Buss in the doghouse today?

[statsgrad]

yeah . . . my personal favorite was the unsupported assertion that the only variable that factored into Brandon Triche's playing time was "blind loyalty"

Your post is the very definition of giant leaps in logic. That's not the point being made at all.

 

[statsgrad]

because its a low percentage play with a negative payoff most of the time

basketball is a simple game at both the micro and macro levels. you take the higher percentage shots and you're going to be successful

Wrong, when you add in foul trouble, it should absolutely be hedged. Should we go back and look at the box scores of all of JBs tournament losses?

 

[Ghost]

121-26 maybe we need some more "blind loyalty"

In all seriousness though it seems when certain good to very good players show they have some limitations that a large part of the fan base is ready to throw them under the buss and move on to the next guy. Its college basketball and its very rare to see complete players or even elite talent that is well rounded and developed.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh...not the career record again!

 

[Ghost]

I expect JB would reply that Patterson and Chino need to work to get better, in practice, 20 hours each week, and that another 4 minutes of game time every week won't change their development all that much. He might be right.
My concern is that we have seen Cooney and to a lesser extent Ennis get worn down by playing big minutes each game through the ACC schedule. That pace for key starters is OK in November -- December, when there are a lot of home games, and a long break in mid-December. The schedule in January - February is more taxing. If we are down to having the starting guards play every minute of the second half of nearly every ACC game, well, we have seen that movie.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue minutes at this point of the season, but I do think we miss out at times by cutting the bench down so much, so early in the year. That's when you would like to see some of these guys play (by "you" I mean me so I can come on here and pretend I'm smarter than JB)...what ends up happening is that someone plays in some random game in MSG, (like MCW as a Frosh against St. Johns) and looks amazing in an 18 minute spurt and then everyone starts wondering...hmmmm, could this kid help???

You saw something similar with Jeremy Grant, where he was only getting blowout minutes early in his Frosh season, something went down (Dirty suspended?) and he showed he could produce in a larger role. And then went back down to nothing. We like the short bench. It strikes me as an oddity at times, but it mostly works out for us.

Plus, you could argue JG got his experience in those blowouts, and the point is he is ready for the larger role - but isn't better than the starters. That's JB's philosophy obviously. Does it lead to the kids being tired at the end of the year? Who knows.

The idea is though, that I'm making my way to in the most roundabout fashion, is that when we got in foul trouble against Michigan, JGrant was ready - and probably moreso because he got those minutes when Dirty was suspended. Cooney? Not so much. (Not arguing for Cooney getting more minutes as a Frosh - just another what if we developed the bench...)

That whole UM game was a sham though...that foul on BT was such crap. Eh, I'm just rambling now, not even sure which side I'm arguing any more.

 

[moqui]

Wrong, when you add in foul trouble, it should absolutely be hedged. Should we go back and look at the box scores of all of JBs tournament losses?

there is no point in arguing with someone who only wants to cherry pick his data