We're at it

[steveaustin69]

We will be good enough year in and year out that Mike will be allowed to retire from here. [He won't win a natty but will make a Sweet16 or Elite8 appearance, he may snag a SEC tournament title or even a regular season title once or twice. But you should never expect elite results from Mike. His teams don't have the basketball IQ to be elite. They never will. They are athletes first, basketball players second. Pick up game AAU all stars.

With that said, the ceiling for his teams is a tad bit higher than where they are now, but not much. This could be a Sweet16 team. Could be one and done. They are too inconsistent to predict.

Why should we be ok with that?

[hogsanity]

I'm just asking as I don't know the answer. But how many up and comer coaches pan out to be a great coach? I would think that the odds are pretty low. So, should we keep a GOOD coach or play the lottery for a GREAT coach?

Odds are low. And your ask the Million Dollar Question. If your goal as a school is to be a top program, making sweet 16's or higher, being in the ncaat pretty much every year, winning or at least challenging for your league title, then at some point the "good" coach proves he is not going to get the program to those levels. The question is when do you pull the trigger.

The Hogs really fouled up on that when they fired Heath thinking they had BCG signed sealed and delivered. 1st, they obviously didn't vet him like they do coaches now. 2nd, they had no idea UK was going to make a panic hire themselves and steal him away. That left the Hogs in scramble mode, which turned into egg on face when Altman took the job, then decided to go back to Creighton instead of dealing with the issues here.

That is not to say Heath was great, but he had just made back to back NCAAT's ( which people are elated that Mike is about to do ) and was going to have a pretty good team back the next year. The school thought they should be better, and that they could get the next rising star in BCG so they took the risk and failed miserably.

Look at Pitt. Just a few years ago they had highly ranked teams. The coach left for another job, they made a bad hire and it has fallen to the point that they scored 7 points in the 1st half against VA ( SEVEN, typing that just seems like it is wrong ).

[Hawg Red]

Why should we be ok with that?

You don't have to be, but it seems like you could just accept that the man is doing a good enough job to keep his job and get behind the team while they try to get to the NCAA tournament and advance. It's called compartmentalizing. You can be aware of, and not be okay with, shortcomings and still take joy in being a fan of the team and rejoice in their successes. I can't imagine you are having much fun this season and that seems like a shame because we're a competitive team. Sure, we could be more competitive in areas and that would lead to greater success, but there's probably a better time to get into that.

[HF#1]

Why should we be ok with that?

Because it is what it is. If he makes the Sweet16 this season, you wouldn't accept that result? In what year do you expect a Final Four appearance or a Natty?

[hogsanity]

You don't have to be, but it seems like you could just accept that the man is doing a good enough job to keep his job and get behind the team while they try to get to the NCAA tournament and advance. It's called compartmentalizing. You can be aware of, and not be okay with, shortcomings and still take joy in being a fan of the team and rejoice in their successes. I can't imagine you are having much fun this season and that seems like a shame because we're a competitive team. Sure, we could be more competitive in areas and that would lead to greater success, but there's probably a better time to get into that.

Some can do both. I can enjoy the games. The Tn game was really good, smacking A&M was excellent. The game plan at Bama was really good. It ws a sloppy game in many ways but they got a road win.

And, as I said when Mike was hired. If you want a coach that is going to have you around the ncaat bubble alot, be safely in sometimes, but miss completely sometimes too, the Mike is the guy. If that keep enough people happy for him to stay hired, then so be it. I just think the basketball program can be better than that.

[steveaustin69]

Because it is what it is. If he makes the Sweet16 this season, you wouldn't accept that result? In what year do you expect a Final Four appearance or a Natty?

I don't expect one under Anderson, unless he can consistently field a team that plays at least average on the defensive end of the floor.

[steveaustin69]

Some can do both. I can enjoy the games. The Tn game was really good, smacking A&M was excellent. The game plan at Bama was really good. It ws a sloppy game in many ways but they got a road win.

And, as I said when Mike was hired. If you want a coach that is going to have you around the ncaat bubble alot, be safely in sometimes, but miss completely sometimes too, the Mike is the guy. If that keep enough people happy for him to stay hired, then so be it. I just think the basketball program can be better than that.

Agreed.

[FineAsSwine]

We will be good enough year in and year out that Mike will be allowed to retire from here. He won't win a natty but will make a Sweet16 or Elite8 appearance, he may snag a SEC tournament title or even a regular season title once or twice. But you should never expect elite results from Mike. His teams don't have the basketball IQ to be elite. They never will. They are athletes first, basketball players second. Pick up game AAU all stars.

