Biorhythms for Carolina @Virginia: Post-Game Discussion

superrific said:
I mean that "I want UNC to lose because I want a new coach" tends to be indistinguishable in observable behavior from "I want UNC to win but also doubt that HD is the right coach." They differ only by an internal phase.
Click to expand...
Well played!
But, I think they two are distinguishable. I don't think he's ready, yet, for this position, but to me, I'd rather them win than lose, first and foremost.
 
superrific said:
OK, that's fine, but it's not the same thing as saying that the 20 minutes against VA show that we're really a good defensive team being coached down.

You're bringing in the other games -- i.e. the 2/3 of the season. Which is fine. In fact, it's unavoidable in reasonable discussion. But that's the right perspective, not that these 20 minutes somehow prove something. So it's as I said, you weren't that stupid. You know how to think about this, but sometimes get carried away.
Click to expand...
Are you conflating snoop's post and mine?

I still stand by most post. We have instances outside of the UVA game that shows just how good this team can play. And, this team, on the whole, has not played nearly that well; hence, they've underperformed this year.
 
superrific said:
This is true only in a "buck stops here" sense. It isn't actually the coaches' fault, not always. Your statement is one of accountability, not actual fact. Just like CEOs can be fired when the company's performance is poor, even though it probably wasn't the CEO's fault (sometimes it is, sometimes not).
Click to expand...
But it is. Both philosophically and actually.

Well-coached teams play up to, and sometimes exceed, their potential. A combination of scheme, strategy, preparation, film review, communication, repetition, psychology, etc., etc. separates the average coach from the great coach.

If a team is not executing the way the coach instructed, then the coach is failing. It means the coach is not instructing properly.

Nick Saban's teams were not only immensely talented. They were immensely well coached. As were Dean Smith's teams. Sure, the players made mistakes from time to time. But both of those coaches had their teams prepared for whatever they may see in a game and to execute at the highest level.

If a team fails to execute on game day, that is always a failing of the coach. Always. There was a failure to have the team ready.
 
Calheel said:
But it is. Both philosophically and actually.

Well-coached teams play up to, and sometimes exceed, their potential. A combination of scheme, strategy, preparation, film review, communication, repetition, psychology, etc., etc. separates the average coach from the great coach.

If a team is not executing the way the coach instructed, then the coach is failing. It means the coach is not instructing properly.

Nick Saban's teams were not only immensely talented. They were immensely well coached. As were Dean Smith's teams. Sure, the players made mistakes from time to time. But both of those coaches had their teams prepared for whatever they may see in a game and to execute at the highest level.

If a team fails to execute on game day, that is always a failing of the coach. Always. There was a failure to have the team ready.
Click to expand...
If what you wrote were true, then almost every coach should be fired.
 
BillOfRights said:
If what you wrote were true, then almost every coach should be fired.
Click to expand...
Almost every coach is fired or quits. But that is a separate issue.

Obviously, not every coach will be Dean Smith or Nick Saban and just because a coach fails at having his team ready to play does not mean you fire him. The firing decision involves a lot of data points, looking for repeated patterns and comparing against the expectations of the program and the cost/benefit of making a switch.
 
stankeylegjones said:
But, I think they two are distinguishable. I don't think he's ready, yet, for this position, but to me, I'd rather them win than lose, first and foremost.
Click to expand...
Internal phase.

Seriously, though, this is why I try hard not to be a partisan about internal politics in the sports programs I root for. I used to be a partisan, and then I found myself saying some pretty stupid shit -- or at least things that were pretty clearly not up to the standards of reasonable, logic discourse that I set for myself. So I decided to try not to take sides on the pro-coach or anti-coach questions; just offer neutral analysis.
 
Inserting a guy into the lineup for 30+ minutes a game who has not played with the team for 6 weeks is going to cause some problems for team defense. Having some bumps in the road in Jan was pretty much a given... Set is a good defender. A lot of this will work itself out... and maybe (hopefully), based on the second half of UVA, already is.
 
superrific said:
Internal phase.

