diggerfoot
Humanity Hiker
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,552
- Reaction Score
- 8,707
I should have posted this after the Villanova loss, but life gets in the way. Currently, things look promising regardless of the past but, for those with a pessimistic inclination, there are a few precedents from the past that offer promise for the future.
The first already has been brought up by me and others. Tennessee once lost 10 games yet ended up National Champions. They lost 10 games because of injuries. They won the championship because their injured point guard came back in time for the tournament. This has been covered already, enough said.
Each year we always have enough talent and good coaching, but two things that can be obstacles regardless are bad chemistry, where the whole is less than the sum of the parts, and the lack of players who thrive in the big moment. You can have all top five recruits and still lack those things, in which case a championship also will be lacking. The second promising precedent happened in 2000, where two highly ranked recruits out of high school and former starters, Sauer and Hansmeyer, willingly went to the bench and yet chemistry was preserved. This contrasted with the very next year, where chemistry problems did occur, and the most loaded class on record failed to play up to its potential even when everyone was available.
This year is like 2000 in that Westbrook, once a highly ranked recruit and former starter, has embraced coming off the bench. The chemistry in general seems to be excellent as we head into post season play, even with all the players who deserve starters minutes. We appear to be more like 2000 than 2001 heading into tournament play.
The other promising precedent to me is what I saw occur in the first Depaul game, but first a little background. In the first year of Stewart's championship reign there was a site that measured offensive and defensive efficiencies, as well as turnovers and fouls, in addition to the traditional stats. I had that page on bookmark but, alas, I do not think it exists now. The site showed that we were the best team in the nation in terms of combined offensive and defensive efficiencies. Notre Dame was up there with us in terms of offensive efficiency, but a bit below us on the defensive side. However, Notre Dame with the experienced Skylar Diggins, et al, were distinctly better than us at turnovers and fouls or, in other words, made fewer mistakes than us.
I predicted that year, based on these stats, that Notre Dame was more likely to win the close tournament games, while we were more likely to win a game handily. Both those predictions played out when Notre Dame beat us for the third time that year in the Big East tournament, yet we won handily in the NCAAs. I, um, may have made that prediction after we already lost in the Big East tournament and was providing a consoling thought, but as I remember it now I made this astoundingly on point prediction before both tournaments.
A look at the stats after the Depaul game showed us ahead in virtually every category except turnovers and fouls. The game was much closer than it should have been but, unlike with Notre Dame during those dark years, we still won the close one. Since the Bueckers era began we know that both Bueckers and Ducharme are capable of winning the game at the end (Fudd may be capable as well, but has not proven it yet).
This Depaul game is promising because our mistakes are likely to decline with the experience gained throughout the year, just as they did in 2012-2013. We are already witnessing that. Yet even should we get into a close game, we have at least two and maybe three players that can rise to the pressure packed big moment. We have not had that for awhile, not during the recent "drought," and perhaps not even during the Stewart years when we won most games by large margins but lost a few close ones to Notre Dame, Stanford and I believe Baylor during that time.
So you can take these promising precedents to heart ... or you can just watch the last few games. In either case, hope is in the air.
The first already has been brought up by me and others. Tennessee once lost 10 games yet ended up National Champions. They lost 10 games because of injuries. They won the championship because their injured point guard came back in time for the tournament. This has been covered already, enough said.
Each year we always have enough talent and good coaching, but two things that can be obstacles regardless are bad chemistry, where the whole is less than the sum of the parts, and the lack of players who thrive in the big moment. You can have all top five recruits and still lack those things, in which case a championship also will be lacking. The second promising precedent happened in 2000, where two highly ranked recruits out of high school and former starters, Sauer and Hansmeyer, willingly went to the bench and yet chemistry was preserved. This contrasted with the very next year, where chemistry problems did occur, and the most loaded class on record failed to play up to its potential even when everyone was available.
This year is like 2000 in that Westbrook, once a highly ranked recruit and former starter, has embraced coming off the bench. The chemistry in general seems to be excellent as we head into post season play, even with all the players who deserve starters minutes. We appear to be more like 2000 than 2001 heading into tournament play.
The other promising precedent to me is what I saw occur in the first Depaul game, but first a little background. In the first year of Stewart's championship reign there was a site that measured offensive and defensive efficiencies, as well as turnovers and fouls, in addition to the traditional stats. I had that page on bookmark but, alas, I do not think it exists now. The site showed that we were the best team in the nation in terms of combined offensive and defensive efficiencies. Notre Dame was up there with us in terms of offensive efficiency, but a bit below us on the defensive side. However, Notre Dame with the experienced Skylar Diggins, et al, were distinctly better than us at turnovers and fouls or, in other words, made fewer mistakes than us.
I predicted that year, based on these stats, that Notre Dame was more likely to win the close tournament games, while we were more likely to win a game handily. Both those predictions played out when Notre Dame beat us for the third time that year in the Big East tournament, yet we won handily in the NCAAs. I, um, may have made that prediction after we already lost in the Big East tournament and was providing a consoling thought, but as I remember it now I made this astoundingly on point prediction before both tournaments.
A look at the stats after the Depaul game showed us ahead in virtually every category except turnovers and fouls. The game was much closer than it should have been but, unlike with Notre Dame during those dark years, we still won the close one. Since the Bueckers era began we know that both Bueckers and Ducharme are capable of winning the game at the end (Fudd may be capable as well, but has not proven it yet).
This Depaul game is promising because our mistakes are likely to decline with the experience gained throughout the year, just as they did in 2012-2013. We are already witnessing that. Yet even should we get into a close game, we have at least two and maybe three players that can rise to the pressure packed big moment. We have not had that for awhile, not during the recent "drought," and perhaps not even during the Stewart years when we won most games by large margins but lost a few close ones to Notre Dame, Stanford and I believe Baylor during that time.
So you can take these promising precedents to heart ... or you can just watch the last few games. In either case, hope is in the air.
