Did you know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CycloneJames

Weren't you arguing that we don't play up-tempo not too long ago? :skeptical:

---

You're correct. I was wrong, thus far, this season. And I'm fine with admitting that. I'd have to go back and look at exactly what I said, but my point wasn't completely that we wouldn't play fast this season, but that we actually played pretty fast last season and no one noticed.

I'll be interested in how fast we play against teams that are better than us. To me, it seems like you would want to play faster against worse teams, to give yourself more possessions to build a margin. However, using similar logic, you would also want to play slow against better teams, limiting possessions, and giving yourself a better shot to win the game at the end. So this next run of games, @UVA, @NU, v.KU, v.BU, and @OSU, is going to say a lot about what Fred is really trying to do. I'll be watching, and if we're still playing as fast as the last 12 games, I'm fine with everyone telling me how wrong I was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khaal53

Dear Mr. "Turd in the Punchbowl",

Team........... Total Possessions.............. Possesions/Game
TTU......................903...................................75.25
MU...................... 977.................................. 75.16
UT....................... 876.................................. 73.00
KU....................... 790.................................. 71.82
KSU..................... 933.................................. 71.77
ISU .....................923 ..................................71.00
CU...................... 849................................... 70.75
BU...................... 768 ...................................69.82
OSU.................... 815................................... 67.92
A&M................... 803.................................... 66.92
NU..................... 801.................................... 66.75
OU..................... 794.................................... 66.17

---

Kenpom has us 3rd in the B12 - 2011 College Basketball Statistics: Four Factors - his data considers how fast the teams we are playing typically play, and, thus, is more accurate.

Consider this: If a team plays a 70 possession game against Missouri, and another team plays a 69-possession game against Wisconsin, would you think the team playing Missouri is faster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kucyclone

Kenpom has us 3rd in the B12 - 2011 College Basketball Statistics: Four Factors - his data considers how fast the teams we are playing typically play, and, thus, is more accurate.

Consider this: If a team plays a 70 possession game against Missouri, and another team plays a 69-possession game against Wisconsin, would you think the team playing Missouri is faster?

---

I'm not making an argument for the pace of play that any team plays with. I'm just saying that no matter the "speed" of the game, that doesn't magically create extra possessions played in order to benefit the statbook positively.

I provided the number of possessions played that is unaffected by how "fast" the teams played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khaal53

I'm not making an argument for the pace of play that any team plays with. I'm just saying that no matter the "speed" of the game, that doesn't magically create extra possessions played in order to benefit the statbook positively.

I provided the number of possessions played that is unaffected by how "fast" the teams played.

---

Right, I know that. I was just defending the statement I made. Still, I kind of despise stats that aren't tempo-free*, and that aren't viewed in context of the competition. Let's look at this again when we have a good amount of data from only Big 12 games, when everyone is playing a similar schedule.

*For instance, the raw data says that Jake Anderson is the top rebounder in the conference. Kenpom has him as outside of top 20 in defensive rebounding %**, which is a much more telling statistic.

**However, I don't want to diminish what Jake is doing. At his size, his rebounding is off-the-charts, and truly phenomenal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khaal53

Dear Mr. "Turd in the Punchbowl",

Team........... Total Possessions.............. Possesions/Game
TTU......................903...................................75.25
MU...................... 977.................................. 75.16
UT....................... 876.................................. 73.00
KU....................... 790.................................. 71.82
KSU..................... 933.................................. 71.77
ISU .....................923 ..................................71.00
CU...................... 849................................... 70.75
BU...................... 768 ...................................69.82
OSU.................... 815................................... 67.92
A&M................... 803.................................... 66.92
NU..................... 801.................................... 66.75
OU..................... 794.................................... 66.17

---

Way to fish that one out.


When was the last time the leading scorer took minutes or shots per game into consideration? The only context we have is comparing points per game.

Do people really not realize there are always qualifiers with stats? Players from UT and KU have the advantage of playing rested, and having other weapons that the defense has to focus on. Some teams get more calls than others.

Stating we play a weak schedule, and also play fast, is somewhat redundant. Why should DG be penalized for being one of the most well conditioned athletes in the Big 12? His minutes are not going to go down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kucyclone

Right, I know that. I was just defending the statement I made. Still, I kind of despise stats that aren't tempo-free*, and that aren't viewed in context of the competition. Let's look at this again when we have a good amount of data from only Big 12 games, when everyone is playing a similar schedule.

*For instance, the raw data says that Jake Anderson is the top rebounder in the conference. Kenpom has him as outside of top 20 in defensive rebounding %**, which is a much more telling statistic.

**However, I don't want to diminish what Jake is doing. At his size, his rebounding is off-the-charts, and truly phenomenal.

---

I don't see where the raw data shows him as the best rebounder in the conference.

Either way, defensive rebounding % is more of a function of total shots taken by opponents. A team could have a 100 possessions and 20 turnovers so they only get 80 shots off or a team could have 85 possessions and no turnovers to get 85 shots off. (Without factoring in offensive rebounds)

Point being, a possession is a possession is a possession. Defensive rebounding % is a function of shots taken which is somewhat independent of possessions. A team could get any number off shots of in a single possession and it would be just that, a single possession.