B-Ball Idiocracy


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby jhc68 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:03 pm

Jack Taylor scores 138 points for Grinnel College. A kid on the losing team was 34 for 44 shooting for 70 points.[

url]http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/jack-taylor-scores-138-points-grinnell-17774158[/url]

So many questions... how the hell does anyone take 108 shots in 36 minutes?

How can you say "It felt like anything I tossed up was going in," when you just MISSED 56 shots in one game!?!

How many points would a Wilt or an MJ or a Kobe the next 100 best NBA scorers have totalled if some coach encouraged them to take 100 shots a game?
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby lonewolf » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:21 pm

Good questions.. Taylor was taking a shot every 20 seconds.. the 70 point kid was shooting every 54 seconds (if he played 40 minutes) was this a one-on-one contest? did anyone else take a shot or score?
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:17 am

lonewolf wrote:Good questions.. Taylor was taking a shot every 20 seconds.. the 70 point kid was shooting every 54 seconds (if he played 40 minutes) was this a one-on-one contest? did anyone else take a shot or score?

They scored 179, so others took a few shots as well.

Last year a Grinnell player scored 89 in a single game, so this didn't come out of nowhere.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby j-a-m » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:40 am

j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby tandfman » Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:05 am

Another interesting stat. Grinnell used 20 players. I've never heard of a college team suiting up that many players. Is there no limit?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Marlow » Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:02 am


He admitted there really wasn't much effort put into defense. It also had to be a run-and-gun offense without much passing going on. This was more of an exhibition than a competitive basketball game. His make-%age was mediocre at best.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby dj » Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:59 am

Marlow wrote:

He admitted there really wasn't much effort put into defense. It also had to be a run-and-gun offense without much passing going on. This was more of an exhibition than a competitive basketball game. His make-%age was mediocre at best.



"Mediocre at best?! "

Making 48% of your shots when two-thirds of them are 3-point attempts is very good. He shot 68% on 2-pointers, 38% on 3-pointers. That's an effective percentage of 61%, which is pretty damn good.
dj
 
Posts: 6200
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:10 am

The rest of the team was 13 for 19 in regular shorts, 3 of 9 for 3 point shots. He was only 27 for 71 on threes, but that yields 81 points, or and 25 for 37 on 2-point shots with 'only' 6 turnovers. Key to the game was two guys on the other team who combined for 31 turnovers.

## Player GS FGM-FGA FGM3-FGA3 FTM-FTA OFF-DEF TOT PF TP A TO BLK STL MIN
03 Jack Taylor * 52-108 27-71 7-10 3-0 3 0 138 0 6 0 3 36
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Marlow » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:21 pm

dj wrote:He shot 68% on 2-pointers, 38% on 3-pointers. That's an effective percentage of 61%, which is pretty damn good.

68% from the field is excellent! (but notice that a guy from the other team out-shot him in %-age)
But 38% of treys? Not so much. Especially not for a guy who now holds the all-time NCAA record for single-game scoring.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby cullman » Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:52 pm

The coach is using the stats to shill his coaching books and DVD's.
http://davidarseneaultproductions.info/
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Blues » Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:16 am

No offense intended to the losing team, Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary, but when compared to Grinnell's total undergrad enrollment of almost 1700 students, Faith Baptist's approximate total undergrad enrollment of 302 might put it at a slight disadvantage. Of the 302 undergrads, just over 45% are male, which means the Faith Baptist basketball team has approximately 137 total men in the college to choose their team from.... They also haven't gotten their first win yet this season. Results below.

http://www.fbbceagles.com/sports/mbkb/2012-13/schedule

Just for the heck of it, here's some information regarding athletic expenses at Faith Baptist:

http://www.fldcu.org/iowa/faith-baptist ... -seminary/
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Bruce Kritzler » Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:07 am

Watched some highlight of the "game" on the news. If you knew a guy was going to shoot every time he got the ball, wouldn't you put someone on him (box & 1). No, they sat back in a zone, mostly inside the key.
Bruce Kritzler
 
Posts: 3128
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Blues » Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:27 pm

Marlow wrote:
dj wrote:He shot 68% on 2-pointers, 38% on 3-pointers. That's an effective percentage of 61%, which is pretty damn good.

68% from the field is excellent! (but notice that a guy from the other team out-shot him in %-age)
But 38% of treys? Not so much. Especially not for a guy who now holds the all-time NCAA record for single-game scoring.


