Why slow it down????

#426
#426
BruinVol said:
Sure but not the post you were referring to.

Look bto you are hanging your hat on one singular stat that has been proven to be skewed.

Would you think a person could make an argument that our secondary in football is one of top 25 caliber????

With your method here you would argue just that because they are 21st in the country in passing yards given up.

I have provided very solid stats involing, possessions, FG%, our scoring, as well as overall total score that proves pace matters

You are going to need more data than one skewed category when the other side of this argument has provided much more evidence.
Click to expand...

Offensive efficiency, W/L record both say we are better at 65 or less possessions a game than more....


I'm willing to bet defensive efficiency will say the same thing, wanna bet?

Do you not also find it a bit odd that not one single person has agreed with what you're saying the numbers say? In fact just about everyone has been on the same side I am in regards to what the numbers say? There's something to be said for someone who thinks he's right and the other 100 are wrong.
 
Last edited:
#428
#428
bleedingTNorange said:
Offensive efficiency, W/L record both say we are better at 65 or less possessions a game than more....


I'm willing to bet defensive efficiency will say the same thing, wanna bet?

Do you not also find it a bit odd that not one single person has agreed with what you're saying the numbers say? In fact just about everyone has been on the same side I am in regards to what the numbers say? There's something to be said for someone who thinks he's right and the other 100 are wrong.
Click to expand...

The other 100???


That's laughable bto. How many are involved in this discussion??


There is an audience of 3 to this show
 
#430
#430
CAVol said:
Just points allowed per 100 possessions. Same formula just done with the other team's stats
Click to expand...

Just did the numbers for our 11 games last year where we scored 70pts.

Guess what it further proves my point!!

9-2 in those games.

66 possessions per game(6more than when we didn't score 70)

Offensive efficiency 1.19 way over our average.(1.002 is average)

Defensive efficiency ALSO OVER our average at 1.06.(.96 is average). This means we played worse defense and the world didn't end.


Offensive improvement clearly outweighed our loss of defense.
 
Last edited:
#431
#431
BruinVol said:
Don't know but I would guess so
Click to expand...

Well here's our defensive efficiency numbers from last year:

In games with possesions at 65 or less our defensive efficiency was: 0.98ppp

In games with possessions at 66 or more our defensive efficiency was: 1.07ppp




So in conclusion, our offensive and defensive efficiencies were both better at 65 of less possessions. When the games got over 65 possessions not only did our defense become less efficient, but so did our offense.

:hi:
 
#432
#432
volbeast33 said:
I have to give u all props for arguing a point for so long but this can't be proven by any formula that u all come up with bc there are too many variables that can't be added in.
Click to expand...


That's why I said 2 days ago to use your eyes, your brain, and any info you gained from whomever you learned the game from. If you didn't learn the game and look at stats to teach you, just hush. All these stats are bs like I said and gave many reasons.
I argued with crackheads in a thread and all I got was this tshirt.
 
#433
#433
bleedingTNorange said:
Well here's our defensive efficiency numbers from last year:

In games with possesions at 65 or less our defensive efficiency was: 0.98ppp

In games with possessions at 66 or more our defensive efficiency was: 1.07ppp




So in conclusion, our offensive and defensive efficiencies were both better at 65 of less possessions. When the games got over 65 possessions not only did our defense become less efficient, but so did our offense.

:hi:
Click to expand...

Better check your math.


The teams average was .962

Even if you didn't use the A&M game your numbers can't be right.
 
#434
#434
BruinVol said:
Just did the numbers for our 11 games last year where we scored 70pts.

Guess what it further proves my point!!

9-2 in those games.

66 possessions per game(6more than when we didn't score 70)

Offensive efficiency 1.19 way over our average.(1.002 is average)

Defensive efficiency ALSO OVER our average at 1.06.(.96 is average). This means we played worse defense and the world didn't end.


Offensive improvement clearly outweighed our loss of defense.
Click to expand...

A couple issues with this data:

1. You're using a sample size of 11 games to make a determination of how a coach should X and O.

2. Out of those 11 games how many were against tournament teams? 2.

3. Continuing on number 2, your research is compiled of data against very weak opponents. So you're going to take how we play Presbyterian, and apply it to Xavier for example?

