Metrics vs. Meaning

[Shenexon]

It's interesting to read the various takes on the Georgetown game. We have a group of basketball scientists examining the results of last nite's "experiment" and debating the results from technical and philosophical standpoints. Both positions have merit for different reasons and at different times.

My opinion is that the Georgetown game was much more meaningful than it was a statistically significant game. I must admit that I'm more on the zen side of basketball and find that a win over Georgetown at this juncture means a lot to SU fans. For all we know, we may never play them again within the Big East and can't let them leave the court for the last time as a winner. For the Georgetown win to be the one that puts JB in 3rd place all-time adds to the meaning of the event.

That doesn't mean that the clinical perspective isn't important overall as a way for the "scientists" to measure the team and identify areas in need of improvement. It's clear we have significant issues that need to be addressed to be ultimately successful. However, losing to Georgetown by itself wouldn't have impacted our seeding in the BET or the NCAA's. Losing to Georgetown in the last BE game at the dome and not giving JB his moment against our biggest rival would have changed the meaning completely and permanently.

At least for the Georgetown game, I think "Meaning" wins. This is one victory that is to be savored far more than analyzed.

 

[omniorange]

Love this post, but I think it will go WAY over the heads of the majority who post on this board. :bang:

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Moontan]

I agree with Neil, well said.

This is part of a rivalry, or even one-sided "hatred"... #winning and the associated emotions are more important than the "how did they play?" analysis.

The upcoming games against Yukon, and to a lesser extent Louisville, will be somewhat similar. The USF game, uniforms not withstanding, will be fair game for the statisticians and clinicians.