|
Post by azdick on Feb 8, 2016 16:35:49 GMT -8
Luck and good fortune play a part; good coaching plays a bigger part. But I think this is the essence of the discussion: if we are winning because of good coaching in OT then why didn't that good coaching get us the win in regulation? For all the people who are angry at the mention of "luck", please recognize that nobody is claiming that we win because of luck (obviously the sport is one of athleticism and skill). But in the case of 22 games the final score after 40 minutes of play was even; this would indicate that the two teams, at least in this contest were very even in regards to production, and on this day even in the factors that produce victories. So,we have produced an even result, a 50/50 result, or a "coin toss" result for the first 40 minutes (by coin toss I mean a result where both sides are equal; and if we are predicting strictly on what score had been produced in the game it would be a coin toss). Now if there were some skill set that made us better than the opposition (coaching, toughness, etc) why did it not lead us to victory during regulation? If our in game coaching was better than theirs then why are we tied? Did we wait to use our better coaching until OT? So I repeat, in general OT games are considered coin tosses because the first 40 minutes have measured the two opponents to be equal- or a coin toss. Now, are there specific skills that translate to specific success in OT? Above, I mentioned several factors that could have an increased value in a longer (overtime) game: depth (to which I add stamina), being a foul averse defense, and being an offense which draws a lot of fouls. Depth and endurance (or mental toughness if you chose to call it) could very well be a reason we are more successful in OT games. I wonder if we condition more/better than other teams due to the elevation of in conference opponent's home arenas? If so, then kudos to the staff. Additionally, I mentioned fouls; because increased fouling does alter your roster, and as players approach the 5 foul threshold this alters how they play. And since fouls are a counting stat, they become increasingly valuable as the game goes on. At least in regards to ejections.[/quotehow to close games How you coach in crunch time is what's most important. Games and teams ebb and flow, momentum shifts, etc. at the end of the games there is no room for error, I.e., if you muck it up, there's no time left to correct. The best coaches are great closers. Fish is a great closer. Dave Rice is unemployed.
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Feb 8, 2016 16:55:23 GMT -8
They're not winning in regulation simply because they are a poor perimeter shooting team. The coaches haven't told them to stop shooting 3's, they have had many good open looks that they just plain missed. Hopefully they can get dialed in to where more than 1 or 2 of them can find the range in a game!
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Feb 8, 2016 18:03:19 GMT -8
But I think this is the essence of the discussion: if we are winning because of good coaching in OT then why didn't that good coaching get us the win in regulation? For all the people who are angry at the mention of "luck", please recognize that nobody is claiming that we win because of luck (obviously the sport is one of athleticism and skill). But in the case of 22 games the final score after 40 minutes of play was even; this would indicate that the two teams, at least in this contest were very even in regards to production, and on this day even in the factors that produce victories. So,we have produced an even result, a 50/50 result, or a "coin toss" result for the first 40 minutes (by coin toss I mean a result where both sides are equal; and if we are predicting strictly on what score had been produced in the game it would be a coin toss). Now if there were some skill set that made us better than the opposition (coaching, toughness, etc) why did it not lead us to victory during regulation? If our in game coaching was better than theirs then why are we tied? Did we wait to use our better coaching until OT? So I repeat, in general OT games are considered coin tosses because the first 40 minutes have measured the two opponents to be equal- or a coin toss. Now, are there specific skills that translate to specific success in OT? Above, I mentioned several factors that could have an increased value in a longer (overtime) game: depth (to which I add stamina), being a foul averse defense, and being an offense which draws a lot of fouls. Depth and endurance (or mental toughness if you chose to call it) could very well be a reason we are more successful in OT games. I wonder if we condition more/better than other teams due to the elevation of in conference opponent's home arenas? If so, then kudos to the staff. Additionally, I mentioned fouls; because increased fouling does alter your roster, and as players approach the 5 foul threshold this alters how they play. And since fouls are a counting stat, they become increasingly valuable as the game goes on. At least in regards to ejections.[/quotehow to close games How you coach in crunch time is what's most important. Games and teams ebb and flow, momentum shifts, etc. at the end of the games there is no room for error, I.e., if you muck it up, there's no time left to correct. The best coaches are great closers. Fish is a great closer. Dave Rice is unemployed. So are you writing that there is something different that good coaches do in the final few minutes of a game that they weren't already doing throughout the game? Or there are mistakes that bad coaches make in the final few minutes of a game that they were not making for the majority of the game? If so, why don't the good coaches do those good things earlier and more often, as opposed to waiting until the end? And what is causing these bad coaches to wait until overtime to make these bad decisions? Why would they not just do the things they were doing the whole game that got them to OT?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 18:59:13 GMT -8
