|
Post by legkick on Feb 11, 2016 16:14:07 GMT -8
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? Mikan went to DePaul and was coached by the legendary Ray Meyer. Yes, scoring skyrocketed. It went from 80 or so points a game to over 90 the first year, and almost to 110 the fourth year after the shot clock was implemented. It wasn't only the shot clock, there were foul and other rules changes that facilitated scoring. Attendance rose immensely as well. All coaches value ball possession and want to score each time their team possesses the ball. It doesn't happen - teams miss shots. All coaches will tell their players that a turnover is worth two points to the other team (it can be worth three or four points now) because that is the typical worst case scenario. It doesn't happen - the other team misses shots or turns it right back over. That's why the "turnover is 4 point swing" is a teaching point, not an accurate reflection of reality. It was marginally closer to reality back in the old ball coach's day because it was easier to maintain possession - you didn't have any pressure to shoot unless you were behind.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 11, 2016 16:53:06 GMT -8
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 . Nobody's "glossing over" anything, just pointing out the fact that the TO's had a significantly bigger impact on the game than our missed FT's last night.
If we were 0-20, since that would be 14 points less than we normally would make then YES, that would have had a more significant impact on the game. We weren't. Not even close. We were 2, TWO, FT's below shooting well, not 14. If we were 6-21 or even 7-21 yesterday that would be a very good argument. Or 13 for 30. Or if we only had 11-12 TO's, and shot well inside the arc but still lost by 1. The problem is we wouldn't have lost in that scenario, not with just a few missed FTs.
Interesting about you being worried early in the first half after a few misses. Considering we were 8-11 at the half (73%) that's seems to be extremely pessimistic. We shot well in the first half from the line overall. It looks even more pessimistic after seeing we were up 11 with just over 16 minutes left in the game.
I got more concerned when we were up 6 with under 10 to go & we turned it over 3 of 5 trips, and the only 2 times we took shots were rushed 3's cutting the lead to 1. To me THAT was the turning point, but you can point to many.
Yes, agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Feb 11, 2016 17:29:15 GMT -8
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? Mikan went to DePaul and was coached by the legendary Ray Meyer. Yes, scoring skyrocketed. It went from 80 or so points a game to over 90 the first year, and almost to 110 the fourth year after the shot clock was implemented. It wasn't only the shot clock, there were foul and other rules changes that facilitated scoring. Attendance rose immensely as well. All coaches value ball possession and want to score each time their team possesses the ball. It doesn't happen - teams miss shots. All coaches will tell their players that a turnover is worth two points to the other team (it can be worth three or four points now) because that is the typical worst case scenario. It doesn't happen - the other team misses shots or turns it right back over. That's why the "turnover is 4 point swing" is a teaching point, not an accurate reflection of reality. It was marginally closer to reality back in the old ball coach's day because it was easier to maintain possession - you didn't have any pressure to shoot unless you were behind. You make good points about the value of turnovers, and are 3 for 3 on trivia questions. Just curious if the trivia answers came off the top of your head or have basketball encyclopedia near by? Maybe next time we can talk about Jack Molinas
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Feb 11, 2016 18:28:28 GMT -8
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 . Nobody's "glossing over" anything, just pointing out the fact that the TO's had a significantly bigger impact on the game than our missed FT's last night.
If we were 0-20, since that would be 14 points less than we normally would make then YES, that would have had a more significant impact on the game. We weren't. Not even close. We were 2, TWO, FT's below shooting well, not 14. If we were 6-21 or even 7-21 yesterday that would be a very good argument. Or 13 for 30. Or if we only had 11-12 TO's, and shot well inside the arc but still lost by 1. The problem is we wouldn't have lost in that scenario, not with just a few missed FTs.
Interesting about you being worried early in the first half after a few misses. Considering we were 8-11 at the half (73%) that's seems to be extremely pessimistic. We shot well in the first half from the line overall. It looks even more pessimistic after seeing we were up 11 with just over 16 minutes left in the game.
