Closing Ability

[8893]

I have to be honest, I think you're really reaching here

Perhaps. I can only go by what I see, and you and I frequently see things differently. I may have mentioned this before, but I find it interesting that your bias in professional sports is very much pro-player and anti-coach, anti-management; whereas your bias for UConn hoops is very much pro-Hurley and lamenting poor execution by the players.

Did you read the book btw?

What do you make of the burning sage? Putting garlic in the corners? The yoga and mediation all seem of a part to me. I think it’s actually more healthy mentally, but it does seem to take an edge off, too, for better or worse.

 

[navery12]

Perhaps. I can only go by what I see, and you and I frequently see things differently. I may have mentioned this before, but I find it interesting that your bias in professional sports is very much pro-player and anti-coach, anti-management; whereas your bias for UConn hoops is very much pro-Hurley and lamenting poor execution by the players.

Did you read the book btw?

What do you make of the burning sage? Putting garlic in the corners? The yoga and mediation all seem of a part to me. I think it’s actually more healthy mentally, but it does seem to take an edge off, too, for better or worse.

That is interesting, hadn't really thought about that before. Although I think in both cases I think it really stems from the same thing and the overstated importantance of coaches. College basketball is definitely a lot more important than when we talk Mets, but at the end of the day I put a lot of stock in players execution. I wouldn't even really say I'm pro-Hurley, he has a ton of things he needs to work on. I just think people here look past all the obvious actual faults he has and start creating false narratives. I find the idea that he doesn't care about winning to be borderline insane.

I haven't read the book, don't really buy all the meditation and burning sage. It works for people and Dan seems to be one of them, so to each their own. But not something I'd ever use in my personal life

 

[8893]

That is interesting, hadn't really thought about that before. Although I think in both cases I think it really stems from the same thing and the overstated importantance of coaches. College basketball is definitely a lot more important than when we talk Mets, but at the end of the day I put a lot of stock in players execution. I wouldn't even really say I'm pro-Hurley, he has a ton of things he needs to work on. I just think people here look past all the obvious actual faults he has and start creating false narratives. I find the idea that he doesn't care about winning to be borderline insane.

I haven't read the book, don't really buy all the meditation and burning sage. It works for people and Dan seems to be one of them, so to each their own. But not something I'd ever use in my personal life

It’s not not caring about winning; it’s giving up the focus on the result when you are happy with your process. That seemed to be the point of the book—one he apparently thought important enough that he assigned it to the whole team and had them sit in a circle and discuss it.

I read it in one afternoon at the beach. Very repetitive and not very well written, but it makes its point effectively. It probably could have been made just as effectively and more efficiently as an email, pamphlet or inspirational poster.

 

[navery12]

It’s not not caring about winning; it’s giving up the focus on the result when you are happy with your process. That seemed to be the point of the book—one he apparently thought important enough that he assigned it to the whole team and had them sit in a circle and discuss it.

I read it in one afternoon at the beach. Very repetitive and not very well written, but it makes its point effectively. It probably could have been made just as effectively and more efficiently as an email, pamphlet or inspirational poster.

I guess this is maybe where I'm not understanding where you're coming from. I don't think him saying the process is good means he doesn't care about the end result of winning games. It means he thinks if they keep following the process that the wins will come.

I think there's plenty of room for discussion on whether the process is working in certain areas like end of game situations or not switching to zone defense for stretches. But the idea that Dan saying the overall process is working (and based on the trajectory of the 4 years it's hard to argue against that) means he doesn't care about wins just doesn't hold up for me

 

[tennmike]

Watching what he does and listening to what he says.

Yesterday specifically, his demeanor down the stretch looked to me like he was coaching an early season exhibition game. He didn’t seem intense or focused on the details. I’m not discounting the power of suggestion, but right around that time the announcers were discussing who “needed” the game more, UConn or Seton Hall; and as they concluded that Seton Hall was in the more dire position, they showed Willard. By contrast to Hurley’s demeanor, Willard looked very dissatisfied and very concerned about the details. It was just a moment in time, but it made me focus on Hurley after that and it looked to me that he kept the same demeanor all the way through the handshake at the end. Never seemed to have a sense of urgency. Not the sitting Geno treatment we’ve seen when Geno seems to let the team lose a close one down the stretch so they learn how to win on their own, but more of a “hey that was a good showing no matter the result.”

And then in the postgame he romanticized the loss again, as he has the others, and beat a different version of his “undefeated when healthy” drum. For the last three seasons it was the carpenter narrative and how bad the program was when he took over; this season it’s “a few bounces away from the top five.” I get that it’s a sales job and they’re successful pitches with willing consumers, and I have been one. But at some point you need better results and that point is different for different people.

