(01-15-2018 03:11 PM)Tigx Wrote: 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.
Yes, we have a hilarious fan who felt my presence long enough to take me off of ignore, who sees a video of a player catching the ball with 3.3 seconds left completely facing away from the basket with his feet square to the sideline, like he is going to shoot at the sideline, releasing the ball with 2.3 seconds left who doesn't seem to understand that that is a turnaround jumpshot.
Basketball lesson...
A turnaround jumper implies that your body is facing away from the goal when you jump...Brewtons body was essentially squared up when he left the floor...Where his feet we facing doesn't matter...Go to the gym at try a few and maybe you will understand how one is substantially more difficult than the other.
He was facing directly away from the basket, he pivoted turned and shot all in one motion, which is the pure definition.
It sounds like you don't know anything about basketball. EVERY player is square to the basket when they shoot the ball. But AGAIN, don't take my word for it. Check out 106 turnaround jumpers from Nowitzki. On every single one his body is square to the basket.
So you point to a youtube video where Dirk is doing up and unders, cross overs, step throughs and turn arounds as your proof...Dude I can make a youtube highlight video as well. Also Fadeaway <> Turnaround
I said Brewton was square to the basket when he LEFT THE FLOOR. Different from leaving the floor and shooting the ball and no every player is not square to the basket when they shoot.
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about
He never will.
It was in no way, shape or form a turnaround jumper. Silly.
(01-15-2018 03:11 PM)Tigx Wrote: 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.
Yes, we have a hilarious fan who felt my presence long enough to take me off of ignore, who sees a video of a player catching the ball with 3.3 seconds left completely facing away from the basket with his feet square to the sideline, like he is going to shoot at the sideline, releasing the ball with 2.3 seconds left who doesn't seem to understand that that is a turnaround jumpshot.
Very weird.
Basketball lesson...
A turnaround jumper implies that your body is facing away from the goal when you jump...Brewtons body was essentially squared up when he left the floor...Where his feet we facing doesn't matter...Go to the gym at try a few and maybe you will understand how one is substantially more difficult than the other.
He was facing directly away from the basket, he pivoted turned and shot all in one motion, which is the pure definition.
It sounds like you don't know anything about basketball. EVERY player is square to the basket when they shoot the ball. But AGAIN, don't take my word for it. Check out 106 turnaround jumpers from Nowitzki. On every single one his body is square to the basket.
So you point to a youtube video where Dirk is doing up and unders, cross overs, step throughs and turn arounds as your proof...Dude I can make a youtube highlight video as well. Also Fadeaway <> Turnaround
I said Brewton was square to the basket when he LEFT THE FLOOR. Different from leaving the floor and shooting the ball and no every player is not square to the basket when they shoot.
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about
Quote:4: a jump shot by a player facing away from the basket who turns toward the basket while shooting —often used attributively a turnaround jumper
That is hilarious. So now you are claiming that when players shoot the ball they aren't square to the basket? Regardless of their position when they shoot, which can be in the air or not, EVERY player is square on EVERY shot when they release it. Look at the illustration for the video. Dirk isn't in the air and he is square to the basket.
You believe whatever half baked strange definition you come up with and I will stick with NBA.com and Merriam-Webster.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2018 11:16 AM by Stammers.)
It's not a traditional turn-around, where the player is facing completely away. Kareem actually corralled the ball with one hand while his shoulders had already pretty much turned. But I wouldn't argue strongly either way.
Now if you want to say "EVERY player is square on EVERY shot when they release it", then that's just wrong. Plenty of last second shots are not square. Heck, layups, hook shots, shots after foul - none of them are "square".
We have been lucky this year.
Northern Kentucky by 2
Mercer double overtime
Samford 1 point win
Siena by 4
Temple, last second in overtime
2-3 teams were missing their leading scorer or best player
That said, we will most likely have a winning record this season, most likely by only one or 2 games.