I got more concerned when we were up 6 with under 10 to go & we turned it over 3 of 5 trips, and the only 2 times we took shots were rushed 3's cutting the lead to 1. To me THAT was the turning point, but you can point to many.
Yes, agree to disagree.
This is not technically a fact. In that same vein, I could say that missing one or two more of our free throws had a bigger impact on the game than TOs. We had so many turnovers, yet we only lost by 1 point. Does that mean that we could have had one less turnover and we might have won the game? Perhaps. Could it also mean that if we would have made one or two more free throws we might have won the game? Perhaps as well. Also, "14 points than we normally make?" Normally. You can't just assume things based on our averages. Every night's different, unfortunately. If we had made 80% of our free throws, we would have scored more points and probably would have won. Sure it's not our "normal," but it could happen. Again, no one's discounting the TO thing...I'm just pointing out my opinion for the reason why we lost.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 11, 2016 19:52:51 GMT -8
Nobody's "glossing over" anything, just pointing out the fact that the TO's had a significantly bigger impact on the game than our missed FT's last night.
If we were 0-20, since that would be 14 points less than we normally would make then YES, that would have had a more significant impact on the game. We weren't. Not even close. We were 2, TWO, FT's below shooting well, not 14. If we were 6-21 or even 7-21 yesterday that would be a very good argument. Or 13 for 30. Or if we only had 11-12 TO's, and shot well inside the arc but still lost by 1. The problem is we wouldn't have lost in that scenario, not with just a few missed FTs.
Interesting about you being worried early in the first half after a few misses. Considering we were 8-11 at the half (73%) that's seems to be extremely pessimistic. We shot well in the first half from the line overall. It looks even more pessimistic after seeing we were up 11 with just over 16 minutes left in the game.
I got more concerned when we were up 6 with under 10 to go & we turned it over 3 of 5 trips, and the only 2 times we took shots were rushed 3's cutting the lead to 1. To me THAT was the turning point, but you can point to many.
Yes, agree to disagree.
This is not technically a fact. In that same vein, I could say that missing one or two more of our free throws had a bigger impact on the game than TOs. We had so many turnovers, yet we only lost by 1 point. Does that mean that we could have had one less turnover and we might have won the game? Perhaps. Could it also mean that if we would have made one or two more free throws we might have won the game? Perhaps as well. Also, "14 points than we normally make?" Normally. You can't just assume things based on our averages. Every night's different, unfortunately. If we had made 80% of our free throws, we would have scored more points and probably would have won. Sure it's not our "normal," but it could happen. Again, no one's discounting the TO thing...I'm just pointing out my opinion for the reason why we lost. You really don't understand statistics do you? Definitely not worth the effort to keep trying to explain it to you.
Just how great we'd be if we shot 90% from the floor. Wouldn't that be GREAT? I'll be we wouldn't have lost yesterday, whoowie. It "could happen".
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Feb 12, 2016 0:38:22 GMT -8
This is not technically a fact. In that same vein, I could say that missing one or two more of our free throws had a bigger impact on the game than TOs. We had so many turnovers, yet we only lost by 1 point. Does that mean that we could have had one less turnover and we might have won the game? Perhaps. Could it also mean that if we would have made one or two more free throws we might have won the game? Perhaps as well. Also, "14 points than we normally make?" Normally. You can't just assume things based on our averages. Every night's different, unfortunately. If we had made 80% of our free throws, we would have scored more points and probably would have won. Sure it's not our "normal," but it could happen. Again, no one's discounting the TO thing...I'm just pointing out my opinion for the reason why we lost. You really don't understand statistics do you? Definitely not worth the effort to keep trying to explain it to you.
Just how great we'd be if we shot 90% from the floor. Wouldn't that be GREAT? I'll be we wouldn't have lost yesterday, whoowie. It "could happen".
