Tulsa and Truth

COTY Jerome Tang and his 2023 Elite Eight Cats
learnin
Posts: 14525
Joined: September 18th, 2013, 1:41 pm
Has thanked: 865 times
Been thanked: 590 times

Tulsa and Truth

Post by learnin » January 12th, 2020, 10:36 pm

We've discussed a lot of different reasons as to why this season is slowly going down the tubes. I would say most all have been valid and the discussion has been good for the most part. We've discussed the recruiting failures; lack of talent; the need for one more good player; and poor development of bigs.

I've maintained that, in a close loss, there is a fine line between success and failure. Many factors have to be considered and one of those is simply luck or the lack thereof. Consider the Tulsa game. This was another very close game. In this game, Cartier was hot from 3 point land. If memory serves me correctly, the game was down to about the last 2-3 possessions and it might have been tied or we were up one. The possession wasn't going great, the shot clock was winding down, and Cartier, took a step back and launched a long three from right of the key. Swish. We won the game because of that shot and, fellow posters, it was a bad shot that fell through. Cartier was on that night....the force was flowing through him that night. If he misses that shot, or any of three others he hit in that second half, we lose. But, I'm not finished yet. Tulsa had a chance to tie the score on a lay up, which they missed. There was contact on the play and the official could well have sent Tulsa to the line where they could have forced an overtime. The officials held their whistle so they factored into the end result. So, now we have 3 factors: Luck, Cartier played well and a non call all figured into the result.

My point? There have been a number of games just like the Tulsa game where one, or two things, go differently and K-State is looking pretty good right now. Don't get me wrong. This team is not a final four team. This team is not a championship team. Yet, I still maintain they are good enough to have finished top 5 in conference with an NCAA berth. They had enough returning talent and veteran players.

Neal deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, once gave an example to explain randomness when it seems as if something more is happening. He gave the example of a number of people being given a coin. They are told to flip the coin and every time someone lands a tails, that person has to sit down. They keep flipping until one person is left standing. The person, left standing, had to flip a heads numerous times in a row in order to remain standing. It would appear something had to be at work for him to flip that many heads in a row when, in reality, someone had to.

Perhaps, there is a little of that randomness at work in the matter at hand. A one, or two, possession game really decides nothing. The team, that wins an NCAA tournament, by going through the games squeaking one after another out, really hasn't proven they are the best. They have proven they are good. The teams that beat our team, in a slew of one or two possession games, are not better than our team. It does no good to say that we did this wrong or that wrong because, obviously, the other team was doing just as much wrong. The winner still one by one lucky break here, a favorable call there and a made shot that 60-80% of the time is going to fail.

I make this point for one reason. Rash judgment should not be made on this year's team. I hope to dull some of our knives a little bit. I propose to you that, in close games, someone has to lose. Like the randomness of a coin flip, could it be that randomness has fallen upon us to lose most of these games when, in another year, randomness fell in another way?

Please don't respond that, if we were a good team, it wouldn't come down to one, or two, possessions. I understand that. I'm not arguing that we are a top 20 team. I'm simply saying that, perhaps, we're not as bad as the record indicates. If our guys had won some of those earlier close games, who knows how this might have sparked a little more confidence, etc. I believe a road victory, at Oklahoma, might have given us a team that would not have fallen behind 10 points to TCU.

Yes, Virginia, many times there is a thin line between success and failure.

hilltopwildcat
Posts: 4191
Joined: September 4th, 2013, 12:52 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Post by hilltopwildcat » January 12th, 2020, 11:44 pm

Good post. I'm also a believer in "being good enough to be lucky". I think this statement says a lot "who knows how this might have sparked a little more confidence,"

Wyldkatz
Posts: 1813
Joined: September 9th, 2017, 7:27 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Post by Wyldkatz » January 13th, 2020, 6:34 am

The margin of error is razor thin this season. Weve made more errors than this team has the talent to overcome in almost every close game.

User avatar
BornWildcat
Posts: 191
Joined: September 23rd, 2017, 10:08 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Pick 'Em

Post by BornWildcat » January 13th, 2020, 7:53 am

"I've maintained that, in a close loss, there is a fine line between success and failure. Many factors have to be considered and one of those is simply luck or the lack thereof."

