What Muffet McGraw Did... or Didn't Do | Page 2 | The Boneyard

What Muffet McGraw Did... or Didn't Do

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who else remembers NC State's unlikely run to the NCAAB National Championship in 1983? They always implemented the fouling strategy if they were down late in the game. They sprung several upsets during that tournament; most notably against Houston and Phi Slamma Jamma in the championship game.
 
cockhrnleghrn said:
Who else remembers NC State's unlikely run to the NCAAB National Championship in 1983? They always implemented the fouling strategy if they were down late in the game. They sprung several upsets during that tournament; most notably against Houston and Phi Slamma Jamma in the championship game.

Yep- the game's never over. His run through the ACC and the NCAA tourney was not unlike Kemba Walker's UConn squad in 2011. In any event, the excellent 30 for 30 Survive and Advance covers Jimmy V's run in '83. Available on Netflix to any subscriber.

I'm not sure why Muffet didn't try at all, but I was about to have a heart attack had that game been extended. Maybe she was just trying a to save some lives by letting the game end mercifully in favor of the deserving national champions. :)
 
Yep- the game's never over. His run through the ACC and the NCAA tourney was not unlike Kemba Walker's UConn squad in 2011. In any event, the excellent 30 for 30 Survive and Advance covers Jimmy V's run in '83. Available on Netflix to any subscriber.

I'm not sure why Muffet didn't try at all, but I was about to have a heart attack had that game been extended. Maybe she was just trying a to save some lives by letting the game end mercifully in favor of the deserving national champions. :)
For sure, I mean the Reds are 19 games out in the NL Central and Baseball Prospectuts gives them an 0.1% chance of making the playoffs, so if I'm the GM I trade away any future prospects for a will-o'-the-wisp shot at getting in, because fighting to the end against all sense and all odds is the American Way, as we learned from Hoosiers and a bunch of other stories that supposedly come true most of the time. Looking valiant right now is all that matters.

Sure, heap praise on those who those who throw themselves at true 1000-1 odds and who don't mind spitting against a 100-mph wind. Every hundred years or so they run into a team that wants to give them the football to run into the end zone. Don't think any of Geno's teams will be in that category in an NC game, but if you want to think so, whatever.
 
UConn plays great defense, ND wouldve had to score baskets and hope UConn missed FT's... too much of a gamble. Coach M did the right thing
 
Hrynko was actually a 69% FT shooter last season, and was 67% for her college career. I have been told by a learned BY poster that you have to shoot 80% to be an acceptable FT shooter
I remember that thread, it gave UCONN 8 (eight) acceptable FT shooters in their history. :rolleyes:
 
That game was weird. We really couldn't get separation from them, but I was never particularly worried.
 
.-.
I remember that thread, it gave UCONN 8 (eight) acceptable FT shooters in their history. :rolleyes:
Well, yes, and most of us just have very low standards, and UConn would likely have a few more NCs if that lax coach of theirs enforced an "80% FT mark or you don't play" rule. As the learned pundit noted in his defense of the 80% mark, FTs are FREE, so you have no excuse for missing ANY. Personally, I'm always a little wary of free stuff and only accept them more like 60% of the time in recreational play.
 
For what's it's worth, as an Irish fan I was happy that McGraw chose not to foul.

Additionally, a few thoughts:
1. What's the scenario for ND to win? Foul. UConn misses, make a 3, foul, UConn misses, make a 3, foul, UConn misses, make a 3. Do all that successfully (and in less than 93 seconds) and you're still down 1!. You still need another foul, more misses and to score again to win.
2. Fouling late when down double digits makes you look delusional, and (in my opinion) like a poor sport.
3. At that point, ND did not want to delay the inevitable. They wanted to be off that court ASAP.
 
I also found this strange as in an earlier game that year against DePaul Muffet utilized the foul defense. They were losing by eight points with less then minute and a half left in the game. Notre Dame fouled and DePaul kept missing their free throws which allowed Notre Dame to tie the game and eventually win it in overtime.

Your memory of that game is not accurate. See play-by-play here: http://espn.go.com/ncw/playbyplay?gameId=400588201

The most ND trailed by in the final 90 seconds was 2.

Notre Dame didn't start fouling until 22 seconds left. Hyrnko missed the front end of a 1-and-1 and got her own rebound. Then missed again. Loyd got the rebound and was fouled on the ensuing play. Loyd made both and tied the game. Hrynko drew a foul with 2 seconds left on the next possession, then (with DePaul now in the double bonus) missed both.