If I don't understand statistics, then you don't understand English. Go back and read my posts, please. You can't just say that TO's were the "biggest" reason for our loss and then discount my opinion about free throw shooting being the biggest reason for our loss. We lost by 1 point. We could have made up that point with one less turnover or a made free throw, your choice. You don't need statistics for that. We get it, you hate it when people disagree with you. How big does your ego have to be? You say "agree to disagree" and then bombard the viewing public trying to "prove" why someone's opinion is wrong while saying they ignore statistics and reality. Regarding the bolded print, now who's "assuming" or "implying things?" Must be me because I don't agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by K2Aztec73 on Feb 12, 2016 1:07:50 GMT -8
You really don't understand statistics do you? Definitely not worth the effort to keep trying to explain it to you.
Just how great we'd be if we shot 90% from the floor. Wouldn't that be GREAT? I'll be we wouldn't have lost yesterday, whoowie. It "could happen".
If I don't understand statistics, then you don't understand English. Go back and read my posts, please. You can't just say that TO's were the "biggest" reason for our loss and then discount my opinion about free throw shooting being the biggest reason for our loss. We lost by 1 point. We could have made up that point with one less turnover or a made free throw, your choice. You don't need statistics for that. We get it, you hate it when people disagree with you. How big does your ego have to be? You say "agree to disagree" and then bombard the viewing public trying to "prove" why someone's opinion is wrong while saying they ignore statistics and reality. Regarding the bolded print, now who's "assuming" or "implying things?" Must be me because I don't agree with you. The debate is over which was the bigger factor in the loss... there's nobody who's not saying that both FT's and TO's were key factors. That's something that is perfect for the use of stats to weight them as to their likely impact. Our FT's were 13 of 21 (61.9%) if we had shot at around our "normal" rate (roughly 70%) it would add 14.7... let's round that up to 15 to allow for an additional attempt or two by making the front end of a 1-1... hell, let's round it up 2, to account for the extra 1-1 front end, and an extra one made afterwards. Let's say we had hit 16... that's 3 points more than we actually scored. I believe it was stated that our 18 turnovers resulted in 23 points off those turnovers. If we had stayed around our normal 13 TO's per game, that would be 16.6 points (again, let's round up to 17). That's 6 fewer points given up, even allowing for the rounding up. Now, I haven't checked all the "new math" texts from the 60's or the current crop of "common core" stuff, but going with my "old school" math, 6 is twice as big as 3. So, it's reasonable to conclude that if we played our "normal" game rather than the substandard one we saw Wednesday night, we would have scored roughly 3 additional points from FT's, and prevented 6 by limiting the TO's. Both were significant factors, and with a 1 point loss, an improvement in either would have made the difference... it's clear to me that the larger factor was the turnovers (6 extra points given up) rather than the free throws (3 additional points made). This is what statistics are for... figuring the probabilities. They can't guarantee the projected result, but they can tell us clearly which is more likely. Probabilities are a stronger argument than opinion... your opinion is that FT's were more important... my opinion is that 6 is twice as significant as 3.
