Post by willtalk on Nov 14, 2020 2:48:48 GMT -8
I never said anyone was terrible. The last season was just a matter of team chemistry. Oh and I didn't realize Mik also played at Maryland? Mik had a rough sophmore year when she transitioned to PG, however by the end of the season shw was playing good ball and it was reflected in the playoffs by the team as a whole. Her Jr year she had an excellent season and that was also reflected by her rise in her draft stock to the mid first round. Last season her play regressed, especially her 3pt percentage, which was really important for her draft status. It was not her who's perimiter teammates shooting perentages consistently dropped drastically.
The only reason I even bring this up is because of the rational that the raters give for dropping Oregon St to the mid teens in the ratings. That being the loss of their two guards and the stats associated with them. They might be correct about how high Oregon St is rated, but their rational is off. They did not use the same standards in their ratinga of other teams that lost considerably more. Most of the rating services have not even watched the teams play, rather they go entirely on stats. I try not to judge a players efficiancy purely on stats. Stats often lie.
I learned that lesson watching the NBA for multiple decades. When you watch a teams, who in the past had relatively stable rosters you can lean more about team chemeistry than watching college or high school ball. Additions and subtractions to a roster has a more immediate and visible affect. I learned that individual stats do not always translate to team success. They are always a trade off, but often they reflect more of a negative than a positive in respect to trade off value to the team.
The poster boy for my lesson was Alen Iverson who was one of the most talented players to ever play the game. He was offensively unstoppable. I thought he was the greatest thing since ice cream, until his first team basically gave him away and got nothing in return. The shock was that the team played better and was more successful without him in the lineup. The same scenario played itself out when he was traded again. I then read the first teams rational for trading him. I also noticed that his teammates production dropped once he joined the team. That was the trade off.
The most telling aspect about Alan Iversom is something that I never heard mentioned. What he is sort of famous for was his exclamation "Practice! Practice ". You see he felt it was not necessary for him to practice. In a way he was right, but only in the context of his own individual skill set. The key to his own perspective and attitude is reflected in this statement. What he did not understand, or perhaps more relevant was that practice is to extablish team flow and chemistry. He did not give that aspect of the game any value, so in his mind practice was unnecessary. The perspective and focus on individual play has been permoted by the NBA once TV became the prime money source for the sport. The concept of team play has been lost to many fans. They become amazed at the individual skills of players like Iverson without recognizing the trade off and that effect on team success.
The only reason I even bring this up is because of the rational that the raters give for dropping Oregon St to the mid teens in the ratings. That being the loss of their two guards and the stats associated with them. They might be correct about how high Oregon St is rated, but their rational is off. They did not use the same standards in their ratinga of other teams that lost considerably more. Most of the rating services have not even watched the teams play, rather they go entirely on stats. I try not to judge a players efficiancy purely on stats. Stats often lie.
I learned that lesson watching the NBA for multiple decades. When you watch a teams, who in the past had relatively stable rosters you can lean more about team chemeistry than watching college or high school ball. Additions and subtractions to a roster has a more immediate and visible affect. I learned that individual stats do not always translate to team success. They are always a trade off, but often they reflect more of a negative than a positive in respect to trade off value to the team.
The poster boy for my lesson was Alen Iverson who was one of the most talented players to ever play the game. He was offensively unstoppable. I thought he was the greatest thing since ice cream, until his first team basically gave him away and got nothing in return. The shock was that the team played better and was more successful without him in the lineup. The same scenario played itself out when he was traded again. I then read the first teams rational for trading him. I also noticed that his teammates production dropped once he joined the team. That was the trade off.
The most telling aspect about Alan Iversom is something that I never heard mentioned. What he is sort of famous for was his exclamation "Practice! Practice ". You see he felt it was not necessary for him to practice. In a way he was right, but only in the context of his own individual skill set. The key to his own perspective and attitude is reflected in this statement. What he did not understand, or perhaps more relevant was that practice is to extablish team flow and chemistry. He did not give that aspect of the game any value, so in his mind practice was unnecessary. The perspective and focus on individual play has been permoted by the NBA once TV became the prime money source for the sport. The concept of team play has been lost to many fans. They become amazed at the individual skills of players like Iverson without recognizing the trade off and that effect on team success.