Monday Lunch Hour Dawg Bites: Georgia Bulldogs Baseball and Basketball Lose Ground Over Weekend
by T Kyle King on Feb 28, 2011 12:45 PM EST
in Georgia Bulldogs News
Email
PrintIt’s a busy Monday in Bulldog Nation, but a couple of subjects require our attention, so I’m presenting you with the short version in this abbreviated edition of lunch hour Dawg bites. Consider the following as you wolf down that sandwich:
- Where do the Diamond Dogs stand after losing two games to Baylor over the weekend? Team Speed Kills pulls no punches, reporting:
It has been a long time -- as in, more than a decade -- since the Dawgs have been this bad at baseball. Last season's 16-37 record was the first time Georgia has won fewer than 20 games since 1974 -- when they only played 28 and went 10-18. Now, this weekend's 1-2 mark against Baylor -- and the 19-12 loss Sunday -- are the latest indications that the Dawgs could be headed for back-to-back losing seasons for the first time since 1998 and 1999, the final two years of the Robert Sapp Era. That was also the last time Georgia failed to make the NCAA tournament two seasons in a row.
2011 is going to be a defining year for Greg McGarity as his alma mater’s athletic director. Between now and New Year’s Eve, he is likely to have to make some major decisions, both for good and for ill, regarding the futures in Athens of Jay Clark, Mark Fox, David Perno, and Mark Richt. If Coach Perno can’t get it turned around this year, the unvarnished facts spelled out at SB Nation’s SEC weblog serve as a damning indictment of the state of the Red and Black’s oldest varsity sport. - Moving from sports at which the Classic City Canines historically have been good but are not good at the present to sports at which the Athenians historically have not been good but are good at the present, we learn that the Georgia Bulldogs lost ground after Saturday night’s convincing win, sliding down the S-curve to eleven seed status.
While I admit to being biased, I believe the Bulldogs deserve better than that. Georgia’s losses (all of which were competitive) are to the third-seeded Florida Gators and Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the fifth-seeded Kentucky Wildcats and Xavier Musketeers, the sixth-seeded Temple Owls and Vanderbilt Commodores, and the tenth-seeded Tennessee Volunteers. In addition to posting wins over Kentucky and Tennessee, the Fox Hounds can claim victories over the 12th-seeded Colorado Buffaloes and the 13th-seeded UAB Blazers. While a win over the LSU Tigers on Wednesday is essential to the Bulldogs’ NCAA Tournament chances, a road win over the vulnerable Alabama Crimson Tide this weekend would go a long way toward boosting the Red and Black’s seeding. The difference between a nine or ten seed and an eleven seed could be the difference between making a run or one and done.
What do you think? Can the Diamond Dogs turn it around in time, or will this season be David Perno’s last in Athens? Does Mark Fox’s squad deserve a higher seeding than now seems probable, and can the Hoop Hounds improve their standing in their final two regular season games and in the SEC Tournament? Your thoughts are welcome in the comments below.
Go ‘Dawgs!
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I would welcome the 11 seed.
Why root for us to play in the 8-9 or 7-10 game? The second round game, assuming a victory, would mean a matchup against a one or two seed.
Personally, I like our chances against a six followed by a three seed than either an eight followed by a one seed or a seven followed by a two seed (assuming no monumental upsets). Personally, I don’t want us rising above a ten seed. (Obviously, I don’t want us to fall further…although, twelve seeds tend to beat five seeds often.)
Regardless, I want us to keep winning. Heck, if we win out, including the SEC Tourney, we’d probably snag a five or six seed, in my opinion.
I am a fan of the Dawgs, Falcons, and Braves...oh...and tacos, but I like the other three more.
Well, it depends on what we're going for, really.
Based on the data that I have at my disposal (which you can find here), if we want to simply make it out of the first round, then the seeds available to us (assuming we’ll receive nothing higher than an eight seed) that would give us the best chance to do so would be the nine seed (54.25% chance), the eight seed (45.75%), the ten seed (37.5%), and then the twelve seed (32.25%). If our goal, however, is to reach the Sweet Sixteen, then those numbers change a bit. In that case, we would need to shoot for either a ten seed (18.75%), a twelve seed (16.675%), an eleven seed (11.45%), or an eight seed (9.375%).
Interestingly enough, these numbers actually bear out the whole “twelve seed as an upset pick” meme that is repeated fairly often this time of year. For some reason, the twelve seed upsets the five seed 32.25% of the time, whereas the eleven seed upsets the six seed only 31.25% of the time. On top of this, I thought it was interesting that while the nine seed is more likely to win the eight-nine matchup than the eight seed (the nine seed wins 54.25% of the time), the eight seed is actually more likely to make the Sweet Sixteen than the nine seed (9.375% versus 3.125%).
by hailtogeorgia on Feb 28, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
It's interesting...
