I can't help but to say this.

[Atkinhog5]

When a team only has ten tournovers and you have twenty you cannot say you played good defense. When a team misses wide open shots you cannot say you played good defense. Fact is, Mo. St. played good defense but was unable to make anything. Thus, allowing a more athletic team that is poorly coached to win the the game. See, A good coach can take less and compete, but a poor coach can't. All he can do is take better talent and barely survive when the other team has an off night shooting on his court. And then make a fool of himself with his giddiness for actually having won a game. Go to the Arkansas web page and look at his picture after the game.

[The Hogfather]

You already said all that.  And, we all still think you're dumb.

[ErieHog]

Spam somewhere else, FCJ Jr.

[Science Fiction Greg]

[Atkinhog5]

You already said all that.  And, we all still think you're dumb.

Stating the obvious is anything but dumb. Refusing to acknowledge the obvious is absolutely dumb though.

[The Hogfather]

Stating the obvious is anything but dumb. Refusing to acknowledge the obvious is absolutely dumb though.

We won a game against an undefeated team, who most thought/said we'd lose to by double digits.  Shut up, dummy.

[bwbcpa]

You already said this in another thread. 

http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=326230.0

[scottagee]

When a team only has ten tournovers and you have twenty you cannot say you played good defense. When a team misses wide open shots you cannot say you played good defense. Fact is, Mo. St. played good defense but was unable to make anything. Thus, allowing a more athletic team that is poorly caoched to win the the game. See, A good coach can take less and compete, but a poor coach can't. All he can do is take better talent and barely survive when the other team has an off night shooting on his court. And then make a fool of himself with his giddiness for actually having won a game. Go to the Arkansas web page and look at his picture after the game.

Just out of curiosity what does the amount of turnovers we had have to do with whether our defense was good, bad or indifferent?

[The_Iceman]

You already said this in another thread. 

http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=326230.0

two dumb posts equals a good post?

[ErieHog]

two dumb posts equals a good post?

Diluted silliness is easier to stomach than the concentrated silliness, perhaps?

[eurohog]

When a team only has ten tournovers and you have twenty you cannot say you played good defense. When a team misses wide open shots you cannot say you played good defense. Fact is, Mo. St. played good defense but was unable to make anything. Thus, allowing a more athletic team that is poorly caoched to win the the game. See, A good coach can take less and compete, but a poor coach can't. All he can do is take better talent and barely survive when the other team has an off night shooting on his court. And then make a fool of himself with his giddiness for actually having won a game. Go to the Arkansas web page and look at his picture after the game.

Can someone please restrict the number of threads this clown can start?

[RazorWire™]

[Atkinhog5]

Just out of curiosity what does the amount of turnovers we had have to do with whether our defense was good, bad or indifferent?

If mo.st. had twenty and you ten, then you could claim good defense, but not the other way around and that is what some of you want to do here. Am I missing something?

[Atkinhog5]

You already said all that.  And, we all still think you're dumb.

Yea, I said it again in a new thread so it didn't get lost. I thought it was a very good observation. I think you do too.

[HawgAdvocate]

If mo.st. had twenty and you ten, then you could claim good defense, but not the other way around and that is what some of you want to do here. I am missing something?

Why do TOs have to be the sole indicator of good defense? We could play a FCP, generate 15 TOs, and they could still shoot 50% from the floor once they got their offense setup for each  posession.

Or, as was this instance, we we mix up our M2M and zone looks, along with a touch of 3/4CP, and hold Mo St. to 32% shooting from the floor. Our defense only sent them to the line for 9 free throw attempts. We held their leading corer to 2-17 shooting from the floor.

Do you think teams that play exclusive zone D generate a ton of TOs? And if they don't, does that mean they don't play good defense??

[bwbcpa]

If mo.st. had twenty and you ten, then you could claim good defense, but not the other way around and that is what some of you want to do here. Am I missing something?

Prolly...

[Atkinhog5]

This is a great observation is it not? If this doesn't sum up the victory the other night tell me how. What is false with this take? I know, nothing. That is why you can't address it. If it gets lost in the other thread it can little be debated. This is what I want. A good, clean, honest debate about the direction this program is headed is all that is desired.       

[Atkinhog5]

Why do TOs have to be the sole indicator of good defense? We could play a FCP, generate 15 TOs, and they could still shoot 50% from the floor once they got their offense setup for each  posession.

