Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2015 14:47:04 GMT -5
Fair enough, but I guess the question is when would you have called a time out if you were JTIII? Here are some possibilities from the first half based on the play-by-play info found on the espn boxscore. Where would you have called a time out that JTIII failed to call? Call time at 8:36, down 7. This allows a possession and a defensive stop in advance of the TV time out. Instead the time out was called down 15. I guess, but honestly at that point both offenses were so moribund that the game could have broken either way. I think a better candidate would have been shortly after the under 8 at 7:13, but even that seems a little hindsighty.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,769
|
Post by njhoya78 on Jan 28, 2015 14:54:23 GMT -5
I looked at the play-by-play on the guhoyas.com website, and it appeared that JT3 substituted far more in the first half than he usually does, trying to either (a) deal with physical limitations for Trawick and Peak due to their injuries, or (b) find a combination that would generate a change in the way that the game was going. Nothing worked. As for the failure to call a timeout during the first half when Xavier extended the lead, I note that he did call two timeouts, in addition to all of the TV timeouts. He usually only calls one in the first half. Like Cambridge noted, there really were not clear opportunities for JT3 to call a timeout and change the momentum/pace of game during the segments when Xavier extended the lead.
The shots didn't drop in the first half, and there were fewer shot opportunities in that half because of all of the Hoya turnovers. There were far too many unforced turnovers (traveling violations and offensive fouls); it wasn't the Xavier defense, but rather all of these self-inflicted wounds that cost GU the game. What is JT3 going to say at a timeout? "Stop turning the ball over! Stop traveling!" This is not a biddy basketball league. The players have to know these fundamentals on their own.
|
|
canissaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 524
|
Post by canissaxa on Jan 28, 2015 15:05:09 GMT -5
Thompson's biggest coaching mistake was playing Smith and Hopkins together for 8 minutes in this game. Otherwise, I don't think the game plan was bad. The bigs came out to the three point line to try to break up the packing aspect of the defense. We got decent shots. We did not execute. So true. The offense was noticeably stagnant when those two were on the court together. While we have discussed (at great length) the offensive deficiency of that particular lineup as a general matter, its troubles were particularly exacerbated by the pack the line defense and the fact that both seem to have (temporarily) forgotten how to shoot free throws. To some degree the decision to go with this lineup for extended periods last night might have been due to Peak's foul trouble, Trawick's "issues", or Ike/White's malaise, but whatever the impetus might have been to feature it so heavily I would suspect that a large part of that dismal field goal drought occurred during the time they were in the line up together. Not defending this decision, but Xavier presents a special matchup issue with our more offensively capable 1-big lineup. We got eaten up by Reynolds last game as he bullied Paul and Ike around--see below. Going to need a big game from Hopkins. Especially when they play Stainbrook and Reynolds together. Reynolds destroyed us last game and Hop was the only one who could guard him. He abused White last game and Isaac didn't play much, but I imagine he'll be too strong for Ike too. Need Hopkins to be available to guard Reynolds. Last game we turned it over 16 times and shot 15% from 3. We were also massively in foul trouble Xavier shot 29 Fts and we had 4 players with 4 or more fouls. Hopefully get a more even whistle tonight, take care of the ball better as we have been and knock down some 3's. That's a great point. If I recall correctly, Ike got pushed around a bit too. I wonder if we can do some offense/defense subs because our 2-big lineup is such a mess offensively, but if Paul and Ike can't hold position against Reynolds in the post, we'll have issues on