So are you writing that there is something different that good coaches do in the final few minutes of a game that they weren't already doing throughout the game? Or there are mistakes that bad coaches make in the final few minutes of a game that they were not making for the majority of the game? If so, why don't the good coaches do those good things earlier and more often, as opposed to waiting until the end? And what is causing these bad coaches to wait until overtime to make these bad decisions? Why would they not just do the things they were doing the whole game that got them to OT? Not addressed to me but it seems he is saying the situation is different (crunch time). And since Fish is at the top of his profession he holds an advantage over most. That said, while I don't agree with you that the tie game somehow establishes the OT is now a coin flip proposition (because the game didn't start that way for various reasons and just because there is no definitive winner after regulation time those reasons do not disappear), I do agree that 20 out of 22 (90%) is simply not a realistic percentage to expect over time. As I mentioned earlier, my guess is it is simply a random streak of good fortune which will regress to agree to more of what Fish's overall win record is over time. (which I don't think is 90% but I honestly don't know)... anyhow, that's my guess on it.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Feb 8, 2016 18:59:56 GMT -8
So are you writing that there is something different that good coaches do in the final few minutes of a game that they weren't already doing throughout the game? Or there are mistakes that bad coaches make in the final few minutes of a game that they were not making for the majority of the game? If so, why don't the good coaches do those good things earlier and more often, as opposed to waiting until the end? And what is causing these bad coaches to wait until overtime to make these bad decisions? Why would they not just do the things they were doing the whole game that got them to OT? They do. Let's assume that SDSU is in reality 5 points better than UNLV, some of which is talent and some of which is coaching. If they played 30 times we would find a normal distribution around the 5 point mean. In some games SDSU would lose, in others we would win and in others still we would go to OT. In all of these games SDSU is the better team with the better coach just with different results. Now when you get to either the last five minutes of regulation (our streak that will not be named) or OT you are looking at a limited number of possessions so each decision by a good coach is magnified because there are not a multiple of possessions to get lucky and overcome the good decision. Some of these decisions are like Dutch suggesting that we put in Pope and others are the players deciding to double the low post because of the better coaches game plan or the overall better coaching that has told them to double the post with x amount of time and score, basically game situations. In a five minute OT two "decisions" may be worth five points and "overcome" a lucky shot. Numbers don't lie, you can't win 200 and something out of 200 and something plus one if there is not a skill associated with closing games that you lead and you can't win 20 out of 22 OT games without a skill. Can you get lucky, yes, but not that lucky. You are talking crazy powerball numbers.
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Feb 8, 2016 19:29:56 GMT -8
They do. Let's assume that SDSU is in reality 5 points better than UNLV, some of which is talent and some of which is coaching. If they played 30 times we would find a normal distribution around the 5 point mean. In some games SDSU would lose, in others we would win and in others still we would go to OT. In all of these games SDSU is the better team with the better coach just with different results. Now when you get to either the last five minutes of regulation (our streak that will not be named) or OT you are looking at a limited number of possessions so each decision by a good coach is magnified because there are not a multiple of possessions to get lucky and overcome the good decision. Some of these decisions are like Dutch suggesting that we put in Pope and others are the players deciding to double the low post because of the better coaches game plan or the overall better coaching that has told them to double the post with x amount of time and score, basically game situations. In a five minute OT two "decisions" may be worth five points and "overcome" a lucky shot. Numbers don't lie, you can't win 200 and something out of 200 and something plus one if there is not a skill associated with closing games that you lead and you can't win 20 out of 22 OT games without a skill. Can you get lucky, yes, but not that lucky. You are talking crazy powerball numbers. So your argument is that the variable of "coaching decision" is more important because there are less of them. But that could be said for every variable in overtime; shooting is more important because there are less shots taken. THe ability to draw a foul is more important because there are less possessions. Every variable is amplified relative to regulation because of a reduction in time. "Winning 200 and something out of 200 and something plus 1" is misleading in your argument if you are implying that it took some sort of great closing skill, because in a number of those games we had a significant lead going into the final 5 minutes. If you are up by 20 with 5 minutes left its not a crazy skill to hold onto the lead. Get rid of those games and then run the numbers. Furthermore, I am not implying there isnt a specific skill; I stated multiple times in this post a number of skills (some of them directly relate to coaching). However, simply stating quality coaching still seems to be either a vague point (what specific quality) or a misleading point, because of the points raised above.
