SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 13, 2014 0:10:13 GMT -5
CO didn't run the numbers last year, so I have no idea what Hopkins hit on his jumper, but in his sophomore year he shot 31.5% on 2pt jumpers. Not all of those are the open 2pt jumpers people often think of (it includes some of his way-too-far from the basket post up fade-aways, I'm sure), but it's hardly inspiring.
Yeah, his form looks okay, but it's got to go in someday.
I would love Hopkins to make a leap. He certainly has the athleticism. But the blind support for a player who has hurt the team offense by the same people who turn on players who haven't been nearly problematic is mind-boggling.
|
|
hoyafan23
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 290
|
Post by hoyafan23 on Aug 13, 2014 0:26:15 GMT -5
Sorry for delay, but as blueandgray said Josh will be on campus next Saturday. Looks much leaner and everyone should be excited, time for all the Hoyas to do well in school and this could be a very interesting season.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,423
|
Post by MCIGuy on Aug 13, 2014 0:27:26 GMT -5
Georgetown had an adjusted offensive efficiency of 111.8 last year. This was not a great year for the offense, ranking just 44th in D-I. They did this despite Nate not drawing attention for roughly 62% of minutes played. The argument is that while Nate was not inefficient, he drug down the team because everyone else was playing 4 on 5. That's not wrong, but the effect is seen in total team numbers. And it's not great. But here's the rub: Josh, Markel, DSR and Trawick all had efficiencies above 110. Nate was at a 107, and Reggie and Aaron sat around 100. Moses was at a 96, but he used less possessions than Nate! And then there's Mikael - he scored 92 per 100 possessions used. If he were a team, he'd be Alabama A&M. Like it or not, there's no way Nate not shooting hurt us more on offense than Mikael shooting did. Ah, but you see the problem with using these AOE stats and such is that you rely on counterfactual arguments like the one you wrote above. My response is that if Lubick had been able to provide six more points per contests (not an unrealistic number) by getting two to three more high percentage baskets (or a least getting fouled in the process), then it could have boosted the Hoyas win total by at least a few more games. So by his NOT shooting he did hurt the team. Now can I prove this would have happened if Lubick had picked up his slack on offense? No. My take is just as much counterfactual as the one that claims Lubick's lack of looking for his shot hurt the team less than Hopkins' actual shots did. But no one can disprove my theory. So as far as I'm concerned Lubick's unwillingness to even try on that front damaged the team every season he started. But, hey, he had a high efficiency rating his entire career and I'm sure he can be content with that when looking back at his spectacular Gtown days.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 13, 2014 0:56:34 GMT -5
Here's the issue with your argument -- Lubick can't just get six more points. To get six more points, he needs to shoot more. He's obviously not a strong offensive player -- so it's probably going to take him close to six possessions to generate those six points. They don't come out of nowhere.
If those shots went to DSR, Markel, Smith or Trawick, the reality is that we probably scored a few more points than if Lubick had shot.
Of course, you would say, knowing basketball, that it's not so simple as moving shots around -- otherwise we would give every shot to DSR and we'd have the best offense in basketball. And that's true. Lubick wasn't a good offensive player. He wasn't good for the offense. His teammates faced tougher shots than if we had an effective player on the court, and when he woudn't shoot, there's no doubt that sometimes the resulting forced shot from Markel maybe wasn't so efficient either.
But it is a question of level of harm. And it's comparing the effects of Lubick's lack of threat on other players' efficiency versus the lost possessions that Hopkins had, I'll take the former. Why? I can't prove it, as you say, but I can look at the fact that players like DSR and Markel were actually pretty efficient. It's unlikely that DSR would have hit a 130 OE last year, for example, something reserved for elite post players. So if Lubick's lack of offensive threat was hurting him -- and it was -- I don't think it was dropping his teammates a huge amount. It's a logic thing and not unassailable.