With that said, the ceiling for his teams is a tad bit higher than where they are now, but not much. This could be a Sweet16 team. Could be one and done. They are too inconsistent to predict.

Smart players vs the dumb players. Smart coach vs the dumb coach. Hmm..... Where have I heard that before?? That slur has really had some legs.

[Dirty]

Ask Mississippi State?  They wish they Rick Stansbury still.

[Swinesong1]

Smart players vs the dumb players. Smart coach vs the dumb coach. Hmm..... Where have I heard that before?? That slur has really had some legs.

All he needed to add was "lazy" and the picture would be complete.  Lol

[daprospecta]

Some can do both. I can enjoy the games. The Tn game was really good, smacking A&M was excellent. The game plan at Bama was really good. It ws a sloppy game in many ways but they got a road win.

And, as I said when Mike was hired. If you want a coach that is going to have you around the ncaat bubble alot, be safely in sometimes, but miss completely sometimes too, the Mike is the guy. If that keep enough people happy for him to stay hired, then so be it. I just think the basketball program can be better than that.

Mike has yet to go into selection Sunday on the bubble while at Arkansas.  When I say bubble, I mean a doubt of whether or we would be selected. This year is no different.  We are a lock for the NCAA tournament.  I think we can all agree that if it were not for the scandal in 2015, we would have made the tourney in 2016. Can you agree that what you said in bold is completely false and nowhere near reality?

[niels_boar]

I think there are two conversations/questions and I don't think we know the answer to either yet.

Has this team hit its ceiling?  I don't believe it has.  It's capable of playing better on both ends.  The bench is capable of more offensively as we just saw.  Just need some consistency from at least 1 or 2.  The SEC is not a strong offensive conference.  It has some very offensively challenged teams in fact.  But our defense at least now isn't such a detriment it will prevent beating most teams we will play until we get to higher seeds in the NCAAT. 
SEC teams currently top 100 in off efficiency:
16. AU
32. Hogs
38. LSU 2 L's
76. Florida L
90. UK L
98. Vandy W
100. Tenn W


182 Bama

Bad:
275 SC
202 UGa


Has Mike hit his ceiling at Arkansas?  He has shown a higher ceiling at other programs.  His biggest problem at Arkansas has been roster management and getting enough players capable of playing his style especially defensively.  This is an era of players leaving and players transferring in.  I also don't trust the current generation of players have the work ethic and desire to commit to playing defense how Mike would want it played.  He's going to be here a while longer and I hope it will come together at some point with at least one group for multiple seasons.

Those are raw efficiencies with no correction for quality of defenses faced.  It's not like Wagner would have a higher offensive efficiency than Bama if Wagner played in the SEC.  As such, those rankings are meaningless.  Half the SEC is in the Pomeroy top-50 in offensive efficiency.  That's as good as any conference.  USC is the worst at #157.  Bama and UGA are the only other teams outside the top-100 at #105 and #120.

CMA had two top-20 defenses at Mizzou.  It's kind of difficult to make the claim that this is his ceiling based on defense.  His defenses haven't been as good at Arkansas as would have been expected by his resume, but his offenses have been better.  That implies that personnel has something to do with both results.

[hogsanity]

Mike has yet to go into selection Sunday on the bubble while at Arkansas.  When I say bubble, I mean a doubt of whether or we would be selected. This year is no different.  We are a lock for the NCAA tournament.  I think we can all agree that if it were not for the scandal in 2015, we would have made the tourney in 2016. Can you agree that what you said in bold is completely false and nowhere near reality?

What scandal?

They were on the bubble in Portis' Fr season.

But ok, then 4 out of 7 season they have not even be in contention for the NCAAT come selection Sunday.

[Atlhogfan1]

Those are raw efficiencies with no correction for quality of defenses faced.  It's not like Wagner would have a higher offensive efficiency than Bama if Wagner played in the SEC.  As such, those rankings are meaningless.  Half the SEC is in the Pomeroy top-50 in offensive efficiency.  That's as good as any conference.  USC is the worst at #157.  Bama and UGA are the only other teams outside the top-100 at #105 and #120.

No darn. 

I listed those 3 as the worst.  Didn't need Pomeroy to tell me that. 

[Atlhogfan1]

Mike has yet to go into selection Sunday on the bubble while at Arkansas.  When I say bubble, I mean a doubt of whether or we would be selected. This year is no different.  We are a lock for the NCAA tournament.  I think we can all agree that if it were not for the scandal in 2015, we would have made the tourney in 2016. Can you agree that what you said in bold is completely false and nowhere near reality?

Isn't pointing out he badly missed 4 times out 7 worse than if we had been on the bubble(although we were edge of the bubble at least heading into the SECT in 2014)? 

[niels_boar]

No darn. 

I listed those 3 as the worst.  Didn't need Pomeroy to tell me that.

They aren't #182, #202, and #275 bad.  Vandy is a top-30 O, not barely top-100.  You know that's a blatant spin.  Why even list the rankings if the relative stacking was your only point?

[Atlhogfan1]

They aren't #182, #202, and #275 bad.  Vandy is a top-30 O, not barely top-100.  You know that's a blatant spin.  Why even list the rankings if the relative stacking was your only point?

I didn't spin darn.  I used a different site and their rankings for all college basketball teams in offensive efficiency to illustrate the same thing you did in regards to Bama, USC and UGa.  I knew when I was typing it you would come by with your Pomeroy numbers.  Why not list them?  It's what they are.  I'll use Pomeroy next time for you. 

[steveaustin69]

I didn't spin darn.  I used a different site and their rankings for all college basketball teams in offensive efficiency to illustrate the same thing you did in regards to Bama, USC and UGa.  I knew when I was typing it you would come by with your Pomeroy numbers.  Why not list them?  It's what they are.  I'll use Pomeroy next time for you.

*presents all rankings; is transparent in their source/what they mean*

"Get outta here with your spin bs."

Gotta love hogville.

[niels_boar]

I didn't spin darn.  I used a different site and their rankings for all college basketball teams in offensive efficiency to illustrate the same thing you did in regards to Bama, USC and UGa.  I knew when I was typing it you would come by with your Pomeroy numbers.  Why not list them?  It's what they are.  I'll use Pomeroy next time for you.

No, it's not the same.  I know what you used.  It's just total points divided by total possessions, irrespective of schedule.  Wagner is listed ahead of Bama even though Wagner has played the #335 SOS as compared to Bama's #14.  Isn't that relevant if you want to judge how good offense is in this conference relative to others? 

[Atlhogfan1]

No, it's not the same.  I know what you used.  It's just total points divided by total possessions, irrespective of schedule.  Wagner is listed ahead of Bama even though Wagner has played the #335 SOS as compared to Bama's #14.  Isn't that relevant if you want to judge how good offense is in this conference relative to others?

I didn't mention Wagner or any other non SEC team.  I showed the top half of the SEC is in the Top 100 in offensive efficiency.  Your Pomeroy numbers apparently have them all in the top 50.  I doubt the teams change much from the ones I listed to the ones you did.  The bottom 3 teams in the SEC appear to be the same as well.  For your own piece of mind, I'm happy for you that you did check with Pomeroy and get that little extra assurance in telling you the same thing. 

You seem to be offended I listed their rankings.  Had I just listed the teams, would that have made you feel better? 

[niels_boar]

I didn't mention Wagner or any other non SEC team.  I showed the top half of the SEC is in the Top 100 in offensive efficiency.  Your Pomeroy numbers apparently have them all in the top 50.  I doubt the teams change much from the ones I listed to the ones you did.  The bottom 3 teams in the SEC appear to be the same as well.  For your own piece of mind, I'm happy for you that you did check with Pomeroy and get that little extra assurance in telling you the same thing. 

You seem to be offended I listed their rankings.  Had I just listed the teams, would that have made you feel better?

You made this claim:

The SEC is not a strong offensive conference.  It has some very offensively challenged teams in fact. 

What conference doesn't have offensively challenged teams?

By your numbers in the ACC:

Syracuse #202
Georgia Tech #271
Pitt   #334

That's worse than the bottom of the SEC if you put stock in those numbers.  The ACC is the best offensive conference in the nation with 7 in the Pomeroy top 40.  The Big 12 is probably second.  After that nobody has much of a claim ahead of the SEC on O.

[Atlhogfan1]

You made this claim:

What conference doesn't have offensively challenged teams?

