At 4 a.m., I still have two games I want to watch.
Here’s why I don’t relish #5 Utah’s chances against #4 Gonzaga Monday night:
Gonzaga has shorter lapses.
The people who use “chess match” as a metaphor for A/B models think chess is an “I move, you move” thing comparable to “relief pitcher in, pinch hitter up”.
Chess is not a set of moves. It’s a set of plans (that are comprised of a few moves). I show lots of games on big demonstration boards. People say ‘how do you remember all those moves’. I say ‘I don’t remember all the moves, but all the plans’.
That is, I could forget a move, but as long as I remember the plan in which it fit, the move suggests itself.
If you’re compiling a list of many ways chess and basketball are the same, they’re not games of moves, but games of runs. People are right there’s a chess match underlying the basketball game, but usually for the wrong reason.
Gonzaga’s opponents go on runs, but they’re not long. The Bulldogs get a confident basket from someone, and the momentum changes. They have several players who do that.
Utah has several players who can do that, but sometimes they seem to show a collective waiting for a teammate to make that basket. Exceptional togetherness is one of the things that makes Utah an interesting team to watch, but when they’re together waiting, that’s a problem. For example, the last regular season game vs. Washington.
I think Coach Roberts has instilled in them the right way of thinking. The phrase Vieira and Wilke repeated at their press conference was “being the best version of ourselves”. If they manage that, then it’s less likely they’ll opt as a group to depend on a teammate to rise to the best version of herself, do you agree.
She also has them thinking that there’s more pressure on Gonzaga to maintain their home streak than there is on Utah to break it, leaving them to go out and have fun while Gonzaga wilts under the glare of all those FANS. It was Roberts who told me (in her office at Pacific, a long bloody time ago) that the fans are with you win, tie, or draw.
I imagine Gonzaga’s people are above that. Look at it from their point of view: Utah’s our power conference visitor, and we’re just mid-majors happy to be at home. So I agree with what Coach Roberts is teaching the Utes, while I’m telling my students half-truths all the damn time. (Chess is very hard. My students reach one level with lies I learned from my chess teacher. They reach the next level by unlearning the crap but maintaining the style. I tell them what he told me: “Never let the truth get in the way of a chess lesson”, and whatever they get from that is up to them.)
You know how the TV broadcast will go: The play-by-play person will ask the color person about keys to the game, and the color person will use too many words to say “defense, rebounding, taking care of the ball”.
In their expert analysis, they’ll say foul trouble for Ejim or Pili could be critical. They’ll also sling some version of what their press conference colleagues said: That Brynna Maxwell will be some kind of decisive X factor in this great matchup against her old team.
Somehow, sports media changed the meaning of “X factor” from “an element yet unknown” to a speculation. “If I’m right, I was smart to say that; if I’m wrong, I have a built-in excuse — it was an ‘X factor'”.
I know this is what you’ll hear on TV, because I’m in their club. If you’re reading this because I’ll forgo the secret club handshake, I’ll venture that mental state will be more important than anyone will say on TV, because it’s not a bite-sized, tangible item like PF or 3FGA/M.
While prognosticating, I like to suggest one team has something working in its favor that the other team does not. I’m often wrong about it, but that’s another article in the sports media club charter: No one cares if we’re wrong. (In 1969, Joe Namath guaranteed a Jets victory in the Super Bowl, and he was right. Ever since, sports figures make the same sorts of guarantees, with mixed results. No one cares.)
I think if Gonzaga gets off to a 17-3 lead, and Utah looks ruffled, it’s curtains. I don’t think this can work for the Utes. The Truongs, Ejim, Hollingsworth, Maxwell — they’ve got 40 years of experience.
Remember, one of the reasons we thought Utah would contend this year is that following last year’s loss to LSU, Utah’s leaders became seniors and juniors. Suddenly, a bunch of newcomers had to plug leaks.
At 4 a.m., I still have two games I want to watch.
