OU coaches in overtime games

[WTSooner]

Hey WT, do you understand the bias that is built into the KenPom efficiency rankings you cite so often? Not picking at you (I agree that Sampson's offensive coaching is portrayed unfairly) I'm just curious if you understand the weaknesses of the formula.

I completely understand what the stat represents.

 

[StatGeek]

I completely understand what the stat represents.

What do you feel are the biggest weaknesses of the formula?

 

[WTSooner]

I can find more if I need to but I think this proves my point.

The fact that you think that proves "your point" is why I'm done here.

Nobody is debating that Kelvin is a better defensive coach than offensive coach. But that doesn't mean his offenses stunk. I've shown that to be untrue. It just means that he was a great defense coach, that wanted to win with defense, and an outwardly vanilla offense. Vanilla doesn't always mean bad. Again, proven with stats.

And LOL at you quoting something about scoring offense. Scoring offense has more to do with pace than anything else. You probably think batting average or runs scored are good baseball stats too, huh?

 

[Big Old Booger]

The fact that you think that proves "your point" is why I'm done here.

Nobody is debating that Kelvin is a better defensive coach than offensive coach. But that doesn't mean his offenses stunk. I've shown that to be untrue. It just means that he was a great defense coach, that wanted to win with defense, and an outwardly vanilla offense. Vanilla doesn't always mean bad. Again, proven with stats.

And LOL at you quoting something about scoring offense. Scoring offense has more to do with pace than anything else. You probably think batting average or runs scored are good baseball stats too, huh?

You've been debating it with me. I've never said his offenses "stunk". Not in this thread, not ever, so don't put words in my mouth.

The quote was to prove it wasn't just my opinion that Kelvin's coaching was better on defense than offense. I provided quotes from Andy Katz, Berry Tramel and Pat Forde. 2 of them are highly respected national writers and one is a local writer who is highly respected in the region.

Like I said, drop the stats arguments, it means nothing. They don't have a stat that tracks long scoring droughts anyway. They also don't have stats that portrays hustle or grit. Stats can be displayed different ways to prove someones point. Stats are for losers.

But, take your bat and ball and go home. Not that I expected any differently from you. I still remember you bragging about your intramural prowess on gopokes.com. :ez-laugh:

 

[WTSooner]

You've been debating it with me. I've never said his offenses "stunk". Not in this thread, not ever, so don't put words in my mouth.

Are you that senile that you don't even know what we've been discussing? My points about Kelvin and his offense had NOTHING to do with his defense. I wasn't comparing the two. I was comparing the perception of his offense, to the actual results of his offense.

The quote was to prove it wasn't just my opinion that Kelvin's coaching was better on defense than offense. I provided quotes from Andy Katz, Berry Tramel and Pat Forde. 2 of them are highly respected national writers and one is a local writer who is highly respected in the region.

You serious? Where did I say Kelvin was an offensive coach, or that his offenses were better than his defenses, or anything like that? I didn't. What are you talking about? My point was simply that even though Kelvin had some droughts (and I don't think they were any worse than what we've seen over the last 3-4 years at times), his offenses on the whole were still really good. Period. That is the only point I've argued tonight.

Like I said, drop the stats arguments, it means nothing. They don't have a stat that tracks long scoring droughts anyway. They also don't have stats that portrays hustle or grit. Stats can be displayed different ways to prove someones point. Stats are for losers. Let it go.

Stats are for losers? What a tool.

That is exactly what I'd expect somebody to say when they can't prove their point with stats. Stats are MUCH better than your memory and your eyes. And again, WHAT POINT are you trying to argue? I never said Kelvin's teams didn't experience scoring droughts. Never. I said they didn't matter.

If two teams have 40 offensive possessions each.....with one scoring every other time down the court, and the other team scoring on 25 of the first 30 possessions, only to not score at all on the last 10 possessions, which offense is better? The one with the longest scoring drought. Droughts don't mean crap. I want to know what happened for the game, or the season. And if Kelvin coached some offenses that had droughts, but also were extremely efficient during those non-drought times, to the point where their total offense was still really good, then so be it. That isn't a bad offensive team.

