|
Post by stlvufan on Jan 17, 2011 17:42:59 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned '72, until we actually beat Butler for once, he's right. Hopefully we don't have to wait long though (like more than 12 days). For those who couldn't see it before, hopefully it's become apparent by now that Butler IS "remotely close" in talent to SEVERAL teams in the HL, not just us. The teams that were mentally prepared to play this year's version instead of last year's memory can testify to that. Hopefully, we can develop the same mindset so we don't trip over our own nerves the next time. In the meantime, obviously they're still the kings until someone knocks them off their pedestal, and all that good stuff. The only problem is that there is some truth to the argument that Butler only lost those 2 games because they failed to bring their A game. Obviously the Milwaukee game is a much stronger example for that argument than the WSU game, but it's really hard to tell one way or the other. I would absolutely agree that VU needs to develop the mindset that they can beat Butler. Hopefully Howard and Michael help with that, as they both were in that game back in 2008. But talent-wise, I still don't see enough evidence to eradicate Title's statement. What we've been looking at the past few weeks is -- to me anyway -- a mysterious combination of talent-gaps, effort-gaps, luck-gaps, and any other gaps that might come into play, and I am unable to distinguish between them. I saw several plays last night that I'm sure Brad Stevens was not happy with -- not in the least. I will give you this: Title's case is *not* open-and-shut.
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Jan 17, 2011 19:48:54 GMT -5
For those who couldn't see it before, hopefully it's become apparent by now that Butler IS "remotely close" in talent to SEVERAL teams in the HL, not just us. The teams that were mentally prepared to play this year's version instead of last year's memory can testify to that. Hopefully, we can develop the same mindset so we don't trip over our own nerves the next time. In the meantime, obviously they're still the kings until someone knocks them off their pedestal, and all that good stuff. The only problem is that there is some truth to the argument that Butler only lost those 2 games because they failed to bring their A game. Obviously the Milwaukee game is a much stronger example for that argument than the WSU game, but it's really hard to tell one way or the other. I would absolutely agree that VU needs to develop the mindset that they can beat Butler. Hopefully Howard and Michael help with that, as they both were in that game back in 2008. But talent-wise, I still don't see enough evidence to eradicate Title's statement. What we've been looking at the past few weeks is -- to me anyway -- a mysterious combination of talent-gaps, effort-gaps, luck-gaps, and any other gaps that might come into play, and I am unable to distinguish between them. I saw several plays last night that I'm sure Brad Stevens was not happy with -- not in the least. I will give you this: Title's case is *not* open-and-shut. You seem to be the master of the obvious. Any team can say they lost because "they didn't bring their A game. Did Butler have more "talent" than say, Michigan State last year? Or was their win because Michigan State didn't bring their A game? Can you give credit to the opposition for not allowing the other team to bring their A game? I suppose we could line up the Butler guys next to the Valpo guys and each point out strengths and weaknesses. Is there a perceptible difference in talent between Brandon and Mack? How about Cory and Matt? Does Butler have anyone as quick as Erik? Do they have a 6'6" guy who can shoot like Ryan? How about a guylike Matt that can do it all? Sure they do. My point in this whole thing is that Title said our talent, in comparison to Butler's wasn't even close. This based on one game where we clearly didn't bring our A game. This is college basketball. It is a stage where UIC can beat Illinois and we can lose to Toledo. It is about consistent play and at the moment, our "talent" is better than Butler's--look at the standings.
