Breakdown tn vs kentucky (merged)

[Marc Maggard]

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.

good lord... will he ever stop talking about his stupid stats.

Every smart basketball person on this site has told him he's mildly retarded...(no offense).... but he still thinks he knows something due to Ken Pomeroy.

You are much better off going back to watch some basetball, dude.

I'm more interested in talking to Vol fans who know hoops.

mm

 

[lidderer]

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.

Actually 'my'(haha what?) stats would have told me just that--their probability of knocking off a good team on a given night. The stats also tell me that he's a freshmen(stats=more than just numbers!) and tells me exactly his level of efficiency on given nights AND on the whole, which is precisely what you said it couldnt do up there.

That type of play very much does come from the stat book. And yes, of course, no one has argued this EVER, it also comes from watching all their games.

You saying they are better than 80th doesn't make them so, and so isn't really any kind of effective counter. They're a very poor team, and I expect you'll see them lose 5 of their next 8.

 

[Marc Maggard]

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.

No, they are 80th. How can you not see that.... look at the stats!!!:crazy:

mm

 

[BigPapaVol]

Actually 'my'(haha what?) stats would have told me just that--their probability of knocking off a good team on a given night. The stats also tell me that he's a freshmen(stats=more than just numbers!) and tells me exactly his level of efficiency on given nights AND on the whole, which is precisely what you said it couldnt do up there.

That type of play very much does come from the stat book. And yes, of course, no one has argued this EVER, it also comes from watching all their games.

You saying they are better than 80th doesn't make them so, and so isn't really any kind of effective counter. They're a very poor team, and I expect you'll see them lose 5 of their next 8.

so you knew from the stats of their games playing a bunch of nobodies that they had the ability to beat OU and TX. That's stupid. I suspect Clemson's stats tell you a story of their team, but I know they're worthless.

 

[lidderer]

good lord... will he ever stop talking about his stupid stats.

Every smart basketball person on this site has told him he's mildly retarded...(no offense).... but he still thinks he knows something due to Ken Pomeroy.

You are much better off going back to watch some basetball, dude.

I'm more interested in talking to Vol fans who know hoops.

mm

Hahaha, this is the most perfectly evasive white-towel.

Thank you.

Also, since you are braindead to the point where you can't read....(no offense man)....I will type in caps for you one more time, marc-y: I....WATCH....GAMES....TOO.

STATS.....ARENT.....YOUR.....ENEMY

KENPOMEROY is a collection of numbers, not some scientist. Even a guy like Jay Bilas(meh) is smart enough to see the use in ADDING to your knowledge bank. You are clearly to arrogant to see that.

 

[Marc Maggard]

Actually 'my'(haha what?) stats would have told me just that--their probability of knocking off a good team on a given night. The stats also tell me that he's a freshmen(stats=more than just numbers!) and tells me exactly his level of efficiency on given nights AND on the whole, which is precisely what you said it couldnt do up there.

That type of play very much does come from the stat book. And yes, of course, no one has argued this EVER, it also comes from watching all their games.

You saying they are better than 80th doesn't make them so, and so isn't really any kind of effective counter. They're a very poor team, and I expect you'll see them lose 5 of their next 8.

Ok, stat boy.......


Uconn vs. St Johns.....
UNC vs. Virginia.....

Tell us what the stats tell you about tonights ESPN games...... this will be fun

mm

 

[Marc Maggard]

Hahaha, this is the most perfectly evasive white-towel.

Thank you.

Also, since you are braindead to the point where you can't read....(no offense man)....I will type in caps for you one more time, marc-y: I....WATCH....GAMES....TOO.

STATS.....ARENT.....YOUR.....ENEMY

KENPOMEROY is a collection of numbers, not some scientist. Even a guy like Jay Bilas(meh) is smart enough to see the use in ADDING to your knowledge bank. You are clearly to arrogant to see that.

I believe you watch some games.... I just don't believe you know what you are watching..... which is why you need to go look at the stats to see if you can figure it out.

