(01-15-2018 11:47 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  6 pages of this nonsense when the OP misrepresented Kenpom use of the term "lucky" in his original post. Kenpom just chose the term for those programs that are performing better than his prediction. And this doesn't mean it has anything to do with luck at all. But, of course, that would not fit the OP's intentions with this thread. Let's not give the team any credit for their progress & improvement or the coach any credit for coaching this team up - let's instead attribute it instead to luck.

I feel Kenpom has us under rated because of the earlier close games and stinkers and because we don't close teams out so we will by small margins

Per Kenpom, "Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky)."

The KenPom "luck" is not included in his metric calculations and it does not necessarily mean a school with bad “luck” will be a bad team or that a team with good “luck” is a good team. For example, we have good KP luck this year but are a bad team (by past Tiger standards.).

In addition, the cause of our Ken Pom defined "luck" this year may be related to more than sheer randomness. The player’s drive, determination, and pure guts and close games to bad teams we should blow out played roles, also. The phrase “luck is where opportunity meets preparation” seems appropriate to me.

I think some you guys who keep referring to this as an "easy, squared up, uncontested three point shot" need to go and try to recreate this before your next church league ball game. There is nothing easy about that shot and his defender his physically bumping his body right after he releases. That was not a wide open shot and there was nothing easy or routine about it. That is an extremely difficult shot from right around NBA range... There is nothing wrong with calling it lucky because luck counts! In his case it was better to be lucky than good because he is not a good three point shooter on routine threes in the flow of the game. I am glad we won and I will take wins however they come. I also have no qualms about us being the luckiest team in the NCAA if it translates to wins...

Are we really pretending that a contested desperation shot 4 feet behind the three point line from a bad three point shooter on a botched play that was a razors edge away from a turnover was somehow a "good play?" That's not the shot and not from the player that was drawn up, or that anyone would have drawn up. It was by any meaning of the term "lucky" or "fortunate" that a shot that you would expect to go in maybe 10 or 15% of the time went in. Taking a card on 16 in blackjack doesn't become a good play just because you got a 5.

And I don't really get what it's supposed to prove. All sports is essentially weighted probability anyway. It's all luck on some level. If we don't botch a throw in... or make just one more free throw... or Dorsey doesn't foul out... or we foul Chalmers ... and (maybe) we win the National Championship. If a knee has a 1 degree difference in trajectory it hits the ground and we don't beat UT in 1996. That's part of what makes sports so great. Occasionally Appalachian State beats Michigan even if there's only a 1 or 2 percent chance of that happening.

As for this game, we were down 2 in overtime on the road to a comparable conference foe with a chance to win the game. That in itself is doing pretty good. We really should not have even been in a position to try and win it or tie. As it is they defended our play well, trapped an unsteady ball handler and forced a miscue on the pass. The ball just happened to bounce to him and he made a shot he normally wouldn't make. I don't think that takes away from the win.

Temple was lucky we turned the ball over so many times. Otherwise we win by 10. We could do this ish all day.

Whatever play was designed, Martin was 40 feet from the basket and Davenport was completely sealed off by his defender under the basket when Brewton tried to throw it into the post and when he took the shot. We can also talk about great plays where a player misses an easy shot. In the end, the ball went in and that's that.

(01-15-2018 01:04 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Whatever play was designed, Martin was 40 feet from the basket and Davenport was completely sealed off by his defender under the basket when Brewton tried to throw it into the post and when he took the shot. We can also talk about great plays where a player misses an easy shot. In the end, the ball went in and that's that.

Check the replay...he actually was attempting to pass to Rivers below him on the baseline. Rivers was open although the path to him was not (bounce pass might have worked better, but there was a 3rd dude cycling around him on that side.) Since the play was designed to go to Jeremiah, I am not sure why he didn't go right (just as the video begins and handoff/pitch it to him - he could have). In the end, it was divine intervention and I am happy for it.

It looked like they had the inside clogged up. One could debate that had the entry pass made it to it’s intended target, we probably would have taken a lower percentage shot than the one we got. Lol. Either way, I’m glad it worked out in favor of the good guys.

(01-15-2018 11:29 AM)Hoots Wrote:  Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't see the shot as "lucky." Regardless of his shooting %, he squared and fired. Bang. To me, luck would be where he desperately flung the ball towards the rim and it goes in.

He’s a 22% 3 point shooter. He was several feet back from where he’d normally shoot. He’s rushed because it’s a scramble. Despite what somebody said earlier the shot is heavily contested. If you freeze frame the ball is close to being blocked by a defender. He did set his feet at least.