Or, as was this instance, we we mix up our M2M and zone looks, along with a touch of 3/4CP, and hold Mo St. to 32% shooting from the floor. Our defense only sent them to the line for 9 free throw attempts. We held their leading corer to 2-17 shooting from the floor.

Do you think teams that play exclusive zone D generate a ton of TOs? And if they don't, does that mean they don't play good defense??

So, are you saying that was good defense the other night? What about the wide open shots missed? Does this not explain the poor shooting percentage better than fooling ourselves this team played good defense? When a team has wide open looks then their opponent cannot say they played good defense. Especially when the opponent only had ten turnovers. Is ten turnovers Representative of good defense? We had twenty turnovers, shot at a higher percentage, but we took about twenty shots less than they did. This does explain who played the good defense and who didn't. They had every shot they wanted and just couldn't get them to fall. The reason why Arkansas had less attempts is because we couldn't get down the floor without turning it over. Right?

[Veritas Arkansas]

If mo.st. had twenty and you ten, then you could claim good defense, but not the other way around and that is what some of you want to do here. Am I missing something?

The number of turnovers we had has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the defense we played.

[brenthog]

Atkinhog5 I did watch the game. You are correct, a lot of the shots they were taking were wide open. They were rotating the ball very well and you could see that they are a well coached team. What you fail to mention is that Arkansas Defense was rotating just as well. This causes many of their shots to be rushed. They were wide open, yes, but rushed. Playing basketball you know that this isn't the best scenario for a shooter. When the game wore on, the Arkansas D got a little worn down. Then they stopped rotating as fast. This free'd them up to make more of the shots they were attempting and is one reason Weems started to heat up from 3.

[Atkinhog5]

The number of turnovers we had has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the defense we played.

I have not said our turnovers had anything to do with our defense. What I have said is that Mo. St. played better defense and the difference in our turnovers and theirs represents this truth. I have also said that one cannot only produce ten turnovers and say they played good defense when the other team had every shot they wanted wide open and couldn't get them to fall.

[Atkinhog5]

Atkinhog5 I did watch the game. You are correct, a lot of the shots they were taking were wide open. They were rotating the ball very well and you could see that they are a well coached team. What you fail to mention is that Arkansas Defense was rotating just as well. This causes many of their shots to be rushed. They were wide open, yes, but rushed. Playing basketball you know that this isn't the best scenario for a shooter. When the game wore on, the Arkansas D got a little worn down. Then they stopped rotating as fast. This free'd them up to make more of the shots they were attempting and is one reason Weems started to heat up from 3.

I have already agreed they played better defense than they have been. I just don't think the word good can be put to it. Better is a more appropriate adj. because it wasn't good.

    I would like to thank you for your very accurate analysis. It is refreshing to see it. good post. 

[thirtythree]

Atkins, the amount of thread you start doesn't make your point anymore valid. It is a dumb argument and you're not making any sense on it.

Tell me how many of our "offensive" turnovers were forced or unforced turnovers. Tell me how many of our "offensive" turnovers were caused by their defense.

[GuvHog]

You already said all that.  And, we all still think you're dumb.

I agree.

[akp4105]

The number of turnovers we had has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the defense we played.

Actually.. If we had over 20 turnovers, that means they got even MORE looks on offense. This guy's case is stupid. He has no clue what he is talking about. Mo State pressured our guards full court all night. we played half court m2m and a 2-3 zone almost the entire game. We gave up some open looks from 3, mostly when we were in the 2-3 or off of an offensive rebound. You have to live with those. We need to get wider on that zone. We turned the ball over due to pressure and did not force many turnovers due to guarding the basket and staying home on defense. As for the defense with 4 seconds left.. Britt tripped guarding the ball.. the defense had to rotate. Powell moved up from the basket to about the 3 point line. He's a freshman, he made a bad play on defense, but he thought he didn't want to give up a wide open 3. Instead he gave up the wide open lay up. It was a mistake. What happened next? We battled in overtime, without Washington, and came out on top.. against a very good basketball team. Not great, very good. I wish some people on here knew what they were trying to talk about.

[Atkinhog5]

Atkins, the amount of thread you start doesn't make your point anymore valid. It is a dumb argument and you're not making any sense on it.

Tell me how many of our "offensive" turnovers were forced or unforced turnovers. Tell me how many of our "offensive" turnovers were caused by their defense.

You can't have twenty turnovers and only produce ten from your opponent and fool people there has been good defense played. It was better than they have played, but it wasn't good. To the very end of the game it wasn't good. It was better, but not good.

