Pitino bans twitter for players, blames self for players being scared

Donate To GopherHole
Gopher Warrior said:
Bleed has it figured out.

So many people take what a coach is saying at face value and gospel. A lot of times it's just words. Many others, it means something else.

In this particular case, I believe Pitino is just worried about focus. His team has taken some mental turds on the court. He believes he can reduce distractions and hopefully improve player focus in certain ways, including getting players off Twitter.

I'd also recommend (a) stop worrying about free throws - it's a non-issue and (b) play your best players (e.g., EE's low minutes represent a coaching error if the goal is to win basketball games).
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you can watch basketball games for any length of time and conclude that free throws don't matter. How many you shoot is totally a factor of attacking the rim. How many the other team shoots is a factoring of you fouling people...how you play defense...keeping them out of the lane etc And how many you make has a major impact on your total points in a game. How many you make in the last four minutes is often the only strategy factor in whether you win or lose. For instance the difference between being up 4 or up 2 because you missed the front end of a one and one is a major factor in the outcome. Same is true down 2 or down 4 and on and on. How can free throws not matter? It is a MAJOR box score indicator of how you played the game and who won.

You either don't watch the games and just read statistics or EE is a relative because you can't be watching him play. He did play very well versus Penn St (for EE) but that might have been the first time this year. And you obviously dismiss the free throws the other team shoots on his fouls or getting closer to the bonus (curious, is that unimportant to? getting to the bonus?) and you dismiss EE factor in making free throws too?
 

60's Guy said:
I have no idea how you can watch basketball games for any length of time and conclude that free throws don't matter. How many you shoot is totally a factor of attacking the rim. How many the other team shoots is a factoring of you fouling people...how you play defense...keeping them out of the lane etc And how many you make has a major impact on your total points in a game. How many you make in the last four minutes is often the only strategy factor in whether you win or lose. For instance the difference between being up 4 or up 2 because you missed the front end of a one and one is a major factor in the outcome. Same is true down 2 or down 4 and on and on. How can free throws not matter? It is a MAJOR box score indicator of how you played the game and who won.

You either don't watch the games and just read statistics or EE is a relative because you can't be watching him play. He did play very well versus Penn St (for EE) but that might have been the first time this year. And you obviously dismiss the free throws the other team shoots on his fouls or getting closer to the bonus (curious, is that unimportant to? getting to the bonus?) and you dismiss EE factor in making free throws too?
Click to expand...

Get a grip. "stop worrying about free throws" was in reference to Pitino wasting time in practice on them, blowing airhorns and such. As I've always said, free throw percentage is almost irrelevant to winning basketball games. It's fact. Sorry you're unable to accept it.

Eliason needs more minutes. It may require creativity.

Pitino has been going too deep on his bench and to the wrong places.
 

watertown 1987 guy n said:
Your comments are silly. Technology is a part of 2015, but it doesn't mean it has to be blindly accepted without limits. Saying technology is part of the time so "just accept it" would be ridiculous for some one to the say the same thing to a high school kid that is bullied in social media or an online preditor that convesses websites for young kids to pray on - glad to see there is some common sense when people step in an manage it!

What is common knowledge is that there are a whole bunch of idiots out there that say ridiculous things to a phone or computer screen that they would not say to the face of a human being. And if some of those people would actual say it to a persons face, all the more reason that a coach should halt any interaction with thoughtless jokers.

To your last point, I don't know if it will make a diffence since I don't know if it has had a negative impact; however, its obvious that teens in general are impacted by what thier peers say about them - heard of anyone commiting sucide becasue of it. Good for Patino, hope it helps some.
Click to expand...

You just compared fans ripping on players online to child predators & linked it to suicides. You go take a timeout now.
 

Zeppelin Gopher said:
Wait, really? The level of vitriol and negativity here is miniscule compared to other highly successful programs. Twitter and fan interaction with players is just a part of playing D1 college ball in 2015.

