mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Feb 4, 2021 0:47:17 GMT -5
He has been our best player in these last two games. Plain and simple. He has been awesome. He has made some really tough plays, made much better passes, and played within the flow of the game. He has been awesome lately. Very, very happy for him.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Feb 4, 2021 0:38:35 GMT -5
What a win. What a win. What a rush. What a day. What a feeling.
First off, I've been very critical of Coach Ewing, but today he coached an excellent game. We were up after the first despite 10 TO's. Creighton shot it well and we were still up. It looked like another collapse. Just one where the other team was better. But he kept scheming Blair open and Blair made them pay. We didn't defer to the post and the driving lanes were open. In the second half, despite not shooting nearly as well (looks again were pretty open), we only had 3 TO's. Coach recognized what worked and went to it again and again. The play call late in the game for Bile out of their zone to get him driving two on one was excellent. We defended the three very well. And aside from one PnR, we defended them very well. A lot of the shots they hit were contested. Ewing coached an excellent game.
Speaking of guys I've been critical of, Bile was excellent. He was better today than against Provy. He made some beautiful passes, played within the flow of the game, made huge physical plays, rarely got lost on defense (against the engine of their offense in Jefferson), made some massive hustle plays, created a ton of good looks, and played a near-perfect game. He was truly awesome today. Bile was the reason we won these last two games. He was awesome today. Very, very happy for him. He was the best player on the floor again today.
Dante looked so much better again. Much more mature, he created plays and split their defense excellently. And his defense on the BE preseason player of the year? Just massive. He was a pest in Zegarowski all game. He was very, very good today.
Blair was great. Hit some massive shots and created very well today. 7 assists to 2 TO's and 22 points? Exactly what we need. He hit some massive shots and demanded the ball when he needed it. The three he hit when Creighton tied the game up is the most important play IMO. He misses that and this is a different game. He killed all their momentum. He did this multiple times, but this play was huge. He played a very good game.
For Pickett, his shot was falling. Huge positives. He took what the defense gave him. His late-game iso was one of the most important buckets of the game. The dunk he had was absolutely not a charge. That should've been an and one. But I also didn't think he defended very well this game and he was careless with the ball today. He can be better. 5 TO's is not what we need from our seniors. Still, he hit his shots and played a decent game.
Overall, a great team win. What a day. Bile is proving why he got those minutes. The rotation I thought was solid again. The best guys played and we beat a ranked team in their place. Dante wasn't overloaded and we got Sibley some time. More importantly, we won. What a day. I did not like the early timeout, but also we won so it worked wonders apparently. Bile was excellent again. Start him again, please. LETS GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Feb 3, 2021 14:14:48 GMT -5
90-66 Creighton
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2021 22:56:37 GMT -5
UNC looks solid this year. UK will probably be better. But citing bluebloods does miss the point. Clemson and VT were both bottom tier ACC teams (9th and tenth place, combined for one win over .500 and both would've been lucky to make the NIT) and both have been ranked this season, with VT coming off of a massive win. Clemson was much better to begin the season and the break they went on has killed them, but they still have a win over Bama. Pitt went from having 6 ACC wins last season in 20 games, to having four in their first 8, including a sweep over Syracuse and a win over Duke. They look much better and like a possible tournament team. Bama is Bama this isn't football. Duke is puke this year, hardly an earthshaking win. and Cuse SUcks this year as well. Even a win against Kentucky doesn't mean much this year. Bama is a top 10 team man. A win against them is absolutely impressive. I have no idea how that's your takeaway from my post or why you chose Bama, but they are ranked #9 for a reason. And for a team in Pitt that can't really shoot the ball, sweeping Cuse and improving your win total is impressive. If you told any Pitt fan they got those three W's, I bet they'd be stunned and impressed with their teams improvement, even given what we know about them. That's improvement.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2021 19:55:56 GMT -5
UNC looks solid this year. UK will probably be better. But citing bluebloods does miss the point. Clemson and VT were both bottom tier ACC teams (9th and tenth place, combined for one win over .500 and both would've been lucky to make the NIT) and both have been ranked this season, with VT coming off of a massive win. Clemson was much better to begin the season and the break they went on has killed them, but they still have a win over Bama. Pitt went from having 6 ACC wins last season in 20 games, to having four in their first 8, including a sweep over Syracuse and a win over Duke. They look much better and like a possible tournament team. Oh and Missouri went from just plain bad to being ranked 12th this season. Their roster didn't change much, they just became a better team on both ends. Other teams like St. John's look better after their last season, too. They just matched their last season conference win total today. Northwestern improved quite a bit, but I didn't think their success was sustainable, but who knows what they do for the rest of the season. Oklahoma State looks a lot better this season, though they also brought in the best player in the