|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Feb 18, 2014 22:00:37 GMT -5
When I said that the game with St. Johns was a make or break game many on this board scoffed at the idea.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 18, 2014 22:29:38 GMT -5
Yeah. Still scoffing.
Is the season over because of the loss? Nope. Are we still on the bubble, according to pretty much everyone who gets paid to project those things? Yup.
Had we won, would we be a lock for an NCAA berth (or even a .500 conference season)? Nope. Would we still be on the bubble? Yup. (though, granted, in a slightly improved position than where we are now)
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,321
|
Post by tashoya on Feb 18, 2014 23:12:51 GMT -5
Bowen matches up best with the Johnnies in terms of athleticism but his game isn't to a point where he was going to break out against a team of guys that are about as athletic as he is. If he's going to have a breakout game, it's going be against a less athletic squad where he realizes he can blow by his man and the man after that. Blowing by his man yesterday would have led to him to shot blockers. We needed a productive 5 yesterday and someone to be a threat from distance. We had neither. I respectfully disagree. You certainly have the right to disagree. But, by your logic, he should have had a game where he lit up less athletic teams this year prior that would point to him breaking out against, likely, the most athletic team in the conference. He's matched athletically by the majority of the Johnnies' roster or, if not, it's not a large separation in favor of Bowen as it would be against other conference opponents. He's not a polished finisher and we've seen what happens when he's tried to drive on Obekpa. I'd love to see him torch a less athletic guy guarding him. He has that advantage in many games. The St. John's game wasn't one of them.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Feb 18, 2014 23:51:55 GMT -5
When I said that the game with St. Johns was a make or break game many on this board scoffed at the idea. It was in no way, shape or form a make or break game - but it does turn just about every game after it into one.
|
|
gujake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 831
|
Post by gujake on Feb 18, 2014 23:56:56 GMT -5
Thanks. Seton Hall, St. Johns, Rutgers, Depaul, USF, Providence are all out of the top 50 programs in America. Providence, West Virginia and Cincy were probably borderline during that period, depending on the year. I'm assuming the teams that finished behind us mostly come from that group. Mayyyyyyybe Notre Dame and Pitt because they slowed it down sometimes. Notre Dame and Pitt have both been slower than us all 5 years. Here's where we rank among the top 50 teams each year in average offensive possession length: 2010: 33rd/50 2011: 26th/50 2012: 31st/50 2013: 43rd/50 2014: 37th/50 *if we were in the top 50 It's pretty much a myth that we play at an extremely slow pace on offense. Are we a little slow? Sure. But we are far from Wisconsin territory.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 19, 2014 1:50:53 GMT -5
Our defense is slower than our offense. Because we don't D rebound well or force a lot of turnovers and we have great FG% defense, we basically have super long defensive possessions.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Feb 19, 2014 7:18:18 GMT -5
Bowen matches up best with the Johnnies in terms of athleticism but his game isn't to a point where he was going to break out against a team of guys that are about as athletic as he is. If he's going to have a breakout game, it's going be against a less athletic squad where he realizes he can blow by his man and the man after that. Blowing by his man yesterday would have led to him to shot blockers. We needed a productive 5 yesterday and someone to be a threat from distance. We had neither. I respectfully disagree. I think Bowen tends to be too passive in the offense...sometime I see him grab a rebound take the ball pass the half court line and surprise pass it DSR or Starks who are not looking for it as they think he will bring the ball up all the way to start the offense. He was 4/5 FG's the last game and in the 2nd half did not look for his shot too much while Trawick though 3/7 will keep trying to take it hole no matter what..even if he keeps missing....there is a big difference in their aggressiveness to score.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 10:32:50 GMT -5
Thanks. Seton Hall, St. Johns, Rutgers, Depaul, USF, Providence are all out of the top 50 programs in America. Providence, West Virginia and Cincy were probably borderline during that period, depending on the year. I'm assuming the teams that finished behind us mostly come from that group. Mayyyyyyybe Notre Dame and Pitt because they slowed it down sometimes. Notre Dame and Pitt have both been slower than us all 5 years. Here's where we rank among the top 50 teams each year in average offensive possession length: 2010: 33rd/50 2011: 26th/50 2012: 31st/50 2013: 43rd/50 2014: 37th/50 *if we were in the top 50 It's pretty much a myth that we play at an extremely slow pace on offense. Are we a little slow? Sure. But we are far from Wisconsin territory. Not sure how you extrapolate that from those numbers. In our fastest year where we had arguably our most talented offensive team under JT3, they were still in the bottom half. In our slowest year we're almost near the bottom. Usually, we're about in the slowest third. I still think these stats make a pretty good argument for this offense not being the best at gaining points at a quick pace. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that these numbers prove its some myth. Also, somebody else mentioned we get out-rebounded offensively and this brings our numbers down. First of all that impacts offensive possessions per game, which is a different stat from average offensive possession length. For some reason HoyaJake switched up our metrics mid-thread. Not sure why since they are two different issues and are only partially related. Whether these numbers are more flattering to his argument or he just couldnt find that metric I don't know. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that those are just the stats you found. In any case, I'm really not sure about the rebounding argument either. We've had enough games against inferior opponents where we've outrebounded THEM badly to bring our numbers up. Really the only teams that consistently outrebounded us were Pitt, WVU and maybe Cuse. Think of all the games that are averaged in where we outrebounded midmajor teams. The bigger skewing factor in my opinion is that in games we play well -- whether against worse opponents or we're just clicking -- we somewhat move out of our offense and push the break and attack the basket. This is actually when our traditional offense is most effective. What I would like to see, and what I think that staff has actually recognized, is that this type of hybrid is what you need to win CBB games. I just think right now we don't have the talent to do it. It will be interesting to see how the offense runs the next couple years with our recruits. And as long as we're adding variables, consider all the forced passes our backdoors have created over the years that resulted in turnovers early in the shot clock that lowers the average time of possession. The point is, as somebody who uses numbers and statistics a lot professionally, let me just say how easy they are to manipulate for whatever argument you want to make. (mine or yours to be fair.) I'm not against them completely, as I agree it's good to have evidence, but there is a limit to what they can prove and they never tell the entire story. If you honestly look at us play and then say, nope, our stats tell me we're not just passing it around the perimeter, we're actually pushing the break then I don't know what to tell you. Are we Wisconsin? Maybe not according to stats, but when i watch Wisconsin and GTown play MSU there's really not a lot of difference. If you refuse to see what's in front of your eyes and argue back to a spreadsheet -- the results of which are far from clear in this case -- you're missing one of the big intangibles about basketball to begin with.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Feb 19, 2014 10:49:56 GMT -5
Notre Dame and Pitt have both been slower than us all 5 years. Here's where we rank among the top 50 teams each year in average offensive possession length: 2010: 33rd/50 2011: 26th/50 2012: 31st/50 2013: 43rd/50 2014: 37th/50 *if we were in the top 50 It's pretty much a myth that we play at an extremely slow pace on offense. Are we a little slow? Sure. But we are far from Wisconsin territory. Not sure how you extrapolate that from those numbers. In our fastest year where we had arguably our most talented offensive team under JT3, they were still in the bottom half. In our slowest year we're almost near the bottom. Usually, we're about in the slowest third. I still think these stats make a pretty good argument for this offense not being the best at gaining points at a quick pace. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that these numbers prove its some myth. Also, somebody else mentioned we get out-rebounded offensively and this brings our numbers down. First of all that impacts offensive possessions per game, which is a different stat from average offensive possession length. For some reason HoyaJake switched up our metrics mid-thread. Not sure why since they are two different issues and are only partially related. Whether these numbers are more flattering to his argument or he just couldnt find that metric I don't know. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that those are just the stats you found. In any case, I'm really not sure about the rebounding argument either. We've had enough games against inferior opponents where we've outrebounded THEM badly to bring our numbers up. Really the only teams that consistently outrebounded us were Pitt, WVU and maybe Cuse. Think of all the games that are averaged in where we outrebounded midmajor teams. The bigger skewing factor in my opinion is that in games we play well -- whether against worse opponents or we're just clicking -- we somewhat move out of our offense and push the break and attack the basket. This is actually when our traditional offense is most effective. What I would like to see, and what I think that staff has actually recognized, is that this type of hybrid is what you need to win CBB games. I just think right now we don't have the talent to do it. It will be interesting to see how the offense runs the next couple years with our recruits. And as long as we're adding variables, consider all the forced passes our backdoors have created over the years that resulted in turnovers early in the shot clock that lowers the average time of possession. The point is, as somebody who uses numbers and statistics a lot professionally, let me just say how easy they are to manipulate for whatever argument you want to make. (mine or yours to be fair.) I'm not against them completely, as I agree it's good to have evidence, but there is a limit to what they can prove and they never tell the entire story. If you honestly look at us play and then say, nope, our stats tell me we're not just passing it around the perimeter, we're actually pushing the break then I don't know what to tell you. Are we Wisconsin? Maybe not according to stats, but when i watch Wisconsin and GTown play MSU there's really not a lot of difference. If you refuse to see what's in front of your eyes and argue back to a spreadsheet -- the results of which are far from clear in this case -- you're missing one of the big intangibles about basketball to begin with. The regular season is one thing... The post season is another. ... The style of play really seems to hurt the most in the NCAA Tourney Ohio, VCU, FGCU gets up to a double -digit lead and the offense stagnates to catch up...
