🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@sfbahawk I'm curious, how old are you? I'm 49.

When I was about 30, I went into a little tirade about the new deal programs of the 30s, how they were unnecessary socialism, etc. My wife's great uncle listened, and told me that I had not lived through the depression. He was born in 1922. It made me appreciate a bit why Roosevelt took that path. Sure, some argue that World War II ultimately delivered us from the depression. It's debatable. But what isn't debatable is Roosevelt's leadership then, and through World War II. Roosevelt was a great leader. He inspired.

With Reagan, you have to understand the time and the context. We had been through the embarrassment of Watergate, the conclusion of Vietnam, and the Carter presidency. Interest rates were at 18% or in that territory. My folks had a mortgage at 13%. Economic conditions were horrible. The auto industry was in disarray and on the verge of collapse. The recession of 2008 didn't come close. But worse, there was a mass feeling of despair in this country unlike anything since the depression. But there was a different element. The Soviet Union was at its peak and it had invaded Afghanistan. Carter had considerably depleted our military and our world standing was embarrassing. Our very existence was in question. I recall my social studies teacher in 8th grad worrying out loud when Reagan got shot that it might be precursor to a nuclear attack. The Soviet's attacking was a very real fear. I remember a meeting at my school in 1979 and the discussion by the parents. It began as a PTO meeting, and transformed into a political discussion. The anxiety and despair of folks stuck with me.

Reagan came into office and changed all of that. You may want to mock him, and disrespectfully call him "Ronnie" -- that is truly a disservice to what he did for this nation, whether you agree with his politics, or not. I'd ask that you rethink that approach.

President Reagan did bring down the Soviet Union. He created conditions that led directly to their downfall. He had the confidence and conviction to call them for what they were -- a murderous and corrupt regime. Evil. He didn't mince words, he didn't back down. He demanded that the Berlin Wall be torn down. He targeted the hearts and minds of the Soviet bloc. He boldly implemented SDI, or "star wars", which was the trigger for significant increased in Soviet defense spending. Soviet era documents and information have supported that proposition pretty clearly. And very importantly, the Soviets feared him. Whether the Soviet Union would have fallen if Carter continued as president and won in 1980 is unknown of course. But i sure as heck would not have wanted to find out. In hindsight, I doubt most Americans would want to roll that dice.

The Soviet Union was the greatest threat to humanity in the latter half of the 20th century, certainly on par with the Nazis in the first half, and with more firepower. And they were defeated by boldness. The same way you beat the bully in the school yard. Great lessons there.

Reagan spoke eloquently about the greatness of America, the power of the individual, the value of hard work, and the need for uncompromising principles and values. He was a great leader. I kind of think we need a bit of that right now.

@sfbahawk Hmmm … insult the man that ended the cold war. It's what I'd expect. Liberals mock the very institutions and people that have provided them the freedom and liberty they enjoy. Clearly the second greatest triumph of the 20th century, defeating the Soviet Union, and your little liberal mind thinks that citing one error (Beirut) trumps that or diminishes it. It's pathetic and sad, really. But you are cut from a certain cloth apparently. And actually, no one said he was a military genius. He was a tremendous president -- a real leader. Something this country is sorely lacking.

What he did was protect our nation from the ultimate threat, which is job one as president. His policies and approach to leadership ended the greatest threat to our existence in the second half of the 20th century.

Why can't you acknowledge this simple fact? Much in the same way I would acknowledge Franklin Roosevelt's leadership during WWII?

I would agree with @Lulufulu -- I have absolutely no problem with this post, but perhaps under the General Discussion area.

Anyway, this sort of situation is quite simple. We need a president, a true leader, that is able to delineate good and evil, and who is willing to go on the offensive. George W. Bush may have gone too boldly into Iraq according to some, but it is that boldness that takes the fight to the terrorists. It was Obama who ceded Iraq back to the terrorists and ceded the hard fought gains.

If we have a pansy in the White House, ISIS will continue to grow.

And as @JayhawkFanToo just posted, they are "Islamic Terrorist" -- committing this terror based on their religious conviction.

Their influence with grow when confronted by weakness.

I just discussed this with my youngest son. Ronald Reagan stood and called the Soviet Union exactly what it was, an evil empire. Liberals gasped, wrung their collective hands, and mocked the boldness of the statement. No truer words were ever spoken. Further, Reagan, by the power of persuasion, consistently and eloquently called on the world to embrace freedom. Those words, and the actions of strengthening our military, drove the Soviet Union and its evil empire out of business.

There will always be evil in the world. And evil does not react to hugs and kisses, and appeasement. Ask France, circa 1939.

We have a choice. I suggest we create thousands of martyrs. A dead terrorist is a terrorist no longer.

One thing to remember on this .. the 2008 team was epically good. What I mean is that KU in 2008 is considered one of the all-time great teams.

The key is a relative comparison. How does Kansas shape up against the competition in men's CBB this season?

This is a good discussion as it does give perspective here, as noted above.

I would say this, too -- chemistry is a big deal. That develops over a season. Lots goes into that, including how well the team meshes with the coach, and how the coach meshes with the team.

The onus is on the team to mesh with the coach here. That's part of the reason why the 2008 team was so great, because the team played like coach Self wanted. Defense first, etc.

We'll see if this team, unlike last season's team, can be a Bill Self type team.

This is the thread we should be focusing on right now. No MU, no Diallo -- nothing else.

This season is starting and we have a national championship team. It begins with Northern Colorado, and it ends in Houston, cutting down the nets.

I see a six pack of things that are pivotal in our national championship run:
1. Carlton Bragg: As I mentioned in a preseason thread about the most important player, Bragg is my man. Bragg has been my man. I saw a post today that mentioned that he might be the most talented player on Kansas. He is. We all see that now, don't we? Bragg does not have to start one game this season. But he has to play, and play a lot. He has to be 25 mpg though come March. He'll have some periods where he'll appear to regress. Most freshmen do. Some match ups will make him look horrible. Development is ongoing. But when you see those nine boards the other night, those six boards and 14 points vs. PSU -- and energy -- we have a potential all-american next season. The WUGs provided similar positivity. This season, enjoy the assent. This team needs what he brings.

1. Mason/Graham: Ball handling, point guards, penetration, creation -- we have two. Name a team with a better two headed point guard monster than Kansas? Mason is a guy that wants the ball. He'll win us a tourney game in March.

2. Mickelson: Pivotal -- I mean really pivotal. Self has to come to the realization that Mickelson starts with Ellis. He is not our classic Withey-like rim protector, but he can do the job. It is clear that he has the necessary skill set to be productive and he is always playing hard -- that energy thing again. But more than anything, Mickelson is the one player, more than any other player, that permits Self's team to function in a Self-preferred way. I offer as evidence, Exhibit A, the WUGs. He can rebound, rim protect, make a post move or two, and pick and pop. Play him.

