Bad News For Tennessee

[utvolpj]

Originally Posted by lidderer

if someone starts telling you about the Prius' drawbacks do you just say "blahblahblah, I'm gonna buy the car and then just see what happens"?

no, I saw it drive by and thought it was gd ugly. I really don't care about it's +/-

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

no, I saw it drive by and thought it was gd ugly. I really don't care about it's +/-

touche

[HawaiiVol]

Originally Posted by jakez4ut

and you guys think i'm long winded.......jeez.

all that to say "when we don't force turovers it negatively affects our offense".

that is brand new information.

Jake, you are long winded, but you at least cover multiple points in your theses which makes for a good read.

This, however, meh.

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by lidderer

What is this argument(hat-tip to the guy with poker av. for correction) about exactly?

If you are considering buying a car, do you not read up on the cars you're choosing between? Doesn't this reading-up help you make a more informed purchase? or if someone starts telling you about the Prius' drawbacks do you just say "blahblahblah, I'm gonna buy the car and then just see what happens"?

Why would I want to test drive my team? I am a fan and already own my team win or loss they are mine!

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by KB5252

Why would I want to test drive my team? I am a fan and already own my team win or loss they are mine!

I think you may have missed the point.

[KB5252]

No I understand your point. I was being sarcastic (habit of mine) and while I do agree it is good to research and have knowledge about the matchup, I am skewed because of my loyalties. You'll just have to excuse me.

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by HawaiiVol

Jake, you are long winded, but you at least cover multiple points in your theses which makes for a good read.

This, however, meh.

Point 1: Vols rely on TOs(which yes, we know, you know)

Point 2: distinction made b/w causing TOs and being in the presence of a turnover-prone team

Point 3: Elite teams that are NOT turnover-prone are MORE elite than elite teams that cause TOs; meaning the good teams at holding the ball are better at it than the good teams that steal the ball

Point 4: Points-per-possession on D stated; the inference from the other points suggests that even more poss. for the opponent will occur if said opponent happens to be an elite team in terms of holding onto the ball

Point 5: the above points in tandem spell a LIKELIHOOD of bad news for the vols

Point 6: evidence of when the vols have 'handled' the types of opponents outlined in points 3&4, and general probability of that poor rate carrying over for a stretch of 5 march games.

You could quibble with some of the above, and I'd agree on some points, but to say the article was long-winded for the sake of a basic and obvious conclusion is short-minded.

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by KB5252

No I understand your point. I was being sarcastic (habit of mine) and while I do agree it is good to research and have knowledge about the matchup, I am skewed because of my loyalties. You'll just have to excuse me.

I may be far too guilty of this as well.

[HawaiiVol]

all the numbers do is validate common sense. For that, I commend the author.

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by HawaiiVol

all the numbers do is validate common sense. For that, I commend the author.

Well ya, I agree with that mostly. But we might be overestimating 'common sense', here. Eyes can be deceiving, and so can context, right? I mean I recall seeing the no-backfield formation in denver's offense for years and always groaning when they brought it out b/c it seemed like it never worked--but I think this was mostly because it failed to work during memorable 3rd downs late in key games, because when I tracked the formation's success it worked at a really effective rate.

But ya, even validation of a belief doesn't have to be needless.

[HawaiiVol]

The Nation has been talking about the very things the author put in numbers for weeks. He didn't come across some great revelation everyone was oblivious to by crunching the numbers.

It's pretty obvious what has to be done to beat them, but teams have been unable to do so with the exception of UK and Texas, who shot lights out.

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by HawaiiVol

The Nation has been talking about the very things the author put in numbers for weeks. He didn't come across some great revelation everyone was oblivious to by crunching the numbers.

It's pretty obvious what has to be done to beat them, but teams have been unable to do so with the exception of UK and Texas, who shot lights out.

The nation, like every other collective board about a jersey colour or location, talks about a lot of things that sound intuitive and turn out to be boneheaded upon closer examination. That he goes beyond opinion is way more than commendable, even if you personally don't feel like he arrives at interesting conclusions.

And for what it's worth, and being a reader of this board, I have yet to read a single thing prior to this article about how teams that are the best at holding the ball are better than the best teams at causing turnovers. This wasn't news to you?

Also it doesn't really matter that it's 'obvious' how to beat UT, because it's pretty obvious how to beat any particular team if you even have basic basketball knowledge. What the article says is 'given the way elite teams play, and how the vols rely on their victories via D' it would appear that teams like memphis et al. are quite good at doing what it would require to beat a team like Tennessee, given how the Vols are set-up.

That's an important distinction, I think.

[HawaiiVol]

You're obviously a huge fan of numbers, and that's your prerogative, but again, it's the same conclusion from different directions. If it was an earth-shattering revelation, then it could be way more than commendable, but it's not.

People may not always be right from observing the games, but they obviously were right in this case and you seem to have a hard time acknowledging that.

There may not be any threads dedicated to this particular topic, but they are covered within other threads. This isn't new.

[volwarren]

Originally Posted by crazyguy

an interesting way of creating some fuzzy math.

Fuzzy basketball he needs headon after that.

[lidderer]

Originally Posted by HawaiiVol

You're obviously a huge fan of numbers, and that's your prerogative, but again, it's the same conclusion from different directions. If it was an earth-shattering revelation, then it could be way more than commendable, but it's not.

People may not always be right from observing the games, but they obviously were right in this case and you seem to have a hard time acknowledging that.

There may not be any threads dedicated to this particular topic, but they are covered within other threads. This isn't new.

You obviously have a fetish for 'the new and groundbreaking', which is your prerogative, but again, numbers aren't trying to be arrogant or wow-ing; oftentimes they function as confirmations to held-beliefs, and you might be underestimating the importance of how vital proof is when talking about something as trivial-seeming(but obviously ACTUALLY important to us) as sports.

I promise you there is no mention in any thread on this site about the disparity between elite offense's that hold the ball vs elite defenses that cause turnovers. There just isn't. The reason for that? No one on this site who disregards numbers has had the opportunity to watch every ncaa game this season. Do you know who has 'watched' every game this year? Numbers.

People observing what the think the article is saying aren't observing the entirety of the article; that's been the point i've been making, nothing more.

That said, I will be ecstatic if the Vols win the tourney and only manage to force 3 turnovers per game.