I really doubt that banning Twitter will have any effect whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Most of these kids love the attention they get from the fan bases. That's part of the draw. That's why they have Twitter accounts. It's why they allow older guys they've never met to follow their day to day activities and thoughts. They want to be acknowledged as big time athletes, they want the schollie, the girls, the prestige and recognition. With that, comes criticism when you don't play as hard or well as you could have. Our fanbase is incredibly mild compared to other schools. If a few Twitter cracks or frustrated posts at GH shake them up, how will they ever handle pressure situations in an actual game or a real job after basketball is done?
 



Gopher Warrior said:
As I've always said, free throw percentage is almost irrelevant to winning basketball games. It's fact. Sorry you're unable to accept it.

Eliason needs more minutes. It may require creativity.

Pitino has been going too deep on his bench and to the wrong places.
Click to expand...

OK, I agree that he should stop playing Bakary instead of Elliot (he may have decided that on his own). I'd like to know the empirical basis for your contention that free throw shooting is irrelevant.

I did a easy spreadsheet calculation to produce the average 2 point, 3 point, and free throw TEAM percentages for all D1 teams in college basketball this season so far. The averages (expressed as decimals) are as follows:

Free Throws: .689
3 Pointers: .341
2 pointers: .483

That means that 2 free throw attempts produce on average 1.38 points, 1 three point attempt produces on average 1.023 points, and 1 two point attempt produces on average .966 points. On average, the free throw attempt is the most productive shot of the three types (I realize that the most productive shot may be the two pointer right at the basket, but I don't have that data).

The difference between the free throw and the other two types of shots is the free throw isn't contested so your opponent can't do much to force you to shoot poorly. In the game at Lincoln, we shot poorly from the field overall but so did they (especially from 3 point range). However, their free throw shooting (66.7%) was close to the national team average and they had only two more attempts than us. The Gophers went 9-19 (47.4%). Had they made four more of their free throw attempts (which would have placed them at the national team average) they could have had four more points in a game that turned out to be a three point loss.

When you say things like 2 point percentage lost the game and free throw shooting was not important, then you appear to be, at best, a self-serving person who is just cherry picking one data point to support his theme (or, at worst, a dumb ass who doesn't even realize that he's doing that).
 

Here is why free throws have mattered to this team:

This team will work hard on the defensive end, maybe give up a defensive board & work tough through a few shot clocks, and then come down, get fouled, get nothing and go back on defense. Repeat this a few time and get discouraged. In my opinion, whether it should or shouldn't, in previous games these missed free throws contributed to defensive deflation and problems.
The big difference in yesterday's game from my perspective is that they stayed sharp on defense even when their shots weren't falling
When Mason hit both of his free throws, you could feel the tension ease. It gave a lift to the defense and renewed intensity.

To summarize: not being a good rebounding team and missing free throws has the cumulative affect of wearing down the defense.
 

cjbfbp said:
OK, I agree that he should stop playing Bakary instead of Elliot (he may have decided that on his own). I'd like to know the empirical basis for your contention that free throw shooting is irrelevant. I did a easy spreadsheet calculation to produce the average 2 point, 3 point, and free throw TEAM percentages for all D1 teams in college basketball this season so far. The averages (expressed as decimals) are as follows: Free Throws: .689 3 Pointers: .341 2 pointers: .483 That means that 2 free throw attempts produce on average 1.38 points, 1 three point attempt produces on average 1.023 points, and 1 two point attempt produces on average .966 points. On average, the free throw attempt is the most productive shot of the three types (I realize that the most productive shot may be the two pointer right at the basket, but I don't have that data). The difference between the free throw and the other two types of shots is the free throw isn't contested so your opponent can't do much to force you to shoot poorly. In the game at Lincoln, we shot poorly from the field overall but so did they (especially from 3 point range). However, their free throw shooting (66.7%) was close to the national team average and they had only two more attempts than us. The Gophers went 9-19 (47.4%). Had they made four more of their free throw attempts (which would have placed them at the national team average) they could have had four more points in a game that turned out to be a three point loss. When you say things like 2 point percentage lost the game and free throw shooting was not important, then you appear to be, at best, a self-serving person who is just cherry picking one data point to support his theme (or, at worst, a dumb ass who doesn't even realize that he's doing that).
Click to expand...

