What was Wojo's alternative?

[Pakuni]

Is a Cain wide open corner 3 a better shot than the one Howard got? That's possible.

Cain taking the last shot there would have gone over swimmingly with Scoop.

[NickelDimer]

Just so I understand your position... you wanted the ball to Sam early off the inbound so he would dribble up the floor and ISO/attempt to beat his man off the dribble?

Around mid court? Absolutely. Sam is more than capable of dribbling into a pull up shooting over a smaller defender which is all Markus ended up doing

[Henry Sugar]

Serious question .... how would Coach Henry Sugar have handled the situation?

Short answer - Diversify the portfolio to reduce risk.

Longer answer -
Understand that players on the roster are generally either role players or higher-usage players for the duration of their college careeer and recruit accordingly
Player development for 3 overall higher-usage players (>20%)
Set the expectation that Sam gets over 20% of possessions
Limit Howard's usage to around 30%
Give Howard the green light to increase usage to around 33-35% for games where MU is an underdog, such as road games.

In retrospect, this issue popped up as early as the K-State game (43%), but also happened vs Wisconsin (47%), Buffalo (51%), and Creighton (50%). That's where I struggle. It worked! However, in those games, Sam's usage averaged 14%. After at least one or two of those games, I would have reset the team approach to avoid having Markus with that much usage.

Last, I'm not a coach, nor do I pretend to be. I've spent way too much time playing around with math, and I understand theory, but fundamentally this was about managing personalities.

[Henry Sugar]

I love that these kinds of stats have taken over basketball.

We're in a position in 2019 where an All-American who shot 8-15 (3-6 from deep) and went 11-11 from the line, and effectively ended the game by moving it from a two possession game into a 20 point lead, should be criticized for being too selfish in posting those numbers.

A bad process with good results is still a bad process.

[Dr. Blackheart]

A bad process with good results is still a bad process.

And good results are tamped down the second time through a conference when you have a bad process.

[Goose]

Coach Henry

I think you are spot on.

[Herman Cain]

Da 'hole fookin' mess kneeds ta bee purged. Starts and ends wit da coach. Give Wojo da heave ho, aina?

I agree with this analysis

[Henry Sugar]

And good results are tamped down the second time through a conference when you have a bad process.

Excellent point, Doc.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Henry's avatar even looks like he's in a cubicle crunching stats.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Sure it does. Howard made a bad decision which resulted in a loss. Here’s the video for anyone who wants to refresh their memory. Plenty of opportunity early in that shot clock to get Sam the ball. Kind of a microcosm of why we’re in the position we are today eh?

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game?gameId=401120747

Early in the shot clock??  They inbounded the ball with 7.2 seconds left.

Honestly, it’s statements like these that make me certain that people are intentionally misstating facts to further their pre-conceived agenda.  Maybe he could have gotten the ball to Sam with 1.5-2.0 seconds left a few feet past mid court. That’s a lower percentage look than what Markus actually took. I’ll take the shot we got over a nearly half court heave from Sam.

[MU82]

Sure it does. Howard made a bad decision which resulted in a loss. Here’s the video for anyone who wants to refresh their memory. Plenty of opportunity early in that shot clock to get Sam the ball. Kind of a microcosm of why we’re in the position we are today eh?

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game?gameId=401120747

There were 7 seconds left when Markus got the ball in the backcourt. If he throws the immediate long pass to Sam the way you would have preferred, Sam gets the ball near midcourt with maybe 4-5 seconds left. It is your contention that Sam could have taken the dribbles he needed to get the ball into shooting range and that nobody would have guarded him, thereby leaving him wide open to shoot? Or are you contending that in those 4-5 seconds, Sam would have put a move on a defender or two -- because he was famous for that -- and gotten himself open to shoot a better shot than the one Markus got?

This is bullcrap.  I've shared as much as I possibly could, clearly to a fault, to inform this board of what transpired.

You don't like the substance of said insight and don't want to believe it and that's fine, but don't say crap like "pretends he has evidence" when what I've shared has been vetted and corroborated by multiple people who were there firsthand.

