Gameday Thread: #15 Baylor vs #7 Kansas

Mitch Henessey said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Prior to his injury LL was the best guard on this team imo. 2nd beat at worst.
Can't believe this is even an actual discussion. This team is better with LL.
The irony here is that this wouldn't even be a discussion had we lost even 1 this week.
We beat Houston and likely win @ KU with a healthy LL

---

I, too, cannot believe this is even something we're talking about.

Imagine saying the 2021 team would have been better without one of the three-headed monster of Butler, Teague, or Mitchell (four, if you count Flagler off the bench). It's incredibly simple logic. The more great players you have, the better chance one of them is going to be hot.

We're a much better team if we have Walter, Dennis, Nunn, and Love, because the chances of all of them going cold in the same game is so low. Let's not overengineer this in our search to have a contrarian take.

---

In this case, it's not even like that. It's like saying our 2021 team would have been better without Adam Flagler or our 2020 team would have been better without Bandoo.

I can almost see the argument that a change to the starting lineup might throw off our chemistry slightly. But the idea that introducing instant offense off the bench could possibly be a bad thing is just absurd to me.

All bringing back Love does is eliminates minutes for players who shouldn't be playing at all (Lohner and Little) and right-sizes minutes for standouts who are currently being ridden like dogs.

We are a much better and more dangerous team with a healthy Langston Love playing.

IowaBear said:

---

Bingo! There's been several games this year alone where we have been stuck in the mud offensively only to have LL come in and light the ignition offensively.
Also allows our guards sone rest as they're logging like 38 minutes a game right now

---

We definitely don't win at Oklahoma State or UCF without Love. So you can add at least two losses to our ledger there.

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Prior to his injury LL was the best guard on this team imo. 2nd beat at worst.
Can't believe this is even an actual discussion. This team is better with LL.
The irony here is that this wouldn't even be a discussion had we lost even 1 this week.
We beat Houston and likely win @ KU with a healthy LL

---

I, too, cannot believe this is even something we're talking about.

Imagine saying the 2021 team would have been better without one of the three-headed monster of Butler, Teague, or Mitchell (four, if you count Flagler off the bench). It's incredibly simple logic. The more great players you have, the better chance one of them is going to be hot.

We're a much better team if we have Walter, Dennis, Nunn, and Love, because the chances of all of them going cold in the same game is so low. Let's not overengineer this in our search to have a contrarian take.

---

In this case, it's not even like that. It's like saying our 2021 team would have been better without Adam Flagler or our 2020 team would have been better without Bandoo.

I can almost see the argument that a change to the starting lineup might throw off our chemistry slightly. But the idea that introducing instant offense off the bench could possibly be a bad thing is just absurd to me.

All bringing back Love does is eliminates minutes for players who shouldn't be playing at all (Lohner and Little) and right-sizes minutes for standouts who are currently being ridden like dogs.

We are a much better and more dangerous team with a healthy Langston Love playing.

---

Comparing this to the 2021 team, where we have a finished body of work and we know the end result, to the current time with a team where we don't know what lies in the future, is absurd. You can't compare these two in this argument in this way.

But to use your 2021 scenario - if we adjust your argument by making it an apples to apples comparison, then we can use it: suppose Flagler was out for a time, and we started playing better. Then, with that data, and at that particular point in time, it wouldn't be irrational to think that maybe we play better without him due to a shakeup in the dynamics. Even if we were to win the championship with him, still, that wouldn't falsify the claim that we play better without him. It could mean we were still good enough to win the championship, with or without him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Prior to his injury LL was the best guard on this team imo. 2nd beat at worst.
Can't believe this is even an actual discussion. This team is better with LL.
The irony here is that this wouldn't even be a discussion had we lost even 1 this week.
We beat Houston and likely win @ KU with a healthy LL

---

I, too, cannot believe this is even something we're talking about.

Imagine saying the 2021 team would have been better without one of the three-headed monster of Butler, Teague, or Mitchell (four, if you count Flagler off the bench). It's incredibly simple logic. The more great players you have, the better chance one of them is going to be hot.

We're a much better team if we have Walter, Dennis, Nunn, and Love, because the chances of all of them going cold in the same game is so low. Let's not overengineer this in our search to have a contrarian take.

---

In this case, it's not even like that. It's like saying our 2021 team would have been better without Adam Flagler or our 2020 team would have been better without Bandoo.

I can almost see the argument that a change to the starting lineup might throw off our chemistry slightly. But the idea that introducing instant offense off the bench could possibly be a bad thing is just absurd to me.

All bringing back Love does is eliminates minutes for players who shouldn't be playing at all (Lohner and Little) and right-sizes minutes for standouts who are currently being ridden like dogs.

We are a much better and more dangerous team with a healthy Langston Love playing.

---

Comparing this to the 2021 team, where we have a finished body of work and we know the end result, to the current time with a team where we don't know what lies in the future, is absurd. You can't compare these two in this argument in this way.

But to use your 2021 scenario - if we adjust your argument by making it an apples to apples comparison, then we can use it: suppose Flagler was out for a time, and we started playing better. Then, with that data, and at that particular point in time, it wouldn't be irrational to think that maybe we play better without him due to a shakeup in the dynamics. Even if we were to win the championship with him, still, that wouldn't falsify the claim that we play better without him. It could mean we were still good enough to win the championship, with or without him.

---

The point is, both of the 2020 and 2021 teams had similar players in the sixth man role to Love. Neither of those two teams would have been better without that player.

You need offense off the bench, and Love is literally all we have in that role. Our starters have provided 90-plus percent of our scoring since he went out. That's likely not a sustainable path to a deep run in March. We need Love and his scoring punch back.

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Bingo! There's been several games this year alone where we have been stuck in the mud offensively only to have LL come in and light the ignition offensively.
Also allows our guards sone rest as they're logging like 38 minutes a game right now

---

We definitely don't win at Oklahoma State or UCF without Love. So you can add at least two losses to our ledger there.

---

Again - can anyone really know this for sure? Do we know every possible scenario that could have been, had Love been out that game? What if someone or everyone else picked up their game, and we win easily without the need for Love's heroics? This is true for every player, in every scenario, not just Love. The thinking you're employing requires the "counterfactual knowledge" I was talking about. No one has this knowledge except God.

bear2be2 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Prior to his injury LL was the best guard on this team imo. 2nd beat at worst.
Can't believe this is even an actual discussion. This team is better with LL.
The irony here is that this wouldn't even be a discussion had we lost even 1 this week.
We beat Houston and likely win @ KU with a healthy LL

---

I, too, cannot believe this is even something we're talking about.

Imagine saying the 2021 team would have been better without one of the three-headed monster of Butler, Teague, or Mitchell (four, if you count Flagler off the bench). It's incredibly simple logic. The more great players you have, the better chance one of them is going to be hot.

We're a much better team if we have Walter, Dennis, Nunn, and Love, because the chances of all of them going cold in the same game is so low. Let's not overengineer this in our search to have a contrarian take.

---

In this case, it's not even like that. It's like saying our 2021 team would have been better without Adam Flagler or our 2020 team would have been better without Bandoo.

I can almost see the argument that a change to the starting lineup might throw off our chemistry slightly. But the idea that introducing instant offense off the bench could possibly be a bad thing is just absurd to me.

All bringing back Love does is eliminates minutes for players who shouldn't be playing at all (Lohner and Little) and right-sizes minutes for standouts who are currently being ridden like dogs.

We are a much better and more dangerous team with a healthy Langston Love playing.

---

Comparing this to the 2021 team, where we have a finished body of work and we know the end result, to the current time with a team where we don't know what lies in the future, is absurd. You can't compare these two in this argument in this way.

But to use your 2021 scenario - if we adjust your argument by making it an apples to apples comparison, then we can use it: suppose Flagler was out for a time, and we started playing better. Then, with that data, and at that particular point in time, it wouldn't be irrational to think that maybe we play better without him due to a shakeup in the dynamics. Even if we were to win the championship with him, still, that wouldn't falsify the claim that we play better without him. It could mean we were still good enough to win the championship, with or without him.

---

The point is, both of the 2020 and 2021 teams had similar players in the sixth man role to Love. Neither of those two teams would have been better without that player.

You need offense off the bench, and Love is literally all we have in that role. Our starters have provided 90-plus percent of our scoring since he went out. That's likely not a sustainable path to a deep run in March. We need Love and his scoring punch back.

---

I don't disagree with what you're saying about needing Love for a deep run in March. Again, let me be clear - I'm not saying we're better off without him. I'm saying it's possible we play better without him. Those are two different ideas. We can play better without him, AND it would still be better off with him for the rest of the season including the tournament. Those two are not mutually exclusive. The calculus is very complex, it's like game theory - there may exist an equilibrium point where we play a little worse with him, but having him will lead to a maximal result overall.

This is incredibly important. We need another capable player who can be counted on to do important things like scoring consistently. LL is just that. The greater the depth in the team, the more likely we have a deeper run in the tournament. Otherwise we run the risk of slipping up because of fatigue.

Our 2021 natty team and all kinds of great attributes and one of the most important was great depth. Would we have won out without Flagler, Cryer, Mayer, & Everyday Jon coming off the bench? There's no way to tell but the odds are against it.