New Mexico - Cincy on ESPN 2 now

[slubillikens43]

They didn't think BC would dominate them either

[AlphaOne]

oh boy here it comes. we had to endure the lobo fans pr!ck attitude last year and now they are back to tell us how superior they are again. stay on your own board. you dont see us on any lobo board telling lobofans how inferior they are do you?

Little touchy there, aren't we? I think you're reading way too much into my post.

I have nothing but respect for the Billikens and your program, and expressed as much if you actually read what I said. My response was addressing something weird one of your own fans said about how our guards were going to get "eaten alive" by yours when there's really no merit to that at all.

[billikenfan05]

Little touchy there, aren't we? I think you're reading way too much into my post.

I have nothing but respect for the Billikens and your program, and expressed as much if you actually read what I said. My response was addressing something weird one of your own fans said about how our guards were going to get "eaten alive" by yours when there's really no merit to that at all.

I read exactly what you wrote. Your tone was the the exact opposite of what you actually said.

[billiken_roy]

Little touchy there, aren't we? I think you're reading way too much into my post.

I have nothing but respect for the Billikens and your program, and expressed as much if you actually read what I said. My response was addressing something weird one of your own fans said about how our guards were going to get "eaten alive" by yours when there's really no merit to that at all.

[AlphaOne]

You guys are a sensitive bunch. I thought Lobo fans were insecure.

[dlarry]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="billiken_roy" data-cid="333739" data-time="1356807011"><p>

<br />

oh boy here it comes. we had to endure the lobo fans pr!ck attitude last year and now they are back to tell us how superior they are again. stay on your own board. you dont see us on any lobo board telling lobofans how inferior they are do you?</p></blockquote>

Personally I like when posters from opposing teams boards post here and I don't think he was being a dick just stating an opinion.

They usually have good observations about their team and a little give and take can be fun.

lighten up and try to have some fun.

[majerus mojo]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="billiken_roy" data-cid="333739" data-time="1356807011"><p>

<br />

oh boy here it comes. we had to endure the lobo fans pr!ck attitude last year and now they are back to tell us how superior they are again. stay on your own board. you dont see us on any lobo board telling lobofans how inferior they are do you?</p></blockquote>

Personally I like when posters from opposing teams boards post here and I don't think he was being a dick just stating an opinion.

They usually have good observations about their team and a little give and take can be fun.

lighten up and try to have some fun.

+1

I would also be 'offended' at 2:37 am (granted, he's probably not on central time) if someone said they were going to eat OUR guards alive on a foreign board, and he makes a reasonable point re: the players they've already handled.

That being said........ our guards are better than yours. Leggo.

[For-DaLove]

+1

I would also be 'offended' at 2:37 am (granted, he's probably not on central time) if someone said they were going to eat OUR guards alive on a foreign board, and he makes a reasonable point re: the players they've already handled.

That being said........ our guards are better than yours. Leggo.

[Billboy1]

Lobos become part of the Bills' payback tour!

[HowlTime]

+1

I would also be 'offended' at 2:37 am (granted, he's probably not on central time) if someone said they were going to eat OUR guards alive on a foreign board, and he makes a reasonable point re: the players they've already handled.

That being said........ our guards are better than yours. Leggo.

Your guards are very good, but better than UNM's? I really don't think so. I've seen both teams play this year and I expect a good hard fought game but really New Mexico does have the better guards. And better post. That said, it's extremely hard to win on the road in college basketball. Good luck Billikens (whatever that is)...

[JohnnyJumpUp]

Latest from Tom Timmermann on NYE game.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/slu/slu-looks-for-signature-win-against-new-mexico/article_fe7d9cdb-4af4-531b-b202-2fda312d56a3.html

Notes both team are two of five teams with two guards listed as candidates for the Cousy Award, going to the nation's top point guard.

Also of note,

"Crews was an assistant at Indiana for two of Steve Alford's seasons there, though Crews said his relationship is tighter with Alford's wife, Tanya"

[jimbofive]

Your guards are very good, but better than UNM's? I really don't think so. I've seen both teams play this year and I expect a good hard fought game but really New Mexico does have the better guards. And better post. That said, it's extremely hard to win on the road in college basketball. Good luck Billikens (whatever that is)...

stats breakdown. your top 3 guards (williams, snell and greenwood) vs our top 3 guards (mitchell, mccall, jett) through the first 14 and 12 games of the season, respectively. mitchell just came back from injury, so i took his last 12 games of last season (against tough conference foes and memphis and michigan state in the tournament, no less)

FG%

SLU: 145-303 (.479)

NM: 144-356 (.404)

WINNER: SLU, by a LOT

3FG%

SLU: 56-132 (.424)

NM: 56-163 (.344)

WINNER: SLU, by a LOT

FT%

SLU: 68-97 (.701)

NM: 134-167 (.802)

WINNER: NM, by a LOT

REB

SLU: 8.9/g

NM: 11/g

WINNER: NM

AST

SLU: 11.3/g

NM: 10.1/g

WINNER: SLU

A/T

SLU: 11.3 to 6/g (1.88:1)

NM: 10.1 to 5.5/g (1.83:1)

WINNER: SLU by a bit

STL

SLU: 3.7/g

NM: 2.8/g

WINNER: SLU

PTS

SLU: 34.5/g

NM: 34.1/g

WINNER: SLU by a bit

yep. our guards are better than yours at everything but FTs (you won't take nearly as many on the road) and rebounding. our guards score more points than yours while taking fewer shots from the field. and ours are more experienced. and i'll bet they're faster. and better defenders. etc. etc.

dominated.