And Danny is very sensitive about results. That’s why he develops the counter-narrative. He is very much a process guy; more than I appreciated. And I think he Is trying to work more and more on accepting results when he thinks his process is sound, because there are many times when you can’t control the results, but you can always control the process. That’s basically the theme of Chop Wood, Carry Water, the book Hurley made the whole team read before his first season here. I read it then, too; and I can see how he instills that principle. In his case, it’s more like “play defense, get rebounds.”

In general I think it’s a smart and healthy approach, and one that I‘ve tried to incorporate in my own world because dwelling on results you can’t control can be unhealthy. But when some of the same problems keep leading to those results, I think you need to re-examine your process, and I don’t know if Hurley is doing that.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but disagree with the premise. Edwards Deming, the father of the process perspective, espoused continuous improvement. Sticking to a process without correcting/acknowledging difficiencies is an excercise in futility.

 

[8893]

I guess this is maybe where I'm not understanding where you're coming from. I don't think him saying the process is good means he doesn't care about the end result of winning games. It means he thinks if they keep following the process that the wins will come.

I think there's plenty of room for discussion on whether the process is working in certain areas like end of game situations or not switching to zone defense for stretches. But the idea that Dan saying the overall process is working (and based on the trajectory of the 4 years it's hard to argue against that) means he doesn't care about wins just doesn't hold up for me

I think he cares about the individual results, but he doesn’t attach the importance to them that many of us do—or that many other coaches do. Again, it’s a healthier mindset in general and we are in agreement that the trajectory is good.

But I am spoiled by Calhoun’s drive, which I understand is unfair. And, being fair, Calhoun himself made a whole lot of excuses before 1999 and complained about how it’s always a crapshoot to get to the Final Four—until he won three of the four he made.

Maybe it’s immature and unproductive on my part, but I just would have liked to have seen more of a sense of urgency and more of a plan down the stretch the Providence and Seton Hall games, and more frustration with the losses afterwards. I mean, he and our AD literally made t-shirts mocking Providence as our pesky little brother and they came here and punched us in the mouth. His response? “Hey, there are going to be 18 more of these. Good battle.” And Seton Hall is old home for him. All his family and friends were there. We let it slip away down the stretch and he’s selling “a couple bounces away from the top five” in the aftermath, instead of examining how he might have changed some of the things that led to those “bounces.”

 

[8893]

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but disagree with the premise. Edwards Deming, the father of the process perspective, espoused continuous improvement. Sticking to a process without correcting/acknowledging difficiencies is an excercise in futility.

I agree! That’s why I ended by saying that it’s not clear to me that Hurley is doing that, because I haven’t heard him acknowledge any deficiencies in his process. Or even entertain the possibility.

 

[navery12]

I think he cares about the individual results, but he doesn’t attach the importance to them that many of us do—or that many other coaches do. Again, it’s a healthier mindset in general and we are in agreement that the trajectory is good.

But I am spoiled by Calhoun’s drive, which I understand is unfair. And, being fair, Calhoun himself made a whole lot of excuses before 1999 and complained about how it’s always a crapshoot to get to the Final Four—until he won three of the four he made.

Maybe it’s immature and unproductive on my part, but I just would have liked to have seen more of a sense of urgency and more of a plan down the stretch the Providence and Seton Hall games, and more frustration with the losses afterwards. I mean, he and our AD literally made t-shirts mocking Providence as our pesky little brother and they came here and punched us in the mouth. His response? “Hey, there are going to be 18 more of these. Good battle.” And Seton Hall is old home for him. All his family and friends were there. We let it slip away down the stretch and he’s selling “a couple bounces away from the top five” in the aftermath, instead of examining how he might have changed some of the things that led to those “bounces.”

All fair points, and I don't really disagree with any of them. I just don't put a ton of stock in his press conferences, I wouldn't expect him to publicly talk about what he would have changed but as long as he's looking at them internally I have no issues. And I think we as fans just tend to harp on what's not being changed to our liking and turning a blind eye to what does change.

But I think the part in bold is the biggest disconnect I have with the majority of the board. I became a UConn fan in 2013 so just come in with a different mindset than everyone else who lived through the peak Calhoun years.

 

[alphasigko]

@navery12 and @8893: great debate with excellent points made by each. I lean to agreeing with @8893, but can see where @navery12 is coming from.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

It's as easy as ABC...

