Houston: Round 2: The Battle for Everything

[sedziobs]

I couldn't think of a more common synonym. Sometimes you just gotta use the big word if it fits best.

 

[cincrulz11]

 

[cincyguy13]

Hmmm I just watched Houston Light us up with straight up nba iso plays.

I always defended the iso offense that cronin ran. I think your best players are best in iso situations. The problems is when you don’t get those great players. Or just one of them. Like he did from time to time.

 

[cincyguy13]

I’ve seen we were a top 15 roster a number of times on here and was just curious if any writer actually had us as a top 15 roster? Because if so, I never saw that. It seemed to be just people on here saying it. Also seems to get lower each time it’s said. I thought it started as a top 25 team, eventually moved to top 15

 

[waterhead]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think March specific coaching ability has almost nothing to do with March success. I think random variation/luck explains results more than any narrative. Movies are made about narratives. Real life isn't so predictable.

Overall I can agree on randomness and luck but just as there are big time players that show up in big time games in big time moments I would have to believe the same is true in coaching. When most ordinary players and coaches get nervous they don’t usually function as well. Some thrive under those conditions and perform even better than normal at times. I can’t write it all off to chance

 

[cincrulz11]

I always defended the iso offense that cronin ran. I think your best players are best in iso situations. The problems is when you don’t get those great players. Or just one of them. Like he did from time to time.

from the video in a link justin shared yesterday there is a 30 minute analytics discussion about where teams can improve their offense simply with improved shot selection.


one of the things it talked about is how effective iso'ing is now that teams switch picks so often. you run a screen to switch a poor defender on your best player. im all for doing that type of iso if you're playing teams that defend that way.


this happens a lot in the nba but not as much in college yet.

 

[cincyguy13]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think March specific coaching ability has almost nothing to do with March success. I think random variation/luck explains results more than any narrative. Movies are made about narratives. Real life isn't so predictable.

Curious if you believe this for all sports? Mostly luck and random? When does luck and randomness turn in to you doing something wrong. 50 years? 75? This is why I was at least willing to try something different? Before you know it, it’s been 50 years and you haven’t seen a final four. You eventually turn in to Xavier.

 

[cincrulz11]

Curious if you believe this for all sports? Mostly luck and random? When does luck and randomness turn in to you doing something wrong. 50 years? 75? This is why I was at least willing to try something different? Before you know it, it’s been 50 years and you haven’t seen a final four. You eventually turn in to Xavier.

im willing to bet he believes it for life in general.

 

[cincrulz11]

from the video in a link justin shared yesterday there is a 30 minute analytics discussion about where teams can improve their offense simply with improved shot selection.


one of the things it talked about is how effective iso'ing is now that teams switch picks so often. you run a screen to switch a poor defender on your best player. im all for doing that type of iso if you're playing teams that defend that way.


this happens a lot in the nba but not as much in college yet.

also at the end of this same video he talked about scheduling in nonconference and how teams need to schedule more quad 1 and 2 games even if it means going on the road. i found it interesting with our talk about whether to schedule quad 3 games. seems the correct answer is neither quad 3 or 4, but as many quad 1 and 2 as you can.

 

[cincrulz11]

Wrong thread

 

[sedziobs]

Curious if you believe this for all sports? Mostly luck and random? When does luck and randomness turn in to you doing something wrong. 50 years? 75? This is why I was at least willing to try something different? Before you know it, it’s been 50 years and you haven’t seen a final four. You eventually turn in to Xavier.

Yes, I assume performance in a specific set of circumstances is no different than the the full set unless there is a verifiable reason. The main reason would be resting players more during the season, as is common in the NBA and MLB. I don't think there is anything comparable in college basketball. Teams are generally putting their best effort to win every game. Having good players that make up an efficient team is really all that matters. What happens in a specific set of plays or games is down to randomness.

I also don't believe in "clutch". Pablo Sandoval and David Freese happened to have a small sample of good results in the World Series. To me, that meant nothing for the playoffs next season. What matters when making decisions is predictability. "Clutch" is not predictable.

So for college basketball coaching, I believe you make a change if you think it will result in a more efficient team in the long run. Focusing on smaller subsets like March games will lead to a poor decision.

 

[Jon Rycek]

I’ve seen we were a top 15 roster a number of times on here and was just curious if any writer actually had us as a top 15 roster? Because if so, I never saw that. It seemed to be just people on here saying it. Also seems to get lower each time it’s said. I thought it started as a top 25 team, eventually moved to top 15

247 had us at 18

 

[cincyguy13]

247 had us at 18

I can’t imagine a lot of people had us that high or even in the top 25. But I’m also not going to look.