We were favored by 5.5 in that game. Torvik, who thinks we are the #38 team (post loss, were higher before) had us favored by 6.8 with a 77% chance to win. If Hofstra is going to be that hot, you are not usually winning this game. People have very unrealistic expectations, expecting this to be a blow out where you just win even when guys are hitting all sorts of insane contested shots against you. It doesn't work that way.
The margins are thinner than you think
- Thread starter fluoxetine
- Start date
A
anon_xekqhstck0ygt
Guest
I will also say that for a group that mostly claimed not to give a damn about the NIT there is a lot of angst tonight.
A
anon_xekqhstck0ygt
Guest
thought the team played hard, hofstra was just shooting like Curry, especially 23.
I think Rutgers has had a lot of bad luck but has also opened the door for bad luck to occur more times than your typical team. If we make free throws we beat Ohio State, Minnesota, and Hofstra but even with the misses it's unlucky that we lost all three.
I mean you had to just laugh at some of those shots that were dropping and acknowledge we were about to lose.
But others will just focus on how good their shooters were and how much we suck lol.
But others will just focus on how good their shooters were and how much we suck lol.
A
anon_xekqhstck0ygt
Guest
I just don't see how you can't see how ridiculous almost every shot hofstra made. at one point dude shot a complete airball the center flailed his arm and knocked it right in. It was comical.
The overwhelming percent of responses to the NIT watch poll were that people were going to watch. Your comment here is very misleading.
Also, we shot 51% from the floor 40% from 3 on more overall attempts. So while the slim margins is of course true let’s look at the whole picture.
This just wasn't their year in so many ways (the OSU game nonsense being such a blatant example for one). In the end, a ball bounces favorable to one team or another- as a whole, RU just didn't get those bounces this year. Lots of reasons why, some internal, and some just plain bad luck. At this point, the season is over, for better or worse, so the focus turns toward 2023-2024 and clearly grabbing a Tournament slot next season so that committee has no choice but to include RU in the Tournament, as opposed to this biased bubble nonsense.
If they mailed it in and lost by 15+ it would have been been whatever, who could fault them. Instead they managed to figure out how to blow a 5 point lead in the final 30 seconds and then lose in OT in dramatic fashion. The worst way the season could finish and an extension of the horrific conference play at the end.
Well, we won some buzzer beaters and big game comebacks too. We lost some where odds were in our favor and stole some Ws where the odds were against us too.
Thinking about this more our expected outcome would probably be something like 2-1 if you replayed these three games from just after these moments:
Ohio State - Caleb McConnell missed free throw with Rutgers leading 66-64 with 5 seconds left
Minnesota - Either the Cam Spencer miss with 36 seconds up by six OR McConnell making 1 of 2 with 5 seconds left up by 2.
Hofstra - Simpson missed free throw with 18 seconds left, Rutgers up 74-72
Sheeesh what horrible memories. And at each of those times I think every Rutgers fan knew what was about to happen. I would love to know the mathematical probability of us losing all 3 of those games given our win % probability at those exact moments
1: at Purdue Rutgers 29 seconds left Purdue just made a 3 to go up 2 Rutgers had 34% chance to win
2: at nw 1:14 left nw hits 3 to go up 4 Rutgers had 22% chance to win
3: at Wisconsin 2:45 left Rutgers down 3 Wisconsin ball Rutgers had a 25% chance to win at that point, also worth noting essigian shot 0/10
4: at Penn state Penn state had 98% chance to win when they led by 19 with 17 minutes left, and as we remember Lundy shot 1/16 that night and Rutgers wins by 3
Just like with these q3 losses, everyone wants to pretend bad losses didn't happen and that Rutgers didn't benefit from any "unlikely" wins.
regular season Rutgers was actually 6-4 in 2 possession games vs p6 opponents
This is all to say the focus isn’t on the right things and instead there’s this weird obsession with claiming body of work and wanting to ignore the bad parts.