I think the five-twelve seed thing has a lot to do with power conferences and mid-majors. The best team from a mid major will often only garner a 12 or so, and those five seeds are usually flawed teams from power conferences. Seems that going one in one direction, like 4-13, gets you a better enough power-conference team to stave off the mid-major. Not sure I can guess why the 6-11 isn’t more like the 5-12.
Probably because the 11 seed...
tend to be those “last 4 in” teams, and are major conference teams with larger flaws than those at the 6 seed.
And while probabilities are all well and good, it’s really all about matchup. Using these rpi’s, and going 1-4 as 1s, 5-8 as 2s, etc. I’d rather face say a 5/6 seed such as UConn, Louisville, or K St than a 7/8 such as Old Domininion, Missouri, or UCLA.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
Now y'all have gotten me excited about the possibilities of a little tourney run
But seriously, I think UGA can create a match-up hell for some of the higher seeded teams in the tournament, if our players play to their potential.
Good point.
For instance, Joe Lunardi has Georgia as an eleven seed opening against Villanova, which came into tonight’s game with Notre Dame having lost four of its last six, thanks in part to poor rebounding. Currently, Villanova is down by 20 points at the half against a Fighting Irish team that Georgia took to overtime on a neutral court. The Bulldogs could beat Villanova.
Go 'Dawgs!
Semi-goal for hoops
Get in as a 10 seed, win the 10/7 matchup, take our best shot at 2 seed Duke.
Fox would shoot to almost legendary status
around campus if he took the Dawgs to the Sweet Sixteen from the 10 seed and through the Dookies.
However, if Duke gets Kyrie Irving back by tournament time that team is borderline unbeatable.
Duke lost to Virginia Tech, who lost to Georgia Tech, who lost to Georgia.
It wouldn’t be the way to bet, but it wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility for the Bulldogs to beat the Blue Devils. We’re a long way from that happening, though.
Go 'Dawgs!
I have seen several analyses
That have actually indicated that playing Duke might be our best chance of making a run (crap… where are those links?!?!?!).
They all indicated that our strengths match up very well with Duke’s weaknesses.
Of course, the chances of it working out that way are slim to none… but that would certainly be a signature win.
"If there's one thing worse than chlamydia, it's Florida." ~ Emma Stone, Easy A
by RedCrake on Feb 28, 2011 10:33 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
From a closet Duke fan's perspective here,
they are beatable by this Georgia squad. We’d have to:
A) Beat them up inside with Price and Thompkins – doable, easily
and
B) Play solid man defense, or
C) Hope they have an off shooting night from behind the arc – neither are great prospects, but we’ve done it before.
This is a “typical” post-Laettner Duke team without a true center (or a dominant quasi-center a la Brand or Boozer) that can’t match up inside. It would likely be free throw city for our bigs.
DISCLAIMER/EXPLANATION The first college hoops game I attended was at the invitation of a GIT alum from my mom’s church. Duke swatted the Jackets and, being that UGA had nothing that resembled a basketball team at the time, I figured that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Any team that makes their living beating the Wreckers twice a year is OK by me….
I think their fans, especially the students, are loud, obnoxious, annoying little urchins whilst inside the confines of Cameron. Or, what I hope the Stegosaurus is like in the very near future.
by Just Some Dawg on Feb 28, 2011 11:39 PM EST up reply actions
I appreciate your insight...
And having watched a few Duke games this season, tend to agree.
On another note, I’ve decided that Christian Laettner is the Tim Tebow of college basketball. Great player… by most accounts a good guy… but for some reason he comes off as a douchebag.
"If there's one thing worse than chlamydia, it's Florida." ~ Emma Stone, Easy A
by RedCrake on Feb 28, 2011 11:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
His Duke excuse . . .
May be the only acceptable one.
by NCT on Mar 1, 2011 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
Mine is acceptable, too.
I like Duke because…
IIIIIIIIIIIII’m the Duuuuke of EAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRLLLL!!
(boom babba boom babba boom babba boom babba)
Duke is the one team I don't want us to be matched up against.
The three teams I like most in the world are 1) Georgia, 2) LSU, and 3) Duke, in that order. I’ve already had to watch two Georgia vs. LSU SEC Championship Games in football. I would rather not be faced with a no-win situation in basketball, too.
(Of course, my unquestioned allegiance is to Georgia whenever these teams play each other, but one never likes to see his other favored team lose.)
"other favored team"
dang. If I didn’t know you, I’d say you were dead to me. Under NCT’s rules, one is not allowed to have an “other favored team” unless one went to one of a handful of specific schools (Vandy is one, as is any school in a different division) or one has moved to a part of the country far away from one’s alma mater. Allegiance is an exclusive concept.