We will most likely have no chance at the post season...NIT long shot, NCAA winning AAC tournament
No one can say this is what you want our Tigers to be, but the kids are playing hard and well and you have to give Tubby credit for that. He also deserves the credit for us being as mediocre as we are.
Without getting into the pettiness of what is in this thread, the general idea is that most teams end up about 50/50 in close games, with better teams generally a tad over .500 and lesser teams on the short end.
More often than not, by the end of the season, those numbers tend to even out at bit--meaning (probability wise) Memphis will come out on the short of of a few more games the rest of the way.
Currently, Memphis is 5-0 in games of 4 points or less and are 2-0 in overtime. Temple, by comparison, is 4-5 in games of 4 points or less.
As a comparison, there was a point when the Grizz (in 2016-17) were of to a hot start at 16-8, but they had a negative scoring margin and were 6-0 in games of 3 pts or less (10-0 in games of 5< points).
( http://csnbbs.com/thread-801786.html )
Over the rest of the year, things evened out and Memphis finished the year 7-5 in 3 point games--meaning they went 1-5 the rest of the year.
Not saying this will happen to the Tigers, just that continuing on their current trajectory would be statistically impressive.
But is that what KenPom means by "luck" - winning more close games than losing? Or is it simply his way of expanding his standard deviation by lumping every result outside of his model's prediction as "luck". Honest question.
I'm not a KenPom subscriber so don't have access to behind the numbers. When I research, I get a mixture of responses. Some say winning close games. Some say results not explained by his model. Two TOTALLY different things.
(01-16-2018 11:44 AM)Tiger87 Wrote: It's not a traditional turn-around, where the player is facing completely away. Kareem actually corralled the ball with one hand while his shoulders had already pretty much turned. But I wouldn't argue strongly either way.
Now if you want to say "EVERY player is square on EVERY shot when they release it", then that's just wrong. Plenty of last second shots are not square. Heck, layups, hook shots, shots after foul - none of them are "square".
For sure, but on a turnaround, regardless of what position the shooter is in when he starts his motion, when he releases the ball his body and especially his right arm/elbow are facing the basket.
I agree that special circumstances on last shots change the dynamic. One poster argued that there has to be a defender close, which isn't necessarily true, but often does happen. In this case Brewton knew that he had to get it off as quickly as possible, didn't know where the defender was and didn't have the luxury of taking his time to find out. If the defender was in a position to block it he would have faded away.
We have been lucky this year.
Northern Kentucky by 2
Mercer double overtime
Samford 1 point win
Siena by 4
Temple, last second in overtime
2-3 teams were missing their leading scorer or best player
That said, we will most likely have a winning record this season, most likely by only one or 2 games.
We will most likely have no chance at the post season...NIT long shot, NCAA winning AAC tournament
No one can say this is what you want our Tigers to be, but the kids are playing hard and well and you have to give Tubby credit for that. He also deserves the credit for us being as mediocre as we are.
Without getting into the pettiness of what is in this thread, the general idea is that most teams end up about 50/50 in close games, with better teams generally a tad over .500 and lesser teams on the short end.
More often than not, by the end of the season, those numbers tend to even out at bit--meaning (probability wise) Memphis will come out on the short of of a few more games the rest of the way.
Currently, Memphis is 5-0 in games of 4 points or less and are 2-0 in overtime. Temple, by comparison, is 4-5 in games of 4 points or less.
As a comparison, there was a point when the Grizz (in 2016-17) were of to a hot start at 16-8, but they had a negative scoring margin and were 6-0 in games of 3 pts or less (10-0 in games of 5< points).
( http://csnbbs.com/thread-801786.html )
Over the rest of the year, things evened out and Memphis finished the year 7-5 in 3 point games--meaning they went 1-5 the rest of the year.
Not saying this will happen to the Tigers, just that continuing on their current trajectory would be statistically impressive.
But is that what KenPom means by "luck" - winning more close games than losing? Or is it simply his way of expanding his standard deviation by lumping every result outside of his model's prediction as "luck". Honest question.
