He said he based his criteria with regard to what happened in the game. You're right, it really isnt that difficult.
Hmmm. Thats what he said, it looks to me like he based his DATA on what happened in the game. Criteria was set before he started reviewing.
I rewatched it again this morning. It was not a "terrible" pass and clearly YOU are biased. Sorry. That's 3 times I watched that play to your one time And yes, it's a game by game basis. I judged EVERY play he was involved in and rated it. If it didn't happen, I can't rate it. If it did happen, I would have noted it and rated it as good or bad. I can't help what does and doesn't happen in a game. Of course there will be things that happen in other games that did not in this one, and IF IT DID HAPPEN in those games, I would rate it accordingly
I didn't set the definitions of what exactly was good and bad until after I wrote down what happened on every play. At that point, I noted what was positive or negative or neutral. If it didn't happen in the game, it didn't matter for this ONE GAME ANALYSIS Also, I don't know why I am even arguing with someone who doesn't understand the basic principle of what passing well out of a double team does for a wide open shot. You lost all credibility with me when you compared it to a ballboy wiping the floor
Sorry, i'm just being objective. In regards to that pass, was it on target? catchable? what could rafer had done if he caught it? What were the qualities of that pass that earned it a "good" rating?
It was a catchable pass. Rafer mishandled it and it went out of bounds. I considered it a good pass because it was a catchable pass on a fast break. Keep nitpicking. And no, you are not being objective, you are just finding ways to be more of a prick. Bravo
I dont see how. A good play is a good play. A neutral play is neither good or bad. A bad play is a bad play. How is this insufficient. If you find the DATA insufficient then maybe you are looking for something that isnt there.
He described the criteria for a good/bad/neutral play. His criteria for bad plays was insufficient. I can think of many scenarios that should be considered "bad plays" that didnt make his list. I even graded a small excerpt of the game (about a quarter), and my results were substantially different than his.
I considered it a bad pass b/c he led rafer too far, threw it too hard (in regards to how far he led rafer), and had rafer caught it, he would've been forced to reset the offense. keep in mind that rafer's back was to the basket and he was running away from it.
The criterea that I listed pertained to plays that happened in the game. I can think of tons of circumstances that didn't happen that can also be considered good or bad. However, they didn't happen and therefore were not included in the criterea. This was for THIS GAME If I chose to do it again (I won't...it took too much time), I would, once again, watch every possession he was involved in, mark down what happened, then after the game say if it was good, bad or neutral and would mark it accordingly. If it didn't happen, why should I waste time by putting it as criterea. You go on ignore now. IF ANYONE ELSE DISAGREES with what I am saying, feel free to post.
Thats fine, ignore me if you want. I even re-graded a portion of last night's game. For that portion, here were our results (its on page 2 of the thread if anyone wants so see it): you had 9 good plays, 4 neutral, and 2 bad. i counted 6 good, 5 bad, and 4 neutral i'm not saying my analysis was 100% correct, but if anyone would like to go to page 2 and read my post, i would love to read a critique.
Tells me all I need to know. I don't see how you can take his criteria(plays are either good/bad/neutral) and extrapolate it against the same sample(or a smaller portion of it) and come up with substantially different results. Edit: The fact that his score was 9 good, 4 neutral, 2 bad and yours was 6 good, 4 neutral, and 5 bad shows your slant. A driving layup is a good play, a missed layup should be no lower than a neutral. The reason a difficult J is a bad play is the lack of chance at a foul. A driving layup has good chance at foul. Thats why it gets bumped up to much more preferred than a bad J. Course, the closeness factor helps too.
this was my response to your critique. If anyone disagrees with those points, feel free to tell me why. You never responded to it either, just like many of the other points I brought up when your opinion differed. Kind of a theme of this thread. You criticize-I respond-You don't respond but come up with other things to criticize
That poke in the eye was the first time I had seen it in that much open court not called. I know it goes uncalled down low, but its a lot more crowded and easy to miss.
Hockey assist is a good thing, but an indirect one in some sense, more or less. When this kind of indirect thing is counted for a good play, how about not running to a spot where one can receive a (hockey) pass and score? Or not setting up a screen for teammates so that they can get freed up? Things like this? Or not blocking his opponent and his opponent runs to an open spot and scored? You wont' even see quit a lot of such things as the play on TV can only cover that much. Again, I am not trying to argue on T-Mac's play. I didn't watch this game. I am trying to say that your analysis has its value, but you just can't claim it is objectivce. Lots of things are missing.
On the plays that I used as good plays and counted the "hockey assist" (as a good play), TMac was doubled. The double team caused him to pass the ball to the correct rotational player knowing that that person would IMMEDIATELY swing it to the next player who would be open. It's a good play on TMac's part. Of course the middle player deserves credit...he gets the assist. However, it was due to the double team and the correct pass. If TMac simply chose to try to shoot over the double team and missed the shot, it would have been considered a bad choice. He created the opening by being doubled and making the correct pass, and it led to a wide open look at the basket. It's a good play. I don't see how that can be argued. If he was doubled and passed it to someone who then kept the ball or dribbled it and no open shot was created b/c of the double team, he didn't get credit for a good play or a hockey assist.
I didnt think I needed to respond. But if you want, I will. According to you, the criteria for a bad shot includes bad shots and long/covered jumpers. Your criteria for a neutral shot is a missed field goal that is open and a good look. As such, all the contested layups he missed should be considered "bad" shots based on YOUR criteria. Its not a good shot b/c it wasnt made, and its not neutral b/c he wasnt open. Your "bad play" criteria may not explicitly say it was a bad play, but it doesnt say it wasnt. However, your "neutral" and "good" play criteria explicitly say his missed drives dont belong in either of them. Process of elimination says they're "bad" shots. I've already critiqued hockey assists. In one of your grades, you gave tmac a "good" b/c he passed out of a double team to rafer who drove to the basket and missed. In my opinion, thats just ridiculous to give tmac credit for that. He was fouled, but it wasnt called. You cant judge a game based on how you THINK the refs should've called. You can only judge it based on what happened. And what happened is that he turned the ball over b/c of an uncalled foul. And based on your criteria, turnovers are "bad plays"
We dont know the offense well enough to know if T-Mac was supposed to be in a spot to set a pick or he is hurting spacing. You can only go with what is there, not what isn't. Again, this is about the defensive end. its for those who think he is dominating the ball, taking bad shots, and not penetrating. Ya know, the most common offensive complaints about T-Mac. This does not pretend to speak to T-Mac's defensive play.
