IL State @ MO State

[Redbirdfan21]

I don't think it's a conditioning issue. These guys run in games non stop. ...

The running didn't seem to be as effective after 35 minutes of the game and particularly in OT.

Haven't seen a pattern yet that indicates a conditioning issue, but this game created the appearance.

IMO they stopped running because they were playing not to lose, as opposed to playing to win. Trying to work the clock, make sure and get a good shot, etc etc. Half court O is not our strength. It has been improving throughout the year, but still needs a ton of work. Once we slow the game down, we struggle. Dayton and Depaul were game we were able to slow it down at the end and finish a game; Drexel and Northwestern (even though we won- gave up a big lead) were game were were not able to. We need to keep up the O and D intensity for 40 mins to close these games out. I could see why some would think it was conditioning, but I do not think it is...

[agrinut]

I don't think it's a conditioning issue. These guys run in games non stop. ...

The running didn't seem to be as effective after 35 minutes of the game and particularly in OT.

Haven't seen a pattern yet that indicates a conditioning issue, but this game created the appearance.

IMO they stopped running because they were playing not to lose, as opposed to playing to win. Trying to work the clock, make sure and get a good shot, etc etc. Half court O is not our strength. It has been improving throughout the year, but still needs a ton of work. Once we slow the game down, we struggle. Dayton and Depaul were game we were able to slow it down at the end and finish a game; Drexel and Northwestern (even though we won- gave up a big lead) were game were were not able to. We need to keep up the O and D intensity for 40 mins to close these games out. I could see why some would think it was conditioning, but I do not think it is...

I'm probably a homer but to me the game changed when the Bears quit turning the ball over. 7 TO's for 10 pts in the first half. 1 TO for 0 points in the 2nd half, your lead at half was 10 with the turnovers an uncharacteristically good shooting. No points off turnovers and a return to average shooting leads to a loss.

[2livewu]

Yeah, but 8 total turnovers for a game is damned low. Even double the first half is 14, a very acceptable number.

[agrinut]

Yeah, but 8 total turnovers for a game is damned low. Even double the first half is 14, a very acceptable number.

It is low for many, but that is close to the MSU average.

[Cdizzle]

Yeah, but 8 total turnovers for a game is damned low. Even double the first half is 14, a very acceptable number.

It is low for many, but that is close to the MSU average.

His point was valid. 8 TOs is a very small number. Even when compared to the team average of 11. Impressive.

[pawball]

[IMO they stopped running because they were playing not to lose, as opposed to playing to win. Trying to work the clock, make sure and get a good shot, etc etc. Half court O is not our strength. It has been improving throughout the year, but still needs a ton of work. Once we slow the game down, we struggle. Dayton and Depaul were game we were able to slow it down at the end and finish a game; Drexel and Northwestern (even though we won- gave up a big lead) were game were were not able to. We need to keep up the O and D intensity for 40 mins to close these games out. I could see why some would think it was conditioning, but I do not think it is...[/quote]

Common illness among so many basketball coaches/teams: build a lead, then play not to lose. I thot Redbirds began doing that in the final 7 minutes or so of regulation. Also thot biggest break the Bears got was when Marshall's 3 pt bank shot went in. Each team shot itself in the foot at various points by not finishing at the rim. Could be another great game in Normal on Feb 16. Sure don't see how Redbird fans can't be happy with the progress their team has made with so many new parts.

[pawball]

Yeah, but 8 total turnovers for a game is damned low. Even double the first half is 14, a very acceptable number.

It is low for many, but that is close to the MSU average.

His point was valid. 8 TOs is a very small number. Even when compared to the team average of 11. Impressive.

What would you consider close to the average??? Is 10 "close enough"? 11? Bears have played fair number of games with 8-11 turnovers, part of Lusk's strong emphasis on valuing-the-ball.

[Cdizzle]

It is low for many, but that is close to the MSU average.

His point was valid. 8 TOs is a very small number. Even when compared to the team average of 11. Impressive.

What would you consider close to the average??? Is 10 "close enough"? 11? Bears have played fair number of games with 8-11 turnovers, part of Lusk's strong emphasis on valuing-the-ball.

10 would be close. Even 9 is close. 8 is nearly a 30% deviance from the average. I would call it a "low" number the same way I would call 14 a "high" number for MSU. Either way, the TO numbers for MSU are great and a big reason they are winning so many close games.

[agrinut]

I don't disagree at all, I guess what I was saying is ISU had a halftime lead bolstered by the turnovers and tremendous shooting. That I didn't really think ISU pulled thier foot off the gas as much as the law of averages caught up with them.

[Cdizzle]

I don't disagree at all, I guess what I was saying is ISU had a halftime lead bolstered by the turnovers and tremendous shooting. That I didn't really think ISU pulled thier foot off the gas as much as the law of averages caught up with them.

I agree in regard to shooting.

The point I was trying to make is that the 8 TOs MSU ended up with was just as close to average (-3) as the 14 TOs MSU was on pace for at halftime (+3).

I didn't see the game. I just like looking at box scores and stats. MSU held serve at home against an IlSU team that appears to be finding some footing.