Instantaneous Ill-Informed Roundball Wrapup: Georgia Bulldogs 72, Vanderbilt Commodores 58
All right . . . so, wait, you can build up an early lead, lose it, be trailing at the half, come back, and then win? Are you sure they allow that, 'cause I thought the formula was play hard, build a lead, let them cut into it before the break, go into the locker room up by a couple or three but feeling demoralized, and let it get away at the end in the most agonizing fashion imaginable.
So you're saying the Fox Hounds actually are allowed to win one that's close at the half?
I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. I'm thinking the league office is going to review this one and say we have to forfeit it or something. I mean, being down at the break and outscoring the other team after intermission has to be against the rules when we do it, or else we'd do it all the time, wouldn't we? Hang on, I'm checking . . . wait a second while I Google that. . . .
Well, I'll be danged. It turns out we are allowed to do that. Georgia was behind 26-23 and came back to outduel the 'Dores by a 49-32 margin in the second half. Who knew?
Great job, guys. Maybe all those nailbiters were a learning experience, after all.
Could it really be that things are turning around in Bulldog Nation? Could it really?
Go 'Dawgs!
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It might be more...
….of a “regression to the mean” situation. I think they’ve always been capable of this, and should win about half these games, these just don’t!
The turnaround itself – that will come with experience and depth. With talented sophomores, the former is a cinch, we’ll have to see what happens with the latter.
Next 6 games...
At Auburn
South Carolina
at Tennessee
Alabama
at Vanderbilt
Florida
We can beat Auburn on the road and also could win the next 3 home games. I don’t see us whipping UT or Vandy up there.
After Florida, We’ve got:
Kentucky
at LSU
SEC Tourney.
Could 17 wins put this team in the post season?
Crazy talk, I know.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
By post season
I mean the Big Dance.
C’mon Illinois! Helps our RPI.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
17
probably gets an NIT invite. Is it really an invite to the Not Invited Tourney?
I'm going back to 2000 (I think it was 2000)...
when we got into the dance with a 16-15 squad, losing a close 1st round game to Purdue.
We had some quality wins and some of our opponents whom we beat improved late…so as their RPI rose, ours did, too. Anyway, you’re probably right, but if we could finish strong and perhaps get a win vs. UK along with the rest of the home games…and maybe win 2 games at least in the Tourney…who knows?
Again, Crazy Talk…
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
It's possible
just because we have wins vs. ranked teams. I think it’s possible that we get in by winning the SEC tourney. We’ve been close to UK, and honestly, with a few things going our way and with an us against the world mentality, the Dawgs could do just that.
Easy, easy, easy . . .
. . . I agree that Mark Fox has this program pointed in the right direction, but let’s (a) string together two SEC wins in a row and (b) win a game on the road before we start talking about NCAA tournament bids and SEC tournament victories. We can’t count on a tornado blowing through downtown Atlanta and bringing the winds of fortune our way again.
Go 'Dawgs!
I don't know...
this being an “El Nino” winter and everything, Meteorologically a March tornado is not out of the realm of possibility.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
If we win the SEC Tourney
It’s an automatic bid.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
That's what I'm saying.
I think the only way we get in is by winning the tourney. Now, that being said, I believe it COULD happen. Would it be a freakish kind of thing, like a tornado blowing through? Absolutely. That still doesn’t change the fact that it could happen. Could the Dawgs be bounced in the first round of the SEC tourney and is that scenario more likely? Absolutely.
DavetheD - you have clearly lost your mind
how may back to back wins and / or back to back SEC wins do we have?
Exactly.
"I look forward to developing an aggressive, physical, attacking style defense that offenses will not look forward to playing against." - Coach Grantham
I never had
Much of a mind to lose…
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
by DavetheDawg on Feb 6, 2010 11:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
NOOOOOOOO!!!
This optimism will not stand!! Do not get excited!!! No good will come from it!!! Remain calm!! Remain pessimistic!!!
About to fix it
"I look forward to developing an aggressive, physical, attacking style defense that offenses will not look forward to playing against." - Coach Grantham
It wasn't an expression of confidence, it was a "Jeopardy!" answer
I phrased it in the form of a question.
Go 'Dawgs!
oh yea, it was Vandy
"I look forward to developing an aggressive, physical, attacking style defense that offenses will not look forward to playing against." - Coach Grantham
That only counts in football
They’re actually decent in basketball.