The end of overtime was similarly farcical. ND trailed by 1 with 21 seconds left. ND fouled. Rogowski missed both but got the rebound. ND fouled again. Now Hyrnko missed two more but again Rogowski got the board. Hyrnko missed two more and finally Reimer got the rebound. Loyd drew a foul and made the go ahead free throws. As time expired, Hyrnko missed a tough layup attempt and ND (somehow) prevailed.

Very different game from the NC.
 
If you make it to the championship game in any sport you don't know if you'll ever be back in the position to win it all again. Muffet's been there the last four of five but there is no guarentee that SC, Baylor, Lousville, UCONN, Tennessee, Duke won't keep her from getting back there in the future.

Dan Marino got to the Super Bowl in his first year in the league and after Miami lost everyone said not to worry he'd be back to try again. Griner arguably the most unique force in WCBB over the last twenty years only got to play for a NC once.

I like Muffet (despite her idiotic statements about Geno). and I think that she'll have ND right there competing for the near future, but she was standing on the sideline with a card to play, a longshot, but a chance, and she looked away and acquiesced.

I'm happy we won, and I'm glad no one got hurt in a mad frenetic scramble in those last 93 seconds, but if I'm rooting for ND I want to see my team diving for the ball, my bigs knocking Stewie down in the paint, my guards fouling anyone who has the rock, and then hoping when we get it back that Jewell hits four or five threes in a minute and a half, and that we walk out of the gym as shockingly as the way that their men did when they stopped UCLA's 88 game winning streak.

Improbable of course, impossible very likely, but I'd rather see my team leave the court bloodied in a twenty point loss than unruffled in a polite ten point defeat.

Maybe Muffet wins three or four more championships, but maybe Davis, Wilson, Durr, Deshields, Collier and the many more to follow keep her from ever standing where she was that night last April when she had a chance to "throw everything she had" at the Huskies, but didn't.
 
Has anyone commenting here actually looked at the last 1:33 of the game with ND down 10? From the sound of things it appears that a lot of posters think that ND just backed off and started lining up for a run to the locker room, when they should have been bombing the 3s and trying desperately to win the game.

Actually, after Mabry hit the 3 at 1:34 to draw the Irish to 10, they did shoot a bunch of 3s, including two with more than a minute left. MoJeff helped them out by missing a layup with 10 seconds left on the shot clock and later turning the ball over, as UConn did not score for the final 2:38.

So the Irish go 0-3 on the threes that everyone is proposing as the weapon that Loyd and Allen will use to somehow fight the 500-1 odds of making up a 10 point deficit, and meanwhile they hold UConn scoreless for more than 2 1/2 minutes. But yet there are those who say that Muffett just threw in the towel.

Okay, I get that some fans love to see foul-filled fight-to-the-bitter-end conclusions to games, but please tell me how you make up a 10 point lead if your 3-pters don't go down? And why is a coach a spiritless quitter if she sees that the last-minute shots aren't falling for her exhausted players and says enough's enough, you don't have to chase down MoJeff and tackle her? I'm sorry but you just can't will those 4-4 on 3-pters to happen to satisfy your fantasies of a comeback. They just didn't happen.
 
We should have another poll with the following as the litmus test. Was the fact that ND decided not to foul in the last minute the optimal strategy in order to win the game ?
I was ecstatic that they choose not to foul. As slim a chance as they had if they did foul, there was NO chance when they decided to let the clock run.
 
.-.
For what's it's worth, as an Irish fan I was happy that McGraw chose not to foul.

Additionally, a few thoughts:
1. What's the scenario for ND to win? Foul. UConn misses, make a 3, foul, UConn misses, make a 3, foul, UConn misses, make a 3. Do all that successfully (and in less than 93 seconds) and you're still down 1!. You still need another foul, more misses and to score again to win.
2. Fouling late when down double digits makes you look delusional, and (in my opinion) like a poor sport.
3. At that point, ND did not want to delay the inevitable. They wanted to be off that court ASAP.
As A fan of WCBB and “occasional” defender of McGraw (it’s a Philly thing) I was disappointed that she chose not to foul primarily because this was the National Championship game -IMO you go down swinging. As much as I was disappointed in the last 1.5 minutes of the game I was more disappointed in her management of the last 6:30 of the NC game. Briana Turner hit a bank shot at the 6:30 mark to bring ND to within 6. That turner shot attempt was the last shot attempt by a ND post player. Even more inexplicably, Turner was subbed out at 5:51 until 4:06 during which time the UCONN lead went from 6 to 11 points. I’m sorry but I’m not taking Turner out of the NC game at that point.
 
