Loss doesn't hurt us, actually only helps us

[Day2]

Again, what's the cooralation that the loss helped with anything?

Are you saying that if UK lost a game earlier in the season instead of losing to Duke while undefeated in the tournament that they would have won it all?

Every national championship team loses games prior to the tournament and rarely is a team undefeated entering the tournament. I'm not sure how you can say loss helps or hurts anybody because in all reality there is no data supporting that it does.

There's no point in responding if you're not going to address Villanova vs. Oklahoma last year.

 

[two3zone]

There's no point in responding if you're not going to address Villanova vs. Oklahoma last year.

What's there to address? They lost a game then won the next.

Are you telling me that if they won the first game they couldn't have beat them the second game? Because that's exactly what you're insinuating which you have no factual evidence that is what would have happened. You have no idea what would have happened in the second game if Nova beat them the first.

 

[two3zone]

How is South Carolina a "bad loss" iommi?

Not answering for him, but reading his post he didn't say it was a "bad loss", he said it wasn't good for us as we need to build up some good non-conference wins which we haven't as of yet.

 

[tbonezone]

Loss doesn't hurt us, actually only helps us

what's easy to say in november is sometimes tough to swallow selection sunday.

 

[Day2]

What's there to address? They lost a game then won the next.

Are you telling me that if they won the first game they couldn't have beat them the second game? Because that's exactly what you're insinuating which you have no factual evidence that is what would have happened. You have no idea what would have happened in the second game if Nova beat them the first.

They were blown out in the first game and then recorded the largest blowout in Final Four history in the second game. If you don't think that's a sign of improvement, then I don't know what to tell you.

BTW, I think UK would have absolutely benefitted from losing one game before the tournament the year before. If only from being relieved of the pressure of going undefeated. And they didn't lose to Duke, they lost to Wisconsin.

 

[two3zone]

They were blown out in the first game and then recorded the largest blowout in Final Four history in the second game. If you don't think that's a sign of improvement, then I don't know what to tell you.

BTW, I think UK would have absolutely benefitted from losing one game before the tournament the year before. If only from being relieved of the pressure of going undefeated. And they didn't lose to Duke, they lost to Wisconsin.

My bad.

So they would have beaten Wisconsin if they lost earlier in the year? That's a fact? Early season losses help right? Would it have helped them to beat Wisconsin?

Every team can improve whether they have a a L or a W in the column. They could have won by 3 and still improved to destroy them later in the season. Every team loses during the regular season, some improve, some don't.

 

[Day2]

My bad.

So they would have beaten Wisconsin if they lost earlier in the year? That's a fact? Early season losses help right? Would it have helped them to beat Wisconsin?

Every team can improve whether they have a a L or a W in the column. They could have won by 3 and still improved to destroy them later in the season. Every team loses during the regular season, some improve, some don't.

Why engage in hypotheticals when we have plenty of actual information at our disposal? We just disagree on what motivates and inspires a team to improve.

 

[Day2]

 

[two3zone]

Why engage in hypotheticals when we have plenty of actual information at our disposal? We just disagree on what motivates and inspires a team to improve.

Well, maybe if the Warriors lost more games last year they would have beaten the Cavs.

 

[pearl31]

We should have this thread at the ready for multiple use in the coming months

 

[RF2044]

This entire post was a truism.

Based upon that response, it is pretty clear that you don't know what the word means.

Actually, it is quite the opposite, given that it deconstructed the colloquial "logic" that the OP was based upon, and the garbage "logic" you've expressed throughout this thread.

 

[RF2044]

What's there to address? They lost a game then won the next.

Are you telling me that if they won the first game they couldn't have beat them the second game? Because that's exactly what you're insinuating which you have no factual evidence that is what would have happened. You have no idea what would have happened in the second game if Nova beat them the first.

You need to view this through the lens of Day2 logic:

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying--Villanova got better because they lost, and Oklahoma OBVIOUSLY got worse because they won that early season matchup. Duh.

Just look at Kentucky the previous year. Pay no attention to the elephant behind the curtain suggesting that Wisconsin might have been a good team that outplayed them that day. The transitive property is never wrong.

