zippy5

Did you know every player that has ever played for Tom Izzo has been to a final four? That's pretty neat.

With the logic and stats and facts that he employed, no I will not change my mind. Because the facts did not warrant me changing my mind. I will if there are different/more useful/better stats and facts that can be used to back up his assertion. Using the almighty KENPOM stats, here are the defensive ranks of the four teams. With offensive ranks in parenthesis. DUKE 3 (1) BUTLER 6 (46) WVU 10 (12) MSU 33 (25) three of the top 10 defenses make the final four, with one top 10 offense, albeit, it is the number one offense. Obviously no one will win if either facet of their game flat out sucks, but I think it's a little easier to cover up a lacking offense with a good defense than vice versa. edit: the real test will be Butler's performance. Their 46th ranked offense has somehow made it to the final 4, lets see how much further it gets.

Yes, but when you think about it, that wasn't really all that impressive. How do you think he would have done this year against your 8th grade team?

Steve dunked on our team in the Croatian tournament when I was in 7th grade. Random fact of the day.

From what I have heard from an inside source, interesting is an understatement... Care to elaborate? They told me to keep it private...someone heard from the inside and told me to keep it quiet. There are 3 players that confirmed last tuesday to Dambrot that they are transferring. There is also one player who is debating to stay on the team or to transfer. I'll let you guys guess who since I don't want to be the spoiler It's not too surprising. The team was too deep for its own good. Too many players of similar talent level. Somebody had to end up on the outside looking in. And then you have the players who were lucky enough to actually get playing time but still aren't happy, how would it feel if you were benched all year but the people who got to play were mouthing off and couldn't be content. It's just a bad combination. I find one thing pretty interesting: When players from the men's basketball team seek their option to transfer to another university, where they would have a better chance of playing, they are generally thanked for considering the overall welfare of the team, and basically wished well at their destination. BUT, when women's basketball players do the same thing, they are considered troublemakers, and told "good riddance, we never needed your type to begin with." Now is this just a difference between a successful program and one which has had less than a handlfull of winning seasons, or is it a more basic display of sexism? Just wondering in HI. BTW -- Did you see Keysha Snowden help her Kentucky Wildcats into the Elite Eight with 13 first half points, and all around hard-nosed play in upsetting one-loss Nebraska? You go girl! I thought the women were kicked off?

the only top 10 offense still alive. the #3, 6 and 10 defenses are playing this weekend also

that was me trying to be creative and bring it up, because we all know GP1 is all about the "new age" offense. whatever man, thanks for all the insightfulness you brought to the topic.

Re-post from another thread. You go right ahead and agree to disagree, I'll do the same, difference is I'll have a good reason to. I fail to see what that has to do with the 2010 Final Four. But like I said, I'll agree to disagree. If you don't think this weekend's games were won on the defensive end, you need to watch some of the actual games instead of spending time looking up stats. I'm just dumbfounded at this point. I post the last six national champions, representing the results of 378 tournament games and god knows how many regular season matchups. You post the results of two individual games from this weekend and all of a sudden it's "offense wins regular season titles, defense is where it's at". My head hurts. Not to sound like a jerk, but I'm not going to waste my time researching stat after stat to prove you wrong. I guarantee I could find them. I just know that I saw some damn good defense being played throughout this tournament so I came on here to see if anyone else has. Apparently they were all looking at statsheet.com and kenpom the whole weekend instead of watching, and enjoying actual basketball. my bad! my point wasn't really to come on here to prove everyone wrong and start a (pointless) pissing contest. I just thought it was an odd stat they showed, and one that would surprise a lot of people on here. silly me.

Re-post from another thread. You go right ahead and agree to disagree, I'll do the same, difference is I'll have a good reason to. I fail to see what that has to do with the 2010 Final Four. But like I said, I'll agree to disagree. If you don't think this weekend's games were won on the defensive end, you need to watch some of the actual games instead of spending time looking up stats.

So it eliminated half the field right away? This is getting worse. so what exactly is your point? ND is a better defensive team? Or are you saying these teams are there because of their offense? No one has really presented any other points, beside arguing against mine...enlighten me. My point: A ) Your sample size is ridiculously small, because it only includes 4 games and in such games there are many factors that can affect the number of points you give up. B ) All of these teams are good at defense; no one is arguing that. But they are also pretty good (even better!) at scoring than they are at playing defense. C ) You were trying to call someone out based on faulty logic and statistics. My overall point is you are wrong. Exactly, you have no actual point, you're kind of just arguing to argue. Thanks, come again. See point B above. Offense is important, too. Happy now? I never said it wasn't important. Just not as important. Butler won with defense, WVU won with defense (and terrible FT shooting). I didn't see any games this weekend won by an inspired offensive effort. MSU won by Tennessee out-stupiding them, I'm not sure what I want to call that game. Am I wrong in saying these games were won by great defense? anyway, I'll agree to disagree. I think defense is more important, you don't. this argument isn't getting anywhere. Enjoy the games, and the defense, this weekend

So it eliminated half the field right away? This is getting worse. so what exactly is your point? ND is a better defensive team? Or are you saying these teams are there because of their offense? No one has really presented any other points, beside arguing against mine...enlighten me. My point: A ) Your sample size is ridiculously small, because it only includes 4 games and in such games there are many factors that can affect the number of points you give up. B ) All of these teams are good at defense; no one is arguing that. But they are also pretty good (even better!) at scoring than they are at playing defense. C ) You were trying to call someone out based on faulty logic and statistics. My overall point is you are wrong. Exactly, you have no actual point, you're kind of just arguing to argue. Thanks, come again.

