mrsixer123
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,283
|
Post by mrsixer123 on Feb 21, 2008 9:20:18 GMT -5
1. Yes, absolutely. 2. And I have a hard time understanding on how a slow down style of play and limiting possessions would be the main reason for the team being #1 in the country in shooting percentage defense. The team is #1 in the country in shooting percentage defense, because it is the best half court defense in the country. Period. Yeah, I'm not sure what mr. sixer's point is here. How we play on offense has almost nothing to do with our defensive field goal percentage. I guess the fact that we don't really press conceivably reduces our turnovers forced and boosts our defensive field goal percentage (fewer layups after beating the press), but there are plenty of terrific defensive teams in college today that don't press much -- and they all let opponents shoot better from the field. Hell, the Mourning and Mutombo teams didn't press much either and played at a slow pace -- yet they all allowed opponents to shoot better from the floor. My point is, the pace of our O does not allow teams to function as they normally would via fast breaks, quick hitters, etc b/c we normally shoot the ball deep in the shot clock. As a result, teams get frustrated and take bad shots with limited attempts This philosophy is the same used by princeton when pete c was running the show. He dictated the tempo of the game, and as a result teams rarely scored their normal points per game and fg%. In fact, the princeton D ranked very high in some of the same categories as this team
|
|
|
Post by jerseyshorehoya on Feb 21, 2008 9:24:26 GMT -5
[quote author=mrsixer123 board=general thread=15371 post=222741 time=1203603618
My point is, the pace of our O does not allow teams to function as they normally would via fast breaks, quick hitters, etc b/c we normally shoot the ball deep in the shot clock. As a result, teams get frustrated and take bad shots with limited attempts [/quote]
I don't know if we are agreeing or disagreeing here, but this is one of the reasons why I believe this is arguably the best defensive team in the history of the school. The FG% is more astounding when you think of the trouble the team was having early on the year on the defensive glass, as second opportunities usually lead to easy putbacks.
|
|
mrsixer123
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,283
|
Post by mrsixer123 on Feb 21, 2008 9:35:28 GMT -5
[quote author=mrsixer123 board=general thread=15371 post=222741 time=1203603618 My point is, the pace of our O does not allow teams to function as they normally would via fast breaks, quick hitters, etc b/c we normally shoot the ball deep in the shot clock. As a result, teams get frustrated and take bad shots with limited attemptsI don't know if we are agreeing or disagreeing here, but this is one of the reasons why I believe this is arguably the best defensive team in the history of the school. The FG% is more astounding when you think of the trouble the team was having early on the year on the defensive glass, as second opportunities usually lead to easy putbacks.[/quote] I hear you, but would you consider princeton as having some of the greatest defensive teams in the country as they too held teams scoring and fg % in route to be ranked very high in these categories.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Feb 21, 2008 11:29:35 GMT -5
I agree with whoever said before that it doesn't matter if we aren't as talented as last years team because it isn't last year. We don't have to fact last years team or any of the same teams they did. Last years team wasn't incredibly talented either, in fact most of the teams they beat were more talented then them. Please list all those more talented teams that Gtown just happened to beat last year. Pitt? UConn? Louisville? St John's? Cincy? Vanderbilt? Boston College? Old Dominion...., no, wait, the Hoyas lost to them. And then explain your measurement for rating talent. The only one I would possibly concede is UNC and even that isn't as sure a thing as some might think. Do we measure talent by high school accolades? If that's the case THIS team has three McDAAs and four Jordan All Americans. And that's not even including Roy. That should make them one of the top ten talented teams in the nation even though Chris Wright is out with an injury. Right? Do we measure talent by how many players end up in the pros? If so we have to wait before we can judge all of the teams from this season. That wait could be for years. Or do we judge talent by how well those players do in the pros? If that's the case then we'll need another ten years to make a truly thorough analysis. This team isn't clicking like last year's but its talent isn't its major problem. 95% of the teams would love to have the talent on this squad and that's perhaps a conservative estimate. Personally I agree with you, this team does have a lot of talent and enough talent to win it all. But I was responding to someone that said we couldn't be as good as last year because we don't have as much talent as last year, so I was trying pointout that we weren't as talented as some of the teams we beat but we were still better teams. UNC is one team that I think is more talented that we were last year, and many people would consider Uconn and Louisville having more raw talent than we did, although I don't really agree with that. I wasn't trying to say that we weren't talented, even though it came off that way, just that it doesn't matter because talent doesn't win games, although it does help.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Feb 21, 2008 11:30:36 GMT -5
yes, i don't see why you wouldn't? how else do you measure defense if not by FG% and points scored? Just cause it doesn't fit your notion doesn't mean they're not great defensive teams. Keeping teams to a low FG% and low scoring out put is the definition of good defense. Just because they're not forcing tons of turnovers or getting steals does not mean they're not a good defensive team.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Feb 21, 2008 11:34:08 GMT -5
