15 Numbers: November Edition

[Spartacavolus]

This is just to test out a theory....

In your opinion, is the Vols offense efficient or inefficient as a whole?

Because I think you wouldn't know an offensively efficient player if one sat on your face.

Inefficient as hell. Don't care what your stat says. Attempts, made and Fg% are towards the bottom of the conference. Bto already brought up the efficiency stat, which is skewed due to our high rank in offensive rebounds, which increases the efficiency rating as those boards count as the same possession. Without those rebounds, your efficiency rating reflects the bottom of the sec offensive stats.

 

[Spartacavolus]

It's like saying that Jordy Mac shouldn't shoot anymore 3s because his % (32%) isn't as high as Antonio Barton's (40%). It's a very elementary way to view the game.

Who is viewing the game that way? Nobody.

 

[MemphisCanes]

The basis of the debate is that you say a high ft rate is ALWAYS a positive. My stance that it depends on if the player makes or misses hasn't changed. You even used Cotton as your own example because he made them. Do you not understand you made my point for me when trying to back your own?
If maymon goes 3-10 next game, you still going to be on here talking about a great ft rate? No. If he goes 8-10? You'd start a callout thread and would prove my point, again, that making them determines the efficacy of your stat.

No, the argument was that Maymon's FT rate was not a positive because he only shot 60%. The only way you can try to save face now is to backpeddle and change the basis of the argument to someone who shoots 0% from the FT line, when that was never discussed.

You've been proved wrong. The stat stands on its own merit, whether you have the intellect to understand it or not.

 

[MemphisCanes]

Inefficient as hell. Don't care what your stat says. Attempts, made and Fg% are towards the bottom of the conference. Bto already brought up the efficiency stat, which is skewed due to our high rank in offensive rebounds, which increases the efficiency rating as those boards count as the same possession. Without those rebounds, your efficiency rating reflects the bottom of the sec offensive stats.

It's the 18th most efficient offense in the country.

The amount of offensive rebounds UT gets does not play into the Offensive Efficiency stat. you can get zero or 30 offensive rebounds during any one possesion, or over the course of the game, and it won't directly affect the numbers in this equation. This is yet another example of a statistic which you completely misunderstand, yet you're writing it off.

It's simply how many points UT scores per possession. UT scores 114.2 points per 100 possessions. You cannot argue with that, that is a fact. UT is actually extremely efficient on offense.

UT is ranked 18th in the nation in offensive efficiency. You cannot argue with that, that is a fact.

You do not understand the statistics that are being discussed here, they are going over your head. You cannot argue with that, that is a fact.

 

[Spartacavolus]

It's the 18th most efficient offense in the country.

The amount of offensive rebounds UT gets does not play into the Offensive Efficiency stat. you can get zero or 30 offensive rebounds during any one possesion, or over the course of the game, and it won't directly affect the numbers in this equation. This is yet another example of a statistic which you completely misunderstand, yet you're writing it off.

It's simply how many points UT scores per possession. UT scores 114.2 points per 100 possessions. You cannot argue with that, that is a fact. UT is actually extremely efficient on offense.

UT is ranked 18th in the nation in offensive efficiency. You cannot argue with that, that is a fact.

You do not understand the statistics that are being discussed here, they are going over your head. You cannot argue with that, that is a fact.

-you show a stat that says we are top 20 in the country in efficiency, while I and others that know the game on the court see a cluster**** with bad spacing and little offensive skill. That's the whole point about useless stats. You are using that as a positive? For this offense?

-Your 2nd point: So, Maymon misses and the other team gets the board so we get 0 pts on that possession. Now, go back and say Maymon misses, there is a long kickout and McRae banks one in from the hash at the shotclock buzzer. You mean to tell me 0 pts on 1 possession, or 3 pts on the same possession doesn't affect the offensive efficiency rate? One possession you score 0 with no off reb. One poss you score 3 with the off reb, but it doesn't affect the #? Stop telling me I don't know how to use stats because I ask questions you can't answer.

The problem here is you and a couple of others look at a stat and see what you want to see. I was taught over the years to see it all and not just what you want.
Funny you state as a fact that I don't know how to use a stat when I flat out have to correct you on your own above. To say that off reb and putbacks don't affect possession efficiency is stupidity, especially when telling me I'm the one that doesn't understand them.

