Cold hard truth

[InWuWeTrust]

adjusted defensive efficiency back up to #48.... if the shox bring the energy there is no reason that this can't get back into the top 25.


on a side note... love austin's energy... it would be nice to have conner back - hope the competitiveness in practice is there.

[Aargh]

I'm starting to have my doubts about the value of never turning the ball over or having a mind-boggling A/TO ratio. As it turns out, "making things happen" seems to result in wins and "not making things happen" seems to result in not having TO's.

Player A
FG% - 44.8%
3FG% - 39.3%
TO's (per game) - 5.3
FT/FTA (per game) - 7.9/9.4
A/TO - 1.76

Player B
FG% - 41.6%
3FG% - 39.1%
TO's (per game) - 0.4
FT/FTA (per game) - 0.8/0.9
A/TO - 5.0

Shooting %'s are so close, there's not much to talk about there.

Just from these isolated stats, Player A turns the ball over A LOT! Player A has an A/TO ration that is absolutely anemic. Player A also gets to the FT line A LOT! Just a bit deeper look show that Player A with the huge TO numbers, and even with the anemic A/TO numbers, is averaging about 9 assists per game.

Player B NEVER turns the ball over. Player B has one of the highest A/TO ratios ever seen. Player B almost never gets to the FT line. Just a bit deeper look reveals that Player B gets around 2 assists per game.

A casual glance at the stats and it would appear Player B is the better player. They shoot about the same, and Player A's FT advantage would appear to be offset by Player B's TO advantage. The 5 TO's are probably taking 4 points off the board for his team and putting 4 points on the board for his opponent. That is about an absolute offset from the 7.9 points Player A gets at the line.

Player A is 6'2", 180

Player B is 6'0", 165

The biggest difference between Player A and Player B seems to be that Player A makes things happen. While his play is a little sloppy, he's either challenging the rim or dishing the ball to a shooter. Taking risks results in turnovers. Player B does not make things happen. Not taking risks results in not losing possessions.

So, which method of play is more valuable? Player A is a probable top-5 NBA pick this summer. Player B might get to play some in Europe.

[shocks02]

Player A is Trae Young? B is Frankamp?

[ShockTalk]

My guess, too.

[ShockCrazy]

I'm starting to have my doubts about the value of never turning the ball over or having a mind-boggling A/TO ratio. As it turns out, "making things happen" seems to result in wins and "not making things happen" seems to result in not having TO's.

Player A
FG% - 44.8%
3FG% - 39.3%
TO's (per game) - 5.3
FT/FTA (per game) - 7.9/9.4
A/TO - 1.76

Player B
FG% - 41.6%
3FG% - 39.1%
TO's (per game) - 0.4
FT/FTA (per game) - 0.8/0.9
A/TO - 5.0

Shooting %'s are so close, there's not much to talk about there.

Just from these isolated stats, Player A turns the ball over A LOT! Player A has an A/TO ration that is absolutely anemic. Player A also gets to the FT line A LOT! Just a bit deeper look show that Player A with the huge TO numbers, and even with the anemic A/TO numbers, is averaging about 9 assists per game.

Player B NEVER turns the ball over. Player B has one of the highest A/TO ratios ever seen. Player B almost never gets to the FT line. Just a bit deeper look reveals that Player B gets around 2 assists per game.

A casual glance at the stats and it would appear Player B is the better player. They shoot about the same, and Player A's FT advantage would appear to be offset by Player B's TO advantage. The 5 TO's are probably taking 4 points off the board for his team and putting 4 points on the board for his opponent. That is about an absolute offset from the 7.9 points Player A gets at the line.

Player A is 6'2", 180

Player B is 6'0", 165

The biggest difference between Player A and Player B seems to be that Player A makes things happen. While his play is a little sloppy, he's either challenging the rim or dishing the ball to a shooter. Taking risks results in turnovers. Player B does not make things happen. Not taking risks results in not losing possessions.

So, which method of play is more valuable? Player A is a probable top-5 NBA pick this summer. Player B might get to play some in Europe.

It's a bit of a false comparison. Player A is a starting POINT guard, and even beyond that ALWAYS has the ball in his hands(rightfully so). Player B's role is much more defined to creating space for the rest of the offense. Player A also HAS to be the ball dominant creator for his team to work. Player B needs to be a role player and knock down his open shots. A role player who can take care of the ball like that is invaluable.

[proshox]

Player B's stats would look a lot more like Player A if he played for the same coach

[Dan]

Player A is a playmaker, player B is a shooter

[proshox]

I don't think so. So much of Player A is based on the offensive scheme

[shock]

Therefore, apples and oranges.

[chitown_shocker]

The cold hard truth is that I am still excited to watch every game and overall, while disappointing, i fell fortunate that this type of season at this point can be considered a "let down".

I may be overly optimistic, but I still see a team that has room to improve (or become more consistent) and a high ceiling. Losing two valued ast. coaches and two injuries really put the team behind the eight-ball. Throw in just the change in routine and change in day in and day out prep that entails (learning new teams and coaches while integrating a new staff) and you have a lot of adversity to overcome. The schedule timing was pretty tough too.

