MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: DaCoach on December 22, 2013, 04:12:36 PM
-
We've all read about the offensive inadequacies of our backcourt this year. And their ineffectiveness can't be overlooked. However little criticism has been placed elsewhere. Here is a comparison that should dispel some of the blame. Both Gardner and Jamil Wilson have seen their offensive stats drop from last year.
Davante has seen his FG% go to 54% from 59% and his FT% from 84% to 64%, a 20 point plunge. Jamil's FG% last year was the same as this year, 44%. However his FT% gone to only 60% from 74% last year.
If we then try to compare our positions where players have moved on we look at Junior's numbers last year vs Derrick's this year, it can be noticed that the FG% has gone from 43% to 38% and the FT rate from 71% to 56%. The numbers fall off grow more significantly when we try to replace Vander's impact with that of Jake. FG% was 45% last year and only 34% this year. Biggest improvement this year has come from Mayo who has improved his shooting from 35% to 44%.
Marginally Otule and Anderson have also improved along with better numbers from our freshmen to offset Lockett's performance. Bottom line is that our senior members haven't improved their games this year and the players who have positive offensive numbers aren't impacting team stats because of their limited court time.
-
So let me get this straight...Davante and Jamil are shooting a lower percentage from the line because of our backcourt?
-
I laugh at that, too, brew.
I think there is a legitimate point that Davante especially doesn't have as much room to operate because the guards feeding him the ball haven't been as effective as their predecessors. But if he's thinking about Derrick's lack of shooting ability while he's standing on the line, well, that's au-to-ma-tic-ally dopey!
-
So let me get this straight...Davante and Jamil are shooting a lower percentage from the line because of our backcourt?
May not be that crazy. It's like a QB with a good running the game, it opens up the pass.
If you have a backcourt that can hit shots from the perimeter, doesn't that open up the inside a bit because they can't cheat off of you? If DWill is out there, it's 4 on 5, an extra defender guarding someone. That makes it tougher to score. Plus, you need a backcourt that can get your guys the ball in places where they can shoot the ball.
I don't think it is that far fetched...balance helps. It's not the end all be all, but a more balanced outside scoring punch from the guards is only going to help the bigs get better shots and likely a higher FG percentage.
-
May not be that crazy. It's like a QB with a good running the game, it opens up the pass.
If you have a backcourt that can hit shots from the perimeter, doesn't that open up the inside a bit because they can't cheat off of you? If DWill is out there, it's 4 on 5, an extra defender guarding someone. That makes it tougher to score. Plus, you need a backcourt that can get your guys the ball in places where they can shoot the ball.
I don't think it is that far fetched...balance helps. It's not the end all be all, but a more balanced outside scoring punch from the guards is only going to help the bigs get better shots and likely a higher FG percentage.
Free throws, Chicos, free throws. It's completely far fetched. Derrick Wilson being at the halfcourt stripe when Davante is standing on the free throw line doesn't make it 4 on 5, it's still 1 on (http://www.officeplayground.com/Assets/ProductIcon/pi1000-1499/1097_basketballhoopbackboard_1.jpg).
-
Free throws, Chicos, free throws. It's completely far fetched. Derrick Wilson being at the halfcourt stripe when Davante is standing on the free throw line doesn't make it 4 on 5, it's still 1 on (http://www.officeplayground.com/Assets/ProductIcon/pi1000-1499/1097_basketballhoopbackboard_1.jpg).
I was focusing on the FG% drop by DG, not FT% drop. It's obvious the FT % drop is because Buzz doesn't make them practice free throws.
;)
-
So let me get this straight...Davante and Jamil are shooting a lower percentage from the line because of our backcourt?
Where did I ever say or even imply that?
-
In the bolded areas.
We've all read about the offensive inadequacies of our backcourt this year. And their ineffectiveness can't be overlooked. However little criticism has been placed elsewhere. Here is a comparison that should dispel some of the blame. Both Gardner and Jamil Wilson have seen their offensive stats drop from last year.
Davante has seen his FG% go to 54% from 59% and his FT% from 84% to 64%, a 20 point plunge. Jamil's FG% last year was the same as this year, 44%. However his FT% gone to only 60% from 74% last year.
