Yeah maybe we should stop recruiting bigs all together since they’re bound to transfer anyways…
1 Like
there we go. that’s the spirit.
4 Likes
Reece going pro, Traudt and Bond transferring, our inability to hold leads, PG recruits, why can’t we have orange uniforms. And Kihei. Always Kihei.
12 Likes
6 Likes
To pay homage to my Jaguars, “it was always Kihei”
2 Likes
For those wanting to see highlights of Traudt …
https://twitter.com/i/status/1617626901400674304
1 Like
ValidHatian is a great twitter follow!
1 Like
Random thought and pet peeve I don’t know if anyone else shares: “I trust Tony” as the de facto dismissive comment designed to shut down any critical thought or discussion of the team.
12 Likes
Hoos are 47th in number of scoring droughts suffered (not as bad as I thought). And 19th in scoring droughts inflicted. Via Evan Miyakawa.
6 Likes
Oh, pet peeves? Mine is announcers noting that it’s an “X-possession game” when it’s nowhere near the end of the game. I’ve seen guys do it in the first half, for god’s sake. Just say it’s a 7-point lead.
While I’m on the subject, I’d prefer they don’t do it at the end of games either. “If he makes this free throw, that’ll make it a 2-possession game” yes WE KNOW the score is written at the bottom of the screen do you really think anyone watching needed to be told that
This is an enormous pet peeve of mine as well, and a reason I’m thankful for LRA as a whole. That sentiment comes around occasionally here (and I agree and trust Tony too) but it’s like war cry over at 247. You can’t say anything close to critical or analytical over Tony’s in game decisions.
6 Likes
How are they defining a drought? For example 2 points in 6 minutes is definitely a drought … but if those 2 pts are right in the middle it won’t show up on most drought lists…
For example the Hoos started the game against Wake going scoreless for the first 3:40 and only 4 points the first 6:40 … then also had a stretch in the 2nd half of scoring 4 points in 6 minutes and also 7 points over a 8:44 stretch…
Could a drought be defined as a stretch of at least 5 minutes where a team scores at less than half their usual points per possession?
What do you think?
1 Like
I think some of the time the “I trust Tony” is just a recognition that our coaches have more information, particularly with respect to what goes on in practice and with the non-basketball lives of each player, and are generally really good at their jobs, so any analysis based on box scores and game tape should also consider there may be other possible reasons for why certain coaching decisions are being made. For example, one of my pet peeves are fans who look at metrics and game tape and conclude that a certain player should be playing a lot less, Kihei for example the last couple of years, without fully considering what the options and consequences are of playing a different player or player combination instead.
Just to be clear, though, I love the analytics discussion here, including the critical stuff. But I try to put it in the perspective that Tony, while certainly not infallible, has more information and is much better at coaching than I am.
9 Likes
Amen
2 Likes
I get that, I just don’t understand what the poster expects will happen next after they explain this. “I think the coach is smarter about this subject than you.” Okay, now what? Is the guy supposed to stop talking now because the coach is smarter? If not, what was the point of expressing this opinion?
I think Tony’s smarter than all y’all too. I think we all do. I kinda feel like we can take that as a given.
6 Likes
This is my point exactly, though. What you’ve just described is a reason not to take any criticism or discussion seriously, or, shutting it down, because of the premise that CTB always knows best, rather than engaging on the topic itself and actually discussing its merits.
This is true across all sports, coaches who do this stuff professionally, Hall of Fame coaches, none of them are infallible. They all make mistakes, some that are verifiable. Call a bad game, mis-evaluate players, etc.
Sometimes things that don’t always make sense at first are proven to be really good decisions later on. A big part of the fun of being a fan, to me, is to think about what’s going on, where you agree and disagree with what’s happening, or what you’d like to see happen, and then discussing those thoughts on their own merits.
“I trust Tony” often just ends those discussions without much intellectual engagement because they’re dismissive of the source rather than the content. Better would be, “here are some reasons he might be doing” x, y, or z and then talking about how that rationale seems, etc.
5 Likes
Sorry. You asked a question, I tried to answer. I’m sorry I opened my mouth. I’ll delete the post.
Nothing to be sorry for, it was a good response. Just don’t talk about a 3-possession game in the first half, those are fighting words.
1 Like
Actually, my pet peeve is: “They don’t need to go for a three here.” Because, yeah, usually they do.
5 Likes
Considering that I used that with you earlier today granted with some context, I’m okay with it. I trust Tony gets it.