15 Numbers: November Edition

#276
#276
MemphisCanes said:
EVERYTHING on the offensive side of the ball "skews" the offensive efficiency stat, genius.

You just think the offense sucks because the team isn't doing well, so you can't accept what the numbers are telling you. You can argue that the team isn't executing properly (which you haven't tried to argue yet), but you can't argue that the team isn't scoring efficiently. That's simply not the case.
Click to expand...


wrong again. fga/fgm/fg% is towards the bottom half of the league and is a better measure of an efficient and effective offense. We are #1 in offensive rebounds, which is why your eff stat is high. You have 3 #'s that show your offense sucks, and 1 number (rebs), that shows you efficient. One # skews it drastically, while 3 #'s show what's actually happening.
 
#277
#277
Spartacavolus said:
I'm saying you have to look at fga/fgm/fg% when discussing an efficient offense while you only want to look at one #, without watching one game, and come to a conclusion. That's idiotic. But go figure. Same fool thinks backpeddle is a word.
Click to expand...

I've watched every game, and I've looked at all the numbers. What you don't seem to understand is that O efficiency takes into account all of these things equally. It can't be dismissed without dismissing every single other offensive stat, because it is the most important offensive stat. FG% is accounted in Offensive efficiency as much as offensive rebounds, or turnovers, or fouls drawn.

If UT had a better FG% their offensive efficiency may be up in the top 10, but right now they're not turning the ball over and they're getting putbacks on misses. They scoring points.

If you want to argue they're not executing their offense well or they're not looking "pretty" while they're scoring, that's another discussion than the one you're currently having.
 
#278
#278
MemphisCanes said:
At what point do the offensive boards stop being an anomaly??? Cuonzo's offense was 63rd in the country last season (the defense was a woeful 122nd), and the Vols were 38th in the country in offensive rebounding rate. This year his offense is 21st (defense a putrid 67th) and the Vols are 5th in O rebounding rate.

I can't see why these rebounds are "bail outs" when that's what his offense has been focusing on for at least 2 years now. Seems to be a pattern. But put back buckets count as much other baskets.
Click to expand...


and you get to 2 NIT's and sent home with a poor offense that relies on offensive rebounds and putbacks to win games or be "efficient".
You can keep your efficiency stat and take it with you when CM is run out of town due to lack of offense, while I'll know he's gone due to low fga/fgm/fg%, or the true sign of an offense's effectiveness.
 
#279
#279
Spartacavolus said:
wrong again. fga/fgm/fg% is towards the bottom half of the league and is a better measure of an efficient and effective offense. We are #1 in offensive rebounds, which is why your eff stat is high. You have 3 #'s that show your offense sucks, and 1 number (rebs), that shows you efficient. One # skews it drastically, while 3 #'s show what's actually happening.
Click to expand...

You can take the word "efficient" out of there, because you don't know how to use it. Do you have any evidence to support the rest of this assertion? Why doe FGA measure how effective your offense is?

But you keep avoiding the issue that UT is also first in turnover rate, and middle of the pack in getting to the foul line. But that doesn't fit the argument, I guess.
 
#280
#280
Spartacavolus said:
and you get to 2 NIT's and sent home with a poor offense that relies on offensive rebounds and putbacks to win games or be "efficient".
You can keep your efficiency stat and take it with you when CM is run out of town due to lack of offense, while I'll know he's gone due to low fga/fgm/fg%, or the true sign of an offense's effectiveness.
Click to expand...

The NITs have nothing to do with the deplorable defense? I'm not saying CCM is doing a good job, I'm just reporting the numbers to you so you don't sound ignorant. I'm not a Martin defender.

Seems like being worried about the offense instead of the defense is like fretting over a paper cut on your right hand when you left arm has just been severed.
 
#281
#281
MemphisCanes said:
You can take the word "efficient" out of there, because you don't know how to use it. Do you have any evidence to support the rest of this assertion? Why doe FGA measure how effective your offense is?

But you keep avoiding the issue that UT is also first in turnover rate, and middle of the pack in getting to the foul line. But that doesn't fit the argument, I guess.
Click to expand...


Guy that thinks backpeddle is a word is giving me grammar lessons? FGA is a measure of efficiency depending on the misses and makes.
The low tunover rate is because we are standing around and not attacking. I guess you would call that efficient. Attacking teams will have more turnovers. How are our assist #'s?
 
#282
#282
Spartacavolus said:
Guy that thinks backpeddle is a word is giving me grammar lessons? FGA is a measure of efficiency depending on the misses and makes.
The low tunover rate is because we are standing around and not attacking. I guess you would call that efficient. Attacking teams will have more turnovers. How are our assist #'s?
Click to expand...

The assists are down due to Stokes and Maymon missing layups over and over. Nothing to do with standing around and not distributing the ball. You don't get an assist without the bucket.
 
#283
#283
whobethis16 said:
The assists are down due to Stokes and Maymon missing layups over and over. Nothing to do with standing around and not distributing the ball. You don't get an assist without the bucket.
Click to expand...

