes, Vandy was a great game, but the jury is still out on what all of those independent results mean. But better means very little to me if we miss the dance.
"Better" is one tangible milepost along the way to returning the Marquette basketball program to national prominence — a goal which, because it lies in the future, is currently uncertain and thus intangible.
By no means is "better" the ultimate goal. It's simply an indicator or measure of progress. And there are a number of tangible ways to measure "better":
1. Wins and lossesMU went 20-13 (8-10) in 2015-16, versus 13-19 (4-14) the season before. The team was thus demonstrably "better."
2. Rankings/statisticsTake your pick of AP and coaches' polls, Pomeroy rankings, Sagarin rankings, RPI, offensive and defensive efficiency, recruiting rankings, etc.
3. Postseason accomplishmentsTournament bids and victories (preferably of the NCAA kind, and achieved in multiple consecutive years).
The question of whether Marquette is "better" is a crucial one. The MU program won't get back to national prominence without getting "better" in all of the ways stated above. We're not there yet. But I'm encouraged by the tangible results that I've seen so far.
Quote from: GB Warrior on November 23, 2016, 12:12:33 PM
I know that's the extreme, but the point is that "better" is not an aspiration this team should be gunning for absent an end goal. I don't agree with polishing our two losses - those look like games last year's team would have lost in that fashion. Yes, Vandy was a great game, but the jury is still out on what all of those independent results mean. But better means very little to me if we miss the dance.
Absolutely agree. These five games of proof are inconclusive at best. Really hard to say at this point with any degree of certainty how good the team is this year. All we can do is make our best guess based on the evidence we have. Just supplying a little evidence that's positive. We've had a lot of negative evidence posted lately.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 23, 2016, 12:05:34 PM
I'm know I've been pessimistic the last couple of days, but this is insane. Last year's team was a DePaul and Belmont win away from making the tournament. So if we agree they are better this year that implies they should make the tournament, correct?
This goes into the "Chicofile" of technically correct but very misleading stats. It's true that if we had won our "coin flip" games against DePaul and Belmont we would have been 22-11 and likely made the dance. BUT - our record in "coin flip" games was still very good last year. We were 3-0 in OT games and 9-3 in games decided by 5 or less and 11-3 in games decided by 6 or less. So all it took for us to make the tournament was to be 13-1 in close games, but with average "luck" we would have been around .500 and with bad luck (the mirror of our actual good luck) we would have been well under .500 (13-20 or 12-21).
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on November 23, 2016, 11:18:38 AM
You have said for some time the team would be better this year. I believe the team is better and has better on court chemistry . I also believe the Big East top to bottom is equal to or greater than they were last year and we have two more tough games. We will learn a lot about how improved we are after the Georgia game. We could be a better team and have a worse record.
How can this be with Wojo at the helm considering he is a "de motivator"?
Quote from: RJax55 on November 23, 2016, 12:45:51 PM
I agree.
Also, Wojo doesn't see/use Duane as a PG. Outside of handful of minutes, Wilson has played strictly off the ball under Wojo. Posters can agree or disagree whether that is his correct role. But it seems pointless to talk about a position move that is not going to happen.
One big thing I've noticed from Duane is that his explosion and vertical are back. Athletically, he looks like the guy back at Dominican. His first two years, but especially last year, it was missing.
Agreed. One play from last night where the announcers compared Duane to Wade (not a good comp), Duane had a very athletic lay-up where he had a significant vertical and hangtime
Quote from: mu03eng on November 23, 2016, 12:05:34 PM
I'm know I've been pessimistic the last couple of days, but this is insane. Last year's team was a DePaul and Belmont win away from making the tournament. So if we agree they are better this year that implies they should make the tournament, correct?
Which tournament? But seriously though, which tournament are you talking about?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 23, 2016, 04:51:14 PM
This goes into the "Chicofile" of technically correct but very misleading stats. It's true that if we had won our "coin flip" games against DePaul and Belmont we would have been 22-11 and likely made the dance. BUT - our record in "coin flip" games was still very good last year. We were 3-0 in OT games and 9-3 in games decided by 5 or less and 11-3 in games decided by 6 or less. So all it took for us to make the tournament was to be 13-1 in close games, but with average "luck" we would have been around .500 and with bad luck (the mirror of our actual good luck) we would have been well under .500 (13-20 or 12-21).
