Biorhythms for First Round NCAAT Game vs VCU: 6:50 Start

bassydude77 said:
This sums it up and seemed to be the same story against SMU, MSU and Stanford....

From IC article:
Against VCU, Seth Trimble spent most of the first half trying to make life tough on Rams leading scorer Terrence Hill Jr. Through 20 minutes, Hill had 11 points on 50 percent from the floor. He ended with 34 and was 7-for-10 from three.

The difference? In the second half, the Tar Heels went away from that. They switched on screens and gave him advantageous matchups.

"I felt like we started switching things a lot more in the last half after their big hit two threes," senior captain Seth Trimble said in the locker room postgame. "It went downhill from there."

Trimble repeatedly pointed to UNC's switching as a turning point, clearly frustrated with the lack of adjustments.

"Every time (Terrance Hill Jr.) got a switch he really liked, he took advantage of it," Trimble said. "It's probably one of the most frustrating parts of this game, he was still having a great game, but I thought I was doing somewhat of a good job containing him and making things tough. I'm never going to pinpoint things on my teammates, that's not the reason why we lost, but when we went away from that I feel like it made it easier for him, for sure."

VCU didn't just benefit — it attacked those matchups relentlessly. UNC went away from what worked — and paid for it.
Click to expand...
The Office Yes GIF
 
superrific said:
I think this type of reasoning is exactly why these discussions can be toxic. Don't take Seth's opinion at face value. He has a pretty strong bias, and plus he's talking in a circumstance where he's upset and emotional.

"We started switching things a lot more after their big hit two threes." Yes. That's what you do. Imagine if we didn't switch and their big hit 5 more threes! People might not have liked that.

Too often, people don't think about the opportunity costs. There are tradeoffs. Just because a strategy didn't work doesn't mean it's stupid. It doesn't even mean it was wrong. If you offer me 10:1 odds on a fair coin, I will take that bet every time and it's clearly right of me to do so. And if I lose all my money on 5 losing bets in a row, it was still smart of me. It was just unfortunate.

That's the problem in post hoc rationalizations and analyses.
Click to expand...
I would think you'd stick with a strategy that got you a 19-point lead, at least for the most part. Sure, if their big suddenly went nuclear from 3 (hit a few more on a few more shots) then you adjust your focal point(s), but you don't stay with a scheme that is not effective.

We gave VCU the matchup they wanted, again and again. Defense should be (roughly speaking) the exact opposite of that - you don't just give the other team the matchup they want, you try to force them into running through a secondary matchup.
 
stankeylegjones said:
I would think you'd stick with a strategy that got you a 19-point lead, at least for the most part. Sure, if their big suddenly went nuclear from 3 (hit a few more on a few more shots) then you adjust your focal point(s), but you don't stay with a scheme that is not effective.

We gave VCU the matchup they wanted, again and again. Defense should be (roughly speaking) the exact opposite of that - you don't just give the other team the matchup they want, you try to force them into running through a secondary matchup.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
superrific said:
I think this type of reasoning is exactly why these discussions can be toxic. Don't take Seth's opinion at face value. He has a pretty strong bias, and plus he's talking in a circumstance where he's upset and emotional.

"We started switching things a lot more after their big hit two threes." Yes. That's what you do. Imagine if we didn't switch and their big hit 5 more threes! People might not have liked that.

Too often, people don't think about the opportunity costs. There are tradeoffs. Just because a strategy didn't work doesn't mean it's stupid. It doesn't even mean it was wrong. If you offer me 10:1 odds on a fair coin, I will take that bet every time and it's clearly right of me to do so. And if I lose all my money on 5 losing bets in a row, it was still smart of me. It was just unfortunate.

That's the problem in post hoc rationalizations and analyses.
Click to expand...
At this point I think you're just arguing for shits and giggles. Why would we go away from something that was working very well? It would have been one thing if we tried something different, then went back when it wasn't working...but that's not what happened.
 
kidryancorn said:
At this point I think you're just arguing for shits and giggles. Why would we go away from something that was working very well? It would have been one thing if we tried something different, then went back when it wasn't working...but that's not what happened.
Click to expand...
It works out fine with made free throws. Part of the equation is making at least 50% of those.

The execution was more the culprit than the strategy.

As it turned out, UNC should have ignored time and score and just kept playing.
 
kidryancorn said:
Why would we go away from something that was working very well?
Click to expand...
Obviously, because Hubert Davis knows nothing about basketball. Hurr hurr hurr.

If your theory is that Hubert Davis did something inexplicably stupid without a reason, then you need a new theory because there will be no universe ever where you know more than Hubert Davis about basketball.

You can say he's not a good coach, that he's not done a good job, fine. But when you are saying he risked the season on something senseless because he doesn't know better, you jumped the shark a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top