I suppose you think it's a "white towel" when every person here has realized you don't know what you are talking about.....lol

mm

 

[lidderer]

so you knew from the stats of their games playing a bunch of nobodies that they had the ability to beat OU and TX. That's stupid. I suspect Clemson's stats tell you a story of their team, but I know they're worthless.

Actually, no it's not stupid. Oklahoma wins games by relying in part on poor fg% from opp.s and turnovers, and even if they shoot well(which they did) they would still be susceptible to a team that shoots well consistently, which stats would tell you isnt the case for all other teams.

Stats would have told me there is about a 30% chance they win that game, which is the exact same as saying "they had the ABILITY to beat OU and TX".

Clemson's stats tell me they are too highly ranked, but are a good team nonetheless. 4th in their division.

 

[lidderer]

I believe you watch some games.... I just don't believe you know what you are watching..... which is why you need to go look at the stats to see if you can figure it out.

I suppose you think it's a "white towel" when every person here has realized you don't know what you are talking about.....lol

mm

I'm just not as reductionist as you, I think. I imagine that even though I don't particularly agree with someone's views in a big-picture sense, that they still may have something interesting on offer. You seem more like a black and white kinda guy. To each their own.

You can go right ahead and believe I dont know what I'm watching, or ignore all the stats you want. It is no skin off my back, but the first part just isn't true because I also enjoy statistics.

 

[Marc Maggard]

I'm just not as reductionist as you, I think. I imagine that even though I don't particularly agree with someone's views in a big-picture sense, that they still may have something interesting on offer. You seem more like a black and white kinda guy. To each their own.

You can go right ahead and believe I dont know what I'm watching, or ignore all the stats you want. It is no skin off my back, but the first part just isn't true because I also enjoy statistics.

I don't think you don't know what you are watching because you like stats..... I think you don't know what you are watching because of what you've posted....

And I have no problem with stats.... I just don't really have much use for people who try to tell me something I know isn't accurate and use stats to try to support it......

mm

 

[lidderer]

Ok, stat boy.......


Uconn vs. St Johns.....
UNC vs. Virginia.....

Tell us what the stats tell you about tonights ESPN games...... this will be fun

mm

This is called the straw man argument. And it's what is wrong with politics and rhetoric today.

You give me your final score and I'll give you mine. It does appear, however, that a Uconn opponents fg% factors in significantly more than it would for most teams. Stjs atrocious outside game and their inability to get to the line probably mean they'll have to rely on paint points or decent mid range jumpshooting, which sadly, for them, is where Uconn excels on Defense.




uconn 79 st johns 64

UNC 88 Virginia 76

 

[Marc Maggard]

This is called the straw man argument. And it's what is wrong with politics and rhetoric today.

You give me your final score and I'll give you mine. It does appear, however, that a Uconn opponents fg% factors in significantly more than it would for most teams. Stjs atrocious outside game and their inability to get to the line probably mean they'll have to rely on paint points or decent mid range jumpshooting, which sadly, for them, is where Uconn excels on Defense.




uconn 79 st johns 64

UNC 88 Virginia 76

I got no idea..... Haven't seen them enough to have an idea......but you have Ken Pomeroy and a ton of stats to tell you what is likely to happen..... so let's hear it....

and not just a score..... how is one team going to beat the other....

mm

 

[lidderer]

I don't think you don't know what you are watching because you like stats..... I think you don't know what you are watching because of what you've posted....

And I have no problem with stats.... I just don't really have much use for people who try to tell me something I know isn't accurate and use stats to try to support it......

mm

There hasn't been anything I've posted yet that has really proven untrue. I was dead-right about the Kentucky turnover thing as it played out on tuesday, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

And again, I'm sure you'll see by the end of they year that I was right about where they'd end up as well.

