College Basketball 2014-15 (2024)

Post: #241

I haven't really watched WVU play this year. Holy sh*t they turn opponents over a lot. More than 31% of the time. That's insane. They really don't do anything else well defensively, but that is incredible.

Also, this Kansas/Texas game has been very entertaining.

(This post was last modified: 01-24-2015 03:28 PM by Overrated.)

Post: #242

(01-24-2015 03:09 PM)Overrated Wrote:

(01-24-2015 03:00 PM)BeerCat Wrote:

(01-24-2015 02:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: Beercat- Offensive efficiency isn't hard to understand, it's points per possession (and Kenpom adjusts for level of competition, because scoring on the 330 ranked defense is easier than the top ranked defense). Points are a bad way to judge because there is a huge correlation to pace of play and level of competition. Take Virginia. They have been the 2nd best team in the country all year. Ken Pom's adjusted offense ranking has them as the 3rd best offense in the country. They rank 139th in points per game. This makes sense for 2 reasons: 1. They are 350th in tempo and 2. They have played the 16th best slate of defenses (according to Kenpom).

Mark, it is not that I don't understand have one arrives at the number for offensive efficiency. I understand the calculation. To me, those numbers have great appeal to people that have never played sports after they had to start trying out for teams. To win the game you MUST have more points than the other team, efficient, inefficient, doesn't matter if you win. To make the statement that, "how many points a team scores has nothing to do with how good they are offensively" is just stupid. And it would only be used by someone whose team is offensively challenged.

LOL I played sports into college. I'm the most competitive person I know. This stuff appeals to me because it is intelligent. Ignoring things that measure things clearly, are insightful and predictive is what is "just stupid" to me because this stuff is so readily available. There is a reason things like this are taking over sports. If you just want to watch games, that is fine, but to speak so condescendingly of intelligent information is just baffling.

I'm not being condescending towards the numbers as much as I'm being condescending to those who treat them as gospel. The point of the game is to score more points than the other team. After a close loss, I don't care if we were more offensively efficient than the other team. After we get knocked out of the tourney because we struggle mightily to score, I don't care about offensive efficiency.

If we played Louisville would we win because we are ranked higher by Kenpom? I seriously doubt it, that's what bugs me about this stuff. I don't care what Kenpom says or what our offensive efficiency is, if UC wants to make a Final Four again the offense must improve.

Again, I think the offense has looked much better at times this year, and I am hopeful because of that.

Post: #243

The problem I have with the "weighting" that a site like Kenpom uses is that it is a double whammy when a school plays a very low rated team.

The weighting of your offense and defense is adjusted (probably down) because you played said team... and in the case of a blowout, the coach has probably played every combination imaginable along with some people who would not get as much (or any) time against an upper ranked team.

Taken as a whole, I think schedules sort themselves out for the majority of teams without adjustment.

In any event, the main point for me in this thread is to get away from people wanting offense or defense. We would like to see both excel.

Post: #244

(01-24-2015 03:48 PM)BeerCat Wrote:

(01-24-2015 03:09 PM)Overrated Wrote:

(01-24-2015 03:00 PM)BeerCat Wrote:

(01-24-2015 02:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: Beercat- Offensive efficiency isn't hard to understand, it's points per possession (and Kenpom adjusts for level of competition, because scoring on the 330 ranked defense is easier than the top ranked defense). Points are a bad way to judge because there is a huge correlation to pace of play and level of competition. Take Virginia. They have been the 2nd best team in the country all year. Ken Pom's adjusted offense ranking has them as the 3rd best offense in the country. They rank 139th in points per game. This makes sense for 2 reasons: 1. They are 350th in tempo and 2. They have played the 16th best slate of defenses (according to Kenpom).

Mark, it is not that I don't understand have one arrives at the number for offensive efficiency. I understand the calculation. To me, those numbers have great appeal to people that have never played sports after they had to start trying out for teams. To win the game you MUST have more points than the other team, efficient, inefficient, doesn't matter if you win. To make the statement that, "how many points a team scores has nothing to do with how good they are offensively" is just stupid. And it would only be used by someone whose team is offensively challenged.

LOL I played sports into college. I'm the most competitive person I know. This stuff appeals to me because it is intelligent. Ignoring things that measure things clearly, are insightful and predictive is what is "just stupid" to me because this stuff is so readily available. There is a reason things like this are taking over sports. If you just want to watch games, that is fine, but to speak so condescendingly of intelligent information is just baffling.

I'm not being condescending towards the numbers as much as I'm being condescending to those who treat them as gospel. The point of the game is to score more points than the other team. After a close loss, I don't care if we were more offensively efficient than the other team. After we get knocked out of the tourney because we struggle mightily to score, I don't care about offensive efficiency.

If we played Louisville would we win because we are ranked higher by Kenpom? I seriously doubt it, that's what bugs me about this stuff. I don't care what Kenpom says or what our offensive efficiency is, if UC wants to make a Final Four again the offense must improve.

Again, I think the offense has looked much better at times this year, and I am hopeful because of that.

You can't lose a game and have better offensive efficiency than the team you lost to. Each team has the same amount of possessions in a game. I guess it's possible for a team to have one more than their opponent, but that's it.

And we aren't ranked higher in KenPom than Louisville. They rank 13th. We are 31st. But they are rated higher because they are exceptional on defense while we are just pretty good on that end this year.