Refresh my memory with your evidence that Wojo called a play for Sam to get the ball there, please. I must have missed it earlier. Seriously.

[forgetful]

Sure it does. Howard made a bad decision which resulted in a loss. Here’s the video for anyone who wants to refresh their memory. Plenty of opportunity early in that shot clock to get Sam the ball. Kind of a microcosm of why we’re in the position we are today eh?

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game?gameId=401120747

I don't think there is a coach in college basketball, or NBA for that matter that would rather have Sam taking that shot in an iso off the dribble, over Markus dribbling left for a step back three. 

My guess is that Markus shoots about 15% higher in that situation throughout his career than Sam.

[Golden Avalanche]

A bad process with good results is still a bad process.

It was a bad process that produced a stretch of 20 wins to two losses over the course of 90 days and winning 24 of 34 games overall.

And good results are tamped down the second time through a conference when you have a bad process.

But success wasn't tamped down the second time against Xavier. Or Butler. Or DePaul. Or Providence.

[brewcity77]

But success wasn't tamped down the second time against Xavier. Or Butler. Or DePaul. Or Providence.

When the three teams you list feature the 3 teams tied at the bottom of the league & a team that was in the middle of a 6-game losing skid when we played them, that isn't the best supporting evidence of a successful process.

[Pakuni]

Short answer - Diversify the portfolio to reduce risk.

Longer answer -
Understand that players on the roster are generally either role players or higher-usage players for the duration of their college careeer and recruit accordingly
Player development for 3 overall higher-usage players (>20%)
Set the expectation that Sam gets over 20% of possessions
Limit Howard's usage to around 30%
Give Howard the green light to increase usage to around 33-35% for games where MU is an underdog, such as road games.

In retrospect, this issue popped up as early as the K-State game (43%), but also happened vs Wisconsin (47%), Buffalo (51%), and Creighton (50%). That's where I struggle. It worked! However, in those games, Sam's usage averaged 14%. After at least one or two of those games, I would have reset the team approach to avoid having Markus with that much usage.

Last, I'm not a coach, nor do I pretend to be. I've spent way too much time playing around with math, and I understand theory, but fundamentally this was about managing personalities.

Thanks for the reply. Your points are well taken, but might I suggest far easier said than done.
As you note, the strategy of alloing Markus high was working - and working beyond expectations. - for most of the season. As a coach, it's your primaru job to win, so it seems counterintuitive at best to suggest a coach shift a way from a strategy that's producing wins because of what's theoretically ideal. As I've said elsewhere, right or wrong, Wojo's strategy was to ride his best player. And it largely worked, until Markus got hurt.
It's fair to criticize Wojo for not adjusting better at that point. I don't think it's fair to criticize him for employing a strategy that had this team in the top 10.

As far as coaching by percentages, again, that's way easier said than done.

Your last point is spot on.

[Golden Avalanche]

When the three teams you list feature the 3 teams tied at the bottom of the league & a team that was in the middle of a 6-game losing skid when we played them, that isn't the best supporting evidence of a successful process.

The bottom of the league was 7-11 this season. Two games from third place. This isn't the bottom of the league like DePaul at 1-17 or Marquette at 4-14.

A month ago Scoop was having a collective orgasm over the parity of the conference outside of MU/Nova. But now that the Hausers have left suddenly everything about our season has to be downplayed.

The overall point remains true: our process was so bad that Marquette swept four programs. We finished 12-6 so clearly we won more than we lost the second time through the conference.

[BM1090]

The bottom of the league was 7-11 this season. Two games from third place. This isn't the bottom of the league like DePaul at 1-17 or Marquette at 4-14.

A month ago Scoop was having a collective orgasm over the parity of the conference outside of MU/Nova. But now that the Hausers have left suddenly everything about our season has to be downplayed.

The overall point remains true: our process was so bad that Marquette swept four programs. We finished 12-6 so clearly we won more than we lost the second time through the conference.

Agree with what you say here for the most part. There's a lot of revisionist history. But we did go 8-1 the first time through the conference and 4-5 the second time through, so we didn't win more than we lost.