We should have another poll with the following as the litmus test. Was the fact that ND decided not to foul in the last minute the optimal strategy in order to win the game ?
I was ecstatic that they choose not to foul. As slim a chance as they had if they did foul, there was NO chance when they decided to let the clock run.
Not even close. There have been many last minute turnarounds, even last half minute turnarounds that have been fueled by steals and turnovers that probably never would have occurred if the opponent was sent endlessly to the FT line. How are you sure that their is NO chance for ND when eschewing the fouling has been a staple of many late comebacks?

Take guys game, Miami vs VA in 2011 ACC. VA up by 10 with 37 seconds left. Miami hits a 3, 2 missed VA FTs, Miami hits a 3, VA TO, Miami gets a 2, VA TO, Miami ties it with a 2, VA TO, Miami misses at end of regulation but wins in OT. So just one foul and pressure defense in 37 seconds that results in turnovers for a chance to win in regulation.

Now if old Rip Van Hurricane is sleeping at the game and wakes up with 37 seconds to go, he's yelling "Foul on every inbound!" to the Miami coach, and then who knows what happens, and maybe no comeback. So no, NO does not mean NO when talking about comeback opportunities in basketball.

But again, the big difference between 2011 men's Miami and 2015 women's ND is that the Hurricanes went 4-5 in 37 seconds, and the Irish went 0-3 in that last 1:33. Can't come back if you can't score.
 
And to be fair to Muffet, she did use the "go down fouling" strategy for a while in the 2014 NC when ND was down by just 21 with a little over a minute to play. I guess she decided that fouling was the only salvation, especially with UConn reserves in, and two quick fouls and some misses by Kiah sliced the lead all the way down to 19 with a full 54 seconds to go, and surely anything was possible. But Brianna Banks sliced in for a layup and Muffett wimped out on the fouling the rest of the way. Probably scarred her thinking for 2015, but if teams can make up 10 points in a half minute, surely ND could have made up double that amount in double the time against UConn in 2014, and of course 2015 should have been a piece of cake.
 
It's just realistic.

Here's a basketball win probably calculator. Yes, it's for the NBA but basketball is basketball. With 1:30 left, a 10-point deficit, and the other team having possession, there is a 1 in 500 chance the trailing team will win the game. And that 1 time? It's not going to happen against UConn, is it?

I give her credit for having a sense of the moment and just letting the game end.
 
ND trailed by 8 points at the half. They were further out with a little over 1 minute left. Muffett did the right thing. They could not narrow the gap (8 points) in over 19 minutes, how were they going to get pass UConn in 1+ minute (10 points)?
They were missing everything at the time and it could get real ugly very fast.

But you try, rather than go gracefully. If sports teaches us something, it is to not give up.

She gave up. It is as simple as that.
 
Who else remembers NC State's unlikely run to the NCAAB National Championship in 1983? They always implemented the fouling strategy if they were down late in the game. They sprung several upsets during that tournament; most notably against Houston and Phi Slamma Jamma in the championship game.

"You don't play to win. You play to be in the position to win." Jimmy V

Sorry if this offends, but what is this 'lose with dignity' thinking.

"Don't give up. Don't ever give up." Jimmy V
 
.-.
But you try, rather than go gracefully. If sports teaches us something, it is to not give up.

She gave up. It is as simple as that.

She didn't give up. She didn't think that fouling was the best way to win. Fouling works only when the other team can't make the FTs and your players can make the three's. Well, ND could not hit 3's and UConn made their FT's. End of story.
 
But you try, rather than go gracefully. If sports teaches us something, it is to not give up.

She gave up. It is as simple as that.
Wow is this getting silly. So the answer is always just to keep playing no matter what? Forget that custom of dribbling away the last 29 seconds "when the game is won" because lordy lordy the losing team always has a chance if teams can come back from 10 down with 37 seconds to go. Never give up, never give in, never say die, never concede, never throw in the towel, play to the last second, don't surrender, you always have a chance.