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Feb 8, 2016 19:34:32 GMT -8
Not addressed to me but it seems he is saying the situation is different (crunch time). And since Fish is at the top of his profession he holds an advantage over most. That said, while I don't agree with you that the tie game somehow establishes the OT is now a coin flip proposition (because the game didn't start that way for various reasons and just because there is no definitive winner after regulation time those reasons do not disappear), I do agree that 20 out of 22 (90%) is simply not a realistic percentage to expect over time. As I mentioned earlier, my guess is it is simply a random streak of good fortune which will regress to agree to more of what Fish's overall win record is over time. (which I don't think is 90% but I honestly don't know)... anyhow, that's my guess on it. I think "crunch time" is similar to being "clutch" its something that we think exists in great amounts, but does not. If fisher has a calming effect on his players during close games then that is good, but I don't think such things have as big of an impact as many claim (but thats just me). Once again, I don't think an OT game is a coin flip, rather that they have established, based solely on the tiny sample size of the previous 40 minutes, that the two teams are 50-50 even. Is one team better, thus not making it a coin flip? Most likely, but based on what they have done in the previous 40 minutes (and that event alone) they have produced an equal result- thus we use the term coin-flip.
|
|
|
Post by mySTRAS on Feb 8, 2016 19:49:58 GMT -8
Was it luck or skill that the CSU guard dribbled the ball off of his foot out of bounds?
Or that a point blank layup was missed?
|
|
|
Post by Azthetic on Feb 8, 2016 19:53:14 GMT -8
Being calm and relaxed helps with focus, which makes one perform at a higher level. It's science and technical stuff and luck is involved, but it's also called having huevos rancheros, sissies.
Jamaal, Chase, Kawhi, X, Billy, DJ, Heath, Slaughter, Faux, Bland, Holcomb, Abukar, Malcolm, JJ, Ammo, Mackell, etc etc have all had huevos rancheros.
That's why we've closed out 160+ and gone 20-2 in OT.
It's also why we are 11-0.
|
|
|
Post by Azthetic on Feb 8, 2016 19:57:29 GMT -8
Was it luck or skill that the CSU guard dribbled the ball off of his foot out of bounds? Or that a point blank layup was missed? Perhaps skill in that our D makes weaker people crap their pants and make stupid mistakes. That and our crowd can be decent sometimes. We have these kids who stand the whole game and cheer loud and stuff. We can all look up in the rafters and see cool banners with conference championships and trips to the sweet 16. This gives our players confidence that they can win anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Feb 8, 2016 20:00:24 GMT -8
So your argument is that the variable of "coaching decision" is more important because there are less of them. But that could be said for every variable in overtime; shooting is more important because there are less shots taken. THe ability to draw a foul is more important because there are less possessions. Every variable is amplified relative to regulation because of a reduction in time. "Winning 200 and something out of 200 and something plus 1" is misleading in your argument if you are implying that it took some sort of great closing skill, because in a number of those games we had a significant lead going into the final 5 minutes. If you are up by 20 with 5 minutes left its not a crazy skill to hold onto the lead. Get rid of those games and then run the numbers. Furthermore, I am not implying there isnt a specific skill; I stated multiple times in this post a number of skills (some of them directly relate to coaching). However, simply stating quality coaching still seems to be either a vague point (what specific quality) or a misleading point, because of the points raised above. Those other things are skills also, my point is that like the ability of a team to shoot, rebound or play defense, coaching/closing of games is also a skill and it is important. While there has been luck involved in both our streak and OT records as there is in any games(s) you just can't do what we have done without a specific skill that other teams don't have.