[brewcity77]

As you note, the strategy of alloing Markus high was working - and working beyond expectations.

They did work, though I do think it's worth noting that in two of those instances, Wisconsin & Creighton, we were an eyelash away from those games being losses in regulation. Ed's game-saving block & 5 points in 0.8 seconds were the difference. A big part of why it was working was because early on, we were winning all the 50/50 games. That it balanced out as hard & fast as it did made it apparent just how risky the strategy can be.

For the most part, Marquette was able to flip the script in those games as well as the Louisville game. If those games how they (on paper) should have, I suspect there would be a vastly different opinion of how the season went. They didn't, and the 23-4 start was a blast, but the way we won many of our early games was a bit of a statistical anomaly.

[Golden Avalanche]

Agree with what you say here for the most part. There's a lot of revisionist history. But we did go 8-1 the first time through the conference and 4-5 the second time through, so we didn't win more than we lost.

That's not what's meant by "second time through a conference". It's not the first half of the season split by the second half.

It's referring to playing an opponent a second time. The theory being that the opponent now has a better scout on your team from your first meeting rather than relying on video of your games against different teams.

[MU Buff]

That's not what's meant by "second time through a conference". It's not the first half of the season split by the second half.

It's referring to playing an opponent a second time. The theory being that the opponent now has a better scout on your team from your first meeting rather than relying on video of your games against different teams.

It doesn’t matter if you look at it 1st half of conference season vs 2nd half or 1st time against opponent vs 2nd. We went 8-1 first time through and 4-5 second time through in both scenarios.

[MUDPT]

I thought this thread is funny, looking back at it now...

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57957.0

[Henry Sugar]

It was a bad process that produced a stretch of 20 wins to two losses over the course of 90 days and winning 24 of 34 games overall, and ALSO produced 1-6 down the stretch including choking away a conference title and failing in the NCAA tourney.

fixed for ya. the bad process produced all of it.

[Pakuni]

They did work, though I do think it's worth noting that in two of those instances, Wisconsin & Creighton, we were an eyelash away from those games being losses in regulation. Ed's game-saving block & 5 points in 0.8 seconds were the difference. A big part of why it was working was because early on, we were winning all the 50/50 games. That it balanced out as hard & fast as it did made it apparent just how risky the strategy can be.

Right, but you can play that game both ways. But for a missed shot here, a bad call there, MU beats St. John's at home, beats Georgetown at home, beats Nova on the road (remember ... that was a one possession game with :30 to play), beats Seton Hall in the BE tourney, etc. Can't say the early season success was fluky lucky and also say the late-season slide was just bad strategy.

My argument here isn't that the strategy didn't have risks. Or that it shouldn't have been adjusted when it stopped working. My argument is that it would have been uncommon and just as risky for a coach to abruptly depart from a strategy that was producing winning results because some computer model says so.
To say Wojo should have adjusted and diverged from the strategy when Markus got hurt and the slide began is an entirely fair (and accurate) criticism.
To say in hindsight that the strategy was bad and doomed from the get go (never mind the results) is Thursday morning quarterbacking.

[Golden Avalanche]

fixed for ya. the bad process produced all of it.
and ALSO produced the best non-conference for Marquette in nearly a decade. and ALSO produced the Big East player of the year and an All-American. and ALSO produced a Big East Second Team player. and ALSO produced a Big East Freshman Team player

fixed for ya. the bad process produced all of it.

[brewcity77]

To say Wojo should have adjusted and diverged from the strategy when Markus got hurt and the slide began is an entirely fair (and accurate) criticism.
To say in hindsight that the strategy was bad and doomed from the get go (never mind the results) is Thursday morning quarterbacking.

I'm not saying it was doomed. Purdue showed that it can work and nearly got to a Final Four with a very similar strategy. However I feel that it's a poor strategy. It requires everything to continue going well for one player. I feel that a more balanced attack that spreads the ball between more players, especially when you have players on your team already that are equally or more efficient, is a better strategy.

Can it work? Sure. But when it does will be the outlier, and I feel a more balanced & diverse attack will be more likely to provide consistent results.