Cam Spencer hitting two top of the key threes out of halfcourt sets is a little different than the **** Ohio State, Minnesota, and Hofstra pulled off. That's all I'm saying. Of course we had SOME luck but I don't think I would say it balanced out and KenPom agrees.
I am not planning on a recap tonight, maybe one tomorrow but it was clear that Cliff was either hurt or they didnt want to exert himself or he decided he wasnt going to give full effort
whatever the case the Cliff impersonator is why we lost tonight and why we were playing a type of game that history has shown we cannot win time and time again..did anyone do a thread on Cliff yet
We have also won a few games we should have lost. Purdue 2 years in a row and PSU to name a few
well we staved off how many 3s at Wisconsin and Penn State on the last possessions not to mention coming back from 19 involves incredible amounts of luck
This season proved that we can't build the offense around him. Imperative to get a guard or a forward who can make things happen on that end of the floor to let Cliff feast on dropoff passes and putback dunks. Griffiths is not that. Davis won't be as a freshman. Portal portal portal.
Did we have a foul to give at the end of regulation time? Would that have killed more of the clock? Thanks. $$$$
What's kinda funny if you combine the 4 games I pointed out with the tOSU and Minnesota what is your expected record in all 6 games at those moments? I'd think 3-3, Rutgers went 4-2.
I'll throw this in too the tOSU game at the RAC tOSU had ball with the game tied 17 seconds left they had 54% chance to win at that point Rutgers won in ot
Maybe my comment is an exaggeration but the overwhelming feeling was, I would say, not enthusiastic. But, to be fair, I wasn't sure how much I was going to care about this game either but once it got going I cared as much as any other game.
We are #356 in luck on Kenpom. Whether that actually measures "luck" or something different is up for debate, but it's just not true to say that things balanced out for us this season. Cam Spencer, a 40% 3 point shooter nailing an open game winner doesn't cancel out Minny hitting 6 threes in a row to end the game (and I fully accept we made a LOT of mistakes at the end of the game.. but we still win if we don't also get very unlucky).
The 3 point shots have killed us all year. At what point does it stop being constant "bad luck" and become maybe we have trouble defending the perimeter?
Doesn’t luck factor just mean we were 1/10th (-.105) of a win less than kenpom expects based on our efficiency metrics?
Last edited:
Torvik since 2/1/23
Hofstra #42
Rutgers #84
The committee was not wrong that we played poorly at the end. They were wrong to consider that as a factor (especially since most other bubble teams were just as bad)
Yup, clearly the same standard wasn't applied to all teams.
We struggled - but others struggled even more and made it
How is luck calculated? Must be a great stay for coaches to use when they don’t win or finish seasons strong. I would like to understand the calculation better to be fairs. My initial instinct is to destroy a stat that could have only been created by someone living in their mothers basement working on it into between magic card tournaments at KENPOM. Make better decisions at the end of games. Use your timeouts effectively. Make free throws. Do you know who does not look at luck ratings? Anyone playing Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday this week.
How about Hofsta’s bankers? Lol. Our luck factor was off the charts even without the OSU missed call.
Nailing so many straight 3s posession after possession (sometimes on bank shots) has an element of luck whether the shooters are open or not. Minny and Hofstra don’t win without that happening. Even unguarded - nobody shoots about 60% from 3 consistently let alone 100%.
The bigger issue for me was us allowing 3 point shot attempts period with 2 fouls to give and 30 seconds left in regulation with a 5 point lead. No matter how you try to rationalize - that makes no sense. You don’t give them the chance to get a 3 off. You don’t care about fouling in that situation. Even if the player somehow is able to start a shooting motion and goes to the line - you have a 5 point lead and the opponent still has to hit the free throws. But you make sure they don’t get a 3 off. You foul hard ideally before the shot. I don’t get it.
Rutgers was 42% from 3 that game, Minnesota 46%. Let’s not ignore the body of work.
That seemed to happen to us alot down the line though (Purdue felt that way, when they hit three threes in a row on what were basically desperation shots as the shot clock wound down. Same with Minnesota in their comeback). When stuff like that happens a bunch, maybe its not just bad luck.