I know you weren't really comparing mu03 to chicos, and thank goodness. mu03 is one of our more thoughtful posters and chicos is (was), well, chicos.
Having said that, your overall point is spot-on. Fans do this all the time. They look at the close games their team lost and say, "If only," but they rarely look at the close games their team won.
It's one reason why I've always tried to stay away from saying our record "should have been" such-and-such.
I remember talking to Brian McRae after one of the Cubs' typically disappointing seasons in the '90s. (Yes, shameless name-dropping. I guess that goes in the Chicofile, too.) A fellow reporter was asking McRae a question and said something about the Cubs being better than their record indicated. McRae cut him off and said, "No offense, but that's bull. We are exactly as good as our record indicates. Not one win better, and not one loss worse. Our record is our record, and we completely earned it." It was refreshing, brutal honesty by one of the more intelligent Cubs of that era, and its message applies to every sports team ever.
Quote from: MU82 on November 24, 2016, 09:30:22 AM
I know you weren't really comparing mu03 to chicos, and thank goodness. mu03 is one of our more thoughtful posters and chicos is (was), well, chicos.
Having said that, your overall point is spot-on. Fans do this all the time. They look at the close games their team lost and say, "If only," but they rarely look at the close games their team won.
It's one reason why I've always tried to stay away from saying our record "should have been" such-and-such.
I remember talking to Brian McRae after one of the Cubs' typically disappointing seasons in the '90s. (Yes, shameless name-dropping. I guess that goes in the Chicofile, too.) A fellow reporter was asking McRae a question and said something about the Cubs being better than their record indicated. McRae cut him off and said, "No offense, but that's bull. We are exactly as good as our record indicates. Not one win better, and not one loss worse. Our record is our record, and we completely earned it." It was refreshing, brutal honesty by one of the more intelligent Cubs of that era, and its message applies to every sports team ever.
100% correct that I would never compare mu03 to Chico. 03 is generally one of our most thoughtful and reasonable posters. But most of us here (myself included) fall prey to the old Chico trick of massaging stats to underpin a false narrative and this was one egregious enough to recall the "master".
I mostly agree with the "our record is what it says it is" mantra but I'll also acknowledge that over a 35 game period a team can be lucky or unlucky. Our record last year is etched in stone: 20-13, 8-10. Dennis Green would say "We know who they are!". But it took more lucky than unlucky bounces to get us there.
Quote from: Eldon on November 24, 2016, 08:16:25 AM
Which tournament? But seriously though, which tournament are you talking about?
Had we won those two games we'd almost certainly have been in the NCAAs.
Quote from: Eldon on November 24, 2016, 08:16:25 AM
Which tournament? But seriously though, which tournament are you talking about?
NCAA
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 24, 2016, 10:04:15 AM
100% correct that I would never compare mu03 to Chico. 03 is generally one of our most thoughtful and reasonable posters. But most of us here (myself included) fall prey to the old Chico trick of massaging stats to underpin a false narrative and this was one egregious enough to recall the "master".
I mostly agree with the "our record is what it says it is" mantra but I'll also acknowledge that over a 35 game period a team can be lucky or unlucky. Our record last year is etched in stone: 20-13, 8-10. Dennis Green would say "We know who they are!". But it took more lucky than unlucky bounces to get us there.
Blushing aside, I will ask the question this way(which will fly in the face of the issues I've voiced about Wojo)....at what point does it stop being lucky and start being a skill?
Quote from: mu03eng on November 24, 2016, 08:38:40 PM
Blushing aside, I will ask the question this way(which will fly in the face of the issues I've voiced about Wojo)....at what point does it stop being lucky and start being a skill?
That's a good (though probably unanswerable in any definitive way) question.
Here's my "best guess" answer. Luck isn't the only factor that decides "coin flip" games. The "better" team, a great team or a great player tip the scales the most. Home court likely helps. And to a lesser extent, free throw shooting and strategy/coaching. Given a large sample, I'm sure a great coach would beat an average one (assuming equally talented players) more than half the time in games that come down to the wire - but not by much (IMO).
If Wojo's winning % in close games over the next 20 years remains at 75 I'll change my tune, but given what we know right now I'd say last year we were mostly lucky.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 25, 2016, 10:29:57 AM
That's a good (though probably unanswerable in any definitive way) question.
