|
Post by rednblk on Feb 11, 2016 6:49:51 GMT -8
We all need to scale back our expectations of this team. Their young and learning, prone to making big time mistakes while at the same time a leader (Germ) is being made.
|
|
|
Post by 12414 on Feb 11, 2016 6:52:00 GMT -8
This game was a microcosm of all the issues the team has had this season: Turnovers, poor shooting/free throw shooting, no killer instinct vs inferior competition, confusion vs the zone, etc.
In this particular game, considering the matchups/Fresno St injuries, I thought our front court played very poor.
|
|
|
Post by halfnip on Feb 11, 2016 7:22:24 GMT -8
My opinion was we needed to lose and get it out of the way. I'd rather lose now and start peaking through the MW tourney and beyond. Face it, it was highly unlikely that we'd go undefeated the rest of the way, so hopefully they reset, work on things, get hungry again and start grinding.
But yeah, no way we SHOULD have lost last night considering how short on players Fresno was...
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Feb 11, 2016 7:51:21 GMT -8
In many respects some of these guys are their own worst enemy! Can't stand success and don't realize there are no gimmies! You can't just coast to the finish!
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Feb 11, 2016 9:40:39 GMT -8
I count the turnovers as a 4 point swing. The 2 points we didn't make and the 2 points the other team could make. We had how many turnovers,20?
How many turn overs were unforced errors? I saw three times we passed the ball right to a Fresno player trying to make an entry pass to the high post.
When Kell plays point he falls down while dribbling at least once a game. Last night we got the ball back. Two times late in the game the best shot we could get was a thirty footer by Kell.
For me this game was the indoor version of the Petco fiasco!
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 11, 2016 9:47:39 GMT -8
Turnovers. They are such momentum killers. That's why we lost.
|
|
|
Post by waxxon on Feb 11, 2016 10:08:15 GMT -8
plain and simple....... free throws
followed by turnovers
results in loss
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 11, 2016 10:56:09 GMT -8
This was a focus/effort loss, plain & simple. Many of the TO's were unforced, which is simply being lazy. When we'd get a 10-point lead & on opportunity to stretch further we'd take shots early in the shot clock. Again, it's just being lazy, and not working for the best opportunity. We missed a lot of easy shots - some of them we were fouled, but they were plays that should have been finished for a potential 3-point play. Sky's miss being a prime example (& missed 2 FTs as a result). You don't give up a 9 point lead with less than 15 to go without losing focus.
Fortunately, that's easy to fix, and something we haven't been often since conference play started.
I'm definitely in the TO's being THE reason we lost camp. Not even close. As mentioned, we gave up 23 points on 18 TO's, many of which were live TO's. They scored 1.3 pts/possession on those. On the other possessions they scored about 0.7 PPP, so they basically scored at TWICE the rate when we turned it over. We scored at .84 PPP; since we had 7 more TO's than they did that's 6 potential points we missed out on. Bottom line - they killed is in the points off turnovers category, and that was the game. TO's have been our Achilles heel all year, but not to this degree. Turning it over 1 in 5 possessions (our norm) is bad enough; more often than 1 in 4 (last night) is horrible.
FT's hurt, but didn't kill us. The gap was much less than the TO aspect - 3 points.
Over the last 5 minutes, when the game was tied, we were 4-6 from the line. 5-6 would have been exceptional, which isn't expected. You can definitely make more and we should have, and it's easy to point at how just 2 more makes could have changed the game. But it falls way short when compared to the gap in TO's. Definitely a contributing factor though; just not THE reason. It cost us the opportunity to put the game away more so costing us the game down the stretch.
We also had 2 TO's in the final 5 minutes, and they scored 5 points off those 2 TO's. Those hurt MUCH more than a missed FT, even though it's easier to point at WS's & ZC's 1 miss each.
