Perspective

[NersEllenson]

Shut it down!

Bravo, Doc.

Doc's point was very well played, other than it was slightly factually inaccurate.  Stanford's head coach got tossed in the 1st half...so we were matched against there assistant the whole 2nd half.  Even more embarrassing. 

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Funny, if you read what I said I praised them for making three three pointers, two free throws and a last second layup.

Reading....try it....it can be passive, aggressive, informational, erotic, whatever you like.

Erotic for me. Definitely.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Luck is when the opposing head coach gets his second technical for putting his hands on his hips and gets thrown out at the end of a tight NCAA game (and then has an assistant coach take over at a key time).  Bad luck is not pressuring two poor handled guards, while single teaming the All-American center with your back-up center (who every one in the arena knew was getting the ball for the last shot). 

If only we had a stronger assistant coaching staff  to guide us then....I remember a similar situation where everyone in the arena up in San Jose knew a certain player was going to get the ball for a team called UW (not Wisconsin) and take the last shot. Sure enough, the kid made it and we lost despite having a 15 point second half lead.

Crazy...only in that game we were a 6 seed against an 11 seed, not a 6 seed vs a 3 seed.

Perspective.

[avid1010]

Coach Buzz Williams and nearly every basketball writer in America disagrees, but that's ok.

I'll take a bit of luck with skill.....the two are a winning combination.

i always love how you use buzz's words (or anyone for that manner), to fit your argument...like it's this great debating skill to turn the words of someone who your opposition supports against them.

a little insulting to think people don't understand context or can't apply meaning, interpretation or change over time.  it's something politicians will sometimes use, but in a formal debating session among professionals is very rarely used. 

[Lennys Tap]

i always love how you use buzz's words (or anyone for that manner), to fit your argument...like it's this great debating skill to turn the words of someone who your opposition supports against them.

a little insulting to think people don't understand context or can't apply meaning, interpretation or change over time.  it's something politicians will sometimes use, but in a formal debating session among professionals is very rarely used. 

Well said. Buzz is honest and also very self deprecating, so when he puts himself or his team down, Chico can't wait to say "See, team stinks, Buzz stinks, we're lucky, etc - I'm just agreeing with Buzz" Crean is equal parts Richard Nixon and Captain Queeg, defensive, dishonest and quick to throw others under the bus. Rolled back to back by Syracuse, he'll still insist that his game plan and coaching were perfect, his players just didn't execute.

[Dr. Blackheart]

If only we had a stronger assistant coaching staff  to guide us then....I remember a similar situation where everyone in the arena up in San Jose knew a certain player was going to get the ball for a team called UW (not Wisconsin) and take the last shot. Sure enough, the kid made it and we lost despite having a 15 point second half lead.

Crazy...only in that game we were a 6 seed against an 11 seed, not a 6 seed vs a 3 seed.

Perspective.

Are you talking luck here...or seeding or coaching ability?  I am a bit confused as I thought your argument was about luck?  My point is you make your own luck. 

In basketball, there are two outcomes: yes or no.  You make a basket or not.  You foul or not.  You make a free throw or not.  You double team or not.  You turn it over or not.  50/50.  How players come through or how a coach designs a play or a defense decides the outcome of a play, and can change your odds heavily. 

So, the basis, whether Stanford or Davidson, is a 50/50 play at the end of the game.  The minute Lopez caught the ball in the low post, it became 60/40 in favor of Stanford as he makes about 60% of his shots from there.  If Marquette pressured the ball or double downed, the odds would have swung to 60/40 in their favor.  What part was luck and what part was the head coach strategy out of a time out?  That decision was a 20% swing in odds away from Marquette (60% in MU favor if pressure, 40% in Stanford's if no pressure). 

Btw, in terms of assistant coaching ability, I would take the guy who was the lead for the game before in the win over Kentucky, Crean's last victory at Marquette.

