Lets be honest and look at this hire.

#76
#76
Sudden Impact said:
Stats don't bare it, but film does. Also the poster could have stated that Tyndall's teams move on the court more than Martin's teams do. Tyndalls teams are less offensively less efficient than Martin's teams.

Did not see much standing around on Tyndall's teams.
Click to expand...

As stated Martin's team was much more efficient than Tyndall's. (Points per possesion = efficiency.) Ken Pomeroy had Tennessee at 17th in the country and Southern Miss at 56th, and Sports-Reference has Tennessee at 21st and Southern Miss at 67th. Pace, which is an estimate of how many possessions a team gets per 40 minutes has Southern Miss 255th in the country.
 
#78
#78
papatomany said:
As stated Martin's team was much more efficient than Tyndall's. (Points per possesion = efficiency.) Ken Pomeroy had Tennessee at 17th in the country and Southern Miss at 56th, and Sports-Reference has Tennessee at 21st and Southern Miss at 67th. Pace, which is an estimate of how many possessions a team gets per 40 minutes has Southern Miss 255th in the country.
Click to expand...


I put holes in the pace argument earlier in the year and don't feel like doing it again, but it has nothing to do with attacking on offense. You can't tell pace by efficiency, especially with TN, as our offensive rebounding was great. Those offensive rebounds make people that look at stats only think we had a great offense when in reality, often thru 25 games, it was a bad shot late in the clock, rebounded by Stokes and put back. That spells "efficiency" on a stat sheet but in reality it was poor offense, a jacked up shot and rebound by a double double machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#79
#79
BearBryant said:
And you obviously don't have a personal agenda, right? Even though you couldn't help but put Sleaze Pearl in your agenda. And "back to an eccentric, genuine, charismatic guy leading our program".
Click to expand...

Of course I have an agenda. It is to bring this program back out of mediocrity and back to competing and playing in the big dance and the last time that we did that we had those characteristics on the sideline as do most who are elite programs.
 
#80
#80
papatomany said:
As stated Martin's team was much more efficient than Tyndall's. (Points per possesion = efficiency.) Ken Pomeroy had Tennessee at 17th in the country and Southern Miss at 56th, and Sports-Reference has Tennessee at 21st and Southern Miss at 67th. Pace, which is an estimate of how many possessions a team gets per 40 minutes has Southern Miss 255th in the country.
Click to expand...

Stat it to death but with all these numbers it does seem like they don't support each other when both teams avg points per game was only a .30 difference. I don't get it. Somewhere there must be an area where the stats favors USM.

Pace = possessions, offense efficiency = pts per possession which = pts per game

Tennessee 71.3 pts per game avg for season.

USM 71.6 pts per game avg for season

Did USM do more than TN with less possessions. Yes and no. Reason being is that an offensive rebound does not end a possession. So 2-4 missed FGAs that are offensively rebounded only counts as one possession not 2-4 possessions.

Under Martin we were a strong offensive rebounding team. Example. We attempt a FG with 10 seconds on shot clock get rebound burn another 25 seconds, FG missed, rebounded burn 25 seconds, shot missed put back up, score. This = 1 possession, with 1.0 efficiency. 25% FG, 2 points...

With this stat, Maymon, Stokes and McRae's departure this tells me all I need to know. No offensive rebounding coupled with loss of offense production equal train wreck.

Marin knew this and skadoodled. Next year fans would have been pulling the van up to his home while the game was going was going on.

With our offensive rebounding prowess, no wonder we had a high offensive efficiency rating. 3/5 of that stat is gone.

USM was 287th in the nation in possessions per game and still managed to avg .3 pts more than We did because you fail to state that we were ranked 331 in possessions per game.

In this case it maybe easy to say that the tempo stats are skewed by the way they are calculated.
 
Last edited:
#81
#81
Sudden Impact said:
Stat it to death but with all these numbers it does seem like they don't support each other when both teams avg points per game was only a .30 difference. I don't get it. Somewhere there must be an area where the stats favors USM.

Pace = possessions, offense efficiency = pts per possession which = pts per game

Tennessee 71.3 pts per game avg for season.