The 3rd contributing factor is our shooting in the 2nd half, with most misses inside the key. Believe I read we shot 33% in the 2nd, several which were inside 5 feet. Unfortunately we were a lot more productive from outside the arc than inside, and that hurt. Hasn't been the case of late.
Lastly, I agree w/ those questioning some of the decisions down the stretch. I really doubt it was their intention for Sky to go 1:1, but more so hoping the D' would collapse on him, thus opening up someone else. Don't have any issue going to Kell with the last shot - he's delivered often at key times, and deserves the opportunity. Just not sure on the play...
Again, the good is this is an easy fix. It's just the guys being more focused. They're human - how could you not let up when you're playing a team missing 2 key starters on the road, and losing a 3rd in the 2nd half? That's simply being young. Winning on the road is tough enough; playing a team everyone expects you to beat easily is even tougher mentally. We weren't mentally prepared.
We letdown; we played w/o focus, and were often lazy. That's something that comes from within, and something we can change in a heartbeat. At the end of the day the loss doesn't kill us. We dropped a couple spots in RPI, and it was against a decent team on the road. You won't have too many teams who haven't done that in conference play anywhere. It just means there's more pressure - we have to win all our home games, and 2 of 3 road games (& especially SJSU) for a good shot at an at-large.
We'll be fine. Our margin for error is just smaller, and we should still get the 1-seed if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 11, 2016 11:01:56 GMT -8
I count the turnovers as a 4 point swing. The 2 points we didn't make and the 2 points the other team could make. We had how many turnovers,20? How many turn overs were unforced errors? I saw three times we passed the ball right to a Fresno player trying to make an entry pass to the high post. When Kell plays point he falls down while dribbling at least once a game. Last night we got the ball back. Two times late in the game the best shot we could get was a thirty footer by Kell. For me this game was the indoor version of the Petco fiasco! Technically, since nobody scores 2 every time down the court it's not a 4-point swing, but more like a 2-point swing in the game. Teams average around 1 point per possession. Live ball turnovers are definitely worse (maybe a 3-pt swing), especially last night.
Agree TO's killed us. Have all year. I'd say at least 7-8 of the 18 were unforced. We played well for about 7-8 minutes in the 2nd (zero TO's I believe), but other than that.... 18 TO's over 30-32 minutes - brutal. About 1 in 3 possessions, or thereabouts.
Agree on Petco, specifically because it was just a lack of effort. GCU caught us off guard & are a good team; this team we knew well, yet still weren't mentally prepared.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 11, 2016 11:09:07 GMT -8
We all need to scale back our expectations of this team. Their young and learning, prone to making big time mistakes while at the same time a leader (Germ) is being made. If they had Edo & Jones & we lost I doubt people would be as shook up (although Russo IMO is an excellent player). It was a road loss; you can't expect ANY team to go through conference play undefeated on the road. Just doesn't happen. Being 11-0 is a lot of pressure.
I think expectations were set based on our unreal run (11-0) & our (in theory) luck of them losing 2 (& then a 3rd) players.
I'd guess if someone said at the beginning of conference play we'd be 11-1 on February 11th most would have said those expectations were too high. We're 11-1, with a shot to go 15-3, 16-2 and possibly (albeit unrealistically) 17-1. I'd say expectations are still high.
Do agree this is a young team, and still developing. Germ is coming along, as is Trey & Z. All have the talent, but all still make poor decisions, as would be expected. Less so than many young teams, as our last 5 minute record shows. NM is extremely young as well, and they've made dumb decisions which cost them as well. Ultimately, it comes down to which teams develop & mature more over the course of a season.
I know I still like where we're heading.
|
|
|
Post by rednblk on Feb 11, 2016 11:44:12 GMT -8
We all need to scale back our expectations of this team. Their young and learning, prone to making big time mistakes while at the same time a leader (Germ) is being made. If they had Edo & Jones & we lost I doubt people would be as shook up (although Russo IMO is an excellent player). It was a road loss; you can't expect ANY team to go through conference play undefeated on the road. Just doesn't happen. Being 11-0 is a lot of pressure.
