SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 3, 2005 15:24:39 GMT -5
from kenpom.com:
Georgetown plays the seventh slowest pace in college basketball, and the slowest in the Big East, in terms of possessions per team per game, with 60.6
Slowest is Princeton with 52.7. Only four teams are below 60.
Fastest is Navy at 79.5, with UNC close behind.
Offensive efficiency is a stat that measures points per 100 possessions, adjusted for home court and competition. Gonzaga (126), Washington, Illinois, UNC, and Ok St. at the top 5. Pitt is the BE's #1 with 114.
We're 5th in the BE with 110.7 -- only 1.4 behind BC and WVU, who are the teams in 2nd place. That's 38th in the country!
Then there's that pesky defense -- 119th in the nation. But combining the two we're 59th, which is interesting.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 3, 2005 16:20:52 GMT -5
I nominate you the HoyaTalk Collector of Non-Mainstream Statistics and Rankings. ;D
Good find as always, SF.
|
|
|
Post by A2Mich on Jan 3, 2005 16:41:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know what to do with all the info, but it's way interesting. I hadn't read anywhere that we had a slow team. Is that what it has looked like at the games?
We got our work cut out for us against Pitt...
|
|
Bahstin
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 624
|
Post by Bahstin on Jan 3, 2005 16:44:08 GMT -5
The slower the game, the better chance we have of beating teams that are better than us. Conversely, the less chance we have of beating teams we are better than. The rest of the way, though, we will be playing more teams that are better than we are.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jan 3, 2005 17:21:16 GMT -5
We generally look slow so far because guys aren't identifying passes and shots quickly enough. They're playing a new offense, and the guys look very tentative at times. In Hawaii, the coaches were shouting MOVE! and DRIBBLE! a lot when guys would sort of bog down into just passing it around the perimeter or holding the ball too long. I bet we'll have lots of long possessions until the system really takes root, at which point it can then be sped up, since the concepts are already there. I don't see that happening this year, though.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jan 3, 2005 19:49:01 GMT -5
We generally look slow so far because guys aren't identifying passes and shots quickly enough. They're playing a new offense, and the guys look very tentative at times. In Hawaii, the coaches were shouting MOVE! and DRIBBLE! a lot when guys would sort of bog down into just passing it around the perimeter or holding the ball too long. I bet we'll have lots of long possessions until the system really takes root, at which point it can then be sped up, since the concepts are already there. I don't see that happening this year, though. Great post. I agree totally. There was a highlight in one game (may have been Norfolk State) in which the Hoyas were facing a zone defense. Green had the ball just around the three point line and instead of holding on to the rock he made a quick bounce past to Owens in the middle of the zone just as DJ started to make his cut. Owens caught the pass and flashed to the hoop for a score without having to take a dribble. It was so quick and so sudden and so effective. I'm convinced that the Hoyas could get away with that play repeatedly throughout a game. And when you consider there are so many other plays in which the Hoyas have up their sleeves, plays which they have not likley mastered or even executed in games, something tells me that as March approaches the pace will pick up. And by this time next year the Hoyas should be a well oiled machine.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jan 3, 2005 19:55:51 GMT -5
MCI, from the games I saw, Green is by far the most effective of the passers. I'm not saying he's the best pure passer on the team, but he's the most effective in making the quick interior passes required by this particular offense, which is really great since he's just a freshman. He seems to work really well with Brandon and DJ when they flash to the hoop. Cook is very good with the tougher passes, but seems to make lazier, less crisp passes under no pressure, which is weird. Maybe just needs to bring the concentration level up for the more "ordinary" plays. I think Hibbert has some real potential in the interior passing game, as well, but he can also get maddeningly tentative.
|
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by idhoya on Jan 4, 2005 1:30:37 GMT -5
We are near the bottom of the conference in scoring, but near the top in 3 point shooting. Wallace is second in makes. Near the bottom in % defense and rebounding, but decent in scoring defense. Jeff and BB are near the top in rebounding. Roy is near the top in blocks despite his limited time.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Jan 4, 2005 11:42:36 GMT -5
They are (for sure) a work in progress and Green and RoyRoyRoy will have to work on their passing. This is a nonnegotiable part of the Hoyas as currently coached.
The slow pace is fine, it really screws up some less-experienced fast paced teams. Rutgers might lose to us by 20. Pitt also plays slow paced- that one might be a 50-40 barnburner.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2005 13:06:36 GMT -5
One other intersting aspect of the slow pace is that I bet that we've reduced possessions by 15-20% from last year.
Which means that most per game and counting stats are significantly lower not because the players are playing worse, but jsut playing slower.
Navy has 30% more offensive possessions than us, and provided that the players stayed at roughly the same efficiency (which may not be true), that means a 15 ppg/ 7rpg player for the Hoyas is more like a 18.5ppg/ 9.1 rpg player for Navy.
|
|
MEGAFAN
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 649
|
Post by MEGAFAN on Jan 4, 2005 13:12:47 GMT -5
Very good point, which is why we must remember to look at production in terms of scoring, rebounding, double-doubles in a relative, not absolute, fashion. For instance, we can take a look at Courtland Freeman, and see that he grabbed x boards out of total y boards for the team, in z number of minutes, and then look at Hibbert in the same way, and will discover that in less minutes, Hibbert grabs a higher percentage of total boards. However, we must also look at rebounding margin versus our opponent to determine if we are a better rebounding team than last year. Maybe some stat crazy poster can figure out a way to compare this teams production with the last few years, given that we now have one of the slowest paces in the NCAA's.
LET'S GO HOYAS!!! BEAT PITT!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2005 13:17:03 GMT -5
Very good point, which is why we must remember to look at production in terms of scoring, rebounding, double-doubles in a relative, not absolute, fashion. For instance, we can take a look at Courtland Freeman, and see that he grabbed x boards out of total y boards for the team, in z number of minutes, and then look at Hibbert in the same way, and will discover that in less minutes, Hibbert grabs a higher percentage of total boards. However, we must also look at rebounding margin versus our opponent to determine if we are a better rebounding team than last year. Maybe some stat crazy poster can figure out a way to compare this teams production with the last few years, given that we now have one of the slowest paces in the NCAA's. LET'S GO HOYAS!!! BEAT PITT! Yeah, I did something similar last year -- rebounding should be evaluated in terms of opportunity. It's pretty easy to do on a team basis -- rebounds as a % of total for O and D. (It's about 65/35 defense gets a board - so a better defending team will get more boards). It you have the time, it is good to adjust for the level of competition -- say if Rutgers usually grabs 63% of defensive opportunities, and we held them to 60%, that's +3% rebounding advantage for us. (Of course, then, you should adjust for Rutgers overall rebounding SOS, and even I don't have the time for that). The hard part is isolating players. Brandon is a good rebounder, but last year he was asked to shoulder a larger load. His rebounding is down this year, but I doubt he is a worse rebounder -- it is a combination of pace and Jeff Green/Roy Hibbert, most likely.
|
|