Jumping the Gun

[Nebrasketballer]

Sort of in keeping with the quality statements already made by hhcscott and other posters, what players do the "Gallegos should not start" camp view as proven, consistent forces, and upon what high major D-1 evidence are those opinions based?

By that logic, people shouldn't expect Biggs, Petteway, or Pitchford to start.  What are they thinking?!  And those players have at least some college experience... What does that say about Fuller, Hawkins, Webster?  They have even less college experience than Biggs, Petteway, and Pitchford. People better not think that they can work their way into a starting role... 

 

How much "high major D-1 evidence" did Shields have on tape before this season?  Just curious, because that's obviously a prerequisite...

[Nebrasketballer]

Well from what I could tell from watching games this year his job was to shoot and shoot a lot.

 

So I think that would cut down on both  turnovers and assists because he was shooting more than passing.

 

I think he didn't drive because he couldn't.  Either because of lack of skill to do so or by design. JMHO

This

[Nebrasketballer]

Gallegos had 40 assists, 46 steals and only 30 turnovers.

 

Talley, for comparison's sake, had 81 assists, 30 steals and 71 turnovers.

 

I'm sure KenPom can turn those stats into points for comparison, but Gallegos' 46 steals took a bunch of potential points away from our opponents and gave us chances to score.  The turnovers deprive us of points and give our opponents the opportunity to score.  So, Talley is responsible for -41 possessions on the season and Gallegous is responsible for +16 possessions.

 

If each team scores on half of its possessions, then Talley cost us 82 points with his steal-turnover numbers and Gallegos gave us 32 extra points with his.  That changes the outcome of a few games on the season.

 

What about the lost possessions due to missed 3-pointers? It's nice to point out all the points he scored as you did earlier in the thread, but if you shoot enough, you should score. It's pretty simple. But let's be honest, if Talley were returning this season, he would see a big decrease in minutes, ball-handling duties and scoring. This isn't just a Gallegos issue. Ubel, now he'd still be locked into a huge role. I really wish we had him for another season.

 

But I really don't want to turn this into a thread bashing Gallegos, because he's a valuable player. But it's completely in the eye of the beholder. Some people say he missed shots because he played a lot of minutes and was one of only a few threats. There's a lot of merit to that.

 

But I see a very limited player who has one real skill -- shooting. Maybe he can be more efficient and raise those percentages to around 40 percent from the field and 37 percent from 3. A guy like Gallegos, in my humble opinion, could thrive in a bench role where he comes in as the designated gunner where we run him around a bunch of screens and hopefully he hits a 3 or two while our starters catch a breather. If he's having one of his on-fire days, then we ride him.

 

I really like having an explosive shooter off the bench to help carry the second unit. I truly don't look at this like it's a demotion. I just think he fits better in that role.

I pretty much agree with this entire post

[Nebrasketballer]

To be it's about percentages, not point totals.

 

I mean what would you prefer from a starting QB?  Going 18 for 30 passing, or going 13 of 18 passing?  The QB going 18 for 30 would more than likely have more passing yards, simply because of more passing attempts.

 

Going 18 for 30 means that there were 12 incomplete passing attempts that took away carries from the RB.  Going 13 of 18 means that there were only 5 incomplete passing attempts that took carries away from the RB.  Like I said, to me it's about percentages, not total points.

[Norm Peterson]

OK, he was player of the game only 11 times on the season and, as Nebrasketballer points out, that only takes into consideration those 11 games.

 

Ray scored in double figures in 21 games.  He scored 8 or 9 points in 4 additional games.  So, he scored 8 or more points in 25 total contests and 7 or fewer points in only 8 games.  He had 46 steals (including 31 in conference games) yet only fouled out once the whole season.  And, in 20 conference games (including the B1G Tournament) only had 20 turnovers.  Which is about 1 turnover for every 39 minutes of playing time.  Add his assists and steals together compared to his turnovers and he's way ahead.

 

He lead the team in steals and had 50% more steals than the next closest player and twice as many as the guy in third place for steals.  He had fewer turnovers than any regular starter other than David Rivers (less than half the turnovers that Dylan Talley had) and had more rebounds than Andre Almeida.

