Bad News For Tennessee

[vol731]

now I love stats and hearing all the crazy stuff like this that comes out of stat software, but seriously? like the rest of you have said, we already knew this.

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by HawaiiVol

you don't have to make assumptions if you watch the games. It's right there in front of you.

And no, I wouldn't be surprised at the number of inane assumptions at all.

Part of me agrees with what you're saying; but another part of me knows that's not entirely true. I mean unless you're some sort of savant it's basically impossible to fully tally all the various events that occur throughout a season and sift through them at the drop of a hat in order to arrive at accurate and thoroughly founded opinions about how/why a team works or doesn't.

Stats are basically an easily accessible memory that allows us to see correlations and trends and etc, and to ignore them because you 'watch the game' is to make a severe error: it is to think of numbers as somewhat separate from the game itself; it is to think of stats as an alternate story from the one you witness. This is not the case: stats are annotation to the game itself, are addition to what our eyes do see but our mind's can in no way comprehend so thoroughly.

Of course, they leave some things out, definitely, but so does simply viewing. This might be kinda why both watching the game and the cumulative boxscores is a good idea, rather than pitting one v. another.

[phi0129]

We have been addressing these issues all year long. And just because statistically something is suppossed to happen doesn't mean it will. Maybe we will have perfect circumstances every game of the tournament? My point is that while this article is insightful and fairly accurate from a mathematical standpoint, there are far too many other variables affecting the outcome of the game to think this statistic completely dooms us. Maybe we will catch those elite teams on a night when they are turning the ball over. Just because someone's average turnover ratio is low doesn't mean that some games they don't turn it over more. Not to mention nowhere in that article did he give us the elite teams results of his model (Memphis, Kansas, UCLA, Duke, etc.). While a good read for someone like me (math junkie, MBA in finance), I don't put a whole lot of weight on it. I agree that our chances are diminished when we can't force turnovers, but maybe we will shoot lights out that night. All I know is we have risen to the occasion almost every game this year against stiff competition, and I think that gives us just as good a chance as any to make the Final Four. It doesn't mean I think we are going to at this exact moment.

[phi0129]

Earlier in the year they were talking about teams we couldn't beat because of our lack of inside presence. Well so far we have disspelled those ideas as well...

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by vol731

now I love stats and hearing all the crazy stuff like this that comes out of stat software, but seriously? like the rest of you have said, we already knew this.

Well I mean this is a 'topic', right? It's not like it's just some authoritative post that you can't quibble with.

perhaps what's interesting about these numbers is that, while I agree with the premise, eg. we rely far too much on turnovers, I think there is an element that the numbers fail to account for, and it might be worth exploring just what that element is.

Meaning that I actually kinda think the Vols could force, say, only 12 TOs vs Memphis and still win, and yet I wonder what kind of hunches sponsor that thought. I'm reluctant to call it 'intagibles', because that's a bit silly-seeming, but I'm not reluctant to call it something else. What that else is I'm not aware of yet.

Let the topic be about that instead, if you are tired of hearing the same old.

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by phi0129

We have been addressing these issues all year long. And just because statistically something is suppossed to happen doesn't mean it will. Maybe we will have perfect circumstances every game of the tournament? My point is that while this article is insightful and fairly accurate from a mathematical standpoint, there are far too many other variables affecting the outcome of the game to think this statistic completely dooms us.

To be fair, phil, the article merely suggests that this exact metric indicates a higher possibilty of a vols' letdown; it does not say we are doomed. Numbers are not as arrogant as most think. They are often just a means to predict or suggest what is MORE likely to happen.

[Lexvol]

Originally Posted by lidderer

Well I mean this is a 'topic', right? It's not like it's just some authoritative post that you can't quibble with.

perhaps what's interesting about these numbers is that, while I agree with the premise, eg. we rely far too much on turnovers, I think there is an element that the numbers fail to account for, and it might be worth exploring just what that element is.

Meaning that I actually kinda think the Vols could force, say, only 12 TOs vs Memphis and still win, and yet I wonder what kind of hunches sponsor that thought. I'm reluctant to call it 'intagibles', because that's a bit silly-seeming, but I'm not reluctant to call it something else. What that else is I'm not aware of yet.

Let the topic be about that instead, if you are tired of hearing the same old.

Generally speaking turnovers and transition baskets ease the reliance improve your field goal %. However, three point shooting is not an intangible. If the Vols get hot and hit their trey's they can play with anyone in the country.