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

Hurley has it heading in the right direction for sure. He’s absolutely raised the floor of the program and public perception of it, that was huge. Now that we’ve seen some success, we’re hungry for more, it just might take a bit longer to get there. There have been a bunch of coaches that it took “awhile” to really get things to that next level. May take him a few new recruiting classes to see that through, it can be a bit of trial and error. He’s made some nice adjustments, so my hope is in a few years time, it’s at a place where UConn is a consistent top 15ish team.

Recruiting will definitely be huge… not really a fan of these transfer guards long term. RJ Cole has been outstanding this year but for us to get to the next level we need the guys we recruit to be our best players. Kind of want to see how we’d do if guys like Diggins, Gaffney, Hawk, and AJ were the leaders and forced to step up given their talent level.

 

[husky429]

It’s not not caring about winning; it’s giving up the focus on the result when you are happy with your process. That seemed to be the point of the book—one he apparently thought important enough that he assigned it to the whole team and had them sit in a circle and discuss it.

I read it in one afternoon at the beach. Very repetitive and not very well written, but it makes its point effectively. It probably could have been made just as effectively and more efficiently as an email, pamphlet or inspirational poster.

1) Hurley cares about winning--period. He's just giving lip service to try to keep it positive with the press.

2) Yeah, that book (as well as his others) are pretty awful. It's a pretty bland and obvious argument made for people that look for inspiration in a palatable form instead of thinking for themselves. It's intellectually pretty juvenile... which probably makes it perfect for a group of college kids, lol.

 

[Get a Job]

1) Hurley cares about winning--period. He's just giving lip service to try to keep it positive with the press.

2) Yeah, that book (as well as his others) are pretty awful. It's a pretty bland and obvious argument made for people that look for inspiration in a palatable form instead of thinking for themselves. It's intellectually pretty juvenile... which probably makes it perfect for a group of college kids, lol.

What book are we talking about here? I scanned the previous posts and didn't see it referred to anything other than "the book."

 

[Get a Job]

Recruiting will definitely be huge… not really a fan of these transfer guards long term. RJ Cole has been outstanding this year but for us to get to the next level we need the guys we recruit to be our best players. Kind of want to see how we’d do if guys like Diggins, Gaffney, Hawk, and AJ were the leaders and forced to step up given their talent level.

Why? Just curious as to what your reasoning is.

 

[Huskybass]

Gaffney just is not a point guard, at all. His style of bringing the ball up the court does not suggest attack mode at all. He looks like he is simply trying not to turn it over, rather than putting pressure on the D. I think Gaffney would be great if his role was limited to backup 2 guard, but he certainly isn't comfortable when asked to run the team. We are left to wonder how much Diggins could have helped this team in late game situations since he has been glued to the bench, despite having a skillset that would likely helped in a few of those close losses.

Guard play is still huge in college basketball, too bad we haven't adequately developed anyone to help Cole out with point guard duties.

 

[mussels]

I think he cares about the individual results, but he doesn’t attach the importance to them that many of us do—or that many other coaches do. Again, it’s a healthier mindset in general and we are in agreement that the trajectory is good.

But I am spoiled by Calhoun’s drive, which I understand is unfair. And, being fair, Calhoun himself made a whole lot of excuses before 1999 and complained about how it’s always a crapshoot to get to the Final Four—until he won three of the four he made.

Maybe it’s immature and unproductive on my part, but I just would have liked to have seen more of a sense of urgency and more of a plan down the stretch the Providence and Seton Hall games, and more frustration with the losses afterwards. I mean, he and our AD literally made t-shirts mocking Providence as our pesky little brother and they came here and punched us in the mouth. His response? “Hey, there are going to be 18 more of these. Good battle.” And Seton Hall is old home for him. All his family and friends were there. We let it slip away down the stretch and he’s selling “a couple bounces away from the top five” in the aftermath, instead of examining how he might have changed some of the things that led to those “bounces.”

Not clear what you want him to do. He had a plan and it didn't work. I equate "showing a sense of urgency" with getting uptight which just makes the players uptight at the worst possible time, and shows however subtly that you don't think you will win. As far as "showing frustration" publicly after losses, no matter how you do it, it will come across as criticizing your players in a public forum. Exactly the wrong thing to do.

Hurly didn't get where he is today (and get us where we are) by being content with losses. Guarantee he is analyzing the breakdown with the team and practicing for the next one. Hopefully we get a better result. If we do, chop wood, carry water. If we don't chop wood, carry water.

 

[husky429]

What book are we talking about here? I scanned the previous posts and didn't see it referred to anything other than "the book."

