Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

ecasadoSBU wrote:

It doesn't matter though. Favorable and Unfavorable bounces are created by the players themselves as they shoot and position themselves in the right locations to take advantage of it. So you can't attribute that to luck They don't happen by pure magic, do they? The only things that I attribute to luck are those things in which players have absolutely no control of - such as coin toss to start OT in the NFL by the ref to put one example.

I never said "pure magic, did I? But, if you think those bounces always go to the team better taking advantage of those situations, you believe in some level of magic.

A few observations, sime of which have been touched on already...

1. tip of the hat for the use of the word "caprice"
- by XUFan.

2. My second car was a used Chevy Caprice.

3. PC has one the oldest rosters in the country... maybe that contributes, though there was a big roster turnover last season. So a lot of experience, but not a lot of time playing on the same court together.

4. I always liked the expression of Bill Parcells, that "you are what your record says you are"... i think he said it in 93 when the Pats were 1-11 after losing a ton of close games. Like, a reporter said, geez, if Bledsoe cohldve snuck in from the 1 at Pittsburgh, and if so and so drilled that field goal, blah blah blah, the Pats would be 5-7... etc... after listening to this reasoning, Parcells finally interrupted and said his famous quote.

4a. Side note-- I never fully embraced Bill James's thoughts that a "clutch factor" doesnt exist. Or that a single in May in the 3rd inning should becweighted the same as a single during a late September playoff race in a tie game in the 8th.

5. Last night it really was luck that SJU shot like 4 for 14 from the line, although they are shooting only 55% as a team. Maybe their style of "40 minutes of hell" ture their legs out.

6. The pattern has stull held somewhat in Friar games-- for the season, except for 2 blowout losses, PC has only been behind in the second half in a couple of games... we're tending to play with second half leads ofcsingle-digits.. home Marquette game was an exception, where we were down the entire second half til under a minute. Xavier (away) and St Johns (away) we were down 2 for maybe 1 possession each? SJU (home) we were down 6 or so wuth 10 minutes left.

All other games we basically played with 4 to 8 point leads for the last 20 minutes... including Georgetown, UConn, Butler... but also Vermont, URI, Fairfield... it's unbelievable.

7. We've only had two games refereed by Brian O'Connell--- Sacred Heart (tough win) and Virginia (big loss, though we cut it to 6 under 10 minutes). The absence of that O'Connell dude *must* be a contributing factor to some of our wins.

8. Having two excellent ballhandlers on the court is a huge advantage late game, as someone mentioned.

9. Inevitably we're going to lose several close games, because this streak is so improbable. It coyld come at Georgetown or vs DePaul or at Butler cuz the BE has no easy outs. Then national pundits will suck Ken Pom's toes.

10. Our offense gets a lot of points in the paint, and generally we avoid taking horrible shots early in the shot clock. Maybe due to our age, in general we've stayed cobsistent and disciplined with this approach. We drive to the hoop a lot.

11. This streak of wins has occurred against opponents without Johnny Davis being available.

12. Our one blowout was vs Central Connecticut... we were up 30, but ended up winning by 14 or so. It's not Cooley's style to humiliate opponents. I think with 30 point leads Cooley tends to experiment with things, either player combinations or testing offensive sets. This hurts our overall efficiency.

13. Generally, PC has a bunch of solid scoring options, and doesnt rely on one star player having to drop 30 every game. We kind of have interchangeable parts. I think this is helpful to avoid major scoring droughts. Ok, i'll stop babbling. It's all seashells and balloons while we're winning, but the worm can turn at any moment.

I think Cooley's teams tend to let inferior teams hang around, hurting them in their efficiency ratings. That said, come the first round of the Tournament, I hope they have a killer instinct and just take that first opponent out. Leave no doubt heading into the last couple wars. There is a bit of clutch factor in basketball, but it's hard to quantify it. Whatever it is, Providence has it, likely due to their experience and their great ballhandling, among other things. They are still playing with fire a bit with these close games, and if it comes back to bite them, I hope it's in the regular season rather than when it really matters. Two of Xavier's best teams (2016 and 2018) were similarly stronger than their efficiency ratings, but that tendency to let teams hang around hurt both of them when it mattered most.

