Deserved To Lose

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Please. If Hepburn was healthy for the entire game we wouldn’t have gotten close in the 2nd half.

How do you know that? Are you suggesting MU's chances of winning that game were 0% at that point?

[ATL MU Warrior]

How do you know that? Are you suggesting MU's chances of winning that game were 0% at that point?

Of course I don’t know that. And I have no idea what our chances of winning were at that point.

I also can be honest and say that when he played he was the best player on the court (by a wide margin) and the fact that he missed 75% of the 2nd half and was clearly limited for the other 25% is largely why we were able to make a game out of it.

He wasn’t worse in the 2nd half because of some adjustment we made.  He was worse because he was hurt and I think it’s dishonest to suggest otherwise.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I think its dishonest to state "we wouldn't have gotten close" when in the VERY NEXT POST you say that you don't know if that actually is the case.

[ATL MU Warrior]

I think its dishonest to state "we wouldn't have gotten close" when in the VERY NEXT POST you say that you don't know if that actually is the case.

Fine.  We most likely wouldn’t have gotten close. Is that sufficient for you?

Do you think Hepburn played worse in the 2nd half because of adjustments we made? 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Yes.

And No...but our defense was better regardless.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Correct.

Please don’t agree with me. I don’t like it.

[Lennys Tap]

Actually, there is. Did they make shots? Sure. Chucky Hepburn made multiple fade-away 35-foot threes. Meanwhile, O-Max missed a number of wide-open jumpers in spots where he normally makes it. But while Wisconsin got the win, we were the better team on the day. Shot Quality had that as an SQ Upset and based on the shots taken, Marquette would win that game 60% of the time.

So why did they get the result? Because in the first half, one of the worst 2PFG% teams in the country made 90% of their two-point field goals and shot 17 points above their season average from three. Then in the second half, both teams played their average game and we rallied to get to overtime. They got the better of us in the 5-minute frame, but that's hardly indicative of the overall game, which really just demonstrated that you can't defend luck, which is the only reason Wisconsin won. They were lucky in their shooting and won as a result.

Take the L and move on knowing that if you play that one 10 times, yesterday was the only one they would've gotten.

Good analysis, Brew.

[Daniel]

Good analysis, Brew.

Yes great analysis, Brew,   And the fact is we were in the gane in each loss…. So, same thing with the other two losses…. A few things different and we are 9-0.   But…… things happen.   Next game!

[Newsdreams]

Please. If Hepburn was healthy for the entire game we wouldn’t have gotten close in the 2nd half.

If he was really hurt on 2nd half then their staff was really terrible. He looked fine moving around. Again D was changed, not doubling post hard.

[brewcity77]

Please. If Hepburn was healthy for the entire game we wouldn’t have gotten close in the 2nd half.

Maybe. Or maybe the guy who shot 100% on threes in the first half would've regressed to the 35.8% career shooter he is, he would've taken shots away from Essegian, and we would've come back sooner.

They got lucky by shooting out of their minds and you can't defend that. It happens. They got the result, but we've been the better team on the season and if we played again I'd be confident we would beat them on any court, including theirs.

[MuggsyB]

Maybe. Or maybe the guy who shot 100% on threes in the first half would've regressed to the 35.8% career shooter he is, he would've taken shots away from Essegian, and we would've come back sooner.

They got lucky by shooting out of their minds and you can't defend that. It happens. They got the result, but we've been the better team on the season and if we played again I'd be confident we would beat them on any court, including theirs.

He shot pretty much out of his ass.  Had he played the 2nd half we have no idea what would of happened but don't forget Klesmit and Essigan would have gotten fewer shots.  25 pts from Klesmit and Essigan wasn't exactly helpful. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

Maybe. Or maybe the guy who shot 100% on threes in the first half would've regressed to the 35.8% career shooter he is, he would've taken shots away from Essegian, and we would've come back sooner.

They got lucky by shooting out of their minds and you can't defend that. It happens. They got the result, but we've been the better team on the season and if we played again I'd be confident we would beat them on any court, including theirs.

I just don’t think you can write it off as purely luck and I’m pretty sure if we played them in Madison we’d lose again.  The things we do that allow us to win are things they don’t seem so have a whole lot of trouble with.

[Dr. Blackheart]

All of MU's losses were to slow tempo teams.  Also a problem for Shaka in Texas (aka, Abilene Christian, Northern Iowa). It's a problem.

[GoldenEagles03]

Please don’t agree with me. I don’t like it.

Too bad. It's true.

[brewcity77]

I just don’t think you can write it off as purely luck and I’m pretty sure if we played them in Madison we’d lose again.  The things we do that allow us to win are things they don’t seem so have a whole lot of trouble with.

Disagree 100% with the last sentence. We should've done more of what we do to allow us to win, like pressuring the backcourt to take time off the clock. When a team is used to using 25+ seconds when they get into their offense, our Violence pressure is perfectly suited to milk that starting time down to 18.

Regardless, their lead and end-game survival was based on complete pulled-out-of-their-ass shooting that they haven't replicated in any other game this season. They're probably a team that ends up on the right side of the bubble. Based on this year's results, we are much better than that.