I'm not a KenPom subscriber so don't have access to behind the numbers. When I research, I get a mixture of responses. Some say winning close games. Some say results not explained by his model. Two TOTALLY different things.
That is a good question and my understanding is that it is merely a metric based on a team's record in close games. This is one of the things that I don't like about Kenpom.
A team can be up by 12 points with a minute left, and the trailing team makes three 3 pointers, including one at the buzzer for a final margin of 3 points. The winning team was never in danger of losing. Also, games can be very tight with 2 minutes left and the winning team goes on 8-0 run to win by 12 and it is considered a blowout.
The other thing about luck, is that it takes the quality of the play out of the equation. It makes no distinction between a half court heave and a layup.
(01-16-2018 12:15 PM)memtiger1987 Wrote: How many more posts trying to determine if the shot was a turnaround jump shot?
Can't speak for others, but this is my last one.
Point really isn't whether a turn-around - it clearly was not. Point is the anti-Tubby cabal called it a fade-away, turn-around, heavily contested, and lucky . . . to diminish the win. It was none of the first three.
Maybe it was lucky, I don't think so. My immediate reaction after Brewton scooped up the deflected pass was "My God, he's wide open". So if Brewton getting the deflection was lucky, fine. But it wasn't a difficult shot, thank goodness.
(01-16-2018 12:15 PM)memtiger1987 Wrote: How many more posts trying to determine if the shot was a turnaround jump shot?
Can't speak for others, but this is my last one.
Point really isn't whether a turn-around - it clearly was not. Point is the anti-Tubby cabal called it a fade-away, turn-around, heavily contested, and lucky . . . to diminish the win. It was none of the first three.
Maybe it was lucky, I don't think so. My immediate reaction after Brewton scooped up the deflected pass was "My God, he's wide open". So if Brewton getting the deflection was lucky, fine. But it wasn't a difficult shot, thank goodness.
Another weird post. It was OBVIOUSLY a turnaround, he was a full 4' behind the line and he caught it facing away from the basket and shot it in one motion.
Quote:But it wasn't a difficult shot, thank goodness.
Yes, thank goodness, it was easy as pie. You should make 90% of turnaround 3 pointers 27' from the basket, down 2 points with less than 3 seconds on the clock.
(01-16-2018 01:32 AM)Cotten Wrote: That was in no way shape or form a "turn around jumper"
He should have aimed straight into the stands instead of turning around.
If the argument was that he wasn't perfectly squared to the basket, I have no dog in the fight. I thought it was a very makeable shot for any D1 shooting guard, certainly not the highest percentage shot on the floor, but it wasn't as if he just threw up a prayer.
But speaking pure semantics, it wasn't a turn around jump shot.
(01-16-2018 01:32 AM)Cotten Wrote: That was in no way shape or form a "turn around jumper"
He should have aimed straight into the stands instead of turning around.
If the argument was that he wasn't perfectly squared to the basket, I have no dog in the fight. I thought it was a very makeable shot for any D1 shooting guard, certainly not the highest percentage shot on the floor, but it wasn't as if he just threw up a prayer.
But speaking pure semantics, it wasn't a turn around jump shot.
My last post on this shot. Normally I think of a player using a pivot foot when shooting a turnaround jump shot. I didn’t see a pivot on this shot.
Regardless, it was an extremely difficult shot by a low percentage 3 point shooter. High level of difficulty and totally clutch. I think we can all agree on this??
(01-16-2018 01:32 AM)Cotten Wrote: That was in no way shape or form a "turn around jumper"
He should have aimed straight into the stands instead of turning around.
If the argument was that he wasn't perfectly squared to the basket, I have no dog in the fight. I thought it was a very makeable shot for any D1 shooting guard, certainly not the highest percentage shot on the floor, but it wasn't as if he just threw up a prayer.
But speaking pure semantics, it wasn't a turn around jump shot.
My last post on this shot. Normally I think of a player using a pivot foot when shooting a turnaround jump shot. I didn’t see a pivot on this shot.
Regardless, it was an extremely difficult shot by a low percentage 3 point shooter. High level of difficulty and totally clutch. I think we can all agree on this??
Ok, moving on to UConn now....
Yep, basket and defender on the shooters back, he pivots and shoots
(01-15-2018 10:43 PM)Stammers Wrote: Yes, we have a hilarious fan who felt my presence long enough to take me off of ignore, who sees a video of a player catching the ball with 3.3 seconds left completely facing away from the basket with his feet square to the sideline, like he is going to shoot at the sideline, releasing the ball with 2.3 seconds left who doesn't seem to understand that that is a turnaround jumpshot.
Very weird.
Basketball lesson...
A turnaround jumper implies that your body is facing away from the goal when you jump...Brewtons body was essentially squared up when he left the floor...Where his feet we facing doesn't matter...Go to the gym at try a few and maybe you will understand how one is substantially more difficult than the other.
He was facing directly away from the basket, he pivoted turned and shot all in one motion, which is the pure definition.
It sounds like you don't know anything about basketball. EVERY player is square to the basket when they shoot the ball. But AGAIN, don't take my word for it. Check out 106 turnaround jumpers from Nowitzki. On every single one his body is square to the basket.
So you point to a youtube video where Dirk is doing up and unders, cross overs, step throughs and turn arounds as your proof...Dude I can make a youtube highlight video as well. Also Fadeaway <> Turnaround
I said Brewton was square to the basket when he LEFT THE FLOOR. Different from leaving the floor and shooting the ball and no every player is not square to the basket when they shoot.
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about
Quote:4: a jump shot by a player facing away from the basket who turns toward the basket while shooting —often used attributively a turnaround jumper
That is hilarious. So now you are claiming that when players shoot the ball they aren't square to the basket? Regardless of their position when they shoot, which can be in the air or not, EVERY player is square on EVERY shot when they release it. Look at the illustration for the video. Dirk isn't in the air and he is square to the basket.
You believe whatever half baked strange definition you come up with and I will stick with NBA.com and Merriam-Webster.
You need to stop reading about the game and start experiencing it...LOL...But based on your superior intelligence you are smarter than all the people on this board many who have played a ton more basketball than you...No one would call that a turnaround jump shot but YOU
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2018 08:41 PM by macgar32.)
A turnaround jumper implies that your body is facing away from the goal when you jump...Brewtons body was essentially squared up when he left the floor...Where his feet we facing doesn't matter...Go to the gym at try a few and maybe you will understand how one is substantially more difficult than the other.
He was facing directly away from the basket, he pivoted turned and shot all in one motion, which is the pure definition.
It sounds like you don't know anything about basketball. EVERY player is square to the basket when they shoot the ball. But AGAIN, don't take my word for it. Check out 106 turnaround jumpers from Nowitzki. On every single one his body is square to the basket.
So you point to a youtube video where Dirk is doing up and unders, cross overs, step throughs and turn arounds as your proof...Dude I can make a youtube highlight video as well. Also Fadeaway <> Turnaround
I said Brewton was square to the basket when he LEFT THE FLOOR. Different from leaving the floor and shooting the ball and no every player is not square to the basket when they shoot.
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about
Quote:4: a jump shot by a player facing away from the basket who turns toward the basket while shooting —often used attributively a turnaround jumper
That is hilarious. So now you are claiming that when players shoot the ball they aren't square to the basket? Regardless of their position when they shoot, which can be in the air or not, EVERY player is square on EVERY shot when they release it. Look at the illustration for the video. Dirk isn't in the air and he is square to the basket.
You believe whatever half baked strange definition you come up with and I will stick with NBA.com and Merriam-Webster.
You need to stop reading about the game and start experiencing it...LOL
And any hook shot is nowhere near square to the basket...Many floaters the player is not square to the basket.
