Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="DogMania, post: 4855284, member: 21"] I think there's a inherent flaw to trusting metrics. It's based on pure numbers not taking into account so many nuances that take place such as: Teams don't play the same common teams. Some home courts are tougher than others. Some neutral courts aren't always neutral (MSG). Injuries and outlier foul trouble. Teams that back off often that have big leads which impact statistical values. The occasional bad game or unexpected blow out. Some conferences are tougher than others regardless to how talented or not the teams might be. (an actual top team could be in a weak conference but be real good, or in a really tough conference where they lose some tough road games.) The eye test is important that won't show up in the numbers, such as: Has the team showed the ability to win and compete in various ways and against different opponent styles. Can they handle pressure situstions, come back from late deficits, put away teams late in close games. Do the have players who can make shots when highly contested. I'm sure we could come up with others. How often have we seen some top ACC and SEC teams get bounced early when facing a team that plays relentless D, or some deliberate offensive team unable to handle the quickness when they don't have any or many teams that play fast and/or physical in their conference. I like how last year's and this year's UConn teams can beat you in many ways. I don't see a team out there that I'd be afraid of unless the refs would allow our opponent to impede our off the ball motion, hack our handlers and/or call a lot of incidental contact. I don't think there are metrics for that. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach