Why AG In game coaching needs lots of help

[flyerfanatic86]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 You're obviously missing the point, which is: If any of you were really that good as you claim to be with respect to in-game decisions, you'd be a college coach as well. Anybody without anything to lose can voice an opinion and you might often be right but I seriously doubt any of you would be successful as AG at this level or you'd already be doing it.

Outside of making a lot of assumptions about the experiences of everyone on this board, this really applies to everything in life, doesn't it? How can I criticize the food at a restaurant, if I'm not a chef? How dare somebody criticize the writing of a bad TV show if they aren't a professional TV writer? Nobody can have an opinion about anything that they don't do professionally.

What a ridiculous take.

[ud2]

I have a feeling all the "don't foul on purpose" people would be singing a much different tune had we lost in OT.

[rollo]

It's normal to 2nd guess something that backfires. Unless you're in the 'foul no matter what' group.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by flyerfanatic86 Outside of making a lot of assumptions about the experiences of everyone on this board, this really applies to everything in life, doesn't it? How can I criticize the food at a restaurant, if I'm not a chef? How dare somebody criticize the writing of a bad TV show if they aren't a professional TV writer? Nobody can have an opinion about anything that they don't do professionally. What a ridiculous take.

How can we vote for a President, Senator, Congressman, Governor, Mayor etc... if we've never been anyone of those ourselves? You're debating a simpleton.

[Bill McPeek]

Originally Posted by longtimefan Great question. I was thinking the same thing. The stat should indicate how many teams that did not foul won in regulation. Just because we were able to win in overtime does not mean the strategy was successful. It was not.

I believe the assumption is overtime win or loss is not taken into consideration.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Bill McPeek I believe the assumption is overtime win or loss is not taken into consideration.

There we go. So I can watch 13 minutes of a video that's premise is that 93 percent of playing defense works which is slightly better than fouling, and you can only 'believe the assumption is" when trying to ascertain the criteria used to come up with that statistic?

You, the person pushing me to watch the video can't tell me what criteria they used or even the less specific answer to whether the answer is within the video?

When there are too many questions left out about the data and the criteria on a 13 minute video, it's not worth the time because that's important to me.

I realize I can see highlights of it working and not working, both sides of the coin, and I can listen to the narrator give me statistics at the same time, but if he can't give me exact criteria he used. it's a total waste of time.

[Bill McPeek]

My reason for posting the video is because, I believe, there is no ABSOLUTE correct answer. There are factors that enter into a coaching decision. Yes, there are some coaches that elect to foul and there are some coaches that elect to defend under all circumstances. However, there are factors that enter into the decision. If Steph has the ball perhaps you foul. If the team you are defending does not have a good 3 ball shooting perhaps you defend.
Time is another factor.
Bottom line is whatever decision is made, statistically, there is not much difference.
Nothing is absolute. If you have a 3-point lead end of game, you should win 92+% of the time, in regulation.
Coach has to be able to communicate to his team either what he wants his team to do in ALL situations or check with him as to what he wants done.

[Bill McPeek]

Let me add that baseball plays these statistics all the time. Bottom of the ninth, ahead by one. Tying run on third, two outs. At bat is a .320 hitter. Next batter is a .190 hitter. Do you walk the .320 hitter or pitch to the .190 hitter? I know, you never put the winning run on base, but I think you get the point. That .190 hitter is going to beat you SOMETIMES but what are the odds? .320 vs .190?

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Bill McPeek My reason for posting the video is because, I believe, there is no ABSOLUTE correct answer. There are factors that enter into a coaching decision. Yes, there are some coaches that elect to foul and there are some coaches that elect to defend under all circumstances. However, there are factors that enter into the decision. If Steph has the ball perhaps you foul. If the team you are defending does not have a good 3 ball shooting perhaps you defend. Time is another factor. Bottom line is whatever decision is made, statistically, there is not much difference. Nothing is absolute. If you have a 3-point lead end of game, you should win 92+% of the time, in regulation. Coach has to be able to communicate to his team either what he wants his team to do in ALL situations or check with him as to what he wants done.

I just started the video back up. Narrator says "Teams choosing to defend the 3, went on to win 93.5 percent of the time". That tells me right there they are including subsequent overtime(I use this term because the situation could come up in overtime and the result in a 2nd overtime) that follows the situation.

So the questions then becomes. What percentage of defending the 3 results in overtime. What percentage of defending the 3 result in a 4 point sequence. What percentage does fouling result in overtime and what percentage does fouling result in a 4 point sequence. And not just regulation. These situations can also take place in OT either ending the game or leading to another OT.

And I also want to know, how many of each choice has occurred. It's important because if the sample size for one is much bigger than the other, you've got problems also.

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 There we go. So I can watch 13 minutes of a video that's premise is that 93 percent of playing defense works which is slightly better than fouling, and you can only 'believe the assumption is" when trying to ascertain the criteria used to come up with that statistic? You, the person pushing me to watch the video can't tell me what criteria they used or even the less specific answer to whether the answer is within the video? When there are too many questions left out about the data and the criteria on a 13 minute video, it's not worth the time because that's important to me. I realize I can see highlights of it working and not working, both sides of the coin, and I can listen to the narrator give me statistics at the same time, but if he can't give me exact criteria he used. it's a total waste of time.

Talk about bonehead; I cannot believe you're even employed anywhere useful with the attitudes and disrespect you shovel out on this site, But I can tell you this: IF your too GD Lazy to watch a 13 minute video that might educate your infantile brain just a LITTLE bit, you have zero respect from me or anyone else on this site. You're not always right, in fact, you're very frequently wrong and constantly post opinions as gospel truth without any facts to support it. Kenpom - 1, stubborn and wrong Smitty10 - 0. All the time you put into resisting watching the YouTube you could have watched it 3 times but I get why don't want to watch it: You don't want to be proven WRONG.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Bill McPeek Let me add that baseball plays these statistics all the time. Bottom of the ninth, ahead by one. Tying run on third, two outs. At bat is a .320 hitter. Next batter is a .190 hitter. Do you walk the .320 hitter or pitch to the .190 hitter? I know, you never put the winning run on base, but I think you get the point. That .190 hitter is going to beat you SOMETIMES but what are the odds? .320 vs .190?

Ahh, but basketball is much different. At what point do they consider it a choice between fouling and defending? If there's 15 seconds left, 10, 5 what? Do they only count it within the population if the shot clock is off(which could mean at 29 seconds)? And if the team makes the 3 and leave 4 seconds on the clock and then their opponent scores again, does that mean it worked? Same with fouling.

If those questions are not answered within the video, it's a complete waste of time and I can say that without watching it. If you tell me that all those are answered within the video and you're telling the truth, then yes, I should watch it and apologize. However, I don't think you can answer it as is hinted by your not being absolutely sure whether results in subsequent overtimes are included.

[Bill McPeek]

Why don't you watch the video? I think all your questions will be answered.

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by flyerfanatic86 Outside of making a lot of assumptions about the experiences of everyone on this board, this really applies to everything in life, doesn't it? How can I criticize the food at a restaurant, if I'm not a chef? How dare somebody criticize the writing of a bad TV show if they aren't a professional TV writer? Nobody can have an opinion about anything that they don't do professionally. What a ridiculous take.

It's not a ridiculous take when everyone micromanages and criticizes every single "bad" move that they perceive AG makes. It's one thing to say, the steak was poor at restaurant "Y", it' another thing to believe that every single decision that AG makes is wrong because you want to stroke you keyboard ego. Is AG a perfect coach? No. But unless you have a direct line to the coaches staff every game, you have no idea what's actually going on behind the scenes, why certain decisions are made, etc. Having an opinion is one thing but saying "AG obviously made a mistake in the end game of regulation" is another. Starting a complete thread dedicated to it is really what's ridiculous. HE is the coach, not you. I heard Pete Gillen say something to the effect during the end game that "8/9 times his X teams fouled in that situation and only 1 time did it backfire-and that one time a player didn't follow instructions". OK, that's HIS coaching style so I guess he was entitled to make his game decisions the way he wanted. But guess what: 8/9 =88%. The McPeek link on YouTube showed that BOTH scenarios are at least 92% successful, with playing defense 93% successful - actually 1% higher by playing defense - so even Gillen technically was wrong to call out AG since he didn't know the exact study by KenPom and he WAS a coach. Where does that put you? At the very least, well below a college coach...

[superfan99]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 Ahh, but basketball is much different. At what point do they consider it a choice between fouling and defending? If there's 15 seconds left, 10, 5 what? Do they only count it within the population if the shot clock is off(which could mean at 29 seconds)? And if the team makes the 3 and leave 4 seconds on the clock and then their opponent scores again, does that mean it worked? Same with fouling. If those questions are not answered within the video, it's a complete waste of time and I can say that without watching it. If you tell me that all those are answered within the video and you're telling the truth, then yes, I should watch it and apologize. However, I don't think you can answer it as is hinted by your not being absolutely sure whether results in subsequent overtimes are included.

Good lord. The video wasn’t made specifically for you Smitty. I don’t think it proves you right or wrong. It is an interesting video on the subject. A subject you clearly have interest in. It isn’t automatically a waste of time if it doesn’t answer every single question you have. You are being weird about this.

The video makes a good attempt at discussing the issue. It isn’t someone trying to force one opinion or another down your throat. It shows both sides.

You have spent more time writing responses and asking questions about what’s in the video than if you had actually just watched it.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Bill McPeek]

Originally Posted by superfan99 Good lord. The video wasn’t made specifically for you Smitty. I don’t think it proves you right or wrong. It is an interesting video on the subject. A subject you clearly have interest in. It isn’t automatically a waste of time if it doesn’t answer every single question you have. You are being weird about this. The video makes a good attempt at discussing the issue. It isn’t someone trying to force one opinion or another down your throat. It shows both sides. You have spent more time writing responses and asking questions about what’s in the video than if you had actually just watched it. Posted via Mobile Device

Very well said.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 Talk about bonehead; I cannot believe you're even employed anywhere useful with the attitudes and disrespect you shovel out on this site, But I can tell you this: IF your too GD Lazy to watch a 13 minute video that might educate your infantile brain just a LITTLE bit, you have zero respect from me or anyone else on this site. You're not always right, in fact, you're very frequently wrong and constantly post opinions as gospel truth without any facts to support it. Kenpom - 1, stubborn and wrong Smitty10 - 0. All the time you put into resisting watching the YouTube you could have watched it 3 times but I get why don't want to watch it: You don't want to be proven WRONG.

Okay bonehead, I watched it. I got nothing new out of it and was appalled that they used fouling with up TWELVE seconds on the clock in their data. 5 to 12 actually. Which means that their fouling stats always resulted in enough time for the team losing, has a choice and a 2nd option. The choice is should they try to make both FTs or just the 1st and their 2nd option is to immediately foul if they're still losing after the first option doesn't fully work. So they make both and foul or just one and foul. Opposing team(maybe even still in the one and one) misses one or two FTs and the other team goes down and hits a buzzer beater. That would mean they count that as a fouling failure.

That's why the parameters of the analysis is important my dear bonehead. They matter and stats like these can be twisted for a desired outcome and as you can tell, this video was put together to push that defending is the better outcome most times even if it's minimal. How and what you gather for data matters. I retired as a Stats Analyst at a major pharma company, enlighten me more bonehead.