country. The league they are in is much better this season, and all of their conference wins came after February 5th, where we just had a pretty solid win in late January and could build off of that success. But their model for success will be a lot like how next season could be better for us. They brought in a stud, like we will (Cade and Aminu), they had a returning solid scorer (Isaac Likekele where we have Q),and while they lost five of their top 6 scorers, they still look a ton better. Likekele, Kalib Boone and Avery Anderson like a much better players and they surrounded Cade with talent additional talent in Rondel Walker, MAM, and Bryce Williams, much like how we will add Riley, Mutombo, Beard and with an offseason left, potentially someone else. Getting guys like Berger, Sibley, Clark, etc. better for next season will help a ton. And the way they achieved success plus the level of success they achieved is much similar to how we can and should improve. Where their offense went up 30 spots in KenPom, our defense should do that and we'd be a much better team. I'm also going to use this comparison multiple times in the offseason so get used to seeing it. So, teams can get better. Multiple ways in which they could. Saying that teams don't improve is just plain false. Saying that bad teams don't become good the next season is again just inaccurate. There are multiple ways in which teams improve from year to year. And I think our best model for next season is what Oklahoma State did this year. All of these methods are possible. Ok State probably has the best player in college right now. I like Mohammed but I’m not expecting that out of him Yeah I agree. My point was more so on the general side than on like exact. I personally think Oklahoma State is a top 25 team in the country, so expecting us to be around the 40-45 mark I wouldn't think is too unreasonable.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2021 19:33:43 GMT -5
UNC looks solid this year. UK will probably be better. But citing bluebloods does miss the point. Clemson and VT were both bottom tier ACC teams (9th and tenth place, combined for one win over .500 and both would've been lucky to make the NIT) and both have been ranked this season, with VT coming off of a massive win. Clemson was much better to begin the season and the break they went on has killed them, but they still have a win over Bama. Pitt went from having 6 ACC wins last season in 20 games, to having four in their first 8, including a sweep over Syracuse and a win over Duke. They look much better and like a possible tournament team. Oh and Missouri went from just plain bad to being ranked 12th this season. Their roster didn't change much, they just became a better team on both ends. Other teams like St. John's look better after their last season, too. They just matched their last season conference win total today. Northwestern improved quite a bit, but I didn't think their success was sustainable, but who knows what they do for the rest of the season. Oklahoma State looks a lot better this season, though they also brought in the best player in the country. The league they are in is much better this season, and all of their conference wins came after February 5th, where we just had a pretty solid win in late January and could build off of that success. But their model for success will be a lot like how next season could be better for us. They brought in a stud, like we will (Cade and Aminu), they had a returning solid scorer (Isaac Likekele where we have Q),and while they lost five of their top 6 scorers, they still look a ton better. Likekele, Kalib Boone and Avery Anderson like a much better players and they surrounded Cade with talent additional talent in Rondel Walker, MAM, and Bryce Williams, much like how we will add Riley, Mutombo, Beard and with an offseason left, potentially someone else. Getting guys like Berger, Sibley, Clark, etc. better for next season will help a ton. And the way they achieved success plus the level of success they achieved is much similar to how we can and should improve. Where their offense went up 30 spots in KenPom, our defense should do that and we'd be a much better team. I'm also going to use this comparison multiple times in the offseason so get used to seeing it. So, teams can get better. Multiple ways in which they could. Saying that teams don't improve is just plain false. Saying that bad teams don't become good the next season is again just inaccurate. There are multiple ways in which teams improve from year to year. And I think our best model for next season is what Oklahoma State did this year. All of these methods are possible. Just so we're clear this is what I modified my message to say before you responded. I think that is the case 9-10 But the point is this team doesn't have the horses and playing Berger or whoever you want 5 minutes isn't going to change that in any significant way imo. Ok, that modification does make more sense. Still, I think based on what we add, I don't think expecting an NCAA tournament bid is too high, at all. Oklahoma State is doing exactly what we want to next season. Expecting a middle of the Big East spot and a tournament bid is not unreasonable at all. I'd consider anything under that really low expectations. I think if someone is expecting this team to be Top 25 all season or end in the Top 10 and win the Big East, sure they are expecting far too much. But expecting to make the tournament is not at all. We should improve significantly next season. We should be much better. And the five minutes I just think could help for the future. It could help for this season (I think it does, since the less pressure someone like Blair or Carey feel the better, plus giving them a bit of a rest helps long term), and it will for next season.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2021 17:47:36 GMT -5
