The Downside- Miami

[SWC75]

- A bad loss. With a 5 seed, based on the current ACC bracket, we avoid North Carolina who looked in the Dome as if they could beat us 10 out of 10 times. Instead we get a 6 seed. If the Tar Heels beat Virginia Tech they will get another chance to work us over.

- We got off to a sluggish start. So did Miami but it was a lost opportunity to take control of the game early. Our missed shots were so badly missed that matt Park was comparing it to the aircraft carrier game back in 2012 vs. San Diego State where, because of the ocean breezes, neither team to make a jump shot. But this game was indoors. We were also blowing lay-ups, some of which didn’t even hit the rim.

- At halftime we were 2/13 from the three point line and they were 2 for 12. Who would get hot first? They did, sort of. In the second half we were 3 for 12. They were 8 for 19. That was the ball game. The turn-around is amazing in this stat. Through 17 games. we were 164/445 from the arc, 36.9% and our opposition was 148/499, 29.7%. We were averaging almost 10 threes a game and giving up just under 9. In the 14 games since we are 88/321, 27.4% and our opposition is 138/380, 36.3%. We are averaging 6 threes a game and they are averaging 10. I’ve never seen such a turn-around. I realize that the opposition is focusing on our three point shooters but as I said earlier, if something is your strength, the other team shouldn’t be able to take it away just by concentrating on it. I’ve seen plenty of open threes that have missed over these last 14 games. We just aren’t making them.

- Of course, with Elijah Hughes we would have won this game. We lost in overtime and our best player missed the second half. He got bumped in the head for what JB said was the 20th time this season – which doesn’t bode well for any possibility of his agreeing to play for free next year. But Miami was missing their best player, Chris Lykes, for the whole game and yet they managed to win.

- Bourama Sidibe slipped from the high plateau of his play in the previous four games. He had 10 rebounds but there were a lot of rebounds to be had in this game. (The two teams missed 90 shots, including free throws). He was 1 for 3 from the field and scored 2 points. He had as many turnovers and, of course, fouled out again. Miami’s 7-0 255 Rodner Miller pushed him around a lot.

- With all this we still could have won but a team that hits 75% of its free throws missed 7 of 19, (made 63%). One more in regulation…

- Meanwhile everybody’s going to wonder what Hughes future is here. Not just will he come back, but what can he give us next week, or the week after that. We are a mediocre team with him. Without him, we are certainly less than that. I’m glad we got that 17th win against BC. It might be our last.

 

[tbonezone]

how often does a crowd grow hoarse and plain tired of chanting "AIRBALL"

 

[Ghost]

I’m glad we got that 17th win against BC. It might be our last.

Most depressing end to a "downside" yet.

 

[SWC75]

Most depressing end to a "downside" yet.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

There’s an upside?

 

[CaptainJ]

I enjoyed the write up as usual SWC, and will try to make my compliment short and unable to be confusing and be mocked by you like my last one.

(SWC, the rest isn't soley aimed at you...it was repeated by others ealier and after seeing it yet again and being caught up on everything. I figured it would be ok to duscuss a hypothetical).

So I'll actually go with maybe a first(for me) and disagree with something in one of these posts. It actually have seen it from others today, and am not sure if anyone else has stood up to flatly say it wasn't a factual statement. although others have certainly discussed the items I'll use for my reasoning, which should be self-evident and keep my post shorter than usual.

In the OP, it was written, "- Of course, with Elijah Hughes we would have won this game". He wasn't exactly setting the world on fire today like Elvis or anything, and additionally, like most of the team, he's been known to disappear on occasion for a about a half at a time. I know you're into stats, but off the top of my head it seemed like the majority of the clock time after he left had us in a better point differential than at halftime.

Now we can talk likelihoods(and even those aren't really the strongest for this game, in my opinion), but this seems pretty cut and dry(that it is not cut and dry) and rather uncharacteristic of you. Maybe I am misreading the spirit of intent, but I read it or similar things too many times to ignore tham in good conscience any longer.

 

[CaptainJ]

All of that said, I want to go out of my way to be clear that I wish Hughes had been ok and had been cleared to play, and am hoping the same for the future. The above post relates to one half(or maybe 2), as well as possibly opinions vs facts.