It is also lack of movement without the basketball. IMO

I would call our offense efficiently stagnant most of the time.
 
#284
#284
The best way I would describe Tennessee's offense is ugly but effective. So I think "efficiency" might be a misnomer for the stat. Efficient entails achieving maximum productivity with little wasted effort. You can watch them play and see the amount of effort it takes to score.... a lot. Maybe the stat would be better called "offensive effectiveness". For what it's worth.
 
#285
#285
golfballs said:
The best way I would describe Tennessee's offense is ugly but effective. So I think "efficiency" might be a misnomer for the stat. Efficient entails achieving maximum productivity with little wasted effort. You can watch them play and see the amount of effort it takes to score.... a lot. Maybe the stat would be better called "offensive effectiveness". For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

So much truth here.

And that is the reason next years squad is concerning to me. While I like the group we have coming in, once the proven rebounders are gone(Stokes Maymon) how efficient could this offense possibly be in our currently ran system?
 
#286
#286
Lefteye said:
So much truth here.

And that is the reason next years squad is concerning to me. While I like the group we have coming in, once the proven rebounders are gone(Stokes Maymon) how efficient could this offense possibly be in our currently ran system?
Click to expand...

Not to mention the only guy that can create his own offense in Jordy.
 
#287
#287
whobethis16 said:
The assists are down due to Stokes and Maymon missing layups over and over. Nothing to do with standing around and not distributing the ball. You don't get an assist without the bucket.
Click to expand...


The assists are down because we struggle to get shots in halfcourt offense and have horrible spacing, with limited ability to run a decent pick and roll, which would double the assist #'s.. Then we get the boards on good rebounding nights for putbacks and you guys can say its efficient.. Few would call that an efficient offense. Actually, only a couple of guys on here would.
 
#288
#288
golfballs said:
The best way I would describe Tennessee's offense is ugly but effective. So I think "efficiency" might be a misnomer for the stat. Efficient entails achieving maximum productivity with little wasted effort. You can watch them play and see the amount of effort it takes to score.... a lot. Maybe the stat would be better called "offensive effectiveness". For what it's worth.
Click to expand...


You are on point today
 
#289
#289
Lefteye said:
So much truth here.

And that is the reason next years squad is concerning to me. While I like the group we have coming in, once the proven rebounders are gone(Stokes Maymon) how efficient could this offense possibly be in our currently ran system?
Click to expand...


Eggsactly. That eff offense goes away without rebounding. That's one dimentional, not efficient.
 
#291
#291
Spartacavolus said:
Guy that thinks backpeddle is a word is giving me grammar lessons? FGA is a measure of efficiency depending on the misses and makes.
The low tunover rate is because we are standing around and not attacking. I guess you would call that efficient. Attacking teams will have more turnovers. How are our assist #'s?
Click to expand...

I didn't mention anything about grammar in my post, but I'm not surprised you're trying to turn the discussion to something else besides the failing arguments that you're flailing around with.

So how does FGA factor into how well a team is doing? Be specific, please.

Your assists are terrible, as is your eFG%. Again, maybe that's whats keeping you from the top 10.
 
#292
#292
golfballs said:
The best way I would describe Tennessee's offense is ugly but effective. So I think "efficiency" might be a misnomer for the stat. Efficient entails achieving maximum productivity with little wasted effort. You can watch them play and see the amount of effort it takes to score.... a lot. Maybe the stat would be better called "offensive effectiveness". For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

I'm just using the same name for the equation that thousands of other basketball fans know it by.

It's points divided by possessions. If you guys don't want to call that "offensive efficiency" because of UT's unorthodox scoring, you can make up another name for it. The numbers won't change though.
 
#293
#293
MemphisCanes said:
I'm just using the same name for the equation that thousands of other basketball fans know it by.

It's points divided by possessions. If you guys don't want to call that "offensive efficiency" because of UT's unorthodox scoring, you can make up another name for it. The numbers won't change though.
Click to expand...

Smoke screen seems like a good name for it.
 
#294
#294
MemphisCanes said:
I'm just using the same name for the equation that thousands of other basketball fans know it by.

It's points divided by possessions. If you guys don't want to call that "offensive efficiency" because of UT's unorthodox scoring, you can make up another name for it. The numbers won't change though.
Click to expand...

I think he is just pointing out the irony of the words Tennessee's offense and efficient being used together without the word not inbetween.

And if he isn't that is all I am taking from your debate.
 
#295
#295
It's my oldest son's 14th bday today and all I can say is if our big men went to the rack with his intensity, our offense would be more efficient. Dyron Nix style.

spedunk.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#297
#297
MemphisCanes said:
I'm just using the same name for the equation that thousands of other basketball fans know it by.

It's points divided by possessions. If you guys don't want to call that "offensive efficiency" because of UT's unorthodox scoring, you can make up another name for it. The numbers won't change though.
Click to expand...

I'll still refer to it as efficiency because that's how it's been established and is commonly known in this context, I'm just trying to highlight the distinction because people are getting caught up on the term vs what it really means. :peace2:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top