We must lead the universe in blown double digit leads.
- Thread starter Abugabby
- Start date
J
The D in the second half was pathetically poor.....cant allow 50+ point halves no matter how good a team might be.....
The D in the second half was pathetically poor.....cant allow 50+ point halves no matter how good a team might be.....
Purdue was outscored by 18 in the final 19 minutes of the game...
I can probably count on two hands the number of double digit blown leads in the last 4 years....easily
I can probably count on two hands the number of double digit blown leads in the last 4 years....easily
When the tv announcers say the refs were making bad calls and missing others that is all you need to know. Tv announcers are trained to be neutral.
We have to have some kind of post presence. EB played a great game, but we never even look to get the ball to the post. We don't necessarily need a ton of points from the post, but the ball has to go inside at some point.
Can someone explain this logic of claiming a team "blew" a lead?
Did that team start the game with said lead, or did they play the game and earn it?
If they earned it, why isn't the other team considered as having "blown" a tie game, earlier in the game?
And, at what threshold is a lead considered "blown?" Clearly, one does not "blow" a 1 point lead? Or, 2, 3 or 4? But, somehow, some way, there is a lead that, once attained, is considered "blown," if said team ends up losing said game?
I've never understood this concept of ripping on a team for losing a game after having reached a certain lead.
Did that team start the game with said lead, or did they play the game and earn it?
If they earned it, why isn't the other team considered as having "blown" a tie game, earlier in the game?
And, at what threshold is a lead considered "blown?" Clearly, one does not "blow" a 1 point lead? Or, 2, 3 or 4? But, somehow, some way, there is a lead that, once attained, is considered "blown," if said team ends up losing said game?
I've never understood this concept of ripping on a team for losing a game after having reached a certain lead.
Im personally not a fan of the sasha, eifert, Boudreaux, and cline lineups. Give up too much athleticism. Cringe when that line up goes in.
...and yet, we grew our lead in the first half with these unathletic clown in the game. Come on now. Do you not see what is in front of you? These guys played as a team. This is a team game. Duh!
OK, do it then.
Purdue has 37 losses since the start of the 14-15 season, including the 1 loss so far this season. Is ~7 or so lost 10 point leads out of 37 total losses significant? What's an acceptable % of losses like this? 10%?
How many 10 point leads have our opponents lost to us during the same time span?
They don't. They have a more veteran team than we do but we have a very athletic one.
As often as I see that posted on here, I have come to the sound conclusion the meaning of "athletic" is lost on many on here. I know that will get under the skin of some, so sorry, but it's the truth.
I'm thinking some should not post when so full of emotion after a game. Especially when we lose.
We're a very young team and bumps like this one are going to happen. Relax.
I went back and looked. Here's losses in the last four years and when we held a 10 point lead:
2014-15 (13 total losses)
N. Fla (1st half)
Gardner Webb (1st half)
At OSU (2nd)
2015-16 (9 total losses)
Iowa (1st)
Little Rock (neutral court) - 2nd
2016-17 (8 total losses)
none
2017-18 (7 total losses)
OSU (2nd)
At MSU (1st)
2018-19 (1 loss)
VT (neutral court) - 2nd
So in 18% of our losses, we've had leads of at least 10 at some point in the game. I have no idea what this means, but it doesn't seem egregious to me.
A better way to look at it is what % of 10 point leads do we keep. I'm not going to go back and look at all our wins over the past 4+ years, but I would bet it's in the neighborhood of 75%.
Once we establish Purdue's numbers, the next step is to compare it with nationwide results. I highly doubt Purdue is an outlier. But there's one undeniable thing - it sucks when it happens. I just don't understand the reaction of "this is a Purdue related phenomenon".
Last edited:
We blew a 19 point lead vs Iowa in Mackey on Jan 2, 2016.
https://www.jconline.com/story/spor...basketball-iowa-big-ten-home-opener/77755562/
good catch. I don't know how I missed that one, as I was actually there for that game. That one sucked...
2018-2019: Virginia Tech
2017-2018: Tennessee (27-16 lead), Ohio State (53-39), Michigan State (36-26)
2015-2016: UALR (54-42), Iowa (40-22), Michigan (23-13)
2014-2015: North Florida (22-10), Gardner-Webb (15-3), Ohio State (40-29)
So over the past 5 seasons, Purdue has dropped 10 games when having a double digit lead. They have also dropped at least 5 games where they had a 9 point lead as well.
As I said....two hands.
And when you actually do the math, it is a very low percentage when you factor in all the games played across that time.
Basically to me this is nothing more than an emotional outburst of a very small thing that happens to us. Or maybe not emotional but certainly something that is being over thought.
I think people also recall blown leads in key games that we won. For example Purdue at Michigan in 2018. We had a 14 point lead, blew all of it but somehow eked out a 70-69 win.
I never called them clowns, you dunce. And yes by division 1 standards they absolutely are unathletic. Pull your head out of your a$$! By the way we also blew the lead with them in. Either way idc what you have to say since you're wrong 99% of the time.
Painter's recruiting philosophy/lack of being able to recruit skilled athletes. So he chooses skill over athleticism since that seems to work better for him and his coaching style.
Woosh, swing and a miss there. Evidently my comment was over your head. Sorry.
You literally add nothing to the board other then calling posters triggered. If i used the ignore feature you certainly would be on there.
If anyone is interested in a stats based definition of a blown lead, I think it would be best to use something like an in-game win probability. Win probability is better than double digit lead because it factors in the score, time remaining, and relative strength of the two teams.
Then it is just a matter of establishing a threshold for "blowing" a game. A reasonable threshold number is probably in the 80% to 90% range. A 90% win probability that ends in a loss almost everyone would agree is a blown game.
Our peak win probability in the VaTech game was at 18:09 left in the game. With possession and leading 50-38 our win probability per ESPN was 87.9%.
Then it is just a matter of establishing a threshold for "blowing" a game. A reasonable threshold number is probably in the 80% to 90% range. A 90% win probability that ends in a loss almost everyone would agree is a blown game.
Our peak win probability in the VaTech game was at 18:09 left in the game. With possession and leading 50-38 our win probability per ESPN was 87.9%.
Last edited:
You're right.
People remember them because they sting. But just because they sting doesn't mean "we lead the universe in losses like this!"
Google "availability bias". Or read below:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/...-negative-events-more-than-positive-ones.html
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Will Berg Gofundme for an international basketball trip this summer- Latest: Purdue Grad in Texas
-
-
-
-