Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Mar 18, 2012 19:03:00 GMT -5
There needs to be a benchmark, and that's what the expected win total/seed I used does. Of course there needs to be a benchmark. The point is that setting one that relies on one game (decided by a single missed shot) to the exclusion of an entire 30+ game season is the kind of thing George Steinbrenner used to do before he got his head out of ass. I wish you were Syracuse's AD.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 18, 2012 19:23:53 GMT -5
There needs to be a benchmark, and that's what the expected win total/seed I used does. It's (revealingly) biased to only use specific years for your benchmark though. Do the same thing for JTIII's whole tenure and it becomes something like 12 expected wins based on seed and 8 actual wins. We can then quibble over the relative value of the elite eight win versus a first round one (I'd make that trade everyday), whether the seedings were correct, and whether it's a big enough discrepancy to care. You might, others might not. BTW- are we to conclude that Esh was a double awesome tournament coach because he exceeded his expected wins per seed by a full 100% over his time here?
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Mar 18, 2012 19:24:14 GMT -5
There needs to be a benchmark, and that's what the expected win total/seed I used does. Of course there needs to be a benchmark. The point is that setting one that relies on one game (decided by a single missed shot) to the exclusion of an entire 30+ game season is the kind of thing George Steinbrenner used to do before he got his head out of ass. I wish you were Syracuse's AD. Lots of games are decided by one shot, especially if you consider this game to have been decided by one shot (i.e. by two or three points). And if the tournament is what matters, it unfortunately matters how JTIII coaches in the tournament in addition to the regular season. If we performed the same way in the regular season relative to expectations as we have in the last four tournaments, he would have been fired already.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Mar 18, 2012 19:26:06 GMT -5
There needs to be a benchmark, and that's what the expected win total/seed I used does. It's (revealingly) biased to only use specific years for your benchmark though. Do the same thing for JTIII's whole tenure and it becomes something like 12 expected wins based on seed and 8 actual wins. We can then quibble over the relative value of the elite eight win versus a first round one (I'd make that trade everyday), whether the seedings were correct, and whether it's a big enough discrepancy to care. You might, others might not. BTW- are we to conclude that Esh was a double awesome tournament coach because he exceeded his expected wins per seed by a full 100% over his time here? But it's not picking and choosing specific years, I'm talking recent performance for consecutive years. It's not one or two appearances. It's four. It is a trend.
|
|
alleninxis
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,216
|
Post by alleninxis on Mar 18, 2012 19:31:43 GMT -5
This team, IMO..can be judged in a vacuum.
|
|
OldHoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,387
|
Post by OldHoyafan on Mar 18, 2012 19:32:59 GMT -5
Great season, given the fact that freshmen had to play most of the minutes during the season. Funny how the press completely forgot how young the Hoyas were after they had their early winniing streak. JT3 did a hell of a job in nursing the yunguns along without putting to much pressure on them. Wish he would have taken one more stategic move from his dad for the NCAA. JT2 knew that the refs would be extra quick with the whistle early to set the tone of the game. So he had Patrick, Dikembe, Mourning etc., play to get to the 2nd half with less than 2 fouls then play aggresive on offensive end and defensive end in 2nd half. I knew that Gotfried being old school would try to get Henry out of the game so they went at him early but Lubick did a good job doubling down on him to protect Henry. JT3 should have ordered Henry to not try any drives to the basket pass the freethrow line, because someone would step in front if he did. Henry tried it twice and was whistled for a charge both times. It did not help that Valentine and crew are ACC refs. Leslie got his first foul in the first minutes then did not get another until the second half although he did the same charge on Lubick minutes later and completely hammered Clark on a drive to the basket and neither was called. If you have seen teams i a league many times during the season as a ref, you know who the stars of both teams are and unless it is a flagrant foul, that 2nd foul that usaually is automatic bench time is not called. I think the refs reverted to habit and did not make those calls on Leslie. Sims and Lubick were not so lucky. The refs were not the only reason the Hoyas lost the lead in the 1st half( freshmen got a little tight and stopped playing freely) but Henry going to the bench with 2/3 of half left was huge. His play and Otto's play is what got the jitters out against Belmont. He settled everyone down with his baskets and passes. Henry is no Patrick Ewing ,but to this team his pressence was just as important to Patrick's pressence to JT2's team and Gotfried knew it and when Henry went out you could see the Wolpack gain swagger.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 18, 2012 19:36:39 GMT -5
