7th loss in the last 2-plus years in which MU has lost a game in which

[brewcity77]

Umm .. that UConn one, 80% under 1 to go .. that exposes a choke factor problem.  I mean, UConn was only ahead 2 points.   Hard to say UConn choked a 2 point lead away, to lose in OT. 

Are we missing something .. maybe there needs to be a double-digit+ lead within that 80-90% win probability to really count.

With that one, I'd definitely say the 92% under 10 was more indicative of their choke.

[MUeagle05]

Must say, the data is most interesting. The question becomes why? Is the team tired because it is over-coached? Is it because Coach Williams has proven himself not to be a defensive coach - as was Al McGuire? Or, is it simply the coach who is "choking?" This Warrior fan is a big supporter of Coach Williams, but he needs to calm down a bit a become more consistent.

I'm sure there are statistics for this, but when Buzz's teams go bad, every facet of their game seems to go bad. Shooting will go hot and cold, but defense, for example, is something that should be able to be maintained for the most part.

When they start blowing leads like last night, not only do they stop scoring, they also seem to forget how to play defense, rebound, pass and dribble.  I don't know if it's a lack of mental toughness, maturity, or something else, but when things start going bad their whole game falls apart.

[CTWarrior]

I don't know if it's a lack of mental toughness, maturity, or something else, but when things start going bad their whole game falls apart.

Part of that is that we generate a lot of offense from our defense in transition.  When we're not getting stops and steals we aren't getting easy baskets in transition, which is a staple of ours.

[RJax55]

Here are a few notables:

USF last year: 90% under 15 to play, 80% under 9

UConn last year: 92% under 10, 80% under 1

Bucknell last year: 73% just over 10

St John's 2 years ago (OT): 80% just over 10

Problem is, other than UCONN, those teams weren't that good. And as 'Topper pointed out, although the likelihood of victory was low against UCONN, the deficit was not.

However, MU has come close a couple of times in Buzz's tenure, both against 'Nova.

- The 09-10 team @Nova - Down 22 with 13 to go, got it down to 2 with 30 secs to go and had the ball. Ended up losing by 2.

- The 08-09 team, against Nova, Big East Tournament (The McNeal game). Down 16 at half, rally to take a lead with a minute to play... Lose by 1.

[RJax55]

I'm hoping that Buzz is just getting outcoached. He's still young with little experience himself or on his bench. Hopefully these are the only growing pains we have to experience with Buzz.

Anyone else somewhat think this?

I don't know what to think about Buzz's teams on the road. Interesting fact... In Buzz's tenure, MU has had only one true road win by more than 10 points. It was the 08-09 team vs. DePaul (a truly terrible team).

It seems no matter the opponent, win or lose, the games are always extremely close.

For the most part, his teams always seem to hang with much better squads. Similar to yesterday, against teams that are higher rank, have more talent, play in tough venues, MU plays well for the most of game, but comes up just short.

The easy answer is that it is simply a talent difference... MU plays hard and outworks the other team, but in the end, the opponent picks up the intensity and talent wins out. Makes sense, until you examine how MU plays on the road against teams where MU is the more talented squad.

Loses against teams like LSU, DePaul, USF, or even extremely close wins against UWM, St. Johns, USF (last year) doesn't jive with a team that takes UConn, West Virginia, Georgetown, Louisville, etc. to the limit.

[brewcity77]

Problem is, other than UCONN, those teams weren't that good. And as 'Topper pointed out, although the likelihood of victory was low against UCONN, the deficit was not.

I'm not saying they were all as bad, but someone asked for examples and I gave them. As far as UConn...I think it's a lot tougher to come back on the road than it is at home. Granted, 8 points with 9:32 to play isn't the same as 17 with 13:10, but GTown had more than 3 more minutes for their comeback and a crowd that was behind them.

I think what's sometimes lost on people is that basketball is a game of runs. Maybe that's why I never felt secure last night against Georgetown. Because despite the lead, we were really only two runs up on them. They go on a 10-2 in a 3:40 minute span (not a monstrous accomplishment), suddenly the margin is single digits with 10 minutes to play. We play even for 3 minutes, then they go on a 12-4 run over 4 minutes, now it's a 1-point game with 3 minutes to play.

Here's my issue with everyone teetering on the ledge. What if yesterday goes like this...

• At 3:30 of the first half, after the Mayo 3, Georgetown goes on an 12-4 run to close the half (the same run they went on from 3:30 to 0:00 of the second) Halftime: MARQ 39 - GT 37
  
• Marquette extends their lead over the first 7 minutes of the second half 13:10 to play: MARQ 52 - GT 47
  
• Georgetown makes a 11-4 run from 13:10 to 9:38 to take the lead 9:38 to play: MARQ 56 - GT 58
  
• Despite a quick Crowder basket, GT runs again and extends their lead 3:56 to play: MARQ 62 - GT 69
  
• MU storms back with an 8-2 run to close the gap 0:21 to play MARQ 70 - GT 71
  
• Blue fouls Sims to send him to the line, he makes them both 0:21 to play MARQ 70 - GT 73
  
• DJO misses a good look with 4 seconds to play, Mayo misses another shot at the buzzer Final Score: MARQ 70 - GT 73

.
All I did was move the final 3:30 of each half around. Change the location of two runs and sure, Marquette blows a lead, but it's a 2-point halftime lead they blow and a max 5-point second half lead. Instead, Marquette is the team storming back late and comes up one three-ball at the buzzer short of taking the #9 team in the country to overtime after a back-and-forth game.

It's a game of runs. Unfortunately, they strung a few runs together at the end. But this isn't the disastrous loss everyone is making it out to be. It's a 3-point loss to a top-ten team on the road. Yeah, it sucks because a lot of people thought we had it, but we didn't. Sack up and move on, let's hope to get Syracuse on Saturday. And if not, there's another 15 Big East games and we'll be the favorite in probably at least 10 of them. Win the ones we should, pull an upset or two, and we'll be just fine.

[RawdogDX]

I think i can keep this simple.  Every game mu won, at some point they were a 90% fav. 

22 + 22 + 12 = 56 games they won  + 7 games they had 90% but lost = 63 games total where their chances to win were 90%.

56/63 = 89%

So when they have a 90% chance of winning, they win 89% of the time.
Wow, what colossal choke artists! Fire Buzz!

[Eye]

This Warrior fan is a big supporter of Coach Williams, but he needs to calm down a bit a become more consistent.

Agreed, and that's actually a good thought I hadn't considered yet. Was covering a baseball game a few years back and heard a coach tell his team that execution will win out over rah-rah every time. There's a time for rah-rah; there's a time when execution wins out. The rah-rah is fun and nice, but maybe there's a little bit too much of it. Maybe you don't totally have the player's proverbial ear when it's really needed in big spots; when a good team (or less than a good one in the case of DePaul on the road two years ago) makes a big run at you away from home.

Once again someone (Pomeroy said he may take a shot at it at some point, I may be able to get to it Monday using Pomeroy's numbers; would only do the BE) needs to figure out if an 89 percent close rate in games where you're 90 percent at some point to win the game is normal or abnormal. What you're not taking it account RD is that your total of wins includes 18 cowboys in that timespan where MU started at higher than 95 percent to win the game and never dropped below that. Take those out, and it's down to 38 of 45, or much closer to 80 percent.