I absolutely don't think I have a better grasp on how good the guys are or when to best use them than Coach Ewing. But, I just think the experience they can get is going to be very helpful for the future. That's al. All experience gained this year can be very important for next season. It's about experience and building for next year. That's all. Play the guys that can bring you success next year. I also don't understand the obligation to those guys taking away from playing the young guys. Playing Berger or Clark could help us win more games, and give them experience. Those two things don't take away from each other. Giving Clark or Berger 5-8 minutes in a game is an upgrade over giving Blair and Pickett 35. Those guys can be ready for later in the season and our young guys could get experience. I think that's the misconception and where we aren't seeing eye to eye. Any experience they get this year to see how they are in games is vital. And yeah, seeing a guy who's bad in practice but great in games is very uncommon. It's much rarer than a guy who's great in practice but sucks in games. But, it still happens. It's always best to be sure what you have and to give these guys some reps. It's best for the future. And I don't think five minutes from Clark or Berger would put us in a much worse spot. Especially if its in a game where we are down. That's why I was much less angry about this games rotation than others. I think it's different saying five minutes from someone vs 25. We can still give Blair, Carey, Pickett, etc. big minutes if Coach feels they are better players. But a couple spot minutes would benefit the guys in the game (especially if they are having a rough stretch) a much needed rest and the young guys much needed in game experience. Then come BET time we run the vets more, or be confident the young guys can take a couple minutes, so our vets get a couple minutes of rest in our run to a BET title. You guys keep saying that but if these kids can't earn 5 minutes on this team odds are they aren't going to be part, or at least significant parts, of the future you're talking about. Pat started 3 Freshman in his 2nd year so playing young guys isn't something he's been reluctant to do. I think that's a fair argument. If Pat lets some guys walk this offseason, we will know why and all of this will make sense. But, for now, assuming nobody is forced out of the door (if they are, give them waivers), I'd like to see the young guys get more run. Just to see some PT and get minutes to build off of. And I don't think it's a matter of Pat being afraid to give them run, I'm not really sure why. Maybe he really believes in the roster he has and thinks we're right there, maybe he believes that some guys need to sit like rookie QBs do in the NFL, or maybe something completely different. I'm not sure.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2021 17:43:18 GMT -5
I don’t need to watch them every day to see how many will be gone next year and not on the roster. Only 3 returning players who get minutes this year - two of which play the same position- sets us up for more misery next year. I couldn’t care less about another victory this season but I care immensely about winning seasons and tournament appearances in future years. No matter how many minutes you give the freshman there will be more misery next year. You don't go from one of the worst Power 5 teams to good in a season. UNC looks solid this year. UK will probably be better. But citing bluebloods does miss the point. Clemson and VT were both bottom tier ACC teams (9th and tenth place, combined for one win over .500 and both would've been lucky to make the NIT) and both have been ranked this season, with VT coming off of a massive win. Clemson was much better to begin the season and the break they went on has killed them, but they still have a win over Bama. Pitt went from having 6 ACC wins last season in 20 games, to having four in their first 8, including a sweep over Syracuse and a win over Duke. They look much better and like a possible tournament team. Oh and Missouri went from just plain bad to being ranked 12th this season. Their roster didn't change much, they just became a better team on both ends. Other teams like St. John's look better after their last season, too. They just matched their last season conference win total today. Northwestern improved quite a bit, but I didn't think their success was sustainable, but who knows what they do for the rest of the season. Oklahoma State looks a lot better this season, though they also brought in the best player in the country. The league they are in is much better this season, and all of their conference wins came after February 5th, where we just had a pretty solid win in late January and could build off of that success. But their model for success will be a lot like how next season could be better for us. They brought in a stud, like we will (Cade and Aminu), they had a returning solid scorer (Isaac Likekele where we have Q),and while they lost five of their top 6 scorers, they still look a ton better. Likekele, Kalib Boone and Avery Anderson like a much better players and they surrounded Cade with talent additional talent in Rondel Walker, MAM, and Bryce Williams, much like how we will add Riley, Mutombo, Beard and with an offseason left, potentially someone else. Getting guys like Berger, Sibley, Clark, etc. better for next season will help a ton. And the way they achieved success plus the level of success they achieved is much similar to how we can and should improve. Where their offense went up 30 spots in KenPom, our defense should do that and we'd be a much better team. I'm also going to use this comparison multiple times in the offseason so get used to seeing it. So, teams can get better. Multiple ways in which they could. Saying that teams don't improve is just plain false. Saying that bad teams don't become good the next season is again just inaccurate. There are multiple ways in which teams improve from year to year. And I think our best model for next season is what Oklahoma State did this year. All of these methods are possible.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2021 17:20:12 GMT -5