D. Xavier may be the only team in the big east where our 2-big lineup may be a decent idea. Of course, with foul trouble and conditioning, this really isn't feasible for the whole game with just 2 legitimate bigs. And I can't see us putting Hayes in with Josh or Hopkins as I expect Hayes would do worse that Copeland or White on D with either matchup and the overall lineup would be much worse on O. Our defense was pretty good this game as a few have acknowledged and certainly Reynolds didn't get off at all. Perhaps JTIII was trying to prepare for the 2-big lineup and then Mack crossed him up with their 4-guard lineup. Definitely it seemed to me that we moved away from the 2-big lineup in the 2nd half when we really had to gamble on better offense to have any shot at clawing back.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 28, 2015 15:09:54 GMT -5
So true. The offense was noticeably stagnant when those two were on the court together. While we have discussed (at great length) the offensive deficiency of that particular lineup as a general matter, its troubles were particularly exacerbated by the pack the line defense and the fact that both seem to have (temporarily) forgotten how to shoot free throws. To some degree the decision to go with this lineup for extended periods last night might have been due to Peak's foul trouble, Trawick's "issues", or Ike/White's malaise, but whatever the impetus might have been to feature it so heavily I would suspect that a large part of that dismal field goal drought occurred during the time they were in the line up together. Not defending this decision, but Xavier presents a special matchup issue with our more offensively capable 1-big lineup. We got eaten up by Reynolds last game as he bullied Paul and Ike around--see below. That's a great point. If I recall correctly, Ike got pushed around a bit too. I wonder if we can do some offense/defense subs because our 2-big lineup is such a mess offensively, but if Paul and Ike can't hold position against Reynolds in the post, we'll have issues on D. Xavier may be the only team in the big east where our 2-big lineup may be a decent idea. Of course, with foul trouble and conditioning, this really isn't feasible for the whole game with just 2 legitimate bigs. And I can't see us putting Hayes in with Josh or Hopkins as I expect Hayes would do worse that Copeland or White on D with either matchup and the overall lineup would be much worse on O. Our defense was pretty good this game as a few have acknowledged and certainly Reynolds didn't get off at all. Perhaps JTIII was trying to prepare for the 2-big lineup and then Mack crossed him up with their 4-guard lineup. Definitely it seemed to me that we moved away from the 2-big lineup in the 2nd half when we really had to gamble on better offense to have any shot at clawing back. I agree -- this is the motivation for Thompson's decision. It's not necessarily wrong. I think it is wrong, and I think Thompson prefers to solve a defensive mismatch over creating an offensive mismatch far too often, to the point that it hurts the Hoyas. But it's not like he didn't have a reason.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 28, 2015 15:21:16 GMT -5
One of the things that bothered me the most was how much (a) Smith was in the high post (or beyond) and (b) how much Hopkins posted up down low. I realize part of this is the system we run, but part of the premise behind the big men at the high post is that the big man can shoot, and Smith never even attempts shots from there. I just don't feel like we have been utilizing Smith's full potential because we have him at the high post too much. I don't have a problem with him flashing there from time to time, but it seemed like he was there way too much last night, and too slow to get back down low.
On the other hand, I think Hopkins posted up way too much down low. He did it several times, and he got the ball there several times. To his credit, Hopkins didn't try to bully his way to the basket (which he's done a lot in the past, turning it over or getting blocked) on most possessions, but there's no convincing reason to guard him there either, because opposing teams know he cannot finish, and so they look for him to pass out of it.
