Interesting Statistic

[Kibitzer]

our coach sucks.

Depending on whether commas or exclamation points might have been used, we could make the distinction between sacrilege and blasphemy.

sacrilege: , our coach, sucks.

blasphemy: ! Our coach sucks! ​

[P.S. Let me save you a race to your spellchecker. No, it's NOT sacrelige! Don't ask me why.]

 

[snowkot]

I believe this comes down to Coach's unwavering belief in his kids and what they do in practice (over and over and over and...) in that he's absolutely confident it will translate to live game situations. We've all heard how the team constantly practices the impossible - so he's coached it, seen it executed, and expects it to happen in "when the money's on the line."

Such that when it doesn't he appears unprepared, stunned, which is reflected in those compelling w-l numbers.

In those final minutes / seconds against Stanford, the team's reaction ran the gamut from a player mentally shutting down completely to another trying to do it all herself.

Coach did offer that the team needs to find that someone to step up and organize in such moments, but I suspect the coaching staff itself needs to better recognize those players whose game deteriorates in such instances and adjust their approach accordingly...

 

[Kibitzer]

Coach did offer that the team needs to find that someone to step up and organize in such moments.

And that someone must be found on the current roster. To paraphraase Rick Pitino:

"Diana Taurasi ain't walkin' through that door! Maya Moore ain't walkin' through that door!"​

 

[Buzzyboy]

I'm not sure what conclusions I should draw from those stats outside of the fact that UConn has blown out the vast majority of their opponents.
For a team with a 109-10 record, I would expect all the losses to be close ones. How many teams are going to blow UConn out ?

It isn't the closeness of the games they've lost that was in question but the fact that in the vast amount of close games, UConn LOST! It wasn't a fifty fifty proposition or a winning record, it was a decidedly losing record when the game was close!

 

[Ellie]

And what exactly is Geno's Final Four record? Those must be "close" games because UCONN was playing against the top other three teams in the country, right? Oh, they weren't "close" games, you say? Hmn, I see ... I think. No, it isn't clear ... I think. Geez, I think this Modern Math is clear to you but not to me. Have I made myself clear? Or should I say, "crystal clear?", Col. Boneyard?

 

[rvwsleep]

It isn't the closeness of the games they've lost that was in question but the fact that in the vast amount of close games, UConn LOST! It wasn't a fifty fifty proposition or a winning record, it was a decidedly losing record when the game was close!

Factually inaccurate. 9-11 does not qualify as losing "the vast amount of close games"

http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/11/...at-do-connecticuts-close-losses-say-about-the

Connecticut: Last 20 games decided by five points or less

11/17/14 - Stanford 88, Connecticut 86
3/12/13 - Notre Dame 61, Connecticut 59
1/5/13 - Notre Dame 73, Connecticut 72
2/8/12 - St. John's 57, Connecticut 56
12/8/11 - Baylor 66, Connecticut 61
3/27/11 - Connecticut 68, Georgetown 63
1/8/11 - Connecticut 79, Notre Dame 76
11/16/10 - Connecticut 65, Baylor 64
3/1/08 - Connecticut 77, DePaul 76
2/25/08 - Connecticut 74, LSU 69
2/5/08 - Rutgers 73, Connecticut 71
2/11/07 - Connecticut 72, LSU 71
2/3/07 - Connecticut 52, Marquette 48
3/28/06 - Duke 63, Connecticut 61
3/26/06 - Connecticut 77, Georgia 75
2/7/06 - Rutgers 60, Connecticut 56
1/16/06 - Connecticut 51, LSU 48
2/26/05 - Boston College 51, Connecticut 48
1/8/05 - Tennessee 68, Connecticut 67
3/8/04 - Boston College 73, Connecticut 70

Final results: 9-11

 

[Gurleyman]

Factually inaccurate. 9-11 does not qualify as losing "the vast amount of close games" http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/11/...at-do-connecticuts-close-losses-say-about-the Connecticut: Last 20 games decided by five points or less 11/17/14 - Stanford 88, Connecticut 86 3/12/13 - Notre Dame 61, Connecticut 59 1/5/13 - Notre Dame 73, Connecticut 72 2/8/12 - St. John's 57, Connecticut 56 12/8/11 - Baylor 66, Connecticut 61 3/27/11 - Connecticut 68, Georgetown 63 1/8/11 - Connecticut 79, Notre Dame 76 11/16/10 - Connecticut 65, Baylor 64 3/1/08 - Connecticut 77, DePaul 76 2/25/08 - Connecticut 74, LSU 69 2/5/08 - Rutgers 73, Connecticut 71 2/11/07 - Connecticut 72, LSU 71 2/3/07 - Connecticut 52, Marquette 48 3/28/06 - Duke 63, Connecticut 61 3/26/06 - Connecticut 77, Georgia 75 2/7/06 - Rutgers 60, Connecticut 56 1/16/06 - Connecticut 51, LSU 48 2/26/05 - Boston College 51, Connecticut 48 1/8/05 - Tennessee 68, Connecticut 67 3/8/04 - Boston College 73, Connecticut 70 Final results: 9-11

That leaves out 3 overtime losses to Notre Dame by more than 5. Put those in there and you'll see eight straight losses.

