Huh. Looks like it can be done during the season:
There's no real benefit to it though..
Huh. Looks like it can be done during the season:
Huh. Looks like it can be done during the season:
I still think the advanced statistics struggle with our teams. Fred’s teams had more variability and could absolutely lose to some bad teams. They also could beat anybody. In basketball I think the more variable higher upside is better. It’s all about getting hot and beating teams. If the NCAA tournament was replace with the NBA playoffs that would change. I also think that is especially true for Iowa State and Hilton. We’ve built our culture on willing them to victory. When we were down 20 at half to Oklahoma I knew we would win that game. The advanced stats don’t understand that concept.
I will go to my grave with the belief that if George’s doesn’t get hurt we win the National title.
I have always doubted that team makes it much further than it did with Georges.
They were #25 on Bart Torvik that season. Their problem with UConn was the problem they had all year -- they could score at an elite level and in bunches, but they couldn't stop anybody and usually got killed on the boards. Like you said, that is how it played out with UConn, too. I don't see a way Georges would have been more efficient than the touches that went to Hogue, too, considering Hogue had easily the game of his life, yet they still fell short.
Even if they get past the Huskies, they still have to play...
(All rankings from Bart Torvik.)
#8 Michigan State
#3 Florida
#22 Kentucky
We probably would not have been favored in any of those three games. I doubt we could have replicated UConn's miracle run where they seemed to be hitting every hunk of junk they toss up.
We had a nice run in Kansas City, sure, but here is who we beat
#39 Kansas State
#11 Kansas (without Embidd)
#26 Baylor
We hadn't beaten anybody nearly as good as Michigan State or Florida that year save Michigan (#9).
The Fizer-Tinsley team had two games to go and would have been heavy favorites in both. The path to the national championship was paved in gold for them. The Georges' foot team, had they gotten past UConn, would have had three to go and wouldn't have been favored in any of the three save maybe Kentucky. Yes, that team probably had the best shot at a Final Four of any other since, but it was still a long shot compared to the 2000 squad.
Alison is probably my favorite player for the women of all-time.
She always had this look on her face like she was looking for an ass to kick.
anybody questioning if TJ would take the job...
The problem with UCONN game is that UCONN was just a team that was on a magical run. Also, they did well on the boards against UCONN.I have always doubted that team makes it much further than it did with Georges.
They were #25 on Bart Torvik that season. Their problem with UConn was the problem they had all year -- they could score at an elite level and in bunches, but they couldn't stop anybody and usually got killed on the boards. Like you said, that is how it played out with UConn, too. I don't see a way Georges would have been more efficient than the touches that went to Hogue, too, considering Hogue had easily the game of his life, yet they still fell short.
Even if they get past the Huskies, they still have to play...
(All rankings from Bart Torvik.)
#8 Michigan State
#3 Florida
#22 Kentucky
We probably would not have been favored in any of those three games. I doubt we could have replicated UConn's miracle run where they seemed to be hitting every hunk of junk they toss up.
We had a nice run in Kansas City, sure, but here is who we beat
#39 Kansas State
#11 Kansas (without Embidd)
#26 Baylor
We hadn't beaten anybody nearly as good as Michigan State or Florida that year save Michigan (#9).
The Fizer-Tinsley team had two games to go and would have been heavy favorites in both. The path to the national championship was paved in gold for them. The Georges' foot team, had they gotten past UConn, would have had three to go and wouldn't have been favored in any of the three save maybe Kentucky. Yes, that team probably had the best shot at a Final Four of any other since, but it was still a long shot compared to the 2000 squad.
Alison is probably my favorite player for the women of all-time.
She always had this look on her face like she was looking for an ass to kick.
Tj's wife was a volleyball player here wasn't she? Or WBB?
The problem with UCONN game is that UCONN was just a team that was on a magical run. Also, they did well on the boards against UCONN.
I think it is possible they could have outscored UCONN with Niang. Adding Niang would change not only how UCONN defended ISU but also how ISU would be able to defend UCONN. It is impossible to tell what would have happened but I think it is clear that it would have given ISU a better chance to win. Heck, ISU could have won if Ejim and Kane had a better shooting day. But like I said earlier, who knows what happens with Niang because we don't even know if they would have won the UNC game.
To quote Brad Pitt from Moneyball --
"If he's a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?"
If that team was so good, why wasn't it better at scoring points and stopping the other team from scoring points? That is the point of the game, and that is exactly what those computer rankings measure.