You're not really proving anything against GW's point. You should be comparing the Gopher's 65.5% FT shooting team to the average 68.9% FT team. There also far more FG attempts per game than FT attempts. With your methodology, cut that number of FT attempts in half since you are assuming 2 attempts.

By your method of analysis, that's 1.31 points per 2 attempts verse the league average 1.38 points. That's a minuscule difference if attempts are equal.

Where I think FT% does matter is in protecting leads late in a game when no other offensive stat matters if you're not given the opportunity.
 

Gold Vision said:
You're not really proving anything against GW's point. You should be comparing the Gopher's 65.5% FT shooting team to the average 68.9% FT team. You also don't always get 2 attempts, so you're kind of making up a stat.

By your method of analysis, that's 1.31 points per 2 attempts verse the league average 1.38 points. That's a minuscule difference if attempts are equal.

Where I think FT% does matter is in protecting leads late in a game when no other offensive stat matters if you're not given the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did compare the Gopher's free throw shooting to the national average. I said if they would have shot at about the national average (which isn't much above their own team average), they would have had four more points in the Nebraska game.

I listed two free throw attempts as the equivalent of one field goal attempt in determining average points per shot. There is no other way to compare them. When true shooting percentage is computed, they do the same, as they must (I'm not making up a stat here). Furthermore, it matters more how a team does on the overall set of free throws in a game than it does on any particular attempt (even figuring in the front end of one and ones).

"By your method of analysis, that's 1.31 points per 2 attempts verse the league average 1.38 points. That's a minuscule difference if attempts are equal."

But that isn't what I said. You don't play a game against the league average and a team's free throw percentage isn't a static number. What I said was that if they shot free throws at the national average completion rate (or even their own average) they would have had three or four more points in the Nebraska game. They had 19 free throw attempts and missed 10 of them.

I think I refuted GW's point fairly well, but I don't think you really read my argument before you jumped to criticize it.
 



cjbfbp said:
Actually, I did compare the Gopher's free throw shooting to the national average. I said if they would have shot at about the national average (which isn't much above their own team average), they would have had four more points in the Nebraska game. I listed two free throw attempts as the equivalent of one field goal attempt in determining average points per shot. There is no other way to compare them. When true shooting percentage is computed, they do the same, as they must (I'm not making up a stat here). Furthermore, it matters more how a team does on the overall set of free throws in a game than it does on any particular attempt (even figuring in the front end of one and ones). "By your method of analysis, that's 1.31 points per 2 attempts verse the league average 1.38 points. That's a minuscule difference if attempts are equal." But that isn't what I said. You don't play a game against the league average and a team's free throw percentage isn't a static number. What I said was that if they shot free throws at the national average completion rate (or even their own average) they would have had three or four more points in the Nebraska game. They had 19 free throw attempts and missed 10 of them. I think I refuted GW's point fairly well, but I don't think you really read my argument before you jumped to criticize it.
Click to expand...

Ugh. I had a nice long response typed up on my phone and lost it.

Too summarize it, your analysis does not look at all at attempts. Gophers only attempted 2 free throws 9.5 times. In comparison, Gophers shot 25% on 32 2PT attempts in that same Nebraska game. How many more points would they have scored if they shot the national average for 2pt's? I'm guessing more than 4.

When looking at a game from 10,000 feet (not at certain situations) FT% is never that important in showing how the game was won or lost. In any given game eFG% is way more important.
 

Gold Vision said:
Ugh. I had a nice long response typed up on my phone and lost it.

Too summarize it, your analysis does not look at all at attempts. Gophers only attempted 2 free throws 9.5 times. In comparison, Gophers shot 25% on 32 2PT attempts in that same Nebraska game. How many more points would they have scored if they shot the national average for 2pt's? I'm guessing more than 4.

When looking at a game from 10,000 feet (not at certain situations) FT% is never that important in showing how the game was won or lost. In any given game eFG% is way more important.
Click to expand...

