Recruit height & impact on team composition

[RDF]

Oct 5, 2010 12:46:21 GMT -5 @Ranch said:

I just complied some data on the Top 8 Big East teams from last season. It is a bit of a quick and dirty analysis, but I was a bit surprised at the results.

In reviewing the rosters of the Top 8 2009-10 conference teams, I looked at the listed size of all players who scored 3+ points per game. Listed below is the number of players >6'7" and >6'9" (someone counted as >6'9" is not counted among the players counted as >6'7")

Syracuse (2) (0)
Pitt (1) (1)
WVU (3) (0)
Nova (1) (1)
Marquette (0) (1)
Louisville (4) (0)
ND (3) (0)
Hoyas (1 - Vaughn) (1 - Monroe)

I was surprised to learn that only 4 players among the Top 8 teams who made real team contributions were taller than 6'9". And Monroe was the only player among those 4 who made significant team contributions. Plus, Monroe was the tallest at 6'11". There were no 7-footers listed among those players averaging 3+ ppg.

Villanova, Marquette, and WVU's brand of lanky, small ball had a lot of success last year.

The Hoyas had great size in 2006-2008 with Hibbert, Green, Summers, Macklin, and Ewing - and the size advantage certainly contributed to the team's success, especially on defense and rebounding. There is no doubt that we have struggled in both departments since Roy's departure.

But I think the crude analysis above shows that smaller teams can compete to win the league and be among the nation's top ranked teams. In other words, size, per se, is not a reliable predictor of success in college hoops these days.

I think the more relevant question for our team this year and going forward is whether JTIII can further adapt his offensive and defensive systems to maximize the talent on a team that will be his smallest since his arrival on the hilltop.

My sense is that JTIII's offensive system is adaptable and can work extremely well with a smaller lineup. But I will need to be converted when it comes to defense and rebounding because my starting assumption this year is that we will struggle quite a bit in both of those departments. And if we do, then I think we will be middle of the pack again in the league.

If JTIII has doubts about whether adapting his system will work (or, worse, fails this year again at producing a contending team because of defensive/rebounding deficiencies), then I think he would be smart to heed RDF's vociferous advice and stock up on size in the 2011 and 2012 recruiting classes. Get back to the formula of our 2006-08 success.

Size isn't just height at one/two positions--it's across the board. Look at Cuse--they dropped Flynn, Cheddar Bob, and Harris and replaced them with size--Rautins, Trice/Jardine, Joseph, Johnson, Onauaku, Jackson, and that is when their zone defense is at it's best and offensively they were better too.

Louisville's dropoff was in part due to losing Clark/Williams--great college players--but also big for their position.

WVU was a big team--their smallest player that contributed was Mazulla.

Marquette's best 2 players were Butler and Hayward-who if you are going to play small--is type of guy you want--versatile and can help on glass. They also faded at end because they were so reliant on small ball/3 pt shooting.

Michigan State played "small ball" style but they are tough kids who have been taught that rebounding and defense are a must and Izzo consistently gets more out of his team then any coach in America. So if you want to follow that suit--great--but you better stress what he does or you'll get worked.

[DanMcQ]

Posts split out from the Betancourt thread to continue this related but drifting off-topic discussion.

[SaxaCD]

I really think Nate should be force-fed LOTS of work. From all accounts I've read he's a real PF who genuinely goes after the ball, and he should be developed, even at the cost of some early growing pains. If he can get comfortable and do the hard-nosed work the team needs, it really sets up the 1, 2 and 3 positions beautifully, both this season and down the road, as well.

[thejerseytornado]

Kenpom has a stat for height. Of course, people who think g'town wasn't tall enough won't like it because g'town comes out as tall somehow: kenpom.com/height.php?s=HgtEffRank

details: www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=82

Pomeroy argues that statistics show height matters in the frontcourt (C and PF) but not the backcourt (I believe including SF), FWIW.

[prhoya]

Good find, Tornado.

Small ball? ;D ;D

The #54 small team beat the crap out of the #12 team. BTW, we were the #13 team in 2009.

As for Pomeroy's argument using statistics, who believes in numbers?

[Highsmith]

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!!

Interesting stuff. All I know is that Georgetown is a heck of a lot better on both ends if they can have at least a couple of quality big men that can be in the lineup. I know--every team can say that, but we should be one of the top teams able to actually bring them in based on past results. I guess it makes me feel a little better about being able to compete without that true big man. No matter the size of the team, toughness, defense and rebounding will be a key......our offense should be fine. We need to get after it on defense and make some sort of showing on the boards.

[SFHoya99]

Oct 5, 2010 15:24:25 GMT -5 thejerseytornado said:

Kenpom has a stat for height. Of course, people who think g'town wasn't tall enough won't like it because g'town comes out as tall somehow: kenpom.com/height.php?s=HgtEffRank

details: www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=82

Pomeroy argues that statistics show height matters in the frontcourt (C and PF) but not the backcourt (I believe including SF), FWIW.

And it's weighted by team. We've been a big team.

Unfortunately, while someone like DaJuan Summers was bigger than 90% of college PFs, he wouldn't mix it up. And Hollis is tall enough to look like a PF for that stat.

But really, our team wasn't small last year when Greg and Julian were on the floor. The problem is not 3 - guard or small guards, it's that Julian rebounded like a guard and when he left, we played a skinny 6'8" guy or a poor rebounding 6'6" guy.

At the end, though, it's more attitude than pure height.

[Highsmith]

And now Mikael Hopkins officially enters the picture.......see, all this discussion really helped!!

[prhoya]

Now, let's go and get us that 5'11 Montrose guard who landed Hopkins!!! ;D According to KenPom, they're a catch!

