Why slow it down????

#276
#276
BruinVol said:
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????
Click to expand...

The whole combination of points is something completely different....go way back, you tried telling me possessions per game would show a correlation. You said that the higher possession games would be more wins, that's not the case.

Now you're saying play 67 possessions a game, yet over the last 2 years that has produced .500 basketball.

The combination of 130 is just dumb, too many variables when you're including the opponent too. We combined for 130 with Xavier yet you said we played way too slow?

I'm done, think what you want bruin but the numbers clearly show that playing faster doesn't result in more Ws.
 
#277
#277
BruinVol said:
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????
Click to expand...

I don't think 130 points has anything to do with it.

I mean, we need to use better stats here IMO.

Let's say Tennessee has a game where they shoot 42% and and play a 67-63 game

Is that really a better offensive performance than if they shoot 46% and play a 62-58 game? No, it's not IMO.

Now, FG% is not just one stat to evaluate good offensive play, but the point remains.
 
#280
#280
zjcvols said:
I don't think 130 points has anything to do with it.

I mean, we need to use better stats here IMO.

Let's say Tennessee has a game where they shoot 42% and and play a 67-63 game

Is that really a better offensive performance than if they shoot 46% and play a 62-58 game? No, it's not IMO.

Now, FG% is not just one stat to evaluate good offensive play, but the point remains.
Click to expand...

Last year we shot 37.6% from the field in games under 130.

We shot 48.6% in games over 130.
 
#281
#281
BruinVol said:
Completely false.


Numbers prove we lose more games in lower scoring games which have less possessions.

End thread
Click to expand...

Bruin, buddy, I'm trying.

I showed you. In our two years of wins and losses, excluding Memphis in 2011 and TAMU in 2013, the amount of possessions are the exact as wins and losses. I was also wrong thinking we had a significant lesser number of possessions, but over two years, it's basically the same.

The only correlation I found (although I didn't do 2011 conference games) was that in our SEC play last year, we averaged 61 possessions per game during our wins. In our losses, we averaged 65 possessions.
 
#282
#282
gabrielso.jpg
 
#283
#283
BruinVol said:
Last year we shot 37.6% from the field in games under 130.

We shot 48.6% in games over 130.
Click to expand...

Again, combined number of points is a terrible way to evaluate. If you showed me something like "When we scored 65 points or more, we shot 48.6%. When we scored less than 65 points, we shot 39%. Our record for those 65 or more points was 13-5, while our less than 65 points was 5-12. I also noted that we had five more possessions per game in those wins than losses" then I would completely buy what you are saying, but you haven't shown that.
 
#284
#284
zjcvols said:
Again, combined number of points is a terrible way to evaluate. If you showed me something like "When we scored 65 points or more, we shot 48.6%. When we scored less than 65 points, we shot 39%. Our record for those 65 or more points was 13-5, while our less than 65 points was 5-12. I also noted that we had five more possessions per game in those wins than losses" then I would completely buy what you are saying, but you haven't shown that.
Click to expand...

Go to the op.

We are 21-3 when we score over 70pts.

I have no idea your point here.

I showed we shoot poorly in slower paced games. 37.6% in fact in games that were an average 58possessions per game
 
Last edited:
#285
#285
BruinVol said:
Go to the op.

We are 21-3 when we score over 70pts.

I have no idea your point here.

I showed we shoot poorly in slower paced games. 37.6% in fact in games that were an average 58possessions per game
Click to expand...

Bruin, just because you score more doesn't necessarily mean you ran more. I don't think you are getting that at all.

Our possession numbers the last two years ARE THE EXACT SAME IN WINS AND LOSSES. You are equating scoring with pace, which isn't the case.
 
#286
#286
To further prove my point.

2011-2012

SEC Wins: 65.2

SEC Losses: 64.7
 
#287
#287
zjcvols said:
You are equating scoring with pace, which isn't the case.
Click to expand...

Last time I am posting this.

Games under 130 had an average of 61.2 possessions per game.

Games over 130 had an average of 65.95 possessions per game.

There is no disputing that our lower scoring games are at a slower pace.

