|
Post by hchoops on Dec 19, 2016 21:16:03 GMT -5
St Francis Pa. looked pretty good against Marquette tonight
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Dec 19, 2016 21:35:49 GMT -5
Again, I'm surprised you're basing PL predictions on OOC play. I've only watched AU a handful of times, but their offense is downright brutal. Maybe the loss of Jesse Reed hurts more than some would think? How about a friendly message board wager that AU doesn't win more than six games in the PL? AU is averaging 61.7 points per game. HC is averaging 59.8 points per game. If we're going to be bottom three in the PL, where does that leave y'all? But, yes, will be happy to message board wager. Loser has to put other school's logo in his profile for a month?
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 19, 2016 21:42:31 GMT -5
I've only watched AU a handful of times, but their offense is downright brutal. Maybe the loss of Jesse Reed hurts more than some would think? How about a friendly message board wager that AU doesn't win more than six games in the PL? AU is averaging 61.7 points per game. HC is averaging 59.8 points per game. If we're going to be bottom three in the PL, where does that leave y'all? But, yes, will be happy to message board wager. Loser has to put other school's logo in his profile for a month? NJJ, the Citadel is averaging like 100 points per game this year, that doesn't make them a good offensive team. You know this. Virginia is one of the most efficient offensive teams in the country, but they're averaging about 70 points per game -- pace of play has more to do with how many points a team scores, rather than how good their offense is. AU's offensive efficiency is 93.0 -- one of the worst in the country. HC is by no means a great offensive team at this juncture, but we are at 101.0.
|
|
|
Post by notjuanjones on Dec 19, 2016 22:05:42 GMT -5
AU is averaging 61.7 points per game. HC is averaging 59.8 points per game. If we're going to be bottom three in the PL, where does that leave y'all? But, yes, will be happy to message board wager. Loser has to put other school's logo in his profile for a month? NJJ, the Citadel is averaging like 100 points per game this year, that doesn't make them a good offensive team. You know this. Virginia is one of the most efficient offensive teams in the country, but they're averaging about 70 points per game -- pace of play has more to do with how many points a team scores, rather than how good their offense is. AU's offensive efficiency is 93.0 -- one of the worst in the country. HC is by no means a great offensive team at this juncture, but we are at 101.0. The Citadel is averaging 102 per game. And that makes them a very good offensive team. But since they're 346th out of 347 D1 teams in points allowed, it doesn't make them a winning team. I don't buy into pace and efficiency as the only means to determine a good or bad offense, or as predictive of a team's success or lack thereof. Old Dominion's offensive rating is worse than ours (330 to 309). They're 6-4. Turnovers per possession and per game matter. Free throws attempted/game matters. And your defense matters. Our offense isn't very good right now; yours is a little better in efficiency but doesn't score as many points--which is still how you decide who wins and loses. That was the point. You seemed to be basing your prediction that we'll be bad this season on poor offense. Again, this was what I heard all through the OOC in 2003-14; how inefficient we were offensively. We got better, as you may recall. If anything, I'm more concerned about our defense at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Dec 20, 2016 0:19:23 GMT -5
I think au is on the right trajectory and has the best chance to break into the top group with BU, bu and Lehigh in the coming years. But putting Jones in the top group of players and above MA in preseason polls was wrong. He may get there but not this year.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 20, 2016 0:22:42 GMT -5
AU is averaging 61.7 points per game. HC is averaging 59.8 points per game. If we're going to be bottom three in the PL, where does that leave y'all? But, yes, will be happy to message board wager. Loser has to put other school's logo in his profile for a month? NJJ, the Citadel is averaging like 100 points per game this year, that doesn't make them a good offensive team. You know this. Virginia is one of the most efficient offensive teams in the country, but they're averaging about 70 points per game -- pace of play has more to do with how many points a team scores, rather than how good their offense is. AU's offensive efficiency is 93.0 -- one of the worst in the country. HC is by no means a great offensive team at this juncture, but we are at 101.0. On what planet is a college basketball team averaging over 100 PPG not a "good offensive team?"
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 20, 2016 0:40:58 GMT -5
Is the citadel a better offensive team than Virginia because they average 30 more points than them?
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 20, 2016 0:48:42 GMT -5
Is the citadel a better offensive team than Virginia because they average 30 more points than them? Come on, that's a completely different question.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 20, 2016 1:07:23 GMT -5
The Citadel scored a 111 points in a loss tonight against UMBC. There were 109 possessions in the game. The citadel's points per possession was 1.02. That's a fairly pedestrian offensive efficiency.
