X thoughts

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I dont understand this.  When the #2 offense turns the ball over 12 times in the first half, that is generally out of character.  Of course they are not going to do the same thing again and not adjust.

If a team is shooting 40% from 3, and they go 0-10 in the first half, and 8- 10 from 3 in the 2nd half to reach their average.....would you say only if they would have kept those misses up in the 2nd half...?

I guess I'm confused by your confusion. I was saying if Marquette forced another 12 turnovers that we would have won. Xavier wasn't just giving the ball away in the first half. Marquette had 9 1H steals, they were forcing those turnovers. X adjusted and we didn't adjust with them.

[We R Final Four]

I guess I'm confused by your confusion. I was saying if Marquette forced another 12 turnovers that we would have won. Xavier wasn't just giving the ball away in the first half. Marquette had 9 1H steals, they were forcing those turnovers. X adjusted and we didn't adjust with them.

Yes--I know. There was no way MU was going to continue to get another 12 turnovers just because it happened in the first half. The market corrects itself.

Because a team was 0-10 on 3s in the first half, your position in similar to to saying if they only went 0-10 like they did in the first half, we would have won.  Instead, the team hits 8-10 on 3s in the 2nd half to hit their season average of 40%.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes--I know. There was no way MU was going to continue to get another 12 turnovers just because it happened in the first half. The market corrects itself.

Because a team was 0-10 on 3s in the first half, your position in similar to to saying if they only went 0-10 like they did in the first half, we would have won.  Instead, the team hits 8-10 on 3s in the 2nd half to hit their season average of 40%.

This isn't the economy. What defenses do matter. Sure you shouldn't expect another 12 turnovers, but I think its fair to expect more than the four we got. Same with 3 point shooting. If a team goes 0-10 in the first half, I think it is more likely they go 0-10  in the second half than it is that they go 8-10.

[We R Final Four]

2. We forced Xavier into 12 first half turnovers. If we kept that up in the second half...

To your point #2, this wasn't going to happen just because it happened in the first half....and it didn't.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

To your point #2, this wasn't going to happen just because it happened in the first half....and it didn't.

I think your reading it too literally. All I meant by the comment was if we kept forcing a lot of turnovers. It didn't mean literally another 12 turnovers.

[We R Final Four]

I think your reading it too literally. All I meant by the comment was if we kept forcing a lot of turnovers. It didn't mean literally another 12 turnovers.

When X was 2-12 on 3s in 1H, you were thinking that would continue? I didn't.
I thought they would come up to their average....and they did. 8-16 in 2H.
Similar to their 12 1H turnovers---whether you like it or not, numbers tend to come back to the average.
So, to expect an above average # of turnovers to continue all game long was expecting something that probably wasn't going to happen.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

When X was 2-12 on 3s in 1H, you were thinking that would continue? I didn't.
I thought they would come up to their average....and they did. 8-16 in 2H.
Similar to their 12 1H turnovers---whether you like it or not, numbers tend to come back to the average.
So, to expect an above average # of turnovers to continue all game long was expecting something that probably wasn't going to happen.

Here's what I know. What I wrote was that if we kept forcing a lot of turnovers in the 2H, we would have won. A most likely factual statement. That's all that was meant by the comment.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have responded in the first place. I feel like sometimes you have to read your posts over 5 times before submitting lest you could possibly be misinterpreted in any way.

[We R Final Four]

I'm sorry as well. I just gets to me when people suggest that if abnormality would have just continued the way it did for the first X amount of time, we would have won. I hear about FTs, TOs, 3 pt shooting, etc. whatever. Good shooting teams usually come around after a bad start, teams that don't generally turn it over, usually stop turning it over.