4. Of the teams that made the NCAAT, and that we met the required specifications for your research (over 70 points) what was our record....0-2


So basically what you've proven in this research IMO, is that against non tournament quality teams we can run, and win. However, when we play a tournament quality team, this certain formula is a recipe for losing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#436
#436
bleedingTNorange said:
A couple issues with this data:

1. You're using a sample size of 11 games to make a determination of how a coach should X and O.

2. Out of those 11 games how many were against tournament teams? 2.

3. Continuing on number 2, your research is compiled of data against very weak opponents. So you're going to take how we play Presbyterian, and apply it to Xavier for example?

4. Of the teams that made the NCAAT, and that we met the required specifications for your research (over 70 points) what was our record....0-2


So basically what you've proven in this research IMO, is that against non tournament quality teams we can run, and win. However, when we play a tournament quality team, this certain formula is a recipe for losing?
Click to expand...

That's a good argument. Best one you have had all day.


I bet we find the same trends with the 130 total pts number which includes all games for 2 years.

If it does what will you say then???
 
#437
#437
The perception of Martin's system is skewing the thoughts of some in this thread. The ut fanbase in general does this. They think fast = pearls first three years. Everything since then = slow. They especially think this about CCM teams.

At times, CCM teams have looked dreadful. I believe in some peoples minds they are confusing these games with playing slow when what it really is is playing $h!++y.
 
#439
#439
BruinVol said:
That's a good argument. Best one you have had all day.


I bet we find the same trends with the 130 total pts number which includes all games for 2 years.

If it does what will you say then???
Click to expand...

By my quick count in 2 years we are 19-6 when scoring 70 points or more, and 1-3 against NCAA tournament teams using that same criteria.

So like I said above, it appears your plus 70 point number works against run of the mill teams, however when we play quality teams we're better off slowing it down and playing more our style.
 
Last edited:
#442
#442
BigZiti09 said:
The perception of Martin's system is skewing the thoughts of some in this thread. The ut fanbase in general does this. They think fast = pearls first three years. Everything since then = slow. They especially think this about CCM teams.

At times, CCM teams have looked dreadful. I believe in some peoples minds they are confusing these games with playing slow when what it really is is playing $h!++y.
Click to expand...
Very perceptive.
Pearl's teams played about 74 possessions, very similar to KY's pace, until last season.
His last 2 seasons, they slowed by about 3-5 possessions per game.
________fill in the rest.
 
#443
#443
BruinVol said:
It's doesn't take a great mathematician to tell .98 and 1.07 isn't going to average out to .99
Click to expand...

Run the numbers yourself, it does. The 0.98 has around 23 games that go into it, the 1.07 has about 8....equal weight isn't put into each, I assumed you would've known that being a numbers guy.

And you had nothing to say about my other post?
 
#444
#444
bleedingTNorange said:
Run the numbers yourself, it does. The 0.98 has around 23 games that go into it, the 1.07 has about 8....equal weight isn't put into each, I assumed you would've known that being a numbers guy.

And you had nothing to say about my other post?
Click to expand...
Lol

So 11 games isn't enough for one but 7 is enough for you. Come on
 
#447
#447
BruinVol said:
My fault "about 8" is what you posted.

Exactly how do you have "about" a game??
Click to expand...

I was too lazy to go back and count....the total sample size was 32, 24 of those games happened to be at or under 65 possessions, and 8 happened to be over 65 possessions.

In those 32 games, our offensive AND defensive efficiency were better when we stayed at or below 65 possessions. Once we went over 65 possessions our offensive and defensive efficiencies declined.
 
#448
#448
As much as a numbers person as I am I am done with these after this post. It's been fun BTO.

I have proven we need to score 70 or play games over the 130 total. I have proven more possessions get us there.

Now my last bit of more evidence proving I am correct especially regarding that sacrificing a little defense is well worth it.

In all games(excluding OT) in 2 years played over the 130pt total.

We had our offensive efficiency at 1.12. Which is well over our average.

We also had our defensive efficiency at 1.05 which is worse than our normal.


Just as I said yesterday. Our offense improves more than our defense digresses in higher scoring games.

Defense doesn't always have to be first and its my hope that stubborn half season martin will learn that very soon before his bags are packed.
 
#449
#449
So in conclusion Bruin has taught us....score more than 70 and we will beat crappy teams but lose to tournament teams.

The proof is in the numbers, when looking at the entire 2 years our offense and defense are most efficient when games are at or less than 65 possessions.

Once we go over that our offense becomes less efficient as does our defense, I have provided the numbers for this with 60+ games as my data, not 11 games.

Martin's teams are most successful when we dictate tempo, the tempo we want is 65-67 possessions a game, we go much slower or much faster and our winning percentage plummets, simple as that.

Your Welcome :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top