(POST GAME) (#8 / #10) Villanova (MSG) Tues. Jan. 28, 6:30p, FS-1 / 570 AM

[quote="Adam" post=374847][quote="Beast of the East" post=374826]I openly wondered about what was it about DePaul win that gave our fans high hopes of beating Villanova. [/quote]

The Vegas line was only +2.5, so we had roughly 42% odds of winning. Very good odds of at least keeping it close. We've also played every ranked opponent this year super close. WVU, Arizona, Butler and Seton Hall all came down to the final minute. During the past 2-3 years we've done really well vs ranked opponents, such as beating Nova 2X, Marquette 2X and Duke (and obviously WVU and Arizona this year). The only time in recent memory that we were blown out against a ranked opponent was last year at Duke.

I agree that a Nova blowout wasn't extremely unlikely, but it's absolutely outside the norm of how this and previous teams have played. Fans were definitely justified in their optimism.[/quote]

Not if you really watched the DePaul game. Our fans were predicting 4 wins over the next 5 games. If the optimism was justified, are you now predicting 3 wins in the next 4?

Point spreads are designed to put equal money on both sides of the bet, not to predict outcomes
 
Last edited:
[quote="Beast of the East" post=374875][quote="Adam" post=374847][quote="Beast of the East" post=374826]I openly wondered about what was it about DePaul win that gave our fans high hopes of beating Villanova. [/quote]

The Vegas line was only +2.5, so we had roughly 42% odds of winning. Very good odds of at least keeping it close. We've also played every ranked opponent this year super close. WVU, Arizona, Butler and Seton Hall all came down to the final minute. During the past 2-3 years we've done really well vs ranked opponents, such as beating Nova 2X, Marquette 2X and Duke (and obviously WVU and Arizona this year). The only time in recent memory that we were blown out against a ranked opponent was last year at Duke.

I agree that a Nova blowout wasn't extremely unlikely, but it's absolutely outside the norm of how this and previous teams have played. Fans were definitely justified in their optimism.[/quote]

Not if you really watched the DePaul game. Our fans were predicting 4 wins over the next 5 games. If the optimism was justified, are you now predicting 3 wins in the next 4?

Point spreads are designed to put equal money on both sides of the bet, not to predict outcomes[/quote

I don't know about the others but i was hoping for 3 of 4 win after the nova game.
But if somehow we beat nova then things could become really interesting.
 
[quote="Andrew" post=374879]If we had a more potent offense we would press less.[/quote]

Actually i like the press. A great press is disruptive, it makes your opponent work twice as hard, and you mix it up with different looks - man, zone, traps, etc. Against Seton Hall it kept us in the game. Nova just shrugged it all off
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=374875][quote="Adam" post=374847][quote="Beast of the East" post=374826]I openly wondered about what was it about DePaul win that gave our fans high hopes of beating Villanova. [/quote]

The Vegas line was only +2.5, so we had roughly 42% odds of winning. Very good odds of at least keeping it close. We've also played every ranked opponent this year super close. WVU, Arizona, Butler and Seton Hall all came down to the final minute. During the past 2-3 years we've done really well vs ranked opponents, such as beating Nova 2X, Marquette 2X and Duke (and obviously WVU and Arizona this year). The only time in recent memory that we were blown out against a ranked opponent was last year at Duke.

I agree that a Nova blowout wasn't extremely unlikely, but it's absolutely outside the norm of how this and previous teams have played. Fans were definitely justified in their optimism.[/quote]

Not if you really watched the DePaul game. Our fans were predicting 4 wins over the next 5 games. If the optimism was justified, are you now predicting 3 wins in the next 4?

Point spreads are designed to put equal money on both sides of the bet, not to predict outcomes[/quote]

I know how point spreads work. Yes, they do indicate likelihood of winning even if that is not their intention. Most systems I saw before the game also had us around 42% odds of winning. You're acting as if St. John's fans were wearing rose tinted glasses when in reality all the systems out there thought we had a decent chance.

Again, people optimistic about the game had reason to be. No need to bring up people predicting 4/5 wins or whatever, we were just discussing the Nova game. It's easy to appear confident after the results come in. Did you happen to bet on the outcome, given how generous that line must've looked?

For the record I'm not a gambler myself, but that's because I don't think I can outsmart Vegas.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Adam" post=374887][quote="Beast of the East" post=374875][quote="Adam" post=374847][quote="Beast of the East" post=374826]I openly wondered about what was it about DePaul win that gave our fans high hopes of beating Villanova. [/quote]

The Vegas line was only +2.5, so we had roughly 42% odds of winning. Very good odds of at least keeping it close. We've also played every ranked opponent this year super close. WVU, Arizona, Butler and Seton Hall all came down to the final minute. During the past 2-3 years we've done really well vs ranked opponents, such as beating Nova 2X, Marquette 2X and Duke (and obviously WVU and Arizona this year). The only time in recent memory that we were blown out against a ranked opponent was last year at Duke.

I agree that a Nova blowout wasn't extremely unlikely, but it's absolutely outside the norm of how this and previous teams have played. Fans were definitely justified in their optimism.[/quote]

Not if you really watched the DePaul game. Our fans were predicting 4 wins over the next 5 games. If the optimism was justified, are you now predicting 3 wins in the next 4?

