Breakdown tn vs kentucky (merged)

[Marc Maggard]

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?

Trust me, there is nothing you can learn from anyone about basketball.... just stick with Pomeroy....that's your niche.

and what are the stats for how many TO's are forced by the defense and how many are just bad passes....like throwing the ball out of bounds with nobody around ya???

It should also be telling to you that nobody agrees with you.....

mm

 

[lidderer]

Trust me, there is nothing you can learn from anyone about basketball.... just stick with Pomeroy....that's your niche.

and what are the stats for how many TO's are forced by the defense and how many are just bad passes....like throwing the ball out of bounds with nobody around ya???

mm

There is plenty to learn from every person, assuming they are willing to offer something interesting. Unfortunately, most people just spout opinions and don't provide much backing. I hope I'll learn some interesting stuff on this board soon, and I probably will.

Have you honestly never seen an ESPN gamecast where they show those very stats? Dude, they do it for almost every game at some point. I guess, ironically, you should try watching the games.

 

[lidderer]

It should also be telling to you that nobody agrees with you.....

mm

It's basically two scouts who obviously fear stats--threatening your status, etc., which is evidenced by how both of you keep arguing that stats arent better than watching, meanwhile NO ONE has said that yet, haha--and some other guy.

People gravitate to oppositions, and basketball and most sports are fundamentally tradiionalist, so it really should be no surprise that this is the case.

But that's funny you mention that, because no one agreed with me about arkansas being overrated, and yet voila.

 

[Marc Maggard]

There is plenty to learn from every person, assuming they are willing to offer something interesting. Unfortunately, most people just spout opinions and don't provide much backing. I hope I'll learn some interesting stuff on this board soon, and I probably will.

Have you honestly never seen an ESPN gamecast where they show those very stats? Dude, they do it for almost every game at some point. I guess, ironically, you should try watching the games.

You have failed to show me the stats for unforced TO's.

Do you deny that there are TO's that are not the result of defensive pressure? Do you not agree that there are TO's that are just bad offensive plays and result against an average level of defense?

And if those do exist (hint.... they do)..... why would it surprise you that some teams are more prone to those types of TO's? UK is prone to just throwing the ball away..... have been all year. And I've been correct in saying it all year.

mm

 

[Marc Maggard]

It's basically two scouts who obviously fear stats--threatening your status, etc., which is evidenced by how both of you keep arguing that stats arent better than watching, meanwhile NO ONE has said that yet, haha--and some other guy.

People gravitate to oppositions, and basketball and most sports are fundamentally tradiionalist, so it really should be no surprise that this is the case.

But that's funny you mention that, because no one agreed with me about arkansas being overrated, and yet voila.

Good lord dude.... I can promise you that you are not putting any fear into me at all....haha.

I don't think you're going to get any paychecks from college coaches with your incredible stat analysis

Thanks for the chuckle.

mm

 

[lidderer]

You have failed to show me the stats for unforced TO's.

Do you deny that there are TO's that are not the result of defensive pressure? Do you not agree that there are TO's that are just bad offensive plays and result against an average level of defense?

And if those do exist (hint.... they do)..... why would it surprise you that some teams are more prone to those types of TO's? UK is prone to just throwing the ball away..... have been all year. And I've been correct in saying it all year.

mm

I think you just havent been reading my responses. I even said right away that of course there is a distinction between teams that get forced into TOs and teams that simply Turnover the ball. The learning curve on that is not steep, however. Hence partly my reason for assuring that they will remain turnover prone.

You contended that small adjustments, or a little better wing play would correct their TO problem, which I saw as more a product of several things and not simply dumb passes(which every team does throughout they year anyway, no matter the frequency difference).

Kentucky will finish in the bottom 3rd of all teams in turnovers by years end, precisely because there is no 'small adjustment', but rather a very large one necessary for them to fix this.

It will not happen to any significant degree.

 

[lidderer]

Good lord dude.... I can promise you that you are not putting any fear into me at all....haha.

I don't think you're going to get any paychecks from college coaches with your incredible stat analysis

Thanks for the chuckle.

mm

Well hey look: more misreading! You obviously hate stats because if they had great saliency they'd render you meaningless. I am not a stat, despite your wierd claims as such.

Your 2nd paragraph shows this weird defensiveness completly: no one has said a stat is better than someone who watches games and looks at stats. Not once has that been said, and yet, strangely, you keep talking about a paycheck and college coaches.

I had a prof. a long time ago that got tenure at a major university because he went through the motions, but he was continually proven wrong in class by un-tenured minds. If you honestly believe that he is right ipso facto his paycheck then you have a rude awakening for you.

Read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, it's a great read and should shed light on this narrow opinon of yours. I mean that too, not as a jab, but as something I think you'd genuinely find interesting. But I'm sure you'll just get back your back up and respond abruptly and grade-schoolish like "i had a good chuckle" or whatever.

Good luck with Kentucky

 

[Marc Maggard]

I think you just havent been reading my responses. I even said right away that of course there is a distinction between teams that get forced into TOs and teams that simply Turnover the ball. The learning curve on that is not steep, however. Hence partly my reason for assuring that they will remain turnover prone.

You contended that small adjustments, or a little better wing play would correct their TO problem, which I saw as more a product of several things and not simply dumb passes(which every team does throughout they year anyway, no matter the frequency difference).

Kentucky will finish in the bottom 3rd of all teams in turnovers by years end, precisely because there is no 'small adjustment', but rather a very large one necessary for them to fix this.

It will not happen to any significant degree.

Uh, I think it's you who has not read.....

I've not been making the argument that they were going to improve at any specific pace.... I simply was saying that UK's high TO rate was more due to things UK was doing stupid (bad passes) as opposed to some defensive pressure.

Of course teams who force more TO's are going to see more TO's from UK (and every other team they play)..... so, if one team forces 10 TO's a game, Uk will have 15..... if another team forces 15 a game, UK will have 20..... (not real numbers so please don't try to put em into Kenpom.com's computer).

My point has ALWAYS been that UK is not prone to the press..... that they don't get the ball taken away at any higer rate than some other average TO team.... but if you give em some time, they will throw the ball to you.

So, let me say it again..... UK handles the press as well as any team....and UT didn't force TO's via the press (which is what my comment was about). I've not made any claims that UK is going to get any better about not making really stupid passes.....

mm

 

[hatvol96]

It's basically two scouts who obviously fear stats--threatening your status, etc., which is evidenced by how both of you keep arguing that stats arent better than watching, meanwhile NO ONE has said that yet, haha--and some other guy.

People gravitate to oppositions, and basketball and most sports are fundamentally tradiionalist, so it really should be no surprise that this is the case.

But that's funny you mention that, because no one agreed with me about arkansas being overrated, and yet voila.

I picked Arkansas to finish at the bottom of the West in October. I haven't wavered from that. I didn't have to wait for the games to begin and Ken Pomeroy to start posting a bunch of meaningless numbers.

 

[Marc Maggard]

Well hey look: more misreading! You obviously hate stats because if they had great saliency they'd render you meaningless. I am not a stat, despite your wierd claims as such.

Your 2nd paragraph shows this weird defensiveness completly: no one has said a stat is better than someone who watches games and looks at stats. Not once has that been said, and yet, strangely, you keep talking about a paycheck and college coaches.

I had a prof. a long time ago that got tenure at a major university because he went through the motions, but he was continually proven wrong in class by un-tenured minds. If you honestly believe that he is right ipso facto his paycheck then you have a rude awakening for you.

Read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, it's a great read and should shed light on this narrow opinon of yours. I mean that too, not as a jab, but as something I think you'd genuinely find interesting. But I'm sure you'll just get back your back up and respond abruptly and grade-schoolish like "i had a good chuckle" or whatever.

Good luck with Kentucky

Believe it or not, I'm quite familiar with Malcolm Gladwell.

And I'm not anti stats... not at all. I just don't think you know anything BUT stats..... You've certainly not done anything to show anyone here that you have any sort of basketball mind.

Why don't you do this.....tell me what offense you would run if you were UT's coach and why..... Would you employ the UCLA cut? and if so, for who. Do you prefer to hard hedge a screen at the wing, and if so, where would you bring your help from? What are the benefits of the flat screen at the key? What good is the flex offense and what kinds of players do you need to make it work.

Let's actually talk hoops instead of numbers......I hoestly don't think you can do it.....now.... get to googling.

And yeah, a tenured professor is just like a basketball scout where coaches vote on your value every single year with a check...... silly.

mm

 

[lidderer]

Uh, I think it's you who has not read.....