3. Selden: The guy has to make the leap. It is time. Important this season is Selden becoming a guy that is comfortable being the man. The WUG Wayne Selden, if you will. But it's more what we can't have. We can't have 2014-15 Wayne Selden. His lack of productivity was deserving of being benched. He has started every game of his career. He needs to show that he deserves it.

4. Svi: It needs to be a clear and convincing knock out of Greene and Vick. It needs to be indisputable that Svi is our best perimeter option off the bench. If Svi seizes this role, our rotation firms up. Bad Svi -- as we saw vs. PSU, needs to disappear. Greene is clearly hobbled if he had to sit last game. And Vick is in learning mode, primed for 2016-17. Svi is a "must."

5. Compromise and Peace: Bill Self has to reach a compromise with the three pointer. Some sort of middle ground. I'm happy to be the mediator. Permit the idea that three pointers are "good offense" to become acceptable. They are not the enemy. I get it though, it will never be preferred. But if we have the offensive conflict of last season to lurch to the forefront, we'll flame out. It is Self's job to manage that. Self said today that he won't allow Kansas' identity to be compromised this season. But Self has to, in some way, accept some change, some flexibility. Self said he "learned a lot" at the WUGs, a tournament will Self let his team play more than any other time in his tenure -- that resulted in an undefeated run and a gold medal. This team is not constructed in the image that Self prefers -- and like last season, it can't fully function the way Self would like. A little flexibility will grease the skids enough.

Black lives will matter more when black lives matter more to blacks.

When blacks stop killing each other at incredible rates in our inner cities, I think there will be more ears open to the issue. There is an element of black society that is conveniently ignored by liberals, and as usual, excuses made ad nauseam.

What we need as a society is truly a complete intolerance to the violence that is killing, injuring, and terrorizing inner city folks on a nightly basis.

It starts with the tolerance and glorification of the violence within elements of the black culture, which has spread to the rest of society. And it is fueled by a lack of parental direction -- 73% of black kids are born out of wedlock. In the inner city, the rate is higher.

At MU, no one was killed, injured, robbed, or maimed.

Perhaps the MU students would have been better off caravanning to Chicago for the weekend and canvassing the street looking for leads regarding the 9 year old black kid killed last week? I don't know. I guess someone yelling the "n" word from a passing vehicle is more worthy of attention.

And I guess a black kid from a family with multimillionaire parents going on a supposed hunger strike is supposed to be instructive to us all.

What we have seen is an all out assault of free speech and dissent. At MU now, students are to call 911 if someone says something offensive. Astonishing to me, but not surprising given the idiots that run universities.

There was an interview with a black kid after the MU president resigned. He was asked how the resignation would change his life. He was stumped. But that's makes sense -- the answer is zero. And that's the point. This stuff makes all of the hand-wringers sleep better and feel better, but it means nothing.

It means nothing. Meanwhile, folks are killed every night, robbed at convenience stores, little kids shot playing on their porches, and a certain element of the political spectrum remains silent. Why? Because we can't take a chance that we might offend a key constituency and their pandering brethren.

The attorney for Diallo plays the race card.

That's our society. But that doesn't mean it has ANY truth.

In fact, if he didn't play the race card, I'd have been surprised -- elements of our society, namely liberals, collapse when racism, diversity, and all that is raised. We saw that at MU. So why not raise it? That's the lesson in our society now. Doesn't matter whether it's true or untrue.

Obviously, the NCAA has approved hundreds of kids, black kids, from other countries and from Africa. Does anyone seriously think that they are targeting him because of race or where he was born?

And let's all think about this, and this idea that the NCAA is out to get KU. We need to get that out of our systems. Somehow, someway, the NCAA approved Joel Embiid, didn't they? He was from Africa. There were no issues. And he was a Kansas recruit.

Pascal Chukwu, remember him? Yep, Africa. Yep, eligible. Amazing.

Right now, if Diallo -- through his attorney -- wants to strongarm the NCAA and falsely claim racism, I hope the NCAA stands its ground. And if he should be ineligible otherwise, I hope they don't cave and he's ruled ineligible.

Of course, I hope this is all resolved quickly, we have Diallo, and we can go forward.

But we can win a national championship without him. The bigger threat is not that he doesn't play, but it is the distraction, and the lingering, and the "what if."

More news .. Rustin Dodd is reporting that the NCAA is also looking into Diallo's relationship with Tidian Drame, his "guardian."

So there is more to this.

I saw the homework thing -- I guess there was a player in 2014 denied from Diallo's school because he couldn't produce homework. Hmmm.

And the 6th grade transcript thing mentioned above. I would have a hard time defending the NCAA on that one. @JayHawkFanToo, a little help? Not sure how to address that.

@REHawk Thanks. I guess I'm not losing sleep over whether we won or lost the Big 12 title. I worry more about our embarrassing performance against WSU and the inexplicable loss to Stanford -- where we were outcoached. I think Roy would have been better suited for last year's team. I'm going to avoid rehashing the entire debate, though, about offensive scheme, etc. from last season. But that gets us to the answer.

@Crimsonorblue22 So by your logic Calipari is a vastly superior coach than Self because UK beat us in 2011-12 twice, and kicked our tails last season? I guess that's what you're saying. Perhaps consider this beyond one layer ... I mean, if you want to.

@ralster Remember, though, Roy -- playing an offense first philosophy -- has won twice the number of NCAA titles that Self has since Roy left for UNC.

The theme that I have tried to get across here, over the seasons, is that games can be won many different ways. Bill Self does it one way. He doesn't have the only path, and we shouldn't accept his path as correct and proper in all circumstances. Self doesn't have a monopoly on good basketball and with one title since 2004, it certainly isn't the Holy Grail.

Folks say -- trust Self. He knows more than the rest of us. Sure, but why not trust coach K, or coach Roy, or coach Izzo? They do things differently than coach Self and they win.

But here is a significant flaw in the "trust coach Self" logic -- folks argue that Self "knows more about his teams, he has more information, and we just trust his judgment" -- or something like that. However, Self does the same thing every year regardless of his players, or the diverse roster talent.

That's where the logic fails. When you're a system coach, it is system. That does not require a coach to adapt to his talent and make multiple assessments and adjustments, to the same degree that a coach would if he were significantly flexible. The judgment we are trusting is Self's reliance on his system -- which, of course, is not how many, many successful coaches do it.

It's called flexibility.