But it's not picking and choosing specific years, I'm talking recent performance for consecutive years. It's not one or two appearances. It's four. It is a trend. Actually you're talking about 4 out of 5 years while conspicuously not including either of the earlier two (which just happen to disprove your point). If you want to talk about "recent" trends, why include four years ago but not five? Why gloss over the year we missed the tournament entirely? Your metric counts that year as 'better' than this year, right? Please don't try to make up statistics to prove your point. We get that you're upset; just leave it at that.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 18, 2012 19:39:59 GMT -5
It's (revealingly) biased to only use specific years for your benchmark though. Do the same thing for JTIII's whole tenure and it becomes something like 12 expected wins based on seed and 8 actual wins. We can then quibble over the relative value of the elite eight win versus a first round one (I'd make that trade everyday), whether the seedings were correct, and whether it's a big enough discrepancy to care. You might, others might not. BTW- are we to conclude that Esh was a double awesome tournament coach because he exceeded his expected wins per seed by a full 100% over his time here? But it's not picking and choosing specific years, I'm talking recent performance for consecutive years. It's not one or two appearances. It's four. It is a trend. If your goal is to predict future tourney success -- and I hope it is rather than say, whine and bitch -- then I'm pretty sure a span of tourney performance from prior years selected to make the coach look the worst possible is a terrible predictor compared to everything else out there. Agree or no?
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Mar 18, 2012 19:41:48 GMT -5
But it's not picking and choosing specific years, I'm talking recent performance for consecutive years. It's not one or two appearances. It's four. It is a trend. Actually you're talking about 4 out of 5 years while conspicuously not including either of the earlier two (which just happen to disprove your point). If you want to talk about "recent" trends, why include four years ago but not five? Why gloss over the year we missed the tournament entirely? Your metric counts that year as 'better' than this year, right? Please don't try to make up statistics to prove your point. We get that you're upset; just leave it at that. Who made up statistics? I used real numbers, I've used the last 5 years (four tournament appearances) because that's a common length of time to evaluate. If you want to look at the last 7 years, you're still going to see seed underperformance. Why would I include the year we missed the tournament entirely when evaluating tournament performance? Is that a real question? Do you think that helps your case? Maybe you should just take a nap before more complicated numbers than single digits get introduced here and you really get confused.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 18, 2012 19:45:20 GMT -5
It's a convenient length of time to evaluate and you know it.
If you are evaluating the coaching staff or program, you should lengthen the time to fit that critera. Why stop at five?
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Mar 18, 2012 19:45:48 GMT -5
But it's not picking and choosing specific years, I'm talking recent performance for consecutive years. It's not one or two appearances. It's four. It is a trend. If your goal is to predict future tourney success -- and I hope it is rather than say, whine and bitch -- then I'm pretty sure a span of tourney performance from prior years selected to make the coach look the worst possible is a terrible predictor compared to everything else out there. Agree or no? What should be weighted more heavily: the five most recent years or the first two? Even if it were two and two, I'd still weigh recent performance more heavily. But five recent years compared to two?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 18, 2012 19:53:15 GMT -5
A few points:
(1) In terms of so-called underperformance, if you look at the 2-4 seeding lines over the most recent two years (the only years I took the time to do this), those seeds, on average underperformed by -.67 wins each year. That's not surprising, is it? On average, there are upsets (some minor; some major) each year. All told, if you add up our expected wins, that's about the same as we've underperformed since 2006. It's simply unfair to begin your analysis with the year we started "underperforming." Maybe our losses are more "shocking" due to the seed numbers we lost to, but I don't think they really are (except for Ohio) when you look at the context of each game. If we play NC State 10 times on a neutral court, how many times do you honestly think we win?
(2) I don't apologize for being delighted with the fact that we are qualifying for the tournament nearly every year. How many major conference teams have made 6 of the last 7 tournaments? How many have made that many in that time span and not really been on the bubble even once? I don't know the answers (and I'm not going to check), but I'm guessing not too many. To me that's terrific success. The kind of success that should be celebrated. Yes my expectations are higher. I expect that the team will get to the second weekend at least once every three or four years (combined with consistent tournament appearances) and that hasn't happened now and it's a mild disappointment, especially given our seeding position. But five years ago we got to the sweet sixteen...and then some. And that counts for something.
