richfame
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,266
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 13:33:29 GMT -5
Post by richfame on Feb 4, 2012 13:33:29 GMT -5
Clearly Nate was again the KEY to todays win.
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 14:03:06 GMT -5
Post by Madgesdiq on Feb 4, 2012 14:03:06 GMT -5
While no one player is soley KEY to any victory, Nate's play is key to the team playing well on both ends of the court. Similar to Jason Collins role on the 2002 Nets that went to the finals, the impact that Nate's play has on the team is not quantifiable in individual stats but rather in efficiency %s on both ends.
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 14:04:54 GMT -5
Post by Madgesdiq on Feb 4, 2012 14:04:54 GMT -5
Here is what we are seeing happening with Lubick. JTIII starts Lubick, but Porter gets the starters minutes. At the end of the game, in crunch time, Porter is usually on the floor. Recently, JTIII has put Lubick on a short leash, as witnessed by Lubick being sent to the bench less than four minutes into the UConn game. Lubick sat on the bench for nearly all the rest of the first half. Additionally, Hopkins got some minutes at the 4/5, played well, and did some good things that we have not seen Lubick do this season – in an important game. Apparently, the Hoya coaching staff is seeing, in his on-court performance, what so-called “arm chair coaches/critics” are seeing in Lubick’s play. Notice in my posts, I have never said that Lubick should not start, nor that Porter should start over Lubick. I generally trust the coaching staff on personnel decisions. And it is apparent that the coaching staff is expecting more from Lubick than setting screens and doing the so-called “intangibles.” In commenting on on-court performance, I am not critical of a player for what he cannot do. I have criticized Lubick’s play because he has demonstrated that he can be a much player than he has exhibited this year (and most of last season). I did not criticize Jerrelle Benimon because I never expected much from him – he simply did not have the physical tools nor the skill set to be an impact player. Maybe the coaching staff hoped he would be a project who could develop into an impact player. But, coming in, it is doubtful if he was expected to be much more than a practice player who might develop into a useful role player and sub. Lack of options in the front court forced JTIII to play Benimon major minutes. It often did not work out well. But, that is what generally happens when you are forced to give major minutes to a player who otherwise should have been limited to playing in blow-outs or “garbage time.” Let me give another example. I have been critical of Cincinnati’s Yancey Gates. He very well could have been (and should have been) a more athletic version of Jared Sullinger. (I have followed both Gates’ and Sullinger’s development their days in middle school.) I was critical of Yancey because he possessed the skill set to be a college superstar. Others have also noted that Yancey has/had the ability to be an absolute terror at power forward. I have criticized him for being lazy, undisciplined, and having a low basketball IQ. As a result, he has failed to unlock the skills he possessed that could have made him great. Again, I am critical of Yancey for failing to exploit his potential – for not playing the way he is capable of playing. Lubick is much different than Benimon. Lubick was a prized recruit with the skill set and basketball intelligence to contribute much more than he has been. For whatever reasons, Lubick is not playing the way he is capable of playing. Lubick is a good talent on a major Division I basketball program. His play does not need to be excused nor his contributions exaggerated. His disappointing play should be noted and he should be challenged to play like the player he is expected to be. Rarely has one said so little in so many words. Not a thread of intelligent thought in this post.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,393
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 14:30:55 GMT -5
Post by hoyainspirit on Feb 4, 2012 14:30:55 GMT -5
Actually, most of his observations are accurate. I just happen to believe that the volume of criticism Nate receives is over the top, and he doesn't get credit for the things he does on the court. Of course he could be better, and I believe he will be.
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 14:41:56 GMT -5
Post by Ranch Dressing on Feb 4, 2012 14:41:56 GMT -5
Let me be the first to offer Nate congratulations on the fine wide open dunk he converted on a terrific pass from Jabril.
I'll also comment that his hanging on the rim technical was about as dumb as play as you get. It is the type of dumb play that kills you in a close game. Thankfully, we were not in that situation.
I've often thought that Nate needs to be T'ed up every time he pulls up and slaps the backboard on a dunk.
That said, Nate did not do anything else today that would have jeopardized a closely contested game. In that respect, I suppose he was additive to the team's performance today.
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 15:10:03 GMT -5
Post by strummer8526 on Feb 4, 2012 15:10:03 GMT -5
If it made him feel good, and it gets his head back in the right place going forward, I'm OK with the T today. If the game were close, I'd be fuming.
Jabril's pass was awesome.
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 15:44:46 GMT -5
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Feb 4, 2012 15:44:46 GMT -5
This stupid society and it's anti fun rules. No celebrating allowed. Heaven forbid athletes have fun while playing a game. Can't risk someone's feelings to be hurt. It's a stupid rule just like the excessive celebration rules in football. Let them have their fun.
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 16:14:05 GMT -5
Post by NTAMM on Feb 4, 2012 16:14:05 GMT -5
NTAMM, I generally like your posts, but I have to comment on this point: "His disappointing play should be noted and he should be challenged to play like the player he is expected to be." Are you really trying to claim your criticism is here to motivate Nate Lubick? Being an armchair coach/gm, etc., is interesting to us as fans and it's for our personal benefit that we do it. Pretending this is some sort of way to challenge Nate -- as if it is your responsibility and not the coaching staff's -- is just kinda silly. No one that has defended Nate on this thread thinks that players are above criticism or that Nate has been spectacular. But it is absolutely undeniable that he draws a ridiculous amount of criticism, even for things that occurred while he wasn't even on the court. For example, does anyone realize that Nate has the fourth highest Offensive Rating on the team in conference play? He's just barely behind Otto Porter, as well. Now, I'm not saying Nate is nearly as valuable offensively as Otto or even the number of players behind him -- as everyone can see, he doesn't use many possessions. But he's actually not killing us in conference play on offense. You wouldn't know it from the comments. Defense is a little tougher. Nate's +/- is the worst on the team, but most of that is due to the Hoyas' poor starts. Was that due to Nate? Some of it, but CO's net points put him as a worse defender than say, Otto Porter, but not abysmal. And he's rated by that metric as better than some of the board's defensive favorites. The metric is far from perfect, of course, but I don't see a defensive liability out there, at least not compared to his teammates. Why isn't there a Henry thread bemoaning his sub-40% FG% in conference play? The immense amount of turnovers he's thrown away. Give credit to richfame -- he's criticized Hollis' disappearances at times but is pretty much the only one. Whittington can't hit the ocean if he falls out of a boat and is a gunner as well -- and people laud his one make when he goes 1-6. I don't understand why everything Nate does is bad and warrants commentary, but others can play just as poorly at times and there is nothing. I guess I'd just like Nate to be evaluated by the same standards as everyone else. I was the same way the last few years with Henry Sims. Nate is just this year's whipping boy. SFHoya99 Your point is very well taken about “armchair coaches/GMs” talking about motivating players. Motivating is the primarily the coaches’ responsibility. And no, the purpose of my post was not to motivate Nate Lubick. But, I do hope that and have expectations that Lubick plays much better and become the impact player that the Hoyas need. Given the style of play of the Hoya, they need a physical presence inside when they go up against physical, athletic front lines – as we have seen with Kansas, Pitt, and West Virginia. That was more my point in writing “[Nate’s] disappointing play should be noted and he should be challenged to play like the player he is expected to be.” I tried to end the post on an upbeat note – e.g., Lubick is better than he has played this season and the expectations reflect that he is a better player. There are a number of things I have responded to in the thread about Nate Lubick that I find troubling. First, is the continual refrain from many that Nate played well (or at least adequately) because he did the “intangible” things that other Hoyas don’t do. Many continue to peddle that nonsense. The focus on the “intangibles” is because he is not doing the enough of the “tangible” things really needed -- like rebounding, playing good defense, and