Quote from: 1SE on February 08, 2025, 03:49:15 PMWe were the best team in the BE in rankings and metrics going in. We should have won at least one of them. We didn't, fine, it's where we are now. But that puts a lot more pressure on a strong close to the season. Wojo won lots on December and January too.

Yet the metrics said we should lose both of those games.

But yeah. Shaka's tenure has been very similar to Wojo's.

Quote from: 1SE on February 08, 2025, 03:49:15 PMWe were the best team in the BE in rankings and metrics going in. We should have won at least one of them. We didn't, fine, it's where we are now. But that puts a lot more pressure on a strong close to the season. Wojo won lots on December and January too.

😂😂😂

Quote from: 1SE on February 08, 2025, 03:49:15 PMWe were the best team in the BE in rankings and metrics going in. We should have won at least one of them. We didn't, fine, it's where we are now. But that puts a lot more pressure on a strong close to the season. Wojo won lots on December and January too.

That's where I'm at, too.  Shaka hasn't won in February or March while at Marquette.  The constant February fades under him are getting old

Quote from: wadesworld on February 08, 2025, 03:50:42 PMYet the metrics said we should lose both of those games.

But yeah. Shaka's tenure has been very similar to Wojo's.

The odds of us losing 3 in a row were not high.

go 6-1 to close the season from here and great.

go 3-4 and you can't avoid the Feb fade comparisons.

Quote from: 1SE on February 08, 2025, 03:55:07 PMThe odds of us losing 3 in a row were not high.

go 6-1 to close the season from here and great.

go 3-4 and you can't avoid the Feb fade comparisons.

Yup, the patented Shaka Smart February fade is right on schedule.

Quote from: 1SE on February 08, 2025, 03:55:07 PMThe odds of us losing 3 in a row were not high.

This is horribly reductive and lacking context. You say this as if we just played against mediocre teams.

These past three games were against the other three best teams in the Big East, two of which are not only our two WORST match-ups in the league, but also teams led by (arguably) the two best coaches currently active. And the third game was against one of the strongest home-court advantages in our league, if not country.

The odds of us losing 3 in a row were high, whether you like it or not.

Quote from: K1 Lover on February 08, 2025, 06:53:50 PMThis is horribly reductive and lacking context. You say this as if we just played against mediocre teams.

These past three games were against the other three best teams in the Big East, two of which are not only our two WORST match-ups in the league, but also teams led by (arguably) the two best coaches currently active. And the third game was against one of the strongest home-court advantages in our league, if not country.

The odds of us losing 3 in a row were high, whether you like it or not.

I pointed out that his remarks needed to be taken in context of the 3 teams we were playing, as well as other points in a fairly long reply. He never responded. I hope you have better luck with the same challenge regarding context.

He included a real gem by saying that it's the only the regular season "so who cares" followed with some nonsense about going 6 straight in the NCAA tourney.

I'll finish by saying I honestly admire his fandom. But a touch of reality would be nice. 

Quote from: K1 Lover on February 08, 2025, 06:53:50 PMThe odds of us losing 3 in a row were high, whether you like it or not.

Nah.
MU was a 6.5-point home favorite against a UConn team without arguably its best player. Their implied win probabilty was 73%.
Losing the road games definitely not a unexpected. Acting like we shouldn't be surprised by the UConn loss is revisionist history.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 08, 2025, 07:27:56 PMNah.
MU was a 6.5-point home favorite against a UConn team without arguably its best player. Their implied win probabilty was 73%.
Losing the road games definitely not a unexpected. Acting like we shouldn't be surprised by the UConn loss is revisionist history.

Revisionist history? Lol. That might apply if what I said had to do with UConn's previous wins against us. But it doesn't.

Like I said, UConn is a bad match-up for us. This is a current fact, not a historical one. The projected point spreads are based on home-court advantages as well as each team's metrics — which are just raw data up to that point. The point spread tells you how a team with X offense/defense should do against a team with Y offense/defense in Z location. And while that usually serves true in balanced match-ups, it's far less likely to in cases where both teams have very opposite play-styles.