This is the first time I've checked the board after our game and I've seen this sentiment quite a bit and I just don't get it. We need our guys to be ready for next year. Game experience certainly helps. Plus going against the David Duke's or the AJ Reeves would help so much. A lot of development (I'd even say most) does happen in practice or when nobody is watching. This is true. Doesn't mean getting game experience is bad at all. In fact, it needs to happen. We need these guys to have more experience and for us to be back next season. We need to see what we have in these guys. You can be a great practice player but be bad in games, and vice versa. We need to see what we have and we need these guys to put it together. Playing the young guys and developing them is the most important part of our season. Playing against better players helps. Getting them comfortable, or knowing what we have in them is vital. Winning games is great, but playing our young guys is still very important. It's incredibly short sighted to say anything else. For the life of me I can't figure out why you guys think you have a better grasp on these things than the guy who watches them every day. If you're a new coach at a program? Sure, play your guys. But if you recruited players, sold them on bringing the program back, you have an obligation to those players as well. If I'm an AAU coach and you do that to one of my kids you might not get another. The scenario where a guy is a terrible practice player and good in games happens how often? The odds of that being the case are really low. Great practice player, but not great in games is way more common. I absolutely don't think I have a better grasp on how good the guys are or when to best use them than Coach Ewing. But, I just think the experience they can get is going to be very helpful for the future. That's al. All experience gained this year can be very important for next season. It's about experience and building for next year. That's all. Play the guys that can bring you success next year. I also don't understand the obligation to those guys taking away from playing the young guys. Playing Berger or Clark could help us win more games, and give them experience. Those two things don't take away from each other. Giving Clark or Berger 5-8 minutes in a game is an upgrade over giving Blair and Pickett 35. Those guys can be ready for later in the season and our young guys could get experience. I think that's the misconception and where we aren't seeing eye to eye. Any experience they get this year to see how they are in games is vital. And yeah, seeing a guy who's bad in practice but great in games is very uncommon. It's much rarer than a guy who's great in practice but sucks in games. But, it still happens. It's always best to be sure what you have and to give these guys some reps. It's best for the future. And I don't think five minutes from Clark or Berger would put us in a much worse spot. Especially if its in a game where we are down. That's why I was much less angry about this games rotation than others. I think it's different saying five minutes from someone vs 25. We can still give Blair, Carey, Pickett, etc. big minutes if Coach feels they are better players. But a couple spot minutes would benefit the guys in the game (especially if they are having a rough stretch) a much needed rest and the young guys much needed in game experience. Then come BET time we run the vets more, or be confident the young guys can take a couple minutes, so our vets get a couple minutes of rest in our run to a BET title.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2021 16:23:55 GMT -5
It's easy to say, "Play the freshmen! Play the Freshmen!" I say trust the coach! He sees the freshmen practice every day. This is the first time I've checked the board after our game and I've seen this sentiment quite a bit and I just don't get it. We need our guys to be ready for next year. Game experience certainly helps. Plus going against the David Duke's or the AJ Reeves would help so much. A lot of development (I'd even say most) does happen in practice or when nobody is watching. This is true. Doesn't mean getting game experience is bad at all. In fact, it needs to happen. We need these guys to have more experience and for us to be back next season. We need to see what we have in these guys. You can be a great practice player but be bad in games, and vice versa. We need to see what we have and we need these guys to put it together. Playing the young guys and developing them is the most important part of our season. Playing against better players helps. Getting them comfortable, or knowing what we have in them is vital. Winning games is great, but playing our young guys is still very important. It's incredibly short sighted to say anything else.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2021 16:11:40 GMT -5
^this^ We as a program need to up our expectations/wants. We can't just want to be a good, middle of the pack team. If these freshmen step up and our next class is as good as advertised we should be at minimum a middle of the pack team. In 2yrs we will be challenging the upper tier. If we bring back the graduates through some Covid19 loophole they will only stunt the growth of the youngins. We need to pull the band-aid now get the youngins ready. Need to blend the approach IMO. Some of the frosh and youngsters need to play more (Sibs, Ig...?) Honestly, don’t see it with other frosh or Wilson. We need to still try to win some games this year and next if you don’t want to lose majority of fan base. It’s not like pros where tanking yields a better draft pick. Yes, you are playing and prepping with eye on future, but you have to build and sell hope...and getting completely bludgeoned by leaning heavily on frosh who aren’t ready (and some whom I believe will never be ready) doesn’t accomplish that. It just reinforces failure. Bile is one of three guys they should consider bringing back next season. He’s got a BE body and