XUFan09 wrote:I think Cooley's teams tend to let inferior teams hang around, hurting them in their efficiency ratings. That said, come the first round of the Tournament, I hope they have a killer instinct and just take that first opponent out. Leave no doubt heading into the last couple wars. There is a bit of clutch factor in basketball, but it's hard to quantify it. Whatever it is, Providence has it, likely due to their experience and their great ballhandling, among other things. They are still playing with fire a bit with these close games, and if it comes back to bite them, I hope it's in the regular season rather than when it really matters. Two of Xavier's best teams (2016 and 2018) were similarly stronger than their efficiency ratings, but that tendency to let teams hang around hurt both of them when it mattered most.

Right, good point, it makes me uneasy about any NCAA games. Playing with fire.

The Xavier-Wisconsin game is the best example of this. Xavier was still winning towards the end, though they let an 8-point lead with 2-3 minutes left instead fall down to 3. Then the following happened:

- Wisconsin guarded well beyond the three-point line hits contested shot
- Xavier gets called for an offensive foul with just a few seconds to play. It was a flop and the ref bought it. Xavier scored on the play but it didn't count. So, no points for Xavier, and more time on the clock because the whistle was blown on a "foul" rather than the clock stopping when the ball went in the hoop.
- Wisconsin makes a highly contested three while fading away in the corner and falling out of bounds.

Rather than putting the game out of reach by the closing minutes, Xavier had left themselves in a situation where a very unlikely sequence led to a loss.

billyjack wrote:

XUFan09 wrote:I think Cooley's teams tend to let inferior teams hang around, hurting them in their efficiency ratings. That said, come the first round of the Tournament, I hope they have a killer instinct and just take that first opponent out. Leave no doubt heading into the last couple wars. There is a bit of clutch factor in basketball, but it's hard to quantify it. Whatever it is, Providence has it, likely due to their experience and their great ballhandling, among other things. They are still playing with fire a bit with these close games, and if it comes back to bite them, I hope it's in the regular season rather than when it really matters. Two of Xavier's best teams (2016 and 2018) were similarly stronger than their efficiency ratings, but that tendency to let teams hang around hurt both of them when it mattered most.

Right, good point, it makes me uneasy about any NCAA games. Playing with fire.

I like PC, but their method of achieving victories in close games worries me considerably in a winner take all one-time game. Eventually, a team is going to make their FTs late in the game and / or get shot attempts that SJU couldn't last night. I am not convinced that PC has a "bury them" gene and will always play close games and might get bit once when it matters.

ArmyVet wrote:

billyjack wrote:

XUFan09 wrote:I think Cooley's teams tend to let inferior teams hang around, hurting them in their efficiency ratings. That said, come the first round of the Tournament, I hope they have a killer instinct and just take that first opponent out. Leave no doubt heading into the last couple wars. There is a bit of clutch factor in basketball, but it's hard to quantify it. Whatever it is, Providence has it, likely due to their experience and their great ballhandling, among other things. They are still playing with fire a bit with these close games, and if it comes back to bite them, I hope it's in the regular season rather than when it really matters. Two of Xavier's best teams (2016 and 2018) were similarly stronger than their efficiency ratings, but that tendency to let teams hang around hurt both of them when it mattered most.

Right, good point, it makes me uneasy about any NCAA games. Playing with fire.

I like PC, but their method of achieving victories in close games worries me considerably in a winner take all one-time game. Eventually, a team is going to make their FTs late in the game and / or get shot attempts that SJU couldn't last night. I am not convinced that PC has a "bury them" gene and will always play close games and might get bit once when it matters.

I love the "bury them" gene thing. It's so perfect. And yeah, so right.

stever20 wrote:
I love the "bury them" gene thing. It's so perfect. And yeah, so right.

It's been a major frustration with SHU under Willard too. When playing well, we'll get a lead to maybe 10-12 with momentum early in the second half, and then he'll sub out the hot hand if not make an entire line change. Next thing we know, the lead's down to 6 and we're in for a nailbiter. That 10-12 point game in the second half tends to be a major swing point in college basketball, IMO. If the team with the lead gets the next run, even something small like 6 points - ball game. If the trailing team gets it, game on. It's a position where I think the leading team should always look to press (demoralize your opponent, but the game to bed early) but equally one where Willard (and many others) seem to relax a bit instead.

Any word from Creighton on Kalk? That was 1 bad looking injury.

stever20 wrote:Any word from Creighton on Kalk? That was 1 bad looking injury.

Reports are that he plans to play on Friday. Wondering if Aiken will be back for Hall.