[ChicosBailBonds]

i always love how you use buzz's words (or anyone for that manner), to fit your argument...like it's this great debating skill to turn the words of someone who your opposition supports against them.

a little insulting to think people don't understand context or can't apply meaning, interpretation or change over time.  it's something politicians will sometimes use, but in a formal debating session among professionals is very rarely used. 

Let me know when we are in a formal debating session among professionals, I'll buy a ticket.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Are you talking luck here...or seeding or coaching ability?  I am a bit confused as I thought your argument was about luck?  My point is you make your own luck. 

In basketball, there are two outcomes: yes or no.  You make a basket or not.  You foul or not.  You make a free throw or not.  You double team or not.  You turn it over or not.  50/50.  How players come through or how a coach designs a play or a defense decides the outcome of a play, and can change your odds heavily. 

So, the basis, whether Stanford or Davidson, is a 50/50 play at the end of the game.  The minute Lopez caught the ball in the low post, it became 60/40 in favor of Stanford as he makes about 60% of his shots from there.  If Marquette pressured the ball or double downed, the odds would have swung to 60/40 in their favor.  What part was luck and what part was the head coach strategy out of a time out?  That decision was a 20% swing in odds away from Marquette (60% in MU favor if pressure, 40% in Stanford's if no pressure). 

Btw, in terms of assistant coaching ability, I would take the guy who was the lead for the game before in the win over Kentucky, Crean's last victory at Marquette.

I'm talking about luck....then you went away from it with your anecdote, so I obliged in kind.

All of your comments above, you have no idea if they are true.  I suspect in the coaching huddle they would have discussed all the options, as a staff they went with what they did.  Just as with a staff for other games.  Sometimes guys make great shots, sometimes guys don't.  McNeal makes his shot, we aren't talking about this.  The refs don't make some phantom calls to make up for kicking out the other coach, we may not be talking about this stuff.

Maybe we should have pressured the ball more, or denied Pondexter from getting it for Washington....everyone in the building knew he was going to get it...he did...he made it...we lost.  We can play this game forever.

[NavinRJohnson]

Are you talking luck here...or seeding or coaching ability?  I am a bit confused as I thought your argument was about luck?  My point is you make your own luck. 

In basketball, there are two outcomes: yes or no.  You make a basket or not.  You foul or not.  You make a free throw or not.  You double team or not.  You turn it over or not.  50/50.  How players come through or how a coach designs a play or a defense decides the outcome of a play, and can change your odds heavily. 

So, the basis, whether Stanford or Davidson, is a 50/50 play at the end of the game.  The minute Lopez caught the ball in the low post, it became 60/40 in favor of Stanford as he makes about 60% of his shots from there.  If Marquette pressured the ball or double downed, the odds would have swung to 60/40 in their favor.  What part was luck and what part was the head coach strategy out of a time out?  That decision was a 20% swing in odds away from Marquette (60% in MU favor if pressure, 40% in Stanford's if no pressure). 

This is pretty much right on relative to the theory of luck. Fact is, every possession has the same potential value athe outset. Basketball doesn't become luck simply because it happens at the end of a game. Had the minute or so exchanges cited above taken place with 16 minutes to play intel second half, they would not be viewed as luck, or as a team "pissing their pants." In MU's case, it would just be viewed as a an 11-4 run early in the second half (if it was ever discussed at all). If its not luck in the first 39 minutes, its not lucking he last one. The pointthatyou make your own luck is correct. You make your own luck by making plays.

[The Equalizer]

Never, at any time, anywhere did I or any other "idiots" you refer to state that it was our game plan to fall behind Davidson and need a near miracle comeback. Anyone who would suggest such a thing is a liar and an idiot himself. That would be you.

Never, at any time, anywhere did I credit the win to "great coaching". Anyone who says I did is a liar and an idiot. That would be you.

Never, at any time, anywhere did I "denigrate the real heroes of the game" (Blue and Wilson) for their play down the stretch. As a matter of fact, I said they played flawlessly during that time. Only a liar and an idiot would say otherwise. That would be you.

In addition, I never said the Davidson game was Buzz's finest coaching hour. Only a liar and an idiot would suggest I did. That would be you.

