GPHoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 466
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 14:45:30 GMT -5
Post by GPHoya on Mar 12, 2009 14:45:30 GMT -5
The plus/minus statistics are interesting and correspond with my memory. Vaughn's statistics are so low because he hardly ever played at the same time as Monroe and often did not play with other starters. I always wondered why we did not see how effective Vaughn would be if on the floor with Monroe, but that was not the pattern. Of course, it is fair to conclude that Vaughn was not an effective replacement for Monroe, but one hardly needed a statistician to reach that conclusion. As others have said, the Summers' number is the most revealing and disturbing.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,654
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 14:56:39 GMT -5
Post by guru on Mar 12, 2009 14:56:39 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to have a debate with you. I was asking a question about what happened. You made it into your own debate over whether or not it was a relevant question. If you don't think it's relevant, then don't respond. You're accuing us of getting emotional when you're just trying to start fights. Moderators, don't worry, no flame war here, I'm done with this guy. Seriously though, would anyone like to provide some insight into what was happening defensively for Sims and Monroe? And yet another poster gets caught in the gluetrap that is a "debate" with the All-Knowing King of Negativity.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,995
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 14:58:59 GMT -5
Post by HoyaFanNY on Mar 12, 2009 14:58:59 GMT -5
i cringe whenever vaughn comes on the floor. nothing personal against him, i just don't think he's very good. henry, IMO, is better at both ends.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 15:04:55 GMT -5
Post by bmartin on Mar 12, 2009 15:04:55 GMT -5
Regarding Henry's +/- in league play, I agree he did okay but the 40 minute figures are misleading. Henry did not get a consistent number of minutes in each game. When he was helping the team, JTIII left him in the game for longer stretches. When he was overmatched or lost, he came out of the game. (emphasis added) The distribution of minutes biased the sample. You can't pretend he would have had the same + numbers if he had played 30 minutes against Pitt and Louisville. He generally came in for DaJuan. DaJuan's +/- numbers are the larger concern. Not to be flippant, but isn't that generally why a team has a rotation in the first place? Shouldn't overall numbers reflect that exact phenomenon? There wasn't a regular rotation. Henry came in for DaJuan quite a bit but not always. And there were plenty of times when both were out of the game. Sims averaged around 10 minutes per game, but he played 18 minutes at South Florida but only 4 minutes at Marquette and 3 minutes against WVU.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 15:05:03 GMT -5
Post by rosslynhoya on Mar 12, 2009 15:05:03 GMT -5
Regarding Henry's +/- in league play, I agree he did okay but the 40 minute figures are misleading. Henry did not get a consistent number of minutes in each game. When he was helping the team, JTIII left him in the game for longer stretches. When he was overmatched or lost, he came out of the game. The distribution of minutes biased the sample. You can't pretend he would have had the same + numbers if he had played 30 minutes against Pitt and Louisville. He generally came in for DaJuan. DaJuan's +/- numbers are the larger concern. Agreed. Moreover, I think the numbers from HoyaProspectus really only hint at each individual's replacement value and thus comparing Sims and Vaughn from this table alone is pointless. Vaughn usually subbed for Greg -- and frequently in offense/defense substitutions no less. Since the team usually performed significantly worse, when Greg wasn't on the court, Vaughn's numbers take the fall for the worst part of the team's performance. Edit- bah, I took way too long posting this. I meant to write "What GP Said." That is all.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 15:09:39 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Mar 12, 2009 15:09:39 GMT -5
The offense is much more complicated than most as it is very much based on spacing. The cuts are available because a defender makes a slight step and loses a step on the offensive player, assuming that the other offensive players recognize this and have drawn their defenders away from passing lanes and away from the basket. The result is an uncontested layup. If the defenders shift to cut this off, it tends to result in an uncontested three. Thus, the theory of the offense is tend to pressure the defense for 25 seconds and hope for a small misstep leading to either of these outcomes. If it does not open up, then we revert to a more traditional offense of sorts requiring someone to make a play on their own. The basic problem with this is that while we punish defenders who are out of position, if our offensive players are slightly out of position it does not work. The small differences in spacing make or break the offense and players must learn how to react to what other players on our side are doing. We had our own troubles with spacing as players were learning to adapt to the system and each other. However, due to our lack of three point shooting and some of Greg's offensive limitations this year, it became much easier for teams to pack it in on defense and try to limit our ability to get spacing. If we cannot stretch teams out to play defense to the three point line, we will struggle more on offense. The Princeton offense is brilliant in that it takes the two shots in basketball with the highest expected point value--layups and open threes--and makes that the cornerstone of the offense. For each layup attempted the result should be somewhere near