Cold hard truth

[ShockerPrez]

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.

True.

I think the balance needs to be found in what risks are needed to be taken in order to win games.

In some of our games, our TOs are on risky plays that aren't necessary. I think we need improvement in this area.

[ShockerPrez]

I would include low percentage shots that aren't necessary. To me, TOs and stupid shots are equal. Depending on the TO and shot, a TO may even be less damaging as the % of success may have been higher than the shot going in...

[another shocker]

the cold hard truth is that i didn't expect a senior dominated team to virtually give games away.. as they did against notre dame and temple. doesn't bode well for the ncaa tournament.

i'm thinking that wichita state was just plain due for a down year (relatively speaking) after consecutive years of prosperity, like north carolina in 1979, indiana in 1985, kansas in 1999, uconn in 2003 ('02?), kentucky in 2013, etc. etc. it was bound to happen. nothing against the aac.. i mean, but, the shockers will rebound.. if not quite this year.

[ShockerFever]

18-5, 2nd in the conference, ranked in the Top 25, and that's considered a "down year".

Wow.

[1979Shocker]

To me, TOs and stupid shots are equal.

I'd rather have someone take a stupid shot than have them turn it over. You can never score on a turnover. Sometime a stupid shot goes in. Sometime you get fouled on a stupid shot.

[ShockingButTrue]

Abso-friggin'-lutely.

Uncle Mo' is a *****.