Biggest Surprise

[Uncle Rico]

I don't see the analogy.  We're going to have to figure out how to win close games.  It's not rational to think we'll blow out teams, continue to lose close games, but still make the NCAA tournament.

Do you know Rachel Dratch?

[panda]

Worked out great.  It wasn't some brilliant end of game coaching strategies

Good point - it doesn't take any particular skill to close out a bunch of different opponents in tight games, win your conference (asterisks) or go to the sweet 16. Just luck

[lawdog77]

And yet we haven't done it yet this year. It takes a different mentality and strategy to win back and forth close games then blow outs.

So, would you feel better about this team if we had the same record, but were 2-2 in close games, with 2 double digit losses?

[panda]

So, would you feel better about this team if we had the same record, but were 2-2 in close games, with 2 double digit losses?

We're all speaking in hypotheticals.

I've only spoke about our four close games. I've said what feels like a zillion times I'd feel better if we won a couple of our close games that we had control of.

Otherwise we've played really well this season.

I've never mentioned a hypothetical outside of our four close games.

It's just been the usual pedants that are trying to push their narrative without acknowledging my points.

[Hards Alumni]

Do you know Rachel Dratch?

[Uncle Rico]

Good point - it doesn't take any particular skill to close out a bunch of different opponents in tight games, win your conference (asterisks) or go to the sweet 16. Just luck

What coaching decisions did Ed Cooley make last year that Shaka hasn't this year?  What did they do this Marquette team hasn't?

I mean, I'm just some pedant that isn't acknowledging your points that winning close games is better than losing close games

[panda]

I'd feel better if we won 2 of the 4 close games we've been in this season.

I still feel good about this team. Would be more encouraged if we performed better in the close games we played this season.

Winning close games is a skill. I know some posters brains may explode with this one but look at providence last year. They had multiple guys who could score in various ways in the half court, great OOB sets when they needed buckets out of timeouts, played very organized tough half court defense and rebounded the ball well. Some Kenpom subscribers called that lucky because they "stole" a bunch of close games, but they were built to win those games.

We haven't showed those qualities yet in close games. That's not to say we can't be that team this year, but with younger players in new roles, it isn't a shock we haven't been great at closing out games.

This

[DoctorV]

What coaching decisions did Ed Cooley make last year that Shaka hasn't this year?  What did they do this Marquette team hasn't?

I mean, I'm just some pedant that isn't acknowledging your points that winning close games is better than losing close games

It's ok to be slightly critical of certain things yet still be highly optimistic and positive.

We've already discussed coach Cooleys record in games within 5pts as well as coach Shakas.
We've also already discussed the difference in approach- Ed said he starts every practice with a simulation of the last 4 minutes of the game and Shaka said he hasn't practiced the 5s end of the game scenario at all.

The more prepared you are for a certain situation the better the results usually are.

I'd still take Shaka Smart over Ed Cooley as the basketball coach at Marquette.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting that end of the game situations and rebounding are works in progress.
As the team gets better and better in all other facets, which it is doing, then you can zero in on your Achilles heels.

[The Sultan]

This

LOL quoting yourself?

Again, winning close games isn't "a skill." You keep saying that, but there really is no data to prove that at all. Bringing up Providence last year is EXTREMELY anecdotal and doesn't really prove anything.

[Hards Alumni]

SURPRISE!

/THREAD

[panda]

LOL quoting yourself?

Again, winning close games isn't "a skill." You keep saying that, but there really is no data to prove that at all. Bringing up Providence last year is EXTREMELY anecdotal and doesn't really prove anything.

More like it doesn't prove anything you want to hear.

[The Sultan]

It's ok to be slightly critical of certain things yet still be highly optimistic and positive.

We've already discussed coach Cooleys record in games within 5pts as well as coach Shakas.
We've also already discussed the difference in approach- Ed said he starts every practice with a simulation of the last 4 minutes of the game and Shaka said he hasn't practiced the 5s end of the game scenario at all.

The more prepared you are for a certain situation the better the results usually are.

I'd still take Shaka Smart over Ed Cooley as the basketball coach at Marquette.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting that end of the game situations and rebounding are works in progress.
As the team gets better and better in all other facets, which it is doing, then you can zero in on your Achilles heels.

Presenting coaching records, without any sort of context, doesn't mean much.  Perhaps Shaka's coaching gets the team to blowout level so "record in close games" is never triggered.  Perhaps Cooley under performs until the end of games.

It's an irrelevant stat that really isn't indicative of anything. And it most certainly is not "a skill."

[The Sultan]

More like it doesn't prove anything you want to hear.

Nope. You have providing nothing to actually back up this assertion. You have been on this dumb talking point for about 24 hours and have just kept repeating yourself. 

[panda]

What coaching decisions did Ed Cooley make last year that Shaka hasn't this year?  What did they do this Marquette team hasn't?

I mean, I'm just some pedant that isn't acknowledging your points that winning close games is better than losing close games

Also to clarify (if you care) - you're not one of the pedants 👍

[Jay Bee]

The NET matters.

And according to the NET...our wins are by 20 (capped at 10).

So technically Marquette is +10 in these games.

Source? I feel this may be #FakeNews & #Lies

[StillAWarrior]

LOL quoting yourself?

Again, winning close games isn't "a skill." You keep saying that, but there really is no data to prove that at all. Bringing up Providence last year is EXTREMELY anecdotal and doesn't really prove anything.

