Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2015 13:48:19 GMT -5
Thompson's biggest coaching mistake was playing Smith and Hopkins together for 8 minutes in this game. Otherwise, I don't think the game plan was bad. The bigs came out to the three point line to try to break up the packing aspect of the defense. We got decent shots. We did not execute. So true. The offense was noticeably stagnant when those two were on the court together. While we have discussed (at great length) the offensive deficiency of that particular lineup as a general matter, its troubles were particularly exacerbated by the pack the line defense and the fact that both seem to have (temporarily) forgotten how to shoot free throws. To some degree the decision to go with this lineup for extended periods last night might have been due to Peak's foul trouble, Trawick's "issues", or Ike/White's malaise, but whatever the impetus might have been to feature it so heavily I would suspect that a large part of that dismal field goal drought occurred during the time they were in the line up together.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Jan 28, 2015 13:52:15 GMT -5
He also stubbornly refused to call timeouts when XU was going on runs in the first half, at least until it was too late and the game got out of hand. He has a very slow trigger finger on timeouts to stop runs and often goes home with timeouts in his pocket. That is one of my biggest critiques of his in-game coaching. Please provide evidence that this is effective in stopping runs. I'm not saying calling time outs does not do this, but someone must have a factual basis for this, no? See, here's the problem (and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe I can't help it, dunno): Did you watch the game last night? I was there. The two timeouts used by Mack in the second half were HUGE. I believe both came when we had cut the lead to 10, and at least one came right before there would have been a TV break anyway. But Mack didn't wait for it - he took control as the crowd started to rally and shut it the F down. And it worked. In the game. Last night. Out of the first timeout, Xavier hit a three (whaddya know? We gave up a big 3!) and out of the second they ran a play, drew a foul on Hop and made both free throws. Meantime, JT3 sat idly in the first half as the game spun out of control. Don't go digging through spreadsheets and numbers. Think about the game we all watched last night. This is a thread about that game. Last night, the timing of the respective coaches vis a vis timeouts called had a bearing on the outcome, and Mack used his perfectly.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 28, 2015 13:52:19 GMT -5
It is beginning to become clear that the pack line defense is the best current form of man-to-man defense for teams that don't have a group of high level physical defensive talents. More and more teams are using it with a lot of success. It takes quite a bit of practice and good coaching, but I think we are likely to see more of this kind of defense moving forward. The answer, as others have pointed out, is outside shooting and really strong guard penetration. Not our strong suits right now. Hopefully the young players will continue to develop their outside shooting, and their willingness to let fly when they get an open look. Unfortunately, I think the game may start to drift towards even more of a jump shooting contest across college hoops as more and more teams adopt this form of defense. off the top of my head these teams run Pack the Line: #2 Virgina #5 Wisconsin #6 Arizona #25 Butler Xavier Pack the Line also keeps you out of foul trouble (even with the new defense unfriendly rules) Yeah, there was a good article on Grantland about UVA running the pack line. Clearly, they are doing it quite well. But, the first thing I thought when reading that is that I hope no one ever runs that against us. That said, it only goes as far as you can have teams miss a lot of 3s. If we had made some of our shots early in that game, it would have been a lot different. Especially if guys like White and Jabril are hitting them.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 28, 2015 13:57:05 GMT -5
The point he's trying to make is that you've presented no evidence that the Hoyas have trouble coming back more than any other team. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. We were just down big to Butler and came back on them. Just because you've said it many times doesn't make it true. And just because you've posted 540,000 times doesn't make you right. Obviously there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Never said there wasn't. There's been plenty of games where comebacks have been made without the need for some kind of pressure D. But for all those numbers you rattled off about our much improved second half offensively, we still lost the game by 13. We were down at half by 13 and we lost by the same margin. Sure we made it interesting for a little while, but everytime we did, they came back and ran 30 seconds off the clock before we (usually) fouled them. It's in a situation like that that I just feel having some kind of defense intended to force some turnovers might help. I never said it was some cure-all or anything like that. But in games like that when we had to work hard for every single bucket we got, why not try to get some easy ones? Our biggest deficit to Butler was 11 with 3 minutes or so to go in the first half. We chipped away at that for most of the game. Our biggest deficit in the second half was 7 and that was with 17+ minutes left. I'm talking more about situations last night where we were down 9 with 4 minutes to go or 8 with 3 minutes. Playing 30 seconds of D and then running 20+ seconds of offense just doesn't leave enough time. Especially when we were getting nothing in transition off misses because their transition D off misses was excellent. A couple turnovers could go a long way. I don't see how pointing out that the 07 team made a comeback against UNC is at all relevant in this situation. It's apples and oranges.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Jan 28, 2015 13:57:32 GMT -5
Please provide evidence that this is effective in stopping runs. I'm not saying calling time outs does not do this, but someone must have a factual basis for this, no? See, here's the problem (and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe I can't help it, dunno): Did you watch the game last night? I was there. The two timeouts used by Mack in the second half were HUGE. I believe both came when we had cut the lead to 10, and at least one came right before there would have been a TV break anyway. But Mack didn't wait for it - he took control as the crowd started to rally and shut it the F down. And it worked. In the game. Last night. Out of the first timeout, Xavier hit a three (whaddya know? We gave up a big 3!) and out of the second they ran a play, drew a foul on Hop and made both free throws. Meantime, JT3 sat idly in the first half as the game spun out of control. Don't go digging through spreadsheets and numbers. Think about the game we all watched last night. This is a thread about that game. Last night, the timing of the respective coaches vis a vis timeouts called had a bearing on the outcome, and Mack used his perfectly. You have identified a correlation between time out usage and team runs stopping/not stopping. You have not established causation. Moreover, the one established benefit to a time out exists only for the road team--quieting the crowd. Everything else is just speculation. Mack's players executed well out of time outs. If they missed shots, we aren't having this discussion. We also have no idea what the counter factual is. There is now way to know what would have happened if Mack hadn't taken the time outs. Maybe the same thing!
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Jan 28, 2015 13:59:28 GMT -5
The point he's trying to make is that you've presented no evidence that the Hoyas have trouble coming back more than any other team. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. We were just down big to Butler and came back on them. Just because you've said it many times doesn't make it true. And just because you've posted 540,000 times doesn't make you right. Obviously there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Never said there wasn't. There's been plenty of games where comebacks have been made without the need for some kind of pressure D. But for all those numbers you rattled off about our much improved second half offensively, we still lost the game by 13. We were down at half by 13 and we lost by the same margin. Sure we made it interesting for a little while, but everytime we did, they came back and ran 30 seconds off the clock before we (usually) fouled them. It's in a situation like that that I just feel having some kind of defense intended to force some turnovers might help. I never said it was some cure-all or anything like that. But in games like that when we had to work hard for every single bucket we got, why not try to get some easy ones? Our biggest deficit to Butler was 11 with 3 minutes or so to go in the first half. We chipped away at that for most of the game. Our biggest deficit in the second half was 7 and that was with 17+ minutes left. I'm talking more about situations last night where we were down 9 with 4 minutes to go or 8 with 3 minutes. Playing 30 seconds of D and then running 20+ seconds of offense just doesn't leave enough time. Especially when we were getting nothing in transition off misses because their transition D off misses was excellent. A couple turnovers could go a long way. I don't see how pointing out that the 07 team made a comeback against UNC is at all relevant in this situation. It's apples and oranges. Why focus so much on what happened when our chances of winning were 1 in 5 and not on the opening 15-20 minutes when the game was lost?
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Jan 28, 2015 14:01:11 GMT -5
See, here's the problem (and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe I can't help it, dunno): Did you watch the game last night? I was there. The two timeouts used by Mack in the second half were HUGE. I believe both came when we had cut the lead to 10, and at least one came right before there would have been a TV break anyway. But Mack didn't wait for it - he took control as the crowd started to rally and shut it the F down. And it worked. In the game. Last night. Out of the first timeout, Xavier hit a three (whaddya know? We gave up a big 3!) and out of the second they ran a play, drew a foul on Hop and made both free throws. Meantime, JT3 sat idly in the first half as the game spun out of control. Don't go digging through spreadsheets and numbers. Think about the game we all watched last night. This is a thread about that game. Last night, the timing of the respective coaches vis a vis timeouts called had a bearing on the outcome, and Mack used his perfectly. You have identified a correlation between time out usage and team runs stopping/not stopping. You have not established causation. Moreover, the one established benefit to a time out exists only for the road team--quieting the crowd. Everything else is just speculation. Mack's players executed well out of time outs. If they missed shots, we aren't having this discussion. We also have no idea what the counter factual is. There is now way to know what would have happened if Mack hadn't taken the time outs. Maybe the same thing! Call it coincidental if it helps you sleep. It was a big deal in last night's game. Even if it only succeeded at your conceded point - it quieted the crowd and allowed his players to relax.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Jan 28, 2015 14:02:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I disagree that those time outs were even huge. As noted, they were winning by 10, and they had the ball. Maybe he calmed down his players a bit, but the game certainly seemed to progress the same throughout the night, time outs or not. In other words, they pretty much had a 10+ point lead at all points.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 28, 2015 14:03:42 GMT -5
And just because you've posted 540,000 times doesn't make you right. Obviously there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Never said there wasn't. There's been plenty of games where comebacks have been made without the need for some kind of pressure D. But for all those numbers you rattled off about our much improved second half offensively, we still lost the game by 13. We were down at half by 13 and we lost by the same margin. Sure we made it interesting for a little while, but everytime we did, they came back and ran 30 seconds off the clock before we (usually) fouled them. It's in a situation like that that I just feel having some kind of defense intended to force some turnovers might help. I never said it was some cure-all or anything like that. But in games like that when we had to work hard for every single bucket we got, why not try to get some easy ones? Our biggest deficit to Butler was 11 with 3 minutes or so to go in the first half. We chipped away at that for most of the game. Our biggest deficit in the second half was 7 and that was with 17+ minutes left. I'm talking more about situations last night where we were down 9 with 4 minutes to go or 8 with 3 minutes. Playing 30 seconds of D and then running 20+ seconds of offense just doesn't leave enough time. Especially when we were getting nothing in transition off misses because their transition D off misses was excellent. A couple turnovers could go a long way. I don't see how pointing out that the 07 team made a comeback against UNC is at all relevant in this situation. It's apples and oranges. Why focus so much on what happened when our chances of winning were 1 in 5 and not on the opening 15-20 minutes when the game was lost? I'm not saying the game was lost because we didn't try to trap or force TOs late in the game. The game was clearly lost in the first half, that's obvious. But what's the harm in at least trying to get some easy buckets? I've never understood why so many are so staunchly opposed to the mere suggestion of it.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 28, 2015 14:06:44 GMT -5
Please provide evidence that this is effective in stopping runs. I'm not saying calling time outs does not do this, but someone must have a factual basis for this, no? See, here's the problem (and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe I can't help it, dunno): Did you watch the game last night? I was there. The two timeouts used by Mack in the second half were HUGE. I believe both came when we had cut the lead to 10, and at least one came right before there would have been a TV break anyway. But Mack didn't wait for it - he took control as the crowd started to rally and shut it the F down. And it worked. In the game. Last night. Out of the first timeout, Xavier hit a three (whaddya know? We gave up a big 3!) and out of the second they ran a play, drew a foul on Hop and made both free throws. Meantime, JT3 sat idly in the first half as the game spun out of control. Don't go digging through spreadsheets and numbers. Think about the game we all watched last night. This is a thread about that game. Last night, the timing of the respective coaches vis a vis timeouts called had a bearing on the outcome, and Mack used his perfectly. You weren't a jerk until you made the spreadsheet crack. I watch every game. Usually at least twice. Let me be jerk right back: are you aware of psychology? The study of the mind? Psychology tells us that humans makes narratives all the time, and many times, those narratives are horribly wrong. There's literally a billion and one studies on different types of cognitive dissonance and the reality is this: the human brain is unreliable. Eyewitness accounts are wrong a disturbing amount of time. People think players come up in the clutch when they don't. They think teams win or lose for reasons they don't. They apply a preconceived hypothesis and simply count the evidence