I don't know if we are agreeing or disagreeing here, but this is one of the reasons why I believe this is arguably the best defensive team in the history of the school. The FG% is more astounding when you think of the trouble the team was having early on the year on the defensive glass, as second opportunities usually lead to easy putbacks. I hear you, but would you consider princeton as having some of the greatest defensive teams in the country as they too held teams scoring and fg % in route to be ranked very high in these categories. Yes in the sense that it gets the job done, frustrating the other team can be just as effective as steals and blocks. However the good thing about our d is that we do both, we frustrate the other team and we are able to deny penetration and Roy alters a lot of shots.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Feb 21, 2008 12:00:29 GMT -5
For those saying a slow down pace doesn't factor into the equation--that is wrong. If you limit possessions in a game and opposing team shoots what they normally do in a game--their ppg will be down no matter what. If they press a bit due to slower pace and miss more shots--then you appear to be a better defensive team then you are. That said, this year's Hoya team is III's best defensive team in halfcourt. They play well and do an excellent job of switching--but that also leads to some easy hoops/putbacks because it's not as big of a team as he's had in past. The "too many choir boys" stuff is likely based on some little things--like seeing Hoyas getting touch fouls and not hammering anyone when they drive the lane, not being strong with ball, Roy going up for layups/touch shots instead of throwing it down, and that is just Pops being grumpy--and reality. I think once Crawford was inserted the team intensity/approach turned up a notch and on both ends. Hibbert played his most assertive/aggressive ball on each end of the season--and as many have stated--his steal when going man up top of key was highlight of the run for me. Loved his left handed blocked shot as well. I'd just like to see more of what Patrick did against pressure with throwdown--because having Roy in frontcourt--he's a tremendous passer--you can play give and go with Roy and 9/10 times it ends up in a basket/FTs due to being fouled and at worst a high percentage shot that is missed which I can live with due to the aggressiveness. Thing is--when you are Pops or old school Hoya fan--and see a perfect break executed--Austin's pass to Summers in First Half and ball is slapped out of hand of Dajuan who should be carrying that guy to rim with him and throwing down on entire city of Providence in process---it's not what you are accustomed to seeing. In response to Pops--I'd say at least Dajuan got stripped and didn't miss the layup/dunk like we've seen from DayJack, Rhese, Jameel, etc.....so let's not get too far back in the time machine of Hoya basketball. BTW, loved the ally oop from Rivers to Summers on the break--that was great basketball and despite going a bit too deep with ball--Sapp's pass to Summers for the "And 1" was nice--albeit wiped out by a terrible call from Kitts. One thing I don't understand about Hoyas approach--when they play more aggressive--they not only are successful offensively--they win. When they focus on taking good looks and not getting to particular about the shot attempt--they relax/play better offense--as we saw in 2nd Half against Cuse and Providence. Next step is to bring that approach to every game and not have lulls in the approach. You won't make shots in certain games-and are bound to lose some, but missed good shots are better then not taking any.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,591
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 21, 2008 12:19:59 GMT -5
I did not hear the original comments the thread is premised upon, but to me the common thread in the 4 games the Hoyas have lost this year has been the inability to take a figurative punch. Each team that has beaten them has put a run on them during which they have been too passive / loose with the ball. The coach cited the fact that they were getting the ball to the spots they wanted in the first half against SU (the corner and the top of the key) and then not executing (read "turning it over"). In my eyes, that is the mainly the toughness they've lacked although I agree with RDF that almost all the players could take the ball stronger to the basket and finish better.
Stirring the pot is one of the things the radio broadcasting Thompson has always done best.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyshorehoya on Feb 21, 2008 12:43:45 GMT -5
For those saying a slow down pace doesn't factor into the equation--that is wrong. Of course it factors into PPG, but I still don't believe that a slow down pace factors into FG% defense. In this post, you reference the teams propensity to give up "easy putbacks". Shouldn't that factor into FG% defense. As I referenced earlier, that makes the FG% defense even more remarkable. Perhaps there aren't as many "easy baskets" as you perceive. Following your train of thought, the teams that take the most shots should lead in the country in FG% on offense because they have the most opportunities. It isn't the case. In fact, Georgetown gives up an average of 54.8 shots per game, which is right in the middle of the pack in shots allowed among D1 teams (155th out of 341). They are the only team to allow less than 20 FGM per game. That is good defense. chicagosports.sportsdirectinc.com/basketball/ncaab-statistics.aspx?page=/data/ncaab/statistics/2007-2008/defense_fgpct.html
|
|
hoyafoeva
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 750
|
Post by hoyafoeva on Feb 21, 2008 13:08:10 GMT -5
Bring out the white uni's...just kidding, actually I like them especially when I got sit up front and watch, I had no problem with the white uni's they did look fresh...I'm just having fun guys and gals, that's all...WE ARE GEORGETOWN!!!
