|
Post by paulioz7 on Jan 11, 2015 18:35:22 GMT -5
Most of his two points shots are layups. He is not a liability on his own and is better than Bowen and Hopkins because he can make open layups. Can he hit the uncontested 3 occasionally? Yes. And it better be uncontested. He passes up that shot as the defense gives him a lot of open 3s as they dont think he will hit that many. However, with Bowen and Hopkins and Jabril that just not an offensive minded trio in my opinion. I think Jabril is a good slasher but the bigs in the Big East are too much for him to score consistently driving to the basket. They all should play but no more than two at a time.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 11, 2015 18:49:06 GMT -5
Fair, but you think they wouldn't have made it if he was starting? Also, by that logic there are parallels to be drawn from other teams where they decided to start their best two players and have had success. Would we be having this discussion if Gardner wasn't overweight at some point? Bottom line is that Marquette team was more balanced than this team and I don't think bringing Gardner off the bench was necessarily the difference maker for them. I would agree with an argument for Josh coming off the bench as to preserve his fouls and have him end games with longer stretches of play, but at this point he's been by far the most consistent player for us to start games. Omygod, so many things wrong with this post. I'm not even sure where to start. By your logic here, then no comparison is ever worth making ever, which is patently absurd. Would anyone ever argue that there AREN'T teams that have success by starting their two best players? What point are you even trying to make? I don't even know. Yes Gardner was also fat. He was also a poor defender because of it, just like Smith. It's an apt comparison, whether you can wrap your brain around that or not. If you actually go back and read the stats that were posted as I suggested earlier, you'd see he isn't necessarily any better offensively than anyone else on the team before the first TV timeout. The bottom line is that our early game strategy isn't working, because we almost never have a lead by the first timeout. The point I'M trying to make is that bringing Gardner off the bench was successful in adding some offense outside the starting lineup and limiting his exposure to early foul trouble. It worked for them. By no means does that mean it will work for us, but what we're doing to start the game isn't working, so why not try something new? You do realize that's the point you're trying to make, right? You are precisely arguing that we would have more success if we only started one of our best two players. Also, his impact goes beyond just stats, he is the most consistent player from the tip for us, he just is. I agree that it might provide more of an outside offensive threat, but Gardner wasn't commanding double and triple teams on every touch like Josh is. He provides spacing in he opening minutes that gives our players good looks, but our guards have lacked a killer instinct to put pressure on the defense. Say you bring him off the bench, I think our offense suffers from having a bunch of players who are not aggressive and don't have as good of spacing. You'd presumably have the same back court that has less space to operate with before, then the pressure is placed more on our frontcourt and if no one comes out aggressive then that could spell trouble. Obviously hard to tell until it happens, but at this point were not balanced enough to afford to sit our most efficient offensive player. What I think might be related to this issue is that the problem with our team isn't that the scemes or talent or rotations are off, but it's been the effort level. It's fairly obvious to me, and I think many would agree, that we don't generally compete for a full 40 mins like a lot of teams do and that most of our losses would've been avoided if we simply came out and competed as hard as the other team from the tip. Our team, to an extent, assumes the demeanor of our coach and most all of our early tourney flameouts to inferior teams have been a result of complacency and not going balls to the wall for 40 mins. If this team looks to compete and can erase those stretches where we seem disinterested and play unispired, unfocused basketball we will be fine. This team can already be good with the pieces we have in place, and obviously there's always room for improvement, but we're not going anywhere this season if the effort level continues to be as inconsistent as it has, and that starts with our captains and best players. Bril is always hyped (though he has been guilty of coming out slow as well), Josh has led by example, and DSR is really the one that needs to do some serious introspection. We will go as far as he goes, and when he plays with urgency were usually good, but so far this season he has been too indifferent at times and the rest of our team has often followed his example.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 11, 2015 18:58:55 GMT -5
