Perspective

[NavinRJohnson]

In before the lock.

[willie warrior]

The caption underneath could read: "I just sh#t my pants!"

[ChicosBailBonds]

It is called game theory.

Well aware...a predictive tool, that has its own probabilities, weaknesses, etc.  Has some very nice applications in economics, politics, etc.  My problem with game theory is that is ultimately comes down to a zero sum basis, and life (sports in particular) are not so neatly divided up that way.  Sure, at a high level there are two teams competing and one wins and one loses...zero sum.  Or you can say, one takes a shot, it either goes in or it doesn't.  The problem I have with it (as do many of the math whizs we have here that run around with their UofChicago, Duke and Cornell degrees will attest), it often doesn't capture all of the variables, dynamics, etc, that a basketball or other sport contains within the game.  I happen to find the study of game theory worthy and extremely interesting, but it only goes so far.  We use it, many fortune 500 companies use it to predict behaviors. 

My favorite is always the foul or not foul up 3 points and game theory analysis has some interesting takes on this...though they vary which in and of itself right there tells you the level of disagreement based on the variables, which one are counted, how they are weighted, etc.

[The Equalizer]

LOL. This is the best. First you state in no uncertain terms that I've said a bunch of stuff that I've never said. Now you concede I didn't SAY them. I IMPLIED them. In different threads. In different words. In your view. By your interpretation. So hard facts asserted have morphed to extremely subjective and biased opinion. How convenient.

First, I'd like you to go back and read what I wrote.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=40868.msg538623#msg538623

I didn't say that you said anything--"in no uncertain terms" or otherwise.  In fact, I said it was "guys like" who said such things. Which means that you think I implied it was you.

Funny that you're all bent out of shape because I said you implied something, even though you did exactly the same thing.

I did predict that you'd go after me personally in response, and you lived up down to that prediction.

But I'll let you in on the little game I played on you here:

You have a long history of giving Buzz full credit for last year's NCAA run and claiming that it was because he had the team playing better.  If anyone ever disgareed with you on that point, you accused them of denigrating Buzz or hating Marquette (your oft repeated big lie, BTW).  I've certainly been on the receiveing end of that statement.

In the past I tried to reply with logic and an argument supporte with exampls.  I know you won't respond to those arguments--becuase you don't have any of the facts on your side.

But this time, instead of trying to win you over with logic, I thought I would throw your own argument back in your face and let it blow up.  Your continued efforts over time to overinflate credit to Buzz's coaching for that win comes at the cost of denigrating the contribution of Wilson & Blue.

You can't credit Buzz for coaching us to the Davidson win without also taking credit away from Wilson and Blue. 

[tower912]

Yes, you have.  For years and in plenty of other threads you've said or implied each of these things.  

How many times have you said that Buzz's history is to have the team playing its best ball (e.g. finest hour) in March?   Maybe if you were honest enough to admit that sometimes Buzz didn't have the team playing well in March (such as against Davidson) and admit the obvious that sometimes the team was poorly prepared and outcoached, but we pull out a win anyway.

And, yes, you absolutely do take something away from Blue and Wilson when you try to take some portion of the credit for that particular game and share it with Buzz.  

I could find plenty of examples where you've done the same to me.  So get off your high horse.  If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

As I pointed out above--you've implied each of those things.  Maybe in different threads.  Maybe with different words.  

You want to make this a serious basketball discussion--then address the following without resorting to any comment about who's asking the question:

1.  You've repeatedly claim that Buzz has the team playing its best ball in March. What specific coaching moves did Buzz make aginst Davidson that supports that claim?  

1a.  If your argument is some variation that Davidson was a lot tougher than your typical 14 seed, provide the justifcation you used to make that claim (higher RPI, higher Pomeroy rating, notable non-conference wins, etc).

2.  Do you agree or disagree that Buzz wasn't as well prepared for Davidson as Davidson was for us?  Support your argument with examples.

3.  Do you disagree that Buzz was not able to make effective in-game adjustments.  Support your argument with examples of specific adjustments that you think were game changers..

4.  Do you agree or disagree that Buzz did not set up a play in the last minute that got an open 3 point look, and the team relied on Blue and Wilson to create their own shot.  If you disagree, which of the shots would you argue is a result of someting that Buzz set up?

5.  You claim that you didn't take anything away from Wilson and Blue for the Davidson win, but continue to give Buzz credit for the win.  Assuming you're not going to give 100% credit to Wilson and Blue, state how much less credit they deserve and how much you attribute to Buzz's coaching decisions in the last two minutes.  Your answer must add up to 100%.  Justify your answer with the specific coaching moves that you use as basis for any credit you attribute to Buzz.

Dr. Philip Barbay to Thornton Melon:    "I just have one question.  In 27 Parts"........      "Back to School"   Rodney Dangerfield.   1986.

[tower912]

Buzz put Jake Thomas on the floor and McKillop took it seriously enough to guard him in the corner, eliminating one defender to help on Blue.  Advantage Buzz.   Against Butler, on the final inbounds play for Butler, Buzz tossed a defense at Brad that he had never seen before, resulting in an off-balance 3 by a guarded big.  

http://www.sports-ratings.com/basketball/2013/03/2013-ncaa-tournament-round-of-64-preview-odds-prediction-3-marquette-vs-14-davidson.html

This is just one link, but is shows at the bottom that Davidson had a 37% chance of winning, much higher than a normal 14 seed.  They were a trendy upset pick last year.    
http://www.betvega.com/thursdays-ncaa-tournament-lines-score-predictions-316111/

This one makes me laugh in light of MU's current state.   ..."MU had a terrible out of conference record."

[hairy worthen]

Crean sucks

eloquent.   

Says more in two words than all of equalizers essays put together.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The caption underneath could read: "I just sh#t my pants!"

In other games, yes, but not that picture....it should read "We just won the Big Ten outright title for the first time in 20+ years on Meat Chicken's home court"

[Lennys Tap]

First, I'd like you to go back and read what I wrote.


I didn't say that you said anything--"in no uncertain terms" or otherwise.  In fact, I said it was "guys like" who said such things. Which means that you think I implied it was you.

Really? Never said I said those things "in no uncertain terms" or otherwise?

"For years and in plenty of threads YOU'VE SAID or implied each of these things" - The Equalizer

I won't get into the faulty logic and thought processes that resort in you drawing implications that are absent, false or both. That's a problem you'll need to see someone about. But for the part where you claim that you didn't write that I said things that I never said - your own words make that a lie.

[Lennys Tap]

I did predict that you'd go after me personally in response, and you lived up down to that prediction.

Calling people idiots and then predicting they'll take it personally. Wow. Carnac and The Amazing Kreskin have nothing on you. Might as well pat yourself on the back for "predicting" the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

[willie warrior]

eloquent.   

Says more in two words than all of equalizers essays put together.

Yes, the eloquence speaks volumes.
Just to gloss it up a bit more it could be "Crean sucks________(insert word or phrase here)