By your numbers in the ACC:

Syracuse #202
Georgia Tech #271
Pitt   #334

That's worse than the bottom of the SEC if you put stock in those numbers.  The ACC is the best offensive conference in the nation with 7 in the Pomeroy top 40.  The Big 12 is probably second.  After that nobody has much of a claim ahead of the SEC on O.

I did make that claim. 

Going by your Pomeroy numbers:

The Big East has 4 in the top 20 and 6 in the top 23.  The SEC has 1 (Hogs come in at 24).  Could make a case for the Big East as well. 


Why does it bother you so much I made the claim?  We've had some big losses to the better offensive teams on our schedule:  UNC, Houston, UK, Florida, LSU twice.  We were able to beat Vandy and Tenn and I think we will AU.  It was a conversation earlier in the thread about our defense and our offense as it relates to our success.  Are you looking for an argument?  That's fine.  I have a little time. 

[daprospecta]

What scandal?

They were on the bubble in Portis' Fr season.

But ok, then 4 out of 7 season they have not even be in contention for the NCAAT come selection Sunday.

There you go spinning the narrative. Let's me make it clear for you so you can not spin it.  The years we have made the tournament, we were never in doubt to not be selected.  The one year we went to the NIT, you can say we were on the bubble but we had been declared out of the tourney after the last two losses.

[Atlhogfan1]

I think the scandal may be the counterfeit thing.  Guess another sign we aren't paying players is they had to print their own. 

[niels_boar]

I did make that claim. 

Going by your Pomeroy numbers:

The Big East has 4 in the top 20 and 6 in the top 23.  The SEC has 1 (Hogs come in at 24).  Could make a case for the Big East as well. 


Why does it bother you so much I made the claim?  We've had some big losses to the better offensive teams on our schedule:  UNC, Houston, UK, Florida, LSU twice.  We were able to beat Vandy and Tenn and I think we will AU.  It was a conversation earlier in the thread about our defense and our offense as it relates to our success.  Are you looking for an argument?  That's fine.  I have a little time.

I have made it quite clear what bothers me about the post.  The rankings of raw offensive efficiency make the SEC look worse offensively than it is for those who have no idea what those rankings represent.  They are misleading. There are not 274 better offensive teams than USC.  Nobody with half a brain believes that, even if USC is no offensive juggernaut.

I have a model that has been predicting Arkansas matchups fairly well based on only four season statistics of our opponents.  Those statistics are offensive points per possession, offensive possessions per TO, defensive 3 FG%, and defensive possessions per 2FG.  All four statistics are significant when predicting wins and losses with a logistic regression, even when controlling for the other three.  Hence, I have no problem with the claim that our chances decrease with the quality of offense that we face.  I have known that for some time.  We are 12-2 against those teams that are below the mean of our opponents in offensive ppp and .500 against the rest.

[steveaustin69]

I have made it quite clear what bothers me about the post.  The rankings of raw offensive efficiency make the SEC look worse offensively than it is for those who have no idea what those rankings represent.  They are misleading. There are not 274 better offensive teams than USC.  Nobody with half a brain believes that, even if USC is no offensive juggernaut.

I have a model that has been predicting Arkansas matchups fairly well based on only four season statistics of our opponents.  Those statistics are offensive points per possession, offensive possessions per TO, defensive 3 FG%, and defensive possessions per 2FG.  All four statistics are significant when predicting wins and losses with a logistic regression, even when controlling for the other three.  Hence, I have no problem with the claim that our chances decrease with the quality of offense that we face.  I have known that for some time.  We are 12-2 against those teams that are below the mean of our opponents in offensive ppp and .500 against the rest.

I think you could have stopped there. His ranking point to the same conclusion.

[Atlhogfan1]

I have made it quite clear what bothers me about the post.  The rankings of raw offensive efficiency make the SEC look worse offensively than it is for those who have no idea what those rankings represent.  They are misleading. There are not 274 better offensive teams than USC.  Nobody with half a brain believes that, even if USC is no offensive juggernaut.

I have a model that has been predicting Arkansas matchups fairly well based on only four season statistics of our opponents.  Those statistics are offensive points per possession, offensive possessions per TO, defensive 3 FG%, and defensive possessions per 2FG.  All four statistics are significant when predicting wins and losses with a logistic regression, even when controlling for the other three.  Hence, I have no problem with the claim that our chances decrease with the quality of offense that we face.  I have known that for some time.  We are 12-2 against those teams that are below the mean of our opponents in offensive ppp and .500 against the rest.