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Feb 12, 2016 9:36:00 GMT -8
We were up by 12 in the first half and as much as 8 in the second half. I know basketball is a game of runs but just once would I like to see the team put the pedal to the metal and not let up for an entire game. I know it's not in Fisher's DNA but man, when we have a team on the ropes like we did a few times tonight, we should never let up. If we don't, well, tonight happens. Excuse me. Up by 11 in the 2nd half. It was a team loss. The guys were unable to handle the particular zone FSU played. We've seen it before and it was corrected. This season, and others, our no points periods are usually started by consecutive O end trips that result in stupid live ball turnovers.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Feb 12, 2016 11:37:54 GMT -8
If I don't understand statistics, then you don't understand English. Go back and read my posts, please. You can't just say that TO's were the "biggest" reason for our loss and then discount my opinion about free throw shooting being the biggest reason for our loss. We lost by 1 point. We could have made up that point with one less turnover or a made free throw, your choice. You don't need statistics for that. We get it, you hate it when people disagree with you. How big does your ego have to be? You say "agree to disagree" and then bombard the viewing public trying to "prove" why someone's opinion is wrong while saying they ignore statistics and reality. Regarding the bolded print, now who's "assuming" or "implying things?" Must be me because I don't agree with you. The debate is over which was the bigger factor in the loss... there's nobody who's not saying that both FT's and TO's were key factors. That's something that is perfect for the use of stats to weight them as to their likely impact. Our FT's were 13 of 21 (61.9%) if we had shot at around our "normal" rate (roughly 70%) it would add 14.7... let's round that up to 15 to allow for an additional attempt or two by making the front end of a 1-1... hell, let's round it up 2, to account for the extra 1-1 front end, and an extra one made afterwards. Let's say we had hit 16... that's 3 points more than we actually scored. I believe it was stated that our 18 turnovers resulted in 23 points off those turnovers. If we had stayed around our normal 13 TO's per game, that would be 16.6 points (again, let's round up to 17). That's 6 fewer points given up, even allowing for the rounding up. Now, I haven't checked all the "new math" texts from the 60's or the current crop of "common core" stuff, but going with my "old school" math, 6 is twice as big as 3. So, it's reasonable to conclude that if we played our "normal" game rather than the substandard one we saw Wednesday night, we would have scored roughly 3 additional points from FT's, and prevented 6 by limiting the TO's. Both were significant factors, and with a 1 point loss, an improvement in either would have made the difference... it's clear to me that the larger factor was the turnovers (6 extra points given up) rather than the free throws (3 additional points made). This is what statistics are for... figuring the probabilities. They can't guarantee the projected result, but they can tell us clearly which is more likely. Probabilities are a stronger argument than opinion... your opinion is that FT's were more important... my opinion is that 6 is twice as significant as 3. While this may be true, in your calculations, our FT shooting did cost us 3 points. Just like our TOs might have cost us 6 points. We lost by 1. The laws of "normalcies" are a guessing game and who knows what might have really happened in both cases (free throw or turnover). Technically, either could have cost us the win, and in my case, I'm going with our missed free throws. Is that not ok? My reasoning is that a FT is a higher percentage shot than any field goal attempt and much easier to make. Now here are my stats: the national average of made FT percentage is higher than the national average of made field goal percentage. In addition, a missed shot or TO is more likely to happen than us actually making a shot (unless we shoot over 50%). And, in many ways, a missed field goal attempt is almost the same as a turnover). Side note: I like your explanations a lot better than some others...more succinct with a little less snide-ness.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Feb 12, 2016 11:43:15 GMT -8
We were up by 12 in the first half and as much as 8 in the second half. I know basketball is a game of runs but just once would I like to see the team put the pedal to the metal and not let up for an entire game. I know it's not in Fisher's DNA but man, when we have a team on the ropes like we did a few times tonight, we should never let up. If we don't, well, tonight happens. Excuse me. Up by 11 in the 2nd half.It was a team loss. The guys were unable to handle the particular zone FSU played. We've seen it before and it was corrected. This season, and others, our no points periods are usually started by consecutive O end trips that result in stupid live ball turnovers. You are correct about being up by 11, my bad. Those "stupid live ball turnovers" were a result of laziness and complacency in my opinion. I can't say those turnovers were necessarily all on the team in this case; this is what our team has done for more than a few years now. I think a lot of it is on the coaching staff, not just the players for "not executing." I would like the staff to continue to draw up plays and really push things rather than "settle down" once we get the lead. No lead is safe and that was proven on Wednesday night.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 12, 2016 13:35:07 GMT -8
You really don't understand statistics do you? Definitely not worth the effort to keep trying to explain it to you.
Just how great we'd be if we shot 90% from the floor. Wouldn't that be GREAT? I'll be we wouldn't have lost yesterday, whoowie. It "could happen".