The 2014-15 Jayhawks would have performed better if coached by Roy Williams. Self refused to adjust to the talent set of his team -- the "best shooting team" he had coached at Kansas, as he said -- and we flop in the tourney. No surprise there. With another roster, Self would be more successful than Roy.

I'm interested to see if Self can become more flexible this season, and change his stripes a bit. And if not, I'm interested to see if Self's system is the right fit for this roster.

Remember the word --- LINKAGE. That's what this is about.

Here is the entire quote from Self's interview. I recorded it, played it back, and wrote it down:

Bob Davis asked a question about our three point shooting vs. PSU.

Self: "The other day when we scrimmaged we were 27 for 44 from three."

Bob: "Wow."

Self: "No, I mean that's like, wow, wow. 27 for 44 our team was from three, in a 40 minute game. But it's fool's gold. Because you make shots, ya know, and you don't guard as hard, or you get on the side and force them to the basket and some guy comes off and blocks a shot, and it's a good play in practice but the reality is its not how it works in a game. And so, i think if our identity is 'let's make shots', we're in for not as good of a season as we had hoped. We gotta be able to lock people up. And that's always been our m.o. here. Sometimes we've been great, sometimes we've been average, but this team isn't big enough or physically dominant enough to not really have that defensive mindset, 'cause I think what this team thinks is that we can do is outscore people and that's a formula for disaster."

That is what Self said. Please read it again and digest his statement.

Ok, how do we analyze this?

1. Defense First: How do you argue with this? Self clearly wants his teams to play defense first. Defense is reliable. Defense is much more easily repeated. It's much more controllable from a coach's standpoint. Some coaches aren't defense first. But Self is. That is Bill Self. That works.

2. Reliance on Shots: Self clearly believes that the reliance on shot making is a "formula for disaster." Three point shooting is the ultimate in shot making. Again, this is more volatile. @wissoxfan83 fan referenced nightmares of 2011. Understood. If you are going to have a winning team, you better not just rely on shots. Again, that works. In football, how many teams that rely on offense win the Super Bowl. Not many. Anyway, there is really no argument with this theory (at least from my end).

3. Linkage: That word -- linkage. This is where I believe I disagree. My post from Saturday interpreted this quote a bit. What Self is doing -- incorrectly in my opinion -- is linking the idea of making shots with playing poor defense. Basically, conceding that he can't get his teams to treat one end of the court differently, and without regard, to the other end of the court. Self views shot making with disdain because it will ultimately impact your defense. It must impact defense. That's linkage. Bill Self links the making of shots with ultimate failure. Poor play, lazy play, according to Self, is a result of making shots. Making shots lulls you into a false sense of security. That leads to bad things.

4. Paradox?: Isn't this a paradox? We have to score to win, right? Making shots cannot be bad. My first thought was to compare this to football -- does a football coach tell his team not to score because it will make his defense lazy? Of course not. It's how you win the game. Outscore your opponent. A universal thought is that Bill Self is not a friend of the three pointer. But Bill Self is not telling his team not to score, is he? No. But it might be the way they score that is important. This is why the three pointer is the tip of the spear with Self. It is the way they score that might create a character that Self finds troubling. This is where it becomes a bit more linear, if I'm interpreting it correctly.

5. Linkage to Three Point Shooting: Three point shooting is soft, it's white collar, it's pretty. Bill Self does not want a team that is soft, white collar, or pretty. It appears to me that Bill Self offers a disdain for a reliance on outside shooting because it creates a team character that he dislikes. He may like the points. But when a team floats down and drops in a three. Allows an easy bucket, then turns it over. Only to drill two three pointers in a row following, what does that create? It creates a team that -- here we go -- relies on the three pointer to bail its ass out of trouble. This is what Bill Self is talking about, perhaps the exact scenario. Do that too many times, and you get lazy. Therefore, the three pointer is Fool's Gold according to Self. It masks deficiencies. It covers laziness and carelessness on the court. Bill Self does not believe it (shooting) can be there consistently.

6. Scoring Inside: Of course, scoring inside squares with this philosophy. It was the battle zone much of last season -- what was more reliable, our inside game or our outside game. We know where Self sits. The focus on inside fits directly with Self's tough, blue collar preference. And it explains why Self was irate after blowing out Utah in the first half. That half was pretty, but Self viewed it as a mirage.

7. Big, Bad Team vs. Not So Much: In Self's quote, you'll see he references the nature of his team. If he has a big, bad team, one that is big and "physically dominant", could the concept of "fool's gold" disappear? Could it disappear because that team, theoretically, has no issues being defense first? Maybe.

That's "Fool's Gold" in a nutshell, at least as I see it.

Now, perhaps we can debate the propriety of this philosophy … but that is for another day.

Some follow-up to the week of Kansas hoops -

1. Path to Nowhere: I worry about Brannen Greene. I see a kid that Self proclaimed was an NBA talent, and I see him languishing. Wednesday night he was like a statue. Immobile, slow, and worse, a guy that looked irrelevant. We know he'll hit his three pointers. But he is in hostile territory. His game is not a Bill Self game. @Jesse-Newell tweeted during the game that Greene would be his starting 3. He would be mine, too. But not in Self's system. Greene should have transferred, as I have posted before. For his own good. Now he may play and contribute, and he may light it up. But he will always be marginalized. And his extreme talent set -- the three ball -- will never be accepted as having ultimate value under Bill Self.

2. Fool's Gold Redux and Explained: It's a new season, but, yes, he said it again. In an interview with Bob Davis on the TWC sports channel this week, after the PSU game, Self again stated that making three pointers -- making them -- was Fool's Gold. He referenced the team making 27 of 44 in a recent 40 minute scrimmage. His point was that making shots masks deficiencies that get exposed when you're not making shots. Absolutely no argument there. You have to play a complete game, and in Self's mind, defense first is his teams' "m.o" as he said it. I'm fine with that. It's the next step that is concerning and, to me, is unsubstantiated. Self seemed to have a tone of disgust when the topic was raised -- It is quite clear that Self connects making three pointers with resulting bad basketball. In the interview Self said "wow" when talking about the rate of threes made in the scrimmage, but his tone quickly changed. The conclusion I discerned was that making threes leads to poor play because over reliance on the three, and shooting, makes you lazy. It makes you comfortable as a player that shots will go in, thus I don't have to work. Meaning a cause-effect. He referenced Kansas being a defensive minded team, as the team's "m.o.", as if hitting three pointers defeats that underlying, most important purpose. That's his mind-set. It explains why he seemed disgusted with our blow-out first half vs. Utah last season in the half-time interview. But it is an odd connection in my mind -- a wild over generalization, to say the least. But this all needs to play out this season. It's a new season. And with regard to a guy like Greene, it limits his only real weapon. Greene going 2/3 from three one game, 2/4 the next and 1/4 the next, is a sad waste of resources. If that's how it will be, Greene shouldn't play.