Also, the data was an N ratio of 5(defend) to 1(foul)

Now let me try and make this as simple as possible. If the team leading by 3, sends the other team to the foul line with 12 seconds left, either the coach is a bonehead like you, or the player fouled unintentionally(and I'm not using the NCAA refs definition of 'intentional' here.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by superfan99 Good lord. The video wasn’t made specifically for you Smitty. I don’t think it proves you right or wrong. It is an interesting video on the subject. A subject you clearly have interest in. It isn’t automatically a waste of time if it doesn’t answer every single question you have. You are being weird about this. The video makes a good attempt at discussing the issue. It isn’t someone trying to force one opinion or another down your throat. It shows both sides. You have spent more time writing responses and asking questions about what’s in the video than if you had actually just watched it. Posted via Mobile Device

The fact is the discussion in this thread that motivated the video being posted is what's better, to foul or defend. And the 93.5 to 92.0 is used by at least one bonehead to stick up for his man crush of a coach. In this discussion that's all I'm interested in. And I'm pointing out why that is not even close to be proven. Yes, if you want to watch highlights of both situations with a narration of all the little things that can go wrong(or right depending on which side of the scoreboard you or your favorite team is on) it's an interesting video I'm sure. But every little thing he pointed out I'm aware of.

But I will say this, even though I'm aware of it, it's the only thing the video reminded me of that is rarely brought up in these debates. And I love it because it's Rollo. Rollo argues that it depends on whether there are good 3 point shooters, FT shooters etc.. as to what decision to make. But the narrator points out that when fouling you have to put your faith into what the wishy washy Rollos, umm I mean refs might call. And that's true and is a good point for the defend side. Example, coach says wait until the clock shows 5 seconds then foul. You swipe at him and get him pretty good on the arm and the ref swallows his whistle. Now the situation has gotten more urgent and you jump at the guy and grab him and the ref finally coughs up the whistle he swallowed and blows. You're heart is pumping with a 'whew, that was close" and then the ref calls an intentional foul on you.

Oh, and one other thing. Rollo seems to be on the side of defending more than fouling. I'm guessing he took the wishy-washyness of the refs into consideration when making this choice. I'm also guesing he didn't mention it because he didn't want to lol

[Marysville Flyer]

Originally Posted by maddog07 In his own words.. the Wizard of Edwin Moses Blvd. Grant said the team hasn't had enough time to practice fouling in end-of-game situations, and that's why the players didn't take it upon themselves to foul and prevent Loyola from taking a tying 3. "We'll have a chance to maybe learn some stuff from watching the film and talk about what we what we could do," Grant said, "and hopefully at some point, we'll be able to handle some of those situations in practice to get us better prepared." Still learning… after having the same squad for two years! And some wonder how we lose or struggle with bottom of the barrel teams. Posted via Mobile Device

People are making way too much out of this comment. It clearly isn’t AG’s philosophy to foul in this situation so why would he waste time practicing it?

I’ll trust Kenpom over the same few blowhard arm chair coaches on this board. These are the same guys who actually believe AG doesn’t know how to call a TO because he prefers to save his TOs for late in the game rather than to attempt to stop a run. It’s a philosophy that other coaches follow including the great Tom Izzo.

A couple years ago when this same dumb argument was brought up I had just watched Izzo’s team blow a big lead just after half without Izzo calling a TO to ‘stop the run’. Just a few minutes later MSU was back in front with a larger lead than they had just given away. When I posted this example, one of the wizards hammering AG about this all the time responded ‘oh so you think we are as good as MSU?’
Posted via Mobile Device

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 How and what you gather for data matters. I retired as a Stats Analyst at a major pharma company, enlighten me more bonehead. Also, the data was an N ratio of 5(defend) to 1(foul) Now let me try and make this as simple as possible. If the team leading by 3, sends the other team to the foul line with 12 seconds left, either the coach is a bonehead like you, or the player fouled unintentionally(and I'm not using the NCAA refs definition of 'intentional' here.

First of all Bonehead, being a stats analyst for major pharmaceutical doesn’t impress me at all considering how they manipulate data to sell their over priced and over prescribed products in the first place- so I see you as part of a historically much bigger problem than basketball- but that’s a discussion for another day.

Kenpom had to start with certain criteria- they’re not saying every foul occurred at any specific time but they can’t start the study with games containing a 3 point spread with 2 seconds left or they’re not going to have much of a sample size. Anyone who says fouling is much better option- and says “I guarantee AG has been unsuccessful or made a huge mistake” without any game facts that Figgie was kind enough to research and you disregard - sorry… as a former “stats analyst” I’d say you’re forgetting your trade conveniently.

Add: I ask the board: who’s data analytics do you trust more? Smitty10’s pharma experience as a data analyst or the probably dozen of Kenpom statisticians- most of who probably played college ball while earning their degree? I personally think Kenpom but I’m an alleged bonehead.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 First of all Bonehead, being a stats analyst for major pharmaceutical doesn’t impress me at all considering how they manipulate data to sell their over priced and over prescribed products in the first place- so I see you as part of a historically much bigger problem than basketball- but that’s a discussion for another day. Kenpom had to start with certain criteria- they’re not saying every foul occurred at any specific time but they can’t start the study with games containing a 3 point spread with 2 seconds left or they’re not going to have much of a sample size. Anyone who says fouling is much better option- and says “I guarantee AG has been unsuccessful or made a huge mistake” without any game facts that Figgie was kind enough to research and you disregard - sorry… as a former “stats analyst” I’d say you’re forgetting your trade conveniently. Add: I ask the board: who’s data analytics do you trust more? Smitty10’s pharma experience as a data analyst or the probably dozen of Kenpom statisticians- most of who probably played college ball while earning their degree? I personally think Kenpom but I’m an alleged bonehead.

lol, I haven't presented data analytics and I don't intend to. And I'm not asking you to trust me over kenPom. I'm asking you to ask questions rather than putting your faith into a black box figure that you have no idea what parameters were used.

lmao, so you think it's fair to use 12 and 2 seconds in the same sample group? Hell, the shot clock could've only had 1 second on it at the 12 mark. You in know way can truthfully say that's the situation we're talking about. That means the team making the decision is going to have another 11 seconds when the get their next possession and if they're still winning, they're going the foul line. So much time left. With 5 seconds left and you're still leading while inbounding the ball, who cares if they foul you? They now will now have to go the length of the court with about 4 seconds or less on the clock and that shrinks their options of shot exponentially. So yeah, with 12 seconds on the clock, you defend because you have no other choice. BUT IT'S NOT THE SITUATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BONEHEAD. With 12 seconds left, of course you're not going to lose in regulation. If they make the 3, you're going to run the clock down for one shot yourself. If they miss the 3, you're going to get fouled and most like win. If you foul them, you allow them to get within 1 point with 11 or 12 seconds on the clock. Think about it bonehead.

