Sports Myths
Just finished reading an article (no link) saying Michigan is one-dimensional offensively if 3's aren't falling. Haven't they proved over the last few years that's a myth? And with March coming up, brace yourself for the national media hype of Michigan's 1-3-1 zone.
What other teams have myths about them? Or specfic players or positions (white wide receiver = slow but good hands and fundamentally sound)?
January 27th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
Everyone knows we have great shooters and shoot plenty of threes. The myth is that UM is one dimensional and cannot win unless they shoot great from deep. Michigan has many options offensively, they can win in different ways.
January 27th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
In my opinion we are much more reliant on the pick and roll than the 3 and have been since Morris' second year. The pick and roll is what we continually go to when we need a basket. Previously it was a 3 but that hasn't been true for a few years now. It has been a continuum through the yeas though. We still relied on some elements of the three with Novak and co. For example, the play where they run Novak off the high screen and he fades to the top of the key for a 3 we used to run all the time. Now we run it almost never. Now we get our 3s mostly in transation or off of drives and natural ball movement within the course of the offense.
The 1-3-1 myth is hiliarously false though.
January 27th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
are out to get the red wings every year in the playoffs...
January 27th, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 11:03 AM ^
Well it is america's PASTime.
January 27th, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^
Currently Michigan has taken 135 3-point attempts in conference play which ranks them 8th out of 12 teams. They certainly aren't just jacking up more threes than anyone else in the B1G and only winning because they're lucky and going in.
The only game you could say Michigan "lived by the three" was in this most recent matchup vs MSU.
January 27th, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^
No link? Probably a "he who shall not be named" article then?
I don't understand the argument though? Even if we do take more 3 attempts (we had 19 vs. MSU's17), we are able to do so because we have shooters who can hit them.
But this team is so much more than that. Steals that lead to fast breaks. Guards who attack the rim, and can dish it. A deadly pick and roll game. Alley-oops. (One thing I miss is the back door cuts...)
Whoever wrote that article is seriously out of date. We were much more reliant on the three 2-3 years ago IMO.
January 27th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
I did a little looking around as the OP failed to provide a link, and you would likely be correct in your first sentence - the link was not provided because the columnist in question is on the persona not grata list for the blog. As for being out of date, said columnist submitted it for publication just a few hours ago.
January 27th, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
The Bloody Sock
January 27th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
yeah, right.
January 27th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^
That there is such a thing as being 'clutch', especially in baseball. Players don't suddenly peform at a statistically greater level during a crunch time situation. If you average it all out, you will see that their play in cricital situations is in line with their normal playing ability the other 99% of the time.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
Why don't sabermetricians drive cars with manual transmissions? Because they don't believe in clutch.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^
but I think you're discounting the pressure effects of true "clutch" situations. Getting a double with men on first and third with two outs in the bottom of the ninth in an early-season game against the White Sox isn't the same as coming through in similar circumstances in a playoff game in October against the Red Sox.
January 27th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^
players that are clutch are generally players who are consistenly good, so success in "clutch" situations is simply them being the consistent productive players that they are. performances in "clutch situations" are born from a small sample size and naturally become inflated due to the stage they are performed on and so a "clutch" player is more based on reputation and media storylines. Very rare are there players who are clutch but arent consistently successful and ususally it is a lucky play or a fluke.
example: tom brady is clutch because he leads a bunch of winning drives. tom brady is also one of the best qbs ever possibly and would be expected to execute at the end of a game much like he always does.
the NFL career leaders in game winning drives:
peyton manning, dan marino, john elway, brett favre, tom brady, warren moon, drew brees, fran tarkenton etc etc etc.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm
clutch is being consistent enough for long enough for the media to finally label you clutch.
January 27th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
If you're NOT clutch, then you perform consistently well most of the time, but maybe in the final minute of the Super Bowl with your team down four, the pressure of it all becomes too much and you lose your head slightly.
That exists. And if "not clutch" exists, then "clutch" must exist too.
January 27th, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^
Care to provide some statistical (non-anecdotal) evidence for that? People have been trying to argue that "clutch" and "not-clutch" exist for years now, and no one has ever brought forward one shred of real evidence. Yes, sometimes players make bad plays in "clutch" situations, but they also sometimes make bad plays at other times. It turns out that when you get beyond anecdotes, players make good & bad plays at the same rate in "pressure situations" as they do elsewhere.
I actually do still think it's possible that this phenomenon might exist at true amateur levels, which is why I want to study these things in situations like intramural sports, middle-school competitions, etc. But it is simply a point of fact that for high-level college athletes & professionals, they have enough mental discipline that the situation really doesn't affect them.
It is illustrative, for that matter, that we have cliches for every possible situation. On the one hand, "big players make big plays in big situations" - you need your star to step up, you want the ball in this guy's hands, etc. On the other, "you never know who will come up big" - sometimes it's role-players who appear "clutch" (Spike Albrecht, National Championship Game would be a good example here). So whatever happens, we have a ready-made cliche to categorize it, and the fact that they are mutually exclusive doesn't really bother us too much.
January 27th, 2014 at 2:37 PM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 9:26 PM ^
Players themselves know whether they perform better when the pressure's on. Observers can't tell the difference between the guy who missed a free throw because he let the pressure get to him, and the guy who missed a free throw because missing free throws sometimes just happens. The definition of "clutch" as the majority of observers define it doesn't exist.
"Performers are clutch but players are not" - that's a good way of putting it.
January 27th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^
Rudy.
January 27th, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
Jareth Glanda sold his soul to a New Orleans witch in order to get us a win in the Sugar Bowl.
January 27th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
Sports people don't believe this, but working in the schools in New York - especially some of the fancy-dancy Gossip Girl-type schools in Manhattan - I have come to loath one sports myth over all others. Namely, the idea that people who are good at sports are just born that way, requiring no work, no practice, no thinking or planning.
There are a ton of people out here who believe that being good at sports is purely a matter of luck and how you're born, independent of any work you put in, and elite athletes don't deserve any credit or recognition because all they're doing is having fun playing a gam. It's difficult and sometiems impossible to convince headmasters otherwise, and they always look down on sports because of it. So irritating.
January 27th, 2014 at 3:44 PM ^
While I agree that sports are a lot of hard work and to be very good involves extra exertion on the part of the athlete, aren't they correct that the people with "good genes" have a leg up on the rest of the people.
I can practice and practice and become a much better ball-handler and shooter, but I'm not going to get any taller and not quick enough to compete. And, if an athlete ends up at a school with fewer athetes, they can skate by and still be the best. It won't pan out that they make it to the next level or the level after that, but they can definitely use their athletic skills to their advantage without working for a little while.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:03 AM ^
Brady was Henson's backup.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
I am too young to know, but I always thought Brady was the back up as well
January 27th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^
Not only was he never his back-up, Brady started every single game during the 2 seasons ('98 and '99) that Henson was behind Brady.
I agree that it is the Sparty trolling effect that has some people believe this myth. They also claim how "Michigan fans never wanted Brady to play." That is complete BS too.
January 27th, 2014 at 1:15 PM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^
My whole childhood I thought Sandlot was a true story
January 27th, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
because Pac 8/10/12 teams don't play physical and don't like contact.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
They don't matter to win the Big 10 and the Rose Bowl, but they do matter to win the national title.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
BOOM ROASTED!!
January 27th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^
Yea that was not true around the start of the Big Ten season at the latest. He was great in the pick and roll.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
Myth: That Carlton Fisk "waving his home run fair" is one of the greatest moments of all time in the World Series. Losing the next game (which they did) would've relegated that to the dustbin if it happened anywhere else.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
Lance Armstrong in general, and his seven tour championships in particular.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^
Myth: The author of the article the OP references (he who shall not be named) is a journalist of upstanding integrity, fairness, and has no bias whatsoever, and deserves to be employed by a major urban newspaper.
January 27th, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^
While it is apparently true that Santa Claus was booed, the context of the incident seems to always be lost. And as we know, context can mean everything (I'm looking at you Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Snyder).
January 27th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^
Golfers are athletes and defense wins championships.
January 27th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
The SEC is the best conference in football.
January 27th, 2014 at 1:12 PM ^
1.Win one for the Gipper. 2.Rudy 3.Manti Teo's girlfriend died (exposed) 4.Fat Charlie's schematic advantage (exposed) 5.ND winning is 'good for college football' ( more like good for TV ratings) 6.Rockne invented the forward pass
"To Hell with Notre Dame" --Bo
January 27th, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^
Packers invented the forward pass
January 27th, 2014 at 2:02 PM ^
Let's see, sports myths: Columbus is a great town to take in a game.
MSU is one of the classiest programs in college basketball.
Dick Vitale is a great color commentator.
January 27th, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^
Sid Finch
January 27th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 5:09 PM ^
That I drink my own pee because of my diploma. Big myth!
January 27th, 2014 at 8:16 PM ^
January 27th, 2014 at 8:29 PM ^
Well, I'm still not sure if this is myth or fact, but it was certainly folklore on campus: Brian Griese is the reason football players are no longer allowed to join fraternities at Michigan... due to the infamous broken bar window incident on South U., and various versions of a story about throwing stuff out of a window at FIJI.