3. Vick -- Play or No?: After seeing Lagerald Vick in the WUG, I was sold. I am sold. But does he play this season? Personally, in Self's system, I'd play him over Brannen Greene. But if Self is going to give him the minutes Svi got from last season, then I'd redshirt him. Vick is a potential four year player, and he has the makings of a terrific, impact guy. The only reason you redshirt a guy is if he would play four seasons. But I think he could help this season. The way Selden, Svi, and Greene looked, options should remain open. Lots of things playing against Vick for this season, though.

4. Selden (and season) in Peril?: After the WUG, a poster (I"m sorry, I don't recall who), pointed out that they used a smaller basketball at the WUG, and maybe that's why Selden was better. Very interesting point. After Selden's WUG performance, I declared that he'd be Big 12 player of the year. After the PSU game, one of these statements looks silly. Last season, Selden was bad. His player efficiency rating (PER) was worst among regulars, just a touch worse than Traylor. Many of us called for his benching. His performance has not justified his minutes. This is make or break. We need to see the WUG Selden. If we don't .. if Selden doesn't make "that leap".. our season will look much different come March than we hope. I still remain confident that Selden will make "that leap." PSU was the off-season outlier. But it is a definite story line.

5. Reality -- Ellis at the Three: In Self's interview with Davis, he said that he felt we were best when we were big. Self also referenced playing Perry at the 3 after the PSU game, saying the following: “Frank (Mason III), Devonté, Perry at the three, Carlton at the 4 and Hunter or Jamari at the 5 ... I think that would have been our best team tonight,” KU coach Bill Self said. Now, we'll discuss the Traylor thing in moment. But really, this is Self's first real foray into Ellis at the three. He's never really mentioned it. Ellis is leaner this season, and it was pretty obvious that he was more explosive. I admit that I never thought it would happen. The presence of Bragg gives Self multiple options. Really, Bragg seems to fit the three a bit better … but I won't argue. This is a huge development, and rewinds to the my prior point about Selden being in peril if he doesn't pick it up. Getting Bragg on the floor is the priority. But how does this square with Self's desire for more ball handling? Moving Ellis to the three seems to change that a bit -- Selden or Svi with Mason/Graham maximizes that. But again, it's early. If Ellis, Bragg and Mick are on the floor together vs. MSU in a few weeks, we'll know it's real. It could all be motivation for Selden, Greene, and Svi.

6. I Report, You Decide: Traylor. For Self to even imply that his best lineup would include is shocking, and not shocking. We understand. I rewatched the game vs. PSU. There are some sequences that define Traylor and his struggles on the boards. At the 16:00 mark of the first half, KU on defense, there was a three point shot from the far wing, PSU in front of the KU bench. Traylor was guarding his man, who was in the near corner, Traylor position properly above the near box. As the shot went up, Traylor watches the shot. His man then bolts baseline, goes around Traylor, and ends up tying up the rebound. Not only did Traylor not even look to box out or "hit and get", but he didn't even try to improve his position against guys. But this failure to box or "hit and get" is chronic. It happens nearly all the time. At the 15:10 mark, there isa shot from the far block by PSU. Traylor is guarding a guy near the top of the key. Traylor is positioned mid-lane, appx. 12 feet from the basket. Traylor just looks up at the shot, stands there, and his man comes in from the top and pokes the ball away. Traylor bobs his head. At 9:45, Traylor is use wide of the near block on defense, a shot goes up. Instead of turning and blocking out, he hand plays with the offensive player and is left out of position to get the rebound. At 8:45, with KU on offense, Traylor is close to the far block, just above it. He kicks to the wing for a three. Traylor simply stands and watches the flight of the ball. Contrast that to Lucas, who in his limited minutes, turns and blocks out with regularity -- see appx. 8:30 of the first half, just before Traylor's missed dunk on the break. This is the reality. And it translates to 2 rebounds in 16 minutes. It doesn't matter who you are -- if you are a post player and you don't block out, you don't hit and get -- you compromise your ability to rebound, you lose possessions, and you hurt your team.

7. Play faster? Look for one thing: It was a beautiful thing. At the 12;15 mark in the first half, off of a PSU made bucket, Svi grabbed the ball and immediately inbounded the ball to Mason, who shot a pass to Bragg at the other end of the court for a dunk. Bragg made this happen, of course, by releasing quickly. But this doesn't happen if the closest guy to the ball stands around and waits for a designated player to inbound. We've seen it for years. Self claims he wants to play fast, and he doesn't do one of the single most important things to playing fast -- letting the closest player to the made basket inbound the ball quickly. We've seen us stagnate, waiting for Traylor, or Lucas, or Black, or whomever, to slug over, grab the ball, and flip it in. Well worth watching.

8. Back-to-the-Basket Scoring: Uh, did we have any? Do we need any? Has Self moved on? While we tried to feed the post from the wing a few times, that seemed eerily missing from the game. First possession of the game we tried. But very few efforts in that regard.

9. Mickelson/Bragg and a National Championship: I feel it. It worries me. I feel like @stupidmichael. Worrying. But watching the WUG and tuneups, watching the PSU game, I really believe that Carlton Bragg and Hunter Mickelson -- their usage and play -- is the most important thing right now to KU's march to a national title. Our perimeter play will level out and be fine. Diallo is irrelevant at the moment. Ellis looks great. It's right there for coach Self to exploit, for him to utilize. The better players. But I worry. And you know why.

10. Officiating: I guess we'll see, but the officiating seemed fine Wednesday. Not like the start of 2013-14 when the refs went crazy. Hopefully this baloney about cleaning up the game will be a milder version. CBB is a great game, a unique game, and it needs very little "fixing" in my opinion. Let it be.

@jaybate-1.0 An excellent, thought provoking post. It's maybe like this .. to treat every athlete the same, to believe that adding bulk is always the answer, is a cookie cutter mentality that rarely works in any walk of life. One of my favorite players as a kid was George Gervin. I doubt he ever lifted much. it is a new game though. And lifting does work for most, I think. But some it may change their game -- it may change the essence of who they are as a player. And that change could limit their ceiling just as much as lifting could increase one's ceiling, dependent upon the player. I hope that what we saw from Svi was an anomaly. Given the raves from his practice performance, I'm betting it is. It's probably mostly between the ears. But skinny dudes can play this game. They always have. And really, skinny dudes have played it better and more aesthetically pleasing than their counter parts. Nothing was more beautiful than watching Gervin slide in from the right wing at 3/4 speed, and flip a right handed finger roll above hopeful a swat from the middle of the lane. I envision Artis Gilmore swing and missing, and then growling afterward. Meanwhile, Gervin jogs down the court knowing he is the man -- no chest pounding, no screaming -- just hoops.

The way Selden, Greene, and Svi looked, anything is possible -- but it was only one game. I really liked what I saw from Vick in the WUG. Proved he could contribute if numbers permitted. I do think he could be a redshirt candidate, because he's likely a four year player. Low chance on the redshirt, though.

Regarding Greene, I was really shocked at how immobile he was. Really more immobile than ever.

Self said the following before the PSU game, when asked if Greene did not have an instinct for getting back on defense: “I guess you could make a case for that. Maybe bending knees, anything like that. So, no, I’m joking. But Brannen’s had, he’s had a good camp. I just don’t think his health (coming off hip surgery) has allowed him to be at 100 percent.

“I told our guys the other day, ‘Hey, as a freshman, you’re learning. As a sophomore, you’re stubborn. As a junior, well, you just don’t get it.’ I’m not talking about Brannen. I’m talking about anybody in general. So if you’re still fighting certain things as a junior or senior, then it’s not stubbornness, you just don’t get it.”

He was talking about Greene, don't ya think?

@RockkChalkk Thanks -- think of the academics as a threshold. You are right. He could have taken the high school algebra course, done well, only to find out that it was not taught at the right level. And he would be out of luck. Some kids have to go to prep school to fix things. The alternative is to permit exceptions. I would respectfully suggest that the academic rules are not a fish net (I know you referred to the "rules" in total). But when we mix academic issues with other eligibility issues, like a Skal situation or Selby, it makes folks angry.

Regarding Bilas, he has advocated changing multiple aspects of the on-court game. He has cited the NBA example and the International example. He mocks those that love CBB as it is, calling them "Amish", including directly to me -- of which I take no offense. I've been called worse, and actually that is somewhat of a compliment.

His point is to change the game in the name of progress. But he wants to change the game to suit his preference of the way basketball should be played. That is largely, by his own words, the NBA and international examples.

That's one aspect.

The next aspect is that nearly daily he describes the NCAA as "unfair", "embarrassing", a "joke", "horrible", or whatever because of its rules. Those rules are promulgated and given force by the member universities. Bilas feels any transfer restrictions are unreasonable, in that I have never seen him suggest one to be reasonable -- I've only seen him express outrage anytime a university simple won't roll over on a transfer, regardless of circumstances.

The final aspect is that he advocates for a free market for players free of NCAA restrictions. One where players market their skills to each university, the university could bid, and the player could sign with whomever he chooses.

To me, that -- in total -- is destroying college basketball as we know it.

@jayballer54 Respectfully, what does speaking four languages have to do with meeting the core requirements for eligibility?

It's nice the kid can speak four languages. I'm sure that will help him in life, I guess. But does that mean that he took his core mathematics, science, English ,etc. classes from bona fide instructors taught at the correct level of instruction, with appropriate text books and curriculum?

Remember, the minute you compromise the rules, then the rules will begin to collapse. There are some, like Jay Bilas, that want that to occur. On one hand, they say they love college basketball. On the other hand, they take ever effort to destroy it.

Cheick Diallo and our personal desires to have him declared eligible for one Kansas basketball season is not important enough to compromise the structure of the game, in the larger scope of maintaining the game we love, which is college basketball.

When we start worrying about whether a player is paid his supposed fair market value, or when we want to water down core standards for participation, such an outcome will eventually destroy the game.

If folks want professional basketball, there is the NBA. I don't.

Last season it was Bragg .. this season it is Bolden. Most important recruit.

"As long as we land Bolden, I think we’ll come out okay, even if we miss on other preferred guys. Self almost always comes up big on the proverbial waiver wire when we’ve missed on other recruits." @konkeyDong -- Right on. Let's get him signed.

@jayballer54 Right .. I'd take him. Depending on the circumstances, like Rush, six months is even reasonable.

Giles announces tomorrow -- dominoes might start falling. Just saw that Giles tore his ACL a few days ago, too. Not sure how that will impact things.

@Texas-Hawk-10 For what it's worth, I would suggest that rebounds per minute is a flawed stat only if the sample size is limited. The sample sizes we have used encompass an entire season and thus the concerns you have would be more diffuse with each game. Relatively speaking, it gives us a very good indicator of a player's contribution in that regard. The number of missed shots is relatively static over a full season, given your own team, and your competition, and when you compare to prior seasons.

One reason we know the stat isn't flawed on Traylor is because it is generally consistent with other numbers, such as rebound percentage., as pointed out in @Jesse-Newell's article last season. If we get inconsistent outcomes, I'd suggest we should reconsider. But we don't.

This is the same with the +/-. When you assess this progressively over the season, it has increasing value. Same with the PER.

And if you dismiss these stats over an entire season, you have to dismiss all stats -- what's to say a player won't shoot much better in the next 35 games?

Now, you could simply say "too many variables" and dismiss these important pieces of evidence as @Crimsonorblue22 does, or you expand your universe of information. There aren't "too many variables" to any of this. You just have to take the stats for what they indicate, nothing more, nothing less.

Regarding FT%, all @Texas-Hawk-10 is saying is that the more free throws shot, the more the % is an important indicator. That almost seems indisputable -- am I wrong there?

By the way .. Traylor had 2 rebounds in 16 minutes last night. That's .125 per minute. Way low. Is it important to consider? Yes, but only because of his history. But this season, it's a blip. As games accrue, it will mean more for this season. But it is consistent with the pattern.

And remember, rebounding rate is an incredibly important stat because of the position Traylor plays -- power forward. Rebounding is a lead job description. No argument there, I hope. That is, as a PF, we wouldn't get all worked up about Traylor's three point shooting, most likely. He could be 1/8 for the year. So what. Same with Frank Mason's rebounding ... he's a point guard. Not a main job description.

@ParisHawk So you don't like that "energy" thing, huh? Can't imagine why not.

See, Bragg played "with energy" last night and apparently has been. So did Mickelson. Hustling all over the floor. What we know is that you have to have something else besides energy. It was nice to see that Bragg and Mickelson did just that.

But getting right to it -

1. The Good: Bragg, Ellis, and Mickelson. All three looked outstanding. Mickelson blocked four shots, altered a few. The only thing standing in the way of Mickelson making a big contribution is Self. Bragg was everything we thought he would be. He's ready now. He needs to be allowed to play through mistakes because the package we have under the tree come March far exceeds his pedestrian competition. Ellis looked quicker to me. Maybe that wasn't true. But what's interesting in that, Bragg looked quicker. Diallo, or no Diallo, this team will be fine if these three guys get the lion's share of the post minutes.