Here's my "best guess" answer. Luck isn't the only factor that decides "coin flip" games. The "better" team, a great team or a great player tip the scales the most. Home court likely helps. And to a lesser extent, free throw shooting and strategy/coaching. Given a large sample, I'm sure a great coach would beat an average one (assuming equally talented players) more than half the time in games that come down to the wire - but not by much (IMO).
If Wojo's winning % in close games over the next 20 years remains at 75 I'll change my tune, but given what we know right now I'd say last year we were mostly lucky.
Well, that makes it very clear on your opinion of Wojo's coaching ability. OK 2036 it is..
Kpom has us at 40. Its early. Let the season play out. Hope for a healthy team. Things can break our way this year possibly. Everyone needs to get off the ledge.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 25, 2016, 10:29:57 AM
That's a good (though probably unanswerable in any definitive way) question.
Here's my "best guess" answer. Luck isn't the only factor that decides "coin flip" games. The "better" team, a great team or a great player tip the scales the most. Home court likely helps. And to a lesser extent, free throw shooting and strategy/coaching. Given a large sample, I'm sure a great coach would beat an average one (assuming equally talented players) more than half the time in games that come down to the wire - but not by much (IMO).
If Wojo's winning % in close games over the next 20 years remains at 75 I'll change my tune, but given what we know right now I'd say last year we were mostly lucky.
#20yearstojudgeacoach
Quote from: Shark on November 25, 2016, 11:17:21 AM
Kpom has us at 40. Its early. Let the season play out. Hope for a healthy team. Things can break our way this year possibly. Everyone needs to get off the ledge.
If only scoopers could read your post. I feel that half of the scoopers become illiterate when there is a positive post...
Although then again I do the same to negative posts. :(
We are #40. We will be ok if we play as a team and don't blow leads. And if the D tightens up!
(http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/6-18-2015/9w0eP-.gif)
Quote from: Loose Cannon on November 25, 2016, 11:03:55 AM
Well, that makes it very clear on your opinion of Wojo's coaching ability. OK 2036 it is..
??? I wasn't just talking about Wojo. Fill in any coach. Luck tends to even out over time.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 25, 2016, 12:17:31 PM
#20yearstojudgeacoach
Please reread. #20years(or more)toggetasamplesizeforcoinflips
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 25, 2016, 04:23:14 PM
Please reread. #20years(or more)toggetasamplesizeforcoinflips
Reread my post. Use a teal lens. ;D
2010, we went 2-5 to start the big east and lost those games by a combined 11 points. Then proceeded to win 3 OT games on the road later in the season. Luck tends to even out. We lost a lot of close games in year one under Wojo, and then won a bunch the next year.
Quote from: MUDPT on November 25, 2016, 07:36:38 PM
2010, we went 2-5 to start the big east and lost those games by a combined 11 points. Then proceeded to win 3 OT games on the road later in the season. Luck tends to even out. We lost a lot of close games in year one under Wojo, and then won a bunch the next year.
We were 8-9 in close games in 2010.
4-4 in Wojo's first year
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 24, 2016, 01:02:07 PM
Had we won those two games we'd almost certainly have been in the NCAAs.
So you are claiming winning the 2 games against those teams would raised our RPI over 50 points.
Quote from: bilsu on November 25, 2016, 08:56:29 PM
So you are claiming winning the 2 games against those teams would raised our RPI over 50 points.
Give or take, yes. We would have been right around 60 in the RPI. Nothing kills your RPI more than home losses to bad teams. Take those away and we have no bad losses. Hell, last year we saw Tulsa (20-11, RPI 70), Temple (21-11, RPI 68), and Vanderbilt (19-13, RPI 71) all get into the tournament. I feel confident we'd have been in had we won those two games.
Now granted, we were 9-3 in games decided by 5 or less, so it's a big ask to win virtually all your close ones (Creighton at home was the other) but those two games in particular, games we were leading in the final 30 seconds at home, were the ones that made the difference between watching the Tourney on TV and playing in Dayton.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 26, 2016, 07:34:44 AM
Give or take, yes. We would have been right around 60 in the RPI. Nothing kills your RPI more than home losses to bad teams. Take those away and we have no bad losses. Hell, last year we saw Tulsa (20-11, RPI 70), Temple (21-11, RPI 68), and Vanderbilt (19-13, RPI 71) all get into the tournament. I feel confident we'd have been in had we won those two games.