being enough of an offensive threat that they Hoyas are not playing 4-on-5 on offense. Second, I find the different metrics and other statistics to be interesting. But, they have to be taken into account within the total context of the games and the player’s level of play. For example, in the loss to Pitt, if I recall correctly, the statistics reflected that when Lubick was on the court, the affect for the Hoyas was +2. (I could be wrong about the Pitt game; maybe it was the WV game.) My response was that as most of the team played a poor game, did that statistic really matter? Moreover, Lubick did not get starters minutes, did not score, did not rebound adequately and I counted, at least, six easy baskets Pitt scored because Lubick was slow on his defensive rotations or he simply got burned. So, of what value was that metric/statistic? I pay more attention to what I see on the court than I do most metrics/statistics. Moreover, at best, the metrics/statistic means different things for different positions and different styles of play. Many would say that I am hating on Lubick. That is not at all true. I am just reporting and analyzing what I see in the game. You bring up Henry Sims and the lack of criticism. Sims rightly has had his share of criticism in the past seasons. When he matriculated to GU, he was a near McDonalds high school All-America and I believe a Parade All-American. As a post player, he was rated slightly lower than Greg Monroe; but was considered to be on the track to becoming future NBA player. Sims first three years, he grossly underperformed. As a result, little was expected of him his senior year. In fact, last season, Lubick was as good, if not a better, post player than Sims. However, this season the situation is completely different. Henry Sims’ game has progressed by quantum leaps. Sims’ development is a major reason why GU has gone from an expected Big East cellar dweller and projected marginal NIT team to a nationally ranked team and near lock to make an NCAA championship run. Many consider now Sims to be one of the top 10 college centers and an NBA prospect. In contrast Lubick’s game appears to have regressed from last season – and the comments in this thread reflect that. Henry Sims’ good play has been a major surprise – and criticism aside, most of the comments reflect that Sims has elevated his game. He is finally doing the “tangible” things expected of him that are needed to win. That is why the comments about Sims and Lubick are very different. Lastly, this thread is about Nate Lubick, not Hollis, Henry, nor Markel. So, this is not about Lubick being a “whipping boy.” Again, it is a thread specifically about Nate. I want to reiterate, the criticism of Nate Lubick’s play is in large part because he can play much better. When the board falls as silent about Lubick as it is about Aaron Bowen, then we know that Hoya boosters have lost all faith in Lubick. I have not lost faith in Lubick.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 17:13:50 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 4, 2012 17:13:50 GMT -5
There's a Whittington thread, but no one has commented that we play 4 on 5 on offense when he's in the game. What's worse is that he actually shoots the ball and misses (as opposed to Nate) -- how is that better?
Henry is a good defender, but offensively, there's nothing in his conference play to put him as a Top 10 college center. His offensive efficiency is Benimon-like in conference play AND he's using a ton of possessions. I have no doubt that Nate would have a worse efficiency if he used 30% of our possessions, but Henry has killed us offensively in a lot of games.
The stats have Nate firmly as middle of the team offensively in efficiency. And setting screens, etc., aren't intangible at all. They just aren't tracked in a conventional box score. But they are very real things. They aren't as important as some other things, but they do count.
It's very clear to me that Nate's actual, measurable performance is not nearly as bad as the critics of him claim. It's also clear to me that when that level of performance is mirrored by other players on the team, they don't get nearly the same level of criticism.
If you don't think Nate has been a whipping boy for quite a number of posters, I don't really know what to say. At least Benimon and Nikita really were that bad.
|
|
Madgesdiq
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,434
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 17:41:18 GMT -5
Post by Madgesdiq on Feb 4, 2012 17:41:18 GMT -5
? I pay more attention to what I see on the court than I do most metrics/statistics . Based on what I am reading here, you should consider changing your handle from NTAMM to HKELLER.
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 17:52:44 GMT -5
Post by NTAMM on Feb 4, 2012 17:52:44 GMT -5
? I pay more attention to what I see on the court than I do most metrics/statistics . Based on what I am reading here, you should consider changing your handle from NTAMM to HKELLER. Madgesdiq I am honored that you take time out to read my posts and quote me. Thank you for your interest.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 19:38:45 GMT -5
Post by sleepy on Feb 4, 2012 19:38:45 GMT -5
? I pay more attention to what I see on the court than I do most metrics/statistics . Based on what I am reading here, you should consider changing your handle from NTAMM to HKELLER. Thank you Madgesdiq This board and thread in particular has gotten so serious lately that i actually chuckled at that. I almost wishing for Bronxie to make an appearance. ;D
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 20:36:23 GMT -5
Post by bigelephant on Feb 4, 2012 20:36:23 GMT -5
What slays me is how much negative stuff and drivel that people can write about Nate. What's twisting your drawers - the fact that he is not as good as Pat Ewing? This crap about defense is beyond belief - I watch him play and he expends every ounce of strength and energy doing the hustle work and dirty stuff on D and he is darn good at it for the most part. One play today where he is guarding the weak side perimeter player and he flashes from the corner into the middle and plants himself under the basket arms up ,as th UCF player drives in. Unfortunately he did reach around with a dipsy doodle and score. Now if you were paying attention only at that moment it might have looked like Nate's fault but the other guy wasn't even Nate's man and the kid hustled a long way to help out. He is one of the backbones of the D underneath and does a damn good job in the defensive zone we are playing more and more.
YES , he is a disappointment on offense in that his scoring numbers are too low for my liking and YES I wish he would get more rebounds but I'm damn glad we have him as he is vital cog in our team and coach seems to think so also..
BTW - that humongous Vanilla Gorilla dunk with the pull-up swing (basically to control his drop) was beyond AWESOME! It really fired up the crowd and sparked our run away at the end. The ref was a s--t to call that a technical - everyone in our section thought the sequence was worth it. Just don't do the swing in a close game or get a better ref.
I watched the damn thing on TIVO when I got home and was amazed they kept showing the slam - over and over - about 7 or 8 times! It was obvious the announcers liked it -esp the gal ( and the hell with you who don't like that either)!
Go Hoyas beat the ORANGE TRAITORs!!! NY, isn't that where Benedict Arnold came from?
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,816
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 21:22:13 GMT -5
Post by hoyazeke on Feb 4, 2012 21:22:13 GMT -5
What you guys aren't getting is that Nate should be more than a hustle player. Nate has the skill set to be a double double guy. He should be more like a KJones type than a Benimon type. To SF, yes it is better to be a threat on the floor. Whitt is making aggressive moves to the rim and leaving them short. Noway does Nate take the big shots the Whitt has hit late in games after he has already gone 1-5 or 0-6. I actually feel better when Nate makes a move and misses or bricks his wide open three. At least for a moment he is being an option on O. Do you think he is gonna wake up one day and just be a bigtime scorer like he was in HS without missing some shots. Whitt is either gonna be great or bad offensively. But we will see the outcome. Unlike Nate who is completely shellshock right now. We need Nate to play like a Top 50, four star recruit. Right now he is playing like Benimon.....................