2. The Bad: Brannen Greene's defense and mobility. Greene literally looked like a statue. I just struggle to see what he brings other than three point shooting, which is not valued much around these parts.

3. The Ugly: Selden and Svi. This was the most disappointing part of the game to me. Neither player ever got in a rhythm. Selden was a shell of what we saw at the WUG. I guess we can blame the ankle. Without Selden making a leap, things get dicey for this team. Svi was out of sorts the entire time. Not sure what to make of it. I've touted the fact that (I think) we have the best group of perimeter players in the country. That did not appear to be the case against the might Pitt St. Gorillas. Svi looked worse last night than his initial games last season.

But it is just one game, and just an exhibition at that.

@jaybate-1.0 Hmmm ... that could also be said about the firing of Mangino just months after our current, astute chancellor was hired.

@SoftballDad2011 Yep, I think you are right on there. KC isn't the best match for Familia.

Turns out the KC wasn't a good match up for the Mets, either.

@JayHawkFanToo You live in Johnson County, right? Buffalo Wild Wings will have game. Sort of like pay per view, given the high price of wings.

@JayHawkFanToo I hope Traylor kicks a** this season. He (and CF) saved us in the EKU game as you pointed out. Have a great day -- it's KU's first game and the start of another ride, which I will try to enjoy.

@BeddieKU23 "It goes without saying that it’s absolutely important that 1 of these 3 ends up in a KU uniform."

Keep saying it, because it is true.

@JayHawkFanToo I agree completely. We'd already touched up Familia .. two blown saves to that point. It is certainly defensible either way.

@ParisHawk I was in Lawrence for game 6 at a party .. watched the last few innings there. A little under the influence as I recall. When my friend and I went over the wall after game 7, by the third base dugout, we both got snagged by a large KCMO cop. He held onto us for perhaps 10 seconds, but then he let us go as more started coming. Great memory.

@joeloveshawks Ah, there would be the answer ... thanks. You'd think that I would have processed that since our opener has been Nov. 4 for quite a while.

Sooo .. anyone know why Herard didn't announce yesterday as planned?

@JRyman No worries, my man. My apologies as well. Let's point the ship forward.

@jayhawkbychoice Very much appreciated.

@jaybate-1.0 Bad ball can be played without the perpetual weave, right?

@ralster Do enjoy women's basketball? I have tough time with it WCBB, knowing that the local boy's varsity team would wipe the floor with them. I definitely enjoyed coaching girls basketball. The girls were tremendous. It's just a different game.

@drgnslayr You said, "I believe there is something to this. And Self said he learned to trust his players more this past summer when they played in WUG."

Old habits die hard. Self's butt puckered vs. Germany. He reverted to prior form, as @Texas-Hawk-10 has pointed out. I'm cautiously optimistic.

We've got a national championship quality team.

Also, some very great baseball managers did things differently. Tony Larussa micromanaged decisions much more, for example. Both ways can work. The key is finding what works best for each particular team. Yost was absolutely masterful in molding this team. He created confidence by not changing lineups all the time, giving guys certainty, sticking with them, and believing in them in a way that they could take to the bank.

@JRyman I'm not sure you understand the point of my post. His premise is "so much for statistics."

My point is that statistics .. his, mine, yours .. are important. It is a response in support of the use of statistics.

Further, I am supporting a point that many who are a not fans of statistical analysis argue -- that selected stats can't be viewed in a vacuum.

His citation of the Royals is suggested to show that stats are meaningless in the scope of overall team performance. Further, selected stats are used to prove his point while ignoring many other stats I did not cite -- selective use of statistics.

Therefore, I cited stats -- the items that he suggests don't tell the story -- to help explain the story. For example, Hosmer's RBI statistic and Davis' ERA. And in doing so, I highlighted a very real point when dealing with stats -- the selective use of certain stats to try to tell a story, doesn't tell the story.

So, for example, if Traylor morphs into .32 per minute rebounder this season, and the rest of his stats stay constant, is it fair to cite all those other poor stats and ignore the rebounding stat? Do we cite his poor stats without citing the excellent rebounding stat, and then conclude "so much for stats" when he helps us win a national championship?

@JayHawkFanToo I don't get it. I guess in some backhanded way you're trying to justify the inexplicable decision last season to continue to play Traylor big minutes? Is that the point of this? Or are you trying to, in some backhanded way, attack Bill Self because he sat Traylor's butt on the bench in the WUG? I guess I'm not sure …

What I find funny is when folks try to devalue stats. It is incredibly important evidence of overall performance. "So much for statistics"? That's dismissive. That's acting as if they don't matter.

Think about what you just said. I can't even comprehend that sort of conclusory statement.

So regarding Traylor, we ignore the poor rebounding, we ignore the lack of scoring, we ignore the horrible PER, we ignore the +/-, we ignore the turnovers -- in favor of nothing.

But I'm sure if Traylor has good stats this season those stats will be cited to justify his playing time. We know that.

With regard to the Royals, seriously, this means nothing. It is meaningless.

To explain Hosmer, it's called "timely hitting." A term that describes a player that delivers when there are runners in scoring position. You can confirm that by checking out that very important "RBI" statistic. He drove in 17 runs this post season in 16 games. So right, so much for statistics. Or look at Wade Davis' ERA. That would be 0.00. Like Blutarski's grade point average.

Right, so much for stats.

Hosmer just didn't have high batting average. Nor did he have a high OPS. But, of course, you could look at last year's playoffs and you would see completely the opposite. He led the team in batting average and OPS. Uh, so much for statistics.

To answer your question, yes, we could have won the world series without one, two or three of them … if the person in their place produced better than they did, we certainly could have. That's kind of why we added guys with good stats, Cueto and Zobrist. And that's kind of why Infante and Guthrie were left off the roster as a consequence. Those pesky stats.

And no, this is not to devalue chemistry. Something I put a lot of stock in. Or good coaching moves. As I said before, stats are important evidence. They are piece of the puzzle, but a really, really large piece.

@globaljaybird I was lucky enough to be at Game 7 of the 1985 world series .. got in free. My friend and I had a buddy working the gate so we slipped in for standing room only. Once the STL fans left we got to sit down. I was one of the fools that ran on the field after the game. Unforgettable.

This one feels much better. Due to the years of suffering, I think.

I went to the NCAA portal for Our Savior. There is no updated list of denied courses. As of April 15, a couple that stood out were Algebra 1 and 2. It was stated that those were not taught at the level of Algebra 1 or higher. This is the one that had caught my eye because it is a class that is a "core" class, but the school's issues have caused it to be denied.

The other kids that went to Our Savior that have been approved -- I don't know if they were at Our Savior as long as Diallo?

