purdue.rivals.com
Fantastic game for him like you said with one turnover. Considering how long he has the ball in his control is truly amazing.
and Heide, they both contributed
Its not even close yes Braden is the best PG of the Painter tenure unless you consider Carsen a pg which I don't. He is the 3rd best guard already that Painter has ever had only behind Moore and Carsen.
I wouldn't put yesterday's game anywhere near the rock right category like the Tennessee game was. I wouldn't call it that at all. Were they physical? Sure, but not in any kind of dirty way. I thought Robbie was exaggerating. I thought the refs were a non-factor, a couple calls either way that looked potentially bad.
I suppose It's a counter measurement to those who claim he contributed nothing. Can't take that seriously, either.
I have no idea why he brought it up in press conference. Using +/- to either prop up a player, or to put them down loses steam for me because the measure is so misleading in both directions.
yes, if you play a lot on a losing team you very easily can have a negative number. If you play a lot on a winning team you very easily can get a positive number. However, if you play a little and your team makes a run you can get a positive number or the other team makes a run you get the negative. We all know this. If somebody on Alabama played the exact same time as Ethan he got a negative 17. It just says that when Ethan was playing Purdue's group did better than Alabama did during Ethan's minutes. How much was due to Ethan? Coaches will review the game and have an opinion. On the surface the numbers may be confusing from game to game or player to player as you said. It can be an indicator of things that are not normally gathered in the data that led to positive play.
I don't either.
It isn't just Matt, the other coaches have an understanding of what Ethan does better than others and what he doesn't do better or do worse. These coaches watch a lot of video and I say coaches, because when they are together they bounce things off each other. You now have 2 people that have worked the defense for a few years working D for Purdue. You have PJ (but no doubt Sasha gives his opinion outside the games) with Matt overlooking all, but probably much more engaged on Offense. Players strengths and weaknesses are shared in the coaching meetings. Can they be wrong...sure, but this is a full time job for all and they not only have the interest, but the time to try to make an informed decision. If something doesn't work another something might be worse and not automatically better
I see a pretty quick guy working his *** off to stay in front of QUICKER guys (mostly) and doing an admirable job of it most of the time.
It's useless for a one game analysis. This game is the perfect example of that. That's why it is so weird that CMP would choose to use that when describing how well Morton played. As I said before, he could have used several examples of Morton's play to explain why he thought he played well. No argument there from me. But as soon as you try to use +/- to make your point either negative or positive when evaluating 1 game, it loses credibility.
yep...the numbers alone for one game tell nothing by themselves. They could, but don't automatically do so just due to the fuzzy math.