[withoutbias]

Disagree 100% with the last sentence. We should've done more of what we do to allow us to win, like pressuring the backcourt to take time off the clock. When a team is used to using 25+ seconds when they get into their offense, our Violence pressure is perfectly suited to milk that starting time down to 18.

Regardless, their lead and end-game survival was based on complete pulled-out-of-their-ass shooting that they haven't replicated in any other game this season. They're probably a team that ends up on the right side of the bubble. Based on this year's results, we are much better than that.

The problem with chalking it up to being “unlucky” or then shooting “out of their ass” is that their opponents weren’t doubling a guy who averages 9 points per game, leaving everyone else wide open. Marquette was. And then yes, Chucky hit some crazy shots to end the half and end the game. But we had let him get into a rhythm with our scheme early. That’s on the defensive game plan, not on luck.

[DoctorV]

Here are my few thoughts on Saturday, since I don’t really like to dwell on losses.

From my pov the game was very entertaining and a lot of fun. Both teams played very well, shot very well, and gave the fans a show fitting of the rivalry.

I as well don’t think Shaka had a great day, it’s already been discussed here why, but everyone has a bad day. The pressure of the moment gets to coaches sometimes more so than it does to the players.
The bigger concern here imo is that coach has a not so shiny track record in the biggest games of his career in the last handful of years, and he really needs that NCAA monkey off his back before he starts to doubt his own abilities.
Hopefully this season.

At halftime I had zero doubt that Marquette would get back into the game, and I actually thought MU would come back and win.
Not only because I’m a homer, but because I believe in Shaka and his team.
Wisconsin just played a dream first half, the type that MU had just played against Baylor, and I knew that it wasn’t sustainable.
Then they came out hot as a pistol to start the second half and I still wasn’t worried, and that’s a very good sign.
Under the previous regime, and even the one before, I would have definitely been more worried.

Lastly there seems to be a trend that’s forming, that we saw again on Saturday.
When TyKo and OMax have off days it costs Marquette a victory.
I’m not trying to put it all on those two, I don’t want people up in arms saying that it’s not fair.
Im simply saying that it’s become very obvious that if Tyler and Omax don’t play well MU has a greatly diminished shot at victory.

I said against Baylor that they were the Tyler and Omax that we need, the ones that we deserve. Against Wisconsin they were not.
Their success, or lack thereof, will be tied to the teams success all season long.

[tower912]

Omax was the second best player for MU on Saturday.   Pretty good off day.

[brewcity77]

The problem with chalking it up to being “unlucky” or then shooting “out of their ass” is that their opponents weren’t doubling a guy who averages 9 points per game, leaving everyone else wide open. Marquette was. And then yes, Chucky hit some crazy shots to end the half and end the game. But we had let him get into a rhythm with our scheme early. That’s on the defensive game plan, not on luck.

Chucky's shots weren't wide open, most were well contested, hand-in-the-face shots, or turnaround fadeaways, even inside the arc. What Wisconsin did in the first half is something they couldn't replicate in an empty gym, much less the average game atmosphere. And sure, they doubled the bigs (Crowl in particular) but both he and Wahl had season highs in turnovers, so it seems there was some logic to it.

[MU82]

I said against Baylor that they were the Tyler and Omax that we need, the ones that we deserve.

Deserve?

[ATL MU Warrior]

Chucky's shots weren't wide open, most were well contested, hand-in-the-face shots, or turnaround fadeaways, even inside the arc. What Wisconsin did in the first half is something they couldn't replicate in an empty gym, much less the average game atmosphere. And sure, they doubled the bigs (Crowl in particular) but both he and Wahl had season highs in turnovers, so it seems there was some logic to it.

I just watched 1st half highlights including every Hepburn make and this just isn’t even remotely true. He didn’t even take a turn around fadeaway shot. His first four shots were completely in flow and while 3/4 were challenged, the defender wasn’t particularly close. The 4th was wide open due to a defensive breakdown. The last two were long (especially the last) and more difficult attempts.

This is where the whole “they were just lucky” argument falls flat.  Plus you are just making crap up to fit that narrative. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Plus you are just making crap up to fit that narrative. 

Irony.

[Shooter McGavin]

Dr V,

It’s not just Tyler and Omax but I agree they are extremely important for the teams success.

Tyler, Omax, Kam and Oso are the horses we’ve hitched our wagon to this year.  It’s on their collective backs.  3 out of four need to be good for us to win on a nightly basis. 4 out of 4 to reach our highest ceiling. 

The rest of the players are good roll players for now and need to be stars in their rolls for us to have a higher floor.   

The great part is that all four main players have shown that they can play at a very high level but they just have not developed the consistency yet. Hopefully they will and we are dancing in March.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Saturday was by far MU's worst defensive game of the season.  T-Rank lists the adj-D rating at 117.1,  while the 2nd worst was 94.3 at Purdue.

That confirms how bad the defensive gameplan was.   Our offense was really good, third best of the year behind the Baylor and GA Tech games. Which makes it feel like even more of a missed opportunity.

The more I think about this game, the more frustrating the result. Hopefully MU routes ND on Sunday to wash the bitter taste from my mouth.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Irony.

Possibly.  Look at the highlights yourself to judge the accuracy of Brew's claims about Hepburn's shots.