I think expectations were set based on our unreal run (11-0) & our (in theory) luck of them losing 2 (& then a 3rd) players.
I'd guess if someone said at the beginning of conference play we'd be 11-1 on February 11th most would have said those expectations were too high. We're 11-1, with a shot to go 15-3, 16-2 and possibly (albeit unrealistically) 17-1. I'd say expectations are still high.
Do agree this is a young team, and still developing. Germ is coming along, as is Trey & Z. All have the talent, but all still make poor decisions, as would be expected. Less so than many young teams, as our last 5 minute record shows. NM is extremely young as well, and they've made dumb decisions which cost them as well. Ultimately, it comes down to which teams develop & mature more over the course of a season.
I know I still like where we're heading.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is not to explode when we lose and it's okay if we don't go very far this season. We are not going to make a deep run every season. Just be a supportive Aztec through the ups and downs.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 11, 2016 11:50:54 GMT -8
If they had Edo & Jones & we lost I doubt people would be as shook up (although Russo IMO is an excellent player). It was a road loss; you can't expect ANY team to go through conference play undefeated on the road. Just doesn't happen. Being 11-0 is a lot of pressure.
I think expectations were set based on our unreal run (11-0) & our (in theory) luck of them losing 2 (& then a 3rd) players.
I'd guess if someone said at the beginning of conference play we'd be 11-1 on February 11th most would have said those expectations were too high. We're 11-1, with a shot to go 15-3, 16-2 and possibly (albeit unrealistically) 17-1. I'd say expectations are still high.
Do agree this is a young team, and still developing. Germ is coming along, as is Trey & Z. All have the talent, but all still make poor decisions, as would be expected. Less so than many young teams, as our last 5 minute record shows. NM is extremely young as well, and they've made dumb decisions which cost them as well. Ultimately, it comes down to which teams develop & mature more over the course of a season.
I know I still like where we're heading.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is not to explode when we lose and it's okay if we don't go very far this season. We are not going to make a deep run every season. Just be a supportive Aztec through the ups and downs. Agree 100%. This is a young team; winning the regular season title would be an accomplishment, and something we should be proud of (assuming we win 4+ more).
This program has already accomplished more than most; how many can say 6 straight, or 5 straight top 8 seeds? Not many.
A "down year", and that's using the term very poorly IMO, is expected at most programs, even very good ones.
Support them thru thick & thin. That's what separates the good from the bad.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Feb 11, 2016 11:52:59 GMT -8
This was a focus/effort loss, plain & simple. Many of the TO's were unforced, which is simply being lazy. When we'd get a 10-point lead & on opportunity to stretch further we'd take shots early in the shot clock. Again, it's just being lazy, and not working for the best opportunity. We missed a lot of easy shots - some of them we were fouled, but they were plays that should have been finished for a potential 3-point play. Sky's miss being a prime example (& missed 2 FTs as a result). You don't give up a 9 point lead with less than 15 to go without losing focus. Fortunately, that's easy to fix, and something we haven't been often since conference play started. I'm definitely in the TO's being THE reason we lost camp. Not even close. As mentioned, we gave up 23 points on 18 TO's, many of which were live TO's. They scored 1.3 pts/possession on those. On the other possessions they scored about 0.7 PPP, so they basically scored at TWICE the rate when we turned it over. We scored at .84 PPP; since we had 7 more TO's than they did that's 6 potential points we missed out on. Bottom line - they killed is in the points off turnovers category, and that was the game. TO's have been our Achilles heel all year, but not to this degree. Turning it over 1 in 5 possessions (our norm) is bad enough; more often than 1 in 4 (last night) is horrible. FT's hurt, but didn't kill us. The gap was much less than the TO aspect - 3 points. Over the last 5 