 

So, yes, I agree.  The eleven "player of the game awards" doesn't tell the whole story.

 

I'm not in the "Ray won't start camp." I think Ray will undoubtedly start to open the season. I am in the "Ray won't start if we're going to be very good/if these "new" players are as good as we hope camp." On a good team, Ray is a role player. He averaged just over a steal per game, and I would grade him as an average to slightly above average defender. I would grade him as a better shooter than the numbers suggest (I think most would) but he is a spot-up shooter. He cannot create off the dribble, and his accuracy drops significantly running off screens (as is the case for most spot-up shooters).

 

His turnovers are low because he's not asked to handle the ball and doesn't pass very much. There were numerous occasions we had a 2 on 1 break and Ray took and missed a bad shot when he should have passed - not necessarily because he's selfish, but because he's a subpar ball handler/passer.

 

I would be pleasantly surprised if Ray is not starting in conference play. To me, it hinges on how good Petteway and Webster are. I think Biggs starts at point to start the year. Pitchford and Shields are likely starters. I would consider those 4 I(including Ray) locks for the start of the season (unless Biggs is suspended. Also - haven't seen much of Smit - going off of what I've heard). If Petteway and Webster are as good as we hope, they should supplant Ray by conference play.

I agree with 10 here.  Ray isn't all world but he's not all bad either.  I don't necessarily think he plays lots of minutes this year, that's not my point.  My point is that he ain't chopped liver, either.  He did significantly more good for us this year than harm.  And it does a bit of dis-service to Ray to merely look at his 3 pt % and essentially say he's no good as a player.  He brings a lot to the table besides what he does on offense as his team-leading steals numbers suggest.

 

Having said that, I agree with 10 that, if these new guys are as good as we hope, they're going to take a bunch of those 39 minutes Ray played per game last year and perhaps even take away some of his starts.

[atskooc]

To be it's about percentages, not point totals.

 

I mean what would you prefer from a starting QB?  Going 18 for 30 passing, or going 13 of 18 passing?  The QB going 18 for 30 would more than likely have more passing yards, simply because of more passing attempts.

 

Going 18 for 30 means that there were 12 incomplete passing attempts that took away carries from the RB.  Going 13 of 18 means that there were only 5 incomplete passing attempts that took carries away from the RB.  Like I said, to me it's about percentages, not total points.

Removed for inability to distinguish simple numbers.

[hhcscott]

To be it's about percentages, not point totals.

 

I mean what would you prefer from a starting QB?  Going 18 for 30 passing, or going 13 of 18 passing?  The QB going 18 for 30 would more than likely have more passing yards, simply because of more passing attempts.

 

Going 18 for 30 means that there were 12 incomplete passing attempts that took away carries from the RB.  Going 13 of 18 means that there were only 5 incomplete passing attempts that took carries away from the RB.  Like I said, to me it's about percentages, not total points.

Umm...what?  Since when do quarterbacks get passing yards for incompletions?

I think he's saying 18 completions is more than 14 in his example.

 

However, since Gallegos is about scoring, not yardage, the number in the hypothetical should be 18 for 30 with 4 touchdowns versus 14 for 18 with 2 touchdowns. Now maybe the RB and kicker pick up the slack for the 14 of 18 guy but if they don't, my "volume passer" is getting more points on the board.

[atskooc]

 

To be it's about percentages, not point totals.

 

I mean what would you prefer from a starting QB?  Going 18 for 30 passing, or going 13 of 18 passing?  The QB going 18 for 30 would more than likely have more passing yards, simply because of more passing attempts.

 

Going 18 for 30 means that there were 12 incomplete passing attempts that took away carries from the RB.  Going 13 of 18 means that there were only 5 incomplete passing attempts that took carries away from the RB.  Like I said, to me it's about percentages, not total points.

Umm...what?  Since when do quarterbacks get passing yards for incompletions?

I think he's saying 18 completions is more than 14 in his example.

 

However, since Gallegos is about scoring, not yardage, the number in the hypothetical should be 18 for 30 with 4 touchdowns versus 14 for 18 with 2 touchdowns. Now maybe the RB and kicker pick up the slack for the 14 of 18 guy but if they don't, my "volume passer" is getting more points on the board.

Crap!  For some reason I read it as 13-for-30 and 13-for-18.  Oops!!!!!

[hhcscott]

 

 

To be it's about percentages, not point totals.

 

I mean what would you prefer from a starting QB?  Going 18 for 30 passing, or going 13 of 18 passing?  The QB going 18 for 30 would more than likely have more passing yards, simply because of more passing attempts.

 

Going 18 for 30 means that there were 12 incomplete passing attempts that took away carries from the RB.  Going 13 of 18 means that there were only 5 incomplete passing attempts that took carries away from the RB.  Like I said, to me it's about percentages, not total points.

Umm...what?  Since when do quarterbacks get passing yards for incompletions?

I think he's saying 18 completions is more than 14 in his example.

 

However, since Gallegos is about scoring, not yardage, the number in the hypothetical should be 18 for 30 with 4 touchdowns versus 14 for 18 with 2 touchdowns. Now maybe the RB and kicker pick up the slack for the 14 of 18 guy but if they don't, my "volume passer" is getting more points on the board.

Crap!  For some reason I read it as 13-for-30 and 13-for-18.  Oops!!!!!

I misread it too, using 14 instead of 13.

[nustudent]

 

Bench player?:

"2012-2013 PLAYER OF THE GAME RESULTS:

RAY GALLEGOS - 11

DYLAN TALLEY - 10

BRANDON UBEL - 7

SHAVON SHIELDS - 4

DAVID RIVERS - 3

ANDRE ALMEIDA - 1

JORDAN TYRANCE - 1"

This means very little.

It's a shame you feel that way.

You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?

Look, I think Gallegos will start next season.   HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will.

[nustudent]

 

 

Bench player?:

"2012-2013 PLAYER OF THE GAME RESULTS:

RAY GALLEGOS - 11

DYLAN TALLEY - 10

BRANDON UBEL - 7

SHAVON SHIELDS - 4

DAVID RIVERS - 3

ANDRE ALMEIDA - 1

JORDAN TYRANCE - 1"

This means very little.

+1

It only takes into consideration the 11 games. It doesn't illustrate the many games that he couldn't buy a bucket. Wildly inconsistent.

But that's the point. Everyone in that list was inconsistent. Talley's numbers weren't All-B1G either, Ubel had great nights and nights he was overmatched. Everyone, me included, likes this Shields kids, but he and Rivers were hit or miss all season. Gallegos had more nights where he was the top contributor. If everyone returning steps up their game and any of the newcomers are as advertised, Gallegos may have more time and space to work with. On 11 nights last season, he was the best Husker on the floor. I think he has best chance to build on that success with more talent drawing defensive attention.

Real debateable that he had more nights where he was the biggest contributor.   And as Norm mentioned...it doesn't account for how bad Rey was in his off nights. 

[nustudent]

Sort of in keeping with the quality statements already made by hhcscott and other posters, what players do the "Gallegos should not start" camp view as proven, consistent forces, and upon what high major D-1 evidence are those opinions based?

I don't see too many people saying he should not start so much as they are saying he isn't a lock to start.

 

There's no one out there that has 'proven' they deserve to start over Rey in terms of game situations.  But Rey also hasn't proven to be good enough that we couldn't replace his contributions either.

 

Rey is getting a lot of run for playing a lot of minutes.   And it's safe to say that the volume of minutes he played had more to do with our roster situation that he fell into and Miles was a victim of than Rey's actual talent

[hhcmatt]

To be it's about percentages, not point totals.

 

I mean what would you prefer from a starting QB?  Going 18 for 30 passing, or going 13 of 18 passing?  The QB going 18 for 30 would more than likely have more passing yards, simply because of more passing attempts.

 

Going 18 for 30 means that there were 12 incomplete passing attempts that took away carries from the RB.  Going 13 of 18 means that there were only 5 incomplete passing attempts that took carries away from the RB.  Like I said, to me it's about percentages, not total points.

 

Not exactly.

30% from 3 point range > 40% from 2 point range

What you really want is effective FG% which accounts for the addition point given by a 3pt shot.

 

 

via kenpom.com

 

Effective field goal percentage is like regular field goal percentage except that it gives 50% more credit for made three-pointers.

eFG% = (.5*3FGM + FGM) / FGA

[hhcscott]

 

 

Bench player?:

"2012-2013 PLAYER OF THE GAME RESULTS:

RAY GALLEGOS - 11

DYLAN TALLEY - 10

BRANDON UBEL - 7

SHAVON SHIELDS - 4

DAVID RIVERS - 3

ANDRE ALMEIDA - 1

JORDAN TYRANCE - 1"

This means very little.

It's a shame you feel that way.

You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?

Look, I think Gallegos will start next season.   HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will.

 

Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options.

 

Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up.

[nustudent]

 

 

 

Bench player?:

"2012-2013 PLAYER OF THE GAME RESULTS:

RAY GALLEGOS - 11

DYLAN TALLEY - 10

BRANDON UBEL - 7

SHAVON SHIELDS - 4

DAVID RIVERS - 3

ANDRE ALMEIDA - 1

JORDAN TYRANCE - 1"

This means very little.

It's a shame you feel that way.

You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?

Look, I think Gallegos will start next season.   HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will.

 

Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options.

 

Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up.

Thank you for proving my point with the top paragraph.   If Gallegos starts next year it's because Miles feels he's the best we have...not because he won 11 Player of the Game trophys on a message board.  Winning 11 POTG awards isn't going to help him in practice when he's competing. 

 

It's not unfortunate.   It's just the way it is.  There's nothing wrong with random guy having opinions on who the player of the game is.  That's all it is.  An opinion from random people.   It's no more valid than if I did one or if Norm did or if CWG did one.  And I'm just saying...trying to use those opinions to justify a starting position isn't exactly the best way to go about it. 

[hhcscott]

Bench player?:

"2012-2013 PLAYER OF THE GAME RESULTS:

RAY GALLEGOS - 11

DYLAN TALLEY - 10

BRANDON UBEL - 7

SHAVON SHIELDS - 4

DAVID RIVERS - 3

ANDRE ALMEIDA - 1

JORDAN TYRANCE - 1"

This means very little.

It's a shame you feel that way.

You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?

Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will.

Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options.

Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up.

Thank you for proving my point with the top paragraph. If Gallegos starts next year it's because Miles feels he's the best we have...not because he won 11 Player of the Game trophys on a message board. Winning 11 POTG awards isn't going to help him in practice when he's competing.

It's not unfortunate. It's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with random guy having opinions on who the player of the game is. That's all it is. An opinion from random people. It's no more valid than if I did one or if Norm did or if CWG did one. And I'm just saying...trying to use those opinions to justify a starting position isn't exactly the best way to go about it.

Nobody proved your point, unless you are granting me status above "random guy." My opinion is mine yours is yours. We come together to discuss them. What I like is when folks present their views and reasons so I can understand their perspective rather than add one dismissive line to the commentary, but that's just my opinion.

[Silverbacked1]

Bravo Scott.

[nustudent]

 

 

 

 

 

Bench player?:

"2012-2013 PLAYER OF THE GAME RESULTS:

RAY GALLEGOS - 11

DYLAN TALLEY - 10

BRANDON UBEL - 7

SHAVON SHIELDS - 4

DAVID RIVERS - 3

ANDRE ALMEIDA - 1

JORDAN TYRANCE - 1"

This means very little.

It's a shame you feel that way.

You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?

Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will.

Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options.

Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up.

Thank you for proving my point with the top paragraph. If Gallegos starts next year it's because Miles feels he's the best we have...not because he won 11 Player of the Game trophys on a message board. Winning 11 POTG awards isn't going to help him in practice when he's competing.

It's not unfortunate. It's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with random guy having opinions on who the player of the game is. That's all it is. An opinion from random people. It's no more valid than if I did one or if Norm did or if CWG did one. And I'm just saying...trying to use those opinions to justify a starting position isn't exactly the best way to go about it.

Nobody proved your point, unless you are granting me status above "random guy." My opinion is mine yours is yours. We come together to discuss them. What I like is when folks present their views and reasons so I can understand their perspective rather than add one dismissive line to the commentary, but that's just my opinion.

What if one's view can be expriessed by one dismissive line.

[hhcscott]

Bench player?:

"2012-2013 PLAYER OF THE GAME RESULTS:

RAY GALLEGOS - 11

DYLAN TALLEY - 10

BRANDON UBEL - 7

SHAVON SHIELDS - 4

DAVID RIVERS - 3

ANDRE ALMEIDA - 1

JORDAN TYRANCE - 1"

This means very little.

It's a shame you feel that way.

You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?

Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will.

Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options.

Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up.

Thank you for proving my point with the top paragraph. If Gallegos starts next year it's because Miles feels he's the best we have...not because he won 11 Player of the Game trophys on a message board. Winning 11 POTG awards isn't going to help him in practice when he's competing.

It's not unfortunate. It's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with random guy having opinions on who the player of the game is. That's all it is. An opinion from random people. It's no more valid than if I did one or if Norm did or if CWG did one. And I'm just saying...trying to use those opinions to justify a starting position isn't exactly the best way to go about it.

Nobody proved your point, unless you are granting me status above "random guy." My opinion is mine yours is yours. We come together to discuss them. What I like is when folks present their views and reasons so I can understand their perspective rather than add one dismissive line to the commentary, but that's just my opinion.

What if one's view can be expriessed by one dismissive line.

Then you win the Internet.

[Daledangdarn]

 

 

 

 

 

Bench player?:

"2012-2013 PLAYER OF THE GAME RESULTS:

RAY GALLEGOS - 11

DYLAN TALLEY - 10

BRANDON UBEL - 7

SHAVON SHIELDS - 4

DAVID RIVERS - 3

ANDRE ALMEIDA - 1

JORDAN TYRANCE - 1"

This means very little.

It's a shame you feel that way.

You mean an unscientific opinionated poll for players of the game by a random guy on a message board should be used to justify a player's starting for the coming season?

Look, I think Gallegos will start next season. HHC's Player of the Game totals is about the last reason why I think he will.

Nope. A coach's evaluation of his team's contributors and roles should be used for that, and since Coach Miles did not seem to have a problem with the number/quality of shots Gallegos was taking, since he almost never left the floor, I'm guessing it was Coach's call to use him that way. Look forward to more consistent production next year when there are other options.

Unfortunately "unscientific and opinionated" are the domain of sports and sports bulletin boards in general. There is no absolute scientific formula to know who was the most important contributor in a given game even with all the analytics in vogue today. Maybe Gallegos scored 20+ points not because he shot the ball or even because of who fed him the ball, but because of how one player set really solid screens in that game that made all the shots have that extra nanosecond to be perfect. Maybe that guy should have been player of the game, but if roles were reversed and Ray set the screens, would anonymous screener have been the MVP? Part of science is observation. HHC staff observed Gallegos as being the top contributor in 11 games. The only way to check it would be to replay those 11 without him and see if anyone else stepped up.

Thank you for proving my point with the top paragraph. If Gallegos starts next year it's because Miles feels he's the best we have...not because he won 11 Player of the Game trophys on a message board. Winning 11 POTG awards isn't going to help him in practice when he's competing.

It's not unfortunate. It's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with random guy having opinions on who the player of the game is. That's all it is. An opinion from random people. It's no more valid than if I did one or if Norm did or if CWG did one. And I'm just saying...trying to use those opinions to justify a starting position isn't exactly the best way to go about it.

Nobody proved your point, unless you are granting me status above "random guy." My opinion is mine yours is yours. We come together to discuss them. What I like is when folks present their views and reasons so I can understand their perspective rather than add one dismissive line to the commentary, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Silverbacked1]

Gee can we tell that the weather is for shit and there is nothing else to do but get on here and try to tell other people that they are wrong because they have a different view?

But that is just my opinion.

[Norm Peterson]

Gee can we tell that the weather is for shit and there is nothing else to do but get on here and try to tell other people that they are wrong because they have a different view?

