My questions for tomorrow' nights' Jim Boeheim Show

[SWC75]

Jim Boeheim’s radio show is on Thursdays from 7-8 or 9PM on ESPN Radio in Syracuse, which is AM1200 or FM 97.7 on the dial. The show originates from Carrabba's Italian Grill in Fayetteville. The first hour, hosted by Matt Park, the Voice of the Orange, is on their general network. The second hour, which begins with the conference season, is hosted by Gomez, a local radio personality.

This year’s schedule: Tuesday, November 12, 7:00 pm, Tuesday, November 19, 7:00 pm, Thursday, December 5, 7:00 pm, Thursday, December 12, 7:00 pm, Thursday, December 19, 7:00 pm, Thursday, December 26, 7:00 pm, Thursday, January 2, 7:00 pm, Thursday, January 9, 7:00 pm, Thursday, January 16, 7:00 pm, Thursday, January 23, 7:00 pm, Thursday, January 30, 7:00 pm, Thursday, February 6, 7:00 pm, Monday, February 13, 7:00 pm, Thursday, February 20, 7:00 pm, Thursday, February 27, 7:00 pm,
Thursday, March 5, 7:00 pm.

You can call into the show locally at 315-424-8599 or nationally at 1-888-746-2873. For Gomez’s portion, use 315-424-8599. Or you can submit questions from this page:
Submit a Question! - Syracuse University Athletics
Or on Twitter at mattpark1 or “askBoeheim”.

The show can be heard in Syracuse on FM 99.5. It’s sometime simulcast on AM 1200 or FM 97.7. You can also get it on: TuneIn | Free Internet Radio | NFL, Sports, Podcasts, Music & News

I will be posting my rough transcript the night of the broadcast focusing on my questions, the team and their last and next games and then a second post the next day on other things that were discussed.

MY QUESTIONS/COMMENTS

First Hour:

“Coach, in the Virginia Tech game we attempted 36 two point shots and 17 three point shots. Tech attempted 14 two point shots and 36 three point shots. Ironically, both teams scored 52 points on field goals. The game was won from the free throw line, were they had 4 more attempts, 4 more makes and won by 4. How did the more physical team that was setting for three point shots wind up going to the line more than the team playing zone and driving to the basket?”

Second Hour:

“Bourama got off to a great start against Notre Dame and I thought he would go on to have a big night. Then he got a couple of fouls called on him and had to leave the game. His production tailed off when he came back in. Are the refs more likely to call fouls on players who have a reputation for fouling? Does Bourama tend to play to tentatively when he gets called for fouls?”

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Sorry—don't mean to be critical, but i don't understand the line of thinking that the game was lost at the FT line. It's not as if we played 40 minutes, concluded with a tie score, and then they settled it soccer-like, with penalty kicks. 4 more FTs made is just a happenstance statistic. Isn't it more relevant to say that they had four more 3-pointers than we had, and we only had two more 2-pointers? Or that they had 20 assists to our 6?

 

[stlorange]

Some alternative questions:

"How did Syracuse basketball become a such a disappointment and who/what is responsible for its demise?" or
"Many successful coaches in basketball (and other sports) stay too long before retiring and become much less effective in recruiting, coaching, etc. When does a coach know when its time to walk away?"

PS Take cover after asking either question!

 

[SWC75]

Sorry—don't mean to be critical, but i don't understand the line of thinking that the game was lost at the FT line. It's not as if we played 40 minutes, concluded with a tie score, and then they settled it soccer-like, with penalty kicks. 4 more FTs made is just a happenstance statistic. Isn't it more relevant to say that they had four more 3-pointers than we had, and we only had two more 2-pointers? Or that they had 20 assists to our 6?

We had 6 more two pointers than they did. we had 2 more field goals over all. If you add up the points produced by the two teams two and thee point field goals, they both come to 52, (even if they had 20 assists and we had only 6). Therefore the difference was at the free throw line.

 

[SWC75]

Some alternative questions:

"How did Syracuse basketball become a such a disappointment and who/what is responsible for its demise?" or
"Many successful coaches in basketball (and other sports) stay too long before retiring and become much less effective in recruiting, coaching, etc. When does a coach know when its time to walk away?"

PS Take cover after asking either question!

You can call into the show locally at 315-424-8599 or nationally at 1-888-746-2873. For Gomez’s portion, use 315-424-8599. Or you can submit questions from this page:
Submit a Question! - Syracuse University Athletics
Or on Twitter at mattpark1 or “askBoeheim”.

(You can take the cover.)

 

[stlorange]

SWC75 , I was only half-joking about the questions. I much enjoy your recaps. Having said that I will submit my questions. I actually think think the second one is a legitimate one to ask, although perhaps before or after a season rather then after a game (especially a loss). Thx.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

We had 6 more two pointers than they did. we had 2 more field goals over all. If you add up the points produced by the two teams two and thee point field goals, they both come to 52, (even if they had 20 assists and we had only 6). Therefore the difference was at the free throw line.

I think we're just speaking about how that matters in different contexts. Yes, there was a 4 point difference in free throws. I'm just suggesting that that's only an 'on paper' thing, and not 'gameplay significant.' Saying "the difference was..." to me means you're talking about a factor that decided a game. Not just a random statistical difference that, to me, is lost in the overall 40 minutes. I'll be interested to hear how he replies to that.

 

[cuseinseattle]

I'm thinking of calling in and floating the idea of Eli at the top of the zone and why he doesn't do it

 

[Cuseball]

I'm thinking of calling in and floating the idea of Eli at the top of the zone and why he doesn't do it

would love to hear a real answer but we wouldn’t get it. The idea makes complete sense and even if for twenty minutes would help with frontline rebounding issues and length and athleticism up top. You would still get plenty of shooting from Hughes and either Buddy or Joe. Whatever you lose in shooting may be offset by the bigger, stronger and more effective inside game. Putting Eli at top of the zone makes too much sense but would cut into current guard minutes.
Cuse

 

[Ghost]

would love to hear a real answer but we wouldn’t get it. The idea makes complete sense and even if for twenty minutes would help with frontline rebounding issues and length and athleticism up top. You would still get plenty of shooting from Hughes and either Buddy or Joe. Whatever you lose in shooting may be offset by the bigger, stronger and more effective inside game. Putting Eli at top of the zone makes too much sense but would cut into current guard minutes.
Cuse

Because what if it worked out better? Can't find that out.

 

[SWC75]

I think we're just speaking about how that matters in different contexts. Yes, there was a 4 point difference in free throws. I'm just suggesting that that's only an 'on paper' thing, and not 'gameplay significant.' Saying "the difference was..." to me means you're talking about a factor that decided a game. Not just a random statistical difference that, to me, is lost in the overall 40 minutes. I'll be interested to hear how he replies to that.

Statistics can be misleading if you don't look at all of them and misinterpret them. But they are never random. if field goals produced the same number of points and free throws did not, free throws did determine the outcome. That's an indelible statistical fact. The real truth lies in finding out how the statistics came to be and that's what I asked about.

 

[jgeorge322]

I'm thinking of calling in and floating the idea of Eli at the top of the zone and why he doesn't do it

Is the thought of playing buddy at the three?

 

[AZOrange]

Coach have you and ADJW spoken recently?

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Statistics can be misleading if you don't look at all of them and misinterpret them. But they are never random. if field goals produced the same number of points and free throws did not, free throws did determine the outcome. That's an indelible statistical fact. The real truth lies in finding out how the statistics came to be and that's what I asked about.

We are most likely just disagreeing on syntax/lexicon. On what "determining a game" means.

Still, though, i find a problem in what you just explained. You begin by saying 'statistics can be misleading" which is absolutely true. Then you say you have to 'interpret' them, which indicates you recognize there's subjectivity involved. But, then you conclude by saying that something is "an indelible statistical fact" in the context of 'determining the outcome.' Those are three conflicting statements. IMHO, the only indelible statistical fact that determines the outcome is the final score. How you got to the point of who won or lost is a subjective matter where the assessor attributes value to any number of individual statistics or observations. But, whatever...

 

[miamicuse]

I would like to ask the coach why we play exclusively zone.

One can argue that may be some years we have the players to do it and some years we don't. Even coach said himself in some years (preseason) we may play some man that year but we never did except for some desperate coming from behind presses. So it doesn't really seem like it's dependent on what players we have on a particular year.

Or is it because we want to maximize success in March where we will run into teams who are not familiar with it having rarely played against it and most likely to be surprised by it? After all it was him who once said all that matters is March success, I think in 2016 when we got to a F4.

Or is it because it's a "system" he recruits for, practiced for, which translates into many things that can be executed by assistant coaches, allowing him to coach through a system at his age. For example, I think the zone requires less scouting on the defensive end because the zone looks the same regardless of the opponent for each game, any adjustments made are usually made in game later.

 

[SWC75]

I would like to ask the coach why we play exclusively zone.

One can argue that may be some years we have the players to do it and some years we don't. Even coach said himself in some years (preseason) we may play some man that year but we never did except for some desperate coming from behind presses. So it doesn't really seem like it's dependent on what players we have on a particular year.

Or is it because we want to maximize success in March where we will run into teams who are not familiar with it having rarely played against it and most likely to be surprised by it? After all it was him who once said all that matters is March success, I think in 2016 when we got to a F4.

Or is it because it's a "system" he recruits for, practiced for, which translates into many things that can be executed by assistant coaches, allowing him to coach through a system at his age. For example, I think the zone requires less scouting on the defensive end because the zone looks the same regardless of the opponent for each game, any adjustments made are usually made in game later.

Then do it.

 

[SWC75]

We are most likely just disagreeing on syntax/lexicon. On what "determining a game" means.

Still, though, i find a problem in what you just explained. You begin by saying 'statistics can be misleading" which is absolutely true. Then you say you have to 'interpret' them, which indicates you recognize there's subjectivity involved. But, then you conclude by saying that something is "an indelible statistical fact" in the context of 'determining the outcome.' Those are three conflicting statements. IMHO, the only indelible statistical fact that determines the outcome is the final score. How you got to the point of who won or lost is a subjective matter where the assessor attributes value to any number of individual statistics or observations. But, whatever...

Statistics state statistical facts. They don't by themselves say what produced those facts and it's worth it to ask those questions. But if the net result of all the things that led to the dfiferences in two and three point shot attempted and made resulted in 52-52, those things did not decide the game. You could argue that better performance in certain areas could have produced a better result than 52-52 and thus the actual performance helped to decide the outcome. But all the actual performance of both teams in the various categories produced 52-52 and allowed something else, like a perimeter team guarding the perimeter aggressively to go to the line more times than a team in a zone driving to the basket and that seems counter intuitive, at best. Thus i'm asking how that happened.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I would like to ask the coach why we play exclusively zone.

One can argue that may be some years we have the players to do it and some years we don't. Even coach said himself in some years (preseason) we may play some man that year but we never did except for some desperate coming from behind presses. So it doesn't really seem like it's dependent on what players we have on a particular year.

Or is it because we want to maximize success in March where we will run into teams who are not familiar with it having rarely played against it and most likely to be surprised by it? After all it was him who once said all that matters is March success, I think in 2016 when we got to a F4.

Or is it because it's a "system" he recruits for, practiced for, which translates into many things that can be executed by assistant coaches, allowing him to coach through a system at his age. For example, I think the zone requires less scouting on the defensive end because the zone looks the same regardless of the opponent for each game, any adjustments made are usually made in game later.

I'd ask if the changes to the 3 point line this year will cause him to reevaluate all zone all the time.

 

[tbonezone]

statistics tell us rather accurately what has actually occurred in the past. facts. there are many ways to interpret certain statistics and many many factors possibly inflating or conflating them but they are indeed facts. not always accurate in determining if that trend continues forward in the future or not but certainly a good enuf indicator (given sample size) of what you might likely expect in the future. recent disturbing trend is labeling any facts you happen to disagree with as " FAKE NEWS". no facts are facts. like them or not.

 

[kuethstheman]

Statistics state statistical facts. They don't by themselves say what produced those facts and it's worth it to ask those questions. But if the net result of all the things that led to the dfiferences in two and three point shot attempted and made resulted in 52-52, those things did not decide the game. You could argue that better performance in certain areas could have produced a better result than 52-52 and thus the actual performance helped to decide the outcome. But all the actual performance of both teams in the various categories produced 52-52 and allowed something else, like a perimeter team guarding the perimeter aggressively to go to the line more times than a team in a zone driving to the basket and that seems counter intuitive, at best. Thus i'm asking how that happened.

On the chance that JB also gets bogged down with whether or not the game was "won on the free throw line", perhaps simplify it to the fundamental question: How come we didn't get to the line (1) more than we did and (2) more than they did.

 

[JoeySimz]

I'm thinking of calling in and floating the idea of Eli at the top of the zone and why he doesn't do it

Is the thought of playing buddy at the three?

I think the idea would be to play Eli up top with a guard and Marek, Sid, QG. We’d be longer, better at closing on threes, better at denying lane, and better at rebounding imo. But I think JB would just point out that it would take one of our top scorers off the court whether it‘s JG or Buddy. Now as far as Buddy playing the back of the zone, I don’t even want to think about him trying to cover the corner.

 

[20plus]

I'm thinking of calling in and floating the idea of Eli at the top of the zone and why he doesn't do it

I’ve only been saying this to many times for months

 

[tbonezone]

I would like to ask the coach why we play exclusively zone.

“Hence that general is skilful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skilful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

we are so very and sadly predictable. our enemies know what to expect every time down the court.
do call in your question. i always get thru. but don't think coach hasn't fielded that call hundreds of times.

 

[Sherman20]

I would like to ask the coach why we play exclusively zone.

One can argue that may be some years we have the players to do it and some years we don't. Even coach said himself in some years (preseason) we may play some man that year but we never did except for some desperate coming from behind presses. So it doesn't really seem like it's dependent on what players we have on a particular year.

Or is it because we want to maximize success in March where we will run into teams who are not familiar with it having rarely played against it and most likely to be surprised by it? After all it was him who once said all that matters is March success, I think in 2016 when we got to a F4.

Or is it because it's a "system" he recruits for, practiced for, which translates into many things that can be executed by assistant coaches, allowing him to coach through a system at his age. For example, I think the zone requires less scouting on the defensive end because the zone looks the same regardless of the opponent for each game, any adjustments made are usually made in game later.

So you’re implying that he’s lazy and doesn’t want to do the work at his advanced age. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but have fun asking that question.

 

[tbonezone]

So you’re implying that he’s lazy and doesn’t want to do the work at his advanced age. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but have fun asking that question.

i would also toss in "why are you too lazy to rotate players in and out of the game situationally like every other coach in america ? you play the same defense. run no offensive sets. make no adjustments and no subs...
what exactly do you do on the sidelines besides sit and wince ?"
i'll hang up and listen.