that supports and ignores the counter evidence. Everyone does it. For example: icing the field goal kicker doesn't work. But every time someone does it, and the kicker misses, it's cited as the cause. But FG% increase, given the same conditions, if you call time out. Or the example about "we never come back." We do. People just have ridiculous expectations. So yes, Mack got the better outcomes last night out of time outs. Of course, he got the better outcomes out night NOT out of timeouts as well. I mean, his team played MUCH better. There's a logic to the time out helping -- although that ignores the reality that the other coach gets to call a play as well. But in some cases, it's better to let them play -- that's true on many last possessions. So what I'm asking is, does anyone know? Not what you've seen, because the human brain is TERRIBLE as processing the cause of millions of outcomes with many possible causes. The reason I ask is that people posit the time out as this magical thing. And I just wondered if anyone had actually done the math somewhere.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Jan 28, 2015 14:13:39 GMT -5
See, here's the problem (and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe I can't help it, dunno): Did you watch the game last night? I was there. The two timeouts used by Mack in the second half were HUGE. I believe both came when we had cut the lead to 10, and at least one came right before there would have been a TV break anyway. But Mack didn't wait for it - he took control as the crowd started to rally and shut it the F down. And it worked. In the game. Last night. Out of the first timeout, Xavier hit a three (whaddya know? We gave up a big 3!) and out of the second they ran a play, drew a foul on Hop and made both free throws. Meantime, JT3 sat idly in the first half as the game spun out of control. Don't go digging through spreadsheets and numbers. Think about the game we all watched last night. This is a thread about that game. Last night, the timing of the respective coaches vis a vis timeouts called had a bearing on the outcome, and Mack used his perfectly. You weren't a jerk until you made the spreadsheet crack. I watch every game. Usually at least twice. Let me be jerk right back: are you aware of psychology? The study of the mind? Psychology tells us that humans makes narratives all the time, and many times, those narratives are horribly wrong. There's literally a billion and one studies on different types of cognitive dissonance and the reality is this: the human brain is unreliable. Eyewitness accounts are wrong a disturbing amount of time. People think players come up in the clutch when they don't. They think teams win or lose for reasons they don't. They apply a preconceived hypothesis and simply count the evidence that supports and ignores the counter evidence. Everyone does it. For example: icing the field goal kicker doesn't work. But every time someone does it, and the kicker misses, it's cited as the cause. But FG% increase, given the same conditions, if you call time out. Or the example about "we never come back." We do. People just have ridiculous expectations. So yes, Mack got the better outcomes last night out of time outs. Of course, he got the better outcomes out night NOT out of timeouts as well. I mean, his team played MUCH better. There's a logic to the time out helping -- although that ignores the reality that the other coach gets to call a play as well. But in some cases, it's better to let them play -- that's true on many last possessions. So what I'm asking is, does anyone know? Not what you've seen, because the human brain is TERRIBLE as processing the cause of millions of outcomes with many possible causes. The reason I ask is that people posit the time out as this magical thing. And I just wondered if anyone had actually done the math somewhere. Ok, fair enough. Sorry for being a jerk. And those who say we never come back are wrong. We come back from big deficits surprisingly often, especially given the style of game we play. Flip side, I think we also allow teams back into games after building big leads fairly often as well. Just about the only consistent thing under JT3 is his team's often maddening inconsistency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 14:22:36 GMT -5
I always said this too, as have plenty of others. Our teams under Thompson have never been adept at closing leads late in games. We've had some miraculous comebacks, sure, but generally those are over a longer period of time and the result of good halfcourt D. When we're making that mini run last night, hovering in the 8-12 point range with about 5 or so to go, it never really felt like we had enough time to fully close that gap, mostly because we're letting them use 30+ seconds on offense and then doing the same ourselves. We never have any kind of a plan for trying to play high pressure D with the intention of forcing turnovers getting easy buckets. They had 26 missed FGs in the game and only grabbed 6 O Rebs (4 of which were Team rebounds). Mostly because their focus was on transition D and taking away our easy bucket opportunities. They did it all game. So even if we played good halfcourt D and forced a miss, we weren't getting anything easy off of those. I just think having an aggressive full court (or even half court) D designed to force turnovers would be helpful in these situations. You know, I actually just re-watched the UNC game and at no time did I sense "our stuff" wasn't working. UNC was actually quite careless on defense and completely not attentive to our backdoor cuts. They were actually the perfect foil for that offense despite the fact that were down. We were scoring pretty consistently and had 42 at the half. The problem that game was our defense in the first half was careless and we let UNC run. Once our defense stepped up in the second half we surged back. But our offense was pretty much always humming. All that is beside the fact that I trust Wallace, Hibbert, and Green to figure it out in any situation. Against Xavier, we didnt score for 11 minutes. It wasn't a question of just tweaking a couple things-- our offense was fundamentally stalled in this game....