 

[WTSooner]

But, take your bat and ball and go home. Not that I expected any differently from you. I still remember you bragging about your intramural prowess on gopokes.com. :ez-laugh:

I never played "intramurals" a day in my life. Not once. Your old age and memory are failing you.

The only thing I said on gopokes.com was that I could beat Doug Gottlieb in a FT shooting contest. And we dang near had it set up to find out if I could.

 

[DenverSooner]

Stats are for losers. I don't need stats and I've not convinced myself of anything. Kelvin's teams were known for long scoring droughts. Somehow, you have pushed it from your memory, but it's true. It happened. Doesn't mean he isn't a great coach, but it happened.

And Tubbs teams were supposedly not good defensive teams according to many OU fans but that doesn't mean it was true. The OU offense under Tubbs was all about the OU defense. The full court, trapping defense led to easy offense. The casual fan only noticed the offensive production and failed to realize it was the result of great defense.

 

[WTSooner]

And Tubbs teams were supposedly not good defensive teams according to many OU fans but that doesn't mean it was true. The OU offense under Tubbs was all about the OU defense. The full court, trapping defense led to easy offense. The casual fan only noticed the offensive production and failed to realize it was the result of great defense.

But, but.....OU gave up a lot of points, they must have been poor on defense.

:facepalm

 

[garyeb2]

Ken Pom diperses all of this great wisdom for $19.95. What amazes me is that someone smart enough to actually accumulate $19.95 at one time would spend it in such a manner.

 

[Big Old Booger]

And Tubbs teams were supposedly not good defensive teams according to many OU fans but that doesn't mean it was true. The OU offense under Tubbs was all about the OU defense. The full court, trapping defense led to easy offense. The casual fan only noticed the offensive production and failed to realize it was the result of great defense.

I've never said that. Not sure why you would put that here when it has nothing to do with the argument.

 

[DenverSooner]

I've never said that. Not sure why you would put that here when it has nothing to do with the argument.

I am not saying you do or have said it. What I am saying is it is the same argument as Sampson not having a good offense. He just had a different offense.

Honestly I could argue that Sampson's team was all about the offensive set. Sampson controlled tempo with his methodical offense. He had his team work the ball to get a good look for a high percentage shooter. He did not view shooting as an equal opportunity thing. The best shooters were supposed to take the vast majority of the shots. Most people would disagree and say it was all about the defense but the great half court defense would not have worked without the methodical offensive system.

 

[WTSooner]

Denver gets it.

 

[Big Old Booger]

I never played "intramurals" a day in my life. Not once. Your old age and memory are failing you.

The only thing I said on gopokes.com was that I could beat Doug Gottlieb in a FT shooting contest. And we dang near had it set up to find out if I could.

Oh TU...no old age and my memory aren't failing me here. I remember it. I'm sure Jeff remembers it too. You were always bragging about how good you were at basketball. You were the poster on there the aggies just couldn't get enough ridiculing of you. I felt sorry for you back then, but now I see why they treated you that way.

Tool? That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

So, no need to futher this "agreement" since we agree on everything. :ez-laugh: At first, I said Kelvin was probably the best defense and hustle coach in OU history, but said Lon would be a better offensive coach when he's done. You somehow took that to mean I said Kelvin's offenses "stunk", which I never said.

I said his teams were known for long scoring droughts, and referenced games in which it happened. You then spouted off some killer stats and claim I "convinced myself" that something is true that isn't and wanted me to disprove it(with stats). So, I disprove it with quotes from respected writers and now you come full circle and admit he was more of a defensive coach than offense and so now we must agree as that's what I've been arguing the whole time. :facepalm

 

[Big Old Booger]

I am not saying you do or have said it. What I am saying is it is the same argument as Sampson not having a good offense. He just had a different offense.