I think it has more to do with statistics than luck. If you are a superior team, then statistically you are going to hit those last second shots more often than not. If you aren't as good, then every once in a while you are going to hit that shot. So, instead of us not being "lucky," I would say that we aren't very good. Now, we may have some raw talent on this team that needs practice, good coaching, and time to become a good team. But, to say that we aren't winning more games because we are "unlucky" is inaccurate. We are statistically winning the correct number of games for how good of a team we are. "The harder I work, the luckier I get." -Samuel Goldwyn

NealyFan
Posts: 6483
Joined: September 26th, 2017, 9:18 am
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 334 times

Post by NealyFan » January 13th, 2020, 8:25 am

We also got away with a foul at the end of regulation.
“It’s a tremendous challenge. The opportunity exists here today... for the greatest turnaround in college football history. And it’s not one to be taken lightly.” —- Bill Snyder

Gorhoops
Posts: 1497
Joined: February 6th, 2016, 8:35 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 653 times

Post by Gorhoops » January 13th, 2020, 8:49 am

I listened to Stan Weber on the radio this morning as I drove to school and he made a really good point that even though I we have thought of it, it hadn't really registered yet, and that is that we have yet to have a game where all 5 of the starters actually played a good game. Pretty much every one of our games, a couple of guys play well and we try to survive with that and then a couple of other guys just completely don't show up. Generally Mak hasn't shown up, McGirl has not shot well, and then if Sneed goes 1-8 or Carti is not good, we are toast.

Would be nice if we had a stretch of games where we got good Mak that we have seen at times, and we got a Creighton or WVU McGirl to go along with X going 5-9 rather than 1-9 and Carti being good Carti. Just hasn't happened yet.

Pretty crazy, we actually seem to know a lot more of what we are going to get from the freshman than we do the older guys. We generally know the three freshman are going to give 12-16 points in some combination. But we don't know if our older players are going to give us anything from one night to the next. Pretty horrible feeling if you are a coach.

wild@nite
Posts: 7407
Joined: February 28th, 2018, 1:35 pm
Has thanked: 460 times
Been thanked: 2140 times

Pick 'Em

Post by wild@nite » January 13th, 2020, 9:07 am

To be fair, through 15 games, I'm betting many, many teams could say that they haven't had a game where all 5 starters have played well yet. I think that would be a fairly common thing. Even KU hasn't had that yet, I don't think.

donley
Posts: 59
Joined: December 30th, 2017, 11:31 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by donley » January 13th, 2020, 10:36 am

wild@nite wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 9:07 am
To be fair, through 15 games, I'm betting many, many teams could say that they haven't had a game where all 5 starters have played well yet. I think that would be a fairly common thing. Even KU hasn't had that yet, I don't think.
How about a slightly lower threshold for success. How about just two guys, Diarra and Sneed both have a good night on offense in the same game. It has happened, but in 6 of our 8 losses one has been in double figures scoring and the other has not. Going into the year, I would have thought both would need to be consistent double figure scorers for us to be successful.

powercat95
Posts: 1153
Joined: September 16th, 2017, 9:54 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Post by powercat95 » January 13th, 2020, 11:00 am

I agree to a point-with a little more luck this team could be 2-1 in conference and we are all feeling a lot better. However, 8 minutes. This team went 8 MINUTES without scoring a single point in their last game. That doesn't happen unless you have serious, major issues with the offense.

That being said I fully expect us to play well some night and win a game no one expects us to win. These are kids and are quite unpredictable. Part of what makes college basketball fun and maddening at the same time.

learnin
Posts: 14525
Joined: September 18th, 2013, 1:41 pm
Has thanked: 865 times
Been thanked: 590 times

Post by learnin » January 13th, 2020, 11:26 am

BornWildcat wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 7:53 am
"I've maintained that, in a close loss, there is a fine line between success and failure. Many factors have to be considered and one of those is simply luck or the lack thereof."

I think it has more to do with statistics than luck. If you are a superior team, then statistically you are going to hit those last second shots more often than not. If you aren't as good, then every once in a while you are going to hit that shot. So, instead of us not being "lucky," I would say that we aren't very good. Now, we may have some raw talent on this team that needs practice, good coaching, and time to become a good team. But, to say that we aren't winning more games because we are "unlucky" is inaccurate. We are statistically winning the correct number of games for how good of a team we are. "The harder I work, the luckier I get." -Samuel Goldwyn
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Two things.

1. In a one or two possession game, there is not a better or worse team in that particular game. We won the Tulsa game, not because we were better that night but, because a bad shot found the mark and a ref decided not to blow a whistle.

2. Please note the following comment is not directed toward you. Many people accept Samuel Goldwyn’s statement. But, I believe the statement: “The harder I work, the luckier I get”, is absolutely ludicrous. Luck, by definition, excludes action or effort.

Luck: a force that brings good fortune or adversity.
Merriam

Luck: success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through ones own actions.
Bing

Hard work reduces the need for luck, but the two exist completely independent of one another. The hard working athlete, for example, is totally correct when he , or she, states: “First of all, I would like to thank God.” Whether or not some God had anything to do with their success, that athlete is, correctly, acknowledging that their success is not totally due to their effort alone.

Post Reply