Do the stats tell the story?

[AugustaDan]

If we look at Ken Pomeroy's scouting report for Kentucky (click here (http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Kentucky)), we can, I think, find exactly what is wrong with this team.

Pomeroy's individual offensive rating tells us what each player does with the possession's he uses. It's basically points per 100 possessions used. 100 is about average.

Bradley, Patterson, and Crawford are all good. Patterson is obviously out of this world good, but Bradley and Crawford are also doing quite well. Every other player on the team has been awful. Based on past performance, we can expect Meeks to improve to the Bradley/Crawford level, at least. So, that is something.

Moreover, you'll notice that the turnover rates of the players not among those 4 is just horrible. Not merely bad, but really horrible, with Mark Coury turning in the best of the bunch with 30.6% of all the possessions he uses ending with a turnover. :shock:

Right now, we are fielding a 3 man team. A healthy Jasper and Meeks will at least make it a 5 man team. The others are essentially all inexperienced role player types at this point. Hopefully at least one can make the leap to the upper tier of the team this season, or at least close that gap.

Maybe this is all coaching, but the two players who have previous experience are performing as well as, or better than, they did a year ago. Every other player we've put out there this season has been a complete unknown (except that we knew that most of them couldn't crack last season's rotation).

[UFWildcat]

Bradley, Patterson, and Crawford are all good.

I'm not sure why Crawfords or even Bradleys are considered good.

[towles1]

If we look at Ken Pomeroy's scouting report for Kentucky (click here (http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Kentucky)), we can, I think, find exactly what is wrong with this team.

Pomeroy's individual offensive rating tells us what each player does with the possession's he uses. It's basically points per 100 possessions used. 100 is about average.

Bradley, Patterson, and Crawford are all good. Patterson is obviously out of this world good, but Bradley and Crawford are also doing quite well. Every other player on the team has been awful. Based on past performance, we can expect Meeks to improve to the Bradley/Crawford level, at least. So, that is something.

Moreover, you'll notice that the turnover rates of the players not among those 4 is just horrible. Not merely bad, but really horrible, with Mark Coury turning in the best of the bunch with 30.6% of all the possessions he uses ending with a turnover. :shock:

Right now, we are fielding a 3 man team. A healthy Jasper and Meeks will at least make it a 5 man team. The others are essentially all inexperienced role player types at this point. Hopefully at least one can make the leap to the upper tier of the team this season, or at least close that gap.

Maybe this is all coaching, but the two players who have previous experience are performing as well as, or better than, they did a year ago. Every other player we've put out there this season has been a complete unknown (except that we knew that most of them couldn't crack last season's rotation).

You mean JC and RB dont suck? You mean they may actully be UK caliber players? Shocking!

[AugustaDan]

I'm not sure why Crawfords or even Bradleys are considered good.
Good point. I suppose adequate would be a better word. Although one must consider that with a better supporting cast, their Offensive Rating would be higher. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[UFWildcat]

Good point. I suppose adequate would be a better word. Although one must consider that with a better supporting cast, their Offensive Rating would be higher. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

They would be better.

Crawford and Bradley need 4 and 5 star players to be effective.

[AugustaDan]

You mean JC and RB dont suck? You mean they may actully be UK caliber players? Shocking!
Ugh, I can't believe I'm doing this, but I thought a statement you made in another thread (not this statement, why even post this?) was interesting in light of the stats.

You say that with such a shallow team, Gillispie should play 7 players max. Even if he agreed with you, it's not clear at all which 7 should be playing. Beyond the obvious 5, who do you pick? This team is so shallow, there aren't even 7 players who should be playing.

Patterson, Bradley, and Crawford are playing a lot, as they should. Of the players who have been available, it's basically pick your poison.

Given that Gillispie only really played 6 players last season at A&M, the 7th player only averaged 13 minutes a game, it's clear the he's not averse to a very short rotation. I suspect that he's looking for any of those guys to differentiate himself to join the rotation. Until then, he'll probably keep looking.

[towles1]

They would be better.

Crawford and Bradley need 4 and 5 star players to be effective.

Was Keith Bogans effective? JC is avg more points and nearly the same rebounds as KB with less supporting cast, but dont let the truth stand in the way.

[UFWildcat]

Was Keith Bogans effective? JC is avg more points and nearly the same rebounds as KB with less supporting cast, but dont let the truth stand in the way.

Did Keith Bogans turn the ball over as much as Crawford does? (Palming violations, traveling, throwing the ball away)

Just curious.

But your going to have a hard time convincing me that JC is better than Bogans.

[pjquirk]

Thanks for sharing that link, Dan. I hadn't seen that breakdown before. I especially like how it shows you the best, 100 best and 500 best to give you an idea of how the numbers compare nationwide. While stats never tell the whole story, they do show facts and in this case the key facts I'm seeing are the turnovers. Why so many turnovers??? If there were one facet of the game we could reverse and see the biggest results, it would be turnovers.

[towles1]

Did Keith Bogans turn the ball over as much as Crawford does? (Palming violations, traveling, throwing the ball away)

Just curious.

But your going to have a hard time convincing me that JC is better than Bogans.

Yea you got it all figured out. JC is avg .2 more TO's/game than Bogans did. Im sure that is the problem with this team.

I dont have to convince you. The stats are the stats. Nobody is doctoring the stat book. Obviously, there are a lot of things you believe that dont follow what the stats say to be true.

[AugustaDan]

Did Keith Bogans turn the ball over as much as Crawford does? (Palming violations, traveling, throwing the ball away)

Just curious.

But your going to have a hard time convincing me that JC is better than Bogans.
Please stop. Just stop. Others implored me and I'm imploring you. Just let him get in the last word and trust that you don't need to make your point any more for the other 99.999999% of the board.

Keeping people from responding to towles1 can be the Wildcatnation forum version of "paying it forward." Someone saved me, I'll save you, you save someone, etc.

[catszoom54]

Joe and Ramel would be bench players on our past teams but we don't have the greatness of depth and starters so they are prime players

[towles1]

Please stop. Just stop. Others implored me and I'm imploring you. Just let him get in the last word and trust that you don't need to make your point any more for the other 99.999999% of the board.

Keeping people from responding to towles1 can be the Wildcatnation forum version of "paying it forward." Someone saved me, I'll save you, you save someone, etc.

The stats dont lie. If you are going to post Crawford cant play then back it up with something. The stats say otherwise.

[UFWildcat]

Please stop. Just stop. Others implored me and I'm imploring you. Just let him get in the last word and trust that you don't need to make your point any more for the other 99.999999% of the board.

Keeping people from responding to towles1 can be the Wildcatnation forum version of "paying it forward." Someone saved me, I'll save you, you save someone, etc.

Might be a perfect time to try my ignore button...

[swimuk1]

Was Keith Bogans effective? JC is avg more points and nearly the same rebounds as KB with less supporting cast, but dont let the truth stand in the way.


Ahh take a look at Bogans minutes in comparison...I would venture to guess that JC is getting more playing time. I mean any stats can be spun to make them look good. Yes JC's and RB's numbers are good but again as mentioned too many times to mention there are productive due to their minutes not their ability. I mean honestly, can you say that JC and RB have met the hype of their recruited stature.....IMO no. But I would not say they "SUCK". There are also intangibles I have mention before that most Srs bring to the table regardless of the coach...leadership is one. These two do not have it. They just dont. No not everyone can be a leader...I think PP is developing into one but he needs help as does BG. No things have not gone well up to this point and as mentioned we should have not been beat by GWebb and the likes, and I know you arguement try something else.....WHY:shrug1: BG was hired to UK for his coaching style and for the belief he could get us back to the top(being Final 4 and Champs) not SEC wins and Champs. So give the man some time and with his own players, running HIS style, IF we get beat by GWebb and the like well then can all come back and say wow man thay Towels knew is stuff.

One more thing you mentioned in another thread that Miller and Liggins would be be difference makers...I beg to differ and tow swings scorers is just what BG, PP, Meeks and DJ need to win. Imagine a lineup where Meeks is our shortest guy.....food for thought

[towles1]

Might be a perfect time to try my ignore button...


...or just stop trashing players with nothing to back it up...how bout that?

[KYISSUPREME]

You mean JC and RB dont suck? You mean they may actully be UK caliber players? Shocking!

It's a shock to me. I don't see it. When they decide to compete every game and do what is expected of them, and maybe grow up a little, I might say they are UK calibre.

[towles1]

Ahh take a look at Bogans minutes in comparison...I would venture to guess that JC is getting more playing time. I mean any stats can be spun to make them look good. Yes JC's and RB's numbers are good but again as mentioned too many times to mention there are productive due to their minutes not their ability. I mean honestly, can you say that JC and RB have met the hype of their recruited stature.....IMO no. But I would not say they "SUCK". There are also intangibles I have mention before that most Srs bring to the table regardless of the coach...leadership is one. These two do not have it. They just dont. No not everyone can be a leader...I think PP is developing into one but he needs help as does BG. No things have not gone well up to this point and as mentioned we should have not been beat by GWebb and the likes, and I know you arguement try something else.....WHY:shrug1: BG was hired to UK for his coaching style and for the belief he could get us back to the top(being Final 4 and Champs) not SEC wins and Champs. So give the man some time and with his own players, running HIS style, IF we get beat by GWebb and the like well then can all come back and say wow man thay Towels knew is stuff.

One more thing you mentioned in another thread that Miller and Liggins would be be difference makers...I beg to differ and tow swings scorers is just what BG, PP, Meeks and DJ need to win. Imagine a lineup where Meeks is our shortest guy.....food for thought


Kelenna, Richie Farmer, Gerald Fitch, Ed Davendar, want me to keep going? JC stats stack up to any of these other guards here. You guys are just flat wrong if you think he cant play. Stats dont lie.

[swimuk1]

ADan I thought the info you provided was informative to say the least...sorry it has spun out of control but thanks.:thumbup:

[KYISSUPREME]

Kelenna, Richie Farmer, Gerald Fitch, Ed Davendar, want me to keep going? JC stats stack up to any of these other guards here. You guys are just flat wrong if you think he cant play. Stats dont lie.

Do you know what the word CONSISTENCY means?

[towles1]

Do you know what the word CONSISTENCY means?

Sure I do. Thats why the stats average points per game for every game played, not just your best. JC is consistently as good or better than these guys in all major stats.

Do you know just because you think something to be fact doesnt make it so. The stats tell the truth.

[capcat]

Thanks, AD. It was nice to take the emotion out of it for a moment and look at some stats.

[KYISSUPREME]

Sure I do. Thats why the stats average points per game for every game played, not just your best. JC is consistently as good or better than these guys in all major stats.

Do you know just because you think something to be fact doesnt make it so. The stats tell the truth.

Just remember, that stats don't always tell the story.

[towles1]

Just remember, that stats don't always tell the story.

Boy. Now that is a serious cop out. You come on here trashing players and thats what you post to back it up. Nice. You wore me out.

[KYISSUPREME]

Boy. Now that is a serious cop out. You come on here trashing players and thats what you post to back it up. Nice. You wore me out.

I'm not trashing anyone. Crawford and Bradley are not reliable players. They just aren't, and no stat out there will convince me otherwise. And there is no stat out there that proves it.