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Feb 8, 2016 20:39:53 GMT -8
So are you writing that there is something different that good coaches do in the final few minutes of a game that they weren't already doing throughout the game? Or there are mistakes that bad coaches make in the final few minutes of a game that they were not making for the majority of the game? If so, why don't the good coaches do those good things earlier and more often, as opposed to waiting until the end? And what is causing these bad coaches to wait until overtime to make these bad decisions? Why would they not just do the things they were doing the whole game that got them to OT? I am saying one thing: Good coaches win close games. This is illustrated by (1) Fish wins both close games (those decided by 5 points or less (68% during his SDSU career) and overtime games (22-2). If you belive this is an accident, then please refer to those many ex-head coaches who wish they were still coaching but aren't because they lost the close games. I have already pointed out this example being the recently disposed Dave Rice. There is great parity in the college basketball game due to many factors, mostly relating to early leaving for NBA and other pro leagues. Thus many games are determined by the thinnest of margins, putting a huge emphasis on the end of games., which heretofore has been my point - the greater the pressure at games' ends, the more the coaching matters. Fish has not had better teams, he has better ability to coach teams when it matters the most. The data does not lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 21:17:28 GMT -8
Not addressed to me but it seems he is saying the situation is different (crunch time). And since Fish is at the top of his profession he holds an advantage over most. That said, while I don't agree with you that the tie game somehow establishes the OT is now a coin flip proposition (because the game didn't start that way for various reasons and just because there is no definitive winner after regulation time those reasons do not disappear), I do agree that 20 out of 22 (90%) is simply not a realistic percentage to expect over time. As I mentioned earlier, my guess is it is simply a random streak of good fortune which will regress to agree to more of what Fish's overall win record is over time. (which I don't think is 90% but I honestly don't know)... anyhow, that's my guess on it. I think "crunch time" is similar to being "clutch" its something that we think exists in great amounts, but does not. If fisher has a calming effect on his players during close games then that is good, but I don't think such things have as big of an impact as many claim (but thats just me). Once again, I don't think an OT game is a coin flip, rather that they have established, based solely on the tiny sample size of the previous 40 minutes, that the two teams are 50-50 even. Is one team better, thus not making it a coin flip? Most likely, but based on what they have done in the previous 40 minutes (and that event alone) they have produced an equal result- thus we use the term coin-flip. Well, honestly I am no longer sure what point you are trying to make here...not being disrespectful, I honestly don't know what your point is. It seems like you are saying the team has been lucky... and, of course, to some degree they have, but player and coaching skills do come in to play in determining who ultimately wins the game during a game finished in regulation and for games which go to OT... Do different or additional coaching skills exist while coaching an OT period? I think probably yes. And to your comment about 'crunch time' and 'clutch' and relating it to not existing in 'great amounts', not sure what that means.... What makes something a 'great amount' or not? There is no question in my mind that some people perform better when the pressure is on, some perform worse, and for some it makes no difference... 'crunch time' is when the pressure is on... being 'clutch' is performing better during 'crunch time'... My guess is Fish & staff are good during crunch time (even if only because he is calm). That said, as I have maintained, I think the 20 of 22 reflects a bit of randomness... it is easily possible that Fish's next five OT games will be losses simply due to randomness as well.
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Feb 8, 2016 21:46:02 GMT -8
I am saying one thing: Good coaches win close games. This is illustrated by (1) Fish wins both close games (those decided by 5 points or less (68% during his SDSU career) and overtime games (22-2). If you belive this is an accident, then please refer to those many ex-head coaches who wish they were still coaching but aren't because they lost the close games. I have already pointed out this example being the recently disposed Dave Rice. There is great parity in the college basketball game due to many factors, mostly relating to early leaving for NBA and other pro leagues. Thus many games are determined by the thinnest of margins, putting a huge emphasis on the end of games., which heretofore has been my point - the greater the pressure at games' ends, the more the coaching matters. Fish has not had better teams, he has better ability to coach teams when it matters the most. The data does not lie. I don't believe it is an accident (our success in OT), I am trying to isolate the specific things that our team does to win those games. I know good coaches win close games, but good coaches win all types of games. I think simply stating we have a good coach therefore we win in overtime at such a high rate is over simplification. I think there is more to it. I think stylistically, there is something we do that helps us win those games. I think maybe it is our foul differential.
