Why slow it down????

#226
#226
BruinVol said:
You ask for a bigger sample size so here it is.

2yrs we have played 25 games that were under 130pts.

We went 12-13 with 61.2(well below average)possessions per game.

Clearly we want games over 130 and need more pace!!
Click to expand...

Bruin, I did the 2011-2012 numbers. Excluded Memphis.

In wins: 65.4

In losses: 65.6

Just like in 2012-2013. Very minor difference.

Calban is right over both of us. It's not the pace, it's how efficient you are in the pace.
 
#227
#227
zjcvols said:
Bruin, I did the 2011-2012 numbers.

In wins: 65.4

In losses: 65.6

Just like in 2012-2013. Very minor difference.

Calban is right over both of us. It's not the pace, it's how efficient you are in the pace.
Click to expand...



It's a combination of pace and scoring.

Those two numbers are directly related. I just proved that
 
#228
#228
BruinVol said:
It's a combination of pace and scoring.

Those two numbers are directly related. I just proved that
Click to expand...

No they are not.

Again, in losses and wins in 2011-2012 it was a difference of .2

There was no correlation to winning and pushing or slowing down the pace.
 
#229
#229
Spartacavolus said:
That you are still debating whether number of possessions is a good measure for pushing the pace is a joke, really. I gave you guys a dozen or so examples as to why it isn't. Sometimes learning something new isn't a bad thing, even if you've had your mind set all day that possession #'s are a good measure for attacking the rim early and hard.
Click to expand...

A little hypocritical for somebody who hasn't even attempted to back up their argument.

Also nobody else seems to care how you feel about possessions per game even though you keep saying the same thing over and over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#230
#230
zjcvols said:
No they are not.

Again, in losses and wins in 2011-2012 it was a difference of .2

There was no correlation to winning and pushing or slowing down the pace.
Click to expand...

How can you say there isn't a correlation in scoring and possessions??

I am showing you that that's exactly what they are and it improves our winning %
 
#231
#231
BruinVol said:
How can you say there isn't a correlation in scoring and possessions??

I am showing you that that's exactly what they are and it improves our winning %
Click to expand...

I bet in our wins our FG% was up.

Bruin, look, I ran the numbers for two years. There was no correlation between winning and losing in our possession numbers. They were basically the same. I don't know what else to tell you. You keep picking this random 130 number without backing up why you picked. Why not 120? Why not 140? Why not 138?

Our possession numbers in win and losses, for a full season, did not change.

Now, I think I could make a decent argument that in 2012-2013, that when we slowed down the game in SEC play, we did better because in our SEC wins (excluding TAMU) there was a down tick of four possessions per game. But that isn't perfect.
 
#232
#232
BruinVol said:
How can you say there isn't a correlation in scoring and possessions??

I am showing you that that's exactly what they are and it improves our winning %
Click to expand...

Just because you score more doesn't mean you had more possessions in Tennessee's case.

It means we more efficient on offense (and moreso on defense and better rebounding).
 
#233
#233
zjcvols said:
I bet in our wins our FG% was up.

Bruin, look, I ran the numbers for two years. There was no correlation between winning and losing in our possession numbers. They were basically the same. I don't know what else to tell you. You keep picking this random 130 number without backing up why you picked. Why not 120? Why not 140? Why not 138?

Our possession numbers in win and losses, for a full season, did not change.

Now, I think I could make a decent argument that in 2012-2013, that when we slowed down the game in SEC play, we did better because in our SEC wins (excluding TAMU) there was a down tick of four possessions per game. But that isn't perfect.
Click to expand...

I picked 130 because that clearly is where we gain a huge advantage of winning.

I also am proving more possessions gets our games to 130
 
#234
#234
This will be my only post....bruin you're OP is talking about uptempo, you even use the phrase "uptempo" in your post.

As has been posted a thousand time, there is no difference hardly in possesions per game in our wins verse losses, the slight difference actually shows we play slower on average in our wins than losses.

If you want to change your OP to, "when we score more we win more", it might be fitting, but pushing the statement of we win more playing uptempo has been proven wrong time and time again in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#235
#235
zjcvols said:
Just because you score more doesn't mean you had more possessions in Tennessee's case.

It means we more efficient on offense (and moreso on defense and better rebounding).
Click to expand...

I tried explaining this to him about 12 hours ago and 50 pages back, he still hasn't completely understood this.
 
#236
#236
bleedingTNorange said:
This will be my only post....bruin you're OP is talking about uptempo, you even use the phrase "uptempo" in your post.

As has been posted a thousand time, there is no difference hardly in possesions per game in our wins verse losses, the slight difference actually shows we play slower on average in our wins than losses.

If you want to change your OP to, "when we score more we win more", it might be fitting, but pushing the statement of we win more playing uptempo has been proven wrong time and time again in this thread.
Click to expand...

I figured you would run from the facts that we win more with games over 130pts WHICH ALSO HAVE A HIGHER AMOUNT OF POSSESSIONS!
 
#237
#237
You keep mentioning 130, wasn't the point total Tuesday night 130? Didn't we lose? Didn't you say we should've been playing faster?
 
#238
#238
More evidence saying pace matters.

2 years ago we went 12-6 in games over 130pt which also had a 67.6 possessions per game average.
 
