DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 30,547
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 28, 2018 11:45:03 GMT -5
A sustained 40 minute effort would be nice.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Jan 28, 2018 11:57:36 GMT -5
Turnovers are killing us. Numbers suck in conference and nationally. Need ball handlers!
|
|
kghoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,993
|
Post by kghoya on Jan 29, 2018 11:43:56 GMT -5
Could really use tre Campbell for this one
|
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 29, 2018 11:52:34 GMT -5
Could really use tre Campbell for this one Do not recall ever seeing that statement before😀 |
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,399 
|
Post by iowa80 on Jan 29, 2018 12:16:11 GMT -5
Could really use tre Campbell for this one Do not recall ever seeing that statement before😀 I understand that Tre wasn't exactly the second coming of Chris Paul, but, given what we've seen from the backcourt this year, it's pretty reasonable to think we might have won some or all of the close losses with him. I'm just talking basketball here, not any other stuff. |
|
BigmanU
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 915
|
Post by BigmanU on Jan 29, 2018 12:28:04 GMT -5
No, Campbell would have been dumped on just like he was when he played. The conversation would have been about how inept the upper classman guards Campbell, Mulmore & Dickerson were.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 29, 2018 12:31:04 GMT -5
No, Campbell would have been dumped on just like he was when he played. The conversation would have been about how inept the upper classman guards Campbell, Mulmore & Dickerson were. Yeah that was my point - not that Tre could not have possibly helped our guard situation at least somewhat, more that he was pretty much constantly maligned. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 29, 2018 12:32:15 GMT -5
Could really use tre Campbell for this one I figured this is a reference to our 2016 game at Xavier, where Campbell scored 21 points, going 5-7 from three, and 7-11 overall. It was basically the only good game Campbell had after his freshman year. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jan 29, 2018 13:51:08 GMT -5
He was amazing that night!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Jan 29, 2018 14:02:23 GMT -5
The key to Tre's great night was the corner 3. Xavier still runs a pack the line and a 1-3-1 zone. Both of those allow the corner 3 so we will need good production from that spot. Really that is Marko's sweet spot so he is getting hot at the right time; hopefully he has a career game. Just need our PGs to get the ball to him without getting sucked into the paint and losing the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jan 29, 2018 14:44:12 GMT -5
Right- there should be open threes for Derrickson, Blair, and Pickett if they move and work to get open. I am more worried about getting them the ball without throwing it away!!!
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,379
|
Post by drquigley on Jan 30, 2018 11:25:00 GMT -5
Right- there should be open threes for Derrickson, Blair, and Pickett if they move and work to get open. I am more worried about getting them the ball without throwing it away!!! I know it's not just me. Every time our guards try to penetrate I literally hold my breath. I think I can count on one hand the number of times they successfully penetrated the paint and either scored or passed out to an open shooter. Hey, I'm 71 and this holding my breath can't be good for me. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Jan 30, 2018 11:27:21 GMT -5
I hear you- but I will add that both Mulmore and Dickerson consistently get fouled but do not get the benefit of the call because they are below the rim. Sometimes it is so wide open that they just have to take it to the rack. I am more concerned about lazy perimeter passes.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 30, 2018 12:30:01 GMT -5
I hear you- but I will add that both Mulmore and Dickerson consistently get fouled but do not get the benefit of the call because they are below the rim. Sometimes it is so wide open that they just have to take it to the rack. I am more concerned about lazy perimeter passes. Yeah those still make me yell at the screen. I really wish ALL of our guards would develop the pull-up jumper from 10-12 feet. |
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 30, 2018 14:02:07 GMT -5
Do not recall ever seeing that statement before😀 I understand that Tre wasn't exactly the second coming of Chris Paul, but, given what we've seen from the backcourt this year, it's pretty reasonable to think we might have won some or all of the close losses with him. I'm just talking basketball here, not any other stuff. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 30, 2018 14:02:50 GMT -5
I hear you- but I will add that both Mulmore and Dickerson consistently get fouled but do not get the benefit of the call because they are below the rim. Sometimes it is so wide open that they just have to take it to the rack. I am more concerned about lazy perimeter passes. Yeah those still make me yell at the screen. I really wish ALL of our guards would develop the pull-up jumper from 10-12 feet. The skill set they don't have. The floater and the pull up. |
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Jan 30, 2018 14:06:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Jan 30, 2018 14:33:19 GMT -5
As it pertains to our turnover problems, if we had valued possessions as well as Creighton in our last game, we would have gained 6 additional offensive scoring chances. (17 turnovers vs. 11).
If you assume we convert 2 baskets of the 6 additional possessions, then we gain 4 points.
If you further assume that 4 of the extra 6 turnovers led directly to Creighton high probability scoring chances (e.g., a break-away layup) and those scoring chances would have dropped from 100% to 50%, then we gain another 4 points.
8 additional points down the stretch in the Creighton game probably puts us into a 50/50 coin flip, coming down to the last possession of the game outcome.
This is simplistic, I know, but in my mind it just proves how KILLER turnovers can be.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jan 30, 2018 14:42:03 GMT -5
Ranch, those are good points. In the Creighton game, we scored 1.08 points per possession. If you assume that was true in the 6 turnovers mentioned (where our possessions ended in 0 points), you could assume we'd have scored, on average about 6.5 points (so either 6 or 7).
This is why turnovers are so killer and why I think their impact is often undervalued. At the most basic level, even on our worst night (against Villanova) we scored 0.84 points per possession. And in many games we are over 1 point per possession.
So a basic way to look at it would be that each turnover we commit costs us a point, and gives the opposition additional points as well off those turnovers, yielding large swings. So if you turn it over 10 times more than your opponent, that's basically like spotting the opponent 10+ points. Given how close most games are, this is an enormous impact.
In case anybody misconstrues this as a criticism of Ewing, turnovers have been a big problem going back even to Esherick days. While the Esherick teams were about average in Division 1 in turnovers, many of JT3's teams were also awful at turning it over, including some of the very good ones (like 2007 and 2008).
Aside from 2006 (37th), 2012 (132nd), and 2014 (140th), all of JT3's teams were in the lower 50% in turning it over. That said, this team is easily the worst we've had in the modern era (328th of 351 - ouch).
|
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 30, 2018 16:22:26 GMT -5
As it pertains to our turnover problems, if we had valued possessions as well as Creighton in our last game, we would have gained 6 additional offensive scoring chances. (17 turnovers vs. 11). If you assume we convert 2 baskets of the 6 additional possessions, then we gain 4 points. If you further assume that 4 of the extra 6 turnovers led directly to Creighton high probability scoring chances (e.g., a break-away layup) and those scoring chances would have dropped from 100% to 50%, then we gain another 4 points. 8 additional points down the stretch in the Creighton game probably puts us into a 50/50 coin flip, coming down to the last possession of the game outcome. This is simplistic, I know, but in my mind it just proves how KILLER turnovers can be. It may seem simplistic, but it is spot on. You just can't waste possessions in close games. |
|