Teams like Xavier proved that we struggle to guard against quick, athletic guards like UConn has. UConn's best shooters are taller than our best defenders. And their length/physicality makes them exceptional at rebounding, perhaps even more so than St. John's. All of these strengths play into our weaknesses.

Acting like point spreads are the only thing that matters in the end is simply blissful ignorance.

This was probably the 6th most important game this year, not even ready to comment about Shaka's tenure. 

1) NMD (L)
2) St John's @ fiserv (?)
3) Creighton @ fiserv (W)
4) @ UConn (?)
5) @ St. John's (L)
6) @ Creighton (L)

Quote from: rocky_warrior on February 08, 2025, 08:18:46 PMThis was probably the 6th most important game this year, not even ready to comment about Shaka's tenure. 

1) NMD (L)
2) St John's @ fiserv (?)
3) Creighton @ fiserv (W)
4) @ UConn (?)
5) @ St. John's (L)
6) @ Creighton (L)

I think a handful of Scoopers would argue that @ Dayton should be 1 on this list.

Quote from: K1 Lover on February 08, 2025, 08:29:34 PMI think a handful of Scoopers would argue that @ Dayton should be 1 on this list.

I think keeping the discussion confined to only BE games is better, but I get what you are saying.

Another point about this thread- if these 3 games that we lost were spaced out with wins between them, would there be the same concern by some here? I doubt it.  To be clear, I am not blowing off the losses. I hate them. But being 3 in a row has given them a heightened profile.

Every game vs. Madison is Marquette's Super Bowl.

Duh.

Quote from: K1 Lover on February 08, 2025, 07:58:22 PMRevisionist history? Lol. That might apply if what I said had to do with UConn's previous wins against us. But it doesn't.

Like I said, UConn is a bad match-up for us. This is a current fact, not a historical one. The projected point spreads are based on home-court advantages as well as each team's metrics — which are just raw data up to that point. The point spread tells you how a team with X offense/defense should do against a team with Y offense/defense in Z location. And while that usually serves true in balanced match-ups, it's far less likely to in cases where both teams have very opposite play-styles.

Teams like Xavier proved that we struggle to guard against quick, athletic guards like UConn has. UConn's best shooters are taller than our best defenders. And their length/physicality makes them exceptional at rebounding, perhaps even more so than St. John's. All of these strengths play into our weaknesses.

Acting like point spreads are the only thing that matters in the end is simply blissful ignorance.

Odds of winning 1 of 3 were about 90% - you can hate math, but that's what it says.

Quote from: K1 Lover on February 08, 2025, 07:58:22 PMRevisionist history? Lol. That might apply if what I said had to do with UConn's previous wins against us. But it doesn't.

Like I said, UConn is a bad match-up for us. This is a current fact, not a historical one. The projected point spreads are based on home-court advantages as well as each team's metrics — which are just raw data up to that point. The point spread tells you how a team with X offense/defense should do against a team with Y offense/defense in Z location. And while that usually serves true in balanced match-ups, it's far less likely to in cases where both teams have very opposite play-styles.

Teams like Xavier proved that we struggle to guard against quick, athletic guards like UConn has. UConn's best shooters are taller than our best defenders. And their length/physicality makes them exceptional at rebounding, perhaps even more so than St. John's. All of these strengths play into our weaknesses.

Acting like point spreads are the only thing that matters in the end is simply blissful ignorance.

So much wrong here.
1. No, Marquette did not struggle to guard UConn's backcourt. In fact, MU's guards terrorized them, forcing Ball, Diarra and Mahaney into 9 turnovers (they average a combined 4 per game). MU's problem was when they didn't turn them over, UConn took advantage of all the good looks they were getting. Because, as we saw again yesterday, if MU isn't turning you over, you're probably getting a good look.

2. No, MU and UConn do not have "very opposite" play styles. MU averages 70.4 possession per game, UConn 68.2. MU takes 46% of its shots from three, UConn 44%. Both are bad at getting to the free-throw line. Both are good at limiting turnovers (last Saturday a big exception for UConn).
And UConn isn't significantly bigger/longer than Marquette. Their starting lineup goes 6'2", 6'3", 6'7", 6'8", 6'10" MU's goes 6'2", 6'5", 6'5", 6'8", 6'10".  MU is +2 inches at one position, they're +2 at another, otherwise it's even across the board.
They aren't mirror images, but they're more alike than different.