Well, they’re better than us, anyway.
Only not tonight.
Go 'Dawgs!
kyle, we had a one time SEC win against Vandy. Its not like we are going to win 2 SEC games.
"I look forward to developing an aggressive, physical, attacking style defense that offenses will not look forward to playing against." - Coach Grantham
Do you ever play the lottery?
Just wondering;-)
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
I still don't understand basketball
At least not past “the point is to score more points than the other team by getting the big orange ball into the basket looking thingy up there.”
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
For those, like me, who don't know basketball
I went to the game tonight. I bought tickets to the Tennessee game, but couldn’t make it. I think this means I have to buy tickets for every remaining game, whether I can go or not.
I like basketball. I may know a little bit more about the game than podunkdawg, but I wouldn’t say that’s a given.
I highly recommend the experience of attending a game, though, regardless of the level of your knowledge. I’ve been to a few since my school days (when I spent a season in the pep band), and I always have a great time and vow to go more often. Maybe I’ll think to do it this time.
It’s intersting to me how some of our football traditions have been transferred over to Stegeman. We get “Krypton” toward the end (the last media timeout, maybe? And lots of folks holding four fingers in the air, which speaks volumes to the relative states of our sports programs). There’s the march medley with its crowd participation bits. Smart moves, I suppose. We already transferred the football program’s oval “G” across all sports, so I suppose it’s fitting to brand them all with the same cheers. Plus, it’s stuff we all know, so it makes crowd participation, which is so important in basketball, fairly easy. Ready-made, if you will.
Anyway, as with any sporting event, it’s a different experience live. I think it’s not perhaps as different as football and baseball, because televised basketball doesn’t eliminate quite as much of the important stuff (I like baseball on TV, but it almost hurts a little not being able to watch all of the pieces move like clockwork).
Anyway, it was a pleasure being part of a big UGA crowd again. If you’re like me, and your interest in basketball is not nealry as well developed as your interst in football, it’s still a lot of fun. As spectator events go, it has a lot in common with football, but in a more intimate setting.
Oh, and one funny thing: Vandy has a player from Australia. While he was taking a couple of free throws at one point, the student section started chanting “U-S-A! U-S-A!”. Good stuff. (Yes, I know we had our own Australian player a couple of years ago, and Kevin Brophy will be remembered fondly and with sadness, but it still was funny.)
by NCT on Feb 7, 2010 1:02 AM EST via mobile reply actions
it would be hard not to know more
about basketball than i do. I don’t even have the scoring figured out beyond the further you are from the basket the more points you get and i think the options are 1 pt 2 pts or 3 pts.
It almost seems like there is less strategy in basketball than there is in football or baseball. Maybe I just don’t see the strategy?
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
OK, I have to weigh in here...
Basketball does not have as much strategy as football, but has far more than baseball, because baseball has almost none except between the batter and the hitter, and even that isn’t very complicated. (Yes, I implied it, now I’m going to say it: Baseball is a game for NOT thinking—it is almost 100% reaction.) While basketball has a lot of improvisation, especially in fast-break situations, half-court possessions are extremely structured on both offense and defense, and no team can win without being very good in the half-court game.
The strategies in basketball are far too many to list here, but wikipedia would be a good guide, podunkdawg: Coach Fox has instilled the triangle offense this year (look it up), an exceptionally complex motion offense that allows the ball-handler many choices at any given point in the possession. This was a GREAT choice for this team, because they do not have a very good point guard; most offenses in basketball are run through the point guard more than the triangle is. For comparison, the Lakers in the NBA have run this for years and have never really had a good PG because they don’t need one. But the triangle is harder to learn than most offenses, so it is not suprising that the team is getting better as the year goes on. This is a combination of coaching, familiarity, and comprehension, especially for young players like Travis Leslie.
On offense, basketball is defined by series of progressive cuts, picks, player spacing, and posts. A “post-up” is when a player positions himself with back to the basket at the top (high) or bottom (low) corner of the free-throw lane to get into “triple-threat” position: Shoot, drive, or pass. Players cut around each other very closely so as to pick off defenders and make space to receive passes and shoot. They also set picks, sometimes in progression of five or six on one play, in order to end up with a good player on a weaker player. Then there is the pick-and-roll, a staple play, where a player sets a pick for a ball-handler, then “rolls” toward the basket to receive a pass from the ball-handler; the confusion of two players criss-crossing is very hard to defend. One of the oldest basketball offenses is called “the weave,” where players run almost in circles, passing the ball to each other at the center of the court, gradually cutting more closely to the basket until one streaks open to receive a pass for a layup. But this offense was designed well before the advent of shot clocks, and it takes time to run, so it isn’t used much nowadays.
Quite frankly, I have a hard time watching college games anymore because the level of play is so poor. NBA games are exponentially more beautiful because of the player’s ability to correctly run offenses and anticipate what each other will do (and watching a good half-court set in a meaningful NBA playoff game is really something. I think there are few things that match the combination of beauty and intensity of NBA playoff basketball). In addition, they can actually shoot the ball, a real lost art in college. If you watch old videos of college games from 20 years ago, you can see how much better they were at passing and shooting.
Defense in BB is just as complex; there are multitudes of variations on zone and man-to-man. Again, wikipedia will help here. I’m going to leave with this, a now-classic discourse on the way basketball is played at the highest levels. I promise you’ll be amazed at just how much of a chess match it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html
Enjoy.
I'm sorry ...
But you’re just plain wrong about baseball. Every single moment in baseball is a strategic decision. It’s much more than just what goes on between the batter and hitter. Every batter and even every pitch instructs what each and every other defensive player does: where they stand, where they expect to go, etc. It’s the entire team, not just the pitcher, against each hitter, and every decision depends on the pitch count, how many balls, how many strikes, where the baserunners are, who the baserunners are, what the score is, what inning it is, where in the lineup the defensive team will be at the next half of the inning. There’s also the location of the game, the weather, wow. I can’t count all the variables. And they all matter with each pitch. There are countless possibilities that accompany each and every pitch. Baseball is an amazing series of snapshots. It’s a beautiful thing.
I don’t mean to pick a fight or anything, but if there’s a thinking man’s sport, it’s baseball.
by NCT on Feb 7, 2010 2:24 AM EST up reply actions
how many outs, who’s coming up in the batting lineup, what a given pitcher or batter’s stats are, whether it’s time for a pitching change and, if so, to whom and why …
by NCT on Feb 7, 2010 2:28 AM EST up reply actions
NCT is absolutely right
I take nothing away from basketball and I agree wholeheartedly that rbubp is right about its strategy; just because I don’t know its nuances as fully as rbubp doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge that they’re there. I am not criticizing basketball, I am praising baseball.
Baseball is as strategic as any game out there, for the reasons NCT gave. The fact that former major league commissioner Bart Giamatti previously taught Renaissance literature at Yale attests to its status as the thinking man’s sport.
Go 'Dawgs!
I disagree.
I understand baseball as well as the rest of you, and as my understanding of basketball and football have increased in the last 5-10 years, in part because of blogs like this, my interest in baseball has correspondingly decreased. The strategies you all list are much simpler thought processes. Now, that doesn’t mean that baseball isn’t a graceful game; it is possible the most graceful—and that is because of its simplicity! (“It’s a simple game: You throw the ball. You hit the ball. You CATCH the ball!!”)
Many intellectual sorts, like Misters Giammatti and our own T. Kyle, not to mention George Will, among others, have ruminated on the vagaries of the sport. But philosophizing alone does not change the fact that what it expects of its players and coaches pales in comparison to football and baseball. I submit that the number of games played in these sports is directly proportional to the mental and physical preparation necessary to succeed.
Probably where the rubber really meets the road is in the differences in the number of coordinated team movements and players involved to perform and resist those team movements. Baseball has very few coordinated team movements, and the ones they do have are the ones you learn in little league and practice every year until you stop playing. The coordinated team movements in basketball and football exponentially increase at each level—in both frequency and subtlety—to the point where a fan who understands the basic premise of each game (possibly even a fan who follows every game) can still be a novice in terms of recognizing which moments are intentional, i.e., designed, and which are spontaneous player reactions.
Interesting topic
I’d never really compared the strategic dimensions of the respective games relative to one another, so I pose this question as a genuine inquiry, rather than as a challenge:
Michael Jordan was the best basketball player ever, yet he washed out as a minor league baseball player. Deion Sanders was arguably the best defensive back in NFL history, yet he was the fourth-best Atlanta Braves center fielder of the 1990s. What is it about baseball that makes it so hard, even for players who excelled at other sports?
Go 'Dawgs!
I think it's like golf.
Highly-specialized skills—far more precise than running, jumping, shooting a basketball—that require a ton of repetition to become intuititive, as well as concentration at a level that few possess even amongst pro athletes. And an ability to withstand monumental pressure on the individual at any given time.
—you know, IMO. :)
"I'm not an athlete, I'm a baseball player."
- John Kruk
Thing is, you don’t ever see pro baseball players even attempting to make the switch to pro basketball or football, which would lead you to believe that it is much harder to switch to them for people who excel in baseball.
It could mean that . . .
. . . or it could mean, as a wag once said, that baseball is the sport that does not require an athlete to be either seven feet tall or seven feet wide.
Go 'Dawgs!
I submit into evidence...
former Atlanta Braves pitcher, Terry Forrester. Did I mention former Braves third baseman Bob Horner?
I probably worded things poorly when I spoke of the sports' demands on its players.
Baseball requires much quicker thinking/reacting and a ton of mental endurance (hard to compare this with the others). It is not less demanding on players, I don’t think, that’s not really what I intended to write. I think it is less a matter of learning different strategies, though— there isn’t much game plan other than studying the tendencies of individual pitchers and batters—than it is applying highly specialized individual skills in a pressure-cooker environment with a high degree of failure. There is nowhere to hide in baseball like there are in the other team sports.
Anyway, I certainly respect what baseball players do and understand why people enjoy the game. I just feel that it is less a game of complex moving parts and strategies and more a game of taut drama, endurance, and poetry. All of the three sports have remarkable depth upon close study, and that’s a big part of what keeps people like us interested in them.
Reasonable minds can differ
Many of the decisions I listed squarely and exclusively rest with the manager. In a sense, it is the baseball managers who have to take in an entire chess board and make decisions based on each piece’s abilities (how do I use this knight or Chipper Jones in this particular circumstance? And does the knight have a strained oblique?).
I described baseball as a series of snapshots. One of the things I like about it that makes it different form most other team sports is that there are frequent and complete halts to the action between each pitch. I don’t think that feature makes the sport better, but I appreciate there’s a sport available to be enjoyed in that way.
Somewhat similarly, I’m fascinated by team sports that rely so heavily on individual performances and that require an entirely different and exclusively mental intra-team (if I may) cooperation: tennis, golf, gymnastics.
by NCT on Feb 7, 2010 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
They can.
But I’d respectfully request that more observers gain a good handle on basketball’s strategic intricacies before attempting to compare it to those of other sports.
Absolutely fair request
I’m working on it, myself.
And please note, I never meant to elevate one sport over another in terms of which is “better” or “more interesting”. I may have suggested that baseball was “smarter” or at least as smart as basketball, but that really wasn’t my intent, and lacking the necessary knowledge of hoops, I’ll state for the record that I do not believe the assertion to be true. All I meant to do was defend baseball.
Thanks for the guidance and suggested reading. I am not a fan of any particular sport; I am a Georgia fan (and a Braves fan). If I can stay interested in Georgia basketball, I will learn basketball.
by NCT on Feb 8, 2010 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Why am I having such agreement issues on this thread? Seems like now that I figured out that my typos all over the web were coming from poor eyesight—zoom in on the screen, old man!—I’ve suddenly developed a problem with possessive pronoun agreement.
The pressure to process words at the level of our DawgSports blog leader is just too great! :)
thats ok - Kyle is a Cardassian cyborg. He isnt real.
"I look forward to developing an aggressive, physical, attacking style defense that offenses will not look forward to playing against." - Coach Grantham
Oh, and do go to the games.
Quite honestly my fondest memories of attending sporting events at UGA were yelling at Dwayne Schintzius and Shaquille O’Neal form the student section while we took the SEC crown in 1990. Another thing about basketball is that the crowd can be a real pain in the ass to the other team, and can really get a lot more creative than with football…it’s comparable to the ’08 Auburn black out game with two good teams and a full house.
It is nice to see the team looking competent again and people going to the games. The future is bright. I can’t wait for next year!

by 