 

[lidderer]

I got no idea..... Haven't seen them enough to have an idea......but you have Ken Pomeroy and a ton of stats to tell you what is likely to happen..... so let's hear it.

mm

Well I think in that last graf I gave you a pretty good idea of what you can expect. As per the UnC/VA stuff: the classic and most overlooked stat is that teams protect the ball at a higher level than teams that steal the ball. Hmm, that's unclear. Like, if a team is great at stealing the ball plays a team that is great at protecting the ball, the latter team usually wins that particular matchup(TOs). Virginia is really bad at forcing, and UNC is quite excellent at holding onto the ball, so this suggests some doom in that area, statistically.

I would gladly carry on because there are many more interesting elements to the game that stats can show, but we both know that you just want this opportunity to say "haha you were wrong" and if it turned out I was correct you'd just wave it off somehow. So no need to waste both our times by continuing.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Actually, no it's not stupid. Oklahoma wins games by relying in part on poor fg% from opp.s and turnovers, and even if they shoot well(which they did) they would still be susceptible to a team that shoots well consistently, which stats would tell you isnt the case for all other teams.

Stats would have told me there is about a 30% chance they win that game, which is the exact same as saying "they had the ABILITY to beat OU and TX".

Clemson's stats tell me they are too highly ranked, but are a good team nonetheless. 4th in their division.

but you're basing this drivel on OU playing teams that they massively overmatched. How they play against better competition is a different animal. Stats simply can't account for context, ever. There is no way to spin stats to make them better. They have been around forever and are still used basically the same way.

 

[Marc Maggard]

Well I think in that last graf I gave you a pretty good idea of what you can expect. As per the UnC/VA stuff: the classic and most overlooked stat is that teams protect the ball at a higher level than teams that steal the ball. Hmm, that's unclear. Like, if a team is great at stealing the ball plays a team that is great at protecting the ball, the latter team usually wins that particular matchup(TOs). Virginia is really bad at forcing, and UNC is quite excellent at holding onto the ball, so this suggests some doom in that area, statistically.

I would gladly carry on because there are many more interesting elements to the game that stats can show, but we both know that you just want this opportunity to say "haha you were wrong" and if it turned out I was correct you'd just wave it off somehow. So no need to waste both our times by continuing.

You WERE wrong.... my original post was that UT would not get TO's from UK from using a full court press.... I was right. UK's TO's came from walks/charges/inbounds and typical D....not any full court press.

mm

 

[Marc Maggard]

but you're basing this drivel on OU playing teams that they massively overmatched. How they play against better competition is a different animal. Stats simply can't account for context, ever. There is no way to spin stats to make them better. They have been around forever and are still used basically the same way.

Preach on.... but good luck.....prolly not gonna work.

mm

 

[lidderer]

but you're basing this drivel on OU playing teams that they massively overmatched. How they play against better competition is a different animal. Stats simply can't account for context, ever. There is no way to spin stats to make them better. They have been around forever and are still used basically the same way.

That's just wrong. They are constantly evolving. I mean this is precisely what correlation coefficients are about--how to know which stats are important. And being able to run back through tests with massive computer and calculating/deciphering power is almost exactly why our advances in psychology and neuroscience and genetics have advanced so far.

If you honestly think stats--in any walk of life--are stagnant, you should really look into them more.

And actually, yes, stats today do just that: they account for context. Are they infallible? hell no. Just like how a guy who watches the games is wrong about 40% of the time too.

 

[lidderer]

You WERE wrong.... my original post was that UT would not get TO's from UK from using a full court press.... I was right. UK's TO's came from walks/charges/inbounds and typical D....not any full court press.

mm

How can I be wrong when I never said that would happen?

My point was simply that every team makes dumb TOs, kentucky just happens to be susceptible to teams that force turnovers, in fact almost in line with the level with which those teams average.

That is precisely what happened on tuesday.

 

[Marc Maggard]

How can I be wrong when I never said that would happen?

My point was simply that every team makes dumb TOs, kentucky just happens to be susceptible to teams that force turnovers, in fact almost in line with the level with which those teams average.

That is precisely what happened on tuesday.

ugh....

watch the games dude.... get off the internet.


mm

 

[BigPapaVol]

That's just wrong. They are constantly evolving. I mean this is precisely what correlation coefficients are about--how to know which stats are important. And being able to run back through tests with massive computer and calculating/deciphering power is almost exactly why our advances in psychology and neuroscience and genetics have advanced so far.

If you honestly think stats--in any walk of life--are stagnant, you should really look into them more.

And actually, yes, stats today do just that: they account for context. Are they infallible? hell no. Just like how a guy who watches the games is wrong about 40% of the time too.

No, stats don't account for context, ever. You can't account for what the coach was trying to get done, who the offense was attacking, who was in foul trouble, why the zone, Vandy's court, gimpy swingman, benching all starters, stoned before the game, pissed at coach, coach pissed at player, Mama's comin' to watch, my boyz are in town, I hate their center, etc. etc. etc.

I don't care how often you update your stats, they simply don't tell the story. It's been mentioned a lot, but that's why coaches don't recruit from the stat sheet. As a HS basketball player, I was a statistical beast, but I couldn't play at the top level of basketball. My stats would never have told you anything of the sort.

 

[lidderer]

ugh....

watch the games dude.... get off the internet.


mm

I can do two things at once thankfully....like watch games and look at stats!

I just watched Adrien's 'neat' dunk right there.

But yes, thank you for supplying no proof of where I said what you said I said. I'll save you some time: it never happened.

 

[Marc Maggard]

I can do two things at once thankfully....like watch games and look at stats!

I just watched Adrien's 'neat' dunk right there.

But yes, thank you for supplying no proof of where I said what you said I said. I'll save you some time: it never happened.

I told you that UK did not turn over the ball due to defensive pressure any more than an AVERAGE team does.... but a bigger percentage of their TO's were due to stupid passes.......

Go watch the games..... you'll see what I mean..... I was right....always was.

mm

 

[lidderer]

No, stats don't account for context, ever. You can't account for what the coach was trying to get done, who the offense was attacking, who was in foul trouble, why the zone, Vandy's court, gimpy swingman, benching all starters, stoned before the game, pissed at coach, coach pissed at player, Mama's comin' to watch, my boyz are in town, I hate their center, etc. etc. etc.

I don't care how often you update your stats, they simply don't tell the story. It's been mentioned a lot, but that's why coaches don't recruit from the stat sheet. As a HS basketball player, I was a statistical beast, but I couldn't play at the top level of basketball. My stats would never have told you anything of the sort.

again, guy, no one is saying stats are superior; rather: they are another elment to the story worthy of consideration. If you are recruiting a player, you'd be an idiot to ignore gamefilm.

Stats account for the context of opponent tendency and all that vast term implies. That is significantly more accountability than having watching a game or two provides.

You can deal with all your "is mama coming to towns" and "is the coach angry" and "did tommy eat whole wheat or white bread"s, but you'll find that stuff functions as white noise, ultimately cancelling each other out and only becoming 'causal' after-the-fact. If some dude scores 30 points and his dog just died we call that motivation in the face of pain, if he scores 0 we say he had a lot going on and lost focus, if he scores 15 we commend him for being able to work through it or whatever. All this stuff is after-the-fact and mostly useless unless you're an ESPN scribe.

 

[lidderer]

I told you that UK did not turn over the ball due to defensive pressure any more than an AVERAGE team does.... but a bigger percentage of their TO's were due to stupid passes.......

Go watch the games..... you'll see what I mean..... I was right....always was.

mm

I watched the game and I was right...always was(wow, you're onto something, just claiming rightness is fun and easy!)...kentucky will always turn the ball over in line with their opponents ability to do so..which is the true mark of a team bad at protection. Pressure Ds arent exclusively 'pressing' teams, which we talked about pages ago. And really, how many half court presses result in a large % of a teams turnovers in any game anyway? Hardly many.

I'm sorry, you didnt prove anything, I wish you had because I'd like to have learned something interesting from a scout.

Any other observations on kentucky?