I've not been making the argument that they were going to improve at any specific pace.... I simply was saying that UK's high TO rate was more due to things UK was doing stupid (bad passes) as opposed to some defensive pressure.

Of course teams who force more TO's are going to see more TO's from UK (and every other team they play)..... so, if one team forces 10 TO's a game, Uk will have 15..... if another team forces 15 a game, UK will have 20..... (not real numbers so please don't try to put em into Kenpom.com's computer).

My point has ALWAYS been that UK is not prone to the press..... that they don't get the ball taken away at any higer rate than some other average TO team.... but if you give em some time, they will throw the ball to you.

So, let me say it again..... UK handles the press as well as any team....and UT didn't force TO's via the press (which is what my comment was about). I've not made any claims that UK is going to get any better about not making really stupid passes.....

mm

"actually, that's correct. UK can fix the problem with a bit more care from the wings..... and they have fixed some of it.

I've tracked every TO in every game since the first one......I'm not just claiming something that isn't true.... UK gives the ball away for a large portion of their TO's.... It's almost ridiculous how bad they have been at the "unforced errors"..... but they are showing some signs of improvement....."

this doesn't jibe with "i've not made any claims that UK is going to get any better". In fact saying it just takes 'a bit more care' and that "they have fixed some of it" and that "they are showing signs of improvement" is about as close to a claim as one can get.

And if you honestly do feel that kentucky probably won't improve much in this regard, like I feel, then I guess we agreed all along on that main point.


edit: kenpom actually does account for the thing you're saying it can't do--determine a greater likelihood of TOs by a given team. Also: it's not an interactive 'computer', it is a website, like how Sea of Blue is a website, so there's nothing I can type in.

 

[hatvol96]

It's basically two scouts who obviously fear stats--threatening your status, etc., which is evidenced by how both of you keep arguing that stats arent better than watching, meanwhile NO ONE has said that yet, haha--and some other guy.

People gravitate to oppositions, and basketball and most sports are fundamentally tradiionalist, so it really should be no surprise that this is the case.

But that's funny you mention that, because no one agreed with me about arkansas being overrated, and yet voila.

Take me up on my bet. We'll see whose "status" gets threatened.

 

[Marc Maggard]

"actually, that's correct. UK can fix the problem with a bit more care from the wings..... and they have fixed some of it.

I've tracked every TO in every game since the first one......I'm not just claiming something that isn't true.... UK gives the ball away for a large portion of their TO's.... It's almost ridiculous how bad they have been at the "unforced errors"..... but they are showing some signs of improvement....."

this doesn't jibe with "i've not made any claims that UK is going to get any better". In fact saying it just takes 'a bit more care' and that "they have fixed some of it" and that "they are showing signs of improvement" is about as close to a claim as one can get.

And if you honestly do feel that kentucky probably won't improve much in this regard, like I feel, then I guess we agreed all along on that main point.


edit: kenpom actually does account for the thing you're saying it can't do--determine a greater likelihood of TOs by a given team. Also: it's not an interactive 'computer', it is a website, like how Sea of Blue is a website, so there's nothing I can type in.

UK HAS gotten better at not making the stupid passes..... and I said so, but I wasn't CLAIMING they would get better....just saying they had. I have made NO claims that UK would continue to improve.... I said they already had.

The main point had nothing to do with if they would improve any further..... the main point was that UT would not be able to use the full court press to force TO's.....good lord dude.

And you are really think if you think I didn't know Kenpom was a website and not some super computer....lol.

Now, please answer some of those basketball questions....I"d love to hear some of your ideas about something OTHER THAN stats...... you claim you know basketball.....

mm

 

[lidderer]

Take me up on my bet. We'll see whose "status" gets threatened.

again, I am not a stat. I have no status in terms of being a stat, nor do I aspire to it. How could you not feel threatened by the amount of seriousness some people ascribe to just stats though? I mean it's basically saying "we dont need scouts, we got this"-which we both know is wrong and just as dumb as saying stats are stupid.

If I were a scout I'd be annoyed--no matter how I felt about security--that I was be undermined or taken for granted. Jeez dude, it wasnt even a shot at you, just noting that you seem a bit too defensive about something no one is even laying on you.

