Up Tempo or Slow it Down??

#51
#51
BruinVol said:
If martin had wanted to push tempo like this all along then he has done a poor job of getting his team to perform his wishes. A year and a half is too long to get your point across. That's why I think he changed his philosophy.
Click to expand...

Mostly that would be true but aside from Golden and McRae you have had Reese and Moore trying their hands at handling the ball. Those guys were not here last year and have been learning just like Golden and McRae did last here. Why do think when Golden's head is on straight is when we run the faster tempo? I think that is why our defense has gotten better as well. Our young guys learing to switch and reading to offense has lead to better defense and therefore more forced turnovers which has given us more fastbreak chances.
 
#52
#52
e-VOL-ution2013 said:
Mostly that would be true but aside from Golden and McRae you have had Reese and Moore trying their hands at handling the ball. Those guys were not here last year and have been learning just like Golden and McRae did last here. Why do think when Golden's head is on straight is when we run the faster tempo? I think that is why our defense has gotten better as well. Our young guys learing to switch and reading to offense has lead to better defense and therefore more forced turnovers which has given us more fastbreak chances.
Click to expand...
Good points for sure but IMO our defense couldn't have been better early in the season. All games prior to memphis we were as a lock down half court defensive team as anybody in the country IMO.
 
#53
#53
BruinVol said:
Good points for sure but IMO our defense couldn't have been better early in the season. All games prior to memphis we were as a lock down half court defensive team as anybody in the country IMO.
Click to expand...

I can't argue that point but I guess for me I was looking at the competition we played prior to Memphus vs the our conference play.
 
#54
#54
BruinVol said:
Do you think that game scared martin back into a slower pace??
Click to expand...

No, because as you've seen we've picked up the pace once again. IMO...like I've been saying he's wanted them to push in certain spots all year, but they didn't understand when to and when not to...and when to slow it up to regain control. That was evidenced IMO by the Memphis game...we've done a much better job recently and that's evidenced by our tunrovers decreasing, even though I believe some have said our possesions have gone up.
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
BruinVol said:
Good points for sure but IMO our defense couldn't have been better early in the season. All games prior to memphis we were as a lock down half court defensive team as anybody in the country IMO.
Click to expand...

That's far from true and has been addressed a few time...holding a team to <60 doesn't mean you're a good defensive team. We limited possesions and slowed the game down, that's why...we were actually one of the word defensive efficiency teams in the SEC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
bleedingTNorange said:
we were actually one of the word defensive efficiency teams in the SEC.
Click to expand...

I have seen that stat but I don't think that was true pre memphis. We held Georgetown and Virginia to very low totals and yes pace had something alot to do with that but our half court d was great at that time. It was the stretch starting with memphis that our d efficiently went to hell in a hand basket.
 
#57
#57
BruinVol said:
I have seen that stat but I don't think that was true pre memphis. We held Georgetown and Virginia to very low totals and yes pace had something alot to do with that but our half court d was great at that time. It was the stretch starting with memphis that our d efficiently went to hell in a hand basket.
Click to expand...

It was all year, not just the 3-4 games after Memphis.
 
Last edited:
#61
#61
BruinVol said:
Got any proof?
Click to expand...

Yeah man, they're called statistics. Our defensive efficiency was terrible. We limited possessions and kept the scores low, which was why we had a good scoring defense, but it was FAR from efficient.

If you're not convinced, look it up. It was looked up at one point, and that's what BTO is referencing. We don't need to Google stuff for you, you're a big boy.
 
Last edited:
#63
#63
bleedingTNorange said:
Idk if you can back date those rating on KenPom or not, but I know at that time and pretty much all year our defensive efficiency has not been nearly as good as people thought.
Click to expand...

Anybody feel like give us the cliff note definition for Defensive Efficiency?

Cause from my point of view, being stingy on D is pretty darn efficent. Provided you can score more than 35 per.
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
Chris4Vols22 said:
Yeah man, they're called statistics. Our defensive efficiency was terrible. We limited possessions and kept the scores low, which was why we had a good scoring defense, but it was FAR from efficient.

If you're not convinced, look it up. It was looked up at one point, and that's what BTO is referencing. We don't need to Google stuff for you, you're a big boy.
Click to expand...

We are having a very good non confrontation discussion here before this big boy smart ... Showed up.


Nobody is argueing that the defensive efficiency has been bad. In fact I know we were last in the league around mid conference season. I want to see stats showing we were at the bottom of the league just before the memphis game. I don't buy that it was and won't until that stat is shown on here. Google doesn't show it since this big boy does know how to use it.
 
#68
#68
BruinVol said:
We are having a very good non confrontation discussion here before this big boy smart ... Showed up.


Nobody is argueing that the defensive efficiency has been bad. In fact I know we were last in the league around mid conference season. I want to see stats showing we were at the bottom of the league just before the memphis game. I don't buy that it was and won't until that stat is shown on here. Google doesn't show it since this big boy does know how to use it.
Click to expand...

after looking at some of the criteria for D efficiency I guess I can see it. I agree with the premise that holding teams to a low score should be the main factor. But the whole D eff. takes into account TO's and pace. Neither of these were our forte at that time.
 
#69
#69
Chris4Vols22 said:
.
Click to expand...

I did just figure it out and I'll be damned somebody has just been proven right!!!


On 1/4 just before the memphis game we were 34 th in the country in the defensive efficiency.


Today we are 121.



Anybody need to clarify their post written as fact????
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
And on 2/4 we were 106th.



In fact our defensive efficiency is lower now than even those mid conference ratings.
 
Last edited:
#71
#71
If you want to trust teamrankings.com...

121 compared to KPom's 64? I don't know who's wrong, but that's a pretty big discrepancy.
 
#72
#72
Chris4Vols22 said:
If you want to trust teamrankings.com...

121 compared to KPom's 64? I don't know who's wrong, but that's a pretty big discrepancy.
Click to expand...

Does KPom have a calendar on it to see how the ratings were all year like team rankings.com?

I can't access that site without a subscription.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top