Purdue

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

cincrulz11 said:
To start people need to understand we NEVER played with any sort of high tempo. The most possessions we ever got in a game was 66 (in regulation). That is still pretty slow ball.


From an efficiency standpoint it's all over the place with pace. 9 of the 21 games we had 57 or fewer possessions. 7 of them we had 63 or more possessions.


To expand some of on that, of our 10 most efficient games, 5 had 63 or more possessions, 4 had 55 or less possessions, and 1 had 61 possessions.

We play slow and we force others to play slow. That's just how it is. Even if we get out in transition some it's still going to be a slow game because people can't get shots up against us.
Click to expand...
Pace of play has nothing to do possessions really. I can run and down court all day on offense if other team still takes 34sec to shoot your possessions are limited. Really need throw stats out windows unless its final score
 
Bulldog01 said:
Pace of play has nothing to do possessions really. I can run and down court all day on offense if other team still takes 34sec to shoot your possessions are limited. Really need throw stats out windows unless its final score
Click to expand...

You don't get to change the definition of something just because you don't like it.

Pace of play has EVERYTHING to do with number of possessions. That's exactly what it is measuring.

Our average possession on offense takes 20.8 seconds, good for 336 in division 1. When we are on defense our average possession takes 19.3 seconds, good for 308th.

No I don't know the median. That would also be a useful number for a complete data set, but when the range of numbers is as constricted as length of possession it's not going to make much of a difference compared to other more useful times for median like measuring income levels.

And discarding stats except the final score because you take issue with them is just limiting our knowledge base and observations. Using stats doesn't mean we can't and don't use our eyes to evaluate things. In fact most of the time, it goes something like this:

"Man, Shaq, quadri, and KJ sure seem to turn the ball over a bunch and can look really shaky under pressure. Kj looks lost when a team presses us. Seems like he picks up his dribble in bad spots without a solution and makes a ton of dangerous lob passes.

You know what, let me check the stats for confirmation. Oh wow, they really do turn it over a ton when accounting for little they touch the ball and have the offense run through them."

Or, other times I may see Cobb shoot and think he has really nice form while KJ looks a little rigid and stiff in comparison. So, I check the data and actually they both shoot EXACTLY the same 34.2% from 3 on the year. Yet that doesn't account for quality of looks and I wish there was a way to access catch/shoot looks, contested, off the dribble etc like in the NBA to see if the types of looks they get may be affecting why their percentages are the same.

Basketball is too fluid off a game to ever just be numbers. But the mountains of excellent data available when used intelligently is highly beneficial and just silly to ignore.
 
Last edited:
Ignorant question by me... how do pace statistics treat offensive rebounds relative to possessions? Is the constant ORBs in our games relevant to the number of possessions that occur?
 
I have a brother in icu in UK Hospital of all places. Don't know how much of the game I will get to see. Cheer 'em to victory for me guys.
 
Andy Katz talks a little about how he's impressed with the job Larry Davis has done filling in for Mick. I think he even uses the word "exceptional"

Doesn't say a lot that none of us already don't know but it's good to get a little positive recognition nationally.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/

Side note:I noticed the link is directing you to ESPN's college basketball page and not the Andy Katz's video. Sorry.
 
ucswais said:
Ignorant question by me... how do pace statistics treat offensive rebounds relative to possessions? Is the constant ORBs in our games relevant to the number of possessions that occur?
Click to expand...
This is highly relevant and a very good question. The general method for counting possessions does not count offensive rebounds as a "new possession" but rather a continuation of the current possession the missed shot took place in.

So by definition, teams with high rates of offensive rebounding will have lower # of possessions than a team that does not.
 
Last edited:
bearcat jeff said:
I have a brother in icu in UK Hospital of all places. Don't know how much of the game I will get to see. Cheer 'em to victory for me guys.
Click to expand...

Best wishes to him. Least he is in a great hospital.

I know how you feel. I'm off work bc of my back. I'm having surgery on it Tuesday. Since I'm off work I was like awesome I can go to the game....wait I can't even walk or sit. I'm stuck watching it at home.
 
UCalum08 said:
UC is now a -1 favorite.
Click to expand...

I even saw us at -1.5. I wonder what happened. On Wagerline, nearly 1,000 betters have taken Purdue to under 700 for us. So that sample suggests that we don't have the public...it makes me feel good if some of the pros came in and made huge wagers to shift the line in our favor.
 
Last edited:
jacobkdoyle said:
I even saw us at -1.5. I wonder what happened. On Wagerline, nearly 1,000 betters have taken Purdue to under 700 for us. So that sample suggests that we don't have the public...it makes me feel good if some of the pros came in and made huge wagers to shift the line in our favor.
Click to expand...

That's interesting stats right there. Obama picked UC, maybe he could throw some of his weight around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jacobkdoyle said:
I even saw us at -1.5. I wonder what happened. On Wagerline, nearly 1,000 betters have taken Purdue to under 700 for us. So that sample suggests that we don't have the public...it makes me feel good if some of the pros came in and made huge wagers to shift the line in our favor.
Click to expand...

ESPN has UC -2 now...what is going on?? Haha this is a big, quick swing. I thought Purdue was -2 literally yesterday.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/scoreboard
 
#BearcatNation said:
ESPN has UC -2 now...what is going on?? Haha this is a big, quick swing. I thought Purdue was -2 literally yesterday.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/scoreboard
Click to expand...

They were! Lol It will be interested to see if we come out tight due to nerves. We can not afford to get off to a slow start or get in early foul trouble. We have a lot of new guys who have never been at this stage here before. Even our sophomore guys had Rub, SK and JJ to rely on. Its all on them now. Its def a lot of pressure. I hope Shaq steps up and is aggressive.
 
UCalum08 said:
They were! Lol It will be interested to see if we come out tight due to nerves. We can not afford to get off to a slow start or get in early foul trouble. We have a lot of new guys who have never been at this stage here before. Even our sophomore guys had Rub, SK and JJ to rely on. Its all on them now. Its def a lot of pressure. I hope Shaq steps up and is aggressive.
Click to expand...

I got Shaq going for 12 today.
 
UCalum08 said:
They were! Lol It will be interested to see if we come out tight due to nerves. We can not afford to get off to a slow start or get in early foul trouble. We have a lot of new guys who have never been at this stage here before. Even our sophomore guys had Rub, SK and JJ to rely on. Its all on them now. Its def a lot of pressure. I hope Shaq steps up and is aggressive.
Click to expand...
I don't think nerves will be a issue. Reality is I think the Kids are playing for a chance to play KY. The last 4 games of the season had to be more nerve wrecking then playing Purdue in RD 1.
 

Similar threads

Q
Dayton
2
Replies
21
Views
66K
sedziobs
S
Q
Merrimack
Replies
7
Views
31K
sedziobs
S
Q
Kansas
Replies
11
Views
41K
sedziobs
S
Q
TCU
Replies
10
Views
41K
sedziobs
S
Q
NKU
2 3
Replies
40
Views
29K
waterhead
W
Back
Top