If we then try to compare our positions where players have moved on we look at Junior's numbers last year vs Derrick's this year, it can be noticed that the FG% has gone from 43% to 38% and the FT rate from 71% to 56%. The numbers fall off grow more significantly when we try to replace Vander's impact with that of Jake. FG% was 45% last year and only 34% this year. Biggest improvement this year has come from Mayo who has improved his shooting from 35% to 44%.
Marginally Otule and Anderson have also improved along with better numbers from our freshmen to offset Lockett's performance. Bottom line is that our senior members haven't improved their games this year and the players who have positive offensive numbers aren't impacting team stats because of their limited court time.
-
In the bolded areas.
Think you are really misreading his post...
-
Think you are really misreading his post...
Yeah, think so too
-
I must be, because that seems absolutely ridiculous. :-\
-
I must be, because that seems absolutely ridiculous. :-\
He never suggested that the backcourt was the cause of missed FTs. He was pointing out that the senior front court guys are also contributing to bad offense due to missed FTs and lesser FG percentage.
-
In the bolded areas.
Before you read facts and infer I stated the cause being our backcourt, I suggest you point out where I drew a cause and effect relationship. Your comprehension is atrocious.
-
Before you read facts and infer I stated the cause being our backcourt, I suggest you point out where I drew a cause and effect relationship. Your comprehension is atrocious.
Seeing as I wasn't the only way that saw it like that, maybe it wasn't written very clearly. Regardless, I misinterpreted, as I stated 3 posts up.
-
We've all read about the offensive inadequacies of our backcourt this year. And their ineffectiveness can't be overlooked. However little criticism has been placed elsewhere. Here is a comparison that should dispel some of the blame. Both Gardner and Jamil Wilson have seen their offensive stats drop from last year.
Davante has seen his FG% go to 54% from 59% and his FT% from 84% to 64%, a 20 point plunge. Jamil's FG% last year was the same as this year, 44%. However his FT% gone to only 60% from 74% last year.
If we then try to compare our positions where players have moved on we look at Junior's numbers last year vs Derrick's this year, it can be noticed that the FG% has gone from 43% to 38% and the FT rate from 71% to 56%. The numbers fall off grow more significantly when we try to replace Vander's impact with that of Jake. FG% was 45% last year and only 34% this year. Biggest improvement this year has come from Mayo who has improved his shooting from 35% to 44%.
Marginally Otule and Anderson have also improved along with better numbers from our freshmen to offset Lockett's performance. Bottom line is that our senior members haven't improved their games this year and the players who have positive offensive numbers aren't impacting team stats because of their limited court time.
I wonder why you didn't mention the turnover rates of Jamil and Big Sheesh?
Probably because it doesn't your radical agenda of hate.
-
I wonder why you didn't mention the turnover rates of Jamil and Big Sheesh?
Probably because it doesn't your radical agenda of hate.
What brought about that stupid response?
-
Seeing as I wasn't the only way that saw it like that
Yea...by you and "Sultan"
-
Yea...by you and "Sultan"
Apparently you also have reading comprehension problems ::)
-
Apparently you also have reading comprehension problems ::)
No, not at all. How's fire fightin'?
-
What brought about that stupid response?
I was actually being kind. Numbers do "lie" to those who don't understand them.
Case in point:
The numbers fall off grow more significantly when we try to replace Vander's impact with that of Jake. FG% was 45% last year and only 34% this year.
Except for the grammar, this sounds like it makes sense... but it doesn't. Once you consider the shots taken by Vander and Jake (i.e., 3FG & 2FG), things change. In your world +/- tells a story. In mine it often does not (certainly not in the case of JJJ). In your world Vander shot the ball significantly better last year than Jake is shooting this year. In my world, Jake's shooting has been better than Vander's.
Numbers can lie. However, the first step is making sure you're looking at relevant data.
-
I was actually being kind. Numbers do "lie" to those who don't understand them.