And Randall funky shot was never squared when he shot it.
I try to teach middle schoolers to be square when shooting, particularly 3 point set shots. As you said, on certain shots it’s impossible to be square.
(01-16-2018 11:01 AM)Stammers Wrote: He was facing directly away from the basket, he pivoted turned and shot all in one motion, which is the pure definition.
It sounds like you don't know anything about basketball. EVERY player is square to the basket when they shoot the ball. But AGAIN, don't take my word for it. Check out 106 turnaround jumpers from Nowitzki. On every single one his body is square to the basket.
So you point to a youtube video where Dirk is doing up and unders, cross overs, step throughs and turn arounds as your proof...Dude I can make a youtube highlight video as well. Also Fadeaway <> Turnaround
I said Brewton was square to the basket when he LEFT THE FLOOR. Different from leaving the floor and shooting the ball and no every player is not square to the basket when they shoot.
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about
Quote:4: a jump shot by a player facing away from the basket who turns toward the basket while shooting —often used attributively a turnaround jumper
That is hilarious. So now you are claiming that when players shoot the ball they aren't square to the basket? Regardless of their position when they shoot, which can be in the air or not, EVERY player is square on EVERY shot when they release it. Look at the illustration for the video. Dirk isn't in the air and he is square to the basket.
You believe whatever half baked strange definition you come up with and I will stick with NBA.com and Merriam-Webster.
You need to stop reading about the game and start experiencing it...LOL
And any hook shot is nowhere near square to the basket...Many floaters the player is not square to the basket.
And Randall funky shot was never squared when he shot it.
I try to teach middle schoolers to be square when shooting, particularly 3 point set shots. As you said, on certain shots it’s impossible to be square.
We have been lucky this year.
Northern Kentucky by 2
Mercer double overtime
Samford 1 point win
Siena by 4
Temple, last second in overtime
2-3 teams were missing their leading scorer or best player
That said, we will most likely have a winning record this season, most likely by only one or 2 games.
We will most likely have no chance at the post season...NIT long shot, NCAA winning AAC tournament
No one can say this is what you want our Tigers to be, but the kids are playing hard and well and you have to give Tubby credit for that. He also deserves the credit for us being as mediocre as we are.
Without getting into the pettiness of what is in this thread, the general idea is that most teams end up about 50/50 in close games, with better teams generally a tad over .500 and lesser teams on the short end.
More often than not, by the end of the season, those numbers tend to even out at bit--meaning (probability wise) Memphis will come out on the short of of a few more games the rest of the way.
Currently, Memphis is 5-0 in games of 4 points or less and are 2-0 in overtime. Temple, by comparison, is 4-5 in games of 4 points or less.
As a comparison, there was a point when the Grizz (in 2016-17) were of to a hot start at 16-8, but they had a negative scoring margin and were 6-0 in games of 3 pts or less (10-0 in games of 5< points).
( http://csnbbs.com/thread-801786.html )
Over the rest of the year, things evened out and Memphis finished the year 7-5 in 3 point games--meaning they went 1-5 the rest of the year.
Not saying this will happen to the Tigers, just that continuing on their current trajectory would be statistically impressive.
Actually, that is completely false. Statistically, the "50-50" games can only be taken as individual trials. Outcomes from previous games have no bearing on the particular outcome of that 1 game (with the exception of the "experience factor" that would actually help us as we seem to have "learned" how to control the outcome in close games). That may be what has made us "lucky" in close games. But with all things being equal, the outcome of previous games will have no "balancing" effect on the outcome of a particular game. Its the same as the fallacy that if you flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads all ten times, the next 10 should be tails to balance things out. In reality, each individual trail starts at 50-50 despite previous trials. It is entirely possible however that due to playing in so many of those close games and having success, we have gotten good at staying calm and executing when other teams get nervous and make mistakes.