But I can say that if Mikael had simply been more selective - not better -- just not take so many shots it was obvious he'd miss, like when he'd wait for a double team, then make a move into it -- those shots could have, should have gone to a better offensive player. Not Lubick, but Markel, or DSR, etc. There's only 60-70 offensive possessions a game -- wasting 3 a game on just poor decision making is a cardinal sin. That's not even mentioning the missed layups.
But again, if this were just Lubick v Hopkins, it'd be a different story, but it's not. It's a highly talented freshman versus Hopkins. If Hopkins has improved substantially, good on him and he should get the time. But as a senior, if he's the same player as last year, give me the freshman.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Aug 13, 2014 5:17:23 GMT -5
Here's the issue with your argument -- Lubick can't just get six more points. To get six more points, he needs to shoot more. He's obviously not a strong offensive player -- so it's probably going to take him close to six possessions to generate those six points. They don't come out of nowhere. If those shots went to DSR, Markel, Smith or Trawick, the reality is that we probably scored a few more points than if Lubick had shot. Of course, you would say, knowing basketball, that it's not so simple as moving shots around -- otherwise we would give every shot to DSR and we'd have the best offense in basketball. And that's true. Lubick wasn't a good offensive player. He wasn't good for the offense. His teammates faced tougher shots than if we had an effective player on the court, and when he woudn't shoot, there's no doubt that sometimes the resulting forced shot from Markel maybe wasn't so efficient either. But it is a question of level of harm. And it's comparing the effects of Lubick's lack of threat on other players' efficiency versus the lost possessions that Hopkins had, I'll take the former. Why? I can't prove it, as you say, but I can look at the fact that players like DSR and Markel were actually pretty efficient. It's unlikely that DSR would have hit a 130 OE last year, for example, something reserved for elite post players. So if Lubick's lack of offensive threat was hurting him -- and it was -- I don't think it was dropping his teammates a huge amount. It's a logic thing and not unassailable. But I can say that if Mikael had simply been more selective - not better -- just not take so many shots it was obvious he'd miss, like when he'd wait for a double team, then make a move into it -- those shots could have, should have gone to a better offensive player. Not Lubick, but Markel, or DSR, etc. There's only 60-70 offensive possessions a game -- wasting 3 a game on just poor decision making is a cardinal sin. That's not even mentioning the missed layups. But again, if this were just Lubick v Hopkins, it'd be a different story, but it's not. It's a highly talented freshman versus Hopkins. If Hopkins has improved substantially, good on him and he should get the time. But as a senior, if he's the same player as last year, give me the freshman. I agree -- get the guy with the higher ceiling in there early in the season (doesn't have to be immediately) and let him get comfortable. It would be great to have fewer "oh no" moments our forwards have provided the past few years.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 13, 2014 5:58:30 GMT -5
Agree with SF here. It's not Lubick's lack of shooting, it's that he's not good enough to take more shots and make a positive contribution. Same with Hop only Hop takes all those bad shots.
The real issue is one Lubick or Hopkins is fine as long as they provide value to the team on defense or rebounding. Two is not so fine. Perhaps Lubick outsourced some of his misses to Hopkins by playing more hot potato. Either way, two guys who don't need to be guarded is a bad way to run a front court. If Hop plays like a fifth option and there are four legitimate options on the floor, he could help on defense and not hurt on offense. That would be a good outcome and get him more minutes.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,267
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 13, 2014 6:29:31 GMT -5
Wow! This has evolved to Nate or Hops, who hurt us more or the same? (Not to mention Moses) May we never see another Hoya year of 2.5-vs-5 basketball!!!
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,510
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 13, 2014 6:36:22 GMT -5
Hoyafan is right....he does look to be in good shape....not back on campus yet. Incidentally, I know there has been a lot of speculation about whether Josh is coming back. I am happy to report that he will be. Amazingly, this is no different than information some posted here at the beginning of the summer. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Aug 13, 2014 7:05:38 GMT -5
Incidentally, I know there has been a lot of speculation about whether Josh is coming back. I am happy to report that he will be. Amazingly, this is no different than information some posted here at the beginning of the summer. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.) And we are all happy you were correct!