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,393
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Feb 19, 2014 11:04:03 GMT -5
When Hoya Prospectus was active, they published game by game possession times. Our opponents almost always average longer possessions than we do. KenPom only publishes the season average. Thus far, we avg 18.2 sec/poss, while our opponents avg 18.8. The D-1 avg is 17.9 secs. Our avg defensive possessions are longer than our offensive ones every year back to 2010, the earliest yr for which KenPom has that data.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 11:51:29 GMT -5
When Hoya Prospectus was active, they published game by game possession times. Our opponents almost always average longer possessions than we do. KenPom only publishes the season average. Thus far, we avg 18.2 sec/poss, while our opponents avg 18.8. The D-1 avg is 17.9 secs. Our avg defensive possessions are longer than our offensive ones every year back to 2010, the earliest yr for which KenPom has that data. Well a lot of that is our defense has historically been very good. Also, we make a VERY concerted effort to not give up fastbreak points-- we pretty much always only have 1, maybe 2 guys at most crashing the offensive boards and the rest of the guys are hustling to get back in transition. And, to reiterate myself, being below the D1 average is not good. There are 300 something teams. 250 of which pretty much stink. being in the high 100's is nothing to be proud of. Also, let me once again state, those numbers can not be seen in a vacuum. Look at all the other top programs and teams that have won national championships. L'Ville, UConn, Kansas, UNC, Duke. These teams all get a lot of possessions and score a lot. It's also no coincidence that almost all those teams have famous comeback wins in the tournament and regular season where they were down double-digits before pulling it out. You want to say our numbers back up the fact that we get more possessions than our opponents on average, well duh, we win 65 percent of our games usually. Our program has been very talented. If you look at wins and losses, especially in the regular season, over the past 5 years we've been an elite team. We frustrate a lot of teams and make them play long possessions. We also play at a pretty fast pace against a lot of teams that arent good because we're just far superior and can get looks pretty easily. The issue is that, as TJI said, when we get into the big games, we often slow-down or, worse yet, clam up and panic. Even games we win like versus Cuse last year at the Dome were very slow, disjointed and methodical. That will win us a lot of games because it will keep opponents from running on us while keeping us relatively efficient. This is why I don't think we should scrap it's principles. But I can't deny that when the other team doesnt fall victim to that tempo and shoots hot against us, it makes it tough for us to come back.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 19, 2014 12:29:47 GMT -5
We have famous comeback wins as well. We come back plenty -- and while it's a pain in the ass to research, I've never seen anything that says we do it less than other teams. We came back from double digits against UNC, against Pitt in the halfcourt chestbump game, just to name two famous ones.
-------------
As for pace, many successful teams play faster. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that much. Playing faster doesn't make them better; they often play fast because they have a ton of talent, and that's a good way to let athletic talent win out. When you are Kentucky or Kansas or UNC and have 5 NBA Top 10 recruits on your team, you want the game to always be a talent contest.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with fastbreaking or playing fast. It does often lead to a lot more of playing dumb or sloppy, but not always. Over-reliance on it is terrible -- we see that a lot with UNC's inconsistency and underperformance as that team can really struggle in the halfcourt when it doesn't overwhelm with talent. Just like over-reliance on any one aspect of offense is dumb.
But plenty of teams have a lot of success playing slow. Not all of Syracuse's team run at pace. Pitt is always slow. UCLA went to three straight Final Fours not pushing it. Those Florida teams weren't super fast.
In fact, right now:
Georgetown is 229th in adjusted pace.
Arizona is ranked 289 in adjusted ppg. Florida is 327. Creighton is 207. Syracuse is 345. Virginia is 341. Wichita State is 240. Ohio State and Michigan are slow. Kentucky is only 157th and Connecticut is 227.