Omygod, so many things wrong with this post. I'm not even sure where to start. By your logic here, then no comparison is ever worth making ever, which is patently absurd. Would anyone ever argue that there AREN'T teams that have success by starting their two best players? What point are you even trying to make? I don't even know. Yes Gardner was also fat. He was also a poor defender because of it, just like Smith. It's an apt comparison, whether you can wrap your brain around that or not. If you actually go back and read the stats that were posted as I suggested earlier, you'd see he isn't necessarily any better offensively than anyone else on the team before the first TV timeout. The bottom line is that our early game strategy isn't working, because we almost never have a lead by the first timeout. The point I'M trying to make is that bringing Gardner off the bench was successful in adding some offense outside the starting lineup and limiting his exposure to early foul trouble. It worked for them. By no means does that mean it will work for us, but what we're doing to start the game isn't working, so why not try something new? You do realize that's the point you're trying to make, right? You are precisely arguing that we would have more success if we only started one of our best two players. Also, his impact goes beyond just stats, he is the most consistent player from the tip for us, he just is. I agree that it might provide more of an outside offensive threat, but Gardner wasn't commanding double and triple teams on every touch like Josh is. He provides spacing in he opening minutes that gives our players good looks, but our guards have lacked a killer instinct to put pressure on the defense. Say you bring him off the bench, I think our offense suffers from having a bunch of players who are not aggressive and don't have as good of spacing. You'd presumably have the same back court that has less space to operate with before, then the pressure is placed more on our frontcourt and if no one comes out aggressive then that could spell trouble. Obviously hard to tell until it happens, but at this point were not balanced enough to afford to sit our most efficient offensive player. What I think might be related to this issue is that the problem with our team isn't that the scemes or talent or rotations are off, but it's been the effort level. It's fairly obvious to me, and I think many would agree, that we don't generally compete for a full 40 mins like a lot of teams do and that most of our losses would've been avoided if we simply came out and competed as hard as the other team from the tip. Our team, to an extent, assumes the demeanor of our coach and most all of our early tourney flameouts to inferior teams have been a result of complacency and not going balls to the wall for 40 mins. If this team looks to compete and can erase those stretches where we seem disinterested and play unispired, unfocused basketball we will be fine. This team can already be good with the pieces we have in place, and obviously there's always room for improvement, but we're not going anywhere this season if the effort level continues to be as inconsistent as it has, and that starts with our captains and best players. Bril is always hyped (though he has been guilty of coming out slow as well), Josh has led by example, and DSR is really the one that needs to do some serious introspection. We will go as far as he goes, and when he plays with urgency were usually good, but so far this season he has been too indifferent at times and the rest of our team has often followed his example. But the point that pr brought up (and you decided to ignore) that I'm echoing is that we're not getting off the good starts. We are constantly behind at the TV timeout, so how valuable is starting Smith really? If he's our "most consistent player from the tip" then he's consistently ineffective. We've had exactly 2 points in 3 of our last 4 games at the first timeout. Shake things up. PW has proven he can handle it and pass it and shoot it. Give him a chance to make something happen from the tip.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 11, 2015 19:25:26 GMT -5