3. No, UConn is not "exceptional" at rebounding. They rank 8th in the Big East with 34.9 rpg (MU is at 33.3) and 45th in the nation in rebounding margin. Oh, and UConn's leading rebounder (Reed) played only 13 minutes and their second-leading rebounder (McNeely) didn't play at all. MU lost the rebounding battle not because UConn was too big/long, but because they let a 6'3" guard, who averages 3.4 rpg, grab 11 boards.

4. You don't like betting odds? Fine. KenPom gave Marquette a 77% chance of winning and projected MU as an 8-point favorite.

Any way you slice it, Marquette was widely expected to win that game. The only blissful ignorance here is you trying to shine that turd of a performance.

Quote from: K1 Lover on February 08, 2025, 06:53:50 PMThe odds of us losing 3 in a row were high, whether you like it or not.

Just looked at the preseason projections. Per kenpom, the odds of losing all three was 7.7%. Our win probability for the three was 1.61, so more likely to win 2 than 1.

Quote from: brewcity77 on February 09, 2025, 08:55:10 AMJust looked at the preseason projections. Per kenpom, the odds of losing all three was 7.7%. Our win probability for the three was 1.61, so more likely to win 2 than 1.

In the new America, we don't use facts or stats, pal.  Take your nerd stuff to Europe

Quote from: Pakuni on February 09, 2025, 08:23:05 AMSo much wrong here.
1. No, Marquette did not struggle to guard UConn's backcourt. In fact, MU's guards terrorized them, forcing Ball, Diarra and Mahaney into 9 turnovers (they average a combined 4 per game). MU's problem was when they didn't turn them over, UConn took advantage of all the good looks they were getting. Because, as we saw again yesterday, if MU isn't turning you over, you're probably getting a good look.

2. No, MU and UConn do not have "very opposite" play styles. MU averages 70.4 possession per game, UConn 68.2. MU takes 46% of its shots from three, UConn 44%. Both are bad at getting to the free-throw line. Both are good at limiting turnovers (last Saturday a big exception for UConn).
And UConn isn't significantly bigger/longer than Marquette. Their starting lineup goes 6'2", 6'3", 6'7", 6'8", 6'10" MU's goes 6'2", 6'5", 6'5", 6'8", 6'10".  MU is +2 inches at one position, they're +2 at another, otherwise it's even across the board.
They aren't mirror images, but they're more alike than different.

3. No, UConn is not "exceptional" at rebounding. They rank 8th in the Big East with 34.9 rpg (MU is at 33.3) and 45th in the nation in rebounding margin. Oh, and UConn's leading rebounder (Reed) played only 13 minutes and their second-leading rebounder (McNeely) didn't play at all. MU lost the rebounding battle not because UConn was too big/long, but because they let a 6'3" guard, who averages 3.4 rpg, grab 11 boards.

4. You don't like betting odds? Fine. KenPom gave Marquette a 77% chance of winning and projected MU as an 8-point favorite.

Any way you slice it, Marquette was widely expected to win that game. The only blissful ignorance here is you trying to shine that turd of a performance.

Excellent post.

It was a very strange game in a lot of ways, and UConns rising star shot the lights out, but Marquette lost because it got its rear end handed to it on the glass.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 09, 2025, 08:23:05 AMSo much wrong here.
1. No, Marquette did not struggle to guard UConn's backcourt. In fact, MU's guards terrorized them, forcing Ball, Diarra and Mahaney into 9 turnovers (they average a combined 4 per game). MU's problem was when they didn't turn them over, UConn took advantage of all the good looks they were getting. Because, as we saw again yesterday, if MU isn't turning you over, you're probably getting a good look.