So tell me that we need to run? We have more possessions per game than Syracuse, once you adjust for opponents.
There's a loose correlation between pace and winning over time, but it's likely mostly or completely attributable to teams with superior talent wanted to push the pace more, rather than a causal relationship.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 19, 2014 12:33:08 GMT -5
When Hoya Prospectus was active, they published game by game possession times. Our opponents almost always average longer possessions than we do. KenPom only publishes the season average. Thus far, we avg 18.2 sec/poss, while our opponents avg 18.8. The D-1 avg is 17.9 secs. Our avg defensive possessions are longer than our offensive ones every year back to 2010, the earliest yr for which KenPom has that data. Well a lot of that is our defense has historically been very good. Also, we make a VERY concerted effort to not give up fastbreak points-- we pretty much always only have 1, maybe 2 guys at most crashing the offensive boards and the rest of the guys are hustling to get back in transition. And, to reiterate myself, being below the D1 average is not good. There are 300 something teams. 250 of which pretty much stink. being in the high 100's is nothing to be proud of. Also, let me once again state, those numbers can not be seen in a vacuum. Look at all the other top programs and teams that have won national championships. L'Ville, UConn, Kansas, UNC, Duke. These teams all get a lot of possessions and score a lot. It's also no coincidence that almost all those teams have famous comeback wins in the tournament and regular season where they were down double-digits before pulling it out. You want to say our numbers back up the fact that we get more possessions than our opponents on average, well duh, we win 65 percent of our games usually. Our program has been very talented. If you look at wins and losses, especially in the regular season, over the past 5 years we've been an elite team. We frustrate a lot of teams and make them play long possessions. We also play at a pretty fast pace against a lot of teams that arent good because we're just far superior and can get looks pretty easily. The issue is that, as TJI said, when we get into the big games, we often slow-down or, worse yet, clam up and panic. Even games we win like versus Cuse last year at the Dome were very slow, disjointed and methodical. That will win us a lot of games because it will keep opponents from running on us while keeping us relatively efficient. This is why I don't think we should scrap it's principles. But I can't deny that when the other team doesnt fall victim to that tempo and shoots hot against us, it makes it tough for us to come back. Connecticut was 240th in adj. tempo when they won the NCAAs in 2011. We were 256th. We were 166th in adj. temp in 2010. Duke was 249th. Also, our slowest teams (2007 and 2008) were the ones known for their comebacks (Pitt and L'Ville to end the regular seasons, UNC, @marquette in 2008, etc).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 13:08:51 GMT -5
We have famous comeback wins as well. We come back plenty -- and while it's a pain in the ass to research, I've never seen anything that says we do it less than other teams. We came back from double digits against UNC, against Pitt in the halfcourt chestbump game, just to name two famous ones. ------------- As for pace, many successful teams play faster. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean that much. Playing faster doesn't make them better; they often play fast because they have a ton of talent, and that's a good way to let athletic talent win out. When you are Kentucky or Kansas or UNC and have 5 NBA Top 10 recruits on your team, you want the game to always be a talent contest. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with fastbreaking or playing fast. It does often lead to a lot more of playing dumb or sloppy, but not always. Over-reliance on it is terrible -- we see that a lot with UNC's inconsistency and underperformance as that team can really struggle in the halfcourt when it doesn't overwhelm with talent. Just like over-reliance on any one aspect of offense is dumb. But plenty of teams have a lot of success playing slow. Not all of Syracuse's team run at pace. Pitt is always slow. UCLA went to three straight Final Fours not pushing it. Those Florida teams weren't super fast. In fact, right now: Georgetown is 229th in adjusted pace. Arizona is ranked 289 in adjusted ppg. Florida is 327. Creighton is 207. Syracuse is 345. Virginia is 341. Wichita State is 240. Ohio State and Michigan are slow. Kentucky is only 157th and Connecticut is 227. So tell me that we need to run? We have more possessions per game than Syracuse, once you adjust for opponents. There's a loose correlation between pace and winning over time, but it's likely mostly or completely attributable to teams with superior talent wanted to push the pace more, rather than a causal relationship.Wow, people really do bend over backwards to take a pretty uncontroversial point and turn it into statistical one-upsmanship. Look, I'll lay it out one final time and other people can have the last word because I'm getting tired of this debate. When