What does consistency mean to fans?

I think we do need more consistency, but the point about Bobby making postseason 8 times and all this is very valid. All I mean when I say we need more consistency is I wish we had lost to Clemson and instead beaten Monstra. I want us to beat the teams we are supposed to beat more than I want us to have the potential for a hot night and a win over a big ranked team. How far "on" and how far "off" we can be scares the bejesus out of me and this is when I really start to harp on consistency.

I may not be one of the people this post was really directed at as I donā€™t come on here and go crazy on the team, but I figured Iā€™d throw out my .02 since I donā€™t care for our level of consistency.

Thread was not intended for anybody. I would never tell a fan to not have higher expectations or to not be discouraged after a loss. Just seen the term inconsistency thrown out a lot and was curious what people felt that meant to them. For this season, I didnā€™t think a team with 8 newcomers, finishing 4th in the A10 and going to the NIT = inconsistent.

Lee lead the A10 in steals.

My point wasnā€™t to get into a contest. He may score 14 but Iā€™d put my money on the fact that he had 10 rebs, likely meaning at the most 10 times he gave his team possession, and thatā€™s if he didnā€™t get an O Reb. and put it back for the bucket. Lee avg. what? 2 steals a game? 10>2.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying we should be perfect. I'm just saying be realistic. How many games would you say we lost this season that we shouldn't have? I'd say 4. UCLA was probably favored in all of their games and lost 3 of them. The numbers are pretty close, 4 to 3, when you look at that way. So if losing games you aren't supposed to is the definition of inconsistent then UCLA is inconsistent too.

Then consider how many games we won where were not favored. Iā€™d say 7. If we won 7 werenā€™t supposed and lost 4 that we were supposed to win, then Iā€™d say that was successful, or consistent.

Yes I do drink the green kool aid. But I also have issues Iā€™d like to see resolved too. I just feel ā€œinconsistentā€ is a very general term that just about every coach uses it in regards to their team. I donā€™t think it clearly explains what issues people have in the anti-Lutz crowd.

Confused me here. You confess that you thought the season was lost before it began, yet it ended up a success, So how is that inconsistent? No arguments about making the last loss any easier to take. It blows and Iā€™m pissed about it too.

First, you ask how this team is inconsistent, and youā€™ve gotten a good 4 or 5 legit responses, but every time you try to spin it to make our team seem consistent. Once again, Iā€™m not complaining about wins and loses but how they accumulate or occur, largely the losses. Your way of saying we were equal in consistency with UCLA doesnā€™t make any sense. Basically, dependent upon our level of talent, as long as we balanced the games we win that we shouldnā€™t vs. the games we lose that we shouldnā€™t, you would consider the season consistent, whether 3-28, 15-17, or whatever.

Do you believe we should have lost to Monmouth? I doubt it. That would be one moment of inconsistency. When we shoot an abominable % against Richmond for HC after playing pretty well, thatā€™s inconsistent.

Since inconsistent is too general for you how about this phrase, ā€œWe constantly play to the level of talent on the other team.ā€ The fact that we do this means we are up and down considerably from game to game, thus inconsistent in our performance.

[B]You confess that you thought the season was lost before it began...[/B]
I have no idea where you extracted that from, the only reason I put what I said at the end of my first response is b/c lately if you don't assert your position at the end of a thread that could be deemed negative, people want to cry fair-weather fan at you and what not.

[QUOTE=Normmm;307713]Thatā€™s ridiculous. Every player in the country has streaks. Hansbrough, probable player of the year, in a stretch from 1/2-1/12 he went 25, 12, 23, 13.[/QUOTE]

A 10 point difference in points is much smaller than a 31 point difference. Hansbrough has been one of the most consistant players all year, hes been in double figures every single game. From 2/3-3/4 he scored 20 or more every game. He has been below 20 points in only 9 of 34 games this year. I do agree that lots of players (mainly guards) are very streaky. Going from 8 points to 39 is extremely streaky. Guards like Lee almost always struggle as the year comes to an end, just like JJ Reddick from Duke, who always struggled in the NCAA tourney.

[QUOTE=Normmm;307741]Teams basically have to concentrate on Lee. Hansbrough has a supporting cast of McDonalds all americans. Hansbrough plays center and goes to the ft line more than Lee, and probably more than anybody in the country. He can get 10 points from the ft line alone. That doesnā€™t make him more consistent though.
[/QUOTE]

You can point to his teamates all you want, but when Lawson went out his numbers improved a lot in both points and rebounds. You can say Hansbrough gets more FTā€™s, but Hansbrough doesnā€™t shoot 3ā€™s. Almost every shot Lee hits is worth 1 more point than any that Hansbrough hits. Itā€™s really stupid to compare the two. I donā€™t care what anyone says, going from 8 points to 39, then two games later down to 4 is VERY inconsistant.