You do realize that's the point you're trying to make, right? You are precisely arguing that we would have more success if we only started one of our best two players. Also, his impact goes beyond just stats, he is the most consistent player from the tip for us, he just is. I agree that it might provide more of an outside offensive threat, but Gardner wasn't commanding double and triple teams on every touch like Josh is. He provides spacing in he opening minutes that gives our players good looks, but our guards have lacked a killer instinct to put pressure on the defense. Say you bring him off the bench, I think our offense suffers from having a bunch of players who are not aggressive and don't have as good of spacing. You'd presumably have the same back court that has less space to operate with before, then the pressure is placed more on our frontcourt and if no one comes out aggressive then that could spell trouble. Obviously hard to tell until it happens, but at this point were not balanced enough to afford to sit our most efficient offensive player. What I think might be related to this issue is that the problem with our team isn't that the scemes or talent or rotations are off, but it's been the effort level. It's fairly obvious to me, and I think many would agree, that we don't generally compete for a full 40 mins like a lot of teams do and that most of our losses would've been avoided if we simply came out and competed as hard as the other team from the tip. Our team, to an extent, assumes the demeanor of our coach and most all of our early tourney flameouts to inferior teams have been a result of complacency and not going balls to the wall for 40 mins. If this team looks to compete and can erase those stretches where we seem disinterested and play unispired, unfocused basketball we will be fine. This team can already be good with the pieces we have in place, and obviously there's always room for improvement, but we're not going anywhere this season if the effort level continues to be as inconsistent as it has, and that starts with our captains and best players. Bril is always hyped (though he has been guilty of coming out slow as well), Josh has led by example, and DSR is really the one that needs to do some serious introspection. We will go as far as he goes, and when he plays with urgency were usually good, but so far this season he has been too indifferent at times and the rest of our team has often followed his example. But the point that pr brought up (and you decided to ignore) that I'm echoing is that we're not getting off the good starts. We are constantly behind at the TV timeout, so how valuable is starting Smith really? If he's our "most consistent player from the tip" then he's consistently ineffective. We've had exactly 2 points in 3 of our last 4 games at the first timeout. Shake things up. PW has proven he can handle it and pass it and shoot it. Give him a chance to make something happen from the tip. Okay, I inderstand that but my argument is how do you blame one player for our starts? I'd argue that without Josh we'd start even slower. Of all the starters to replace I'm not sure how you could point to him (or DSR if you give him a pas) and not to Hop or Trawick. Conventional thinking says that if an inability to score points at the beginning of games is the problem, you don't dole out a starting lineup with even less offensive talent to fix the problem. If anything you replace Hop and see how things work out and if someone can match his defensive contribution.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jan 11, 2015 20:30:45 GMT -5
Actually, it's incredible to meet that some are saying don't start Smith. Rock's point about preserving fouls is the only thing that even remotely makes sense. Given that I still start him.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,818
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 11, 2015 20:56:01 GMT -5
But the point that pr brought up (and you decided to ignore) that I'm echoing is that we're not getting off the good starts. We are constantly behind at the TV timeout, so how valuable is starting Smith really? If he's our "most consistent player from the tip" then he's consistently ineffective. We've had exactly 2 points in 3 of our last 4 games at the first timeout. Shake things up. PW has proven he can handle it and pass it and shoot it. Give him a chance to make something happen from the tip. Okay, I inderstand that but my argument is how do you blame one player for our starts? I'd argue that without Josh we'd start even slower. Of all the starters to replace I'm not sure how you could point to him (or DSR if you give him a pas) and not to Hop or Trawick. Conventional thinking says that if an inability to score points at the beginning of games is the problem, you don't dole out a starting lineup with even less offensive talent to fix the problem. If anything you replace Hop and see how things work out and if someone can match his defensive contribution. We're not blaming Smith for the slow starts.. This shouldn't be viewed as a punishment to him.. Any line-up that separates Smith & Hopkins is good by me but it has to be said that if the starting line-up is DSR, Trawick, Peak, White & Smith the team will not have one offensive threat on it's bench.. If that line-up doesn't work then where does the staff go? Why fire all your bullets now? Most of us acknowledge that DSR needs to become more assertive offensively, Peak too for that matter so put the pressure on them to lead the team from the start..