[tiber]

You can't have twenty turnovers and only produce ten from your opponent and fool people there has been good defense played. It was better than they have played, but it wasn't good. To the very end of the game it wasn't good. It was better, but not good.

You're alone at Christmas, aren't you. 

[akp4105]

You can't have twenty turnovers and only produce ten from your opponent and fool people there has been good defense played. It was better than they have played, but it wasn't good. To the very end of the game it wasn't good. It was better, but not good.

The gameplan on defense was not to force turnovers. We were not pressuring their guards, we were not playing fullcourt. The gameplan was to play good half court defense and minimize second chances at the rim. We did a very good job of this most of the game. The Hogs played good defense against Mo State.. always room for improvement, but they executed the gameplan and played good defense.

[thirtythree]

You can't have twenty turnovers and only produce ten from your opponent and fool people there has been good defense played. It was better than they have played, but it wasn't good. To the very end of the game it wasn't good. It was better, but not good.

Please stop. The hole you're digging just keeps getting bigger.

[Atkinhog5]

Actually.. If we had over 20 turnovers, that means they got even MORE looks on offense. This guy's case is stupid. He has no clue what he is talking about. Mo State pressured our guards full court all night. we played half court m2m and a 2-3 zone almost the entire game. We gave up some open looks from 3, mostly when we were in the 2-3 or off of an offensive rebound. You have to live with those. We need to get wider on that zone. We turned the ball over due to pressure and did not force many turnovers due to guarding the basket and staying home on defense. As for the defense with 4 seconds left.. Britt tripped guarding the ball.. the defense had to rotate. Powell moved up from the basket to about the 3 point line. He's a freshman, he made a bad play on defense, but he thought he didn't want to give up a wide open 3. Instead he gave up the wide open lay up. It was a mistake. What happened next? We battled in overtime, without Washington, and came out on top.. against a very good basketball team. Not great, very good. I wish some people on here knew what they were trying to talk about.

They did get more looks. The reason for this is because they turned us over more than we did them. They just couldn't hit the wide open looks they got. If they had shot a better percentage, the game would not have been close and we would not be debating what is good defense. Seeing Arkansas is the more talented team, the phrase good defense can be argued from their perspective but not ours. We simply just played better defense than we have previously, but it wasn't good. They did have open looks all night.

[akp4105]

They did get more looks. The reason for this is because they turned us over more than we did them. They just couldn't hit the wide open looks they got. If they had shot a better percentage, the game would not have been close and we would not be debating what is good defense. Seeing Arkansas is the more talented team, the phrase good defense can be argued from their perspective but not ours. We simply just played better defense than we have previously, but it wasn't good. They did have open looks all night.

Wrong

[Atkinhog5]

Please stop. The hole you're digging just keeps getting bigger.

Where's the hole? I have never known telling the truth to be digging a hole.

[Atkinhog5]

Wrong

How?

[akp4105]

How?

You don't know basketball. The game planning that goes into it. The strategy. You are a "fan" that watches the game.. and you post about what you see. You have no clue what either team was trying to do offensively or defensively. This is my last post for you. Carry on with others if you want.

[Atkinhog5]

The gameplan on defense was not to force turnovers. We were not pressuring their guards, we were not playing fullcourt. The gameplan was to play good half court defense and minimize second chances at the rim. We did a very good job of this most of the game. The Hogs played good defense against Mo State.. always room for improvement, but they executed the gameplan and played good defense.

The gameplan was not to force turnovers? That's good, because they didn't. I guess they are buying into Pelphrey's schemes now. What about all the games we have been outrebounded. Was the gameplan those nights not to outrebound the other team? If that was the gameplan then Pelphrey really does have more control over this team than I thought.

[rude1]

They did get more looks. The reason for this is because they turned us over more than we did them. They just couldn't hit the wide open looks they got. If they had shot a better percentage, the game would not have been close and we would not be debating what is good defense. Seeing Arkansas is the more talented team, the phrase good defense can be argued from their perspective but not ours. We simply just played better defense than we have previously, but it wasn't good. They did have open looks all night.

I agree with this. You go back and look at the looks that their best 3point shooter made, and the ones he missed. They are basically the same good looks. He was just off. He wasn't forcing shots, he was taking good looks and just missing. Can anyone remember a series of shots he took that you thought to yourself "man that's a bad shot"?

[thirtythree]

I agree with this. You go back and look at the looks that their best 3point shooter made, and the ones he missed. They are basically the same good looks. He was just off. He wasn't forcing shots, he was taking good looks and just missing. Can anyone remember a series of shots he took that you thought to yourself "man that's a bad shot"?