USM 71.6 pts per game avg for season

Did USM do more than TN with less possessions. Yes and no. Reason being is that an offensive rebound does not end a possession. So 2-4 missed FGAs that are offensively rebounded only counts as one possession not 2-4 possessions.

Under Martin we were a strong offensive rebounding team. Example. We attempt a FG with 10 seconds on shot clock get rebound burn another 25 seconds, FG missed, rebounded burn 25 seconds, shot missed put back up, score. This = 1 possession, with 1.0 efficiency. 25% FG, 2 points...

With this stat, Maymon, Stokes and McRae's departure this tells me all I need to know. No offensive rebounding coupled with loss of offense production equal train wreck.

Marin knew this and skadoodled. Next year fans would have been pulling the van up to his home while the game was going was going on.

With our offensive rebounding prowess, no wonder we had a high offensive efficiency rating. 3/5 of that stat is gone.

USM was 255th in the nation in possessions per game and still managed to avg .3 more than We did.

In this case it maybe easy to say that the tempo stats are skewed by the way they are calculated.
Click to expand...

They averaged less points than we did.
 
#82
#82
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#85
#85
I am expecting this hire to be as great as the Bruce Pearl hire. Tyndall is a relentless worker he gets things done. I think were gonna be very happy that he is our coach.
 
#86
#86
Boca Vol said:
Back to where we need to be? Where exactly is that in the histoy of UT hoops? We were pretty much there. Sure, Bruce won a few more regular season games and had the Vols ranked most of the time, but college basketball is about where you finish. The Vols were on the verge of an Elite 8 appearance which has only happened 1 time in the history of this program.

Another way to look at it, who had the better season...UK or Wichita St? To me it's UK, but others will say Wichita St.
Click to expand...

It's about consistency. It takes Cuonzo three years to actually break through the bubble and due to a favorable draw beat some mediocre teams to reach a sweet 16. And next year appears to have been another rebuild with another NIT bid (that when we lose, everybody seems to think are meaningless).
 
#87
#87
Spartacavolus said:
I put holes in the pace argument earlier in the year and don't feel like doing it again, but it has nothing to do with attacking on offense. You can't tell pace by efficiency, especially with TN, as our offensive rebounding was great. Those offensive rebounds make people that look at stats only think we had a great offense when in reality, often thru 25 games, it was a bad shot late in the clock, rebounded by Stokes and put back. That spells "efficiency" on a stat sheet but in reality it was poor offense, a jacked up shot and rebound by a double double machine.
Click to expand...

Actually, the point is that it DOES figure in offensive rebounding, which is certainly a part of the offense, and free throws, which are certainly a part of the offense, and turnovers, which are certainly a part of the offense. If you're just talking shooting efficiency, okay.

Different coaches take different approaches on offense. but they all are after the same goal: score points when you have the ball. The efficiency ratings we've been talking about measure that. Did we score before we gave the other team a chance to score? If yes, then that possession counts toward our efficiency.
 
#88
#88
papatomany said:
Actually, the point is that it DOES figure in offensive rebounding, which is certainly a part of the offense, and free throws, which are certainly a part of the offense, and turnovers, which are certainly a part of the offense. If you're just talking shooting efficiency, okay.

Different coaches take different approaches on offense. but they all are after the same goal: score points when you have the ball. The efficiency ratings we've been talking about measure that. Did we score before we gave the other team a chance to score? If yes, then that possession counts toward our efficiency.
Click to expand...


So if Martin is here next year and has the same offense, the offensive rebounding wouldn't be there and the same offensive scheme would be inefficient without it. The number really has nothing to do with offensive flow, spacing, tempo, good shots, etc. Your number can be skewed by 10 ugly shots at the buzzer that are rebounded and put back. They could be airball hook shots and be an efficient offense by your definition. That makes zero sense to me and I don't care if an offense is efficient by that measurement.
 
#89
#89
volholio said:
What evidence do you have that he plays up tempo? The stats don't bare that out.
Click to expand...

Obviously, some of you morons who follow Pearl wont get this. HE IS GONE! Some of us support the coach who is here and I support Tyndall. I supported Martin while he was here, I support Tyndall now, I'll support Mortimer Snerd if he's the coach tomorrow.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top