 

[MemphisCanes]

-you show a stat that says we are top 20 in the country in efficiency, while I and others that know the game on the court see a cluster**** with bad spacing and little offensive skill. That's the whole point about useless stats. You are using that as a positive? For this offense?

-Your 2nd point: So, Maymon misses and the other team gets the board so we get 0 pts on that possession. Now, go back and say Maymon misses, there is a long kickout and McRae banks one in from the hash at the shotclock buzzer. You mean to tell me 0 pts on 1 possession, or 3 pts on the same possession doesn't affect the offensive efficiency rate? One possession you score 0 with no off reb. One poss you score 3 with the off reb, but it doesn't affect the #? Stop telling me I don't know how to use stats because I ask questions you can't answer.

The problem here is you and a couple of others look at a stat and see what you want to see. I was taught over the years to see it all and not just what you want.
Funny you state as a fact that I don't know how to use a stat when I flat out have to correct you on your own above. To say that off reb and putbacks don't affect possession efficiency is stupidity, especially when telling me I'm the one that doesn't understand them.

The stat simply counts how many times the ball goes in the basket, Sparty. Kinda like the FT% stat that you seem to be so infatuated with. Is UT a good team? Not so much right now. Is UT a good "offensive" team, yes. That's simply a fact based on how often they put points on the board.

Offensive efficiency is simply = Total Points Scored divided by Number Of Possessions. It doesn't take into account whether you got zero offensive boards or 30. Offensive rebounds are simply a way to explain how you're scoring so well.

 

[Spartacavolus]

Seriously? You are finally correct in that it doesn't take into account offensive rebounds and that's my exact freaking point and why I'm shooting your stat down. If we get a board and a putback, your pts per possession is sitting at 2 for the game. If we don't get the rebound, our pts per possession is 0. If we get 15 offensive rebounds and multiple baskets, the pts per poss/offensive efficiency goes up. If we get shut out on the offensive boards and shoot a low %, the pts per poss/offensive efficiency goes down. That's a direct correlation. What you don't want to consider when analyzing is one of the biggest factors in the rating. I don't care if the stat or you doesn't consider it. It must be considered when analyzing the stat/game/team/player if you are going to analyze correctly. If you want to only analyze what you think should matter, go for it.

 

[MemphisCanes]

Seriously? You are finally correct in that it doesn't take into account offensive rebounds and that's my exact freaking point and why I'm shooting your stat down. If we get a board and a putback, your pts per possession is sitting at 2 for the game. If we don't get the rebound, our pts per possession is 0. If we get 15 offensive rebounds and multiple baskets, the pts per poss/offensive efficiency goes up. If we get shut out on the offensive boards and shoot a low %, the pts per poss/offensive efficiency goes down. That's a direct correlation. What you don't want to consider when analyzing is one of the biggest factors in the rating. I don't care if the stat or you doesn't consider it. It must be considered when analyzing the stat/game/team/player if you are going to analyze correctly. If you want to only analyze what you think should matter, go for it.

You don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

Offensive efficiency is a simple equation. If McRae comes down and makes a layup on one attempt, you get 2 points for one possession. If he comes down and misses a layup, and Jarnell and Maymon get 15 offensive boards before they finally put the ball in the basket... you get 2 points for one possession.

The statistic is what it is, you're still scoring the same amount of points, just in different ways. Simply based on points scored per possession (regardless of how) UT is scoring better than 333 other teams in the nation. The number of offensive rebounds they've gotten doesn't change the stat, it only helps to explain it.

 

[whobethis16]

Seriously? You are finally correct in that it doesn't take into account offensive rebounds and that's my exact freaking point and why I'm shooting your stat down. If we get a board and a putback, your pts per possession is sitting at 2 for the game. If we don't get the rebound, our pts per possession is 0. If we get 15 offensive rebounds and multiple baskets, the pts per poss/offensive efficiency goes up. If we get shut out on the offensive boards and shoot a low %, the pts per poss/offensive efficiency goes down. That's a direct correlation. What you don't want to consider when analyzing is one of the biggest factors in the rating. I don't care if the stat or you doesn't consider it. It must be considered when analyzing the stat/game/team/player if you are going to analyze correctly. If you want to only analyze what you think should matter, go for it.

If you don't think offensive rebounds should count regarding this, do you think any at bat with pitches over 5 (ie lots of foul balls with 2 strikes) shouldn't count in a player's batting average? It doesn't matter how many times a team gets the rebound, it is the same possession.

 

[Spartacavolus]

The offensive rebound/s have a direct correlation on the pts per possession because without them, the pts per possession goes down and raises with more.
-You could have a bench player come off the bench, play the last 4 minutes, get 10 off rebounds, Mcrae could hit 8 3's, and skew your eff % for the game by averaging 3pts on 8 consecutive possessions, yet you would argue that's an efficient offense for the game based off a stat with nothing else considered.
-If we miss our first 10 shots and get no boards, we have 0 pts in 10 possessions. If we miss our first 10 shots, but get 9 rebounds and a 3 pointer we have 3 pts in one possession, but you don't think it should be looked at or matters? You think a coach is going to look at the offensive eff % and not take into account rebounding? He's going to be happy with #18 in the country and not look the factors? You are nuts. If you are looking at your eff % without looking at offensive boards and putbacks to analyze, you aren't doing it right. Period.

I know what I'm arguing fine and will summarize below:
-having a high ft rate means squat unless you are making them. It's good if you do. Not good if you don't.
-Offensive eff% means squat without taking into the dozen other things that must be considered when analyzing stats that prove to be useless.
-Your stat shows you that CM has a highly efficient offense, where I see offense being set back years

 

[Spartacavolus]

If you don't think offensive rebounds should count regarding this, do you think any at bat with pitches over 5 (ie lots of foul balls with 2 strikes) shouldn't count in a player's batting average? It doesn't matter how many times a team gets the rebound, it is the same possession.

is something wrong with you guys' water today? I'm THE ONE that thinks off rbs must be considered when analyzing pts/poss or offensive efficiency. MC is the one that says it's disallowed from his stats for dummies coaching book.
How do you not understand that the more off rebs you have, the more likely your pts/poss will go up? Please explain how you don't understand that off rbs directly correlate to the off efficiency %.
The table is yours.

 

[whobethis16]

is something wrong with you guys' water today? I'm THE ONE that thinks off rbs must be considered when analyzing pts/poss or offensive efficiency. MC is the one that says it's disallowed from his stats for dummies coaching book.
How do you not understand that the more off rebs you have, the more likely your pts/poss will go up? Please explain how you don't understand that off rbs directly correlate to the off efficiency %.
The table is yours.

Scoring on the first shot or getting 4 offensive rebounds and scoring on the 5th, it counts as one possession. So, you think if you miss a shot, get the offensive rebound it should be another possession, even though the possession never changed. The only person that should matter to is the coach. I know coaches that count missing the front of a 1 and 1 as 2 missed free throws because you didn't even get a chance on the second. Now, should the stats for the team in record books count that? No, because they never took the 2nd shot.

 

[Spartacavolus]

So, you think if you miss a shot, get the offensive rebound it should be another possession, even though the possession never changed. The only person that should matter to is the coach. I know coaches that count missing the front of a 1 and 1 as 2 missed free throws because you didn't even get a chance on the second. Now, should the stats for the team in record books count that? No, because they never took the 2nd shot.

-nope. Never came close to discussing that. Only stating that off rebs skew the eff%. When they increase the % increases. Does throwing up bricks and having one player go off on a offensive board rampage and 20 pts on putbacks equal a top 20 efficient offense? Not where I'm from. You have to look at everything, not just what you choose.

 

[MemphisCanes]

So how does the fact that UT gets lots of offensive rebounds make their offense less efficient than the numbers state? If they're scoring off the those rebounds, do those points not count as much as other points?

A possession can only end with a few results: A made FG, a made FT, a TO (offensive foul, out of bounds, steal) or a defensive rebound (ignore end of half/game whistles).

Getting an offensive rebound simply prolongs your possession, you still have to put the ball in the basket somehow.

 

[MemphisCanes]

-nope. Never came close to discussing that. Only stating that off rebs skew the eff%. When they increase the % increases. Does throwing up bricks and having one player go off on a offensive board rampage and 20 pts on putbacks equal a top 20 efficient offense? Not where I'm from. You have to look at everything, not just what you choose.