I guess if 23-25 footers are good looks then, yeah they had some.

Good god people. We got a win. No one said anything about being great now. It was a good win and nothing more at this point. There was tons of improvement from the start of the season.

[hawgsav1]

Our defense was soo good that it caused us to turn the ball over 20 times.  Oh wait...

There were definitely some open looks that we gave up.  Absolutely.  For a lot of them, they weren't able to capitalize on the opportunity.  Nevertheless, that was better defense than we've played in the past couple of games.  Was it great defense?  Absolutely not.  Was it even good defense?  Perhaps not.  Was it BETTER defense than we have seen?  Absolutely.

[Veritas Arkansas]

I guess if 23-25 footers are good looks then, yeah they had some.

Good god people. We got a ein. No one said anything about being great now. It was a good win and nothing more at this point. There was tons of improvement from the start of the season.

Eins are special.

[thirtythree]

Eins are special.

You got me.

[HogInThaGrove]

Yea, I said it again in a new thread so it didn't get lost. I thought it was a very good observation. I think you do too.

Wrong. I think you're retarded and probably never played basketball and Obviously never coached it.

[TomasPistola]

Can't we just have one thread with this guy's words of wisdom so we just know to avoid it completely?

[RazorWire™]

Eins are special.

Right you are Ken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Gedi

[Atkinhog5]

Our defense was soo good that it caused us to turn the ball over 20 times.  Oh wait...

There were definitely some open looks that we gave up.  Absolutely.  A lot of them, they weren't able to capitalize on.  Nevertheless, that was better defense than we've played in the past couple of games.  Was it great defense?  Absolutely not.  Was it even good defense?  Perhaps not.  Was it BETTER defense than we have seen?  Absolutely.

Thank you for saying it wasn't good defense, this was my point in the post.

[chiefsfan]

If mo.st. had twenty and you ten, then you could claim good defense, but not the other way around and that is what some of you want to do here. Am I missing something?

Turnovers forced sometimes has very little to do with defense.   there are several turnovers per game that are unforced.  Remember a moving screen, a travel, a palm and a double dribble are all considered turnovers that have very little to do with defense pressure.

The best number to illustrate defense is blocked shots, rebounding steals and field goal percentage

[fred ziffel]

Arkansas Blocked Shots: 5
Mo. State Blocked Shots: 0
Arkansas Defensive Rebounds: 37
Mo. State Defensive Rebounds:22

Now, find fault with those defensive stats!

[Danny J]

Its funny because my dad and I were talking about just that...how many wide open shots mizz state missed. Thats just the way it goes though. Either the shots go in or they dont. I do agree however that we still have ALOT of work to do when it comes to defending 3 point shots. I noticed that when we came out in overtime we went right back to that 2-3 zone for that first possession and weems nailed that 3. I have no idea why we continue to play that 2-3 zone against a team who had been knocking down 3's on us all night. You can play a 2-3 zone sometimes when you have long armed defenders who are quick and can quickly make up distance created by the pass. I do not beleive that welsh and clarke fall into either category.

[rude1]

I guess if 23-25 footers are good looks then, yeah they had some.

Good god people. We got a win. No one said anything about being great now. It was a good win and nothing more at this point. There was tons of improvement from the start of the season.

What game were you watching. He was getting his looks from just behind the arc. He just wasn't making them. They were swinging the ball and he was getting good looks. I am not taking anything away from the win, but I won't stick my head in the sand and act like I didn't notice this.

[rude1]

Our defense was soo good that it caused us to turn the ball over 20 times.  Oh wait...

There were definitely some open looks that we gave up.  Absolutely.  A lot of them, they weren't able to capitalize on.  Nevertheless, that was better defense than we've played in the past couple of games.  Was it great defense?  Absolutely not.  Was it even good defense?  Perhaps not.  Was it BETTER defense than we have seen?  Absolutely.

Does the other team missing the open looks make it better defense? I don't recall their shooters having as tough of a time to find good looks as Rotnei had.

[Atkinhog5]

Arkansas Blocked Shots: 5
Mo. State Blocked Shots: 0
Arkansas Defensive Rebounds: 37
Mo. State Defensive Rebounds:22

Now, find fault with those defensive stats!

The reason why Arkansas was able to outrebound them is because they were cold and took about 25 more shots than Arkansas. This was because Arkansas turned the ball over twenty times. Mo St. only had ten turnovers. The block shots differential is nice, but it cannot take the other stats you left out and turn them into something good.