You've got your 9 flipped upside down. Had we beaten Belmont and DePaul, our RPI would have been around 90. Adjusted win % would improve by .0176 points; component two wouldn't change at all; component three would barely move (and to the negative). That would push us from 110 on Selection Sunday to around 89.... far from 60 and still far from the comp's you cited above. Our NC sked put us behind the 8-ball.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 23, 2016, 11:24:17 AM
Honestly, that's what I expect. I think I predicted 18 wins for us preseason.
Honestly, I still see this team coming together and us getting 21-22 wins including a huge upset or two in conference play
Everyone is going to flip their shiz when I post these, because they will say "look who we played!" And "it's only 6 games!" And "we lost to Pitt and Michigan and they aren't good!!!"
But:
Through games of 11/28, #mubb ranks 6th in NCAA in FT Pct. (.821), 10th in assists per game (19.2) & 17th in assist-to-turnover ratio (1.55)
#mubb ranks 1st in @BIGEASTMBB in FT Pct. (.821), assists (19.2 spg.) & steals (8.8 spg.). Top 3 in 7 categories.
#stats #facts #numbersdontlie
Quote from: fjm on November 29, 2016, 10:44:24 AM
Everyone is going to flip their shiz when I post these, because they will say "look who we played!" And "it's only 6 games!" And "we lost to Pitt and Michigan and they aren't good!!!"
But:
Through games of 11/28, #mubb ranks 6th in NCAA in FT Pct. (.821), 10th in assists per game (19.2) & 17th in assist-to-turnover ratio (1.55)
#mubb ranks 1st in @BIGEASTMBB in FT Pct. (.821), assists (19.2 spg.) & steals (8.8 spg.). Top 3 in 7 categories.
#stats #facts #numbersdontlie
Yea, but look at who we've played. Plus, it's only through 6 games.
Quote from: Bocephys on November 29, 2016, 10:58:47 AM
Yea, but look at who we've played. Plus, it's only through 6 games.
And we lost to Pitt and Michigan. And they aren't good.
Quote from: fjm on November 29, 2016, 10:44:24 AM
Everyone is going to flip their shiz when I post these, because they will say "look who we played!" And "it's only 6 games!" And "we lost to Pitt and Michigan and they aren't good!!!"
But:
Through games of 11/28, #mubb ranks 6th in NCAA in FT Pct. (.821), 10th in assists per game (19.2) & 17th in assist-to-turnover ratio (1.55)
#mubb ranks 1st in @BIGEASTMBB in FT Pct. (.821), assists (19.2 spg.) & steals (8.8 spg.). Top 3 in 7 categories.
#stats #facts #numbersdontlie
Funny, the first thing I thought was "Cue JB on fact that FT rate doesnt matter"
Quote from: fjm on November 29, 2016, 10:44:24 AM
Everyone is going to flip their shiz when I post these, because they will say "look who we played!" And "it's only 6 games!" And "we lost to Pitt and Michigan and they aren't good!!!"
But:
Through games of 11/28, #mubb ranks 6th in NCAA in FT Pct. (.821), 10th in assists per game (19.2) & 17th in assist-to-turnover ratio (1.55)
#mubb ranks 1st in @BIGEASTMBB in FT Pct. (.821), assists (19.2 spg.) & steals (8.8 spg.). Top 3 in 7 categories.
#stats #facts #numbersdontlie
The problem is that none of those stats correlate well to having a good offense. Team FT% doesn't mean jack and field goals don't require assists.
Those numbers don't lie... they just don't mean much at all
Quote from: RKMU123 on November 29, 2016, 11:00:01 AM
And we lost to Pitt and Michigan. And they aren't good.
Michigan = 25 kenpom, 24 Sagarin, projected RPI 27
I guess all things are relative, but I'm thinking Michigan is pretty good
Quote from: Ellenson Family Reunion on November 29, 2016, 02:01:50 PM
Michigan = 25 kenpom, 24 Sagarin, projected RPI 27
I guess all things are relative, but I'm thinking Michigan is pretty good
Haha I think he was joking about what I put in my original post.
Quote from: fjm on November 29, 2016, 02:18:25 PM
Haha I think he was joking about what I put in my original post.
guess I missed it. C'est la vie
Quote from: Ellenson Family Reunion on November 29, 2016, 02:24:21 PM
guess I missed it. C'est la vie
Oh no worries! I appreciate you showing Michigan and their current rankings as many people still think we are a dumpster fire. Although yes we shouldn't have lost by that much, was still a tough game.