RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,638
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Feb 13, 2007 18:14:42 GMT -5
If teams play the kind of hyper-aggressive D that WVU tried last night, we're going to give up some turnoves no matter one. The question is whether we can exploit their gambling on balance. I think we did: WVU got a few steal and fast break buckets, but overall we pushed our lead up to thirty thanks in part to some of the mismatches created by their trapping.
|
|
Loyal Hoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 554
|
Post by Loyal Hoya on Feb 14, 2007 1:43:55 GMT -5
The nominees for our biggest weakness appear to be: allowing offensive rebounds and second chance points, turning the ball over, and bench play.
It's hard to argue with turnovers. In conference play, our average turnover margin is -1, and we are averaging 13 TO's per game. That's normally not a terrible number, but it is pretty high considering the number of possessions that we have in a game. The good news is that over the last five games, our TO margin is +1.5, and our TO's per game is down to 10.33.
As for rebounding, in conference play we are outrebounding our opponets by six rebounds per game. Our two losses are the only times that we have been outrebounded by a conference foe. Of course, we shoot a high percentage. Since the defensive team usually has an advantage on the boards, some of our rebounding advantage is a function of the fact that we miss fewer shots. Still, even when you account for our good shooting, we are doing a better job on the boards than our opponents. In conference play, we have rebounded 65% of our opponents' missed shots and free throws, while our opponents have only rebounded 57% of our missed shots and free throws. Recently, Marquette and Louisville did get 15 and 16 offensive boards respectively. In those games, we rebounded 63% of Marquette's missed shots while the Golden Eagles rebounded 60% of our missed shots. Against Louisville, we got 62% of their missed shots, while the Cardinals rebounded 61% of our missed shots. I'm not sure that we can classify rebounding (or defensive rebounding) as a big weakness.
In terms of bench play, our bench (excluding Egerson) has averaged 50 minutes per game or 25% of the available minutes. I'm sure these minutes have increased since Egerson left, but I have not done the calculations. During this time, the bench (minus Egerson) is averaging 7 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1 steal, and 11 points.
Getting this many minutes is great, especially considering how we have faded at the end of the last two seasons. Nevertheless, we do lose something when the starters are not on the floor. On a per minute basis, the starters out-rebound the bench by 6%; they contribute 43% more assists; and they score 73% more points.
My conclusion is that turnovers and rebounding have so far been a bigger issue than bench play. In our two conference losses we were outrebounded, and we turned the ball over more than our opponents did. However, going forward, bench play could be a bigger issue. We can probably only count on our bench for hustle and rebounding but not necessarily scoring.
Also, while we are getting more minutes from our bench this year compared to last year, I don't think we have anybody on the bench that can contribute as much as DJ and Jessie did last year.
|
|
HoyaSpirit
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Gotta love Smitty - 1989 Big East Player of the Year
Posts: 305
|
Post by HoyaSpirit on Feb 14, 2007 4:01:46 GMT -5
I agree that we are not especially deep, but consider that Tyler was starting when the season began, that Ewing has developed a strong game including offense which I didn't think he would give a lot of.
In general, I really think JT3 would do well to play Mack and Rivers a ton during blowouts to give them more game experience and practice, and same with Crawford and Ewing. This last game Mack got more pt but Crawford did not. I don't think there would be any negative down side to getting them more minutes in a blowout, and we might well pay the price for it if our starters get into foul trouble. Not to mention that it will help their long-term develpment also.
|
|