[phi0129]

Originally Posted by lidderer

To be fair, phil, the article merely suggests that this exact metric indicates a higher possibilty of a vols' letdown; it does not say we are doomed. Numbers are not as arrogant as most think. They are often just a means to predict or suggest what is MORE likely to happen.

I know about numbers my friend. I got a 780 on the SAT in math, perfect on the ACT, a 5 on my AP Calc Exam, and I majored in computer sciences during my undergrad years. It's not phil. It's phi. Just to let you know for future reference. On my online poker account everyone calls me phil. What you said above is my point. It seemed to me that every time someone came back with something to say about that article, you defended it to the point where you thought the sky was falling. I must have misinterpreted.

[HawaiiVol]

Originally Posted by lidderer

Part of me agrees with what you're saying; but another part of me knows that's not entirely true. I mean unless you're some sort of savant it's basically impossible to fully tally all the various events that occur throughout a season and sift through them at the drop of a hat in order to arrive at accurate and thoroughly founded opinions about how/why a team works or doesn't.

Stats are basically an easily accessible memory that allows us to see correlations and trends and etc, and to ignore them because you 'watch the game' is to make a severe error: it is to think of numbers as somewhat separate from the game itself; it is to think of stats as an alternate story from the one you witness. This is not the case: stats are annotation to the game itself, are addition to what our eyes do see but our mind's can in no way comprehend so thoroughly.

Of course, they leave some things out, definitely, but so does simply viewing. This might be kinda why both watching the game and the cumulative boxscores is a good idea, rather than pitting one v. another.

2 different routes came to the same conclusion. I'm no savant, as I know the majority that post here aren't, but it's pretty obvious to come to the same result.

It's nice that there are guys like that, that sift through every minute detail to validate what the majority ascertain from simply watching and paying attention.

[rexvol]

Originally Posted by lidderer

Classic case of offering no alternative position and grandstanding behind empty platitudes devoid of any backing.

This seems a legit point of arguement vs our Vols' chances at longevity come March. You think otherwise, and why?

Obviously, I can't ignore Tennessee any longer.

I think the above statement speaks volumes about the author's motivation. If you set out to prove a certain point you can skew the numbers to say what you want. As for you, well, you seem to be the person grandstanding. To refute him I merely need to point out that despite all of his numbers, we are #2 in the nation.

[JagerVol01]

I don't disagree with the hypothesis but somebody sure seems to have an ample amount of time on their hands.....and having watched most of Tennessee's games this year I am more concerned for our over reliance on perimeter shooting than I am TO's - but I guess you could argue that a team forcing fewer TO's would have to rely more on it's half court offense from where Tennessee mostly shoots from outside.

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by rexvol

Obviously, I can't ignore Tennessee any longer.

I think the above statement speaks volumes about the author's motivation. If you set out to prove a certain point you can skew the numbers to say what you want. As for you, well, you seem to be the person grandstanding. To refute him I merely need to point out that despite all of his numbers, we are #2 in the nation

Weird that you'd fault a guy for using numbers, and then go on to cite maybe the most worthless of numbers of all: poll ranking.

You're also saying he's unfairly biased against the vols because his analysis of their numbers suggest they are not as good as certain other highly-ranked teams, and that he then goes on to 'skew' those very same numbers which initially led him to arrive at his conclusion, which is a peculiar point to make and even more peculiar to fault him for. It's like saying "You're just saying chocolate hurts your teeth because chocolate hurts your teeth, you chocolate-hating liar!"

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by JagerVol01

I don't disagree with the hypothesis but somebody sure seems to have an ample amount of time on their hands.....

The perimeter thing worries me in theory, but we average so many possessions that it's not really such a huge deal if we hit only 28% from beyond--of course the reason we get all those possessions is because...etc.

He is the head writer and creator of Basketball Prospectus, so it's not really ample time so much as it's his livelihood, and I sorta admire his thoroughness with his job vs, say, an ESPN pundit who publishes what basically amounts to his gut.

[General Jack]

I thought it was a well-researched, well thought out article. It puts some statistics and analysis behind what we all realize... if our press isn't effective, we are going to have a much tougher go of it.

[TennTom]

I assure you the RPI numbers speak inherently greater than this single-minded mathematical premise that fails to take into account so many other variables in determining Tennessee's fate versus other top tiered opponents