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.  

This is your typical modus operandi. You make up things that people never said then call those same people idiots for saying them. And when you piss off people enough with your insults and made up BS that they respond angrily in kind you whine like a little boy.

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.

[Lennys Tap]

If only we had a stronger assistant coaching staff  to guide us then....I remember a similar situation where everyone in the arena up in San Jose knew a certain player was going to get the ball for a team called UW (not Wisconsin) and take the last shot. Sure enough, the kid made it and we lost despite having a 15 point second half lead.

Crazy...only in that game we were a 6 seed against an 11 seed, not a 6 seed vs a 3 seed.

Perspective.

I remember that year very well. You said early in that season that if Buzz could squeak into the tournament as the last at large team picked (12 seed) he should be National Coach of the Year. He cleared that hurdle rather easily, finishing closer to a 1 seed than a 12. So in your book did that make him merely the National Coach of the Decade or would you anoint him Coach of the Century?

Regarding the year that Stanford literally gave us 4 points and played more than half the game without its coach, wasn't a 6 seed in the tournament at the very best viewed as meeting expectations?

Perspective.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I remember that year very well. You said early in that season that if Buzz could squeak into the tournament as the last at large team picked (12 seed) he should be National Coach of the Year. He cleared that hurdle rather easily, finishing closer to a 1 seed than a 12. So in your book did that make him merely the National Coach of the Decade or would you anoint him Coach of the Century?

Regarding the year that Stanford literally gave us 4 points and played more than half the game without its coach, wasn't a 6 seed in the tournament at the very best viewed as meeting expectations?

Perspective.

Now that's funny, especially coming from you when you have always said a team that doesn't beat a worst seed is not meeting expectations.  Moving those goal posts again, I see.


And yes, I did say that.  They exceeded those expectations to get there, then had the unfortunate 15 point lead lost and the game lost.  It's a crapshoot, it happens.  Using your definition that you constantly throw out there, that didn't meet expectations.  My point to the good doctor is EVERYONE in the building knew where that ball was going as well, and we still lost.  It happens. I guess we just had bad luck.

Perspective

[tower912]

Am I the only one who sees the beauty and irony of a thread entitled "Perspective" devolving into this?

[willie warrior]

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.

Wow--put the equalizer in the WH Press Corps. (or is it corpse--you never know anymore?)

[NersEllenson]

Am I the only one who sees the beauty and irony of a thread entitled "Perspective" devolving into this?

Well played Tower! 

[Lennys Tap]

Now that's funny, especially coming from you when you have always said a team that doesn't beat a worst seed is not meeting expectations.  Moving those goal posts again, I see.

I don't think I've ever based expectations on seeding. I use Vegas as my guiding light. We were pick em or a slight dog vs Washington and a 3 point favorite against Davidson. So, a disappointing loss and a scary near loss, but neither outcome should have been unexpected. IU's near loss to Temple and slaughter at the hands of Syracuse were both major disappointments versus the line (as was MUs effort vs Cuse) which makes them worse in my book.

[GGGG]

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.

You are the one that made the following claims about the Davidson game:

"Buzz did a piss poor job of gameplanning the 14 seed. He made no real adjustments all game. Down the stretch he had no play designed that could get a player an uncontested three."

And YOU are asking for proof that counteract these claims based on what he "implied...Maybe in different threads.  Maybe with different words?"

That is very odd.

[Lennys Tap]

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.  

1.No I haven't. Reasserting lies doesn't make them true. It just makes the liar look even more desperate and foolish.
2.I do believe that Buzz's teams play better when it counts most (tourney time) than in December. In the last 3 seasons (the ones where he's had his own players) we've had several ugly losses in December. Yet we've won 7 games in the tournament, 2 more than the previous regime won in 9 years. All the hate in your heart can't change that.
3.Vander and Jamil deserve the lion's share of the credit for the win. They were nothing short of heroic. Again, I've never said anything different. Suggesting I did is a lie. That said, I'll go out on a limb and say that if we played the game with just those two on the court and no coaches on the sideline we lose. Saying "teams" win or lose games doesn't mean those teams don't have heroes. Maybe you never played sports and don't grasp that concept.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow--put the equalizer in the WH Press Corps. (or is it corpse--you never know anymore?)

Corpse...well played sir, well played. 

[Lennys Tap]

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





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

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.

[4everwarriors]

Crean sucks

[Dr. Blackheart]

I'm talking about luck....then you went away from it with your anecdote, so I obliged in kind.

All of your comments above, you have no idea if they are true.  I suspect in the coaching huddle they would have discussed all the options, as a staff they went with what they did.  Just as with a staff for other games.  Sometimes guys make great shots, sometimes guys don't.  McNeal makes his shot, we aren't talking about this.  The refs don't make some phantom calls to make up for kicking out the other coach, we may not be talking about this stuff.

Maybe we should have pressured the ball more, or denied Pondexter from getting it for Washington....everyone in the building knew he was going to get it...he did...he made it...we lost.  We can play this game forever.

Your argument about luck is specious at best and overall silly as luck can be quantified as a laid out.  50/50.  A made shot or a miss.  In those end of the game situations, a good game coach plays the fringes.  The Stanford assistant chose a play to make it 60/40 (again, not random but based on shooting percentages, moving his odds to 60/40).  Our coach chose to play straight up man defense (we don't need to be in the huddle, we can see what the plan was in how they came out and executed). If MU pressured and trapped the ball handler and forced a three, there was a 40% or less chance of their shooters hitting it (again based on odds--shooting %--and in MU's favor).

As to my comment you objected to, what is not true?  Everyone in the arena knew what the play was going to be.  I didn't say "everyone but our head coach".  CTC chose to hold his cards (40% chance shot won't go in).  Stanford chose the 60% path. That difference is coaching, not luck.  Do you really believe Crean did not know what that last play was going to be?  

Same with McKillop vs. Buzz.  While McKillop was bitching about MU stealing a time out under the review and not setting up his defense for the last play, Buzz calmly gathered his team and telling them to repeat the St. John's play.  Buzz played the odds and influenced his luck.  There was no divine intervention.

As to Washington, is stepping on the end line bad luck or bad execution?  Bad execution...a mistake by a kid who played his heart out, but a mistake not bad luck.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And how are you arbitrarily assigning 40% or 60% or anything else?  Luck isn't 50-50 as you defined it.  Furthermore, none of us were in that huddle to know what was discussed and if they executed properly.  Just two weeks ago many of us here were not pleased by our last shot attempt from Jake Thomas and there was blather about if that was really how Buzz drew it up, or did he draw it up different and it was executed not to the way he liked.  The simple fact is, things aren't that black and white...there are options, the opposing team has a stake in this as well.  So to say it is coaching, etc, when none of know is really the specious part.  You are opining, which is fine, but that doesn't mean you know what was directed and then get to state THAT IS COACHING.  You have no idea.

The stepping over the end line didn't happen with the Washington debacle, it happened with the Missouri game a year later. 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mizzou-marquette-star-boisterous-drama-044100759--ncaab.html 

[real chili 83]

In before the lock.

[Dr. Blackheart]

And how are you arbitrarily assigning 40% or 60% or anything else?  Luck isn't 50-50 as you defined it.  Furthermore, none of us were in that huddle to know what was discussed and if they executed properly.  Just two weeks ago many of us here were not pleased by our last shot attempt from Jake Thomas and there was blather about if that was really how Buzz drew it up, or did he draw it up different and it was executed not to the way he liked.  The simple fact is, things aren't that black and white...there are options, the opposing team has a stake in this as well.  So to say it is coaching, etc, when none of know is really the specious part.  You are opining, which is fine, but that doesn't mean you know what was directed and then get to state THAT IS COACHING.  You have no idea.

The stepping over the end line didn't happen with the Washington debacle, it happened with the Missouri game a year later. 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mizzou-marquette-star-boisterous-drama-044100759--ncaab.html 

It is called game theory.