athleticism and aggression. Other two would be Blair and Carey. Pickett, IMO, needs to go, And Carey isn’t an ideal returnee because he’s a very marginal athlete with average handles at a pos (2/3) where we are going to have a glut of young talent next year. Blair, on the other hand, isn’t a true ball handler and certainly isn’t a PG, but he could be dynamite as a 5th year pure scorer who is allowed to lead, go back to his natural spot-up shooting role (cramping little re incoming frosh) and help provide veteran leadership. I actually also love Bile returning as a guy who can give you minutes off the bench as a small PF while young PFs(Ryan Mu, Billingsley) transition. ZERO chance we are better next year without Blair and Bile than we would be with them. And none of us should care about anything else (ie coddling benchwarmers who at best would be comparable to Blair and Bile as Jrs or Srs)...when they will have been recruited over anyway...unless something goes terribly wrong. I disagree entirely. Blair isn't built to be a lead option on a team. As you said, he'd be a great 5th or so option. This means that once he's not in a leading role and someone like Aminu (who's absolutely built to lead a team and does so many little things so well) is, the team will be so much better. And aside from yesterday, Bile has not been good this season. Like at all. Yesterday he was excellent but overall he just hasn't shown it yet. Hopefully that changes for the rest of the season. If he plays like he did today in playing within himself, taking what the defense gives him and playing tough, absolutely bring him back. If we get the Bile from the other games, absolutely don't bring him back. If that Bile is taking the ball out of Aminu's hands for long stretches, we are not winning many games. And I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion when they've played so little minutes. I haven't seen much out of Holloway, nor did I like much from what I saw out of his high school tape, but I'm not going to give up on him yet. If he can be effective, we will know. Coach's talent evaluation has been a huge plus, and if he sees something in Holloway that I didn't, I would absolutely love to be proven wrong. And Clark had some very good moments before he got hurt. I hope we see more of him. Also, I don't think it's that obvious that Tim is better than Wilson (or that either are better than Mutombo). Tim is good against stronger guys, but if we keep feeding him in the post, we won't have much success. Ryan is definitely the best offensive player of the three. But saying there's no chance we are better is absolutely foolish. Our defense should be much better next year. Absolutely no excuses. And if we can get Berger more PT as both a spot up shooter and a secondary ball handler, he could be a real plyer for us next season. Put a guy like him on the wing when Aminu is driving effectively, and man we've got an offense. Aminu can score one on one in the lane against almost anyone and if you leave Berger open, just give me the three points. He has a high basketball IQ and while he isn't great defensively, he could be a real great fit on that team. The team absolutely should be better next year. If Bile plays like he did today for the rest of the season he'd be an excellent fit for that team. If not, just hit the grad transfer market and find that 4 man, improve the defense and we should be ready to compete. Make sure that Dante, Riley and Beard are ready to compete next year, hope Sibley and Clark improve and we've got an upgraded rotation. That team has enough talent to compete.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 31, 2021 15:33:54 GMT -5
A little late, but yesterday's game was very fun. Providence is not a good shooting team and aside from Reeves, they weren't good from outside. And we did a very good job of stopping them inside and I think that's how we won.
At first, I had no idea why we were starting Tim, but the more I thought about it the more I like the move. I've been a big fan of matchup based starters and when Q typically struggles against stronger guys, and Tim is the stronger of the two. Aside from the slow offensive start, I thought the decision was very good. It made sense. The rotation today I thought was good. I would've liked to have seen more freshman (especially because aside from Carey's two spurts which were in like a span of two minutes, he didn't do much, and Jamorko was basically invisible in the second half), but I can't complain. And with how well Bile played, I thought how we managed his minutes was very well done. He was excellent but had a really bad three consecutive plays where he missed Dante for a layup after the Blair steal, left Reeves open, and then forced up a bad three. Coach pulled him for about two minutes and he came back in and was much better. Coach held him accountable and did exactly what this board was asking for. I still would like to see more of the freshman, but aside from that, I'm not mad at all.
Onto Bile who was just excellent. He was much more under control today.. He was better defensively and was very good on the glass. On the offensive end, he really had to make plays for us today and he did exactly that. He would drive to the lane and either make the right read or get fouled on his way there. This is easily his best game as a Hoya. However, I hope we stop the bad habit of him jumping before passing. I saw it a couple of times and if a defense is on him tight, this will lead to TO's. There's nothing good that comes out of jumping to pass. But aside from that and the three pay stretch, I thought he played an incredible game. He was our best player today.
I also thought Dante was very good. The break clearly helped him and not having to play 38 minutes really helped. He drove to the lane effectively and made some very good plays when there. He was good all around. He made some nice passes, made some very good decisions and was taking exactly what the defense gave him. This was a very big step forward for him.