So it eliminated half the field right away? This is getting worse. so what exactly is your point? ND is a better defensive team? Or are you saying these teams are there because of their offense? No one has really presented any other points, beside arguing against mine...enlighten me.

minimum of 2 games. not adjusted for OT. sorry for not clarifying. if that is wrong, blame ESPNews, didn't think I'd have to check their stats.

Really? That's "the DiG strategy" now? I'm the best example you can cite for doing that on ZN.O? Amazing. Haha, I'm sure it's not exclusive to you (I'm sure I've done it myself in fact)... just the most recent example of someone arguing the same point. My points are that you're using borderline useless data (I assume you're using averages from tournament games only?) and that this year's Final Four is not representative of the norm anyway. Averages from tournament games, to show success in the tournament? useless? their regular season stats have nothing to do with this tournament. Maybe there's a reason this year's final four isn't representative of the norm? Things change. This isn't 2009 anymore The data isn't even right anyway. Duke has given up 56.25 ppg in this tournament. You claim that they are one of the three teams giving up the least points in the tournament. However you do not realize that Notre Dame had a ppg against of 51 in the tournament. Guess how many games they won? Texas A&M gave up 56 ppg (adjusted for the OT game they played). I just did a quick glance at the bracket so there could be more. Might want to get your stats right next time. ESPNews showed the table, I didn't look anything up...maybe it was a minimum of 2 games played. Watch the channel today, all they do is show the same 15 minute segments repeatedly anyway, I'm sure it will be up there.

Really? That's "the DiG strategy" now? I'm the best example you can cite for doing that on ZN.O? Amazing. Haha, I'm sure it's not exclusive to you (I'm sure I've done it myself in fact)... just the most recent example of someone arguing the same point. My points are that you're using borderline useless data (I assume you're using averages from tournament games only?) and that this year's Final Four is not representative of the norm anyway. Averages from tournament games, to show success in the tournament? useless? their regular season stats have nothing to do with this tournament. Maybe there's a reason this year's final four isn't representative of the norm? Things change. This isn't 2009 anymore

At least we're not latching onto "Conventional Wisdom" and have points to back up our assertions. I'll take the informed position any day of the week. I have points to back them up, you just may not agree with them. My point is that the three teams with the least points scored upon them are in the final four. Maybe because they play slow, maybe because they're the three best defenses. Whatever that style is, it seems to be working.

You are correct, we played the best defense in the MAC last year... but guess what? We played the best offense too. Can you guess who had the best offense in the MAC this year? I'll bet you can. I'm gonna guess OU I think our decline this year was because our defense declined moreso than the offense. But I don't have any random stats to throw out there to defend that, so take it how you may. P.S. how are you measuring "offense?" PPG, effiency, pythagorean theorem?

Whenever WVU needed something to happen, they had a left handed guard who drove to the basket and made layup after layup (I forget his number...21?). WVUs center made a three point shot late in the second half. When WVU needed points, they got them from their offense and won the game. BTW, why isn't anyone talking about what a great coach former UofA coach Huggins is? Forget that he dresses like a Sopranos character, the guy can flat out coach. Why isn't anyone talking about KY's star player missing relatively open shots late in the game? KY got some good looks at the basket and missed. WVU's defense didn't cause it, the inability of KY's players caused it throughout the game. You guys can throw whatever stat you want up about WVUs defense Saturday, it paled in comparison to how their offense played. We weren't watching the same game...their offense was really bad. 68% from the line, which you pointed out, is in fact offense. Huggins is a great coach, we can all agree on that. At least when he's sober. also, WVU was up by 12 with 2:30 to play. Kentucky cut it to 3...I assume it was WVU's awesome offense and clutchness that accounted for that swing?

Who hit a big shot from WVU? Their offense was pitiful. And to tell you the truth, if I could find the stats, I'm willing to bet WVU shot under 65% from the line in the last three minutes. Flowers almost airballed two free throws... @woot- people think we need to focus less on defense here at Akron, and I don't think they could be any more wrong. Our offense was pretty even-keeled over the past two years, while our defense was great one year, and not so great the next. Care to tell me which team won the MAC?

+1

From what I have heard from an inside source, interesting is an understatement... Care to tell us if this is a good thing?

1. Efficiency shmeffiency. Did you watch wvu beat kentucky with their stellar offense? No 2 point field goals halfway through the second half! It sure as hell wasn't their barnburning offense that pulled away at the end with 0 poin guards in the lineup. Great defense the entire game, they forced kentucky to 2-24 from three at one point, I don't know the final count. 2. Ever think those teams that "hold it for 32 seconds" do it because their offense can't keep up if it turns into a track meet? nah that can't be right. They do it because they are so offensively efficient, right? 3. You guys are starting to scare me, everyone here finds one obscure idea/thought and latches onto it. First it was the whole JUCO thing. "We need a JUCO, he can bring us to the promised land with his magical JUCO powers." It would be a decent idea if we actually had a good juco in mind, instead of wanting a juco for the sake of having one, but that's a different argument. Then it was the mcnees at pg/sg fascination. And now this whole offensive/efficiency revolution. Its like browns fans with their backup QB's. Watch the games, and tell me what you think of wvu and butlers "offense." Duke, ill admit, has a decent offense, and I haven't seen enough of msu to make an opinion.

Dear GP1, The three teams with the lowest PPG allowed this tournament are all in the final four. Sincerely, Duke, WVU, and Butler.

I picked Butler to go to the final four in 2 of my polls. no big deal. prove me wrong and get to the championship! go bulldogs!