|
Post by eastcoastteddy58 on Dec 19, 2016 17:26:32 GMT -5
We need another consistent scorer at least 10+ points per game. It's nice to see others step up but I'm looking for consistency to open up the floor. What I'd like to see is Hayes and Govan start making the bunnies and stop looking like Hopkins 2.0 but if not create some havoc in the paint and get to the foul line. We've got the two biggest big men in the Big East we should own the paint this year! It's insulting to compare Govan to Hopkins in terms of what they did on offense. Hopkins never shot the ball as well from the field even despite playing closer to the hoop. Govan is not missing nearly the amount of bunnies as you suggest. Govan is hitting hooks, he is making shots off the glass, he is displaying dropsteps and spin moves, he is hitting short jumpers, mid-range jumpers and three-pointers, he is driving to the basket. All the things he did last year too. And he is shooting a high percentage to boot. There is still a lot he has to work on but stop selling him short. I stand corrected MCI Govan is better then Hopkins but the bunnies need to drop as well. Hayes on the other hand, which I see you didn't mention, could tighten up the bunnies as well. This is Hayes last run as a Hoya he needs to leave it all on the court, every game!!
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,670
|
Post by seaweed on Dec 19, 2016 17:38:51 GMT -5
It's insulting to compare Govan to Hopkins in terms of what they did on offense. Hopkins never shot the ball as well from the field even despite playing closer to the hoop. Govan is not missing nearly the amount of bunnies as you suggest. Govan is hitting hooks, he is making shots off the glass, he is displaying dropsteps and spin moves, he is hitting short jumpers, mid-range jumpers and three-pointers, he is driving to the basket. All the things he did last year too. And he is shooting a high percentage to boot. There is still a lot he has to work on but stop selling him short. I stand corrected MCI Govan is better then Hopkins but the bunnies need to drop as well. Hayes on the other hand, which I see you didn't mention, could tighten up the bunnies as well. This is Hayes last run as a Hoya he needs to leave it all on the court, every game!! At one point in the game, Hayes controlled a loose ball or rebound, standing under the basket. At 7 ft, the ease with which he can dunk from there should be the only thing on his mind. Instead, he fired a pass out to the top of the key... If our bigs aren't looking at power-baskets when they have possession within a foot of the hoop, we need them to meanery up! on edit: rewatched last night. was towards the end of the first half, on a pass from the left wing into the post. Hayes collected it and shot a weak pass out to top of the key. Pass intercepted, run-out layup for 'cuse, except Peak got back and stripped the guy who was going for the tomahawk dunk.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 19, 2016 20:33:58 GMT -5
It's insulting to compare Govan to Hopkins in terms of what they did on offense. Hopkins never shot the ball as well from the field even despite playing closer to the hoop. Govan is not missing nearly the amount of bunnies as you suggest. Govan is hitting hooks, he is making shots off the glass, he is displaying dropsteps and spin moves, he is hitting short jumpers, mid-range jumpers and three-pointers, he is driving to the basket. All the things he did last year too. And he is shooting a high percentage to boot. There is still a lot he has to work on but stop selling him short. I stand corrected MCI Govan is better then Hopkins but the bunnies need to drop as well. Hayes on the other hand, which I see you didn't mention, could tighten up the bunnies as well. This is Hayes last run as a Hoya he needs to leave it all on the court, every game!! Yeah, I guess it was obvious I went the "No Comment" route with Hayes.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 19, 2016 20:36:14 GMT -5
I stand corrected MCI Govan is better then Hopkins but the bunnies need to drop as well. Hayes on the other hand, which I see you didn't mention, could tighten up the bunnies as well. This is Hayes last run as a Hoya he needs to leave it all on the court, every game!! At one point in the game, Hayes controlled a loose ball or rebound, standing under the basket. At 7 ft, the ease with which he can dunk from there should be the only thing on his mind. Instead, he fired a pass out to the top of the key... If our bigs aren't looking at power-baskets when they have possession within a foot of the hoop, we need them to meanery up! If our guards now drive and pick up fouls after years of staying put on the perimeter, maybe it isn't out of the question that our bigs one day will play mean in the paint. Although Josh Smith....