So you are assuming ignorance in our audience.  I can get that.  It would have been better in your opinion had I just left those rankings off.  I think you took it more negatively than it was meant.

Nice second paragraph. 

[HawgsPolo]

Root for another team because Ma isn't going anywhere. What's the point in the constant drivel??

[redhogchilipepper]

I think you could have stopped there. His ranking point to the same conclusion.

You didn't answer my post about who you think would be a better coach for us. You seem to be very knowledgeable about College basketball and I would like to see what the answer would be.

[phadedhawg]

Discussion of Mike's ceiling aside, I wasn't comfortable with the manner in which we closed the game out.  It very nearly got away from us at the end.  I do agree that a better team would have probably won in that situation.  But they didn't and we did....woo pig!

[Hoggish1]

We do some things poorly:

Free throws (but the one big plus there is Gafford is getting better!—we're going to need to feed him in these last two games and in both tournaments, so his improvement is very welcomed)

We a careless with the ball and too eager to pass without looking where it's going.  We also dribble too high and without urgency and the ball gets taken away too much.  These aspects will have to improve drastically if we're going to get past the first round of the either the SEC or NCAA.

[niels_boar]

So you are assuming ignorance in our audience.  I can get that.  It would have been better in your opinion had I just left those rankings off.  I think you took it more negatively than it was meant.

Nice second paragraph.

Okay. Fair enough.

I decided to average together the matchup scores from the most predictive three-stat models.  Several will predict up to 26 of 29 games correctly.  In these models I ignore location since I want to know what type of team gives us trouble, and I also ignore margin, just win or loss.  No ranking was taken into account either.

Interestingly the team that comes up as our absolute worst matchup is Houston, and the model only knows that we lost to them, not by how much.  So, the margin of defeat could not have biased the model.

Matchups (worst to best) according to this measure. Take with grain of salt:

Arkansas is a solid underdog:

houston
auburn
kentucky
louisiana state
north carolina

Tossup probably within home advantage:

mississippi state
oklahoma
tennessee
texas am


Solid favorite:

missouri
florida (surprised that the models keep insisting that we should beat Florida)
alabama
vanderbilt
georgia
oklahoma state
minnesota
mississippi
south carolina
connecticut

[incHOGnito]

Key words: a good team will make you pay for that.

Alabama is projected to be a higher seed in he NCAA tourney than we are. What is a good team in your mind and we got them at home.

We have struggled defending the 3 all season, but to say it is his ceiling is to have missed the progression of this team over the last month.

What people can't seem to realize is the SEC is a very good conference this year. This isn't 2014 where it is Kentucky, Florida and a bunch of scrubs.

[PORKULATOR]

This is Mike's ceiling. Can't defend the three or rebound; good teams will punish you for those mistakes. We don't turn the ball over at a high enough rate to compensate for the high percentage looks. Bama had a multitude of unforced errors Saturday, and we still let them hang around by shooting 40% from three. Up 9 to up 5 in a two minute situation in a 20 second span due to two wide open threes. A good team will make you pay for that.

Season defensive ranks:

Overall FG%: 118
2Pt FG %: 138
3Pt FG %: 178
FTA: 328
ORB: 288
DRB: 164
Assists Conceded: 194
TO Forced: 93

up yours SA69... You negative Nelly. 🤣😂🤣😅

[redhogchilipepper]

I'm going to keep asking until you answer my question. Who would do a better job than Mike? You respond to all the others.

[onebadrubi]

Mike has yet to go into selection Sunday on the bubble while at Arkansas.  When I say bubble, I mean a doubt of whether or we would be selected. This year is no different.  We are a lock for the NCAA tournament.  I think we can all agree that if it were not for the scandal in 2015, we would have made the tourney in 2016. Can you agree that what you said in bold is completely false and nowhere near reality?

Weren't we a solid bubble team Portis freshman season and many of us thought we got the shaft by not getting in?  Am I misremembering? 

[steveaustin69]

I'm going to keep asking until you answer my question. Who would do a better job than Mike? You respond to all the others.

Coaching hires are a gamble. As I've said we are at the ceiling. I have no way of knowing who will or will not be better than Anderson.  We could end up with the next Tony Bennett or the next Danny Manning.  20 wins and a 7 seed, when they could be vying for a conference title and a 2/3 seed with mere average defense.  If you're fine with just making the tournament, that's you.

