When a coach has to change the starting lineup, he can be fine tuning or it is an emergency. In the case of the Pacific game, Emery said , “We just overlooked them”. End of subject.
As reported in Vanquish the foe, the lineup of KC, Davis, Emery, Fischer and Austin was the POOREST return on time. The Best: KC, Davis, Fischer, Kaufusi and Chatman (+18)…Hartsock has not played enough minutes to form a stat.
What has to be pointed out is that the most favorable lineup has yet to play against other teams starters because coaches are always resting some guys midway through games. The bottom line is Rose is worried and willing to mess with lineups.
I hope BYU can bounce back but history has not been kind to BYU teams in WCC gyms.
Well, that’s for that game. I do agree that Kaufusi should start. You can argue Austin or Davis. But, unless Austin is willing to play more offense and be a threat then Davis should get the start. But, down the stretch we need free throw shooters on there.
Chris, can you clarify if the stats you are referring to were for the Pacific game only or for the season? You said “was the poorest” and then said “Hartsock has not played enough minutes”. It seems to be confusing as to the specific thing you are talking about.
Thanks
UPDATE: I read the article you are referring to and it appears that they are talking about the lineups since the beginning of wcc play, so it covers numerous games. The reasons I wanted to know are because I am trying to gain more insight with information and I am hoping to help SG with his comprehension of what people post. So… for SG, the information provided regarding lineups was not “for that game”. It was for the wcc games since the conference schedule began. It’s nice to know that somebody is tracking +/- ratios and other important factors that can help us all try and figure out why this team is struggling so much. I have posted about the problems with team chemistry this season and this article seems to confirm it. It is not something I went looking for, just something that I had observed. I know you will claim that the “journalistic” writer is only trying to push a conspiracy with these facts, but you would be wrong again.
One area that we have agreed on and SG has stated numerous times is that Kaufusi should be getting more playing time and the author’s facts back that up. When Kaufusi is on the floor, the +/- ratio is much better. Hopefully somebody is tracking that stat. So you see SG, you can intuitively know something through observation… you’ve done it yourself.
I must point out that starting lineups are very different from in game lineups and the article admits that it has no way to find out how the most productive BYU would fare against starting lineups, if that makes any sense
Yes it does because there are always some aspects that play a part in the equation, that we can only theorize about.
It seems though that the usage of Kaufusi and Chatman, though they aren’t always terrific, helps the overall team to be successful.
This is something that somebody who has played, officiated, coached and watched a lot of basketball, can understand and recognize. I know which fans seem to be able to understand this.
LOL!!! I"m the first one that questioned team chemistry. Not selfishness and that nonsense
The problem with the analysis is whether those with the “Best” are matched up with the starters on the other teams. Something not brought out in the article. Now, also, KC, Fischer and Davis are on the poorest and best list. Does this mean that we can take them out of the “selfishness” and “hero ball” category and put all of it on Austin and Emery? After all, Austin is always falling down trying to gain charges, show off… Emery has the most talent out there on the court and thus he is a natural at being selfish and hero ball attitude
I like Chatman. I wanted to see from the start Chatman (1), Emery(2), KC(3), Davis(4) and Kaufusi(5). 3 players that can get into the lane and create havoc. 3 outside shooters. 3 rebounders and good defensive players on the inside. 3 scorers down low that all can post up. With the right offensive schemes and plays, this could have been a great year.
Coming in off the bench would be Calvert, Austin, Hartsoch and Aytes. Throw in Shaw and a couple of others. Now, we have a situation where players are playing too many minutes and in close games throughout the season have lost games late.
As for the conclusions you are trying to draw, they have no merit. You are making stuff up, except toward the end where you start to make sense. Just so you know… poor team chemistry is often a result of selfish play, something coaches, BYU media and sportswriters have all said was a problem with this team.
When coaches and players talk like that, they are just simply pacifying the fans because that’s what they want to hear. Then, they get down to the real reasons in practice. Lack of preparation for the defense abilities of the opponent. Poor basics. Poor other things that the teams will work on all while stating what people want to hear. Same with the media people too. It’s really hard to pass to someone who isn’t open. Yet, you think it should just be automatic. Pacific was ready for us. They were in the passing lanes all night long and we did nothing to correct that. So, players did a lot of one on one. NOT because they were selfish.
No they don’t and what makes you think that is “what fans want to hear”? nonsense… why on earth would a fan want to hear that the players are selfish sometimes?
LOL!.. okay, and so was Harvard and Long Beach State. Too funny.
Keep trying to convince yourself of the problem being issues other than the things that the coach and BYU sports media have observed. Losing credibility again…
