|
Replies: 13
| visibility 2,058
|
Team Captain [466]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 564
Joined: 1/8/18
|
Why do so many of you
Mar 6, 2019, 12:51 PM
|
|
care so much about how we do in close games? Would it make any of you feel any better if we blew a huge lead and hung on to a 1 point lead at the buzzer like Louisville did to us? Realistically we shouldn’t have been in those scenarios, for example the Louisville game we were down by 7 without the ball and a minute left but we had a shot to win at the end, it takes incredible coaching to get to that spot. For the record, just because a game is decided by more than 3 points doesn’t mean a game isn’t close, it probably means you made free throws down the stretch, which happens to us all the time. The VT game for example was a 1 point with 3 minutes left but we won by 8 because they continued to foul us and we made free throws, that’s still a close game.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Why do so many of you
Mar 6, 2019, 12:58 PM
|
|
To help us out please let us know prior to your post which group of Tigernet you are in today.
1) Are you trying to get Brownlee fired?
2) Are you trying to get Brownlee in the Ring of Honor?
3) Is this supposed to be a football post but you accidentally clicked the wrong bored?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24848]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32247
Joined: 2/15/09
|
Are you asking if we would feel better if we won those games
Mar 6, 2019, 1:00 PM
|
|
Rather than lost them? I think the answer to that is yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [466]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 564
Joined: 1/8/18
|
I’m asking why everyone cares about the
Mar 6, 2019, 1:10 PM
|
|
point differential in games we win or lose? It seems like people would prefer us to win by 1 instead of winning by 5, 10, 15 or 20. Games decided by 3 points or less don’t count as two
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: I’m asking why everyone cares about the
Mar 6, 2019, 1:15 PM
|
|
I think everyone is putting games into 1 of 3 categories.
Win by 2 possessions or more. (Comfortable wins)
Lose by 2 possessions or more. (Didn't have a great chance)
1 possession game. (Expected to be 50:50)
We have been 1:13 in our last 14 50:50 games.
That is eye catching to say the least. Especially in basketball when a possession can take as little as a few seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
You're right, a loss is a loss. We should be more upset
Mar 6, 2019, 1:50 PM
|
|
that Clemson lost all of those games as opposed to caring about the score. We should focus on the dumb coaching decisions that were made that caused that loss instead of the close nature of the game itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38422]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33199
Joined: 7/28/11
|
Re: Why do so many of you
Mar 6, 2019, 1:55 PM
|
|
I have a theory about losing/winning close games .
If you were a better team you'd expect to have a higher win % in them , and if you're not a great team then realistically a lower % of wins in them is what you'd expect to have .
I also theorize that 9 out of 10 dentist's recommendations should not be followed about using a particular toothpaste brand because suggesting something that actually works would lead to fewer dental problems and FFS that's taking money out of their own pockets . Buy the 1 product they don't recommend . You're welcome .
Message was edited by: Tigerdug23®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
They would argue that it is the close games that are
Mar 6, 2019, 2:10 PM
|
|
determined by coaching more than just the "Jimmy and Joes."
And probability would suggest that if games are close because the teams are evenly matched, then the probability of winning should be around 50%. So if a team consistently loses close games, then inferior coaching must be a big factor in the outcome.
Consider warfare instead of sports and study what history calls the "greatest" generals of all time. They are considered great not because the consistently defeated inferior opponents. They are considered great because they consistently defeated formidable opponents, often in desperate, "close" battles, whereas poor generals consistently lost to comparable opponents in "close" battles.
Of course generals, typically don't get to chose their soldiers, so they are generally not condemned for losing to superior forces as much as coaches are for losing to superior teams. Coaches have less lee-way, because if their team is not superior to their opponents, it is assumed that they don't recruit as well; and if they are superior and still lose, it's because they don't coach as well; and then, which is the subject of your question, if they are equal to their opponents, but still lose close games, then they obviously don't coach as well.
And if you still don't understand, just think of Brady and the Patriots. He is considered to be the greatest quarterback of all time not because he's won so many titles because he plays on the greatest teams, but mainly because he always seems to figure out how to win the close games, and even when he is playing what seems to many a superior opponent.
Eventually, when an army or a team continues to lose, or win, close battles, most people begin to reason that leadership must play a big roll in those, losses, or wins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3530
Joined: 5/7/03
|
Re: Why do so many of you
Mar 6, 2019, 3:26 PM
|
|
Those of us who follow Tiger Basketball do care about outcomes. Personally I've experienced horrid seasons, decent ones and a few great ones since 1972, but frankly I am tired of records like the one being discussed. While Brad Brownell is considered by his peers to be a fine coach, he is also recognized as having been quite unlucky! The question is why? Although I have followed his teams, I have not been close to the programs and thus have no real understanding of the "day to day" team circumstances. It seems to me Brownell has consistently been one or two plays away from winning the close contests, but again what is missing?
The answers seem to point in the direction of two critical aspects of his program. First his overall recruiting has been "hit or miss" and therefore he has no clear cut player who emerges as a go to threat in crunch time of games. His few good, solid teams had such a player. This year Reed has tried to take that role, but Mitchell, likely due to injuries, hasn't been as effective as expected. Together they were expected to lead, but one cannot do it alone.
Second coaching is always a key element of overall success. Brownell manages games, but sometimes seems to be almost unprepared in doing so under pressure in the closing moments. When his message doesn't get through his players show by their shortcomings what seems to be missing to a degree. In other words there is shared blame.
Despite the programs missed opportunities Brownell has somehow managed to become the second most successful coach we have ever had, which isn't saying much about the overall success of the program historically! Although it doesn't seem likely, I'd like another NCAA appearance and then have coach Brownell decide to move into administration or find another coaching opportunity because his program seems to have stalled and next season doesn't look promising at all. Like many institutions, we are at a point where we need a fresh perspective and a renewal and I do not see that happening unless Clemson makes a firm decision to better fund the program and demand greater success after doing so. Brownell laid a foundation, but unless recruits come running I honestly don't see sustained success unless I am missing something within the program.
Comments welcomed.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: Why do so many of you
Mar 6, 2019, 3:43 PM
|
|
+1 This is a good take.
Coaches, like anyone, has better/worse areas. One weakness of Brad is that he is a "meh" draw-up-a-play, last possession guy. You can point to a lack of "the guy" and you would be correct, that isn't BB recruiting focus. He normally looks for contributers (greater than sum of the sum of the parts guys) I won't say he is bad, but it is not his strength. Like you said, he is a game manager and often puts himself into a position he can win by the last possession when we have been outplayed physically. (See: Louisville game coming back from 7 to have a chance).
The opposite of that was Purnell. He was a fantastic "last two possession coach" but a terrible manager/game planner. See every NCAA game he lost. I think the Nova but especially the Mich or Mizzu games are the best as you can tell he was beat in the few minutes.
My issue with letting Brad go is: "Who". I want an transition, not a change. OP's departure could have ruined us with a back successor and Brad, despite being "bland himself" has been a good pick. We could be Wake, GT or Pitt bad but rather BB has kept us in mid-table purgatory (and now the anti-folks are complaining). Looking around, I don't see a fantastic fit available, even some up-and-coming assistants. People wanting the Havok (OP style) play have not been watching the decline of that style. So what would be the style, who would be the young coach to make the fit? Maybe Nate Oats at Buffalo but not sure about his roots to the area so it is a long shot. Form a culture perspective, he fits and the defense-first would fit. But any Clemson person should know that any coach considering us will know that we are not basketball focused and will get "angry" for being behind major programs. Clemson is a big risk to a lot of coaches, often it will make a good coach look mid-table and not lead to any other advancement unless you duck out quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16646]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9354
Joined: 11/1/14
|
I'm like Brad, I guess...
Mar 6, 2019, 3:48 PM
|
|
I've been unlucky, too.
Now, that person up in Simpsonville...well...I'd say lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Why do so many of you
Mar 6, 2019, 4:20 PM
|
|
I'm not saying this is the case here, but IMO, a coach that tends to lose close games indicates to me that he isn't all that great at coaching when the game is on the line.
That said - I think CBB is not that great of a coach, and further proves to me what I think about coaches that can't win in the final minutes.
You might not be old enough to remember Danny Ford, but he was awesome at winning those close games, which I think makes him a great coach. His team would hang around and be within a score of winning until the last few minutes, and then score for the win. CBB tends to not be able to understand how to do that.
HTHIA
BTW: I no longer watch our BBall team, for a variety of reasons, but CBB is one of the reasons. I don't waste my valuable time (IMO) watching people that don't really know what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3362]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3342
Joined: 10/6/02
|
Re: Why do so many of you
Mar 6, 2019, 4:28 PM
|
|
There are 1,000,001 ways to accept mediocrity and only one way to change it....stop doing what you’ve been doing.
I suspect many who care about close games are trying to argue that we should stop doing what we’ve been doing....and they would be right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 13
| visibility 2,058
|
|
|
50