It's foolish to look at exclusively the number of points scored without taking into account how many possessions it takes for that team to get there.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 20, 2016 8:20:21 GMT -5
NJJ, the Citadel is averaging like 100 points per game this year, that doesn't make them a good offensive team. You know this. Virginia is one of the most efficient offensive teams in the country, but they're averaging about 70 points per game -- pace of play has more to do with how many points a team scores, rather than how good their offense is. AU's offensive efficiency is 93.0 -- one of the worst in the country. HC is by no means a great offensive team at this juncture, but we are at 101.0. On what planet is a college basketball team averaging over 100 PPG not a "good offensive team?" Is a baseball player who gets 110 hits in 500 at bats in a season a better hitter than one who goes 80 for 250? The basketball equivalent of baseball at bats is possessions--how often does the team score when it gets the ball. The Citadel fires the ball up in 13 seconds (HC takes 20 seconds) and its opponents in 15, so it gets a lot more "at bats" than the normal team.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 20, 2016 8:32:55 GMT -5
Does this scoring deluge (by both teams) mean better attendance to see this exciting product? Citadel does give up an average of over 100 points a game (102). Watching a team with virtually no defense would drive me batty. HC gives up an average of 65 points a game. I love watching good defense (influence of the RW years?)..
Citadel is currently 7-6
Average home attendance: HC = 2047 C = 1133 Perhaps the Citadel fans are not thrilled with their style of play.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 20, 2016 8:40:09 GMT -5
The Citadel scored a 111 points in a loss tonight against UMBC. There were 109 possessions in the game. The citadel's points per possession was 1.02. That's a fairly pedestrian offensive efficiency. It's foolish to look at exclusively the number of points scored without taking into account how many possessions it takes for that team to get there. Your "points per possession" obsession is quite strange. Any team that scores 100 points in a 40 minute college basketball game is at the very least a "good" offensive team. However, as NJJ stated, that does not necessarily make them a "winning team" or a "good team."
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 20, 2016 9:03:07 GMT -5
It also does not seem to make them a team that fans show up to watch. Are they good offensively, yes. A price they pay is giving up defense. Their schedule is not strong. They had two quality opponents (Iowa State and Arizona State) and they did beat Colgate (who scored 101), but most of their opponents are very weak, including three non-D1 teams. If they had HC's schedule they would not average over 100 (and might not win more than a game or two).
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Dec 20, 2016 9:45:47 GMT -5
The Citadel scored a 111 points in a loss tonight against UMBC. There were 109 possessions in the game. The citadel's points per possession was 1.02. That's a fairly pedestrian offensive efficiency. It's foolish to look at exclusively the number of points scored without taking into account how many possessions it takes for that team to get there. Your "points per possession" obsession is quite strange. Any team that scores 100 points in a 40 minute college basketball game is at the very least a "good" offensive team. However, as NJJ stated, that does not necessarily make them a "winning team" or a "good team." to briefly interject in this debate,perhaps the difference is in how you both define "good". SoV seems to define it as efficient Caro seems to mean many points.
|
|
|
Post by res on Dec 20, 2016 11:15:13 GMT -5
A price they pay is giving up defense. Yes and no, which is why focusing on efficiency is so important. A team like that can still play good defense. The problem with that sort of offense, however, is that is gives so many more possessions to the other team. Thus, you can still play good defense but give up a lot more points simply because the other team has so many possessions. A team can score a great number of points and not be particularly great an offense and a team can give up a lot of points and not be an awful defensive team. Similarly, a team can be low-scoring and still a good offensive team or give up a below average number of points and still be weak defensively. The relative efficiencies of a particular team's offense and defense are the only appropriate measures.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Dec 20, 2016 12:18:44 GMT -5
The Citadel scored a 111 points in a loss tonight against UMBC. There were 109 possessions in the game. The citadel's points per possession was 1.02. That's a fairly pedestrian offensive efficiency. It's foolish to look at exclusively the number of points scored without taking into account how many possessions it takes for that team to get there. Your "points per possession" obsession is quite strange. Any team that scores 100 points in a 40 minute college basketball game is at the very least a "good" offensive team. However, as NJJ stated, that does not necessarily make them a "winning team" or a "good team." Points per per possession is, by far, the best way to evaluate a team's offense. And, no, a team that scores 100 points is not necessarily a good offensive team if they score those points by allowing their opponent to score quickly so they get the ball back.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Dec 20, 2016 12:26:11 GMT -5
