Why slow it down????

#301
#301
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...

So in Other words we didn't play at a faster pace, our offense was simply more effective.

Imagine that.
 
#302
#302
bleedingTNorange said:
So in Other words we didn't play at a faster pace, our offense was simply more effective.

Imagine that.
Click to expand...


Yes, imagine that, for the last time, the possession stat gives absolutely zero indication of pace as you guys are analyzing it. You both have said it yourself. How many factors did you want me to mention that render it moot? 20? 25? Turnovers, steals, rebounds, end of half strategy, end of game, who was leading, by how much, competition, foul trouble, injuries...on and on.
If I was mistaken in my thoughts on the change in lineup and sitting Hall had us attacking the rim earlier and harder then it's my mistake. I thought when we sat him we went on a nice run, but I guess I was mistaken.
 
#303
#303
bleedingTNorange said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's two simple questions:

Do we win more games when the point total is over 130???

Do we have more pace(possessions) when the point total is over 130???


I will save you the facts since they get in your way alot.

Yes and yes is the answer and its been proven
 
#304
#304
Bruin you said initially we have to score, and have possessions in the 70s to be more effective, that was proven wrong. If you now want to change your stance to possessions around 65 and our average score around 67 then go for it, but don't act like that's what you were saying initially.
 
#305
#305
bleedingTNorange said:
Bruin you said initially we have to score, and have possessions in the 70s to be more effective, that was proven wrong. If you now want to change your stance to possessions around 65 and our average score around 67 then go for it, but don't act like that's what you were saying initially.
Click to expand...

I never said possessions needed to be in the 70's just points. Have fun failing to find it where I did.
 
#306
#306
BruinVol said:
I never said possessions needed to be in the 70's just points. Have fun failing to find it where I did.
Click to expand...

You said we need to be more uptempo, did you not?

Our average tempo under Martin is around 65, so if you're saying we need to be more uptempo what number is that?

If you truly didn't mean we should play more uptempo then maybe you should reword your OP.
 
#307
#307
bleedingTNorange said:
You said we need to be more uptempo, did you not?

Our average tempo under Martin is around 65, so if you're saying we need to be more uptempo what number is that?

If you truly didn't mean we should play more uptempo then maybe you should reword your OP.
Click to expand...

Same 2 questions.

You not willing to answer them??

Over 130???

More possessions over 130??

Hint: the answers are yes
 
Last edited:
#310
#310
And this combined number is idiotic as has already been pointed out to you....how about finding the number that works for us?

Oh wait, because it doesn't fit your OP that's why.
 
#313
#313
BruinVol said:
The answer is hell yes we need more pace because we need games out of the low 60s to increase our winning %.

And I have proven it
Click to expand...

So we need to increase our possessions per game (the only true measure of pace), from 65 to what?

We need to increase our average scoring from 67 points a game to what bruin?
 
Last edited:
#314
#314
BruinVol said:
130 is in the op but don't let facts get in your way
Click to expand...

The same OP which you say we need to play more uptempo, yet when we play more uptempo our winning % goes down.

Our average is 65....what's our record when our possessions per game go above that number, how about below that number?

Oh that's right, those are facts that don't support your argument therefore you choose to either discredit them or ignore them.
 
#316
#316
bleedingTNorange said:
The same OP which you say we need to play more uptempo, yet when we play more uptempo our winning % goes down.

Our average is 65....what's our record when our possessions per game go above that number, how about below that number?

Oh that's right, those are facts that don't support your argument therefore you choose to either discredit them or ignore them.
Click to expand...
We don't play uptempo.
Never have, never will under Martin.
We've played a few fast breaks that were exciting and I'd like to see more of them.
Here's a stat that might floor some.
In our first game our possession efficiency was 1.045.
Louisville for last season was a .997.
Hold that mark above 1 and we'll be a top 10 team in March if we have 60 possessions or 75 a game.
 
#317
#317
I care more about efficiency than the number of possessions we have. Half court teams are just as successful as up tempo teams. It's all about the efficiency.
 
#318
#318
More HUGE proof that we need more pace.

Last year when scored over 70pts we were 9-2.

In those games we had just over 66 possessions per game.

We shot 49.3% from the field. WAY OVER OUR AVERAGE

In games we didn't score 70 we were 9-10.

We averaged 60.5 possessions per game in those 19games.

We also shot 40.3% in those games. WELL LESS THAN OUR AVERAGE


WE NEED MORE PACE and this is more proof!!
 
#319
#319
BruinVol said:
More HUGE proof that we need more pace.

Last year when scored over 70pts we were 9-2.

In those games we has just over 66 possessions per game.

We shot 49.3% from the field. WAY OVER OUR AVERAGE

In games we didn't score 70 we were 9-10.

We averaged 60.5 possessions per game in those 19games.

We also shot 40.3% in those games. WELL LESS THAN OUR AVERAGE


WE NEED MORE PACE and this is more proof!!
Click to expand...
That's a difference of 5 possessions a game. How is that more pace? You just disproved your own argument.
 
#320
#320
The problem with just using small sample and averages is an obvious outlier makes the data misleading.

Last year we had 13 losses. The only clear possessions per game outlier was Ole miss at 76. The nearest one to it among the losses was 69. It clearly skewed the data.

Without the ole miss game our average possessions per game were 60.8 in our losses. Very low
 
Last edited:
#321
#321
calban said:
That's a difference of 5 possessions a game. How is that more pace? You just disproved your own argument.
Click to expand...

Its huge its worth close to 50spots higher in the overall rankings of possessions per game.

5 is a big difference
 
#322
#322
calban said:
We don't play uptempo.
Never have, never will under Martin.
We've played a few fast breaks that were exciting and I'd like to see more of them.
Here's a stat that might floor some.
In our first game our possession efficiency was 1.045.
Louisville for last season was a .997.
Hold that mark above 1 and we'll be a top 10 team in March if we have 60 possessions or 75 a game.
Click to expand...

Further proof that it was our defense that really F'd us Tuesday night
 
#323
#323
BruinVol said:
Its huge its worth close to 50spots higher in the overall rankings of possessions per game.

5 is a big difference
Click to expand...

All that says it that most teams play a slow controlled tempo game. 5 is 5 and nothing more. Certainly not uptempo.
 
#324
#324
BruinVol said:
More HUGE proof that we need more pace.

Last year when scored over 70pts we were 9-2.

In those games we had just over 66 possessions per game.

We shot 49.3% from the field. WAY OVER OUR AVERAGE

In games we didn't score 70 we were 9-10.

We averaged 60.5 possessions per game in those 19games.

We also shot 40.3% in those games. WELL LESS THAN OUR AVERAGE


WE NEED MORE PACE and this is more proof!!
Click to expand...


Thank you for proving what I said on about page 2.

We don't necessarily have to play more uptempo to score more points, scoring 70 points on 66 possessions is incredibly efficient, as evidenced by the fg% you mention.

66 possessions is just about what we averaged on the season, so we weren't playing any faster in those games, just being more efficient scoring.
 
#325
#325
calban said:
All that says it that most teams play a slow controlled tempo game. 5 is 5 and nothing more. Certainly not uptempo.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting we run up and down the floor. I am only saying that we need to look to push it more not all the time
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top