Honestly I could argue that Sampson's team was all about the offensive set. Sampson controlled tempo with his methodical offense. He had his team work the ball to get a good look for a high percentage shooter. He did not view shooting as an equal opportunity thing. The best shooters were supposed to take the vast majority of the shots. Most people would disagree and say it was all about the defense but the great half court defense would not have worked without the methodical offensive system.

So, how did the methodical offense fit into the long scoring droughts? Was that planned or just a product of the offensive genius? :ez-laugh:

 

[WTSooner]

Oh TU...no old age and my memory aren't failing me here. I remember it. I'm sure Jeff remembers it too. You were always bragging about how good you were at basketball. You were the poster on there the aggies just couldn't get enough ridiculing of you. I felt sorry for you back then, but now I see why they treated you that way.

Is this what happens when somebody uses stats to show you how wrong you were about something? :ez-roll:

As for me and gopokes.com, get over it dude. That was 15+ years ago. I was a college-aged kid, new to the internet message board world, and sure, I stirred the pot over there. I won't deny that. Has nothing to do with you being old and senile now though, does it? Don't forget to take your meds tomorrow. I won't have time to reminisce about my internet posting from when I was 19. LMAO. Some stalker you are to remember that 15 years later.

Edit: I also had a lot of "buddies" that posted at gopokes. Why do you think I never got the boot until I made it impossible for them not to ban me? I had met several posters over there in person, both through the board and from mutual friends growing up. Heck, Ryan got me started into sports gambling. A lot of what I did over there was for show. And you are bringing it up 15 years later. Too frickin' funny.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Is this what happens when somebody uses stats to show you how wrong you were about something? :ez-roll:

As for me and gopokes.com, get over it dude. That was 15+ years ago. I was a college-aged kid, new to the internet message board world, and sure, I stirred the pot over there. I won't deny that. Has nothing to do with you being old and senile now though, does it? Don't forget to take your meds tomorrow. I won't have time to reminisce about my internet posting from when I was 19. LMAO. Some stalker you are to remember that 15 years later.

Who could forget? You haven't changed in 15 years. Same old TU 15 years later.

new to the internet message board world...Really? Did you just type that? :ez-roll:

 

[WTSooner]

Who could forget? You haven't changed in 15 years. Same old TU 15 years later.

new to the internet message board world...Really? Did you just type that? :ez-roll:

Good one?

You have lost your mind.

15 years ago I would have made irrational arguments like you are doing now, with nothing to back them up. Now I use facts, and stats, and not just my opinion. It's called growing up. That is what mature, logical people do. What is your excuse?

 

[Big Old Booger]

TU:

I'm just glad we agree Sampson was a defensive coach more than an offensive coach. It took you 3 pages of a thread and many replies to come around, but I have to take my hat off to you. Thanks for making it interesting. :facepalm

 

[garyeb2]

Oh TU...no old age and my memory aren't failing me here. I remember it. I'm sure Jeff remembers it too. You were always bragging about how good you were at basketball. You were the poster on there the aggies just couldn't get enough ridiculing of you. I felt sorry for you back then, but now I see why they treated you that way.

Tool? That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

So, no need to futher this "agreement" since we agree on everything. :ez-laugh: At first, I said Kelvin was probably the best defense and hustle coach in OU history, but said Lon would be a better offensive coach when he's done. You somehow took that to mean I said Kelvin's offenses "stunk", which I never said.

I said his teams were known for long scoring droughts, and referenced games in which it happened. You then spouted off some killer stats and claim I "convinced myself" that something is true that isn't and wanted me to disprove it(with stats). So, I disprove it with quotes from respected writers and now you come full circle and admit he was more of a defensive coach than offense and so now we must agree as that's what I've been arguing the whole time. :facepalm

You mean this isn't the only place WT gets ridiculed?

 

[WTSooner]

TU:

I'm just glad we agree Sampson was a defensive coach more than an offensive coach. It took you 3 pages of a thread and many replies to come around, but I have to take my hat off to you. Thanks for making it interesting. :facepalm

If you could read, it wouldn't have taken 3 pages. I was never arguing any different.