Pace and scoring is clearly connected and I have proved it.
 
#289
#289
zjcvols said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bump.
 
#290
#290
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...

Bump
 
#292
#292
zjcvols said:
Go ahead. Ignore evidence of 60+ games. Evidence says Tennessee should not run a fast pace.

We can ***** about the offense all we want, but pace isn't the issue you should be *****ing about.
Click to expand...


Did this evidence ever show up?

Honest question. And in regards to my comment about switching to the 4-1, I don't have any idea what game it was.
I thought I remembered it being later in the year than I thought it should've happened, coincided with hall sitting, and resulted in several games of improved scoring, defense and w's as the pace was quicker with a smaller overall lineup and laziness off the floor. If I was wrong there, that's fine. I wouldn't mind knowing which game it was, if scoring went up, etc.
If
 
#294
#294
Spartacavolus said:
Did this evidence ever show up?

Honest question. And in regards to my comment about switching to the 4-1, I don't have any idea what game it was.
I thought I remembered it being later in the year than I thought it should've happened, coincided with hall sitting, and resulted in several games of improved scoring, defense and w's as the pace was quicker with a smaller overall lineup and laziness off the floor. If I was wrong there, that's fine. I wouldn't mind knowing which game it was, if scoring went up, etc.
If
Click to expand...

I know you don't like possessions, but let me post the possessions numbers if that's okay. :)

I just did the last two years. I counted every game except Memphis and Texas A&M, both outliers.

Our record the last two years with over 65 possessions: 14-14

Our record the last two years with 65 possessions or under: 23-13

For 2011-2012: <65 possessions: 11-9 >65 possessions: 7-5

For 2012-2013: <65 possessions: 3-5 >65 possessions: 16-8

One interesting note Sparty. I can't remember when Moore entered the lineup, though I can look for you and will when I get a chance. Our home game against Bama, that 54-53 win where Stokes made that defensive play at the end, our possession numbers went down. For fourteen games starting with that Bama game, we went 11-3. Taking out the TAMU game, we only had two games over 65 possessions and went 1-1. In the eleven games we went under 65 possessions, we 9-2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#295
#295
Spartacavolus said:
Did this evidence ever show up?

Honest question. And in regards to my comment about switching to the 4-1, I don't have any idea what game it was.
I thought I remembered it being later in the year than I thought it should've happened, coincided with hall sitting, and resulted in several games of improved scoring, defense and w's as the pace was quicker with a smaller overall lineup and laziness off the floor. If I was wrong there, that's fine. I wouldn't mind knowing which game it was, if scoring went up, etc.
If
Click to expand...

Moore started the Bama game which I referenced (which was for Skylar actually, but still).

Give me a couple minutes, and I'll get offensive numbers from that point.
 
#296
#296
Stats Pre and Post Armani starting

Pre-Armani

Points Per Game: 65.1
Points Per Possession: 1
Effective Field Goal Percentage: 47.4

Post Armani

Points Per Game: 66
Points Per Possession: 1.08
Effective Field Goal Percentage: 48.6%
 
#297
#297
zjcvols said:
Stats Pre and Post Armani starting

Pre-Armani

Points Per Game: 65.1
Points Per Possession: 1
Effective Field Goal Percentage: 47.4

Post Armani

Points Per Game: 66
Points Per Possession: 1.08
Effective Field Goal Percentage: 48.6%
Click to expand...

I'm guessing his +/- is pretty good.
 
#298
#298
jjay2518 said:
I'm guessing his +/- is pretty good.
Click to expand...

Was actually 0.

I don't believe +/- does a good job of correlating to wins however. I prefer using lineup construction instead. IDK if kenpom does that. Statsheet does not.
 
#300
#300
zjcvols said:
Bruin, just because you score more doesn't necessarily mean you ran more. I don't think you are getting that at all.

Our possession numbers the last two years ARE THE EXACT SAME IN WINS AND LOSSES. You are equating scoring with pace, which isn't the case.
Click to expand...

And back to zero we go, I tried to help him understand this, he doesn't get it.

Can lead a horse to water, but ya can't make him drink.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top