Your conclusion is unfounded.
Posted on: September 23, 2016 at 18:48:17 CT
tiger4real MU
Posts:
17594
Member For:
24.02 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
It's as if you eye-balled the numbers with no frame of reference and they looked negative to you, so you believed that to be true. Well, it's not.
I broke down the last 3 years, based on your data. You presented 17 categories - I threw one out - Fouls - I didn't know if that was a good number or bad number, and to what degree.
I categorized into 4 levels,
ELITE (top 15%)
Top Half (16-50%)
Below Average (next 15%)
Poor (bottom 35%)
So, 16 categories, here is how Kim Anderson-coached teams ranked.
2013-14
ELITE: 9 categories (56%)
Top Half: 3 (19%)
Below Avg: 3
Poor: 1 (FT% -- guess they were fortunate the Championship didn't matter)
2012-13
ELITE: 4 (25%)
Top Half: 10 (63%)
Below Avg: 2
Poor: 0
2011-2012
ELITE: 4 (25%)
Top Half: 11(69%)
Below Avg: 1
Poor: 0
My conclusion- based on these numbers (and of course W-L record which you failed to mention) -- Kim Anderson teams during this era were very good vs their peers. Excellent in fact. Comprehensive,
85% of the categories you displayed, the Mules were in the top half. And other than 1 year, 1 category - FT% - they didn't have a statistical weakness. ZERO in the bottom 35%.
Your numbers, in the end, actually gave me more confidence in our future with Kim Anderson. Winning basketball is coming, much sooner than people think. So thank you!!
Edited by tiger4real at 18:53:55 on 09/23/16