Why slow it down????

#253
#253
bleedingTNorange said:
Not sure where you learned to count but the sample size I gave was 66, which is a lot more than 25.
Click to expand...

Your over 70 set of data. 70 isn't the magic number for better chances of success or failure.

That number is clearly 130 and possessions per game are clearly connected to our games getting to that magic number for our success.
 
#254
#254
BruinVol said:
Your over 70 set of data. 70 isn't the magic number for better chances of success or failure.

That number is clearly 130 and possessions per game are clearly connected to our games getting to that magic number for our success.
Click to expand...

So what's the point total/ possessions number that's the winning ticket bruin?
 
#255
#255
Bruin, using a combined scoring number for teams isn't a good data set anyways.

I think what would be better is finding OUR number we need to score. Not sure what the other team has to do with it.

Let's say we lose 67-63 and shoot 42%. That's 130 points. But not a solid offensive performance, no?
 
#256
#256
bleedingTNorange said:
So what's the point total/ possessions number that's the winning ticket bruin?
Click to expand...

It's 130 which gets our possessions per game to right at our average which would raise that number this year.

Games under 130 have a little more than 4 less possessions per game than average.

We must play more games closer to our average. Too many games in the 50's for possessions
 
#257
#257
BruinVol said:
It's 130 which gets our possessions per game to right at our average which would raise that number this year.

Games under 130 have a little more than 4 less possessions per game than average.

We must play more games closer to our average. Too many games in the 50's for possessions
Click to expand...

So in other words you can't give me any point numbers for US, or possesions numbers?

And here you're claiming we need to play more games at our average, yet your OP is claiming uptempo into the 70s....which is it?
 
#258
#258
zjcvols said:
Bruin, using a combined scoring number for teams isn't a good data set anyways.

I think what would be better is finding OUR number we need to score. Not sure what the other team has to do with it.

Let's say we lose 67-63 and shoot 42%. That's 130 points. But not a solid offensive performance, no?
Click to expand...

When considering our defense I posted numbers that showed both our and our opponents FG % goes up when we are playing over the 130 which wins more games.

The numbers I have provided shows our offense numbers are more directly effected to our success than defense
 
#259
#259
Fact is that your possession stat does not correlate to our pace of play as you came on strongly and guaranteed it did and started getting mouthy. After the but..but..but post and your 2nd post flat out telling me I needed to admit I was wrong because of your bs stat, I apologize for bigtiming someone who needed to be bigtimed. I'll continue to do it when it becomes necessary. How many times have I been in the bb forum thread raising hell on somebody in cm's tenure? If I can deal with your repeated threads, you can deal with me firing back a few times when you act like like an uninformed smartass.
 
#260
#260
bleedingTNorange said:
So in other words you can't give me any point numbers for US, or possesions numbers?

And here you're claiming we need to play more games at our average, yet your OP is claiming uptempo into the 70s....which is it?
Click to expand...

If we bring our 25 game section I outlined(61) up to our current average(66) then our overall number will increase to around 67-68 which means more games played over 130pts and More wins
 
#261
#261
What you're basically saying is play less games below our average, and also less games above our average....play all games at our average? Lol
 
#263
#263
bleedingTNorange said:
What you're basically saying is play less games below our average, and also less games above our average....play all games at our average? Lol
Click to expand...

Hell no I didn't say that.

I am suggesting our average go up. There will be a few games get away from us but we will be much better than below .500(12-13)
 
#270
#270
BruinVol said:
I said this team.

The numbers in the previous two years are virtually the same. Right at or below 500 for both
Click to expand...

Exactly. When dealing with numbers you can't project something we have no numbers for, the last 2 years data shows us Tennessee has equally the chance of winning a game with the possessions in the 50s as they do in the 70s.
 
#272
#272
Spartacavolus said:
Fact is that your possession stat does not correlate to our pace of play as you came on strongly and guaranteed it did and started getting mouthy. After the but..but..but post and your 2nd post flat out telling me I needed to admit I was wrong because of your bs stat, I apologize for bigtiming someone who needed to be bigtimed. I'll continue to do it when it becomes necessary. How many times have I been in the bb forum thread raising hell on somebody in cm's tenure? If I can deal with your repeated threads, you can deal with me firing back a few times when you act like like an uninformed smartass.
Click to expand...

And your idea that our pace of play is faster when we went on our streak last year is flat out wrong. And you were wrong and didn't admit it. I figured you were smart enough to look at facts and go "Hm, I guess I was wrong on that. I wonder what else it was" and instead you decided to use your all knowing eyes as proof you were right. I'm sorry, I'll go with what the numbers tell over a message board poster. And you'll go with what you believe over what numbers a message board posts puts down.

Bigtiming? What are you twelve? You sound like a childish parent. "I needed to bigtime somebody that need to be bigtimed. I'll do it when I see fit." If that is an actual goal of yours on a message board, then you need to just stop. You sound soooooo petty when you say that, it's hilarious. I thought we were here to discuss basketball, not try to show up one another. I actually chuckled, and I'll stop taking you seriously then, and we can do this some other time. Might even use that as my new signature quote, it's so cute.
 
#274
#274
bleedingTNorange said:
Ok even if it is, which I'll recheck, you're saying we should play a style that's key duces .500 ball the last 2 years.

Genius
Click to expand...


Again I am saying play a style that gets us to 130pts per game where we get away from
.500(12-13) basketball.

Do you disagree we need to play games over 130pts????
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top