Point spreads are designed to put equal money on both sides of the bet, not to predict outcomes[/quote]

I know how point spreads work. Yes, they do indicate likelihood of winning even if that is not their intention. Most systems I saw before the game also had us around 42% odds of winning. You're acting as if St. John's fans were wearing rose tinted glasses when in reality all the systems out there thought we had a decent chance.

Again, people optimistic about the game had reason to be. No need to bring up people predicting 4/5 wins or whatever, we were just discussing the Nova game. It's easy to appear confident after the results come in. Did you happen to bet on the outcome, given how generous that line must've looked?

For the record I'm not a gambler myself, but that's because I don't think I can outsmart Vegas.[/quote]

I thought DePaul was winnable when others here were predicting a total team collapse. I was not confident at all playing an 8/10 ranked team, when I thought DePaul played miserably on Saturday and we needed a career game from LJ to win. I try to stay even this season, and not get too high or too low. We have a thin roster, which is why guys like Earlington, Roberts, Sears, Champaignie and Rutherford have been given opportunities for major minutes instead of secondary roles or bench players. That being said, I think we have a great shot at beating Georgetown at home. I didn't feel that way about Villanova. Clearly we are neither a great rebounding team, team with a great half court defense, especially interior defense, and are a poor outside shooting team. Defensively it's pick your poison - collapse on bigger talented post player and risk a quick kick out that we don't cover well, or let talented post players dominate us inside. I actually would prefer to get beaten from the outside, but think our defender have to rotate a little better and harrass the big men with the ball on double teams to make kickouts more difficult.

I'm not sure oddsmakers review every single prior game they are making odds for, but nothing in our recent play in my opinion would have given us a 42% chance of beating Villanova. We'd played poorly of late and even at DePaul probably would not have beaten most Big East teams the way we played.
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=374909][quote="Adam" post=374887][quote="Beast of the East" post=374875][quote="Adam" post=374847][quote="Beast of the East" post=374826]I openly wondered about what was it about DePaul win that gave our fans high hopes of beating Villanova. [/quote]

The Vegas line was only +2.5, so we had roughly 42% odds of winning. Very good odds of at least keeping it close. We've also played every ranked opponent this year super close. WVU, Arizona, Butler and Seton Hall all came down to the final minute. During the past 2-3 years we've done really well vs ranked opponents, such as beating Nova 2X, Marquette 2X and Duke (and obviously WVU and Arizona this year). The only time in recent memory that we were blown out against a ranked opponent was last year at Duke.

I agree that a Nova blowout wasn't extremely unlikely, but it's absolutely outside the norm of how this and previous teams have played. Fans were definitely justified in their optimism.[/quote]

Not if you really watched the DePaul game. Our fans were predicting 4 wins over the next 5 games. If the optimism was justified, are you now predicting 3 wins in the next 4?

Point spreads are designed to put equal money on both sides of the bet, not to predict outcomes[/quote]

I know how point spreads work. Yes, they do indicate likelihood of winning even if that is not their intention. Most systems I saw before the game also had us around 42% odds of winning. You're acting as if St. John's fans were wearing rose tinted glasses when in reality all the systems out there thought we had a decent chance.

Again, people optimistic about the game had reason to be. No need to bring up people predicting 4/5 wins or whatever, we were just discussing the Nova game. It's easy to appear confident after the results come in. Did you happen to bet on the outcome, given how generous that line must've looked?

For the record I'm not a gambler myself, but that's because I don't think I can outsmart Vegas.[/quote]

I thought DePaul was winnable when others here were predicting a total team collapse. I was not confident at all playing an 8/10 ranked team, when I thought DePaul played miserably on Saturday and we needed a career game from LJ to win. I try to stay even this season, and not get too high or too low. We have a thin roster, which is why guys like Earlington, Roberts, Sears, Champaignie and Rutherford have been given opportunities for major minutes instead of secondary roles or bench players. That being said, I think we have a great shot at beating Georgetown at home. I didn't feel that way about Villanova. Clearly we are neither a great rebounding team, team with a great half court defense, especially interior defense, and are a poor outside shooting team. Defensively it's pick your poison - collapse on bigger talented post player and risk a quick kick out that we don't cover well, or let talented post players dominate us inside. I actually would prefer to get beaten from the outside, but think our defender have to rotate a little better and harrass the big men with the ball on double teams to make kickouts more difficult.

I'm not sure oddsmakers review every single prior game they are making odds for, but nothing in our recent play in my opinion would have given us a 42% chance of beating Villanova. We'd played poorly of late and even at DePaul probably would not have beaten most Big East teams the way we played.[/quote]

That's fair. I didn't expect to beat Nova, but I definitely expected us to keep it much closer. To me getting blown out was a lot more surprising than had we won.

I agree that we have a great shot at beating Georgetown, though with how we played in DC and against Nova, nothing would surprise me.
 
I know a lot of Villanova people who were at the game and they told me the place was quiet, biggest cheer was for our dance team. They were pretty happy with their team's play, said that my team couldn't shoot. I had an engagement and couldn't make the game, and glad about that, we were flat as hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top