As to those who point out Louisville being bad at offense to defend Mick, I get the point, but at the same time Rick Pitino has coached offenses that have ranked 4th, 7th, 15th and 23rd in the country in his time at Louisville. And I'd imagine he coached some pretty good ones at UK as well. The best we have done offensively under Mick is 53rd. Not quite the same thing.

Now I think most of that is talent. Louisville recruits significantly better than we do. But I do think there are systemic things we do offensively that hold us back as well.

Post: #245

Post: #246

(01-24-2015 03:59 PM)Overrated Wrote:

(01-24-2015 03:48 PM)BeerCat Wrote:

(01-24-2015 03:09 PM)Overrated Wrote:

(01-24-2015 03:00 PM)BeerCat Wrote:

(01-24-2015 02:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: Beercat- Offensive efficiency isn't hard to understand, it's points per possession (and Kenpom adjusts for level of competition, because scoring on the 330 ranked defense is easier than the top ranked defense). Points are a bad way to judge because there is a huge correlation to pace of play and level of competition. Take Virginia. They have been the 2nd best team in the country all year. Ken Pom's adjusted offense ranking has them as the 3rd best offense in the country. They rank 139th in points per game. This makes sense for 2 reasons: 1. They are 350th in tempo and 2. They have played the 16th best slate of defenses (according to Kenpom).

Mark, it is not that I don't understand have one arrives at the number for offensive efficiency. I understand the calculation. To me, those numbers have great appeal to people that have never played sports after they had to start trying out for teams. To win the game you MUST have more points than the other team, efficient, inefficient, doesn't matter if you win. To make the statement that, "how many points a team scores has nothing to do with how good they are offensively" is just stupid. And it would only be used by someone whose team is offensively challenged.

LOL I played sports into college. I'm the most competitive person I know. This stuff appeals to me because it is intelligent. Ignoring things that measure things clearly, are insightful and predictive is what is "just stupid" to me because this stuff is so readily available. There is a reason things like this are taking over sports. If you just want to watch games, that is fine, but to speak so condescendingly of intelligent information is just baffling.

I'm not being condescending towards the numbers as much as I'm being condescending to those who treat them as gospel. The point of the game is to score more points than the other team. After a close loss, I don't care if we were more offensively efficient than the other team. After we get knocked out of the tourney because we struggle mightily to score, I don't care about offensive efficiency.

If we played Louisville would we win because we are ranked higher by Kenpom? I seriously doubt it, that's what bugs me about this stuff. I don't care what Kenpom says or what our offensive efficiency is, if UC wants to make a Final Four again the offense must improve.

Again, I think the offense has looked much better at times this year, and I am hopeful because of that.

You can't lose a game and have better offensive efficiency than the team you lost to. Each team has the same amount of possessions in a game. I guess it's possible for a team to have one more than their opponent, but that's it.

And we aren't ranked higher in KenPom than Louisville. They rank 13th. We are 31st. But they are rated higher because they are exceptional on defense while we are just pretty good on that end this year.

As to those who point out Louisville being bad at offense to defend Mick, I get the point, but at the same time Rick Pitino has coached offenses that have ranked 4th, 7th, 15th and 23rd in the country in his time at Louisville. And I'd imagine he coached some pretty good ones at UK as well. The best we have done offensively under Mick is 53rd. Not quite the same thing.

Now I think most of that is talent. Louisville recruits significantly better than we do. But I do think there are systemic things we do offensively that hold us back as well.

I meant overall, not just in one game.

Post: #247

Post: #248

Post: #249

Terrible call made up with a terrible touch foul call.

Huggins is going to put this in his Wyoming folder after a couple of Durden-like FTs.

Post: #250

Post: #251

Did they say on the broadcast why two of WVU's backup guards didn't play today? I know their team has been passing around the flu bug, but I saw at least one of them dressed in his warm ups during the last timeout.

Really surprised Huggins kept from choking the official to death on the non-travel call.

Post: #252

Post: #253

(01-24-2015 05:04 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote: Did they say on the broadcast why two of WVU's backup guards didn't play today? I know their team has been passing around the flu bug, but I saw at least one of them dressed in his warm ups during the last timeout.

Really surprised Huggins kept from choking the official to death on the non-travel call.

No word yet.

Post: #254

(01-24-2015 05:09 PM)Overrated Wrote: Nebraska is currently up 14 at half against Michigan State.

They're so inconsistent.

Post: #255

(01-24-2015 05:14 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:

(01-24-2015 05:04 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote: Did they say on the broadcast why two of WVU's backup guards didn't play today? I know their team has been passing around the flu bug, but I saw at least one of them dressed in his warm ups during the last timeout.

Really surprised Huggins kept from choking the official to death on the non-travel call.

No word yet.

Huggins said in the post-game that he's not happy with their decision-making and that they're a detriment to the team at this moment... Doghouse.

Post: #256

Post: #257

(01-24-2015 05:27 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote: Huggins said in the post-game that he's not happy with their decision-making and that they're a detriment to the team at this moment... Doghouse.

Thanks. If he was going to make a statement, he picked the right game to do it.

Post: #258

Nebraska almost gives it up to MSU but holds on 79-77.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Post: #259

Post: #260

(01-24-2015 05:35 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote: Would be big if Nebraska can win. Would likely move them into the rop 100 meaning UC would not have a loss outside the Top 100 RPI.

Nebraska's rpi moves to 89 after today's win