Seriously, though, this is why I try hard not to be a partisan about internal politics in the sports programs I root for. I used to be a partisan, and then I found myself saying some pretty stupid shit -- or at least things that were pretty clearly not up to the standards of reasonable, logic discourse that I set for myself. So I decided to try not to take sides on the pro-coach or anti-coach questions; just offer neutral analysis.
Click to expand...
Super, are you saying that I'm saying some stupid shit :)
 
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
The point there is the trend... Duke has always had a lot of talent but he's clearly getting better. Also, he had John Lucas's son(now Miami coach) on his staff out there recruiting... he didn't go to Duke. He didn't fight the GM.

However, Hubert's trend stands alone we don't have to look at Scheyer. The ceiling keeps getting lower. Now we're trying to make the tournament and feel great if we can stay off the bubble all year... we have more resources than 97% of programs out there and a more storied history than 99% of them.

The Vanderbilt coach has gotten better every year. Florida trend it up to its national championship. The Michigan coach is building something out there.

We have more talent than Cal/Stanford/SMU and ignoring the fact that we went from finals to not making the tournament, 1 seed to play-in(gift) is an issue.
Click to expand...
It's worth noting, before their bounce back win vs a really bad Miss St on Saturday, Vandy had lost 3 straight, including ass maulings by Arkansas (good team) and Texas (mediocre).
 
stankeylegjones said:
Are you conflating snoop's post and mine?

I still stand by most post. We have instances outside of the UVA game that shows just how good this team can play. And, this team, on the whole, has not played nearly that well; hence, they've underperformed this year.
Click to expand...
I was responding to this post of yours, which was a response to Rob.

"It also shows the level of play that this team is capable of, and the level that they should be playing at. For the most part, two-thirds of the way through the season, and this team has greatly underperformed their actual level."

"It" seems to refer to the second half of the Virginia game; it was the "it" in the post with which you were agreeing.

I say that the second half of the Virginia game tells us very little on its own about the team's defensive ability. Let's go back to the exam analogy. It is usually the case that students understand some topics better than others; for instance, I would have students who understood ordinary fiduciary duties very well but compensation-related issues somewhat less well. All my exams would feature ordinary fiduciary duties (that's the core of the course); sometimes I would include compensation but not always. The student who doesn't really get the compensation issues is not going to be the best corporate law student in the class; but if compensation isn't on the exam, you wouldn't tell from the exam score. If UVa was not running the actions that give us trouble, or not running them well, you'd see a good performance against them and it would tell you little about the overall ability.

To complete the analogy: If my exam was a complete sampling of course topics, then it would be more of an exhaustive measure. But it wasn't, because it couldn't be. Same is true with a single half of basketball. It was one half, of one game, against one team, presumably playing at a certain quality level. That doesn't tell you much about overall performance. It *might* tell you that the first half defense was below ability, but even that is iffy because there's another variable in the equation: the quality of the offensive execution.

In general, I think it is very difficult to distinguish offensive execution from defensive execution. The best way to do so is look at a large sample of games, not just minutes played. Even that isn't necessarily going to tell you how a team performed on a given day, but whatever. Which is why I think the reliance on a much larger sample size to consider the team's ability is correct, and looking at a single game as evidence of the "ability" is unfair.
 
stankeylegjones said:
Super, are you saying that I'm saying some stupid shit :)
Click to expand...
No, but I am saying that your apparent agreement with the other post was not your best work. I tend to be harder on myself. Who knows if what I was saying was actually stupid shit, as opposed to just poor reasoning. It felt like stupid shit to me. Point is, I sense that coach wars do not bring out the best of our thinking.
 
superrific said:
I was responding to this post of yours, which was a response to Rob.

"It also shows the level of play that this team is capable of, and the level that they should be playing at. For the most part, two-thirds of the way through the season, and this team has greatly underperformed their actual level."

"It" seems to refer to the second half of the Virginia game; it was the "it" in the post with which you were agreeing.