I still do have a couple of issues with our performance. First off, we have to stop trying to feed Tim on the block. His best offense is rolling to the rim or in the dunker's spot and just throwing it down on someone. He's not a post up big. He did score one on the block today, but we also had at least two TO's trying to get him the ball. He's not ready for that yet. I don't blame those TO's on the guys, Coach has to know the limits of his guys and not force the ball inside to Tim. Also, our defense on their one shooter, the one guy we can't ever leave, was terrible. We left and lost him so many times. Reeves is their only consistent outside threat. We can't lose him. And we did so many times. It's something we need to fix for next year.
Overall, this was a step in the right direction. Bile was awesome and Dante played a much better game. Tim was effective inside and was a very good matchup for Watson. Coach did a good job managing the rotation (not great though b/c we need the young guys to play more), and we took a step in the right direction. Very good performance. Good game all around. Player development with Dante looked better (he wasn't out of control at all, credit to both him and the staff), the rotation was better for today, and those are two of the three things we really need to improve. Great win.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 30, 2021 12:25:36 GMT -5
71-59 Provy
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 29, 2021 18:12:52 GMT -5
Agree. But I still think that signs of growth and progress this year are a reasonable expectation even for a relatively new head coach, notwithstanding the perceived "lack of talent" on the team or the reasons therefor. Although there should not be more excuses next year, I can almost guarantee that many fans will start the season citing the youth of the team and the need for a full year for them to adjust to the game. They will be correct to a point but at some point there has to be some significant evidence that this team is progressing and that this coach can improve the players individually and the team collectively on both ends of the court. Yeah, our defense should look better schematically, we shouldn't be making the same rotational mistakes every game, we shouldn't leave excellent shooters open, players should develop etc. I think the record matters less this season and what matters is Coach making better decisions in game, our defense improving and our young guys getting PT and looking better as the season ends. Though being dead last in the conference and the first team to be worse than DePaul in what feels like 20 years would hurt.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 29, 2021 15:38:18 GMT -5
sodium poisoning is no joke and especially harmful to brain cells. You appear to have astronomical levels of salt in your body right now and missed CG's point on Carter almost as badly as you missed on trying to be clever by throwing grade school insults at 20 year old college kids on the internet, so you may already be suffering from symptoms. Please get help quickly! also, I realize that you and many other Hoya fans are really dejected and angry at the moment, but at some point you're going to have to come to the painful realization - in the same vein as Chelsea with Frank Lampard or St. Johns with Chris Mullin - that Patrick Ewing the legendary player turned out to be a mediocre-at-best head coach, and the Georgetown basketball program would be better off with someone else running the show. And when you're inevitably forced to remove your kente-tinted glasses and accept that hard truth, you'll realize that guys like McClung and Akinjo aren't such awful human beings after all - they were just able to understand the situation a lot quicker than you did and made smart basketball decisions for their own careers as a result. You could certainly argue that Mullin had St. John's in a better place in his 4th year than Ewing does at Georgetown. As some may recall, Mullin started very slowly (8-24, 14-19, 16-17 in his first three seasons), but he did get the Johnnies to the NCAA Tournament in his 4th season, a year in which the team's record was 21-13. Mullin then voluntarily stepped down, after the death of his brother at age 58. Ewing, on the other hand, started faster than Mullin, benefiting from JT3 recruits like Marcus Derrickson and Jessie Govan, along with an incredibly weak non-conference schedule his first two years. In his four seasons to date, like Mullin, Ewing has only had one with a winning record - his second season, when the Hoyas went 19-14. Since the end of that season, the Hoyas under Ewing have gone 18-25, a .419 winning percentage - significantly lower than Mullin's career mark of .447. And unlike Mullin, it looks like Ewing is about to go 0-for-4 in NCAA Tournament appearances. I do think Ewing will get the chance to coach next year's recruits, at least for one season. And unlike Mullin after 4 years, I think Ewing's motivated to continue coaching as long as the Hoyas will allow him to continue collecting $3M+/year checks. Mullin's fourth season will be a lot like our team next year, in the sense of expectation. That team had tons of talent and underperformed consistently. The were lucky to get into the NCAA tournament and were awful against a slumping ASU team (who got curb stomped by Buffalo in their next game). Ponds and Clark were leaving, and it looked like Figueroa and Heron were out the door before Anderson brought them back. The team was in a really bad spot. That's why I'm so adamant on next year being the year. Defense problems and blowing leads have been consistent. The no experience coaching wise excuse is done. The talent excuse is gone. The team will be young, but we should hit the grad transfer market for a spot and should have a good team. The development of Harris/Sibley/Wahab/Clark will be huge factors in our success. How effective our other freshmen are will be key to watch also. And if that defense isn't Top 100...