If I don't understand statistics, then you don't understand English. Go back and read my posts, please. You can't just say that TO's were the "biggest" reason for our loss and then discount my opinion about free throw shooting being the biggest reason for our loss. We lost by 1 point. We could have made up that point with one less turnover or a made free throw, your choice. You don't need statistics for that. We get it, you hate it when people disagree with you. How big does your ego have to be? You say "agree to disagree" and then bombard the viewing public trying to "prove" why someone's opinion is wrong while saying they ignore statistics and reality. Regarding the bolded print, now who's "assuming" or "implying things?" Must be me because I don't agree with you. The bolded print is along the same lines as you assuming we should shoot better than any team in the country typically does from the line. It was sarcastic based on your exaggerated assumptions. Hard to believe you couldn't pick up on that.
As for it being easier to make a FT vs. a FG, that depends how you look at it. The probabilities of making 1 FT is higher than making 1 FG on 1 shot; however it's worth half as much. You get as many points making 1 of 2 FG's as you do making 2 straight FTs, and the probability of doing so are about the same. Especially when you're talking about shots around the hoop as I originally referenced. Hence why us making our "usual" amount of shots in the paint had more of an impact than us making even a GOOD % of FTs.
Lastly, re: your last reference to TO's, how are TO's "not on the team" and how has our team "done that for a few years now"? We were among the best teams in the nation at minimizing TO's in 2011, 2013 & 2014, and we were much better than average even last year. We haven't been anywhere near this TO prone since 2010, which also happens to be the last time we were this young & inexperienced. Youth plays into that a LOT more than coaching. To put that on the coaching staff is a little ridiculous, especially given their successful track record of coaching teams which avoid TO's.
PS. I actually can read; you & statistics on the other hand.....? And I actually like it when people disagree & actually put forth a legitimate argument. It's a great learning opportunity. It's when people think they're opinion is a better read on the situation than actual supporting facts where argument's arise (i.e. "done that for a few years now"). As K2 said, probabilities are a stronger argument than opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bearfoot on Feb 15, 2016 19:09:42 GMT -8
If I don't understand statistics, then you don't understand English. Go back and read my posts, please. You can't just say that TO's were the "biggest" reason for our loss and then discount my opinion about free throw shooting being the biggest reason for our loss. We lost by 1 point. We could have made up that point with one less turnover or a made free throw, your choice. You don't need statistics for that. We get it, you hate it when people disagree with you. How big does your ego have to be? You say "agree to disagree" and then bombard the viewing public trying to "prove" why someone's opinion is wrong while saying they ignore statistics and reality. Regarding the bolded print, now who's "assuming" or "implying things?" Must be me because I don't agree with you. The bolded print is along the same lines as you assuming we should shoot better than any team in the country typically does from the line. It was sarcastic based on your exaggerated assumptions. Hard to believe you couldn't pick up on that.
As for it being easier to make a FT vs. a FG, that depends how you look at it. The probabilities of making 1 FT is higher than making 1 FG on 1 shot; however it's worth half as much. You get as many points making 1 of 2 FG's as you do making 2 straight FTs, and the probability of doing so are about the same. Especially when you're talking about shots around the hoop as I originally referenced. Hence why us making our "usual" amount of shots in the paint had more of an impact than us making even a GOOD % of FTs.
Lastly, re: your last reference to TO's, how are TO's "not on the team" and how has our team "done that for a few years now"? We were among the best teams in the nation at minimizing TO's in 2011, 2013 & 2014, and we were much better than average even last year. We haven't been anywhere near this TO prone since 2010, which also happens to be the last time we were this young & inexperienced. Youth plays into that a LOT more than coaching. To put that on the coaching staff is a little ridiculous, especially given their successful track record of coaching teams which avoid TO's.
PS. I actually can read; you & statistics on the other hand.....? And I actually like it when people disagree & actually put forth a legitimate argument. It's a great learning opportunity. It's when people think they're opinion is a better read on the situation than actual supporting facts where argument's arise (i.e. "done that for a few years now"). As K2 said, probabilities are a stronger argument than opinion.
As we found out Saturday, Jeremy was hurting and we don't know how much that hindered him in the game. This is a nice time for a break.
|
|