Tournament Thread Pac 12 Tournament

[DHoey]

I know Arizona ended with the 4 seed, but they are still the best team in the conference and it will show by the end of the tournament.

We have been hearing that all year, but I think it's time to call it how it is. You are what your record says you are.

 

[CatsTopPac]

We have been hearing that all year, but I think it's time to call it how it is. You are what your record says you are.

For the most part, I think you are right. But when your third leading scorer at almost 15 points per game is injured for 3 of your losses (two of those on the road and by a total of 3 points), then there is at least an argument.

It'll be interesting to see what the outcome will be.

 

[DHoey]

For the most part, I think you are right. But when your third leading scorer at almost 15 points per game is injured for 3 of your losses (two of those on the road and by a total of 3 points), then there is at least an argument.

It'll be interesting to see what the outcome will be.

I think it's pretty clear who the best team in the PAC is this year. Arizona is good, but Oregon is better.

That's not to say that Oregon will win the Tourney....it is the Pac-12 afterall.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I think it's pretty clear who the best team in the PAC is this year. Arizona is good, but Oregon is better.

That's not to say that Oregon will win the Tourney....it is the Pac-12 afterall.

Again, for the most part, I think you're right. But Trier being out for such close losses on the road means that there is a great argument that AZ doesn't lose those with Trier, and is the Pac champ. Now, I think that matchup-wise, Oregon has Az's number, but again, Trier didn't play in that game either.

 

[ericd7633]

For the most part, I think you are right. But when your third leading scorer at almost 15 points per game is injured for 3 of your losses (two of those on the road and by a total of 3 points), then there is at least an argument.

It'll be interesting to see what the outcome will be.

Arizona only lost two games when Trier was injured, FYI.

 

[DHoey]

Again, for the most part, I think you're right. But Trier being out for such close losses on the road means that there is a great argument that AZ doesn't lose those with Trier, and is the Pac champ. Now, I think that matchup-wise, Oregon has Az's number, but again, Trier didn't play in that game either.

Zona is 19-5 with him and 5-2 without. I don't know if he got hurt during a loss

 

[CatsTopPac]

Arizona only lost two games when Trier was injured, FYI.

Trier got injured in the first OT against USC, and then played the other 3OTs with a broken shooting hand, and AZ lost by 2. He was then (obviously) out for the 1 point loss at Cal, and the 8 point loss against Oregon. FYI

 

[ericd7633]

Trier got injured in the first OT against USC, and then played the other 3OTs with a broken shooting hand, and AZ lost by 2. He was then (obviously) out for the 1 point loss at Cal, and the 8 point loss against Oregon. FYI

He played 53 minutes against USC. Saying Arizona lost three games without Trier, isn't really accurate.

 

[ericd7633]

Trier got injured in the first OT against USC, and then played the other 3OTs with a broken shooting hand, and AZ lost by 2. He was then (obviously) out for the 1 point loss at Cal, and the 8 point loss against Oregon. FYI

Also, according to BPI, Arizona has actually been better/more efficient without him.

 

[CatsTopPac]

He played 53 minutes against USC. Saying Arizona lost three games without Trier, isn't really accurate.

When it happens in the first of 4 OTs you're trying to tell me that a broken shooting hand on someone scoring 15 ppg isn't going to affect that loss? Are you kidding? He's an 80% FT shooter and missed a pair after the injury. That's when I personally noticed that he was having trouble.

 

[ericd7633]

When it happens in the first of 4 OTs you're trying to tell me that a broken shooting hand on someone scoring 15 ppg isn't going to affect that loss? Are you kidding? He's an 80% FT shooter and missed a pair after the injury. That's when I personally noticed that he was having trouble.

I'm saying if he's healthy that entire game, it's not a given whether or not Arizona wins that game, because, after all they were in OT with him healthy the whole game. You couldn't beat USC with a healthy Trier for 40 minutes, so again saying they lost 3 games because he was injured isn't accurate IMO.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Also, according to BPI, Arizona has actually been better/more efficient without him.