two points and each open three somewhere near 1.4 points. The problem is that a layup is much tougher to get than an open three as it generally requires a tough/risky pass, which is not likely to always go through. For example, Jeff tended to have a fairly high number of turnovers each game, but these tended to be good turnovers in a sense. They were often trying to feed a guy driving for a layup. If it goes through, we get two points automatically, meaning it is a risk worth taking if it has say a 70% chance of getting to the recipient. Thus, the expected value if actually more like 1.4 points from a layup taking the risk of a turnover into account. In the end, this system really is a form of offensive genius. If properly run, it results in the highest possible value of points for each shot taken. Invariably, not every possession will end this way and there will be silly turnovers, resulting in a lower value of points per shot, but the upside is that while we score fewer points overall, it results in a higher point per possession. The downside is that it requires patience to learn and players with the necessary skills. It is very helpful if all players can shoot reasonably from the three and are good passers. Players also must have a high basketball IQ to make it work. If these things fall into place, then there is really no better offensive system. If they don't, then there is a season of frustration as it results in neither easy layups or open threes. As for recruiting, I don't think we are hurt at all by the system. If players want to make the NBA, this system requires them to be efficient scorers, understand spacing, and to be able to handle the ball (dribbling and passing) from all positions on the floor. These are all very important skills to succeed in the long run at the higher level, especially for more complex offenses like Phil Jackson's. We can't compete for every top recruit, but nor do we want to. Tyreke Evans or OJ Mayo would be a disaster for this system as one player can destroy it. However, if we get very intelligent and unselfish recruits with a variety of skills, we will succeed with time. Some will succeed earlier, such as Jeff and Jon and I hope Hollis, but for others it takes more time. Regardless, everyone becomes a better basketball player. It may not result in flashy stats at the college level, but these things are evident to scouts at the next level. If players and fans are patient, most years we will have a very potent offensive team. This was not our year for a variety of reasons which have all been cited. Our offense didn't produce enough points to get out ahead of teams as in years past. Moreover, our youth/inexperience certainly showed over the last few minutes of many games this year. In years past Jeff, Jon, Roy, Pat, and Jessie always stepped up at the end of games and this year it just wasn't there. To be successful that must develop in the future, but also it comes out of confidence in the offensive system. If we think we can score each possession, players are not scared to take the shot down the stretch. Give it some time. There will be down years when we don't run the system and lack some leadership, but with the right mix of guys who are committed to the system, we will be very good in most years. The past results show that when run properly, the system works. Superb post. Thanks for taking the time to do that. The Princeton is a sophisticated offense and it does take time to learn. Toward the end of this season with so many disappointments, it seemed like the team wasn't even trying to run it.... and things just snowballed downhill. Three other points. 1. We really need a LOT of work on passing fundamentals -- far too many lazy, lackadaisical passes were picked off much too easily. Don't these guys get embarrassed by that? I would think they would work a lot harder in practice and keep their focus i games. 2. Spacing/Court awareness. Spacing is clearly essential to running the Princeton -- and most other offense. But so is court awareness. How many times did we have guys step out of bounds this year? Every single game, at least once or twice. It also means being aware of where your teammates are on the court, but also where the opponents are -- I am thinking specifically of those lazy passes and turnovers again. It seemed as though some of our guys just did not know or sense or were aware that their opponent was there, or so close, or so ready to pounce on their soft passes. 3. ALL the guys have to be playing the Princeton effectively to make it work. If one or two guys don't get it, or don't believe in it, or don't run cuts with conviction, it isn't going to work. Can this team learn it and execute much better next year? In my opinion, it all depends on their attitude. If they WANT to learn it and work at it and believe in it, this team can get it and will be far better next year.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 15:16:13 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Mar 12, 2009 15:16:13 GMT -5
We need everyone back, including Nikita and Omar. Everyone. Agree... if only to help out in practice as guys who know the system, they are very valuable. And Nikita may develop into a good bench option to come in and hit a few shots. I don't see him as an effective starter
|
|
GPHoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 466
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 15:42:14 GMT -5
Post by GPHoya on Mar 12, 2009 15:42:14 GMT -5
Although Vaughn struggled mightily as a replacement for Monroe, I tend to agree, somewhat reluctantly, with The Way's assessment of his skillset and readiness to be a contributor relative to Sims. Both are projects at this point and each improved over the season. Vaughn has a position, but needs better hands and balance. In some respects, he reminds me of a shorter Ralph Dalton as an underclassman. He is naturally aggressive which makes him standout on this squad.