Also, I worked on the safety side of analysis and if you think a major pharma company is going to have us doctor that up, it's just not worth talking to you because, you also are a black box, just an empty one. And the FDA doesn't trust the numbers we presented them, they had to know every detail about the study and the data and the calculations. Matter of fact, to some extent they dictate all that. And they go over it with fine tooth comb and unlike you bonehead, they don't say "Oh wow, you say your medication was 100 percent safe with only a .00003 percent of headache as an adverse even? Cool, Approved"

Once again bonehead, Adios, you just aren't worth it.

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 lol, I haven't presented data analytics and I don't intend to. And I'm not asking you to trust me over kenPom. I'm asking you to ask questions rather than putting your faith into a black box figure that you have no idea what parameters were used. Also, I worked on the safety side of analysis and if you think a major pharma company is going to have us doctor that up, it's just not worth talking to you because, you also are a black box, just an empty one. And the FDA doesn't trust the numbers we presented them, they had to know every detail about the study and the data and the calculations. Matter of fact, to some extent they dictate all that. And they go over it with fine tooth comb and unlike you bonehead, they don't say "Oh wow, you say your medication was 100 percent safe with only a .00003 percent of headache as an adverse even? Cool, Approved" Once again bonehead, Adios, you just aren't worth it.

The simple fact you can’t produce even 1 game where AG was unsuccessful at his strategy says it all. So dismiss the Kenpom data all you want. The simple fact that they had 5 times as many instances to study using defense instead of fouling instances tells me right there that the coaching fraternity in general prefers to play defense vs fouling. I think I, with the assistance from McPeek and Figgie win the argument. Adios is right you aren’t worth any future argument here since you lose.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 The simple fact you can’t produce even 1 game where AG was unsuccessful at his strategy says it all. So dismiss the Kenpom data all you want. The simple fact that they had 5 times as many instances to study using defense instead of fouling instances tells me right there that the coaching fraternity in general prefers to play defense vs fouling. I think I, with the assistance from McPeek and Figgie win the argument. Adios is right you aren’t worth any future argument here since you lose.

See, this is why you're a bonehead. I never dismissed Kenpom data. I, asked for the parameters before I can trust it. And that 12 seconds BS proves that I am wise for doing so. Something intelligent people do. Ignorant boneheads, like yourself, say "Who cares about the parameters, they say 93.5 so let's leave it at that."

SMH, 2 seconds, 12 seconds same thing huh? Seriously, you are too ignorant for me to keep wasting my time. If you'd shut your garbage posting down and actually learn, it might be worth it. But you are not capable apparently.

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 See, this is why you're a bonehead. I never dismissed Kenpom data. I, asked for the parameters before I can trust it. And that 12 seconds BS proves that I am wise for doing so. Something intelligent people do. Ignorant boneheads, like yourself, say "Who cares about the parameters, they say 93.5 so let's leave it at that." SMH, 2 seconds, 12 seconds same thing huh? Seriously, you are too ignorant for me to keep wasting my time. If you'd shut your garbage posting down and actually learn, it might be worth it. But you are not capable apparently.

Show me better data than what Kenpom currently has. Show me better data than what Figgie provided. They provided parameters, they set the criteria for their studies. You just don’t like them. Ok, provide a better study or do one one your own since you’re retired. I’m pretty good at reading data, my job depends on my rational decision making and trust me, I’m doing ok. Send me your data in any format and I’ll look it. But analyze data and show me, instead of just saying “I guarantee it”. Because “I guarantee it” without any data to back it up- either with AG or NCAA games over the last 10-20 years….let’s just say that’s “really boneheaded”.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 Show me better data than what Kenpom currently has. Show me better data than what Figgie provided. They provided parameters, they set the criteria for their studies. You just don’t like them. Ok, provide a better study or do one one your own since you’re retired. I’m pretty good at reading data, my job depends on my rational decision making and trust me, I’m doing ok. Send me your data in any format and I’ll look it. But analyze data and show me, instead of just saying “I guarantee it”. Because “I guarantee it” without any data to back it up- either with AG or NCAA games over the last 10-20 years….let’s just say that’s “really boneheaded”.

So what are we talking about now? The statistics of 3 point vs foul or the amount of times that AG has blown games by his decision. I used the same lame excuse as you did and said I was tired and mistaken or something like that. I admitted I was wrong about the amount of times AG blew games. We are now talking about data and parameters. You or figgie or anyone else presents a statistical number to me, I have every right to ask how you arrived at it. 12 seconds proves I was right for asking because fouling with 12 seconds is totally irrelevant. It's not the same situation.

Basically they gave statistics without enough context. Something Figgie is also guilty of sometimes. He concluded that Brea is a better 3 point shooter than Sibert was based on about a 1 percent difference in shooting percentage. The fact that Sibert has shot and made twice as many never entered his conclusion, just that one number. When looking at the total data one can conclude that Sibert is better because he finds more opportunity, doesn't need the perfect set up. Actually takes more and makes more when he's got someone in his face. If one player only takes shots when they are stationary and wide open and the other takes them both stationary and when moving and guarded, well, good chance the one who only takes them under ideal conditions will have at least a slightly better percentage.

You made your conclusion based on what you were told by KenPom, one conclusive number. You accept that. That's you. It's stupid, but it's you. No skin off my back. Adios bonehead.