The nba has all these metrics on expected points from a shot. With all the factors against that shot it’s probably 1 in 10 that he makes considering he hits 2.2 in 10 normally.

It’s lucky it went in. If you don’t want to say lucky you can switch to saying it was a low percentage shot that happened to go in.

(01-15-2018 01:49 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:29 AM)Hoots Wrote:  Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't see the shot as "lucky." Regardless of his shooting %, he squared and fired. Bang. To me, luck would be where he desperately flung the ball towards the rim and it goes in.

He’s a 22% 3 point shooter. He was several feet back from where he’d normally shoot. He’s rushed because it’s a scramble. Despite what somebody said earlier the shot is heavily contested. If you freeze frame the ball is close to being blocked by a defender. He did set his feet at least.

The nba has all these metrics on expected points from a shot. With all the factors against that shot it’s probably 1 in 10 that he makes considering he hits 2.2 in 10 normally.

It’s lucky it went in. If you don’t want to say lucky you can switch to saying it was a low percentage shot that happened to go in.

Who cares? During the course of a game, low probability (lucky) events happen. It was a good shot (but low percentage) and he thought he made it after the release. I thought Johnson’s shot was going to go in regulation. Temple hit three straight 3 pointers. What’s the probability of that? Under 10 percent for sure. It’s sports and what makes it fun.

(01-15-2018 01:49 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:29 AM)Hoots Wrote:  Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't see the shot as "lucky." Regardless of his shooting %, he squared and fired. Bang. To me, luck would be where he desperately flung the ball towards the rim and it goes in.

He’s a 22% 3 point shooter. He was several feet back from where he’d normally shoot. He’s rushed because it’s a scramble. Despite what somebody said earlier the shot is heavily contested. If you freeze frame the ball is close to being blocked by a defender. He did set his feet at least.

The nba has all these metrics on expected points from a shot. With all the factors against that shot it’s probably 1 in 10 that he makes considering he hits 2.2 in 10 normally.

It’s lucky it went in. If you don’t want to say lucky you can switch to saying it was a low percentage shot that happened to go in.

You are wrong. The shot in no way was heavily contested. The NBA would judge this as an open shot, since the defender was more than 3.5 feet away when Brewton attempted the shot. And the defender wasn't close to blocking it. You almost never see 3-point shots blocked, despite defenders making leaping lunges when out of position, as in this case.

The pass getting tipped to a wide open location could be described as lucky. But this attempt to describe the shot as a turn-around jumper - it wasn't - and heavily contested are just silly.

(01-15-2018 02:09 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 01:49 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:29 AM)Hoots Wrote:  Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't see the shot as "lucky." Regardless of his shooting %, he squared and fired. Bang. To me, luck would be where he desperately flung the ball towards the rim and it goes in.

He’s a 22% 3 point shooter. He was several feet back from where he’d normally shoot. He’s rushed because it’s a scramble. Despite what somebody said earlier the shot is heavily contested. If you freeze frame the ball is close to being blocked by a defender. He did set his feet at least.

The nba has all these metrics on expected points from a shot. With all the factors against that shot it’s probably 1 in 10 that he makes considering he hits 2.2 in 10 normally.

It’s lucky it went in. If you don’t want to say lucky you can switch to saying it was a low percentage shot that happened to go in.

You are wrong. The shot in no way was heavily contested. The NBA would judge this as an open shot, since the defender was more than 3.5 feet away when Brewton attempted the shot. And the defender wasn't close to blocking it. You almost never see 3-point shots blocked, despite defenders making leaping lunges when out of position, as in this case.

The pass getting tipped to a wide open location could be described as lucky. But this attempt to describe the shot as a turn-around jumper - it wasn't - and heavily contested are just silly.

Wth are you talking about? Of course it was a turn around jumper. When he caught the ball he was facing the sideline directly away from the basket with his feet square to the sideline, and he didn't dribble before shooting.

Instead of eating crow and saying "I was wrong, this team is not going to have a losing record", the OP continues to defend his incorrect prediction. "This team would have a losing record if they weren't so lucky". Please stop.

(01-15-2018 02:43 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 02:09 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 01:49 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:29 AM)Hoots Wrote:  Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't see the shot as "lucky." Regardless of his shooting %, he squared and fired. Bang. To me, luck would be where he desperately flung the ball towards the rim and it goes in.

He’s a 22% 3 point shooter. He was several feet back from where he’d normally shoot. He’s rushed because it’s a scramble. Despite what somebody said earlier the shot is heavily contested. If you freeze frame the ball is close to being blocked by a defender. He did set his feet at least.