No, BPI says that AZ was more effective over the course of both Zeus and Trier being out. And that's not counting That the USC loss is counted as a healthy team. When Trier was out, AZ went 4-3, and two of those wins were against Stanford and WSU.

And again, Zeus' first game back from his injury was a last second 3pt loss @ UCLA where he barely played more than half the game.

Both USC and UCLA losses were significantly impacted by injury, and yet both go down as healthy losses. Get off the stat sheet and watch the games if you are going to comment on them.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I'm saying if he's healthy that entire game, it's not a given whether or not Arizona wins that game, because, after all they were in OT with him healthy the whole game. You couldn't beat USC with a healthy Trier for 40 minutes, so again saying they lost 3 games because he was injured isn't accurate IMO.

But they didn't lose in reg, they lost after 4 OTs while a 15ppg guy was playing with a broken bone in his shooting hand.

 

[ericd7633]

No, BPI says that AZ was more effective over the course of both Zeus and Trier being out. And that's not counting That the USC loss is counted as a healthy team. When Trier was out, AZ went 4-3, and two of those wins were against Stanford and WSU.

And again, Zeus' first game back from his injury was a last second 3pt loss @ UCLA where he barely played more than half the game.

Both USC and UCLA losses were significantly impacted by injury, and yet both go down as healthy losses. Get off the stat sheet and watch the games if you are going to comment on them.

This is Trier's game log:

Allonzo Trier

AZ went 5-2 without Trier.

Also, according to BPI in the last 8 games, with everybody healthy(so no excuses) Arizona was still better without Trier. FYI.

Now don't get me wrong Trier is a good player, but claiming Arizona would have won the Pac 12, had he been healthy, is what I take issue with.

 

[ericd7633]

But they didn't lose in reg, they lost after 4 OTs while a 15ppg guy was playing with a broken bone in his shooting hand.

They didn't win in regulation either...my point is claiming either isn't right, but they did play over half the game with him healthy as opposed to injured...

 

[CatsTopPac]

This is Trier's game log:

Allonzo Trier

AZ went 5-2 without Trier.

Also, according to BPI in the last 8 games, with everybody healthy(so no excuses) Arizona was still better without Trier. FYI.

Now don't get me wrong Trier is a good player, but claiming Arizona would have won the Pac 12, had he been healthy, is what I take issue with.

Alright, let me break this down for you. I said that there is certainly an argument that had Trier not broke his shooting hand in the first of four OTs @ USC, that they would not have lost in 4OTs by 2 to USC (in which an 80% FT shooter missed 3 fts., nor would they have lost by 1 @Cal. They also lost to Oregon while he was hurt.

I understand what BPI says. I am telling you what actually happened in real life. Trier was injured for the final 15 minutes of the USC game. So you can tell me all day long that BPI says he was healthy, but the dude was playing with a broken shooting hand and we lost by 2 in 4OTs. If you can't understand that it's a logical argument to say that AZ would have won that game, then you are just being argumentative.

Over the Arizona games that they played while Trier had a broken hand, they lost to USC, Cal, and Oregon. They also had 5 wins against teams in the bottom half of the Pac. So, they won 5 games against shitty teams, and lost 3 against the top half (including 2 on the road and by a total of 3 points).

If you are going to tell me that AZ did better without Trier than with him then you realistically have no idea what you are talking about. I went to the games and watched them. You can say that Trier's game against USC counts as a "healthy game", but the kid had a broken shooting hand for the last 3OTs and missed 3 FTs as an 80% FT shooter.

I am not saying that AZ would have won the Pac. I'm saying that there is a very good case to make the argument given they lost 2 games on the road by 1 and in 4 OTs with him injured, while only beating the bottom half of the Pac without him.

