Can't go on the road against a decent opponent and turn the ball over 3 of the first 4 possessions. Runout opportunities galore for IU early and often. It's very, very tough to come back from down 15 against a decent opponent. Not every minute is created equally. If you're down 20 for the last 60 seconds those 60 seconds are unquestionably far less important than the first 60 seconds were when the game still could've gone to either team.
I'm hoping to see a lineup of Chartouny, Markus, Sam, Joey, and Theo. Wouldn't hate going small and bringing in Sacar for Theo early, especially because Theo tends to get into foul trouble, but want Theo in for the tip. Sacar, Jamal, Morrow, Bailey in that order off the bench.
I wasn't aware that a team could get down 15 in one possession.
Marquette was down 6 when the first subs came in so....
This starting no matter thing is such a dumb argument. If course it does.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 07:09:39 AM
I wasn't aware that a team could get down 15 in one possession.
Huh?
Quote from: Sultan of South Wayne on November 15, 2018, 07:15:53 AM
Marquette was down 6 when the first subs came in so....
To complete your statement, "...if we kept that pace we would've lost the game by 60."
Quote from: wadesworld on November 15, 2018, 07:54:22 AM
Huh?
Are you not talking about starting in terms of the starting lineup?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 07:57:15 AM
Are you not talking about starting in terms of the starting lineup?
Correct. I'm a little confused where the down 15 in one possession comment comes into play here.
The tone was set early and often. When you give a decent (and that's all IU is) opponent a ton of momentum to start a game, you have a heck of a battle just trying to stay in the game, let alone win it.
Starting is incredibly important.
Not really. Getting off to decent starts is important. MU did not respond to an amped up home team coming out with fire in their eye. Otule started, Gardner came off the bench. Williams started, Crowder came off the bench. McHale, the microwave, McAdoo, Bobby Jones. Balance and understanding your personnel is more important than starting.
The starting lineup is responsible for one possession. After that it is about how the coach manages substitutions. There is nothing magical about playing the first possession of the game.
Quote from: tower912 on November 15, 2018, 08:04:05 AM
Not really. Getting off to decent starts is important. MU did not respond to an amped up home team coming out with fire in their eye. Otule started, Gardner came off the bench. Williams started, Crowder came off the bench. McHale, the microwave, McAdoo, Bobby Jones. Balance and understanding your personnel is more important than starting.
This guy gets it
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 08:05:24 AM
The starting lineup is responsible for one possession. After that it is about how the coach manages substitutions. There is nothing magical about playing the first possession of the game.
Let me know the next time a coach makes a sub after the first possession of the game.
Quote from: tower912 on November 15, 2018, 08:04:05 AM
Not really. Getting off to decent starts is important. MU did not respond to an amped up home team coming out with fire in their eye. Otule started, Gardner came off the bench. Williams started, Crowder came off the bench. McHale, the microwave, McAdoo, Bobby Jones. Balance and understanding your personnel is more important than starting.
...right. Everything else is window dressing.
Since Presbyterian is nothing more than a glorified exhibition game and tune-up for the NIT pre-season, lets use the game to work out the kinks.
My idea of a starting line-up: Chartouney, Morrow, Bailey, Hauser and whomever. Let 'em play and let Chartouney find his shot, Morrow work the kinks out and Bailey work his way in.
Of course, I'm not Wojo and I'm not a basketball genius but at the very least this would be a good time for Chartouney and Morrow to figure it out in a very harmless way.
If starting didn't matter at all, Marotta, Lelito, & Jaffee would be out there. Of course it matters. But more important than who's out there for the first possession is the tone the beginning of a game can set. Yes, we made a sub early when Cain came in, but starting the game in a 15-point hole can easily be more important than how you finish or who's out there at the end if you never make the game competitive.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 15, 2018, 08:15:11 AM
If starting didn't matter at all, Marotta, Lelito, & Jaffee would be out there. Of course it matters. But more important than who's out there for the first possession is the tone the beginning of a game can set. Yes, we made a sub early when Cain came in, but starting the game in a 15-point hole can easily be more important than how you finish or who's out there at the end if you never make the game competitive.
Exactly. The starting lineup isn't responsible for a single possession. That is silly.
We have a shining example of this that shares our home building. Do we think if the Bucks were starting Henson and Snell like they were last year over a guy like Brogdon that the Bucks would be 10-4 and looking like one of the better teams in the NBA?
Some here will say yes...
Quote from: wadesworld on November 15, 2018, 08:10:34 AM
Let me know the next time a coach makes a sub after the first possession of the game.