you're losing, it's better to have more possessions in the game. It gives you a better chance to shoot percentages that are so far superior to your opponents that you can overcome a deficit assuming FG% remains constant whether you are playing fast or slow. If you believe a team has a better chance making shots on fast breaks than in the half court that probability rises even further. From a statistical standpoint, this is unassailable. People's repeated use of the adjusted pace actually shows a superficial understanding of this metric or a too clever by half when applied to how basketball is actually played. Once again, as somebody who uses stats daily, I could show you how misleading those stats are or how easily manipulated they are. (Ask Rogoff and Reinhart about this or better yet google their own statistical blunder.) There are tons of ways these stats are skewed-- really an infinite number of possibilities I could conjure up in-game and from a macro standpoint to explain why Arizona -- who is constantly running on the fast break and getting easy dunks -- is actually very slow. As just some simple examples, bringing the ball up the court lazily on a few plays or getting pressed, or a few bad possessions where the shot clock violation happens or end game scenarios when a team is milking a clock can severely change the pace that the team played at throughout the whole game. On a macro-level, there are teams out there whose entire gameplan is to just try to get a bucket as soon as possible and run and gun. Iona is like that for example-- and they play absolutely no defense either. Teams like this also skew the averages. As to the point about how Kentucky runs because they have NBA players-- yes, I get that. I'm not asking to be them or anyone else for that matter so people can stop asking me "so why is it that we need to run all the time?" The only point I made was agreeing with MCI that a slower pace makes it harder to make a comeback. (BTW, doesn't that Kentucky point refute the numbers argument you're also making about Kentucky playing slow according to the stats? You can't have it both ways. But lets be real, ask anyone and they know that Kentucky gets out on the break and plays fast.) I actually really like what the team is trying to do now which is a hybrid of sorts and some pressure defense to get easy transition points. I'm excited to see how it will it play-out with the new recruits. In fact, I'll put all my cards on the table: ideally, I would love to see the system we have now adapted to use a lot of the types of backcuts and lob passes a lot of athletic teams use to get easy buckets in the half court. It's the same principles as our system in a sense, although they use those types of plays more sporadically. I believe the element of surprise makes our offense a lot more effective, and would like to see it used a little frequently, but more effectively. It would also have the side-benefit of making us tougher to scout, harder to negatively recruit and more appealing to recruits. With the athletic talent we have next year, I would like to see more drive and kick and pick and roll -- not unlike this season -- and then when opponents try to take that away by playing us close, we hit them with backdoors Right now everyone just clogs up the middle and grabs/holds our cutters. Plus they are prepared for most of our cuts anyway. I do agree with the point about being over-reliant on the fast break and that's why I've never said we should run like UNC. I just think with this program's propensity to go on scoring droughts you need some release valves to find an unorthodox way to get a bucket. In the middle of a drought I would love to just surprise a team with a quick outlet and race towards the bucket. Or have an extra player challenge for an offensive rebound to get an easy putbuck. Not every play but enough to keep opponents off-balance. My offensive ideal isn't so much fast or slow but predictable versus surprise. BTW, that was what was great about having a post player like Roy who you could just dump it into and get instant offense no matter what. It's what makes Gtown's class in such a system-- with a good center to match so intriguing and makes me optimistic. And can we please stop using the UNC and Pitt games as examples of how Gtown can come back from big leads. The Hibbert-Green team was special and had such good chemistry/talent that they would have mounted a comeback on almost anyone using any offense. (Ohio State aside.) Again, sorry for the long post and clogging up the board on this topic. This will be my last on the issue. Fire away....
|
|
gujake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 831
|
Post by gujake on Feb 19, 2014 13:19:53 GMT -5
denny - I didn't switch up any metrics mid thread. I told you that we are usually middle of the pack in average offensive possession length, and then I gave you numbers on it. You said the numbers could be skewed by terrible teams and that you thought we would be "near the bottom" if I only included top 50 teams, so I showed you numbers on that. If you think the numbers are still skewed because of rebounding or anything else, that's fine. I don't have any more numbers, and you are clearly never going to be convinced anyway.