Case in point:
Except for the grammar, this sounds like it makes sense... but it doesn't. Once you consider the shots taken by Vander and Jake (i.e., 3FG & 2FG), things change. In your world +/- tells a story. In mine it often does not (certainly not in the case of JJJ). In your world Vander shot the ball significantly better last year than Jake is shooting this year. In my world, Jake's shooting has been better than Vander's.
Numbers can lie. However, the first step is making sure you're looking at relevant data.
Probably because it doesn't your radical agenda of hate
It's usually wise not to criticize grammatical errors when one's own mistakes are at least as egregious. As for your claim that Jake is a better shooter than Vander was last year, I'd be glad to accept the consensus of Marquette fans.
Finally, for anyone to suggest that numbers lie probably means that their mathematical skills need improvement.
-
It's usually wise not to criticize grammatical errors when one's own mistakes are at least as egregious. As for your claim that Jake is a better shooter than Vander was last year, I'd be glad to accept the consensus of Marquette fans.
Finally, for anyone to suggest that numbers lie probably means that their mathematical skills need improvement.
Jake's eFG% this season is higher than Vander's was last season. Thought you were a numbers guy?!
-
It's usually wise not to criticize grammatical errors when one's own mistakes are at least as egregious. As for your claim that Jake is a better shooter than Vander was last year, I'd be glad to accept the consensus of Marquette fans.
Finally, for anyone to suggest that numbers lie probably means that their mathematical skills need improvement.
I'll choose your side here Coach. You're right that numbers don't lie - people just tend to choose numbers that don't tell what they are purporting to tell.
Case in Point - JayBee's claim that Jake is a better shooter than Vander. Totally irrelevant. Almost always, someone who only takes wide open shots will have a better shooting percentage than a creator like Vander and it is obvious to everyone that it is a useless stat. Vander created and scored much more than Jake - there is no comparison between their offensive skills.
Better "shooter" means nothing.
-
Jake's eFG% this season is higher than Vander's was last season. Thought you were a numbers guy?!
Otule's eFG% is highest on the team. By your assessment, he must be the team's best shooter, Eh?
-
Truth is if Vander were on this team, we're be bitchin' he sucks.
-
Otule's eFG% is highest on the team. By your assessment, he must be the team's best shooter, Eh?
Stop creating things. I wasn't making a qualatative assessment. Your claim was that the numbers showed a significant drop from Van to Jake. My point is that your claim is mathematically false. You don't understand the numbers.
-
Yeah, think so too
Probably misremembering also. Jr. was way better at threading the needle to the post, as well as driving to the hoop and dishing to Ox. Derrick lacks that skill.
-
Numbers lie all the time in sports.
Numbers don't accurately measure leadership or heart or intangibles or clutch play.
Anybody with a calculator can find numbers to support his or her argument and tear down another person's argument.
Quite often, the eye test or the smell tes -- especially when applied by knowledgeable people -- is superior to numbers.
The Vander/Jake thing is so easy, just like the Vander/Gasser thing. I don't need numbers to know who was better because I have two eyes, decent basketball knowledge and common sense.
-
Probably misremembering also. Jr. was way better at threading the needle to the post, as well as driving to the hoop and dishing to Ox. Derrick lacks that skill.
I pine for the days of a Tony Miller, DJ, Diener, etc
-
Stop creating things. I wasn't making a qualatative assessment. Your claim was that the numbers showed a significant drop from Van to Jake. My point is that your claim is mathematically false. You don't understand the numbers.
You are a perfect example of someone so illogical that it's impossible to try and educate. I'm done trying.
-
Numbers lie all the time in sports.
I've got it now. Don't confuse you with facts. You've got your mind made up already.
-
I've got it now. Don't confuse you with facts. You've got your mind made up already.
I didn't say all numbers lie all the time. I'm just saying that a person on either side of any issue can find numbers to support an argument.
Who belongs in the Hall of Fame, Jack Morris or Mike Mussina? Well, Morris had fewer wins and a higher ERA, as well as fewer strikeouts and more walks ... so Mussina. But wait, Morris had three times as many complete games, so he was more of a workhorse, led all pitchers in the '80s in victories and was a clutch pitcher on three championship teams ... so Morris. Then there's Curt Schilling, who in addition to being a fine regular-season pitcher went 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA in 19 postseason games.
See?
Again, it's semantics. None of those numbers in my example really "lied." Each was a fact. But one can take any number and use it however one pleases.
If you take eFG% and use it as proof that one player is better than another, that is your prerogative. I can take what I witness with my own two eyes and give it even greater weight. That's my prerogative. You will say your measure is better than mine. I will politely disagree. And then we can move on to the next subject.
-
I'm still waiting for the defenses to play MU 5 on 4...because Derrick can't score!
Zones are going to have a field day with him this year!
-
I pine for the days of a Tony Miller, DJ, Diener, etc
Yeah--even though Tony was not much of a shooter, he could pass and control the ball. Wonder if we will ever get a guy to break his assist record. We need a PG that has ball skills of Tony, athleticism of DJ, and shooting of Diener. His name would be Dominavis Miller.
-
His name would be Dominavis Miller.
Okay, that was funny. ;D
-
No, not at all. How's fire fightin'?
Read the thread again. Where does Sultan come into this at all. You continue to have reading comprehension problems.
-
You continue to have reading comprehension problems.
Nope, not at all. A degree from MU plus two Masters from top 5 universities and then an Honor Graduate of Air War College suggests otherwise. We know you didn't go to Marquette. Just what is your alma mater?
-
Nope, not at all. A degree from MU plus two Masters from top 5 universities and then an Honor Graduate of Air War College suggests otherwise. We know you didn't go to Marquette. Just what is your alma mater?
Whoa, that took a turn. The smiley face meant he was kidding.
-
Whoa, that took a turn. The smiley face meant he was kidding.
A "smiley" would have meant he was kidding. Only he didn't use the "smiley." In true Cyber Bully form he used the "eye roll."
:) smiley
::) eye roll
Eye Roll is not a sushi item. Rather, it is eSpeak for "you are an idiot." It is the Cyber Bully equivalent of "F uck You."
-
A "smiley" would have meant he was kidding. Only he didn't use the "smiley." In true Cyber Bully form he used the "eye roll."
:) smiley
::) eye roll
Eye Roll is not a sushi item. Rather, it is eSpeak for "you are an idiot." It is the Cyber Bully equivalent of "F uck You."
I didn't know that because I don't have multiple Master's degrees! :-*
-
I didn't know that because I don't have multiple Master's degrees! :-*
I took Iconology Engineering 501 at Michigan for the non-existent internet. I believe Al Gore was just wrapping up his Herculean effort at inventing it. He would have been done sooner if not for the whole global warming thing.
-
I took Iconology Engineering 501 at Michigan for the non-existent internet. I believe Al Gore was just wrapping up his Herculean effort at inventing it. He would have been done sooner if not for the whole global warming thing.
That would be a funny line IF Al had actually said he invented the internet
-
That would be a funny line IF Al had actually said he invented the internet
I know that. It's just fun to take the piss out of any politician.
-
That would be a funny line IF Al had actually said he invented the internet
He said he took the initiative to create it while in Congress. Invent...create...semantics. Said it multiple times, including the Larry King show and with Wolf Blitzer. Obviously, the internet was created by a combination of military and academic institutions (UCLA and Stanford are partially credited).
Plenty of video out there that shows what he said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFJ8cHAlco
Obviously people that defend him and his side take issue with it and say that's not what he meant, etc, etc. Understood, the question I would have for them is if the shoe was on the other foot (say Mission Accomplished...which was also "never said") would you defend in the same manner? I think we know the answer....it is what it is.
-
I know that. It's just fun to take the piss out of any politician.
It actually is kinda funny how we repeat this stuff even when we know it isn't true. I'm not blaming you cuz I do the same thing too. We all take the simple route with someone we disagree with - it was pretty easy for me for 8 years with Bush
-
It actually is kinda funny how we repeat this stuff even when we know it isn't true. I'm not blaming you cuz I do the same thing too. We all take the simple route with someone we disagree with - it was pretty easy for me for 8 years with Bush
I only needed a few days with Mr. Obama...
-
I'm just going to go ahead and lock this while I'm looking at the site. Merry Christmas everyone!