(01-15-2018 02:43 PM)Stammers Wrote: 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.
Yes, we have a hilarious fan who felt my presence long enough to take me off of ignore, who sees a video of a player catching the ball with 3.3 seconds left completely facing away from the basket with his feet square to the sideline, like he is going to shoot at the sideline, releasing the ball with 2.3 seconds left who doesn't seem to understand that that is a turnaround jumpshot.
Very weird.
Basketball lesson...
A turnaround jumper implies that your body is facing away from the goal when you jump...Brewtons body was essentially squared up when he left the floor...Where his feet we facing doesn't matter...Go to the gym at try a few and maybe you will understand how one is substantially more difficult than the other.
He was facing directly away from the basket, he pivoted turned and shot all in one motion, which is the pure definition.
It sounds like you don't know anything about basketball. EVERY player is square to the basket when they shoot the ball. But AGAIN, don't take my word for it. Check out 106 turnaround jumpers from Nowitzki. On every single one his body is square to the basket.
He actually got his feet under him before elevating and shooting. He did not pivot in the air at all.
We have been lucky this year.
Northern Kentucky by 2
Mercer double overtime
Samford 1 point win
Siena by 4
Temple, last second in overtime
2-3 teams were missing their leading scorer or best player
That said, we will most likely have a winning record this season, most likely by only one or 2 games.
We will most likely have no chance at the post season...NIT long shot, NCAA winning AAC tournament
No one can say this is what you want our Tigers to be, but the kids are playing hard and well and you have to give Tubby credit for that. He also deserves the credit for us being as mediocre as we are.
Without getting into the pettiness of what is in this thread, the general idea is that most teams end up about 50/50 in close games, with better teams generally a tad over .500 and lesser teams on the short end.
More often than not, by the end of the season, those numbers tend to even out at bit--meaning (probability wise) Memphis will come out on the short of of a few more games the rest of the way.
Currently, Memphis is 5-0 in games of 4 points or less and are 2-0 in overtime. Temple, by comparison, is 4-5 in games of 4 points or less.
As a comparison, there was a point when the Grizz (in 2016-17) were of to a hot start at 16-8, but they had a negative scoring margin and were 6-0 in games of 3 pts or less (10-0 in games of 5< points).
( http://csnbbs.com/thread-801786.html )
Over the rest of the year, things evened out and Memphis finished the year 7-5 in 3 point games--meaning they went 1-5 the rest of the year.
Not saying this will happen to the Tigers, just that continuing on their current trajectory would be statistically impressive.
Actually, that is completely false. Statistically, the "50-50" games can only be taken as individual trials. Outcomes from previous games have no bearing on the particular outcome of that 1 game (with the exception of the "experience factor" that would actually help us as we seem to have "learned" how to control the outcome in close games). That may be what has made us "lucky" in close games. But with all things being equal, the outcome of previous games will have no "balancing" effect on the outcome of a particular game. Its the same as the fallacy that if you flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads all ten times, the next 10 should be tails to balance things out. In reality, each individual trail starts at 50-50 despite previous trials. It is entirely possible however that due to playing in so many of those close games and having success, we have gotten good at staying calm and executing when other teams get nervous and make mistakes.
The caveat to this probability theory is that the value/strength of the team in question remains roughly equivalent throughout the period you are evaluating them. While that is mostly true about NBA teams and even college teams that have played together for multiple years, this Memphis team is a baby by comparison and has obviously gotten better by leaps and bounds compared to its performance in the early part of its schedule.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2018 12:13 PM by Cotten.)
/
Tigers a “Lucky” Team Per KP
![[Image: AF1QipMjHkHYY9Z9ib5bv_CaSkRzjDgndJB7Hh8ZI3Qx]](https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMjHkHYY9Z9ib5bv_CaSkRzjDgndJB7Hh8ZI3Qx)
![[Image: Thomas_Tank_Engine_1.JPG]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Thomas_Tank_Engine_1.JPG)
