A Basketball Riddle

[InstiGATOR1]

Originally Posted by akaGatorhoops

I'm not sure what pearl said but arky made the decision to defend us by switching on virtually every ball screen. On paper, this should be basketball suicide, as Murphy, Young, Boynton, Wilby are guys who could create tremendous mismatches on switches. But what was most disturbing about the loss was that we either failed to recognize the mismatches or just ignored them.

Well the issue with UAR is other than the Mickleson kid, their bigs are 6'7" tall. So they run about 6'2" to 6'7" tall at each position so switching made more sense for them than some other teams.

[Matthanuf06]

I disagree with the OPs premise.

To me the game was bad, not due to losing, but our response to Arkys hot start.

Look, shooting has and will always have an element of randomness. You don't get 40% by shooting 40% all the time. I'm sure it's close to a normal distribution. You will have outliers, and streaks on the positive and negative end. And you will have regression to the mean.

That's what you had yesterday. Arky started hot, us cold, and we both started mean reverting.

If we played normal, we probably would have won as the shooting normalized. The problem is we panicked and got out of Florida basketball. Bad shots, turnovers, quick shots, sloppy D, etc. All IMHO a function of be deficit.

We need to play Florida basketball the entire game, regardless of score. That is how a great team withstands runs. Sure we won't beat the IUs and the Michigans of the world when randomness works against us, but we can beat the majority of teams if we stick to who we are through the adversity.

[UFish]

Originally Posted by REM08

I'm not saying the refs were good (didn't see enough of the game to know), but you guys have taken almost 60 3's in the last two games - almost half of your total shots. That usually isn't the best way to draw fouls. Maybe the refs were bad, but I'd like to see less 3's - especially when they're not falling.

I actually agree but if they're good shots, we have to take them don't we? The majority of the outside shots we took against Ole Miss were good shots. We took some bad ones against Arkansas, but we did a lot of bad things against Arkansas.

[fox]

We didn't give up. I still get the feeling we need a guy to be a tad bit unselfish at the end of close games and refuse to lose.

[SmootyGator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

I disagree with the OPs premise.

To me the game was bad, not due to losing, but our response to Arkys hot start.

Look, shooting has and will always have an element of randomness. You don't get 40% by shooting 40% all the time. I'm sure it's close to a normal distribution. You will have outliers, and streaks on the positive and negative end. And you will have regression to the mean.

That's what you had yesterday. Arky started hot, us cold, and we both started mean reverting.

If we played normal, we probably would have won as the shooting normalized. The problem is we panicked and got out of Florida basketball. Bad shots, turnovers, quick shots, sloppy D, etc. All IMHO a function of be deficit.

We need to play Florida basketball the entire game, regardless of score. That is how a great team withstands runs. Sure we won't beat the IUs and the Michigans of the world when randomness works against us, but we can beat the majority of teams if we stick to who we are through the adversity.

I really didn't think that we played *that* much worse than we normally do. I think it just seemed that way because every mistake we made was magnified by them hitting some ridiculous 3 pointer. I also think more of the frustration came from Young getting called for cheap fouls and Yuegette not being in.

Had Young not gotten the two early fouls, and they had shot 5 of 9 instead of 7 of 9 on their first three pointers, this could have been a whole different game.

I agree with you that we should have played "our game" the whole time, but I'm not *too* concerned considering the ridiculousness of the "randomness" that we faced that night. Not to jinx us or anything, but we probably won't see that much "bad luck" in a game for another couple years.

/knocks on wood

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

I really didn't think that we played *that* much worse than we normally do. I think it just seemed that way because every mistake we made was magnified by them hitting some ridiculous 3 pointer. I also think more of the frustration came from Young getting called for cheap fouls and Yuegette not being in.

Had Young not gotten the two early fouls, and they had shot 5 of 9 instead of 7 of 9 on their first three pointers, this could have been a whole different game.

I agree with you that we should have played "our game" the whole time, but I'm not *too* concerned considering the ridiculousness of the "randomness" that we faced that night. Not to jinx us or anything, but we probably won't see that much "bad luck" in a game for another couple years.

/knocks on wood

I agree. Frankly if it takes a crazy slow start, insanely hot start for them, hostile crowd and an injury early on to get us to press (not the strategy), then that isn't a big deal. That isn't going to happen much. The key is that we can stick to who we are when we fall down 10 points in the tournament. If it takes 20+ for us to press then none of us should lose any sleep over it.

[REM08]

Originally Posted by UFish

I actually agree but if they're good shots, we have to take them don't we? The majority of the outside shots we took against Ole Miss were good shots. We took some bad ones against Arkansas, but we did a lot of bad things against Arkansas.

Yeah I agree with you. Many of the ones I saw were wide open. I think you guys are at your best when the open 3's come off of dribble penetration or passes out of the post.

[SmootyGator]

Originally Posted by REM08

Yeah I agree with you. Many of the ones I saw were wide open. I think you guys are at your best when the open 3's come off of dribble penetration or passes out of the post.

I certainly haven't done any studies on this, but this seems to be the case with Rosario and Boynton. I think EMurph and Wilby shoot better when they are wide open and have time to set up. It seems like whenever Rosario and Boynton are wide open with plenty of time to shoot, they miss.

[tilly]

Originally Posted by REM08

I may be the only one in the dark here, but what did Pearl say?

Succesfully swithcing on screens?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Gator Country

[patsyruth2008]

Originally Posted by akaGatorhoops

I'm not sure what pearl said but arky made the decision to defend us by switching on virtually every ball screen. On paper, this should be basketball suicide, as Murphy, Young, Boynton, Wilby are guys who could create tremendous mismatches on switches. But what was most disturbing about the loss was that we either failed to recognize the mismatches or just ignored them.

aka;

That is exactly what Pearl said AND what his Tennessee teams always did to us. I thought the reason we did not take advantage was:

1) Arkansas has alot of guys around 6'5" to 6'7" and very athletic so by swicthing on each ball screen they do not lose much height (very smililar to Tennessee with Pearl).

2) Eric Murphy simply does play as well against someone who is really athletic regardless of how much smaller they are than him. I can remember numerous occassion during the Arkansas game were he would "dripple out" of a potential double team versus making a quick post move (i.e. drop step, jump hook) before the double team got there. At times the person covering him so 4-5 inches shorter.......

Not saying Eric cost us the game, but that is what Pearl said and why I do not think we took advantage of the mis-matches.