minutes, when the game was tied, we were 4-6 from the line. 5-6 would have been exceptional, which isn't expected. You can definitely make more and we should have, and it's easy to point at how just 2 more makes could have changed the game. But it falls way short when compared to the gap in TO's. Definitely a contributing factor though; just not THE reason. It cost us the opportunity to put the game away more so costing us the game down the stretch. We also had 2 TO's in the final 5 minutes, and they scored 5 points off those 2 TO's. Those hurt MUCH more than a missed FT, even though it's easier to point at WS's & ZC's 1 miss each. The 3rd contributing factor is our shooting in the 2nd half, with most misses inside the key. Believe I read we shot 33% in the 2nd, several which were inside 5 feet. Unfortunately we were a lot more productive from outside the arc than inside, and that hurt. Hasn't been the case of late. Lastly, I agree w/ those questioning some of the decisions down the stretch. I really doubt it was their intention for Sky to go 1:1, but more so hoping the D' would collapse on him, thus opening up someone else. Don't have any issue going to Kell with the last shot - he's delivered often at key times, and deserves the opportunity. Just not sure on the play... Again, the good is this is an easy fix. It's just the guys being more focused. They're human - how could you not let up when you're playing a team missing 2 key starters on the road, and losing a 3rd in the 2nd half? That's simply being young. Winning on the road is tough enough; playing a team everyone expects you to beat easily is even tougher mentally. We weren't mentally prepared. We letdown; we played w/o focus, and were often lazy. That's something that comes from within, and something we can change in a heartbeat. At the end of the day the loss doesn't kill us. We dropped a couple spots in RPI, and it was against a decent team on the road. You won't have too many teams who haven't done that in conference play anywhere. It just means there's more pressure - we have to win all our home games, and 2 of 3 road games (& especially SJSU) for a good shot at an at-large. We'll be fine. Our margin for error is just smaller, and we should still get the 1-seed if nothing else. TO's were bad, yes. I'm still blaming the FTs though haha. Maybe we did hit 4 of 6 with under 5 minutes to play, but before that? Just terrible. We lost by a single point. Sure, TO's were horrible and they (mostly) led to points on the other end, but hypothetically, the way the Aztecs shot the ball tonight, how are we to know that they weren't going to miss all of those shots that they ended up turning over to Fresno? . Besides, even with all of those TO's, again, it was a 1-point game, so Fresno wasn't exactly shooting lights-out...if we had made just one more free throw, in the first half, second half, well, who knows. I'd rather us make our free throw than have to wait and see the outcome of a Fresno shot. Woulda, coulda, shoulda I guess.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 11, 2016 12:40:47 GMT -8
This was a focus/effort loss, plain & simple. Many of the TO's were unforced, which is simply being lazy. When we'd get a 10-point lead & on opportunity to stretch further we'd take shots early in the shot clock. Again, it's just being lazy, and not working for the best opportunity. We missed a lot of easy shots - some of them we were fouled, but they were plays that should have been finished for a potential 3-point play. Sky's miss being a prime example (& missed 2 FTs as a result). You don't give up a 9 point lead with less than 15 to go without losing focus. Fortunately, that's easy to fix, and something we haven't been often since conference play started. I'm definitely in the TO's being THE reason we lost camp. Not even close. As mentioned, we gave up 23 points on 18 TO's, many of which were live TO's. They scored 1.3 pts/possession on those. On the other possessions they scored about 0.7 PPP, so they basically scored at TWICE the rate when we turned it over. We scored at .84 PPP; since we had 7 more TO's than they did that's 6 potential points we missed out on. Bottom line - they killed is in the points off turnovers category, and that was the game. TO's have been our Achilles heel all year, but not to this degree. Turning it over 1 in 5 possessions (our norm) is bad enough; more often than 1 in 4 (last night) is horrible. FT's hurt, but didn't kill us. The gap was much less than the TO aspect - 3 points. Over the last 5 minutes, when the game was tied, we were 4-6 from the line. 5-6 would have been exceptional, which isn't expected. You can definitely make more and we should have, and it's easy to point at how just 2 more makes could have changed the game. But it falls way short when compared to the gap in TO's. Definitely a contributing factor though; just not THE reason. It cost us the opportunity to put the game away more so costing us the game down the stretch. We also had 2 TO's in the final 5 minutes, and they scored 5 points off those 2 TO's. Those hurt MUCH more than a missed FT, even though it's easier to point at WS's & ZC's 1 miss each. The 3rd contributing factor is our shooting in the 2nd half, with most misses inside the key. Believe I read we shot 33% in the 2nd, several which were inside 5 feet. Unfortunately we were a lot more productive from outside the arc than inside, and that hurt. Hasn't been the case of late. Lastly, I agree w/ those questioning some of the decisions down the stretch. I really doubt it was their intention for Sky to go 1:1, but more so hoping the D' would collapse on him, thus opening up someone else. Don't have any issue going to Kell with the last shot - he's delivered often at key times, and deserves the opportunity. Just not sure on the play... Again, the good is this is an easy fix. It's just the guys being more focused. They're human - how could you not let up when you're playing a team missing 2 key starters on the road, and losing a 3rd in the 2nd half? That's simply being young. Winning on the road is tough enough; playing a team everyone expects you to beat easily is even tougher mentally. We weren't mentally prepared. We letdown; we played w/o focus, and were often lazy. That's something that comes from within, and something we can change in a heartbeat. At the end of the day the loss doesn't kill us. We dropped a couple spots in RPI, and it was against a decent team on the road. You won't have too many teams who haven't done that in conference play anywhere. It just means there's more pressure - we have to win all our home games, and 2 of 3 road games (& especially SJSU) for a good shot at an at-large. We'll be fine. Our margin for error is just smaller, and we should still get the 1-seed if nothing else. TO's were bad, yes. I'm still blaming the FTs though haha. Maybe we did hit 4 of 6 with under 5 minutes to play, but before that? Just terrible. We lost by a single point. Sure, TO's were horrible and they (mostly) led to points on the other end, but hypothetically, the way the Aztecs shot the ball tonight, how are we to know that they weren't going to miss all of those shots that they ended up turning over to Fresno? . Besides, even with all of those TO's, again, it was a 1-point game, so Fresno wasn't exactly shooting lights-out...if we had made just one more free throw, in the first half, second half, well, who knows. I'd rather us make our free throw than have to wait and see the outcome of a Fresno shot. Woulda, coulda, shoulda I guess. We scored .84 pts per possession throughout the whole game; our eFG% was 44%. That over 60+ possessions, so a pretty big sample size. If we had more possessions with an opportunity to score the odds are very high that we'd have scored at least 4-6 points on those possessions. Plus, they scored TWICE AS OFTEN off our turnovers than they did w/o (1.3 vs. .7 PPP), so you're not just talking at 4-6 point swing on our side, you're actually talking about a 9-10 point swing when you take in account how it changed their effectiveness as well. Even if we NEVER scored on those 6 extra TO's (18-12) they went from 4 pts (.7 x 6 possessions) to 9 pts (1.3 x 6), or a 5 point swing on just their side of the ball.
On the flipside, the odds of us making 4-6 more FT's (shooting 80%+) are much lower.
Our 2 Pt FG% was more of a disappointment than our FT%. We typically shoot 48% inside the arc; we shot 42%. Shoot our "norm" and we make 2 more (4 pts). If we shot our "norm" from the FT line (69% in conference) we'd have added just 1-2 more points.
Both contributed, but TO's had a significantly greater impact overall. I'd rather KNOW that we have the opportunity to score & an opportunity to defend, especially given how we were shutting them down overall. Plus, missing 1 open 5 footer is the same as making 1-2 FT's so why not complain about Sky's funky hook late instead of his 2 missed FT's? They're all the same. In the end TO's were much, MUCH more frequent.
Yes, kinda, shoulda, woulda....on so many fronts.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Feb 11, 2016 14:16:23 GMT -8
TO's were bad, yes. I'm still blaming the FTs though haha. Maybe we did hit 4 of 6 with under 5 minutes to play, but before that? Just terrible. We lost by a single point. Sure, TO's were horrible and they (mostly) led to points on the other end, but hypothetically, the way the Aztecs shot the ball tonight, how are we to know that they weren't going to miss all of those shots that they ended up turning over to Fresno? . Besides, even with all of those TO's, again, it was a 1-point game, so Fresno wasn't exactly shooting lights-out...if we had made just one more free throw, in the first half, second half, well, who knows. I'd rather us make our free throw than have to wait and see the outcome of a Fresno shot. Woulda, coulda, shoulda I guess. We scored .84 pts per possession throughout the whole game; our eFG% was 44%. That over 60+ possessions, so a pretty big sample size. If we had more possessions with an opportunity to score the odds are very high that we'd have scored at least 4-6 points on those possessions. Plus, they scored TWICE AS OFTEN off our turnovers than they did w/o (1.3 vs. .7 PPP), so you're not just talking at 4-6 point swing on our side, you're actually talking about a 9-10 point swing when you take in account how it changed their effectiveness as well. Even if we NEVER scored on those 6 extra TO's (18-12) they went from 4 pts (.7 x 6 possessions) to 9 pts (1.3 x 6), or a 5 point swing on just their side of the ball.
On the flipside, the odds of us making 4-6 more FT's (shooting 80%+) are much lower.
Our 2 Pt FG% was more of a disappointment than our FT%. We typically shoot 48% inside the arc; we shot 42%. Shoot our "norm" and we make 2 more (4 pts). If we shot our "norm" from the FT line (69% in conference) we'd have added just 1-2 more points.
Both contributed, but TO's had a significantly greater impact overall. I'd rather KNOW that we have the opportunity to score & an opportunity to defend, especially given how we were shutting them down overall. Plus, missing 1 open 5 footer is the same as making 1-2 FT's so why not complain about Sky's funky hook late instead of his 2 missed FT's? They're all the same. In the end TO's were much, MUCH more frequent.
Yes, kinda, shoulda, woulda....on so many fronts.
I agree to an extent....but all we had to do was hit maybe 1 or even 2 more free throws and this game is decidedly different. We wouldn't even need to talk about points per possession, etc. All I'm saying is that even with the many turnovers we had, we were still very much in the game and it was very close. Make 1 or 2 free throws and maybe this board doesn't have the meltdown that it does.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 11, 2016 14:40:58 GMT -8
We scored .84 pts per possession throughout the whole game; our eFG% was 44%. That over 60+ possessions, so a pretty big sample size. If we had more possessions with an opportunity to score the odds are very high that we'd have scored at least 4-6 points on those possessions. Plus, they scored TWICE AS OFTEN off our turnovers than they did w/o (1.3 vs. .7 PPP), so you're not just talking at 4-6 point swing on our side, you're actually talking about a 9-10 point swing when you take in account how it changed their effectiveness as well. Even if we NEVER scored on those 6 extra TO's (18-12) they went from 4 pts (.7 x 6 possessions) to 9 pts (1.3 x 6), or a 5 point swing on just their side of the ball.
On the flipside, the odds of us making 4-6 more FT's (shooting 80%+) are much lower.
Our 2 Pt FG% was more of a disappointment than our FT%. We typically shoot 48% inside the arc; we shot 42%. Shoot our "norm" and we make 2 more (4 pts). If we shot our "norm" from the FT line (69% in conference) we'd have added just 1-2 more points.
Both contributed, but TO's had a significantly greater impact overall. I'd rather KNOW that we have the opportunity to score & an opportunity to defend, especially given how we were shutting them down overall. Plus, missing 1 open 5 footer is the same as making 1-2 FT's so why not complain about Sky's funky hook late instead of his 2 missed FT's? They're all the same. In the end TO's were much, MUCH more frequent.
Yes, kinda, shoulda, woulda....on so many fronts.
I agree to an extent....but all we had to do was hit maybe 1 or even 2 more free throws and this game is decidedly different. We wouldn't even need to talk about points per possession, etc. All I'm saying is that even with the many turnovers we had, we were still very much in the game and it was very close. Make 1 or 2 free throws and maybe this board doesn't have the meltdown that it does. It's so easy to say that, but at the same time if you turn the ball over a few less times & the missed FT's are inconsequential. We had a bigger increase in TO's than we had a decrease in FT's made.
FT's are magnified because they stand out late in games. You see 1 point loss & think 1 missed FT, while ignoring 1 less TO or 1 missed layup. Plus, people view them as easy. They may be "free", but reality is making 70-75% is considered GOOD. Us making just 2-3 more would actually be good if not great shooting.
Yea, if we made 1-2 more FT's we wouldn't be having this meltdown, just like if we committed 2-3 less TO's or made 2-3 more short shots. They ALL impact the game, but which had the greatest impact? Missed FT's probably cost us 2 points, being realistic; making fewer short FGs & turning over the ball significantly more often than normal cost us a lot more. All 3 were below "par" for us, but one was WAY below par.
I get what you're saying, but we'll have to agree to disagree as to which hurt us more.
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Feb 11, 2016 15:10:30 GMT -8
I count the turnovers as a 4 point swing. The 2 points we didn't make and the 2 points the other team could make. We had how many turnovers,20? How many turn overs were unforced errors? I saw three times we passed the ball right to a Fresno player trying to make an entry pass to the high post. When Kell plays point he falls down while dribbling at least once a game. Last night we got the ball back. Two times late in the game the best shot we could get was a thirty footer by Kell. For me this game was the indoor version of the Petco fiasco! Technically, since nobody scores 2 every time down the court it's not a 4-point swing, but more like a 2-point swing in the game. Teams average around 1 point per possession. Live ball turnovers are definitely worse (maybe a 3-pt swing), especially last night.
Agree TO's killed us. Have all year. I'd say at least 7-8 of the 18 were unforced. We played well for about 7-8 minutes in the 2nd (zero TO's I believe), but other than that.... 18 TO's over 30-32 minutes - brutal. About 1 in 3 possessions, or thereabouts.
Agree on Petco, specifically because it was just a lack of effort. GCU caught us off guard & are a good team; this team we knew well, yet still weren't mentally prepared.
The idea of a four point swing on turnovers was told to me by and old time Pistons coach. He coached in the NBA when there was no shot clock and possession of the ball was of up-most importance. He looked at turnovers opposite of you, in that you were suppose to score every time you had the ball. Trivia time for you. Where were the Pistons located before Detroit?
|
|
|
Post by legkick on Feb 11, 2016 15:23:43 GMT -8
The idea of a four point swing on turnovers was told to me by and old time Pistons coach. He coached in the NBA when there was no shot clock and possession of the ball was of up-most importance. He looked at turnovers opposite of you, in that you were suppose to score every time you had the ball. Trivia time for you. Where were the Pistons located before Detroit? Pistons were originally Fort Wayne, and affiliated with a family that has your screen name. You're also comparing apples to oranges. When there is no shot clock, teams don't have to rush their offense with a time-pressured shot. No doubt, in those days, teams scored more frequently per possession. However, there were also fewer possessions. Teams would hold the ball once they got the lead, without shooting. In 1950, the Fort Wayne Pistons defeated the Minneapolis Lakers 19-18 - the Pistons only attempted 13 shots that game. This was an extreme game, because the Pistons held the ball to limit the dominance of the Lakers' George Mikan. However, games like that ultimately led to the shot clock. Possessions and scoring skyrocketed when the 24-second shot clock was instituted in 1954. I'm sure in the "old time Pistons coach"'s day, a turnover had an actual value of more than 2 points. Probably not 4, but probably closer to 3. Today, sdcoug's point is correct.