[OSU Flyer]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 Show me better data than what Kenpom currently has. Show me better data than what Figgie provided. They provided parameters, they set the criteria for their studies. You just don’t like them. Ok, provide a better study or do one one your own since you’re retired. I’m pretty good at reading data, my job depends on my rational decision making and trust me, I’m doing ok. Send me your data in any format and I’ll look it. But analyze data and show me, instead of just saying “I guarantee it”. Because “I guarantee it” without any data to back it up- either with AG or NCAA games over the last 10-20 years….let’s just say that’s “really boneheaded”.

http://udpride.com/forums/showpost.p...&postcount=236

Can we cite KenPom now?

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by OSU Flyer http://udpride.com/forums/showpost.p...&postcount=236 Can we cite KenPom now?

The link we’re all referring to was a YouTube video from Kenpom. Most of their stuff is behind a subscription. The only point I’m trying to make here is that if you don’t like or agree with statistics provided - in this case a video from Kenpom, then at least provide your own data. Continuously calling me a bonehead without any data or evidence that can disprove what either Figgie or Kenpom presented is just ignorant and without facts or stats, nothing more than pedestrian BS you’d hear at a bar. This is like asking a jury to dismiss charges against your client without any facts or alibi contrary to compelling evidence of guilt.

[steverino015]

Holy cats and doggies....
I'm exhausted...)
keeping up with this thread
will get me to the next game,
so that's okay....)

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 So what are we talking about now? The statistics of 3 point vs foul or the amount of times that AG has blown games by his decision. I used the same lame excuse as you did and said I was tired and mistaken or something like that. I admitted I was wrong about the amount of times AG blew games. We are now talking about data and parameters. You or figgie or anyone else presents a statistical number to me, I have every right to ask how you arrived at it. 12 seconds proves I was right for asking because fouling with 12 seconds is totally irrelevant. It's not the same situation. Basically they gave statistics without enough context. Something Figgie is also guilty of sometimes. He concluded that Brea is a better 3 point shooter than Sibert was based on about a 1 percent difference in shooting percentage. The fact that Sibert has shot and made twice as many never entered his conclusion, just that one number. When looking at the total data one can conclude that Sibert is better because he finds more opportunity, doesn't need the perfect set up. Actually takes more and makes more when he's got someone in his face. If one player only takes shots when they are stationary and wide open and the other takes them both stationary and when moving and guarded, well, good chance the one who only takes them under ideal conditions will have at least a slightly better percentage. You made your conclusion based on what you were told by KenPom, one conclusive number. You accept that. That's you. It's stupid, but it's you. No skin off my back. Adios bonehead.

First of all, they gave plenty of context. 12 seconds is irrelevant- they picked an “arbitrary time left amount” so they could get a study with a consistent baseline and 12 seconds left was what they went with. There might be dozens of studies on this. You’ve yet to provide any data contrary. I’d say the data Figgie provided is very Dayton “conclusive” with respect to AG. The fact that we all see both strategies employed all the time tells me there’s no real advantage to either in general but likely there is based on game feel with respect to both teams tendencies. But “some” statistical study is better than none. And none is what you’ve provided so far. Call me a bonehead all you want if you think it makes you look superior- no skin off my back- I have pretty thick skin. I know that the truth is, there’s no clear advantage based on what I’ve read and seen presented so far. You’re convinced that fouling is better, show me proof in terms of ANY data to the contrary. So far you haven’t and CONSTANT criticism of AG on his “defense vs fouling” is wrong and you know but won’t admit it.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 First of all, they gave plenty of context. 12 seconds is irrelevant- they picked an “arbitrary time left amount” so they could get a study with a consistent baseline and 12 seconds left was what they went with. There might be dozens of studies on this. You’ve yet to provide any data contrary. I’d say the data Figgie provided is very Dayton “conclusive” with respect to AG. The fact that we all see both strategies employed all the time tells me there’s no real advantage to either in general but likely there is based on game feel with respect to both teams tendencies. But “some” statistical study is better than none. And none is what you’ve provided so far. Call me a bonehead all you want if you think it makes you look superior- no skin off my back- I have pretty thick skin. I know that the truth is, there’s no clear advantage based on what I’ve read and seen presented so far. You’re convinced that fouling is better, show me proof in terms of ANY data to the contrary. So far you haven’t and CONSTANT criticism of AG on his “defense vs fouling” is wrong and you know but won’t admit it.

Look bonehead, 12 seconds is ridiculous. A foul at 12 seconds is never a choice to foul because you have 3 point lead, unless you have fouls to give and you want to make sure they go to the line when you foul them with 5 seconds or so. And I don't have their data to find out how many of those say 8 second to 12 second fouls they have included.

Now, forget data for a second. Let me once again point out the difference in fouling at 12 seconds and having them shoot a 3 at the 12 second mark to tie the game.

I'll try and do this in short spirts so maybe it'll help penetrate your bonehead.

If a team ties the game with a 3 pointer and 8-12 seconds on the clock, the other team is less likely to lose the game in regulation then if the team gets within 1 or 2 from the free throw line with 8-12 seconds on the clock.

right? Right.

Because if the team ties you with a 3 pointer, you are going to hold the ball and not shoot it until there so little time that a missed shot can't possibly be rebounded and transported with a pass or dribbling to the opposite end. Therefore, as long as you inbound(which is also a key to the free throw shooting), they are not going to foul you(why would they, it's tied) and it's either you win in regulation or tie. That means that probably ZERO times has a team tied it with a 3 pointer with 8-12 seconds left and the other team loses in regulation. Got it?

Now, a foul at 8 to 12 seconds leading by 3, that's a whole other story. The team will most likely try to make both, let's call that scenario 1. No matter what happens, they will foul you immediately afterwards if they don't steal on inbounds(again this applies to the made 3 earlier). A missed FT by you gives them a chance to win it. See, there's a chance they beat you because the foul was too early. That doesn't happen with a tie game (made 3 pointer) as I explained above. This means it happens more than ZERO times.

Fouling scenario 2: Even though there's 8-12 seconds on the clock, they try and make the first and miss the 2nd intentionally and hope for the rebound. If they don't get it, they are down 2 and will foul your team immediately barring an inbounds turnover(which can happen in all scenarios). If you miss the FT, they can now tie or beat you depending on where they shoot it from.