 

[CatsTopPac]

They didn't win in regulation either...my point is claiming either isn't right, but they did play over half the game with him healthy as opposed to injured...

Answer me this: when does it make any sense that a team would be better without a 15ppg shooter when they lost a game in 4OT, and another by 1? Because a measurement doesn't count a game as him being injured because he didn't miss the entire game?

I understand that they went to OT with him healthy. I'm saying that his only missed FTs of the game for an 80% shooter were in the OTs while shooting with a broken hand. That matters, specifically.

I never said that if Trier was healthy that AZ would have won the Pac, so according to you, you should be taking no issue with my posts. I'm saying that if you don't think there is at least an argument for it considering the losses while he was injured, then you are not even trying to look at it objectively.

 

[ericd7633]

Alright, let me break this down for you. I said that there is certainly an argument that had Trier not broke his shooting hand in the first of four OTs @ USC, that they would not have lost in 4OTs by 2 to USC (in which an 80% FT shooter missed 3 fts., nor would they have lost by 1 @Cal. They also lost to Oregon while he was hurt.

I understand what BPI says. I am telling you what actually happened in real life. Trier was injured for the final 15 minutes of the USC game. So you can tell me all day long that BPI says he was healthy, but the dude was playing with a broken shooting hand and we lost by 2 in 4OTs. If you can't understand that it's a logical argument to say that AZ would have won that game, then you are just being argumentative.

Over the Arizona games that they played while Trier had a broken hand, they lost to USC, Cal, and Oregon. They also had 5 wins against teams in the bottom half of the Pac. So, they won 5 games against shitty teams, and lost 3 against the top half (including 2 on the road and by a total of 3 points).

If you are going to tell me that AZ did better without Trier than with him then you realistically have no idea what you are talking about. I went to the games and watched them. You can say that Trier's game against USC counts as a "healthy game", but the kid had a broken shooting hand for the last 3OTs and missed 3 FTs as an 80% FT shooter.

I am not saying that AZ would have won the Pac. I'm saying that there is a very good case to make the argument given they lost 2 games on the road by 1 and in 4 OTs with him injured, while only beating the bottom half of the Pac without him.

Yeah, and if you can't beat a team with a healthy Trier for 40 minutes, no guarantee, you win had he not gotten injured. I'm not trying to say anything. Trier is a very good player, but based on how they played with and without him, honestly, there wasn't much difference. They lost close games with him and close games without him. They blew out bad teams with him and blew out bad teams without him. And, if not for York saving Arizona against Cal, they don't win that game either. I'm just saying Trier has been far to inconsistent to really claim anything.

 

[ericd7633]

Answer me this: when does it make any sense that a team would be better without a 15ppg shooter when they lost a game in 4OT, and another by 1? Because a measurement doesn't count a game as him being injured because he didn't miss the entire game?

I understand that they went to OT with him healthy. I'm saying that his only missed FTs of the game for an 80% shooter were in the OTs while shooting with a broken hand. That matters, specifically.

I never said that if Trier was healthy that AZ would have won the Pac, so according to you, you should be taking no issue with my posts. I'm saying that if you don't think there is at least an argument for it considering the losses while he was injured, then you are not even trying to look at it objectively.

See above

 

[ericd7633]

Answer me this: when does it make any sense that a team would be better without a 15ppg shooter when they lost a game in 4OT, and another by 1? Because a measurement doesn't count a game as him being injured because he didn't miss the entire game?

I understand that they went to OT with him healthy. I'm saying that his only missed FTs of the game for an 80% shooter were in the OTs while shooting with a broken hand. That matters, specifically.

I never said that if Trier was healthy that AZ would have won the Pac, so according to you, you should be taking no issue with my posts. I'm saying that if you don't think there is at least an argument for it considering the losses while he was injured, then you are not even trying to look at it objectively.

For an example; Indiana has been MUCH better without their 16 ppg scorer(2nd on the team).