Real Fool's Gold

Okay, several things here. First, let me get something out of the way. Last night I heard the word "humble" attributed to coach Self in regard to his admission that he cost KU the game. Coach Self may indeed be a humble man, I am not saying otherwise. What I am saying is that by saying that he cost KU the game has nothing to do with humility. It has to do with honesty. So if you want to say you admire Coach Self for his honesty then fine. He deserves that. But he was just stating what most would agree is an accurate assessment. Self has won 83% of the time at KU. He is in the Hall of Fame. He has done far far more good than bad. He is our guy and I don't know anyone that would trade him for anyone else. So it is not a categorical indictment or a blanket condemnation to say that Coach Self screwed up last night and almost surely cost KU the game by not taking Dok out of the game. I'm ready to move on. It was just one game. It was just one decision. But let's not call it something else.

Now, what about the fools gold? Well just to put it out there up front, I contend that putting Dok on the free throw line when it can be avoided is fools gold. Self has repeatedly used the term fools gold to describe an over-reliance on three point shooting. I think I completely understand what he means. He innately understands that when it comes to shooting talent dictates the overall long run results (a season for instance) but statistics and the nature of the skill is such that in any single game it can swing from very good to very bad. So from a standard risk management standpoint, you have to be cognizant of the uncertainty band of shooting percentage and know how to recognize when the ebb is occurring so you can switch to plan B. It is a risk management issue. The nature of shooting is that it swings from say 20% on a really bad night to 60% on a really good night. If you are suffering from a 20% night (which is within the uncertainty band) you better be ready and possess the alternate capability to lower to incidence rate or dependence on 3 point shooting. In other words, when it ain't working you recognize that and look for something that does. But that alternative something you are looking for has to be in your tool kit and something that has efficacy. So if a team gets carried away with shooting the three and thinks they do not ever need a plan B then shooting 3's becomes fools gold. So let me tell you what Self said last night. He said his decision to keep Dok in the game was an investment in the future in hopes he could let Dok succeed at the line and give him confidence for some future point when he will really be needed. Here is why I think Self really screwed the pooch on this one. If the idea is to recognize the inherent uncertainty band and probability and have a ready alternative Plan B then why double down when the probabilities are strongly against you? Based on his very logic with three point shooting, that was the perfect opportunity to invest in a more efficacious solution to an inherently flawed plan with an alternative. Namely, why not give Lighfoot the opportunity to come in and prove he can defends and whatever else in place of Dok. Listen, simply put, what is more likely and more detrimental, letting pok-dok put him on the line time after time with the risk of him missing FT's or letting Lightfoot come in and try to defend down the stretch,. In the very next question, Self praised Lightfoot's game and said he played very well. If Lightfoot was playing very well, why not let him come in and effectively eliminate a risk that has a high level of certainty of being detrimental? Furthermore, let's take Self at face value (which is usually a good bet). Let's say, his rationale was truly to build Dok's confidence from the FT line. I get that shooting in a game is the ultimate way to have confidence for a game situation but what about working him like crazy for the next 4 weeks in practice? And what about the possibility of him not making the free throws and now you have the exact opposite effect? And do we really need Dok to have confedence from the FT line that would have come from him making some more than we need to have confidence in LIghtfoot that he can hold the fort in those times we really need? Self's explanation has credibility it that I see the logic I simply judge the uncertainty/risk/reward radically differently. I saw far more to lose than gain, in the short run and the long run. I saw other alternatives to solving the same issue (late game needs) that could have been further developed. I don't look at Self any differently this morning than I did immediately after the West Virginia game. After we won that game I saw him as a brilliant, effective, Hall of Fame coach. That is how I see him right now. After the West Virginia game I had no allusions that he was beyond making mistakes. Obviously I have that same thought today. This is but one game and but one issue. But as I push push push for my staff, when we screw up we will tear it apart, break it down, do complete RCFA (root cause failure analysis), we will analyze it in every way and we will LEARN from it. There are two words I do not allow in my company, We do not ever use the words Blame or Fault. SO I am not analyzing this to bring blame of fault to Self. I would love to see him learn from this so when it really counts, we are better prepared. There should be a valuable lesson learned from last night's game and it is not that Dok has confidence in late game free throw shooting. Here is a hint. It has to do with coaching.

We love you Bill, you are our man. Let's be always better and better.

If his idea was to build confidence for DOK, at the line, as noted, it had the opposite effect! The big guy looked like he was carrying the world of blame on his shoulders after the loss. Self shouldn't have put him in that position, imo.

I read this morning that HCBS asked Dok if he wanted to stay in and Dok was very firm in saying he could get it done.

Nevertheless, the team isn't a democracy and the buck stops with Self. I think he knows that he got out-coached at the end. Hand it to Kruger (no slouch as far as coaches go) for having that guy come in and foul out in 2 minutes, resulting in the net effect of 5 defensive stops at the end of the game.

Live, learn, adjust.

I thought the NBA and/or NCAA, did away with the hack-a-shaq by making it an intentional foul (shots and the ball back) when fouling away from the ball in an obvious attempt to put the guy on the line.

Same here . . .

RC

As usual if the feed isn't too far ahead or behind, I listened to the game on the radio with the TV muted. Gurley definitely said that Dok wanted to stay on the floor so Self gave him the chance. I agree, the decision was Self's to make, not Dok's.

It's up to the refs to call the intentional foul. You can make any foul look "unintentional" if you work at it. So unless Dok totally sits out on offense (goes and hides) anybody can foul him by illegally pushing or shoving and making it look like they're making a legitimate play.