I am not sure that there's much we can do about Hopkins (aside from only playing him when Smith is sitting) given offensive limitations, but I'd really like to see Smith at the high post less frequently, because it basically takes his one great talent and neutralizes it.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 28, 2015 15:31:25 GMT -5
You weren't a jerk until you made the spreadsheet crack. I watch every game. Usually at least twice. Let me be jerk right back: are you aware of psychology? The study of the mind? Psychology tells us that humans makes narratives all the time, and many times, those narratives are horribly wrong. There's literally a billion and one studies on different types of cognitive dissonance and the reality is this: the human brain is unreliable. Eyewitness accounts are wrong a disturbing amount of time. People think players come up in the clutch when they don't. They think teams win or lose for reasons they don't. They apply a preconceived hypothesis and simply count the evidence that supports and ignores the counter evidence. Everyone does it. For example: icing the field goal kicker doesn't work. But every time someone does it, and the kicker misses, it's cited as the cause. But FG% increase, given the same conditions, if you call time out. Or the example about "we never come back." We do. People just have ridiculous expectations. So yes, Mack got the better outcomes last night out of time outs. Of course, he got the better outcomes out night NOT out of timeouts as well. I mean, his team played MUCH better. There's a logic to the time out helping -- although that ignores the reality that the other coach gets to call a play as well. But in some cases, it's better to let them play -- that's true on many last possessions. So what I'm asking is, does anyone know? Not what you've seen, because the human brain is TERRIBLE as processing the cause of millions of outcomes with many possible causes. The reason I ask is that people posit the time out as this magical thing. And I just wondered if anyone had actually done the math somewhere. Ok, fair enough. Sorry for being a jerk. And those who say we never come back are wrong. We come back from big deficits surprisingly often, especially given the style of game we play. Flip side, I think we also allow teams back into games after building big leads fairly often as well. Just about the only consistent thing under JT3 is his team's often maddening inconsistency. I'm sure I've been a jerk as well many times along the line, so I'm sorry for that as well. As for the inconsistency, I wonder about that. It surely seems like it, but I wonder if as fans we just have too high of expectations of consistency itself. If I had more time, I'd look at it and see if we really won or lost more games than our expected amounts on something like Pomeroy said. I'm pretty sure he uses a team-agnostic value for win probability (team quality is included but not team consistency).
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,901
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 28, 2015 15:32:38 GMT -5
I looked at the play-by-play on the guhoyas.com website, and it appeared that JT3 substituted far more in the first half than he usually does, trying to either (a) deal with physical limitations for Trawick and Peak due to their injuries, or (b) find a combination that would generate a change in the way that the game was going. Nothing worked. As for the failure to call a timeout during the first half when Xavier extended the lead, I note that he did call two timeouts, in addition to all of the TV timeouts. He usually only calls one in the first half. Like Cambridge noted, there really were not clear opportunities for JT3 to call a timeout and change the momentum/pace of game during the segments when Xavier extended the lead. The shots didn't drop in the first half, and there were fewer shot opportunities in that half because of all of the Hoya turnovers. There were far too many unforced turnovers (traveling violations and offensive fouls); it wasn't the Xavier defense, but rather all of these self-inflicted wounds that cost GU the game. What is JT3 going to say at a timeout? "Stop turning the ball over! Stop traveling!" This is not a biddy basketball league. The players have to know these fundamentals on their own. You don't think a time out was needed after the team gave up an uncontested layup out of a time out to Dee Davis? I know I was screaming like a lunatic then.. How about after Davis hit that transition 3 which put them up 17 late in the 1st half? DSR only taking 2 shots in the 1st half falls on the staff also.. Xavier wanted G'town to shoot 3's so why wouldn't you devise plays to get your best 3 pt shooter shots if they're not coming within the normal flow of the offense?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2015 15:38:01 GMT -5