Fortunately (depending on your perspective, I guess), “dead to me” is earned by a cumulative score, but for a few deal-breakers. But this is close. I’d put it in the same category as those abominable “house divided” tags. You’d better have a damn good excuse and/or several strongly redeeming qualities. You do. Peace be with you.
by NCT on Mar 1, 2011 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
Well, in my defense, all of my rooting interests have roots in my family or childhood.
I was raised both a Georgia and a Duke fan, so I have cheered for both of those teams since I was old enough to know what cheering was. (I strongly suspect that my father was a Duke basketball fan primarily because Georgia basketball just sucked… but I was too young to know that at the time, and the damage is now done. Do you want to see my Duke “Back-to-back National Champion ‘91-’92” t-shirt?)
My father went to grad school at LSU later in life, after which he became an LSU fan (secondary to Georgia, of course). And after seeing, quite honestly, how colorful LSU’s traditions, band, and dictators are and have been throughout history, I adopted them as my team. As you probably have guessed about me by now, I like most of the things in my life with a little dose of “bat-sh*t crazy” thrown in for good measure.
So, of the 3 teams, the LSU affiliation is the thinnest, though it is at least backed by familial academic attachment.
And though I understand your sentiment, please don’t declare me dead to you! One never knows when one might need a good lawyer-friend after a wayward night in Atlanta…
(And for the record, I hate those “house divided” tags as much as you do. One must have priorities, and if you’re going to have your loyalties split amongst schools, you must have clear priorities between them. Therefore, there can be no grey area when two said schools play each other, and your house is not truly “divided.”)
We're good.
I, too, appreciate LSU’s traditions and have family ties there, although not as close as yours (an uncle’s graduate degree and his kids’ undergraduate degrees). After Georgia (my parents and I have five UGA degrees among us), my closest collegiofamilial connections are to the North Avenue Trade School. Those connections have been documented very well around here. I need step no further than two or three steps in consanguinity to find no fewer than six Tech men in my family (plus a Tech woman by marriage).
I am, perhaps, especially sensitive to the possibility of diluted loyalties because my dearly departed paternal grandmother, who married an Engineer but reared a Bulldog, never went to college herself but famously (in my family, anyway), tried to divide her loyalties effectively between the schools of her husband and her only child. The effort was understandable, given her situation, but it always felt wrong to me — even more so once I became a Bulldog not only through the influence of having been brought up correctly but also through becoming a student at UGA.
And I just realized what a perfect set-up that was.
Anyway, I have rules, but I’m old enough to recognize that exceptions must be made and even rules themselves sometimes change.
by NCT on Mar 2, 2011 8:24 AM EST up reply actions
As long as you're not the guy who wears his team's gear to a game that doesn't involve his team.
I can’t stand that. I attended two games last year, and I was unfortunate enough to have to deal with one such fellow at each event. At the Arkansas game in Athens, there was a guy directly in front of me decked out in full Michigan maize and blue. At the Auburn game, there was a guy behind me covered in Southern Cal apparel. This practice is something I simply cannot support. I don’t care who you root for (and I’m sorry if I’m stepping on toes here), if you attend a game with a friend (or just to watch the game for fun) and have no rooting interest in either of the teams, then wear a neutral color…don’t come to the game in your team’s garb (the obvious exception to this would be at a conference tournament or something of the sort, where you have a legitimate excuse to be wearing your team’s colors…such as your team playing earlier or later in the day).
A few years ago, while I was still in school, I went to the G-Day game. Upon entering the stadium, my friends and I encountered a man who was dressed from head to toe in Tennessee gear. REALLY?! It’s inexcuseable (in my opinion, of course) at an SEC game, but to come wearing that stuff to G-Day? Get a life, man.
by hailtogeorgia on Mar 2, 2011 8:55 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I attended classes
at a total of 6 different collegiate institutions, only one of which fields a D1A football team – the University of Tulsa. While TU certainly got a ridiculous amount of my money (only b/c UGA did not have any form of online graduate degree program in Accounting or Taxes at the time), they may not ever have my fandom.
I can bake like a demon.
That's how it's done, ladies and gentlemen.
True commitment.
by NCT on Mar 2, 2011 8:24 AM EST up reply actions
"can the Hoop Hounds improve their standing in their final two regular season games and in the SEC Tournament?"
Absolutely. A win in Tuscaloosa would be a considerable boost to RPI. Make it a 5 or more game winning streak (i.e SC followed by LSU, Bama, and 2 or more wins in the SEC T) and depending on what others do, we could see an RPI in the low to mid 30s, and a 6-8 seed.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
If there was a time to get hot, we are approaching it after a win and LSU on tap. No one expects us to win the tourney, but going a couple of rounds would be fantastic - and the boost we need for the fans and program.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
First - TT
Stop breaking the interwebs :) second I can’t fix it from my iPhone. 3rd will someone pretty please explain how historical analysis of other teams performances in other years corresponds to our team?
I can bake like a demon.
by podunkdawg on Feb 28, 2011 9:09 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
In what context?
Are you asking how historical analysis of other teams’ performances in other years corresponds to our team in terms of RPI projections with regard to getting into the tournament, or are you asking that in terms of how the Bulldogs are likely to fare with a particular seeding in the tournament?
Go 'Dawgs!
well um yes?
what i think the stats do is take data from prior years and using that data calculate probabilities of x happening if y. For instance, if we’re #8 we have a 32% chance of beating #9, based on historical data. So in my own mind, i cant help but wonder how the historical data can be used to project current year probabilities. It’s one thing for me to look at the last 5 yrs of my engineering staff’s performance on modifications to simulators and use that as a basis for how they will perform on a new modification effort – we’re talking about the same people doing the same basic thing. In this case we’re talking about completely different teams playing against other completely different teams – apples & oranges no?
I can bake like a demon.
Yes and no.
What makes the NCAA Tournament exciting as a sports spectacle (and somewhat dubious as a method for determining a championship) is that it contains so many games that a upsets are inevitable. (Here’s where Rangers100’s point about sample size comes into play: in a 67-game tournament, the lesser team will beat the better team more times than in a five-bowl BCS, though probably not a higher percentage of times over the long haul.)
Because the tournament selection committee uses similar sets of data to make each year’s determinations (RPI, won-lost record against the RPI top 50, late-season runs, etc.), the criteria for one year’s 68-team field are similar to those used in previous years. (There also are geographic considerations and similar guidelines for use in placing teams in particular regions and pods.)
Over time, these tendencies become trends, so it is possible to note, e.g., that twelve seeds have a greater tendency to upset five seeds than eleven seeds have to upset six seeds, even though, in theory, the gap between a six seed and an eleven seed ought to be smaller, and, therefore, more eleven seeds should beat six seeds. Nevertheless, we see every year that this is not the case, so the likelihood that the 2011 tournament will be a statistical outlier (in which no twelve seeds win their first-round games) is lower than the likelihood that the established trend will continue.
As far as the selection of the field is concerned, past years definitely have an impact, as we are able to see which types of teams get in and which types of teams do not. Again, as Rangers100 has noted, major conference teams with RPIs in the range Georgia will have if Georgia beats LSU tomorrow night almost always get into the tournament as at-large teams, so it is reasonable to suppose that, if the Bulldogs beat the Bayou Bengals, they will make the field.
I hope that made sense.
Go 'Dawgs!
much better thank you
personally, I’m always better at following logical progressions of thought than playing with stats. I hated that stupid class and was thrilled when it ended.
I can bake like a demon.
I didnt break it that time - it was all one subject line. :0
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Well, there are plenty of people who would argue that it doesn't mean a thing at all.
However, for the sake of argument, it corresponds to our team in this way: the selection committee generally selects teams for the tournament with the same basic criteria in mind from year to year. Things like RPI, strength of schedule, bad losses, quality wins, and so forth all go into the seed a team ultimately receives from the selection committee. In theory, this allows us to compare teams across seasons.
In this same right, in theory, this should allow us to make projections on how teams will fare in the tournament, based on both RPI comparisons as well as historical context of how teams with that seed have fared in the past. For Georgia, specifically, it’s important because what seed we receive in the tournament impacts what teams we play, so it helps to look at how those seeds have fared in the past (objectively, of course) to see what we can more or less expect. A nine seed, for instance, would pair us with an eight seed in the first round. Historically speaking, the nine seed has actually beaten the eight seed more than half the time. This would give UGA fans hope of an upset, if we did, indeed, receive a nine seed. On the other hand, we would have to look at the fact that while a nine seed has enjoyed better success in the first round than the eight seed, they only make the Sweet Sixteen (the third round) three percent of the time, whereas the eight seed makes it nine percent of the time.
So, what does that example tell us? Well, basically, it just gives us some references. It tells us that if we get a nine seed, history favors us to win the first round game, but that’s probably going to be all she wrote. If we were to get the eight seed, however, we’d have to look at it as, “Well, history gives us less than a fifty percent chance to make the second round, but ten times out of one hundred, we’ll make the third round, as opposed to just three times with the nine seed.”
I hope that’s as clear as mud for you, podunk:-)
by hailtogeorgia on Feb 28, 2011 9:42 PM EST up reply actions
very very muddy
I was with you through the whole first paragraph, and most of the way through the second….and then…………not so much.
I can bake like a demon.
Variables
So many of them.
And since these trends are so well-known among those who follow basketball, the effect of the knowledge of the trends on the players and coaches should be taken into account. There’s a Heisenberg joke in there; I just can’t quite put my finger on it exactly.
by NCT on Mar 1, 2011 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
49 two plate benches. Damn. That's just insane.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by tankertoad on Feb 28, 2011 11:56 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