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 11, 2015 21:02:06 GMT -5
Okay, I inderstand that but my argument is how do you blame one player for our starts? I'd argue that without Josh we'd start even slower. Of all the starters to replace I'm not sure how you could point to him (or DSR if you give him a pas) and not to Hop or Trawick. Conventional thinking says that if an inability to score points at the beginning of games is the problem, you don't dole out a starting lineup with even less offensive talent to fix the problem. If anything you replace Hop and see how things work out and if someone can match his defensive contribution. We're not blaming Smith for the slow starts.. This shouldn't be viewed as a punishment to him.. Any line-up that separates Smith & Hopkins is good by me but it has to be said that if the starting line-up is DSR, Trawick, Peak, White & Smith the team will not have one offensive threat on it's bench.. If that line-up doesn't work then where does the staff go? Why fire all your bullets now? Most of us acknowledge that DSR needs to become more assertive offensively, Peak too for that matter so put the pressure on them to lead the team from the start.. But not only offensively, he's not being much of a leader.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Jan 11, 2015 21:39:43 GMT -5
You do realize that's the point you're trying to make, right? You are precisely arguing that we would have more success if we only started one of our best two players. Also, his impact goes beyond just stats, he is the most consistent player from the tip for us, he just is. I agree that it might provide more of an outside offensive threat, but Gardner wasn't commanding double and triple teams on every touch like Josh is. He provides spacing in he opening minutes that gives our players good looks, but our guards have lacked a killer instinct to put pressure on the defense. Say you bring him off the bench, I think our offense suffers from having a bunch of players who are not aggressive and don't have as good of spacing. You'd presumably have the same back court that has less space to operate with before, then the pressure is placed more on our frontcourt and if no one comes out aggressive then that could spell trouble. Obviously hard to tell until it happens, but at this point were not balanced enough to afford to sit our most efficient offensive player. What I think might be related to this issue is that the problem with our team isn't that the scemes or talent or rotations are off, but it's been the effort level. It's fairly obvious to me, and I think many would agree, that we don't generally compete for a full 40 mins like a lot of teams do and that most of our losses would've been avoided if we simply came out and competed as hard as the other team from the tip. Our team, to an extent, assumes the demeanor of our coach and most all of our early tourney flameouts to inferior teams have been a result of complacency and not going balls to the wall for 40 mins. If this team looks to compete and can erase those stretches where we seem disinterested and play unispired, unfocused basketball we will be fine. This team can already be good with the pieces we have in place, and obviously there's always room for improvement, but we're not going anywhere this season if the effort level continues to be as inconsistent as it has, and that starts with our captains and best players. Bril is always hyped (though he has been guilty of coming out slow as well), Josh has led by example, and DSR is really the one that needs to do some serious introspection. We will go as far as he goes, and when he plays with urgency were usually good, but so far this season he has been too indifferent at times and the rest of our team has often followed his example. But the point that pr brought up (and you decided to ignore) that I'm echoing is that we're not getting off the good starts. We are constantly behind at the TV timeout, so how valuable is starting Smith really? If he's our "most consistent player from the tip" then he's consistently ineffective. We've had exactly 2 points in 3 of our last 4 games at the first timeout. Shake things up. PW has proven he can handle it and pass it and shoot it. Give him a chance to make something happen from the tip. Honestly the offense completely breaks down when Smith is not in the game. When Smith is in the game everything opens up because Smith demands a double/triple team and everyone plays better. I think you are overstating the point disparity going into the first time out. To me it's not that big a deal because we are talking about a couple points. Have you not considered that if Smith doesn't start the game that the team might be down by 10-20 points by the time of the first time out. Basically, you'd get jumped out of the gate and have a hard time recovering if you are down by 20 pts. Marquette was able to do what they did because they had a rim protecting rebounder in the one eyed 7 footer, Chris Otule, who could run the floor and who was also a better finisher than Hopkins/Hayes. If you take Smith out and start Hopkins/Hayes IMO we will be down by 15-20 pts before the 1st time out and then games basically over by the time Josh Smith even steps on the floor.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 12, 2015 10:19:13 GMT -5
