Why slow it down????

#326
#326
bleedingTNorange said:
Further proof that it was our defense that really F'd us Tuesday night
Click to expand...

Exactly. and we'll adjust to that in the next 3 games.
Still say we couldn't find rhythm in the first half though.
A lot of shots found iron that would usually go in. Shoot 40+% in the first half and we win easily.
 
#327
#327
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...

You're proving what I and MC both said 50 pages back....Martin is best when he plays HIS tempo and doesn't let the other team dictate tempo. We average about 66 possessions a game in Martin's 2 years, yet here you are saying 66 possessions is the money number???

We don't do well when we go too slow, and we struggle when we go too fast. When we play the way Martin wants, 65-67 possessions a game, which allows our defense to play how he wants, we are at our best and the numbers support that.
 
#328
#328
calban said:
Exactly. and we'll adjust to that in the next 3 games.
Still say we couldn't find rhythm in the first half though.
A lot of shots found iron that would usually go in. Shoot 40+% in the first half and we win easily.
Click to expand...

Think a lot of that was Barton missing the last 3 weeks of practice, looked much better in the 2nd half.
 
#329
#329
bleedingTNorange said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes we were playing faster as evidenced but 60.6 in the other 19 games.

As you taught me the A&M was such an outlier that it changed the entire average.
 
#330
#330
BruinVol said:
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
Click to expand...

No, what you're data shows is that we need to play our pace and be efficient offensively. The data shows when we try to push it more than we're used to we struggle and lose more than we out score our opponent and win.

We average 66 possessions a game under Martin in the last 2 years, therefore saying we need 66 possessions a game is hardly saying we need to play more uptempo.
 
#331
#331
bleedingTNorange said:
You're proving what I and MC both said 50 pages back....Martin is best when he plays HIS tempo and doesn't let the other team dictate tempo. We average about 66 possessions a game in Martin's 2 years, yet here you are saying 66 possessions is the money number???

We don't do well when we go too slow, and we struggle when we go too fast. When we play the way Martin wants, 65-67 possessions a game, which allows our defense to play how he wants, we are at our best and the numbers support that.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that if you shift the 65-67 number up(IMO for this years team) 1-2 possessions with the athleticism this team
has.

The problem I am pointing out is we have had way to many games way under those numbers and lost half of them. This team can't have possesions in the 50's IMO
 
#332
#332
BruinVol said:
Yes we were playing faster as evidenced but 60.6 in the other 19 games.

As you taught me the A&M was such an outlier that it changed the entire average.
Click to expand...

Look at the previous year under Martin, once again the number is around 65 possessions a game. So 1 year we were 65 the other 66, so under Martin the last 2 years out average possessions per game is 65.5 roughly....asking for .5 more possessions per game is hardly playing more uptempo.
 
#333
#333
bleedingTNorange said:
No, what you're data shows is that we need to play our pace and be efficient offensively. The data shows when we try to push it more than we're used to we struggle and lose more than we out score our opponent and win.

We average 66 possessions a game under Martin in the last 2 years, therefore saying we need 66 possessions a game is hardly saying we need to play more uptempo.
Click to expand...

Again we don't average 66 if you throw out the A&M game.

If you want to count it it will make my numbers look much better???
 
#334
#334
BruinVol said:
I can agree with that if you shift the 65-67 number up(IMO for this years team) 1-2 possessions with the athleticism this team
has.

The problem I am pointing out is we have had way to many games way under those numbers and lost half of them. This team can't have possesions in the 50's IMO
Click to expand...

Then issue with those statements is there are no numbers to back that up, simply you assuming. I am curious what the Xavier numbers are, but unfortunately they aren't posted yet.

Going off 2 years worth of data, it says our bread and butter is the 65-67 range, go too slow we struggle, go too fast we struggle.
 
#335
#335
BruinVol said:
Again we don't average 66 if you throw out the A&M game.

If you want to count it it will make my numbers look much better???
Click to expand...

My quick estimation says it drops us to around 63 possessions per game , Martin's first year we averaged 66 possessions per game. So 64.5 is the 2 year average, and you're claiming 66 is the magic number, so an increase of 1.5 possession per game on average.

If you consider that running more uptempo then I have nothing else to say.
 
#336
#336
bleedingTNorange said:
Then issue with those statements is there are no numbers to back that up, simply you assuming. I am curious what the Xavier numbers are, but unfortunately they aren't posted yet.

Going off 2 years worth of data, it says our bread and butter is the 65-67 range, go too slow we struggle, go too fast we struggle.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can take 1 stat and treat it will gold.

That's why I have taken all 3.

Clearly the 130 number is huge. We shoot better(also don't defend as well). We have more possessions but most importantly we WIN more.

1 category by itself means very little due to outliers in the data but combining the 3 clearly shows a pattern.
 
#337
#337
BruinVol said:
I don't think you can take 1 stat and treat it will gold.

That's why I have taken all 3.

Clearly the 130 number is huge. We shoot better(also don't defend as well). We have more possessions but most importantly we WIN more.

1 category by itself means very little due to outliers in the data but combining the 3 clearly shows a pattern.
Click to expand...

The key to the 130 is that we are running our game, we are dictating tempo and are in our comfort zone. When you do that you tend to play with rhythm and more comfort, and as evidenced by your fg numbers we will shoot better.