Chop Wood, Carry Water. Hurley had the team read it 2 summers ago, I believe.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Have we discussed the strategy of playing for just one shot at the end with 30 left on the clock and down 1? This theoretically gives you a 50% chance of winning, but know what we know about our execution AND knowing Cole is out this was the fail IMO. UConn needed to inbound the ball and immediately drive to the hoop - that gives us a 50% chance of scoring and an expected value of 1pt on the board = tie game or lead OR chance to foul and have enough time on the clock to make a 3pter. Down 1 IMMEDIATELY attacking the basket or trying to score was the best strategy to win or force 2OT. Plus that attack mentality avoids the deer in the headlights no one wants to shoot problem that the team faces anyways.

 

[Kenny11]

Have we discussed the strategy of playing for just one shot at the end with 30 left on the clock and down 1? This theoretically gives you a 50% chance of winning, but know what we know about our execution AND knowing Cole is out this was the fail IMO. UConn needed to inbound the ball and immediately drive to the hoop - that gives us a 50% chance of scoring and an expected value of 1pt on the board = tie game or lead OR chance to foul and have enough time on the clock to make a 3pter. Down 1 IMMEDIATELY attacking the basket or trying to score was the best strategy to win or force 2OT. Plus that attack mentality avoids the deer in the headlights no one wants to shoot problem that the team faces anyways.

Yes, and we are a good offensive rebounding team. We could have gotten a rebound with a putback or a chance for an extra possession of the rebound was longer.

 

[uconngb]

Have we discussed the strategy of playing for just one shot at the end with 30 left on the clock and down 1? This theoretically gives you a 50% chance of winning, but know what we know about our execution AND knowing Cole is out this was the fail IMO. UConn needed to inbound the ball and immediately drive to the hoop - that gives us a 50% chance of scoring and an expected value of 1pt on the board = tie game or lead OR chance to foul and have enough time on the clock to make a 3pter. Down 1 IMMEDIATELY attacking the basket or trying to score was the best strategy to win or force 2OT. Plus that attack mentality avoids the deer in the headlights no one wants to shoot problem that the team faces anyways.

That's a good point.......but actually, THIS team's ability to execute on a final shot is actually far less than 50%. So your point is even more valid.

 

[auror]

Have we discussed the strategy of playing for just one shot at the end with 30 left on the clock and down 1? This theoretically gives you a 50% chance of winning, but know what we know about our execution AND knowing Cole is out this was the fail IMO. UConn needed to inbound the ball and immediately drive to the hoop - that gives us a 50% chance of scoring and an expected value of 1pt on the board = tie game or lead OR chance to foul and have enough time on the clock to make a 3pter. Down 1 IMMEDIATELY attacking the basket or trying to score was the best strategy to win or force 2OT. Plus that attack mentality avoids the deer in the headlights no one wants to shoot problem that the team faces anyways.

Opens up the chance where you score a 2-pointer and still lose. Puts your odds to win lower. You always want to have the last shot with chance to win (rather than max out at chance to tie with 3).

 

[CL82]

This is how you get bounced out of the tournament, quickly.

Glad we didn’t go after Kadary that hard in the off season. Lol.

Year 4 and still climbing that mountain.

Kadary (or “Larry“ as my phone wants to call him) would have been perfect for this team. Seton had the advantage of recruiting him hard in high school, but I have to believe we would have had a pretty good chance.

 

[alphasigko]

Kadary (or “Larry“ as my phone wants to call him) would have been perfect for this team. Seton had the advantage of recruiting him hard in high school, but I have to believe we would have had a pretty good chance.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda!

 

[Dogdeacon]

Opens up the chance where you score a 2-pointer and still lose. Puts your odds to win lower. You always want to have the last shot with chance to win (rather than max out at chance to tie with 3).

You are 100% right statistically, but again knowing what we know about the team and with Cole gone, there was probably less than a 50% chance of a shot ATTEMPT after running down the clock. Our best hope with that strategy given our team was a lucky heave. Again if you are an NBA team that can execute that woulda been the right strategy. For UConn every 1 second that ticked off reduced our odds of even taking a shot.

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

Why? Just curious as to what your reasoning is.

Our teams lead by transfers usually don't turn out the best over the years it seems. Whether it was Gibbs taking time from JA, Rodney being one of our best players for awhile, etc. They usually don't have the same "potential" as our own recruits. Like RJ has been doing a lot of the heavy lifting this year but he's shooting under 40% from the field. For all his consistency Gaffney still is the better talent and I'm kind of curious to see what he'd be with more consistent responsibility. Anytime we'd ask him to shoulder a load he seemed to do well with it (freshman year, UMD game).

Also wonder how Jackson and Hawkins would play if we consistently had to lean on them to score rather than deferring to our transfers who doesn't have the talent they do. Just the experience and consistency.