[steveaustin69]

Alabama is projected to be a higher seed in he NCAA tourney than we are. What is a good team in your mind and we got them at home.

We have struggled defending the 3 all season, but to say it is his ceiling is to have missed the progression of this team over the last month.

What people can't seem to realize is the SEC is a very good conference this year. This isn't 2014 where it is Kentucky, Florida and a bunch of scrubs.

Alabama is a bad offensive team; sorry for the misunderstanding.

This team has not magically gotten better on the defensive end; we've played bad teams.

We let them shoot 40% from 3.  Give up wide open looks down the stretch to good teams and you will get punished. We beat up on the bottom of the conference "down the home stretch." Last ten games opponent 3pt fg% would rank 149 in the country. We've averaged 14 TO forced per game for the year. Guess what we've averaged in the last ten? 14. Our defense has not been substantially better. Did you read the original post?

[razorback1829]

Coaching hires are a gamble. As I've said we are at the ceiling. I have no way of knowing who will or will not be better than Anderson.  We could end up with the next Tony Bennett or the next Danny Manning.  20 wins and a 7 seed, when they could be vying for a conference title and a 2/3 seed with mere average defense.  If you're fine with just making the tournament, that's you.

He asked for a specific answer and you couldn't do it. Go ahead and name somebody! 😂😂😂

[liljo]

You can close or squeeze the driving lanes, but be susceptible to perimeter shooting. Or you can extend your perimeter defense but be susceptible to penetration. It is very hard to do both.

You may say we have played bad teams. You appear extremely opinionated, and this is your thread. But forcing Alabama to 'beat us from the outside' was great strategy for that game. Sure, we have to continually work on improvement, just like every team in America.

I urge you to try (at least TRY) to stop nagging like a 9th grade girl who wants a new smart phone to replace the smart phone she already has. Especially when the smart phone she already has is light years smarter than she is.

Little bit...shut my mouth.

[steveaustin69]

You can close or squeeze the driving lanes, but be susceptible to perimeter shooting. Or you can extend your perimeter defense but be susceptible to penetration. It is very hard to do both.

You may say we have played bad teams. You appear extremely opinionated, and this is your thread. But forcing Alabama to 'beat us from the outside' was great strategy for that game. Sure, we have to continually work on improvement, just like every team in America.

I urge you to try (at least TRY) to stop nagging like a 9th grade girl who wants a new smart phone to replace the smart phone she already has. Especially when the smart phone she already has is light years smarter than she is.

Little bit...shut my mouth.

Yeah. The problem is we don't do any of those. Theoretically if you close up you'll give up lower percentage of twos, less offensive boards, but a higher percentage of threes. Vice versa for your other scenario.

Defensive ranks:

2p%: 136
3p%: 179
O Reb: 284

[Atlhogfan1]

Okay. Fair enough.

I decided to average together the matchup scores from the most predictive three-stat models.  Several will predict up to 26 of 29 games correctly.  In these models I ignore location since I want to know what type of team gives us trouble, and I also ignore margin, just win or loss.  No ranking was taken into account either.

Interestingly the team that comes up as our absolute worst matchup is Houston, and the model only knows that we lost to them, not by how much.  So, the margin of defeat could not have biased the model.

Matchups (worst to best) according to this measure. Take with grain of salt:

Arkansas is a solid underdog:

houston
auburn
kentucky
louisiana state
north carolina

Tossup probably within home advantage:

mississippi state
oklahoma
tennessee
texas am


Solid favorite:

missouri
florida (surprised that the models keep insisting that we should beat Florida)
alabama
vanderbilt
georgia
oklahoma state
minnesota
mississippi
south carolina
connecticut

Interesting and good information.  Seems to confirm some theories.  Florida does seem like an outlier.  Is it their inconsistency showing up in their numbers? 

[steveaustin69]

He asked for a specific answer and you couldn't do it. Go ahead and name somebody! 😂😂😂

Ha. You again? You want to respond to my countless posts of statistics where your only response has been: "you dont know nothing."

[hawgsalot]

I'm not sure why u guys are arguing with these trolls.  Ray Charles could see our defense is better, Ray Charles could see Mike getting to the tournament 3 out of 4 years has helped recruiting and Ray Charles could see that getting in the tournament consistently is how you grow the program to eventually become contenders.  All this ceiling blabbing is nothing but noise to make these guys feel like they know more than other basketball fans.  Leave it be, their voices all though loud are becoming very irrelevant and even Ray Charles can see that.

