Interesting tweet/stats
- Thread starter BballinsiderfromPitt
- Start date
Yeah, Miss State was even worse offensively. They were solid rebounding, but man did they need those rebounds.
It seems odd they’re so bad offensively with that big. Those two guards were pretty slick
Hitting the big shots in big moments is what makes the difference. I had a feeling the game would come down to who could make the bigger shots in the last 3-4 minutes and Pitt was the team that did it. The 9 3’s Pitt was able to hit were the difference in the game. It contributed to nearly half of the points they scored in the game.
Last edited:
Pitt is so bad at stats. Its why we almost didnt make it. Computers hate us.....but we are a hard team to run through a computer. We really dont do anything very well besides shoot the 3 and even that can take a night off. So I understand why the computers hate us. But I hate that they really dont factor in "onions" or just making plays when you need to. Sure, this team could have easily been 9-11 in the ACC. Maybe we should have been based on talent. But we won games. The computers dont measure that. And that's a big reason why we are the best "against the spread" team out of the 68 teams. NET/Vegas doesnt think we're any good and we really dont do anything to disprove them beyond beating the spread by 1 or 2 points.
Winning close games isn't a fluke anymore. It's a pattern.
Pitt was the 2nd best FT shooting team in the ACC this year at nearly 77%.
Last night and ND were really the only abberations in the past two months.
And last night Pitt was 9-for-15.... The metrics say Pitt should be about 11 or 12 out of 15. So only 2 or 3 lost points, actually.
Seems like a game we win pretty easily with a healthy Fede if everything else had been the same.
I was impressed with the defensive effort of the twins on their bigs . I expected them to be a lot less effective.
I dont disagree. But winning all these close games is really just viewed as luck by the computers. Our record is disproportionately good in close games. They dont account for "guys stepping up." We beat the spread by 1 or 2 point every game and Vegas/NET are just like "whatever." You still cant run anything we through a computer and have it spit out "Pitt is good" and that's a huge problem with almost the sole reliance on computers. Games are played on the court. Pitt wins games. Whether by 1 or 30, it doesnt matter. Whether you lose by 1 or 30, it shouldn't matter. The win/loss result is all that should matter.
WTF does this even mean? ONLY 2 or 3 lost points? Those 2 or 3 points were the difference between me relaxing or crapping myself as that final 3-pointer was launched. I’m sorry - a 77% FT shooting team can’t shoot 60% in the tournament. They just can’t.
It's below their average, but not exceedingly below. Definitely well within the bell curve of their range.
All things eventually regress to the mean.... which means Pitt probably goes 18-for-20 against ISU.
I was not impressed with smith. He may have had an off night but he didnt come close to living up to the billing
I absolutely agree with this. I don't care what some nerd's computer says we are or should be, based on their arbitrary stats. The win-loss record should be the #1, major determining factor in seeding teams or determining if a team gets in or not. How does a computer measure grit, guts, playing hardnosed basketball?
If you can't win at least half of your conference games, you're not in. If you can't win 20 games minimum, you're not in. Teams play the schedules they are given. You win, you're rewarded. What does that say about our next opponent?
Ding! Ding! Ding!
4 Factors:
- eFG: 40% of impact on outcome
- TO rate: 25%
- OR rate: 20%
- FT rate: 15%
Pitt's coaching staff did an excellent job with their defensive scheme smothering him in the post and occasionally forcing him outside. It worked because Miss. St. guards (outside of the early stages of the game) couldn't make
outside shots. Several times in the second half all 5 Pitt defenders were defending inside the 3-point line. There
simply wasn't enough spacing for him to operate. If they would have shot even slightly better from beyond the
arc, he would have been a larger factor. However, as was stated prior to the game, their weakness was outside
shooting.
What I was amazed by:
Guillermo played 37 minutes against him and ended the game with only 2 fouls.
No Gary McGhee last night.
UNC would have been a great battle inside with a lot of bad shooting. Would have been close.
The reason I say we win comfortably with Fede last night is that him pulling defenders would have given our shooters even better looks. And with the way we were shooting 3s early, it may have have been lights out.
They would have still played Fede straight up. I don't think they going to collapse on Fede to leave shooters open.
If Fede could score on Tulu, then more power to him, but I don't think Miss State was going to give shooters open looks regardless.
The difference Fede would've made is perhaps a handful more rebounds.
Would have at least kept them honest as opposed to the twins who don’t yet know how to finish around the rim.
I think he might have converted 2 or 3 dunks. Quicker getting up than twns.
No doubt he would have made a difference. I just don't think State would have let it charge their strategy as far as defending the perimeter.
I do not know. Things could have been quite a bit different.
Miss St had to consider a twin three pointer. They may have baited the twins with both space and layup opportunities, knowing their inability to finish.
Do not know if they would have played Fede the same.
The thing we do know is that Guillermo was essential to our win.
Excellent point. When I heard that Fede wasn't playing, I immediately worried about our chances if G Diaz got in foul trouble, Who could we put in at that big spot? Jorge is not really a post big: he's a perimeter big.
Fortunately, Guillermo played a smart game and stayed out of trouble. I give the big fellow a lot of credit for that.
I'm trying to remember, but wasn't there a miss or two on the front end too? That 2-3 points could have really been 3-5.
This really goes to the essence of winning basketball games. You can do virtually everything wrong, but if you put the ball in the basket more then your opponent you win. Shooting (particularly 3 pt shooting) is the great equalizer.