2. No, MU and UConn do not have "very opposite" play styles. MU averages 70.4 possession per game, UConn 68.2. MU takes 46% of its shots from three, UConn 44%. Both are bad at getting to the free-throw line. Both are good at limiting turnovers (last Saturday a big exception for UConn).
And UConn isn't significantly bigger/longer than Marquette. Their starting lineup goes 6'2", 6'3", 6'7", 6'8", 6'10" MU's goes 6'2", 6'5", 6'5", 6'8", 6'10".  MU is +2 inches at one position, they're +2 at another, otherwise it's even across the board.
They aren't mirror images, but they're more alike than different.

3. No, UConn is not "exceptional" at rebounding. They rank 8th in the Big East with 34.9 rpg (MU is at 33.3) and 45th in the nation in rebounding margin. Oh, and UConn's leading rebounder (Reed) played only 13 minutes and their second-leading rebounder (McNeely) didn't play at all. MU lost the rebounding battle not because UConn was too big/long, but because they let a 6'3" guard, who averages 3.4 rpg, grab 11 boards.

4. You don't like betting odds? Fine. KenPom gave Marquette a 77% chance of winning and projected MU as an 8-point favorite.

Any way you slice it, Marquette was widely expected to win that game. The only blissful ignorance here is you trying to shine that turd of a performance.

This is a solid write-up and I appreciate you thoroughly explaining every reason I'm wrong. I admit I spoke with more conviction than warranted since I hit 'post' without actually fact-checking myself.

I'd rather have the right information than be right at all, so thank you for correcting me. Unfortunately, this just means I have to find a new way to cope with the loss at home.

Quote from: 1SE on February 08, 2025, 03:49:15 PMWe were the best team in the BE in rankings and metrics going in. We should have won at least one of them. We didn't, fine, it's where we are now. But that puts a lot more pressure on a strong close to the season. Wojo won lots on December and January too.

We just ignoring that Shaka has won in February and March every year here?

Don't bring perspective.

Both because I was curious and to prove a point.

Shaka was 27-13 after January in three years here before last week.

Quote from: 1SE on February 08, 2025, 03:49:15 PMWe were the best team in the BE in rankings and metrics going in. We should have won at least one of them. We didn't, fine, it's where we are now. But that puts a lot more pressure on a strong close to the season. Wojo won lots on December and January too.

lol.....comparing Wojo to Shaka is not helping you look like an intelligent observer.

I don't expect any season to go by without peeks and valleys..........it's been a tough stretch.. ..I agree we should have found a way to win one.......we were in position in the last 2 where it was anybody's game with 4 minutes to go.

Based on the limitations of our current roster I think it's likely we were playing a bit over our heads when we were ranked in the top 5-10. predictive metrics never really matched those ap rankings.

Going to the NCAA tournament for 4 years in a row under Shaka without being on the bubble once is worth appreciating........lots of schools can't say that......including some blue bloods.

Losing sucks.......nobody said otherwise......I try to keep it in perspective..........

Quote from: BM1090 on February 09, 2025, 06:32:26 PMBoth because I was curious and to prove a point.

Shaka was 27-13 after January in three years here before last week.

Oh you with your facts and reasonable perspective. This is Scoop, sir!! Please refrain from that nonsense and make emotional rants based only on your feelings right after losses!

Three In A Row! Shaka must go!!!

Quote from: MuMark on February 10, 2025, 12:20:34 PMlol.....comparing Wojo to Shaka is not helping you look like an intelligent observer.

I don't expect any season to go by without peeks and valleys..........it's been a tough stretch.. ..I agree we should have found a way to win one.......we were in position in the last 2 where it was anybody's game with 4 minutes to go.

Based on the limitations of our current roster I think it's likely we were playing a bit over our heads when we were ranked in the top 5-10. predictive metrics never really matched those ap rankings.

Going to the NCAA tournament for 4 years in a row under Shaka without being on the bubble once is worth appreciating........lots of schools can't say that......including some blue bloods.

Losing sucks.......nobody said otherwise......I try to keep it in perspective..........

100%.  I appreciate what Shaka is building. This is all part of the process of getting us to the promised land.  May not be this year or next but Shaka has a long leash to get this done, especially given the success he's had so far.  Patience is key.  Enjoy this team, warts and all.  It's still better than all but 10-20 or so teams in the country. Pretty damn good!