Mike Deane used to. As well as take a timeout after the first possession. And sub for any of his role players who allowed a basket. But, he was trying to play games in the 40s and 50s, so it was all part of a plan.
Quote from: tower912 on November 15, 2018, 08:25:04 AM
Mike Deane used to. As well as take a timeout after the first possession. And sub for any of his role players who allowed a basket. But, he was trying to play games in the 40s and 50s, so it was all part of a plan.
And I might be remembering incorrectly, but I am pretty sure that Chris Otule would start for the tip and was almost immediately replaced by Davante Gardner.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 15, 2018, 08:15:11 AM
If starting didn't matter at all, Marotta, Lelito, & Jaffee would be out there. Of course it matters. But more important than who's out there for the first possession is the tone the beginning of a game can set. Yes, we made a sub early when Cain came in, but starting the game in a 15-point hole can easily be more important than how you finish or who's out there at the end if you never make the game competitive.
1. Your first sentence is a ridiculous argument. That isn't a lineup that would get played in a game ever so it is irrelevant to the conversation.
2. Like #FTsnomatta people are forgetting what it means. Sure, starting (like team FT%) matters on some cosmically low level. But other things (like eFG%) matter a helluva lot more. In this case, minutes played matters a helluva lot more than who plays in the first possession. That's why people who make arguments like:
Quote from: wadesworld on November 15, 2018, 08:19:56 AM
Exactly. The starting lineup isn't responsible for a single possession. That is silly.
We have a shining example of this that shares our home building. Do we think if the Bucks were starting Henson and Snell like they were last year over a guy like Brogdon that the Bucks would be 10-4 and looking like one of the better teams in the NBA?
Some here will say yes...
Just don't get it. The Bucks didn't improve because Brogdon became a starter and Henson and Snell went to the bench. The Bucks got better because Snell's minutes dropped from 27.4 a game to 16.4 a game and Henson's dropped from 25.9 a game to 13.4 a game and those minutes were taken by better players. Not to mention Brogdon being healthy...new coach....new scheme...players developing...signing Brook Lopez....signing Illyasova
Minutes matter. If 1-30 seconds of those minutes come from the first possession great. If they come from the bench, great.
IMO who starts or who does not means little in the big picture. That said, some of the examples cited are not apples to apples in comparison to current situation. Tower noted some special players that were on very good teams. There are no special players not starting at MU and they are not a very good team.
The one silver lining for all the optimists out there, there might not be a need to find ample playing time for 8-10 guys on this team. A lot of folks seemed concerned that there would be enough minutes for all the talent assembled. It is mid November and I could shorten this bench quite easily.
The point is that if you find yourself down 15 early, or in a 42-17 halftime hole like Nova was in, the rest of those minutes don't really mean squat.
On a statistical level, all minutes matter equally, but when the game is never competitive, that simply isn't true.
Think of it like the Pomeroy graphs. Last night we started with about a 40% chance to win. After 5 minutes it was down to 10%, and no matter what we did, it never got much above 20% and was never even at 5% in the last 18 minutes of the game. The hole we created early was too big, and the minutes later became less important because that initial hole had already effectively decided the outcome after 5 minutes.
Not all minutes are equal if you bury yourself in the first 5.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 15, 2018, 09:21:02 AM
The point is that if you find yourself down 15 early, or in a 42-17 halftime hole like Nova was in, the rest of those minutes don't really mean squat.
On a statistical level, all minutes matter equally, but when the game is never competitive, that simply isn't true.
Think of it like the Pomeroy graphs. Last night we started with about a 40% chance to win. After 5 minutes it was down to 10%, and no matter what we did, it never got much above 20% and was never even at 5% in the last 18 minutes of the game. The hole we created early was too big, and the minutes later became less important because that initial hole had already effectively decided the outcome after 5 minutes.
Not all minutes are equal if you bury yourself in the first 5.
Yup.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 15, 2018, 09:21:02 AM
The point is that if you find yourself down 15 early, or in a 42-17 halftime hole like Nova was in, the rest of those minutes don't really mean squat.
On a statistical level, all minutes matter equally, but when the game is never competitive, that simply isn't true.
Think of it like the Pomeroy graphs. Last night we started with about a 40% chance to win. After 5 minutes it was down to 10%, and no matter what we did, it never got much above 20% and was never even at 5% in the last 18 minutes of the game. The hole we created early was too big, and the minutes later became less important because that initial hole had already effectively decided the outcome after 5 minutes.