But the point that pr brought up (and you decided to ignore) that I'm echoing is that we're not getting off the good starts. We are constantly behind at the TV timeout, so how valuable is starting Smith really? If he's our "most consistent player from the tip" then he's consistently ineffective. We've had exactly 2 points in 3 of our last 4 games at the first timeout. Shake things up. PW has proven he can handle it and pass it and shoot it. Give him a chance to make something happen from the tip. Honestly the offense completely breaks down when Smith is not in the game. When Smith is in the game everything opens up because Smith demands a double/triple team and everyone plays better. I think you are overstating the point disparity going into the first time out. To me it's not that big a deal because we are talking about a couple points. Have you not considered that if Smith doesn't start the game that the team might be down by 10-20 points by the time of the first time out. Basically, you'd get jumped out of the gate and have a hard time recovering if you are down by 20 pts. Marquette was able to do what they did because they had a rim protecting rebounder in the one eyed 7 footer, Chris Otule, who could run the floor and who was also a better finisher than Hopkins/Hayes. If you take Smith out and start Hopkins/Hayes IMO we will be down by 15-20 pts before the 1st time out and then games basically over by the time Josh Smith even steps on the floor. That logic doesn't make any sense. If we're only scoring 2 points with Smith in, the worst we could possibly do is 2 points worse - 0 points. So to be down 10-20 points, we'd have to GIVE UP more points than we are currently, which would be to say Smith is making a significant contribution on defense in holding the other team to 5-7. And we all know Smith's D is not really helping us. And PW has already proven he can hold his own and then some on the defensive end. I'll admit I might be overstating the significance of being down 5-2 or 7-2. But I disagree with this notion that everything just magically opens up with Smith in the game because he draws 2-3 guys. The advantage of that is being able to kick out to shooters on perimeter to knock down 3s. Unfortunately we don't have the players this year that can knock those down consistently - even DSR has struggled with his 3 pt shooting. And frankly Smith is often times way too slow in getting the ball back out to the perimeter/finding the open man out there. With 2-3 guys packed in the lane defending Smith, it clogs up the lane for any of our guards to penetrate, which is the strong suit of most of them - Jabril, LJ, Bowen. PW forces the opposition to guard another player on perimeter. Now we've got 4 guys spreading the floor and opening up lanes to penetrate. And another guy who can knock down an open shot on the outside. I never said it would solve all our problems. Just a thought to shake things up since what we're doing is not working. Smith has obvious conditioning issues and it stands to reason that coming off the bench might help him stay fresher longer and avoid some early foul trouble. What good is Smith starting if he picks up 2 fouls before the first timeout anyway? Obviously it makes more sense to have PW start over Hopkins, but Thompson seems dead set on starting Hopkins every game even though he's a disaster out there most of the time. I just don't think bringing Smith off the bench is the worst option in the world. It might actually force us to start the game in a less predictable way then throwing a poor entry pass to Smith to start our first possession EVERY SINGLE GAME.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jan 12, 2015 10:22:17 GMT -5
Sorry but where did this notion come from that Smith plays bad D? He's not great helping but on his man, I'd argue he is better then Hopkins.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 12, 2015 10:24:07 GMT -5
Okay, I inderstand that but my argument is how do you blame one player for our starts? I'd argue that without Josh we'd start even slower. Of all the starters to replace I'm not sure how you could point to him (or DSR if you give him a pas) and not to Hop or Trawick. Conventional thinking says that if an inability to score points at the beginning of games is the problem, you don't dole out a starting lineup with even less offensive talent to fix the problem. If anything you replace Hop and see how things work out and if someone can match his defensive contribution. We're not blaming Smith for the slow starts.. This shouldn't be viewed as a punishment to him.. Any line-up that separates Smith & Hopkins is good by me but it has to be said that if the starting line-up is DSR, Trawick, Peak, White & Smith the team will not have one offensive threat on it's bench.. If that line-up doesn't work then where does the staff go? Why fire all your bullets now? Most of us acknowledge that DSR needs to become more assertive offensively, Peak too for that matter so put the pressure on them to lead the team from the start.. Exactly. No one is BLAMING anybody. But our early possessions every single game are just dumping the ball in to Smith, and usually with poor entry passes. If Smith isn't starting, we're forced to go elsewhere for early offense - maybe it gets DSR going a little earlier if we can run him off a screen and knock down a jumper or 2. Or if the lane isn't completely clogged with defenders on Smith, maybe LJ gets to the rim early and builds a little confidence. Or PW busts a zone and knocks down some mid range shots. Part of the problem with having Smith in there to start is that's our ENTIRE gameplan early, dump it down to Josh, try to get some easy buckets early. It's clearly by design and incredibly predictable. And as the stats show, it's not working all that well.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 12, 2015 10:25:24 GMT -5