So knowing, other than an inbounds turnover, which can happen in both scenarios, you can't lose in regulation with a 3 pointer to tie too early, but you can with a foul too early, that means the data is probably corrupted by those 8-12 second scenarios when they are irrelevant.

So, giving up a 3 pointer that they shot too early, no way you lose other than inbound turnover.

So, fouling too early, you can lose without making your free throws.

If either attempted 3 or fouling happens within say 7 seconds, preferably less for both sides, the odds most likely favor fouling. because no matter what happens when the team that was(either it's tied or their lead is the same or they still up 1 or 2) leading by 3 gets the ball back, regulation would've already been decided for all intents and purposes.

If you can't comprehend the difference, just tell yourself you are the bonehead I think you are and go away.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 First of all, they gave plenty of context. 12 seconds is irrelevant- they picked an “arbitrary time left amount” so they could get a study with a consistent baseline and 12 seconds left was what they went with. There might be dozens of studies on this. You’ve yet to provide any data contrary. I’d say the data Figgie provided is very Dayton “conclusive” with respect to AG. The fact that we all see both strategies employed all the time tells me there’s no real advantage to either in general but likely there is based on game feel with respect to both teams tendencies. But “some” statistical study is better than none. And none is what you’ve provided so far. Call me a bonehead all you want if you think it makes you look superior- no skin off my back- I have pretty thick skin. I know that the truth is, there’s no clear advantage based on what I’ve read and seen presented so far. You’re convinced that fouling is better, show me proof in terms of ANY data to the contrary. So far you haven’t and CONSTANT criticism of AG on his “defense vs fouling” is wrong and you know but won’t admit it.

My explanation post got lengthy and realizing the bonehead I was dealing with, I decided to try a simpler less detailed approach.

I'm going to use Dayton and Loyola so it's easier to comprehend than using pronouns.

Dayton leads by 3. Loyola brings the ball down and makes a 3 with 10 seconds on the clock. Give me a scenario, where Dayton loses within those final 10 seconds without turning the ball over or a technical foul(which would I admit, not sure if that counts as a turnover). I can't think of any reasonable way.(I mean I guess a player can get dizzy and nail a buzzer beater in the wrong basket but that's not reasonable).

Same situation except Dayton fouls Loyola with 10 seconds left. As long as Loyola makes one Free throw, I can think of multiple ways Dayton loses the game within those 10 seconds other than turnover. It involves missed free throws on Dayton's part or an offensive rebound on Loyola's part.

So by including 8-12 seconds(and I still think 6 or 7 seconds might apply too, but it's enough to illustrate my point) of both 3 pointer and fouling with in that time frame, you are skewing the results to be Defend over Foul. But once you have so little time on the clock that there's no way Loyola can rebound a missed free throw by Dayton and make it down the court to get off a shot that's when the debate starts.

So my point is if the results are 93.5 to 92 percent by including 8-12 seconds, then it's going to swing the way of fouling with less time.

Let me reemphasize that I'm eliminating turnovers on Dayton's part from the equation because the chances of that are equal no matter if they are inbounding the ball after a made 3 or after free throws.

And let me also say that fouls and 3 pointers to tie happen within the 8-12 second window, but it's irrelevant because the fouling is not done intentionally for the same purpose and a 3 pointer gives Dayton a reasonable chance to score on the last possession.

Or

Nobody here would advocate for Dayton fouling with 8-12 seconds on the clock to purposely send Loyola to the line. But there is a case for Loyola shooting the 3 that early if its available. Again, this skews the results.

Or

No coach in their right mind would tell a player to foul at the 8-12 second mark, leading by 3. It would happen as an accident. So the reason that's irrelevant is that we are talking about a decision to make, that's never the decision, that's an accident. On the other hand, a coach might give his players free reign to shoot a 3 down by 3 at that time frame for one of two reasons. 1. it's available and it might not be later and Dayton might not guard as heavy against it yet. 2. There's not enough time on the shot clock to shoot it any later.

Or

Dayton has a better chance of winning in regulation the earlier Loyola shoots the 3 and Dayton has a better chance of losing the earlier they foul. Until you eliminate the possibility of Dayton losing due to missing their free throws the decision to foul Loyola is off the board. That means the action of the decision to either defend or foul has to take place with much less than 12 seconds on the clock. That's why you can't include for sure 9-12 second data and probably 7 or 8 second data and get an accurate winning percentage of each because the decision to foul never takes place that early, for very good reason.

Or

Let's say Dayton does foul with 12 seconds on the clock. And Loyola makes both their FTs. Fouls Dayton, and the Flyers miss one or both of their FTs. Loyola then inbounds the ball and nails a game winner with 2 seconds on the clock. I can see this taking place on this forum.
UDSCOTT: What a fool AG is, why would he have them foul with 12 seconds on the clock.
LongtimeBonehead: Look Troll, It's obvious AG didn't tell them to foul, it happened inadvertently while Dayton was playing tight defense.

Now do you see? Probably not. But the point is there's never a decision to foul with 12 seconds while holding a 3 point lead. Because there are more ways to lose within regulation within those 12 seconds, namely missed free throws on Dayton's part. But there is no way Dayton loses within regulation and a tie game and inbounding the ball with 12 seconds other than turnover which can also happen with fouling.

[Smitty10]

One more thing.

Using the 8-12 minute mark in the data, when everyone in their right mind knows you don't foul intentionally in that time span with a 3 point lead is like: I tell you twice as many fouls are committed at the end of the game than at any other time. And you coming back with "no it doesn't, here's data that proves in the last 10 minutes of a game, fouls don't double, they only increase by 20 percent".

I say "10 minutes? Why the heck would you include minutes where teams don't change their strategy toward fouling?" How about the last 3 minutes. And you come back with "What difference does it make?".

