2013-2014

[guest44]

So does STAT 211 say that Kraus is actually worse than his statistics appear?

[Globetrotter]

So does STAT 211 say that Kraus is actually worse than his statistics appear?

I picture STAT 211 as this giant computer from the movie War Games. Orr consults in in any and all decisions.

[BleedOrange]

".but aside from that, you are trying to say that these guys can do things they have never been shown to do based off the fact that they don't get consistent time nor have consistent roles. "

No no no, I am NOT saying that. I'm saying is that, basically, bad statistics are unreliable indicators for part-time players because a) the statistical "error" factor" (due to few observations) and b) part-time players face different and harder psychological and in-game obstacles than full-time players. I AM saying that the skills and athleticism displayed by Clarke and Sealey is very impressive, and based on that, they may become outstanding players in full time roles.

I'm applying statistical reasoning to sports. Scientists and financial analysts do the same thing in their work. Globe, you're calling me weird for doing so. I think you're better than that.

[Globetrotter]

".but aside from that, you are trying to say that these guys can do things they have never been shown to do based off the fact that they don't get consistent time nor have consistent roles. "

No no no, I am NOT saying that. I'm saying is that, basically, bad statistics are unreliable indicators for part-time players because a) the statistical "error" factor" (due to few observations) and b) part-time players face different and harder psychological and in-game obstacles than full-time players. I AM saying that the skills and athleticism displayed by Clarke and Sealey is very impressive, and based on that, they may become outstanding players in full time roles.

I'm applying statistical reasoning to sports. Scientists and financial analysts do the same thing in their work. Globe, you're calling me weird for doing so. I think you're better than that.

I was calling you wierd for what seemed like a lecture at the end about how people should take a stats class and if they haven't then you seemed to be looking down on them.

In regards to stats I do agree that the sample we have for these guys is small and inconclusive. As I have said in previous areas they have not been put in a position to succeed. At best we have a guess at what they can do from what we have seen on the floor. I do agree with your statement on the difficulty to get in a rythym when you are playing only ever so often.

[BleedOrange]

".but aside from that, you are trying to say that these guys can do things they have never been shown to do based off the fact that they don't get consistent time nor have consistent roles. "

No no no, I am NOT saying that. I'm saying is that, basically, bad statistics are unreliable indicators for part-time players because a) the statistical "error" factor" (due to few observations) and b) part-time players face different and harder psychological and in-game obstacles than full-time players. I AM saying that the skills and athleticism displayed by Clarke and Sealey is very impressive, and based on that, they may become outstanding players in full time roles.

I'm applying statistical reasoning to sports. Scientists and financial analysts do the same thing in their work. Globe, you're calling me weird for doing so. I think you're better than that.

I was calling you wierd for what seemed like a lecture at the end about how people should take a stats class and if they haven't then you seemed to be looking down on them.

In regards to stats I do agree that the sample we have for these guys is small and inconclusive. As I have said in previous areas they have not been put in a position to succeed. At best we have a guess at what they can do from what we have seen on the floor. I do agree with your statement on the difficulty to get in a rythym when you are playing only ever so often.

Sorry if I came off like a weenie. It does seem like many people when talking sport either ignore or are unaware of this kind of STAT 211 stuff.

In Kraus's case, he's been a 30% FG shooter for three years of regular and semi-regular play. That case is closed, in my book.

[hammb]

I think both Clarke & Sealey have limitations to their game, but I think if they were given consistent playing time Clarke would certainly outproduce Kraus, and I think Sealey has a good shot of outproducing Orr as well. The only reason Orr looks like a better player than Sealey, IMO, is that we ask our 3 (and our 2) to just stand on the 3 point line and pass the ball back to Crawford.

If we actually ran any semblance of an offense where these guys were cutting without the ball Orr & Clarke would be far better players than what they've shown thus far.

Right now I"m real disillusioned about 2013-14 because I am afraid Orr is still going to be the coach. And if he is we'll be the same awful team we've been the past 6 years. We'll win some home games, get slaughtered on the road, and win 12-14 games because we play lousy competition.

[MacGuy]

Thoughts on Denny:

I think he will be able to help the team from day one. Although he's not as tall as listed some places (I've seen 6-1 to 6-3), he's probably under 6-0. And I think he's a point guard. Extremely quick and just a jet getting down the floor. Add in the the fact that he may be the best outside shooter in Ohio and I see him playing sooner than later.

[Globetrotter]

Thoughts on Denny:

I think he will be able to help the team from day one. Although he's not as tall as listed some places (I've seen 6-1 to 6-3), he's probably under 6-0. And I think he's a point guard. Extremely quick and just a jet getting down the floor. Add in the the fact that he may be the best outside shooter in Ohio and I see him playing sooner than later.

I worry about his athleticism and quicks to play the point in D1.

[hammb]

Thoughts on Denny:

I think he will be able to help the team from day one. Although he's not as tall as listed some places (I've seen 6-1 to 6-3), he's probably under 6-0. And I think he's a point guard. Extremely quick and just a jet getting down the floor. Add in the the fact that he may be the best outside shooter in Ohio and I see him playing sooner than later.

I worry about his athleticism and quicks to play the point in D1.

If he's even close to the shooter he's been billed as I wouldn't want him playing the point. I want him moving around without the ball to be available for open looks. Be it a post guy kicking back out or a PG that drew in the defense off the dribble. Whatever the case, if Denny is the shooter we've been needing for so long I want him on the perimeter shooting.

This team hasn't had a true 3 point threat since Moten, so I realize most of us have forgotten what that can look like. If Denny is that guy he should not be your primary ball handler, even if he is capable of it (which I question as well).

[Globetrotter]

I expect he and Tisdale to make an immediate impact.

[Globetrotter]

Watched every play tonight.

Some thoughts.
1. Sealey and Parker just don't do much for me.
2. Black could be a stud. Just needs to be more aggressive consistently.
3. Henderson is good enough to be in the rotation.
4. At times they played with Hendo-Clarke and Crawford.

1 Tisdale
2 Clarke-Denny
3 Henderson-Parker
4 Holmes-Sealey (Mayleben)
5 Black (Gomes)

That lineup is small but probably gets our best players on the floor without sacrificing too much. Would translate into

1 Tisdale 25 - Clarke -15
2 Clarke 15 - Denny 25
3 Henderson 15 - Sealey 10 - Parker 15
4 Holmes 20 -Sealey 20 (Mayleben)0
5 Black 30 - Holmes 10 (Gomes)0