Better Start than Last Year

[Marcus92]

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.

"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 losses
MU went 20-13 (8-10) in 2015-16, versus 13-19 (4-14) the season before. The team was thus demonstrably "better."

2. Rankings/statistics
Take your pick of AP and coaches' polls, Pomeroy rankings, Sagarin rankings, RPI, offensive and defensive efficiency, recruiting rankings, etc.

3. Postseason accomplishments
Tournament 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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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).

[jesmu84]

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"?

[jesmu84]

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

[Eldon]

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?

[MU82]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[mu03eng]

Which tournament?  But seriously though, which tournament are you talking about?

NCAA

[mu03eng]

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?

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Loose Cannon]

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.. 

[Shark]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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

[fjm]

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!

[Blackhat]

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

#20yearstojudgeacoach

Please reread. #20years(or more)toggetasamplesizeforcoinflips

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Please reread. #20years(or more)toggetasamplesizeforcoinflips

Reread my post. Use a teal lens. 

[Lennys Tap]

Reread my post. Use a teal lens. 

LOL - sorry.

[MUDPT]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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

[bilsu]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.