Not all minutes are equal if you bury yourself in the first 5.
Until the walk ons come in all possessions are equal in value. Building a big lead early, losing it late and winning by one is no better than building big hole early, coming all the way back, and losing by 1. It's also no different than a back and forth game that you lose by 1.
Also, it's a different argument. If you want to say not getting buried in the first 5 minutes is important I'd agree with you. But 4 minutes and 30 seconds-4 minutes and 59 seconds of those first 5 minutes is decided by the coach's ability to manage a game and substitutions. More important than who played in the first possession.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 09:33:55 AM
Until the walk ons come in all possessions are equal in value. Building a big lead early, losing it late and winning by one is no better than building big hole early, coming all the way back, and losing by 1. It's also no different than a back and forth game that you lose by 1.
Also, it's a different argument. If you want to say not getting buried in the first 5 minutes is important I'd agree with you. But 4 minutes and 30 seconds-4 minutes and 59 seconds of those first 5 minutes is decided by the coach's ability to manage a game and substitutions. More important than who played in the first possession.
So your argument is that the players on the court don't matter, the coaches are just playing the game with a remote control?
The first 4 minutes segment of the game last night were much, much more important than the under 16 timeout to under 12 timeout in the 2nd half last night, and our walk ons were not in the game at that point. The game was over. It was a formality.
I continue to be very confused about why you think starters are only responsible for a single possession. But oh well.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 15, 2018, 09:36:52 AM
So your argument is that the players on the court don't matter, the coaches are just playing the game with a remote control?
The first 4 minutes segment of the game last night were much, much more important than the under 16 timeout to under 12 timeout in the 2nd half last night, and our walk ons were not in the game at that point. The game was over. It was a formality.
I continue to be very confused about why you think starters are only responsible for a single possession. But oh well.
They are responsible for whatever possessions they play in. After the first possession, what possessions they play in is dependent on the coach. And no they weren't more important. You just make them more important in your head because you're a fan. Marquette has just as much ability to go on a run at the under 16 and under 12 timeouts of the second half as they do at the beginning of the game.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 09:42:53 AM
They are responsible for whatever possessions they play in. After the first possession, what possessions they play in is dependent on the coach. And no they weren't more important. You just make them more important in your head because you're a fan. Marquette has just as much ability to go on a run at the under 16 and under 12 timeouts of the second half as they do at the beginning of the game.
And yet if we went on a 15-0 run out of the under 16 timeout of the second half we still would've been losing. Whereas if we did that to start the game we would've been ahead by 15.
If i'm Wojo. I start our 3 walk-ons, Hedlt and waterboy. No one else deserves to start after last night.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 09:42:53 AM
They are responsible for whatever possessions they play in. After the first possession, what possessions they play in is dependent on the coach. And no they weren't more important. You just make them more important in your head because you're a fan. Marquette has just as much ability to go on a run at the under 16 and under 12 timeouts of the second half as they do at the beginning of the game.
If the game were played on an infinite timeline, you would be correct. However, it is not. The problem with your argument is opportunity. From 0-0, all minutes are equal because ultimately you have to win the sum remaining minutes by 1. However from 19-4 with 35 minutes remaining, they are not because you have to win those 35 minutes by 16 to achieve the same result.
Sure, you could go on a run at any point of the game, but the less time you have remaining and the greater the margin, the less likely it is you will be able to make that run and the less likely it is that run will be significant enough to overcome the margin you need to ultimately win.
Again I will point to the Pomeroy graph. After 15:00 of gametime, our likelihood of winning had shrunk from 37% to 8%. What happened during that time made the remaining time significantly less important because of the margin of differential. We went from 0-0 to trailing 39-24 and because of that 15-point margin, the importance of the minutes that remained was significantly less. The statistical differential of a 29-percentage point swing bears that out.
By the time we reached 15:00 to go in the game, we trailed 61-40 and had a 1.2% chance of winning. So to argue that the first 15 minutes, where we began with a 37% chance of winning, and the final 15 minutes, where we began with a 1.2% chance of winning were equal defies all statistical laws.
We like to have these semantic arguments about how it doesn't matter who starts, it matters who finishes, or how every possession has equal value. In a zero sum game, that's true. However when the net results that preceded who finishes handed you a 21-point deficit to overcome, or the deficit is so great that you need to score more points than are possible in the possessions you have remaining, the stark reality is the possessions that came before WERE more important than the ones at the end of the game.