I can say with a completely straight face, even on a day when I'm intensely disappointed that I won't be watching this team anymore, that I am completely thrilled with the place our program is at. Can things improve? Of course! But that doesn't mean I'm not thrilled.
|
|
mfk24
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by mfk24 on Mar 18, 2012 19:53:27 GMT -5
You can look at any coaches tourney records and find the same trend you speak of.
Michigan state has made the tourney ever year since 1998, from 2001 to 2007 they were bounced in the first or second round 4/6 times.
Duke lost in the first or second round back to back years in '06, '07.
UNC lost in the first or second round 4 straight years from '01-'04.
Should I go on....
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,419
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 18, 2012 19:56:36 GMT -5
It was. But, about the entire game, not the final possessions. You see that's just it. I don't have a problem with the quote/explanation if it is regarding one final play. You pays your money, you take your chances. But over an ENTIRE game it can not be about that. If the so-called "right" guys are getting the "right" shots and they are still missing them you must try to get other type of shots. Closer shots, higher percentage shots, shots that can lead to FTs if missed. But that requires you having on the floor guys who will post up for buckets, guys who will try to drive to the hoop and guys who will press for steals and fastbreak opportunities. And if such players are on the court and they aren't doing any of that then that means you gotta do a better job of instructing them to do such things in the future. What you can't do is settle for jumpers if they aren't falling. Doesn't matter if the right guys are taking the shots. Especially as RDF pointed out you are only taking about 20 shots in a half anyway. Mix it up.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Mar 18, 2012 19:57:59 GMT -5
It's strange to try and be voice of reason but as a fan who is seen as overly critical by some--I'll defend one thing about III's program--I think the success of his conference has led to his team being seeded far too high for what they actually were as a team. I mean a #3 seed should be a team you expect to make Sweet 16 and how many felt that each of the past 3 Hoya NCAA participants were locks to make Sweet 16? I think closest to being a true kick in the nuts was '10 team because of the BET run they made--but they were same team who could lose to Rutgers because it wasn't a "big game". So really that shocking? Last year's team was battered at end and worn down and lost to a better team--as they went on to prove. This year--think they achieved what they should--1 NCAA win, and fought like hell in the loss to NC State. I am critical of how certain things are done-but I think III did a good job of at least returning to the type of roster that fits his preferred system-which was important. If he's not going to do what some of us think needs to be done--at least recruit to the system in a manner that has proven to succeed--and this year was positive step.
As for the game itself--I liked the fight the team showed and admittedly didn't expect to be in a position where Hoyas had chance to take lead late and then tie when they fell behind 7 with just over a minute. That's a sign of toughness no matter how you judge it (mental or physical). It's a tournament game--and all you can ask for is the team to compete and fight and these guys did that. I felt they were 2nd Best team in Maui and were out due to their draw (Still feel Kansas was better then Duke and proved it over year) or would've been in title game against Kansas. Toughness is back in program--if you defend, you are tough, if you can find ways to overcome your inabilities to win some games, you are tough.
Being critical and striving to improve should take place. It's part of life--and yes homers that includes favorite basketball team. It's always amazing to read "if you are so...why don't you coach....." as if every coach in the country is a genius and above being evaluated for areas their teams aren't strong. That said-anyone who thinks this season is a failure didn't understand how much of an overhaul was needed. III did something that isn't easy-he transitioned the team back to what it needed to do while winning enough to raise expectations that you would expect of a veteran team. I commend him for that--but still think there is more he can do to take program to next level and want to see that from him. Will he do this? Not sure. Would it ever effect my loyalty to program I've supported since I've followed the sport? EXPLETIVE NO! So I don't have problems with fans who are frustrated and share their take which I might not fully agree with--be it overly protective/homerish or the ones who are way over the top--although I wish they would show up after the team wins/succeeds too--they have to be fans to even care about Georgetown because not many people do outside of DC. If you take time to watch Georgetown, you are a fan. They've been to 2 elite 8's since 1989 and it's not like anyone isn't a true fan. But it's not like the program is great either--it's a good solid program that I stick by because I believe in how they do things clean, get good people in the program, and when they have a great run like '07, it makes it that much more fun.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 18, 2012 20:02:16 GMT -5