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 28, 2021 14:08:14 GMT -5
If the defensive scheme is fixed, that team will win The defense might be better but we would be asking Mohammed to put up atleast 17 a game with that lineup I think that's fair. But if we can win games in the 60's and 70's that team has much higher odds of being good than if we are trying to outscore everyone. I think guys like Beard, Riley and Q can step up to give this team a good chance of competing. So long as the defense is fixed. If it isn't, next years team will struggle.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 28, 2021 14:06:41 GMT -5
It didn't take as long as I would've expected. But the point of that was to show how flawed the stat is. Which, if you couldn't see by that, there's nothing I could do. I don't think you have a good understanding of how analytics work based on your assumptions. Ok, again, your famed D-rating said that Mac was our best defender in 35% of the games that have a reasonable sample size. You can ignore the first part of that post. This part you can't. If that is wrong, please explain analytics to me.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 28, 2021 11:14:42 GMT -5
It is so important for PE to play the freshmen a lot more than he has. Playing Morko and Blair nearly 40 minutes every game is hurting them, the team, and the future since the coaches have to fully understand what we have rn and don't have for next year. For example, if Sibley played more and showed well then ok, start gravitating towards another G for '21 or a grad transfer to bridge that, or if he is not great and they don't have confidence in Billingsley or even Mutombo to play at the 4 then get another PF from '21 or grad transfer to bridge the gap. (Getting another player under the assumption we will have a spot somehow which seems to be the case with them still talking to players). I think Beard should run with Berger possibly due to issues some people have with him being a Combo and Berger having played PG in high school to make it work better but I think Beard will be solid either way. As far as line ups (with no Carey or super seniors) on day 1 I see: 1. Dante 2. Riley (Or Berger depending on how well Riley can shoot from outside and changes to Berger's defensive abilities) 3. Mohammed 4. Sibley 5. Wahab Main subs: Beard, Berger, Mutumbo at 5 or 4 (who knows PE might try it since it's mutombo), and maybe Clark if Billingsley does have motivation issues like some people said in his thread And that team is not going to win If the defensive scheme is fixed, that team will win
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 28, 2021 11:07:54 GMT -5
I don't know what conclusions you could have come to, or if you just didn't expect me to go through the game logs and calculate this myself, but this is not nearly the conclusion I came to. Firstly, the per 100 possessions in D-rating would generally not make sense in just going through those games, but if you want to make the tired legs argument, I see that. I used the 20 games Mac played in (I excluded Providence since Mac played eight minutes before leaving injured, meaning this could have been an outlier), and rather than going through the actual games and whatever to exactly calculate it, I just took the average of Mac, Jamorko, Allen, and Mosely in those 20 games. The leader in the pack was Jamorko Pickett at an average D-rating of 101.05. Next up was one Mac McClung at an average rating of 101.5. This was followed by Jagan Mosely at 102.3, and last (by a lot) was Terrell Allen at 105.1. Now, I know this way isn't the perfect way to do it in calculating how many possessions were in each game and weighting games differently, but I also don't have ten hours to do this. This isn't me saying Jamorko is the best defender, nor Mac. Jagan and Allen were far and away better defenders. Just our scheme involving so much rotation, could place more blame on our guards for leaving shooters open than someone like Yurt who would be running inside too slow, forcing Mosely or Allen to rotate down and this would negatively effect their D-ratings, even though it isn't their fault. I don't know. I just know using individual defensive stats is not effective. Your argument to this point has said that Brad Stevens was lying about not looking at defensive stats and that they actually matter because of block and steal percentage (which again isn't all defense is about. You sure want to force TO's, but you also have to stop your man from scoring, defense isn't all stats, you have to watch to make a conclusion). In case anyone believes I'm just making these numbers up, I'll leave the numbers I had (some could be wrong just based on user error, like me reading an O-rating on accident or just incorrectly copying it down somewhere). Mosely: 92+95+103+111+101+102+101+96+116+107+75+92+86+105+93+119+112+133+99+108 Allen: 107+94+106+111+108+101+109+113+111+109+85+87+87+112+83+128+117+136+93+105 Pickett: 98+98+94+116+105+101+100+101+101+105+81+98+86+110+80+119+109+125+92+102 McClung: 100+88+110+105+103+200+110+102+112+83+93+79+102+85+123+113+128+91+103 Using these numbers, Mac was our best defender, of the four I looked at, in seven games (game seven against UNCG was tied with Jamorko). That is absolutely false. This stat is just plain inaccurate. That's why people ignore defensive analytics. There are consistent problems. Mac is not a better defender than Allen or Mosely and he wasn't for any game on our schedule. So even if you want to not count my overall calculation, you can't ignore this. Mac was not the best defender of the four in 35% of his games. Anyone who would say so is foolish. You spent way too much time. Just get a HoopLens subscription. Took me w minute to figure it out. Now DRtg and Hoop Lens don’t always match exactly up. But Mac’s D PPP were higher than Jagan and Allen in those games. It didn't take as long as I would've expected. But the point of that was to show how flawed the stat is. Which, if you couldn't see by that, there's nothing I could do.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Jan 27, 2021 16:42:35 GMT -5
