diggerfoot
Humanity Hiker
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,552
- Reaction Score
- 8,707
The TPI provided some interesting clues as to how the Notre Dame game might play out, as I pointed out at the time. Our offensive and defensive efficiencies are a notch above all other teams, including Baylor and Notre Dame. Our ball handling metric (which focuses on assists and steals, not unforced errors) led other elite teams. Our rebounding efficiency hangs with all elite teams except Maryland. Our Achilles heel is embodied in the one TPI metric called miscues. Elite teams, Baylor and Notre Dame in particular, do not turn the ball over and benefit at the foul line more than we do.
Before the Notre Dame game I mentioned that those metrics suggest we should win any game handily if we could reverse our miscue misfortunes, because of our superior efficiency on both sides of the ball. Yet those same metrics also suggest we should lose close games to elite teams. The game played out as the metrics suggested it would.
I bring this up again in reaction to the discussion about under performing. Those metrics are the way they are because we have superior talent on a well coached team, but we don't have a dependable lead guard to settle, manage, rally and lead the team in key situations. We are who we are in this regards. Despite complaints about our performance, we played more efficiently than Notre Dame (and Baylor for that matter) just as the metrics predicted we should have. We also kept the other team in it and failed to close out the game, in a sense just as the metrics predicted we should have as well.
I'll say this again ... we can still win the Big East and NCAA Tournaments. We have the efficient potential to win them handily, double digits even ... if we OVER perform in regards to who we are this year in terms of lead guard play and miscues. Of course if we lose, everyone but the team manager will be accused of under performing again. This will be true only if our offensive and defensive efficiencies fall back to the same level of our opponents.
I understand the likely counter to this argument, that given our talent level we should expect a great lead guard to emerge. That's a valid argument for preseason predictions; yet there's more than talent that goes into lead guard play. Thirty games into the season the consistent results don't lie; we are not under performing when our miscues are worse than other elite teams, we are performing as expected. If we overcome that for the postseason, our guards in particular should be saluted for over performing.
Before the Notre Dame game I mentioned that those metrics suggest we should win any game handily if we could reverse our miscue misfortunes, because of our superior efficiency on both sides of the ball. Yet those same metrics also suggest we should lose close games to elite teams. The game played out as the metrics suggested it would.
I bring this up again in reaction to the discussion about under performing. Those metrics are the way they are because we have superior talent on a well coached team, but we don't have a dependable lead guard to settle, manage, rally and lead the team in key situations. We are who we are in this regards. Despite complaints about our performance, we played more efficiently than Notre Dame (and Baylor for that matter) just as the metrics predicted we should have. We also kept the other team in it and failed to close out the game, in a sense just as the metrics predicted we should have as well.
I'll say this again ... we can still win the Big East and NCAA Tournaments. We have the efficient potential to win them handily, double digits even ... if we OVER perform in regards to who we are this year in terms of lead guard play and miscues. Of course if we lose, everyone but the team manager will be accused of under performing again. This will be true only if our offensive and defensive efficiencies fall back to the same level of our opponents.
I understand the likely counter to this argument, that given our talent level we should expect a great lead guard to emerge. That's a valid argument for preseason predictions; yet there's more than talent that goes into lead guard play. Thirty games into the season the consistent results don't lie; we are not under performing when our miscues are worse than other elite teams, we are performing as expected. If we overcome that for the postseason, our guards in particular should be saluted for over performing.