Let's keep it simple. Score more points= win more games. Make more free throws (yes that increases FT%) = score more points. Therefore make more more free throws (and have a higher free throw percentage) wins more games.
 

bga1 said:
Let's keep it simple. Score more points= win more games. Make more free throws (yes that increases FT%) = score more points. Therefore make more more free throws (and have a higher free throw percentage) wins more games.
Click to expand...

Agreed, those 4 points proved costly. This team doesn't do enough to overcome weaknesses.

I was just pointing out that the argument put out does nothing to refute GW's theory that FT% doesn't mean much compared to many other scoring statistics.

In that Nebraska game in particular, FT% was not even close to the biggest factor why we lost though.
 

What CJB's original stat shows is how important it is to get to the line. Not so much the 5-10% swing in FT percentage.
 




station19 said:
There's only one factor that matters in regards to wins and losses. Score more points than the other team. How do you get there? It's a combination of many factors and they are mostly pointed out by stats. I could list them but I won't......Free throws is definitely one of them. No one stat determines the outcome of the game. Saying FTs don't matter is ludicrous...............Even if GW mentioned it that one time.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I can't believe I'm sticking up for the guy, but GW never said FT's don't matter. He said FT percentage means very little.

If you want to ignore what stats play the biggest factor in a game, that's fine. These aren't difficult concepts, there are a lot more points to be had from the field than from the stripe.
 

bga1 said:
Let's keep it simple. Score more points= win more games. Make more free throws (yes that increases FT%) = score more points. Therefore make more more free throws (and have a higher free throw percentage) wins more games.
Click to expand...

Gold Vision said:
Agreed, those 4 points proved costly. This team doesn't do enough to overcome weaknesses.

I was just pointing out that the argument put out does nothing to refute GW's theory that FT% doesn't mean much compared to many other scoring statistics.

In that Nebraska game in particular, FT% was not even close to the biggest factor why we lost though.
Click to expand...

There's only one factor that matters in regards to wins and losses. Score more points than the other team.

How do you get there?
It's a combination of many factors and there are stats to point the efficiency of those factors.
I could list them but I won't......Free throw shooting is definitely one of them.

No one stat determines the outcome of every game.

Saying FTs don't matter is ludicrous...............Even if GW mentioned it that one time.:rolleyes:
 

19, thank you for hopefully bringing the FT% maniacal discussion to a too-late of an ending.

We need a talkers' anonymous branch for GH... On and On Anon.
 

Gold Vision said:
Ugh. I had a nice long response typed up on my phone and lost it.

Too summarize it, your analysis does not look at all at attempts. Gophers only attempted 2 free throws 9.5 times. In comparison, Gophers shot 25% on 32 2PT attempts in that same Nebraska game. How many more points would they have scored if they shot the national average for 2pt's? I'm guessing more than 4.

When looking at a game from 10,000 feet (not at certain situations) FT% is never that important in showing how the game was won or lost. In any given game eFG% is way more important.
Click to expand...

You seem to be arguing against a different person. Do you see anything in any of my posts stating that 2 point field goal percentage, or 2 point field goal attempts missed, or any other significant dimension of the game is not important? I'll skip you the trouble of rereading them and just tell you - no, of course I didn't say anything like that. I would not say something as nonsensical as that whereas GW appears perfectly capable to doing just that when he has said on multiple occasions that free throw shooting isn't important and even goes as far as saying it's irrelevant. From your second to last line, you appear almost willing to believe him.

What I did say, however, is that free throw shooting is the highest percentage shot, is the most controllable by you alone, and is the least susceptible to good or bad defense by your opponent (I suppose really rugged defense and/or fast pace can tire or frustrate one which might have an effect on free throw shooting percentage).

Nebraska was playing in the same brutal defensive game we were. They shot better from the field overall than us but we compensated for that by hitting more threes. Each team shot the number of field goals that the defense allowed in the game and their completion rates were also heavily influenced by the defense. What's relevant is that both teams got a similar (and fairly high) number of free throw attempts but Nebraska made theirs at an acceptable rate and we did not.
 


Dr.Don said:
19, thank you for hopefully bringing the FT% maniacal discussion to a too-late of an ending.

We need a talkers' anonymous branch for GH... On and On Anon.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think you're just insecure because you don't seem to be able to contribute anything other than asking people to predict the score and incessant gripes about your petty annoyances.
 

cjbfbp said:
Personally, I think you're just insecure because you don't seem to be able to contribute anything other than asking people to predict the score and incessant gripes about your petty annoyances.
Click to expand...

100% spot on! Something we agree on!!
 

cjbfbp said:
Personally, I think you're just insecure because you don't seem to be able to contribute anything other than asking people to predict the score and incessant gripes about your petty annoyances.
Click to expand...

Be careful or Donny will sick his GH Gestapo on you.
 

cjbfbp said:
Personally, I think you're just insecure because you don't seem to be able to contribute anything other than asking people to predict the score and incessant gripes about your petty annoyances.
Click to expand...

Who wouldn't be insecure with all of the experts here.
 

cjbfbp said:
You seem to be arguing against a different person. Do you see anything in any of my posts stating that 2 point field goal percentage, or 2 point field goal attempts missed, or any other significant dimension of the game is not important? I'll skip you the trouble of rereading them and just tell you - no, of course I didn't say anything like that. I would not say something as nonsensical as that whereas GW appears perfectly capable to doing just that when he has said on multiple occasions that free throw shooting isn't important and even goes as far as saying it's irrelevant. From your second to last line, you appear almost willing to believe him. What I did say, however, is that free throw shooting is the highest percentage shot, is the most controllable by you alone, and is the least susceptible to good or bad defense by your opponent (I suppose really rugged defense and/or fast pace can tire or frustrate one which might have an effect on free throw shooting percentage). Nebraska was playing in the same brutal defensive game we were. They shot better from the field overall than us but we compensated for that by hitting more threes. Each team shot the number of field goals that the defense allowed in the game and their completion rates were also heavily influenced by the defense. What's relevant is that both teams got a similar (and fairly high) number of free throw attempts but Nebraska made theirs at an acceptable rate and we did not.
Click to expand...

"cjbfbp said:
When you say things like 2 point percentage lost the game and free throw shooting was not important, then you appear to be, at best, a self-serving person who is just cherry picking one data point to support his theme (or, at worst, a dumb ass who doesn't even realize that he's doing that).
Click to expand...

I was responding to your original statistics and the quoted statement.

In the Nebraska game you use an example, our worst FT percentage game of the year, the deviation from the national average cost us 4 points.

In that same game, by shooting 25% from 2PT range, we left 15 points on the board by shooting below the national average.

On average, we leave less than 1 point per game on the board do to our below average FT percentage.
 



Pitino definitely did the right thing by instituting that twitter ban. Want a primary example? Look up the name Eric Boogaard on twitter. This guy is a so-called Gopher WBB fan who ranges from calling the WBB players some INCREDIBLY derogatory terms (beyond belief) on twitter, to tweeting that he hopes a Northwestern player gets run over by a car. There are many psychos like him on twitter, and it's best if the players stay away from that stuff.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Cj - sorry you're having trouble understanding this. Maybe one day you'll understand a little better.

Glad you brought up Nebraska (1st game). Had the Gophers shot just under the d1 avg they would have scored another 14.

http://latenighthoops.com/minnesotas-2fg-dooms-nebraska/#.VM675IpOLCQ
Click to expand...

How I interpret Gopher Warrior's article is that the game should not come down to free throw shooting to win the games. A team like the gophers should exert there energy focusing on the things they have the most control over which is converting baskets when they have an offensive posession. In the first game against Nebraska they didn't do that and was ultimately the reason we lost the game..

I agree with this philosophy. We need to button up our game to where we keep our turnover percentage down, we increase our efficiency in offensive possession by playing in control. Our games should not need to come down to free throws to win the game. Second Nebraska game is a nice example of that. Extremely high offensive efficiency with way less posessions. Our pace was unusually low and traditionally in such a low PACE game we have lost this year.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom