|
Post by JohnnyJones on Mar 6, 2012 12:29:14 GMT -5
No. If we think we're capable of winning the BE, we better believe we can beat either Pitt or SJU. And I want to be the team to close the door on Pitt in the BE. Pitt is playing in the BE again next year I believe.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Mar 6, 2012 12:34:02 GMT -5
Need to avoid a first-round loss. RPI-wise, we currently have 17.0 wins (15 home x .6, 5 away x 1.4, 1 neutral x 1.0) and 5.4 losses (1 home x 1.4, 5 away x .6, 1 neutral x 1.0), for a winning percentage of .7589 -- a neutral court loss pushes that down to .7265. 25% of that difference is .0081, so that alone would push our RPI from .6282 (10th) to .6201 (17th). Neither St. John's nor Pitt is going to help our SOS either. Team is currently ranked 13/14, so with that potential RPI, ranking, and ending the season losing to either of those teams, there's definitely a chance we end up on the 5 line in the NCAAs, which I think we'd all really like to avoid.
|
|
swhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,137
|
Post by swhoya on Mar 6, 2012 12:38:27 GMT -5
No. If we think we're capable of winning the BE, we better believe we can beat either Pitt or SJU. And I want to be the team to close the door on Pitt in the BE. Pitt is playing in the BE again next year I believe. Sorry, you're correct. I still want the chance to kick them while they are down though.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Mar 6, 2012 12:41:19 GMT -5
Pitt is playing in the BE again next year I believe. Sorry, you're correct. I still want the chance to kick them while they are down though. I understand, and agree.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 6, 2012 13:04:05 GMT -5
Getting back to the game, do we all agree that we'd rather play the team that we've beaten twice instead of the team that beat us easily? Go Redmen! Nope. For me, it matters not whom we play. To quote the late, great, Bernic Mac: "I ain't scared of you mother@#%$&....s!"
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Mar 6, 2012 13:11:50 GMT -5
The thing that worries me the most is the absence of an experienced "go to" guy on the floor, or even a steadying influence who can keep the game manageable (best historical example -- Reggie Williams). Jason is the closest but I'm not sure it's in his makeup. Hollis is erratic, Henry is still learning how to play, Starks is Starks, and everyone else is playing in their first Big East/NCAA tournament. When the stakes are higher, you need someone who can rise above the team's standard level of play to finish the job, and I'm not sure GU has anyone who can or is able to do that right now. But here's hoping. The whole deal is still a lot of fun. I think Jason has shown that he is the leader. he had a bad against Marquette, but that's water under the bridge now. Hollis has shown that he is willing and able to be the go-to guy for the big shot. Lastly, I know it's abig burden for a frosh, but Otto has the steady approach to the game that is needed and I think he can also be relied upon. He is handling the ball a lot more and his jumper has really come around. With those three, I think we will be OK.
|
|
|
Post by rockcityhoya on Mar 6, 2012 13:46:02 GMT -5
For us to have success going forward, Hollis needs to shoot more. Period.
Our biggest weakness, and what I believe will be our downfall going forward is team 3pt shooting percentage (we rank 141st). Our team numbers are slightly skewed because Hollis shoots at such a high clip. Take him out of the equation, and our best 3pt shooter is Markel. Jason, while he makes a lot of threes, takes too many, significantly impacting our efficiency (points per possession). Here’s the breakdown:
Hollis - Attempts 4.1 threes per game, and makes 1.9, or 45.8% (totals = 54/118) Jason – Attempts 4.6 threes per game, and makes 1.5, or 32.8% (totals = 44/134) Surprisingly, Markel is our second best shooter percentage-wise, attempting 3.4, making 1.3, or 37% (totals = 34/92)
Why this matters: Jason’s efficiency impacts our team because of 1542 field goals attempted this year, 476 of them have been three’s, or 30% of our offense. We are 272nd in the country in possessions per game, so when we take so many threes, and our top guys are shooting a combined 38% from three, it’s very hard to win.
Bottom line: Hollis needs to take more of our 3pt attempts, Jason needs to step his shooting up, and Markel needs to take more threes.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 6, 2012 14:21:53 GMT -5
This year's team is much less dependent on threes than last year's team.
Hollis shoots such a high percentage because he doesn't take bad shots. If he forces more shots, it is unlikely that he will make 46% of them. He is deadliest when the ball goes in to Henry and then out to Hollis with his feet set.