For the record, the player from the other team who scored 70, David Larson, had a previous season high of 13 points. His individual points in each of the previous 5 games were 2,0,2,3, and 13, respectively, although he wasn't a starter until the 13 point game. He told his hometown newspaper that he was really surprised that he was left alone and uncontested under the basket for most of his shots in the Grinnell game.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Blues » Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:52 am

As an update, on Sunday Grinnell lost to William Penn University 131-116, a school with an undergraduate enrollment about the same as Grinnell's 1600+. (unlike little Faith Baptist Bible's approximately 300 undergrads). New collegiate scoring record holder Jack Taylor was 6 for 21 from the floor and 3 for 13 from beyond the arc, for 21 points.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Marlow » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:40 am

Blues wrote:For the record, the player from the other team who scored 70, David Larson, had a previous season high of 13 points . . . he was really surprised that he was left alone and uncontested under the basket for most of his shots.

New collegiate scoring record holder Jack Taylor was 6 for 21 from the floor and 3 for 13 from beyond the arc, for 21 points.

T-R-A-V-ES-T-Y . . .
If I'm the school President or AD, the coach and I would be having a discussion about the way we conduct our athletics at Grinnell College. But the irony is, of course, Grinnell probably welcomes the attention and notoriety. . . . all publicity is good publicity . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby preston » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:56 am

Marlow wrote:
Blues wrote:For the record, the player from the other team who scored 70, David Larson, had a previous season high of 13 points . . . he was really surprised that he was left alone and uncontested under the basket for most of his shots.

New collegiate scoring record holder Jack Taylor was 6 for 21 from the floor and 3 for 13 from beyond the arc, for 21 points.

T-R-A-V-ES-T-Y . . .
If I'm the school President or AD, the coach and I would be having a discussion about the way we conduct our athletics at Grinnell College. But the irony is, of course, Grinnell probably welcomes the attention and notoriety. . . . all publicity is good publicity . . .

W-R-O-N-G! They are playing basketball and there is no need for a discussion of the type youre talking about. If you've followed collegiate Basketball then you know that this "system" was pioneered by, I think, Paul Westhead (or at least he was one of the more prominent) who has coached in the ABA, NBA, WNBA as well as men's and women's collegiate basketball. Loyola Marymount (Hank Geathers dying on the floor...Bo Kimble left handed free throws) rode that system to many NCAA tournament births.

    From 1988 to 1990, Westhead's teams went 27–3, 20–10 and 23–5 respectively, earning NCAA tournament berths each year. Gathers led the NCAA in scoring and rebounding (32.7 ppg, 13.7 rpg) in 1989 and Kimble led the NCAA in scoring in 1990 (35.3 ppg). After the on-court death of Gathers in its conference tournament, LMU went on an inspired run in the NCAA tournament in 1990 that captured the attention of the entire college basketball world for those weeks. The Lions blew out defending champion Michigan in the 2nd round and made it to the Regional Final round before losing to eventual champion UNLV.
    Westhead's teams led Division I in scoring in 1988 (110.3 points per game), 1989 (112.5), and 1990 (122.4).[3] LMU's 122.4 point per game in 1990 was still a record as of October 2010.[4] As of April 2012, Loyola Marymount held the five highest combined score games in Division I history. Four of the five occurred during Westhead's career, including a record 331 in the 181–150 win over United States International University on January 31, 1989.[5]
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Marlow » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:46 am

preston wrote:
Marlow wrote:T-R-A-V-ES-T-Y . . .
If I'm the school President or AD, the coach and I would be having a discussion about the way we conduct our athletics at Grinnell College. But the irony is, of course, Grinnell probably welcomes the attention and notoriety. . . . all publicity is good publicity . . .

W-R-O-N-G! They are playing basketball and there is no need for a discussion of the type youre talking about. If you've followed collegiate Basketball then you know that this "system" was pioneered by, I think, Paul Westhead

To quote you: Wrong! This is not a 'system' or a strategy or a philosophy, and certainly not anything akin to Westhead's approach. NO ONE gives uncontested shots to the other team, just to hurry up and get the ball back! This coach knows his team can't compete in many of his games, so his strategy is NOT to win; it's to make a name for himself as an offensive genius (hey, just look at my numbers!!).

At best, this will attract kids who want gaudy numbers and he might eventually get enough Pistol Petes to actually win, but at worst, it's just a way to aggrandize himself, so he can tell himself what a great coach he must be to put up those offensive numbers.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby preston » Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:02 am

Marlow wrote:To quote you: Wrong! This is not a 'system' or a strategy or a philosophy, and certainly not anything akin to Westhead's approach. NO ONE gives uncontested shots to the other team, just to hurry up and get the ball back! This coach knows his team can't compete in many of his games, so his strategy is NOT to win; it's to make a name for himself as an offensive genius (hey, just look at my numbers!!).

At best, this will attract kids who want gaudy numbers and he might eventually get enough Pistol Petes to actually win, but at worst, it's just a way to aggrandize himself, so he can tell himself what a great coach he must be to put up those offensive numbers.

Marlow, I hate to sound pedantic, that's more your occupational device, but...most and all are two different words with two different meanings; wrong is universal...you're wrong again. Just because the kid said he was uncontested for most of his shots (his feeling, not necessarily the strategy the coach was employing) doesn't mean that he was left alone for ALL of his shots (that there was no attempt to play defense).

Paul Westhead called the 45 second clock the 4-5 second clock and it was his intent to have the ball in the air by that time. The system that coach is hawking is a variant of Westhead's system.


http://davidarseneaultproductions.info/pages/system
The ‘Formula for Success’ has withstood the test of time. Since 1996, whenever the Pioneers have attempted 94 shots, with half of those shots from behind the arc, offensive rebounded 33% of their missed shot attempts, taken 25 more shots than their opponent and forced the opposition into committing 32 turnovers, they have won at nearly a 95% clip. Grinnell accomplishes all five of these goals in slightly over one-third of their contests.

While the ‘formula’ has been consistent through the years, the strategies employed to achieve these goals have been altered. During the early years, a new group of five players usually stayed on the court for 2 ½ minutes at a time. The length of playing shifts has been reduced considerably during the last few years and it is now a regular practice to replace all five players on the first whistle after 35 seconds have elapsed off the game clock. Also, in those early years, it was customary practice to rotate three groups of five players. Currently, Coach Arseneault uses two playing groups- each incorporating a total of eight players.

Regardless of the length of shifts or number of groups used, there is still only one way to accomplish all five of the aforementioned goals: Your team must be committed to getting a shot off and getting the ball back every 12 seconds.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Marlow » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:32 pm

preston wrote:wrong is universal...you're wrong again.

If persistence of argument is a criterion of success, you are indeed the winner! :D
If logic is, not so much . . . :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby preston » Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:04 pm

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:wrong is universal...you're wrong again.

If persistence of argument is a criterion of success, you are indeed the winner! :D
If logic is, not so much . . . :wink:

For someone who moralizes so much on this board ... it's sad that you don't have the personal character to say, "I, Marlow, was wrong" "As usual, I jumped to a conclusion about something I thought I knew, only to realize later that I was grossly out of step with the facts"

Marlow wrote:NO ONE gives uncontested shots to the other team, just to hurry up and get the ball back!

You're wrong. No where does it say that they give uncontested shots. You're lying to try to make yourself right. Disgusting.

Marlow wrote:This coach knows his team can't compete in many of his games, so his strategy is NOT to win; it's to make a name for himself as an offensive genius (hey, just look at my numbers!!).

Wrong. He fully acknowledges that he's 95% successful when his "formula" is followed. At least as a coach he's coming up with a way to succeed DESPITE his limitations instead of making excuses like he doesn't have enough "athletes" or that they're at a small school or that athletics is not the most important thing to his kids or that it's private or they're demographically challenged... Because if he did that would sound familiar. :?
Marlow wrote:At best, this will attract kids who want gaudy numbers and he might eventually get enough Pistol Petes to actually win, but at worst, it's just a way to aggrandize himself, so he can tell himself what a great coach he must be to put up those offensive numbers.

Wrong again. Why you're so threatened no will ever know, but bluechippers aren't killing themselves to go to that school. That's just an extremely stupid statement. But even if "its just a way to aggrandize himself" it beats not being able to improve performances and preaching platitudes to kids who would be MORE successful if they had a coach who could actually, you know...coach. Just a thought; just a thought.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Marlow » Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:14 pm

preston wrote:For someone who moralizes so much on this board
it's sad that you don't have the personal character to say, "I, Marlow, was wrong"
You're wrong.
You're lying to try to make yourself right.
Disgusting.
Wrong.
Wrong again.
Why you're so threatened
That's just an extremely stupid statement.

As I said . . . Persistence . . . does not make it so.
Moralizing is for for people who do NOT understand what morals actually are. I do, therefore I realize how futile (nonsensical) moralizing is. As far as being, "wrong, lying, disgusting, wrong, wrong again, threatened, and making an extremely stupid statement," I'll let your own words speak more clearly to that that ANYTHING I can say (hint, the vitriol bespeaks the real issue at hand).
I'm very sorry you feel the need to demonize me over a basketball debate (!), but there's no need for me to bait you any more (a tactic I often used with another, long gone, poster, which I am shamed to admit I used with great success), you're already doing the heavy lifting for me.

P.S. I am wrong often, here and elsewhere - I certainly took my lumps on the Adam Nelson thread, deservedly so, though my original premise still makes sense to me - and I actually don't mind being wrong; that's where personal growth occurs. On this thread? Not so much . . .

Peace out. Homey (gh) don't play that game.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby preston » Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:03 pm

Clearly you don't know what morals are otherwise you wouldn't moralize the way that you do. Either that, or you just don't mind being a hypocrite. I think it's a bit of both. I know it's definitely the latter. It probably has to do with the fact that here is a coach who actually has a plan that works, but hey...envy is a deadly sin.

Your schtick is well worn by now. 1. be wrong; 2. attack others and use an emoticon when you've been corrected; 3. make some silly statement about last words or persistence when it's you persistently avoiding the fact that you were dead wrong and chose to attack rather than admit it. 4. again try to make it about some mythical attack on you while you make more attacks and insults; 5. when you realize that it's obvious that you're wrong you act as if you did nothing and make an alert to gh and hope that he will take your side. As I said, it's well worn. And so is the part where you're being dead wrong and not having the character to admit it. As I said earlier: hypocrite.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby jhc68 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:41 pm

So I knew a coach who adopted the exact opposite system.
30+ years ago he took over the local junior college B-ball team in the era just before the time clock was adopted at that level.
His tallest player was just over 6 feet but instead of playing run and gun he had his guys run endless plays. Weaving and passing over and over until someone on the other team either got tired or bored and left his man unguarded for a lay-up. Sometimes two or three minutes would elapse between shoots.
Games usually ended with both teams scoring in the mid-20 to low 30 point range and the stall-happy coach always had winning seasons. Other coaches and teams and fans hated the coach and the system, but locals turned out in droves to watch smaller, less talented players piss-off the opposition.
It was fun to watch if the whole spectacle of opponent's getting frustrated and melting down but it was all about winning within the rules. Taylor's coach seems to be pursuing a system to he thinks will win. None of it, as far as I can see, has anything to do with morality.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby preston » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:57 pm

jhc68 wrote:So I knew a coach who adopted the exact opposite system.
30+ years ago he took over the local junior college B-ball team in the era just before the time clock was adopted at that level.
His tallest player was just over 6 feet but instead of playing run and gun he had his guys run endless plays. Weaving and passing over and over until someone on the other team either got tired or bored and left his man unguarded for a lay-up. Sometimes two or three minutes would elapse between shoots.
Games usually ended with both teams scoring in the mid-20 to low 30 point range and the stall-happy coach always had winning seasons. Other coaches and teams and fans hated the coach and the system, but locals turned out in droves to watch smaller, less talented players piss-off the opposition.
It was fun to watch if the whole spectacle of opponent's getting frustrated and melting down but it was all about winning within the rules. Taylor's coach seems to be pursuing a system to he thinks will win. None of it, as far as I can see, has anything to do with morality.

That sounds a lot like former Princeton Coach, Pete Carrill's system. Malcolm Gladwell related a system used by the coach of some 13 year old girls in his New Yorker piece.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... t_gladwell
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby lonewolf » Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:37 pm

Coach Henry Iba coached successful slow ball at Okla A&M 1934-70. (755-340). When I was there 1949-52, pre-clock scores typically in 30s and 40s and nobody was bored.. turn overs were verboten.. rules in those days permitted taking ball out of bounds in lieu of second free throw..they just sledom/never gave up the ball.. ran plays until somebody scored..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Blues » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:20 am

On Tuesday in Faith Baptist Bible College's 78-69 loss to Nebraska Christian, David Larson, who scored 70 mostly uncontested points against Grinnell, scored 2 points in 17 minutes of play.

On Wednesday in Grinnell's 113-76 win over Knox College, Jack Taylor was 6 for 12 from the field for a total of 18 points.

Since the Grinnell game plan was admittedly altered in order to try to get Taylor the scoring record in their game against tiny Faith Baptist Bible College, it's understandable that people might feel that it wasn't in the best interest of sportsmanship to knock an athlete out of the record books that way. Once the decision was made at halftime to try to get Taylor the record, the Grinnell defense allowed Faith Baptist to shoot 74% from the field as opposed to their more normal 50% in the first half. Larson has even stated that he missed some easy layups because he got tired from shooting so many of them. If Taylor's 138 points were scored solely because of Grinnell's usual playing style then I might agree with Preston's defense of Grinnell, but they weren't.

Not only did Grinnell intentionally play less defense once the decision to try for the record was made, but they altered their normal platooning style as well. And other than to break a scoring record, there's not much reason for a team to allow the opponents to score at will just so they can take more 3 point shots, when they're already ahead by 75 points in the fourth quarter.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Marlow » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:53 am

jhc68 wrote:None of it, as far as I can see, has anything to do with morality.

Exactly.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby preston » Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:46 am

Marlow wrote:
jhc68 wrote:None of it, as far as I can see, has anything to do with morality.

Exactly.

Exactly? You've truncated jhc68's words so that you can take them out of context.
jhc68 wrote:...Taylor's coach seems to be pursuing a system to he thinks will win. None of it, as far as I can see, has anything to do with morality.

jhc68 says the coach seems to be a pursuing a system he thinks can win. Yet, you said...
Marlow wrote:...This coach knows his team can't compete in many of his games, so his strategy is NOT to win; it's to make a name for himself as an offensive genius (hey, just look at my numbers!!).

You said, that the coach is NOT trying to win and purposely left that out of jhc68's quote. Again, this is part of your M.O. when you know you're wrong and that is to continue trying to make the argument about something else aside from your error.
Blues wrote:...If Taylor's 138 points were scored solely because of Grinnell's usual playing style then I might agree with Preston's defense of Grinnell, but they weren't.

Not only did Grinnell intentionally play less defense once the decision to try for the record was made, but they altered their normal platooning style as well. And other than to break a scoring record, there's not much reason for a team to allow the opponents to score at will just so they can take more 3 point shots, when they're already ahead by 75 points in the fourth quarter.

Blues, I still can't understand why Faith Baptist didn't guard the only guy who was taking a shot every 20 seconds but maybe they didn't care since they had a guy who pitched in 70 - an equally gaudy number to the record 138. That said, you've provided a great case for Grinnell changing their style with the sole purpose of getting the record that I have to consider - even though I think that MANY (all?) coaches/teams change their plans when an athlete is near a record. It still falls within their system (of scoring as much as possible with 50% of shots coming from 3's; and platooning kids every so minutes* [it is mentioned in the system that it can be variable, but it's obvious that they changed it to go for the record]), but I also don't think it's nefarious that a coach allowed a kid to break a scoring record - even if they're up by 70 - when the other team also scores over 100 points; it's relative, and this time of year it's not unheard of to see 45-70 point differentials.

*Here is where your case is strongest! The coach obviously stopped platooning kids; something apparent in the 120 pt difference between the record game and the Knox College game. So yes, they went for the record, but to me there is nothing wrong with that and it didn't violate the Herm Edwards rule: "You play to win the game!"
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Pego » Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:21 am

To me, this record is bogus. It reminds me of shooting baskets in practice for 40 minutes and counting them. There was no defense, any semblance of competition is superficial. Yes, it is legal and probably should go on record books :mrgreen: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Marlow » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:38 pm

Pego wrote:this record is bogus

Exactly.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:12 pm

jhc68 wrote:So I knew a coach who adopted the exact opposite system.
30+ years ago he took over the local junior college B-ball team in the era just before the time clock was adopted at that level.
His tallest player was just over 6 feet but instead of playing run and gun he had his guys run endless plays. Weaving and passing over and over until someone on the other team either got tired or bored and left his man unguarded for a lay-up. Sometimes two or three minutes would elapse between shoots.
Games usually ended with both teams scoring in the mid-20 to low 30 point range and the stall-happy coach always had winning seasons. Other coaches and teams and fans hated the coach and the system, but locals turned out in droves to watch smaller, less talented players piss-off the opposition.
It was fun to watch if the whole spectacle of opponent's getting frustrated and melting down but it was all about winning within the rules. Taylor's coach seems to be pursuing a system to he thinks will win. None of it, as far as I can see, has anything to do with morality.


Wisconsin has tended to play that way. The year that they had the epitome of the no-name team (no one on the team made either first- or second-team All-Big Ten) they played several very high-ranked teams. One was LSU with a big star that scored (20 pt/game type). They hounded him so badly that he made about one of six shots and turned the ball over about five times in the first half+ a bit of second?) and in the second half he seemed to want no part of the ball. Wisconsin won by double digits.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: B-Ball Idiocracy

Postby Blues » Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:57 pm

Jack Taylor was a little more impressive on Saturday against Ripon than in his previous outing. In Grinnell's 134-97 win over Ripon College, Taylor shot 12 of 19 from the field (9 for 15 3pt) and was 6 for 7 from the foul line, for a total of 39 points. Not bad stats, especially since he did it in only 14 minutes of playing time as Grinnell used their normal platooning style.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests