Breakdown tn vs kentucky (merged)

#151
#151
hatvol96 said:
I've got a $1,000 on the first 20 games of the NCAA Tournament that say you can't.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the driving point:

"but I'm talking about someone who might have another profession or what have you. I watch a lot of games AND track a lot of stats, and I'm pretty sure I could pick 20 games better than someone who claims to just love watching the games and thinks that stats are for idiots."

I'd be more than happy to pick against you, even though you say you're apparently a scout, and I'm sure I could probably fare just as well as you could, but I'm not ready to start flapping money around to prove a point that I didn't even make.

The point was that stats collect data for those that dont have the time nor access to such means, whose livelihood doesnt allow them to just watch games. But hey maybe you're onto something, maybe stats could be better than someone who just watches a game.
 
#152
#152
joeydupree said:
Sounds about like politics to me...
I was just messing with you, I KNOW you won't throw the towel in...
I commend you for your efforts, keep it up brother...
As for me personally, I am one of those "watchers." I'll remember certain statistics at times because I just do, but I know what's going on without stats as afore mentioned.
Maybe you didn't mean to direct the "dense" comment towards me specifically, but to stereotype a person such as I (because I said throw the towel in?)would prove to be pretty dense, in my opinion...


J D
Click to expand...

nah, no harm intended man, I was just going off that comment to try and show a problem with a certain kind of fandom. But ya you're analogy is exactly right with politics. It's as bad as that.

And ya, I only meant that that line of thought was 'dense', not the person as a whole.
 
#153
#153
BigPapaVol said:
But to hats point, who needs stats to see who can't handle of doesn't value the ball?
Click to expand...

Probably about 96% of the general fan contingent, I'd say.

I mean if some team is coming in to play tennessee that you havent seen all year long how are YOU gonna know what to expect, what to look for?

I mean we're not talking as if Bruce Pearl can just look at Butler's stats and then start practice, that's obviously silly. I just mean that stats can give a great deal of insight, and oftentimes even more than just watching 3 or 4 games by one team.
 
#154
#154
lidderer said:
The point was that stats collect data for those that dont have the time nor access to such means, whose livelihood doesnt allow them to just watch games. But hey maybe you're onto something, maybe stats could be better than someone who just watches a game.
Click to expand...

You rang? I'm just a sprinkler pipe fitter and just watch games, and I don't keep stats... I'll do it. But not just the first 20 games of the tournament. Any games, football, basketball, college or pro, anytime...
Oh yeah, baseball too.. I'm down, spreads or straight up picks...
 
#155
#155
lidderer said:
nah, no harm intended man, I was just going off that comment to try and show a problem with a certain kind of fandom. But ya you're analogy is exactly right with politics. It's as bad as that.

And ya, I only meant that that line of thought was 'dense', not the person as a whole.
Click to expand...

You are a politician:yes:...
 
#156
#156
lidderer said:
I just mean that stats can give a great deal of insight, and oftentimes even more than just watching 3 or 4 games by one team.
Click to expand...
The only people who stats hold more insight for than seeing a team 3 or 4 times are those who have no idea what the Hell they are watching when viewing a game.
 
#157
#157
joeydupree said:
You rang? I'm just a sprinkler pipe fitter and just watch games, and I don't keep stats... I'll do it. But not just the first 20 games of the tournament. Any games, football, basketball, college or pro, anytime...
Oh yeah, baseball too.. I'm down, spreads or straight up picks...
Click to expand...

Sweet, maybe to liven it up we'll make it like one of those John Henry vs the Machine type things, and I'll just pick 20 games (vs the spread) based ONLY off of stats.

Yes, I'm aware of who won that particular battle. haha
 
#158
#158
hatvol96 said:
The only people who stats hold more insight for than seeing a team 3 or 4 times are those who have no idea what the Hell they are watching when viewing a game.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this defines a lot of fans.

Did you see that SEC POWER RANKINGS thread? People had arky in the top 2-5, one guy even had them at 1. All because they'd watched their big wins.

Simple stats could have helped them see what was looming ahead.

In fact, if I had just watched their wins over Texas, Oklahoma, and NT, I might think they were a decent team too. The stats, however, would have shown that, on the whole, that is not the case, and such fortune would be short-lived(Hi Mississippi! Hi the other Mississippi!)
 
Last edited:
#159
#159
lidderer said:
Sadly, this defines a lot of fans.

Did you see that SEC POWER RANKINGS thread? People had arky in the top 2-5, one guy even had them at 1. All because they'd watched their big wins.

Simple stats could have helped them see what was looming ahead.

In fact, if I had just watched their wins over Texas, Oklahoma, and NT, I might think they were a decent team too. The stats, however, would have shown that, on the whole, that is not the case, and such fortune would be short-lived(Hi Mississippi! Hi the other Mississippi!)
Click to expand...

I could have made the call without stats.
 
#160
#160
BigPapaVol said:
I could have made the call without stats.
Click to expand...
You could have seen, without Ken Pomeroy's stats, that a painfully young team who managed to lose to Missouri State would struggle with prosperity? How could you be so wise? I am going to stop watching games and simply read statistical reports off KenPom.com while viewing episodes of Knight Rider. Actually watching games is passe.
 
#162
#162
lidderer said:
"vast improvement", hahaa. The vols are 200th in forcing turnovers, it was not hard to imagine that kentucky wouldn't have had a problem last night in this regard.

Which was my entire point. (of note: Kentucky STILL managed to turn it over a greater percentage then the poor vols D has been forcing this year)

How on earth this possibly is viewed as improvement is insane. But yes, ask kenpom, he--like I--would have told you that improvement did not happen last night. Can it occur? Of course. Will it improve to any significant end? Doubtful.

I'm sure they'll turn it over a lot vs Auburn and someone stupid will say "oh no, kentucky has regressed again, making dumb decisions!" when really the same old story is being played out just as expected, but this time against a good D.
Click to expand...


Dude... give it up. There is a reason people watch basketball games and don't just consult Ken Pomeroy....

mm
 
#164
#164
lidderer said:
Hahaha, remember bill belichek and theo epstein? Remember how the white sox GM and about, oh, like every other team in baseball suddenly went to sabermetrics after moneyball came out and now you see guys signed under the exact same methods that the book detailed?

Apparently you do not and are honestly stuck in believing that the scoreboard is somehow not the cumulative result of many of the statistics that pomeray and sagarin(who is awful) speak of.

Do you know what correlations means? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't get how you--someone who should apparently care deeply about the game and all advancements involved in it--seem to want to ignore something so simple as how certain trends lead to wins.

Did you guys get beat up by computers or something?
Click to expand...


There is your problem....

You are taking Baseball....a game based on pitcher vs. catcher (easy for stats) and trying to apply you geekdom to basketball, which don't work.

I've worked in basketball for 14 years now.... I talk to head coaches every single day. I've never once had one talk to me using the types of stupid arguments you are using.

Hatvol is right (but stop telling people I'm a good guy....I got a rep to keep)...... You don't seem to know much of anything about basketball, so you come here spouting numbers cause you don't know what you are watching during the game.

I spent over an hour talking hoops with Hatvol....he knows the game...... I've spent a few days listening to you.... You know Ken Pomeroy.

mm
 
#166
#166
Marc Maggard said:
Hatvol is right (but stop telling people I'm a good guy....I got a rep to keep)......
Click to expand...
I don't think you have anything to worry about. Given the perception of me around here, my calling you a good guy probably keeps your reputation right where you want it. I guess Billy Clyde decided to add the ball screen to the offense, huh?
 
#167
#167
lidderer said:
I just mean that stats can give a great deal of insight, and oftentimes even more than just watching 3 or 4 games by one team.
Click to expand...


Wow.... right there is your problem.

There isn't a coach in america who would trade a FULL SEASON's worth of stats for ONE HALF of tape to scout..... NOT A SINGLE ONE.

