NCAA Basketball 2018/2019

[CrimsonNBlue]

Straw man.

[PhDhawk]

Things like margin of victory are a pretty good indicator of future success. Barely being able to beat bad teams and looking bad doing it isn't a good sign. Loosing by 30 points is not a good indicator of future success.

We're 5-1 without Vick, but we've only looked like a good team once.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Things like margin of victory are a pretty good indicator of future success. Barely being able to beat bad teams and looking bad doing it isn't a good sign. Loosing by 30 points is not a good indicator of future success.

We're 5-1 without Vick, but we've only looked like a good team once.

That’s again another straw man. For the most part, I agree with Pomeroy that overall, close losses tell you as much about a team as close wins. But, don’t tell a coach that losses are the same as wins in reality. They’re not.

And, it’s our coach that was saying that the locker room has been tighter, focus better, etc. multiple times. Some players too.

Of course, nearly everyone’s point on here was always that the 3-1 stretch sure beat the last few weeks of Vick’s tenure and was better ball.

You lost your shit over one game, I said let’s wait to see how we responded before I called the 3 good games fool’s gold. We went out the next night and played perhaps our best game of the year.

I stand by that I don’t know whether we’re better without Vick in terms of the 4 corners of the court, but that we’ve absolutely had a better 3 weeks than we had in Vick’s last 3 weeks. It’s plainly obvious and not just a product of schedule, b/c we were losing to the teams we are now beating.

[twocoach]

We looked so fucking good against OSU though.

Kum Ba Meh.

Is that better or worse than the 2-4 stretch we had right before he left which included losses to WVU and UT? The logic is really breaking down here.

There is no excuse for loosing in Morgantown, it cost us the streak.

But if you're just evaluating HOW we've played, the loss at Austin was on par with the OT win at TCU and in Stillwater.

If we're any better without Vick it's a small incremental improvement, I don't think it changes our NCAA tournament projection. We didn't suddenly become a FF frontrunner by loosing Vick.

But...I'm told they're having more fun. So there's that.

Only in your world is a 10 point loss "on par with" a win on the road. That's a nerdy metrics argument. The team is now making the offensive and defensive plays needed to win without Vick that they were not making with him.

[ousdahl]

I don't think it's any coincidence that Vick's leave came right after the @KSU game.

we were winning, and playing really well, in the first half with him on the bench.

then in the second half, he doesn't start, and doesn't even play until foul trouble forces the issue, and we seem to regress back to playing with no poise or purpose.

I think if we had Garrett (and/or at least one of him, Dok, or Silvio) available for that game, we woulda left the octogon with a W.

[ousdahl]

the mere fact we're even debating whether we play better or worse with a fucking senior on a team otherwise comprised of underclassmen and transfers, that says a lot.

never mind that senior returned only under a bunch of strict conditions.

[PhDhawk]

Things like margin of victory are a pretty good indicator of future success. Barely being able to beat bad teams and looking bad doing it isn't a good sign. Loosing by 30 points is not a good indicator of future success.

We're 5-1 without Vick, but we've only looked like a good team once.

That’s again another straw man. For the most part, I agree with Pomeroy that overall, close losses tell you as much about a team as close wins. But, don’t tell a coach that losses are the same as wins in reality. They’re not.

And, it’s our coach that was saying that the locker room has been tighter, focus better, etc. multiple times. Some players too.

Of course, nearly everyone’s point on here was always that the 3-1 stretch sure beat the last few weeks of Vick’s tenure and was better ball.

You lost your shit over one game, I said let’s wait to see how we responded before I called the 3 good games fool’s gold. We went out the next night and played perhaps our best game of the year.

I stand by that I don’t know whether we’re better without Vick in terms of the 4 corners of the court, but that we’ve absolutely had a better 3 weeks than we had in Vick’s last 3 weeks. It’s plainly obvious and not just a product of schedule, b/c we were losing to the teams we are now beating.

Yes, I know it's Self saying that. I'm not buying it. What's fun about loosing by 30? What's fun about not extending the streak? Vick isn't there sulking, so it's all sunny. Fuck that.

We didn't have 3 good games. We've played well once, played awful once, and otherwise looked very average.

Wins and Loosses matter. But if you just evaluate the product on the court, we look like a 4 seed. And sorry, but going in thinking we were a title contender, I'm not going to join in turning backflips over it. I don't care how much better practices are.

[Deleted User 89]

the mere fact we're even debating whether we play better or worse with a fucking senior on a team otherwise comprised of underclassmen and transfers, that says a lot.

indeed

[CrimsonNBlue]

Things like margin of victory are a pretty good indicator of future success. Barely being able to beat bad teams and looking bad doing it isn't a good sign. Loosing by 30 points is not a good indicator of future success.

We're 5-1 without Vick, but we've only looked like a good team once.

That’s again another straw man. For the most part, I agree with Pomeroy that overall, close losses tell you as much about a team as close wins. But, don’t tell a coach that losses are the same as wins in reality. They’re not.

And, it’s our coach that was saying that the locker room has been tighter, focus better, etc. multiple times. Some players too.

Of course, nearly everyone’s point on here was always that the 3-1 stretch sure beat the last few weeks of Vick’s tenure and was better ball.

You lost your shit over one game, I said let’s wait to see how we responded before I called the 3 good games fool’s gold. We went out the next night and played perhaps our best game of the year.

I stand by that I don’t know whether we’re better without Vick in terms of the 4 corners of the court, but that we’ve absolutely had a better 3 weeks than we had in Vick’s last 3 weeks. It’s plainly obvious and not just a product of schedule, b/c we were losing to the teams we are now beating.