Here’s why I don’t relish #5 Utah’s chances against #4 Gonzaga Monday night:
Gonzaga has shorter lapses.
The people who use “chess match” as a metaphor for A/B models think chess is an “I move, you move” thing comparable to “relief pitcher in, pinch hitter up”.
Chess is not a set of moves. It’s a set of plans (that are comprised of a few moves). I show lots of games on big demonstration boards. People say ‘how do you remember all those moves’. I say ‘I don’t remember all the moves, but all the plans’.
That is, I could forget a move, but as long as I remember the plan in which it fit, the move suggests itself.
If you’re compiling a list of many ways chess and basketball are the same, they’re not games of moves, but games of runs. People are right there’s a chess match underlying the basketball game, but usually for the wrong reason.
Gonzaga’s opponents go on runs, but they’re not long. The Bulldogs get a confident basket from someone, and the momentum changes. They have several players who do that.
Utah has several players who can do that, but sometimes they seem to show a collective waiting for a teammate to make that basket. Exceptional togetherness is one of the things that makes Utah an interesting team to watch, but when they’re together waiting, that’s a problem. For example, the last regular season game vs. Washington.
I think Coach Roberts has instilled in them the right way of thinking. The phrase Vieira and Wilke repeated at their press conference was “being the best version of ourselves”. If they manage that, then it’s less likely they’ll opt as a group to depend on a teammate to rise to the best version of herself, do you agree.
She also has them thinking that there’s more pressure on Gonzaga to maintain their home streak than there is on Utah to break it, leaving them to go out and have fun while Gonzaga wilts under the glare of all those FANS. It was Roberts who told me (in her office at Pacific, a long bloody time ago) that the fans are with you win, tie, or draw.
I imagine Gonzaga’s people are above that. Look at it from their point of view: Utah’s our power conference visitor, and we’re just mid-majors happy to be at home. So I agree with what Coach Roberts is teaching the Utes, while I’m telling my students half-truths all the damn time. (Chess is very hard. My students reach one level with lies I learned from my chess teacher. They reach the next level by unlearning the crap but maintaining the style. I tell them what he told me: “Never let the truth get in the way of a chess lesson”, and whatever they get from that is up to them.)
You know how the TV broadcast will go: The play-by-play person will ask the color person about keys to the game, and the color person will use too many words to say “defense, rebounding, taking care of the ball”.
In their expert analysis, they’ll say foul trouble for Ejim or Pili could be critical. They’ll also sling some version of what their press conference colleagues said: That Brynna Maxwell will be some kind of decisive X factor in this great matchup against her old team.
Somehow, sports media changed the meaning of “X factor” from “an element yet unknown” to a speculation. “If I’m right, I was smart to say that; if I’m wrong, I have a built-in excuse — it was an ‘X factor'”.
I know this is what you’ll hear on TV, because I’m in their club. If you’re reading this because I’ll forgo the secret club handshake, I’ll venture that mental state will be more important than anyone will say on TV, because it’s not a bite-sized, tangible item like PF or 3FGA/M.
While prognosticating, I like to suggest one team has something working in its favor that the other team does not. I’m often wrong about it, but that’s another article in the sports media club charter: No one cares if we’re wrong. (In 1969, Joe Namath guaranteed a Jets victory in the Super Bowl, and he was right. Ever since, sports figures make the same sorts of guarantees, with mixed results. No one cares.)
I think if Gonzaga gets off to a 17-3 lead, and Utah looks ruffled, it’s curtains. I don’t think this can work for the Utes. The Truongs, Ejim, Hollingsworth, Maxwell — they’ve got 40 years of experience.
Remember, one of the reasons we thought Utah would contend this year is that following last year’s loss to LSU, Utah’s leaders became seniors and juniors. Suddenly, a bunch of newcomers had to plug leaks.
Here’s my Joe Namath-like guarantee: I could be entirely wrong about the game, but I guarantee ESPN talking heads will follow the script above.