The nba has all these metrics on expected points from a shot. With all the factors against that shot it’s probably 1 in 10 that he makes considering he hits 2.2 in 10 normally.

It’s lucky it went in. If you don’t want to say lucky you can switch to saying it was a low percentage shot that happened to go in.

You are wrong. The shot in no way was heavily contested. The NBA would judge this as an open shot, since the defender was more than 3.5 feet away when Brewton attempted the shot. And the defender wasn't close to blocking it. You almost never see 3-point shots blocked, despite defenders making leaping lunges when out of position, as in this case.

The pass getting tipped to a wide open location could be described as lucky. But this attempt to describe the shot as a turn-around jumper - it wasn't - and heavily contested are just silly.

Wth are you talking about? Of course it was a turn around jumper. When he caught the ball he was facing the sideline directly away from the basket with his feet square to the sideline, and he didn't dribble before shooting.

I have you on ignore, for obvious reasons, but guessed you were probably responding to me, so I viewed your post.

You obviously have absolutely no idea what a turn-around jumper actually is, so it's meaningless to debate. Back to ignore.

(01-15-2018 03:08 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  Instead of eating crow and saying "I was wrong, this team is not going to have a losing record", the OP continues to defend his incorrect prediction. "This team would have a losing record if they weren't so lucky". Please stop.

OP will never, ever admit that he is wrong. He is obsessed.

(01-15-2018 03:08 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  Instead of eating crow and saying "I was wrong, this team is not going to have a losing record", the OP continues to defend his incorrect prediction. "This team would have a losing record if they weren't so lucky". Please stop.

The season is not over yet, but I am pleased to state will likely not have a losing record.

I never posted ”This team would have a losing record if they weren't so lucky". Find it or retract.

(01-15-2018 03:17 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 03:08 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  Instead of eating crow and saying "I was wrong, this team is not going to have a losing record", the OP continues to defend his incorrect prediction. "This team would have a losing record if they weren't so lucky". Please stop.

The season is not over yet, but I am pleased to state will likely not have a losing record.

I never posted ”This team would have a losing record if they weren't so lucky". Find it or retract.

anyway

I have a picture of the shot so people can judge for themselves.

But I'm too stupid to make it work on this board apparently.



Anybody want to tell me how to embed an imgur or photobucket upload and I'll post it.

Doesn't seem like it should be this difficult.

You can click the image and it'll open for you

(01-15-2018 03:11 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 02:43 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 02:09 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 01:49 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:29 AM)Hoots Wrote:  Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't see the shot as "lucky." Regardless of his shooting %, he squared and fired. Bang. To me, luck would be where he desperately flung the ball towards the rim and it goes in.

He’s a 22% 3 point shooter. He was several feet back from where he’d normally shoot. He’s rushed because it’s a scramble. Despite what somebody said earlier the shot is heavily contested. If you freeze frame the ball is close to being blocked by a defender. He did set his feet at least.

The nba has all these metrics on expected points from a shot. With all the factors against that shot it’s probably 1 in 10 that he makes considering he hits 2.2 in 10 normally.

It’s lucky it went in. If you don’t want to say lucky you can switch to saying it was a low percentage shot that happened to go in.

You are wrong. The shot in no way was heavily contested. The NBA would judge this as an open shot, since the defender was more than 3.5 feet away when Brewton attempted the shot. And the defender wasn't close to blocking it. You almost never see 3-point shots blocked, despite defenders making leaping lunges when out of position, as in this case.

The pass getting tipped to a wide open location could be described as lucky. But this attempt to describe the shot as a turn-around jumper - it wasn't - and heavily contested are just silly.

Wth are you talking about? Of course it was a turn around jumper. When he caught the ball he was facing the sideline directly away from the basket with his feet square to the sideline, and he didn't dribble before shooting.

I have you on ignore, for obvious reasons, but guessed you were probably responding to me, so I viewed your post.

You obviously have absolutely no idea what a turn-around jumper actually is, so it's meaningless to debate. Back to ignore.

Lol...

Sometimes it helps to actually play the game...Instead of regurgitating what you read.

(01-15-2018 03:24 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 03:17 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 03:08 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  Instead of eating crow and saying "I was wrong, this team is not going to have a losing record", the OP continues to defend his incorrect prediction. "This team would have a losing record if they weren't so lucky". Please stop.

The season is not over yet, but I am pleased to state will likely not have a losing record.

I never posted ”This team would have a losing record if they weren't so lucky". Find it or retract.

Kudos for admitting your failure to find the quote and for doing it in a humorous way. I accept your retraction.