Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1539
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-17-17 04:26 PM - Post#240408
In response to SomeGuy
I believe that Some Guy is right.
I've re-warched the Stony Brook game (watching a game the second time around reduces some of the cognitive distortions caused by a fan's emotional investment in a team), and it was pretty clear that Stony Brook had a good deal more talent. Then instead of feeling frustrated that our coaches supposedly again failed to help get us over the finish line in a game that we might have won, one starts thinking in terms of boy, what did they do to get us to lead and then stay so close for so long?
We were outshot overall (43.9% to 37.5%) and, incredibly, at the foul line (we were 13-23 for 56.5%, they were 21-28 for 75%), although we shot better from beyond the 3 point line (40.7% to 27.8%) and we were out rebounded 42-30. A good team almost always has one or two seniors who demonstrate poise, consistency and competence. Our one senior shot 2-7, 3-6 at the line with 2 rebounds and 6 TOs.
I'm beginning to think that our running out to leads and then playing fairly close for long stretches is some combination of Smith, who can be extraordinary on O but whose size limits his effectiveness on D somewhat, and a lot of smoke and mirrors. The "smoke and mirrors" includes some very good individual games by Meisner, Adlesh and others, and I do not mean to demean their contributions. My point is simply that we all may have overestimates the amount and certainly the depth of talent with which our coaches are working.
|