#239
#239
BruinVol said:
I figured you would run from the facts that we win more with games over 130pts WHICH ALSO HAVE A HIGHER AMOUNT OF POSSESSIONS!
Click to expand...

You're clueless, I give up. You still don't seem to grasp that points don't solely mean you're playing more uptempo, which is what your OP was.

Our possessions per game weren't different in wins or losses, you told me time and time today they would be...you were wrong, sorry.
 
#240
#240
BruinVol said:
I picked 130 because that clearly is where we gain a huge advantage of winning.

I also am proving more possessions gets our games to 130
Click to expand...

Yet it doesn't correlate to winning and losing as proven in my two years of data I provided.

Can you explain our three wins against Bama and Vandy where we averaged 55 possessions but our three losses to Ole Miss and Memphis where the number is 73?
 
#241
#241
zjcvols said:
You've state your opinion. We both believe you are wrong. So why interject about a stat you think is worthless anyways when nobody brought you back up other than to be argumentative? :hi:
Click to expand...


To remind you of how stupid it is to debate after your empiricle evidence has been continuously shredded with in game examples regarding possessions and all the factors involved. You don't get to choose to disregard those factors because you simply don't want to hear them and your stat has to mean you are right.

Maybe next time, don't throw shots like earlier in a thread about how I and others were dead wrong based off a stat you saw that was proven to be bs, then ask me to butt out as you continue the argument after proven wrong. You brought it on strong in the thread basically telling us to stfu with your but..but..but.. smartass post, so don't get so upset when somebody throws it back on you a little harder.
 
#242
#242
Here's the final 2 year numbers that clearly show we need to increase the pace to increase our chances of winning.


In games where we averaged 61.2 possessions per game we went 12-13. It just so happened those were all of our games under the 130 total.


In games where we averaged 65.95 possessions per game we went 26-14. Those games just happened to be all of our games over the 130 total points mark.


Clearly we need games to be over 130pts and WE NEED MORE POSSESSIONS to get there!!
 
#244
#244
zjcvols said:
Yet it doesn't correlate to winning and losing as proven in my two years of data I provided.

Can you explain our three wins against Bama and Vandy where we averaged 55 possessions but our three losses to Ole Miss and Memphis where the number is 73?
Click to expand...

You play the style that gives the best chance of winning. Of course it won't always work but playing a pace that results in .500 basketball isn't working.

I have proven more possessions puts us in a much better type game to win. 2 years prove it.
 
Last edited:
#245
#245
BruinVol said:
Here's the final 2 year numbers that clearly show we need to increase the pace to increase our chances of winning.


In games where we averaged 61.2 possessions per game we went 12-13. It just so happened those were all of our games under the 130 total.


In games where we averaged 65.95 possessions per game we went 26-14. Those games just happened to be all of our games over the 130 total points mark.


Clearly we need games to be over 130pts and WE NEED MORE POSSESSIONS to get there!!
Click to expand...

We average 65 possesions a game, wtf, this seriously has to be a joke.
 
#247
#247
BruinVol said:
You play the style that gives the best chance of winning. Of course it won't always work but playing a pace that results in .500 basketball isn't working.

I have proven more possessions puts us in a much better type game to win. 2 years prove it.
Click to expand...

.

bleedingTNorange said:
Found the possessions numbers Bruin....you owe MC a donut.

Over the last 2 years when we have LESS THAN 70 POSSESSIONS IN A GAME

We are: 34-21 winning percentage of 62%


Over the last 2 years when we have MORE THAN 70 POSSESSIONS IN A GAME

We are: 5-6 winning percentage of 45%
Click to expand...
 
#248
#248
bleedingTNorange said:
.
Click to expand...

That's 11 games. I gave you 25 game data.

We have to get over 130pts per game to become a winning team and possessions per game is directly connected to that.


Now if games get over the 150 total it starts to go the other way. I am not suggesting we need Nolan Richardson kind of pace.
 
#249
#249
Spartacavolus said:
To remind you of how stupid it is to debate after your empiricle evidence has been continuously shredded with in game examples regarding possessions and all the factors involved. You don't get to choose to disregard those factors because you simply don't want to hear them and your stat has to mean you are right.

Maybe next time, don't throw shots like earlier in a thread about how I and others were dead wrong based off a stat you saw that was proven to be bs, then ask me to butt out as you continue the argument after proven wrong. You brought it on strong in the thread basically telling us to stfu with your but..but..but.. smartass post, so don't get so upset when somebody throws it back on you a little harder.
Click to expand...

Don't get upset when stats show you are wrong, you try to refute those stats with bs ideas, then start with the always laughable "Well, my eyes tell me different!" argument. Then instead of saying we will agree to disagree, you come on saying you are right no matter what. You don't get to disregard facts when you make up random assertions from your all knowing eyes that can't be backed up. I disagree with Bruin, but I have more respect for somebody who tries to back up his claim with numbers than somebody that starts spewing off crap with no empirical evidence because he claims to be around basketball his whole life. Others have also been around ball their whole life, but they don't go around using that as some badge of honor that they know more than others.

We understand your position. It's been argued the entire thread. I did not insert my opinion yet at the point I entered the thread. I might have been a smartass, but you post the same exact way sometimes. I argued the point with you, and I had moved on to a discussion with Bruin. Then you talked about how pointless this was, what a joke it was, when nobody brought you in the discussion, especially since you think it's a worthless point. You just wanted to be combative.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top