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Feb 11, 2016 15:54:09 GMT -8
The idea of a four point swing on turnovers was told to me by and old time Pistons coach. He coached in the NBA when there was no shot clock and possession of the ball was of up-most importance. He looked at turnovers opposite of you, in that you were suppose to score every time you had the ball. Trivia time for you. Where were the Pistons located before Detroit? Pistons were originally Fort Wayne, and affiliated with a family that has your screen name. You're also comparing apples to oranges. When there is no shot clock, teams don't have to rush their offense with a time-pressured shot. No doubt, in those days, teams scored more frequently per possession. However, there were also fewer possessions. Teams would hold the ball once they got the lead, without shooting. In 1950, the Fort Wayne Pistons defeated the Minneapolis Lakers 19-18 - the Pistons only attempted 13 shots that game. This was an extreme game, because the Pistons held the ball to limit the dominance of the Lakers' George Mikan. However, games like that ultimately led to the shot clock. Possessions and scoring skyrocketed when the 24-second shot clock was instituted in 1954. I'm sure in the "old time Pistons coach"'s day, a turnover had an actual value of more than 2 points. Probably not 4, but probably closer to 3. Today, sdcoug's point is correct. Legkick, proud of you for knowing some basketball history. I'm not sure that scores skyrocketed after the shot clock was introduced. I didn't write my comment to say that SDDoug was incorrect and that the old coach was right, I wrote it show different takes on the same topic, turnovers. I'm not convinced it is apples to oranges, it's more a question of how you view the value of ball possession. Murray Mendenhall, was the coach of the Pistons when they played hold the ball against the Lakers and Miken. Miken attended what college and his coach was?
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Feb 11, 2016 16:07:30 GMT -8
I agree to an extent....but all we had to do was hit maybe 1 or even 2 more free throws and this game is decidedly different. We wouldn't even need to talk about points per possession, etc. All I'm saying is that even with the many turnovers we had, we were still very much in the game and it was very close. Make 1 or 2 free throws and maybe this board doesn't have the meltdown that it does. It's so easy to say that, but at the same time if you turn the ball over a few less times & the missed FT's are inconsequential. We had a bigger increase in TO's than we had a decrease in FT's made.
FT's are magnified because they stand out late in games. You see 1 point loss & think 1 missed FT, while ignoring 1 less TO or 1 missed layup. Plus, people view them as easy. They may be "free", but reality is making 70-75% is considered GOOD. Us making just 2-3 more would actually be good if not great shooting.
Yea, if we made 1-2 more FT's we wouldn't be having this meltdown, just like if we committed 2-3 less TO's or made 2-3 more short shots. They ALL impact the game, but which had the greatest impact? Missed FT's probably cost us 2 points, being realistic; making fewer short FGs & turning over the ball significantly more often than normal cost us a lot more. All 3 were below "par" for us, but one was WAY below par.
I get what you're saying, but we'll have to agree to disagree as to which hurt us more.
I would never ignore the fact that 1 TO or 1 missed layup cost us the game. However, for some reason, with this team, we seem to gloss over the fact that their "shaky" at best FT shooting might actually be a reason that we lost. We're so quick to defend it while claiming we lost for other reasons. I swear, the team could go 0 for 20 at the line and we'd lose by 1 point, and people would still say that a costly turnover late in the game did us in, or something to that extent. Free throws might be magnified and stand out late in the game, but from our first miss on, I knew it was just going to be one of those nights. FTs were magnified to me, early in the first half, not late in the second half. I knew that every single point was invaluable (just like every possession, yada yada). There were many reasons why we lost and which "hurt" us more, and you are correct - we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one .
|
|