Well, no, you don't, and it's ludicrous for a Texas to just start fouling the Huskies down 52 with 2 minutes left because you never say die. Where the point of "cannot come back" is varies according to the circumstances, but it fades to oblivion when you are facing UConn instead of jittery ball handlers and poor FT shooting nervous Nellies. And just because some fans have a clueless notion that you always foul when down at the end of a game even if the team is an excellent shooting FT team, coaches don't have to cater to it. Both John Calipari and Muffet McGraw knew that's a crackhead strategy in recent NC games.

ND never really quit, they just ran out of shots and seconds. And when the outcome is moving towards the inevitable, it's nice to take some moments to honor senior players like KML this year or a McBride and Braker for ND in 2014 with an applauded exit from the floor, even though that might offend the sensibilities of the "fight to the end" fringe.

If sports teaches us anything, it is that you should honor the great efforts by top teams and athletes and not to go calling them quitters if they're just on the short end when the final seconds tick away.
 
She didn't give up. She didn't think that fouling was the best way to win. Fouling works only when the other team can't make the FTs and your players can make the three's. Well, ND could not hit 3's and UConn made their FT's. End of story.

We'll disagree.

If the clock is on, you play to win. That way you leave it on the floor and don't wonder when you're 40 if maybe, just maybe, you could have won a NC.
 
We'll disagree.

If the clock is on, you play to win. That way you leave it on the floor and don't wonder when you're 40 if maybe, just maybe, you could have won a NC.
Ah yup, I'm sure Shoni Schimmel tosses and turns all night fretting about how she might have won an NC if Louisville had fouled to the end down 35 with two minutes to go back in 2013, and as the clock ticked off the last 23 seconds why wasn't she fighting to the end and leaving it on the floor instead of watching UConn dribble down to the buzzer? Sure she wonders what would have happened if the Cards fought to the max to the very end. Makes perfect sense.

Playing a sport means that sometimes you do lose, and you have to learn how to cope with that so you can prepare yourself to win in future matches. Limbs, brains, and spirits can all be broken by some idiot coach telling his kids, "I don't care if we are down by 50 with two minutes to go. Get out there and give me 110% or you're all quitters and losers." Sure, I know that that's the great old American way, but it's also stupid.
 
With the lone exception of Mabrey's 3-ball that cut it to ten, ND played rather awfully the last 5 minutes. Missed layups and 4-foot jumpers clanked repeatedly. On the other hand, UConn played down the stretch like a team with fresh legs and focus (a couple of turnovers, yes). So what was ND to do? Let's face it, there was NO reasonable winning strategy for ND at 1:33 to go. None.

What WAS available to runners-up was to play hard every play, all the way to the final horn. In the end, I think it wasn't about a win. It was about a core basketball principle. Others have said the same thing in somewhat differing terms. That said, Dobbs has a point.
 
With an hour to kill before fueling up and fishing, I indulged in one of my favorite pleasures... watching UConn WBB. And beating Notre Dame. Especially in National Championship games.

Regarding NC #10, one question has long puzzled me. It even got the attention of the blockhead Dave O'Brien- Why didn't McGraw have her team foul at game's end? Down 11 with over 4 minutes to go (61-50), I get it, there's enough time left for McGraw to reasonably feel she can still win it. At that point, no need to intentionally foul, put UConn at the line and stop the clock.

- But with only 1:33 left, Mabrey's 3 pointer made it 63-53. A relatively huge ten point margin, given there's only a minute and a half on the game clock. Doesn't McGraw have to realize at that point that there's pretty much no other way to win it without fouling, stopping the clock, and hoping UConn chokes at the line, giving ND the additional offensive possessions they'd need to possibly win? But ND sat back in what was a soft-ish man, and THEY DID NOT FOUL.

- Why not foul? The game is otherwise surely over. What's to lose by fouling?

- A loss is a loss is a loss. By 10 or 15 or 20 points, what's the difference? Especially in Championship games. It's all about the "W," and though it may look better, a close final score (or a rout) really means squat. The only reason I can think of for ND NOT fouling is that McGraw sensed the game could not be won, and she preferred, at that point, to have a 'moral' victory, a respectably close 10-point game, rather than give UConn another 6 or 7 points at the line which would allow the final score to belie the actual closeness and competitiveness of the Championship.