|
|
|
Post by 78crusader on Jan 17, 2011 21:35:45 GMT -5
All this talk about the Butler game, which the last time I looked is 12 days away, is all well and good, but first we've got Milwaukee coming up and those guys scare me, and then GB after that. We better bring it Thursday night or there's a decent chance we'll wind up on the south end of the final score. Hope the players are focusing on this next game. Paul
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Jan 17, 2011 22:33:50 GMT -5
All this talk about the Butler game, which the last time I looked is 12 days away, is all well and good, but first we've got Milwaukee coming up and those guys scare me, and then GB after that. We better bring it Thursday night or there's a decent chance we'll wind up on the south end of the final score. Hope the players are focusing on this next game. Paul Games are Friday and Sunday
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jan 17, 2011 22:58:36 GMT -5
The only problem is that there is some truth to the argument that Butler only lost those 2 games because they failed to bring their A game. Obviously the Milwaukee game is a much stronger example for that argument than the WSU game, but it's really hard to tell one way or the other. I would absolutely agree that VU needs to develop the mindset that they can beat Butler. Hopefully Howard and Michael help with that, as they both were in that game back in 2008. But talent-wise, I still don't see enough evidence to eradicate Title's statement. What we've been looking at the past few weeks is -- to me anyway -- a mysterious combination of talent-gaps, effort-gaps, luck-gaps, and any other gaps that might come into play, and I am unable to distinguish between them. I saw several plays last night that I'm sure Brad Stevens was not happy with -- not in the least. I will give you this: Title's case is *not* open-and-shut. You seem to be the master of the obvious. Any team can say they lost because "they didn't bring their A game. Did Butler have more "talent" than say, Michigan State last year? Or was their win because Michigan State didn't bring their A game? Can you give credit to the opposition for not allowing the other team to bring their A game? I suppose we could line up the Butler guys next to the Valpo guys and each point out strengths and weaknesses. Is there a perceptible difference in talent between Brandon and Mack? How about Cory and Matt? Does Butler have anyone as quick as Erik? Do they have a 6'6" guy who can shoot like Ryan? How about a guylike Matt that can do it all? Sure they do. My point in this whole thing is that Title said our talent, in comparison to Butler's wasn't even close. This based on one game where we clearly didn't bring our A game. This is college basketball. It is a stage where UIC can beat Illinois and we can lose to Toledo. It is about consistent play and at the moment, our "talent" is better than Butler's--look at the standings. Small sample size. That's my point. The standings say no such thing. They say that we have won 6 games out of 7 and Butler has won 5 games out of 7. The details behind the standings say that Butler and Valpo has played once and Butler won by 17. The most obvious conclusion to draw from that one result is that Butler is tons better than Valpo. That's no less ridiculous a conclusion than looking at the standings and concluding that Valpo's talent is better than Butler's. You also may have missed the import of my last line: I did *not* say I agree with Title. I'm saying if you want to make your case that the talent gap is minimal, you've got a ways to go yet. I'm not saying you can't get there, I'm just saying you're not there yet. And by the way, the very questions you came back with to my suggestion that there was some truth to the idea that Butler didn't bring their A game are the very questions I had in mind when I said it is hard to tell one way or the other. Of course, any team can make those arguments and many do rationalize such losses that way, regardless of whether it's really true or not. My whole point is that I don't see how we can tell one way or the other. The real point here is that so far in our brief HL history, Title's argument seems more plausible than the counterargument. He has more evidence on his side than you do on yours, at least from what I've seen and heard so far. If you want to turn the world upside down, it's going to require some heavy lifting. Fair or not, that's the way it works. One way to do it would be to study the stats in-depth in a detailed way and see what they say, but don't limit yourself to the traditional stats -- the equivalent to baseball fans evaluating hitters by only looking at the triple crown stats (HRs, Avg, RBI) and ignoring everything else. Look at turnovers per game, points in the paint, assist-to-turnover ratio, etc., in other words, look at everything. Look at it on a team level, look at it with respect to starting fives, I don't know what all the combinations would be. Find some way to squeeze every bit of useful information out of all the stats that you can manage, and you have a good statistical picture of what the two teams have done. That, of course would only be one part of it. I don't know about you, but I don't have the endurance to do that, maybe nobody here does. And of course that doesn't mean we have no right to believe this or that. Again, I'm saying you might be right. I'm just not there yet.
|
|
|
Post by bbtds on Jan 18, 2011 0:46:34 GMT -5
Being a passionate fan is one thing, but being utterly irrational is another thing entirely. The teams are not remotely close. You know, after the Wright State game, I'm beginning to understand the genius of this Title guy. It is looking more and more like he may very well be correct. You're correct. His posting name isn't "Butler title in 2011." It could be any team he chooses after they win the HL or any other title. :-)
|
|