|
|
Locker
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,265
|
Post by Locker on Jan 28, 2015 14:23:55 GMT -5
Way too much hero ball in that first half. I can't remember a game where our guys played so selfishly on offense for such a long stretch. Just terrible to watch. As things got worse, instead of moving the ball faster and cutting off the ball harder, we just tried to go one-on-one. Not what Georgetown basketball is supposed to be about.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2015 14:29:13 GMT -5
Please provide evidence that this is effective in stopping runs. I'm not saying calling time outs does not do this, but someone must have a factual basis for this, no? See, here's the problem (and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe I can't help it, dunno): Did you watch the game last night? I was there. The two timeouts used by Mack in the second half were HUGE. I believe both came when we had cut the lead to 10, and at least one came right before there would have been a TV break anyway. But Mack didn't wait for it - he took control as the crowd started to rally and shut it the F down. And it worked. In the game. Last night. Out of the first timeout, Xavier hit a three (whaddya know? We gave up a big 3!) and out of the second they ran a play, drew a foul on Hop and made both free throws. Meantime, JT3 sat idly in the first half as the game spun out of control. Don't go digging through spreadsheets and numbers. Think about the game we all watched last night. This is a thread about that game. Last night, the timing of the respective coaches vis a vis timeouts called had a bearing on the outcome, and Mack used his perfectly. Fair enough, but I guess the question is when would you have called a time out if you were JTIII? Here are some possibilities from the first half based on the play-by-play info found on the espn boxscore. Where would you have called a time out that JTIII failed to call? Between the under 12 and under 8 TV timeouts: - 11:54 - OFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 9-6
- 11:44 - Randolph made jumper to make it 11-6 - this was the first field goal for either side since Peak sank a three at 14:29 to make it 5-6
- 09:18 - Bluiett made a layup to make it 13-8 - these were the first points (for either team) since a Bowen jumper at 11:17 to make it 11-8
- 08:36 - Stainbrook made a layup to make it 15-8 (after missed three by Peak)
- 07:47 - Davis makes jumper to make it 17-8 (after missed three by Copeland)
- 07:23 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 17-8
Between the under 8 TV timeout and the first Hoya timeout: - 07:23 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 17-8
- 07:13 - Davis makes a layup to make it 19-8 (after Hopkins turnover right before TV timeout)
- 06:37 - Abell makes one of two free throws to make it 20-8 (DSR foul after he missed a jumper)
- 06:00 - Davis three makes it 23-8 (after a Hopkins missed jumper)
- 05:55 - GEORGETOWN TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-8
Between the first Hoya timeout and the under 4 TV timeout: - 05:55 - GEORGETOWN TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-8
- 03:59 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-9 (only points were off Josh hitting one of two free throws)
Between the under 4 TV timeout and the second Hoya timeout: - 03:59 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-9
- 02:15 - Davis makes three to make it 26-12 (after we had gone 3 for 4 from the line and gotten three consecutive stops on D)
- 01:45 - Davis makes three to make it 29-12
- 01:10 - GEORGETOWN TIMEOUT - SCORE 29-12
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Jan 28, 2015 14:36:32 GMT -5
See, here's the problem (and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but maybe I can't help it, dunno): Did you watch the game last night? I was there. The two timeouts used by Mack in the second half were HUGE. I believe both came when we had cut the lead to 10, and at least one came right before there would have been a TV break anyway. But Mack didn't wait for it - he took control as the crowd started to rally and shut it the F down. And it worked. In the game. Last night. Out of the first timeout, Xavier hit a three (whaddya know? We gave up a big 3!) and out of the second they ran a play, drew a foul on Hop and made both free throws. Meantime, JT3 sat idly in the first half as the game spun out of control. Don't go digging through spreadsheets and numbers. Think about the game we all watched last night. This is a thread about that game. Last night, the timing of the respective coaches vis a vis timeouts called had a bearing on the outcome, and Mack used his perfectly. Fair enough, but I guess the question is when would you have called a time out if you were JTIII? Here are some possibilities from the first half based on the play-by-play info found on the espn boxscore. Where would you have called a time out that JTIII failed to call? Between the under 12 and under 8 TV timeouts: - 11:54 - OFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 9-6
