SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 11, 2005 19:42:01 GMT -5
90/18? You divided his BE minutes by his BE rebounds? That's 5 minutes per rebound, which is not the stat I stated. No wonder you don't trust stats -- your math is awful!
18 Rebounds in 90 minutes is 0.2 rebounds per minute. Prorated to the 30 minutes per game a starter gets, that 6 rpg. Like I said.
Can you prorate reliably? Proration works better the larger the sample you have. 90 or 169 minutes is not huge, so there's a margin of error. But keep this in mind -- to still average better than Ashanti or Wallace or DJ, Tyler could have player 90 more minutes without grabbing a rebound. He could have played three games, starting, and never once gotten a rebound and STILL had more rebounds per minute than our guards.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 11, 2005 19:42:35 GMT -5
Again you are projecting. I"m not talking about high school and scouts, and comparing heights to other players. I'm talking about what he actually DID on the court, which wasn't much. Oh yeah, 90/18 = 5. And, 5 does not equal 6. If you want to look at his stats of what he DID, and not projections or wishful thinking click on this link: sports-att.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=22423You know what, the_way? I was going to try and help you understand, but then I remembered that you either don't have the capability to understand or don't want to. So, I'm not going to spend my time rehashing SF's posts, which, surprisingly, EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTOOD. Could it be possible that since everyone else seems to agree with SF that he isn't making a huge leap by saying Tyler rebounded well when he was in and thus has the potential to be a good rebounder? I mean, if the minutes he played had been split up into 34 min "games", instead of spread out like they were, he would have averaged 5 rpg, which is quite good for a 2 guard. I mean, could it be possible that you are wrong (or not understanding) and he is right? Oh, who am I kidding...the_way is always right. SF, I admire your grit and determination, but there's no way your argument can stand against the_way's. I mean, he is the recognized authority in all basketball related matters.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 11, 2005 19:45:08 GMT -5
I apparently enjoy beating my head against a wall.
When you can't do basic math, well, that's hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 11, 2005 19:46:24 GMT -5
I apparently enjoy beating my head against a wall. When you can't do basic math, well, that's hopeless. It is the projecting part. He/she is hung up on that.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,212
|
Post by hoyarooter on Apr 11, 2005 19:53:56 GMT -5
LMAO over this thread.
I think t_w must have a persecution complex. He can't stand to take a position that agrees with anybody.
|
|
|
Post by Gtown4Life on Apr 11, 2005 19:57:40 GMT -5
well anyway..back to egerson..i think hes gonna be a player very similar to jared dudley, he could be a guy that is undersized but very scappy and gets a lot of garbage baskets as well as getting some clutch rebounds and making free throws down the stretch. I think them two could be a very similar duo.
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Apr 11, 2005 20:14:32 GMT -5
Man this thread got out of hand.
Anyway, Crawford can board. You don't need stats, you just need to watch.
|
|
Highsmith
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,490
|
Post by Highsmith on Apr 11, 2005 20:24:02 GMT -5
Please correct me if I am wrong ( I know the_way will), but I believe the point SFHoya was trying to make was that Tyler showed signs of being a strong rebounder.....especially for a guard, and especially if he got regular playing time. He based this on both his memories of what Tyler DID and then he brought in some stats of what Tyler DID. Projecting those stats is the next natural thing to do in order to see what Tyler's production MIGHT be if he played 35 or so minutes. Based on those numbers, even though they are limited, it does appear Tyler showed signs of being a good rebounder. Here are a few more stats for you-
- In the BC game that the_way doesn't want us to count, Tyler played 16 minutes and grabbed 6 boards. That was good enough to be the #2 rebounder in the game.....that counts GU and BC. That includes 8 players who played 30 or more minutes compared to Tyler's 16 minutes.
- These numbers have already been mentioned, but when you take Tyler's total minutes played (169) and his rebounds (29), you find that he had .17 rebounds per minute. That works out to 5.95 Reb/Gm if he were to average 35 minutes. Did he average that? No....he averaged just over 5 minutes per game. However, we are using what he DID to predict a possibility of what he might DO in the future. Certainly, this prediction is very unreliable based on the small sample size, but it does give some idea.
- SF looked at Tyler's Big East minutes/rebounds, which also backed up his point (albeit with another small sample size). However, even Tyler's Big East season had a number of games where he did not play or where he only got 1-3 minutes.....way too small to make any kind of conclusions, but again it supports the opinion.