Last night was one of those nights. For all intents and purposes, the game was virtually over after 5 minutes, and the final nail was in the coffin with almost half the game left to play. We simply didn't do well enough in the early stages of the game to allow the late stages of the game to matter.
And it's not me saying that, it's the numbers: https://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=533
Quote from: warriorchick on November 15, 2018, 08:57:37 AM
And I might be remembering incorrectly, but I am pretty sure that Chris Otule would start for the tip and was almost immediately replaced by Davante Gardner.
Rod Grosse, too, but referencing Dukiet to defend anything is a bad idea.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 15, 2018, 09:50:47 AM
And yet if we went on a 15-0 run out of the under 16 timeout of the second half we still would've been losing. Whereas if we did that to start the game we would've been ahead by 15.
And if they followed up that 15 point run with what happened the rest of the game they still would have lost. Being up 15 at the beginning of the game is irrelevant. All that matters is the final score. Whether you got those points in the beginning or the end does not matter.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 10:50:55 AM
And if they followed up that 15 point run with what happened the rest of the game they still would have lost. Being up 15 at the beginning of the game is irrelevant. All that matters is the final score. Whether you got those points in the beginning or the end does not matter.
What happens before impacts opportunity after: https://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=533
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 15, 2018, 10:52:48 AM
What happens before impacts opportunity after: https://kenpom.com/winprob.php?g=533
You and I are having different conversations.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 10:50:55 AM
And if they followed up that 15 point run with what happened the rest of the game they still would have lost. Being up 15 at the beginning of the game is irrelevant. All that matters is the final score. Whether you got those points in the beginning or the end does not matter.
The reason it's relevant is because going on a 15-point run is unlikely. Let's say there's a 5% chance of it happening. If you need a 15-point run to take a lead, the odds of it happening are far greater with 35 minutes left because if you break the game into 5-point increments, you have 7 opportunities to do it, provided you play even the in the other 6. If you have 3 opportunities to do it, your odds go down significantly (15 minutes left). If you only have one opportunity to do it (5 minutes left) it's virtually impossible. That's why while increasing a margin will increase your chance of winning, maintaining a margin will also increase your chance of winning when you have a clock involved.
Your point only works under the assumption that the 15-point run is going to come. Last night, for us, it never did. And as the clock ticked down, the minutes remaining became far less significant than what had come before.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 10:56:45 AM
You and I are having different conversations.
As I understand it, your argument is that all minutes have equal value. Once a lead is built, I am arguing (with support from Pomeroy's graph) that it is simply not the case because of the opportunities lost. How am I misunderstanding your argument?
Again you and I are having different conversations. I understand how win probability works.
Quote from: Goose on November 15, 2018, 09:13:27 AM
IMO who starts or who does not means little in the big picture. That said, some of the examples cited are not apples to apples in comparison to current situation. Tower noted some special players that were on very good teams. There are no special players not starting at MU and they are not a very good team.
The one silver lining for all the optimists out there, there might not be a need to find ample playing time for 8-10 guys on this team. A lot of folks seemed concerned that there would be enough minutes for all the talent assembled. It is mid November and I could shorten this bench quite easily.
I am not ready to say that we are not a very good team. Too early for that call. I am very disappointed in the coaching staff more that the players. Archie Miller told everyone what he was going to do and that is what happened. Right from the get go IU swarmed Marcus and got in his head. Markus is a liability at the point. Play JC and see if he can get it done. If not, pray Elliott returns.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 15, 2018, 11:01:05 AM
As I understand it, your argument is that all minutes have equal value. Once a lead is built, I am arguing (with support from Pomeroy's graph) that it is simply not the case because of the opportunities lost. How am I misunderstanding your argument?
I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition, starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.
Quote from: dgies9156 on November 15, 2018, 08:15:08 AM
My idea of a starting line-up: Chartouney, Morrow, Bailey, Hauser and whomever. Let 'em play and let Chartouney find his shot, Morrow work the kinks out and Bailey work his way in.
Whomever? So you bring Markus off the bench? The kid's body of work over the last two years trumps the bad game he had last night. And don't tell me he also had a bad game against UMBC when he had 8 boards, 7 assists and only two turnovers. I'm as frustrated as anyone about how he played last night but not sure how he doesn't start.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 11:09:07 AM
I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition, starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.