Sims reminds me of Billy Lynn (6"11 stringbean with surprising shooting touch who was part of JT Jr.'s first recruiting class and who had an artsy side that had him designing uniforms) with an upside of becoming Lee Scruggs--a two way matchup headache (no one can guard him--he can guard no one). He is long and long is good, though strong is better. Of course, if he can become physically stronger and be more of a low post presence on either end, that all changes. I neither rule it nor expect it.
I thought Sims got all the run he deserved this year, but that Vaughn might have been tried to play alongside Monroe in games where we got killed on the boards.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 15:51:15 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 12, 2009 15:51:15 GMT -5
No, there are all sorts of statistical reasons why your conclusion might not be right.
Henry is a damn good option and he's going to be a great player.
On the other hand, how often did Henry play without Monroe on the floor? We almost never saw him as the lone big man, and Greg's +32.6 stands out like a (good) sore thumb. That's part of the same reason Vaughn's number is so awful -- because Monroe's was so good.
That's not to say that Vaughn should get more time or that he's particularly good. But it's basically saying the team was a lot better with Greg on the floor than Vaughn. Which is obviously true.
Henry should get more time. But he got to play a lot with Greg. He got to play in short spurts and in situations his coach thought would benefit him. I guess what I'm saying is -- he looked good, but if you put him in different situations, don't be certain that +15 would stand up.
Finally, 100 minutes isn't a great sample. Would you expect Omar to be +6.5?
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 17:06:13 GMT -5
Post by FLHoya on Mar 12, 2009 17:06:13 GMT -5
with an upside of becoming Lee Scruggs Most mind-blowingly scary seven words I've read on Hoyatalk.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 17:15:30 GMT -5
Post by Jack on Mar 12, 2009 17:15:30 GMT -5
with an upside of becoming Lee Scruggs Most mind-blowingly scary seven words I've read on Hoyatalk. While I believe Henry has the potential to be a better defensive player than erstwhile Eddie Lee, and I am certainly hopeful he will log more minutes over his career, I don't understand why anyone would be disappointed in Sims developing Scruggs' offensive game- people forget how useful he was.
|
|
biggmanu
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 672
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 17:24:24 GMT -5
Post by biggmanu on Mar 12, 2009 17:24:24 GMT -5
Why is it that Georgetown's players always tend to underachieve in college then go on to have superstar careers in the NBA? When Dikembe and Zo were on the same team...why weren't we dominating every opponent. AI...didn't put up numbers in college that he does or did in the NBA. Jeff Green was not even close to the scorer he is now. I'm sure when Monroe gets to the NBA he'll turn into a regular 20 and 10 guy too.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 17:24:49 GMT -5
Post by Buckets on Mar 12, 2009 17:24:49 GMT -5
Yeah, the +/- numbers are very far from a complete story -- I agree with everyone else that JV gets unfairly represented by these numbers because he never gets to play with the best player on the team (something else I never really understood, but that's another story for another time). My point was, that as "lost" and "not ready" as some people claim Henry looked on the floor, we outscored our opponents by 11 points/40 minutes with him on the floor during Big East play. This is why I and several other members of the Unofficial Henry Sims Fan Club would have liked to have seen more of him this season.