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Feb 21, 2008 13:19:16 GMT -5
For those saying a slow down pace doesn't factor into the equation--that is wrong. Of course it factors into PPG, but I still don't believe that a slow down pace factors into FG% defense. In this post, you reference the teams propensity to give up "easy putbacks". Shouldn't that factor into FG% defense. As I referenced earlier, that makes the FG% defense even more remarkable. Perhaps there aren't as many "easy baskets" as you perceive. Following your train of thought, the teams that take the most shots should lead in the country in FG% on offense because they have the most opportunities. It isn't the case. In fact, Georgetown gives up an average of 54.8 shots per game, which is right in the middle of the pack in shots allowed among D1 teams (155th out of 341). They are the only team to allow less than 20 FGM per game. That is good defense. chicagosports.sportsdirectinc.com/basketball/ncaab-statistics.aspx?page=/data/ncaab/statistics/2007-2008/defense_fgpct.htmlI said the Hoyas have a great defense this year--read the damn post before you respond. I'm just saying teams who slow the pace-that factors into the statistical analysis. Did anyone really think of Princeton as a great defensive team when they watched them play? I didn't. They were a well coached team, but they slowed the pace, which they had to in order to compete against better talent, and it was masked as "great defense". That isn't great defense. As I mentioned--the Hoyas defense has been best III has had--and best team has had in a longtime--they dig in and get after it. Where is that being critical of the defense? To point out they get caught in bad switches is reality--they often give up some easy hoops when you run pick and roll or Roy gets caught up high/hedging-you'll see a big dive to rim and Austin Freeman back to "protect the basket", which results in a dunk/layup. They were murdered on offensive glass numerous times this year due to the same thing. Is there a stat for that? Watching how the game is played tells far more then stastical analysis. Is it a coincedence that a struggling Hoya offense has scored more points since getting up more FGA's in the 2nd Half of Cuse game and entire Providence game? They only scored 68 pts against Friars--but they got up 65 field goal attempts--which means you give yourself more margin for error and if they were playing as we'd seen the past 3 weeks--they'd have lost that Providence game, simply due to having about 20-25 LESS field goal attempts, and a style of play that doesn't get you to the FT line that much--which Hoyas didn't shoot well from against Friars. Stats are a small part of the story of a game. You can shoot 70% from the field for all I care. If you only take 30-35 shots in a game, and opposing team is getting up 75 attempts and getting to FT line more--you'll lose almost every game and keep inferior teams in games--see the Nova game.
|
|
VelvetElvis
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
pka MrPathetic
Posts: 934
|
Post by VelvetElvis on Feb 21, 2008 13:20:33 GMT -5
Bring out the white uni's...just kidding, actually I like them especially when I got sit up front and watch, I had no problem with the white uni's they did look fresh...I'm just having fun guys and gals, that's all...WE ARE GEORGETOWN!!! Way to take the wind of a decent conversation! Honestly, this pretty much confirms my suspicions regarding your intentions on this board. I am sure that you read, and probably commented on that stupid white uni discussion earlier in the season (fairfield?). Now you bring it back up in an attempt to rile up Hater Dude, Mr. Jealousy, Dumb Dude, et. al. (still waiting on my nickname, btw)! Why can't you just contribute to the discussion at hand??? You made relevant points earlier in this thread and b/c of lack of a life or hobby or whatever, you bring this ridiculous nonsense back up? PA---THETIC!
|
|
hoyafoeva
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 750
|
Post by hoyafoeva on Feb 21, 2008 13:21:56 GMT -5
I feel you RDF, you got a lot of guts telling that guy to "read the da__ post before you respond"...lollllllllllllllllllllllllll, man I have to chose my choice of words believe me, but I feel you man
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on Feb 21, 2008 13:24:54 GMT -5
"a lot of guts"?
It's an internet message board for gods sake
|
|
VelvetElvis
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
pka MrPathetic
Posts: 934
|
Post by VelvetElvis on Feb 21, 2008 13:26:33 GMT -5
similar to the guts it took to give his insider info about all of the underlying jealousy on this team!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,781
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 21, 2008 13:31:13 GMT -5
RDF,
While I agree stats don't always tell the whole story, I think your distaste for stats here is ill-founded.
The issue isn't stats -- or the idea that they "lie" -- it is that the stat used, FG % Defense, is being used as a proxy for "Overall Defense." That's a silly use of stats because it ignored turnovers, defensive rebounding and other things.