[majerus mojo]

Dammit, HowlTime, I'm drunk, and you made your post look so positively unbiased (better than "UNMs" --c'mon refer to your guards as OURS, you sally, I've seen both team play, etc.) that I thougth your handle made you out to be some lame ass Temple fan who really wasn't biased. Shame on me.

jimbo did my work for me ^^^. and HowlTime is still a pretty ***** handle. unless it's like, "It's Howl Time, B!tches!", because MAYBE I could get behind that.

and billiken is spanish for COME GET SOME. Look it up.

[Lobodog]

These are great stats and I, for one, appreciate the effort by you to research this. However, I think you need to take into account the strength of each of our schedules as well. I think yours was hovering around 75 or so, which is more than acceptable given how many teams there are. UNM's is around 10. So I think these stats can be and are in fact, affected by the teams we have each played. That being said...we are terrible shooters. I just can't figure that out. Anyhow...good luck and here's to an injury free game.

stats breakdown. your top 3 guards (williams, snell and greenwood) vs our top 3 guards (mitchell, mccall, jett) through the first 14 and 12 games of the season, respectively. mitchell just came back from injury, so i took his last 12 games of last season (against tough conference foes and memphis and michigan state in the tournament, no less)

FG%

SLU: 145-303 (.479)
NM: 144-356 (.404)

WINNER: SLU, by a LOT

3FG%

SLU: 56-132 (.424)
NM: 56-163 (.344)

WINNER: SLU, by a LOT

FT%

SLU: 68-97 (.701)
NM: 134-167 (.802)

WINNER: NM, by a LOT

REB

SLU: 8.9/g
NM: 11/g

WINNER: NM

AST

SLU: 11.3/g
NM: 10.1/g

WINNER: SLU

A/T

SLU: 11.3 to 6/g (1.88:1)
NM: 10.1 to 5.5/g (1.83:1)

WINNER: SLU by a bit

STL

SLU: 3.7/g
NM: 2.8/g

WINNER: SLU

PTS

SLU: 34.5/g
NM: 34.1/g

WINNER: SLU by a bit

yep. our guards are better than yours at everything but FTs (you won't take nearly as many on the road) and rebounding. our guards score more points than yours while taking fewer shots from the field. and ours are more experienced. and i'll bet they're faster. and better defenders. etc. etc.

dominated.

[kwyjibo]

Yes, but someone (kwyjibo?) should run an expected-value analysis given that we only hit one of the two penalty free throws.

My thought has always been that is unnecessarily conservative to not go for offensive rebounds on FTs. The practice of not bothering to try for a rebound of course started when you did not need points and could be extended to situations where you were particularly averse to fouls but did not make intuitive sense to me.

I wanted to look at the expected value of not putting rebounders on the lane for an offensive FT. I have never done the expected-value calculation Bonwich suggests and I have no particular access to in game stats (this kind of question is right up Basketball Prospectus' alley). That said I can try a little back of the envelope analysis.

Benefits:

-Rebound .0356 pts = .28 (SLU miss pct) * .12 (rebound best) * 1.06 (estimate from expected FG pct after FT)

-Foul .002 to .005 pts

Costs:

-Violation on made FT .0056 = .72 (SLU made pct) * .008 (I have no stat on this but it seems you should avoid; number possibly higher)

-Foul .0131 = .29 ( there is a chance of fouling on a made FT but it cannot more than 1%) * .05 (foul chance; this number may be higher but you should be able to coach to this number) * .9 (the expected points per foul has to be less than this but I wanted to factor in some possible negative consequences later in the game like bonus and foul trouble)

Total benefits = .358 pts

Total costs = .187 pts

My conclusion is that it is likely poor strategy not to put people in place on offensive FT. Better numbers would help but the expectation of fouling has to be so high in order to keep people away that teaching them not to foul seems better.

[bonwich]

My thought has always been that is unnecessarily conservative to not go for offensive rebounds on FTs. The practice of not bothering to try for a rebound of course started when you did not need points and could be extended to situations where you were particularly averse to fouls but did not make intuitive sense to me.

I wanted to look at the expected value of not putting rebounders on the lane for an offensive FT. I have never done the expected-value calculation Bonwich suggests and I have no particular access to in game stats (this kind of question is right up Basketball Prospectus' alley). That said I can try a little back of the envelope analysis.

Benefits:

-Rebound .0356 pts = .28 (SLU miss pct) * .12 (rebound best) * 1.06 (estimate from expected FG pct after FT)

-Foul .002 to .005 pts

Costs:

-Violation on made FT .0056 = .72 (SLU made pct) * .008 (I have no stat on this but it seems you should avoid; number possibly higher)

-Foul .0131 = .29 ( there is a chance of fouling on a made FT but it cannot more than 1%) * .05 (foul chance; this number may be higher but you should be able to coach to this number) * .9 (the expected points per foul has to be less than this but I wanted to factor in some possible negative consequences later in the game like bonus and foul trouble)

Total benefits = .358 pts

Total costs = .187 pts

My conclusion is that it is likely poor strategy not to put people in place on offensive FT. Better numbers would help but the expectation of fouling has to be so high in order to keep people away that teaching them not to foul seems better.

My bordered Hessians salute you, sir.

[booyaa87]

Lobo fan here. We've gone up against back courts that have included Shabazz Napier, Ryan Boatright, Cashmere Wright, and Sean Kilpatrick. We've done just fine against them, in some cases even dominating those guards, and somehow Saint Louis' guards are supposed to eat ours alive? Huh?

Not here to talk smack or start a flame war, I just thought that this comment was pretty absurd.

This is going to be a super tough game though, no doubt. You're getting your stud player back, and that should make things even more difficult for us. We are going to have to bring it to go into your place and get a win. Looking forward to a highly contested, gritty match between two solid basketball teams.

Seems like our guards ate UNM alive. Who would have thought? Oh, wait.