I would absolutely disagree with that assessment on defensive stats. As someone pointed out in another thread, Mac's defensive rating was better than Mosely's, Pickett's, and Allen's. Anyone who watched the games can tell you Mac wasn't the best defender of the four. That alone should show how flawed this stat is. Also, you can watch the games and see someone being effective defensively, or the team being effective with them on the floor. You don't need defensive stats to tell that. Defensive stats break down a team concept and try to place it on individuals. That just doesn't work. Defensive win shares would be my stat of choice if I felt I needed one, but even that is just wrong in some cases. Like for our 2018-19 team, it said our best defender was Govan. Which again, anyone who watched the games can tell you, isn't true (defensive rating had him second to LeBlanc, and while this is better, it is still not accurate). I think you can use defensive stats to show how bad a team is defensively (because when judging on points allowed per 100 possessions, that's team based and not judging one guy, and defense is a team concept), but it makes no sense for players. There are so many inaccuracies that it's just hard to cite confidently. Mac's rating was lower because he missed so many Big East games. I ran the ratings of the games he played and Jagan and Allen both had lower D ratings. Allen didn't get to feast that much on the bad teams in the OOC as well. Our D rating in OOC was roughly 10 points lower in OOC than in conference.
As for his TT stats. He has played about 84% of the possible minutes in conference. They play about 7.5 guys in the rotation. His D rating is about 5 points worse than the rest of those rotation players. You know how hard that is to do when you play 84% of the possible time? I don't know what conclusions you could have come to, or if you just didn't expect me to go through the game logs and calculate this myself, but this is not nearly the conclusion I came to. Firstly, the per 100 possessions in D-rating would generally not make sense in just going through those games, but if you want to make the tired legs argument, I see that. I used the 20 games Mac played in (I excluded Providence since Mac played eight minutes before leaving injured, meaning this could have been an outlier), and rather than going through the actual games and whatever to exactly calculate it, I just took the average of Mac, Jamorko, Allen, and Mosely in those 20 games. The leader in the pack was Jamorko Pickett at an average D-rating of 101.05. Next up was one Mac McClung at an average rating of 101.5. This was followed by Jagan Mosely at 102.3, and last (by a lot) was Terrell Allen at 105.1. Now, I know this way isn't the perfect way to do it in calculating how many possessions were in each game and weighting games differently, but I also don't have ten hours to do this. This isn't me saying Jamorko is the best defender, nor Mac. Jagan and Allen were far and away better defenders. Just our scheme involving so much rotation, could place more blame on our guards for leaving shooters open than someone like Yurt who would be running inside too slow, forcing Mosely or Allen to rotate down and this would negatively effect their D-ratings, even though it isn't their fault. I don't know. I just know using individual defensive stats is not effective. Your argument to this point has said that Brad Stevens was lying about not looking at defensive stats and that they actually matter because of block and steal percentage (which again isn't all defense is about. You sure want to force TO's, but you also have to stop your man from scoring, defense isn't all stats, you have to watch to make a conclusion). In case anyone believes I'm just making these numbers up, I'll leave the numbers I had (some could be wrong just based on user error, like me reading an O-rating on accident or just incorrectly copying it down somewhere). Mosely: 92+95+103+111+101+102+101+96+116+107+75+92+86+105+93+119+112+133+99+108 Allen: 107+94+106+111+108+101+109+113+111+109+85+87+87+112+83+128+117+136+93+105 Pickett: 98+98+94+116+105+101+100+101+101+105+81+98+86+110+80+119+109+125+92+102 McClung: 100+88+110+105+103+200+110+102+112+83+93+79+102+85+123+113+128+91+103 Using these numbers, Mac was our best defender, of the four I looked at, in seven games (game seven against UNCG was tied with Jamorko). That is absolutely false. This stat is just plain inaccurate. That's why people ignore defensive analytics. There are consistent problems. Mac is not a better defender than Allen or Mosely and he wasn't for any game on our schedule. So even if you want to not count my overall calculation, you can't ignore this. Mac was not the best defender of the four in 35% of his games. Anyone who would say so is foolish.
|
|