Statistically, the Hoyas' defense is very good, but the stats would say EXACTLY what you are saying: we defend shots well but sometimes fail to get the rebound and we don't force a lot of turnovers. So we're a real good defense, but we do seem to give up some things (forcing turnovers, offensive boards) in an attempt to contest shots.
There's certainly a lot more detail that can't be found in conventional stats -- like Roy getting lost on a pick and roll. But unconventional stats -- like the % of times Roy gets beat in that situation could. And stats won't track what doesn't happen -- i.e., if Roy doesn't show on that pick and roll, then we likely give up a lot more open jumpers.
So stats are far from perfect, but the issue here isn't that the stats are wrong, but maybe a bit overemphasis on one.
On offense, the stats pretty much back up what you have said as well. Declining overall efficiency across the board.
Where stats are useful is pointing out where people's perceptions sometimes get hung up on small things due to personal biases. For one, the biggest bias is the perception by EVERYONE to focus on offense more than defense when they are equal parts of the game. What I've seen very little talk of is how bad our defense was against Cuse (although some of that was bad offense turned to bad defense).
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Feb 21, 2008 13:46:32 GMT -5
Hoyas are a great halfcourt defensive team. I just find it funny that a team that holds opposing teams to high 30 percent range gets nothing out of it in terms of fastbreak points/cheap points--especially in games they are struggling to score. To be a championship team--you'll need to adjust to how games are played--and that is growth in program we've seen time to time. One area the Hoyas are weak--converting turnovers/stops into points. Rarely does GU get an easy hoop off of their great defense and that is difference between a great/good defensive team. A great defensive team will get stops/create offense with their defense--blow someone out of the game and then stats get skewed late as the reserves are playing when up by 30. So instead of holding teams to 35% shooting--they might give up 42% or something like that--but in actual game time that mattered--the defense not only locked up the opponent--it created points for their team to blow them out.
Hoyas--their offensive approach the past month kept inferior teams in games. When you fail to shoot open shots, and wait and wait--you shorten the game. When you have more talent then your opponent-which Hoyas have had in majority of their games--that is a mistake. You only shorten a game when you are inferior. You push the pace by taking shots--good, high percentage looks and letting guys play. Doesn't mean you need to run and gun--but you can't pass up 10 footers when wide open to "run the pattern". That is what infuriates me when Hoya offense goes into the "pattern" mode--and it results in awful basketball that CREATES close games, and makes you appear to be something you are not as a team. Just like high scoring teams like UNC appear to be offensive juggernauts. Well they run/gun and do so because they are awful defensive team in a league that doesn't play defense. When ACC teams face teams that guard them--they often lose or hope to get bailed out by officials who will let them go to line and not have to make a shot against contested defense.
Your best defenses create offense and pressure opponents. Hoyas are a disciplined group and work well on defense. I think they are best defensive team of III Era and great halfcourt defensive team. They get nothing out of that on other end--so I don't label that great. Stanford of '01 season has the record and I'd like to face them anytime on the court. I'd face any Ivy League team, no matter what their FG % defense says.
Just a matter of what you see in a game and what you think is effective. I like defense that not only limits teams offensively--it gets your team points/easy offense. With a team like GU, if they can get 10 fastbreak points a game--they'll win almost every game, due to having efficient offense. When they are struggling on offense--get more simple--not more rigid. That means getting up more shots--and there is no stat for it--but notice how a team that scores, gets after it on defense more. Human nature takes over--you are more confident and aggressive.
|
|
|
Post by HoyasAreHungry on Feb 21, 2008 14:11:02 GMT -5
RDF I agree that we should be getting more transition baskets after stops, steals, etc. This is especially important because it really can negate a poor shooting night for us. If we're able to get some transition baskets after getting defensive stops and rebounds we would be all that more difficult to beat. Granted I am not advocating we just go run and gun like a memphis or tennesse but we should look to get out and run a little more than we do. If I remember correctly at the beginning of the season we were experimenting with pushing the ball up the floor and getting out in transition. For some reason we've completely gotten away from it...I don't know if this is because of personel issues or if coach thought it wasn't effective or what? did you see this earlier on or was I envisoning something different?
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Feb 21, 2008 14:16:01 GMT -5
RDF,
We actually played at a slower than average pace against Providence - the extra field goal attempts were due to our much higher than usual total of offensive rebounds.
In any case, taking more shots shouldn't be a goal in and of itself - leaving rebounding and TOs out for a minute, when you take a shot you are also by default giving your opponent one. The goal is taking good shots and playing at a pace that maximizes the team's efficiency on those shots.
|
|
hoyafoeva
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 750
|
Post by hoyafoeva on Feb 21, 2008 15:42:56 GMT -5
I like the stats when we win, but not when we lose...but stats do lie...lol
|
|