But that is just my opinion.

The hell you say.  This is golfing weather. 

[Nebrasketballer]

To be it's about percentages, not point totals.

 

I mean what would you prefer from a starting QB?  Going 18 for 30 passing, or going 13 of 18 passing?  The QB going 18 for 30 would more than likely have more passing yards, simply because of more passing attempts.

 

Going 18 for 30 means that there were 12 incomplete passing attempts that took away carries from the RB.  Going 13 of 18 means that there were only 5 incomplete passing attempts that took carries away from the RB.  Like I said, to me it's about percentages, not total points.

Removed for inability to distinguish simple numbers.

What?  I don't even know what your post means.

 

What I was saying is:

Would you want your QB to go 18 of 30 passing (18 completions, 30 attempts), or 13 of 18 passing (13 completions, 18 attempts).  While it is very likely that the QB that goes 18 of 30 in this scenario (18 completions, 30 attempts) will end up with more passing yards, simply because he has more attempts, doesn't mean that he was as effective/efficient as the QB that went 13 of 18 passing (13 completions, 18 attempts).  While the QB with a higher number of attempts will probably have a higher total number of yards in this scenario, it was also at the cost of production from other players on his team (ie failed attempts, missed shots, incomplete passes).  The QB with the higher number of attempts in this scenario also had a much higher number of incompletions.  He was less effective/efficient.  The QB with the higher number of attempts also threw 12 incompletions, while the other QB only threw 5 incomplete passes.  So, the QB with the higher number of attempts also had the higher number of plays that he didn't allow for potential production from his teammates. 

 

To me this is like basketball.  It's not about point totals, it's about the ratio of shots taken/shots made.  It's a percentage.  And the 3-PT% of Gallegos in Big Ten play was less than .300.  He shot 130 more 3's than any other player on the team, so obviously, he had more points.  But while taking 130 more 3's than anyone else on the team, he also missed many more shots than anyone else.  That is how he can score more points than other players, while his 3-PT% is lower (less than .300)  I'm not as impressed with a guy that scores a few more points, when he also shoots 130 more 3's than anyone else on the team.

[Nebrasketballer]

 

To be it's about percentages, not point totals.

 

I mean what would you prefer from a starting QB?  Going 18 for 30 passing, or going 13 of 18 passing?  The QB going 18 for 30 would more than likely have more passing yards, simply because of more passing attempts.

 

Going 18 for 30 means that there were 12 incomplete passing attempts that took away carries from the RB.  Going 13 of 18 means that there were only 5 incomplete passing attempts that took carries away from the RB.  Like I said, to me it's about percentages, not total points.

Umm...what?  Since when do quarterbacks get passing yards for incompletions?

I think he's saying 18 completions is more than 14 in his example.

 

However, since Gallegos is about scoring, not yardage, the number in the hypothetical should be 18 for 30 with 4 touchdowns versus 14 for 18 with 2 touchdowns. Now maybe the RB and kicker pick up the slack for the 14 of 18 guy but if they don't, my "volume passer" is getting more points on the board.

I would say that Gallegos is about the number of shots made in comparison to the number of shots attempted.  Which is why I keep saying percentages.

[Nebrasketballer]

P.S. I'm not trying to be combative or start crap with people.  Not sure how things I post are perceived sometimes, but that's not my intent, so I just wanted to throw that out there.

 

Also, I'm not saying that I think that Gallegos sucks.  I just think that you want a starting SG to be more consistent.  I think that if there is a player that can play SG and is more consistent, then that player will probably start ahead of Gallegos.  That doesn't mean that I think Gallegos will be riding the bench the entire game, it just means that I think he will start the game on the bench and then come into the game a few minutes after the opening tip.  I also think that if Gallegos is having one of his games where he can't miss a shot, then he will probably stay in longer, so Nebraska can ride the hot hand. 

 

This entire scenario is assuming that Nebraska will have many more options in terms of players that can score.  And that they will have an option at SG that will be able to score at a higher percentage of shots attempted/ shots made.  That is what I think is the case, so that is the assumption I make when I post things about my thoughts on whether or not Gallegos will start.