|
|
Post by Tigardbeav on Feb 12, 2017 22:17:08 GMT -8
For comic relief, the girls just committed another turnover. Was it Syd?  |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 12, 2017 22:45:43 GMT -8
For comic relief, the girls just committed another turnover. Was it Syd? But... were there points scored and did it effect our RPI? |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 12, 2017 22:46:36 GMT -8
Great win today!! Because any win against a top 15 team is great!! However... The sloppiness and turnovers is certainly a concern and frankly surprised me... I am sure Rueck is also quite concerned about it... Syd definitely feels off the last two games, but she will rebound! (See what I did there  ) For the life of me I don't understand why we have such a TERRIBLY hard time inbounding the ball, and they better be practicing against the press big time, because we have a very hard time with it. Why do we insist on only passing to break the press? A good dribbler like Syd should be dribbling more not making risky passes... On the other hand this is a very good rebounding and half court defensive team and THAT will make up for A LOT of other weaknesses... It always amazes me and warms my heart to see these high scoring teams come in and struggle to score 50-60 points. It would be nice to not have to struggle to score 60 as well, but I would rather have a scrappy offense with bull dog defense that wins low scoring battles than a high scoring offense that only manages to stay within 5 of the other team (cough Blazers cough) Anyways, coach em up Scottie and GO BEAVS!!! |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 12, 2017 22:51:32 GMT -8
Oh, also... LOB is NOTHING like turnovers... You NEED LOB in baseball, it's a GOOD thing the best offensive teams usually LEAD their leagues in LOB, it means you are getting a lot of guys on. I love mike Parker, but NOTHING annoys me more than hearing him bitch and moan over a bunch of LOB... While we score 12 runs and win by 10, smh Meanwhile turnovers are TOTALLY UNNECESSARY AND ONLY NEGATIVE. Phew, sorry, end rant  |
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Feb 13, 2017 3:48:20 GMT -8
Would be nice to wait to critique until after the game is over. Just my thought, that I am entitled to have. RPI does not win games(no one said it does). It is a by product of the games already played. I used it as a reference for why I think critiquing this team, that does what teams should do to win games, for things that don't ultimately win games is foolish. "The lack of turnovers does. So while some may hang your hat on worthless statistics I don't, as they mean zero once the game starts (just a clue... if they did USC loses!)."-- The #1 stat in my opinion is points scored, not TO's. Score more points than your competition and you will normally win more games than you lose. Teams with higher turnover #'s, but can offset it with say better rebounding and defense (opp shooting pct #'s as an example) can be quite successful. I would rather have 20 TO's in a game and win than have 5 TO's in a game and lose. Your harping on this teams TO's is like harping on a team with a high LOB statistic in baseball. Is it an important stat, yes. Is it THE most important stat, no...can it be overcome by excelling at other areas of the game...yep. "As for "handily", I'm not sure what game was watched."-- Not sure where you are coming up with this quote, as I don't see it anywhere in this thread. Make up things to suit your position I guess. I saw a team(OSU) that played hard and overcame some adversity they saw on the floor. I saw some players that have been in a funk start to break out of their slump and contribute to a team win...a team win on a day that their best player did not score as much as she usually does. Do I WANT to play UCLA again? No, I would prefer not to. Does continuing to harp about TO's for a team that wins make sense? Not in my opinion. Especially before the game is played. When they lose another game (and they probably will) you can be assured of being able to say either--"See, I TOLD YOU they would lose because of TO's" or "Could you imagine how much worse that loss would be if they would have turned the ball over like they usually do" A broken clock is correct twice a day. I think you are harping on 1 aspect of the game that this team has as a deficiency (if you will) that they are able to overcome by being proficient in other aspects of the game. Oh my... where to begin. Well, it's apparent we need to keep it basic, so I'll try. As for "making things up" (do you see that? Lol) Your inane circular arguments are pedestrian and truly are that of a person who needs to be right. You simply create an argument that has zero factual basis on what I (or other posters you choose to srgue with) stated. You just focus on a portion a turn it to some "point" that was never mentioned... like me stating turnoversare more important than points?! What? Lmao So... as with the majority of your posts you simply argue to argue. You sound like a politician who no matter what the question turns the reply into whatever their current agenda may be, facts be damn. Hence... really there is no argument. Lets try to put it into elementary school form for you: -turnovers cost teams a possession... having the ball is how you score points... if you turn it over you lose a possession the opponent gains one. Hence, they have more chances to score points... that's bad 😊 -we turn the ball over way too much... meaning opponents get more possessions than they should... like tonight UCLA had 16 or so more shot attempts... or SC's 28-9 pts off turnovers advantage (that's 19 by the way... we lost by 20)... that's not good 😆 -turnovers have been an issue W or L most of the season 😉 -turnovers are not improving 😲 -turnovers were part of the reason we lost to a 3-9 SC team at home... see above 🙄 -negative trends, such as turnovers, are reason for concern for future games when they seem to be increasing... especially as unforced turnovers are 😞 -win or lose (that's where points come in) you study trends and come up with practice plans to address them. While other teams study them to attack them 😩 -if you've ever coached you'd know the absolute time to harp in the negatives and reinforce fundamentals is after a win. I'm not the coach, but as a fan can post what I see as concerns going forward (not to mention your reply to this post!). But... I'll bet you Coach Rueck and staff mention turnovers and not how many points they scored! Lol Ok... your lesson on interpretation of posts on this site and the importance of turnovers is now complete. Feel free to copy and paste versus taking notes, I'll waive copyright infringement. 😪 The fact you keep attacking the messanger does not go unnoticed. Your air of superiority is palatable...and unfounded. I agreed that turnovers are bad. I pointed out how teams can find more possesions in other ways. I noticed you chose to be long winded and address LOB, but neglected to address the rebounding and defensive shooting % combination. (Kind of my point of including it. Take one statistic and you can twist it. Take the whole and you get a clearer picture) I don't need to explain how those go together...you are smart. You just choose not to address the thought that I am correct. It would not support your rant. I know there is no real need to try to be civil in a discussion with you. You have mastered the message board pivot and turn. Don't address anything in someone else's post that is correct. Take a "superior stance of knowledge" and shout them down. Since you have claimed to coach so much (like against Pat Casey in HS baseball) and the time to harp on fundamentals is after a win...I agree. It is why my opinion, the time to start a "turnover" thread before the start of a game was in bad taste. Really the crux of the OP. Or did you forget in your trying to be "correct". |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 13, 2017 9:04:21 GMT -8
Nit that I have to justify to you... There was no game thread started before the game. I looked a couple of times early in the 1st qtr. Mine was well into the game... after several early unforced TOs... notice the time on the thread... which may or may not be accurate depending how the board runs, but if you read (try it)the 1st post which created the thread it was about halftime... 30% rebounding defending... lol, but nice try!
And... if you don't understand humorous posts you should probably not come here. TOs have been mentioned numerous times by numerous posters and was an appropriate title... in my opinion. And, since yours is based on being inappropriate because it was "before" the game, your opinion doesnt really matter!😆
PS- I did coach/still volunteer during the off-season when HS coaches are limited and at camps... I was corrected on Casey vs Bailey and the had zero to do with coaching prowess. The post was under pitching/surgeries and PCs strength in that area before becoming HC at OSU.
The only "attack" is the having to try to summarize and simplify posts you obviously dont read or understand.
Happy Monday.
|
|
|
|
Post by obf on Feb 13, 2017 9:55:36 GMT -8
The fact you keep attacking the messanger does not go unnoticed. Your air of superiority is palatable...and unfounded. I agreed that turnovers are bad. I pointed out how teams can find more possesions in other ways. I noticed you chose to be long winded and address LOB, but neglected to address the rebounding and defensive shooting % combination. (Kind of my point of including it. Take one statistic and you can twist it. Take the whole and you get a clearer picture) I don't need to explain how those go together...you are smart. You just choose not to address the thought that I am correct. It would not support your rant. I know there is no real need to try to be civil in a discussion with you. You have mastered the message board pivot and turn. Don't address anything in someone else's post that is correct. Take a "superior stance of knowledge" and shout them down. Since you have claimed to coach so much (like against Pat Casey in HS baseball) and the time to harp on fundamentals is after a win...I agree. It is why my opinion, the time to start a "turnover" thread before the start of a game was in bad taste. Really the crux of the OP. Or did you forget in your trying to be "correct". I am the one that ranted about LOB not being remotely similar to turnovers, not baseba1111 , and I also specifically mentioned defense and rebounding (as baseba1111 did IN THE VERY FIRST POST) as this teams strength and the only reason why the turnovers haven't led to even MORE loses... At least argue with the right person... Why do you keep harping on the time of this thread??? I know math is hard, but all you have to do is take the "Started 20 hours ago" text under the first post, count backwards ( or use this handy link) and you can see that this thread was started an hour after the game started, and since you have so much previous knowledge of baseba1111 you know he actually goes to the games, and since it was started "via mobile" you can infer that he was actually at the game and started it from there after watching the first hour of the game... Your first post in this thread was posted 17 hours ago, after the game was already over for an hour so you are just assuming stuff, and are wrong! If you are going to complain about someone, at least complain about something that is factually correct, he even told you he started the thread after the game (not that it should matter) yet you continue to repeat your wrong assumption! You sound like Trump! Sad! |
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Feb 13, 2017 11:46:47 GMT -8
Great. Understood.
|
|
|
|
Post by ricke71 on Feb 13, 2017 16:00:10 GMT -8
I'm unable to fully follow points in this thread...that being said, I fully agree that LOB in baseball and TOs in basketball do not equate. LOB is a totally normal product of 2 things: getting runners on (a good thing), and the fact that even HOF baseball players fail to hit 2 out of 3 times. Turnovers in basketball are "curable" as evidenced by the fact that many teams go an entire game and commit only a handfull
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Feb 13, 2017 16:43:57 GMT -8
This is so overblown. The overwhelming majority of those turnovers were on passes into the bigs. A lot of what we lost in turnovers we gained in high-percentage looks.
Our bigs scored 24 point in 19 shots, or 1.26 points-per-look. The rest of the team scored 30 point in 29 shots, or 1.03 points-per-look. So it's WORTH IT to take a 20% risk to get the easier shot. Even if the risk is a little higher, it's still worth it to diversify the offense and keep the defense from keying on Syd. Subtract the half-dozen (my guess) extra turnovers due purely to this sort of risk-taking and we're looking at 15 against UCLA. Not good, but not worth all this hand-wringing.
|
|
)