We need Henry to get good position. We need Otto to find openings at the elbow, foul line, baseline. If we get the ball in there we get high percentage twos and kickouts to open threes. Those are the threes we make.
|
|
|
Post by rockcityhoya on Mar 6, 2012 14:25:41 GMT -5
That's all great, but the fact of the matter is that we will continue to shoot the three ball at the same rate. So, looking at those numbers, Hollis needs to shoot more because his 46%, or 44%, or even 39% is better than anyone else. We really just need Jason to shoot better. Looking at his game stats, he goes 0-5, 1-7, 1-4, waaaaaaaay too often.
But yes, I agree with you generally speaking.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 6, 2012 14:26:38 GMT -5
I don't disagree that Hollis should take more and Clark less.
But 38% from three isn't bad at all. It just could be better.
We're 223rd in the country in 3PFGA/FGA and 12th in the Big East. We're not overly dependent on it.
I honestly think the overall best move is for Jason to drive more and shoot less 25-foot heat checks.
|
|
|
Post by rockcityhoya on Mar 6, 2012 14:49:24 GMT -5
Hmm, didn't realize we were 223rd in the country and 12th in the BE. Good numbers SF.
I still think that with the guys we have, and the way they have shot this season, 30% of our g's coming from 3 is on the high side. The only reason we are 38% overall is because Hollis is shooting 46%. Jason is sitting at 32%, and Markel is, well, sitting.
|
|
|
Post by hibbertfor3 on Mar 6, 2012 14:52:29 GMT -5
Winning a couple games in BET will lock up a 3 seed, IMO, and that is much more desirable than a 4 seed.
|
|
KirbyKeger
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,106
|
Post by KirbyKeger on Mar 6, 2012 15:08:30 GMT -5
This year's team is much less dependent on threes than last year's team. Hollis shoots such a high percentage because he doesn't take bad shots. If he forces more shots, it is unlikely that he will make 46% of them. He is deadliest when the ball goes in to Henry and then out to Hollis with his feet set. You nailed it on Hollis. The extra shots that people want him to take from out there, he simply will not make. His percentage is high because he only shoots when he has a near-perfect look with his feet set. Extremely rarely do you see him pass on a look like that, so I'm not sure where these extra shots that he's supposed to make at a 46% clip are going to come from.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 6, 2012 15:13:50 GMT -5
For us to have success going forward, Hollis needs to shoot more. Period. Our biggest weakness, and what I believe will be our downfall going forward is team 3pt shooting percentage (we rank 141st). Our team numbers are slightly skewed because Hollis shoots at such a high clip. Take him out of the equation, and our best 3pt shooter is Markel. Jason, while he makes a lot of threes, takes too many, significantly impacting our efficiency (points per possession). Here’s the breakdown: Hollis - Attempts 4.1 threes per game, and makes 1.9, or 45.8% (totals = 54/118) Jason – Attempts 4.6 threes per game, and makes 1.5, or 32.8% (totals = 44/134) Surprisingly, Markel is our second best shooter percentage-wise, attempting 3.4, making 1.3, or 37% (totals = 34/92) Why this matters: Jason’s efficiency impacts our team because of 1542 field goals attempted this year, 476 of them have been three’s, or 30% of our offense. We are 272nd in the country in possessions per game, so when we take so many threes, and our top guys are shooting a combined 38% from three, it’s very hard to win. Bottom line: Hollis needs to take more of our 3pt attempts, Jason needs to step his shooting up, and Markel needs to take more threes. Hard for Hollis to get shots when we don't have a point guard who can penetrate and pass the ball. Clark has an assist to TO ratio of .8, Starks a/to is 1.1. Clark has 1.8 assists a game. Starks 1.6 assists a game. Hollis isn't getting the touches he needs to get shots off. But that is on the point guards.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Mar 6, 2012 15:17:41 GMT -5
You nailed it on Hollis. The extra shots that people want him to take from out there, he simply will not make. His percentage is high because he only shoots when he has a near-perfect look with his feet set. Extremely rarely do you see him pass on a look like that, so I'm not sure where these extra shots that he's supposed to make at a 46% clip are going to come from. I agree he won't make them at 46% but if he takes 5 more semi-contested threes a game and makes 1-5 or 2-5, that won't hurt his % TOO badly but it will help this team's chances to win games. Thats not even taking into account a game where he will make 3 to 5 of those additional shots. He has only been taking 2-5 3s a game all season (except 5 times), that should be more like 7-10: half open like now and half where he has to work a little for that shot. You are entirely right about when Hollis takes a shot but that is his problem, it allows other Coaches to play tighter on him and limit his chances to get a shot he likes. Not all contested shots are bad shots...especially when you are a 6'7" NBA 2G/SF prospect that should thrive on 3-pt shooting.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Mar 6, 2012 15:19:35 GMT -5
