Page 1 of 1

Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:38 am
by Mr. Neutral
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sport ... _0320.html

It's fair, but certainly points out the FT numbers for each team.

Re: Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:36 am
by muskieman
The answer for the fouls is:

first at the end of the games 12 free throws of the total were taken because they committed 6 intentional fouls.

Second if they would have stopped fouling like the elbow thrown a number of times and the pushing they might not have had that many. Therefore you want less fouls then don't make them. Few were not obvious and Bliss's calls when you go back and look at them they are clearly fouls and they didn't call about 2 or 3 on him.

Re: Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:41 am
by Mr. Neutral
mm, as always, your points are well taken, but as I've said elsewhere, if X had lost 73-61 and there was a 33-5 FT advantage in favor of Georgia, we'd be complaining about that, I'm absolutely sure.

Re: Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:00 am
by muskieman
I guess we could play the "if game" all the time. If X makes that basket when they were up in the first minutes of the game maybe UGA wouldn't have gotten a break out and two points which started them on a run.

Re: Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:05 am
by Mr. Neutral
mm, as I'm sure I've posted before, in litigation, there's a truism that says you're not ready to go to trial unless and until you can argue the other guy's case as well or better than your own. That should be applied everywhere.

When looking at yesterday's result, or any game result, you've got (1) the Xavier viewpoint, (2) the opponent's viewpoint, and (3) what a disinterested observer would have to say about it.

We seem to be better at the first than the last two, generally.

Re: Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:35 am
by xavierj
Mr. Neutral wrote:http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sport ... _0320.html

It's fair, but certainly points out the FT numbers for each team.
For the year Georgia averaged 21 fouls a game, yesterday they were whistled for 22 with 6 coming in the last 2 minutes. Maybe they just play aggressive and foul a lot. But don't expect people to let facts get in the way.

Re: Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:46 am
by somebody
xavierj wrote: But don't expect people to let facts get in the way.
Never seems to be a problem here! :roll: And thanks for that factoid which I found interesting.

Re: Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:00 pm
by Mr. Neutral
Before yesterday, our opponents averaged over 17 FT's a game. Yesterday, they got 5, which is the least for a Xavier opponent since Delaware State on 12/28. Our last 6 opponents have averaged 19.8 FTA's a game. More facts.

We earned a lot of those fouls, but we caught a break on some others, probably more so than did Georgia.

Re: Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:13 pm
by xavierj
I agree that Xavier got a few breaks especially on the Bliss dunk which could have been an and one, but Georgia has shown all year they play rough and tend to foul a bunch. So them getting called for 22 fouls was not out of the norm for them. But because they are limited that is how they have to play in order to have a chance. If Xavier would not have missed 8 layups no one would be talking about the foul issues because it would have been a non factor.

Re: Atl. newspaper game story

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:18 pm
by Mr. Neutral
All good points, j, and I'm not saying that Georgia lost this game because of bad foul calls. I'm just saying that the discrepancy jumps out at you, and your interpretation of the discrepancy is colored by how it affected you.

We say it's justified, and a result of how GA plays. That's because we're on the 33 side.

The GA people say the calls were one-sided and were a big factor in their losing. That's because they're on the 5 side.

If the numbers were reversed, my guess is we wouldn't be so matter-of-fact about the disparity.