And then here you did it again, and got your back up.

That said, I'm not threatened by your knowledge largely because you seem to dismiss stats. I imagine you have a wealth of insights, and I probably speak for most of the board when I say that I'd like to see some more examples of that kind of insight beyond just "michigan state lost two games and have to get back on track or there will be trouble" or "bruce pearl is not a good coach". I mean that's boring larry king gossip column stuff, and I know you must have more than that.

I'm sure if you came forward with more scout-type stuff I'd see what you have to offer. Why don't you do that stuff though, honestly? People here would be very grateful for real insight, though they seem to be grateful for "bruce is a bad coach" stuff too, which is weird.

 

[lidderer]

UK HAS gotten better at not making the stupid passes..... and I said so, but I wasn't CLAIMING they would get better....just saying they had. I have made NO claims that UK would continue to improve.... I said they already had.

The main point had nothing to do with if they would improve any further..... the main point was that UT would not be able to use the full court press to force TO's.....good lord dude.

And you are really think if you think I didn't know Kenpom was a website and not some super computer....lol.

Now, please answer some of those basketball questions....I"d love to hear some of your ideas about something OTHER THAN stats...... you claim you know basketball.....

mm

I am really 'think'! I guess you are right!

What basketball questions were there?

also:
my main point was only that Kentucky wouldnt improve at all, which is what you quoted when you first addresssed me. So, um,...GOOD LORD DUDE!

 

[hatvol96]

again, I am not a stat. I have no status in terms of being a stat, nor do I aspire to it. How could you not feel threatened by the amount of seriousness some people ascribe to just stats though? I mean it's basically saying "we dont need scouts, we got this"-which we both know is wrong and just as dumb as saying stats are stupid.

If I were a scout I'd be annoyed--no matter how I felt about security--that I was be undermined or taken for granted. Jeez dude, it wasnt even a shot at you, just noting that you seem a bit too defensive about something no one is even laying on you.

And then here you did it again, and got your back up.

That said, I'm not threatened by your knowledge largely because you seem to dismiss stats. I imagine you have a wealth of insights, and I probably speak for most of the board when I say that I'd like to see some more examples of that kind of insight beyond just "michigan state lost two games and have to get back on track or there will be trouble" or "bruce pearl is not a good coach". I mean that's boring larry king gossip column stuff, and I know you must have more than that.

I'm sure if you came forward with more scout-type stuff I'd see what you have to offer. Why don't you do that stuff though, honestly? People here would be very grateful for real insight, though they seem to be grateful for "bruce is a bad coach" stuff too, which is weird.

I'm still befuddled where you got the impression I'm a scout. I dismiss the statistical silliness you rant on about not out of a need to protect my position, I'm an attorney. I dismiss the statistical silliness you babble on about because I know everyone who matters in college basketball finds it every bit as meaningless as I do.

 

[Marc Maggard]

I am really 'think'! I guess you are right!

What basketball questions were there?

also:
my main point was only that Kentucky wouldnt improve at all, which is what you quoted when you first addresssed me. So, um,...GOOD LORD DUDE!

No. YOU replied to ME.....

You said that UK didn't make any more "stupid" To's than any other team and started posting stats to show it.....lol

mm

 

[Marc Maggard]

again, I am not a stat. I have no status in terms of being a stat, nor do I aspire to it. How could you not feel threatened by the amount of seriousness some people ascribe to just stats though? I mean it's basically saying "we dont need scouts, we got this"-which we both know is wrong and just as dumb as saying stats are stupid.

If I were a scout I'd be annoyed--no matter how I felt about security--that I was be undermined or taken for granted. Jeez dude, it wasnt even a shot at you, just noting that you seem a bit too defensive about something no one is even laying on you.

And then here you did it again, and got your back up.

That said, I'm not threatened by your knowledge largely because you seem to dismiss stats. I imagine you have a wealth of insights, and I probably speak for most of the board when I say that I'd like to see some more examples of that kind of insight beyond just "michigan state lost two games and have to get back on track or there will be trouble" or "bruce pearl is not a good coach". I mean that's boring larry king gossip column stuff, and I know you must have more than that.

I'm sure if you came forward with more scout-type stuff I'd see what you have to offer. Why don't you do that stuff though, honestly? People here would be very grateful for real insight, though they seem to be grateful for "bruce is a bad coach" stuff too, which is weird.