You are crazy wrong.

mm
 
#168
#168
hatvol96 said:
I don't think you have anything to worry about. Given the perception of me around here, my calling you a good guy probably keeps your reputation right where you want it. I guess Billy Clyde decided to add the ball screen to the offense, huh?
Click to expand...



haha.... I told you I was wondering if he would.... I guess he did.

mm
 
#170
#170
hatvol96 said:
I can't imagine any competent coach who won't add the ball screen to their arsenal against Tennessee after seeing tape of their inability to guard it.
Click to expand...


Agreed. It's odd how poorly UT seems to defend the ball screen.


Want to read something funny......Third to last paragraph..... since when does the media report on scouting discussions??? I imagine they just wanted UK fans to know I work with other schools.....haha

courier-journal.com | Eric Crawford | The Courier-Journal

mm
 
#171
#171
Is the author sure the special ed kid next to him wasn't named Hyams or Dearstone?
 
#172
#172
Marc Maggard said:
Wow.... right there is your problem.

There isn't a coach in america who would trade a FULL SEASON's worth of stats for ONE HALF of tape to scout..... NOT A SINGLE ONE.

You are crazy wrong.

mm
Click to expand...

Thankfully that had nothing to do with what I was saying.

It's so clearly honest it doesnt even deserve mention that for a coach--FOR A COACH--a gamefilm is about a gabillion times more effective than JUST looking at numbers. If the matter is ever: "Hey Coach, you can either look at this gamefilm, or read up on their numbers, which is it?" then of course the answer is obvious--and also suggests some really poor budgeting by that staff.

But we're talking about a) using both film and what the film doesn't tell otherwise(e.g. Wow, Arkansas toppled some big foes and looked effective doing so! This team is tough! vs Wow, Arky looked good that game, but it seems like an anomoly just based on their other totals vs weaker foes), b) how a fan(note well: this messageboard's near-entire contigent) can grasp a better understanding of teams they haven't had the opportunity to witness play a lot, or even a little.

You are crazy wrong at reading.

The point about the TOs still holds: Kentucky turned the ball over almost exactly in line with what the vols usually force, plus a bit more to account for kentucky's continually erring on that end. That was my contention, and it played out. And by the end of the year they'll be right where I said they would in that category.
 
#173
#173
BigPapaVol said:
I could have made the call without stats.
Click to expand...

Most couldn't have, and didnt. Congrats.

In fact yahoo users(obv. a flawed measure, but readily at hand) has them 23rd. AP voting at 27th. Coaches voting at 26th.

Clearly those arent' the best measures, but it gives you a little sense of perception about the team. You may have made that call without the stats, but you were in the minority on that.

I could have just looked at numbers and told you they were no better than 80th in the country, regardless their big wins.
 
#174
#174
lidderer said:
I could have just looked at numbers and told you they were no better than 80th in the country, regardless their big wins.
Click to expand...
they're better than 80th in the country and have the talent to knock off good teams. Your stats wouldn't have told you that. They have a freshman PG who has the ability to be a monster on any given night, but who also has the ability to make Ramar look good. That type of up and down play doesn't come from the stat book. It comes from watching basketball games and seeing how the kid plays.
 
#175
#175
hatvol96 said:
You could have seen, without Ken Pomeroy's stats, that a painfully young team who managed to lose to Missouri State would struggle with prosperity? How could you be so wise? I am going to stop watching games and simply read statistical reports off KenPom.com while viewing episodes of Knight Rider. Actually watching games is passe.
Click to expand...

This is like me saying that you hate numbers so much you don't even pay attention to the scoreboard. Which would be wrong and something you never said.

There's like 20 posts in here that say "watching the games AND looking at stats" is the ideal, but you're stuck in this weird stance where you think it's like you vs a computer or something, or like stats are an enemy.

I guess it provides you with an opportunity to make weak attempts at humour instead of addressing the subtleties, so hey good luck with that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top