If your goal is to predict future tourney success -- and I hope it is rather than say, whine and bitch -- then I'm pretty sure a span of tourney performance from prior years selected to make the coach look the worst possible is a terrible predictor compared to everything else out there. Agree or no? What should be weighted more heavily: the five most recent years or the first two? Even if it were two and two, I'd still weigh recent performance more heavily. But five recent years compared to two? I honestly don't know how valid weighting more current seasons actually is. Frankly, I bet there's almost no relationship there. Single game results are wildly variably -- there's going to be a ton of noise. Logically, there may be some change over time in a coaching staff's ability to win close games -- perhaps coaches learn. Of course, is there something special to NCAA games versus Big East games versus tough non-conference games? I mean, I guess there could be a difference. But what's more likely a bigger difference? The changing cast of players? I'd say so. The variation in a small sample of single game results? I'd definitely say so. There's plenty of things JTIII can do to make this team better in the future, and probably things that can do to make the team more effective in close, tough games. But there's nothing in a three-point loss to a good team. That's a couple of shots. There's more quality games in a typical BE season than we've played in the NCAAs over the last few years. Even taking our worst stretch here -- taking the last five games (1-4), we have the same record Connecticut had over the last five when they then went on an 11-game winning streak. Five games is not indicative of anything in any sport, and certainly not basketball.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 18, 2012 20:05:59 GMT -5
Yeah, the conference and the fact that we have a good OOC performance have kept us high seeded the last several years, but you are right. NC State was the 4th best team in the ACC, and while I agree that conference is down, the difference between us and them just wasnt 11 seed vs 3 seed difference. The same thing could be said for USF as a 12 seed. Are we really that much better than that team?
The seed difference makes for good drama, but it's pretty clear that the difference between teams just isn't that big across the board.
|
|
|
Post by jeffgreensmom2015 on Mar 18, 2012 20:17:35 GMT -5
People need to quit overreacting. today was a tough loss to a good team, who is clearly hitting their stride at the right time of the year. They're hot right now, and we hadn't been playing our best basketball lately at all. This team overachieved so much to be picked to finish 10th in the league before the season. If we had a tough season and finished 21-11 and were 9-9 or 10-8 in the big east, and went out first round, people would be saying this year was a success to even make the tournament. But the coaching staff and players had a great season and spoiled us a little getting a 3 seed. This was a great season. And yeah, it IS frustrating knowing if we won, we'd be a kansas rematch and marshall-less unc team away from the final 4, but it is what it is. This freshman class is a talented one, and looks like the best one we've had since jeff's class--we're going to be back, and we'll be a lot better next time around. If you don't think that shot is going to motivate Otto all summer, then you don't know the kid. As tough as it is, I'm glad it was Otto who missed. He'll take it better than anyone on the team, and it will drive him.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,377
|
Post by drquigley on Mar 18, 2012 20:24:38 GMT -5
It's times like this that I think I need to add a comment. Do we all remember where this program was before JT3 got here? I had alumni friends who really thought our program wasn't good enough for the BE. Do you remember the win over #1 undefeated Duke, the BE titles, the Final Four run, the Obama Villanova game? Let's all take a deep breath and savor the good things JT3 has brought the program. And think about how good a nucleus we have coming back next year and how much fun it will be...again.
|
|
lurkerhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by lurkerhoya on Mar 18, 2012 20:27:37 GMT -5
Disappointed like everyone else. For me, the toughest part (aside from having to watch this game on my iPhone while sitting in court all day haha) was that it felt like we lacked the mental toughness. Granted, I expected that with such a young team, but we got punched in the mouth in the first half and just never really recovered until a spurt at the end.
I'm not in the ridiculous fire JT3 camp, but it is interesting to that every single year he gives the same tired quote about the team "working through it" and "they need to learn to work through it" in regards to some opponent's throwing their best run at us(This year it was Howard...) and every year it feels like when the time comes for JT3's teams to work though it, they don't or can't.
I don't know where that comes from, but it feels like a trend to me. Really, the one team that didn't fall victim to this was the 06 and 07 teams which we knew had as strong an on-court leadership presence as any college team ever had. Maybe I'm painting with too broad a brush, but to me it's the hole this program needs to figure out how to fill. Hopefully, it's as simple as the young guys getting a year in and coming back next year ready to step up, but that would only speak to the character of those guys, and not really explain to me why every 6-7 years we get a group of guys recruited who can make something special of their time here as opposed to a program that regularly instills it.
|
|