So, has Pat Chambers saved his job...

[UncleLar]

When the other team is equally good with similar talent, I can buy your argument. When you’re losing close games to teams that aren’t very good or have less talent, that’s not luck, it’s coaching. Most games with a disparity of talent aren’t close at the end, so your statistics only tell part of the story.

I agree that what happens in the other 38 minutes is more important than what happens in the last two. What about when you are in games when you are up against teams that have more talent? Are you willing to give any coach credit for being in a close game against opponents with superior talent or do you only want to look at one side of the coin?

 

[Erial_Lion]

When the other team is equally good with similar talent, I can buy your argument. When you’re losing close games to teams that aren’t very good or have less talent, that’s not luck, it’s coaching. Most games with a disparity of talent aren’t close at the end, so your statistics only tell part of the story.

Winning close games over Buzz Williams and John Beilein shouldn't have somehow proven that our "coaching" was better than theirs. We play those teams each 10 times at home, and we probably win 4 of them. But both were close games where we luckily pulled them out.

There is a reason that people making money betting basketball don't care about wins and losses nearly as much as about analytics. It's because they recognize the value of them, and the amount of variance involved in end-game basketball results in close games (and that this variance has no predictive value moving forward).

 

[Ranger Dan]

, but he is not as good at coaching

Actually chambers was listed in an article last year that had him among the top coaches for developing talent.

 

[Ranger Dan]

So, has Pat Chambers saved his job....?

SHOULD READ

So, have the PSU players saved Pat Chambers’ job....?

Because Chambers has been sitting on a beach in Cancun all season?

 

[Nitty_Lion]

That's irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is whether end game results in close games are primarily determined by the coach or luck. The answer to that question has statistically been shown to be luck.

It is not irrelevant to the discussion. It is THE discussion

 

[Tweedbear]

In PSU case too many close games decided by refs.

 

[AWS1022]

Winning close games over Buzz Williams and John Beilein shouldn't have somehow proven that our "coaching" was better than theirs. We play those teams each 10 times at home, and we probably win 4 of them. But both were close games where we luckily pulled them out.

There is a reason that people making money betting basketball don't care about wins and losses nearly as much as about analytics. It's because they recognize the value of them, and the amount of variance involved in end-game basketball results in close games (and that this variance has no predictive value moving forward).

Or we win 1 or 2 out of 10....I don’t think we beat Michigan 4 out of 10 and likely not Va Tech.

 

[AWS1022]

I agree that what happens in the other 38 minutes is more important than what happens in the last two. What about when you are in games when you are up against teams that have more talent? Are you willing to give any coach credit for being in a close game against opponents with superior talent or do you only want to look at one side of the coin?

And in the end, a coach has to win more than they lose (close or not) and Chambers hasn’t done that.

 

[Nitty_Lion]

In PSU case too many close games decided by refs.

Yes it’s the ref’s fault pat hasn’t made the tournament in his 8 years here. What is wrong with some of you people?

 

[jerot]

Yes it’s the ref’s fault pat hasn’t made the tournament in his 8 years here. What is wrong with some of you people?

classic bb fan

 

[Erial_Lion]

Or we win 1 or 2 out of 10....I don’t think we beat Michigan 4 out of 10 and likely not Va Tech.

We'd be about a 3.5-4 point dog against Michigan, and 1.5-2 point dog against VT.

So, maybe I'm willing to split the difference and agree to 3 out of 10 with Mich (though I'd stick with 4 for VT).

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Obviously

But, FWIW:

Duke's "Close Games":

North Carolina 4 times
Syracuse 4
Virginia 3
Wake Forest 3
Notre Dame 3
Florida State 2
Louisville 2
VA Tech 2
NC State 2
Clemson 2
Boston College
Miami
Kansas 2
Auburn
Utah
Georgetown
Gonzaga
St Johns
Florida
Texas




Penn State's "Close Games":

Ohio State 5 times
Indiana 5
Maryland 4
Wisconsin 3
Illinois 3
Nebraska 3
Minnesota 3
Purdue 3
Rutgers 3
Michigan 2
Iowa 2
DePaul 2
VA Tech
Rider
Duquense
Bradley
Kent St
Colorado
Temple
Albany
George Washington
Marquette
Bucknell
UL Monroe
Drexel

It's very different to be "close" when you are a top5 team. That often means you judiciously rest players, build your bench, etc. The lesser team expends itself.

It's a meaningful distinction.

 

[AWS1022]

We'd be about a 3.5-4 point dog against Michigan, and 1.5-2 point dog against VT.

So, maybe I'm willing to split the difference and agree to 3 out of 10 with Mich (though I'd stick with 4 for VT).

If we were able to beat Va Tech 4 times and Michigan 3 times out of 10, we should have a much better record and should beat teams like Bradley and DePaul.

 

[ST8FAN]

How can anyone with even modest expectations continue to desperately go through the verbal gymnastics necessary to defend 0 for 8?