Jeesh dude, you don't get it..... none of us are DISMISSING stats as you claim.... we are just saying that you don't know anything BUT the stats and it's silly for you to try to talk hoops with nothing but a bunch of numbers.....

mm

 

[Marc Maggard]

What basketball questions were there?

Why don't you do this.....tell me what offense you would run if you were UT's coach and why..... Would you employ the UCLA cut? and if so, for who. Do you prefer to hard hedge a screen at the wing, and if so, where would you bring your help from? What are the benefits of the flat screen at the key? What good is the flex offense and what kinds of players do you need to make it work.

mm

 

[lidderer]

Believe it or not, I'm quite familiar with Malcolm Gladwell.

And I'm not anti stats... not at all. I just don't think you know anything BUT stats..... You've certainly not done anything to show anyone here that you have any sort of basketball mind.

Why don't you do this.....tell me what offense you would run if you were UT's coach and why..... Would you employ the UCLA cut? and if so, for who. Do you prefer to hard hedge a screen at the wing, and if so, where would you bring your help from? What are the benefits of the flat screen at the key? What good is the flex offense and what kinds of players do you need to make it work.

Let's actually talk hoops instead of numbers......I hoestly don't think you can do it.....now.... get to googling.

And yeah, a tenured professor is just like a basketball scout where coaches vote on your value every single year with a check...... silly.

mm

My bad, this post was at the bottom of the page so I missed it.

On these questions. And those are particularly good questions, but you're right, what would be the point in me answering since when I posted my answers you'd just say "nice googling". There is nothing to gain in that, unless you really want to have a good discussion about that stuff, which I sense you really don't.

But if you honestly believe someone who takes time to post on a tiny messageboard about college basketball, and who also like to reserach stats about that very sport, does not know what a UCLA cut is, or what base offenses are at the ready(how about no more flex for starters! jk), nor what a pick-game-like hard hedge screen is, you are underestimating the basic competence of anyone who follows sports closely.

Recall: this conversation started because you quoted a post of mine that dealt with stats, this is why we are only take in that limited scope.

I will gladly answer all your questions, and with interest in a good discussion from that, but I get the sense you meant them in mean-spirit and really have no intention of discussing the finer points of schemes and execution since you have already dismissed anything I have to say because I like stats TOO.

That said, I'm glad you enjoy Gladwell, he happened to be the writer of that new yorker article I mentioned pages ago. You would enjoy it.

 

[lidderer]

I'm still befuddled where you got the impression I'm a scout. I dismiss the statistical silliness you rant on about not out of a need to protect my position, I'm an attorney. I dismiss the statistical silliness you babble on about because I know everyone who matters in college basketball finds it every bit as meaningless as I do.

Oh, someone said you were a scout awhile ago, I just took their word for it. My bad.

You go to all the games though, right? And you claim to be linked up with insiders and whatnot, no?

 

[Marc Maggard]

Oh, someone said you were a scout awhile ago, I just took their word for it. My bad.

You go to all the games though, right? And you claim to be linked up with insiders and whatnot, no?

They probably said I was a scout.... I am

mm

 

[lidderer]

No. YOU replied to ME.....

You said that UK didn't make any more "stupid" To's than any other team and started posting stats to show it.....lol

mm

oh ya, you opened the reply with "actually that's correct" which led me to think maybe you were supporting someone's claim, and not your own. My mistake.

But your mistake on what I said, which was actually:

"Saying KY's turnovers come mostly from dumb halfcourt passes is a bit disingenuous, and implies that they can easily fix this flaw with just some minor tweaking. They turn the ball over a quarter of the time. That is not a typo nor an exaggeration: 25%!! That's staggering, and also worse than about 300 teams in Div-1.

The problem, however, is that they more than make up for it in effective shooting O and D."

There seems to be nothing wrong about what I said there, so the response seems weird. And if you honestly think citing how often a team turns it over is some crazy wild stat, man, just wow.

 

[lidderer]

They probably said I was a scout.... I am

mm

No I havent seen anyone say that about you, but I know you are because you have mentioned it a bunch.

 

[hatvol96]

You go to all the games though, right? And you claim to be linked up with insiders and whatnot, no?

1. Yes.
2. I don't "claim" anything. My track record here speaks for itself.