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,351
|
Post by calhoya on Aug 13, 2014 7:24:14 GMT -5
Wow! This has evolved to Nate or Hops, who hurt us more or the same? (Not to mention Moses) May we never see another Hoya year of 2.5-vs-5 basketball!!! Agreed. Really should not be about who was worse. I never had a problem with playing Hopkins or Lubick. The problem was that when they played together we had zero offense in the post. I think the point many are trying to make is that when Hopkins played the other team at least had to try to guard him, notwithstanding his relatively poor shooting. Lubick--as a player brought many positive qualities to the floor, but his reluctance to shoot--even open shots--was evident and led to many moments when opposing teams backed off him and guarded the other players. Over time it even diminished his value as a passing post because the other team just clogged the lane and dared him to take the open 10 footer.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Aug 13, 2014 7:50:09 GMT -5
Incidentally, I know there has been a lot of speculation about whether Josh is coming back. I am happy to report that he will be. Thanks b&g. I can't believe the number of posts disputing the relevance of Hop's stats and his value compared to the lack of posts on Joshua. Good news. I hope he's focused and ready to work on and off the court. Hopefully he's been on the LeBron/Melo program. Maybe some people just tts and have faith in Josh and don't have much to say because there is nothing to say unless you're speculating about him doing something other than what he said he was doing.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Aug 13, 2014 8:11:28 GMT -5
This argument that it was a bad thing for Lubick to pass up low quality shots hurts my head. It's not like Craig Esherick is still coach and the only kind of shots we can get are low quality shots. We have an actual offensive system that is predicated on offensive efficiency and waiting to take good shots.
Mikael's playing time is a product of bad luck (Tyler Adams and Moses Ayegba injuries) and bad recruiting (Hayes, etc). We have the chance to fix that this year because of good recruiting.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Aug 13, 2014 8:21:22 GMT -5
You and I watched a different Hopkins. There is nothing decent about Hopkins' jumper. It's been bad to awful his entire career. No teams respected Hopkins' jumper. Plus, he's a poor finisher. As for his handle, so many of Hopkins' turnovers happened when he attempted to put the ball on the floor. To say his handle is decent is an exaggeration of immense proportion. Henry's handle was decent. He could, and frequently did, take his man from the top. His jumper is decent. Not great, maybe not good. But it is decent. He has hit enough of them over the years to convince me that it isn't a fluke when his jumper actually goes in. And while I'm not of the opinion that Hopkins will have a Sims-like senior season, I can't let it slide your comment that Sims' handle was better and your suggestion that Sims took his opponent off the bounce more frequently. If Sims started doing that on a more recurring basis it wasn't until his senior season. I don't know what Hopkins' senior season will bring on that front but as far as a comparison for their first three years go I thought Hopkins was more successful in driving to the hole. Not that he does it frequently or all that successfully mind you, but he seemed to score off that move far more than Sims was able to during his first three seasons. Perhaps it was more of the result of Hopkins getting more minutes prior to his senior year, but my point remains that we are now getting to the point of making up stuff if we actually start claiming that driving to the basket was an element of Sims' game that was superior to Hopkins during the same stages of their careers. Josh looks good and in shape. Please let this be true. Because if it is....we can beat anyone. Anyone. I still maintain that Hopkins' performance ranks him as the worst big man on offense that JTIII has had, given his usage rate and the amount of minutes he has played. Nate Lubick wasn't great either, but also did not try to do things he could not do, and as a result, he was actually a fairly efficient offensive player. People try to let Nate Lubick off the hook when they resort to the "he didn't try to do things he couldn't do" excuse. What about not trying to do things he COULD do either? He could post up and attempt a hook shot whenever he wanted. But he decided not to do this, sometime going weeks without even attempting a postup move. And if people's explanation for this is that he wasn't good enough to take such a shot on a regular basis my counter would be whose fault is that? He was a far more highly thought of prospect coming out of high school than Hopkins. He had a strong body and build from day one, strong enough to bang with most college fives but fortunately for him he always started at the four position thus never having to play out of position on a regular basis. Thus he had the strength to post against virtually all PFs he faced off against, often times he had the clear advantage in terms of strength. But he rarely looked to score. Where was his work ethic during the summers and offseason to hone this part of his game? Where was his courage and leadership to go ahead and do what needed to be done in the paint during his final two seasons when his team needed points? I'm sorry but I have less patience and use for a guy who doesn't give the effort and runs away from any offensive responsibility, than a guy like Hopkins who may screw up on that side of the ball but at least tries to be more than a decoy, particularly when his team is in need. Exactly, it's like he only remembers Simsanity and wants to extrapolate a ridiculous performance against Yancy Gates over the course of an entire career. And people need to stop comparing Mikael's role to Otto's or what Copeland is gonna be, those two will make their living on the perimeter. Also, even the best players barrel into too many players and fail every one in a while, heck even at least once a game. That shows that they're putting pressure on the defense and at least trying to make something happen. It isn't like Mikael is trying to go outside the confines of the offense to look for his own shot, he's taking the shots that Jabril and Bowen couldn't get on a consistent basis, the shots that Lubick wouldn't take on a consistent basis. No one is saying he'll make a jump, but while people continue to claim that "there is nothing to suggest that he'll improve" you have to be able to see the other side of the coin too. There's nothing to suggest that he can't improve, and in fact his hard work that he has been putting in since the end of the season might be an indicator. The excuse that "unless she eliminates a few mental mistakes, which he probably won't" is a lame excuse. Do people really think they are the only one's that can see those deficiencies? If he has one thing to work on (im considering the mental aspect as a single entity to be improved on) then you can bet your ass both he and the staff are working to correct it. Mikael is one of the bigger gym rats we have on this team and I think he suffers more from people's perception of his demeanor.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,423
|
Post by MCIGuy on Aug 13, 2014 8:22:20 GMT -5
Wow! This has evolved to Nate or Hops, who hurt us more or the same? (Not to mention Moses) May we never see another Hoya year of 2.5-vs-5 basketball!!! Agreed. Really should not be about who was worse. I never had a problem with playing Hopkins or Lubick. The problem was that when they played together we had zero offense in the post. I think the point many are trying to make is that when Hopkins played the other team at least had to try to guard him, notwithstanding his relatively poor shooting. Lubick--as a player brought many positive qualities to the floor, but his reluctance to shoot--even open shots--was evident and led to many moments when opposing teams backed off him and guarded the other players. Over time it even diminished his value as a passing post because the other team just clogged the lane and dared him to take the open 10 footer. I never doubted his return either. I thought any questions came from unwarranted negativity provided by the Casual Hoya website.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Aug 13, 2014 8:26:50 GMT -5
CO didn't run the numbers last year, so I have no idea what Hopkins hit on his jumper, but in his sophomore year he shot 31.5% on 2pt jumpers. Not all of those are the open 2pt jumpers people often think of (it includes some of his way-too-far from the basket post up fade-aways, I'm sure), but it's hardly inspiring. Yeah, his form looks okay, but it's got to go in someday. I would love Hopkins to make a leap. He certainly has the athleticism. But the blind support for a player who has hurt the team offense by the same people who turn on players who haven't been nearly problematic is mind-boggling. It's not blind anything, sure he could've performed better but you don't just stop supporting someone because their performance doesn't meet your expectations especially when they are trying. According to detractors he "hurt" the hoyas offense, maybe from a numbers standpoint sure but that wasn't his only impact and you're being selective if you try and make it seem so. I support all Hoya players and have never said anything bad about our players because a) all of our Hoyas are talented and b) just because a player is less talented than another doesn't mean they deserve any less respect or support. Quit trying to paint a narrative that doesn't exist.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Aug 13, 2014 8:33:58 GMT -5