 

[rvwsleep]

That leaves out 3 overtime losses to Notre Dame by more than 5. Put those in there and you'll see eight straight losses.

Feel free to compile your own list. I'm using the one provided in the link. If I did include those 3 games that would make 8 in a row. And they won 7 out of the 8 close games played before that. What does that mean to you ?

 

[Icebear]

There is simple solution win every game by 10.

 

[meyers7]

There is simple solution win every game by 10.

Well they did that last year.

 

[LAWard_]

What I take from these statistics is that when we lose a close or OT game it is well noted that the other teams guards have all played great or just simply outplayed our guards.
Worth noting: Dee's a guard, Maya's a guard/forward and Stew is not.
Meaning when we had the best player who was a guard or capable we've won more often than not in those such games

 

[Gurleyman]

Feel free to compile your own list. I'm using the one provided in the link. If I did include those 3 games that would make 8 in a row. And they won 7 out of the 8 close games played before that. What does that mean to you ?

The list you provided somehow doesn't consider a triple overtime game to be close, so it isn't very well thought out. Also, the discussion was about recent games (Since 2011-12), so going back 10 years moved the goalposts.

I would also argue that if someone really wanted to be thorough about analyzing performance under pressure, they'd not just look at the final score. You can easily be in a tie game with 30 seconds to go and lose by six (just takes a few FTs after deliberate fouls), which is clearly a close game. But how to define "close" is non-scientific and open to debate. Personally I'd look at games that were within 5 points in the last two minutes and had legitimate late-game pressure (controlling for outliers such as a couple meaningless threes at the end cutting a comfortable lead down to 5). By that standard, we are 1-10 in our last 11, which clearly isn't very good (the one win was by six over St. John's). But it's an arbitrary standard.

What the numbers mean to me is that winning close games has been a big problem lately and needs fixing. Whether you call it 0-8 and 1-10 or whatever, it's not a good trend. The further back you go and the more data you add, the more likely you are to see a progression toward the mean of a .500 record, but that shouldn't mask that the current trend is bad - if we are in a tight game late in March or April, success in the Renee Montgomery era isn't useful.

 

[rvwsleep]

The list you provided somehow doesn't consider a triple overtime game to be close, so it isn't very well thought out. Also, the discussion was about recent games (Since 2011-12), so going back 10 years moved the goalposts.

I would also argue that if someone really wanted to be thorough about analyzing performance under pressure, they'd not just look at the final score. You can easily be in a tie game with 30 seconds to go and lose by six (just takes a few FTs after deliberate fouls), which is clearly a close game. But how to define "close" is non-scientific and open to debate. Personally I'd look at games that were within 5 points in the last two minutes and had legitimate late-game pressure (controlling for outliers such as a couple meaningless threes at the end cutting a comfortable lead down to 5). By that standard, we are 1-10 in our last 11, which clearly isn't very good (the one win was by six over St. John's). But it's an arbitrary standard.

What the numbers mean to me is that winning close games has been a big problem lately and needs fixing. Whether you call it 0-8 and 1-10 or whatever, it's not a good trend. The further back you go and the more data you add, the more likely you are to see a progression toward the mean of a .500 record, but that shouldn't mask that the current trend is bad - if we are in a tight game late in March or April, success in the Renee Montgomery era isn't useful.

If " The further back you go and the more data you add, the more likely you are to see a progression toward the mean of a .500 record " is accurate, then wouldn't the current trend be considered "a progression toward the mean" starting from the 2011-12 season since previously to that season their record in close games was very good ?

If "success in the Renee Montgomery era isn't useful" when looking at this current team, then let's just look at the seasons under the original discussion, 2011-12, 12-13 and 13-14 seasons.
Did they have a good record in close games in those years ? No. So What ?

2011-12 Made it to the final four
2012-13 A few very tough close losses and a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
2013-14 UNDEFEATED and another NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP

Enlighten me. What was the problem in those years ? That they didn't win more games ? Every game ? Is 2 NC's in 3 years not enough ?

 

[hussybulldog]

RVW, the person who started this topic mainly wanted to point out how well the UConn fared in the close games since 2011-12.(the years without Taurasi or Moore), it was not about how many championships UConn have won or how well the team fared in close games since 2003-2004. Whatever you listed cleared speaks an obvious trend----when Taurasi or Moore was playing, they were able to win most of the close games. Without them, the recent result only shows a string of losses in close games. If you cannot see the problems there, then there is really no need for more discussions.

If " The further back you go and the more data you add, the more likely you are to see a progression toward the mean of a .500 record " is accurate, then wouldn't the current trend be considered "a progression toward the mean" starting from the 2011-12 season since previously to that season their record in close games was very good ?

If "success in the Renee Montgomery era isn't useful" when looking at this current team, then let's just look at the seasons under the original discussion, 2011-12, 12-13 and 13-14 seasons.
Did they have a good record in close games in those years ? No. So What ?

2011-12 Made it to the final four
2012-13 A few very tough close losses and a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
2013-14 UNDEFEATED and another NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP

Enlighten me. What was the problem in those years ? That they didn't win more games ? Every game ? Is 2 NC's in 3 years not enough ?

 

[rvwsleep]

RVW, the person who started this topic mainly wanted to point out how well the UConn fared in the close games since 2011-12.(the years without Taurasi or Moore), it was not about how many championships UConn have won or how well the team fared in close games since 2003-2004. Whatever you listed cleared speaks an obvious trend----when Taurasi or Moore was playing, they were able to win most of the close games. Without them, the recent result only shows a string of losses in close games. If you cannot see the problems there, then there is really no need for more discussions.

I agree, they don't have a good record in close games the last few years. So we're all in agreement. Now what ? What effect did not having a good record in close games have on the team ? If those "problems" were corrected the last 3 years, how would have that changed the results in those years ? What would you like to have seen happen, in the last 3 years, that didn't happen ?

 

[Gurleyman]

I agree, they don't have a good record in close games the last few years. So we're all in agreement. Now what ? What effect did not having a good record in close games have on the team ? If those "problems" were corrected the last 3 years, how would have that changed the results in those years ? What would you like to have seen happen, in the last 3 years, that didn't happen ?

I'm actually looking more at trying to get better for the future than worrying about spilt milk. There is a problem that needs fixing if we want the best possible chance of winning this year. We can't just say we're going to blow everyone out so we don't need to worry about the basic principles of how to manage a close game late according to time/score. We have lost big games (2012 Final Four, 2013 Big East Championship in particular) in part to what I consider to be egregious strategic/mental mistakes, and we had 5 or 6 of those same things happen against Stanford. You can do all the right things and still lose, but when you do the wrong things and lose, you need to get better at doing those things right. That's my answer to "now what?": get better at end game situations (i.e. fix the problem). Resting on past laurels or counting banners doesn't help this team reach its goals.

 

[rvwsleep]

I'm actually looking more at trying to get better for the future than worrying about spilt milk. There is a problem that needs fixing if we want the best possible chance of winning this year. We can't just say we're going to blow everyone out so we don't need to worry about the basic principles of how to manage a close game late according to time/score. We have lost big games (2012 Final Four, 2013 Big East Championship in particular) in part to what I consider to be egregious strategic/mental mistakes, and we had 5 or 6 of those same things happen against Stanford. You can do all the right things and still lose, but when you do the wrong things and lose, you need to get better at doing those things right. That's my answer to "now what?": get better at end game situations (i.e. fix the problem). Resting on past laurels or counting banners doesn't help this team reach its goals.

Now who "moved the goalposts" ? The topic was the poor record in close games recently and now you're not "worrying about spilt milk". In a discussion about the last 3 years your response is "Resting on past laurels or counting banners doesn't help this team reach its goals." And the only question you answered (Now what ?) was one I didn't ask you. On one hand you seem to want to use past results (i.e. poor record in close games) as an indication of what will happen in the future but you want to dismiss one final four and 2 NC's in that same time span. As far as the 2 examples you gave, we didn't have the best team in 2012 and while the Big East Championship loss in 2013 was excruciating, it didn't stop them from winning the NC that year.

 

[HuskyNan]

So, it's a Maya thing. With Maya UConn won big and small. Stewie needs to figure out how to do this.

carl adamec @CarlAdamec · 9h 9 hours ago
UConn 0-8 in games decided by 5 points or less or in OT since Maya Moore graduated. When Maya was in Storrs, UConn was 5-1 in such games

What about Kaleena? She's the senior.

 

[Icebear]

Kaleena should be stepping up. She seemed rather quiet against Stanford.

 

[rvwsleep]

A final summation on this thread of my viewpoint of the topic of UConn having a poor record in close games over the last few years.
If the last 3 year's results in close games are an indication of how they will do in close games this year, then shouldn't the end results in those 3 years (one FF and two NC's) be an indication of how this season will end also ?
As asked in an earlier post about the results of the last 3 years "What was the problem in those years ? That they didn't win more games ? Every game ? Is 2 NC's in 3 years not enough ?
I find this concern about a poor record in close games the last 3 years to be much ado about nothing.
Personally, I don't think what happened in 2011-12 is any indication of what will happen this year. Shouldn't how they did last year should be a stronger indication to how they will do this year then a season 3 years ago ? And look how that comparison is going so far. There are just too many changes in personnel to draw conclusions from how they did 3 years ago. Because of the constant turnover in personnel in WCBB, I take each season on it's own merit. This year's team is quite different from last year's team much less a team from 3 years ago.
Now to this season. Did UConn play well at the end of the Stanford game ? No. Are the coaches cognizant of how they played at the end of the game and are they doing whatever possible to prevent it from happening again ? I'm sure they are. Is it a cause for ongoing concern ? Possibly, though I prefer to wait to see how they do in the next couple of games against ranked teams before drawing any conclusions.