- 11:44 - Randolph made jumper to make it 11-6 - this was the first field goal for either side since Peak sank a three at 14:29 to make it 5-6
- 09:18 - Bluiett made a layup to make it 13-8 - these were the first points (for either team) since a Bowen jumper at 11:17 to make it 11-8
- 08:36 - Stainbrook made a layup to make it 15-8 (after missed three by Peak)
- 07:47 - Davis makes jumper to make it 17-8 (after missed three by Copeland)
- 07:23 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 17-8
Between the under 8 TV timeout and the first Hoya timeout: - 07:23 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 17-8
- 07:13 - Davis makes a layup to make it 19-8 (after Hopkins turnover right before TV timeout)
- 06:37 - Abell makes one of two free throws to make it 20-8 (DSR foul after he missed a jumper)
- 06:00 - Davis three makes it 23-8 (after a Hopkins missed jumper)
- 05:55 - GEORGETOWN TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-8
Between the first Hoya timeout and the under 4 TV timeout: - 05:55 - GEORGETOWN TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-8
- 03:59 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-9 (only points were off Josh hitting one of two free throws)
Between the under 4 TV timeout and the second Hoya timeout: - 03:59 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-9
- 02:15 - Davis makes three to make it 26-12 (after we had gone 3 for 4 from the line and gotten three consecutive stops on D)
- 01:45 - Davis makes three to make it 29-12
- 01:10 - GEORGETOWN TIMEOUT - SCORE 29-12
Honestly, I was more saluting Mack's use of timeouts in a road game than bashing JT3. I think he could have at least tried to stop momentum in the first half with a TO, but we certainly did not lose that game because of timeouts.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 28, 2015 14:38:48 GMT -5
Fair enough, but I guess the question is when would you have called a time out if you were JTIII? Here are some possibilities from the first half based on the play-by-play info found on the espn boxscore. Where would you have called a time out that JTIII failed to call? Call time at 8:36, down 7. This allows a possession and a defensive stop in advance of the TV time out. Instead the time out was called down 15.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 28, 2015 14:39:25 GMT -5
The point he's trying to make is that you've presented no evidence that the Hoyas have trouble coming back more than any other team. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. We were just down big to Butler and came back on them. Just because you've said it many times doesn't make it true. And just because you've posted 540,000 times doesn't make you right. Obviously there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Never said there wasn't. There's been plenty of games where comebacks have been made without the need for some kind of pressure D. But for all those numbers you rattled off about our much improved second half offensively, we still lost the game by 13. We were down at half by 13 and we lost by the same margin. Sure we made it interesting for a little while, but everytime we did, they came back and ran 30 seconds off the clock before we (usually) fouled them. It's in a situation like that that I just feel having some kind of defense intended to force some turnovers might help. I never said it was some cure-all or anything like that. But in games like that when we had to work hard for every single bucket we got, why not try to get some easy ones? Our biggest deficit to Butler was 11 with 3 minutes or so to go in the first half. We chipped away at that for most of the game. Our biggest deficit in the second half was 7 and that was with 17+ minutes left. I'm talking more about situations last night where we were down 9 with 4 minutes to go or 8 with 3 minutes. Playing 30 seconds of D and then running 20+ seconds of offense just doesn't leave enough time. Especially when we were getting nothing in transition off misses because their transition D off misses was excellent. A couple turnovers could go a long way. I don't see how pointing out that the 07 team made a comeback against UNC is at all relevant in this situation. It's apples and oranges. I presented actual evidence. You made up that's not even right. You said things like Butler doesn't count because it was only 11 points early. It was actually 12 points around 18 minutes in. Within seven to eight minutes we had the lead. It took me thirty seconds to look this up. But even if you are factually correct, it's not valid to throw something out like that. I used an objective standard -- 10 points down against a conference or quality opponent. Your standard seems to be "whatever makes me right." You're wrong. Find some evidence for the thesis that this team comes back less than other teams.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2015 14:41:10 GMT -5