It's biased data and including the 8-12 second timeframe weighs heavily toward not fouling because nobody tries to foul or wants to foul at that point of time because it will cause you to lose more games in regulation than if they hit a 3 in that time span.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 The link we’re all referring to was a YouTube video from Kenpom. Most of their stuff is behind a subscription. The only point I’m trying to make here is that if you don’t like or agree with statistics provided - in this case a video from Kenpom, then at least provide your own data. Continuously calling me a bonehead without any data or evidence that can disprove what either Figgie or Kenpom presented is just ignorant and without facts or stats, nothing more than pedestrian BS you’d hear at a bar. This is like asking a jury to dismiss charges against your client without any facts or alibi contrary to compelling evidence of guilt.

Oh, and point me to the data and conclusion Figgie provided regarding this issue. I never saw that.

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 One more thing. Using the 8-12 minute mark in the data, when everyone in their right mind knows you don't foul intentionally in that time span with a 3 point lead is like: I tell you twice as many fouls are committed at the end of the game than at any other time. And you coming back with "no it doesn't, here's data that proves in the last 10 minutes of a game, fouls don't double, they only increase by 20 percent". I say "10 minutes? Why the heck would you include minutes where teams don't change their strategy toward fouling?" How about the last 3 minutes. And you come back with "What difference does it make?". It's biased data and including the 8-12 second timeframe weighs heavily toward not fouling because nobody tries to foul or wants to foul at that point of time because it will cause you to lose more games in regulation than if they hit a 3 in that time span.

I'm convinced by the comments you made (long after I went to bed btw...),that you really didn't watch the whole video (from ESPN actually) using Kenpom's study on YouTube. Why do I say that? Because, again, they say they STARTED WITH GAMES BETWEEN 12-5 SECONDS AND A 3 POINT LEAD. Nowhere are they saying in that video to FOUL BETWEEN 12-5 SECONDS.

Where you get all this other non-sensical, hypothetical BS is beyond me. So again, to what few listeners are left, watch the video. What is explained by the ESPN commenter ON the KENPOM study all makes sense. My wife said this morning, "You ARE a bonehead, for debating with this MORON". I think agree. PROVIDE DATA SMITTY10. UNTIL YOU DO SO, I AM DONE WITH YOU AND THIS CONVERATION.

[Runnin' Rebel]

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[flyerfanatic86]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 PROVIDE DATA SMITTY10. UNTIL YOU DO SO, I AM DONE WITH YOU AND THIS CONVERATION.

I think I speak for many of us when I say: please don't provide data Smitty.

[NJFlyr71]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 One more thing. Using the 8-12 minute mark in the data, when everyone in their right mind knows you don't foul intentionally in that time span with a 3 point lead is like: I tell you twice as many fouls are committed at the end of the game than at any other time. And you coming back with "no it doesn't, here's data that proves in the last 10 minutes of a game, fouls don't double, they only increase by 20 percent". I say "10 minutes? Why the heck would you include minutes where teams don't change their strategy toward fouling?" How about the last 3 minutes. And you come back with "What difference does it make?". It's biased data and including the 8-12 second timeframe weighs heavily toward not fouling because nobody tries to foul or wants to foul at that point of time because it will cause you to lose more games in regulation than if they hit a 3 in that time span.

One thing I can say about you is your perseverance in writing a 20,000 word essay on when and how to foul at the end of game conditions!
Whew!

After reading all your posts I found myself exhausted and thought about self-identifying as a car muffler ....

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 I'm convinced by the comments you made (long after I went to bed btw...),that you really didn't watch the whole video (from ESPN actually) using Kenpom's study on YouTube. Why do I say that? Because, again, they say they STARTED WITH GAMES BETWEEN 12-5 SECONDS AND A 3 POINT LEAD. Nowhere are they saying in that video to FOUL BETWEEN 12-5 SECONDS. Where you get all this other non-sensical, hypothetical BS is beyond me. So again, to what few listeners are left, watch the video. What is explained by the ESPN commenter ON the KENPOM study all makes sense. My wife said this morning, "You ARE a bonehead, for debating with this MORON". I think agree. PROVIDE DATA SMITTY10. UNTIL YOU DO SO, I AM DONE WITH YOU AND THIS CONVERATION.

Why does it not surprise me that you cried to your wife(I picture a big fat hag that can cook) that you were called a bonehead?

And of course after all that trying, you still can't understand that when no coach ever made the decision to send their opponents to the line, leading by 3 and 12 seconds left, it skews the data to include it. Why not include all the way up to 30 seconds if your going to do that? Because with the shot clock off, it's the same thing for all intents and purposes.

Whether anyone wants to hear it or not, the fact is, fouling in that situation usually occurs with 6 or less seconds left. Which means you leave off 4 of the 6 seconds that it is the most opportune time to use the fouling strategy.

[rollo]

In other words, the decision whether to foul or not is complicated.

[CT Flyer]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 Why does it not surprise me that you cried to your wife(I picture a big fat hag that can cook) that you were called a bonehead?

If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you

Say man, hey baby
I saw your wife the other day
Yeah?
Yeah, an' she's ugly
Yeah, she's ugly, but she sure can cook, baby

[CT Flyer]

Originally Posted by Marysville Flyer People are making way too much out of this comment. It clearly isn’t AG’s philosophy to foul in this situation so why would he waste time practicing it? Posted via Mobile Device

I respect your opinion that you interpret his quote that way, but I read it as we should have been ready to foul in that situation so we are going to look at the film and then practice it so we are prepared next time.

[ud2]

You two keep telling each other that the other one is stupid and not worth the time to argue with, but then you each post another 20 lengthy replies to what the other one wrote. Lol. You guys are actually bff's, come on, admit it.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by CT Flyer If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life Never make a pretty woman your wife So from my personal point of view Get an ugly girl to marry you Say man, hey baby I saw your wife the other day Yeah? Yeah, an' she's ugly Yeah, she's ugly, but she sure can cook, baby

You know, if that song is true, and he's happy for the rest of his life in his marriage, how does his man crush on CAG not get in the way? She must be very understanding too.

