So, it's April. No April Fool's here.
Goodbye to Warren, Richie, and Marcus. Boy, I would have loved to have seen Warren redshirt that freshman year, and come back next year. But he did improve quite a bit in his time here. Richie never lived up to the hype, mainly because he never developed the handle. His shooting was as good as advertised, but was reliant on others to set it up. And Marcus? Never played as well as he did against us his freshman year at Illinois St. Oh well.
As far as the game goes, I don't know if I can anything that hasn't already been said. We struggled on offense, and we were dumb with the ball. We were really good for 32 minutes. Sort of blah for the next four. And the last few minutes of the game made me sick. We'd break the press, and then just watch one of our seniors throw the ball to the fans. And the thing is, we still had a chance to tie the game with only seconds left, when Randle got to the line for a 1 and 1. Next year, we've got to make free throws. I think that if we look back, if we were a 75% FT team, at least 3 of our L's turn into W's. And we're actually a decent seed, rather than on the bubble.
I think that one of the issues that we'll see with Bruce Weber's teams is that it's too much like Gene Keady. As good as Purdue was over the years, they never got to the Final Four. I think that the root cause is the reliance on the system. Aside from Glenn Robinson, I can't really recall many true stars out in Purdue. Now, having a rigid system in place will keep you from having disastrous years (and for the most part disastrous games). But the problem is that when you get deep in a tourney, you're running into a team that's hot. When hot teams play, the team that wins is the one that has the best individual performances, and system largely goes out the window.
In a the dance, you need to win 6 games in a row. It's one thing to win 8 out of 10 (which is a very good success rate). It's another to win 6 in a row. The pure stats are against you. Let's say that you're a 1 seed. You're 100% to beat the 16. Say you're 90% to beat the 8 seed. And 80% to beat a 4 seed. And 70% to beat the 2 seed. This may be a bit generous, but just to get to the final 4, you're only 50%. Then, let's say that you run into two more 1 seeds. And you're favored a bit, say 60% for both games. That still only leaves you at 18% to win it all. And this if you're really good.
The problem is that when you're a team that relies on system, over stars, your picture isn't as rosy. If you rely on system over stars, then you may end up with a slightly higher overall level of performance (statistically, a higher mean), and you end up with a more predictable outcome (statistically, a lower variance). So what does that mean? The possible outcomes for a large number of events fit a normal distribution (a bell curve). Put each of two competing teams on their own bell curve, sharing the same horizontal axis. You'll see something interesting. While the team with the higher mean (the steeper hill in the graph below) will win most of the time, if you restrict the examination to only the right handside of the curves, the team with the higher variance actually is favored quite often.
The odds of you running into a hot team are just that much more. So, now, let's say that both teams are hot. You can simulate this if you add the restriction that both teams are operating at some level, say, their own 95th percentile. This scenario would actually show that that the team that has the lower overall performance, but the higher upside, is favored. Bizarre, but true.
A similar example come to mind quickly. You may remember Michael Chang, a really good tennis player back in the 90's. There was a stretch where he was the #2 player in the world. But, he only one a single major championship, back before the got that good. How Chang played was very methodical. Very consistent. Ran down a lot of shots. Stayed in points, and grinded it out. He got to a lot of tournament semifinals and finals. But in the big tournaments, he never put it together again. Why? He would often run into a very hot player who had a higher upside.
Consistency will keep you in games, and get you into the playoffs. But quite often, it's hot teams with upside that win. Teams that do well tend to be teams that have a system, but have flexibility to use the parts that it has when needed. Last night, you saw this with Florida. Their gameplan is to pound it inside. UCLA thwarted this by doubling down low. Florida's second option was for their big men to pass because they are good enough passers that they can usually find cutters for layups. UCLA thwarted this by dropping a guard into the middle of the lane. Now, teams often just got confused against UCLA, and had their offense sink. You saw this with Kansas in the 2nd half. You saw this in earlier rounds, as well. But not Florida. Donovan was able to change things up, and have their big men kick out a skip pass and you saw Brewer bust open the game with a number of outside shots in the first half. Eventually, you get to the point where even a good defense can't cover every option. But it takes flexibility to get to that point.
I don't know if I've seen the flexibility from Weber, particularly on the offensive end. We saw our defense actually adjust a bit this year and play a little zone after the injuries and suspensions killed our depth. But the offense never really figured out how to attack faster or differently. Making these adjustments and forcing mismatches is one of the hallmarks of the greats - Coach K, Dean Smith, etc. Even Bobby Knight, known as a stubborn son of a bitch, was able to make adjustments when needed. And I think that's what makes things different. I don't know if we'll ever get there. But at Illinois, the bar has been raised. I don't think that we'll be happy with anything less than having a program where we're in the dance every year and legimately competing for the Final Four at least once every few years.
I actually like where our team stands right now, going into next year. Pruitt, Carlwell, and Semrau will give us a nice balance on the inside. Randle can't go anywhere but up, and will give us options at the 3. I actually like Chester Frazier's game, particularly with how he started shooting in the Big Ten tourney and even in the loss to VT. Meachem is a nice guy to bring off the bench, and Jamar may finally get his game together (if he's not in jail). And Calvin's court presence can only increase. This gives us 8 players to work with, and we'll have a similar result as we did this year, if this is all we have.
To improve, we'll definitely need to have one more guy step in on the inside, whether it be one of the frosh, or CJ Jackson. And really, we need one of two of the freshmen to step in and play. Quinton Watkins or Demetri McCarney are the most obvious choice to get minutes, as both come as top 100 recruits (as high as the 60's for McCarney). Watkins comes from the west coast, and has a reputation as a penetrator, which is key for us. Of course, he hasn't officially signed his letter. Maybe Sampson will swoop in on him, too. McCarney is a Chicago kid who may push Chester for minutes at point. Both are 6'2" or 6'3", which makes them a bit small at SG, but just fine at point. Unfortunately, neither come with a reputation for great shooting. Our other incoming frosh are a couple tall white kids. Both seem a bit skinny. One of them committed to the Illini early (Bill Cole), and is a part of that Peoria pipeline. I hope that he's one of the good ones, not one of the ones that you have to sign so that you stay on good terms with the coaches and AAU mavens out there. Rumor is that he's got a nice outside touch. Which would be nice. We'll see if he's more Mike Dunleavy or Nick Smith. Or if he can play any defense at all. The other, Mike Tisdale, is 6'11", only 200, and sounds like an extreme project. When you hear a coach say something like, "He has worked hard and his coaches have done a nice job putting in extra time with him on individual improvement, helping him gain coordination and explosiveness," you tend to translate that as, "He's not very good. Sort of goofy. But he's tall. And white. And our fans love white players." I don't like to speculate on freshmen until I actually see them, but I have a suspicion that Tisdale will redshirt, Cole may see some minutes at the 3/4, and get some minutes because of our extreme lack of shooting.
We'll see how everyone looks in the fall.
-Chairman