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 19, 2016 20:54:05 GMT -5
No more 7-8 minute scoring droughts. We've already had a couple of these this year, and one was against a complete cupcake. I know everyone is riding the high off the Syracuse win, but this team's offense is just as, if not more, erratic than before. I hope the Syracuse game is a real turning of the corner, but I think it's pretty early to claim the offense is anything special or somehow more consistent.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Dec 19, 2016 23:25:02 GMT -5
No more 7-8 minute scoring droughts. We've already had a couple of these this year, and one was against a complete cupcake. I know everyone is riding the high off the Syracuse win, but this team's offense is just as, if not more, erratic than before. I hope the Syracuse game is a real turning of the corner, but I think it's pretty early to claim the offense is anything special or somehow more consistent. That's just college basketball though.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 19, 2016 23:57:47 GMT -5
On scoring droughts, we are playing faster too. So we go through possessions more quickly, which also helps to make it seem like we're scoring more often. I also think it's still too early to say whether we're going to have scoring droughts with any level of frequency. I do think we're playing better at this point. I wouldn't call it "special" by any means, but it's better than it was.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,509
|
Post by bostonfan on Dec 20, 2016 8:13:56 GMT -5
No more 7-8 minute scoring droughts. We've already had a couple of these this year, and one was against a complete cupcake. I know everyone is riding the high off the Syracuse win, but this team's offense is just as, if not more, erratic than before. I hope the Syracuse game is a real turning of the corner, but I think it's pretty early to claim the offense is anything special or somehow more consistent. They have had a few droughts this year where they go for a few minutes without a field goal, but they usually continue to score some points because they get to the line so much better than they did for the last few years. I think the offense is much more efficient than it has been for a couple of years. Maybe it is just a case of them having two legit scoring options this year than makes it seem better but they certainly seem to be a much more potent offense. The poor rebounding and careless turnovers are what could cost them games this year more than the offense.
|
|
BigmanU
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 915
|
Post by BigmanU on Dec 20, 2016 8:35:42 GMT -5
Sorry if this was already stated.
We may still have droughts without a field goal but scoring droughts have been minimal. We are jumpstarting the offense by attacking & getting to the charity stripe. This was never the case in the past.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 20, 2016 8:35:48 GMT -5
We've already had a couple of these this year, and one was against a complete cupcake. I know everyone is riding the high off the Syracuse win, but this team's offense is just as, if not more, erratic than before. I hope the Syracuse game is a real turning of the corner, but I think it's pretty early to claim the offense is anything special or somehow more consistent. They have had a few droughts this year where they go for a few minutes without a field goal, but they usually continue to score some points because they get to the line so much better than they did for the last few years. I think the offense is much more efficient than it has been for a couple of years. Maybe it is just a case of them having two legit scoring options this year than makes it seem better but they certainly seem to be a much more potent offense. The poor rebounding and careless turnovers are what could cost them games this year more than the offense. Currently, our raw offensive efficiency (unadjusted for competition) is 1.068 points per possession. That's 67th nationally. Last year, it was 1.032, and the two previous years it was right around 1.055. So, the efficiency is better this year, but not wildly so. Adjusted for competition, we're 53rd nationally this year. We finished 66th last year. So, again, better this year, but not terrifically. We might have fewer droughts in terms of time of game elapsed, but don't forget that a lot of that is pace of play (76th this year vs. 168th last year), so it doesn't necessarily mean we're doing much better overall, though it may seem that way. All that said, my sense is that the offense is improved, and will continue to improve as guys get more comfortable. Rodney is the closest thing we have to a ball stopper, and he's much "better" than DSR was because at least he does things quickly when he has the ball. So, our overall movement is much improved. And we don't have inefficient guys ending possessions (Isaac, for example) as often. The right guys are taking shots. If we can shore up the defense further, we're likely to get more easy transition opportunities also.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Dec 20, 2016 8:49:37 GMT -5
No more 7-8 minute scoring droughts. We've already had a couple of these this year, and one was against a complete cupcake. I know everyone is riding the high off the Syracuse win, but this team's offense is just as, if not more, erratic than before. I hope the Syracuse game is a real turning of the corner, but I think it's pretty early to claim the offense is anything special or somehow more consistent. I agree. It looks like it may be something very special, but it is certainly far from consistent.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by drquigley on Dec 20, 2016 10:30:26 GMT -5