EDIT-Also to add, you said that defenses concentrate on Lee, yet Hansbrough gets double and triple teamed EVERY single game. I donā€™t understand the point you are making, you are making it to be more about the team than the player.

I'm proud of how the team played this year and I love Lee because he is one of the best individuals to come through the program in the last few years, but that being said... our team won and died by Lee this year. We won tight games were Lee made the shot to win and lost the games where he missed it.

Lee is a good shooter but he is a streaky shooter. We were a streaky team this year.

I agree, but I have to say (and I hope I dont regret this) but Iā€™m really excited to see how things pan out next year. People will have to step up, and Iā€™m excited to see what weā€™ll look like and play like when we arent always looking for that ā€œone playerā€

should be interesting

but yeah, Iā€™d like more consistancy - but at least weā€™ve got something to cheer aboutā€¦ and heck, even something to complain aboutā€¦ unlike the kids at monmouth, I mean cmon, we were their superbowl :tongue:

A 10 point difference in points is much smaller than a 31 point difference. Hansbrough has been one of the most consistant players all year, hes been in double figures every single game. From 2/3-3/4 he scored 20 or more every game. He has been below 20 points in only 9 of 34 games this year. I do agree that lots of players (mainly guards) are very streaky. Going from 8 points to 39 is extremely streaky. Guards like Lee almost always struggle as the year comes to an end, just like JJ Reddick from Duke, who always struggled in the NCAA tourney.

See post #17. The point of the thread was not to compare Lee versus Hansbrough. I agree that either Hansbrough or Beasley should be the player of the year, so I think heā€™s a great player. I picked Hansbrough because he is considered the player of the year yet he has off nights too. But when Lee has an off night he is inconsistent. Just last night, Beasley had 7 points in the first half but then 16 in the second. But people donā€™t consider that streaky.

My point wasn't to get into a contest. He may score 14 but I'd put my money on the fact that he had 10 rebs, likely meaning at the most 10 times he gave his team possession, and that's if he didn't get an O Reb. and put it back for the bucket. Lee avg. what? 2 steals a game? 10>2.

Not trying to get in a contest either. Just pointing out that Lee can help his team out on an off night too. The 10>2 is not necessarily true. If 2 lead the league and 10 didnā€™t, then I would say 2>10.

But thatā€™s not even my point. I think you guys are missing the fact that I picked the best player in the country. I could have picked 100s of other players to show they are inconsistent too. What about James Gist of Maryland, 2nd team all ACC? From 2/9 - 2/20, he had 30, 9, 17 and 7. I picked Hansbrough because he is considered the best. Iā€™m not saying I think heā€™s terrible.

I'm still a Niner and [B]proud of the season they were able to produce against what was deemed a lost season before it began[/B]. It still doesn't make this last loss, or the reasons why we lose any easier to take.
Confused me here. [B]You confess that you thought the season was lost before it began[/B], yet it ended up a success, So how is that inconsistent? No arguments about making the last loss any easier to take. It blows and I'm pissed about it too.
I have no idea where you extracted that from, the only reason I put what I said at the end of my first response is b/c lately if you don't assert your position at the end of a thread that could be deemed negative, people want to cry fair-weather fan at you and what not.

I got it directly from your post. I donā€™t think youā€™re a fair-weather fan though. Your comments read to me that you thought that we exceeded expectations. I can see how expectations can change after a few wins. Mind did. But I tried to look at the season as a whole and what the expectations were at the beginning of the season. Unfortunately ending the season the way we did at Nebraska makes that hard to do.

I got it directly from your post. I don't think you're a fair-weather fan though. Your comments read to me that you thought that we exceeded expectations. I can see how expectations can change after a few wins. Mind did. But I tried to look at the season as a whole and what the expectations were at the beginning of the season. Unfortunately ending the season the way we did at Nebraska makes that hard to do.

You misunderstood. I didnā€™t deem it lost before it began, but at the beginning of the year many on here were mailing it in as a rebuilding year and being lucky to be .500. I still consider the season a success although with the way we played at times, when weā€™d lose at other times I thought we definitely should have won. That could have been a game at the beginning of the year, maybe I donā€™t think we win. Many times my game to game expectations were dashed with the level of our play, but overall I have no qualms with the season. I do think further changes need to be addressed, but thatā€™s Bobby and his staffsā€™ job so Iā€™ll let them handle that.