Fair enough, but I guess the question is when would you have called a time out if you were JTIII? Here are some possibilities from the first half based on the play-by-play info found on the espn boxscore. Where would you have called a time out that JTIII failed to call? Between the under 12 and under 8 TV timeouts: - 11:54 - OFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 9-6
- 11:44 - Randolph made jumper to make it 11-6 - this was the first field goal for either side since Peak sank a three at 14:29 to make it 5-6
- 09:18 - Bluiett made a layup to make it 13-8 - these were the first points (for either team) since a Bowen jumper at 11:17 to make it 11-8
- 08:36 - Stainbrook made a layup to make it 15-8 (after missed three by Peak)
- 07:47 - Davis makes jumper to make it 17-8 (after missed three by Copeland)
- 07:23 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 17-8
Between the under 8 TV timeout and the first Hoya timeout: - 07:23 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 17-8
- 07:13 - Davis makes a layup to make it 19-8 (after Hopkins turnover right before TV timeout)
- 06:37 - Abell makes one of two free throws to make it 20-8 (DSR foul after he missed a jumper)
- 06:00 - Davis three makes it 23-8 (after a Hopkins missed jumper)
- 05:55 - GEORGETOWN TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-8
Between the first Hoya timeout and the under 4 TV timeout: - 05:55 - GEORGETOWN TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-8
- 03:59 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-9 (only points were off Josh hitting one of two free throws)
Between the under 4 TV timeout and the second Hoya timeout: - 03:59 - OFFICIAL TV TIMEOUT - SCORE 23-9
- 02:15 - Davis makes three to make it 26-12 (after we had gone 3 for 4 from the line and gotten three consecutive stops on D)
- 01:45 - Davis makes three to make it 29-12
- 01:10 - GEORGETOWN TIMEOUT - SCORE 29-12
Honestly, I was more saluting Mack's use of timeouts in a road game than bashing JT3. I think he could have at least tried to stop momentum in the first half with a TO, but we certainly did not lose that game because of timeouts. I agree that Mack employed his timeouts effectively to stop our comeback. At the very least it gave him a chance to take out the crowd and draw up a play that more often than not successful in keeping the margin above 10. I just wasn't sure there was a logical point for JTIII to employ a timeout similarly. I don't have a game tape so I went back through the play-by-play to the point at which the lead was built that eventually buried the Hoyas...and I couldn't really find a spot where JTIII could have called a timeout. The only spot I could see, maybe, is sometime between the under 8 and the first timeout we called, but hard to see when exactly.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 28, 2015 14:43:30 GMT -5
Why focus so much on what happened when our chances of winning were 1 in 5 and not on the opening 15-20 minutes when the game was lost? I'm not saying the game was lost because we didn't try to trap or force TOs late in the game. The game was clearly lost in the first half, that's obvious. But what's the harm in at least trying to get some easy buckets? I've never understood why so many are so staunchly opposed to the mere suggestion of it. I'm not opposed to pressing. Pressing is fine. I'm not sure it actually increases our chances of coming back when down early (though it's a very good idea later when your chances of winning are miniscule). I'm simply opposed to people perpetuating incorrect ideas over and over.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Jan 28, 2015 14:46:22 GMT -5
If you read between the lines I think the reason we are so upset at this loss is that we all thought THIS TEAM wouldn't play like this. I know I sure did. I just thought we had too much talent to experience another of those huge scoring droughts. We were too fearless to be unable to come back from large deficits. And our foul shooting wouldn't tank. But we aren't there yet and probably will experience more games like this. Hopefully, we will return to Nova/Marquette form and not spoil our NCAA chances. I still have hope for a surprising NCAA run. I was wondering if you were going to reassess all of the easy road wins still on our schedule after last night.
|
|