Hard for Hollis to get shots when we don't have a point guard who can penetrate and pass the ball. Clark has an assist to TO ratio of .8, Starks a/to is 1.1. Clark has 1.8 assists a game. Starks 1.6 assists a game. Hollis isn't getting the touches he needs to get shots off. But that is on the point guards. We play more of an inside-out type of offense then a drive-dish type offense, hence why our Bigs are featured and have high assist rates. Additionally, the shots that Hollis likes are after his man collapses on the big and Hollis gets nice and open for the kickout and 3.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 6, 2012 16:47:54 GMT -5
Hard for Hollis to get shots when we don't have a point guard who can penetrate and pass the ball. Clark has an assist to TO ratio of .8, Starks a/to is 1.1. Clark has 1.8 assists a game. Starks 1.6 assists a game. Hollis isn't getting the touches he needs to get shots off. But that is on the point guards. We play more of an inside-out type of offense then a drive-dish type offense, hence why our Bigs are featured and have high assist rates. Additionally, the shots that Hollis likes are after his man collapses on the big and Hollis gets nice and open for the kickout and 3. We had the same offense when Chris Wright was here, yet he was still able to average 3.8/4.1/5.3 assists a game with an assist to turnover ratio of 1.8. Hollis man is not collapsing when the bigs get the ball, that's on the scouting report and has been the way people have been playing him for the last month. The big is looking for the backdoor, or to take an outside shot (or in Nate's case not really looking to score), that's not enough to have a guy to collapse whose told to stick to Hollis. If you are looking for Hollis to take more shots then it has to come from pg dribble penetration which breaksdown the defense and forces Hollis' man to move to the basket. Even Jon Wallace (2.2/2.6/3.1/3.2 assists) and Sapp (3.5, 3.7 assists 1.6 his senior year when he was having problems/benched) are getting more assists than our points.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Mar 6, 2012 16:57:03 GMT -5
We play more of an inside-out type of offense then a drive-dish type offense, hence why our Bigs are featured and have high assist rates. Additionally, the shots that Hollis likes are after his man collapses on the big and Hollis gets nice and open for the kickout and 3. We had the same offense when Chris Wright was here, yet he was still able to average 3.8/4.1/5.3 assists a game with an assist to turnover ratio of 1.8. Hollis man is not collapsing when the bigs get the ball, that's on the scouting report and has been the way people have been playing him for the last month. The big is looking for the backdoor, or to take an outside shot (or in Nate's case not really looking to score), that's not enough to have a guy to collapse whose told to stick to Hollis. If you are looking for Hollis to take more shots then it has to come from pg dribble penetration which breaksdown the defense and forces Hollis' man to move to the basket. Even Jon Wallace (2.2/2.6/3.1/3.2 assists) and Sapp (3.5, 3.7 assists 1.6 his senior year when he was having problems/benched) are getting more assists than our points. No, we didn't play the same offense when Chris Wright was here. The offense the last few years was initiated by dribble/drive and attacking the basket. This offense is more like the offense in pre-Chris Wright years, though still different from that one. That offense was based around elbow-block game of Hibbert and Green.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,362
|
Post by calhoya on Mar 6, 2012 17:04:45 GMT -5
Issue is and has been the ability of the inside game to present a threat to other teams. When other teams have to protect the lane--either from an effective Henry or Otto or from penetration by Jason/Hollis/Markel, it forces them to collapse their zone a little. This gives our outside shooters a chance to take an uncontested shot. In so many ways it all starts and stops with our inside game. Didn't have much last year and it is has been inconsistent this year. When Henry is on or Nate will at least shoot a few times it is so much better for Hollis.
|
|
|
Post by gtowndynasty on Mar 6, 2012 17:22:21 GMT -5
Issue is and has been the ability of the inside game to present a threat to other teams. When other teams have to protect the lane--either from an effective Henry or Otto or from penetration by Jason/Hollis/Markel, it forces them to collapse their zone a little. This gives our outside shooters a chance to take an uncontested shot. In so many ways it all starts and stops with our inside game. Didn't have much last year and it is has been inconsistent this year. When Henry is on or Nate will at least shoot a few times it is so much better for Hollis. Agree with this. It would also help TREMENDOUSLY if we would run plays for Hollis. We did this in one game I can recall, UCONN, and it worked to perfection. He had one of his better games coming off stagger screens on the weak side. I thought we found something, but we never went back to it. If he is our best shooter, which he is, I never understood not running more set stuff for him. Instead, we just rely on him to get looks out of our O, but as stated, his man will rarely leave him alone for an open look. The scouting reports of every BE coach now say it, so Hollis has been getting less and less good looks (as compared to pre-season). I hope III runs some of those same screens for him going forward, because he will not get many open looks and we dont have much of a dribble-drive attack that will pull his man off him.
|
|