I still wouldnā€™t say 2>10 just b/c it leads the league. So if I avg. 28 ppg and you avg. 20 ppg, but you win every game and I lose every game, I bet you win more accolades and get more attention. You canā€™t use stats always to say whoā€™s better, itā€™s what they do in totality for their team. Lee does alot, but Iā€™d say the other guy does a little more and thatā€™s no shot at Lee itā€™s a multitude of differences from programs, to players, etc.

You still didnā€™t answer:

[QUOTE]Since inconsistent is too general for you how about this phrase, ā€œWe constantly play to the level of talent on the other team.ā€ The fact that we do this means we are up and down considerably from game to game, thus inconsistent in our performance.
[/QUOTE]

That work for you?

Can we please just end this thread. This is the most retarded argument Iā€™ve ever seen. Iā€™ve come to two different possible conclusions with this thread. Either Normmmmmmmmmm doesnā€™t understand logic and the meaning of certain words in the english language, or heā€™s ****ing with us. I for one feel dumber for reading this whole argument and will never open this thread again. Iā€™m leaving now to drink beer and numb my brain so maybe I can regroup my thoughts tomorrow and recover from the damage this thread has done to it.

I do think further changes need to be addressed, but that's Bobby and his staffs' job so I'll let them handle that.

Totally agree.

I still wouldn't say 2>10 just b/c it leads the league. So if I avg. 28 ppg and you avg. 20 ppg, but you win every game and I lose every game, I bet you win more accolades and get more attention. You can't use stats always to say who's better, it's what they do in totality for their team. Lee does alot, but I'd say the other guy does a little more and that's no shot at Lee it's a multitude of differences from programs, to players, etc.

I addressed this in an earlier post.

But that's not even my point. I think you guys are missing the fact that I picked the best player in the country. I could have picked 100s of other players to show they are inconsistent too. What about James Gist of Maryland, 2nd team all ACC? From 2/9 - 2/20, he had 30, 9, 17 and 7. I picked Hansbrough because he is considered the best. I'm not saying I think he's terrible, nor am I saying Lee is better than him.
You still didn't answer:

Since inconsistent is too general for you how about this phrase, ā€œWe constantly play to the level of talent on the other team.ā€ The fact that we do this means we are up and down considerably from game to game, thus inconsistent in our performance.

That work for you?

I can agree with that to a certain extent. But again I think itā€™s a general statement and can be applied to a majority of teams in the country. Not many teams, if any, win every game by 20.

We beat S Ill by 15, Gardner Webb by 32, Fordham by 14 and St Louis by 17. Iā€™ve also posted where I think we won about 7 games where we were not favored, but only loss 4 where we were favored. I just think the perceptions that we always lose to teams we arenā€™t supposed to, that we always play to the level of our competition, that weā€™re the most inconsistent team in the country are a little exaggerated. But I can see where youā€™re coming from and do respect your opinion.

Can we please just end this thread. This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen. I've come to two different possible conclusions with this thread. Either Normmmmmmmmmm doesn't understand logic and the meaning of certain words in the english language, or he's ****ing with us. I for one feel dumber for reading this whole argument and will never open this thread again. I'm leaving now to drink beer and numb my brain so maybe I can regroup my thoughts tomorrow and recover from the damage this thread has done to it.

Ha! Have one for me. No, Iā€™m not ****ing with you and yes, I can be slow at times. :smile:

consistency meaning beating monmouth, hofstra, ecu and etc.

Beat clemson, wake and davidson is awesome, but losing to those scrubs hurt even more.

For this season, I didn't think a team with 8 newcomers, finishing 4th in the A10 and going to the NIT = inconsistent.
I think they were inconsistent all year, but we had talented enough players to overcome this inconsistence on several occasions.

Just read where the tournament this year had the most 10 points or more losses. There were 42 of them. So that means that there were at least 42 other teams who ended the season with a ā€œbadā€ loss. Teams included in this category include Wash St, Tenn, Okl, UNLV, Villanova, UNC-CH, Kent, Vandy, USC, KSU, Wisconsin, Mich St, Tex, UCLA, Pitt, Western Kentucky, Stanford, Baylor, Arizona and Xavier. This was partly my point about inconsistency being a general term, that depending on the criteria it can be applied to most teams.

I think you should start a new thread titled, ā€œWhat does mediocrity mean to fans?ā€ That would rekindle some interesting conversation.