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 Why does it not surprise me that you cried to your wife(I picture a big fat hag that can cook) that you were called a bonehead? And of course after all that trying, you still can't understand that when no coach ever made the decision to send their opponents to the line, leading by 3 and 12 seconds left, it skews the data to include it. Why not include all the way up to 30 seconds if your going to do that? Because with the shot clock off, it's the same thing for all intents and purposes. Whether anyone wants to hear it or not, the fact is, fouling in that situation usually occurs with 6 or less seconds left. Which means you leave off 4 of the 6 seconds that it is the most opportune time to use the fouling strategy.

It's now obvious you didn't watch the video or equally possible, you didn't comprehend it. Name calling? That's usually the sign that a person has lost the debate, though in this case it's more or less a case of a moron just being himself. No wonder someone PM'd me and said and I quote: "Smitty10 is nothing but a punk". I couldn't agree more. I'd love to meet you in person and have you make these same comments to my face you pathetic POS.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by rollo In other words, the decision whether to foul or not is complicated.

Only thing that makes it complicated is choosing to put your fate in the inconsistency of the Roll, umm refs. You know, player swipes at player and touches him to send him to the line and the ref ignores it. Then they try again and make it a little more obvious to ref who pretended to be blind and the jagoff then calls an intentional foul.

[DGO67]

[QUOTE=longtimefan67;719554]It's now obvious you didn't watch the video or equally possible, you didn't comprehend it. Name calling? That's usually the sign that a person has lost the debate, though in this case it's more or less a case of a moron just being himself. No wonder someone PM'd me and said and I quote: "Smitty10 is nothing but a punk". I couldn't agree more. I'd love to meet you in person and have you make these same comments to my face you pathetic POS.[/Q

Let's have a vote...who is winning this name calling contest?

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 It's now obvious you didn't watch the video or equally possible, you didn't comprehend it. Name calling? That's usually the sign that a person has lost the debate, though in this case it's more or less a case of a moron just being himself. No wonder someone PM'd me and said and I quote: "Smitty10 is nothing but a punk". I couldn't agree more. I'd love to meet you in person and have you make these same comments to my face you pathetic POS.

I guess you lost the debate according to your criteria. And in the post you quoted, I didn't call anyone a name. Just said what I pictured. And then I surmised that your wife was a very understanding woman in a later post.

[longtimefan67]

[QUOTE=DGO67;719561]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 It's now obvious you didn't watch the video or equally possible, you didn't comprehend it. Name calling? That's usually the sign that a person has lost the debate, though in this case it's more or less a case of a moron just being himself. No wonder someone PM'd me and said and I quote: "Smitty10 is nothing but a punk". I couldn't agree more. I'd love to meet you in person and have you make these same comments to my face you pathetic POS.[/Q Let's have a vote...who is winning this name calling contest?

Neither of us. I'm ok with him calling me names, but when he starts attacking my family, which he's now done 2 times in the last few months; that's a completely different story. I took someone's advice and he's on my ignore list.

[Smitty10]

[QUOTE=longtimefan67;719564]

Originally Posted by DGO67 Neither of us. I'm ok with him calling me names, but when he starts attacking my family, which he's now done 2 times in the last few months; that's a completely different story. I took someone's advice and he's on my ignore list.

Yay, I never have to suffer the stupidity of this bonehead replying to my posts ever again. After 5 years of perpetual excuses for AG's failures. Oh, how will I live now?

[flyerfanatic86]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 Name calling? That's usually the sign that a person has lost the debate, though in this case it's more or less a case of a moron just being himself.

How many times did you call names in this thread alone...

[longtimefan67]

Originally Posted by flyerfanatic86 How many times did you call names in this thread alone...

To him a bunch; never once did I call his wife a name. That's where I draw the line.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by longtimefan67 To him a bunch; never once did I call his wife a name. That's where I draw the line.

This is why he's a bonehead. I never called his wife a name. I never met his wife nor know anything about what she looks like or if she could cook. The insult was directed at him. I was basically saying "From your personality, I can picture your wife being a fat, hag that can cook". Obviously I didn't say she was just that's what I picture with a bonehead like himself.

The fact it hit a nerve, I now wonder if I wasn't far off, after all, if she was gorgeous, why would that bother him. But again I never saw her.

[Runnin' Rebel]

Shouldn't we be at the point where Smitty10 and Lontimefan67 are supposed to meet up somewhere is East Dayton, and then Smitty10 not show up?

[Glen Clark]

Please - make it stop!

___________________
You have got to buck up, man. You cannot drag this negative energy into the tournament!
Walter Sobchak - The Big Lebowski

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Runnin' Rebel Shouldn't we be at the point where Smitty10 and Lontimefan67 are supposed to meet up somewhere is East Dayton, and then Smitty10 not show up?

See, I'll tell everyone right now, if you get so crazy to challenge me to a fight, I will accept and waste your time by not showing up. Because we all use monikers instead of our real names for a reason.

Mine, and probably most is that we want to remain anonymous because having strangers on the internet knowing who you are is dangerous.

Especially scary with a person who has this 6 year obsession/crush/infatuation with Anthony Grant and can't let a post that might be as innocent as criticizing the socks he's wearing go without coming to his defense, over and over and over and over ... It's not what he will do face to face, it's more that he might pull a Mark Chapman/John Lennon kind of ambush. Chapman snapped because Lennon compared The Beatles popularity to Jesus, can you imagine what a nutcase like LongtimeBonehead might do when one more criticism of AG sends him over the edge.

[rollo]

Thank God it's Friday...but is it 5:00 yet??

[Furio]

It's happy hour somewhere in the world.

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by rollo Thank God it's Friday...but is it 5:00 yet??

Originally Posted by Furio It's happy hour somewhere in the world.

5 PM is old school, Noon and the happy hour / weekend starts, that is assuming Mimosas were not on the breakfast menu!

[moville]

Where's Chuck Grigsby when we need him!