Are his putback points worth less than other sorts of baskets?

You seem to be confused as to what "efficient" means.

 

[Spartacavolus]

So how does the fact that UT gets lots of offensive rebounds make their offense less efficient than the numbers state? If they're scoring off the those rebounds, do those points not count as much as other points?

A possession can only end with a few results: A made FG, a made FT, a TO (offensive foul, out of bounds, steal) or a defensive rebound (ignore end of half/game whistles).

Getting an offensive rebound simply prolongs your possession, you still have to put the ball in the basket somehow.

-the efficiency rating flows with rebounds and putbacks. A team could run a good offense with open shots, cuts, looks and makes and have a lower offensive efficiency rating than a team with one player that smoked some good stuff before one game and went on an offensive rebounding rampage with 20 pts off rebounds that were horrific shots from a stagnant offense. They could throw up 20 3's from the hash and have a better rating with putbacks.
Would a coach look at the higher rating and be pleased more than the lower rating when all is considered? No, they wouldn't.
You can't just look at a stat without analyzing every aspect that can move your number either direction.

 

[whobethis16]

-nope. Never came close to discussing that. Only stating that off rebs skew the eff%. When they increase the % increases. Does throwing up bricks and having one player go off on a offensive board rampage and 20 pts on putbacks equal a top 20 efficient offense? Not where I'm from. You have to look at everything, not just what you choose.

You can't have it both ways dude. If efficiency is points/possession, and you don't like it not including offensive rebounds as the same possession, but you don't want to count it as a second possession. Then how do you plan on figuring it out? Completely remove all possessions that have an offensive rebound in it? What you want cannot work.

 

[MemphisCanes]

-the efficiency rating flows with rebounds and putbacks. A team could run a good offense with open shots, cuts, looks and makes and have a lower offensive efficiency rating than a team with one player that smoked some good stuff before one game and went on an offensive rebounding rampage with 20 pts off rebounds that were horrific shots from a stagnant offense. They could throw up 20 3's from the hash and have a better rating with putbacks.
Would a coach look at the higher rating and be pleased more than the lower rating when all is considered? No, they wouldn't.
You can't just look at a stat without analyzing every aspect that can move your number either direction.

Huh? What coach would be pleased with a lower offensive efficiency? This is not over one game, this is over the course of the season. This isn't an isolated incident, Cuonzo's offense is putting up points.

You don't like the stat because you don't think points are being put up in the right way, i.e. UT is scoring on FTs and offensive rebounds.

Could the Efg% be better? Sure, maybe that's the difference between being the 1st and 18th most efficient offenses, but UT's problem isn't scoring the ball obviously. If you think so, I have to seriously question your understanding of the game.

 

[Spartacavolus]

You can't have it both ways dude. If efficiency is points/possession, and you don't like it not including offensive rebounds as the same possession, but you don't want to count it as a second possession. Then how do you plan on figuring it out? Completely remove all possessions that have an offensive rebound in it? What you want cannot work.

wtf are you talking about? I haven't said anything about liking it, not liking it, or whatever you are confused about. I'm simply telling you knuckleheads how to look at a stat from more than "it's a definite #" standpoint, because its not, and you obviously have never had this discussion before with someone that looks at stats from various perspectives.

You have your mind made up that offensive efficiency stat should be looked at by itself with no other factors and I strongly disagree. You are the stat guy that put these things in front of coaches but doesn't understand the other aspects a coach looks at as he throws your off eff% sheet in the trashcan that game because he knows it was increased due to bricks from covered players taking bad shots and getting garbage putback baskets underneath by a scrub player the last 5 minutes of a game. You look at the %. Coaches look at how they got there.

 

[MemphisCanes]

wtf are you talking about? I haven't said anything about liking it, not liking it, or whatever you are confused about. I'm simply telling you knuckleheads how to look at a stat from more than "it's a definite #" standpoint, because its not, and you obviously have never had this discussion before with someone that looks at stats from various perspectives.

You have your mind made up that offensive efficiency stat should be looked at by itself with no other factors and I strongly disagree. You are the stat guy that put these things in front of coaches but doesn't understand the other aspects a coach looks at as he throws your off eff% sheet in the trashcan that game because he knows it was increased due to bricks from covered players taking bad shots and getting garbage putback baskets underneath by a scrub player the last 5 minutes of a game. You look at the %. Coaches look at how they got there.

