NowhereMan said:

---

Usually bad choices result in a substitution that did not happen I do not need to be near the bench because players were not benched

The out of bounds that was not an out of bounds should have received a more furious rebuke.

A&M played the same exact game that they played against Nebraska, no new wrinkles, it was easy to defend.

The main point of my post is that this season is the high water mark for Buzz, a team with grit that played well enough to get to overtime in round 2. If that is satisfactory fine.

Buzz ain't getting A&M to the final four.

We don't have a single player from Europe or any of the prep schools that the best kids play in.
Yes that to me is because of Buzz.

---

Guess what there is a really great chance there isn't a coach out there A&M can get that's getting A&M to a final four. Name the final fours A&M has gone too?

Pure insanity. How many wrinkles should Buzz whip out on the road from a hotel room with one day to add them in? And yet they put up almost 100 points on Houston in 45 min of play! Houston an elite defensive team by the way. Should. Buzz have pulled out more wrinkles to hang 150 on Houston?

That was so well said! I just wish I had said that.

Ok one point for Boots three that they called a 2. 2 points for Jace they called out of bounds he would have had a dunk. There are 3 points.

Missed opportunities but loved the grit and fight.

OP username checks out

There is no doubt that buzz needs to reexamine his defensive philosophy. Basketball has changed a lot in 10 years. A shooter would mask the deficiencies, but bottom line is you can't chase the bb in this day and age. Good teams will make you pay

It's been the same pattern all year. Too many wide open 3 pointers. When the opponents knock them down, we lose. It's the Achilles heel of our defense. It's that simple.

bobinator said:

---

Bigsexxy96 said:

---

It's been the same pattern all year. Too many wide open 3 pointers. When the opponents knock them down, we lose. It's the Achilles heel of our defense. It's that simple.

---

I don't get how anyone could watch that game and think our problem was three point defense. They shot even worse than we did from three. People must just black out missed threes by the other team.

It was their incredible shooting inside the arc that was the difference. They were SEVENTY percent from 2.

---

They took a ton of close range floaters of the glass and it seemed like every single one went in. Those typically aren't super high percentage shots. I remember watching and thinking it was ridiculous how well they shot from inside the arc.

Is Buzz in Stillwater today?

Dammit, Hop is agreeing with me, I must be wrong, let me rethink my stance on this thread.

Have to dig deeper than the percentages my friend. 11 made 3's in the game and almost all of them wide open. Couple that with our missed free throws and it's an "L".

You're right. Odd that he agrees with anyone!

Buzz needs to find the next Sharp and a Cryer along with a big.

Didn't realize UH was doing portal magic to put this together, because their coach loves the homegrown guys.

Hop said:

---

Bigsexxy96 said:

---

You're right. Odd that he agrees with anyone!

---

Well, I certainly don't agree with you. If you don't think the opposing team shooting 71% on 2-point goals is not a bigger red flag than shooting 32% from beyond the arc, I just can't help you.

---

Well, I dont agree with you either. We will just have to agree to disagree and I just can't help you either.

And again you have to dig deeper than the percentages.

Hop said:

---

houstonheightsag said:

---

Buzz needs to find the next Sharp and a Cryer along with a big.

Didn't realize UH was doing portal magic to put this together, because their coach loves the homegrown guys.

---

Im sure it was pretty expensive pulling Cryer away from Baylor.

---

That's what Exxon money will do for a program.

How about it Saudi Aramco? Let's get this.

bobinator said:

---

Bigsexxy96 said:

---

Have to dig deeper than the percentages my friend. 11 made 3's in the game and almost all of them wide open. Couple that with our missed free throws and it's an "L".

---

You don't really. Here's another way to look at it. By them shooting all of those threes, we weren't fouling them on drives to the basket.


We shot 45 free throws to their 30.

When an opponent shoots a 3 at 32.4%, that shot has an expected value of about one point. (To make the math easy, it's going to go in a third of the time, when it does go in it's worth three points, so the value of each shot is about 1 point.)

Houston shot 72% from 2. That's a value of 1.44 points per shot.

And they shot 70% at the free throw line. That's a value of .7 points per shot, but usually they're going to get two shots so that's also an expected value of 1.4 points per trip to the line.

So which shot do we want our opponents to take?

---

Houston attempted 11 more 3 point shots than their average this year. Even though they shot close to their average %, that's still 9 more points (keeping the math simple for you here) from 3 than if they would have shot their average. Not to mention the 3 point showing being the single biggest momentum changer/ driver in the game. We have lived and died by the opponents 3 point shooting all season and we died by it on Sunday.

Math is hard, right?

Adam
BS Applied Mathematics, A&M '87

Hop said:

---

Bigsexxy96 said:

---

bobinator said:

---

Bigsexxy96 said:

---

Have to dig deeper than the percentages my friend. 11 made 3's in the game and almost all of them wide open. Couple that with our missed free throws and it's an "L".

---

You don't really. Here's another way to look at it. By them shooting all of those threes, we weren't fouling them on drives to the basket.


We shot 45 free throws to their 30.

When an opponent shoots a 3 at 32.4%, that shot has an expected value of about one point. (To make the math easy, it's going to go in a third of the time, when it does go in it's worth three points, so the value of each shot is about 1 point.)

Houston shot 72% from 2. That's a value of 1.44 points per shot.

And they shot 70% at the free throw line. That's a value of .7 points per shot, but usually they're going to get two shots so that's also an expected value of 1.4 points per trip to the line.

So which shot do we want our opponents to take?

---

Houston attempted 11 more 3 point shots than their average this year. Even though they shot close to their average %, that's still 9 more points (keeping the math simple for you here) from 3 than if they would have shot their average. Not to mention the 3 point showing being the single biggest momentum changer/ driver in the game. We have lived and died by the opponents 3 point shooting all season and we died by it on Sunday.

---

You do see the irony of bringing up math after bobinator took you through the expected values scenario and showing clearly UH's expected value on 2's was significantly higher than 3's…which is the math.

---

We will just have to agree to disagree. Can you see the irony in continuing to bring it up when we obviously have our own opinions?

For some it can be.

You get what you're saying right? If a team never shoots threes but then takes 100 in their next game and makes three of them, that's nine points above their average from 3 but that doesn't mean it was good to do it. Hypothetically we could overplay with some kind of psycho 3-2 matchup zone and force Houston inside the paint, but if they shoot 90% on 100 shots from 2 it doesn't matter if we held them to no attempts from three.

The math is very obvious here. The least valuable shot for Houston in that game was their three pointers.

But the common criticism of our three point defense is partially flawed because it makes two huge assumptions. One, that we would defend the three better by playing another defense, and two, that defending the three better would make us better overall. Neither of those are guaranteed truths.

I think there's some good discussion to be had about our defensive style and whether we stick with it next season, and whether we can ever be a truly elite defense playing it (probably not), but it's just bad math to say our three point defense is why we lost to Houston.

Another offseason topic idea is whether teams should intentionally foul if they're in the one-and-one. I think KenPom and some others have floated this, but if the expected value of a free throw is .7 but if they miss the first one they don't get a second one it might lean in the defense's favor to foul on purpose. Especially if it's very late in the first half (as an obvious downside to this is it's getting you closer to the two-shot bonus.)

bdp514am said:

---

There is no doubt that buzz needs to reexamine his defensive philosophy. Basketball has changed a lot in 10 years. A shooter would mask the deficiencies, but bottom line is you can't chase the bb in this day and age. Good teams will make you pay

---

Funny thing is this wasn't the defense Buzz ran a decade ago.

You can't defeat committed fault finders with logicks. They are true believers in their made up narratives.

But how do we build a framework that can be used for meaningful discussions like this? In essence sports swing between strategy and tactics but the strategy if well designed determines when to switch tactics, too. Your digression hints at some of the elements of game planning and some of the needed switches in tactics, but as outsiders to that strategy, how do we faithfully recreate it so we can analyze it?

We know Buzz likes building it with observations based on statistics. The question all of this raises is very simple: when must we trust a coach versus seeking to fire him,

Double Diamond said:

---

bdp514am said:

---

There is no doubt that buzz needs to reexamine his defensive philosophy. Basketball has changed a lot in 10 years. A shooter would mask the deficiencies, but bottom line is you can't chase the bb in this day and age. Good teams will make you pay

---

Funny thing is this wasn't the defense Buzz ran a decade ago.

---

IMO Buzz has already signaled a change in approach is coming defensively.

Of course available personnel will dictate some of that as well.

There's no question that your defensive options open up quite a bit when you can play Solo and Manny 25 minutes a game.