And I agree - numbers rarely tell the whole story. But they are very helpful when looking at stuff like this. People are biased. The "Princeton Offense" automatically brings to mind a plodding slow style, so people expect us to be slow on offense. The numbers suggest we're on the slow side, but not near the bottom. I'm not even a fan of the offense, but the slow offense thing is a little overblown.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,393
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Feb 19, 2014 13:27:23 GMT -5
When Hoya Prospectus was active, they published game by game possession times. Our opponents almost always average longer possessions than we do. KenPom only publishes the season average. Thus far, we avg 18.2 sec/poss, while our opponents avg 18.8. The D-1 avg is 17.9 secs. Our avg defensive possessions are longer than our offensive ones every year back to 2010, the earliest yr for which KenPom has that data. Well a lot of that is our defense has historically been very good. Also, we make a VERY concerted effort to not give up fastbreak points-- we pretty much always only have 1, maybe 2 guys at most crashing the offensive boards and the rest of the guys are hustling to get back in transition. And, to reiterate myself, being below the D1 average is not good. There are 300 something teams. 250 of which pretty much stink. being in the high 100's is nothing to be proud of. Also, let me once again state, those numbers can not be seen in a vacuum. Look at all the other top programs and teams that have won national championships. L'Ville, UConn, Kansas, UNC, Duke. These teams all get a lot of possessions and score a lot. It's also no coincidence that almost all those teams have famous comeback wins in the tournament and regular season where they were down double-digits before pulling it out. You want to say our numbers back up the fact that we get more possessions than our opponents on average, well duh, we win 65 percent of our games usually. Our program has been very talented. If you look at wins and losses, especially in the regular season, over the past 5 years we've been an elite team. We frustrate a lot of teams and make them play long possessions. We also play at a pretty fast pace against a lot of teams that arent good because we're just far superior and can get looks pretty easily. The issue is that, as TJI said, when we get into the big games, we often slow-down or, worse yet, clam up and panic. Even games we win like versus Cuse last year at the Dome were very slow, disjointed and methodical. That will win us a lot of games because it will keep opponents from running on us while keeping us relatively efficient. This is why I don't think we should scrap it's principles. But I can't deny that when the other team doesnt fall victim to that tempo and shoots hot against us, it makes it tough for us to come back. I never said "we get more possessions than our opponents on average" thru the course of a season. I said we average less time per possession on offense. As SF pointed out, the reasons are varied. BTW, adding Kentucky to your list above, Louisville ranked 126 in tempo, Kentucky 161, YouCon 240, Duke 249, and NC 8, so all those Nat'l Champs you mentioned do not get a lot of possessions. What they did do was score efficiently in the possessions they had. And if any team shoots hot, big comebacks are tough because in addition to points, you need stops.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Feb 19, 2014 13:31:55 GMT -5
I'll stay away from stats for you denny. The thing about comebacks for this team, is that JT3 believes it should be defense based. Make stops then make your shots on the other end. There is no reason to speed the game up outside of quick layups of defensive turnovers. Also, as you admitted, this team does get out in transition, even if they are not the best built running team. As much as JT3 is an offensive mind, his defense has been the stronger side of the ball for most of his team's at Georgetown.
I'm not sure if people are watching the games, not just you denny. This team rarely uses a whole shot clock unless against good defense or stops the break if we have numbers and even sometimes if we don't have numbers we'll see a player push it. Yes we do have some half court sets that are predictable, the dribble across the top while everyone cuts as the dribbler approaches is one. Hopefully JT3 will add some wrinkles because we have not gotten anything from the straight dribble/cuts for a while. I just don't understand what you want to change? We get out in transition when we can, we do some pick and roll, and we run our half court sets, do you want JT3 to add the triangle or iso sets?