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Feb 8, 2016 21:48:38 GMT -8
I think "crunch time" is similar to being "clutch" its something that we think exists in great amounts, but does not. If fisher has a calming effect on his players during close games then that is good, but I don't think such things have as big of an impact as many claim (but thats just me). Once again, I don't think an OT game is a coin flip, rather that they have established, based solely on the tiny sample size of the previous 40 minutes, that the two teams are 50-50 even. Is one team better, thus not making it a coin flip? Most likely, but based on what they have done in the previous 40 minutes (and that event alone) they have produced an equal result- thus we use the term coin-flip. Well, honestly I am no longer sure what point you are trying to make here...not being disrespectful, I honestly don't know what your point is. It seems like you are saying the team has been lucky... and, of course, to some degree they have, but player and coaching skills do come in to play in determining who ultimately wins the game during a game finished in regulation and for games which go to OT... Do different or additional coaching skills exist while coaching an OT period? I think probably yes. And to your comment about 'crunch time' and 'clutch' and relating it to not existing in 'great amounts', not sure what that means.... What makes something a 'great amount' or not? There is no question in my mind that some people perform better when the pressure is on, some perform worse, and for some it makes no difference... 'crunch time' is when the pressure is on... being 'clutch' is performing better during 'crunch time'... My guess is Fish & staff are good during crunch time (even if only because he is calm). That said, as I have maintained, I think the 20 of 22 reflects a bit of randomness... it is easily possible that Fish's next five OT games will be losses simply due to randomness as well. My post to you was two fold: the first addressed your use of "Crunch Time" and how I don't believe it that idea as much as most people. My second was agreeing with you in regards to OT not being a coin flip, rather justifying why we use the term.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 8, 2016 21:52:15 GMT -8
Luck and good fortune play a part; good coaching plays a bigger part. But I think this is the essence of the discussion: if we are winning because of good coaching in OT then why didn't that good coaching get us the win in regulation? For all the people who are angry at the mention of "luck", please recognize that nobody is claiming that we win because of luck (obviously the sport is one of athleticism and skill). But in the case of 22 games the final score after 40 minutes of play was even; this would indicate that the two teams, at least in this contest were very even in regards to production, and on this day even in the factors that produce victories. So,we have produced an even result, a 50/50 result, or a "coin toss" result for the first 40 minutes (by coin toss I mean a result where both sides are equal; and if we are predicting strictly on what score had been produced in the game it would be a coin toss). Now if there were some skill set that made us better than the opposition (coaching, toughness, etc) why did it not lead us to victory during regulation? If our in game coaching was better than theirs then why are we tied? Did we wait to use our better coaching until OT? So I repeat, in general OT games are considered coin tosses because the first 40 minutes have measured the two opponents to be equal- or a coin toss. Now, are there specific skills that translate to specific success in OT? Above, I mentioned several factors that could have an increased value in a longer (overtime) game: depth (to which I add stamina), being a foul averse defense, and being an offense which draws a lot of fouls. Depth and endurance (or mental toughness if you chose to call it) could very well be a reason we are more successful in OT games. I wonder if we condition more/better than other teams due to the elevation of in conference opponent's home arenas? If so, then kudos to the staff. Additionally, I mentioned fouls; because increased fouling does alter your roster, and as players approach the 5 foul threshold this alters how they play. And since fouls are a counting stat, they become increasingly valuable as the game goes on. At least in regards to ejections. I believe there are specific skills that relate to late game strategy and tactics. In those games the Aztecs had only one shot at those late game strategy and tactics. They ended tied. But in the games that were close and not OT, we know the Aztecs win a high percentage. It is logical that given a second bite at that apple that the Aztecs come out on top. That logic mitigates the 40 minute question. It makes more sense than a 1 in 18,157 chance. If you flip 50 heads in a row check the coin Any yes, I am aware of the studies about being "clutch". I think this is different.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 8, 2016 21:54:13 GMT -8
Was it luck or skill that the CSU guard dribbled the ball off of his foot out of bounds? Or that a point blank layup was missed? Both of those were more than just luck. The first had an element of pressure added by the Aztecs guarding closely, the second was a function of the clock which the Aztecs manage very well.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 8, 2016 22:11:25 GMT -8
San Diego State is 46-18 in games decided by six points or less or in overtime since the beginning of the 2010-11 season.
Aztecs close games very well. Winning in OT is not by accident. Winning when leading at the 5:00 mark is not by accident.
|
|