Yes, I know it's Self saying that. I'm not buying it. What's fun about loosing by 30? What's fun about not extending the streak? Vick isn't there sulking, so it's all sunny. Fuck that.

We didn't have 3 good games. We've played well once, played awful once, and otherwise looked very average.

Wins and Loosses matter. But if you just evaluate the product on the court, we look like a 4 seed. And sorry, but going in thinking we were a title contender, I'm not going to join in turning backflips over it. I don't care how much better practices are.

Straw man after straw man. No one is saying that we are back to our lofty preseason projection. Or everyone is OK with not winning the league. Again the argument has always been that we've been better the last few weeks than we were in the previous few weeks before Vick left. And we have been.

If easily beating OSU, trouncing WVU, and outside of a 3 minute meltdown, being good at TCU is "very average," then what the hell do you call getting beat by WVU, UT and pushed around by UK?

You genuinely seem pissy that fans are happy that we've played better over the last month. Way to keep everyone's positivity in check, I guess.

[ousdahl]

all details aside, isn't a leave of absence quite an anomaly in college hoops?

can anyone even think of another example?

[PhDhawk]

If easily beating OSU

ok...not going to argue with someone living in a fantasy land.

I hope the team is getting better. And if someone wants to argue that by having better chemistry and better practices, we'll be much better by the end of the year, I'll listen to that argument, but I'm not going to buy in until I see real significant tangible improvement on the court.

Eeking by OSU doesn't qualify. We were down with less than 5 minutes to play and were a missed wide-open 3 away from overtime on the road. If we play like that against a 6 seed on a neutral court we probably go home.

[CrimsonNBlue]

If easily beating OSU

ok...not going to argue with someone living in a fantasy land.

I hope the team is getting better. And if someone wants to argue that by having better chemistry and better practices, we'll be much better by the end of the year, I'll listen to that argument, but I'm not going to buy in until I see real significant tangible improvement on the court.

Eeking by OSU doesn't qualify. We were down with less than 5 minutes to play and were a missed wide-open 3 away from overtime on the road. If we play like that against a 6 seed on a neutral court we probably go home.

The other OSU game.

Great: KSU
Good: WVU, OSU, @TCU
OK: @OSU
Bad: @Tech

[pdub]

None of the games we've won are surprising and would have been any different if Vick was or wasn't on the team.

OSU, WVU and ksu, who we've beaten since 06 in AFH at home.
Barely beating TCU on the road.
Barely beating OSU on the road.
Stomped at Tech.

This narrative only holds any sort of water because of circumstance in strength of schedule not this miracle cure that Vick is off the team. We suck on the road - before and after Vick.

We beat Tech, the best team in the league, with Vick on the team.
It's a stretch of a correlation but you're not going to convince some people...no matter what happens the rest of the year, even if we loose in the 1st round of the tourney, we're suddenly better without Vick.

[pdub]

Had we gone out and blown out TCU and OSU or beaten Tech @ Tech ( instead of getting handed the worse conference loss under Self ) then people would have something. Or perhaps if Chai was consistently ( that was the big argument around here v Vick ) playing well ( instead of a 0 point, 2 point stretch ) you'd have something.

Right now we're still playing par for the course. None of these wins/losses are surprising. And some of these wins have been actually pretty ugly ( i.e. TCU coulda won in regulation and we were fortunate to not go to OT v OSU ).

[PhDhawk]

stop being grounded in reality.

It looks pissy, I'm told.

[pdub]

Both Texas and ksu are good teams ( 25, 26 kenpom ).
I don't think this squad as is would have any better of a shot v those two teams on the road and the argument that we would doesn't hold water due to the fact we went to OT with TCU ( 49 ) and Oklahoma State ( 106 ).
The shit the bed moment was clearly WVU - and Vick had to do with that ( he scored 13 points ) - but so did Garrett shooting fade aways in the last minute with time on the clock, seven turnovers from Dotson and four points from our bench.
And a win in Norman tonight ( top 50 kenpom ) will likely be the most impressive of the wins so far ( even v ksu at home ) and I think we have a very good shot. I just don't think we have a very good shot just because Vick isn't playing.

[ousdahl]

Or perhaps if Chai was consistently ( that was the big argument around here v Vick ) playing well ( instead of a 0 point, 2 point stretch ) you'd have something.

it's coincidental that both of their stat lines are similarly inconsistent.

but then realize that one of those guys is an otherwise redshirt freshman who we had to play in part cuz we were otherwise struggling with a senior who played the same position, and the other is the senior who played the same position.

all stats aside, which player is more consistent on the play hard chart? Which player is a more consistent positive off-court presence? Which player did Self think we needed this year? Which player did Self think we could afford to take a leave?

[CrimsonNBlue]

It looks pissy, I'm told.

Again, our discussion was never some grand conclusion that the team is and will be better w/o Vick.

It has always been that this stretch we've played better than we did in the similar in length immediate preceding stretch with Vick. We are winning games that we either lost in that stretch or would have lost. It's an indictment on how bad we were in late January/early February.

I don't get the point of keeping everyone's positivity in check by refusing to acknowledge that which is so plainly obvious. It's out of character.

[pdub]

Regardless of how you feel about Chai playing hard vs Vick playing hard - the argument remains, he scored 0 points and 2 points, so it wasn't as if the guy who replacing Vick was constantly making a difference in the games played since.

Chai's shot 8-26 in his last four.
Vick's worst stretch was his last four games where he went 15-32.

[pdub]

We are winning games that we either lost in that stretch or would have lost.

Not a true statement by any means.
An assumption.
And not with good proof ( as explained above ) beyond the WVU shitting the bed ( also explained above ).