Finally, another thing that holds this team back is our lack of shooters. We NEED to use clock to get our better players open for a shot in the half court, its not like we are passing up decent shots looking for the perfect shot as teams in the past have done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2014 13:32:38 GMT -5
denny - I didn't switch up any metrics mid thread. I told you that we are usually middle of the pack in average offensive possession length, and then I gave you numbers on it. You said the numbers could be skewed by terrible teams and that you thought we would be "near the bottom" if I only included top 50 teams, so I showed you numbers on that. If you think the numbers are still skewed because of rebounding or anything else, that's fine. I don't have any more numbers, and you are clearly never going to be convinced anyway. And I agree - numbers rarely tell the whole story. But they are very helpful when looking at stuff like this. People are biased. The "Princeton Offense" automatically brings to mind a plodding slow style, so people expect us to be slow on offense. The numbers suggest we're on the slow side, but not near the bottom. I'm not even a fan of the offense, but the slow offense thing is a little overblown. Jake--Just went back and checked and you're right on this. You were talking about average possession length. The issue is that I was talking about possessions per game in the context of what is the best way to make a comeback. Anyway, my fault for saying you switched it up. I stand by the meat of the argument though. Also, I understand people get sensitive about the Princeton offense label and it is overblown, although I do think there's truth to it. My bigger point has always been that the argument is less fast-slow but diversity in the offense and getting quick baskets when you can, especially in deficit situations. The ideal offense is very subjective in my mind, numbers just don't do the discussion enough justice. As to what I want-- I think I laid it out in the last post. Like HometownHoya said, a few more wrinkles (which is being done now, admittedly, some drive and kick options so that there are multiple available options to score: 1. pg drive to the rim. 2. pg floater. 3. pg lob/pass to the center for easy dunk. 4. pg kickout to a 3 point shooter.) And then when teams start playing guys close because they fear a drive/shot, then use cuts to eat them up. Also, wouldnt mind surprising a defense with bringing an extra rebounder off the weakside-- not enough so they can start running on us but maybe get an extra couple easy put-backs. Finally, when we're in complete drought mode, pull a UNC and outlet very quickly to a guard and race up the floor-- at least probe the defense to see if there's an angle-- can't be worse than any of the bricks we throw up during our patented 8 minute draughts. Hoyas in Spirit: please see my last post about the myriad ways in a micro and macro sense that those numbers are not representative. OK, this really will be my last post on this....
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,393
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Feb 19, 2014 13:40:42 GMT -5
And can we please stop using the UNC and Pitt games as examples of how Gtown can come back from big leads. The Hibbert-Green team was special and had such good chemistry/talent that they would have mounted a comeback on almost anyone using any offense. (Ohio State aside.) And that team averaged 59.9 possessions per game, good for #328 in the nation. They also averaged an outstanding 1.2 points per possession, while only giving up 0.93.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 19, 2014 13:47:55 GMT -5
I don't think we're that far away for each other, Denny.
While fundamentally, yes, less possessions means less ability to comeback, it's over simplifying the issue. Comebacks are just as much defense as offense if not moreso -- and comebacks are really correlated to playing well. You can't just force it by running -- if the team isn't attuned to running or pressing that can sabotage your chances at coming back. Forcing in one or two more possessions means little if you are less effective at playing faster -- you need to outplay your opponent and any decrease of that is much more damning than losing a possession or two.
This may not be you, but there's a whole slew of people on this board for whom the answer is uniformly "press" and "run." They cite examples (which are often straight out wrong), personal feelings without context, etc. If you are going to rail on people for using a competition-adjusted pace number in the context of all D-I teams while citing the effect that good defense can have on it, why aren't you calling people on "we never come back" as an argument?
The reality is that no one has any actual data that we come back less than other teams. Your throwing out of the Hibbert/Green teams is actually exactly what I'd say -- the use of pace/importance of pace in coming back is WILDLY overstated. It's vastly more important to simply be good.
The constant arguments about pace and the ninth and tenth players on this team -- which seem to take up 80% of the discussion -- have almost no real effect on wins and losses. The fact that those arguing for it constantly use no facts and often use disprovable conventional wisdom just makes it even more frustrating.
I'd love for us to fast break more and be more effective at it. I'm a proponent of a versatile offense. Game-planning in basketball is game theory. St. John's isn't good right now because Lavin became a good coach -- they are good because they are hitting from the outside. This opens up drives because you have to respect it. When we can't hit from outside, we can't drive very much (because no one is an elite level driver on our team), we have no low post play, we don't offensive rebound, etc.
A versatile offense can shift when something isn't working -- and that's why I'd like to fast break more. That's why a selective press is a good idea if you can execute it. Not only that, but a versatile offense feeds off itself. If your low post guy demands a double team, that opens up outside shots, which opens up drives, which opens up more help D, which leaves guys open for offensive rebounding.
But all that takes coaching -- and there is a limited amount of time for coaching. Do you teach the press or low post moves? It's all choices. I think there's a distinct lack of appreciation for the limited amount of practice time allowed and the fact that players, even when instructed well and working hard, don't always get it and execute.
So yeah, I'd love it we fast breaked more. But we didn't fail to come back versus SJU because we run too slow. We had it under ten with ten minutes left. We didn't come back because Harrison hit a three, we failed on two straight offensive possessions, and we failed to play D the rest of the way.
There's a lot of things that correlate much more strongly to winning than pace. The obsession with it -- and with who plays three or four minutes -- is just mind-blowing to me. At least the player development conversation is about something important.
|
|