Or perhaps there's another explanation of the ND strategy for the last 2 1/2 minutes of that game? :confused:
U hit the nail on the head with the - losing by 10 looks a lot better than 15-20 pts. IMO that's it in a nutshell- end of story! Not saying it was the right thing to do. I think that was Muppet's Motivation!
 
.-.
We'll disagree.

If the clock is on, you play to win. That way you leave it on the floor and don't wonder when you're 40 if maybe, just maybe, you could have won a NC.

Do you understand that she was playing to WIN? I think she knows the game a little better than you do, and if she thought that the best way to W-I-N is not to foul so that UConn can get more points at the line, and with all the info she had at the time, she made the BEST decision to WIN the game for her team.
Fouling doesn't mean that you are giving yourself a chance to win at all. It is just an end-game strategy with the HOPE that the other team will miss free throws and you can get the ball back and make 3's to catch up.
If the other team make their FT, then it is just a waste of time and a SURE way to lose.
 
Is that you, Muffin?

If it is, your towel might still be on the court where you threw it.

The woman gave up.
 
Ah yup, I'm sure Shoni Schimmel tosses and turns all night fretting about how she might have won an NC if Louisville had fouled to the end down 35 with two minutes to go back in 2013, and as the clock ticked off the last 23 seconds why wasn't she fighting to the end and leaving it on the floor instead of watching UConn dribble down to the buzzer? Sure she wonders what would have happened if the Cards fought to the max to the very end. Makes perfect sense.

Playing a sport means that sometimes you do lose, and you have to learn how to cope with that so you can prepare yourself to win in future matches. Limbs, brains, and spirits can all be broken by some idiot coach telling his kids, "I don't care if we are down by 50 with two minutes to go. Get out there and give me 110% or you're all quitters and losers." Sure, I know that that's the great old American way, but it's also stupid.

Straw Man. ND wasn't down 35 nor 50. Make an attempt to argue within the realities of the specific game
 
We'll disagree.

If the clock is on, you play to win. That way you leave it on the floor and don't wonder when you're 40 if maybe, just maybe, you could have won a NC.
I don't think they had any misconceptions that they could have pulled it out. It would seem some here aren't quite dealing with reality.
 
Straw Man. ND wasn't down 35 nor 50. Make an attempt to argue within the realities of the specific game
We all have, just taking your absurd logic to the inevitable conclusion. Still the rant about "You're a loser and quitter unless you start fouling with 1 1/2 minutes down by 10 against an excellent shooting FT team," which makes as much sense trying to feed your twinkie to a starving lion in the hope that he won't chomp you down next. Contrarily, I would say to Muffett if she did that that she had panicked and given up if she had said, "Our only hope is that Jefferson, Stewart, and Mosqueda-Lewis miss their FTs and we hit all our 3s." That is a losing strategy that she sensibly didn't use, even if certain clueless fans have been brainwashed by ignorant announcers into thinking that's the only way to go, even if pressure defense is the only real hope. So ND did get a pretty quick miss, and then had two shots at 3s with over a minute left to cut the lead to 7. They didn't make them. They then got a turnover and tried another 3 that missed. That doesn't make them quitters, just errant shooters in the last minute plus.

As noted, there are different ways to spearhead a comeback based on the circumstances, but to call a coach a quitter and loser because she didn't follow your own preferred crackbrained strategy is pathetic. This is the real world, not some Lord of the Rings fantasy where your Hobbits deal with a pack of wargs with nary a scratch.
 
Sometimes I wonder if the practice of desperation fouling is done because of long held practices rather than methods scientifically/statistically proven to be correct (the Moneyball effect).

But who’s to say that there isn’t a better way. First, start the desperation stage of the game a bit earlier. Put pressure on the offense and take some chances in an attempt to create turnovers without intentionally fouling. Double team, guard aggressively, etc. If a foul occurs so be it, at least it would occur during a legitimate attempt to create a turnover instead of handing a team free shots. Give the leading opponent an opportunity to make a mistake.

Being ahead by 10 seems to be stressful for the leading team since it would be embarrassing to lose such a game. This stress can cause unforced errors occur during those last minutes when the team behind isn’t fouling. In the subject game, UConn turned the ball over uncharacteristically. If ND had made their 3s, the outcome could have been different and Muffet would be considered to be a genius (in some circles).

Does anyone know of research that proves or disproves the late game fouling practice? At 500-1 odds there’s got to be a better way.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,983
Messages
4,548,260
Members
10,431
Latest member
TeganK


Top Bottom