When the first sub came in it was 8-2, Howard had turned the ball over and we had burned a timeout. Now the entire game is in Indiana's hands at this point. All the momentum, Howard is probably feeling down, and the crowd is completely amped up. Now maybe we started JC for Hauser (relax, its not really going to be that) and instead on two of those three possesions Howard gets open and hits two threes. Instead of being down 8-2 we might be up 6-4. Getting a great start matters big time.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 11:09:07 AM
I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition, starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.
So we shouldn't ask the question of why not start a lineup of Marotta, Gardiner, Jaffee, Heldt, and Lelito if starters don't matter because we won't see a lineup like that this year, but we should talk about having 5 guys take the tip off and then calling a timeout to sub those 5 guys out immediately and not have them play another possession?
Come on now. This is beyond silly. I figured there would be some miniscule amount of simple common sense in that "starting" wouldn't consist of that, but I guess that's where the problem lies.
I'll stick to "starting matters quite a bit" and hope that most people don't think to themselves, "Well what if a coach starts 5 guys, wins the tip, and at 19:59 in the first half takes a timeout and subs them out and sends them to the locker room to shower and head back to Humphry Hall?!"
Quote from: wadesworld on November 15, 2018, 11:19:47 AM
So we shouldn't ask the question of why not start a lineup of Marotta, Gardiner, Jaffee, Heldt, and Lelito if starters don't matter because we won't see a lineup like that this year, but we should talk about having 5 guys take the tip off and then calling a timeout to sub those 5 guys out immediately and not have them play another possession?
Come on now. This is beyond silly. I figured there would be some miniscule amount of simple common sense in that "starting" wouldn't consist of that, but I guess that's where the problem lies.
I'll stick to "starting matters quite a bit" and hope that most people don't think to themselves, "Well what if a coach starts 5 guys, wins the tip, and at 19:59 in the first half takes a timeout and subs them out and sends them to the locker room to shower and head back to Humphry Hall?!"
Subbing out all five after a second is unlikely. But one player after a possession? Happens often. Couple players after a few possessions also happens. Starting three walk ons? Never happens unless it's senior day.
I'll be sure to tell Jae Crowder that you think Erik Williams starting was more key to our success than Jae playing 28 minutes a game.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 11:33:20 AM
Subbing out all five after a second is unlikely. But one player after a possession? Happens often. Couple players after a few possessions also happens. Starting three walk ons? Never happens unless it's senior day.
I'll be sure to tell Jae Crowder that you think Erik Williams starting was more key to our success than Jae playing 28 minutes a game.
Starting matters does not mean Jae's 28 minutes weren't important. But please do pass along that message to him.
I would start with an empty court and sub them all in after the first bucket. Walk-ons clearly didn't do the team any favors with their scout team work
Quote from: dgies9156 on November 15, 2018, 08:15:08 AM
Since Presbyterian is nothing more than a glorified exhibition game and tune-up for the NIT pre-season, lets use the game to work out the kinks.
My idea of a starting line-up: Chartouney, Morrow, Bailey, Hauser and whomever. Let 'em play and let Chartouney find his shot, Morrow work the kinks out and Bailey work his way in.
I do think who is announced to the home crowd (ie starters) is important and while I don't like the way he has preformed at the #1 Marcus certainly deserves to be in the starting lineup. I personally think Theo does as well.
I agree the book is out on Marcus and he is not a sufficiently good ball handler to play the point in games against decent competition. So like it or not Wojo has to have Joe in the game and assuming he wants Marcus in the game as well that going to me slim minutes for some of the forwards.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 11:09:07 AM
I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition, starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.
Then I think you are misunderstanding the point of the thread. wades was contending the importance not only of the starting lineup but the manner in which the game starts and the trends that are set by a bad start, whether that's the first handful of possessions from the starting five or the first handful of minutes from all those players. The OP was pretty clear in that regard. He specifically referenced the opening possessions and also the overall time period that led to an early 15-point deficit.
Yes, you and i do have different understandings of the point of this thread.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 15, 2018, 11:09:07 AM
I'm talking about the starting lineup mattering less than who plays the most minutes. By definition, starters are who play the first possession. The coach could sub them all out after one possession and never play them again. They would still be starters. What's more relevant is who plays the majority of the remaining 60+ possessions of the game.
Your definition of a starter may be true, but we all know that in reality the starters actually play at least past the first media timeout in the majority of games. The starting lineup matters because those guys play the first several possessions of the game and set the tone early on. When you get in a hole early, it is much harder to dig yourself out.
Anyone trying to make the claim that the starting lineup doesn't matter because a sub can come in 10 seconds into the game is just arguing for the sake of arguing. That doesn't happen, which makes the starting lineup important.