I didn't have the "close games" option in my top three, but there certainly are certain skills that can contribute to winning close games. I have a pretty vivid and nausea-inducing recollection of two consecutive inbound attempts where MU didn't even manage to get a touch of the ball by a player in blue. That's a skill. It's a skill that is particularly useful late in close games. There are others. I hope that Shaka and the team learned something from that and will execute better in the future.

I remember someone saying at the time that Kolek is our best passer and you definitely want your best passer inbounding in that situation. I agree that Kolek is our best passer. I am not at all convinced that Kolek if our best 3/4 court passer (I certainly hope not). I hope the team has worked on that. Maybe they found someone on the team that is really good at making that pass. Putting it in terms of the Cleveland Cavs (who I've watched a lot this year): Garland is the team's best passer, but if they're making a 3/4 pass with the game on the line, I'd put the ball in Kevin Love's hands every time.

[Elonsmusk]

We're all speaking in hypotheticals.

I've only spoke about our four close games. I've said what feels like a zillion times I'd feel better if we won a couple of our close games that we had control of.

Otherwise we've played really well this season.

I've never mentioned a hypothetical outside of our four close games.

It's just been the usual pedants that are trying to push their narrative without acknowledging my points.

You have.  And you have the unique ability to unite Scoopers who frequently have opposing points of view, all of whom find your points illogical.  At best you're a great troll.

Tell us though, how did clutch Coach Ed Cooley lose an 8 point lead in Overtime, at home, with 1:40 seconds left, in a game where his team was awarded 49 FT attempts?

[Vander Blue Man Group]

This

I'm sure it's happened as this is Scoop but I don't recall anyone ever quoting themselves and topping it off with "This". Remarkable. 

I know winning by 10+ tomorrow would be better but I hope we win by 1 so it hopefully kills this discussion.

[The Sultan]

I didn't have the "close games" option in my top three, but there certainly are certain skills that can contribute to winning close games. I have a pretty vivid and nausea-inducing recollection of two consecutive inbound attempts where MU didn't even manage to get a touch of the ball by a player in blue. That's a skill. It's a skill that is particularly useful late in close games. There are others. I hope that Shaka and the team learned something from that and will execute better in the future.

I remember someone saying at the time that Kolek is our best passer and you definitely want your best passer inbounding in that situation. I agree that Kolek is our best passer. I am not at all convinced that Kolek if our best 3/4 court passer (I certainly hope not). I hope the team has worked on that. Maybe they found someone on the team that is really good at making that pass. Putting it in terms of the Cleveland Cavs (who I've watched a lot this year): Garland is the team's best passer, but if they're making a 3/4 pass with the game on the line, I'd put the ball in Kevin Love's hands every time.

Pointing out a couple of instances where teams have failed down the stretch doesn't mean that "winning close games" is meaningful, and it certainly doesn't make it "a skill."  At least a skill apart from usual basketball skills. 

[panda]

You have.  And you have the unique ability to unite Scoopers who frequently have opposing points of view, all of whom find your points illogical.  At best you're a great troll.

Tell us though, how did clutch Coach Ed Cooley lose an 8 point lead in Overtime, at home, with 1:40 seconds left, in a game where his team was awarded 49 FT attempts?

What was the final score of the game genius

[muwarrior69]

I'm sure it's happened as this is Scoop but I don't recall anyone ever quoting themselves and topping it off with "This". Remarkable. 

I know winning by 10+ tomorrow would be better but I hope we win by 1 so it hopefully kills this discussion.

Not me, I don't think my heart could take it.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Guys, if Marquette almost blows a 12 point lead in the last 3 minutes tomorrow and wins by 1 will that make you feel better about winning close games?

[jfp61]

Source? I feel this may be #FakeNews & #Lies

I know this is a joke.

But if you want what the NCAA will give us as to the NET ranking calculations.

"Team Value Index"- (way to give more value to difficult wins, no clue what it means seems like a, "big win bonus")
"Net Efficiency"- (basically KenPom, even down to .475*FTA being a part of the tempo)
Winning Percentage
Adjusted Win Percentage (1.4 wins per road win, 0.6 wins per home win, 0.6 losses per road loss, -1.4 losses per home loss)
Scoring Margin (This value has a point differential capped at 10 points in each game. All overtime games are capped at one point.)

And then this some weird multiplication. no one is privy too.

https://www.si.com/college/2018/11/04/college-basketball-rankings-net-system-explain

[StillAWarrior]

Pointing out a couple of instances where teams have failed down the stretch doesn't mean that "winning close games" is meaningful, and it certainly doesn't make it "a skill."  At least a skill apart from usual basketball skills.

I said simply that there are some skills that are uniquely tied to end of game situations in close games. Nothing else. I'm not really sure that is debatable unless you're just looking to debate. I am not particularly worried about Marquette's performance in close games (although, like everyone else, I certainly would prefer that they'd won all those games). I will be on the edge of my seat the next time they find themselves needing an 3/4 court inbounds pass at the end of a game because I haven't seen that they have that skill in their arsenal.

[TVDirector]

I'm going Kam-
While we 'heard' he was a scorer, last season, and much of early this one, he was more a launcher. 
That's been corralled and his driving has opened up much for his own outside opportunities as well as opps for others... both outside and in. 
Continue that, and the mere fact that the ball is in his hands could result in 3, drive, drive and dish, you name it.  Harder to predict and defend-  now he becomes a true scorer. 

Oso - not a huge surprise, but a pleasant one with the output that's accompanied.  He showed the intelligence and moves prior, but has grew into his role nicely.

Close losses?  Would be more a surprise much later in a season than early, when the team is still figuring out the 'team' personality vs the individual ability aspects of the game.