So true. The offense was noticeably stagnant when those two were on the court together. While we have discussed (at great length) the offensive deficiency of that particular lineup as a general matter, its troubles were particularly exacerbated by the pack the line defense and the fact that both seem to have (temporarily) forgotten how to shoot free throws. To some degree the decision to go with this lineup for extended periods last night might have been due to Peak's foul trouble, Trawick's "issues", or Ike/White's malaise, but whatever the impetus might have been to feature it so heavily I would suspect that a large part of that dismal field goal drought occurred during the time they were in the line up together. Not defending this decision, but Xavier presents a special matchup issue with our more offensively capable 1-big lineup. We got eaten up by Reynolds last game as he bullied Paul and Ike around--see below. That's a great point. If I recall correctly, Ike got pushed around a bit too. I wonder if we can do some offense/defense subs because our 2-big lineup is such a mess offensively, but if Paul and Ike can't hold position against Reynolds in the post, we'll have issues on D. Xavier may be the only team in the big east where our 2-big lineup may be a decent idea. Of course, with foul trouble and conditioning, this really isn't feasible for the whole game with just 2 legitimate bigs. And I can't see us putting Hayes in with Josh or Hopkins as I expect Hayes would do worse that Copeland or White on D with either matchup and the overall lineup would be much worse on O. Our defense was pretty good this game as a few have acknowledged and certainly Reynolds didn't get off at all. Perhaps JTIII was trying to prepare for the 2-big lineup and then Mack crossed him up with their 4-guard lineup. Definitely it seemed to me that we moved away from the 2-big lineup in the 2nd half when we really had to gamble on better offense to have any shot at clawing back. I agree, but having now looked at the play-by-play substitutes/lineups you can pretty much peg Xavier's margin of victory to the large block of time in the first half where Smith and Hopkins shared the floor between 7:23 and 5:21. By the end of that disastrous run the score was 10-23. Of course, the fact that that debacle was sandwiched by two extended periods in which Hopkins anchored the post alone (with Smith on the bench) in which Xavier went on a 6-0 run (from 10:42 to 7:23) and 6-2 run (from 3:59 to 1:10), respectively, pretty much dug the grave in which we buried ourselves.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,769
|
Post by njhoya78 on Jan 28, 2015 15:44:41 GMT -5
Etomic. . .in no particular order of response to your questions:
1. The XU 3 by Davis to give them a 17 point lead was at 1:44 left in the half; XU did not score over the balance of the half, and we did cut the margin to 12. Would we have done that much better by burning a third first half timeout? I don't know. I don't think it mattered, because the margin didn't expand, and in fact contracted.
2. I didn't like the uncontested layup by Dee Davis either. Call another time out there? Okay. Fine. Again, aside from giving JT3 a chance to vent at his players, how would that have changed things? It was a collective brain freeze by many last night, both players and staff Plenty of blame to go around.
3. I agree, wholeheartedly, that DSR has to be more aggressive in taking shots in the first half. Does that fall on the staff or on DSR? He had the ball enough to do something with it, besides pass off. I'd like to see DSR be more selfish, especially early in the game. We can't always count on second-half heroics to bail GU out. Last night was a game where DSR needed to step up early, and he didn't do it. He made himself a non-factor, and that does not bode well.
4. The Hoyas took three-point shots; they didn't drop. I would much rather have tried to create some offensive looks from the elbow of the lane, which was wide open all game. I thought we'd see Copeland and/or White exploit that spot, and we never even tried.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,550
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 28, 2015 15:48:04 GMT -5
I'll bet we could find this as an alternate definition of 'Hoyatalk' in Websters.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2015 15:48:24 GMT -5
I looked at the play-by-play on the guhoyas.com website, and it appeared that JT3 substituted far more in the first half than he usually does, trying to either (a) deal with physical limitations for Trawick and Peak due to their injuries, or (b) find a combination that would generate a change in the way that the game was going. Nothing worked. As for the failure to call a timeout during the first half when Xavier extended the lead, I note that he did call two timeouts, in addition to all of the TV timeouts. He usually only calls one in the first half. Like Cambridge noted, there really were not clear opportunities for JT3 to call a timeout and change the momentum/pace of game during the segments when Xavier extended the lead. The shots didn't drop in the first half, and there were fewer shot opportunities in that half because of all of the Hoya turnovers. There were far too many unforced turnovers (traveling violations and offensive fouls); it wasn't the Xavier defense, but rather all of these self-inflicted wounds that cost GU the game. What is JT3 going to say at a timeout? "Stop turning the ball over! Stop traveling!" This is not a biddy basketball league. The players have to know these fundamentals on their own. You don't think a time out was needed after the team gave up an uncontested layup out of a time out to Dee Davis? I know I was screaming like a lunatic then.. How about after Davis hit that transition 3 which put them up 17 late in the 1st half? DSR only taking 2 shots in the 1st half falls on the staff also.. Xavier wanted G'town to shoot 3's so why wouldn't you devise plays to get your best 3 pt shooter shots if they're not coming within the normal flow of the offense? I said that after the Dee Davis layup was the most likely candidate above: "I think a better candidate would have been shortly after the under 8 at 7:13, but even that seems a little hindsighty." As to your other suggested time, that was probably another good candidate. JTIII did end up taking it only thirty seconds later, unfortunately that was after Hopkins had turned it over, Ike had fouled Blueitt, Macura had grabbed an offensive board on the missed front end of the one and one, and White had fouled him. All in all, a nightmare series of events.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,909
|
Post by Filo on Jan 28, 2015 15:54:31 GMT -5
Regarding the timeouts, it does often seem that JTIII is too slow in calling for one when the wheels are falling off. Would they have helped in this game? I don't think so, since no one was doing anything right all game long. It wouldn't have hurt, though. As for Mack, yes, he did call timeouts when things started turning against XU. Did they help? Who knows for certain, but they probably did and, again, they sure didn't hurt.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 28, 2015 15:58:14 GMT -5
3. I agree, wholeheartedly, that DSR has to be more aggressive in taking shots in the first half. Does that fall on the staff or on DSR? He had the ball enough to do something with it, besides pass off. I'd like to see DSR be more selfish, especially early in the game. We can't always count on second-half heroics to bail GU out. Last night was a game where DSR needed to step up early, and he didn't do it. He made himself a non-factor, and that does not bode well. I wonder how much of DSR not being super aggressive in the first half is a conscious decision as the point guard--his game plan is to take only what's there in the first half and try to set up / get the freshman and Smith going, and then attempt to take over as necessary in the second half. That role is still relatively new to him, so it wouldn't be surprising that he missed his cue to turn it on in the back half of the first half last night (its also not as easy as everyone makes it seem, but I guess that's true of a lot of criticisms of the team). I'm not sure if that's the explanation, but that would explain this game, and what seem like a high number of games where he has huge disparities in his first half / second half point totals. I haven't in any way attempted to verify this numerically, so I could very well be wrong.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,901
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 28, 2015 17:16:54 GMT -5
Etomic. . .in no particular order of response to your questions: 1. The XU 3 by Davis to give them a 17 point lead was at 1:44 left in the half; XU did not score over the balance of the half, and we did cut the margin to 12. Would we have done that much better by burning a third first half timeout? I don't know. I don't think it mattered, because the margin didn't expand, and in fact contracted. 2. I didn't like the uncontested layup by Dee Davis either. Call another time out there? Okay. Fine. Again, aside from giving JT3 a chance to vent at his players, how would that have changed things? It was a collective brain freeze by many last night, both players and staff Plenty of blame to go around. 3. I agree, wholeheartedly, that DSR has to be more aggressive in taking shots in the first half. Does that fall on the staff or on DSR? He had the ball enough to do something with it, besides pass off. I'd like to see DSR be more selfish, especially early in the game. We can't always count on second-half heroics to bail GU out. Last night was a game where DSR needed to step up early, and he didn't do it. He made himself a non-factor, and that does not bode well. 4. The Hoyas took three-point shots; they didn't drop. I would much rather have tried to create some offensive looks from the elbow of the lane, which was wide open all game. I thought we'd see Copeland and/or White exploit that spot, and we never even tried. 1) Sure it ended that way but remember Hopkins turned the ball over on the next possession, Copeland committed a foul & White gave up an offensive rebound on a missed FT.. It took Xavier missing 3 FT's and a favorable bounce on Copeland's jumper for the half to end positively. 2) Get Tre & Josh out of the game, make an example of them.. Maybe it serves as a wake up call to the team.. Timeouts don't carry over so why not use them? Especially in the 1st half.. 3) it's not about DSR being more aggressive, it's about the staff making sure the teams best shooter shoots the ball in a game where the team only has 8 pts thru the 1st 15 minutes of the half.. Why does he have to hunt shots? How many times did we hear Raftery talk about the screens Davis or Bluitt were coming off of when they launched some of their 3's? Why can't we see this more often for DSR? Truth be told why not do it for Reggie when he comes in.. I had the same complaints when Hollis was @ G'town, get your shooters shot if the offense is doing it..
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Jan 28, 2015 17:25:04 GMT -5
One of the things that bothered me the most was how much (a) Smith was in the high post (or beyond) and (b) how much Hopkins posted up down low. I realize part of this is the system we run, but part of the premise behind the big men at the high post is that the big man can shoot, and Smith never even attempts shots from there. I just don't feel like we have been utilizing Smith's full potential because we have him at the high post too much. I don't have a problem with him flashing there from time to time, but it seemed like he was there way too much last night, and too slow to get back down low. On the other hand, I think Hopkins posted up way too much down low. He did it several times, and he got the ball there several times. To his credit, Hopkins didn't try to bully his way to the basket (which he's done a lot in the past, turning it over or getting blocked) on most possessions, but there's no convincing reason to guard him there either, because opposing teams know he cannot finish, and so they look for him to pass out of it. I am not sure that there's much we can do about Hopkins (aside from only playing him when Smith is sitting) given offensive limitations, but I'd really like to see Smith at the high post less frequently, because it basically takes his one great talent and neutralizes it. Pack the Line defense is designed to take away the low post. They are clogging the lane with 4 guys at all times. bringing Smith out that high is designed so he can help with ball screens and picks and also unclog the pack line. you have to be patient against Pack the Line. As someone said, "there are no quick scores" against Pack the Line.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 28, 2015 17:50:39 GMT -5
Thompson's biggest coaching mistake was playing Smith and Hopkins together for 8 minutes in this game. Otherwise, I don't think the game plan was bad. The bigs came out to the three point line to try to break up the packing aspect of the defense. We got decent shots. We did not execute. Shouldn't JTIII be over this by now? I think he's done a very good job with this team and despite last night, the Hoyas are still well-positioned heading into February. But he just can't pull the trigger on not starting Hop and putting that Hop-Smith lineup out there when it is neutral at best.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Jan 28, 2015 18:10:23 GMT -5
Thompson's biggest coaching mistake was playing Smith and Hopkins together for 8 minutes in this game. Otherwise, I don't think the game plan was bad. The bigs came out to the three point line to try to break up the packing aspect of the defense. We got decent shots. We did not execute. Shouldn't JTIII be over this by now? I think he's done a very good job with this team and despite last night, the Hoyas are still well-positioned heading into February. But he just can't pull the trigger on not starting Hop and putting that Hop-Smith lineup out there when it is neutral at best. Wasn't Smith-Hop in the entire duration of overtime against Marquette?
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,769
|
Post by njhoya78 on Jan 28, 2015 18:16:10 GMT -5
That doesn't count, because it doesn't fit the narrative.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 28, 2015 18:21:35 GMT -5
Shouldn't JTIII be over this by now? I think he's done a very good job with this team and despite last night, the Hoyas are still well-positioned heading into February. But he just can't pull the trigger on not starting Hop and putting that Hop-Smith lineup out there when it is neutral at best. Wasn't Smith-Hop in the entire duration of overtime against Marquette? Maybe, so? That was Hopkins' best offensive game ever. So yes when Hopkins has his best offensive game ever, any lineup with Hopkins is effective. But under the usual scenario, Hopkins is the least-effective offensive player on the team, doesn't stretch the floor to open it up for Josh, and is better used as the backup center. The exception is not the rule.
|
|
FrazierFanatic
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,557
Member is Online
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 28, 2015 19:35:00 GMT -5
But the question with regard to last night - what do you do when Stainbrook and Reynolds are both in? White just cannot guard that spot right now, nor can Copeland. And neither one gave us much more than Hopkins last night at the other end.
|
|