Not having Buddy cost us tonight

[campbest]

As someone else stated, if you break the press and score 2 or 3 times, most teams back off of the press. We broke the press a few times and either didn't attempt to score or shot and missed. Scoring in those situations would have made a difference.

UT isn't going to back off a press down 15.

 

[MsProudSooner]

UT isn't going to back off a press down 15.

Even if they didn't, as I said before, all we needed was one more stop, one more score, one less turnover to change the outcome in regulation. I'm not saying Buddy would be some kind of miracle worker. I'm just saying that his participation would have increased the odds of getting that stop, that score or perhaps one or two less turnovers.

 

[Smash Williams]

Problem was the execution, OU has struggled against backcourt pressure in this season, why teams don't do this more to us is beyond me.

I can't figure it out, either. I was wondering if I was missing something because it seems so obvious. Even my girlfriend gets nervous any time OU faces a full-court press, and it's not from me talking about it.

 

[Smash Williams]

Even if they didn't, as I said before, all we needed was one more stop, one more score, one less turnover to change the outcome in regulation. I'm not saying Buddy would be some kind of miracle worker. I'm just saying that his participation would have increased the odds of getting that stop, that score or perhaps one or two less turnovers.

But if Buddy Hield plays, the game is a completely different sequence of events.

No Buddy Hield + 22-point lead with 7:30 minutes remaining > average performance with Buddy Hield

 

[MsProudSooner]

But if Buddy Hield plays, the game is a completely different sequence of events.

No Buddy Hield + 22-point lead with 7:30 minutes remaining > average performance with Buddy Hield

You don't know that. For all you know, with Buddy we might have had a 30 point lead. Buddy is simply an option that we didn't have that we could have used.

 

[Smash Williams]

You don't know that. For all you know, with Buddy we might have had a 30 point lead. Buddy is simply an option that we didn't have that we could have used.

If you think the probability of OU winning with Buddy Hield playing the entire game was greater than the probability of winning with a 22-point lead at the 7:54 minute mark, then I don't know what to tell you.

Suppose before last night's game, every OU fan was given two choices: A) a 22-point lead with 7:54 left in the game, and no Buddy Hield, or B) a healthy Buddy Hield for the entire game (for the purposes of this thought exercise, he would go back to being as injured/healthy as he currently is immediately afterward). Every single person that has a remote understanding of probability would have selected option (A) for the same reason there was a meltdown over last night's game: overcoming a 22-point deficit with less than eight minutes is so highly improbable that it's nothing short of a miracle.

 

[MercedeSooner]

Loser's mentality to think that we needed Buddy to not blow a 22 pt lead with under 8 minutes left - i think what people are trying to say is our defense is really suffering without him and we are a much better team with him then without him, which is clear as day in seeing how we've played defensively since he went down.

 

[campbest]

I can't figure it out, either. I was wondering if I was missing something because it seems so obvious. Even my girlfriend gets nervous any time OU faces a full-court press, and it's not from me talking about it.

Lucky guy.