calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,352
Member is Online
|
Post by calhoya on Dec 22, 2014 17:13:10 GMT -5
The game turned when Charlotte committed to the zone on defense. The only big the Hoyas have who can possibly handle that kind of attention is Smith and he had foul trouble plus lost the ball a couple of times when he put it on the floor. This team has a real problem without outside scoring. Despite the somewhat gaudy statistics of Jabril and Bowen from 3, other teams are not yet respecting their infrequent shots enough to extend their zone. There is one key and it is going to have to be consistent scoring from DSR, White and perhaps Copeland or Reggie. Peak simply does not seem inclined to take the shot anymore than Jabril or Bowen.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 22, 2014 17:29:47 GMT -5
This isn't true imo Rock.. AB, Hop& Jabril get blamed for the teams poor play a lot and we all know they're contributors to the team.. Plus, the numbers above showed that perception was not reality; there wasn't a drop-off during his 3 minutes of play and JT3 was able to have Josh and Hops available at the end of the game. The numbers don't account for opportunity cost do they? Didn't think so. Now I'm not saying your wrong, it's just that you have to know how to interpret numbers. Just because the margin was about the same doesn't mean that we weren't playing worse....
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 22, 2014 17:40:10 GMT -5
As Giga noted in an earlier post you could've just stated "the teams awfulness began when Smith picked up his fourth foul" which is a reasonable observation but instead you took a shot at Hayes.. To your 2nd point.. Hayes was brought up a lot last year because the front-court, Moses in particular was terrible.. The fact that JT3 allowed Moses to spend his last year in Nebraska speaks volumes to me.. Besides the Towson game this year when have any of us pro-Hayes guys complained about his lack of PT? In blowout games I'd like to see the back ups get some run, what's wrong with that? Don't make it seem as if he's a topic after every game cause it's not accurate and if you didn't bring him up in this thread we wouldn't be discussing him now.. This is getting silly now. First of all, several people commented on Hayes even before the game began (I can post those comments if you really want to see them). Hayes has been a frequent area of commentary on many of the threads recently, so no, it's not just the Towson thread. I am sorry if my original comment might been perceived as negative, but I really wasn't going for that. Maybe it would have been better stated that "we began going downhill after Smith got into foul trouble," but really I'm saying the same thing either way. As I've said repeatedly, I don't think Hayes was the major component to any of what happened because he barely played (granted, the fact that JT3 yanked him even though the others were in foul trouble says something). I just find this amusing because I don't think we even disagree. I just think you are perceiving a slight to Hayes that I did not intend. I think my previous posts show I am more than fair to our players and staff.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,297
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 22, 2014 17:53:55 GMT -5
Plus, the numbers above showed that perception was not reality; there wasn't a drop-off during his 3 minutes of play and JT3 was able to have Josh and Hops available at the end of the game. The numbers don't account for opportunity cost do they? Didn't think so. Now I'm not saying your wrong, it's just that you have to know how to interpret numbers. Just because the margin was about the same doesn't mean that we weren't playing worse.... Opportunity cost? Impossible to determine. We didn't play any worse with him in there as the numbers showed. In fact, Hayes contributed and allowed JT3 to have Josh and Hops available at the end of the game.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 22, 2014 18:03:02 GMT -5
There would be opportunity cost if we followed the suggestion of some, and gave Hayes 5 minutes or so a game, regardless of foul trouble. If Smith is the guy not getting minutes in that situation, the opportunity cost is huge offensively. If Hopkins isn't getting minutes in that situation, the opportunity cost is significant defensively.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,769
|
Post by njhoya78 on Dec 22, 2014 18:10:14 GMT -5
Hayes has played 24 minutes in six games so far, and has not played in four games. In those games in which he has played, he's averaging 4.0 minutes per game. Getting to five minutes in those games isn't a big step from where he already is. There is no reason, though, as to those games in which he is not going to play, to bump him to five minutes across the board. There is a reason why he didn't play in those games, and it doesn't have anything to do with player development.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,297
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 22, 2014 18:27:35 GMT -5
Hayes has played 24 minutes in six games so far, and has not played in four games. In those games in which he has played, he's averaging 4.0 minutes per game. Getting to five minutes in those games isn't a big step from where he already is. There is no reason, though, as to those games in which he is not going to play, to bump him to five minutes across the board. There is a reason why he didn't play in those games, and it doesn't have anything to do with player development. Pray tell what JT3 thinks.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,297
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 22, 2014 18:45:15 GMT -5
There would be opportunity cost if we followed the suggestion of some, and gave Hayes 5 minutes or so a game, regardless of foul trouble. If Smith is the guy not getting minutes in that situation, the opportunity cost is huge offensively. If Hopkins isn't getting minutes in that situation, the opportunity cost is significant defensively. First, Josh doesn't play 40 minutes and Hops is probably one of the worst offensive players under JT3 per usage. So someone has to sub Josh. In defense, the seven footer holds his own although we have a short sample size. Hayes is a good rebounder for his short minutes. Against Charlotte, Hayes had 2 rbs in 3 mins while Hops had 2 in 23 minutes.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 22, 2014 18:49:58 GMT -5
The numbers don't account for opportunity cost do they? Didn't think so. Now I'm not saying your wrong, it's just that you have to know how to interpret numbers. Just because the margin was about the same doesn't mean that we weren't playing worse.... Opportunity cost? Impossible to determine. We didn't play any worse with him in there as the numbers showed. In fact, Hayes contributed and allowed JT3 to have Josh and Hops available at the end of the game. Impossible to determine? Then how are you gonna say we didn't play any worse? That's exactly my point.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,297
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 22, 2014 18:53:46 GMT -5
By the numbers...objectively.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 22, 2014 19:12:43 GMT -5
By the numbers...objectively. The numbers don't say how we played over that stretch. They say how we played in relation to Charlotte over that stretch. I don't understand what's not to get? If Charlotte hit 20 threes over that stretch and we're still down by the same amount maybe you could definitively say that we didn't drop off but we did.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 22, 2014 19:22:21 GMT -5
There would be opportunity cost if we followed the suggestion of some, and gave Hayes 5 minutes or so a game, regardless of foul trouble. If Smith is the guy not getting minutes in that situation, the opportunity cost is huge offensively. If Hopkins isn't getting minutes in that situation, the opportunity cost is significant defensively. When BJ Hayes came into the game we had a blowout going with a 17 pt lead. 3 minutes later the lead was whittled down to a manageable 11 pts and the lead evaporated. So in terms of momentum when Hayes came in the momentum shifted and it was a key turning point in the game.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 22, 2014 19:27:31 GMT -5
This discussion is getting old.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 22, 2014 19:27:40 GMT -5
Are we really having an argument over the idea that our team performed worse with our third string center than with our first or second string center (who is also a starter)? This should not be a shock. This should be true for every team pretty much ever.
Hayes has improved; I thought he was serviceable. But he's nowhere near as good as Smith or even Hopkins across his total spectrum of skills. Since Smith is one of our best players, that's not much of a surprise. He's clearly our third best center. What's to argue about?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,901
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 22, 2014 19:35:39 GMT -5
Are we really having an argument over the idea that our team performed worse with our third string center than with our first or second string center (who is also a starter)? This should not be a shock. This should be true for every team pretty much ever. Hayes has improved; I thought he was serviceable. But he's nowhere near as good as Smith or even Hopkins across his total spectrum of skills. Since Smith is one of our best players, that's not much of a surprise. He's clearly our third best center. What's to argue about? This ^^
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,297
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 22, 2014 19:40:05 GMT -5
By the numbers...objectively. The numbers don't say how we played over that stretch. They say how we played in relation to Charlotte over that stretch. I don't understand what's not to get? If Charlotte hit 20 threes over that stretch and we're still down by the same amount maybe you could definitively say that we didn't drop off but we did. You and I will not agree on this. I saw the game and the numbers back it up. You do not think so. Agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 22, 2014 19:45:17 GMT -5
The thing was Hopkins wasn't really even in foul trouble for most of the game. IIRC he only had two fouls in the first half and Copeland replaced him in the starting line up after the half. I don't know if he's hurt or in the doghouse, OCC or they simply want to give different people a shot but he seems to be getting less time on the court even without foul trouble so far this year.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,297
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 22, 2014 19:50:48 GMT -5
The thing was Hopkins wasn't really even in foul trouble for most of the game. IIRC he only had two fouls in the first half and Copeland replaced him in the starting line up after the half. I don't know if he's hurt or in the doghouse, OCC or they simply want to give different people a shot but he seems to be getting less time on the court even without foul trouble so far this year. He played terribly. He airballed a lay-up, had only 2 rbs, missed two FTs and the fouls were of the stupid variety. Maybe he put himself in the doghouse.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,297
|
Post by prhoya on Dec 22, 2014 19:52:47 GMT -5
There would be opportunity cost if we followed the suggestion of some, and gave Hayes 5 minutes or so a game, regardless of foul trouble. If Smith is the guy not getting minutes in that situation, the opportunity cost is huge offensively. If Hopkins isn't getting minutes in that situation, the opportunity cost is significant defensively. When BJ Hayes came into the game we had a blowout going with a 17 pt lead. 3 minutes later the lead was whittled down to a manageable 11 pts and the lead evaporated. Etomic has a precise breakdown above. The lead was 12.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 22, 2014 19:58:41 GMT -5
The numbers don't say how we played over that stretch. They say how we played in relation to Charlotte over that stretch. I don't understand what's not to get? If Charlotte hit 20 threes over that stretch and we're still down by the same amount maybe you could definitively say that we didn't drop off but we did. You and I will not agree on this. I saw the game and the numbers back it up. You do not think so. Agree to disagree. I'm not saying you were wrong or right dude, just that your evidential support for your opinion did not follow sound basketball logic yet you keep on insisting that it does. Seperate of the Hayes discussion is the fact that you can't tell how a team performed over a particular stretch just by observing the score over that stretch. There are more variables that go into it than that.
|
|