No we didn't say that. There are four things that help "explain" offensive efficiency, and offensive rebounding is one of them. You shoot a higher % from the field, you generally score more points. You limit turnovers, you generally score more points. You get offensive rebounds, you generally score more points. You make it to the FT line, you generally score more points.

You said the offensive efficiency stat is meaningless because offensive rebounds are accounted for. They're really not. All it entails is points and possessions. Are they scoring more points because of offensive rebounds? Yes. Does that mean the stat is meaningless? Absolutely not. Do putback buckets count for less than two points? Jesus, this is basketball 101.

These are numbers for the entire season, not just one game. I doubt that Martin thinks scoring points is the problem with this team.

 

[Spartacavolus]

Huh? What coach would be pleased with a lower offensive efficiency? This is not over one game, this is over the course of the season. This isn't an isolated incident, Cuonzo's offense is putting up points.

You don't like the stat because you don't think points are being put up in the right way, i.e. UT is scoring on FTs and offensive rebounds.

Could the Efg% be better? Sure, maybe that's the difference between being the 1st and 18th most efficient offenses, but UT's problem isn't scoring the ball obviously. If you think so, I have to seriously question your understanding of the game.

--A coach that wins with a lower eff rating will be happier than one that loses with a higher eff rating 10 times out of 10. You could have a good eff% and lose by double digits, or you could have a lower eff% and win by 20.
I'm simply telling you what you need to be looking at to fully discuss stats and you have proven to be incapable. You obviously have never coached a game or been in a coaches room in your life when several other coaches bring up the points I'm bringing up. Do you think I listened and learned or just make it up on the go as you do.

We had 51 pts against WSU with 3 minutes left. Obviously, according to you, we have an efficient offense, can score the ball at will and scoring the ball isn't our problem, as you say.
Anybody else here that thinks that offense isn't a problem for CM/UT needs to follow another sport.

 

[Spartacavolus]

It's the 18th most efficient offense in the country.

The amount of offensive rebounds UT gets does not play into the Offensive Efficiency stat. you can get zero or 30 offensive rebounds during any one possesion, or over the course of the game, and it won't directly affect the numbers in this equation.

-bump for emphasis as to who is confused and who isn't.

-still dead ass wrong. A rebound and putback directly affects the numbers in an offensive eff rating.

 

[BadJerry20]

People really think our offense is efficient? Seriously?

 

[Spartacavolus]

No we didn't say that. There are four things that help "explain" offensive efficiency, and offensive rebounding is one of them.

You said the offensive efficiency stat is meaningless because offensive rebounds are accounted for. They're really not. All it entails is points and possessions. Are they scoring more points because of offensive rebounds? Yes. Does that mean the stat is meaningless? Absolutely not. Do putback buckets count for less than two points? Jesus, this is basketball 101.

These are numbers for the entire season, not just one game. I doubt that Martin thinks scoring points is the problem with this team.

-which one is it? Your post I quoted last says the opposite. You need me to requote it a 3rd time?
-wtf is wrong with you. I have said it's meaningless because off rbs are NOT accounted for, and that eff% will INCREASE or DECREASE depending on off rbs, which tells you next to nothing about your offense, except one dude had a good night on the boards and made it go up. For goodness sake, how can you even debate it, which was my point from the onset. off rebs affect the eff %. You've been arguing with that for pages, now you agree and act as if you were saying it the whole time?
gtfo with that garbage.

 

[Spartacavolus]

People really think our offense is efficient? Seriously?

I'm done man. Third times a charm. The poss/gm debate finally ended after @ 2 weeks as I told them and was proven to not mean what they argued it did.
Dude can argue till he's blue in the face about a high ft rate being a positive, regardless if they go in or not and continue to look like a jackass. Maybe when we get our team together, we can get my friend with no arms to play because he can get to the foul line a lot. He has to try to kick it in, but it doesn't matter because he gets there a lot.
Now MC wants to argue that it's black and white that we have an efficient offense because it's #18 in the country on his sheet and that we don't have trouble scoring? When we had 25 pts at halftime?

It's all you.