Early Season Statistics that will make you fist pump . . .

[sonofdaxjones]

31 for 60 from the line . . . 51%.

Must be those 3 hour pre-game practices . . . just wait til Frank cracks open the free throw playbook.

[sonofdaxjones]

Nearly 41% from beyond the arc though . . . 

[sonofdaxjones]

Plus 12 on the glass . . .  

[sonofdaxjones]

Opponents only .5:1 assist to turnover ratio.

[Benja]

Nearly 41% from beyond the arc though . . . 

This is pretty big. Minus Dom + some more shooters/shooters getting more minutes = perhaps less junkyardy (although ft % thus far wouldn't suggest it) but overall more skilled team.

More shooters, could, COULD, mean less chance of losing ridiculous games (i.e. Iowa State) when one of your precious few shooters has an off night.

Could we be looking at more consistently "on" k-state QATZ ball team this year?

[j-von]

Nearly 41% from beyond the arc though . . . 

This is pretty big.

Figure in that our offensive rebounding should be great when CK gets back in and it's like, we're pretty much unstoppable 

[MakeItRain]

Opponents only .5:1 assist to turnover ratio.

This is an amazing stat

[kougar24]

Opponents only .5:1 assist to turnover ratio.

JYC exemplified.

[Cire]

60 FT's

[sonofdaxjones]

Of 400 total player minutes, season to date . . . 9.8% done by Seniors.

46.5% or so done by Frosh/Sophs

[CHONGS]

Opponents only .5:1 assist to turnover ratio.

Why the hell would you write it like that?
1:2 is clearer no?

[sonofdaxjones]

Opponents only .5:1 assist to turnover ratio.

Why the hell would you write it like that?
1:2 is clearer no?

 

[fatty fat fat]

Opponents only .5:1 assist to turnover ratio.

Why the hell would you write it like that?
1:2 is clearer no?

yeah, kind of like when u r determining empirical formula.

[The Whale]

Of 400 total player minutes, season to date . . . 9.8% done by Seniors.

46.5% or so done by Frosh/Sophs

This stat is incredible. 

[CHONGS]

Opponents only .5:1 assist to turnover ratio.

Why the hell would you write it like that?
1:2 is clearer no?

yeah, kind of like when u r determining empirical formula.

YES exactly. 

[chum1]

i don't see how one is any more difficult to read than the other. 

[AlwaysEMAW]

i don't see how one is any more difficult to read than the other. 

I read it as 5:1 first and was like 

[CHONGS]

i don't see how one is any more difficult to read than the other. 

In the same way .142857:1 seems "clunkier" than 1:7. I just something I noticed.  CARRY ON.

[chum1]

I read it as 5:1 first and was like 

you mean 1:.2?

In the same way .142857:1 seems "clunkier" than 1:7.

if anything is clunky, it's trying to use natural numbers whenever possible.

[CHONGS]

I read it as 5:1 first and was like 

you mean 1:.2?

In the same way .142857:1 seems "clunkier" than 1:7.

if anything is clunky, it's trying to use natural numbers whenever possible.

Well don't use a fraction then? (I think I am willing to fight with fists over this)

[chum1]

Well don't use a fraction then?

best idea yet.

[CHONGS]

[WillieWatanabe]

Kansas State is now 27-0 when holding opponents to less than 60 points under head coach Frank Martin.

[AzCat]

31 for 60 from the line . . . 51%.

Biggest  :powerespect: talking point ever.

[swish1]

31 for 60 from the line . . . 51%.

Biggest  :powerespect: talking point ever.

exactly.  just ask memphis how unimportant free throws are...