 

[SWC75]

I enjoyed the write up as usual SWC, and will try to make my compliment short and unable to be confusing and be mocked by you like my last one.

(SWC, the rest isn't soley aimed at you...it was repeated by others ealier and after seeing it yet again and being caught up on everything. I figured it would be ok to duscuss a hypothetical).

So I'll actually go with maybe a first(for me) and disagree with something in one of these posts. It actually have seen it from others today, and am not sure if anyone else has stood up to flatly say it wasn't a factual statement. although others have certainly discussed the items I'll use for my reasoning, which should be self-evident and keep my post shorter than usual.

In the OP, it was written, "- Of course, with Elijah Hughes we would have won this game". He wasn't exactly setting the world on fire today like Elvis or anything, and additionally, like most of the team, he's been known to disappear on occasion for a about a half at a time. I know you're into stats, but off the top of my head it seemed like the majority of the clock time after he left had us in a better point differential than at halftime.

Now we can talk likelihoods(and even those aren't really the strongest for this game, in my opinion), but this seems pretty cut and dry(that it is not cut and dry) and rather uncharacteristic of you. Maybe I am misreading the spirit of intent, but I read it or similar things too many times to ignore tham in good conscience any longer.

The rest of the team played better in the second half than the first. Hughes is certainly a good enough player to have turned a tie into a victory. And, as JB said, he's the guy who gets the ball down the stretch of of games. The guys who got it in this game weren't as good. He wasn't 'setting the world on fire' because he got hit upside the head.

 

[CaptainJ]

The rest of the team played better in the second half than the first. Hughes is certainly a good enough player to have turned a tie into a victory. And, as JB said, he's the guy who gets the ball down the stretch of of games. The guys who got it in this game weren't as good. He wasn't 'setting the world on fire' because he got hit upside the head.

Good points, I was considering them myself earlier. Even if your assumption gave the slightest window of possibilty, I think the end of regulation was a brilliant illustration of why one can not just use such assumptions in lieu of actual facts. I'd argue the remarkable events in the final moments of regulation to get to OT were a bigger defiance of the odds than the trainers letting JB play Hughes and the Cuse still losing.

Like I said, I can see the logic and I agree a case is there at least possibly for increased probability, but it's not exactly a slam dunk(and we've seen this team miss even those on occasions). I don't think we even need to get into a complex Butterfly Effect discussion to agree on things like points Hughes would have had(as well as possession, etc) would be taking the same away from other SU players, for better or worse. Maybe we can also agree the team played better as a whole(though the bar was set low) after he left? (Auctually, you already did in the quote). I get that the announcers are hated, but one of them pointed that out, as well as mentioning his replacement being the fellow who brought the initial change in energy...(which would likely not been the case otherwise).

I'm not even trying to win a batle of odds here, simply making a case this is not a slam dunk/given, and far stranger things gave happened in sports and/or real life.

(I think the following is a great example of how someone can have what I am will assume was a sincere belief and be way off base, and it didn't require to rematch to see it)
If I recall correctly, you also scored Wilder as beating Fury in the first fight(which I took great exception to even before the 2nd fight and believe I made note of before such), when some folks(Kellerman?) say he didn't win any rounds other than the ones where he knocked Fury down(and maybe not even one of those!), and that did stick in my memory and make me feel confident enough to stand up to someone who is both respected and likeable(which may not exactly feel pleasant, to put it mildly), and hopefully inspire others who may wonder if they have minority opinions to not waste time using that as a consideration about sharing their points, and maybe they shouldn't necessarily be as concerned about publicly disagreeing with a popular member for the first time in 15 years as I was before adding this edit.

No hard feelings, but if you won't say your statement was not a 100% certainty, I am not sure what else can be said, and we cab agree to disagree(not that it even matters, beyond an exercise of critical thinking and an illustration of what I personally consider one of the larger problems in society(the infotainment industry in particular), with many who are willing to accept as a statement of fact, when they are even more clearly than this example not).


(Bonus feature for anyone who likes cinema, and movies that can make one think...somewhat related to the topic at hand)
BTW, for anyone interested, the movie "The Butterfly Effect" has 2 extremely different versions(not just endings, and no I do not mean the sequels) between the theatrical and the director's cut, and see's Ashton Kutcher surprise a good many viewers in his portrayal of a serious roll...with very different outcomes for our protagonist, based on (if I recall correctly) one small variable toward the beginning of the movie. I highly recommend both versions. The Butterfly Effect (2004) - IMDb
Memory isn't always my strong suit unlike SWC, but I'm not sure if I recall any films with a director's cut that better made the movie as different as the theatrical version, while still making sense.

 

[Red Holzman]

Weird morning on this board.
Clicked another thread and found it evolved into discussion of music concerts.
And now this one veered off into movie reviews!

Diversions do help recovering from disappointing games, therefore carry on.

 

[SWC75]

Good points, I was considering them myself earlier. Even if your assumption gave the slightest window of possibilty, I think the end of regulation was a brilliant illustration of why one can not just use such assumptions in lieu of actual facts. I'd argue the remarkable events in the final moments of regulation to get to OT were a bigger defiance of the odds than the trainers letting JB play Hughes and the Cuse still losing.

Like I said, I can see the logic and I agree a case is there at least possibly for increased probability, but it's not exactly a slam dunk(and we've seen this team miss even those on occasions). I don't think we even need to get into a complex Butterfly Effect discussion to agree on things like points Hughes would have had(as well as possession, etc) would be taking the same away from other SU players, for better or worse. Maybe we can also agree the team played better as a whole(though the bar was set low) after he left? (Auctually, you already did in the quote). I get that the announcers are hated, but one of them pointed that out, as well as mentioning his replacement being the fellow who brought the initial change in energy...(which would likely not been the case otherwise).

I'm not even trying to win a batle of odds here, simply making a case this is not a slam dunk/given, and far stranger things gave happened in sports and/or real life.

(I think the following is a great example of how someone can have what I am will assume was a sincere belief and be way off base, and it didn't require to rematch to see it)
If I recall correctly, you also scored Wilder as beating Fury in the first fight(which I took great exception to even before the 2nd fight and believe I made note of before such), when some folks(Kellerman?) say he didn't win any rounds other than the ones where he knocked Fury down(and maybe not even one of those!), and that did stick in my memory and make me feel confident enough to stand up to someone who is both respected and likeable(which may not exactly feel pleasant, to put it mildly), and hopefully inspire others who may wonder if they have minority opinions to not waste time using that as a consideration about sharing their points, and maybe they shouldn't necessarily be as concerned about publicly disagreeing with a popular member for the first time in 15 years as I was before adding this edit.

No hard feelings, but if you won't say your statement was not a 100% certainty, I am not sure what else can be said, and we cab agree to disagree(not that it even matters, beyond an exercise of critical thinking and an illustration of what I personally consider one of the larger problems in society(the infotainment industry in particular), with many who are willing to accept as a statement of fact, when they are even more clearly than this example not).


(Bonus feature for anyone who likes cinema, and movies that can make one think...somewhat related to the topic at hand)
BTW, for anyone interested, the movie "The Butterfly Effect" has 2 extremely different versions(not just endings, and no I do not mean the sequels) between the theatrical and the director's cut, and see's Ashton Kutcher surprise a good many viewers in his portrayal of a serious roll...with very different outcomes for our protagonist, based on (if I recall correctly) one small variable toward the beginning of the movie. I highly recommend both versions. The Butterfly Effect (2004) - IMDb
Memory isn't always my strong suit unlike SWC, but I'm not sure if I recall any films with a director's cut that better made the movie as different as the theatrical version, while still making sense.

There are no statements on this board that will pass a "100% certainty" test. What we have are opinions, (augmented, occasionally by statistics). That doesn't mean that some of those statements aren't correct.

I was not arguing that Hughes should have been sent back into the game with a possible concussion. I merely stated that the absence of our best player probably was a major contributing factor to the result of a game that was decided in overtime.

As to Fury-Wilder, I find it interesting that my memory of my reaction to the first fight was that Fury should have won it because he won every round other than the two in which he was knocked down and yet when I pulled up the post I made at the time, I'd scored the fight for Wilder by a point. It illustrates how our opinions and our recollections can evolve and be influenced by others.

 

[Marty McFly]

Fitting there is no upside to that game, lol. Either we pack it in next week, or the players have a kumbaya meeting, and find a spark. No idea what to expect effort wise, but sadly do expect to lose convincingly to Roy (which is getting very old).

 

[pfister1]

We're going to beat UNC. Why?

Because it absolutely defies logic and it will continue the roller coaster ride that is this season.

 

[SWC75]

Fitting there is no upside to that game, lol. Either we pack it in next week, or the players have a kumbaya meeting, and find a spark. No idea what to expect effort wise, but sadly do expect to lose convincingly to Roy (which is getting very old).

Sorry: The Upside - Miami

 

[Marty McFly]

Sorry: The Upside - Miami

My bad, didn't see it when scrolling though the threads quickly. I should've known better. Always a silver lining to everything

 

[SWC75]

Good points, I was considering them myself earlier. Even if your assumption gave the slightest window of possibilty, I think the end of regulation was a brilliant illustration of why one can not just use such assumptions in lieu of actual facts. I'd argue the remarkable events in the final moments of regulation to get to OT were a bigger defiance of the odds than the trainers letting JB play Hughes and the Cuse still losing.

Like I said, I can see the logic and I agree a case is there at least possibly for increased probability, but it's not exactly a slam dunk(and we've seen this team miss even those on occasions). I don't think we even need to get into a complex Butterfly Effect discussion to agree on things like points Hughes would have had(as well as possession, etc) would be taking the same away from other SU players, for better or worse. Maybe we can also agree the team played better as a whole(though the bar was set low) after he left? (Auctually, you already did in the quote). I get that the announcers are hated, but one of them pointed that out, as well as mentioning his replacement being the fellow who brought the initial change in energy...(which would likely not been the case otherwise).

I'm not even trying to win a batle of odds here, simply making a case this is not a slam dunk/given, and far stranger things gave happened in sports and/or real life.

(I think the following is a great example of how someone can have what I am will assume was a sincere belief and be way off base, and it didn't require to rematch to see it)
If I recall correctly, you also scored Wilder as beating Fury in the first fight(which I took great exception to even before the 2nd fight and believe I made note of before such), when some folks(Kellerman?) say he didn't win any rounds other than the ones where he knocked Fury down(and maybe not even one of those!), and that did stick in my memory and make me feel confident enough to stand up to someone who is both respected and likeable(which may not exactly feel pleasant, to put it mildly), and hopefully inspire others who may wonder if they have minority opinions to not waste time using that as a consideration about sharing their points, and maybe they shouldn't necessarily be as concerned about publicly disagreeing with a popular member for the first time in 15 years as I was before adding this edit.

No hard feelings, but if you won't say your statement was not a 100% certainty, I am not sure what else can be said, and we cab agree to disagree(not that it even matters, beyond an exercise of critical thinking and an illustration of what I personally consider one of the larger problems in society(the infotainment industry in particular), with many who are willing to accept as a statement of fact, when they are even more clearly than this example not).


(Bonus feature for anyone who likes cinema, and movies that can make one think...somewhat related to the topic at hand)
BTW, for anyone interested, the movie "The Butterfly Effect" has 2 extremely different versions(not just endings, and no I do not mean the sequels) between the theatrical and the director's cut, and see's Ashton Kutcher surprise a good many viewers in his portrayal of a serious roll...with very different outcomes for our protagonist, based on (if I recall correctly) one small variable toward the beginning of the movie. I highly recommend both versions. The Butterfly Effect (2004) - IMDb
Memory isn't always my strong suit unlike SWC, but I'm not sure if I recall any films with a director's cut that better made the movie as different as the theatrical version, while still making sense.

Reading this board today, i think you make a very valuable point. There are far too many people who claim to know things with certainty. Jalen Carey would have been better than Buddy. We would/would not be a top team with Isaiah Stewart and yes, that we would have beaten Miami if Hughes hadn't hit his head. Some posters have taken to denigrating the intelligence or sanity of those posters who don't see what is obvious to them. I think the frustration of back-to-back not very successful football and basketball seasons has built up and created an impatience with those who do not reinforce our thoughts and feelings.

 

[tbonezone]

Jalen Carey would have been better than Buddy.

that's not necessarily the argument most people make. the argument is would the team have been better with jalen carey on the roster ? JB clearly made his position untenable . and now the season is what the season is.