NJJ, the Citadel is averaging like 100 points per game this year, that doesn't make them a good offensive team. You know this. Virginia is one of the most efficient offensive teams in the country, but they're averaging about 70 points per game -- pace of play has more to do with how many points a team scores, rather than how good their offense is. AU's offensive efficiency is 93.0 -- one of the worst in the country. HC is by no means a great offensive team at this juncture, but we are at 101.0. The Citadel is averaging 102 per game. And that makes them a very good offensive team. But since they're 346th out of 347 D1 teams in points allowed, it doesn't make them a winning team. I don't buy into pace and efficiency as the only means to determine a good or bad offense, or as predictive of a team's success or lack thereof. Old Dominion's offensive rating is worse than ours (330 to 309). They're 6-4. Turnovers per possession and per game matter. Free throws attempted/game matters. And your defense matters. Our offense isn't very good right now; yours is a little better in efficiency but doesn't score as many points--which is still how you decide who wins and loses. That was the point. You seemed to be basing your prediction that we'll be bad this season on poor offense. Turnovers per possession and free throws attempted definitely matter. They are both key components of points per possession, which is why it is the best metric - by far - in evaluating a team's overall offense. In 20 years, fans will be amazed to look back and think that anyone actually looked at points scored as a method to evaluate a team's offensive ability. agree that AU will be a lot better in PL play m
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 20, 2016 12:44:13 GMT -5
Your "points per possession" obsession is quite strange. Any team that scores 100 points in a 40 minute college basketball game is at the very least a "good" offensive team. However, as NJJ stated, that does not necessarily make them a "winning team" or a "good team." Points per per possession is, by far, the best way to evaluate a team's offense. I wholeheartedly disagree. Watching a team play is, by far, the best way to evaluate a team's offense (and defense and special teams and whatever else there is in sports).
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 20, 2016 12:51:47 GMT -5
Points per per possession is, by far, the best way to evaluate a team's offense. I wholeheartedly disagree. Watching a team play is, by far, the best way to evaluate a team's offense (and defense and special teams and whatever else there is in sports). Seeing a team play in person is a great way to evaluate both the team and the individual players that make it up. But, what you gonna believe more...the stats or "your lyin' eyes"?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 20, 2016 13:52:33 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly disagree. Watching a team play is, by far, the best way to evaluate a team's offense (and defense and special teams and whatever else there is in sports). Seeing a team play in person is a great way to evaluate both the team and the individual players that make it up. But, what you gonna believe more...the stats or "your lyin' eyes"? Maybe you need both the facts AND expert observation to get the true measure of a player or a team??? I think we do that on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 20, 2016 13:54:06 GMT -5
Points per per possession is, by far, the best way to evaluate a team's offense. I wholeheartedly disagree. Watching a team play is, by far, the best way to evaluate a team's offense (and defense and special teams and whatever else there is in sports). Let me guess, you're not a stats guy, but rather a Sabermetrics guy?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 20, 2016 14:53:38 GMT -5
Seeing a team play in person is a great way to evaluate both the team and the individual players that make it up. But, what you gonna believe more...the stats or "your lyin' eyes"? Maybe you need both the facts AND expert observation to get the true measure of a player or a team??? I think we do that on this board. I agree. "Seeing" a game or two often does not give the entire picture of a player or team seen over a season. CROSSPORTS provides both observation and stats and lets folks make up their own minds.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Dec 20, 2016 15:32:03 GMT -5
Caro would probably say: "That guy is a good three point shooter even though he only shoots 25% because his stroke looks good."
|
|
|
Post by res on Dec 20, 2016 16:13:35 GMT -5
The "eye test", especially when applied by the average fan, is surely the least reliable evaluation method in all of sports, much as is eye witness testimony in criminal cases. I'm not saying it's always or even predominantly unreliable, just that it's the most unreliable of methods.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 20, 2016 16:35:03 GMT -5
The "eye test", especially when applied by the average fan, is surely the least reliable evaluation method in all of sports, much as is eye witness testimony in criminal cases. I'm not saying it's always or even predominantly unreliable, just that it's the most unreliable of methods. A casual fan blindly relying on KenPom or advanced statistics to try and make judgements about teams that they have not watched play is a far less reliable method. The best way to evaluate a team is to understand basketball and watch the team play. Statistics should be used as a secondary source, like they are used as a secondary source for all good coaches. Just because fans know less about basketball than coaches (well, most coaches ), does not mean that they should study advanced statistics to try and figure out what is going on, rather than watch games. This idea that the " best" way to judge a team's offense or defense is "Points per Possession" is just nonsense.
|
|