Why we do NOT have a decent defense, yet:

[CBB_Fan]

Maybe there was never a problem in the first place, and your sample size was too small?

So a 1 game sample is enough to say I'm wrong, but a 3-9 game sample size is not enough to prove that my points were valid?

That just isn't a good argument.

[ShockerFever]

This thread may go down as one of the most idiotic threads ever created on Shockernet once the season ends. And that's saying something..

[CBB_Fan]

This thread may go down as one of the most idiotic threads ever created on Shockernet once the season ends. And that's saying something..

Have you read the last word of the title? Do you understand the point of the argument? Do you realize that the Southern Miss game helps the argument I was trying to make, not hurt it?

If not, let me help you:

1. FTs were giving our opponents extra points and extra chances to win
2. We'd have a better defense and a better chance of winning if we reduced the number of FTAs our opponents get in a game
3. We did that against Southern Miss, holding them to 13 FTAs in the game. If we had given them 20+, I don't think we win. We did not do that against Tennessee, and they might have won because of it.

[Kung Wu]

So a 1 game sample is enough to say I'm wrong, but a 3-9 game sample size is not enough to prove that my points were valid?

That just isn't a good argument.

I'm trying to be less argumentative and much softer these days.

What statistical conclusion did I post about after one game? I didn't, and that's why your cute attempt at misdirection about me drawing a conclusion based on one game is a fail.

On the other hand you likely did commit the fallacy of "hasty generalization", statistically speaking, because you were more than comfortable to draw a conclusion and start a thread based on cherry picking numbers from 3 specific games, when there were 10 total at the time. Now I realize you were trying to draw a conclusion on how we handle "tough opponents" and therefore you had to isolate the three toughest opponents. However, the fact that we only had three "tough" opponents at the time doesn't excuse you from drawing a conclusion on a sample size of three. But it's actually worse than that:

a) You used a sample size of 3 games to draw a conclusion (that's all you had, but it's still questionable),
b) You conveniently ignored that they were road games where there is a statistical bias in foul counts against the visiting team,
c) You state that we need to stop giving up 30 to 40 FTAs per game, when 33% of your sample size was 23 -- thus further reducing your sample size to 2(!),
d) You ignored the contradictory evidence, that 2 out of 3 wins might just be an indicator that your statistic doesn't have high correlation with the conclusion you drew.

And, actually, I am okay with ALL of that. But then you went and started a thread with a very provocative title, evidence be damned, and it came across as very trollish. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

[CBB_Fan]

I'm trying to be less argumentative and much softer these days.

What statistical conclusion did I post about after one game? I didn't, and that's why your cute attempt at misdirection about me drawing a conclusion based on one game is a fail.

On the other hand you likely did commit the fallacy of "hasty generalization", statistically speaking, because you were more than comfortable to draw a conclusion and start a thread based on cherry picking numbers from 3 specific games, when there were 10 total at the time. Now I realize you were trying to draw a conclusion on how we handle "tough opponents" and therefore you had to isolate the three toughest opponents. However, the fact that we only had three "tough" opponents at the time doesn't excuse you from drawing a conclusion on a sample size of three. But it's actually worse than that:

a) You used a sample size of 3 games to draw a conclusion (that's all you had, but it's still questionable),
b) You conveniently ignored that they were road games where there is a statistical bias in foul counts against the visiting team,
c) You state that we need to stop giving up 30 to 40 FTAs per game, when 33% of your sample size was 23 -- thus further reducing your sample size to 2(!),
d) You ignored the contradictory evidence, that 2 out of 3 wins might just be an indicator that your statistic doesn't have high correlation with the conclusion you drew.

And, actually, I am okay with ALL of that. But then you went and started a thread with a very provocative title, evidence be damned, and it came across as very trollish. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

Actually, I've the stats I've given this thread (ie, the fact that 26.1% of our opponents points came from FTs prior to this game, good for 335th in the NCAA) have been sourced from every game we've played. However, those stats only became significant when we played opponents that were reasonably similar in quality. We were a top 10% team in eFG%, but a top 30-40% team in TS%, and our foul/FT related statistics ranged from bottom 50% to bottom 5% for all NCAA D1 teams. Statistically, FTs were a weakness. Furthermore, those stats are just as valid as the stats are for any other team, because few teams in the country had played as many games as us at the time.

And I did NOT ignore contradictory evidence. Making that argument is simply ridiculous, because otherwise I could make ANY assertion and have it proven wrong because we've won games. My point has never been around the final results of the game, but the probabilities involved and the way we have played. The fact of the matter is, if we were able to commit the same number of fouls against VCU, Airforce, or Tennessee, we would have increased our chances to win and reduced our reliance on the opposing team's FT%.

Simply arguing that because we were 9-1, all is fine, is and was silly. It involves no greater analysis, no actual discussion of what happened in the game, and no prediction of future games. I was not arguing that if we reduced the number of FTs, we win for certain because that would directly be contradicted by the VCU and Airforce games. However, I was arguing that the opposing teams ability to shoot FTs became a much more important determinant of success than it needed to be. When we hold our opponents to significantly below their season shooting percentages, we shouldn't have to worry about their FT%.

[SHOXAAC]

My head hurts worse following this thread more than when I studied for my Quantum Mechanics, Calculus III and Statics and Mechanics of Solids finals my second semester of my junior year in college. Oh holy hell, I can't fool my fellow SNers...you all know (as well as I) that I'm barely bright enough to turn on my computer. But if I would have studied for those finals my head would have exploded...thus my motivation to post this thought. Where the hell is my Advil???

[Dave Stalwart]

Here's a nice thread to remind everyone of. Hehe

Some of our early threads this season are quite entertaining to go back over now that its almost February.