I say that the second half of the Virginia game tells us very little on its own about the team's defensive ability. Let's go back to the exam analogy. It is usually the case that students understand some topics better than others; for instance, I would have students who understood ordinary fiduciary duties very well but compensation-related issues somewhat less well. All my exams would feature ordinary fiduciary duties (that's the core of the course); sometimes I would include compensation but not always. The student who doesn't really get the compensation issues is not going to be the best corporate law student in the class; but if compensation isn't on the exam, you wouldn't tell from the exam score. If UVa was not running the actions that give us trouble, or not running them well, you'd see a good performance against them and it would tell you little about the overall ability.

To complete the analogy: If my exam was a complete sampling of course topics, then it would be more of an exhaustive measure. But it wasn't, because it couldn't be. Same is true with a single half of basketball. It was one half, of one game, against one team, presumably playing at a certain quality level. That doesn't tell you much about overall performance. It *might* tell you that the first half defense was below ability, but even that is iffy because there's another variable in the equation: the quality of the offensive execution.

In general, I think it is very difficult to distinguish offensive execution from defensive execution. The best way to do so is look at a large sample of games, not just minutes played. Even that isn't necessarily going to tell you how a team performed on a given day, but whatever. Which is why I think the reliance on a much larger sample size to consider the team's ability is correct, and looking at a single game as evidence of the "ability" is unfair.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. I was speaking to their overall level of play.
 
superrific said:
No, but I am saying that your apparent agreement with the other post was not your best work. I tend to be harder on myself. Who knows if what I was saying was actually stupid shit, as opposed to just poor reasoning. It felt like stupid shit to me. Point is, I sense that coach wars do not bring out the best of our thinking.
Click to expand...
I'll let snoop respond, but I do think there is validity in his post.
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
Inserting a guy into the lineup for 30+ minutes a game who has not played with the team for 6 weeks is going to cause some problems for team defense. Having some bumps in the road in Jan was pretty much a given... Set is a good defender. A lot of this will work itself out... and maybe (hopefully), based on the second half of UVA, already is.
Click to expand...
Kentucky has dealt with far more roster shakeups than us and has kept its defense relatively consistent throughout the year (52 overall, 74 since January)

I agree that working a player back into the lineup can cause a short term blip in offense and defense. But that can't possibly explain a 3 PT defense moving from 11th ranked 3FG% defense prior to January to 360th ranked after January.

Some of that change is simply shot luck both ways. We weren't that good before January and we aren't as bad as it seems in January. Some of it is the change caused by Trimble's return.

But when you go from 11th to 360th over a 6 game sample size, no one factor is going to explain it.
 
Calheel said:
comparing against the expectations of the program and the cost/benefit of making a switch.
Click to expand...
Cost/benefit is the thing that is being *wildly* misunderstood by some posters, IMO.

College basketball is a mess, clearly in decline, and from Roy’s later years to HD’s years that’s been reflected in the roller coaster ride. A program as monolithic as UNC’s takes time to redirect. Especially since they weren’t already playing the UK/dook shenanigans game and didn’t have the benefit of a running start. And tradition, ethics, legacy used to be a great advantage in many ways, but in this context it’s caused it to take longer to adapt than other programs unencumbered by those things. The SEC schools barely had any ethical standards in the first place, so it’s the difference between redirecting a motorboat vs a tanker.

But impatience will cost a whole lot more in the end, IMO. If people think things have been too rocky for their taste under HD, they should be very careful what they wish for. Because things can get a whole lot worse. Even after the vague concept of a “thorough search,” whatever that even means in terms of candidates. Which nobody seems to have any legitimate guesses much less solid suggestions about.
 
PTOHeel said:
UNC had the highest climb in this week's AP poll. Up to 16.
www.espn.com

AP men's college basketball Top 25 poll breakdown

The latest Top 25 poll is out, continuing to feature all three unbeaten teams. What's next for the ranked teams?
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...
Craziest nugget in that story — Clemson has the nation’s longest road conference win streak (12 games).

I expect that to end at some point this season given their remaining road schedule but would not have guessed that. Also, Clemson’s four losses are by an average of 4 points (including one OT loss at home to NCSU), the biggest margin of loss being -6 @ Alabama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top