Saying they "needed to be hot" to win a national title sounds like an argument that they would have folded up on a cold shooting night at some point -- not that they were guaranteed to run the table.
Last I checked, too, is that we weren't playing in Hilton in the NCAA tournament.
In some ways, Georges' breaking his foot was the best thing to ever happen to Fred Hoiberg's reputation with the fanbase. You're essentially crediting Fred for winning a national title ("I will go to my grave with the belief that if George’s doesn’t get hurt we win the National title.") for a team that barely made it out of the Round of 32 that year. The injury created a legend that is unfalsifiable because fans can talk themselves into anything.
I suspect reality would have been that either Georges wouldn't haver made the difference against UConn or we would have tapped out against superior teams in Michigan State or Florida.
You get to live with your fantasy instead of confronting a more mundane reality.
On that note, I've mentioned his name before, but does anyone else want JP to take a long look at Scott Nagy? Dude has a very impressive resume and overall record, and while he isn't young he's not too old either IMO.
On that note, I've mentioned his name before, but does anyone else want JP to take a long look at Scott Nagy? Dude has a very impressive resume and overall record, and while he isn't young he's not too old either IMO.
Yeah no one can say for sure but I think they had just of good a chance to do it as UCONN or Florida or MSU did. All teams have to be hot to win a national championship unless it is one of the teams that are just on another level than all the other teams. I mean UCONN wasn't the "superior team" according to the computers yet they won.
Many have, even me. But it's been shot down by many because he doesn't have the extensive, in depth P5 assistant coaching experience needed to take Iowa State to the promised land.
They got to that rank though because of their run in the tournament. What were they before that?UConn was #14 on Bart Torvik for that season -- a good deal ahead of #25 Iowa State.
Plus, they were way hotter than we were at the end of the year.
Bart Torvik game scores of the last ten games played by UConn and Iowa State that season.
UConn
---
36 (rock bottom against Syracuse before they caught fire)
99
91
75 (lost to #1 Louisville)
89
97
97 (Iowa State)
97
99
98 (natty)
Iowa State
---
70
96
80
88
90 (KC, KSU)
97 (KC, KU)
92 (KC, Baylor)
94
91
73 (UConn)
UConn was a supernova at the end of that season. We were playing well, but we were not ripping off five consecutive games with a 97+ game scores against really good teams like UConn did.
I doubt we could replicate that level of magic -- an okay team getting that ridiculously hot.
Stats are just information. They don’t actually win games. The thing about moneyball was it was more about exploiting inefficiencies. As you can see in baseball now when everyone uses it there are not the inefficiencies anymore.To quote Brad Pitt from Moneyball --
"If he's a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?"
If that team was so good, why wasn't it better at scoring points and stopping the other team from scoring points? That is the point of the game, and that is exactly what those computer rankings measure.
Saying they "needed to be hot" to win a national title sounds like an argument that they would have folded up on a cold shooting night at some point -- not that they were guaranteed to run the table.
Last I checked, too, is that we weren't playing in Hilton in the NCAA tournament.
In some ways, Georges' breaking his foot was the best thing to ever happen to Fred Hoiberg's reputation with the fanbase. You're essentially crediting Fred for winning a national title ("I will go to my grave with the belief that if George’s doesn’t get hurt we win the National title.") for a team that barely made it out of the Round of 32 that year. The injury created a legend that is unfalsifiable because fans can talk themselves into anything.
I suspect reality would have been that either Georges wouldn't haver made the difference against UConn or we would have tapped out against superior teams in Michigan State or Florida.
You get to live with your fantasy instead of confronting a more mundane reality.
Stats are just information. They don’t actually win games. The thing about moneyball was it was more about exploiting inefficiencies. As you can see in baseball now when everyone uses it there are not the inefficiencies anymore.
There is a clear and simple explanation for why the numbers were not as good for Fred’s year than Prohms year. Consistency. Prohms teams are more consistent. You can see that by his advantages on the road to other coaches. They just don’t have the clunkers of games like the Texas Tech games that Fred’s teams did. They also don’t have the peaks that Fred’s teams had.
That team of Fred’s was peaking at the right time. Losing George’s was a huge loss. George’s to Edozie was a huge drop off. Hogue played ridiculous that game but the ripple affects were still huge.
Until you can do like Gonzaga and actually get that talent you have to win by exploiting inefficiencies.
it’s not that, it’s that he doesn’t have the relationship with the person doing the hiring.
hell, I still like porter moser. I can’t think of a better basketball mind in the history of the ncaa than Rick Majerus. Spending time on that staff learning from him, is a huge resume builder