Algebra 1 would have been taken (by most kids) relatively early -- freshman or sophomore year. Maybe the other kids that went there had that class under their belts.

With all the time it has taken, there must be much more to it than Algebra 1 or 2.

I was surprised and a little overwhelmed by what I saw from in our first few games last season -- giddy I think it was. Real deal, I think it is. If he is "that good", we'll be "real good.' Like, the best team in the country. Like two or three losses good. We'll see .. but getting to be "that good" might be a season away. He's got the total package.

@Statmachine Nah, you know something. I just think it's Self making sure to point out that a kid isn't perfect, that's all -- normal, humbling, Self. What a coach needs to say for all ears, including Svi's. Svi was a pretty good ball handler last season too .. I bet your info is right on point.

@Statmachine In the press conference, Self confirmed your point on the shooting -- but he shook his head and referenced "carelessness'" with the ball when discussing Svi. That's not surprising. The dude can pass, and I'm guessing with new confidence in the system, he could be trying to thread the needle perhaps too many times (based on Self's intolerance for turnovers).

From the returning crew, Svi is the best total talent package.

@Jesse-Newell I wouldn't be shocked, either .. that's what Self does. Your link provides good info -- the Traylor discussion is really a subjective one. There is no "objective" that anyone can find support in. I found press conference response by Self interesting. I watched it yesterday on the TWC sports channel. Self's "just energy" response, I thought, was odd -- my first thought was, "really, 'just energy'?" Then I thought about and came to the unfortunate conclusion that, really, it is just energy.

Self said before the WUG (around the exhibitions) the following - "What keys spurts is energy. and Jamari can sometimes do that and Hunter is capable of being an energy guy. Some guys aren't capable of that, but Hunter certainly can."

But if a player like Traylor does not create more points when he's in the game -- if the team's +/- is worse when he's in the game, don't stats prove that Self's assumption is incorrect? Sure, Self qualified that with "sometimes" -- which I'm sure is true. But the point is the same. If a guy is a net negative, he's a net negative. That means the highs are outweighed by the lows.

And it doesn't really take stats to tell us that anyway, right?

Let's hope the guy has a good year. The Jamari Traylor death watch, so to speak, is a difficult one.

@drgnslayr Thanks. I know some here don't like stats too much. But stats lead you to the right questions, in my opinion. It allows you to analyze without letting your heart make your decisions for you.

But another point is Mickelson. The quote above talks about Mickelson, too. Self has commented multiple times on Hunter's energy. This is from the Exhibition time frame, leading up to the WUG:

“I think tonight for the first time in a while, I thought he played to his athletic ability,” Self added. “He made a couple of great blocks. He scored with his left, which we’ve been trying to get him to do a lot. Then of course, he showed a lot of bounce, too. He was just playing with energy.”

Self said last season that when Mickelson got to play against West Virginia, he "busted his butt."

“You can really tell somebody that’s valuable to a team if they’re an energy-giver. I do think that we have some guys, and every team does, that try real hard that really aren’t energy-givers. But guys that are real energy-givers, it’s amazing, just everybody seems to be loud and on their feet when they’re around, and I think Hunter is learning how to do that.”

There may be hope.

Good topic .. I would say that for Kansas to compete for the national title, we need marginal improvement from Ellis and Mason. We need marked improvement from Graham. And we need significant improvement from Svi, Selden and Mickelson. All from a production standpoint.

But I think the most important player is Bragg when considering a potential difference maker. He's the difference maker from a talent standpoint. For KU to make a leap, we'll need him to be a force by January.

I'm assuming Diallo is ineligible.

@BeddieKU23 @Texas-Hawk-10 I sent a DM to Jesse Newell yesterday morning and he responded and said the site was "group stats" -- I was interested in the same thing. But that it is now a pay site. I plugged in my old computer and I have a link to an old group stats site that is shut down, so that must have been it. It has a link to the new site.

The price on the new group stats site is really made for teams, not individuals -- here's the link ↗.

It does have a free sample of Kansas in the 2013-14 season ↗.

A review of Traylor's +/- from that season is .17 while out of the game and only .05 while in the game. That appears to be the worst difference among the regulars.

What is really interesting is that Connor Frankamp had clearly the best ratio difference -- .10 when he was out vs. .26 when he was in. Of the Kansas regulars, Tharpe, Greene and Selden all had numbers that showed Kansas was better when they (individually) were out.. Wiggins' ratio was very good. So was Tarik Black's

On Traylor, while we don't know what the last season brought in comparison, it's not too big of a leap to assume it was even worse for Traylor, given that his points per minute and his rebounds per minute went down from 2013-14 to 2014-15. I can't imagine that 2014-15 +/- would not have rendered the same result -- that he was our worst rotation player on the +/-.

@JRyman I think you have concluded this discussion quite nicely, quite appropriately and in a fashion that is befitting of how you started it.

It was "rewatch". Try it. Turn off the sound. Watch each possession closely. I have found that I learn a tremendous amount about the game, and what Bill Self is trying to do. Doing so, quite frankly, reinforces why I agree with him 90% of the time. I rewatch the games early in the morning before going to work (usually). It literally doubles my enjoyment of KU basketball. I rewatched the same way a few Duke games, some Gonzaga, Notre Dame and late in the season (when I realized MSU's three point attempts), the Spartans. It has the effect of changing your perspective.

@Texas-Hawk-10 You are exactly right. There may be circumstantial evidence that supports Traylor. The best circumstantial evidence is that Self plays him. I'm interested in more. And the +/- you refer to is an excellent stat, and one that could (nearly) definitely 1) put a nail in the coffin of the intangibles, " he makes others better", argument, or 2) cause those questioning his value to rethink the whole darned thing.

However, I can't locate the stat -- I'm trying to find it. The site I used to jump on to find it is shut down now. I'm looking …

Last season, for a five game stretch I kept track of it on Traylor and Selden, the two guys that have had the worst PER on the team (Player Efficiency Rating). Both were negative, but Selden was more negative in the five game stretch -- meaning whether we gained or lost on our opponent when they were in the game. But a five game stretch in that context, I think, isn't of great value to be honest. And it has to be viewed against other players too -- that's important.

@jaybate-1.0 You nailed it. Well thought out.

The preseason opener is this week -- time for basketball.

Just posted on another thread -- Jerry Meyer (24/7) just changed his prediction on Marques Bolden to KU.

@JayHawkFanToo I love the word "usually" -- are you referring to the Oubre rumor or anything specific?

I can't believe that Self doesn't guarantee at least a role. Meaning with a Bolden for example, that he'll be part of the rotation assuming X, Y and Z. That is different that guaranteeing minutes.

