Girls have missed 12 FTs so far..trail by 6
- Thread starter pittizit
- Start date
Of course it does...
because you are something of a broken record.
Pitt has missed 13 foul shots. They've also missed 29 two pointers. Guess which one of those is more important. Way, way more important. Hint, it isn't the one that you are bitching about.
because you are something of a broken record.
Pitt has missed 13 foul shots. They've also missed 29 two pointers. Guess which one of those is more important. Way, way more important. Hint, it isn't the one that you are bitching about.
Re: Of course it does...
I'm not bitching sparky. Just letting the OP they don't make that much difference as several experts (not me by any stretch) have pointed out repeatedly.
And thanks for stating the obvious. And back atcha for obvious...guess which ones are much easier...hint...the ones where nothing's going on and nobody's guarding you.
I'm not bitching sparky. Just letting the OP they don't make that much difference as several experts (not me by any stretch) have pointed out repeatedly.
And thanks for stating the obvious. And back atcha for obvious...guess which ones are much easier...hint...the ones where nothing's going on and nobody's guarding you.
Well first of all....
slappy, I wasn't responding to you. Which is why I actually replied to the original post. If you want to bitch about what someone is posting about you it might be wise to at least make sure they were actually replying to you in the first place.
Secondly, of course foul shots are easier. But it's not like teams actually make them all, which certain people always seem to assume in an argument like this. If Pitt made it's average number of foul shots they'd have scored about six more points. How many more points would they have if they were making their average number of threes this game (since they only made one)? Oddly enough, right around six more points. How many more points would they have if they were making an average number of two, since they made under 35% of their twos? I didn't look it up, but I'll guarantee you it cost them a lot more than six points.
Foul shots are almost always something that people who don't understand the game hang their hat on to explain a loss. Shooting foul shots poorly wasn't the biggest reason Pitt lost, and it wasn't even particularly close to the biggest reason.
slappy, I wasn't responding to you. Which is why I actually replied to the original post. If you want to bitch about what someone is posting about you it might be wise to at least make sure they were actually replying to you in the first place.
Secondly, of course foul shots are easier. But it's not like teams actually make them all, which certain people always seem to assume in an argument like this. If Pitt made it's average number of foul shots they'd have scored about six more points. How many more points would they have if they were making their average number of threes this game (since they only made one)? Oddly enough, right around six more points. How many more points would they have if they were making an average number of two, since they made under 35% of their twos? I didn't look it up, but I'll guarantee you it cost them a lot more than six points.
Foul shots are almost always something that people who don't understand the game hang their hat on to explain a loss. Shooting foul shots poorly wasn't the biggest reason Pitt lost, and it wasn't even particularly close to the biggest reason.
Now that we can agree on.....
I really think the issue is that the new players have hit the proverbial wall, because the team really hasn't played all that well for several weeks. I guess that shouldn't be surprising when you start four players who have never played college basketball before, but it has been a little disappointing. Even with their lower level of play lately today was the first time all season that they have lost a game that the tournament committee would call a bad loss.
I really think the issue is that the new players have hit the proverbial wall, because the team really hasn't played all that well for several weeks. I guess that shouldn't be surprising when you start four players who have never played college basketball before, but it has been a little disappointing. Even with their lower level of play lately today was the first time all season that they have lost a game that the tournament committee would call a bad loss.
Re: Well first of all....
Sorry there sparky - I just use topic view so I do screw that up from time to time. My bad.
I Assumed that was what your response was gonna be and without thinking about it - and I'm not doing the math either - I'm sure the percentages weigh heavily in favor of FGs. I don't put as much emphasis on free throws as what it might appear. But some folks (not saying you're one of them) are way too dismissive when the FT shooting is poor.
Sorry there sparky - I just use topic view so I do screw that up from time to time. My bad.
I Assumed that was what your response was gonna be and without thinking about it - and I'm not doing the math either - I'm sure the percentages weigh heavily in favor of FGs. I don't put as much emphasis on free throws as what it might appear. But some folks (not saying you're one of them) are way too dismissive when the FT shooting is poor.
Re: Of course it does...
I know it's a little over the top which I guess wasn't clear. But I know I've read several people over and over say that FTs aren't all that important.
But lemme check all my lists of names I keep of those who have a different viewpoint and I'll get back to you.
I know it's a little over the top which I guess wasn't clear. But I know I've read several people over and over say that FTs aren't all that important.
But lemme check all my lists of names I keep of those who have a different viewpoint and I'll get back to you.
No big deal....
I'm not dismissive of foul shooting, it's just that there are almost always more important things going on that have a much greater impact on the game. I'm not sure that there was any aspect of the game that the women did well today, foul shots, twos, threes, protecting the ball, all bad. The defense was poor. There were a lot of reasons Pitt lost today, and foul shooting wasn't all that high on the list.
I'm not dismissive of foul shooting, it's just that there are almost always more important things going on that have a much greater impact on the game. I'm not sure that there was any aspect of the game that the women did well today, foul shots, twos, threes, protecting the ball, all bad. The defense was poor. There were a lot of reasons Pitt lost today, and foul shooting wasn't all that high on the list.
Re: No big deal....
I think sometimes it's just frustration too. I never played any high level organized basketball but played a LOT on the local courts. And I could stand there and make them all day long. When I look at someone good enough to make it to play at a high D1 level and not be able to make a simple shot it's just annoying.
And in this particular case they made it close. And believe me I know it's not as simple as saying "if they only made 6 more FTs" when they are down 4 with 2 minutes to go...but like I said its just frustrating.
I think sometimes it's just frustration too. I never played any high level organized basketball but played a LOT on the local courts. And I could stand there and make them all day long. When I look at someone good enough to make it to play at a high D1 level and not be able to make a simple shot it's just annoying.
And in this particular case they made it close. And believe me I know it's not as simple as saying "if they only made 6 more FTs" when they are down 4 with 2 minutes to go...but like I said its just frustrating.
Re: Of course it does...
Could it have been that people wrote over and over that team FT percentage does not correlate well with winning percentage. THAT discussion actually happened, and I remember it on here.
This post was edited on 3/5 8:38 PM by KiwiJeff
Could it have been that people wrote over and over that team FT percentage does not correlate well with winning percentage. THAT discussion actually happened, and I remember it on here.
This post was edited on 3/5 8:38 PM by KiwiJeff
Re: Of course it does...
Jeff I recall that too. I think someone even did the math and pointed out that over a season an increased FG percentage of X would lead to a (very minimal) increase in wins of Y.
And I certainly can't name anyone but I swear I've read what Ive stated. Hell there has been a ton of repetition about a lot of things (we need guards and centers - no shit) on here recently and I'd be hard pressed to list those names.
Jeff I recall that too. I think someone even did the math and pointed out that over a season an increased FG percentage of X would lead to a (very minimal) increase in wins of Y.
And I certainly can't name anyone but I swear I've read what Ive stated. Hell there has been a ton of repetition about a lot of things (we need guards and centers - no shit) on here recently and I'd be hard pressed to list those names.
Re: Of course it does...
I did that math. The people who wrote "FTs don't matter" were the people who couldn't understand the math being presented. They couldn't understand that a team that goes 3 for 4 and shoots 75% is worse than a team that goes 14 of 21 and shoots 67%. Their response to that was, you think FTs don't matter!!!!!! Of course they matter. the truth always remains though, that 65% shooting teams can make shots to ice it, and an 80% shooter can miss at the end of the game, but the TEAM % means absolutely nothing overall in terms of wins and losses. It is possible to shoot 100% in a loss and 60% in a win. team FT % is not a leading indicator at all. But I am not going back there again, it just slightly irks me when people suggest that the argument was that Fts don't matter. In some games, they actually do not matter, like if you go 5-10 and win by 30, they didn't matter. If you lose 70-69 but shot 19-20 FTs, the one mattered, but you shot remarkably well. Nothing can be gleaned by looking at the %.
This post was edited on 3/5 9:00 PM by KiwiJeff
I did that math. The people who wrote "FTs don't matter" were the people who couldn't understand the math being presented. They couldn't understand that a team that goes 3 for 4 and shoots 75% is worse than a team that goes 14 of 21 and shoots 67%. Their response to that was, you think FTs don't matter!!!!!! Of course they matter. the truth always remains though, that 65% shooting teams can make shots to ice it, and an 80% shooter can miss at the end of the game, but the TEAM % means absolutely nothing overall in terms of wins and losses. It is possible to shoot 100% in a loss and 60% in a win. team FT % is not a leading indicator at all. But I am not going back there again, it just slightly irks me when people suggest that the argument was that Fts don't matter. In some games, they actually do not matter, like if you go 5-10 and win by 30, they didn't matter. If you lose 70-69 but shot 19-20 FTs, the one mattered, but you shot remarkably well. Nothing can be gleaned by looking at the %.
This post was edited on 3/5 9:00 PM by KiwiJeff
Re: Of course it does...
Aha! No wonder you had a reaction haha.
Yea I hear ya on the math. And I agree. It's on par with the people who argue scoring is the big problem for the men's team (ok now I actually could name 1 here) despite the offensive and defensive efficiency numbers being right under their noses.
Aha! No wonder you had a reaction haha.
Yea I hear ya on the math. And I agree. It's on par with the people who argue scoring is the big problem for the men's team (ok now I actually could name 1 here) despite the offensive and defensive efficiency numbers being right under their noses.
Similar threads