- Possibly the best way we can judge Tyler's performance is to look at the games where he was given the chance to actually perform. He had 7 games during the season where he played 10 or more minutes. One of those games was pretty early (SJ St.), 2 were towards the middle (BC and Rutgers) and the rest were towards the end (Prov, BU, CSF and SC). If we look at minutes and rebounds again, we get 96 minutes and 20 rebounds. That comes out to .21 rebounds per minute......even better than his total season performance. His per game total based on about 35 minutes would be 7.35. All of this includes the 13 minutes he played against Providence where he did not even get a rebound. (I also tried adding the 3 games where he got 9 minutes of PT, and that dropped his numbers "all the way" to .20 Reb/Min, which comes out to 7.11 Reb/Gm for a 35 minute average.)
- The bottom line is that all of these numbers are based on a sample size that is too small to really tell much of anything. However, it CLEARLY makes much more sense to talk about the fact that Tyler looks like a good rebounder than it does to deny that fact. While the numbers may not be totally accurate because of sample size, so far any way we look at them they support the fact that Tyler is a good rebounder based both on the time he actually played and based on projections of what he would do if he played more. If these numbers were based on 1 game where he got 15 of his rebounds and a bunch of games where he got none, there may be a better case against it, but the fact is that for the vast majority of games where Tyler had decent playing time, he rebounded well. In fact, in the 14 games from the BC game on (the games where he started getting more PT), he was an effective rebounder (his rebounds per minute would net him 5 or more over 35 minutes in a game) 9 times. One of the 5 games where he was not an effective rebounder was a game he did not even play (SH) and another was one where he only got 3 minutes (ND).
- Hopefully all this will play out when/if Tyler gets increased playing time in the future. I guess for now I have spent way too much time on it. I look forward to the tearing apart of my evidence.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Apr 11, 2005 20:44:20 GMT -5
So...uh did anyone see the Charm City Challenge? Heard Eggerson was da bomb.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Apr 11, 2005 20:47:09 GMT -5
Well, I guess the world is based on projections. You get what you EARN in this world. Not what you are projected to have or hypothetically want to get.I'm stupid because I look at whats there. Uncle Sam doesn't tax on what money I'm projected to make in a year, Uncle Sam taxes on what I earned. You know, something that actually occured. Not make believe. No hocus pocus. No mirage. I'm dumb because I analyze whats given, not whats manipulated. Project to the cows come home. You guys are a trip. Well I see the glee club is now in session. One thought equals everybody's thoughts. How sickening. Does anyone actually speak their own mind anymore, or are they extinct with the dinosaurs. As the saying goes: Liars figure. Figures don't lie.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 11, 2005 21:03:34 GMT -5
Is the world flat because you can't see otherwise, or is it round because you project that a globe might be a fair, albeit small, representation of Earth's shape?
Then again, you might be able to tell us Earth is round because you've been in outer space. Or, at least, it sure seems like you have been there.
|
|
|
Post by JeffGreenistheMan on Apr 11, 2005 21:11:16 GMT -5
Egerson sounds like a great guy to have off the bench for some high-energy minutes. He could contribute on the rebounds and down low right away. Sapp probably has more potential but I wouldn't be surprised if Egerson played more this year
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 11, 2005 21:18:07 GMT -5
How many of the recruits are 5 yr guys? I know Egerson is. Isn't there another one as well? Should be interesting having guys in Sophmore age bodies as freshman (kinda the anti-Roy, who had a HS Senior age body as a freshman)
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 11, 2005 21:19:44 GMT -5
Well, I guess the world is based on projections. You get what you EARN in this world. Not what you are projected to have or hypothetically want to get.I'm stupid because I look at whats there. Uncle Sam doesn't tax on what money I'm projected to make in a year, Uncle Sam taxes on what I earned. You know, something that actually occured. Not make believe. No hocus pocus. No mirage. I'm dumb because I analyze whats given, not whats manipulated. Project to the cows come home. You guys are a trip. Well I see the glee club is now in session. One thought equals everybody's thoughts. How sickening. Does anyone actually speak their own mind anymore, or are they extinct with the dinosaurs. As the saying goes: Liars figure. Figures don't lie. Who are you tryin' to get crazy with, ese? Don't you know I'm loco?
|
|
|
Post by ][-][ 0 `/ /-\ 5 on Apr 11, 2005 21:44:59 GMT -5
Please correct me if I am wrong ( I know the_way will), but I believe the point SFHoya was trying to make was that Tyler showed signs of being a strong rebounder.....especially for a guard, and especially if he got regular playing time. He based this on both his memories of what Tyler DID and then he brought in some stats of what Tyler DID. Projecting those stats is the next natural thing to do in order to see what Tyler's production MIGHT be if he played 35 or so minutes. Based on those numbers, even though they are limited, it does appear Tyler showed signs of being a good rebounder. Here are a few more stats for you- - In the BC game that the_way doesn't want us to count, Tyler played 16 minutes and grabbed 6 boards. That was good enough to be the #2 rebounder in the game.....that counts GU and BC. That includes 8 players who played 30 or more minutes compared to Tyler's 16 minutes. - These numbers have already been mentioned, but when you take Tyler's total minutes played (169) and his rebounds (29), you find that he had .17 rebounds per minute. That works out to 5.95 Reb/Gm if he were to average 35 minutes. Did he average that? No....he averaged just over 5 minutes per game. However, we are using what he DID to predict a possibility of what he might DO in the future. Certainly, this prediction is very unreliable based on the small sample size, but it does give some idea. - SF looked at Tyler's Big East minutes/rebounds, which also backed up his point (albeit with another small sample size). However, even Tyler's Big East season had a number of games where he did not play or where he only got 1-3 minutes.....way too small to make any kind of conclusions, but again it supports the opinion. - Possibly the best way we can judge Tyler's performance is to look at the games where he was given the chance to actually perform. He had 7 games during the season where he played 10 or more minutes. One of those games was pretty early (SJ St.), 2 were towards the middle (BC and Rutgers) and the rest were towards the end (Prov, BU, CSF and SC). If we look at minutes and rebounds again, we get 96 minutes and 20 rebounds. That comes out to .21 rebounds per minute......even better than his total season performance. His per game total based on about 35 minutes would be 7.35. All of this includes the 13 minutes he played against Providence where he did not even get a rebound. (I also tried adding the 3 games where he got 9 minutes of PT, and that dropped his numbers "all the way" to .20 Reb/Min, which comes out to 7.11 Reb/Gm for a 35 minute average.) - The bottom line is that all of these numbers are based on a sample size that is too small to really tell much of anything. However, it CLEARLY makes much more sense to talk about the fact that Tyler looks like a good rebounder than it does to deny that fact. While the numbers may not be totally accurate because of sample size, so far any way we look at them they support the fact that Tyler is a good rebounder based both on the time he actually played and based on projections of what he would do if he played more. If these numbers were based on 1 game where he got 15 of his rebounds and a bunch of games where he got none, there may be a better case against it, but the fact is that for the vast majority of games where Tyler had decent playing time, he rebounded well. In fact, in the 14 games from the BC game on (the games where he started getting more PT), he was an effective rebounder (his rebounds per minute would net him 5 or more over 35 minutes in a game) 9 times. One of the 5 games where he was not an effective rebounder was a game he did not even play (SH) and another was one where he only got 3 minutes (ND). - Hopefully all this will play out when/if Tyler gets increased playing time in the future. I guess for now I have spent way too much time on it. I look forward to the tearing apart of my evidence. (applause) Numbers at long last! Good job but... Man this thread got out of hand. Anyway, Crawford can board. You don't need stats, you just need to watch. Maybe we need a Tyler Crawford rebounding topic: the members of the board of HoyaTalk v. the_way
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 11, 2005 22:06:30 GMT -5
This thing is an early contender for Thread of the Year honors.
|
|
HoyaNJ5
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 238
|
Post by HoyaNJ5 on Apr 11, 2005 22:24:21 GMT -5
Why are you all arguing with the_way? If my memory serves me correct, then I recall the_way being one of Esherick's biggest supporters. I think I even remember him saying that Georgetown made a huge mistake in firing him. If I'm wrong on this, then I stand corrected. But if I am correct, then the_way has zero, zilch, NO credibility in my eyes.....and he never will.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 11, 2005 23:02:26 GMT -5
Why are you all arguing with the_way? It's a hell of a lot better than doing homework.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Apr 11, 2005 23:11:35 GMT -5
You can say what you want about me. But one thing about me, I'm a MAN about mines. Yes, I was and AM an Esherick supporter, because I'm a Hoya Fan till I die. Yes, I said G'town was wrong for firing Esherick after they endorsed him two weeks prior to his dismissal. I also said it was cowardly for a certain select-group of people to go to great lengths to get him fired. I'm not afraid to say what I feel before or after the fact. I don't recant statements. I don't mince words. I don't need a peanut gallery or cheering section for me to speak up and voice my opinion. If I stand alone, I stand alone. If I have those who have my back, then they have my back. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm right. I can't say the same thing for some people. So you can make your little snide remarks about me and slap yourselves high-fives while you play in your little sand-box. At least I know what I said, and I'll stand by it whether I'm right OR wrong. Can you?
Now that thats over with, Lets Go Hoyas! Egerson sounds like a good prospect. I hope he turns out to be a good one for the Hoyas, along with Sapp, Thornton, and Spann, and hopefully another recruit (hopefully an inside player). We need some beef in the paint. If we can get some more presence in the paint next year, we will be a force to wreckon with.
|
|
|
Post by Justafan on Apr 12, 2005 8:01:51 GMT -5
I can not believe what I started. All I wanted was to see a couple of the incoming freshman play. Egerson did well and I hope Sapp will also. Anyway, I will get another look at the Kenner league.
|
|