They have had a few droughts this year where they go for a few minutes without a field goal, but they usually continue to score some points because they get to the line so much better than they did for the last few years. I think the offense is much more efficient than it has been for a couple of years. Maybe it is just a case of them having two legit scoring options this year than makes it seem better but they certainly seem to be a much more potent offense. The poor rebounding and careless turnovers are what could cost them games this year more than the offense. Currently, our raw offensive efficiency (unadjusted for competition) is 1.068 points per possession. That's 67th nationally. Last year, it was 1.032, and the two previous years it was right around 1.055. So, the efficiency is better this year, but not wildly so. Adjusted for competition, we're 53rd nationally this year. We finished 66th last year. So, again, better this year, but not terrifically. We might have fewer droughts in terms of time of game elapsed, but don't forget that a lot of that is pace of play (76th this year vs. 168th last year), so it doesn't necessarily mean we're doing much better overall, though it may seem that way. All that said, my sense is that the offense is improved, and will continue to improve as guys get more comfortable. Rodney is the closest thing we have to a ball stopper, and he's much "better" than DSR was because at least he does things quickly when he has the ball. So, our overall movement is much improved. And we don't have inefficient guys ending possessions (Isaac, for example) as often. The right guys are taking shots. If we can shore up the defense further, we're likely to get more easy transition opportunities also. Forget the numbers. Whereas the last few years I've found myself screaming at the TV (or at the game), "Would someone just take it to the hoop!", this year I've found myself screaming, "Can't anyone keep their man from taking it to the hoop!". No way this year we've had the regular extended droughts we had the last few years. Sure we've probably had a few but nothing like the ones we became accustomed to after Otto left. Don't you remember all those wonderful moments watching guys pass the ball around the perimeter only to clank a desperation 3 pointer? No, this year, with LJ and Pryor, we've had no problem scoring (if I recall Pryor's 3 point and FG percentages are ridiculous and LJ's aren't far behind). Nope this year it has to be all about defense. I really think the longer layoffs between games gave JT3 time to work with these guys and allowed these guys to figure some defensive things out. Anyone notice that Syracuse scored 105 points last night?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 20, 2016 12:52:57 GMT -5
They have had a few droughts this year where they go for a few minutes without a field goal, but they usually continue to score some points because they get to the line so much better than they did for the last few years. I think the offense is much more efficient than it has been for a couple of years. Maybe it is just a case of them having two legit scoring options this year than makes it seem better but they certainly seem to be a much more potent offense. The poor rebounding and careless turnovers are what could cost them games this year more than the offense. Currently, our raw offensive efficiency (unadjusted for competition) is 1.068 points per possession. That's 67th nationally. Last year, it was 1.032, and the two previous years it was right around 1.055. So, the efficiency is better this year, but not wildly so. Adjusted for competition, we're 53rd nationally this year. We finished 66th last year. So, again, better this year, but not terrifically. We might have fewer droughts in terms of time of game elapsed, but don't forget that a lot of that is pace of play (76th this year vs. 168th last year), so it doesn't necessarily mean we're doing much better overall, though it may seem that way. All that said, my sense is that the offense is improved, and will continue to improve as guys get more comfortable. Rodney is the closest thing we have to a ball stopper, and he's much "better" than DSR was because at least he does things quickly when he has the ball. So, our overall movement is much improved. And we don't have inefficient guys ending possessions (Isaac, for example) as often. The right guys are taking shots. If we can shore up the defense further, we're likely to get more easy transition opportunities also. In the first three games we played, we scored more than 1 point per possession, but only barely against Maryland (1.01ppp) and Arkansas St. (1.01ppp). We did run up the score against USC-Upstate (1.38ppp), but that was clearly a function of the competition. We were below 0.95ppp in every game in Maui. The competition isn't the same as in Hawaii, but since we got back to the continental U.S., we've cleared 1.1 ppp in every game, so we've definitely improved. And when you're averaging over 70 possessions, that 0.1 extra points per possession means another 7 points in the box score, which is also the difference between us being 9-2 (if we'd played better to start) or us being 5-6 (if we hadn't improved).
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 20, 2016 12:55:25 GMT -5
Currently, our raw offensive efficiency (unadjusted for competition) is 1.068 points per possession. That's 67th nationally. Last year, it was 1.032, and the two previous years it was right around 1.055. So, the efficiency is better this year, but not wildly so. Adjusted for competition, we're 53rd nationally this year. We finished 66th last year. So, again, better this year, but not terrifically. We might have fewer droughts in terms of time of game elapsed, but don't forget that a lot of that is pace of play (76th this year vs. 168th last year), so it doesn't necessarily mean we're doing much better overall, though it may seem that way. All that said, my sense is that the offense is improved, and will continue to improve as guys get more comfortable. Rodney is the closest thing we have to a ball stopper, and he's much "better" than DSR was because at least he does things quickly when he has the ball. So, our overall movement is much improved. And we don't have inefficient guys ending possessions (Isaac, for example) as often. The right guys are taking shots. If we can shore up the defense further, we're likely to get more easy transition opportunities also. Forget the numbers. Whereas the last few years I've found myself screaming at the TV (or at the game), "Would someone just take it to the hoop!", this year I've found myself screaming, "Can't anyone keep their man from taking it to the hoop!". No way this year we've had the regular extended droughts we had the last few years. Sure we've probably had a few but nothing like the ones we became accustomed to after Otto left. Don't you remember all those wonderful moments watching guys pass the ball around the perimeter only to clank a desperation 3 pointer? No, this year, with LJ and Pryor, we've had no problem scoring (if I recall Pryor's 3 point and FG percentages are ridiculous and LJ's aren't far behind). Nope this year it has to be all about defense. I really think the longer layoffs between games gave JT3 time to work with these guys and allowed these guys to figure some defensive things out. Anyone notice that Syracuse scored 105 points last night? You know what's funny? The 2013 team was the worst offense JT3 has had. They were 80th in the country in adjusted efficiency, which is the only time other than 2016 (and, as of now, this year) that their offense has been outside the top 50 in the country during his time here. The Hoyas haven't had a top 20 offense since 2010.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Dec 20, 2016 13:18:48 GMT -5
Forget the numbers. Whereas the last few years I've found myself screaming at the TV (or at the game), "Would someone just take it to the hoop!", this year I've found myself screaming, "Can't anyone keep their man from taking it to the hoop!". No way this year we've had the regular extended droughts we had the last few years. Sure we've probably had a few but nothing like the ones we became accustomed to after Otto left. Don't you remember all those wonderful moments watching guys pass the ball around the perimeter only to clank a desperation 3 pointer? No, this year, with LJ and Pryor, we've had no problem scoring (if I recall Pryor's 3 point and FG percentages are ridiculous and LJ's aren't far behind). Nope this year it has to be all about defense. I really think the longer layoffs between games gave JT3 time to work with these guys and allowed these guys to figure some defensive things out. Anyone notice that Syracuse scored 105 points last night? You know what's funny? The 2013 team was the worst offense JT3 has had. They were 80th in the country in adjusted efficiency, which is the only time other than 2016 (and, as of now, this year) that their offense has been outside the top 50 in the country during his time here. The Hoyas haven't had a top 20 offense since 2010. Are you telling me that fan perception, isn't always reflective of reality?! Hold the press. Otto's team was strong because of DEFENSE. Until FGCU that is.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 20, 2016 13:22:27 GMT -5
No more 7-8 minute scoring droughts. We've already had a couple of these this year, and one was against a complete cupcake. I know everyone is riding the high off the Syracuse win, but this team's offense is just as, if not more, erratic than before. I hope the Syracuse game is a real turning of the corner, but I think it's pretty early to claim the offense is anything special or somehow more consistent. Classic misrepresentations....I love this board
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by drquigley on Dec 20, 2016 16:20:54 GMT -5
You know what's funny? The 2013 team was the worst offense JT3 has had. They were 80th in the country in adjusted efficiency, which is the only time other than 2016 (and, as of now, this year) that their offense has been outside the top 50 in the country during his time here. The Hoyas haven't had a top 20 offense since 2010. Are you telling me that fan perception, isn't always reflective of reality?! Hold the press. Otto's team was strong because of DEFENSE. Until FGCU that is. In fact, I am telling you that perception isn't reflective of reality as expressed by "adjusted efficiency". As Tbird pointed out, since our pace of play is so much better, even though we might not be scoring as frequently on each possession we are not spending as much time on each not scoring possession. I'll take a 7 minute stretch where we get up 15 shots, half of them being good shots that just didn't drop, as opposed to getting up only 8 shots in those 7 minutes, none of which are good shots, and not scoring. I know this sounds confused but anyone who watched us trying to score the last two years knows what I mean. In fact, everyone on this board has been screaming for us to increase our speed of play. Was I the only one the last few years screaming at DSR or any of our guards to "Speed it Up Godammit!!"
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 20, 2016 17:09:11 GMT -5
Are you telling me that fan perception, isn't always reflective of reality?! Hold the press. Otto's team was strong because of DEFENSE. Until FGCU that is. In fact, I am telling you that perception isn't reflective of reality as expressed by "adjusted efficiency". As Tbird pointed out, since our pace of play is so much better, even though we might not be scoring as frequently on each possession we are not spending as much time on each not scoring possession. I'll take a 7 minute stretch where we get up 15 shots, half of them being good shots that just didn't drop, as opposed to getting up only 8 shots in those 7 minutes, none of which are good shots, and not scoring. I know this sounds confused but anyone who watched us trying to score the last two years knows what I mean. In fact, everyone on this board has been screaming for us to increase our speed of play. Was I the only one the last few years screaming at DSR or any of our guards to "Speed it Up Godammit!!" Remember, though, and this is one of the key insights of adjusted efficiency stats, that when you play at a fast pace, it's not just you that gets to play at that pace, it's the other guys too. In your hypo, for example, you envision two seven minute droughts, one at a slow pace and one at a fast pace. Well, if we got up 8 crappy shots in seven minutes and missed all of them, the other guys only got eight possessions in those same seven minutes also. But if we play at a much faster pace and get good shots that don't fall, the other guy gets those same increased possessions and obviously has a much greater opportunity to score. In fact, if our defense is exactly the same in both situations, they are likely to score twice the points in those same seven minutes. In other words, playing at a faster pace may seem more effective (and it may well be more entertaining), but if you're not efficient offensively at the fast pace, your defense better be able to make up for it. That's why the efficiency stats are so important.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by drquigley on Dec 20, 2016 21:21:00 GMT -5
In fact, I am telling you that perception isn't reflective of reality as expressed by "adjusted efficiency". As Tbird pointed out, since our pace of play is so much better, even though we might not be scoring as frequently on each possession we are not spending as much time on each not scoring possession. I'll take a 7 minute stretch where we get up 15 shots, half of them being good shots that just didn't drop, as opposed to getting up only 8 shots in those 7 minutes, none of which are good shots, and not scoring. I know this sounds confused but anyone who watched us trying to score the last two years knows what I mean. In fact, everyone on this board has been screaming for us to increase our speed of play. Was I the only one the last few years screaming at DSR or any of our guards to "Speed it Up Godammit!!" Remember, though, and this is one of the key insights of adjusted efficiency stats, that when you play at a fast pace, it's not just you that gets to play at that pace, it's the other guys too. In your hypo, for example, you envision two seven minute droughts, one at a slow pace and one at a fast pace. Well, if we got up 8 crappy shots in seven minutes and missed all of them, the other guys only got eight possessions in those same seven minutes also. But if we play at a much faster pace and get good shots that don't fall, the other guy gets those same increased possessions and obviously has a much greater opportunity to score. In fact, if our defense is exactly the same in both situations, they are likely to score twice the points in those same seven minutes. In other words, playing at a faster pace may seem more effective (and it may well be more entertaining), but if you're not efficient offensively at the fast pace, your defense better be able to make up for it. That's why the efficiency stats are so important. I hear you. I have to think that the risk of a faster pace (Oklahoma State) will generate greater rewards as our defense improves (Syracuse).
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Dec 20, 2016 21:43:17 GMT -5
Remember, though, and this is one of the key insights of adjusted efficiency stats, that when you play at a fast pace, it's not just you that gets to play at that pace, it's the other guys too. In your hypo, for example, you envision two seven minute droughts, one at a slow pace and one at a fast pace. Well, if we got up 8 crappy shots in seven minutes and missed all of them, the other guys only got eight possessions in those same seven minutes also. But if we play at a much faster pace and get good shots that don't fall, the other guy gets those same increased possessions and obviously has a much greater opportunity to score. In fact, if our defense is exactly the same in both situations, they are likely to score twice the points in those same seven minutes. In other words, playing at a faster pace may seem more effective (and it may well be more entertaining), but if you're not efficient offensively at the fast pace, your defense better be able to make up for it. That's why the efficiency stats are so important. I hear you. I have to think that the risk of a faster pace (Oklahoma State) will generate greater rewards as our defense improves (Syracuse). But the defense is the key to actually winning the games. Our worst offensive team under III was also one of our most successful. It's not the pace or scoring droughts that everyone has a problem with, it's the losing. Hence you pointing to the Otto teams as a place to get back to offensively,but in reality, that's really when our offensive ails were at their worst.
|
|