There are a lot of other mental lapses, and softness etc that have been downright mind-boggling. Plenty to be frustrated about, but this team is still pretty damn good with the potential to go on a run. That is exciting. Still in the run for a AAC crown and a pretty good seed. Of course, it could get worse - but what is the fun in dwelling on that?

[ShockTalk]

It's a bit of a false comparison. Player A is a starting POINT guard, and even beyond that ALWAYS has the ball in his hands(rightfully so). Player B's role is much more defined to creating space for the rest of the offense. Player A also HAS to be the ball dominant creator for his team to work. Player B needs to be a role player and knock down his open shots. A role player who can take care of the ball like that is invaluable.

Player A is a playmaker, player B is a shooter

Therefore, apples and oranges.

Both Player A and Player B have their problems.

Truth is, player B is too one dimensional and predictable while a Player C (not as one dimensional) is taking over B's minutes.

[forevershockerfan]

Cold hard truth from my vantage point is being 3 games out of first place now. However, here are some feats that are possible but as tough, hard, and cold as a leftover 2 dollar steak. If WSU wins out in AAC Conference games, possibilities of grandeur exists. How? Cin. Bearcats also lose both games to us but also a road game versus Tulane Mean Green, Houston, or SMU. Cin. should win remaining home games unless something goes helter skelter. The law of averages almost demands that they stub their toes a few times after winning 15 in a row and coming from behind and winning most all the close ones most all the time. Right? Dunno.

Of course there is more to this equation because Houston is tied with us too. However, it appears they play @ the Temple of Doom, SMU, and Memphis as well as they still play Cin.and UConn too, so they will prolly lose a couple more or so? Dunno.

What does it all mean? WSU is due a big run in the back-loaded AAC tough schedule. We have the players and the experience to do it, so do we have the 'eye of the tiger mentality'? Even if we do, we still need a little help from our new AAC friends to depend on some and That is many times risky. No matter what, we are entering Nitty Gritty Time and our beloved Shocks have much work to complete to meet even their own expectations. We also have some important Tourneys which awaits them. Stay tuned because--you guessed it---Dunno what the cold hard truth and nothing but the truth will actually be but waiting with baited breath.

[jdshock]

Every time I see "Cold" and "hard" in the the title of this thread, I think it's gonna be about Orupke.

[ShockerPhi]

I don't miss Co|d one damn bit

[ShockCrazy]

Both Player A and Player B have their problems.

Truth is, player B is too one dimensional and predictable while a Player C (not as one dimensional) is taking over B's minutes.

Austin's not taking over because he's less one dimensional(he's more so offensively). He's taking over because he's on fire. His assist rate is similar to Connor, 3's are a larger share of his shots than Connor, and he obviously turns it over more(everyone in the country does). Austin is a better defender and rebounder, so overall yes he's providing more, but his advantages aren't necessarily on the offensive end(assuming Connor returns to what he shot earlier this year and all of last year). Now if Austin can keep playing like he's in NBA Jam no one should take his minutes other than for breathers.

[BOBB]

Every time I see "Cold" and "hard" in the the title of this thread, I think it's gonna be about Orupke.

I don't miss Cold, but I would miss certain recently prolific posters less.

[WstateU]

Every time I see "Cold" and "hard" in the the title of this thread, I think it's gonna be about Orupke.

[ShockTalk]

Austin's not taking over because he's less one dimensional(he's more so offensively). He's taking over because he's on fire. His assist rate is similar to Connor, 3's are a larger share of his shots than Connor, and he obviously turns it over more(everyone in the country does). Austin is a better defender and rebounder, so overall yes he's providing more, but his advantages aren't necessarily on the offensive end(assuming Connor returns to what he shot earlier this year and all of last year). Now if Austin can keep playing like he's in NBA Jam no one should take his minutes other than for breathers.

CF senior: 492 minutes / 33-70 2P .471 / 40-113 3P .354 / 39 Rebounds / 48 assists / 4 blocks / 14 steals / 25 PF / 7 TO

AR soph: 469 minutes / 20-36 2P .556 / 69-141 3P .489 / 83 Rebounds / 48 assists / 7 blocks / 13 steals / 34 PF / 25 TO (8 in conference)

AR has almost double the blocks and same steals. As a sophomore, he's providing better overall defense.

Yup, AR shoots a fewer % of 2s, but he does make a higher %. Also, when you shoot .489 from 3 (that's better than CF is shooing 2s), it's kinda hard to justify taking many 2s.

Compared to AR, CF is pretty one dimensional.

[pinstripers]

Why are we doing this?

[Aargh]

The point I was trying to make in n earlier post is that players who make things happen end up taking risks. When players take risks, they end up with turnovers. The two go together. Players can avoid taking risks to cut down on their turnovers, but those p[layers don't tend to make something happen when they get the ball.

The number of turnovers a player commits has to be put into context with what that player does when they have the ball. A low number of TO's isn't always a positive. A high number of TO's ins't always a negative.