Backup site - DavidsonCats.com

[stan]

I realize that everyone is too attached to their preferred narrative to try to understand this point, but the notion that it wasn't working and therefore must be wrong is just silly.

An example from another sport -- trying to defend a passing offense in football when you are at a serious talent disadvantage. Your analysis shows you can't possibly hold up if you try to rush 4 and drop 7 in zone coverage. If you don't get pressure, the QB will (like Steph) slice you and dice you. So you blitz, even though you know the offense is good at handling the blitz and will likely burn you. You don't have any good options, and blitzing looks to be the best of the bad choices. The blitz gives you a slightly better chance to win, but it also means you could give up even more points. Sure enough, your blitz gets burned several times in the first half and you are losing by 3 scores at the half. Does this mean you change? Of course not. You go with the tactics that you think give you the best chance of winning, even if that is now less than 1%

If Patsos honestly believed that it was very unlikely he could win if Steph played his game (a reasonable belief) and believed that his best chance was to hope that the other DC players would miss their open shots, that doesn't change simply because he's losing at the half. He was throwing a Hail Mary. It had little chance of working. But not throwing the Hail Mary had even less chance of working.

There seems to be an attitude that he should have just acquiesced to seeing his bad team get a conventional beatdown. And by trying to do something that might shake things up and change the odds, he was an idiot. I don't see it that way, and no one has made a convincing argument that rolling over and quitting was a better option for him.
_________________
"Then they started making 3s. A lot of 3s. We're talking more 3s than a bad dating site."

[Dr. Bliss]

I disagree that the defense he tried was the best of bad options. A triangle and two or a box and one would have been more reasonable defenses to try. These defenses have been used successfully at times by teams to negate a big disadvantage against one player. The trick he tried, to my knowledge, had never been used, so it was unproven even as a desperation tactic. Hopefully it will never be used again, at least by Patsos. Unless he wants a quick ticket out of his current job.
_________________
"There ain't no sanity clause!" Chico Marx

[mccabemi]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/26/salesforce-ceo-says-company-is-cancelling-all-programs-in-indiana-over-lgbt-discrimination-fears/

[stan]

Of course, the craziest and most bizarre aspect of all this was the way Davidson fans were absolutely insane with anger because our team won by 30. If we accept the argument that Patsos' strategy was stupid, and that it helped us win, why the spitting rage? Because people cared more about Steph getting his points than he did?
_________________
"Then they started making 3s. A lot of 3s. We're talking more 3s than a bad dating site."

[Classof70]

[Dr. Bliss]

Hmm. I was there and it was certainly a bizarre night, but I don't remember anger from the fans. I do remember a lot of head shaking, bemused looks and some catcalls and hoots. And a lot of laughter. I mean, the folks I was with, we just thought it was funny.
_________________
"There ain't no sanity clause!" Chico Marx

[stan]

[Waitress]

stan wrote:

I realize that everyone is too attached to their preferred narrative to try to understand this point, but the notion that it wasn't working and therefore must be wrong is just silly. An example from another sport -- trying to defend a passing offense in football when you are at a serious talent disadvantage. Your analysis shows you can't possibly hold up if you try to rush 4 and drop 7 in zone coverage. If you don't get pressure, the QB will (like Steph) slice you and dice you. So you blitz, even though you know the offense is good at handling the blitz and will likely burn you. You don't have any good options, and blitzing looks to be the best of the bad choices. The blitz gives you a slightly better chance to win, but it also means you could give up even more points. Sure enough, your blitz gets burned several times in the first half and you are losing by 3 scores at the half. Does this mean you change? Of course not. You go with the tactics that you think give you the best chance of winning, even if that is now less than 1% If Patsos honestly believed that it was very unlikely he could win if Steph played his game (a reasonable belief) and believed that his best chance was to hope that the other DC players would miss their open shots, that doesn't change simply because he's losing at the half. He was throwing a Hail Mary. It had little chance of working. But not throwing the Hail Mary had even less chance of working. There seems to be an attitude that he should have just acquiesced to seeing his bad team get a conventional beatdown. And by trying to do something that might shake things up and change the odds, he was an idiot. I don't see it that way, and no one has made a convincing argument that rolling over and quitting was a better option for him.

Good for Patsos. He came up with a gameplan that was not about competing. He carved out a side-objective, that only he cared about. The gameplan, in terms of stan's proffered analogy, was to throw a Hail Mary on first down. On second down. On third down. On fourth down. Every time they had the ball. One can argue that the coach taught a valuable lesson about the primacy of a coach's/leader's/boss's directive. There are places for that lesson, I concede.

I once attended an Illinois-Michigan State basketball game in which Illinois raced out to a 30 point lead. The game was over early. Nothing Izzo tried made a dent in the Illinois offense. I don't remember many specifics from any of the individual performances. What I recall was Izzo using every one of his timeouts to coach his team. I wasn't in the huddle, but he seemed to be talking about fundamentals, execution, little things. He seemed to be saying, We're getting a beatdown, but we're not going to waste this opportunity to learn from it and get better.
_________________
That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did…
You deserved it.

~Tip well.

[i77cat]

[MikeMaloy15]

Surely someone else thinks this might have taken a turn through the looking glass.

[wildforthecats]

[WildCock]

[collegecoach8502]

[MadelastCut]

Sports Reporters earlier today on ESPN had Bob Ryan, in his parting shot, decry the over coaching in college bb, saying that it may yet ruin the sport itself. Also, amazed and pleased that the Show Moderator called out Mike Lupica for his hogging the microphone way too much. Classic tv, which just might help save the sport we all love.

[i77cat]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/12583438/metta-world-peace-expressed-interest-st-john-job
_________________
"McKillop is a gentleman. He could have played 'name that score' if he so desired."---St Joe's fan