|
|
royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,297
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 17:37:22 GMT -5
Post by royski on Mar 12, 2009 17:37:22 GMT -5
Why is it that Georgetown's players always tend to underachieve in college then go on to have superstar careers in the NBA? When Dikembe and Zo were on the same team...why weren't we dominating every opponent. AI...didn't put up numbers in college that he does or did in the NBA. Jeff Green was not even close to the scorer he is now. I'm sure when Monroe gets to the NBA he'll turn into a regular 20 and 10 guy too. Pretty sure Zo and AI put up some numbers in college. Alonzo put up 21 ppg, 11 rpg and 5 bpg his senior year as a Hoya on his way to All-American honors and the number 2 pick in the draft. AI was great both years as a Hoya, but his sophmore season he was spectacular, averaging 25 ppg, 4 rpg, 4.5 apg and 3 spg en route to the #1 overall pick. So not really too sure what you're talking about there.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 17:52:07 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Mar 12, 2009 17:52:07 GMT -5
Take AI's 25 ppg in the 40 minute college game and apply that scoring rate to the 48 minute pro game and you get... 30ppg.
I don't ever recall AI being "held back" on the court at any time during his GU years.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 18:53:49 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 12, 2009 18:53:49 GMT -5
Why is it that Georgetown's players always tend to underachieve in college then go on to have superstar careers in the NBA? When Dikembe and Zo were on the same team...why weren't we dominating every opponent. AI...didn't put up numbers in college that he does or did in the NBA. Jeff Green was not even close to the scorer he is now. I'm sure when Monroe gets to the NBA he'll turn into a regular 20 and 10 guy too. Zo, Ewing and Iverson were all first team AAs -- the rough equivalent of All-NBA. If you're wondering why the offensive stats are a bit different, I'd point you to pace, length of game and in Ewing's case, that pesky shot clock. Mutombo wasn't ready to be an offensive force -- and never really was one in the NBA. He didn't win much in the NBA either when he didn't have guards, kinda like him and Zo, who weren't matched well together. Ewing developed his offense more later, but doesn't everyone? Plus, he was still a dominant player. Jeff's numbers were held back by our pace, but he was still a great player in college. Sweetney was a much better college player. So was Reggie Williams and a few other of the 80s guys. Seems to me you're cherry picking, as well as using something like PPG as a proxy for how good someone is, ignoring much of the game and the differences.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 18:59:02 GMT -5
Post by FLHoya on Mar 12, 2009 18:59:02 GMT -5
Most mind-blowingly scary seven words I've read on Hoyatalk. While I believe Henry has the potential to be a better defensive player than erstwhile Eddie Lee, and I am certainly hopeful he will log more minutes over his career, I don't understand why anyone would be disappointed in Sims developing Scruggs' offensive game- people forget how useful he was. Oh right...the usefulness. Yeah, that's cool. I thought he meant Henry was going to turn into an alien.
|
|
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 19:11:25 GMT -5
Post by arlingtonhoya05 on Mar 12, 2009 19:11:25 GMT -5
According to Ken Pom Cinci and St. Johns were younger squads, and we were 0-4 against them this season...enough said.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 19:17:54 GMT -5
Post by sleepy on Mar 12, 2009 19:17:54 GMT -5
According to Ken Pom Cinci and St. Johns were younger squads, and we were 0-4 against them this season...enough said. First of all Kenpom also considers Chris Wright and Nikita sophomores. Also, youth didn't hurt us in one particular game, it was the problem over the course of the season season. Although I would argue that inexpirience can be an advantage when you percieve yourself as an underdog, which we were not in those two games.
|
|
|
Autopsy
Mar 12, 2009 19:33:16 GMT -5
Post by arlingtonhoya05 on Mar 12, 2009 19:33:16 GMT -5
Either way, youth is not an excuse for this season. You can argue that point against teams like Marquette and Nova, but lets get serious...going 0-4 against Cinci and St. John's- absolutely no excuse. St. John's didn't even play anybody with any big east tournament experience at all, not a single game... This team needs more help than another year of off season practice. The coaches and players need to dig deep and realize what it takes to win. Personally I might lose my mind if I see more disgusting late game offensive sets, and an inability to break the press efficiently.
Thought for the NIT- How about starting Henry at the 4, so Summers can drop to his natural position at the three, and Austin to the 2. Greg should ideally be a pf, but with 2 6'10-6'11 guys down low our rebounding and interior defense would improve drastically. Nikita and his 28% 3pt shooting won't be missed, especially compared to Henry's rebounding and shot blocking.
|
|