 

[Day2]

Based upon that response, it is pretty clear that you don't know what the word means.

Actually, it is quite the opposite, given that it deconstructed the colloquial "logic" that the OP was based upon, and the garbage "logic" you've expressed throughout this thread.

Everything you said was blatantly obvious, so I'm confident I know what the word means.

 

[Day2]

You need to view this through the lens of Day2 logic:

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying--Villanova got better because they lost, and Oklahoma OBVIOUSLY got worse because they won that early season matchup. Duh.

Just look at Kentucky the previous year. Pay no attention to the elephant behind the curtain suggesting that Wisconsin might have been a good team that outplayed them that day. The transitive property is never wrong.

Now THAT'S a straw man.

 

[RF2044]

Everything you said was blatantly obvious, so I'm confident I know what the word means.

It was so blatantly obvious that nobody else brought any of it up in a four page thread.

I generally stopped paying attention to you after you were so butt hurt when I suggested this summer that AWIII wasn't well equipped to be a guard. How'd that hard line stance work out for you? :rolling:

Silly me for getting drawn into your continued argumentative nonsense.

 

[iommi]

How is South Carolina a "bad loss" iommi?

It was a "bad lose for us," in that it was one of the few games we have to build a non-conference resume. It wasn't a "bad loss" in the typical definition of "bad losses." Point is: if we lose tonight, we'll have blown both of our best chances to get good out of conference wins.

 

[two3zone]

Now THAT'S a straw man.

Straw man? Isn't that what every post you wrote is?

 

[Day2]

It was so blatantly obvious that nobody else brought any of it up in a four page thread.

I generally stopped paying attention to you when you were so butt hurt after I suggested this summer that AWIII wasn't well equipped to be a guard. How'd that hard line stance work out for you? :rolling:

Hint: about the same as this thread is going for you.

Pretty sure AWIII is our starting shooting guard, so maybe you should be asking yourself that question. Actually, that whole paragraph was psychological projection. You were the one who took the hard line stance. Why didn't the HOF coach see things your way?

Nobody else brought it up because it was so obvious. Duh. Wow, teams don't improve unless they improve. What a novel concept. You're a regular Mark Adams.

 

[RF2044]

Straw man? Isn't that what every post you wrote is?

Two3zone, don't bother. The hypocrisy--across multiple threads--is unintentionally hilarious.

 

[two3zone]

Pretty sure AWIII is our starting shooting guard, so maybe you should be asking yourself that question. Actually, that whole paragraph was psychological projection. You were the one who took the hard line stance. Why didn't the HOF coach see things your way?

Nobody else brought it up because it was so obvious. Duh. Wow, teams don't improve unless they improve. What a novel concept. You're a regular Mark Adams.

Can't teams improve without losing games?

 

[Day2]

Straw man? Isn't that what every post you wrote is?

Nope. Looks like you and RF have something else in common.

 

[RF2044]

Pretty sure AWIII is our starting shooting guard, so maybe you should be asking yourself that question. Actually, that whole paragraph was psychological projection. You were the one who took the hard line stance. Why didn't the HOF coach see things your way?

Nobody else brought it up because it was so obvious. Duh. Wow, teams don't improve unless they improve. What a novel concept. You're a regular Mark Adams.

What I actually said was that it wouldn't be a "good loss"--you know, the premise of this entire thread--unless we improve.

Duh. Wow, your reading comprehension sucks about as bad as your bountiful H0T Takes.

And for the record, it should be painfully obvious by now that White doesn't have a handle, is a catch and shoot scorer, and can't create his own shots off of the bounce. If you can't see that for yourself, then you're hopeless. Here's hoping that White is only keeping the starting spot at the 2 warm, because the team is disadvantaged from both a ball handling and passing standpoint with him in the backcourt.

 

[RF2044]

Nope. Looks like you and RF have something else in common.

Yeah--we understand basketball.

 

[Day2]

Can't teams improve without losing games?

Sure. But it's easier to learn from your mistakes when you believe you're making mistakes.

 

[Day2]

Yeah--we understand basketball.

Just so we're clear, White is the starting SG, right?