[thejerseytornado]

Oct 5, 2010 17:44:09 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

And it's weighted by team. We've been a big team.

Unfortunately, while someone like DaJuan Summers was bigger than 90% of college PFs, he wouldn't mix it up. And Hollis is tall enough to look like a PF for that stat.

But really, our team wasn't small last year when Greg and Julian were on the floor. The problem is not 3 - guard or small guards, it's that Julian rebounded like a guard and when he left, we played a skinny 6'8" guy or a poor rebounding 6'6" guy.

At the end, though, it's more attitude than pure height.

I totally agree, and stats are only averages at best. The bottomline is that even though g'town is "tall" in recent past, they sure haven't played "tall" in terms of rebounding and hustle. A large part of that is the lack of depth--we were tall because Monroe is tall and played a lot of minutes. But that doesn't help, because he couldn't bang as much as we want due to foul concerns, for example.

[SFHoya99]

To take this a little differently on team composition, 2012 is going to be very, very important.

Over the last couple of years, we've had offensive stars, but defensively the team peaked with Roy Hibbert in the post, and complementary players like Patrick, Jr. There has been a general outcry to "get more athletic" and also to get players more willing to defend, as well as get a bit deeper in quality depth.

With 2011 partially done, some of that has been accomplished, I think. Between transfers and the development rate of young players, you're never really sure about quality depth until they play, but we seem to have shored up some of our issues.

Bowen and Trawick are known for their athleticism. Markel is known for his quicks (even if he has to work on D through his own admission); we know Vee's defensive ability and athleticism.

We will have four bigs this year and next (even if there are a lot of question marks), which we didn't have last year or the year before (Vaughn, Monroe, Sims). With one of those guys not being able to play big minutes and one who couldn't get on the floor, it took us down to 1.5. Depending on Ayegba, Sims and Lubick, we may be worse off this year, but to actually carry four bigs (five is optimal for me and 2011 isn't done) is a good thing.

Ayegba and Hopkins are very athletic, and Lubick isn't too shabby.

Add in Jason Clark, Hollis and Benimon, and team depth is pretty good. Quality depth will depend on the frosh over the next two years, but in 2011-12, there's a good chance we will be four deep at guard, three deep at the three and four deep in bigs (there's chance of transfers, but 2011 recruiting isn't over year, either).

The issue, then, for 2012, to start to add some star power. You can find star power somewhere other than the top rankings - see Roy Hibbert, Jeff Green and so on -- but for this team to go from good to making a run they will need some NBA talent ongoing. I could be wrong but I see a lot more complementary players out there than stars.

We'll need a scorer like Austin or a big like Jeff or Roy - maybe he's on the current list or not. Very few teams truly go far without a star college player.

Maybe he's on that roster above. Maybe not. 2012 will be a good shot to get him.

Oh, and a center!

[SirSaxa]

Agree about needing a "Star" or two once Austin and co. leave.
But, the groundwork has been laid and a solid supporting cast in place... necessary preconditions to persuading a couple of stars to sign on.

[prhoya]

Agree with the stud or two for 2012. Make everyone compete for PT.

One of the reasons I'm excited for this season is it's the first time in a long time that GU will be led by three senior (and experienced) starters who have a shot at All-BE awards. That said, in 2012, there will be three spots available to join Jason and junior Hollis as starters. The competition will be awesome for the team.

[CO_Hoya]

Oct 6, 2010 12:59:12 GMT -5 prhoya said:

One of the reasons I'm excited for this season is it's the first time in a long time that GU will be led by three senior (and experienced) starters who have a shot at All-BE awards.

Was 2008 that long ago? Hibbert and Wallace were all Big East, and Ewing, who relinquished his starter spot to Freeman early on, was 6th man of the year.

[prhoya]

Oct 6, 2010 13:10:39 GMT -5 CO_Hoya said:

Oct 6, 2010 12:59:12 GMT -5 prhoya said:

One of the reasons I'm excited for this season is it's the first time in a long time that GU will be led by three senior (and experienced) starters who have a shot at All-BE awards.

Was 2008 that long ago? Hibbert and Wallace were all Big East, and Ewing, who relinquished his starter spot to Freeman early on, was 6th man of the year.

Slight difference, but very important. A junior Vaughn played more than a senior Ewing. BTW, yes, 2008 seems like a long time ago in college basketball.

[CO_Hoya]

Oct 6, 2010 14:16:21 GMT -5 prhoya said:

A junior Vaughn played more than a senior Ewing.

In 2010, Vaughn played 56.6% of available minutes
In 2008, Ewing played 53.9% of available minutes

That's equal to one more minute a game; I'd call that a wash.

BTW, yes, 2008 seems like a long time ago in college basketball.

On that, I'll defer to you and the other recruiting gurus.

[prhoya]

Hopefully, at the end of this season, we can compare favorably a senior Vaughn to a senior Pat Jr. We'll need to see Vaughn play a lot more than last season (30 mins., optimally 34 mins). IMO, that's one of the keys to the season. If he does, he'll be All-BE and we'll go far in March.

[daytonahoya31]

SF,

I would say that the two star power players in 2011 will be Hollis and Markel. I think Markel's going to be one of the best pg's in the country, sooner than later. Jason will be a rung below but still very very good. With Mikael coming in, I think 2011 has a chance to be very good. lot's of depth, length, athleticism and defense in that lineup with scoring.

[Locker]

I also think Hollis is key. He needs to develop into an all-conference type player. He certainly has the talent and smarts to do it.

[prhoya]

Do we have a possible BE ROY in Nate? He certainly has the opportunity to earn a lot of minutes at the 4.