Sorry but where did this notion come from that Smith plays bad D? He's not great helping but on his man, I'd argue he is better then Hopkins. Agreed, but also he's shown flashes of being a solid help defender - or at least better than someone of his stature should be.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 12, 2015 10:26:39 GMT -5
Sorry but where did this notion come from that Smith plays bad D? He's not great helping but on his man, I'd argue he is better then Hopkins. Because he's a foul machine. Fouling at over 6 per 40 minutes does not imply good defense, even if positionally he does OK most of the time. And any way you slice it, PW is a better defender.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 12, 2015 10:37:30 GMT -5
Sorry but where did this notion come from that Smith plays bad D? He's not great helping but on his man, I'd argue he is better then Hopkins. Because he's a foul machine. Fouling at over 6 per 40 minutes does not imply good defense, even if positionally he does OK most of the time. And any way you slice it, PW is a better defender. That's sound logic, but you're ignoring the fouls that are offensive (the ones that have nothing to do with defense, at all) and the fouls that simply result from a misinterpretation of the rules by referees because of his size. In a sense, he's playing "poor" defense because he is not conforming to the way the refs want to interpret the rules, but in another sense he practices the same textbook fundamentals that good defenders do (those who would not be penalized for those fundamentals because they are not mammoth-like in size). My point is it's not as black and white as you are making it seem. There isn't as direct a correlation between fouling rate and quality of defense to the degree that you might be suggesting. Coupled with the fact that refs blow their whistle differently for Josh than likely any other player they have to officiate, Josh would be an outlier of sorts anyway.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 12, 2015 10:41:40 GMT -5
Honestly the offense completely breaks down when Smith is not in the game. When Smith is in the game everything opens up because Smith demands a double/triple team and everyone plays better. I think you are overstating the point disparity going into the first time out. To me it's not that big a deal because we are talking about a couple points. Have you not considered that if Smith doesn't start the game that the team might be down by 10-20 points by the time of the first time out. Basically, you'd get jumped out of the gate and have a hard time recovering if you are down by 20 pts. Marquette was able to do what they did because they had a rim protecting rebounder in the one eyed 7 footer, Chris Otule, who could run the floor and who was also a better finisher than Hopkins/Hayes. If you take Smith out and start Hopkins/Hayes IMO we will be down by 15-20 pts before the 1st time out and then games basically over by the time Josh Smith even steps on the floor. That logic doesn't make any sense. If we're only scoring 2 points with Smith in, the worst we could possibly do is 2 points worse - 0 points. So to be down 10-20 points, we'd have to GIVE UP more points than we are currently, which would be to say Smith is making a significant contribution on defense in holding the other team to 5-7. And we all know Smith's D is not really helping us. And PW has already proven he can hold his own and then some on the defensive end. I'll admit I might be overstating the significance of being down 5-2 or 7-2. But I disagree with this notion that everything just magically opens up with Smith in the game because he draws 2-3 guys. The advantage of that is being able to kick out to shooters on perimeter to knock down 3s. Unfortunately we don't have the players this year that can knock those down consistently - even DSR has struggled with his 3 pt shooting. And frankly Smith is often times way too slow in getting the ball back out to the perimeter/finding the open man out there. With 2-3 guys packed in the lane defending Smith, it clogs up the lane for any of our guards to penetrate, which is the strong suit of most of them - Jabril, LJ, Bowen. PW forces the opposition to guard another player on perimeter. Now we've got 4 guys spreading the floor and opening up lanes to penetrate. And another guy who can knock down an open shot on the outside. I never said it would solve all our problems. Just a thought to shake things up since what we're doing is not working. Smith has obvious conditioning issues and it stands to reason that coming off the bench might help him stay fresher longer and avoid some early foul trouble. What good is Smith starting if he picks up 2 fouls before the first timeout anyway? Obviously it makes more sense to have PW start over Hopkins, but Thompson seems dead set on starting Hopkins every game even though he's a disaster out there most of the time. I just don't think bringing Smith off the bench is the worst option in the world. It might actually force us to start the game in a less predictable way then throwing a poor entry pass to Smith to start our first possession EVERY SINGLE GAME. I understand that the premise here is that Coach is insistent on starting Mikael. To me, the answer is in not starting Mikael. But if we assume he wants to start Mikael, I'd still start Josh. The reason, to me, is that we want to maximize Josh's effective usage, because I think we can all agree that we are generally best off when he is on the court at full energy. The best way to do that is to have as many possessions as possible where Josh has just gotten a significant rest, and the obvious times that happens are out of timeouts. Or -- like here -- before the game has even begun! If you wait five minutes to put him in, that may be four or five "rested" possessions that you don't get back out of him. And at least theoretically, that could be the difference in a one or two possession game. His propensity to foul may make the strategy irrelevant (as admittedly has been the case most games this year) because it forces him to sit during periods he is well rested, but I still think it's the correct strategy going into a game.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 12, 2015 10:46:13 GMT -5
Because he's a foul machine. Fouling at over 6 per 40 minutes does not imply good defense, even if positionally he does OK most of the time. And any way you slice it, PW is a better defender. That's sound logic, but you're ignoring the fouls that are offensive (the ones that have nothing to do with defense, at all) and the fouls that simply result from a misinterpretation of the rules by referees because of his size. In a sense, he's playing "poor" defense because he is not conforming to the way the refs want to interpret the rules, but in another sense he practices the same textbook fundamentals that good defenders do (those who would not be penalized for those fundamentals because they are not mammoth-like in size). My point is it's not as black and white as you are making it seem. There isn't as direct a correlation between fouling rate and quality of defense to the degree that you might be suggesting. Coupled with the fact that refs blow their whistle differently for Josh than likely any other player they have to officiate, Josh would be an outlier of sorts anyway. Maybe I oversimplified it a bit. But you've gotta think at this point in his career, the refs have been treating Josh this way for almost all of it. This isn't something new, at least it shouldn't be. And he either hasn't figured out how to adapt or is physically unable to adapt. Whether you want to blame the refs for the fouls or not, the fouls are still being called and it's still hurting the team.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Jan 12, 2015 10:52:04 GMT -5
That logic doesn't make any sense. If we're only scoring 2 points with Smith in, the worst we could possibly do is 2 points worse - 0 points. So to be down 10-20 points, we'd have to GIVE UP more points than we are currently, which would be to say Smith is making a significant contribution on defense in holding the other team to 5-7. And we all know Smith's D is not really helping us. And PW has already proven he can hold his own and then some on the defensive end. I'll admit I might be overstating the significance of being down 5-2 or 7-2. But I disagree with this notion that everything just magically opens up with Smith in the game because he draws 2-3 guys. The advantage of that is being able to kick out to shooters on perimeter to knock down 3s. Unfortunately we don't have the players this year that can knock those down consistently - even DSR has struggled with his 3 pt shooting. And frankly Smith is often times way too slow in getting the ball back out to the perimeter/finding the open man out there. With 2-3 guys packed in the lane defending Smith, it clogs up the lane for any of our guards to penetrate, which is the strong suit of most of them - Jabril, LJ, Bowen. PW forces the opposition to guard another player on perimeter. Now we've got 4 guys spreading the floor and opening up lanes to penetrate. And another guy who can knock down an open shot on the outside. I never said it would solve all our problems. Just a thought to shake things up since what we're doing is not working. Smith has obvious conditioning issues and it stands to reason that coming off the bench might help him stay fresher longer and avoid some early foul trouble. What good is Smith starting if he picks up 2 fouls before the first timeout anyway? Obviously it makes more sense to have PW start over Hopkins, but Thompson seems dead set on starting Hopkins every game even though he's a disaster out there most of the time. I just don't think bringing Smith off the bench is the worst option in the world. It might actually force us to start the game in a less predictable way then throwing a poor entry pass to Smith to start our first possession EVERY SINGLE GAME. I understand that the premise here is that Coach is insistent on starting Mikael. To me, the answer is in not starting Mikael. But if we assume he wants to start Mikael, I'd still start Josh. The reason, to me, is that we want to maximize Josh's effective usage, because I think we can all agree that we are generally best off when he is on the court at full energy. The best way to do that is to have as many possessions as possible where Josh has just gotten a significant rest, and the obvious times that happens are out of timeouts. Or -- like here -- before the game has even begun! If you wait five minutes to put him in, that may be four or five "rested" possessions that you don't get back out of him. And at least theoretically, that could be the difference in a one or two possession game. His propensity to