[steveaustin69]

I'm not sure why u guys are arguing with these trolls.  Ray Charles could see our defense is better, Ray Charles could see Mike getting to the tournament 3 out of 4 years has helped recruiting and Ray Charles could see that getting in the tournament consistently is how you grow the program to eventually become contenders.  All this ceiling blabbing is nothing but noise to make these guys feel like they know more than other basketball fans.  Leave it be, their voices all though loud are becoming very irrelevant and even Ray Charles can see that.

Well. We haven't been better. Your eyes see what you want them to see. Stats say otherwise.

[steveaustin69]

Okay. Fair enough.

I decided to average together the matchup scores from the most predictive three-stat models.  Several will predict up to 26 of 29 games correctly.  In these models I ignore location since I want to know what type of team gives us trouble, and I also ignore margin, just win or loss.  No ranking was taken into account either.

Interestingly the team that comes up as our absolute worst matchup is Houston, and the model only knows that we lost to them, not by how much.  So, the margin of defeat could not have biased the model.

Matchups (worst to best) according to this measure. Take with grain of salt:

Arkansas is a solid underdog:

houston
auburn
kentucky
louisiana state
north carolina

Tossup probably within home advantage:

mississippi state
oklahoma
tennessee
texas am


Solid favorite:

missouri
florida (surprised that the models keep insisting that we should beat Florida)
alabama
vanderbilt
georgia
oklahoma state
minnesota
mississippi
south carolina
connecticut

Interesting info. We're underdogs against anyone with a good offense. I wonder why that could be.

[Lud42]

Yeah. The problem is we don't do any of those. Theoretically if you close up you'll give up lower percentage of twos, less offensive boards, but a higher percentage of threes. Vice versa for your other scenario.

Defensive ranks:

2p%: 136
3p%: 179
O Reb: 284

I honestly think most (not all) of our defensive woes were due to our stubborn insistence on switching everything in our man to man for the first three quarters of the season. This constantly left Trey or Daniel on a guard 25ft from the basket which did a couple of things. 1. It created blow bys for lay ups, or 2. It created help situations which left open players for lay ups or spot up threes, all while 3. Removing our rim protector and primary rebounder from being in proper position to do his job.

That has been cleaned up quite a bit over the last 8 games or so, just frustrating that it took so long.

[steveaustin69]

I honestly think most (not all) of our defensive woes were due to our stubborn insistence on switching everything in our man to man for the first three quarters of the season. This constantly left Trey or Daniel on a guard 25ft from the basket which did a couple of things. 1. It created blow bys for lay ups, or 2. It created help situations which left open players for lay ups or spot up threes, all while 3. Removing our rim protector and primary rebounder from being in proper position to do his job.

That has been cleaned up quite a bit over the last 8 games or so, just frustrating that it took so long.

It's been fixed?

Last 10 games 2pt fg% 47%. For the season it's 48%.  3pt fg % is 34%. For the season it's 35%. We've played the worst offensive teams in the conference in this stretch. I'd attribute the marginal improvement to a drop in competition. They make the same mistakes now they've made all year.

[azhog10]

This is Mike's ceiling. Can't defend the three or rebound; good teams will punish you for those mistakes. We don't turn the ball over at a high enough rate to compensate for the high percentage looks. Bama had a multitude of unforced errors Saturday, and we still let them hang around by shooting 40% from three. Up 9 to up 5 in a two minute situation in a 20 second span due to two wide open threes. A good team will make you pay for that.

Season defensive ranks:

Overall FG%: 118
2Pt FG %: 138
3Pt FG %: 178
FTA: 328
ORB: 288
DRB: 164
Assists Conceded: 194
TO Forced: 93

While no question our defense hasn't been good, and at times awful. The last six games we've given up on average 69.7 points while averaging 78.3 offensively. Also have been able to pick up two road wins in the process. Defense has been the biggest issue but we have been able to play much better defense and rebound a bit better. The Kentucky game was the game we didn't do either of those things and we lost.

[steveaustin69]

While no question our defense hasn't been good, and at times awful. The last six games we've given up on average 69.7 points while averaging 78.3 offensively. Also have been able to pick up two road wins in the process. Defense has been the biggest issue but we have been able to play much better defense and rebound a bit better. The Kentucky game was the game we didn't do either of those things and we lost.

Last six games includes three of the worst teams in the conference. The percentages we concede are right in line with our season average.