So like I said, MC was right way back, when we play our tempo we are pretty good and pretty efficient. When we play another teams tempo we tend to struggle, whether that's slowing down or speeding up.
 
#338
#338
bleedingTNorange said:
My quick estimation says it drops us to around 63 possessions per game , Martin's first year we averaged 66 possessions per game. So 64.5 is the 2 year average, and you're claiming 66 is the magic number, so an increase of 1.5 possession per game on average.

If you consider that running more uptempo then I have nothing else to say.
Click to expand...

We averaged 65.9 per game last year. Down to 63 is a pretty big drop.

No we see that in those games we went 9-2 we were 3more possesions over our average.

Pretty significant when you add in FG% and over a 800 winning %
 
#339
#339
BruinVol said:
We averaged 65.9 per game last year. Down to 63 is a pretty big drop.

No we see that in those games we went 9-2 we were 3more possesions over our average.

Pretty significant when you add in FG% and over a 800 winning %
Click to expand...

My point is 2 possessions more a game is not uptempo, that was the basis of this whole discussion.
 
#340
#340
bleedingTNorange said:
The key to the 130 is that we are running our game, we are dictating tempo and are in our comfort zone. When you do that you tend to play with rhythm and more comfort, and as evidenced by your fg numbers we will shoot better.

.
Click to expand...

The problem is we don't do this enough which is the point of the thread.

Who's to blame??

Half season martin IMO
 
#342
#342
BruinVol said:
I don't think you can take 1 stat and treat it will gold.

That's why I have taken all 3.

Clearly the 130 number is huge. We shoot better(also don't defend as well). We have more possessions but most importantly we WIN more.

1 category by itself means very little due to outliers in the data but combining the 3 clearly shows a pattern.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're wrong about this. If UT hits 57% (11 of 19) from the free throw line and 41% start the game (7 of 17) instead of 7 of 19 and 1 of 17, they win by 10 without pushing the tempo. They have to make those shots, ie efficiency NOT push the tempo.
 
#343
#343
whobethis16 said:
Dude, you're wrong about this. If UT hits 57% (11 of 19) from the free throw line and 41% start the game (7 of 17) instead of 7 of 19 and 1 of 17, they win by 10 without pushing the tempo. They have to make those shots, ie efficiency NOT push the tempo.
Click to expand...

Last year 9-2 when averaging 3 possessions more than average(no A&M)
We shot 49% in those games.

Also last year we were 9-10 when averaging 3possessions less than average(no A&M)
We shot 41% in those games.


That's a 6possession difference in pace. And 8% difference in shooting while winning at A 800 clip.

You want to tell me how those numbers don't prove me to be spot on???
 
#344
#344
BruinVol said:
Last year 9-2 when averaging 3 possessions more than average(no A&M)
We shot 49% in those games.

Also last year we were 9-10 when averaging 3possessions less than average(no A&M)
We shot 41% in those games.


That's a 6possession difference in pace. And 8% difference in shooting while winning at A 800 clip.

You want to tell me how those numbers don't prove me to be spot on???
Click to expand...

Check to see if they would've won with 3 fewer possessions and still hitting 49%. I bet they would've won most of them. Efficiency. I kept the exact same number of possessions and even only added 2 points for the field goals in my scario. No 3s. That's the point. Who cares if you win by 18 or 12, it's still a double digit win.
 
#345
#345
BruinVol said:
The problem is we don't do this enough which is the point of the thread.

Who's to blame??

Half season martin IMO
Click to expand...

Here's the funny thing about that though, in the first half of the year in 2 years Martin's teams have averaged 65 possessions a game not counting OT games.


Kinda shoots a hole in the theory that he waits until the season is half over to pick up the pace huh?
 
#347
#347
BruinVol said:
3 but another fact missing from you and yes 3 more possesions is a significant number when its worth about 30spots up or down the rankings
Click to expand...

If you quantify 3 possessions more a game as us pushing the pace then that's just poor basketball knowledge on your part.

Look and see how many possessions a game a truly uptempo teams runs, varying between 63-66 is hardly a big enough difference to even really discuss. You're talking one more steal, 2-1 at the end of a half....neither of which really means you're playing more uptempo.
 
#348
#348
bleedingTNorange said:
Here's the funny thing about that though, in the first half of the year in 2 years Martin's teams have averaged 65 possessions a game not counting OT games.


Kinda shoots a hole in the theory that he waits until the season is half over to pick up the pace huh?
Click to expand...

Again taking an average of 1 set of data is greatly effected by an outlier in the data(ole miss at 76 possessions).

That's why adding more categories makes the data less misleading.

The possesions per game data is clearly skewed unless its paired with other categories.
 
#350
#350
BruinVol said:
Last year 9-2 when averaging 3 possessions more than average(no A&M)
We shot 49% in those games.

Also last year we were 9-10 when averaging 3possessions less than average(no A&M)
We shot 41% in those games.


That's a 6possession difference in pace. And 8% difference in shooting while winning at A 800 clip.

You want to tell me how those numbers don't prove me to be spot on???
Click to expand...

Because your OP is discussing 70+ points per game, which would be possessions around 69+. Now you're toning that number back to around 66 possessions a game.

Anyone with basketball knowledge will tell you that 3 more possessions a game is hardly considered us now pushing the tempo.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top