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,861
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 21:27:12 GMT -5
Post by CTHoya08 on Feb 4, 2012 21:27:12 GMT -5
NY, isn't that where Benedict Arnold came from? He was from Connecticut.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 21:42:00 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 4, 2012 21:42:00 GMT -5
What you guys aren't getting is that Nate should be more than a hustle player. No one disagrees. Most of us don't understand the vitriol. Do you realize how hard it is to get a double double for the Hoyas? Especially on this team where no big is playing 30 mpg? Also: Kevin Jones, really? You expect Nate to a BE POY contender as a sophomore? Really? Heck, as a senior? How is that better? I mean, it's not really better than the game it's in. For every shot that Whit takes and Nate doesn't, the Hoyas might actually score on that possession. I'm not saying I don't think Whit's shot will drop at some point or that Nate could afford to be more aggressive, but if Whit doesn't go 0-5, we don't NEED a big three to get us to 1-6. Well, good for you, I guess. That's not really a leading indicator of winning basketball. No, I expect him to practice hard, take some shots in games and hopefully develop into a guy that can be a threat when left open. I don't think 99% of development occurs in game. Anyway, didn't you get the note? Most of the people criticizing want him to play LESS and shoot LESS. You seem to be advocating more shooting and more PT. True? And I don't think, nor never thought, Nate was going to be a "bigtime" scorer. Or decidedly mediocre. I mean, that actually seems like a likely outcome, too, right? So far he's been bad most of the time. And now we get to it. You think Nate is kind of awkward. Whit is smooth, despite not actually making any, you know, shots. He's not in shellshock. Good lord. CO hasn't updated the stats for UConn and USF, but that's only going to help Nate -- here's some stats. Conference Play Offensive Rating/2PT FG%: Greg Whittington, 2011-12: 87.3, 34.5% Nate Lubick, 2011-12: 99.4, 59.1% Nate Lubick, 2010-11: 110.7, 61% Jerelle Benimon, 2010-11: 55.6, 37.5% So, yes, Nate is having a sophomore slump. But Benimon? By the way, Jerelle only shot on 6% of possessions. Nate is double that, even if he's low.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,911
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 21:52:33 GMT -5
Post by EtomicB on Feb 4, 2012 21:52:33 GMT -5
What you guys aren't getting is that Nate should be more than a hustle player. Nate has the skill set to be a double double guy. He should be more like a KJones type than a Benimon type. To SF, yes it is better to be a threat on the floor. Whitt is making aggressive moves to the rim and leaving them short. Noway does Nate take the big shots the Whitt has hit late in games after he has already gone 1-5 or 0-6. I actually feel better when Nate makes a move and misses or bricks his wide open three. At least for a moment he is being an option on O. Do you think he is gonna wake up one day and just be a bigtime scorer like he was in HS without missing some shots. Whitt is either gonna be great or bad offensively. But we will see the outcome. Unlike Nate who is completely shellshock right now. We need Nate to play like a Top 50, four star recruit. Right now he is playing like Benimon..................... Kevin Jones from WVU? If that's who you're referring to then Nate will never live up to your expectations.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 22:07:52 GMT -5
Post by GUJook97 on Feb 4, 2012 22:07:52 GMT -5
This stupid society and it's anti fun rules. No celebrating allowed. Heaven forbid athletes have fun while playing a game. Can't risk someone's feelings to be hurt. It's a stupid rule just like the excessive celebration rules in football. Let them have their fun. I really think the hanging on the rim technical is dumb. At least in the NFL, it isn't a judgment call as to whether a sharpie pen celebration was intentional. From what I have seen in 2 years is that every time Nate dunks the ball, he overdoes it which makes him hang so that he doesn't go flying into the backboard or 3 feet in the student section. Even the time he slapped the backboard was questionable to me. Who cares if a player stays on a rim 1.1 second longer than he should.
|
|
blueeagle
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Win or lose, it's the school we choose.
Posts: 492
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 22:22:15 GMT -5
Post by blueeagle on Feb 4, 2012 22:22:15 GMT -5
Even if Nate reads this thread, he should still be feeling really good himself. His company's IPO killed this week.
On a more serious note, watching his dunk live, it seemed like he HAD to hang onto the rim given the tremendous momentum generated by his launch. He could have easily fallen on his face if he did not break his momentum (see: Dajuan dunks on Argenaut).
|
|
|
Nate
Feb 4, 2012 23:50:46 GMT -5
Post by Ranch Dressing on Feb 4, 2012 23:50:46 GMT -5
BS. He didn't need to hang on the rim. The rule is not to hang on the rim. Don't do it. And he does it every time. Stupid.
|
|