Just read where the tournament this year had the most 10 points or more losses. There were 42 of them. So that means that there were at least 42 other teams who ended the season with a "bad" loss. Teams included in this category include Wash St, Tenn, Okl, UNLV, Villanova, UNC-CH, Kent, Vandy, USC, KSU, Wisconsin, Mich St, Tex, UCLA, Pitt, Western Kentucky, Stanford, Baylor, Arizona and Xavier. This was partly my point about inconsistency being a general term, that depending on the criteria it can be applied to most teams.

Seriously, one loss does not make you inconsistent, one loss by 10+ pts doesnā€™t make you inconsistent, it makes you unprepared. In short you named 2 #1 seeds (the #1 overall seed), WKU (surprise sweet 16 participant), and many other, very good teams. We lost a number of games from constantly committing the same mistakes that had cost us earlier in the season, after playing a few games where it appeared that we minimized those same mistakes. They constantly came up and bit us from time to time, thus making us habitual offenders of bad habits, making us inconsistent at correcting the issues this team had. Stop trying to spin it into we were amazing this year. Just let it die, everyone is inconsistent to you, only a small # of teams are to everyone else.

Seriously, one loss does not make you inconsistent, one loss by 10+ pts doesn't make you inconsistent, it makes you unprepared. In short you named 2 #1 seeds (the #1 overall seed), WKU (surprise sweet 16 participant), and many other, very good teams. We lost a number of games from constantly committing the same mistakes that had cost us earlier in the season, after playing a few games where it appeared that we minimized those same mistakes. They constantly came up and bit us from time to time, thus making us habitual offenders of bad habits, making us inconsistent at correcting the issues this team had. Stop trying to spin it into we were amazing this year. Just let it die, everyone is inconsistent to you, only a small # of teams are to everyone else.

You really think Iā€™m trying to spin it into saying we were amazing this year? I think we were a team that fell somewhere between #40 to 80 at the end of the season. I definitely donā€™t think that was amazing. All of my comments have been about consistency and how I think its a very general evaluation about our team, and that a lot of the criteria that people use to say that we are inconsistent can be applied to most teams.

I started this after seeing the shout box explode after the Nebraska loss, with comments of ā€œweā€™re just to inconsistent in the Lutz systemā€. There were no comments like that after good wins against Umass and Rhode Island. Then we lose on the road to a higher seed and all of a sudden weā€™re just too inconsistent. Yet Wisconsin can win the Big 10, beat Kansas State by 17, then lose to Davidson by 17, and they just have a bad game. Thatā€™s after KSU beats USC by 13, but then loses to Wisconsin by 17. UCLA beats beats Xavier by 19, then loses the very next game to Memphis by 15. Texas beats Stanford by 20, then loses to Memphis by 18. Oklahoma beats St Joes by 8, then loses to UL by 30. Arkansas beats IU by 14, then loses to UNC-CH by 31. These are not just 1 and 2 seeds, as you mentioned. This is a broad range of different seeded teams. And composes the same type of inconsistency.

I started this after seeing the shout box explode after the Nebraska loss, with comments of "we're just to inconsistent in the Lutz system". There were no comments like that after good wins against Umass and Rhode Island. Then we lose on the road to a higher seed and all of a sudden we're just too inconsistent. Yet Wisconsin can win the Big 10, beat Kansas State by 17, then lose to Davidson by 17, and they just have a bad game. That's after KSU beats USC by 13, but then loses to Wisconsin by 17. UCLA beats beats Xavier by 19, then loses the very next game to Memphis by 15. Texas beats Stanford by 20, then loses to Memphis by 18. Oklahoma beats St Joes by 8, then loses to UL by 30. Arkansas beats IU by 14, then loses to UNC-CH by 31. These are not just 1 and 2 seeds, as you mentioned. This is a broad range of different seeded teams. And composes the same type of inconsistency.

I believe the point is not whether all teams will lose to teams they are favored againgst, but the variance between the teams youā€™ve won against to the ones youā€™ve lost. All of those teams you mentioned above are NCAA Tournament teams, the winners and the losers. I think people on here a talking more about the fact that in one week we will beat a ranked tournament making opponent (Clemson) on their home court, but will also lose to a team that didnā€™t even catch the scent of any tournament (Monmouth & Hofstra).

I think there is a difference between losing and winning big against good teams versus doing the same thing with a bad team and then a good team respcectively. So, from a previous example, if we were to talk about UCLA and you said they had beaten Stanford by 20, but also had lost to Pepperdine and San Francisco, then we would be talking more apples to apples. I do agree with you though, that we are not the only team that has shown inconsistency, but we are just the only ones that we are concerned about.