My orthopedist friend is friends with a KU assistant coach -- he (the orthopedist) said that the assistant said that playing time demands are the most difficult thing to deal with when things get close to decision time. Not earth shattering information, but it is a big deal with players. I read Biancardi talking about that a while back too.

Herard could be making playing time demands, and that might just lead him to Mississippi St. The #67 player could demand time at KU. He could demand a trip to the moon, too.

By the way, Jerry Meyer just changed is crystal ball prediction to KU regarding Marques Bolden.

Further info -- from Fran Fraschilla. I asked him a question on twitter about Bragg -- Do you see Bragg as a big contributor? Diverse skills?

Fraschilla replied, "Yes. Korea was head start. Toughness & skill."

Short bursts of info from twitter, of course.

But Fran tossing in "toughness" caught my eye. That brings an element perhaps many of us weren't contemplating was a part of the package he brings to this team.

I did want to address a theme @JRyman brought up. I think it is important to remind him that this forum is just like life. There are certain folks that have certain experience, certain information, and a certain background that provides them a better foundation. This can be any topic or subject. For example, a doctor is more equipped to handle medical matters than is a physician's assistant, a nurse practioner, a registered nurse, or a nursing assistant. And each is progressively more equipped. Bill Self is the doctor. We are the underlings.

The doctor is in charge. He makes the ultimate decisions. He has a better knowledge base. The physician's assistant, a nurse practioner, a registered nurse, or a nursing assistant have varying levels of training, and may offer opinions. In some instances, the doctor may end up being wrong, where the physician's assistant, the nurse practioner, the registered nurse, or the nursing assistant, may ultimately be correct. Or they may not.

When I talk about foundation in this forum, I'm sure some have barely played the game. I'm sure some have not coached at any level. I'm sure that some just watch basketball casually. I'm sure some may only watch Kansas basketball. I'm sure there are some that watch KU and other college games. I'm sure there are some that are quite young, and some that are quite old.

All of this contributes to an experience level. Everyone can offer opinions of course. And everyone can be right, regardless of IQ.

And I can tell you this -- @jaybate-1.0 total IQ is clearly higher that Bill Self's IQ. Use that how you would like.

But I do think time, experience, background, etc., is important. Here's an example - last season we had a number of debates and discussions regarding scheme. One vocal supporter of Self admitted that he didn't have time to watch other college basketball games. This after a relatively long discussion on certain schemes, run by other teams, that might fit better with KU's personnel. How in the world can you defend Self when you aren't even privy to what the rest of the CBB world is doing? Or when, fundamentally, you don't understand the basics of the scheme in question?

Similarly, @JRyman admitted that he didn't even watch the WUGs, saying he was busy raising kids and on a vacation (as if the rest of us who do make the time don't do the same things). In his post, he made a point that an opinion is not a better opinion simply because "you can swing numbers to work for you" or because of "how much time you put into it."

Really? Time -- meaning study and analysis. And numbers -- meaning the results of performance -- this doesn't provide for a better foundation of an opinion?

Ok, then. Traylor rebounds at a rate of .18 per minute. @JRyman -- tell me why he's a good rebounder? That simple stats tells us everything. I posted on this forum that no other Kansas rotation level post player, other than Justin Wesley, rebounded at worse rate than Traylor since Self has been here. Have you seen that reported on any other website? Even by Jesse Newell? Has any member of the press challenged Self on that topic?

Those stats have incredible value. So, @JRyman, how did I figure those out? I went through -- took the time -- and calculated the rebound rate of every Kansas post player per minute played.

I don't know, but I think that was informative and I think it is dispositive of Traylor's horrible work on the boards, which reflects on his value as a post player. I try to offer stuff like that.

The two stats above, and my opinion on Traylor, clearly makes some uncomfortable.

Anyone that supports Traylor playing the 20 mpg that Self played him last season has to own that stat. But come to the table with something. Detail what he has done in games. Give examples. No one has done that short of, wow, look at that dive on the floor vs. Texas.

I have detailed when Traylor has failed to block out, and given examples.

No, I'm sorry, every opinion is not built the same way.

I try to challenge thought processes with questions -- If one of KU's post players were going to get injured and out for the season, which one would you be least concerned about losing? Right. You know your answer. Hate? No. This core question allows you to get to your ultimate answer on Traylor's value.

Could that change in 2015-16? Sure it could. I hope so.

Some have tried to understand and commiserate with @JRyman. The fact is, the posts by @JRyman on this supposed "topic" is baloney. It comes from someone who can't find a way to make numbers works for him, or to challenge numbers that he disputes. He doesn't spend the time to analyze the stats, he doesn't take the time to rematch games, he clearly doesn't take notes on each game, he clearly doesn't look for trends or patterns, and he clearly doesn't care to analyze the game.

That is all fine of course. We all have varying levels of interest. This is NOT being lazy, per se. We are all free to do what we want. But when you attack someone who does spend the time, and then you try to devalue that time spent and the analysis of the numbers, the contrast is that one is lazy in his opinions and one is not.

I think everyone here can see that I am very careful in what I challenge coach Self on. And for those that pay attention, I agree with Self on nearly everything he does. It's the other 10% that are the debate topics from me.

The other thing is evidence. How are folks convicted of murder and other crimes? Many times it is solely circumstantial evidence. Yet they are found guilty by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. The highest standard of proof in the legal system.

No one saw them do it. But the circumstances tell us exactly what is going on from a fundamental standpoint. Same with basketball.

Example -- Self has said that among his post player, Traylor is his best defender on the perimeter. Self regularly uses him in that situation. Late in a game, up by 2, Self leaves Lucas in. Lucas gets caught on a switch and a SF is able to score the tying basket. Self says after the game that Traylor was not injured. Isn't it reasonable to question Self, based on his own words, as to why Traylor wasn't in the game instead of Lucas in that situation? And isn't it reasonable to conclude Self made the wrong decision based in part on result?

If you do not take the time to know the background and information that led to the opinion on Self's decision, how can your reasonable challenge the opinion that Self made the wrong decision?

That's what we get many times. Basically, Self knows best, you weren't at practice, blah, blah, blah. That contrasted, in this example, vs. arguing why Lucas should have remained in the game vs. Traylor. For example, our opposition had not moved their post player out on the perimeter all game, so Self may have thought they'd run the same thing. Very reasonable counter point.

We get a lot of that good "point, counter point" on this site.

But @JRyman's whining comes from someone who is uncomfortable and insecure in this sort of environment where debate and discussion, and opinions, do not go unchallenged.

@ralster Exactly. I tend to agree with Self on at least 90% of what he does and his decisions, it's the other 10% that are the discussion points.

I always wonder why some folks, though, think Self's way is the only way -- as if there is not a big basketball world out where conference titles and national titles have been won doing things differently.