Here's the issue with your argument -- Lubick can't just get six more points. To get six more points, he needs to shoot more. He's obviously not a strong offensive player -- so it's probably going to take him close to six possessions to generate those six points. They don't come out of nowhere. If those shots went to DSR, Markel, Smith or Trawick, the reality is that we probably scored a few more points than if Lubick had shot. Of course, you would say, knowing basketball, that it's not so simple as moving shots around -- otherwise we would give every shot to DSR and we'd have the best offense in basketball. And that's true. Lubick wasn't a good offensive player. He wasn't good for the offense. His teammates faced tougher shots than if we had an effective player on the court, and when he woudn't shoot, there's no doubt that sometimes the resulting forced shot from Markel maybe wasn't so efficient either. But it is a question of level of harm. And it's comparing the effects of Lubick's lack of threat on other players' efficiency versus the lost possessions that Hopkins had, I'll take the former. Why? I can't prove it, as you say, but I can look at the fact that players like DSR and Markel were actually pretty efficient. It's unlikely that DSR would have hit a 130 OE last year, for example, something reserved for elite post players. So if Lubick's lack of offensive threat was hurting him -- and it was -- I don't think it was dropping his teammates a huge amount. It's a logic thing and not unassailable. But I can say that if Mikael had simply been more selective - not better -- just not take so many shots it was obvious he'd miss, like when he'd wait for a double team, then make a move into it -- those shots could have, should have gone to a better offensive player. Not Lubick, but Markel, or DSR, etc. There's only 60-70 offensive possessions a game -- wasting 3 a game on just poor decision making is a cardinal sin. That's not even mentioning the missed layups. But again, if this were just Lubick v Hopkins, it'd be a different story, but it's not. It's a highly talented freshman versus Hopkins. If Hopkins has improved substantially, good on him and he should get the time. But as a senior, if he's the same player as last year, give me the freshman. But the logic in this post is so contradictory I really don't get it. You point to Mikael being able to draw double teams as a negative thing, more negative than Lubick forcing his teammates into bad shot-taking situations that brought down their own efficiency. If you can't quantify either then why are you trying to? Either way it's not Lubick vs Hop, but if I'm picking a player to play alongside I can live with Hop using a possession or two more a game for himself because he pressures the opposing team on both sides of the ball rather than just one.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
|
Post by EtomicB on Aug 13, 2014 8:34:51 GMT -5
Hopkins has certainly produced less than we might have hoped upon his arrival. That said, I think some of the vitriol which flows his way can be linked to a placid demeanor which gives off the appearance of complacency and lack of determination. I am not suggesting that he does not care or does not try. I just think his demeanor leaves him with less of the benefit of the doubt than some others who are more demonstrative. I look back to a guy like Joseph Tuomou who would always get that benefit of the doubt because he was so animated and antic. In my opinion, he was always received better than his play would merit; conversely I think Hopkins is received worse. I disagree Elvado, I don't recall anyone ever questioning Hop's on court demeanor.. Hopkins is a fiery kid on the court and imo always plays hard.. My issue with him is strictly based on production or lack there of on offense.. I believe if Hopkins focuses on defense & rebounding this season he'll be a valuable player to the team..
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,749
|
Post by blueandgray on Aug 13, 2014 8:35:39 GMT -5
Thanks b&g. I can't believe the number of posts disputing the relevance of Hop's stats and his value compared to the lack of posts on Joshua. Good news. I hope he's focused and ready to work on and off the court. Hopefully he's been on the LeBron/Melo program. Maybe some people just tts and have faith in Josh and don't have much to say because there is nothing to say unless you're speculating about him doing something other than what he said he was doing. Truth be told...there was reason to speculate.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Aug 13, 2014 8:41:18 GMT -5
Maybe some people just tts and have faith in Josh and don't have much to say because there is nothing to say unless you're speculating about him doing something other than what he said he was doing. Truth be told...there was reason to speculate. I'm wasn't saying there wasn't but speculating won't change he outcome and I was simply responding to the previous posters comment questioning how people could not be talking about it more. When you worry about what you can control life is much more pleasant.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 13, 2014 9:02:41 GMT -5
Maybe some people just tts and have faith in Josh and don't have much to say because there is nothing to say unless you're speculating about him doing something other than what he said he was doing. Truth be told...there was reason to speculate. Wow, that's quite a statement.
|
|