foul may make the strategy irrelevant (as admittedly has been the case most games this year) because it forces him to sit during periods he is well rested, but I still think it's the correct strategy going into a game. I agree with your overall point I think, but it seems your argument is actually contradicting that. If Smith is coming off the bench, how is he any less "rested" that at the start of the game? He's still at 100%. The difference is the other team is no longer at 100% and may also have started bringing guys off the bench. You're only getting 20-25 minutes from him no matter what. There's always going to be at least a couple 4-5 minute stretches where he's not in the game. Why not use the start of the game as one of those stretches? And now he's not sitting periods where he's "well rested" because he hasn't picked up early fouls. You're distributing 100% of his energy and fouls over 35-36 minutes instead of 40 minutes. Hell, why not leave him on the bench to start the second half too? Worked against Creighton.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,818
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 12, 2015 11:34:17 GMT -5
I understand that the premise here is that Coach is insistent on starting Mikael. To me, the answer is in not starting Mikael. But if we assume he wants to start Mikael, I'd still start Josh. The reason, to me, is that we want to maximize Josh's effective usage, because I think we can all agree that we are generally best off when he is on the court at full energy. The best way to do that is to have as many possessions as possible where Josh has just gotten a significant rest, and the obvious times that happens are out of timeouts. Or -- like here -- before the game has even begun! If you wait five minutes to put him in, that may be four or five "rested" possessions that you don't get back out of him. And at least theoretically, that could be the difference in a one or two possession game. His propensity to foul may make the strategy irrelevant (as admittedly has been the case most games this year) because it forces him to sit during periods he is well rested, but I still think it's the correct strategy going into a game. I agree with your overall point I think, but it seems your argument is actually contradicting that. If Smith is coming off the bench, how is he any less "rested" that at the start of the game? He's still at 100%. The difference is the other team is no longer at 100% and may also have started bringing guys off the bench. You're only getting 20-25 minutes from him no matter what. There's always going to be at least a couple 4-5 minute stretches where he's not in the game. Why not use the start of the game as one of those stretches? And now he's not sitting periods where he's "well rested" because he hasn't picked up early fouls. You're distributing 100% of his energy and fouls over 35-36 minutes instead of 40 minutes. Hell, why not leave him on the bench to start the second half too? Worked against Creighton. +1 Well stated Snowplow.. It worked against Indiana too..He came in at the 14:04 mark and immediately got fouled and hit both FT's.. Next possession he scored a lay up.. It has to be noted the team was down 10 @ half and was down 10 when he got in so the other players held serve. In the Creighton game he came in @ the 13:15 mark and immediately scores a layup, pulls 2 def boards and an assist.. While he was out the other players pushed a 2 point lead to 7.. The logical move is to start White but is it really the best move?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,696
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 12, 2015 11:51:07 GMT -5
I agree with your overall point I think, but it seems your argument is actually contradicting that. If Smith is coming off the bench, how is he any less "rested" that at the start of the game? He's still at 100%. The difference is the other team is no longer at 100% and may also have started bringing guys off the bench. You're only getting 20-25 minutes from him no matter what. There's always going to be at least a couple 4-5 minute stretches where he's not in the game. Why not use the start of the game as one of those stretches? And now he's not sitting periods where he's "well rested" because he hasn't picked up early fouls. You're distributing 100% of his energy and fouls over 35-36 minutes instead of 40 minutes. Hell, why not leave him on the bench to start the second half too? Worked against Creighton. +1 The logical move is to start White but is it really the best move? Yes. You guys are talking yourselves into something because of the ridiculous restriction of starting Hopkins. It's not the worst idea if you hold that element to be an unchangeable constant, but that's kind of silly. Bench Hopkins, play him as little as possible, win more games. It doesn't need to be hard.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 12, 2015 12:03:02 GMT -5
+1 The logical move is to start White but is it really the best move? Yes. You guys are talking yourselves into something because of the ridiculous restriction of starting Hopkins. It's not the worst idea if you hold that element to be an unchangeable constant, but that's kind of silly. Bench Hopkins, play him as little as possible, win more games. It doesn't need to be hard. Absolutely. That's the clear move. Any minutes where Hopkins is playing the four (even if they're only the first two minutes) are unnecessary and demonstrably not in the best interest of the team.
|
|